While I agree with the premise, I don't agree with his reasoning. He seems to boil the argument against books posting props on Lisa Guerrero's job or the "Survivor" show down to two things: "bad taste" and the need to appear commercially ethical for the sake of convincing congress not to ban offshore wagering.
"Bad taste" is subjective and can mean different things to different people, including congress. It would be better to simply point out that such props can only appeal on two fronts: some form of mental masturbation or more likely, addictive gambling. What interest does a serious sports bettor have in those kinds of things? None. One can argue that they are "entertainment" I suppose.
Nover doesn't really nail down what difference it makes to congress whether books post goofy props or not, except to formulate some vague idea that if offshore personnel act 'seriously' then they'll get consideration of some kind. While that's a noble sentiment, I find it highly dubious on its face.
The people in congress who want to ban offshore are doing several things: making an emotional appeal and ignoring reason, trying to create a new "criminal" class so their law enforcement and power to control can be expanded in the name of protecting people from themselves, and engaging in all the usual horse-trading.
Most congresspeople probably don't even care about this issue and their votes will be determined entirely by trading votes for pet projects. Whether or not there is a prop at BoDog on the color of Jennifer Aniston's Emmy-award-night underwear will be irrelevant.
The offshores have no real reason to care how their props are perceived by a generally hostile congress that chooses to remain blissfully ignorant on the issue of taxing and regulating sports wagering, which of course would follow the models used in other first world countries like Britain and would work quite well in all likelihood.
The offshores will post these props as long as addicts and dopes want to play into them. That you can actually find people who will bet on the "outcome" of a prop with a predetermined result that is already known to some people only shows the breadth of stupidity of the average gambler. This is a business that preys on the weak and to that extent, congress, by choosing the route of emotionalism and prohibition, only encourages more of the same.
"Bad taste" is subjective and can mean different things to different people, including congress. It would be better to simply point out that such props can only appeal on two fronts: some form of mental masturbation or more likely, addictive gambling. What interest does a serious sports bettor have in those kinds of things? None. One can argue that they are "entertainment" I suppose.
Nover doesn't really nail down what difference it makes to congress whether books post goofy props or not, except to formulate some vague idea that if offshore personnel act 'seriously' then they'll get consideration of some kind. While that's a noble sentiment, I find it highly dubious on its face.
The people in congress who want to ban offshore are doing several things: making an emotional appeal and ignoring reason, trying to create a new "criminal" class so their law enforcement and power to control can be expanded in the name of protecting people from themselves, and engaging in all the usual horse-trading.
Most congresspeople probably don't even care about this issue and their votes will be determined entirely by trading votes for pet projects. Whether or not there is a prop at BoDog on the color of Jennifer Aniston's Emmy-award-night underwear will be irrelevant.
The offshores have no real reason to care how their props are perceived by a generally hostile congress that chooses to remain blissfully ignorant on the issue of taxing and regulating sports wagering, which of course would follow the models used in other first world countries like Britain and would work quite well in all likelihood.
The offshores will post these props as long as addicts and dopes want to play into them. That you can actually find people who will bet on the "outcome" of a prop with a predetermined result that is already known to some people only shows the breadth of stupidity of the average gambler. This is a business that preys on the weak and to that extent, congress, by choosing the route of emotionalism and prohibition, only encourages more of the same.
