Tweet
Gambling's negative portrayal is unfair
GOV. GRAY Davis' signing of a bill to allow telephone-account betting on horse races in California is a welcome beacon in the midst of gambling paranoia.
-- Congress continues to consider bills that would ban betting in Nevada on college sports and Internet wagering throughout the land.
-- Professional sports leagues dissuade teams from moving to Las Vegas -- the NBA didn't want the Vancouver Grizzlies to do it, and Major League Baseball raised the red flag as soon as a possible sale of the A's went public prematurely.
-- The Chronicle's own editorial board trots out the fear-of-crime factor in opposing expansion of the Casino San Pablo card room into a full-fledged Indian gaming facility.
First, a few words about gambling, in general, keeping in mind this is from a journalist who covers a sport -- horse racing -- that is dependent on it.
Like any other so-called vice, gambling can be abused, so a portion of revenues from it always should be earmarked for the early detection and treatment of those who over-indulge.
But spare me the stories of people who lost the rent money or the food money and are now in financial ruin. Nobody ever has been dragged off the street and forced to go into a casino or a racetrack, just as nobody ever has been forced to buy shares in an initial public offering.
Gambling scares both extremes of the political spectrum, which in itself should legitimize the act. Conservatives rail about personal responsibility -- don't allow us the power to sue HMOs, for heaven's sake -- and government regulation of the marketplace, except when it comes to conduct and businesses they dislike. Liberals who otherwise abhor government intrusion into our personal lives see gambling as dysfunctional, with a particularly negative affect on the poor, whom we always have to protect.
People in England -- where all forms of gambling are legal -- must shake their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about.
Doesn't the Senate Judiciary Committee have better things to do than bow to the wishes of the NCAA, a body whose own ethical standards are a mystery when it comes to student-athletes? The NCAA fears what it claims is a recent expansion of gambling on college campuses, along with a couple of attempts to shave points for betting purposes.
If college students are betting, it's likely with bookies, because schools in Nevada certainly aren't being singled out. That won't change if Nevada is prohibited from taking bets on college games. And game-fixing attempts actually stand a better chance of being detected if there is legalized gambling somewhere, because abnormalities in wagering patterns show up.
Ban Internet wagering? How? At what cost? Do we put people in jail for making a wager with an offshore cyber-casino? Do we put filtering devices into computers to block such sites? Instead of trying to beat it, Congress should be joining it and raking in the revenues.
Gov. Davis signed a bill similar to one he vetoed last year, when he also vetoed a bill that would have allowed California tracks to open for simulcast wagering on days when there is no live racing. At the time of his vetoes, he said he opposed any expansion of gambling -- a rather hypocritical stance, in view of his support for that very thing for the state's Indian tribes.
Has he seen the light? Probably not, because the bill he signed also includes labor provisions to aid backstretch workers.
Major-league sports are almost apoplectic in their zeal to distance teams and athletes -- even former ones -- from gambling influences. It's an understandable fear, but punishing an entire city of more than 1.2 million -- plus hundreds of millions of tourists a year -- isn't. Athletes routinely visit Nevada casinos -- even Michael Jordan -- and no one questions their ability to remain aboveboard. If Las Vegas can prove it can support a major- league team, it deserves one.
Ah, The Chronicle. Perhaps its editorial board knows something the City of San Pablo doesn't concerning the connection between gambling and crime. Officials of most cities that have some form of gambling are nearly unanimous in their belief that added revenues from it more than offset whatever minor increase in crime might occur. Many say the crime rate hasn't increased at all.
A full-fledged casino in San Pablo might not be fair competition for nearby racetracks such as Golden Gate Fields and the Solano County Fair, but there is an answer: Require all Indian casinos of a certain size to include simulcast wagering on horse races.
And don't worry about the government condoning gambling. Most states sponsor the worst bet around: the lottery.
E-mail Larry Stumes at lstumes@sfchronicle.com.
GOV. GRAY Davis' signing of a bill to allow telephone-account betting on horse races in California is a welcome beacon in the midst of gambling paranoia.
-- Congress continues to consider bills that would ban betting in Nevada on college sports and Internet wagering throughout the land.
-- Professional sports leagues dissuade teams from moving to Las Vegas -- the NBA didn't want the Vancouver Grizzlies to do it, and Major League Baseball raised the red flag as soon as a possible sale of the A's went public prematurely.
-- The Chronicle's own editorial board trots out the fear-of-crime factor in opposing expansion of the Casino San Pablo card room into a full-fledged Indian gaming facility.
First, a few words about gambling, in general, keeping in mind this is from a journalist who covers a sport -- horse racing -- that is dependent on it.
Like any other so-called vice, gambling can be abused, so a portion of revenues from it always should be earmarked for the early detection and treatment of those who over-indulge.
But spare me the stories of people who lost the rent money or the food money and are now in financial ruin. Nobody ever has been dragged off the street and forced to go into a casino or a racetrack, just as nobody ever has been forced to buy shares in an initial public offering.
Gambling scares both extremes of the political spectrum, which in itself should legitimize the act. Conservatives rail about personal responsibility -- don't allow us the power to sue HMOs, for heaven's sake -- and government regulation of the marketplace, except when it comes to conduct and businesses they dislike. Liberals who otherwise abhor government intrusion into our personal lives see gambling as dysfunctional, with a particularly negative affect on the poor, whom we always have to protect.
People in England -- where all forms of gambling are legal -- must shake their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about.
Doesn't the Senate Judiciary Committee have better things to do than bow to the wishes of the NCAA, a body whose own ethical standards are a mystery when it comes to student-athletes? The NCAA fears what it claims is a recent expansion of gambling on college campuses, along with a couple of attempts to shave points for betting purposes.
If college students are betting, it's likely with bookies, because schools in Nevada certainly aren't being singled out. That won't change if Nevada is prohibited from taking bets on college games. And game-fixing attempts actually stand a better chance of being detected if there is legalized gambling somewhere, because abnormalities in wagering patterns show up.
Ban Internet wagering? How? At what cost? Do we put people in jail for making a wager with an offshore cyber-casino? Do we put filtering devices into computers to block such sites? Instead of trying to beat it, Congress should be joining it and raking in the revenues.
Gov. Davis signed a bill similar to one he vetoed last year, when he also vetoed a bill that would have allowed California tracks to open for simulcast wagering on days when there is no live racing. At the time of his vetoes, he said he opposed any expansion of gambling -- a rather hypocritical stance, in view of his support for that very thing for the state's Indian tribes.
Has he seen the light? Probably not, because the bill he signed also includes labor provisions to aid backstretch workers.
Major-league sports are almost apoplectic in their zeal to distance teams and athletes -- even former ones -- from gambling influences. It's an understandable fear, but punishing an entire city of more than 1.2 million -- plus hundreds of millions of tourists a year -- isn't. Athletes routinely visit Nevada casinos -- even Michael Jordan -- and no one questions their ability to remain aboveboard. If Las Vegas can prove it can support a major- league team, it deserves one.
Ah, The Chronicle. Perhaps its editorial board knows something the City of San Pablo doesn't concerning the connection between gambling and crime. Officials of most cities that have some form of gambling are nearly unanimous in their belief that added revenues from it more than offset whatever minor increase in crime might occur. Many say the crime rate hasn't increased at all.
A full-fledged casino in San Pablo might not be fair competition for nearby racetracks such as Golden Gate Fields and the Solano County Fair, but there is an answer: Require all Indian casinos of a certain size to include simulcast wagering on horse races.
And don't worry about the government condoning gambling. Most states sponsor the worst bet around: the lottery.
E-mail Larry Stumes at lstumes@sfchronicle.com.