[JeffreyS]

The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative is taking up the fight to promote the freedom of individuals to gamble online. Like you, we believe that betting on sports online is a matter of personal choice and we should be able to do so without the government getting in our way.

We are leading the campaign to support Congressman Frank’s legislation that would legalize Internet gambling. We welcome your support and encourage you to visit our website at www.safeandsecureig.org. Here you can contact your Member of Congress and register your support for the freedom to gambling online.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[JC]

The Frank bill is anti-sports gambling.

It also does not bring the US into compliance with the WTO decision. Please stop telling people otherwise.

[WileOut]

JC would you elaborate about how you say its anti sports gambling?

Isn't regulated better than not being able to get in a bet at all?

I see the US going in one of two ways. They are either going to regulate it or they are going to do away with it completely.

[RickySteve]

From HR 2046, Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007:

SPORTING LEAGUES
Sporting leagues would have the option of prohibiting Internet gambling on
sporting events or contests on league activities.

Don't ever question Mr. Cohen. A cup of his piss commands more respect than you've earned in your life.

[WileOut]

Steve you dont even know me so your little jab is meaningless. Nice to e-meet you pal

For one thing, if nothing at all the bill would open up poker rooms with shuffling that is really regulated. Second, if it is legalized then the stigma would be removed from sports gambling and sports leagues like the NFL might not even choose to opt out. If it is legalized it would shock me if any leagues did opt out because it would really affect their bottom line.

By the way I have a lot of respect for Jay I'm just trying to open up conversation on the subject.

[JC]

JC would you elaborate about how you say its anti sports gambling?

Isn't regulated better than not being able to get in a bet at all?

I see the US going in one of two ways. They are either going to regulate it or they are going to do away with it completely.

There is no doubt in my mind that all of the sports leagues and many states would opt out.

I don't see it softening them up.

[JeffreyS]

Even if the Frank bill alone does not resolve the WTO case, it could be part of a settlement, providing a level playing field for operators that seek to offer Internet gambling services in the U.S.

As said above, regulation is better than the alternative, and the best option for regulation thus far is through the legislation proposed by Chairman Frank.

[JC]

Even if the Frank bill alone does not resolve the WTO case, it could be part of a settlement, providing a level playing field for operators that seek to offer Internet gambling services in the U.S.

As said above, regulation is better than the alternative, and the best option for regulation thus far is through the legislation proposed by Chairman Frank.

Mr. Sandman,

You keep stating in all of your press releases that the Frank bill would bring the US into compliance with the WTO decision. Nothing could be furtehr from the truth. If anything, it would bring the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

Please stop invoking the WTO decision to advance your organization's drive to pass the Frank bill.

As written, the Frank bill throws sports players under the bus and no sports player should support it. If it ever passed there would be less pressure to fix the US position.

[WileOut]

Jay thats interesting, it changes the way I look at it. Thanks for your thoughts.

[ZeRo C@iDa*]

Jay thats interesting, it changes the way I look at it. Thanks for your thoughts.

agreed.. tH@Nx Jay

[ritehook]

This bill is fine for poker players, but not good for sports bettors. It would, if it became law, lock the ban on sports into place, by the simple expedient of allowing any league to opt out.

JC is right, this thing is worse than nothing. Frank should have just left sports betting out of it, and catered to the card guys and casino freaks. It's almost like he was trying to get the support of the big sports moguls with this thing, "legalizing" but with a built-in opt-out clause.

Screw that.

When Bush if gone from Washington and the religious busybodies have less power, that would be the time for sports betting forces to make a move, and lobby to get sports betting in compliance with the WTO mandate.

[atakdog]

Does anyone know who the organization promoting the bill is? My first guess would be Indian casinos, just because it smells that way, but it sure isn't clear exactly who benefits.

I know that JC knows a million times more about this than I do, but I'll second: there is no way the leagues would do anything but opt out. This bill ain't getting us sports gambling.

[Seattle Slew]

I don't think it'll ever pass even for the poker crowd. No way the U.S. allows online gambling in our lifetimes for poker or anything else.

Won't change regardless of who is in the White House.

[jjgold]

Sportsbetting will never be legal offshore

lets just drop it

[Dark Horse]

In sports betting we drop systems that don't work. To continue to bet on them would be foolish. It is no different for government. The way the anti-gambling bill was passed last November was a perfect demonstration that democracy, in this country, means absolutely nothing. Why would we need or seek the approval of a corrupt system? How could a corrupt system possibly offer validation for anything? Let's face it. Our government is rated F-. It is not interested in principles that we would associate with books or companies in the A category.

A toast to the Pirates of the Caribbean!

[atakdog]

I disagree, Dark: our government is not an F, just somewhere in the D range. It is mostly inept and completely unresponsive to the concerns of most of us, but it is not completely corrupt (though George and Dick have tried). That qualifies it for about a D, probably not a D-.

To those who are arguing that we will never have legalized sports gambling, I disagree: if someone put enough money behind it, we'd get it. That's one reason I was curious about who the organization that started this thread is -- it's all about how powerful the lobby is.

[bigloser]

Gone a little off topic but still interesting question.
If the US government was a Sportsbook what rating would it get?
Could be worth a new topic.

[austintx05]

sux

[ritehook]

The only league that would have opted to go along with online betting on their games was the old XFL.

In fact, if the Frank bill becomes law we may well see new football or basketball leagues come into being, to take advantage of the instant audience that the vast army of sports bettors would provide.

NFL, NBA and NCAA will resist to the bitter end. Only if they see their games losing popularity to the ones with approved betting will they change their tune.

This doesn't mean I support the Frank bill - I don't. The above scenario is possible, but still quite a longshot.

But to say the US will never approve sports betting is to be unaware of history.

In the 1920s booze was banned, and every city of any size, as well as many smaller towns, had speakeasies, or places where everyone knew you could buy a bottle. Just like today any big city cabbie, bellhop or bartender can tell you where to get a bet down.

We know what happened to that law, which was actually a constitutional amendment. (Repealed in '33)

If you had told people a half century ago that when the 21st rolled around there would be legal casinos in almost every state in the union, as well as daily lotteries actually run by almost all state governments - they would have suggested that you check yourself into the nearest laughing academy.

Likewise if you'd told them a black and a woman had a solid chance to be elected president. Never! they'd affirm.

Nor that Mexico via immigration was reclaiming de facto the American southwest, and that many business and govt signs were in Spanish.

Things change. Few things are written in concrete that are not biologically predetermined. My bet would be that legal, online sports gambling will be here in no more than a dozen years. And that's a conservative estimate

[Maledetto]

Also if you been charged before for something gambling related you will be denied licensing, lots of current players in the biz wouldn't have chance, the offshore folks would be considered persona non grata, no doubt some of us will be PNG'd and denied participation.

Screws this, there ain't nothing attractive about it for the players or the ops. No one should support this.

[ZeRo C@iDa*]

Screws this, there ain't nothing attractive about it for the players or the ops. No one should support this.

Agreed*