Comment by author of DOL definition on Professional Poker Player

[Michael]

When I approached the department of labor concerning their assigning a vocational code and definition for Professional Poker Player I never suggested they place it under sports or professional athlete. I did not want it under this category. I wanted a unique and separate code assignment for Professional Poker Player as a distinct “vocation.” The DOL said they only had a limited number codes to assign at that time and they placed it under sports for their own reasons.
It was my objective to add some legitimacy to the vocation of fulltime poker players, to establish an education and vocational institution for possible IRS reasons, and to have an agency of the federal government give some legal recognition to professional poker players. Whether any of this is valid is yet to be seen. I still feel it can only help in what has taken place in the poker world over the past five years. We should look at this, and encourage, any other reasonable effort by others to make a contribution for this evolving field. Again, this should be a vocational issue, not a sports definition issue. When it was assigned as a sport, I thought it was cute to make the Doyle Brunson comparison. Let’s keep this dialogue alive and maybe extend it to the constitutional right we have to now work at our legal vocation on the Internet. Quidproquo888@yahoo.com

[drunkencowboy]

put this post under the topic you previously posted shiothead. what are you, retarded?

3 goddamn threads on the same topic. you should be banned from creating threads lol

[BigBuffet]

If you don't like his topic, stop reading. You must be the tard, cowboy...

I think it's interesting that he came up with this idea and followed through to achieve it.