So much for appeasing the sports leagues, they still oppose Frnk's bil

[Jay Cohen]

Ungrateful as they come. Why placate them at all? Now are you with me?

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/sport...2007-04-30.html (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/sports-leagues-mobilize-against-franks-gaming-bill-2007-04-30.html)

Sports leagues mobilize against Frank’s gaming bill
By Jessica Holzer
May 01, 2007
A coalition of major amateur and professional sports leagues is urging members of the House Financial Services Committee to oppose legislation unveiled by Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that would undo last year’s crackdown on illegal online gambling.

The first stab by the sports industry at the bill provoked a searing response from one Hill staffer, revealing divisions over the legislation, which passed the House overwhelmingly last year.


“Our sports organizations would very strongly oppose any effort to legalize any online sports gambling,” Martin Gold, a lobbyist at Covington & Burling who represents the National Football League (NFL), stated in a letter sent by e-mail to the offices of Financial Services Committee members.

“We would also oppose any legislation that would legalize and regulate non-sports gambling online, because we do not believe that differential treatment of sports gambling and other gambling online would be sustainable in the current environment,” Gold wrote................

Click on the link for the rest.

[Jack Bando]

At least Ron Paul's chief made some good points.

And it's better for the sport opt out and the leagues to dislike the bill, than no opt out and the leagues to go after the bill at full force.

[Skallagrim]

“We would also oppose any legislation that would legalize and regulate non-sports gambling online, because we do not believe that differential treatment of sports gambling and other gambling online would be sustainable in the current environment,”

Then how does he explain the differential treatment for fantasy leagues? What a kneejerk, a--hole reaction by the sports leagues. Hopefully the hypocracy and idiocy of this position means it is only a tactical first step. When the committee amends the opt-out by leagues provision to allow fantasy leagues while banning direct betting, I bet they change their tune.

[Grasshopp3r]

Screw the sports leagues. Fantasy sports should be defined as gambling and banned.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Screw the sports leagues. NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, PGA, etc should be defined as gambling and banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Dunkman]

This actually makes perfect sense. Jay you can speak to this better than I, since I know next to 0 about sports betting (I bet on sports, but I don't know much about the industry), but as far online poker goes, the numbers are actually UP from Sept. 06. The sports leagues don't actually want to do anything about people gambling on their sports, they know it generates huge amounts of revenue. They just want to LOOK like they're against gambling. With this bill, it seems that they must make a decision between 2 alternatives that are worse than the status quo. Either they choose to opt out and lose all the gambling related revenue and interest, or they opt in and lose the moral ground of being against gambling. It's a no win situation for them, so they're against the bill. Hopefully, Congress will realize that they are speaking from their own agenda, and not the welfare of American citizens. They won't be able to court the religious right and the gambling junkies at the same time under this new legislation. Their goal is to push gambling out of the public eye, but not so far as to prevent people from doing it. They just want it out of sight for their anti-gambling fans, so they continue to receive revenues from both groups. Just my $.02.

[Uglyowl]

I was going to leaning towards canceling my MLB.TV subscription, but now is a definate and I will b***h about the gambling thing while I call up tonight while I am at it.

[McGinty]

By the way, what is the NFL's official reasoning for being nazis about the accuracy of every team's injury report? We all know the real reason, but I wonder if there have been official statements about this policy.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to leaning towards canceling my MLB.TV subscription, but now is a definate and I will b***h about the gambling thing while I call up tonight while I am at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet! Congrats! I vowed when I learned the NFL was behind the UIGEA never to pay another dollar to the NFL for anything (I'll still watch the games on TIVO, flipping through the commercials). I made the same boycott of Ebay/Paypal. I think I'll extend that to MLB now as well.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
At least Ron Paul's chief made some good points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the best line in the article is from Paul's COS:

[ QUOTE ]
“So the professional sports leagues are directly opposed to the interests of the fans who pay their bills? Is there any explanation of this?”

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

Jay,

The bottom line is that Rep. Frank's bill, longshot as it is, stands zero chance in the current climate if it attempts to undo the Wire Act and legalize sports betting (and it would also be necessary to overturn legislation which only allows non-horse racing B&M sports wagering in certain select states that opted in prior to a deadline specified). And what matters is how legislators view the issue. They can see, as we can, that the sports leagues are being unreasonable, and won't feel it as necessary to oppose the bill when the leagues are in fact being given an exemption to opt out.

I will restate again as I have before, that although poker players shouldn't actively oppose sports betting, they also shouldn't allow their interests to be merged with those of sports bettors or they doom the poker cause. And we should only care about the WTO issues if they in any way help to overturn unfavorable legislation as applied to online poker, whereas if Frank's bill passes, we shouldn't care because we place our *poker* interests first.

Also Jay I would like to propose a better strategy for those of you wishing to legalize sports betting and leverage the WTO issues to do so. And that is to find a friendly congressman to introduce "The WTO online wagering compliance act" whose language will screw the horse racing industry and overturn all previous legislative provisions allowing remote wagering on horse racing. The horse racing industry for too long has had a free ride on the legislative front while other forms of gambling got the shaft. They need to be placed in the same situation as other forms of gambling in order to get them to utilize what clout they have for a comprehensive national plan that legalizes all forms of gambling and is in compliance with the WTO. Make the horse racing industry put thier horses in front of your sports wagon and pull it.

[Skallagrim]

Great post BluffTHIS, great advice for you Mr. Cohen.

Republican's love their horseracing.

Skallagrim

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
The sports leagues don't actually want to do anything about people gambling on their sports, they know it generates huge amounts of revenue. They just want to LOOK like they're against gambling. With this bill, it seems that they must make a decision between 2 alternatives that are worse than the status quo. Either they choose to opt out and lose all the gambling related revenue and interest, or they opt in and lose the moral ground of being against gambling. It's a no win situation for them, so they're against the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay,

The bottom line is that Rep. Frank's bill, longshot as it is, stands zero chance in the current climate if it attempts to undo the Wire Act and legalize sports betting (and it would also be necessary to overturn legislation which only allows non-horse racing B&M sports wagering in certain select states that opted in prior to a deadline specified). And what matters is how legislators view the issue. They can see, as we can, that the sports leagues are being unreasonable, and won't feel it as necessary to oppose the bill when the leagues are in fact being given an exemption to opt out.

I will restate again as I have before, that although poker players shouldn't actively oppose sports betting, they also shouldn't allow their interests to be merged with those of sports bettors or they doom the poker cause. And we should only care about the WTO issues if they in any way help to overturn unfavorable legislation as applied to online poker, whereas if Frank's bill passes, we shouldn't care because we place our *poker* interests first.

Also Jay I would like to propose a better strategy for those of you wishing to legalize sports betting and leverage the WTO issues to do so. And that is to find a friendly congressman to introduce "The WTO online wagering compliance act" whose language will screw the horse racing industry and overturn all previous legislative provisions allowing remote wagering on horse racing. The horse racing industry for too long has had a free ride on the legislative front while other forms of gambling got the shaft. They need to be placed in the same situation as other forms of gambling in order to get them to utilize what clout they have for a comprehensive national plan that legalizes all forms of gambling and is in compliance with the WTO. Make the horse racing industry put thier horses in front of your sports wagon and pull it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read your every man for himself and throw sports bettors under the bus plan even before the Frank bill was introduced. Obviously I don't share your views. That's an age old strategy, and it will always have proponents. I believe in united we stand. I remember being cast off years ago by the horse people. But that's your view and that's fine, you are entitled to it. We're all adults here and can have diverse opinions.

Of course Antigua is trying to find support in Congress for the US to fully comply with or settle the WTO matter in a way that allows the Antigua industry to exist and still be Antiguan, and of course offer everything. It's not as simple as making a phone call.

Antigua won the case. They should act like winners and not feel that have to just let the US take the path of least resistance because it is the most politically expedient route for them. As I said the other day, people with IP interests are starting to wake up.

This bill, if passed as is, is not WTO compliant. One thing I will not do for sure is stand by and let people proclaim they need this bill to comply with the WTO when it misses the mark by a mile.

I hope this bill can morph into something that is WTO compliant, and I will continue to advocate for such a transformation both here and through other channels.

[Grasshopp3r]

Despite the efforts to support horse racing, it is still a stagnant industry. The tracks are becoming less profitable over time without the addition of slots and other gaming.

http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=pr&id=22765
http://www.aqha.com/news/racingsnumbers.html

[Uglyowl]

The idea of only sinning a little is really starting to get to me.

Las Vegas is ok to bet on sports, but since I am on the other side of the country, it is not? It is either wrong or right, stop trying to have it both ways.

Just like horses ok, lottery ok, fantasy sports ok, online poker wrong!

We are either going to hell for gambling or we are not, the devil doesn't discriminate on location or game played.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read your every man for himself and throw sports bettors under the bus plan even before the Frank bill was introduced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay,

You mischaracterize the position of myself and others. We aren't trying to throw sports betting "under the bus", but rather attempting not to be thrown under with it. Sports betting is assured in today's political climate of getting "thrown under the bus", but poker isn't.

Also I think you ignore the long term. The more forms of gambling that are legalized individually over time, the more likely it makes it that the remaining forms will gain the same status. Poker is much more likely to gain legalization in the short to near term than is sports betting, and there is no reason to forfeit that by getting lumped in with sports betting.


[ QUOTE ]
This bill, if passed as is, is not WTO compliant. One thing I will not do for sure is stand by and let people proclaim they need this bill to comply with the WTO when it misses the mark by a mile.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with your views on this 100%. The proposed bill not only isn't compliant but the overall situation will be less so than before it if it passes. I just don't care as long as poker gets passed now. However myself and others here, if and when we gain our goals regarding poker's legalization online and expansion in B&M venues, will have no reason THEN not to support efforts to legalize sports betting.

Take the long term view and quit focusing on trying to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your political strategy as "throwing sports bettors under the bus".

[Uglyowl]

We really don't need to fight the MLB, NFL, NBA, NCAA, and NHL over poker. Let them sit on the sidelines of this debate and tackle that next.

Quantity of players is important to poker, it doesn't matter for sports betting.

[adanthar]

Jay,

The absolute fastest way to full WTO compliance is through one of the following two channels:

1)"The Throw Horse Racing Under The Bus As Well Act"

2)The Frank bill is signed and becomes law, at which point Antigua says "this still does not go far enough" and presses its case back in the WTO arena

It is not 3)the status quo remains until a fully WTO compliant bill passes, because we all know that will never happen.

[JPFisher55]

Actually, the fastest way to WTO compliance is throught the US courts. Mr. David Carruthers has obtained consent from his trial judge to file a motion to dismiss the indictment against him based on the recent WTO decision.
It's a long shot at the district court level, but has a better chance at the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

[pokerpunchout]

Has anyone thought about or tried to start an email campaign targeting the NFL, MLB, ect.. and explaining to them our side of the debate? This could be similar to all the emails that people are sending to their elected congressmen and senators explaining the skil of poker, ect. It might also be benificial to point out that Frank's bill has an "opt out" clause for any sports league that does not want to be involved.

Just my two cents.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
The sports leagues don't actually want to do anything about people gambling on their sports, they know it generates huge amounts of revenue. They just want to LOOK like they're against gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are probably a few bottom-line people in the sports leagues who think like this, but like you say, they never never can come out and say it. I find that in situations like this, people tend to believe their own crap. Most people working for sports leagues LOOK like they are against gambling in all forms, because they ARE against gambling in all forms.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was going to leaning towards canceling my MLB.TV subscription, but now is a definate and I will b***h about the gambling thing while I call up tonight while I am at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet! Congrats! I vowed when I learned the NFL was behind the UIGEA never to pay another dollar to the NFL for anything (I'll still watch the games on TIVO, flipping through the commercials). I made the same boycott of Ebay/Paypal. I think I'll extend that to MLB now as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to that cancelling season tickets and luxery boxes, etc.

I doubt we could get enough support to make a huge difference, but it's a nice thought.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to leaning towards canceling my MLB.TV subscription, but now is a definate and I will b***h about the gambling thing while I call up tonight while I am at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I called and canceled and explained why, the person on the other end of the line played online poker and explained the letter (posted below) to him. Anyhow, I will continue to contact each of the sports organization and try spreading the word.

The letter was alot worse than I thought it would be:

We would also oppose any legislation that would legalize and regulate non-sports gambling online, because we do not believe that differential treatment of sports gambling and other gambling online would be sustainable in the current environment. Distinguishing between different forms of gambling will complicate the implementation of UIGEA, for which the implementing regulations have not been written yet. The new law must be given a chance to work before policymakers can determine whether partial legalization is technologically feasible.

http://www.gambling911.com/Coalition_Response_Frank_Bill.pdf

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was going to leaning towards canceling my MLB.TV subscription, but now is a definate and I will b***h about the gambling thing while I call up tonight while I am at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet! Congrats! I vowed when I learned the NFL was behind the UIGEA never to pay another dollar to the NFL for anything (I'll still watch the games on TIVO, flipping through the commercials). I made the same boycott of Ebay/Paypal. I think I'll extend that to MLB now as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to that cancelling season tickets and luxery boxes, etc.

I doubt we could get enough support to make a huge difference, but it's a nice thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, but there's some saying about one person's decisions making a difference or something ...

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

Also Jay I would like to propose a better strategy for those of you wishing to legalize sports betting and leverage the WTO issues to do so. And that is to find a friendly congressman to introduce "The WTO online wagering compliance act" whose language will screw the horse racing industry and overturn all previous legislative provisions allowing remote wagering on horse racing. The horse racing industry for too long has had a free ride on the legislative front while other forms of gambling got the shaft. They need to be placed in the same situation as other forms of gambling in order to get them to utilize what clout they have for a comprehensive national plan that legalizes all forms of gambling and is in compliance with the WTO. Make the horse racing industry put thier horses in front of your sports wagon and pull it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily I dont read politics, so I can say with full conviction - I LOVE BluffTHIS! You sir are the best innovative thinker in this forum, you keep providing reasonable solutions to challenging problems.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also Jay I would like to propose a better strategy for those of you wishing to legalize sports betting and leverage the WTO issues to do so. And that is to find a friendly congressman to introduce "The WTO online wagering compliance act" whose language will screw the horse racing industry and overturn all previous legislative provisions allowing remote wagering on horse racing. The horse racing industry for too long has had a free ride on the legislative front while other forms of gambling got the shaft. They need to be placed in the same situation as other forms of gambling in order to get them to utilize what clout they have for a comprehensive national plan that legalizes all forms of gambling and is in compliance with the WTO. Make the horse racing industry put thier horses in front of your sports wagon and pull it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily I dont read politics, so I can say with full conviction - I LOVE BluffTHIS! You sir are the best innovative thinker in this forum, you keep providing reasonable solutions to challenging problems.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL

You've gotta be freakin kidding.

I think I'm going to be sick.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Ungrateful as they come. Why placate them at all? Now are you with me?

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/sport...2007-04-30.html (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/sports-leagues-mobilize-against-franks-gaming-bill-2007-04-30.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should all write to the NFL, the NBA, the AL and the NL (especially the NFL) and ask them to at least sit this one out. They really have no business actively working andd campaigning against our rights. Remind them that they frequently come to the taxpayers for stadiums and other freebees. Also, let's write to their advertisers, such as Budweiser. We can tell Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co. that this prohibition is no more just than the Prohibition of the '20s. The good thing here is that we KNOW advertisers are very sensitive to their customers' opinions, so they'll read these letters.

[Cactus Jack]

The lobbyist is the former chief of staff for Bill Frist.

Doh!

(Everybody miss that one?)

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
The lobbyist is the former chief of staff for Bill Frist.

Doh!

(Everybody miss that one?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This same lobbyist from the NFL played a critical role in getting UIGEA passed in the first place.