On Line Wagers To Be Blocked - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

karlskorner · 06-15-2002, 08:51 AM

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=10087

Also in NY TIMES

www.geocities.com/nywagering

andicap · 06-15-2002, 08:59 AM

I had to use my bank's EFT to fill up my coffers at an offshore betting site (for football) because my credit card companies wouldn't honor my PayPal payment. It's a pain and takes longer, but it's the way around this silly move.
Why doesn't the attorney general keep pursuing the cheats on Wall Street instead of people who are doing what is the equivalant of playing the lottery?
YOU CAN"T STOP TECHNOLOGY YOU BOZOS.

Tom · 06-15-2002, 09:58 AM

Come next election, Elliot will not get my vote, and I hope everyone else votes against him, too. The man is a moron.
Oh, yeah, I will cancel my Citibank card Monday.

Now, how about NTRA?
Are they still in business?
This is something they should be getting into, if they really want to do anything for the sport aside from making stupid commercial that show only on horse racing shows.
NTRA Visa cards, no restrictions on gambling use!
If anyone out there knows anyone at NTRA, please mention this to them...I know none of them can read, so they will never see this post.

Whirlaway · 06-15-2002, 10:32 AM

Bank of America already declines to accept funding directed towards racing sites, so it's no big change for me. Best thing is to get a debit card linked to a money market account and fund that way.

GameTheory · 06-15-2002, 12:29 PM

This is not new, really. The problem for the credit card companies is that under American law, gambling debts are not enforcable, which they found out in the CA case where a compulsive gambler blew a bunch of money online that she had funded with her credit card and her lawyer got the bright idea to argue that she didn't have to pay her credit card bill. She won the case, Chase (I think it was) was out all that cash, so the only thing they can do is not allow those payments in the first place...

Tom · 06-15-2002, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GameTheory

She won the case, Chase (I think it was) was out all that cash, so the only thing they can do is not allow those payments in the first place...

So because of some worthless, bottom feeding lawyer and an obviously liberal-piece of crap judge, everyone else has to pay for this welcher's crime? Got an idea, put her *ss in jail, where she won't be able to gamble, then shoot the lawyer.

GameTheory · 06-16-2002, 01:17 AM

Bottom-feeding lawyer or not, he is well backed up by the law -- gambling debts are not enforceable in most states. Same in England. Been that way for a 100 years.

The credit card company might have argued that the debt owed to THEM wasn't for gambling, but I don't think they did, and it probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Even if they had won, a huge number of people running up these bills deny making the bets or simply can't pay. So the credit card companies decide it is all too much trouble to be worth it. (Despite your seething hate for these people, Tom, on this issue it is hard to blame them. A credit card purchase is a loan -- if a huge percentage of loans granted for gambling default even without judges invalidating them, it makes some sense not to grant them in the first place. I don't deny the credit card the right to deny me a loan.) In any case, you can always write a check. I use PayPal at a few places with no problem.

Gambling law as relates to the internet is completely outmoded, but pretty much all the changes proposed are in the direction of banning or reducing gambling, so I don't expect the situation to improve.

The irksome thing is even on the "pro" side, the issue of FREEDOM never seems to come up. Aren't we supposed to be able to do what we want?

Rick · 06-16-2002, 10:14 AM

GT,

I think since gambling is more of a privelige than a right, we could ban selected people who have proven themselves irresponsible rather than trying to prevent everyone from doing it. There are compulsive spenders of all types who probably should be cut off from credit for the good of themselves and their families. But let's single them out instead of assuming everyone is that way.

Tom · 06-16-2002, 11:48 AM

I wouldn't call gambling a privilege - I have a right to do what I want to with my money. Is golf a privilege? Where do we draw the line? This is supposed to be a free country.
As far as credit card companies, the vast majority of them are just plain irresponsible to begin with...they give anyone a card, no credit checks half the time, no insistance on collateral, and then they charge exorbitant interest. But let one of these damn fools that shouldn't have a card in the first place default and they cry bloody foul! I don't give damn what the current states say, gambling addiction is no excuse for defaulting on loans. If gambling is a sickness, then the person should be confined and kept under lock and key so that they do not hurt themselves or others. If a gambling addist runbs up a huge debt, then take away their homes and cars, or whatever they own, and if that is not enough, then maybe we should be looking a forced labor community projects until the debts is paid. Let the welcher work at the bank cleaning the restrooms for free until he has "earned" enough to make good his responsibility. No sympathy for addicts of any sort.

GameTheory · 06-16-2002, 01:30 PM

I wouldn't call it a privilege either. It bothers me to give a special category at all. It is just a thing that I might want to do, same as playing chess or mountain biking.

It is certainly not much different than buying/selling options & derivatives in the stock market. Now that's gambling!

I certainly don't want to spend any more time defending credit card companies, who I am NOT fond of, but given their situation, their actions seem reasonable. If I want my rights, I have to grant them theirs as well...

Rick · 06-16-2002, 02:19 PM

Sorry, I guess that's the wrong word to use. My thinking was that if they call driving a "privilege" then you could treat gambling the same way and revoke someone's "license" to gamble if they acted irresponsibly. A debt is a debt, no matter how it's incurred, but I don't like the idea of someone ruining things for their family when they have a self destructive habit. If you've ever been divorced you can probably sympathize with my line of thinking.

Tom · 06-16-2002, 05:12 PM

Now that you mention divorce, I know what you mean.
Did you see the new "Divorced" Barbie?
Comes with all of Ken's things <G>

Rick · 06-16-2002, 05:33 PM

Tom,

Yeah, the whole thing revolves around people taking personal responsibility. But, it seems that they've made it profitable to be irresponsible these days. Bankruptcy pays, suing people pays, taking everything from your spouse pays. I'm probably cynical, but I think that 95% of all people favor whatever results in them getting the most. Rich people favor an aristocracy, poor people favor a welfare state. I like a strong middle class. But, I'm middle class. See what I mean?