WTO ruling due soon

[Valuist]

Will our government comply if the WTO rules against them? Or will they just ignore it and do whatever the f-k they want to do? I suspect we all know the answer.

http://www.sportsmemo.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=7222&start=0&S=403770fc86c6c3c47006ca62f76b8137

[cj]

Here is a better link. Good article...

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-407.html

I am no big fan of taking money away from the horsemen, which we all know happens when people bet offshore. However, I cannot legally bet on horse racing, even as a US citizen, through YouBet, TVG, AmericaTab, etc., because I live outside the US serving the military. So, I'm not all that sympathetic.

The upside to offshore books is that the tracks will have some competition and be forced to make improvements that help me. Without them, things will only get worse for the horseplayer. If the racing industry improved their business model, they could put offshore books out of the racing business easily. We need the offshore books in my opinion.

[Robert Fischer]

interesting. Many Implications. First that I have heard of this. Would be nice if racing was covered more in the news (newspapers). I wonder if any publications or major newspapers will have this story in sports or business sections?????


On some of the points about offshore in general -
It may be interesting to know how much "growth" occured in the market including the offshore horse racing industry.
Here we have these independant offshore horse racing sites that are offering a better product, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got a few NEW customers due to their marketing and quality;).

[bigmack]

Looks like it comes down to the GATS agreement of '95. Savvy of Antiqua to play that card as the US stance is: internet gambling went against the morals of the United States and made the usual arguments that online remote gambling was a concern as it allowed easy access to minors, organized crime and money laundering and because people were able to bet 24 hours a day it could lead to health risks and compulsive behavior.:lol:

To which Aniqua responded: This shows the incredible hypocrisy of the United States since the U.S. have all the same issues in their own land based casinos and almost every casino is open 24 hours a day. The panel considered the arguments and determined that the United States was wrong to restrict access to their markets and that gambling services were indeed covered under GATS. The panel then demanded the United States open its markets to the Antiguan operations.

[highnote]

Looks like it comes down to the GATS agreement of '95. Savvy of Antiqua to play that card as the US stance is: internet gambling went against the morals of the United States and made the usual arguments that online remote gambling was a concern as it allowed easy access to minors, organized crime and money laundering and because people were able to bet 24 hours a day it could lead to health risks and compulsive behavior.:lol:

To which Aniqua responded: This shows the incredible hypocrisy of the United States since the U.S. have all the same issues in their own land based casinos and almost every casino is open 24 hours a day. The panel considered the arguments and determined that the United States was wrong to restrict access to their markets and that gambling services were indeed covered under GATS. The panel then demanded the United States open its markets to the Antiguan operations.

I have been thinking about the banning of online gaming a lot lately.

I keep thinking how can our lawmakers and politicians be so hypocritical -- writing laws to ban online gaming using lame arguments while at the same time alllowing brick and mortar casinos to flourish makes them look like idiots and buffoons.

All I can figure is that it has to come down to lobbyists ability to buy politicians' votes.

Follow the money.

Abramoff.

What other explanation can there be? The laws are illogical. So it has to be bribery.

[GameTheory]

What other explanation can there be? The laws are illogical. So it has to be bribery.Since when are people logical and consistent? With or without bribery, people just make no sense, and so therefore the laws that they write will be no more rational, being as they are artifacts of muddled human minds...

[highnote]

Since when are people logical and consistent?


Since yesterday. Didn't you get the memo?


With or without bribery, people just make no sense, and so therefore the laws that they write will be no more rational, being as they are artifacts of muddled human minds...

You're right, of course. But bribery is more scandalous.

[highnote]

By the way, I read the article. The United States makes a weak argument when it says internet gambling goes against the morals of the United States. What a crock of shit. Whose morals? I am a citizen of the United States and I have no problem with internet gambling.

(In fact, I think it can elevate a person's morals. I won't go into a diatribe on why I think that -- you can read my other posts on PA if you want the answer.)

All I can figure is that the our gov doesn't want our money going offshore where it can't be taxed as easily. Lotto brings in big bucks, as do casino and racino slot machines.

This argument has less to do with morals than money.

I still say, follow the money and you will come to know why gambling laws are made.

The argument that minors will partake in internet gambling are weak. Internet porn is huge; minors can easily get cigarettes and alcohol -- yet I see no bans taking place. Firearms can be used to kill people. No bans.

You know why we don't ban cigarettes, alcohol and most firearms -- because we assume most people are rational -- even if they are not. And also cigarettes, booze and firearms generate big money.

However, try to buy your cigarettes online. Banned.

Try to buy booze online. Banned.

Try to buy firearms online. Banned - I would assume. I could be wrong here.

It's all about money, money, money, money, money.

It is illegal for an individual in this country to own and operate a still to make booze for their own consumption. Why? Because the gov wants the tax money from liquor sales. Money, money, money, money, money.

Ban firearms and people will still kill. Ban booze and people will find a way to get drunk. etc. etc. etc.

It is better to regulate than prohibit.

Regulate internet gambling and generate tax revenue.

[cj]

Of course it is about the money. It is ALWAYS about the money.

[highnote]

Of course it is about the money. It is ALWAYS about the money.


Just want to make sure all the newbies know what we know! :ThmbUp:

[trigger]

Of course it is about the money. It is ALWAYS about the money.


Of course, it's not about the money for you guys, right? I didn't see you guys marching in the street protesting when the corner bookie got arrested or the local "office " got raided.
Bookmaking has been illegal for years....the only difference now is the online bookies give rebates ....that's what you guys are pissed off, not about your trodden on freedom to gamble.
Of course it is all about the money----your money.
Trigger

[GameTheory]

The ruling came in -- against the U.S.

[cj]

Of course, it's not about the money for you guys, right?

I said ALWAYS. The difference is, we are up front about it as gamblers. We aren't accepting money from special interest groups.

[Valuist]

Of course, it's not about the money for you guys, right? I didn't see you guys marching in the street protesting when the corner bookie got arrested or the local "office " got raided.
Bookmaking has been illegal for years....the only difference now is the online bookies give rebates ....that's what you guys are pissed off, not about your trodden on freedom to gamble.
Of course it is all about the money----your money.
Trigger

A guy making book in the U.S. outside of Nevada (assuming they have a gaming license) is breaking the law. A Costa Rican, or Curacao-based sportsbook is not breaking the law. It is legal there. In fact, its legal in most of the rest of the civilized world. Except here, where guys like Robert Frist are trying to "protect" family values.......meanwhile his biggest campaign contributor was Harrahs. Comparing local books to legal offshores is comparing apples to oranges.

[GMB@BP]

A guy making book in the U.S. outside of Nevada (assuming they have a gaming license) is breaking the law. A Costa Rican, or Curacao-based sportsbook is not breaking the law. It is legal there. In fact, its legal in most of the rest of the civilized world. Except here, where guys like Robert Frist are trying to "protect" family values.......meanwhile his biggest campaign contributor was Harrahs. Comparing local books to legal offshores is comparing apples to oranges.

what a second, how can that logic be applied. For example, say its illegal to buy kiddie porn in this country but not in many many others. But you certainly can buy that service, whether its pictures, dvds, live video, etc etc and use them as a service which you are buying from another country because its legal there and not here. It is not legal to bet on sports via the internet period unless you have an expemtion such as horse racing, at least to my best understanding that is the law. Just asking the ?

[Valuist]

what a second, how can that logic be applied. For example, say its illegal to buy kiddie porn in this country but not in many many others. But you certainly can buy that service, whether its pictures, dvds, live video, etc etc and use them as a service which you are buying from another country because its legal there and not here. It is not legal to bet on sports via the internet period unless you have an expemtion such as horse racing, at least to my best understanding that is the law. Just asking the ?

Would you say society views kiddie porn and betting on the internet in the same light? I would say not. 40 million Americans bet over the internet. What is the percentage of Americans who are into kiddie porn? I'm going to guess its far,far, far less than that. Anybody into that knows that if they get caught, they will go to jail. I still don't know of any actual bettors who've gone to jail for betting over the internet. Not a very good analogy, IMO.

[classhandicapper]

Here is a better link. Good article...

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-407.html

I am no big fan of taking money away from the horsemen, which we all know happens when people bet offshore..........The upside to offshore books is that the tracks will have some competition and be forced to make improvements that help me. Without them, things will only get worse for the horseplayer. If the racing industry improved their business model, they could put offshore books out of the racing business easily. We need the offshore books in my opinion.

I agree entirely!

[betovernetcapper]

Latest (?) ruling

http://news.com.com/WTO+slams+U.S.+Net-gambling+ban/2100-1030_3-5658636.html

[cj]

Latest (?) ruling

That is an old article, not the latest.

This is the best I could find:

U.S. confirms loss (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2007/01/27/technology/us-confirms-loss-in-internet-gambling-trade-case.html&template=/news/templates/newswire/news_story_reuters.html)

[Pell Mell]

The only things illegal in this country are those that the govt. hasn't figured out a way of taxing. If they could put a meter on all vagina's, prostitution would be legal tomorrow. Of course, I assume that the whores in Nevada pay taxes.

[trigger]

A guy making book in the U.S. outside of Nevada (assuming they have a gaming license) is breaking the law. A Costa Rican, or Curacao-based sportsbook is not breaking the law. It is legal there. In fact, its legal in most of the rest of the civilized world. Except here, where guys like Robert Frist are trying to "protect" family values.......meanwhile his biggest campaign contributor was Harrahs. Comparing local books to legal offshores is comparing apples to oranges.

Val, Using your logic, all the neighborhood bookies would have moved to Nevada a long time ago and set up 800 numbers for all us gamblers to place our bets from all over the USA (and the world). They didn't (at least not publically) because it has been illegal to do so in the USA for decades.
The offshore bookies should be treated the same way(as illegal) until the law gets changed either by a court case or congressional action.
Trigger

[GMB@BP]

Would you say society views kiddie porn and betting on the internet in the same light? I would say not. 40 million Americans bet over the internet. What is the percentage of Americans who are into kiddie porn? I'm going to guess its far,far, far less than that. Anybody into that knows that if they get caught, they will go to jail. I still don't know of any actual bettors who've gone to jail for betting over the internet. Not a very good analogy, IMO.

of course I was taking the extreme example, but we are talking about the Law, not what is right or wrong morally. Just because what is fine in one country and legal there does not give anyone the right to break the law here and place bets illegally (or whatever), and it is illegal. Believe me I hate whats going on but technically to me the government has the right, while we may disagree with what they are doing (thats what elections are for) to implement their own laws. For example, its illegal for anyone in Iran to purchase alcohol, at least that is my understanding, but its legal here, so the WTO would tell Iran that its a tough break for you and you MUST allow that trade to exist via internet purchase? I just dont see it playing out like that with a sovereign nation.

[HEY DUDE]

If Iran signed the same trade aggreement that the US did, then I would say yes. Iran would have to change their law to allow the sale of booze. Period. Should of thought of that before entering into the agreement.

[GMB@BP]

If Iran signed the same trade aggreement that the US did, then I would say yes. Iran would have to change their law to allow the sale of booze. Period. Should of thought of that before entering into the agreement.

ok, so all i have to do is find countries that allow trade of items that are illegal in the U.S. and I can get them. Cool, man that makes obtaining a few items alot easier.

[GameTheory]

The point is that what the U.S. is doing is illegal -- now it remains to be seen if they are going to abide by the ruling of the court they have been championing, or going to openly disregard it thereby announcing that then when the U.S. signs an agreement, it isn't anymore trustworthy than Iran...

[highnote]

ok, so all i have to do is find countries that allow trade of items that are illegal in the U.S. and I can get them. Cool, man that makes obtaining a few items alot easier.


Cuban cigars, anyone?