Gambling coming to OPACY?

[Moose Milligan]

19 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:

This is interesting stuff I honestly had never heard before.  I would watch the Netflix documentary for sure.

Here's Dowd himself:

Fast forward to the 1 hour, 8 minute mark where he talks about how Rose would be managing the Reds today if he just admitted it and stopped gambling.

38:30 mark he starts talking about the secret meeting he had with Rose and his team.  46:00 he talks about there were attempts to settle.  

 

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

How much more does he have to spell it out?   The more ubiquitous gambling on baseball becomes, the bigger the chances that some players or front office types or umpires get caught up in it somehow and we have a really damaging scandal on our hands.  That’s his point.   And, you’ll have some gamblers get addicted to betting on every little thing that occurs in a baseball game and going bankrupt in the process.  

I don't think there's a chance a player gets caught up in this.  Let's not forget that Landis' rule came down in 1920 when many ballplayers were making ends meet by having jobs in the offseason not related to baseball.  Then you have 65 years between baseball having an issue with a ballplayer and gambling with Pete Rose who was a degenerate and not a symptom of a larger problem.  

You know your baseball history, pre-Black Sox there were gambling issues around the game.  But now there's too much money on the line.  You think someone like Trout could ever get caught up in this?  Not even Trout, someone making the league minimum which is still good money?

[RVAOsFan]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Here's Dowd himself:

Fast forward to the 1 hour, 8 minute mark where he talks about how Rose would be managing the Reds today if he just admitted it and stopped gambling.

38:30 mark he starts talking about the secret meeting he had with Rose and his team.  46:00 he talks about there were attempts to settle.  

 

I don't think there's a chance a player gets caught up in this.  Let's not forget that Landis' rule came down in 1920 when many ballplayers were making ends meet by having jobs in the offseason not related to baseball.  Then you have 65 years between baseball having an issue with a ballplayer and gambling with Pete Rose who was a degenerate and not a symptom of a larger problem.  

You know your baseball history, pre-Black Sox there were gambling issues around the game.  But now there's too much money on the line.  You think someone like Trout could ever get caught up in this?  Not even Trout, someone making the league minimum which is still good money?

I don't think I would say "no chance" I mean that WR for the Falcons got a 1 year suspension in the NFL for doing it just last year. Just because there are harsh penalties doesn't mean they won't try it.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, RVAOsFan said:

I don't think I would say "no chance" I mean that WR for the Falcons got a 1 year suspension in the NFL for doing it just last year. Just because there are harsh penalties doesn't mean they won't try it.

I forgot about him.  But that was dumb, he can't re-apply for instatement until early 2023.  The gambling occurred while he was away from the team.  And the NFL's own investigation found that there was no tampering done to any games, either.

The NFL doesn't suspend anyone that long for domestic violence or sexual assault.  Make it make sense.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:

I don't think I would say "no chance" I mean that WR for the Falcons got a 1 year suspension in the NFL for doing it just last year. Just because there are harsh penalties doesn't mean they won't try it.

But if they want to try it, they will do it regardless.  The fact that it ends up at the stadium is meaningless.

[Ohfan67]

28 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Did the White Sox players walk into the SportsBook at Comiskey and bet on the Reds?

Of course not!! Don't be silly!!! They used smart phone apps. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Ohfan67 said:

Of course not!! Don't be silly!!! They used smart phone apps. 

I’m glad phones can’t be tracked. Nobody has any idea where any of us are at a moment now do they? A SportsBook deposits large money into a pro players account. I’m sure nobody would care. 

[Ohfan67]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

I’m glad phones can’t be tracked. Nobody has any idea where any of us are at a moment now do they? A SportsBook deposits large money into a pro players account. I’m sure nobody would care. 

I actually don't care all that much about this topic. I just saw an opening for the joke! I was very impressed with myself for quickly posting a say-it-ain't-so joke. And of course, then there was the opening for the smart phone joke! I could't pass it up.

 

I am meh on the whole legalized gambling - sports league thing. I didn't mean to engage in any meaningful conversation...I was just in the thread looking for a dumb humor opportunity . 

[eddie83]

2 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I actually don't care all that much about this topic. I just saw an opening for the joke! I was very impressed with myself for quickly posting a say-it-ain't-so joke. And of course, then there was the opening for the smart phone joke! I could't pass it up.

 

I am meh on the whole legalized gambling - sports league thing. I didn't mean to engage in any meaningful conversation...I was just in the thread looking for a dumb humor opportunity . 

Trust me. I don’t mind jokes.  More the merrier.  

[Remember The Alomar]

My friends and I joked when the Horseshoe Casino went in by the trash-burning plan that Baltimore had finally become Biff's version of Hill Valley in "Back to the Future." Excited we're taking it one step further! 

[Frobby]

45 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But if they want to try it, they will do it regardless.  The fact that it ends up at the stadium is meaningless.

It’s just another step down the slippery slope.   The combination of on-line betting and increasing specific prop bets are what give me concern, moreso than having a gambling facility at the stadium.   But the “don’t gamble or consort with gamblers” message to players gets a lot more diluted and hypocritical when a player can see the team profiting from gambling right in the very site where they play their games.  It’s a lot easier for a player to rationalize breaking the rules when he sees gambling going on all around him and the team condoning it.  

I’ll go the opposite of Moose.  I think it’s probably now inevitable that some players are going to break the rules.  It’s only a question of when, and whether they’re caught.   

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't think there's a chance a player gets caught up in this.  Let's not forget that Landis' rule came down in 1920 when many ballplayers were making ends meet by having jobs in the offseason not related to baseball.  Then you have 65 years between baseball having an issue with a ballplayer and gambling with Pete Rose who was a degenerate and not a symptom of a larger problem.  

You know your baseball history, pre-Black Sox there were gambling issues around the game.  But now there's too much money on the line.  You think someone like Trout could ever get caught up in this?  Not even Trout, someone making the league minimum which is still good money?

I think it's dangerous to rely on the idea that the players and umps and managers have more money than the gamblers and their financiers as the firewall between scandal and no scandal.  Something like 50% of pro athletes (the reference is NFL, but I'm sure other sports are similar) are bankrupt within a few years of being out of the league.  Giving a 20-year-old $5M usually results in them spending $5M in short order and getting very accustomed to that kind of lifestyle.  A $500k injection from a wise guy might look pretty enticing to a guy who might be out of the game and out of cash next year.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s just another step down the slippery slope.   The combination of on-line betting and increasing specific prop bets are what give me concern, moreso than having a gambling facility at the stadium.   But the “don’t gamble or consort with gamblers” message to players gets a lot more diluted and hypocritical when a player can see the team profiting from gambling right in the very site where they play their games.  It’s a lot easier for a player to rationalize breaking the rules when he sees gambling going on all around him and the team condoning it.  

I’ll go the opposite of Moose.  I think it’s probably now inevitable that some players are going to break the rules.  It’s only a question of when, and whether they’re caught.   

The message is decidedly mixed when it's "don't ever get involved with the people running the sportsbook in section 305, or the other guys who have advertisements all over the stadium they paid us huge rolls of cash for, they're really bad."

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s just another step down the slippery slope.   The combination of on-line betting and increasing specific prop bets are what give me concern, moreso than having a gambling facility at the stadium.   But the “don’t gamble or consort with gamblers” message to players gets a lot more diluted and hypocritical when a player can see the team profiting from gambling right in the very site where they play their games.  It’s a lot easier for a player to rationalize breaking the rules when he sees gambling going on all around him and the team condoning it.  

I’ll go the opposite of Moose.  I think it’s probably now inevitable that some players are going to break the rules.  It’s only a question of when, and whether they’re caught.   

 

Its not easier because it’s against the rules for players, coaches, owners, etc…if they choose to break the rules, they are going to do it anyway. 

[DrungoHazewood]

59 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But if they want to try it, they will do it regardless.  The fact that it ends up at the stadium is meaningless.

It's like the Baptist church renting out their parsonage to the local madam and her employees to have a party every week.  We completely condemn their behavior and understand that it will almost certainly lead to negative consequences, but as long as it's going to happen anyway we might as well make a buck off of it.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's like the Baptist church renting out their parsonage to the local madam and her employees to have a party every week.  We completely condemn their behavior and understand that it will almost certainly lead to negative consequences, but as long as it's going to happen anyway we might as well make a buck off of it.

No, it’s not like that.