Professionals Gambling
From time to time the topic of professional athletes gambling on sports comes to the fore. This week, we have learned that the Phoenix Coyotes assistant coach, Rick Tocchet, has financed a multi-million dollar gambling ring. Intitial reports indicate that none of the betting was on hockey. (Of course, based on subsequent reports, he may have been running the ring almost solely for the benefit of his boss's wife, Janet Jones-Gretzky - but that is another story) The question which has been debated on sports talk radio as a result is, "Do you care?"
There are 2 generally accepted sides to this debate. First, if the athlete can afford it, who cares as long as he is not gambling on his own sport or team. The second argument is the slippery slope theory that gambling is insidious and there is no way to guarantee that any gambler will not succumb to outside forces which may potentially influence his performance - even if he is not directly gambling on his own team or sport.
As for me, I tend to subscribe more to the latter argument, but with some exceptions. I thought that the University of Washington overreacted when it discovered that their football coach ran a private, high stakes March Madness pool. That seems like more of an isolated incident that is only among friends. In contrast, if an athlete begins to gamble with a local "bookie", there are well documented risks that must be acknowledged and guarded against. I do not think we want our professional athletes shaving points. Further, providing inside information (what some poeple may consider a lesser crime) may create an unfair imbalance.
The problem I have is how to separate the harmless betting from the "risky" betting. Perhaps the professional leagues should just acknowledge that the athletes' competitive nature which led them to become professionals naturally leads to gambling. If that is the case, is there a maximum amount which an athlete should be allowed to gamble on other sports? Would you include non-sports gambling, such as poker? Obviously, gambling is pervasive in our culture and it has not caused a huge problem for the big sports leagues except for the infrequent, isolated event like the one reported this week. On the other hand, once you let gambling in is it really possible to regulate and limit the amounts spent?
All of these questions, and others, make this a very difficult topic to address. For this reason, I think the best policy is to be risk averse so that the public's confidence in professional sports is not broken by allegations tied to gambling and influence peddling related to it.
There are 2 generally accepted sides to this debate. First, if the athlete can afford it, who cares as long as he is not gambling on his own sport or team. The second argument is the slippery slope theory that gambling is insidious and there is no way to guarantee that any gambler will not succumb to outside forces which may potentially influence his performance - even if he is not directly gambling on his own team or sport.
As for me, I tend to subscribe more to the latter argument, but with some exceptions. I thought that the University of Washington overreacted when it discovered that their football coach ran a private, high stakes March Madness pool. That seems like more of an isolated incident that is only among friends. In contrast, if an athlete begins to gamble with a local "bookie", there are well documented risks that must be acknowledged and guarded against. I do not think we want our professional athletes shaving points. Further, providing inside information (what some poeple may consider a lesser crime) may create an unfair imbalance.
The problem I have is how to separate the harmless betting from the "risky" betting. Perhaps the professional leagues should just acknowledge that the athletes' competitive nature which led them to become professionals naturally leads to gambling. If that is the case, is there a maximum amount which an athlete should be allowed to gamble on other sports? Would you include non-sports gambling, such as poker? Obviously, gambling is pervasive in our culture and it has not caused a huge problem for the big sports leagues except for the infrequent, isolated event like the one reported this week. On the other hand, once you let gambling in is it really possible to regulate and limit the amounts spent?
All of these questions, and others, make this a very difficult topic to address. For this reason, I think the best policy is to be risk averse so that the public's confidence in professional sports is not broken by allegations tied to gambling and influence peddling related to it.
posted by Bearister at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home