Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark Horse
I posted that idea here months ago. Funny that they consider that out-of-the box. There's nothing out-of-the-box about it. Just common sense.
|
It's hugely out of the box, because it involves transferring authority of something (the regulation of payouts from betting pools) that basically has to be state-regulated, as it's part of the original bargain that allowed legal gambling on horse racing to begin with.
It reminds me of arguments made by not-so-legal-savvy internet poker players before Black Friday (the April 2011 shutdown of the major online poker sites in the US). They would say things like "the states can't regulate internet poker because the Internet is global" and "only the sites can deal with collusion and cheating".
Whatever the truth of statements like that, the federal government came crashing down on internet poker and, in doing so, reminded everyone that the states decide if and how poker is offered to their citizens and what regulations are imposed on those who set up the games. And now Internet poker advocates are engaged in a slow, state-by-state attempt to legalize and regulate the activity.
There are very strong (and actually compelling) historical reasons why gaming regulation (meaning regulation of the process of WAGERING) is reposed in the states, and those are not going away. I can certainly see something being done about medication regulations or other safety issues on a nationwide basis, but in terms of something like the stewards, no, they are going to be state appointed from now until the end of the republic, for the same reason that there's always going to be state gaming commissions to regulate casinos. They decide whether you cash your bet, and deciding whether you get to cash your bet is historically a state function.
