FSU Cheating Scandal

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Holy shit, would you give it a rest?

Nah, he seems pretty tough. He can take it.

Does the fact that we gamble

I didn't know you were taking it personally, I was just calling the guy on betting against his beloved home team.

Enough for you to respond to every sentence he wrote in multiple posts?

Oh, sorry, does that annoy you?

I bet on NFL football, college football, PGA golf, and college basketball on a regular basis. I use a bookie located right here in Austin. If the IRS and FBI come knock on my door because I professed this heinous "crime" on the intertronz....I'll be the first to let you know.

Sounds like a plan.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I was just calling the guy on betting against his beloved home team.

Lesson I learned the hard way: You don't bet with your heart, you bet with your head. If that means betting against your alma mater, so be it.

Michigan State is my second favorite school, after OU, but given their record and the odds, I know better than to place a bet just because of that.

[KSig RC]

The UIGEA has no "gray area" for actually being the one placing a wager or playing poker - the bill specifically carves out exceptions for the player, and does NOT make it illegal to play/wager.

The bill is "supply-side" but not in the player sense - instead it makes it illegal for banking operations to allow transfers to known Internet gambling operations. The legality of these operations the "gray area" being referenced, but the US Gov't, for all of its bluster and talk, has consistently shown its belief that the players are not doing anything illegal, but rather the site operators are.

So yeah - continue your respective rants, but to call Internet gambling a "gray area" makes it seem like you get your information from 60 Minutes instead of the actual bill itself, which should likely be repealed about 15 minutes after a new President takes office.

[lyrelyre]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The UIGEA has no "gray area" for actually being the one placing a wager or playing poker - the bill specifically carves out exceptions for the player, and does NOT make it illegal to play/wager.

The bill is "supply-side" but not in the player sense - instead it makes it illegal for banking operations to allow transfers to known Internet gambling operations. The legality of these operations the "gray area" being referenced, but the US Gov't, for all of its bluster and talk, has consistently shown its belief that the players are not doing anything illegal, but rather the site operators are.

So yeah - continue your respective rants, but to call Internet gambling a "gray area" makes it seem like you get your information from 60 Minutes instead of the actual bill itself, which should likely be repealed about 15 minutes after a new President takes office.

I get my information from the primary source; I simply realize that not everyone on this site is an attorney. While the bill expressly prohibits those "in the business of betting or wagering" from knowingly accepting credit, EFT, or (basically) commercial paper; it excepts from that term only financial transaction providers, interactive computer services, and telecommunications services. I have never seen the "specifically carved out exception" in the text of the bill for the individual player. If it is there, I apologize for misspeaking. I note that it seems very possible to indict an individual player. However, I do agree that the intent of Congress was to close the websites and not to take legal action against the individual players. The vagueness in the language of the bill, combined with the failure to establish the directed policies and procedures, leaves a great number of questions unanswered. That is why I simply called it a “gray area.” Additionally, this is not a type of law I practice regularly and, because I live in a state where gambling is legal; it has only been a minor issue at my office.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by lyrelyre

I get my information from the primary source; I simply realize that not everyone on this site is an attorney. While the bill expressly prohibits those "in the business of betting or wagering" from knowingly accepting credit, EFT, or (basically) commercial paper; it excepts from that term only financial transaction providers, interactive computer services, and telecommunications services. I have never seen the "specifically carved out exception" in the text of the bill for the individual player. If it is there, I apologize for misspeaking. I note that it seems very possible to indict an individual player. However, I do agree that the intent of Congress was to close the websites and not to take legal action against the individual players. The vagueness in the language of the bill, combined with the failure to establish the directed policies and procedures, leaves a great number of questions unanswered. That is why I simply called it a “gray area.” Additionally, this is not a type of law I practice regularly and, because I live in a state where gambling is legal; it has only been a minor issue at my office.

OK - good post, and we're much more on the level here - I agree with the "pro version" almost entirely.

The bill language is, unfortunately, relatively vague - however, the current theory I've seen is that the final re-write intended to leave open the FBI's current interpretation that Internet gambling violates Federal wire fraud statutes (to the best of my knowledge, the Court has disagreed - no cite at hand, but I can possibly search if you want), while still keeping players in the clear from an official standpoint. The fact that none of the policies and procedures have even reached the outline stage is probably the most damning issue with the bill - in fact, many credit cards will still deposit to PokerStars or Bodog as a result.

I do agree with your definition of "gray area" as posed here - it certainly isn't a decided matter in the slightest. However, I think any issues with online sports betting from the player's end would mostly come with availability of funds and a lack of surety from the more easily accessed sites - not everyone is using the RBS to keep funds "clean" and available - and less with legality. Calvin Ayre is the fish here, not the players, according to almost everything that's been put forward that I have seen. Hopefully, it doesn't even matter much longer - honestly, the UIGEA is one of the most mind-numbingly bad pieces of legislation I've had the opportunity to follow, not that I'm a pro by any means.