[Senate Hearing 107-1092]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1092
AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT, S. 718
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. Government Printing Office
88-464 PDF Washington : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MAX CLELAND, Georgia
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Ann Choiniere, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 26, 2001................................... 1
Statement of Senator Breaux...................................... 52
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of Senator Edwards..................................... 48
Statement of Senator Ensign...................................... 3
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Witnesses
Adams, Michael F., President of the University of Georgia........ 58
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Berkley, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Representative from Nevada........... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Friday, William, President Emeritus, University of North Carolina 57
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, U.S. Representative from Nevada............... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Graham, Hon. Lindsey, U.S. Representative from South Carolina.... 20
Hartle, Terry W., Senior Vice President, American Council on
Education...................................................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Hurd, Tracy Dodds, Associate Sports Editor, Cleveland Plain
Dealer......................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Ivory, Titus Lovell, Student-Athlete, Pennsylvania State
University..................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Looney, Ed, Director, Council on Compulsive Gambling............. 61
Newell, Pete, Coach, Member of the Basketball Hall of Fame....... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Osborne, Hon. Tom, U.S. Representative from Nebraska............. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S Senator from Nevada........................ 7
Roemer, Hon. Tim, U.S. Representative from Indiana............... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Saum, William S., Director of Agents, Gambling and Amateur
Activities, National Collegiate Athletic Associations.......... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Shaffer, Howard J., Ph.D., C.A.S., Associate Professor, Harvard
Medical School, Division of Addictions......................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Sheridan, Danny, Writer, USA Today............................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Williams, Gary, Head Basketball Coach, University of Maryland.... 24
Appendix
Holtz, Lou, Head Football Coach, University of South Carolina.... 85
Hynes, Charles J., District Attorney, Kings County, New York..... 86
Letter to Hon. John Ensign and Hon. Harry Reid from Dennis
Neilander, Chairman, State of Nevada Gaming Control Board,
Carson City, Nevada............................................ 89
Letters to Hon. John McCain from:
Dean Smith, Men's Basketball, University of North Carolina... 87
Richard Buchanan, Vice President and General Counsel,
National Basketball Association; William L. Daly, Executive
Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, National Hockey
League; Jeffrey Pash, Executive Vice President, National
Football League; Tom Ostertag, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball.... 90
Price, Nancy, North Las Vegas, Nevada............................ 88
AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT, S. 718
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Next we will address The Amateur Sports
Integrity Act, S. 718. I will make a brief opening statement
and I will ask my colleagues to do the same. We have two panels
of witnesses to get through today, and so we will do everything
we can, at least from this side, on behalf of brevity.
We're back again this year to pass a measure I am confident
will receive broad support if it's taken up before the full
Senate. The Amateur Sports Integrity Act, S. 718, which I
introduced last month with my colleagues Senators Brownback,
Jeffords, Edwards and Fitzgerald, does two things: it amends
the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to make it
illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, and high school sports,
and it authorizes appropriations for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to fund the detection and prevention
of athletic performance-enhancing drugs.
The Amateur Sports Integrity Act implements a
recommendation made by the congressionally created National
Gambling Impact Study Commission in response to the
commission's concerns regarding scandals in recent years
involving college athletes, the extent of gambling among
college athletes in general, the way in which legal gambling
facilitates illegal gambling, and the mixed message that is
sent to our youth, when we allow gambling on amateur athletics
in one State while banning it in all others.
In its final report, the National Gambling Impact Study
Commission recommended that betting on collegiate and amateur
athletic events be banned altogether. Senate Bill 718
accomplishes just that. Just as the use of performance-
enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur sports, so
does gambling.
Betting on amateur athletics invites public speculation as
to the legitimacy of the competition and transforms student
athletes into objects to bet upon. Adding unwarranted pressure
from corrupting influences to the underlying pressures that
these intensely competitive young people already feel is
unacceptable.
Although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act bans legal
gambling on amateur athletics, I expect it will also reduce a
substantial amount of illegal gambling as well. The
relationship between legal and illegal gambling was addressed
by the NGISC, which observed that, ``legal sports wagering,
especially the publication in the media of Las Vegas and
offshore-generated point spreads, fuels a much larger amount of
illegal sports wagering.''
I won't pretend, however, that closing the one State
loophole on legal gambling on amateur sports will put an end to
illegal gambling on these athletes and competitors.
For this reason I say to my colleagues who are backing a
bill that has the support of the gaming industry that provides
additional resources to combat illegal gambling, I agree with
the intent of your legislation, appreciate your recognition
that gambling on amateur athletics is a problem that must be
addressed at the Federal level. That bill, however, while
perhaps acceptable as a complement, is not acceptable as an
alternative to the Amateur Sports Integrity Act.
Senator Ensign.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senator from Arizona
We are back this year to try to pass a measure that I am confident
will receive broad support if it is taken up before the full Senate.
The Amateur Sport Integrity Act, S. 718, which I introduced last month
with my colleagues Senators Brownback, Jeffords, Edwards, and
Fitzgerald, does two things: it amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act to make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college,
and high school sports, and it authorizes appropriations for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund the detection
and prevention of athletic performance-enhancing drugs.
The Amateur Sports Integrity Act implements a recommendation made
by the congressionally created National Gambling Impact Study
Commission in response to the Commission's concerns about scandals in
recent years involving college athletes, about the extent of gambling
among college athletes generally, about the way in which legal gambling
facilitates illegal gambling, and about the mixed message we are
sending to our youth when we allow gambling on amateur athletics in one
State while banning it in all others.
In its final report, the Gambling Impact Study Commission
recommended that betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events be
banned altogether. Senate bill 718 accomplishes just that. Just as the
use of performance enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur
sports, so does gambling. Betting on amateur athletics invites public
speculation as to their legitimacy and transforms student athletes into
objects to be bet upon. Adding unwarranted pressure from corrupting
influences to the pressures that these intensely competitive young
people already feel is unacceptable.
Equally important, although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act bans
legal gambling on amateur athletics, I expect that it also will reduce
a substantial amount of illegal gambling as well. The relationship
between legal and illegal gambling was addressed by the NGISC, which
observed that ``legal sports wagering--especially the publication in
the media of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads fuels a
much larger amount of illegal sports wagering.'' I won't pretend,
however, that closing the Nevada loophole on legal gambling on amateur
sports will put an end to illegal gambling on these athletes and
competitions. For this reason, I say to my colleagues who are backing a
bill that has the support of the gaming industry and that provides
additional resources to combat illegal gambling--I agree with the
intent of your legislation and appreciate your recognition that
gambling on amateur athletics is a problem that must be addressed at
the Federal level. The direction of that bill, however, while perhaps
acceptable as a complement, is not acceptable as an alternative to the
Amateur Sports Integrity Act.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to moving this
legislation at the earliest possible time.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as the Senator from Nevada where legal,
regulated amateur sports betting takes place, I am looking
forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I am confident
their testimony will confirm what I already know, that a ban on
legal sports betting will only drive more money underground,
lining the pockets of the Al Capones' of this world, and will
not make a dent in illegal gambling on college campuses.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the facts are on my side of this
debate, but the emotion is on yours. I share your concern about
the widespread gambling on college campuses. I want to make
sure that sporting events are conducted fairly, untainted by
scandal, that college athletes are not pressured by bookies to
throw games or shave points.
And congressional action may be needed to accomplish this
goal, since the NCAA and college administrators have really
done very little to curb college gambling. Let's work together
to find a solution to fit the problem, instead of unfairly
blaming it on Nevada.
Legal and regulated sports wagering represents less than 1
percent of all sports betting in this country. It is not the
problem. Illegal gambling is, and we should be spending our
time looking at the most effective ways to combat illegal
gambling.
The NCAA knows that gambling on college campuses is a major
problem. A survey of division 1 male basketball and football
players, commissioned by the NCAA, found that over one-fourth
gambled on college sports, some of them on their own games.
A University of Michigan survey revealed that nearly half
of all male student athletes gambled on college and
professional sports. These college athletes aren't flying to
Las Vegas to lay down their bets. By and large, they are
betting through illegal campus bookies, or over the Internet.
As a matter of fact, it is illegal to place a bet with a
Nevada sports book unless you are physically present in the
State of Nevada. And any bet over $3,000 today requires a
picture ID to lay a bet down with a Nevada sports book.
Students on college campuses don't even have to leave their
dorm room today to place a call or access one of the thousand
sports betting sites on the Internet. When we look at the most
recent points shaving scandals, which happened about 7 years
ago, Northwestern and Arizona State Universities, we find that
the players involved owed money to illegal bookies, not Las
Vegas casinos.
So what is the NCAA doing to stop illegal gambling on
college campuses and protect its players? Very little. Last
year the NCAA spent only $229,000 of its over $300 million
budget on combatting illegal gambling. That's about three cents
for each student attending an NCAA school. In fact, the NCAA
spent 40 times more on marketing and promotion, not on the
games, but just on the NCAA itself, than on fighting illegal
sports betting on college campuses.
It's time for the NCAA to put its money where its mouth is
and show a true commitment to fighting sports betting on
college campuses. CBS is paying the NCAA $6 billion over the
next 11 years to broadcast just the March Madness basketball
tournament, not including the rest of the college basketball
games, or any of the college football games. How much of that
$6 billion is the NCAA going to be using to protect college
athletes from the clutches of illegal bookies?
Banning legal, regulated sports betting in Nevada for
adults of at least 21 years of age and physically present in my
state's borders will not reduce the number of games that are
fixed. To the contrary, there were more than 20 schools
involved in NCAA point shaving incidents before Las Vegas
sports books were established in 1975, and only four--actually
only two--that were indicted since that time.
Right now, Nevada's Gaming Control Board is the only
mechanism in place to monitor sports betting to see if there's
any point shaving or fixing going on. The biggest gift you
could give to organized crime is to get rid of the legal
wagering on college sports in Nevada, and thus eliminating all
oversight.
And students will continue to do what they are doing today.
Nothing in your legislation, Mr. Chairman, will stop Internet
or illegal sports betting in America. As a matter of fact, you
mentioned the line produced by the Nevada books. The newspapers
will continue to produce the lines, I will produce
documentation that says exactly that later.
The Las Vegas books are actually one of just a very small
percentage of people who produce lines. Certainly the Internet
is one of the biggest places where the lines are produced and
those are happening from offshore websites. Nothing we can do
in this Congress can stop that have happening.
Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as the Las Vegas
loophole. You should be thankful for college sports betting in
Nevada, because the coach of Arizona State was informed during
half time of a possible fix because of the Nevada sports books.
They had alerted the FBI and the Pac 10 conference of betting
irregularities, which helped catch this scandal.
Once again, I must repeat, there is no loophole in the law.
When Congress passed legislation which limited sports betting,
it was conscious that it was moving into an area that was in
the purview of states' rights.
So Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with this. I believe that
the facts of the hearing today will prove that banning legal
sports betting in Nevada will do nothing but make illegal
sports betting in this country proliferate, and will do nothing
to solve the problem of sports betting on college campuses
across America. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ensign. And for the
record, the facts are that there was no apprehension or
revelation of the ASU basketball scandal until the arrest of an
individual on an unrelated charge, who then, in order to get a
reduced sentence on an unrelated charge, ratted out or informed
the authorities about the scandal. There was no uncovering of
this scandal at ASU by any gaming authority in the State of
Nevada.
Senator Brownback.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding the hearing. It's a bit of an uncomfortable spot
for me to be in, next to my very good friend in the Senate,
John Ensign, who is a very effective advocate for the other
side, but this is one of only a couple of issues that I can
think of that I disagree with Senator Ensign on.
I have a full statement that I'd like to have submitted
into the record, Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind, and I
would renew my request to the Nevada delegation, much of which
is here today, and I appreciate your appearance, to give states
the option to opt out of your Sports book.
Senator Ensign. Not much, we're all here.
Senator Brownback. Very good, then let me plead to all of
you, to allow the University of Kansas, Kansas State
University, if you will set up a mechanism where a state can
get off of your Sports book in your state, let us do it. Let us
free.
And then allow the states to move forward and say OK,
Arizona State wants off the book, and put forward a procedure
to let us off of your book so our coaches and our institutions
can say, you know, we don't want to be on those things, and we
need to be able to get off of it, instead of forcing them to be
able to deal with the problems that you create by causing and
having a market, a Sports book in Nevada.
I pleaded with you last year to allow us that option to get
our schools out. It was turned away, it was turned away by the
Nevada gambling commission or gaming board. Please let us free.
In honesty, I don't think you make that much money off of
Kansas institutions, KU and K State, and the other institutions
in the state. We're not a whole lot of money to you. Let us
free. Please let us do that.
I support what the Chairman has put forward in his
statement. This is an overall problem that we have in this
country. The legislation that's been put forward is supported
by all of the college coaches in the institutions probably
except those in Nevada. It's supported by all the college
presidents perhaps expect those in Nevada. They are asking and
requesting that we change this and that we create a national
system where you cannot have this betting take place on amateur
sports in the United States. We should do it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing and I look
forward to the question and comment session.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback,
U.S. Senator from Kansas
I am pleased that the Committee will once again consider and
approve the Amateur Sports Integrity Act.
My friends, during today's session we will discuss the merits of
legislation, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act, that, quite frankly, is
a no brainer. S. 718 will ban the continued unseemly practice of legal
wagering on high school, college, and amateur sports at the expense of
the achievements of our nation's student athletes. This bill closes the
loophole in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992
that allows legal sports betting in Nevada to negatively impact student
athletics in other States.
My continuing efforts on this issue are in direct response to the
recommendation made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission
(NGISC), which in 1999 concluded a 2-year study on the impact of
legalized gambling in our country. The Commission's recommendation
called for a complete ban on all legalized gambling on amateur sports.
This legislation will serve notice that betting on college games or
amateur athletics is simply inappropriate. We can not continue to allow
bets to be placed on our student athletes.
In addition, not only is legal sports gambling inappropriate, but
it can result in significant social costs. The Commission in its report
recognized the potential harm of legalized sports gambling, which ``can
serve as a gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and can devastate
individuals and careers.'' Citing a study by the National Research
Council, the NGISC identified financial, physical, and emotional
problems, including divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse and
neglect as some of the costs S. 718 now seeks to prevent.
The Commission's recognition of sports gambling as a gateway
behavior leading to these problems is especially troubling considering
the heightened affect gambling has on our nation's young people.
According to the NGISC, ``individuals who begin gambling at an early
age run a much higher lifetime risk of developing a gambling problem.''
In addition, ``[a]dolescent gamblers are more likely than adults to
develop problem and pathological gambling.'' We must also address the
fact that legal gambling has a real and telling impact on student
athletes, and appears to facilitate illegal gambling activity. If there
are any doubts, just ask Kevin Pendergast who orchestrated the
basketball point-shaving scandal at Northwestern. He has stated that he
never would have been able to pull off his scheme if it weren't for the
ability to lay bets with the Las Vegas sports books.
The frequency of point shaving scandals over the last decade, and
the tie-in to the Vegas sports books of the episode at Northwestern,
and another scandal at Arizona State University, is a clear indication
that legal gambling on college sports stretches beyond Nevada,
impacting the integrity of other State sporting events. I categorically
reject the notion that the integrity of Kansas college athletics should
be jeopardized so the casinos in Nevada can rake in some additional
gambling revenues. Until this past January, Nevada sports books were
prohibited from taking bets on Nevada's own college teams. I think this
prohibition speaks volumes about concerns we should have with the
impact of betting on our college sporting efforts. While the repeal of
this rule in Nevada is a reaction to the fact that it just happened to
catch the attention of Members of this Committee, it cannot retract the
message the rule has already delivered: even Nevada realizes that legal
sports gambling has a corruptive impact on college sports.
This bill is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, which represents more than 1000 colleges and universities
nationwide. In addition, numerous coaches among the college ranks
support this effort, and I can think of no better advocate than the
coaches who spend time day in and day out with the athletes and prized
sporting institutions negatively affected by legal sports gambling.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 718.
Senator Ensign. Mr. Chairman, may I have a point of
personal privilege?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Ensign. You responded to what I had said and
actually this was on the Fox sports show, and Agent Noble,
Special Agent Noble, there's a quote, admits that the FBI may
have never known about the scam, referring to the Arizona
state, if bookies didn't blow the whistle. Agent Noble actually
said this quote.
``They have a pretty good idea on any particular game how
much money should be bet. When unusual amounts of money are
bet, it causes them to be alerted or alarmed, and in that
particular case, that's how we became aware of it.''
The Chairman. That's not how they found out though. So your
point has no relevance to my response, which is that the Nevada
gaming commission or anyone else did not uncover nor bring any
charges against anything to do with that scandal until the
arrest of a confederate.
Senator Ensign. But their information helped.
The Chairman. You've had your point of personal privilege,
Senator Ensign. Now I'd like to ask my colleagues to be brief.
We have two additional panels to follow you, so I urge you to
be brief in your comments on this issue since they are pretty
well-known, and I ask for 3 minute statements.
Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have always admired your going into areas where others
don't go, and I've followed you most every time. But I have to
say here that I would ask that you step back a little bit and
look at the facts.
For example, Mr. Chairman, the National Gambling Impact
Study Commission, as you know from the evidence, there was very
little testimony taken but what was taken was very, very
important. For example, the commission found that the best
evidence came from one of the NCAA's own witnesses, a man by
the name of Bill Saum.
Now here's what the NCAA's Bill Saum had to say when he
testified before the Impact Study Commission, and I quote.
Commissioner James Dobson asked this question.
``Mr. Saum, you address most of your comments to illegal
sports gambling. You didn't have much to say about legalized
gambling on sporting activities. Would you like to comment on
that?''
Here is Saum's response.
``Certainly we would be adamantly opposed to any further
legalization across the United States. If we're going to have
sports wagering, let's keep it in Nevada and nowhere else.
Let's not allow individuals to wager from outside State lines.
We also have a rule that our athletes, our coaches and
everyone involved in athletics including those of us at the
national level may not wager legally. So we're opposed to it.
But we also recognize that society, or a segment of society
believes that this is something that should be permissible, so
I don't think you will see the NCAA start a campaign to remove
sports wagering from the State of Nevada.''
Mr. Chairman, I think this says it all. The NCAA is wrong
in their attempt to do this. This is a Congress that has fallen
in the line of the last 8 or 10 Congresses to have as one of
its guiding principles of the recognization of states' rights.
The State of Nevada is a sovereign state. They have made this
decision. Out of the 100 percent of gambling that takes place
on college athletics, about one and a half percent of it takes
place in Nevada and is done legally.
In your effort to stop something that you think is wrong,
you're going after the wrong entity. Ninety-eight and a half
percent of the gambling that takes place, I repeat, is done
illegally, and it's not all done on college campuses. It's done
on service stations, at pool halls and other places, where I
think that that's where we need to take a look.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that where you're going is wrong,
and for me to say this to John McCain is hard, but I just think
that you have not had the opportunity to fully understand this.
I appreciate--you know, it would have been easy for you to just
report this to the Senate floor, but I appreciate your holding
hearings. I think the hearings today will be revealing to you.
We have a Hall of Fame coach, we have others who are here
to talk about why this is going to, as Senator Ensign said,
drive this underground. There is in America something called
organized crime, and they are around today licking their lips
with the idea that John McCain, who is a person who is known
for his principle, is trying to drive out a little bit of legal
gambling in Nevada, because it just makes their opportunities
more sure.
So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would take a real
close look at what you're doing. Without your strong voice,
with all due respect to my friend Sam Brownback, who is an
outstanding member of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, without your support, this is dead. The only reason
this has gotten as far as it has is because John McCain is
supporting it, and I think John McCain is wrong.
The Chairman. I thank you, Senator Reid.
Senator Brownback. I certainly thank you too. Your
confidence in my abilities here was highly appreciated.
Senator Reid. Well, I say, Sam, this is meant in no way to
denigrate you, and I said you've done a great job. But John
McCain is who he is, and I can't take that away from him.
Senator Brownback. I thank you, Senator Reid. We've known
and appreciated each other and been dear friends now for 18
years and I appreciate it, and this too shall pass in one way
or the other.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, may I be excused? The Senate is
opening at 10 o'clock.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Reid. Thank you
for your advocacy.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, Mr. Reid,
could you please ask the Nevada gaming board to let my State
free on this? I mean, maybe I'm not a good national advocate,
but would you ask them?
The Chairman. I think the Senator from Kansas has made his
point.
Senator Brownback. Would you ask them for me?
Senator Reid. Sam, I think your question is silly and I'm
not going to answer it.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you very much, Harry.
I'd like to remind members of the audience that we don't
tolerate that kind of display in the hearing room and we will
not accept any further expressions of either appreciation or
condemnation.
Congresswoman Berkley, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA
Ms. Berkley. Thank you. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to discuss S. 718 and share with you my knowledge
and very serious concerns.
I am the only Member of the House with gaming industry
experience. Having worked in the industry for many years I've
seen firsthand the positive role gaming plays in the Las Vegas
community.
Having devoted 8 years of my life to higher education as an
elected member of the Nevada University Board of Regents, I
want to see illegal gambling on campuses eliminated. S. 718 is
not the answer. Since coming to Congress, I've been astounded
by the misconceptions about Nevada's gaming industry. The NCAA
supporters of their legislation have been touting a number of
misconceptions that must be cleared up.
A February 22nd Dear Colleague letter stated that you can
place bets on high school and Olympic sports in Nevada casinos.
This is not true. The casinos in my district operate under
strict State and local regulations that prohibit these types of
wagers.
That same letter insinuated that college games are scripted
in the back rooms of legal gambling parlors. This accusation
could not be further from the truth. There has never, never
been an incident where a legal Nevada sports book has
participated in scripting a game of any sort.
Despite what the NCAA would have you believe, ending legal
sports betting in Nevada will not stop the publications of
betting lines. The Newspaper Association of America has stated
clearly that ending wagering in Las Vegas will not stop its
members from providing this information for interested readers.
Anyone with a computer can get the point spreads for any
game by logging onto hundreds of different offshore Web sites.
This magazine that I'd like to present to you, Mr. Chairman
features dozens of advertisements for online casinos. All 64
schools in this year's NCAA tournament had Internet access on
campus, even in the dormitories, to Internet gambling. And my
son goes to the U of A in Tucson, and he told me of what was
going on in the college campuses.
I believe in local and State control. I believe in stiff
penalties for any violation and I am adamantly in favor of a
strong, effective bill to combat illegal sports betting. S. 718
is not that bill. It takes an upside-down position that the
nation's $380 billion a year illegal sports gambling problem
will go away if Congress outlaws legal wagering in Nevada, a
regulated business that generates far less than 1 percent of
the bets on college sports.
The sponsors of this legislation failed to answer the
threshold question of how closing legal sports books in one
State will do anything about the illegal wagering by college
students and others in the other 49 states.
The illegal gambling taking place in and around our
nation's college campuses already violates numerous Federal,
state, and local laws. Any college student placing bets on a
campus is already committing a crime, and extremely unlikely to
stop placing bets on sports regardless of the outcome of this
legislation.
There is not a single shred of evidence that S. 718 will
have any effect on the illegal gambling currently taking place
in our country. The NCAA argues that closing the legal sports
books in Nevada will send a message to young people that
gambling is illegal. With all due respect, I sincerely doubt
whether young people care whether gambling is legal or not in
Nevada, much less that Congress has acted.
The NCAA and its member institutions already have the power
to crack down on illegal betting taking place on campuses, they
just haven't done it. The NCAA has done virtually nothing to
stem the tide of illegal betting on college campuses, even
though it just signed a $6 billion contract to broadcast
collegiate games.
The NCAA has chosen to make Nevada its scapegoat rather
than mandate that their member institutions take their share of
the NCAA profits and use it to develop programs to fight
illegal college gambling. Ask the coaches who testify today if
they are willing to give up their multimillion dollar Nike
contracts, or if they are willing to make the same salary that
the university presidents who hired them make, and use the
extra income to create programs on their own campuses to fight
illegal gambling.
If the NCAA and Congress are really serious about fighting
illegal amateur sports gambling, then let's get serious. I
challenge the NCAA to take its multibillion dollar revenue, all
generated by unpaid student athletes and not just a tiny
fraction, and dedicate it to fighting illegal gambling through
aggressive enforcement and prevention programs.
We need a serious, real-world approach to this problem.
Before our government tramples on legitimate states' rights,
does irreparable damage to my state's budget, throws honest,
hard working people out of their jobs and sets a dangerous
precedent of Federal intrusion in the legal affairs of
individual states, I ask you to abandon S. 718 and give full
consideration to the legislation introduced by Senator Ensign
and Senator Reid.
The National Collegiate and Amateur Protection Act of 2001
is the same legislation introduced in the House by Congressman
Gibbons and me. Our bill boosts law enforcement's efforts to
crack down on illegal betting operations, hitting hard at the
illegal book making rings.
Our bill would investigate the scope and uncover the causes
of illegal campus betting. NCAA does none of those things. Our
bill calls on the NCAA colleges and universities to step up
gambling prevention programs on campuses. The NCAA-proposed
bill takes no responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, Nevada is not the problem. If you put the
entire State out of work, you would not even touch the problem
of illegal gambling unless to exacerbate it. The only way to
deal with illegal sports gambling in the NCAA is head on.
I challenge my colleagues to put an end to this destructive
NCAA bill and give serious consideration to a bill that attacks
illegal betting on our campuses.
Thank you very much for allowing me to go over, and if I
could have two more seconds, to Senator Brownback, who I think
is an outstanding Senator, comparable to Senator McCain, as a
former university regent who did dedicate 8 years of her life
and has much dealings with the NCAA, I had the opportunity to
meet many college presidents and athletic directors throughout
my 8-year tenure. I contacted several of them.
Not one that I contacted thought that S. 718 would get to
the problem. But to be perfectly candid, when I asked them to
come and testify with me, not one of them would, for fear of
retribution by the NCAA. So when we say that all of the
campuses and all of the coaches are opposed to sports betting
in Nevada, I would beg to differ and I've spoken to more than a
dozen of them. Not one of them, not one of them would come and
testify for fear that their program would be in jeopardy. Thank
you very much for your kind attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shelley Berkley,
U.S. Representative from Nevada
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss S. 718 and share with you
my knowledge and very serious concerns about this issue. I am the only
Member of the House with gaming industry experience. Having worked in
the industry for many years, I have seen first-hand the positive role
gaming plays the Las Vegas community. Having devoted 8 years of my life
to higher education as an elected member of the Nevada University Board
of Regents, I want to see illegal gambling on campuses eliminated. S.
718 is not the answer.
Since coming to Congress, I have been astounded by the
misconceptions about Nevada's gaming industry. The NCAA and supporters
of their legislation have been touting a number of misconceptions that
must be cleared up.
A February 22, Dear Colleague letter stated that you can place bets
on high school and Olympic sports in Nevada casinos. This is not true.
The casinos in my district operate under strict State and local
regulations that prohibit these types of wagers.
That same letter insinuated that college games may be ``scripted in
the back rooms of the legal gambling parlors.'' This accusation could
not be further from the truth. There has never been an incident where a
legal Nevada sports book has participated in ``scripting'' a game of
any sort.
Despite what the NCAA would have you believe, ending legal sports
betting in Nevada will not stop the publications of betting lines. The
Newspaper Association of America has stated clearly that ending
wagering in Las Vegas will not stop its members from providing this
information to interested readers.
Anyone with a computer can get point spreads for any game by
logging on to hundreds of different offshore websites. This magazine
previewing the college football season features dozens of
advertisements for on-line casinos. All 64 schools in this year's NCAA
tournament had internet access on campus, even in the dorms, to
internet gambling.
I believe in local and State control. I believe in stiff penalties
for any violation, and I am adamantly in favor of a strong, effective
bill to combat illegal sports betting.
S. 718 is not that bill.
S. 718 takes the upside-down position that the Nation's $380
billion-a-year illegal sports gambling problem will go away if Congress
outlaws legal wagering in Nevada, a regulated business that generates
far less than 1 percent of the bets on college sports.
The sponsors of this legislation fail to answer the threshold
question of how closing legal sports books in one State will do
anything about illegal wagering by college students and others in the
other 49 States.
The illegal gambling taking place in and around our Nation's
college campuses already violates numerous Federal, State, and local
laws. Any college student placing bets on campus is already committing
a crime and extremely unlikely to stop placing bets on sports
regardless of the outcome of this legislation. There is not a single
shred of evidence that S. 718 will have any effect on the illegal
gambling currently taking place.
The NCAA argues that closing the legal sports books in Nevada will
send a ``message'' to young people that gambling is illegal. With all
due respect, I sincerely doubt that young people care whether gambling
is legal in Nevada, much less that Congress has acted.
The NCAA and its member institutions already have the power to
crack down on illegal betting taking place on campuses--they just
haven't done it.
The NCAA has done virtually nothing to stem the tide of illegal
betting on college campuses, even though it just signed a $6 billion
contract to broadcast college games. The NCAA has chosen to make Nevada
its scapegoat rather than mandate that their member institutions take
their share of NCAA profits and use it to develop programs to fight
illegal college gambling.
Ask the coaches who testify today if they are willing to give up
their multi-million dollar Nike contracts, or if they are willing to
make the same salary as the university president who hired them and use
that extra income to create programs on their own campuses to fight
illegal gambling.
If the NCAA and Congress are really serious about fighting illegal
amateur sports gambling, then let's get serious. I challenge the NCAA
to take its multi-billion dollar revenue, all generated by unpaid
student-athletes, and not just a tiny fraction, and dedicate it to
fighting illegal gambling, through aggressive enforcement and
prevention programs.
We need a serious, real-world approach to this problem.
Before our government tramples on legitimate States' rights, does
irreparable damage to my State's budget, throws honest, hardworking
people out of their jobs and sets a dangerous precedent of Federal
intrusion in the legal affairs of individual States, I ask you to
abandon S. 718, and give full consideration to the legislation
introduced by Senator Ensign and Senator Reid, the National Collegiate
and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001, which is the same as
legislation introduced by Congressman Gibbons and I in the House.
Our bill boosts law enforcement's efforts to crack down on illegal
betting operations, hitting hard at the illegal bookmaking rings. The
NCAA bill does absolutely nothing to help law enforcement.
Our bill would investigate the scope, and uncover the causes, of
illegal campus betting. The NCAA bill does nothing. No studies, no
investigations, no educational programs--nothing.
Our bill calls on the NCAA, colleges and universities to step up
gambling prevention programs on campuses. The NCAA-proposed bill takes
no responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, Nevada is not the problem.
If you put the entire State out of work, you would not even touch
the problem of illegal gambling, unless to exacerbate it. The only way
to deal with illegal sports gambling in the NCAA is head-on. I
challenge my colleagues to put an end to this destructive NCAA bill,
and give serious consideration to a bill that attacks illegal betting
on our campuses.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Berkley,
and thank you for your passionate advocacy.
Coach Osborne.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEBRASKA
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Chairman McCain and members of the
Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you
about something that I've had some knowledge of over 36 years
of coaching, and my feeling is that gambling is very bad for
intercollegiate athletics, and for several reasons, actually
four that I'm going to enumerate.
First of all, it's very bad for the game, because when
gambling is involved, the emphasis very quickly goes from that
of excellence, competition and skill, to point spreads and
money.
And this certainly affects the atmosphere in which the game
is conducted. Sportsmanship, respect for opponents is
diminished, and certainly the integrity of the game is often
compromised. In the nineties, we had four major point shaving
scandals in NCAA athletics, and each time one of those
occurred, there was always greater doubt in the mind of the
fans as to the integrity of other contests.
A recent study by the University of Michigan indicated that
roughly one out of 20 male college athletes were involved in
different activities, whether it be associations, gambling,
whatever, that in some way cast aspersions on the game. And so
it's a fairly widespread problem.
And usually if you look into those allegations and point
shaving scandals, you'll find that the reason they were
uncovered was not because of a shift in the point spread or the
odds. It was because somebody talked, because somebody got in
trouble. And so I would like to make sure that people really
investigate those as to why it happened.
Second, I think the gambling industry has been very bad for
the fans because the point spread, which is a very arbitrary
number fixed by someone out there who hasn't probably even seen
the team play, who knows nothing about the health of the
quarterback and so on, or very little, shapes the expectations
of the fans.
And so if a team is a 28-point favorite, and they come into
the game and half time and they are tied, probably going to get
booed. And if you're a 28-point underdog and you only lose by
7, sometimes your fans feel pretty good about you. I remember
one case where we played a team for the national championship.
They were a 17-point favorite, and in that particular case,
they won by two points, first national championship that team
had ever won in the history of the school.
And I talked to some of their fans an hour after the game,
and they were upset and they were unhappy. They won the first
national championship they had ever won, but they only won by
two points and that wasn't what they expected and that
expectation was shaped primarily by the point spread.
The third thing I'd mention that I think is very important
is that gambling is tough for the coaches, because when you are
involved with that particular situation, you have to win twice.
You have to win on the score board, and then many people expect
you to beat the point spread. We had a few times when we were
35-point favorites, and that meant at kickoff, we were down 35
in the minds of a great number of our fans and the people who
watched the game.
If it happened to be snowing or the wind was blowing 40
miles an hour, if your quarterback went down in the first
period of the game, you probably weren't going to score 35
points against your scout team, but you were still expected to
get it done. And if you didn't get it done, it was very
unpopular.
And so for the first few years of my coaching career, I
read somewhere that Woody Hayes, the coach at Ohio State, never
had an unlisted number. And so I thought, well, if it's good
enough for Woody Hayes, it's good enough for me. And so I
didn't have an unlisted number, and after a few dozen phone
calls in the middle of the night, many of them fairly obscene
and some of them affecting my family, I decided I better get at
least an unpublished number.
And most of those phone calls, not all, but most of them,
if you talked to the guy long enough, you'd find out that at
the bottom of his animosity was not the fact that we lost the
game, it was the fact that he lost a bet. And he would blame
me.
And so often they would say you cost me $500, you cost me
$1,000, and I would say, well, how did I do that. They would
say, well, I lost a bet. So some of those things happened. I
had a few death threats, had a mailbox blown up, and my family
at some times was subjected to some criticism. And I existed in
a very good, generally healthy environment, as far as college
athletics were concerned, and our fans were very good for the
most part.
But still, those things did happen, and usually, again, if
you had any way to get at the source, you'd find that
oftentimes a lost bet really fueled the fire.
And then last I'd mention that gambling is bad for the
players. As has been mentioned previously and very accurately,
there is a huge gambling problem on college campuses, and
there's no question that this bill alone is not going to solve
the problem. I agree totally with that.
But on the other hand, I think we have to look at the fact
that players, athletes live in an environment where gambling is
very, very prevalent. There's probably a bookie in most dorms
and most fraternities on college campuses. Gambling over the
Internet is very easy. And so there's that environment.
If you think that you know as a player a little bit better
what the odds ought to be, you're going to play a game and
you're favored by seven and the team is practicing well and
everything is in sync and you think maybe you're going to win
by 14 or 17, you place a bet.
You know, it's kind of harmless, you're betting on your own
team. And then you lose a bit, and you lose a little bit more,
and pretty soon you're in debt and you're to the point where
you're in over your head. And then somebody suggests, well, you
know, you don't have to lose the game, but just drop a pass, or
miss a free throw. And that's where it all starts, and that's
where most of these point shaving allegations have resulted.
I remember one time we had a guy come in who was a very
famous quarterback, professional quarterback and got involved
in gambling. We had him talk to our team because he was
supposedly recovered. And he made a very graphic presentation
of the evils of gambling, and strangely enough, about a year
later, that same guy was back in prison for the same thing. He
couldn't shake it.
So it really does affect our players, it affects the
integrity of the game, and I might just last say this. I see no
socially redeeming value to gambling on intercollegiate sports.
I see nothing, nobody in a legitimate way is benefiting in
terms of the fans, the players, the game itself, and the
coaches.
And so, I guess in my final statement, I would say this.
Would we say that counterfeiting should be legal in one State
and not in 49 others, particularly if there may be some
interconnection? And my feeling is, in terms of consistency, in
terms of consistent message, it's important that you make a
uniform statement to the public, and then you go after all
forms of gambling that are illegal, but you first have to make
that statement to be consistent in Congress.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osborne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Osborne,
U.S. Representative from Nebraska
Thank you, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, and Members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today
about something that is near and dear to me--the effects of legal
gambling on college sports.
In my 36 years as a coach of the University of Nebraska football
team, I witnessed first-hand the negative impact gambling can have on
college athletics. The following observations are based upon some of
the experiences and insights gained in coaching.
(A) Organized gambling is bad for the game. The emphasis goes from
that of appreciation for excellence and skill to point spreads and
monetary gain. The best interests of athletic competition are served in
an atmosphere that is conducive to good sportsmanship and respect for
opponents. Gambling creates an environment antithetical to wholesome
competition and sometimes creates doubt as to the integrity of the
contest.
(B) Organized gambling often has a negative impact on the fans. The
point spread is an arbitrary number that supposedly reflects the true
strength of competing teams. Sometimes the point spread is based on
inaccurate or incomplete information. Point spreads are published in
nearly every newspaper and are mentioned on television and radio
newscasts to the degree where fans' expectations are largely shaped by
information from the gambling industry. If a team is favored by 28
points and wins by 3, in the minds of many fans the win is really a
loss. If, on the other hand, a team is a 21-point underdog and only
loses by 7 points, the loss is viewed in a more favorable light. I
recall talking to some fans whose team had just won the first national
championship in school history, yet, rather than being excited they
were disappointed because their team, a 17-point favorite, had won by
only 2 points. Fans often have a difficult time seeing the athletic
contest for what it was meant to be, that of a contest of skill,
intelligence and endurance, because they get lost in the economics of
gambling.
(C) Organized gambling is bad for coaches. Many times the coach is
expected to win twice--once on the scoreboard and once by beating the
point spread. A coach in charge of a team listed as a 35-point favorite
starts the game behind 35-0 in the minds of the gambling community,
which includes a high percentage of fans. If the coach's team is
heavily favored and is tied at halftime, there is a good chance that
the team and the coach will be booed at halftime. Most of the truly
ugly incidents that I encountered in my coaching profession were
related to gambling. I have had a mailbox blown up, a few death
threats, obscene phone calls in the middle of the night, and have heard
the very common complaint that ``You cost me x amount of dollars.''
Since we did not beat the point spread, the person who lost the bet
held the coach personally accountable for the gambling loss. Many times
it is highly unpopular with fans to substitute second- and third-team
players once the outcome of the contest has been decided if the point
spread has not been beaten. The second- and third-team players need the
experience and greatly appreciate the opportunity to play, yet their
appearance in the game is not greeted with enthusiasm if it might
jeopardize beating the point spread. Similarly, not scoring a late
touchdown or basket by letting the clock run out is viewed with great
displeasure if there are point spread implications.
(D) Organized gambling is bad for the players. There is a huge
amount of gambling on college campuses. This activity is heavily
influenced by point spreads. Very few athletic contests are viewed as
even matches; therefore, point spreads are established to provide
bookies with a basis for gambling odds. Players sometime accumulate
gambling debts, and, when a debt grows to a certain magnitude,
pressures are put upon the player to alter his/her play in the game to
affect the point spread. A great many of the point shaving incidents
that have hurt college athletics so badly and have left the athletes in
dire straights, have been prompted by gambling debts that have mounted
to the point where the athlete sees no other way to pay for the debt.
Gambling intensifies pressure on athletes. The player shooting a
free throw with only 2 seconds left in a game in which his team has
been favored by 10 points and is leading by 9 is unnecessarily
pressured. The game is over as far as the win or loss column, yet
making the free throw can result in millions of dollars changing hands.
Gambling on intercollegiate athletics is illegal everywhere but Las
Vegas. It is in the best interests of everyone involved in
intercollegiate athletics to have gambling banned everywhere in the
United States.
Thank you again, Chairman McCain and Members of the Committee for
allowing me to speak to you today about this very important issue. It
is seldom I get to speak on an issue here in Congress in which I have
so many years of experience dealing first-hand with the issue and I
appreciate the opportunity to do so today.
The Chairman. Thank you, coach.
Do you know a single college coach who is not in support of
this bill and concerned about this issue?
Mr. Osborne. I really don't, Senator, and maybe the former
statement is true, I don't know. Let me say this. I'm not here
on behalf of the NCAA.
Nobody from the NCAA approached me, talked to me. The only
person that talked to me was Lindsey Graham, that's why I'm
here. I'm not a big fan of the NCAA at times. I think they do a
very necessary service, but I really would doubt that I know
anybody in intercollegiate athletics who would say that
gambling is something that they want to have legalized.
The Chairman. Thank you. Congressman Gibbons, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee, and I do want to thank you for the privilege of
being here before you with a familiar recurring theme, and I
would ask unanimous consent that my statement be admitted to
the record and I'll try to summarize and be as brief as
possible.
The Chairman. Without objection, and again I want to say
that you are always welcome here. The Nevada delegation is
always welcome before this Committee.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, and Chairman, I hope you'll
understand that I'm here to protect not only my State but the
families who live and work in the State as well. And this issue
is going to affect them. And as the senior congressman from the
State of Nevada, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here and
discuss this issue.
Let me take just a brief moment to address my colleague,
Coach Osborn's statement about outlawing money or whatever to
stop counterfeiting.
Well, you could also say the same thing, that you could
outlaw pharmacies in this Nation if you thought that was going
to outlaw or prevent illegal drug use.
Like all of you, I agree that firmly maintaining the
integrity of college athletics is an important goal, but
there's absolutely no evidence that doing this to the State of
Nevada with college gaming is going to have one iota of import
or effect on our nation's illegal college campus wagering.
Nevada legal wagering makes up only about one to 3 percent of
all sports bets nationwide, and no one, may I say, under the
age of 21, to add what Congressman Ensign said, is allowed to
gamble in the State of Nevada. And the other 97 to 99 percent
of all college betting occurs illegally and under existing
Federal and State laws.
So it isn't Nevada, it is the prevalent illegal gaming that
is the key problem here. Banning legal college sports betting
in Nevada will only eliminate, as you've heard many times, one
tool used by law enforcement to detect illegal betting pat
patterns leading to the illegal activity.
Law enforcement officials, including former FBI officials
who currently--one of whom is a current member of the Nevada
gaming control board--have stated that the ban, as proposed
entitled to as section 718, would not make a dent in illegal
gaming. So what would the effects and indeed unfortunate
consequences of this misguided legislation be? Well, first of
all, I believe, and many have also believed, including some
writers throughout this country, that it would be the illegal
bookie's dream come true to have Nevada and that tool taken
away from any enforcement opportunity that they may have.
That's an unintended consequence which I don't believe was
ever intended when this bill was thought out or proposed.
Eliminating that would not in any way assist with law
enforcement efforts of our current effort to limit sports
gaming, even if the NCAA director of agent and gaming
activities, as he has stated before on television, that when it
comes to law enforcement, and I quote, ``the NCAA has a good
relationship with the sports books in Nevada.''
Mr. Chairman, I see that the time is running short, but it
is my hope that this Committee will think seriously and will
not miss an opportunity to address the real problem--not the
perceived problem--but the real problem of illegal sports
betting. And rather than focus on Nevada's highly regulated
industry, in this what many have said a misguided attempt to
remedy societal problems of illegal sports wagering on our
college campuses, and instead I would hope that you would
encourage you and your other members to consider a common sense
approach that was sponsored by Senator Ensign, Senator Reid,
Senator Hatch and others, and in the House by Congresswoman
Berkley and myself, and a bipartisan group of over 80 other
congressman to address the issue of illegal gaming, and I want
to thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you
on this important issue, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Gibbons,
U.S. Representative from Nevada
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of Nevada's
hardworking families, I would like to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to express my strong opposition to S. 718, the Amateur
Sports Integrity Act.
As the senior Congressman from the State of Nevada, where sports
wagering is legal, it is my pleasure to share my thoughts on this
issue. Like all of you, I firmly agree that maintaining the integrity
of college athletics is an important goal.
However, there is absolutely no plausible evidence to suggest that
the legal betting in Nevada is in any way responsible for the illegal
sports wagering occurring mostly on our Nation's college campuses.
Legal wagering on sports in Nevada makes up only 1 to 3 percent of all
sports bets nationwide. (And no one under the age of 21 is allowed to
gamble in Nevada). The other 97 to 99 percent occurs illegally under
existing Federal and State laws.
By banning legal college sports betting in Nevada, you will
actually eliminate an essential tool used by law enforcement to detect
unusual betting patterns leading to illegal activity, such as the point
shaving scandal involving some Arizona State University basketball
players in 1994.
Consequently, law enforcement experts, including a former FBI
official who currently is a member of the Nevada Gaming Control Board,
have stated that a ban, as proposed in S. 718, would not make a dent in
illegal gambling.
So, what would be the effects and indeed unfortunate consequences
of this misguided legislation?
First, S. 718 would create an unfortunate and undue economic burden
on thousands of Nevada's families, whose livelihoods depend on the
upstanding reputation of the casino-entertainment industry.
Second, Nevada's gaming industry is the largest taxpayer in our
State. Therefore, a significant amount of tax revenue for schools and
social services would be lost if S. 718 becomes law.
Third, S. 718 is an illegal bookie's dream! It would not, in any
way, assist with the enforcement of our current laws limiting sports
gambling. Even the NCAA Director of Agent and Gambling Activities has
stated on national television that when it comes to law enforcement,
the NCAA has ``had a good relationship with the sports books in
(Nevada).''
We need to support effective law enforcement measures which reduce
the pervasiveness of illegal sports betting on and off of our college
campuses. Perhaps the NCAA should look in the mirror and reconsider the
numerous ``Final Four'' sweepstakes which the NCAA and its corporate
sponsors promote during ``March Madness.''
It is my hope that this Committee will not miss the opportunity to
address the real problems of illegal sports betting, rather than
focusing on Nevada's highly regulated industry, in a misguided attempt
to remedy the societal problem of illegal sports wagering on college
campuses. Instead, I encourage you to consider the commonsense approach
sponsored by Senators Ensign, Reid, Hatch and others. In the House, I
have sponsored companion legislation that is co-sponsored by a bi-
partisan group of over 80 Members.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this
important issue, and I welcome your questions or comments.
The Chairman. Thank you you very much, Congressman Gibbons.
Congressman Roemer, welcome.
Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Senator. I'd ask unanimous consent
to revise and extend my remarks.
The Chairman. Without objection.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM ROEMER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA
Mr. Roemer. Thank you very much. First of all, Senator, I
would say that I would agree with Senator Reid that while
you're not perfect, you sure are on this issue.
And we sure appreciate your leadership on this. Your
leadership and your hard work on this following up on your
campaign finance reform bill, we think that that will provide a
lot of motivation and movement forward on the House side as
well too. So thank you for that.
It's nice to see my friend, Mr. Ensign, from the House days
here in this Committee. Congratulations on your election.
I'd only make three points, Senator McCain. One would be,
in my State of Indiana, where we have a rich Indiana tradition
of Hoosier basketball, we have Larry Byrd, tiny Milan High
School that was the motivation for the Hoosiers movie, and now
we have Ruth Riley, who sank two free throws with 5.8 seconds
left in the national championship game to deliver the
championship to the University of Notre Dame.
That was the purity, the integrity, the magic of college
basketball coming forward. Nobody doubted the outcome. As Coach
Osborne said, when you start doubting the outcome of college
basketball, we turn it into Worldwide Wrestling Federation,
scripted outcomes, predictable outcomes, and not the magic and
uncertainty and the beauty of college sports.
We have to maintain that, and with the number of scandals
that have taken place in the last decade, we need to address
that and do something about it.
The second point is, I remember in addition to the great
testimony that we heard from Coach Williams and Coach Osborne
here today, I remember last year when I did a press conference
with Coach Daugherty who was the Notre Dame basketball coach,
now the coach of the University of North Carolina. And he said
back in 1983 when he played ball with Michael Jordan, and he
would be getting ready to play a game and he would be on campus
somewhere and somebody would walk up to him and say, Matt, how
are you feeling today, how's the ankle, I heard you sprained
it, are you going to tape it, are you going to play tonight?
And then they would ask about Michael Jordan's health, and
Matt looked at everybody at the press conference and he said,
you know, after a while I figured out they weren't asking about
me because they cared about me, they were asking about me
because they wanted to bet on me. And we need to make sure that
doesn't happen.
Coming to the third point, I think there's unanimity in
this room that there's a problem with illegal gambling. Let's
get after it. Let's take that on, too. Let's not ignore that.
And I don't think we are with our legislation that you've
sponsored on this side and that Lindsey and I and Coach Osborne
and Ron Kind have sponsored on the House side.
We're going to have a meeting I think next week with
Attorney General Ashcroft and talk about ways to get at the
illegal betting. But how do you get at the illegal betting if
you have government-sanctioned legal betting on this stuff? And
the kids in their dorm room say gee, we can do it here, why is
it illegal?
So I think the first step is to go after this, and then
let's work together to go after the illegal betting. Thank you
again for the time in this Committee and we appreciate the
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roemer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Roemer,
U.S. Representative from Indiana
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before your Committee today in support of legislation to
prohibit legal betting on college athletics. I thank you for the
leadership which you, Sen. Brownback and others have provided on this
issue.
Over the years, college sports have become an integral part of our
American culture. More people than ever play and watch college sports.
They do so because college sports are exciting and unpredictable, and
most of all, because they are real. The outcomes are decided by the
players and coaches, not scripted by bettors or bookies.
Today, sports betting is creating a dark cloud over college
athletics. As the sports betting business grows, so too does the
pressure on college athletes to miss a shot or drop a pass or otherwise
tip the outcome of a game. If we ever reach the point where people
begin to doubt that college games are being played fairly, or that the
outcomes are honest, it will be the end of amateur athletics as we know
it. We'll have the Worldwide Wrestling Federation instead.
There are three reasons why we should pass legislation to prohibit
legal betting on high school and college athletics:
1. It's wrong to bet on teenagers. There are many forms of
legalized gambling in America, such as State-run lotteries, but none of
them involve betting on teenagers. This legislation would not prohibit
legal betting on professional sports, which are played primarily by
adults. It would simply put the segment of amateur athletics that is
played predominantly by teenagers off-limits to legal betting. This is
the responsible thing to do.
2. Coaches, players and university presidents--the ones most
directly affected by sports betting--overwhelmingly support this
legislation. They know firsthand how difficult it is to deal with the
pressures of gambling, and the threat which sports betting poses to the
integrity of their athletic programs. We should listen to the people
who know best.
3. You can't wage an effective war against illegal gambling, or
even expect people to take this problem seriously, as long as the
government sanctions legal betting in Nevada. I agree that we need to
do a better job of enforcing existing laws against illegal gambling.
But the fact is, gambling on student-athletes, whether legal or
illegal, threatens the integrity of college sports. You can't address
one part of the problem without the other.
As former U.S. Senator and basketball star Bill Bradley stated in
his testimony before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission:
``State-sanctioned sports betting conveys the message that sports are
more about money than personal achievement and sportsmanship.''
I agree with Sen. Bradley that the values and integrity of amateur
athletics are worth fighting for, and I urge the Committee to pass this
bill. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Roemer.
Congressman Graham.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too like you.
Everybody is giving you--yes, kiss-up day. But I was there
before a lot of these other people, too. I want to let you know
that.
Sometimes it doesn't turn out as well as we'd like, but the
effort is what counts at the end of the day, isn't it? And we
gave a good effort then and we're going to give a good effort
now, and with all due respect to Senator McCain, if he wasn't
here, we could get this bill on the floor to pass. It's an idea
bigger than us.
It's an idea that makes sense, and if I was in Nevada I
would be doing what my colleagues are doing. They are
protecting their state's interest, but I would challenge
anybody in the Congress to show a record of supporting states
rights any stronger than South Carolina.
This is not about states rights. In 1992, we passed a
national piece of legislation that banned gambling in every
State except four, and now we're down to one. And South
Carolina, if you wanted to bet on college sports, you couldn't
because of what Congress did. So we took a national approach to
a problem, and we created a loophole that's consuming the whole
issue.
The exception is killing the rule that we tried to
establish, so this is not about state's rights. This is about
making a Federal law effective. And the one State engaging in
the activity is hurting the rest of us.
And Senator Brownback's question about exempting Kansas
athletic teams from being bet on in Nevada wasn't silly. I
would make that same request but it's not going to happen.
But my colleagues from Nevada are doing what they think is
best for their State and they have an approach to the issue
that I disagree with. NCAA is not the bad guy, it's not the
coaches, it's not the players. It's not the people who are
operating casinos in Las Vegas, they are not bad people. They
are doing what the law allows.
There's a bad result. And if you want to have a connection
between legal and illegal betting, you don't have to talk to
me. Talk to the FBI, I would challenge the Committee to talk to
the FBI. The legal betting industry has an unhealthy
relationship just by being in existence because it's a way,
it's an infrastructure to illegal betting.
No, it will not solve the illegal betting problems in this
country if we pass this bill, but it will help. It will take a
source of infrastructure away. And office pools are not the
problem. We're not going to go out and regulate everybody's
office pool. If you want to bet in the office, that's not the
problem, because people don't throw games or shave points
because of something that's going in someone's office.
They will when a billion bucks is on the line, and that's
what we bet legally, a billion dollars, and that is the tip of
the iceberg. But Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts. This is,
at the end of the day about money politically, and if we could
get the bill on the floor, it would be an overwhelming support
for the NCAA position.
I am just almost ashamed of Congress on this issue. When
you get every coach, every president except the few that are
afraid to say so, apparently, but the ones that I've talked to
are saying this is hurting the game, this is hurting the kids
that I'm in charge of, that I care about, it's hurting my
institution, and Congress is having a deaf ear because of
money, because of campaign machine problems, and Mr. Chairman,
the praise you deserve is taking that issue head on.
But if you're looking for an example in America where money
affects public policy in an adverse way, this is it. And no one
is doing anything illegal in Nevada, but we need to change the
rules. And the sad thing about this whole debate to me is that
before we started this bill, it was illegal to bet on a Nevada
team. That was the law of the land in Nevada. They changed that
law because I guess of some things that maybe I've said and
we're going backwards, not forward.
But I'm hopeful, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for putting it on
the agenda.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for
being here today, and I want to tell all of you that I intend
to do everything I can to make sure that all points of view are
heard on this issue. This is an important issue, and all views
need to be heard.
I appreciate your participation and we will, as always,
treat all opinions with the respect that they deserve in this
important debate, and I thank you for being here.
Senator Ensign. Mr. Chairman, could I ask coach Osborne a
question?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Ensign. Coach, I hope you don't mind if I still
call you coach.
Mr. Osborne. Call me whatever you want.
Senator Ensign. My partner in my animal hospital is from
Nebraska and I've been hearing about you for many, many years,
and I read your book Faith in the Game last year and I very
much enjoyed it.
But when you were talking about the point spreads being a
big effect, one question; first of all, I want to understand
the BCS rankings. Isn't that one of the things that they take
into account, you know, home, whether you beat the point
spreads, you know, favored by 30, all those kinds of things,
they take that into account, isn't that correct?
Mr. Osborne. Well, I would assume so, as I said, the point
spread is particularly early in the year. See, the BCS only
comes out, 6, 8 games in.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Osborne. So BCS doesn't set point spreads.
Senator Ensign. No, they don't set the point spreads but I
think they take that into account.
Mr. Osborne. Oh, I'm sure some do.
Senator Ensign. The reason for my question is, do you
realize that this bill will do nothing to affect the point
spreads? The Newspaper Association of America has already said
that they are going to continue to do the point spreads. Many
of the point spreads, in fact many of the earliest point
spreads now are done by offshore books now, not by Las Vegas.
And then they continue to publish these point spreads.
Mr. Osborne. Well, I understand that, but I do believe that
it's important that we send a message as a body that either
this is a legal activity or it's not.
Senator Ensign. No, no, and I'm not----
Mr. Osborne. And I'm not talking about point spreads. I'm
just--
Senator Ensign. I have no problem with anybody that has a
problem with gambling. That wasn't the the point I was trying
to make. The point I was trying to make is if we're going to
make some argument for a particular bill, they should be on the
merits of that particular bill.
What you are--your main arguments, I was writing down the
things you were saying, and your main arguments were about the
point spread. When you talked about the pressure of winning by
a certain percentage, all of the stories, and I can appreciate
that pressure as a coach.
The college coaches today with the huge salaries that they
make and the, you know, you don't win this year and you're out,
all that kind of a thing, big money is influencing college
sports and it isn't the purity that you talked about,
Congressman Roemer, today, and it's not just because of
gambling. It's because of the TV contracts, the Nike contracts
and all of those things.
There are huge amounts of pressure on these young athletes
that come from, you know, inner cities or poor places all over
the place. It's a huge amount of money that influences the
game.
But the point was, when you're talking about point spreads,
and that's where the pressure is coming in, the people that
were calling you on the phone at night, those people weren't
making their bets in Las Vegas. They were making their bets in
Nebraska. They were making their bets illegally. They weren't
making their bets in Nevada, and that's the whole point of this
that we're trying to get across, is that it's--I mean, I feel
bad that illegal gambling is having this kind of influence
across America, that there are kids that are being addicted on
college campuses.
Mr. Osborne. May I respond, Senator? One thing I would like
to point out is I understand about point spreads probably as
well as anyone in this room. I understand them very thoroughly.
It's the dollars that are spent on the point spreads. A point
spread is meaningless if you don't go out and bet a billion
dollars, you see? And the point is that there is an
interconnectedness in gambling across the country.
I realize that many incidents are isolated, it may be in a
dorm room or whatever. But if you send a message that it's OK
to bet on intercollegiate sports here and not here, I think you
send a message that is very clear to the young people of this
country and to the fans and everyone else, and that's the only
thing that I'm here to say.
And certainly the point spread is a problem, but the money
spent bet on the point spreads is the issue, and that's the
thing that I'm talking about.
Senator Ensign. And you would agree based on the
statistics, the minimum is 98 percent is bet illegally, on
those points.
Mr. Osborne. I agree, but the point is not real or illegal.
The point is, is it legal across the country or not. And the
question is is it legal across the country or not. And if so,
if it is illegal nationally, then I can you have a better
platform to from which to attack the illegal gambling. And I
understand your point of view and I certainly respect the
others here, and I understand their point of view.
The Chairman. Mr. Ensign, it's now 10:30. We have two more
panels to go.
Senator Ensign. Just one more comment on congressman
Graham's point on states' rights. Congressman Graham, you
talked about us going backward. I would also caution you that
1992 law that was put into place has never been tested
constitutionally. And if this bill----
Mr. Graham. I'll bet you it will withstand scrutiny.
Senator Ensign. OK. Well, I would make a bet on the other.
We have had some pretty good legal opinions bet the other way.
And the point is, the point that I would make on this, because
of two issues. The Tenth Amendment is something I have a deep
amount of respect for, and I believe if this bill goes forward
Nevada will have a very strong position to strike down the 1992
law, and it will have the exact opposite effect than what you
were trying to accomplish. As a matter of fact, we'll have more
legal gambling in this country than we currently have today.
Mr. Gibbons. If I may respond, Senator, my good friend, by
the way, who does a good job for the State of Nevada on a lot
of issues including this one.
There are people sitting in jail today who bet in Nevada on
college games that they participated in that they wound up
point shaving, and they are not from Nevada. The reason that
there's a Federal need here is that you're affecting the
quality of sports in my state, their state, Nebraska, all over
the country.
There's people have gone in Nevada, got involved in the
legal gambling business, who shaved points who are sitting in
jail. I think there's a national public policy to address the
legal gambling in Nevada because it's hurting the rest of the
country, then let's all get together and attack the illegal
betting.
Thank you very much for having me.
The Chairman. Thank you, I thank the witnesses.
Our first panel consists of coach Gary Williams, basketball
coach at the University of Maryland; Mr. Titus Lovell Ivory, a
student athlete at Pennsylvania State University; Ms. Tracy
Dodds Herd, associate sports editor of the Cleveland Plain
Dealer; Mr. Danny Sheridan, the sports analyst for USA Today;
Dr. Howard Shaffer, associate professor and director at the
Harvard Medical School, Division on Addictions; and Mr. Edward
Looney, who is the Executive Director of the Council on
Compulsive Gambling. Would you all please come forward.
Coach Williams, welcome and again, congratulations on your
magnificent record over many years, including your recent
successes in reaching the Final Four.
STATEMENT OF GARY WILLIAMS, HEAD BASKETBALL COACH, UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Senator McCain. I was really
pulling for Arizona if we didn't win.
The Chairman. I can't understand it.
Mr. Williams. By the way, I'm a coach here without one of
those multimillion dollar Nike contracts.
My experience in coaching basketball, one of the stops I
made, I was at Boston College in 1977 and 1978. There was a
point shaving scandal at Boston College. Several of the players
where I was an assistant coach at were involved. One went to
Federal prison for 5 years, one had already been accepted to
law school and went into a witness protection program during
that time, and their lives, there was three people involved,
their lives were changed forever. They were no longer able to
do what they wanted to do. Every time they go out in public
now, they always have that concern of how people look at them
from their past experiences, and you know, it's just a shame
that they have to live their lives in the way that they do.
Our players are very aware currently of the gambling
situation. The NCAA has done a good job of making it clear to
the players what's involved with the gambling experience.
However, there's many mixed messages out there, including the
legalized gambling of college basketball in Nevada and Las
Vegas.
That is certainly a message that our players see and I'm
sure in their minds, a lot of time, well, if it's allowed
there, then what's the big deal about gambling here, what is
the problem. And players are targets, there's no doubt about
it, whether it's legalized gambling or illegal gambling, they
are targets of people.
People want to know, as has already been stated, the
condition of the players, the physical condition, the mental
approach that our players might have for a particular game.
And, you know, the education process is important, but I think
we have to make a statement.
And this issue before us today is very important because it
would make a national statement to our players that it just
confirms what is being told to them. Our game is a great game.
College basketball is a great game. And we don't want anything
to harm it that we can possibly control.
And yes, there is a lot of money to be made by coaches, and
you know, the NCAA does make a lot of money from the TV
networks. But at the same time, we have to preserve the game.
The game is a very important part of the fabric of the colleges
involved. Certainly the University of Las Vegas has really
benefited from the success over the years of their basketball
team, just as the University of Maryland has with what we've
done this year.
And you can look at outstanding academic institutions
throughout the country and see the benefit that they have
derived, and we want to maintain the ability of a basketball
program to be a very important part of the school, not be
separate from the school, to be an important part of it. And I
think the values that the universities do have, certainly we
want to show that as our basketball team.
And what can really tear that down is the gambling
situation, and obviously, you know, there's far greater
problems in illegal gambling as well as legal gambling, but at
the same time, it has to start somewhere and we really believe
that this would be a great message to the players across the
country if nationally there was this legislation that would
make it illegal for college gambling.
And if it's only 2 percent or whatever it is out in Vegas
of the total revenue generated, then let the game alone. Let
college basketball, college football be separate from that type
of thing and let us have the game. Because the kids growing up
today really look at the players. They are role models a lot of
times, they are the reason. Like this gentleman to my right,
the reason kids grow up wanting to go to college and wanting to
play sports in college are because of great young people like
this. And anything that happens to tarnish that certainly
disillusions a lot of people when that does take place.
So we, as coaches, as players, hopefully we can do a good
job, but this also needs to be said nationally, and that's my
reason for being here today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, coach.
Mr. Sheridan, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DANNY SHERIDAN, WRITER, USA TODAY
Mr. Sheridan. Thank you. Senator McCain, as you may or may
not know, I supported your bid for the presidency of the United
States. We have a mutual friend in Sonny----
The Chairman. What was the line?
Mr. Sheridan. You were an underdog, sir. Also, as most
Americans, I applaud your campaign finance reform, and I would
ask that this not be taken from my 5 minutes, that personal
comment, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Sheridan. I have spoken at or visited most college
campuses, Senator McCain, in the United States, and I don't
think there's anyone in this room that has spoken to as many
college students as I have about illegal sports wagering.
I've been in this business some 25 years, campuses from
coast to coast, whether it's Princeton University, UCLA or the
Floria campuses. I've interviewed the biggest book makers in
the country, illegal book makers in the United States,
offshore, legal book makers in Nevada, Australia, England, all
over the world. I would stack my contacts against anyone here.
My contacts include the top college and professional
basketball coaches in the country. And again, I'm sure I'm not
the smartest person in this room, I'm glad to be here, but I
would stack my contacts in this area with anybody here and
anyone that's testified.
I don't bet on sports. My stock portfolio is probably seven
figures. There's no Nevada gaming companies in there and
there's no Nevada related companies in there. If this bill
passes, it will greatly benefit me financially, substantial,
six-figure money. I'm against this bill. Again, it will greatly
benefit me financially. I'm not pulling against the NCAA or
pulling for Nevada.
I certainly commend you on the courage it takes to take on
the tough issue of illegal gambling, and as other people have
pointed out, I would only want to warn you and your colleagues
of the serious, unintended consequences of this bill. If this
bill passes, you will make, and I know it's not your intent,
fixing college basketball and football games very easy. There
will be no fear of being caught.
I'll give you an analogy. No one in this room would remove
the Securities and Exchange Commission from the stock market.
Why would you do that. It would be chaotic. That's a legal
authority that monitors the stock market. That's a deterrent.
Whether you like, whether people like it or not in this room,
so is Nevada.
That's a system that is in place. They are a deterrent
against fixing college football and basketball games. Do they
stop every fix? No, but they are a deterrent. You know, in the
underground, if you fix a college game, you're probably, almost
100 percent sure you're going to get caught, tried, and
convicted. You know that. And you know in the stock market, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, you may not get caught, you
can hide behind a foreign corporation. You can't in illegal and
legal betting. You have to have a face.
If you remove this legal authority from the equation as
this bill would, and I'm not looking for rhetoric or scare
tactics, you'll have conservatively two to three dozen college
basketball and football games fixed within 90 days. It's
guaranteed.
I'll give you an example. The Tulane basketball scandal of
seven or 8 years ago. The book makers in New Orleans, in my
area, I'm from Alabama as you probably can tell, the book
makers in the southern area of New Orleans took bets, there on
the front line, not the FBI, not the NCAA, not the college
coaches, the book makers, they took the bets.
They took bets from college kids, an inordinate amount of
money. Let's say the kids bet $50 a game. They wanted to bet
$500 a game. These book makers in New Orleans knew right away
these kids are shaving points. Now, they have two options.
Right now they can call the legal authority in Nevada, which
they did, who was waiting for them when they came out there,
and bet, and again, an inordinate amount of money on Tulane and
Southern Miss. They were caught, tried, and convicted.
If this bill were to pass and there were no legal
authority, the book maker would have had again, two options--
excuse me, would have had one option. He could have called the
local DA, which would be suicide, he's a criminal, he's
breaking the law, he's certainly not going to call the local DA
or the FBI and say hey, they are shaving points. Well, how do
you know, sir? Well, I'm an illegal book maker.
So what we will do, if this bill passes, and I promise you
as sure as I'm sitting here, what the book makers across the
country, and I'm not here to organize like the teamsters the
book makers, and they are not choir boys, they have a vested
interest in keeping the sport clean and they do a great job of
policing the sport, rightfully or wrongfully for the NCAA and
for college sports.
What will happen, let's assume I'm the book maker. I'm not
going to call the local DA. I know that Tulane is fixing,
shaving points. I simply call my brethren in Louisiana and all
across the country and I take them off the board. You cannot
bet on Tulane. That's what's going to happen. It's going to be
Tulane, it's going to be Florida, it's going to be UCLA, and
what's going to happen to some enterprising sports reporter
when the NCAA tournament rolls around or the college bowl
season rolls around, and he's going to look and he's going to
say Southern Cal, they are three and two against its spread but
they played 11 games, or the NCAA tournament, this team only
has a record of 11 and 6 in basketball, but yet they played 25
games.
He's going to ask the question how come these book makers
didn't line these teams. No convictions, no charges. And he's
going to be told on the Internet and all over, sir, those 10 or
20 schools have been shaving points, and that's going to be a
major, major scandal. Again, as sure as I'm sitting here. I'm
not trying to scare you.
The book makers will do it, they hate it, but they will
take the game off the record. They will not report it--there
will be no legal authority if this passes, and again, not to be
redundant, I wish you would ask me some questions on it.
I don't know if I've eloquently got the point across, but
the book makers will simply take the game off the boards. The
thugs, the criminals that are fixing these games, there will be
no deterrent. The FBI is not going to catch them, no one is
going to catch them. They are going to go about their business.
You're basically handing them the candy store. It's not
intentional, but without that legal authority, I know of know
book maker that I've spoken to, and I've spoken to every--not
every one in the country, but every large one, they've just
said hey, it's simple, we'll let them fix college games and we
hope they don't fix the pro games. We can't turn them in.
That said, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I
would certainly welcome any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheridan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Danny Sheridan,
Writer, USA Today
Chairman McCain, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Commerce Committee for allowing me the opportunity to express my
opinions on S. 718, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act.
My name is Danny Sheridan, and I have been involved with sports and
the sports promotion business for more than 25 years. I have published
college and pro football magazines, written about sports in a variety
of national publications, and have been the host of a number of sports
TV and radio shows. I am a lifelong resident of Mobile, Alabama, and a
graduate of the University of Alabama School of Business.
I have written exclusively for USA Today since its inception in
1982. For USA Today, I set the daily odds on every sport along with
political and esoteric odds--for example, will Alan Greenspan lower the
interest rate, and if so, by how much. My sports and political
predictions have been featured on every major network and nearly every
major newspaper and radio station in the country. I plan to continue
setting these odds and providing them to USA Today even if this
legislation is passed.
However, I'm not just a sports--and sometimes political--analyst. I
am friends with many high profile college and NFL coaches as well as
many NFL and NBA owners. I have spoken at or visited most of the
colleges and universities in the United States, and have talked to
thousands of students about their concerns about sports betting on
their campuses. I've also interviewed many of the world's biggest
legal, illegal, and offshore bookmakers.
I'm sure there are a lot of people brighter than me at this
hearing; however, I'm confident in saying that my predictions, contacts
and knowledge of the sports world would stack up against anyone in this
room.
That's why I'm here today.
I do not bet on sports, don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I do
recognize, like you, that in a free society people do these things,
sometimes to excess.
I commend you for having the courage to take on the tough issue of
fighting illegal gambling. However, I want to warn you of the serious,
unintended, and adverse consequences that will surely result from the
passage and implementation of this legislation. Your attempt to
eliminate legal college sports wagering--while well intentioned--would
only result in an increase in illegal college sports gambling and an
increase in the amount of fixing and point shaving schemes and
scandals.
Currently, approximately 99 percent of all sports gambling takes
place illegally outside of Nevada. In 1999, the National Gaming Impact
Study Commission estimated that illegal sports wagering was as much as
$380 billion--but I think that it's higher. An estimated 40 million
Americans currently wager $6 billion illegally every weekend during the
entire 20-week college and pro football season alone.
Comparatively, legal and regulated sports wagering in Nevada is
only 1 percent--a tiny fraction--of all of the betting that occurs on
sports in this country. And of the approximately $2.3 billion that is
legally wagered in Nevada, only about one-third--an even smaller
percentage--is bet on college sports.
These figures just show that there is no persuasive evidence that
legal sports betting in Nevada is responsible for the betting scandals
and illegal gambling everywhere else.
Nevada's legal sports books serve as a legal watchdog for college
sports. The point shaving scandals 5 years ago surfaced only because
there is a legal authority that exists to watch over the game and
betting activity. So in essence, the proposed legislation would remove
the only viable enforcement mechanism to monitor and report the fixing
of college sports games.
If you take college sports wagering out of Nevada, 100 percent of
all NCAA betting would go on illegally. The Nevada Gaming Commission
has an incentive to report the fixing of games and to continue to
police sports betting to ensure that it's clean. It is legally required
to monitor and report suspicious activity, and has done an excellent
job monitoring college sports betting. But if you get rid of legal
college sports wagering, a person who wants to fix a game will no
longer have to worry about the Nevada Gaming Commission, but only about
the bookie he placed the bet with and the players involved.
The proposed legislation would make it impossible to monitor and
report the fixing of games. The effect of this legislation would be
like removing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from
monitoring and policing the stock market. Does the SEC prevent all
insider trading? Of course not, but it lets would-be criminals know
that they'll be prosecuted. In Nevada, you can't bet on a college game
through a dummy corporation--you have to do so in person and be 21 or
over--and most people know if you fix a sporting event, you'll
eventually get caught and prosecuted.
The NCAA and its supporters also argue that legal betting in Nevada
sends a mixed message about gambling to young people. But I'm not sure
what mixed message they are talking about.
Gambling and betting is a widely accepted form of recreation in
this country and has been an integral part of our history. When our
founding fathers needed money to finance the American Revolution, they
held a lottery. Today, 47 States permit lotteries, horse and dog
racing, commercial and Indian casinos, and/or video poker. Only Hawaii,
Utah, and Tennessee have no form of legalized gambling. Since our
culture sends the message that gambling is mainstream recreation, it
will only make matters worse to deal with illegal sports gambling by
making it illegal in Nevada, the one State where these activities are
legal and closely monitored.
Finally, it's simply not reasonable to assume that the impulse to
gamble can be controlled or reduced by legislation, particularly in
this age of Internet gambling, which allows anyone to bet through an
offshore sports betting site or casino or both just by the flick of a
key on their computer.
So yes, the passage of this legislation would send a clear message
to this country's young people. That message is: We want to cut down on
sports gambling and game-fixing so let's ignore the real problem and
the impact this legislation would have on college sports. Now that is a
scary mixed message.
Again, I believe that the NCAA and its supporters are well
intentioned and are only trying to do the best to protect students and
college sports. But the idea that Nevada is to blame for the spread of
illegal gambling in this country is preposterous. If the NCAA and its
proponents think that the passage of this legislation would have any
effect on illegal college sports wagering--by young people or adults--
they are completely wrong.
Finally, opposing this legislation goes against my financial
interests. If it were to pass, it would benefit me financially. I also
have no financial interest in any casinos or Nevada-dependent
companies. With this in mind, I hope that this also shows you that my
testimony is unbiased and honest.
So I leave you with these odds and a prediction: pass this
legislation and I am 100 percent certain that there will be an increase
in game fixing and other point shaving schemes and major college sports
scandals--exactly the opposite from what I know you are trying to
accomplish.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Titus Lovell Ivory,
who's a student athlete at Pennsylvania State University and
also an outstanding guard on the recent successful Pennsylvania
State basketball team. You didn't run up against Maryland?
Mr. Ivory. Didn't want to.
The Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Ivory, and thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF TITUS LOVELL IVORY, STUDENT-ATHLETE, PENNSYLVANIA
STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Ivory. Thank you. Chairman McCain, my Senator from my
home state, North Carolina, Senator Edwards, and other
distinguished members of the Committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the impact of
sports gambling on college athletics. For the past 5 years,
I've been a member of the Penn State basketball team. As an
entering freshman, I medically registered and did not
participate. However, the past 4 years have not only provided
me with the opportunity to play basketball for the school in
one of the most competitive conferences, but it has also
enabled me to gain a first rate education on life.
Prior to this season, I received my undergraduate degree in
kinesiology. During this past year, I've also pursued a second
degree in teacher certification.
As a member of the Division 1 basketball team, I can
testify student athletes are well aware of the dangers of
sports gambling and the strict penalties imposed upon them by
the NCAA on those who bet or solicit bets on college or
professional games, or who provide information to individuals
involved in organized gambling activities.
At the beginning of each season, our athletic department
conducts a mandatory sports gambling seminar for the basketball
team. This session includes a review of NCAA rules prohibiting
sports gambling and messages from law enforcement officials
about the pit falls of getting involved in sports gambling.
Our team also watches a video which highlights the
dangerous influences associated with sports gambling. In
addition, there are always constant reminders in the looker
room, in the gymnasiums, on the NCAA Don't Bet On It posters
that are posted in several locations.
I am aware of the recent point shaving scandals at several
or NCAA schools. The Northwestern point shaving scandal has
special significance, since one of the tainted games also
involved Penn State University.
I have thought about what it would be like to play against
guys who were, you know, throwing a game. I'm a very
competitive person, and I always want to play against the best.
These scandals surely would have rocked my confidence in the
sport. Sports gambling threatens the game I love. In the end,
no matter how much I try to avoid it, gambling on college
campuses is a popular thing and is now growing.
Ever since high school I've had a number of experiences
where people have thanked me for winning basketball games on
the outcome of the team based on bets. My reaction is always
the same. I'm playing the game I love. I'm not playing the game
to win money for you or anyone else. The presence of sports
gambling in college sports has never been more apparent to me
than during our team's run to the Sweet 16 during this year's
men's basketball championship.
After a big second round win over North Carolina, my
teammates and I boarded the plane, and before we even got off
the ground, the pilot comes over the PA and announces I want to
thank you guys, you just won me $150.
After hearing this, our coaches were amazed, even shouting
out I can't believe he just said that.
Some of you might ask what is wrong with this. Well, sports
gambling interests can easily result in the game being tainted.
I would hate to play against an opponent who was aware of the
spread. As I've already said, I want to play against those who
are giving their best. I'm so competitive, I don't even like
playing against players who aren't 100 percent healthy.
In addition, sports gambling threatens those who are fans
of college sports. Students aren't going to come to our games
if they believe the games have already been influenced. If
sports gambling continues and continues to grow in popularity,
the threat will always remain.
So why do student athletes support S. 718? We believe that
steps must be taken to eliminate sports gambling from college
students.
I know that they won't get rid of gambling in Nevada. I
know that getting rid of gambling in Nevada will not eliminate
betting on college games all together, but anyone can argue
that it won't send a positive message that sports gambling is
illegal everywhere in this country, and maybe this message
might also slow down the publishing the point spreads.
I must say it is an awful feeling to open up the USA Today
and find out that your team is losing by 20 even before the
opening tip off. The game is supposed to be about hard work,
having fun, team camaraderie, and the enjoyment of the game,
and making someone money isn't something us athletes would like
to see. I would like to thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ivory follows:]
Prepared Statement of Titus Lovell Ivory, Student-Athlete, Pennsylvania
State University
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, my Senator from my home State in
North Carolina, Senator Edwards, and other distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the impact
of sports gambling on college athletics.
For the past 5 years, I have been a member on the Penn State's
men's basketball team. As an entering freshman, I was red-shirted and
did not participate in games. However, the past 4 years have not only
provided me with the opportunity to play basketball for my school in
one of the country's most competitive conferences but it also has
enabled me to get a first-rate education. Prior to this season, I
received my undergraduate degree in kinesiology. During this past year,
I pursued my second degree in teacher certification.
As a member of a Division I college basketball team, I can testify
that student-athletes are well aware of the dangers of sports gambling
and the strict penalties imposed by the NCAA on those who bet or who
solicit bets on any college or professional game, or who provide
information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities.
At the beginning of each season, our athletics department conducts a
mandatory sports gambling seminar for the basketball team. This session
includes a review of the NCAA rules prohibiting sports gambling and
messages from law enforcement officials about the pitfalls of getting
involved with sports gambling. Our team watches a video tape which
highlights the dangerous influences associated with sports gambling. In
addition, there are constant reminders in our locker room as NCAA Don't
Bet On It posters are posted in several locations.
I am aware of the recent sports point shaving scandals at several
other NCAA schools. The Northwestern point shaving scandal has special
significance since one of the tainted basketball games involved Penn
State. I have thought about what it would be like to have been playing
against guys who were not giving their all. I am a competitive person,
I want to play against the best. These scandals surely would have
rocked my confidence in the sport. Sports gambling threatens the game I
love. In the end, no matter how much I try to avoid it--gambling on
college sports is popular and seems to be growing.
Since high school, I have had a number of experiences where people
have thanked me after a game because my team's victory helped them win
money on a bet. My reaction is always the same--``I am not playing the
game so someone can make money gambling.''
The presence of sports gambling in college sports has never been
more apparent to me than during our team's run to the Sweet 16 in this
year's men's basketball championship tournament. After a big second
round win over North Carolina, my teammates and I boarded a plane
headed for State College. We didn't even get off the ground, when the
pilot came over the PA and said: ``I want to thank you guys. Because of
you, I just won $150.'' After hearing this, our coaches were amazed.
One of them shouted, ``I can't believe he just said that.''
Some of you might ask what is wrong with this? Well, sports
gambling interests can easily result in the game being tarnished. As I
have already said, I want to play against those who are giving their
best. I am so competitive that I even hate playing against guys who I
know are not 100 percent healthy. In addition, sports gambling
threatens those who are fans of college sports. Students aren't going
to come to our games if they believe that the game is being influenced.
As sports gambling continues to grow in popularity, this threat
remains.
So why do student-athletes support S. 718? We believe that steps
must be taken to eliminate sports gambling on college students. I know
that getting rid of sports gambling in Nevada will not eliminate
betting on college games altogether, but how can anyone argue that it
won't send a positive message that sports gambling is illegal
everywhere in this country? And maybe this message might also slow down
the publishing of point spreads. I must say that it is an awful feeling
to open up the USA Today and see that my team is picked to lose by 20
points before the game even begins. It adds stress and even puts the
thought in your own mind that ``maybe we should lose.''
The game is supposed to be about working hard and having fun, not
about making somebody money who has bet on the outcome.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Ivory, and again,
congratulations.
Dr. Shaffer, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD J. SHAFFER, Ph.D., C.A.S., ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, DIVISION OF
ADDICTIONS
Dr. Shaffer. Thank you, Senator McCain and members of the
Committee, and thank you for this invitation to comment on what
is a very important and complex social matter. As a devoted
sports fan, a long ago student athlete, and the father of a
current NCAA Division 1 student-athlete, I have a very special
interest in this area.
For many years I have encouraged the return of athletics to
sports. I remember when watching organized sports was focused
on athleticism instead of whether a team would cover the
spread. I also believe that amateur sports have the capacity to
build individual character and integrity. Despite these
personal interests, my comments today will reflect my work as a
scientist and a clinical psychologist.
I'd like to make three brief, specific and interrelated
points that are relevant to the Committee's deliberations on
the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. First, youthful population
segments have not demonstrated a meaningful increase in the
prevalence of gambling related disorders during the past 25
years, a time when legalized gambling was expanding most
rapidly throughout the United States.
Consequently, I believe it's unlikely that revising the
status of licit sports gambling will influence their gambling
rate.
Students' gambling-related activities already are illicit,
and most illicit gambling among young people does not occur
within within a licit gambling establishment. In the new era of
Internet-based gambling, focusing on jurisdictions or the
specific objects of gambling is even more likely to be
ineffective than ever before.
Second, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act might have
unanticipated negative effects. The first principle of medical
ethics is to do no harm. The reason for this guiding principle
is that very good intentions can lead to adverse consequences.
For example, since the vast majority of adults who gamble on
sports in Nevada do so without any adverse consequence, a ban
on sports betting can stimulate an underground market for
sports-related gambling.
This situation echoes our history with the Volstead Act and
the many adverse consequences associated with alcohol
prohibition, from which, in my opinion, America is still
recovering. Unintended consequences of gambling prohibition
could adversely impact the already too high rate of problem
gambling among young people.
Third, it occurs to me that the best laws are those that
prevent wrongdoing and therefore rarely punish people. The
worst laws in my opinion are those that punish the most people
while rarely preventing misbehavior. The Amateur Sports
Integrity Act holds the potential to prevent very little
gambling amongst sports betters while simultaneously
establishing the potential to punish many of them.
Further, if this Act becomes law and it is not enforceable,
or if high school or college students do not respect it, then
they might ignore this law, and most importantly, also lose
respect for the rule of law in general.
In conclusion, if I could ensure the integrity of sports
simply by prohibiting gambling, I would endorse it. However, I
fear that prohibition will create problems.
Senator Alan Simpson once said, ``if you have integrity,
nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else
matters'' Integrity is an attribute of individual and
collective character. It cannot emerge in a vacuum. To assist
the development of integrity, we must help people learn to
regulate their impulses and message temptation. This difficult
task is not possible in a social setting that does all of the
regulating for us. In a free society, occasional failing and
even tragedy is the price of liberty.
In the second century, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius
noted that, ``a man should be upright, not be kept upright.''
Integrity is not the absence of vice, it's something that
emerges through a relationship with temptation. To protect the
integrity of amateur sports, we need to protect everyone from
developing gambling-related problems.
We also need to identify people quickly when problems do
emerge. New approaches to screening will become important. This
will require new public policy at the local level, that is
middle schools, high schools, and colleges, with attention to
educating parents, clergy, teachers, coaches, and athletic
directors about gambling. Unfortunately, our current research
shows that high schools and colleges are woefully out of touch
with gambling problems, and have few policies or resources in
place to deal with them.
Parents also fail to appreciate how gambling can influence
young people. In 1999, my friend Bill Saum, the NCAA's
excellent director of gambling and agent activities, testified
before a Senate judiciary Committee about the negative impact
that sports gambling has on the lives of college student
athletes.
Bill described notable and tragic examples from great
American colleges. He cited my research showing that young
people often become introduced to gambling through sports
betting. What he did not mention however was that this betting
most often starts with family members at home, not in casinos
with sports books. We must educate parents about gambling.
I respectfully suggest two strategies. First, undertake a
broad scientific review to evaluate the extent of the problem,
the complexity of the risk factors, and the potential avenues
available to address these concerns.
The National Academy of Sciences recently undertook such a
review of pathological gambling, and might be in a strong
position to advise on this matter.
Second, I suggest that we convene a consortium of college
presidents to review their existing gambling-related policies
and problems so that we can take a systematic approach to the
education, prevention and treatment of America's young people.
America likes to gamble, and since the early days of
civilization, people have shown a penchant to gamble on sports.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of
Americans, young and old, do in fact regulate their impulses
without difficulty and are healthy gamblers.
This circumstance complicates all of our efforts to protect
young people. Once again, Senator McCain and members of the
Committee, thank you very much for inviting me to participate
in this process.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shaffer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Howard J. Shaffer, Ph.D., C.A.S., Associate
Professor, Harvard Medical School, Division of Addictions
Senator McCain and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to participate in your deliberations and comment on this
very complex social matter. As a devoted sports fan, a long-ago
student-athlete, and the father of a current NCAA Division I student-
athlete, I have a special interest in this area. For many years, I have
encouraged the return of athletics to organized sports. I remember when
watching organized sports was focused on athleticism instead of whether
a team would cover the spread. I also believe that amateur sports in
particular, and sports in general, have the capacity to build
individual character and integrity. Despite these personal interests,
my comments will reflect my work as a scientist and clinical
psychologist.
My associates and I recently completed a series of studies
revealing that, throughout the United States and Canada, young people
and college students in particular evidence meaningfully higher than
typical rates of gambling related disorders than adults (Korn &
Shaffer, 1999; Shaffer & Hall, 1996, in press; Shaffer, Hall, & Vander
Bilt, 1997; Shaffer, Hall, & Vander Bilt, 1999; Shaffer, Hall, Walsh, &
Vander Bilt, 1995). Since athletes represent a distinctive segment of
the youthful population, they have unique risks that place them at
special chance of developing gambling related problems.
the amateur sports integrity act
I would like to make 3 brief, specific, and interrelated points
that are relevant to the committee's deliberations on the Amateur
Sports Integrity Act:
1. Prohibiting legalized sports gambling likely will have little
impact on young people; gambling already is illegal and unsanctioned
for student athletes;
2. Prohibiting sports gambling for the vast majority who do it
safely and legally risks making matters worse by creating an
``underground'' market;
3. Passing legislation that likely is unenforceable inadvertently
diminishes respect for the rule of law.
impact of prohibition on youth gambling
Youthful population segments have not demonstrated a meaningful
increase in the prevalence of gambling-related disorders during the
past 25 years--when legalized gaming was expanding most rapidly
throughout the United States. Consequently, it is unlikely that
revising the status of licit gambling will influence their gambling
rate. While well intentioned, it is unlikely that this bill will have
significant impact on youthful gambling.
gambling already is illicit for young people
If the purpose of the bill is to protect high school and college
student-athletes who are at special risk for gambling related
disorders, then prohibiting legalized sports betting in Nevada is
unlikely to have broad impact for two primary reasons: (1) their
gambling related activities already are illicit; and (2) most of their
illicit gambling does not occur within a licit gambling establishment.
In the new era of Internet-based gambling, focusing on jurisdictions or
the specific objects of gambling is even more likely to be ineffective
than before.
could the amateur sports integrity act inadvertently make matters
worse?
The Amateur Sports Integrity Act might have unanticipated negative
effects. The first principle of medical ethics is to ``do no harm.''
The reason for this guiding principle is that very good intentions can
lead to adverse consequences. For example, since the vast majority of
adults who gamble on sports in Nevada do so without any adverse
consequence, a ban on sports betting can stimulate an underground
market for sports-related gambling. This situation echoes our history
with the Volstead Act and the many adverse consequences associated with
alcohol prohibition from which America is still recovering. Unintended
consequences of gambling prohibition could adversely impact the already
too high rate of problem gambling among young people.
diminishing respect for the rule of law: considering laws that prevent,
laws that punish
Having spent the majority of my life studying the spectrum of human
behavior, it occurs to me that the best laws are those that prevent
wrongdoing and therefore rarely punish people. The worst laws are those
that punish the most people while rarely preventing misbehavior. The
Amateur Sports Integrity Act holds the potential to prevent very little
gambling among sports bettors while simultaneously establishing the
potential to punish many of them. Further, if this Act becomes law and
it is not enforceable, or if high school or college students do not
respect it--athletes in particular since they often are role models--
then young people might ignore this law and, most importantly, also
lose respect for the rule of law in general. Such has been the case
with certain laws (e.g., drug, seatbelt, helmet) that unintentionally
created this circumstance many years ago.
For example, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act will require that
throughout America, if students are involved, illegal pari-mutuel and
``Calcutta'' style wagering on member-member and member-guest golf
tournaments become active targets for enforcement. Currently, students
watch eagerly as caddies or just onlookers when their parents and
neighbors get excited about, and participate in, these events--which
already are illegal. Young people have learned through informal
channels that laws are not equally enforced. The consequence too often
is a diminished respect for the rule of law.
conclusions and suggestions
The language of the bill is unclear about whether the intent of
this legislation is to protect the integrity of amateur and student
athletes or the integrity of the institution of amateur sports. The
Sports Integrity Act seems to apply only to Nevada, so the language of
the bill seems to work against its broadly stated objectives. It
already is illegal for underage young people to gamble, whether on
sport or anything else. Further, to my knowledge, there is no legal
bookmaking for high school sporting events.
If I could assure the integrity of sports simply by prohibiting
gambling, I would certainly endorse it. However, I fear that
prohibition will produce problematic outcomes. Senator Alan Simpson
once said, ``If you have integrity, nothing else matters . . . if you
don't have integrity, nothing else matters.'' Integrity is an attribute
of individual and collective character. It cannot emerge in a vacuum.
To assist the development of integrity, we must help people learn to
regulate their impulses and manage temptations. This difficult task is
not possible in a social setting that does the regulating for us. In a
free society, occasional failing and even tragedy is the price of
liberty. In the second century, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius noted
that, ``A man should be upright, not be kept upright.'' \1\ Integrity
is not the absence of vice; it is something that emerges through a
relationship with temptation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marcus Aurelius. Meditations, book 3, section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, I respectfully suggest that, to protect the integrity
of amateur sports, we consider how to protect students and youth in
general from developing gambling related problems. We also need to
identify people quickly when these problems do emerge; new approaches
to screening will become important. This will require a shift in
American culture. It will require new public policy at the local level,
that is, middle schools, high schools and colleges--with attention to
educating parents, clergy, teachers, coaches, and athletic directors
about gambling. Unfortunately, our research suggests that high schools
and colleges are woefully out of touch with gambling problems and have
few policies or resources in place to deal with them (e.g., Shaffer,
Forman, Scanlan, & Smith, 2000).
Parents also fail to appreciate how gambling can influence young
people (Shaffer, Hall, Vander Bilt, & George, in press; Shaffer et al.,
1995). In 1999, my friend Bill Saum, the NCAA's excellent director of
gambling and agent activities, testified before the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information about
the negative impact that sports gambling has on the lives of college
student-athletes. Bill described notable and tragic examples from great
American colleges. He also cited my research showing that young people
often become introduced to gambling through sports betting (Shaffer et
al., in press; Shaffer et al., 1995). What he did not mention, however,
was that this betting most often started with family members at home,
not in casinos or with sports books. We must educate parents about
gambling.
While preparing for this testimony, I examined the National
Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) list of representative
sports-related gambling scandals that occurred during the past 45
years. Interestingly, none of these incidents directly involved Nevada-
based legal sports gambling.
I respectfully suggest two important strategies. First, undertake a
broad based and rigorous scientific review to evaluate (1) the nature
and extent of the problem, (2) the complexity of risk factors (e.g.,
alcohol use, depression, etc.), (3) whether student athletes in general
or NCAA Division I student-athletes in particular, by virtue of NCAA
rules, are at greater risk compared with other students for gambling
related problems, and (4) the potential avenues available to address
these concerns. The National Academy of Sciences recently undertook
such a review of pathological gambling (National Research Council,
1999) and might be in a strong position to advise on this matter.
Second, I suggest that we convene a consortium of college
presidents to review their existing gambling related policies and
problems so that we can take a systematic approach to the education,
prevention and treatment of America's young people, who are at higher
risk for gambling related disorders than their adult counterparts.
In conclusion, gambling represents a very complex human activity.
People have gambled since at least the beginning of recorded history
and they are not likely to stop soon. It seems that progressive public
policy must attempt to: (1) provide sanctuary for the vast majority of
gamblers who safely enjoy government approved, legal gambling, while
also (2) prevent or reduce any gambling related problems among the
minority of people who choose to gamble and experience adversity.
Balancing these issues is a thorny matter since state-sponsored
gambling often stimulates a conflict of interest between promoters of
gambling and public health officials. Public health considerations have
been notably absent from the public deliberations that recently have
focused on gambling (Korn & Shaffer, 1999).
America likes to gamble, and since the early days of civilization,
people have shown a penchant to gamble on sports. We should not lose
sight of the fact that the vast majority of Americans regulate their
impulses without difficulty and are ``healthy'' gamblers. These
circumstances make our efforts to protect young people much more
complicated than simply prohibiting sports gambling in Nevada.
Once again, thank you Senator McCain and members of the committee
for inviting me to participate in this important process.
______
Appendix 1
the prevalence of disordered gambling
This appendix briefly describes the some of the current and
fundamental knowledge about the prevalence of disordered gambling. To
begin, there is considerable conceptual confusion and inconsistency
about the terminology scientists often use to describe intemperate
gambling and the prevalence and natural course of this disorder.
Consequently, my colleagues and I have adopted a simplified public
health classification system to describe the prevalence of gambling and
gambling related problems (Shaffer & Hall, 1996). This classification
system is being adopted worldwide as a universal language. Level 1
prevalence rates reflect the people who do not have any gambling
problems. Level 2 represents those individuals who fail to satisfy the
multiple criteria for a ``clinical'' disorder but do experience some of
the adverse symptoms associated with gambling. Level 3 reflects those
people who meet sufficient criteria for having a disorder (e.g., the
Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-IV]; (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994)). These diagnostic criteria, for
example, include among others being preoccupied with gambling, risking
more money to get the desired level of excitement, committing illegal
acts, and relying on others to relieve desperate financial needs.
People with level 2 problems can move in either of two directions:
toward a healthier level 1 state or toward a more serious level 3
disorder (Shaffer & Hall, 1996). Psychiatric disorders in general, and
disordered gambling in particular, are subject to shifting cultural
values. Shifts in prevalence rates can reflect changes in behavior
patterns, evolving cultural values, or a combination of both.
Table 1 reflects lifetime and past year rates of disordered
gambling along with 95 percent confidence intervals. Past year rates
tend to be more conservative and precise because these estimates avoid
some of the timeframe problems often associated with prevalence
research. Whether we use lifetime or past year rates, disordered
gambling reveals itself with remarkable consistency across research
study protocols. Disordered gambling does not, however, appear with
equal prevalence among every segment of the population. Young people
evidence higher rates of gambling disorders when compared with adults
from the general population (National Research Council, 1999; Shaffer
et al., in press). Psychiatric patients experience even higher rates of
gambling disorders than do adults and young people from the general
population (National Research Council, 1999; Shaffer et al., 1997).
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment/
Adult Adolescent * College Prison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Lifetime................................ 1.92 3.38 5.56 5.44
(1.52-2.33) (1.79-4.98) (3.54-7.59) (11.58-19.31)
Level 2 Lifetime................................ 4.15 8.40 10.88 17.29
(3.11-5.18) (5.61-11.18) (4.86-16.89) (11.05-23.53)
Level 1 Lifetime................................ 93.92 90.38 83.13 67.61
(92.79-95.06) (86.49-94.29) (74.71-91.55) (58.10-77.11)
Level 3 Past Year............................... 1.46 4.80
(0.92-2.01) (3.21-6.40)
Level 2 Past Year............................... 2.54 14.60
(1.72-3.37) (8.32-20.89)
Level 1 Past Year............................... 96.04 82.68
(94.82-97.25) (76.12-89.17)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Although mean past-year estimates are higher than mean lifetime estimates for adolescents, there is
considerable overlap between the confidence intervals of these measures; adolescents' past-year gambling
experiences are likely to be comparable to their lifetime gambling experiences. Differences between
instruments that provide past-year estimates among adolescents and instruments that provide lifetime estimates
among adolescents most likely account for these discrepancies.
Our research reveals that these prevalence estimates are robust.
Regardless of the methods used to calculate these rates, the research
protocols that produced the estimates, or our attempts to weight these
rates by a variety of algorithms, including methodological quality
scores, the resulting estimates of pathological gambling remained
remarkably consistent. The most precise past-year estimates tend to
vary within a very narrow range around 1 percent \2\ (Shaffer & Hall,
in press; Shaffer et al., 1997; Shaffer, Hall et al., 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, among adults from the general population,
estimates of level 2 lifetime disorders ranged from 2.95-3.85; and
estimates of level 3 disorders ranged from 1.50-1.60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 presents our most recent findings that update and revise
earlier estimates (Shaffer & Hall, in press). Table 2 also includes
Andrews' Wave M-Estimator estimates that are likely more accurate than
our previous estimates since these values diminish the weight of
research estimates that represent outliers.
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment or
Estimate Time Frame & Statistic Adult Adolescent College Prison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Lifetime................................
Mean........................................ 1.92 3.38 5.56 15.44
Median...................................... 1.80 3.00 5.00 14.29
5% Trimmed Mean............................. 1.78 3.33 5.14 15.07
Andrews' Wave M-Estimator................... 1.73 2.74 4.64 13.49
Level 2 Lifetime................................
Mean........................................ 4.15 8.40 10.88 17.29
Median...................................... 3.50 8.45 6.50 15.64
5% Trimmed Mean............................. 3.76 8.35 9.83 17.01
Andrews' Wave M-Estimator................... 3.31 8.22 6.51 16.59
Level 3 Past Year...............................
Mean........................................ 1.46 4.80
Median...................................... 1.20 4.37
5% Trimmed Mean............................. 1.27 4.77
Andrews' Wave M-Estimator................... 1.10 4.65
Level 2 Past Year...............................
Mean........................................ 2.54 14.60
Median...................................... 2.20 11.21
5% Trimmed Mean............................. 2.25 13.83
Andrews' Wave M-Estimator................... 2.15 11.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gambling & disordered gambling
Gambling in contemporary America is virtually ubiquitous.
Approximately 90 percent of high school seniors have placed a bet
during their lifetime (Shaffer et al., 1995). College and high school
students represent young people who have lived in an America where
widespread legal gambling has been endorsed and promoted for their
entire lifetime. As this behavior has become normalized during the past
several decades, with few educational messages to the contrary, young
people have not had the opportunity to develop the ``social immunity''
necessary to protect them from developing gambling disorders.
Our research reveals that, during the past 23 years and in spite of
higher rates of disordered gambling among adolescents and substance
abusing or psychiatric patients in treatment, only the adult segment of
the general population has shown an increasing rate of gambling
disorders (Shaffer & Hall, in press; Shaffer et al., 1997; Shaffer,
Hall et al., 1999). Among the risk factors for gambling disorders,
gender, age, psychiatric status, and family history appear among the
most important (Shaffer et al., 1997). For example, adults in treatment
for substance abuse or other psychiatric disorders are almost 9 times
more likely to have a level 3 gambling disorder during their lifetime
when compared with adults from the general population. Similarly,
adolescents from the general population and college students have a
greater risk of experiencing a gambling disorder compared with their
adult counterparts by a factor of about 2.5-3 times. Males from the
adult general population are almost 2 times more likely than their
female counterparts to suffer level 3 gambling problems during their
lifetime. Male college students are almost 4 times more likely to have
serious gambling problems compared with their female counterparts.
what is responsible for the rate increase?
The rate increase we observed among adults from the general
population could be due to many factors. For example, during the past
two decades, the increased availability and accessibility to gambling,
increased social acceptance of gambling, few messages about the
potential risks and hazards of gambling, an increasing desire to
participate in risk-taking activities, a decline in the belief that one
can achieve the ``American dream,'' a growing sense of emotional
discomfort, malaise or dysthymia, all could play a meaningful or small
role in increasing the rate of disordered gambling among the general
adult population.
Observers tend to think that disordered gambling is growing in
direct proportion to the expansion of legalized gambling opportunities.
This is not an accurate perception (e.g., Campbell & Lester, 1999).
Assessing shifting social trends is very difficult without evidence
from prospective research. However, even the casual observer will find
it is easy to see that gambling certainly has expanded much more
rapidly than the rate of disordered gambling. Tobacco is arguably the
most virulent object of chemical dependence. In spite of its wide
availability and legal status, tobacco has a much smaller user base
than 20 years ago. Therefore, we must conclude that availability is not
a sufficient explanation for the increased rate of an addictive
disorder. This observation has received additional support from the
results of our new casino employee research (e.g., Shaffer & Hall,
under review; Shaffer, Vander Bilt, & Hall, 1999).
In part, the history of gambling research inadvertently has fueled
the perception that expanded gaming (i.e., lottery, casino, charitable)
is the sole cause of increased gambling problems. Of the more than 200
studies of gambling prevalence, the early gambling prevalence studies
tended to focus on the adult general population--the population segment
with the lowest rate of gambling disorder. More recent studies have
examined young people and other potentially high-risk population
segments. Consequently, the shifting evidence provided by studies of
population segments with higher base rates of gambling disorders have
biased the prevailing subjective impressions among the public that
disordered gambling prevalence rates are rapidly increasing (Shaffer et
al., 1997).
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Shaffer.
Ms. Tracy Dodds Hurd, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TRACY DODDS HURD, ASSOCIATE SPORTS EDITOR,
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER
Ms. Hurd. Thank you, and I would like to take a minute to
say thank you to Mr. Sheridan. As a former sports writer and
now a sports editor, I'm very flattered that he thinks that
while law enforcement agencies would have no way of knowing
when points are being shaved, that sports writers would be all
over it. We're very flattered, thank you.
I am here to address simply the publication of point
spreads in hundreds of newspapers across the country. It's a
subject that sports editors have been debating for the past
several years and I've been in the middle of it, first as the
sports editor of the Austin American statesman, and now as a
member of the Cleveland Plain Dealer sports staff.
The publication of the college line became an issue for us
when the NCAA's Basketball Committee considered a plan to
coerce us into dropping the line. Now, I don't know if any of
you have ever tried to coerce a newspaper editor into not
publishing something, but that's a bad plan, that's not going
to work.
But it did open lines of communication on how everybody in
the NCAA felt about the line and why we should be addressing
it. But if you push that First Amendment button, you're just
going to get sports editors digging in their heels.
The only reason I want to talk First Amendment is I can't
speak for sports editors of the country and I can't tell you
what other newspapers will do, because every paper in our
country has the right to decide its own editorial content. And
in that vein, I'm very curious about this national association,
Newspaper Association of America, that I'm hearing quoted as
saying that it would continue publishing the line.
I'm not familiar with that organization, but I think you
should look into the context of that statement because I
strongly suspect that what they are saying is it would not mean
we can't publish the line. Whether they would continue or not,
that's what I'm here to talk about, because what I can tell you
is I can share with you the debates among the sports editors on
this subject.
Ever since the NCAA challenged the sports editors to
examine their policies and follow their judgment on whether
they want to run that line, we've been discussing it at
national conventions and it's been a subject in our
newsletters. We've seen some of the top publications
discontinue publication of the college line. Notably, the New
York Times does not run the line, the Sporting News does not
run the line, and I'm told The Washington Post has never run
the college betting line. The LA Times has recently scaled back
its running of the line publishing only the football line, and
only once a week instead of daily.
Now, I found that interesting and I didn't quite understand
it, so I called Bill Dwyer, the sports editor at the LA Times,
and asked him why he would distinguish between the two. He said
basically he would rather drop all lines that he believes the
NCAA has some very good points why we should not have lines on
college sports, but he acknowledges also that the line gives
some information that he knows a lot of people want to know on
colleges. He thinks that it will show relative strengths and so
forth, and that on football that's valuable, but on basketball,
a three-point spread can be used for nothing but gambling.
That's his opinion there.
But what the LA Times is doing there is it's striking a
compromise between the two sides of this issue as sports
editors break it down. On one hand, a lot of us feel we are not
acting responsibly when we publish a betting line that we know
full well is going to be used for illegal gambling. We don't
feel real good about that.
On the other hand, we're giving our readers information
they want. And yes, it is very competitive, and yes, it is
available in other newspapers, it's available on TV, it's on
the Internet. You can subscribe to individual experts. But I
don't think the general public would go to that extreme.
When I was asked to drop the line in Austin I was torn
because personally I don't think we should be running college
lines, and I buy into what all the coaches and the athletes are
saying.
I've covered college sports for decades. I know what goes
on with the kids on campus. They are not exaggerating about the
bookies in every fraternity, in every dorm, they are there. And
I know what a mistake a kid can make and ruin his life. So I am
of the belief that the NCAA is not crying wolf, that there is a
real crisis out there.
But I continue the publication of the line because I was in
the middle of Texas and that State is crazy for sports and
Dallas and San Antonio and Houston run the line. Now I'm at the
Plain Dealer, it's Ohio's largest newspaper, that's a different
situation. We still publish the line because our readers expect
it and our sports editor says well, information can't be
illegal. But we are very aware of the fact that that line is
set in Las Vegas where betting on college sports is legal, and
we are simply telling our readers what the gamblers there are
doing.
If gambling were not legal anywhere in the United States,
would we go out of our way to find information in another way
to give people information on something that's an illegal
business everywhere? The Plain Dealer would not. If it were
illegal everywhere in this country, we would not run the
betting line, and what I have heard from other sports editors,
and I know hundreds of them, I think a lot of other newspapers
would take that same stance and would stop running the line in
the daily newspaper.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hurd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tracy Dodds Hurd, Associate Sports Editor,
Cleveland Plain Dealer
I am here to address the subject of the publication of college
point spreads in hundreds of publications across the country.
It's a subject sports editors have been debating for the past
several years. I've been in the middle of it as the sports editor at
The Austin American-Statesman and now as a member of the sports staff
at The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
The publication of the college line became an issue for us when the
NCAA's basketball committee considered a plan to coerce sports editors
to stop publishing the line. At the time, I was an officer of the
sports editors' national organization, the Associated Press Sports
Editors (APSE). Now, I don't know if any of you have ever attempted to
coerce a newspaper editor not to publish something--but I don't advise
it. It doesn't work. You push that button and you're going to hear all
about the First Amendment. You're going to see editors digging in their
heels and calling their lawyers.
Of course, you know all about the First Amendment, so I won't give
that speech now--except to issue the disclaimer that I can't speak for
other sports editors or other newspapers. Each newspaper has the right
to decide its own editorial content.
What I CAN do, what I am here to do, is share with you the
positions and attitudes of the sports editors who have been embroiled
in these discussions.
Ever since the NCAA challenged the sports editors to examine their
policies and follow their good judgment, the issue has been coming up
at our national conventions and in our newsletter.
We have seen some top publications discontinue publication of the
college line, including The New York Times and The Sporting News. First
on that front was The Washington Post, which I am told has never
published the college line.
The Los Angeles Times has scaled way back, publishing only the
college football line, and that only once a week instead of daily. I
asked Bill Dwyre, sports editor of The L.A. Times, why he would
distinguish between football and basketball. He said he would like to
drop all betting lines--for all the reasons the NCAA has put forward
about why betting on college sports is a problem--but he acknowledges
some informational value to the football lines. As he put it, ``Knowing
Texas is favored by 3 points over Texas A&M tells me a lot about the
relative strengths of the two teams. A 3-point spread in basketball is
good for nothing but gambling--and that's not legal in California.''
What the Los Angeles Times has done is strike a compromise between
the two sides of the issue as it is most often broken down by sports
editors. On one hand, we are not acting responsibly when we publish a
betting line knowing full well that it is going to be used for illegal
gambling; but on the other hand, we are in the business of giving our
readers the information they want, because if we don't, they'll get it
elsewhere.
We are in competition, not just with other newspapers, but with
television and the internet.
When I was asked to drop the Latest Line from the Austin American-
Statesman, I was torn.
Personally, I don't think it is right for us to publish college
betting information. And I'm not saying that to take a moral stance
against gambling. People who want to gamble can find legal outlets. But
having covered college sports for decades, knowing what it's like for
those kids on campus, knowing the presence of bookies in the
fraternities and dorms, knowing what a mistake in judgment could cost
those young athletes, I am of the belief that the NCAA is not crying
wolf. There is a real crisis pending for college sports.
I continued publication of the Latest Line because I was a sports
editor in the middle of Texas, a State crazy for college sports, at a
newspaper trying to compete with Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. All
of those newspapers publish the line.
I am now on the staff of Ohio's largest newspaper, The Plain
Dealer. We publish the Latest Line because our readers expect it and
because the sports editor, Roy Hewitt, is of the belief that
information cannot be illegal.
The line is set in Las Vegas, where betting on college sports is
legal. We are simply telling our readers what the gamblers there are
doing. But if gambling were NOT legal anywhere in the United States?
Would we seek out information from bookies conducting an illegal
business? The Plain Dealer would not.
What I have heard from other sports editors leads me to believe
that most newspapers would take the same position and stop publishing
college betting lines--which would take away the legitimacy college
gambling gets from being included in daily newspapers.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Coach Newell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PETE NEWELL, COACH,
MEMBER OF THE BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME
Mr. Newell. Thank you, Chairman, distinguished members of
the Committee.
My name is Pete Newell, and I'm here to thank you for
inviting me to testify. I spent my life in coaching and,
teaching the game of basketball. I'm a member of the Hall of
Fame, and I've felt the joy of winning the 1949 NIT
championship while at the University of San Francisco, in 1959,
the NCAA championship at University of California Berkeley, and
was very proud of being the coach of the 1960 Rome Olympic team
where we won a gold medal.
And I'm grateful, very much grateful for the opportunity
that the game of basketball has given me and my family. But I'm
here today to voice strong opposition to the Amateur Sports
Integrity Act.
This legislation will not bring integrity to the game. It's
only going to make gambling worse. As someone who has lived
through the mistakes of the past, I don't want to see history
repeated. In 1949, when I was a young coach, I took my team,
the University of San Francisco, to the NIT in Madison Square
Garden.
I was there during the era to witness the terrible point
shaving scandals of that period. It took many years of
investigation to reveal the full extent of those schemes and
fixes. Thirty-two players were ultimately implicated in 86
games in 17 states. Hundreds of innocent teammates were hurt by
these scandals.
Now, 50 years later, the supporters of this legislation
wrongly believe that changing the law will somehow prevent
point shaving schemes and other fixes in college sports. But it
isn't Nevada that's the problem. It is illegal bookies and
widespread illegal gambling that occurs elsewhere that is to
blame, and this has been pointed out by others before me.
I'm here to strongly tell you that Nevada's legal sport
book actually helps keep college sports honest. Let me tell you
why. They help uncover schemes and fixes by picking up
suspicious betting activity. Legal bookies, in fact, act as a
safety valve to blow the whistle on a fixed game.
Now, 1948, and 1949, the 1950s and the early 1960s, we had
no monitor that was overlooking the game. We had no way of
understanding that there was any kind of an irregularity in the
betting of the game, and so we were out there as coaches. We
had a problem, in New York especially, of keeping your team
away from any kind of a public contact. I wouldn't even let the
players go out of the hotel unless there were three of them in
a group. I wouldn't let a phone call come in or go out of a
player's room. The call came through me. That's how concerned
we were for the fixers of those betting the game.
In 1994, Nevada sports books were the ones who tipped off
the NCAA and legal authorities that possible point shaving was
taking place at Arizona State. They informed the Pac 10
officials and the FBI before the game about possible point
shaving in the game against the Washington Huskies. That's why
it's hard for me to understand why the NCAA now wants to
destroy the system that provides them with critical information
on college sports. The NCAA has never single handedly uncovered
a point shaving or game fix scandal. The NCAA even credits
Nevada sports books with helping to uncover recent point
shaving schemes.
Right now, Nevada sports books provide one of the most
consistent protectors for coaches, players and their sports
programs. What Nevada also can do is to take the game off the
board because of the betting pattern and regulations, and when
the game is taken off the boards, it's a spotlight on the game,
and a red light for all coaches, especially those two coaches
of the games involved. It also really frightens the fixers.
Nevada's power to take the game off the board is the
ultimate deterrent against fixers. It can trigger an
investigation of the players who can then finger the fixer.
Let me be clear. I do not favor basketball gambling and the
coaches that have been up here before the Committee, I agree
with them. If I was coaching today and you asked me the
question about gambling, as a coach, I'd say the same thing.
But I would qualify my answer with have you got a better plan.
Can you put something in motion that's going to protect the
players, the coaches, and the universities. The universities,
they were involved in the scandals of the forties and fifties
and sixties. In fact, one university president lost his job
because the school was involved. It would be a real mistake, I
believe, to get rid of a system that has proven its worth since
1975. College sports betting in Nevada could invite back far
reaching scandals that plagued basketball in these periods I've
talked about.
The teams involved with these scandals had many talented
players. Some of the players were involved had it not been for
their association with the fix, would be in the Hall of Fame
today, especially the University of Kentucky players. The Hall
of Fame coaches, some of our greatest coaches and most
respected coaches were involved in the sense that their team,
some of their team members were in on a fix.
And throughout the rest of their lives, they had that cloud
of having coached a team that was involved in the fix. But even
the best coaches and the college presidents did not prevent
interference from these outside fixers. We should never return
to those times. The current system is not completely fail safe,
but it is the only protection that exists. And the bill would
take that away. It is my belief that this legislation in no way
protects the players, coaches or the institutions from the
fixers. Supporters of this legislation ignore the fact that
before Nevada sports books began operating in 1975, there were
at least 40 separate point shaving incidents from the late
1940s through the early 1970s and that since 1975, there have
only been four such incidents. I fail to see in this
legislation any measures that offer the protection from illegal
gambling that college sports desperately needs. So finally, let
me leave this with you, an old Irish expression from a young
Irish lad: Beware of trading the devil you know for the devil
you don't.
Once again I want to thank you for the opportunity to
present my position on this legislation, and I'll later be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pete Newell, Coach,
Member of the Basketball Hall of Fame
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is
Pete Newell and I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify.
I have spent my life coaching the game of basketball. And I'm a
member of the Basketball Hall of Fame. I've felt the joy of winning:
the 1949 NIT championship; the 1959 NCAA championship; and coaching the
1960 Olympic Gold Medal team.
I'm grateful for the opportunities that the game has given me and
my family.
I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to the Amateur Sports
Integrity Act. This legislation will not bring integrity to the game,
but will only make the gambling problem worse.
As someone who has lived through the mistakes of the past, I don't
want to see history repeated.
In 1949, when I was a young coach, I took my University of San
Francisco team to the NIT in Madison Square Garden. I was there during
that era to witness the terrible point-shaving scandals of that period.
It took many years of investigation to reveal the full extent of
these schemes and fixes.
Thirty-two players were ultimately implicated in the fixing of 86
games in 17 States. Hundreds of innocent teammates were hurt by these
scandals.
Now 50 years later, the supporters of this legislation wrongly
believe that changing the law will somehow prevent point shaving
schemes and other ``fixes'' in college sports.
But it isn't Nevada that is the problem, it is the illegal bookies
and widespread illegal gambling that occurs elsewhere that is to blame.
I am here to strongly tell you that Nevada's legal sports books
actually keep college sports honest.
Let me tell you why.
They help uncover schemes and fixes by picking up suspicious
betting activity. Legal bookies, in fact, act as a safety valve to blow
the whistle on a fixed game.
In 1994, Nevada's sports books were the ones who tipped off the
NCAA and legal authorities that possible point shaving was taking place
at Arizona State.
They informed PAC-10 officials and the FBI before the game was over
about possible point shaving in the game against Washington.
That's why it's hard for me to understand why the NCAA now wants to
destroy the system that provides them with critical information on
college sports.
The NCAA has never single-handedly uncovered a point-shaving or
game-fixing scandal. The NCAA even credits Nevada's sports books with
helping to uncover recent point shaving schemes.
Right now Nevada's sports books provides one of the most consistent
protections for coaches, players, and their sports programs.
What Nevada also can do is take a game off the board because of
betting patterns and irregularities.
When the game is taken off of the board, it's a spotlight on that
game--and a red light for all coaches--and particularly for the two
coaches of the teams involved.
It also frightens the fixers.
Nevada's power to take a game off of the board is the ultimate
deterrent against fixers. It can trigger the investigation of the
players who could then finger the fixer.
Let me be clear, I am strongly opposed to gambling on college
basketball. I know the effects gambling can have on individual players
and the damage it can cause to the coach and his program. But it would
be a mistake to get rid of a system that has proven its worth since
1975.
Getting rid of college sports betting in Nevada could invite back
the far-reaching scandals that plagued college basketball in the 1940s,
1950s, and 1960s.
The teams involved with those scandals had talented players, Hall
of Fame coaches, and the support of their universities. But, even the
best coaches and college presidents did not prevent interference from
those outside fixers.
We should never return to those times.
The current system is not completely failsafe, but it is the only
protection that exists.
This bill would take that away.
So finally, let me leave you with this. An old Irish expression
goes, ``Beware of trading the divil you know for the divil you don't.''
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present my position on
this legislation. I would be happy to take any questions you may have
at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, coach.
Coach Williams, how aware are your players of the point
spread?
Mr. Williams. They are very aware. They read the newspapers
and they are aware, but the good side of that is it makes them
aware of the gambling situation and hopefully that helps. We
talk enough about it so that they understand that whatever they
trade currently will effect them the rest of their lives, and
hopefully that keeps them from getting involved. But you better
be able to talk about it because it's certainly talked about on
campus. You know, the idea of Las Vegas, that has an image in
automatic the players' minds, and whether you like it or not,
that is is a code word when it comes to gambling, and we do
fight against that, there's no doubt about it.
The Chairman. Mr. Ivory, are your teammates very aware of
the point spread, for example, say when you were competing in
the NCAA Sweet 16?
Mr. Ivory. Oh, definitely. We've had a number of
conversations about the situation. Penn State is not a
basketball powerhouse and this was the first year we've gone to
the tournament, so we've always been on the bottom side of the
point spread. So we used that to our advantage somewhat, but
it's sometimes very discouraging, you know, when you pick up
the paper and you see you're picked to lose before you even
step in the gym.
And it's definitely apparent to all of us.
The Chairman. Ms. Hurd, suppose that college betting and
college sports was made illegal in all 50 states instead of the
49 that is presently the case. I'm intrigued by by Dr.
Shaffer's reference to prohibition, I guess we have prohibition
in 49 states but not 50. But what would be the effect on the
line being published by people, and spread by people like Mr.
Sheridan that live in Alabama, etcetera, and not be posted in
places in the casinos in Las Vegas and the places where they
bet. What effects do you think that would have on the
publishing of lines by various newspapers, and you mentioned
some do and some don't, of the line?
Ms. Hurd. Well, I think when they keep saying oh, the
newspapers would still publish a line, there are a lot of lines
available. Even sitting in our newspaper office at night, we
can choose between the Tribune service and the Associated Press
and there are several others. Mr. Sheridan's line is often
quoted. There are a lot of different people who do a line so
you could always go and get a line, but what I am suggesting is
that the editors of the country would then have a much tougher
leap to say we're going to go out of our way to give you
information on something that can only be used illegally, and
we're going to have to go buy it. And I just don't see sports
editors or editors of newspapers saying yeah, let's go buy a
line to give people illegal information. I just don't see--we
will, I shouldn't say illegal information, information on an
illegal act. I don't think it would happen. Because right now
they use the argument, well, we're interested. The betting line
in Las Vegas shows you--but if there really was not good use to
be made of it except for gambling, we would not go and look for
a line like that.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you, and I think that's a very
important point. And again, I'm sorry that coach Lou Holtz is
not here today, he fell and hurt himself. It is the likes of
Joe Paterno, the people--I have to tell you, Mr. Sheridan and
Dr. Shaffer and Coach Newell--the people that many of us here
on this panel have grown up to to respect, admire, appreciate,
like Coach Williams who now, day to day, have contact with
these young athletes, tell us it's a corrupting influence and
it needs to be fixed. Now that's what they tell us. Active
coaches today, unanimously they tell us. We cannot, as a body
and as a Committee, ignore the overwhelming body of advice that
we receive from people like Coach Williams who tell us, who
work with kids every single day, that they are corrupted by
this present system and it's our obligation to do something
about it.
Senator Ensign.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few
questions. First of all, Coach Williams, congratulations on
your great season, but also do you feel like your kids are
corrupted?
Mr. Williams. I feel like they receive information that
sets them up if the information is not countered by people like
coaches, whoever can get to them. Parents hopefully do a much
better job than I do. Some of the players don't have parents,
so that's where we step in and, you know, have to take over
that role.
But they are aware of the money that's out there in the
gambling industry, and I think there's a tendency when you have
no money to say that should be part of mine, you know, and the
sell is that, look, you're not losing the game, you're just
changing the way the outcome of the game is, so what's the big
deal. So that has to be countered by the university.
Senator Ensign. And I admire and respect the stuff that
you're doing with your kids, and I hope that it happens much
more across the country. I think that's important for that to
be happening at college campuses, but not just with student
athletes but with other kids on the campuses as well.
What did you you think though, you have somebody like coach
Newell, who obviously, his basketball credentials, they are
untouchable almost, and he's been through, you know, in the
Bible, it talks about gray hair being a sign of wisdom, and he
has more gray hair than you and I do. But when he talks about
that, he's been through it. He's been--people don't change over
time. People are people. Human behavior is human behavior, as
Dr. Shaffer was pointing out.
But when you have somebody who's been through what you've
been through, except in a different era when we didn't have the
sports books in Nevada and he's saying to you as a coach, he's
saying what we're trying to do here or what the chairman is
trying to do with this legislation is actually going to make
the situation worse, and Dr. Shaffer is saying the same thing,
it's going to make the situation worse, and these are not
people who are pro gambling, these are people who are against
gambling on college sports, but they are saying that the
system, based on this legislation, is going to be worse for
coaches and for players because illegal gambling forces have
more of an influence, more of a corrupting influence on your
players, what do you think about that?
Mr. Williams. No one respects Coach Newell more than I do.
I've stolen some ideas from Coach Newell in terms of how I
coach. But at the same time, I have lived that. I was at Boston
College as I mentioned in 1977 through the point shaving
scandal there and saw that firsthand and saw what it did to the
kids. What I know, and I'm not always right about everything,
but what I know is gambling to players is gambling. It doesn't
matter to them a lot of times whether it's illegal or legal
gambling, it's still gambling.
Senator Ensign. At Boston College, was that illegal
gambling or legal gambling that was involved?
Mr. Williams. That was, like all of them, illegal gambling
I'm sure. But because it's legal gambling, I don't think that
that is a reason for it to be there. I really don't. That still
is gambling, and as I said in the players' minds, it doesn't
matter. It's gambling Vegas bookies, it's all the same to the
players.
Senator Ensign. That wasn't the point. The point, whether
you agree or you disagree with gambling, that really isn't the
point. You can be against gambling and you can say gambling on
college sports is wrong. The question is is this bill going to
do anything positively to decrease the effects of gambling on
your players? And if 99 percent of the gambling is done
illegally including the scandal that was there at the
university where you were----
Mr. Williams. And including the scandals that Coach Newell
alluded to too.
Senator Ensign. Exactly, and what he's saying is we had all
of these scandals beforehand. Since the Las Vegas books have
been in place we have only had four scandals. Now, four is too
many, and I agree with that, one is too many. But we have had a
decrease in the amount of scandals since the Las Vegas books,
not an increase.
Mr. Williams. Oh, I wouldn't say that. I don't think that's
statistically true. You're talking about a much longer period
of time before. And the other thing is--
Senator Ensign. OK, take the previous 25 years versus the
last 25 years. That's the same amount of time. You have more in
the previous 25 years than they had in the last 25 years.
Mr. Williams. It's close, it's close.
Senator Ensign. OK.
Mr. Williams. It's very close, and that's a fact. But at
the same time, if you do have all the states in this country
the same way, then at least you can throw that out there to the
athletes involved, whether it's football, basketball, it
doesn't matter, that this is the way it is, this is wrong, and
we have national legislation to support this view.
Senator Ensign. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, 1940s,
at least six schools were involved. 1950s, at least nine
schools were involved. 1960s, approximately 27 schools were
involved, and like I said, since the Las Vegas books were in
place, only four schools having involved.
The Chairman. How long have the Las Vegas books been in
place?
Senator Ensign. 1975, sir.
The Chairman. You're talking about 60 years from the----
Senator Ensign. OK, let's just take the fifties and the
sixties before that. 25 years before that. OK. So we have 36
schools involved. Since that time we've had four schools
involved.
The Chairman. I think you're talking about a 10-year
period.
Senator Ensign. I'm talking about 25 years versus 25 years.
Anyway,
The Chairman. That doesn't make it any better.
Senator Ensign. Bottom line is, I'll even give you they are
the same, bottom line it's not worse, since the Las Vegas books
have been involved.
The Chairman. It's no better, either.
Senator Ensign. But it's no worse. So doing this thing is
not going to make it any better.
The Chairman. No, I disagree, I think we have to do
something. It's like when you put the warning on a cigarette
box that says this is harmful to your health. It didn't cut out
smoking, but it did decrease the number of young people
involved with smoking.
Senator Ensign. And I agree.
The Chairman. We're trying to decrease the number of young
people involved with betting and hopefully this is a way to do
it.
Senator Ensign. And I agree you should continue with the
warnings and do the educational thing and that's analogous to
the cigarette.
Ms. Hurd, I would like to just ask you a real quick
question and submit for, Mr. Chairman, for the record
officially, if you, by unanimous consent, and that is you had
asked the question about the Newspaper Association of America.
I have a letter that they have sent me on April 25th, then I'll
just briefly read from it but I'll submit the whole thing. And
they agree with you, by the way, that first, like all editorial
decisions, the decision whether to publish point spreads for
college sports events is made by each newspaper, and is likely
to vary from newspaper to newspaper. And they said that. He
said if Congress prohibits gambling on college sports, NAA
believes newspapers will continue to have an interest in
publishing point spreads on college games, since point spreads
appear to be useful to newspaper readers who have no intention
of betting on games. Now, this is an association. You're just a
single person.
Ms. Hurd. Well, what I was saying was ever since the NCAA
challenged us, all right, our organization, which is the
Associated Press Sports Editors, it's like 400 sports editors,
that's a very strong organization. All of the major papers are
members of APSE, and at the time the Basketball Committee, what
they were saying, what if we don't give credentials to papers
that run the line----
Senator Ensign. Are you representing your association?
Ms. Hurd. Well, I didn't come here to do that but I can
tell you that at the time that this was brought to me I was the
president of APSE, yes, elected president by those 400 sports
editors. And our first response was to say, well, we're going
to fight that. You cannot tell us that we cannot run this line.
So that's where I'm coming from.
I'm further taking the next step to say that having had
gambling panels on our national convention and having had this
as an issue of great debate among the sports editors, I am
representing to you that most sports editors are not going to
go out of their way to go and buy another line to say that we
know that this is an entirely illegal thing.
You don't find other illegal sports represented in the
mainstream media. And you say well, what's an illegal sport?
Cock fighting. There's illegal. Boxing that goes on in back
rooms. You don't see it covered. We know it happens. There's a
lot of stuff that the mainstream media just doesn't touch.
The Chairman. Senator Edwards.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN EDWARDS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here to testify today. Let me say first
of all that I'm proud to be associated with this legislation
with Senator Brownback and Senator McCain. I think the effort
here is very important to the integrity of college athletics.
Regardless of the arguments about legal versus illegal
gambling, I think it's very important for us as a country to
send a clear and unmistakeable signal that we do not condone
gambling on college sports. And so that there can't be any
confusion among college athletes or college students, if they
are placing a bet, a big bet on a college sport, it's illegal,
period. Right now it's ambiguous because we know that at least
in Nevada, there's somewhere around $1 billion a year being
placed.
Mr. Ivory, thank you very much for being here. I loved your
testimony. My only complaint is about your decision to play
basketball at Penn State. And it was painful for me to watch
you help destroy UNC Tarheels in the basketball tournament. But
we appreciate very much you being here.
I wonder if you would just comment briefly about some of
the pressures that college athletes go through in terms of
financial pressure and their vulnerability to gambling
interests.
Mr. Ivory. It's tough. Like I said, I've been in college 5
years and just this year, in the past year, the NCAA has
approved legislation that allows us to get jobs during the
athletic and academic year. But before that, it's very tough.
Basketball is a bi-semester sport, so you can't really catch up
on academics like you would in, say a football sport, where you
play in the fall only and you're done by Christmas. Basketball
is very tough, and you have academic responsibilities and you
have athletic responsibilities. Those alone are 24-hour
commitments.
It's tough when you have the betting and the availability
of getting quick money when you really have none in your
pocket. Kids are hard-headed these days. I'm one who has just
jumped out of adolescence, and if I didn't have the guidance
from my parents, from my coaching staff, then it's very easy
for me to hop on a cell phone with the new technology, hop on
the Internet, and make a quick phone call to anyone who can
allow me to make some extra money and allow me to, you know,
relieve some of the pressures that I feel of not having money
to spend on movies, you know, books, or other things that
regular students have the opportunity to do.
And it's tough to find sincere people out there who really
care about you and ask those questions, how are you doing, how
is the team doing, is anyone hurt, how is your family doing.
It's tough when you have to watch your back when you're talking
to a close friend over a pizza. And I think it would definitely
help send a positive message to those out there that, you know,
gambling is wrong on college athletes, and we really don't need
that stress when we have all those other responsibilities to
worry about.
Senator Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Ivory.
Coach Williams, congratulations on a terrific job this
year. I wonder if you could comment from your perspective as a
coach whether it would be helpful for your student athletes to
know that gambling on college athletics is illegal, period,
nationwide.
Mr. Williams. Well, I think it would be very helpful,
because there is some misinformation out there now because they
know some gambling is legal. They are not sure how that affects
them, whether the kids they see on campus making bets, is that
legal or not legal. So I think if there was a national
legislation out there that you could point to, they could see
is more clearly, a little more clearer, and I think that's
important because people like this are really role models for
the young people coming up. They are the people this they look
to, not the coaches or anything else. They look to the current
players. So when a current player really has a problem, that
really hurts a lot of people, not just the players involved. So
I think national legislation would be a very good thing for us
in the game of basketball.
Senator Edwards. Do you see anything inconsistent about
banning legal gambling on college athletics and at the same
time increasing our efforts and resources needed to crack down
on illegal gambling on college sports. These things aren't
mutually exclusive. We could do both at the same time, can't
we?
Mr. Williams. Well, that's what I feel, that whether it's
illegal gambling or so-called legal gambling, it's still
gambling. So I think one leads to the other. They are
connected, no matter what people say I really believe they are
connected, and I think if we can do something in one area, it
certainly will help the other area.
Senator Edwards. Coach Newell, I was interested in your
comment about, the last thing you said, not trading the devil
you know for the devil you don't. From my perspective it is
that we ought to be trying to get rid of the devil, either the
devil we know or the devil we don't. And we appreciate all the
comments of the witnesses here today, but I have to say I agree
with Mr. Ivory and Coach Williams that it's very important for
us nationally to send a clear and unmistakable signal that we
don't condone gambling on college sports, for there to be no
question and no ambiguity for the American people and
particularly for kids on college campuses, to misunderstand
that if they may be placing a bet on college sports, that in
fact that could be a legal bet because somehow it's going
through Las Vegas. So I think it's very important for us to
send a clear and unmistakable signal.
I also just want to make a comment about Bill Friday who's
sitting back there on the front row, who we're happy to have
here, happy to have you here, President Friday, who is from our
state, been a great educator in the State of North Carolina for
many years, head of our university system. He's a friend and
also has been very involved in this issue over a long period of
time, both personally and with the Knight Commission. And
President Friday, we also look forward to the next panel of
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panalists for being here and testifying and giving your wisdom
to us.
Ms. Hurd, let me ask you a question. Would it be your
estimation that if this is made clearly illegal everywhere that
a number of newspapers across the country would either cut back
or eliminate altogether their publishing of the sports betting
line?
Ms. Hurd. I think that's what would happen. In discussing
it, we have had a lot of people say but we're just reporting
what's going on in Las Vegas so that our readers, you know,
have a feel for what's happening there. I think there would be
a very different look at it if it were, you know, we're going
to give you information on an illegal endeavor. I think what we
would start to see more involvement of editors in chief----
Senator Brownback. That they would step in then, probably.
Ms. Hurd. I would think so. And again, it changes from
newspaper to newspaper whether this is totally the decision of
the sports editor or whether you would go to your editor and
say what do you think, should we run this line. Right now, it's
just common, everybody does it. With saying now it's an illegal
act everywhere, are you going to go buy a line somewhere, I
don't think there would be a national run to go and do that.
Senator Brownback. There would probably be a number of
papers that would cut back on the publishing or the amount of
times that they would publish the line. And that would enter
into the discussion and dialog a great deal too, wouldn't it?
Ms. Hurd. Rather than daily, you mean?
Senator Brownback. Yes. I mean, like your paper that you
testified----
Ms. Hurd. I think you would either do it or not do it. I
thought it was kind of unusual for the LA Times to say once a
week but football you can do that. I would think you would
either do it or not do it, and the ones that are not doing the
college lines are still doing the pro lines.
Senator Brownback. But you would be confident that this
would be a reduction, there would be a reduction in the amount
of the sports lines published.
Ms. Hurd. Definitely.
Senator Brownback. Dr. Shaffer, I appreciated your comments
and testimony. I particularly liked your first suggestion that
we should have a National Academy of Science study on the
extents of, I take it what you're saying here, the overall
gambling problem in America today? Is that what you're
suggesting we have the national academy of science do?
Dr. Shaffer. Sir, the National Academy of Sciences released
just a little more than a year ago the first study that it had
ever undertaken on the impact of gambling in America. It was a
very critical review. It is, I think, the best scientific
statement on the matter today. I was suggesting that perhaps we
go further and specifically look at the impact of sports-
related gambling on young people and adults in America and
begin to examine the potential ways to reduce or eliminate the
kinds of problems that result from that.
Senator Brownback. And it seems regardless of what we pass
here, we should do that either way. I mean, there is a bill up
to make illegal all of college sports gambling and there is a
bill up to try to focus in more on illegal gambling, that
either way or if both bills pass this would probably be a good
thing to do, at least a follow up to what the national academy
of sciences has done.
Dr. Shaffer. I think it would be a wonderful follow-up. And
of course I'm biased. I come at this from a scientific point of
view, so I like to collect the evidence before I decide to take
some action. In particular, I do worry about the fact that the
evidence seems to show overwhelmingly that the kind of gambling
activity that we're all worried and concerned about, I mean, I
do share Senator McCain's previous comments, we're all
concerned about this. I think all the people on both sides of
this issue are concerned about this issue of the vast majority
of young people who are gambling on sports are doing it
illicitly, and they are not likely to stop because they have
been doing it illicitly since the beginning of this kind of
legislation in America. They have continued to violate these
laws, and there's no reason to think that all of a sudden they
will stop violating these laws.
Senator Brownback. You would agree that we do have a
problem with youth gambling and youth gambling on sports,
clearly?
Dr. Shaffer. Yes, sports gambling in general is one of the
most prevalent forms of gambling in the United States and
around the world.
Senator Brownback. Is it one of the most prevalent amongst
youth?
Dr. Shaffer. It is highly prevalent among youths and adults
actually, very close in prevalence. Youth, however, have about
a two and a half to four or five times the rate of disorders
related to gambling compared to their adults counterparts.
Senator Brownback. Is sports gambling one of the dominant
areas of youth gambling that they then develop.
Dr. Shaffer. It's one of the dominant avenues. However,
interestingly, the research we've done has shown that among the
many kinds or forms of gabling, sports gambling is actually
related to a lower rate of disorder than other kinds of
gambling, and I can only say that for adults. We don't have
good evidence for young people.
Senator Brownback. So we need to look at that more for
young people to determine.
Dr. Shaffer. Yes.
Senator Brownback. But we have a youth gambling problem in
America.
Dr. Shaffer. Clearly.
Senator Brownback. And we have a number of youth who do bet
on sports, clearly. And that continues to take place in America
today. And would you deem it a problem for America?
Dr. Shaffer. I think this sort of gambling is a serious
problem for America. I think that it warrants our attention as
a public health problem just as any other public health concern
could be.
Senator Brownback. We clearly have public health problems
that we have not prohibited. I mean, we have not prohibited
tobacco in the United States. We have done education around the
issue, we have warning labels, and then we permit people to
make choices, hopefully that will be in their best interest and
the interest of health.
Dr. Shaffer. I tend to favor those strategies, what I would
call more informal social controls rather than formal social
controls so that we don't give young people and others the
opportunity to act out against our legislation, and sometimes
we know that there are people who will simply act out against
prohibitions.
Senator Brownback. I understand your point and I think we
all agree that the underlying, we're having a terrible problem
here.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
congratulate both you and Senator Brownback for your
determination and your efforts in this area and the sincerity
with which you approach the problem. I want to apologize for
not being here for the 1st panel's testimony. I was co-chairing
the Aging Committee hearing. This business makes you age very
rapidly, so we have an Aging Committee that's looking at the
problems of aging, which is very important. I was over there
and could not be with you and so I missed your testimony and
want to review what you have said. You are a very distinguished
panel of men and women of great accomplishment and I want to
read in more detail what you had to say in your statements.
I've been trying to catch up right here.
It seems to me, and I'll just make a statement of where I
come from on this. It seems to me that if we all agree that
betting and gambling on amateur sports is bad, that if we all
agree on that, I would suggest that the legislation misses the
target.
I say that because statistics show us that 97 percent of
the gambling on amateur sports is done in states where it's
already illegal, and that 3 percent is done in the States where
it is legal. So if you want to control it, I would suggest that
we look to trying to identify the real target, which is where
it is done every day, every night, where it's done by
teenagers, where it's done by telephone, where it's done in
secret, where it is not regulated, where it is not controlled.
None of that fits the legalized gambling on sports that occurs
in Nevada where 3 percent of it occurs.
I mean, I'm amazed that the only place where it's legal is
also the only place where it's regulated, where it's
controlled, where it is subject to Federal taxes, where it is
subject to State taxes, where it is subject to State audit,
where it is regulated by a gambling commission and a board to
supervise it, where it is not conducted in secret but it has to
be conducted in public places, where it cannot be done over a
telephone or by other electronic methods. It has to be done by
physically being present in the state.
So it seems to me that if it is a bad influence on amateur
sports, well then what we ought to be doing is try to address
the 97 percent of the country where it's occurring every day
and where there's no regulation whatsoever. And I just suggest
that we missed the target by focusing on the only place where
it is in fact legal and where it is regulated and where young
people are absolutely prohibited from participating. So if it's
a problem, I think that what we have to do is to better focus
in on how to eliminate the problem, and that doesn't seem to be
accomplished by the legislation that's before the Committee.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Are you ready? Do you want to ask another question?
Senator Ensign. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I actually want to
direct the comments that were made to Mr. Sheridan as far as
can you comment just on whether, what your opinion is on the
lines being published in newspapers across the country?
Mr. Sheridan. Absolutely. Our survey showed that my column
in USA Today, nationally read, about 75 percent of our readers,
Senator McCain, are non-betters. They just want the
information. It's like the stock report, it's 24 hours old,
you're not going to call your stock broker and say I saw
General Motors at 50, I'd like to buy them today at 50. That's
a day old. You're not going to call USA Today and say Sheridan
said that the Chicago Bears are 7-point favorites, I'd like to
bet. You don't bet with newspapers, you bet in the general
public. So 75 percent of the people that read the betting
lines, according to our survey, do so and they don't bet on the
games.
The Chairman. I'm amazed that 25 percent do.
Mr. Sheridan. Well, you have in this country 40 million
Americans that illegally bet $6 or $7 billion a weekend on
football. The comment about fixing a game, my concern about
Nevada being removed is that the deterrent will be gone and it
will be very easy to fix a game. I don't know Coach Williams. I
know coach Holtz, he's a dear friend. I could mention several
other coaches I know but I'm aware they might get black listed
by the NCAA.
If I could sit down with those coaches and show them where
college games would be easily fixed and there would be no
deterrent to deter these criminals, that criminal element, I
promise you they would not be in favor of this legislation. The
legislation sounds great.
The Chairman. That's quite a commentary on their
intelligence, Mr. Sheridan. You deal with these people every
single day. Very interesting commentary on their knowledge of
the issue.
Mr. Sheridan. Well, the knowledge, as I said, I'm not the
smartest guy in the room but I do know in my mind.
The Chairman. I think they are pretty smart.
Mr. Sheridan. Well, thank you.
The Chairman. They are at the top of their profession.
Mr. Sheridan. I do know in my mind they have a lot of
problems, discussion, steroids, et cetera, and if I told a
coach and he believed me that this would make it easy to fix
you are college games, he would not be in favor of this, if he
believed me. When you send out a message like the super bowl,
the national championship football game, the NCAA finals, the
Final Four, and the see in the newspapers, the Governors, the
Senators, the mayors, they are all betting the State commodity.
That's acceptable.
So when you talk about this message about we're going to
wipe out Nevada, and when I talk to these college kids, I won't
say they laugh in my face, but they are going to continue
betting. Nevada is like a blip on the radar screen. I don't
care if Nevada publishes lines, it doesn't effect me. I've
already been contacted by tons of Gannett papers and others to
say hey, if they ban this, can we use your line, can we use the
offshore line? The lines are still going to exist.
Newspapers are going to carry them if they feel that 70 or
75 percent of their readers are interested in them for
nonbetting purposes, and if the other 25 percent are interested
for betting purposes, they are going to carry them. Senator
Brownback says, ``Well, take, Kansas and South Carolina off the
betting, take them off the board.'' Fine, take them off the
board. What will that accomplish? Zero.
Every bookmaker in Kansas and South Carolina, I don't know
every one of them, they would carry the betting line on Kansas
because the people in Kansas want to bet on Kansas, they want
to bet on sports. It's not going to change a thing. It sounds
like, I guess it's politically correct, but again, I make this
statement and I'll make it to coach Holtz. I'll have to go
visit him but I don't want to single him out because he's a
dear friend. If he knew and if he believed, and the same with
you, sir, if he believed that if you took away this legal
authority in Nevada and it would make it it easier to fix
college football games, he would not be in favor of this bill.
And I will stand here with what little reputation I have
and tell unequivocally, 30 or 40 college basketball and college
football games will be fixed if this bill passes, because there
will be no deterrent, and criminal, and there are plenty of
criminals out there that would love the opportunity, they are
just rubbing their hands just like they would if you destroy
the Securities and Exchange Commission, which you would never
do, they are just rubbing their hands saying know what, I'm
going to go bribe that kid at the University of Alabama, and
the only person that's going to know about it is that bookmaker
in Tuscaloosa. And you know what my penalty is going to be?
He's going to take it off the board. So now I'm going to go to
Auburn University and do the same thing. And this is what's
going to happen all across the country unless there's a
religious experience with these criminals out there, which I
don't expect to happen.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.
Dr. Shaffer, I want to, since you are the only expert, the
only scientific expert we have in these first couple of panels,
I want to just clarify a point that you made.
Do you think that this bill that is being proposed today
will do anything to curb illegal gambling amongst our players,
amongst our college students, or amongst the 49 states that
it's already illegal to bet on college sports?
Dr. Shaffer. No, I don't, and the reason I don't, and
you've just said it. It's already illegal. I think almost every
NCAA player to a person, I haven't surveyed them all, but I do
know a number, as I said, I'm the dad of a NCAA player, I've
talked to many of them, they all know that this is the wrong
thing to do. And most of them don't do it. We shouldn't be here
indicting a group of fine young people.
Senator Ensign. OK.
Dr. Shaffer. Given a time period of a year.
Senator Ensign. About 1 percent, and what's the percentage
that will become addicted to alcohol.
Dr. Shaffer. Alcohol runs roughly, depending upon who you
read, about 10 percent.
Senator Ensign. About 10 percent. So of those three, it's
by far the lesser. The least. The thing that he brought up
about why prohibition didn't work, Senator Biden brought up why
prohibition didn't work, is he said it was because alcohol, we
don't have social cocaine users, we don't have social
methamphetamine users, but we have social drinking. It's
acceptable in this country. And as you pointed out earlier in
your statement, if I recall correctly, you talked about, if you
outlaw something, that people don't respect the rule of law
because it was socially acceptable. People looked at
prohibition and it was kind of a joke. Whether it was in the
Bible belt or wherever it was, they looked at it as kind of a
joke and so it became kind of the in thing to do where they had
these parties where they had alcohol and illegal alcohol and
obviously it strengthened organized crime and all of the other
things that it did. Is that analogous to what would happen with
this type of legislation or is it happening today?
Mr. Sheridan. I think it is analogous in many ways and not
in other ways, so to try to be as precise as I can be, during
prohibition we certainly did reduce the number of alcohol-
related problems among a segment of the population while
simultaneously increasing the number of problems a different
segment of the population. People often forget during
prohibition, we also outlawed tobacco use in the United States,
and it clearly did not stop the development and growth of
tobacco.
Senator Ensign. By the way, that would be a good question
from our Senator from North Carolina, whether he would suggest
that we outlaw tobacco.
Mr. Sheridan. That gets to my next point, which is----
Senator Ensign. Which last time I checked, causes a lot
more problems than gambling amongst our youth.
Mr. Sheridan. That is certainly true when we look at the
public health consequences. There's no doubt about that.
The Chairman. Senator Ensign, we've got another panel to
go.
Senator Ensign. OK. Can he finish?
The Chairman. Please.
Mr. Sheridan. My last point is we actually have legal drugs
in America. We forget that we have legal drugs. Our legal drugs
primarily are alcohol and tobacco. We have other
pharmaceuticals, obviously. People in America understand which
drugs are more dangerous, and which drugs are less dangerous.
Our legislation in part correctly follows which are more and
less dangerous.
In some ways we actually permit dangerous drugs. Tobacco is
a dangerous drug. I think the same would be true for young
people and adults in America. They understand that gambling is
not for everyone. There are certain things adults do, certain
things children do, certain places people do things and certain
other places people don't do those things. We teach young
people that from the earliest of days. It's part of developing
character. I think that while we have prohibition in 49 states
as Senator McCain said, and not in the 50th, this same
prohibition is not common around the world.
The rest of the world is gambling, and given the Internet
and given the shrinking of our world, our young people and our
adults are getting very complicated messages, and they are not
just simply looking at our own legislation. That simply leads
me to conclude that the best way to help people live long,
happy, healthy lives, is to help them learn their own social
controls such as the informal mechanisms that start in the
family and then spread throughout our great institutions, and
if we can do that properly, I believe that we can regulate
these kinds of problems even more effectively than legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Sheridan, I would
point out that there were two reasons why we sponsored this
legislation. One was the NCAA and the college coaches. The
other is because of the recommendation of a commission composed
of some of the smartest people in America who after 2 years
came up with this recommendation. I'm sorry you didn't have a
chance to inform them of the evils that would accrue from this
banning.
Mr. Sheridan. Might I reply, or no?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Sheridan. All right. Well, when you talk about that,
these people have not talked to the nation's bookmakers. They
have not been in the trenches like I have.
The Chairman. They did a thorough and in-depth
investigation that took 2 years, Mr. Sheridan, and they are
some of the most highly qualified people in America that had no
financial interest in continuing the present system.
I thank the panel, thank you very much, and we appreciate
your involvement and the next panel includes Dr. William C.
Friday, President Emeritus of the University of North Carolina;
Mr. Michael Adams, President of the University of Georgia; Mr.
Terry Hartle who is the Senior Vice President of the American
Council on Education; Mr. William Saum who is the Director of
Agents, Gambling and Amateur Activities of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association; and Mr. Edward Looney is the
Executive Director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling.
I'd like to welcome the panel again, and we'd like to begin
with Dr. Friday.
Dr. Friday, welcome and welcome to all the witnesses. Thank
you for your patience. Obviously this is an issue that has
generated a great deal of interest and controversy. We thank
you very much for coming today.
Dr. Friday.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FRIDAY, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Friday. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Adams who sits here with me is also a witness is on the
Knight Commission. We are currently serving there together, and
we appreciate the chance to come here.
Let me tell you why the Knight Commission is supporting the
legislation. In 1989, a decade of very visible scandals in this
country drew the Knight Foundation, a newspaper-based
foundation, into looking at this problem as a national issue.
And at that year, a Louis Harris poll came out that found that
8 out of 10 Americans agree that intercollegiate sport at that
time was out of control, that athletic programs were being
corrupted by big money, and that many cases of serious rule
violations were under mining the basic integrity of the
institutions themselves.
In October 1989, the Knight foundation created the
commission of which President Adams and I are members. That
group, for the next 4 years, looked at intercollegiate sport in
every dimension, and we tried to be responsive to the national
opinion about intercollegiate sports and led to a series of
recommendations which the NCAA has since implemented which call
for Presidential control over university or intercollegiate
sports and that this would extend itself itself into looking at
the issue of academic integrity and fiscal integrity which had
come into question in the testimony that had been given us.
Ten years after the first of three reports that was issued
by this foundation in 1991, 1992, and 1993, we got together
again last fall. We got together and again last fall, the
original commission members, and we invited others to come and
join us. We did this to see what had happened to the particular
recommendations made by this commission to the NCAA. Most of
this governance commission, the recommendations of the
commission pertaining to governance were implemented by the
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
What we have found this time, and we have listened to a
number of witnesses over the last several months and will be
issuing a statement later in the spring, is that we changed the
whole culture of sport in this country by the impact of very
large sums of money resulting from commercial television, and
what is now called by Mr. Cedric Dempsey, the head of the NCAA,
as the arms race among colleges and universities over
intercollegiate sport.
One aspect of this is the issue of gambling and its impact
upon the whole dimension of college sport. What you heard Coach
Williams say here today, my coach, one of my coaches, Dean
Smith, has said before this same Senate Committee in the past
as his reasons for being for this legislation. The Knight
Commission I'm sure will be supportive of this for the reasons
given and I will not take the time of the Committee now to
repeat them again. Let me defer to president Adams.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. ADAMS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Mr. Adams. Thank you very much, Dr. Friday, and Senator, we
appreciate the opportunity to appear and appreciate your
interest in this matter, although it's apparent you and I may
have different views on this piece of legislation.
Let me ask, if I might, that my testimony be made a part of
the record and I'll summarize very briefly with all due
respect.
The Chairman. All of your testimonies will be made part of
the record, full statements.
Mr. Adams. Thank you very much. I'll just begin by saying
that I'm here not only as president of the University of
Georgia but also as immediate past chairman of the American
Council on Education, which represents most of the college and
university presidents in America, and I can tell you that there
is overwhelming support among American's college and university
presidents for this bill.
I would begin by saying that while we certainly support
title 1 of the bill that deals with illegal drug use, we're
going to focus our very brief testimony today on title 2 having
to do with gambling. It's apparent from the testimony you've
already heard, and as my testimony indicates, this is a growing
national problem.
Gambling on college sporting events I believe should be
prohibited in all states as is now done for high school and
Olympic contests. Some of us who are university administrators
are a bit mystified that we think this sort of participation
for 18-year-olds should be illegal but 3 months later when they
matriculate into college at 18 years and 3 months, it's now OK
to bet on their amateur issue athletic activities. I would also
remind the panel that we are still dealing with minors, with
young people. They may be very accomplished athletes, they may
have strong bodies or may be excessively tall, but you're still
dealing in many ways with late teenagers and early 20-year-olds
who are, I think, susceptible to some of the pressures to which
they are subjected and I certainly believe that the PASPA
legislation which left Nevada as the only State where this sort
of activity is illegal, needs to have that loophole closed.
I also would say to you, Senator, as Senator Cleland was
gracious to come by and to mention earlier in his comments
regarding myself, I worked for this body for 6 years. I have
great respect for it. During the days I was chief of staff for
Senator Baker, I've sat behind the dias where the ladies and
gentlemen sit now, and I've watched this Committee through the
years when Senator Baker was a member making legislation on
many matters from interstate commerce to aviation safety to
trucking safety and the list goes on and on. But not only do
you legislate, but you also set a tone, and you send messages
to the country as you legislate on a whole broad change of
areas, and I think it's incumbent for us to make an ethical
statement. I think this is a classic debate between money and
moralism.
I think we do need to send a message that this type of
activity on college campus is and should be illegal across the
country inclusive of all 50 states, and I would respectfully
urge the Committee to move S. 718 out of Committee and to the
floor. Given the support for it around the country, I'm
confident that if it reaches the floor it would pass and I hope
that's exactly what would happen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael F. Adams,
President, University of Georgia
Chairman McCain, Senators Hollings, Brownback, Cleland and other
distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Michael Adams, President
of the University of Georgia. I would like to thank you for holding
this hearing, and for inviting me to share my views on the topic of
gambling on college sports. This is a matter of considerable concern to
the University of Georgia as well as the rest of the higher education
community and we welcome the introduction of S. 718 as a means of
addressing these concerns.
First let me say that I support Title I of the legislation which
calls for research and training in the methods of detecting
performance-enhancing drugs. Authorizing the director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology to sponsor prevention and
intervention programs is a positive step to discourage use of the
substances by amateur athletes. However, I would like to devote the
bulk of my testimony to Title II of the bill, which focuses on
gambling.
Athletics are an integral component of the college experience. The
link between mental and physical well-being is a well established fact.
Involvement in athletics provides an important opportunity to foster
team building and leadership skills among students, and to teach
valuable life lessons about hard work, dedication and ethical behavior.
Colleges endeavor to provide as many avenues as possible for students
to engage in athletic pursuits in both intramural and extramural
settings. For a relatively small number of young men and women,
participation in college sports affords an opportunity to showcase
their extraordinary athletic gifts, and for an even smaller handful, it
will lead to a career as a professional athlete.
From the road to the Final Four championships for men's and women's
basketball teams, to the University of Georgia's packed Sanford Stadium
on a crisp autumn afternoon, to the fast-paced competition of women's
soccer, college sports are enjoyed by millions of American spectators.
The hopes and dreams of the young athletes and our pride in our
institutions are the ingredients that make these contests riveting.
This is the point of the games. This is what makes them enjoyable.
Gambling on the outcome of these games is not only unnecessary, it has
enormous potential to compromise the integrity of the amateur sports
tradition.
Gambling on college student-athletes and the games they play,
whether done legally in the sports books of Nevada, illegally in any
other State, or on the Internet, is a growing problem. Gambling on
college sporting events should be prohibited in all States, as is now
done for high school and Olympic contests. I commend the chairman,
together with Senators Brownback, Edwards, and Jeffords, for
introducing S. 718 to address this problem.
Congress first recognized the potential for problems associated
with gambling on amateur sporting events a decade ago. In 1992,
President George Bush signed into law the Professional and Amateur
Sports Protection Act (PASPA) to prohibit gambling on most sporting
events. PASPA exempted four States that already conducted, or had
enacted legislation that permitted them to conduct sports gambling
within their borders. At that time, Nevada was the only State where
legal gambling on high school, college, and Olympic sporting events was
permitted. Today, Nevada stands alone as the only State in the Nation
that legally operates a sports books on college athletic contests. With
the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent that the granting of that
exemption was unwise.
In the intervening years since the enactment of PASPA, Nevada has
made some changes in its legally sanctioned activities that bespeak an
awareness that gambling on young, amateur athletes is indefensible. For
example, until last year Nevada gaming regulations prohibited gambling
on Nevada college teams, whether they played at home or outside the
State. In response to a request last February from the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) that other teams be extended the
same exemption, the State Gaming Control Board reversed its
longstanding policy and now permits betting on Nevada teams. In another
example--perhaps fueled by the precursor to S. 718 and the attendant
media scrutiny--the Control Board recently has banned betting on high
school and Olympic contests. This action places Nevada on a par with
our other 49 States in regard to protecting high school and Olympic
athletes, but it raises a perplexing question about the distinction
that was made. Why are some young players and their sport deemed worthy
of safeguarding while others in a similar age cohort are not? Nevada's
small steps to undertake damage control clearly are inadequate.
Over the years that Nevada has been accorded its exemption, ample
evidence has accumulated that the existence of Nevada's legal sports
books has had a corrupting influence that taints the environment for
intercollegiate athletics, and fosters a general climate of disrespect
for our laws. Support for this point of view is derived from the work
of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. This Commission,
comprised of bipartisan members appointed by President Clinton and the
leadership of the House and Senate issued its recommendations to the
Congress in June 1999. A key finding of the Commission was that
``sports wagering threatens the integrity of sports, it puts student
athletes in a vulnerable position, [and] it can devastate individuals
and careers.'' To address this, the Commission urged that the ``betting
on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is currently legal be
banned altogether.'' The Commission also highlighted the connection
between Nevada's legal betting enterprise and the illegal wagering that
goes on elsewhere. The report states that: ``One reason Americans may
not be aware of the illegality of sports wagering is that the Las Vegas
`line' or point spread, is published in most of the 48 States where
sports wagering is illegal.'' I would like to put these issues into
context as they relate to college athletes and to college students.
First, the impact of gambling on collegiate athletes. It is easy to
stand among these young players, many of whom tower above the rest of
us, or to witness their strength and physical prowess on the field or
the court and to equate them with the adult competitors of professional
sports. It is easy to forget that overwhelmingly these individuals are
teenagers. These are youngsters taking their first steps toward
adulthood, still lacking in maturity and sophistication. In contrast to
their well-paid counterparts in the ranks of professional athletes,
they have no independent means of support. For these reasons, students
have a particular vulnerability to financial enticements from predatory
individuals seeking to influence the outcome of a sporting event.
Although they are statistically infrequent, several high-profile
gambling-related incidents have occurred involving student athletes in
the last decade. If the amount of money legally wagered on college
sports is allowed to escalate, the pressures on these young athletes to
provide inside information on the team or to shave points and fix games
is bound to increase as well.
It is worth noting that the operative word in the 1992 legislation
is ``protection.'' Would we even be here this morning debating the
efficacy of S. 718 if we were discussing high school athletes? Why
should the period between leaving high school and entering college
deprive college athletes from the protection that covered them a mere 3
months earlier?
Now to my second point--the impact of gambling on the general
student population. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that
says gambling among the nation's youth is on the rise and is occurring
at earlier and earlier ages. A Gallup Poll taken 2 years ago found that
teenagers say they begin betting on sports at age 10. In addition, the
poll found that teenagers engaged in betting at twice the rate of the
adult survey respondents, 18 percent to 9 percent. Several factors
contribute to this behavior. First, anyone with access to a newspaper
can look up the point spreads on their choice of college sporting
events. To my knowledge, only The New York Times and The Washington
Post have adopted a policy against publication of the point spreads.
Second, the publication of the point spreads gives an imprimatur of
legitimacy to wagering on college contests. Third, the facility with
which the younger generation uses the Internet and the proliferation of
Internet gambling sites perpetuates the notion that this is a
legitimate activity, and encourages ease of access. But for the
existence of the Nevada sports books, illegal gambling would not be as
profitable, as pervasive, nor as seductive to young people--many of
whom have little awareness that it is an illegal activity outside of
Nevada.
The Nation's colleges are mindful of the responsibilities we bear
in helping young people become responsible adults. Our obligations
start first and foremost with creating an environment where ethical
choices and good character development can flourish. This task is made
considerably more difficult when our campuses are bombarded with
messages from society at large that gambling on intercollegiate
sporting events is legal, legitimate, and encouraged. Each of our
campuses deals with these challenges in ways that are appropriate to
the culture of our institutions. At the University of Georgia, for
example, we make it perfectly clear to our student-athletes that
gambling or any contact with people involved in gambling is
unacceptable and may lead to their expulsion from the university. Most
of our effort is focused on education. We talk to our student-athletes
not only about the dangers of gambling outright, but of the dangers of
being associated with people who are gambling. We make sure they
understand that such people are looking for information that may
influence how bets are placed--information about injuries, information
about coaches, information about arguments between teammates. The
message that UGA student-athletes receive is that there is no safe way
to associate with gamblers, and that any suspicions should be reported
immediately.
One of the most effective programs we have involves bringing
student-athletes from other school who have been involved in gambling
to Athens to speak to UGA athletes. All of us recognize the power of
peer testimony, and these young men have chilling stories to tell about
the damaging effect their involvement with gambling has had on not only
their athletic careers, but their lives.
We are confident that our athletic department is virtually free of
gambling. We have caught no student-athlete engaged in gambling. In our
annual exit interviews of graduating athletes, only one student has
ever said there is a gambling problem at the University of Georgia. But
we are not naive. We know that there are students on campus who place
bets on games. We are also very much aware of the creeping influence of
the city of Atlanta and the potential involvement of organized crime.
We are, therefore, ever vigilant in guarding against this problem.
In addition, the NCAA--of which the University of Georgia is a
member--supports a number of programs that address the sports gambling
issue.
In conclusion, I do not wish to suggest that enactment of S. 718
will solve all the problems associated with sports wagering.
Institutions, coaches, players, students and parents all have important
roles to play in reversing the current trends. But I want to be very,
very clear: while S. 718 will not solve all the problems, in my opinion
it will solve the central one. By amending the Ted Stevens Olympic and
Amateur Sports Act to ban betting on high school, college, and Olympic
sporting events in all 50 States, it will end Nevada's legal college
sports book franchise. This will make it clear to one and all that
betting on a collegiate sporting event is an illegal activity. The time
has come at long last to honor the intent of PASPA by amending the
Stevens Act to end Nevada's preferential status.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify in favor of S. 718 and I wish you smooth sailing
in securing its passage.
STATEMENT OF ED LOONEY, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON COMPULSIVE
GAMBLING
Mr. Looney. I'm Ed Looney, I'm with the council on
compulsive gambling in New Jersey. What we do is we do
prevention education and referral services. We're not making a
stance on this bill. I think it's vitally important that we
don't miss the mark on this legislation. I've been involved
with compulsive gamblers for probably 30 years. I speak at, or
the council has spoken at, in the last 15 years on an average
of 35 to 50 high schools where we're called in to do prevention
education programs, and we also do about 20 colleges, not only
in New Jersey but we're called across the country to do some
work with colleges. When they have a gambling problem go in and
do some education.
I'm also a certified gambling counselor, which means I
treat compulsive gamblers. I've treated maybe a couple thousand
compulsive gamblers on a regular basis during a 6- or 7-year
period more intensive than I am doing today. We also treat
compulsive gamblers in prison systems. We know that about 30
percent of the people that are in prison are there due to
illegal activity, many times at the root of their illegal
activity is a compulsive gambling problem.
I don't know if everybody in this room knows how much
education that we have provided for our young people across
America. There is no education, no curriculums, in high
schools, in grade schools, in schools across this nation. I
just wanted to lay that foundation. I would also like to say we
had a report, the Federal study report is out.
In my written testimony there are 35 recommendations that
pertain to compulsive gambling, and I would hope that sometime
the Committee would look at what those recommendations were.
Because I don't think that was what the Commission recommended
for this particular bill is what that recommendation was, and I
looked at it very carefully. I would like to tell you that we
have a major health problem in America today called compulsive
gambling. That's a fact, that's a given.
And what is interesting is that the adolescent rate is
twice as high. Everyplace we've done any research we're finding
that to be true. In New Jersey, 12 percent of the adolescents
that we tested had problems or compulsive gambling problems.
Across the town in New York it was 14 percent. Connecticut it
was 11 and a half percent. Canada is 18 percent. This is the
adolescent rate. So the rate for adolescents is much higher.
I can tell you that young people start gambling in the ages
of 9 and 10 years old. Inner cities they start a little
earlier. By the time they are 12 and 14 they are playing cards
for money, dice for money. They get involved in the problematic
kind of gambling in high schools. By the second year in high
school, many sports betters have book makers. Second year.
We're talking 16-year-old youngsters (not uncommon,
particularly in the metropolitan area, where there's a lot of
availability and opportunity to gamble) they have book makers
already.
I can tell you I spoke 2 years ago at a Division 1 school
in New Jersey and spoke to 32 young people in a dorm. How many
kids here gamble? Twenty-eight hands went up. I asked how many
kids have book makers. When I asked a couple other questions,
there were 10 different book makers accessible to that one
dormitory in the State of New Jersey. I can tell you that in
studying compulsive gambling, and I'm very conservative about
what we say and what we do, is that gambling is festering in
every high school and it's an epidemic in every college campus.
I will make this statement that I've made many times that give
me 1 hour, put me on a residential campus university anywhere
in America, give me 1 hour, and I'll show you where I can make
a bet illegally.
I'd also like to tell you a couple real fast things. I
treated an Ivy League basketball player who fixed games. He
fixed seven games in Ivy League in the late 1970s, and Ronny
told me with two other people they fixed seven games. I have
also treated a high school student in 1978 who committed a
murder. He was a young fellow that had all kinds of athletic
ability, he was getting all kinds of college offers, he was a
great athlete, but he had a gambling problem, he got involved
with a book maker. Owed the book maker $1,400 and couldn't come
up with the money to pay him and he decided to break into his
first house, and when he broke into his first house, there was
a widow in there. The widow saw him, she stabbed him with a
pen, he hit her with a bat and killed her. Their lives were
over. She was dead and he was sentenced to life in prison.
I treated a Division 1 football player who was suspended
for book making on campus. He should be playing in the National
Football League as we talk today, but because his gambling
problem, got involved in paying off his debts by getting
involved in bookmaking himself.
I also treated a Division 3 baseball player that had
tremendous athletic ability. He ended up selling marijuana on a
college campus because he owed the book makers money. These are
some of the things I've personally seen. New Jersey, 1992, we
had 19 police investigations in high schools alone related to
gambling issues. In a New Jersey high school in 1997 we had 17
adolescents caught gambling on the NCAA tournament. I can go on
and on. I just want to tell you one other one.
I have a 16-year-old that took $6,000 of his life savings,
which took him 4 years to save, in 1 day he bet it all on the
lottery. It's not only sports betting. Kids gamble on
everything that's available to them. The reason we found out
about his gambling problem is because he attempted suicide and
they called the council's help line and we went down to the
hospital and we saw this youngster. He pulled through but the
bottom line is it was because of a gambling problem.
I just want to say, this bill, to eliminate sports betting,
in my opinion, will not effectively stop gambling on college
campuses. It's not really worth putting this kind of a
legislation in if you really want to attack the problem.
Ninety-eight percent of betting is actually, as we know,
illegal. We also have Internet gambling.
I can give you some facts and figures but I'll just give
you one figure, that this year betting on the NCAA basketball
game reached about a half a billion dollars, on about 440
Internet sites (illegal sites). Reports stated that these
illegal off-shore sites accepted almost a half of billion
dollars worth of bets on the NCAA this year alone, and that's a
growing thing. I remember there was one Internet site in 1995.
Today we have over 1,000, and about 500 just take sporting
events. So we're not going to, this legislation is not going to
have any effect at all on this type of betting.
The NCAA is here and they are trying to do a good effort,
but I can say their efforts to stem gambling on a college
campus will be ineffective, and it will continue to be
ineffective because they are not doing the main thing that
needs to be done if we really care about our kids, and that's
doing education, prevention, and curriculums from the
kindergarten to the twelfth grade, and educate people that are
involved with our kids about compulsive gambling. The NCAA, is
before this Committee and I know Bill Saum and I respect the
work that he's trying to do, I've written a couple letters to
them about their Pepsi Cola promotion, that during the NCAA,
they get in bed with sponsors who promote gambling.
During the NCAA basketball tournament, Pepsi has these look
under the bottlecap contest. Kids are very, very susceptible to
this type of thing. I treat the compulsive gamblers when they
call me. They tell me that many times they start with these
little contests. Here's the NCAA saying, ``Hey, we want to
stomp out gambling, we're going to close down sites that take
bets on college games,'' and at the same time they are
contributing to the problem by lending their name to gambling
contests. Educating key people can make a difference. NCAA
people need to know what a compulsive gambler is, what makes
him tick. These are some of the things we should be doing. I
don't want to go on because I've used up my 5 minutes, but in
my written testimony I have several suggestions. I want to just
say one more thing.
We're worried about the integrity of the game. What about
the integrity of the youngsters getting a good college
education? They're paying large sums of money and the college
atmosphere is not what it should be. We've got gambling, we've
got drugs, we've got all these kind of things. There's got to
be more work done. You can pass all the legislation you want,
and all these prohibitive rules and regulations. It doesn't
work. When you prohibit something that the people want to do,
and people want to gamble in this country, so that's not going
to work. What is going to work is prevention and education
programs. Put your money in that and you're going to educate
young people who will then make better decisions and will not
get caught up into this kind of negative activity that's
happening on many college campuses across America.
Thank you.
Senator Ensign. Dr. Hartle.
STATEMENT OF TERRY W. HARTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
Mr. Hartle. Thank you very much, Senator Ensign, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here to present our views on
on this matter of great concern, gambling on intercollegiate
sports.
The hour is late and you've been very generous in your time
and listening to all the testimony so I will just simply
summarize the points that are in my testimony. My statement is
presented on behalf of 16 national higher education
associations. Together we represent the nation's 3,800 two- and
4-year public and private colleges and universities. We
strongly believe that S. 718 is the right legislative approach
to close the loophole that tarnishes sports and feeds the
rapidly expanding gambling addiction throughout the nation. I
talk to college and university presidents every day. I have yet
to talk to a president that did not feel this was an essential
first step to take in an effort to reduce gambling on campus.
I would like to offer four specific observations on why we
believe S. 718 is the appropriate remedy for the growing
problem of gambling on intercollegiate athletics.
First, gambling on college sports, both illegal and legal,
is a problem that threatens the integrity of intercollegiate
athletic competition. It was just a couple of years ago that we
learned of a point shaving scandal at Northwestern University
involving the men's basketball team. The scandal involved both
legal and illegal gambling on several games. Kevin Pendergrast,
the former Notre Dame student who orchestrated the scam, told
Time Magazine that, ``without Nevada, without the option of
legally betting money in Nevada, the Northwestern basketball
point shaving scandal would not have occurred.''
In fact as Senator Brownback noted in testimony before this
Committee last year, the last two major point shaving scandals
involved legalizing betting in Las Vegas sports books. And as
Senator Edwards said at the same hearing, there were more point
shaving scandals in the 1990s than in the previous five decades
combined. So we think we have a growing problem.
Second, the State of Nevada has already recognized the
threat that gambling poses to the integrity of amateur
athletics and other competitions but it has been fairly
arbitrary and selective when it comes to intercollegiate
athletics. Until recently, Nevada imposed restrictions on
betting on Nevada collegiate sports as well as high school and
Olympic events.
In January of this year, the gaming commission lifted its
restrictions against betting on Nevada's college teams, but
reasserted its stand against taking bets on the Olympics and
high school events. It's also telling that the Nevada gaming
authority prohibits betting on the Oscars and the outcome of
political election contests, but allows gambling to continue on
intercollegiate athletic contests.
The state's arbitrary and selective approach to the
imposition of gaming restrictions begs a critical question. If
Nevada's gaming authority recognizes that there are ethical
concerns about the effect of betting on high school or Olympic
sports competitions or Hollywood's Academy Awards or on
political races, how can they possibly argue that betting on
collegiate sports events does not threaten their integrity as
well.
There is no question in our mind that gambling on amateur
sports is a widespread problem affecting many levels and many
parts of society. We think S. 718 simply cuts through the
Gordian knot of loopholes, uncertainty and ambiguity
surrounding bets on amateur sports by making the prohibition
uniform throughout the country. No loopholes. No mixed signals.
No uncertainty. A clear, unambiguous message.
The third reason we support this bill is because colleges
cannot begin to hold the line on illegal gambling when society
condones and encourages legal gambling on intercollegiate
sports. Our ability to do anything about illegal gambling,
point shaving or other related problems is effectively
extinguished when large-scale, legal betting on intercollegiate
sports is permitted. Over the past 10 years while legal betting
on college sports has been given a green light, illegal betting
has flourished.
According to Wayne Johnson, the chief investigator of the
Chicago Crime Commission, ``legalized gambling only perpetuates
illegal gambling. It does not displace it.'' Indeed, there's no
doubt in the minds of law enforcement authority that legal
sports betting actually fuels illegal gambling and provides two
services for illegal bookies everywhere. First, it gives them a
reliable source for quoting the odds on a game, and second, it
provides a vent place to spread the risk on their bets. You
could call this risk-spreading service performed by Nevada's
casinos the equivalent of hedging done by currency traders.
Even the head of the Nevada State gaming control board has
said that, ``a lot of money made through illegal gambling is
laid off in Las Vegas.'' If a bookie has a lot of money on one
side of a bet, they bet the other one in Las Vegas to try and
even the bet. In point of fact, the lines between illegal and
legal gambling are so blurred that most Americans are
completely unaware that most forms of gambling are illegal.
Closing this loophole would make clear that there is a
difference.
Fourth and finally, there's a gap between our approach to
some dangers that we seek to protect our youth from, and those
that we are tacitly encouraging. Now, more than ever, there are
multiple efforts from government, colleges and universities,
elementary and secondary schools, the news media and the public
at large to combat some of the dangers confronting our youth
Grass-roots and congressional efforts have been mounted to
prevent tobacco use by minors and to guard against drug abuse.
On college and university campuses we are enforcing alcohol
statutes, drug laws and publishing crime statistics. Congress
in recent years has been increasingly active on this front.
Last Congress witnessed the enactment of legislation to protect
students on college campuses from sexual predators based on a
single incident at one Arizona institution. In this Congress,
legislation has been introduced to protect students from the
threat of dorm fires and to notify parents when students go
missing for more than 24 hours.
We hope that no student ever encounters a dorm fire or a
sexual predator, and we certainly pray that none ever go
missing for more than 24 hours. But we do know that they are
much more likely to be exposed to dangers of gambling than they
are to have any of those things happening to them. There is no
doubt that gambling among young people is on the rise and
betting on college sports poses a serious threat to the welfare
and well-being of student athletes who participate in these
events.
There's no doubt that gambling compromises the reputation
and credibility of our academic institutions or that it
threatens the integrity of collegiate athletics. We believe the
Amateur Sports Integrity Act represents the best path forward.
The legislation is not an effort to cripple the gaming
industry. The casinos will barely feel the impact. Where it
will be felt most palpably will be in the locker rooms, the
coaching offices, the fraternities, the classrooms and in homes
around the country. For that reason we strongly support this
bill and urge its swift passage.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President, American
Council on Education
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee, I
appreciate your invitation to testify on a matter of deep concern to
the entire higher education community--gambling on college sports.
My statement is presented on behalf of 16 other national higher
education associations. Together, we represent the Nation's 3,800
colleges and universities. We believe that S. 718 is the right
legislative approach to closing a loophole that tarnishes
intercollegiate sports and feeds the rapidly expanding gambling
addiction throughout the Nation.
Right now, Federal law prohibits betting on college sporting events
in every State except Nevada. However, there is an exemption that
allows books in Nevada to accept bets on college sports. This single
exemption virtually nullifies the impact of the broader Federal
prohibition. The justification for this exemption is difficult to
fathom as a matter of public policy. Following the logic of Nevada's
exemption, should Michigan be exempt from Occupational Safety and
Health Act regulations? Florida from the drug interdiction rules? Or
Colorado from the Fair Labor Standards Act? Why not exempt California
from the Immigration and Nationalization Act?
As long as there is legalized gambling on collegiate sports in
Nevada, we will be encouraging illegal gambling on these same events in
every other State of the Union. With the growth of the Internet and its
reach into virtually every home in America, this problem will
undoubtedly mushroom in the years ahead.
We believe this problem will be dealt with most effectively and
appropriately by the enactment of S. 718, the Amateur Sports Integrity
Act. This legislation would extend to Nevada the current restriction
that now applies in other States against betting on high school,
college, and Olympic sporting events.
S. 718 would implement the thoughtful recommendations of the
bipartisan National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which advocated
that all currently legal betting on college sports be banned. As the
Commission stated in its Final Report: ``Sports wagering threatens the
integrity of sports, puts student athletes in a vulnerable position. It
can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and it can
devastate individuals and careers.''
We applauded the Commission's findings when they first appeared. If
anything, since the release of the report, even more compelling
evidence has emerged that gambling on college sports requires the
solution proposed in S. 718. Without such a change, the integrity of
our young athletes and amateur athletic competition from high school to
the Olympics is placed at risk.
I would like to offer four observations on why we believe that the
Amateur Sports Integrity Act is the appropriate remedy for the growing
problem of gambling on college sports contests:
First, gambling on college sports--both legal and illegal--is a
problem that threatens the integrity of intercollegiate athletic
competition. It was just over 2 years ago that we learned of a point
shaving at Northwestern University involving the men's basketball team.
This scandal involved both legal and illegal gambling on several games.
Kevin Pendergast, a former place kicker at Notre Dame who
orchestrated the scam, told Time Magazine that ``without Nevada,
without the option of [legally] betting money in Nevada, the
Northwestern basketball pointshaving scandal would not have occurred.''
In fact--as Senator Brownback noted in testimony before this Committee
last year--the last two major point shaving scandals involved legalized
betting in Las Vegas sports books. And, as Senator Edwards has
remarked, there were more point shaving scandals in the 1990s than in
the previous 5 decades combined. Clearly, there is a problem and a
growing one at that.
But point shaving by players and former players is only one aspect
of the problem. Equally disturbing is the impact of pervasive wagering
by those who officiate college sporting events.
In March 2000, the University of Michigan conducted a study,
entitled ``Gambling with the Integrity of College Sports,'' that found
84 percent of college referees admitted having participated in some
form of gambling since beginning their careers as referees. Almost 40
percent admitted placing bets on sporting events and 20 percent said
they gambled on the NCAA tournament. Two said they were aware of the
spread on a game and that it affected the way they officiated. Others
knew of referees who did not call a game fairly because of gambling
influences.
Second, the State of Nevada has already recognized the threat that
gambling poses to the integrity of amateur athletics and other
competitions, but has been arbitrary and selective when it comes to
intercollegiate athletics. The threats posed by legal and illegal
gambling affect all levels of competition in American society. And
recent actions by the Nevada Gaming Control Board demonstrate a
profound awareness of this problem.
Nevada has flip-flopped several times in its effort to get its
gaming regulations right where teenage athletes are involved. For the
better part of the past decade, Nevada banned betting on its own
college teams--whether they were playing at home or away. Now, they
have lifted this prohibition and home State teams are fair game. Also,
for most of the decade, Nevada permitted gambling on high school and
Olympic sports. Less than a year ago, the State switched gears and no
longer allows wagering on these two types of amateur athletic events.
And yet, it remains legal to gamble on intercollegiate athletic
contests.
From the start, however, Nevada has been dead-set against betting
on political races or the Oscars. If Nevada's gaming authority
recognizes that there are ethical concerns about the effects of betting
on high school or Olympic sports competitions, on Hollywood's Academy
Awards and on political races, how can they possibly argue that betting
on collegiate sports events does not threaten their integrity as well?
Is there any question that gambling on amateur sports is a
widespread problem affecting many levels in our society? The answer,
clearly, is no. S. 718 simply cuts through the Gordian knot of
loopholes, uncertainty, and ambiguity surrounding bets on amateur
sports by making the prohibition uniform throughout the country. No
loopholes. No uncertainty. A clear, unambiguous message.
Third, colleges cannot hold the line on illegal gambling on campus
when society condones and encourages legal gambling on intercollegiate
sports. Our ability to do anything about illegal gambling, point
shaving, or other related problems, is vitiated--indeed, it is
effectively extinguished--when any kind of legal betting on
intercollegiate sports is permitted. Over the past 10 years, while
legal betting on college sports has been given a green light, illegal
betting has flourished.
This is a big deal. According to Wayne Johnson, chief investigator
of the Chicago Crime Commission, ``Legalized gambling only perpetuates
illegal gambling. It does not displace it.''
Time Magazine reports that years of wiretaps by Federal and State
lawenforcement agencies have documented the links between legal and
illegal gambling. For example, in 1 day during the 1997 NCAA playoffs,
a Schenectady bookie took bets on 65 games and placed them all with
sports books in Las Vegas. There is no doubt in the minds of law-
enforcement authorities that legal sports betting actually fuels
illegal gambling and provides two services for bookies everywhere.
First, it gives them a reliable source for quoting the odds on a game
and, second, it provides a convenient place to spread the risk on their
bets. You could even call this risk-spreading service performed by
Nevada's casinos the equivalent of the hedging done by currency
traders.
Even the head of the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, Steve
DuCharme, has said that ``A lot of money made through illegal gambling
is laid off in Las Vegas. If a bookie has a lot of money on one side of
a bet, they bet the other one in Las Vegas to try and even the bet.''
Psychologist Jim Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and a
member of the Gambling Impact Study Commission, has made the point
forcefully: ``Proponents of gambling attempt to tell us that there is
no link between legal and illegal gambling on college sports, that the
problem lies entirely with illegal betting. They are wrong. The two are
inextricably intertwined. The legality of gambling on amateur sports in
Nevada conveys a false sense of legality to people--especially young
people--across the Nation. That most major newspapers publish the point
spreads issued by Nevada serves in further heightening both the sense
of legitimacy and the interest in college sports gambling nationwide.''
In point of fact, the lines between legal and illegal gambling are
so blurred that most Americans are completely unaware that most forms
of gambling are illegal. From offices, to fraternities to high school
lunchrooms and middle school playgrounds, the average citizen does not
distinguish between illegal and legal betting. Closing this loophole
would make it clear that there is a difference.
Fourth and finally, there has been a critical (or perhaps a
hypocritical) gap between our approach to some dangers we seek to
protect our youth from, and those that are tacitly encouraged. Now,
more than ever, there are multiple, united efforts--from government,
colleges and universities, primary and secondary schools, the news
media, and the public at large--to combat some of the dangers
confronting our youth. Grass-roots and congressional efforts have been
mounted to prevent tobacco use by minors and to guard against drug
abuse. On our college and university campuses, we are enforcing
nationwide alcohol statutes, drug laws, and publishing crime
statistics. Increasingly, we are heeding the call for more vigilant
efforts to prevent guns from entering our schools.
Congress, in recent years, has become increasingly active in
developing legislation to protect students from potential dangers that
might affect them. Last Congress witnessed legislation to protect
students from sexual predators on campus. In this Congress, legislation
has been introduced to protect students from the threat of dorm fires
and to notify parents when students have going missing for more than 24
hours. While we hope no student ever encounters a sexual predator or a
dorm fire, we know they are much more likely to be exposed to the
dangers of gambling.
Make no mistake as to the danger. As Ken Winters of the National
Research Council has told this committee, one of the NRC's most
reliable findings is that ``gambling is highly associated with other
behavioral disorders, particularly depression, alcoholism, and drug
addiction.'' And according to the National Academy of Sciences, in a
1999 Report on Pathological Gambling, ``problems that arise as a result
of the gambling lead to an intensification of the gambling behavior.
Characteristic problems include extensive indebtedness and consequent
default on debts and other financial responsibilities, disrupted family
relationships, inattention to work, and financially motivated illegal
activities to pay for gambling.''
There is no doubt that gambling among young people is on the rise,
and that betting on college sports poses a serious threat to the
welfare and well-being of the student-athletes who participate in these
events. There is no doubt that gambling compromises the reputation and
credibility of our academic institutions, or that it threatens the
integrity of intercollegiate sports.
Despite clear evidence that the existence of legal betting on
college sports encourages illegal betting, compromises integrity, and
ruins lives, gambling on collegiate sports goes on year after year.
This all hinges on the fact that there remains a safe harbor where
betting on intercollegiate sports is permitted--a situation that
Congress can remedy by outlawing gambling on intercollegiate athletics.
It is imperative that we stand firm: to protect the integrity of
college athletics, we need to declare betting on these games illegal.
We believe the Amateur Sports Integrity Act represents the best
path forward. This legislation is not an effort to cripple the gaming
industry. The casinos will barely feel the impact. Where it will be
felt most palpably will be in locker rooms, coaching offices,
fraternities, classrooms, and homes around the country. Student
athletics should not serve as money-making magnets for Nevada casinos.
When you endorse S. 718, you will score a winning goal for our
college and university athletes and for all of amateur athletics.
On behalf of: American Association of College Registrars and
Admissions Officers; American Association of Community Colleges;
American Association of State Colleges & Universities; American Council
on Education; Association of American Universities; Association of
Independent Colleges of Art and Design; Association of Jesuit Colleges
and Universities; Association of Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools;
Council for Advancement and Support of Education; Council for Christian
Colleges & Universities; Council of Independent Colleges; National
Association for Equal Opportunity and Higher Education; National
Association of College and University Business Officers; National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; National
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators; U.S. Student
Association.
Senator Ensign. Mr. Saum.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. SAUM, DIRECTOR OF AGENTS,
GAMBLING AND AMATEUR ACTIVITIES, NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. Saum. Senators, on behalf of the National Collegiate
Athletic Association, thank you for inviting us to testify
today to provide the association's perspectives on college
sports wagering and to express our strong support for S. 718.
Our message to you today is simple. We are asking you to do
what is right for the college game and what is right for the
young people who have earned the privilege of participating in
those games.
We are asking you to take steps to eliminate legal wagering
on college competitions in the State of Nevada. When you cut
through the rhetoric, the posturing, the accusations and
everything else this discussion has become over the past 2
years, the reason the NCAA is so vigorously supporting this
legislation is this: It's right for the game, and it's right
for our student athletes.
I am not here to promise or even suggest that banning legal
wagering on college sports is the total answer to such an
insidious problem as gambling on college sports. The NCAA has
never said that. But it is part of the equation, and as much as
some others would not like to do so, it is the part that we are
here to address.
We learned that in the Arizona State and Northwestern
scandals, Nevada casinos were used legally to lay off large
bets that could not be accommodated in the illegal world.
Further complicating the matter is the money laundering of
illegal dollars through legal sports books. Steve Ducharm,
former chair of the Nevada gaming board is quoted in a February
1999 sports business journal article as saying,
``We've taken step to crack down on the amount of illegal
money being laundered through legitimate sports books. We
really have no way of knowing how much is laundered through the
legal sports books. Based on transcriptions of wiretaps, it is
millions of dollars.''
Legal and illegal sports wagering have been a part of
nearly every major collegiate sports wagering scandal. Let me
repeat that. Legal and illegal wagering have been involved and
both pose threats to our game. Illegal wagering is part of the
problem. It is not, however, the only problem. Our efforts will
only be successful by addressing the whole picture, legal and
illegal wagering. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission
issued its final report in June 1999 following 2 years of
comprehensive study of all forms of legal gambling activity.
The commission's report included a recommendation that has
formed the basis for this legislative proposal before you, to
extend the current Federal law banning gambling on amateur
sporting events to Nevada.
Let me be clear that the NCAA testified twice before this
commission and on neither occasion did the association suggest
a complete ban on sports wagering. We made our association's
position on gambling clear, but in an effort largely directed
at raising the commission's awareness of the problem associated
with sports wagering, did not take the step of proposing a ban.
Even so, without a request from the NCAA, without urging,
the commission made the recommendation based on a volume of
testimony on the problems associated with gambling in young
people. What has been most interesting to me has been to watch
what began as a proposal to extend an a ban on legal betting on
amateur athletics, doing what is right for student athletes and
doing what is right for the college game escalate into a battle
about everything but the merits of the bill.
Those who oppose the legislation will go to any lengths to
divert discussion. We have been criticized repeatedly because
of the size of our gambling staff and the budget dedicated to
this program. Approximately 94 percent of all NCAA revenues
including moneys that will be received from the $6 billion CBS
contract are returned to the colleges and universities that are
members of our association. Those revenues help support the
363,000 participation opportunities for men and women on
campus. There are currently four gambling staff members with an
additional member to join the staff, a staff that operates
similarly to others at the NCAA national headquarters. It is
imperative in an association such as ours that our member
institutions police our own campuses by knowing the rules, by
educating, and by self-policing. Our gambling staff provides
the framework and many of the tools, but we count on others to
implement what we put in place.
The NCAA strategy to attack problems associated with
wagering on college sports is multi-focused. We continue to
carry the message that sports wagering is an issue for our
student athletes, and we have worked diligently to educate them
about the problem. But we need assistance. We believe the
loophole that allows wagering on college sports in Nevada
should be closed.
We need to encourage enforcement of existing laws regarding
illegal gambling, and we believe legislation is needed to
prohibit gambling over the Internet. The system of
intercollegiate athletics we have is unique to the world.
We must do everything we can to protect the rich heritage,
tradition and integrity of intercollegiate competition. The
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act has successfully
stopped the growth of state-sponsored amateur sports gambling.
But we need to close the lone remaining loophole. We need to do
what is right for the college game and what is right for our
student athletes and make sports wagering on college sports
illegal everywhere, all of the time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saum follows:]
Prepared Statement of William S. Saum, Director of Agents, Gambling and
Amateurism Activities, National Collegiate Athletic Association
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and other distinguished Members
of the Committee, on behalf of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, thank you for inviting me to testify today to provide the
Association's perspectives on collegiate sports wagering and to express
our strong support for S. 718. This is a matter of great importance to
the more than 1,000 colleges and universities that are members of the
NCAA and to hundreds of thousands of student-athletes who participate
in intercollegiate athletics annually. As an individual on the NCAA
staff who has spent nearly 5 years working daily on this issue, it is a
matter of personal and professional importance, as well.
Our message to you today is simple: we are asking you to do what is
right for the college game and what is right for the young people who
have earned the privilege of participating in those games. We are
asking you to take steps to eliminate legal wagering on college
competitions in the State of Nevada.
When you cut through the rhetoric, the posturing, the accusations
and everything else this discussion has become over the past 2 years,
the reason the NCAA is so vigorously supporting this legislation is
this: it's right for the college game and it's right for our student-
athletes.
I am not here to promise or even suggest that banning legal
wagering on college sports is the total answer to such an insidious
problem as gambling on college sports. The NCAA has never said that.
But it is part of the equation and as much as some others would not
like to do so, it is the part we are here to address. In recent months,
discussion of the proposed ban has escalated. With that has emerged a
mountain of material and accusations, the ``real truth'' about this and
that, protestations about what this group has done, or what that group
hasn't. This is for sure. That mountain has caused everyone to lose
focus on how very simple this issue is. It's about what's right for
student-athletes. It's about what is right for college games.
ncaa sports wagering policies, rules and activities.
Over a number of years, the member schools of the NCAA have adopted
a relatively simple approach to rules governing sports wagering as they
affect student-athletes and institutional representatives as well as
conferences and the national office. The NCAA's position on sports
gambling is this:
The NCAA opposes all forms of legal and illegal sports wagering.
Sports wagering has the potential to undermine the integrity of sports
contests and jeopardizes the welfare of student-athletes and the
intercollegiate athletics community. Sports wagering demeans the
competition and competitors alike by a message that is contrary to the
purposes and meaning of sport. Sports competition should be appreciated
for the inherent benefits related to participation of student-athletes,
coaches and institutions in fair contests, not the amount of money
wagered on the outcome of the competition.
For these reasons, the NCAA membership has adopted specific rules
prohibiting athletics department staff members and student-athletes
from engaging in gambling activities as they relate to intercollegiate
or professional sporting events.
It is not permissible to provide information to individuals who are
involved in organized gambling activities, not permissible to solicit a
bet on any intercollegiate team or to accept a bet on any team
representing the school, not allowable to solicit or accept a bet on an
intercollegiate competition for any item that has tangible value and
not permissible to participate in any sort of gambling activity that
involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics through
any method employed by organized gambling.
We demand these things of our young people and our staff members at
all levels.
In addition, in 2000, we imposed stricter sanctions on those who
violate our rules. Student-athletes who participate in point-shaving
activities or who solicit or accept bets utilizing organized gambling
methods that involve wagering on their own institution lose all of
their remaining eligibility. Those who are found to have bet or
accepted bets generally on intercollegiate or professional athletics by
utilizing organized gambling methods are ineligible for intercollegiate
competition for a minimum of 1 year and lose one season of competition.
We have established other Association policies for activities
associated with gambling. The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball
Championship may not be conducted in areas where gambling activities
based on the outcome of games is permitted. So, for example, there are
no men's basketball championship sites in the State of Oregon, where
the lottery is based on the outcome of National Football League
contests. The NCAA does not permit its committees to meet or conduct
formal social activities in casinos. We have also requested the
companies that are our corporate partners not to engage in promotions
connected to the outcome of games. For the second straight year, we
have conducted background checks on game officials recommended to serve
in our marquee events, the Division I Men's and Women's Basketball
Championships, to assure they've had no involvement in sports wagering.
We do the same for our men's basketball staff members and the members
of the Division I Men's Basketball Committee.
We have committed to conducting formal research about student-
athletes and gambling. We will initiate this project in the fall to
ascertain the amount of wagering that occurs and the impact of our
educational initiatives on student-athletes. In addition, the NCAA is
part of a task force directed by the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators that also is studying gambling on campuses.
The Association has developed relationships with and made
presentations to various law enforcement groups, including the FBI and
the United States Attorney General's Advisory Group, the American
Council on Education's secretariat, campus security officers, coaches
associations and student life personnel. This spring we are again
reaching hundreds of our Association members through sessions about
sports wagering at our annual compliance seminars at three locations
around the country.
We utilize a multitude of tools to reach our student-athletes and
coaches with our messages about sports wagering. Among those
initiatives are locker-room visits with members of the Final Four men's
and women's basketball teams, the Frozen Four teams and the finalists
of the College World Series.
Our approach is truly grassroots and must be. In the midst of all
of the rhetoric surrounding this issue, it is easy to forget that the
NCAA is a member of the higher education community. Among our primary
functions are those of providing athletics participation opportunities
within the framework of higher education and providing protection for
student-athletes. We are about education and providing information to
our membership that can lead to life-changing experiences, both in the
classroom and on the playing field. Our mission as an Association is to
build an infrastructure of awareness and support to equip those
involved with student-athletes with the tools to educate them about
damaging influences, including sports gambling.
We are not an organization poised to infiltrate illegal gambling
networks. We are not an organization with the authority or the charge
to investigate illegal gambling activities on college campuses or
elsewhere. We have and continue to process cases involving sports-
wagering when they come within the authority of the organization. We
have brought attention for more than 5 years to a problem we would
rather not have exist: there is illegal gambling on college campuses,
some involving student-athletes. We support closer scrutiny of illegal
wagering throughout society--this is not isolated to college campuses--
and certainly it should be discussed within the framework of the entire
issue. Today, however, we examine another piece of the puzzle, which is
eliminating the loophole that allows legal wagering on college sports
in Nevada. We ask you to do what is right for our student-athletes and
what is right for college games.
ncaa path to federal involvement.
It has been interesting for me to watch this issue unfold. When I
first started in my position 5 years ago after a number of years on the
enforcement staff, the NCAA was already well aware of the direct threat
sports wagering poses to intercollegiate contests. From the 1950s and
the City College of New York men's basketball team point-shaving
scandal to several others that followed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s,
the Association maintained an awareness that was largely within the
intercollegiate sports community.
In the early 1990s, then NCAA executive director Richard Schultz
testified in support of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection
Act that was enacted and is currently in effect. But attention to
college student-athletes and sports wagering exploded in the late 1990s
with revelations of point shaving scandals on the campuses of Arizona
State University and Northwestern University. An audience far larger
than the intercollegiate athletics community became concerned about the
problem. For the first time, research showed serious links between
student-athletes and gambling and that betting reached to those of even
younger ages.
We learned that in the Arizona State and Northwestern scandals
Nevada casinos were used to legally lay off large bets that could not
be accommodated in the illegal world. According to Federal law
enforcement officials, more money was wagered in the Arizona State case
than on any point-shaving scam in the history of intercollegiate
athletics--at a minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars. Further
complicating the matter is the money laundering of illegal sports book
dollars through legal sports books. Mr. Steve DuCharme, former chair of
the Nevada Gaming Control Board, is quoted in a February 1999, Sports
Business Journal article as saying: ``We've taken steps to crack down
on the amount of illegal money being laundered through legitimate
sports books. We really have no way of knowing [how much is laundered
through the legal sports books]. Based on transcriptions of wiretaps,
it is millions of dollars.''
Legal and illegal sports wagering have been a part of nearly every
major collegiate sports wagering scandal. Let me repeat that: legal and
illegal wagering have been involved and both pose threats to our game.
Illegal wagering is a part of the problem. It is not, however, the only
problem. Our efforts will only be successful by addressing the whole
picture--legal and illegal wagering.
The federally-appointed National Gambling Impact Study Commission
issued its final report in June 1999 following 2 years of comprehensive
study of all forms of legal gambling activity. The commission's report
included a recommendation that has formed the basis for the legislative
proposal before you: to extend the current Federal law banning gambling
on amateur sporting events to Nevada.
Let me be clear that the NCAA testified twice before this
commission and on neither occasion did the Association suggest a
complete ban on sports wagering. We made our Association's position on
gambling clear but in an effort largely directed at raising the
Commission's awareness of the problems associated with sports wagering
did not take the step of proposing a ban. Even so, without a request
from the NCAA, without urging, the commission made the recommendation
based on a volume of testimony on the problems associated with gambling
and young people.
And that is how we've become so involved in the very political
process of trying to get Federal legislation passed, a process that is
very unfamiliar to us. What has been most interesting to me has been to
watch what began as a proposal to extend a ban on legal betting on
amateur athletics--doing what is right for student-athletes and the
college game--escalate into a battle about everything but the merits of
the bill. Those who oppose the legislation will go to any lengths to
divert discussion from problems associated with legal gaming and place
blame for all illegal sports wagering on college and universities.
There is seemingly no end to these far-fetched attempts. But we are not
here to argue with the casino industry. There are philosophical
differences that will never be bridged.
For the NCAA, this is about doing what is right for our student-
athletes and the college game.
We have been criticized repeatedly because of the size of our
gambling staff and the budget dedicated to the program. Approximately
94 percent of all NCAA revenues, including monies that will be received
from the $6 billion CBS contract, are returned to the college and
universities that are members of the Association. Those revenues help
support the 363,000 participation opportunities for men and women on
campus. There are currently three gambling staff members with an
additional member to join soon and that staff operates similarly to
others at the NCAA national headquarters. It is imperative in an
association such as ours that our member institutions police their own
campuses by knowing the rules, by educating and by self-policing. That
is how a private, nonprofit association works. Our gambling staff
provides the framework and many of the tools, but we count on others to
implement what we put in place.
legal and illegal sports wagering.
As I mentioned previously, the NCAA believes that efforts are
needed to address legal and illegal sports wagering. The presence of
any sports wagering, whether legal or illegal, potentially threatens
our contests. Our games should be viewed for the spontaneous action
that occurs, not because one has money wagered on the outcome. Having
said that, the Association is concerned that legal collegiate wagering
fuels much larger illegal collegiate wagering, which now is impacting
youngsters under 18. A 1999 Gallup Poll showed that teenagers begin
wagering on college sports as young as 10 years old. The poll also
showed that 18 percent of teenage respondents said they had bet college
sports, contrasting with 9 percent of adults who wagered on college
games.
The economic argument about impact on Nevada forwarded by opponents
of The Amateur Sports Integrity Act is not supported by the facts. In
2000, approximately $2.3 billion was wagered in Nevada sports books.
Casinos retained $124 million or about 5.33 percent of the total amount
wagered on sports. Mr. DuCharme has said the amount kept by casinos on
sports wagering is ``very small'' compared to other casino games. And,
the amount wagered on college sports is only a little more than one-
third of the total. Total revenues for casinos were $9.6 billion in
2000. It follows, then, that elimination of collegiate sports wagering
would have little impact on State revenues or the bottom line of
casinos. The amount bet on college sports is reportedly only four-
tenths of 1 percent of overall casino revenues.
The image of legal sports wagering makes far more of an impression
on the general public, however, than the dollars spent. Legal wagering
fosters an attitude and mindset that any wagering is OK. We have
reached the point today that young and old alike believe that wagering
is acceptable. This acceptance isn't because of the illegal wagering
that occurs. We've arrived at this belief because wagering is
positioned as glamorous, sexy and cool. That kind of message has a huge
impact.
We have heard the arguments that the system in place in Nevada
provides protections and security measures for the industry. Still, in
the two cases I cited earlier at least hundreds of thousands of dollars
were wagered legally in the point-shaving cases. Though valuable
afterward in investigating the point-shaving incidents, the measures
did not prevent them from occurring. It would be much more helpful for
us to do what is right for student-athletes and the college game and
ban all legal gambling on college sports events. We have enough faith
in Americans to believe that those who wager legally will not race to
wager illegally.
h.r. 641 and s. 338.
The NCAA supports closer scrutiny of illegal wagering and
encourages increased efforts by law enforcement to ensure compliance
with Federal and State gambling laws. We encourage harsher sentencing
for these crimes, which will help law enforcement make illegal gambling
a priority. We do not, however, support H.R. 641 or S. 338, The
National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001.
Certainly, there are elements of the bill the NCAA favors. In fact,
some sections are similar to recommendations the NCAA made to the
National Gambling Impact Study Commission. For example, in January
1999, the NCAA recommended that penalties be increased for violating
Federal sports gambling statutes, which also is part of The National
Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001.
Colleges and universities are addressing illegal gambling issues
and they should expand what they are doing. But it makes no sense to
threaten loss of all Federal funding--including grants that go directly
to students--and impedes privacy rights to accomplish that goal. The
legislation would require that colleges and universities monitor
student and staff use of the Internet to determine who is gambling and
to report that information to the Federal Government. It is simply
wrong to assume that the NCAA and colleges and universities are
responsible for illegal gambling activity in this country and that
those same groups can single-handedly wipe it out. If that were the
case, then certainly we would have taken steps to make that happen. The
proposed National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of
2001 punishes colleges and universities simply for having the courage
to speak against the powerful Nevada gambling industry and assumes that
illegal gambling activity occurs only on college campuses. That is
simply ridiculous.
conclusion
The NCAA's strategy to attack problems associated with wagering on
college sports is multi-focused. We continue to carry the message that
sports wagering is an issue for our student-athletes and we have worked
diligently to educate them about the problem. But we need assistance.
We believe the loophole that allows wagering on college sports in
Nevada should be closed; we need to encourage enforcement of existing
laws regarding illegal gambling; and we believe legislation is needed
to prohibit gambling over the Internet.
The system of intercollegiate athletics we have is unique to the
world. We must do everything we can to protect the rich heritage,
tradition and integrity of intercollegiate competition. The
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act has successfully stopped
the growth of state-sponsored amateur sports gambling. But we need to
close the lone remaining loophole. We need to do what is right for the
college game and what is right for our student-athletes and make
gambling on college sports illegal everywhere all of the time.
Senator Ensign. Thank you all for your testimony. I have a
few questions myself here.
First of all, Mr. Saum, do you or the NCAA or anyone else
that is testifying in favor of this bill here today, do any of
you have any medical experts, or any scientific evidence that
would contradict what Dr. Shaffer has said today? We have two
medical experts so far testifying that this bill basically will
do nothing to curb gambling, the illegal gambling especially,
that's going on on our college campuses, which we all agree,
without question, is the biggest problem. Do you have any
medical experts and if so why didn't they testify today?
Mr. Saum. Well, actually I'm not sure that we have said
illegal gambling is the biggest problem, but our position is is
any type of gambling, legal or illegal is the biggest problem.
Senator Ensign. The question was, do you have medical or
scientific experts that will testify or that can get us
testimony that will contradict what really two of the leading
experts on gambling addiction and gambling problems in America
have said and that is that this bill will do nothing except
make the problem worse. Do you have medical experts or
scientific experts who will contradict that testimony?
Mr. Saum. Well, I have been a several-year acquaintance,
friend, and business associate of Dr. Shaffer and have a great
deal of respect for him. I think I've read most of his studies
on gambling and youth, et cetera. I'm not familiar of any study
that he has conducted on the topic that we're talking about
here, removing legal sports wagers.
Senator Ensign. And he is an expert in this field and his
testimony today said that this bill will do nothing except
maybe make worse the problem that currently exists today that
we're all worried about. My question, do any of you have any
medical experts or scientific experts who will testify or that
you know about who will contradict that expert scientific
statement.
Mr. Adams. Senator, I would say with all due respect,
that's a little bit of a crystal ball question because what
we're talking about is the current climate, and research in the
current climate, I would argue with you, would be different if
we were able to change the climate down the road. And I think
that's basically what we're talking about here today. I think
college students participate less in illegal drug use because
they know it's illegal. And what we're doing right now on the
issue of gambling is we're sending fuzzy, inconclusive, and
sometimes contradictory messages to these young people about
the legitimacy of gambling. I would argue with you that if he
were to come back and to conduct this research 5 years down the
road after this bill were put in place a different result would
ensue.
Senator Ensign. Dr. Adams, are you an expert on the
gambling addiction?
Mr. Adams. I have not claimed to be.
Senator Ensign. I did not think so.
Mr. Adams. But I do think the culture would be different.
Senator Ensign. Dr. Adams, our expert today, I asked you if
you had any experts on your side that could contradict an
expert that is contradicting what you said, and what is he
going--and by the way, I'm a veterinarian so I have a little
bit of understanding of the scientific process myself. You
don't only look prospectively, you look retrospectively. What
he testified today is he was looking retrospectively at other
gambling problems. Remember, the Las Vegas books have only been
there since 1975. You can look retrospectively beyond that
period, but you can also look at other types of addictive type
of behavior like alcoholism during prohibition. And that's some
of the testimony he was talking about today.
My question is do you have any testimony, and obviously I'm
guessing because you haven't come up with any that the answer
is no.
Yes, Dr. Hartle.
Dr. Hartle. Yes, I obviously have deep respect for anybody
who is an academic Ph.D. or a medical, veterinarian Ph.D. as
well. What our expertise is in dealing with the students, and
what we would say is that almost every coach you have heard
from, every college university president I have talked to and I
believe every one that Dr. Adams and Dr. Friday have talked to,
every college and university trustee, people who deal with
students on a day-to-day basis, will tell you this is a first
and essential step. I believe this evidence is just as good and
just as important to the Committee, indeed probably more
important, than an academic study that is not totally on point.
Senator Ensign. What scientific evidence do you have?
Dr. Hartle. The day-to-day interaction with students, of
presidents, coaches, athletics directors----
Senator Ensign. I said scientific study. You have none.
Dr. Hartle. Well----
Senator Ensign. You have none. You have no scientific
study.
Dr. Hartle. The answer you want is we do not have any and--
--
Senator Ensign. Thank you.
Dr. Hartle [continuing]. And based on the answer you want,
we don't have any.
Senator Ensign. Thank you.
Dr. Hartle. We do have plenty----
Senator Ensign. I want to point Dr. Adams----
Dr. Hartle [continuing]. We do have plenty of evidence to
make the case just----
Senator Ensign. You do not have scientific evidence though.
Scientific evidence is different than anecdotal evidence. Dr.
Adams, what is the University of Georgia doing to curb
gambling. We're talking about mixed messages. What programs do
you have in effect not only for your student athletes, but for
the general population.
Dr. Adams. Well, we do have programs at orientation,
Senator, that deal with gambling, with alcohol, illicit drug
use across the board and the incoming students are made aware
of those concerns. We also have a number of programs directed
specifically at our student athletes. We do bring back to
campus those that have been addicted to excess active gambling.
We have them talk to student athletes. We participate in the
NCAA program that the NCAA representative has already
mentioned, and we make clear to all of our student athletes the
dangers in this area.
Senator Ensign. So you feel like you monitor this thing
fairly closely, and you have a policy, correct, of expelling
students if they are involved in illegal gambling activities or
student athletes.
Dr. Adams. I'm not aware of the specific regulation to
which you speak----
Senator Ensign. I'm talking about your own campus. You're
not aware----
Dr. Adams. I would certainly think if a student athletes
were involved in this kind of activity, the coach would dismiss
him to start with.
Senator Ensign. And you're aware of the studies, NCAA,
University of Michigan studies, about the numbers of athletes
that are gambling?
Dr. Adams. I am.
Senator Ensign. Have you ever expelled anybody or have you
ever found any of your athletes that are gambling.
Dr. Adams. Thankfully not, and I hope it doesn't come to
that, but I do think there's a heightened awareness today of
the issues, Senator.
Senator Ensign. Based on the statistics, do you think that
University of Georgia athletes are gambling on sports?
Dr. Adams. Well, I don't know the answer to that. I
certainly hope not. I have no indication that they are.
Senator Ensign. OK. I just want to point something out to
you. If you look at the visual over here, it's pretty hard to
read but we'll get you a copy of this. This is via the
University of Georgia official Web site. You allow students to
have their Web sites tied to your Web sites. And the bottom
line is that this is one of your students, OK?
And on this student's Web site, is a link to an offshore
betting site. So you may want to look into that yourself
because I believe that that's kind of a mixed message that
you're sending to the University of Georgia.
Dr. Adams. Well, I don't believe we're sending that
message, Senator. It would be pretty hard for me to control the
individual actions of 33,000 students and 10,000 employees. But
I don't think there's any doubt what the institutional policy
would be. This Web site connection is certainly not initiated
by the university or any official representative of it.
Senator Ensign. I never suggested it was. I'm just saying
policing, part of University's responsibility is policing. If
we're going to do things about--all we're suggesting is that
the NCAA and its member institutions need to do a better job. I
think that's what Mr. Looney was saying. If you heard his
testimony, another expert in the field, he is saying that the
universities, the NCAA are not doing enough today.
Dr. Adams. Well, now we have a point, Senator, on which we
can agree, and I would certainly affiliate myself with those
remarks, but I also think with all due respect the Congress has
an opportunity to help us create a backdrop that would make
that sort of intervention on the part of college college and
university administrators more effective and to go directly to
the problem, rather than to send the kind of mixed messages
that we're now sending.
Senator Ensign. And I would agree once again with your
statement. The disagreement I would have is this legislation
doesn't do what you want. What you want is we've got to do
something about the illegal gambling because that's where the
problem is, and it is the Congress's responsibility to help,
because the states, universities, the NCAA cannot deal with
that problem by itself, and that's why Senator Reid and I have
proposed legislation to do exactly what you've talked about,
and that's to go after the problem.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Maybe what we can do is find more, fund
some studies about the overall addictive impacts of gambling
and the problems we're having of addictive gambling across the
country. I think those would be well worth it. We've got a
number of studies we've been working off of. University of
Michigan did a study of coaches--excuse me, not coaches,
referees that were betting on games. A number of them said that
it affected their calls. We've got that study. We've got
another, I think University of Michigan study that looked at
the players and the students' involvement in that.
That's a study that has frequently been cited. But I would
certainly support additional, if we want to have additional
studies from the Federal Government, I think we've got a big
problem here. I think Dr. Shaffer was testifying about the
problem of youth gambling and we've got an enormous amount of
addiction that's taking place in this country and it's hurting
us. It's hurting our kids. I haven't heard any testimony that
counters that. Now, that's I think maybe a broader issue than
what we're about on this particular bill this year.
Senator Ensign. Sir, if you would yield, I think you make a
very valid point and that's some of--you weren't here for Mr.
Looney's testimony on that but that's some of the stuff that he
was alluding to earlier as well.
Senator Brownback. Which I would certainly support that,
because I think we've got a big problem. And we're seeing some
of the manifestations of it taking place here. And I think
that's why, I respect the fervor of everybody's opinion and
feel for this, but what we're getting is all these coaches and
players and university presidents saying we've got a problem
here and we're confronting it regularly and now we grasp for
how do we start to deal with this.
I think this is a legitimate way to deal with it. Now,
others would say not, but to the extent, if we need to and I
think it would be wise to document the fuller nature of the
problem, I'd be all for that and we can put some amendments
forward even maybe on the education bill to authorize that. I
don't think anybody would be opposed to greater review of what
this problem is.
Mr. Looney, I'm going to ask a question of Mr. Saum unless
you wanted to speak on this point.
Mr. Looney. I just wanted to say that at the root of every
kind of gambling activity is usually compulsive gambling.
Eighty percent of the people can gamble and kids will gamble,
they are going to gamble and get through it with no problem.
Ten to fifteen are going to have some problems with it. Now, 5
percent become addicted. Now, I was at a college when Bill had
three of the people that were caught in this gambling fix, they
were going around to the colleges and talking and I happened to
talk to all three of them. I know for a fact that two of those
gentleman are compulsive gamblers. There was no college campus
policy set in place to help them with their addiction. So I
think these are the things we need to do. Because we have a
responsibility to take care of people who are sick, and many
times young people involved in these fixes, they are compulsive
gamblers.
What we need to do is have a policy in place in colleges
where they could be referred to professionals, get evaluated,
find out for a fact they are compulsive gamblers, get them into
treatment. Compulsive gambling is a treatable illness.
Senator Brownback. It would be. Now you're speaking
contrary to the coaches we've had testify, which the coaches
have said I'm always getting probed for information, I'm being
harassed about this, I'm having to protect my players.
Remember, the coach is acting like a parent over the players
and they are really trying to protect them and they are seeing
this constant push here by billions of dollars being bet.
Mr. Saum, there's been a pretty rough criticism, I think
unduly sown although there's a good positive side effect, it
causes people to do more, of the NCAA not doing enough to
prevent illegal gambling on college campuses. But you've taken
upon yourself to make some efforts and I think you've stepped
up some efforts. Could you identify what those are or even if
you--I've seen previous advertising or PSAs that you've
required the network that carries your sports events to put on.
Mr. Saum. Well, Senator, after hearing today that we do
nothing at the NCAA, I'm hopeful this public hearing doesn't
get back to my wife and three kids, because they are going to
ask me what I've been doing for the last 5 years. We do have
public service announcements. I don't know if it's appropriate
or not to show. We have the arrangement to show it here. It
would take about a minute and 12 seconds if the Senators would
like to see it.
Senator Brownback. Yeah, sure, put it on.
Mr. Saum. These are public service announcements that.
Senator Brownback. When do they show Saum Sam that ran
during the men's and women's basketball tournament?
Senator Ensign. Yeah, and I actually saw this and I was
glad and I agree with Senator Brownback, I'm glad that you're
doing more.
Mr. Saum. This is our women's PSA.
[Videos played.]
Mr. Saum. Senator, I'd also like to point out that while
actually I enjoy the criticism, because we look in the mirror
and it's a healthy thing for all of us to do I think, these
PSAs have ran way before the casino industry or the U.S. Senate
took any interest in sports wagering issues. So the NCAA has
been doing this for many, many years. Other ideas and
educational materials that we've done over the past several
years we have developed a poster, and it appears in our locker
room. We've actually upgraded that post tier, we have one for
males and one for females, so we're more directive.
You heard Titus Ivory say earlier today that he saw those
in his locker room. We have, this public service announcement
was put on beta tape and sent to school in the NCAA to use on
their coaches shows and in their stadiums and arenas. We also
developed a relationship with the national endowment for
financial education. It's about a 40-page booklet that deals
with financial education and sports wagering, and that was
distributed to every student athlete in the NCAA at all three
divisions.
We've met continuously with our national student athlete
advisory council groups. We've met with our coaches'
associations. I, myself and an FBI agent make a personal
presentation to the four teams at the men's Final Four, to the
four teams at the hockey Frozen Four. My associate, Dina
Gardner, met with the women's Final Four teams this year, and
last spring and this spring we will meet with the College World
Series eight final teams.
We also have a program where we conduct background checks
on our men's and women's basketball officials, and we have met
with the official at the Frozen Four, at the College World
Series, and at the women's Final Four.
Those are just several of our educational programs. We have
implemented our curriculum into our yes clinics that we put on
for young Americans at all of our championship sites, and we
also have a program that is called life skills, and gambling is
now a chapter in that. So I appreciate others' comments but I
think they are uninformed. Can we do more, absolutely.
And one other thought I'd like to share with you you,
Senator Brownback, and I'm sure the Senator from Nevada, say
with great respect for his medical background, would understand
that any time a researcher puts his point of view out there,
any conflict of interest should be put out there aligned with
that, and I think for the record we should understand that
Howard Shaffer excepts tens of thousands of dollars if not
hundreds of thousands of dollars from the casino industry.
Senator Ensign. Just to make one comment on that, Senator
Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Let me finish up, if I could----
Senator Ensign. Hold on. People have been asking the gaming
industry to do something about their, in other words part of
their responsibilities, like they've been asking you to do
things about your responsibilities with the NCAA. People have
been asking the gaming industry to do something about their
contribution to gambling addiction, and so what they are doing,
they are funding some people, some organizations, but they have
nothing to do with them.
They are sending money to make sure that they are being
responsible. But that doesn't mean that they control any kind
of research or any kind of statement financially, they are just
doing part of the job that people have been asking them to do.
And then to criticize them, you know, you put them in a no-win
situation. I think that that's very unfair.
Senator Brownback. Well, if I could get the floor back, I
think it is fair to reveal what the sources are. I'm not
accusing anyone of questioning their academic sincerity or
ability or what they put forward, nor would I suggest that of
Dr. Shaffer who remains in the room, and I appreciate his
testimony.
What I want to finish up with is the point that I've
started with and with Dr. Shaffer, we've got an epidemic
problem now in the country and we're seeing the manifestation
of it here at this very high-level visible point and we're
trying to deal with it. We may have to, at some point here, we
probably should drop back and see how we deal with this
epidemic problem that we have of youth gambling and
compulsiveness that's hooking our youth in this country. This
is a terrible situation. I think the bill should move forward,
I hope we can move forward with more independently funded,
government funded studies. I'd hoped the gaming industry would
step forward with its own set of PSAs saying we don't think
these things are right, we want to discourage compulsive
gambling from taking place.
I have personally witnessed individuals getting caught in
this mental game, and it is terribly destructive, what happens.
And I think as gaming has expanded across the country, we need
to step up and recognize that this problem has occurred and we
need to deal with it.
Dr. Friday, if you'd like to comment, then I'll yield back.
Dr. Friday. I don't want either one of you to leave without
knowing that the American Council on Education, the NCAA, the
Knight Commission, and many college presidents are getting
together, looking at these kinds of problems quite seriously,
looking at things we can do ourselves. Please understand though
that our study of this whole question in the context of
intercollegiate sports in this country clearly demonstrates
that we have changed the culture in the last 10 years in the
United States because of the presence of so much money, and
we're dealing with a mass active problem here. Gambling is one
piece of it, but there are many other aspects of it that we are
trying very hard, now this group of very responsible people, to
come forward in a few weeks with a document that will speak to
the very context you're talking about, Senator Brownback. And I
want you to know and take courage in the fact that there is
responsible action here meeting its obligations. But it's a
problem that has got to reach farther into society than just
college presidents and trustees. It needs to be looked at as a
major society issue. We made sports a religion in this country,
and that's what we're talking about.
Senator Brownback. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Senator. Dr. Friday, I want to
follow up on that briefly, and Mr. Saum, you're one of four
people who are dealing with gambling, who are also dealing with
agents, correct? You're over agents, correct? Those same people
deal with both.
Mr. Saum. Actually, I work in the enforcement services
staff that have about 42 people and all those people are at my
disposal. And more importantly, Senator, for one moment, we
approach this probably much like you to get elected. We have a
grass roots effort. We've educated all the people at president
Adams' institution, to use a specific example. His compliance
officer, Hoke Wilder, is Georgia's expert on gambling, right,
and then they bring those people in. So what we have is tens of
thousands of people involved.
Senator Ensign. Right, but the four people you mentioned,
do they do both gambling and agents or just gambling?
Mr. Saum. They actually do three things, Senator. They work
on international student athlete issues, they work on gambling
issues, and they work on sports agent issues.
Senator Ensign. Dr. Friday, when you were talking about the
problem with money and big-time college athletics today, mainly
men's basketball and men's football, although women's
basketball is certainly becoming larger and larger. The agent
thing is obviously a big problem. I think we're all starting to
recognize that. And something the NCAA, and I hope you're
adjusting, you're taking kids from the inner city and the
rurals sometimes, and this is one of the problems, if you get
coaches, not in public, but you take them aside and they will
say one of the biggest problems with the NCAA is some of the
incredibly onerous rules, you know, a coach can't even have one
of his players over to Christmas dinner. And a lot of these
kids are coming, you know, if you've got parents from a rich
background, it's one thing. But a lot of these kids are coming
from the very poor inner city background and they are expected,
you know, to wear a suit and tie and many of them can't even
afford it. And it's a situation where the temptations are so
great because the universities make a lot of money, the coaches
make a lot of money, the NCAA gets a lot of money back, but
these kids--do any of you now, do any of you want to comment on
the graduation rates of student athletes at these big,
especially at the successful programs, as far as the graduation
rates? In other words, these kids are being taken advantage of.
They are not sharing in the money because a small
percentage of them actually go on to the pot of gold at the end
of the rainbow. It's a very small percentage of them, it's less
than half of them that are actually going on to argued, unless
you have people like Joe Paterno who need to be complimented
for the type of graduation rates he has. But most of them are
not like that. And these kids are being taken care of.
Mr. Friday. Our stats show that one out of 100 ever make a
living at professional sport once they leave the campus,
graduate or not. That's why we are very concerned at our campus
about what happens to this young person, staying there, if he
goes, he comes back and finishes his degree work. We try to
insist on that. But president Adams can give you some other
case histories too.
Senator Ensign. But doesn't this seem to be a bigger part
of the problem?
Mr. Friday. Sure it is.
Senator Ensign. It fosters the environment for the illegal
bookies to come in.
Mr. Friday. I saw a story in the Boston Globe that the
showed that in the recent 64 teams in the NCAA competition in
basketball, 24 of them had a graduation rate below 45 percent.
That's got to be looked at. You shouldn't be allowed to make, I
think post season play without meeting a certain graduation
rate.
Mr. Saum. All right. I think now we are to the point,
Senator that you really are preaching to the choir. We're here
because we agree with you that those are the kind of issues
that need to be addressed. Again with all due respect, I do
think the NCAA has made some real progress the last few years.
We do now have funds whereby we can deal with the kind of
issues with poor students you talked about. There are pools
whereby we can buy physical necessities, clothes et cetera,
take care of a plane ticket home to a funeral that a student
athlete needs. They can now get jobs making up to $2,000 a year
as the NCAA participant mentioned this morning. We are moving
down the road to----
Senator Ensign. Just go back to that job again. When I was
going to college I remember watching these kids, and like when
are they going to get a job, from 9:30, 10 at night after their
studies are done until 3:00 in the morning? Because they are
practicing or going to school or studying the rest of the time.
Mr. Saum. Many of these are now off-season opportunities
that are available that were heretofore not available, and we
are moving in the direction of addressing some of those issues
that you raise. The University of Georgia football team led the
SEC in graduation rates this last year. Many of us are working
very hard in those areas. We are not yet where we need to be,
but the people on this panel are the very ones that are trying
to work with you and address these climate kind of issues, and
again with all due respect, I don't think this is a legal or
illegal issue. It's a cultural and a climate issue, and that's
what we're asking for help in changing.
Senator Ensign. I guess what we can do as we conclude
today, and I want to just thank all of you for coming and your
testimony, I guess first of all we'll have to agree to disagree
as far as what the solution to the problem. We obviously have a
pretty strong disagreement here. Having said that, however, I
think that some positives can come out of these hearings. I
think that, first of all, and I've been the first one since
I've criticized, so don't feel bad, I've criticized the NCAA,
I've also criticized the gaming industry for some of the things
that they haven't done in the past on doing something about
cleaning up their own back yard. You know, when the tobacco
industry got up before Congress and said it's not addictive,
you know, we all thought that was ridiculous. For gambling, for
a small percentage of the population is addictive, it is a
problem, the gaming industry should do its part. There are
problems at your universities, you know the problems, we need
to address more of them. I agree with Senator Brownback and
with Dr. Shaffer was talking about about us doing some more
studies and really coming up with some of the roots, because I
did not think the legislation today is going to go after what
you all are talking about and it's simply because of the
pervasiveness of illegal and offshore betting, which is going
to be there regardless of whether the McCain bill goes through
or not. So I want to thank everybody and call this meeting
adjourned.
With that, I'll adjourn the meeting.
[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Lou Holtz, Head Football Coach,
University of South Carolina
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the committee, I truly
appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the record to the
Committee today. Last summer, I had the opportunity to appear before
the House Judiciary Committee as a witness on this same subject.
Several individuals appeared before that Committee and eloquently
presented their points of view. After listening to so many educated
people express their points of view in such a convincing manner, I now
understand that this is not a situation where one side has all the
correct answers. Although, I respect the opinions of the people who
favor the status quo, I firmly believe that eliminating an individual's
legal opportunity to bet on a college football game is an absolute
necessity. I arrive at this conclusion based on 40 years as a college
coach and as an educator.
Washington, we have a problem.
The only possible solution is for Congress to pass legislation to
prohibit legal gambling on college sports. I do not say this without a
great deal of thought and meditation. Las Vegas is one of my favorite
cities in the world. There is a reason why it is the fastest growing
community in America, one of the most popular tourist spots, and an
overwhelming favorite location for national conventions and
conferences. I enjoy visiting there. But my reasons for supporting S.
718 are many and varied.
As the University of South Carolina football Coach, I can assure
you of my genuine concern about gambling on college sports. We do
everything we can to eliminate and educate our football players about
it. But then you ask yourself, is this enough? I have been deeply
affected by the recent scandal at Northwestern. I asked myself, how
could Kevin Pendergast be involved in a point-shaving scheme at
Northwestern? After talking to his family, I still do not know. I have
heard his name bandied about as this issue is discussed. To my
knowledge, no one has talked about his background. If you would indulge
me and be kind enough, I would like to give you a few facts about a
beautiful and talented young man who went astray.
It was 1992, Kevin Pendergast was a senior soccer player at Notre
Dame. I had never met him. Late in the year when Notre Dame was playing
Tennessee, we lost a great kicker by the name of Craig Hendrick, who is
an all-pro punter to this day, with a leg injury. The following day the
soccer coach called and reminded me that Kevin Pendergast could be a
good kicker. We accepted him on the team, but for the next four games
he never appeared in a game.
We accepted a Sugar Bowl bid to play a great University of Florida
team. Craig Hendrick would be able to kick in the game. We took only
one kicker with us to New Orleans. Four days before the game, my
daughter visited the University of Notre Dame and was out socializing
when she ran into a fellow student, Kevin Pendergast's brother. My
daughter then informed me that Kevin's mother had cancer and was not
doing very well. I said out of compassion, ``Let's bring Kevin down for
the game. It would be good for him, but more importantly, it would be
good for his mother.'' We called, he came, he dressed.
Just before the half, Craig Hendrick was injured once again. Kevin
was our only kicker. I was asked by ABC TV what would I do in the event
of a field goal the second half and I said, ``we have no kicker. If you
see us line up for a field goal, you will know it is a fake.''
We were down by 10 at the half but made a great comeback. We scored
32 second half points, and Kevin Pendergast kicked two critical field
goals, made every single extra point, and was the hero of the football
game. This exceptional performance from an individual who 4 days before
had not even been a member of our football team. Kevin's mother died
shortly after the outcome of the game. Kevin asked for a fifth year at
the University of Notre Dame, which was granted. He kicked for us his
last year.
When I think about Kevin Pendergast, I do not think about the games
he won. Instead, I think about him as a talented, witty, caring
individual with morals and values. In addition, he could do a Ross
Perot imitation that was worthy of being on prime time TV. I looked
forward to following his success.
Four years later, he is in jail. Where did he go wrong? I do not
know. However, he did say this point-shaving incident could have never
happened had he not had the opportunity to place the bet legally in
Vegas. It was the only place that would have covered a bet that large.
I am a great believer that life is a matter of choices and choices
have consequences. Kevin made the wrong choice, as did the basketball
players who shaved points. Their lives will never be the same. Did
legalized gambling force Kevin to do this? Absolutely not. However, I
do believe that the choice and the opportunity to cheat a system and
make some easy money was very enticing. This decision has been made by
people far too frequently.
People in general, and college students in particular, have the
belief that betting on college athletics is OK because it is legal in
Nevada. And it is not just confined to the athletes, it is shared by
the student body as well. We have a problem with gambling on college
sports. Many people have ruined their lives because they have over-
gambled and got themselves in a situation where there is no other way
out.
We will do a great disservice to the youth of this country if we do
not take action now. To make it illegal to bet on college athletics
will not completely solve the problem. We must stop all betting on the
Internet as well. I see no way that curbing betting on college sports
can be accomplished without taking the first step to make betting on
college athletics illegal in Nevada. If it is illegal to bet on college
athletics in 49 States, why isn't it in the 50th State as well?
As a football coach, I have witnessed our football players be
idolized, praised, and cheered after a win. I have also witnessed them
being ridiculed, demonized, and ostracized after a win. The only
difference was in one case we covered the point spread, in the other we
did not. I think that we have to do everything we can to remove this
temptation and to stop the pressure this betting places on our young
people.
I will not take your valuable time to delve into all the important
reasons why this bill should be passed, such as the integrity of the
game, the importance of getting the point spreads off the sports page,
and the fact that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission
recommended that we ban betting on college sports. There are other
important reasons as well. I will simply close with a phrase that I
learned years ago and have observed as absolute truth through the
years: abuse leads to restriction.
We need restrictions because of the abuse that has resulted from
legal betting on college sports--college students and athletes are the
victims. Harry Truman, one of my heroes, said ``The freedom to swing
your fist ends where the other guy's nose begins.'' The freedom to bet
on athletic events should stop when college contests start. The fact
that many college students' lives have been altered for the worst
because of gambling cannot be disputed. However, it must be prevented.
College sports is too important to the fabric of our society to
jeopardize it. I urge this Committee to move quickly and pass S. 718.
I thank you for this opportunity.
__________
Prepared Statement of Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,
Kings County, New York
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for giving me
this opportunity to submit my views on S. 718, the Amateur Sports
Integrity Act.
I am the District Attorney of Kings County, New York, also known as
Brooklyn, New York, one of the five boroughs of New York City. Brooklyn
has a population of nearly two-and-a-half-million people and is the
seventh largest county in the United States and the largest county in
New York State. I have been the elected District Attorney of Kings
County since January 1990.
Since I became District Attorney I have presided over annual
gambling raids known as ``Operation Kings Flush'' (an acronym which
refers to gambling and Kings County), which take place just prior to
Super Bowl Sunday of each year. I have chosen Super Bowl Sunday to
dramatize the enormous sums of money that flow to organized crime as a
result of illegal gambling operations. Here is a sample of what we
recovered in just the past 3 years.
In January 1999, we raided eight illegal wagering sites in Brooklyn
and Staten Island, New York, and seized betting slips valued at
$200,000, $15,000 in cash and equipment that included computers,
calculators, recording machines and telephones. Our analysis of the
total amount of betting slips recovered, and information gathered by
electronic surveillance, showed that this operation was capable of
handling more than $100 million a year in illicit bets. The ten
defendants arrested in this sweep were charged with felonies carrying a
prison sentence of up to 4 years.
In January 2000, we raided illegal sports betting locations in
Brooklyn and Queens, New York. We seized betting slips in excess of
$100,000, $15,500 in cash, and television sets, telephones, recording
machines, computers, calculators and shredders. These locations, some
taking in $50,000 per day, had a potential of handling more than $65
million per year in illegal wagering.
In January 2001, Operation Kings Flush focused on a mob controlled
organization that operated in Brooklyn and Staten Island. A task force
of 75 police officers from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office and
the New York City Police Department raided seven wire rooms and six
homes of bosses and managers of illegal gambling operations. The
raiders seized betting slips in excess of $90,000, $40,000 in cash and
telephones, recording machines, calculators and computers. It was
estimated that these operations handled $30 million in illegal bets
each year. The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office filed a $3.8 million
civil lawsuit against the bosses and managers of this operation,
seeking forfeiture of their illegal gains.
Since the inception of the Kings Flush Program, we executed over
100 search warrants, we have arrested over 200 people and seized
profits of over $3 million in forfeitures. If all of the records of
these operations were tallied, the total receipts for these gambling
operations over the past 10 years would be in excess of $1 billion.
This staggering amount of revenue generated in the criminal world
is of enormous benefit to organized crime operations. It is used to
fund all other enterprises of organized crime, including stock market
scams, loan sharking, narcotics, labor racketeering and mob-dominated
construction projects.
Although S. 718 has the well-intentioned purpose of addressing a
serious problem on our college campuses, I am constrained to say that a
prohibition against legal amateur sports betting in Nevada would have
the detrimental effect of increasing revenues for organized crime and
not ending the practices of influence peddling on college campuses. I
do not believe that the elimination of Nevada sports books will stop
college athletes from being induced into fixing games, nor will it end
the proliferation of gambling on college campuses.
As a lifetime career prosecutor, which includes having been Chief
of the Rackets Bureau of the Kings County District Attorney's Office,
as well as District Attorney, I am fully committed to fighting illegal
gambling and all of the crime that is spawned by it.
Let us not increase the cash cow of organized crime by eliminating
legal amateur sports betting. Let us strengthen our efforts to
prosecute organized crime and let us educate our young people about the
dangers of gambling, as we do about the dangers of drug abuse.
I am ready to assist the Committee in its efforts to address this
very serious problem.
Thank you.
__________
University of North Carolina,
April 20, 2001.
Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
Senate Commerce Committee
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing; to express my support for the
legislation you and Senator Brownback have introduced to extend the ban
on betting on college and amateur sporting to every State.
In 1992, the Congress enacted legislation to prohibit gambling on
amateur sporting events. It seems to me that if a matter is serious
enough to merit a Federal ban, the ban should apply to all States. Of
course, from my point of view, if there is opposition to this
legislation for all States to be included, you should draw up the
legislation to allow any State the same benefit as Nevada if the State
chose.
The printing of point spreads in newspapers has long been a problem
to me. In the mid-1980s, I spoke to the Associated Press sports editors
on this subject with mixed reviews about point spreads beginning to
appear in more and more legitimate newspapers. I should point out that
a few days following that talk, I received a call from Ben Bradlee, the
courageous publisher of The Washington Post, in which he wanted to know
more about the problem. He indicated at that time that they would not
print point spreads on college games, and The Washington Post has
continued that courageous policy. I realize that you cannot stop
newspapers from printing what they wish to print, but it does not seem
correct to promote illegal betting odds in a daily newspaper. As
Indiana coach Bobby Knight once said, there are no papers of which he
was aware that print the telephone numbers of prostitutes where
prostitution is against the law. Perhaps with the passing of this
legislation, we would have a better stance in encouraging the removal
of point spreads from our daily papers, which does encourage gambling
on college games.
I am not naive enough to think that closing the Nevada exemption
will end gambling on amateur contests nor even ensure that scandals
will not happen, but it could reduce the potential for corruption of
young athletes and the staining of schools' reputations. I urge the
Senate to act on this important legislation in this Congress.
Sincerely,
Dean Smith,
Men's Basketball.
__________
Prepared Statement of Nancy Price, North Las Vegas, Nevada
My name is Nancy Price, I served as Regent of the University and
Community College System of Nevada for 6 year. I support S. 718. On
March 2, 2001, I testified against a resolution to Congress by the
Nevada Legislature AJR 2. The following is a handout given to the
committee. Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming
Association says there is a great deal of disinformation given to
Congress. Brian Sandoval Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission and former
legislator refers to myths. There are basically six areas of
disagreement and interpretation outlined in the handout. Nevada Gaming
Control and the gambling industry are in lockstep. The legislature
followed unanimously, but not without hearing another side--from the
``soccer moms.'' There is another view on this issue in Nevada.
Please take a moment to review the counter arguments to the gaming
industry and gaming control in Nevada. Thank you.
______
joint meeting of the assembly committee on judiciary and senate
committee on judiciary on a.j.r. 2, march 2, 2001
(By Nancy Price, Former Nevada Regent)
Urges Congress to refrain from enacting measure to repeal ability
of Nevada to license and regulate sports wagering in its current form.
It's not the facts that matter; it's the interpretation of facts
that move men. Aristotle.
Myth #1. Advocates of the ban are the radical religious right.
Most agree that if the betting ban bills get to the floor of
Congress, they will pass with bipartisan support from across the
country. That doesn't sound like radical politics; rather it sounds
like rational public policy. Gamblers have an understandable interest
in defeating the national legislation. Media does as well because of
their financial interest. Newspapers print betting lines even though it
is illegal in their areas. Enormous amounts of money change hands for
advertising. ``It was never intended that the First Amendment could be
invoked as protection for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace,
good order, and morals of society.'' United States Supreme Court (Case
outlawing polygamy)
Myth #2. Gambling is ``gaming'' a legitimate entertainment
industry.
If this is true, we don't need gaming control that has come to
protect the industry rather than regulate it. Instead look to State of
Nevada v. Rosenthal--Gaming is a privilege conferred by State and does
not carry with it rights inherent in useful trades and occupations.
Gambling was further defined as a ``tolerated nuisance.'' How is it
that an agency can make it possible for bookies to take bets on UNR and
UNLV? Why not the Regents or the legislature?
Myth #3. Making college betting illegal will not stop the problem.
If so we don't need lawmakers--just make everything legal. You're
legislators, no law involving human behavior ever stops that behavior.
Rather the laws you support or do not support make up our country's
public policy. What kind of country gambles on its children?
Myth #4. It's not the legal gambling that's the problem; it's the
illegal gambling.
In 1997 at the American Council on Education, Cedric Dempsey
Executive Director of NCAA said that to me; my response, ``That's like
saying it's o.k. to be hit with a defensive missile; it's only the
offensive missile that hurts you.'' If you're suicidal over loosing
everything, the fact that you lost it legally or illegally won't change
your predicament. In the movie ``Bugsy'' Siegle says, ``We'll do
legally in Nevada what's illegal everyplace else and we'll do it
through the government.'' You, ladies and gentlemen are the government.
Myth #5. If you make college sports betting illegal, it will shift
to organized crime.
Where there is legal gambling, there is an increase in illegal
gambling according to studies. For an explanation see ex-FBI agent Bill
Rohmer's book The Enforcer. You're fine in a casino as long as you
have money or credit cards. Lose that and you go to the underworld. We
act as an incubator for the spread of gambling, and we make it look
dignified and invite children.
Myth #6. This is a States' rights issue.
Gambling is a State issue within the meaning of the Tenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution when you're talking about slot
machines; craps; keno, etc. Inter-collegiate sports are inter-state
commerce. If not then the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports
Protection Act is unconstitutional. Take it to court.
In NCAA vs. Tarkanian, the Nevada legislature passed a bill
requiring ``due process'' from NCAA. As part of the U.S. Supreme Court
decision, it said Nevada could not enforce such a law because inter-
collegiate athletics is inter-state commerce and therefore Federal
jurisdiction. A game between colleges in Connecticut and Wisconsin
played in Florida has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of Nevada.
Why is it that the gambling industry does not pay for the ``fair use''
of that game produced with taxpayer money?
Future of gambling--cable through Nevada law.
The X and Y generation want Survivor--reality TV and the gambling
industry is ready for the worst case for addiction--alone at home with
a credit card betting on every play or inning. But you will feel secure
knowing that Nevada Gaming Control and the laws of Nevada protect you.
There is a small window of opportunity to protect amateur
athletics. Remember this, Bill Bradley U.S. Senator and NBA basketball
player said the following October 1992 in a far more difficult economic
climate.
``We all recognize the fiscal constraints under which States
operate in these tough economic times,'' Senator Bradley said, ``but we
must not forget the consequences of sports betting. Based on what I
know about the dangers of sports betting, I am not prepared to risk the
values that sports instill in youth just to add a few more dollars to
State coffers . . . State-sanctioned sports betting conveys the message
that sports are more about money than personal achievement and
sportsmanship. In these days of scandal and disillusionment, it is
important that our youngsters not receive this message. Sports betting
threatens the integrity of and public confidence in professional and
amateur team sports, converting sports from wholesome athletic
entertainment into a vehicle for gambling. All of this puts undue
pressure on players, coaches and officials. Sports would become the
gamblers game and not the fans game.''
He closed by congratulating his colleagues for acting in the best
interest of youngsters and athletes--there was little media coverage--
almost none in Nevada where it should have been a big story.
__________
State of Nevada Gaming Control Board, Carson City, Nevada
May 2, 2001
Hon. John Ensign, and Hon. Harry Reid.
Dear Senators: It has come to my attention that certain Members of
Congress are advancing an argument that Nevada played no role in the
investigation, prosecution, and ultimate conviction of individuals
involved in the Arizona State point shaving scandal. Attached please
find an interoffice memorandum that describes the facts pertaining to
the role Nevada played in this case. I hope this information is useful.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Dennis K. Neilander,
Chairman.
______
interoffice memorandum
To: Paul Stolberg, Agent
From: Keith Copher, Chief of Enforcement
Subject: Arizona State Basketball Game Fixing Investigation
Date: May 8, 2001
This is a brief chronological recap of the GCB's involvement in the
investigation of game fixing of Arizona State Basketball games during
the 1993/1994 season.
On March 5th 1994, the GCB was called by the Horseshoe Race and
Sports Book because of unusual betting observed on the Washington
University/Arizona State basketball game. Agents of the Enforcement
Division responded and obtained information regarding this activity.
Joseph Gagliano (later convicted in the case) was identified as a
bettor. Agents were then advised that unusual betting activity on the
game was taking place at the Mirage. Agents responded, identified and
interviewed the bettors. It was learned that these bettors had also
placed wagers at the Treasure Island.
Senior Agent Lloyd established a liaison with Arizona law
enforcement and the local office of the FBI.
Agent Keeton and I interviewed a number of race and sports book
personnel and reviewed surveillance video. The result was the
identification of several individuals involved in placing unusual bets
on ASU games. Additionally, we identified two other suspicious games
involving ASU. We obtained betting records for all 1993/1994 ASU
basketball games from the major sports books. Agent Vetter performed
financial analysis on this information. All this information was
forwarded to the FBI and Arizona law enforcement agencies.
In July 1994, I was contacted by the FBI and told that a Federal
Grand Jury would be convened to look into the ASU case. I was asked to
provide copies of our reports as well as copies of Agent Vetter's
analysis. I was also asked to assist the FBI in obtaining needed casino
documents for the grand jury and in arranging interviews of casino
personnel.
Several events, including the Oklahoma City Federal Building
bombing, precluded the case from going rapidly forward as Special
Agents of the FBI received higher priority assignments. However, the
FBI continued to develop information from the individuals we had
identified. As a result, several cooperating individual's began to
identify the key people involved.
In November 1997, I was again contacted by the FBI and requested to
assist in serving subpoenas at casinos for casino records.
In late 1997, the basketball players who had been involved admitted
that they ``fixed'' the games for bookies. Indictments and arrests
followed with convictions obtained against all those indicated. As late
as March 1998, The U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix Arizona asked for
copies of our case for his trial presentation and served me with a
subpoena as a witness. The defendants ``made a deal'' and the trial did
not take place. Our case was closed in December 1998, with the final
sentencing for the defendants.
__________
National Basketball Association,
National Football League,
National Hockey League,
Major League Baseball,
May 2, 2001.
Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Dear Mr. Chairman: Your Committee recently held a hearing on S.
718, a bill that proposes to end legalized gambling on amateur sports.
Currently, under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of
1992 (PASPA), gambling on both professional and amateur sporting events
is illegal in virtually every jurisdiction, with the exception of a
sports book in Nevada and a sports lottery on NFL games in Oregon. S.
718 would partially close one of these loopholes, by eliminating the
Nevada sports book on amateur games only.
Our leagues support any reasonable effort to control sports
betting. Nonetheless, we think that a college-only bill is flawed, and
should be amended to prohibit gambling on professional sports as well.
On at least three prior occasions, Congress has addressed the
subject of sports gambling, but has never before distinguished between
betting on amateur games and betting on professional games. In 1961,
Congress maintained parity between amateur and professional sports when
it made fixing athletic contests a Federal crime and banned interstate
sports wagering over the telephone. The same approach was applied in
1974 when Congress amended the Federal lottery laws to allow States to
conduct lotteries, but expressly prohibited sports lotteries.
In 1989, the professional sports leagues, in conjunction with the
NCAA, sought an extension of the sports lottery ban to all forms of
sports gambling. The legislative effort lasted for 3 years, culminating
in the 1992 PASPA law. PASPA obviously made no distinction between
professional and amateur athletics, and, indeed, was supported by
definitive Congressional findings regarding the pernicious effects of
gambling on both professional and amateur sports. When PASPA was
considered in the Senate, it passed by 88-5.
Although the movement for PASPA came from the professional leagues,
and the Oregon lottery never included college games, the NCAA was an
active partner in the effort to enact the 1992 law. On sports gambling,
both then and subsequently, the professional leagues and the NCAA have
been united.
As we understand it, there are two primary rationales underlying S.
718, both of which are grounded in the report of the National Gambling
Impact Study Commission. The first relates to fixing athletic contests
and the second to the attraction of sports betting as a gambling
gateway for college students.
With respect to the first issue, we understand the view that
student-athletes may be exposed to economic temptation, but do not
believe it is reasonable to conclude that these forces are only at work
in college athletics. Indeed, all of the professional leagues take
quite seriously the effect that gambling can have on the integrity of
our games. All have adopted--and vigorously enforce--strict anti-
gambling policies that are intended to insulate professional athletics
from the corrosive impact of sports betting.
As to the attraction of sports betting to students, there is no
reasonable basis to conclude that collegians are merely betting on
college teams. If Congress wants to address gateway sports gambling, it
cannot ignore the attraction to students of high-profile professional
games. Indeed, that attraction will only increase if S. 718 is passed
and betting on professional sports contests becomes the only lawful
form of sports wagering in Nevada.
Some would argue that the legislation must be limited to college
games because that would implement a recommendation from the Gambling
Commission. However, the mere introduction of S. 718 already breaks
with the Commission, which recommended that the Nevada legislature, not
Congress, end legalized gambling on amateur sports. Further, the
Commission made a specific finding that sports betting is a gateway
form of gambling for young people, a conclusion that merits Federal
intervention. Amending S. 718 to include professional sports would be
entirely consistent with--and would in no way contravene--the report of
the Gambling Commission.
We doubt that Congress intends to suggest that gambling on college
games is harmful and undesirable, but that gambling on professional
games is benign and tolerable. Nor do we believe that Congress seeks to
instigate more gambling on professional contests, a result that is
certain to occur if S. 718 extends only to gambling on amateur games. A
college-only bill, though well-intentioned, only imperfectly solves
problems at the college level, while creating new and substantial
problems for professional sports.
If Congress intends to re-open Federal sports gambling law, we urge
that any such legislation maintain parity of treatment between amateur
and professional sports. Any departure from this approach, to which
Congress has consistently adhered, will result in a highly regrettable
precedent that is needlessly damaging to professional sports.
We ask that this correspondence be made a part of the official
hearing record on S. 718. Thank you for your consideration of our
views. We look forward to working with you on this legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard W. Buchanan,
Vice President and General Counsel,
National Basketball Association
William L. Daly,
Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer,
National Hockey League
Jeffrey Pash,
Executive Vice President,
National Football League
Tom Ostertag,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball