First!

First!

I only skimmed over the press release...but it sounds like a good thing. The ATP cannot rely on betfair.com...a gambling website, to be it's main protector in this fight. The conflict of interest was just too obvious.

A double whammy: Drugs and gambling. I am surprised the marketing geniuses didn't outline a 12 step program.

But then again the first step would have been to admit there is a problem.

Sorry about whatever glitches and changes appeared here. . . once again, I was writing and working on the draft in "publish now" rather than "draft mode".

I can't believe I don't know this -- but is poor Davydenko cleared yet, or are they still 'investigating'? It's very hard for him to be laboring under a cloud of suspicion that he can't come out and combat. I mean, he can't sue. Or he could, but talk about awkward.

nice editing Pete, I was reading the original post before you cut it and it almost lulled me back to sleep after I've had my breakfast and a shower.

I hope these measures work. Part of what makes me so proud about Tennis as a sport is its integrity. The governing bodies are doing well to see it being preserved.

I want to know that too Heidi. Its been far too long for an official ruling to not be out yet, and every day that it doesn't it makes ol' Kolya's reputation suffer more which would be a terrible crime against a good man if the charges aren't true.

Hey Pete it's nice to see you work on the "publish now" instead of the draft. We get to see the evolution of the post as it goes from start to finish.

....ooh! I see that little "search" box ya got tucked in the corner there Pete ya sly fox. How long has that been up?

I'm pleased to see that Ben Gunn has recovered sufficiently from his time marooned on an island to give back to society..

http://www.online-literature.com/stevenson/treasureisland/15/

His experience with double-crossing pirates surely gives him a deep insight into sports integrity.

Further to my comment in the Cooler post, it still beats me how at this sensitive time the ATP/ITF, and the Australian tennis authorities, can allow Andy Roddick and Philopoulos to be involved in a high profile gambling event (poker)in Melbourne.... As the ex-mafia guy reportedly warned in Miami, players like them who regularly frequent casinos are most vulnerable to real pressure from the syndicates involved in match fixing.

Pete - Maybe I missed it, but this did not say that an Integrity Unit would be created, just that the nature of the potential problem would be studied, and recommendations made.

I'm actually not at the stage where I could say "poor Davydenko". On the facts I've seen so far, I still have difficulty seeing how the betting in the Sopot case that was highlighted could have occurred without some inside knowledge. Obviously if it turned out that Kolya or his family had been threatened by the (very real) Russian mafia, it would be difficult not to sympathise to some extent.

Agreed, though, that it would be better if this kind of thing could be resolved sooner, one way or the other, rather than hanging around in the public eye unresolved.

As to today's press release, I welcome it. I said some time back that the ATP needed to be seen to be doing all it could to proactively protect the sport's reputation - positive compliance monitoring, in effect - so much the better , then, that the other relevant bodies in the sport are included in this initiative.

Hey, Backhand blaster, I answered your question on the Monday Net Post this morning. :)

When I say "to some extent" I mean - to whatever extent is appropriate.

i.e., if a player has once agreed to throw a match at the urging of criminals, he will ever after be vulnerable to blackmail/pressure. I can imagine how an initial falling to temptation could lead to something much more serious down the line for any player who somehow got into that situation.

All speculation in Kolya's case, I must say - except that the betting patterns on that match were way out of the ordinary, and there has to be a reason why that was so.

Tari, yeah cool. I usually work as a volunteer at the Miami Masters(I like to call it that, so I get the ever changing name close to right). If there is a meet up there this year, and I am not booted from the tribe by then, it would be fun to see some of the TW posters there.
BTW, as you know, there has always been one ticket for the Miami event. That ticket got you in the stadium and around the grounds, including the grandstand. When the stadium sells out, like it does on the first weekend, grounds passes are sold...which gets you in everywhere except the stadium. I hope this hasn't changed.
Hopefully this global warming we are experiencing is helping your winter this year in Michigan.

Hope to see you there, Backhand blaster! We'll have lots of meetup details later.

Interesting...the website is selling Grandstand tickets? Not sure what that is, then?

Tari,
Just guessing...there are roped off areas for people in the grandstand. I had always assumed that this was an area reserved for people who had very expensive stadium tickets, or sponsors. Maybe you can purchase these tickets to reserve yourself a good seat when the grandstand becomes full?

Gotcha. Thanks, Bb. :) That makes sense, I do know just what you mean. :)

With all my respects, this is quite a boring topic when the australian open will start in five days. Why not talking about the prospective candidates, about who is likely to show his or her best form in the first weeks of the year, of the new surface, does it suit Roger better than Rafa or Nalbandian better than Andy Roddick?

Or about the women´s tournament and the damage it will suffer in terms of interest now that Hingis retired. It was a refreshing sight to watch Hingis do well in Australia the past 2 years. I wonder if she will appeal the arbitral´s panel decision. I would love to see her play again some time in the future.

Sure, Linex, but I thought the release itself, even with the quotes taken out, had sufficient info that would not be repeated in news stories to post it. .

Linex,
Don't worry. Pete will probably have a post on the upcoming AO in a few days.
Believe the WTA will still have interest with the Davenport story of being 18-1 since her comeback, Justine trying to repeat 2007 excpet win AO and Wimby, Maria's attempt to recover from an injury plagued season, and to see if the Williams Sisters can remain injury free for an entire season and challenge Justine.

I understand Pete what you say but the thing is that today there is no Crisis Center or some similar post where to talk about the topics I mentioned. The former post is also related to this gambling topic.

Perhaps this is a big favor to me so I can focuse on my work after spending a week in the beach in Punta del Este, Uruguay as part of my vacations.

I am glad it was posted. Boring maybe. As with Curious's question above, why are players allowed to partake in other gambling endeavors, charity or not. No other sport I am aware does.

Also, as to being sanguine about the problem: tennis would be much easier to fix contests than any other sport that I can think of, including the sweet science. The global growth, and the increase in money all make for a ripe place for shenanigans.

I'm keeping an open mind about Davydenko's case until there's official word on his involvement. We don't actually know that he is in any way guilty. Innocent until proven guilty, and I think it's too early to speculate on whether he was pressured into anything by mafia. His case is even less clear-cut than Higgins, who at least had urine samples taken.

*Hingis

*Hingis

(argh, spam filter)

OK-K (and curious)
Roddick and Flip aren't gambling ON tennis.

From the tennis.com headline:

"The courts are a different color and there's always the prospect of Roger Federer resurfacing later in the week, but than that..."

There's a prospect of that? I thought he pulled out.

Going on the innocent till proven guilty principle, I think I can feel bad for Davydenko. Regardless, he could be guilty as sin and still deserve a fair trial of some kind.

I totally agree with you, Rosia, that it looks like some kind of insider knowledge must have been slipping out. But whether that was from trainers, coaches, officials, or D. is up for grabs.

*reads the press release*

*yawns*

Sher
The promoter expressed willingness to arrange a practice match for Federer later in the week if he asked for it.

Related News: Baggy is replacing Federer in the draw.

"Related News: Baggy is replacing Federer in the draw."

I was wondering who would take his place. I didn't think Rafa would.

I heard that at Key Biscayne this year the tournament will be requiring coaches, trainers, etc. in the locker room to submit their names for possible background checks, something apparently done at Slams but never before at a Masters event.

Here's a little report on their presser.

http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=110222

Did anyone know that Starace and Bracciali are facing minor suspensions for betting?

ptenisnet, thanks.

As for Starace and Bracciali, it was widely reported, including on SI and I believe tennis.com.

thanks sher. must have been around when i was under the rock.

http://tinyurl.com/336k3w

Hurrah! Those of us w/o cable can still get some AO tennis action via ESPN360.

Why don't the other slams sell a live feed like Wimbledon does??

ptenisnet - no, they are not gambling on tennis. However, all other sports that I know of which have a professional component will ban the participants from engaging in gambling, or consorting with elements of it.

I believe, but would have to research this, the gambling in question is not just limited to betting on your own sport, or sports via illegal bookmaking. I believe it can cover all aspects of gambling via the consorting with elements concept.

Just to give an idea of how bad the environment could get if the stench of gambling clouded the horizon - look no further than the discussions surrounding the Federer Samparas exo.

Ok-k -- I will be posting on this tomorrow, but the big difference is that as best as I can tell "there is no there there" when it comes to the exos. Those of you who admire Roger Federer will be most interested to hear my report.

Pete - OK. Did not want to open a scabbed wound, but it seems to me that Tennis (and they are talking the talk) needs to get on top of this fast and heavy - like getting Andy R to stop playing on the fringes (I was really surprised when last year you interviewed him that he was allowed to be hosting the charity game)

Drugs and Gambling - see what it is doing to Baseball. Not pretty at all.

seems a little extreme that's all. how would one go about stopping ernests gulbis (might be a bad example) or john isner from going a casino?
And I dont think other sports have bans on charity poker tournies and such.

linex: the Watercooler is where you want to be.

there are lots of charity poker events. I cannot recall ever seeing a n American pro athlete at one. Do not know in all cases, but having seen some, I know there are few bigger names to get to such an event than a pro athlete, but they are absent.

Using cheap logic, it appears the ban applies to them as well.

Re gambling on other sports/casino gambling: I'm not sure that tennis has a prohibition on gambling on other sports. Starace and Bracciali had online accounts with bookmaking firms where they regularly bet on soccer games. However, the tennis authorities didn't seem to have any problem with that, only with their using those accounts to place bets on tennis matches.
There was a recent case involving American basketball officials --I'm not sure of the details, but I think one was giving inside information to gamblers about which officials would be assigned to certain games--and this resulted in considerable discussion in the papers about what restrictions on gambling applied to athletes and officials. I think basketball officials were allowed to bet on-track at horse races and to gamble at casinos, but not to participate in gambling that involved bookmakers or online gambling.

Heidi: perhaps it's just that I know far more about markets and insider trading than about drug testing. Many people seem to be presuming him innocent, but there are enough facts around on the case to be able to credibly think that this may not be so. The circumstantial evidence is highly inconvenient.

I'll say again - the exceptional monetary amounts involved in the Sopot case, compared to the usual betting patterns seen on tennis matches, suggested significant and definite inside knowledge - not just hints of possible injury from trainers, coaches etc, which would normally attract far smaller amounts. So I don't entirely agree that it's "up for grabs" - don't particularly buy any explanation involving gossip as opposed to hard facts, for example. I actually went through this in detail at the time that this story first came out. Since then, hasn't there been some info that some of the accounts involved were in Russia? And the ugly fact is, that only a player can throw a tennis match for certain. Which is why these allegations are so serious.

I hope that Davydenko can be shown innocent. And if he is innocent, it is indeed tragic what he's going through now.

BTW, what Davydenko is being investigated for is a lot more serious for the sport than what Hingis' drug test showed (recreational drugs versus match-fixing).

Yes, it would be better if this kind of thing could be investigated without putting a possibly innocent person through the wringer in public - but in practical terms, how can that be done, given that it was events on Betfair that put this in the public domain?

I really do await the outcome of this case with interest. And until I see some hard facts, will keep an open mind.

Roseangel, if it really is as clear cut as you make it look (and I'll admit, I'm swayed by your argument because my knowledge of insider betting is very limited) then why haven't people who have presumably been working on this for months made any decisions? For all I know there are factors surrounding the case which are not available to general public. Because if there is clear evidence of wrong doing as you say, shouldn't he _already be_ deemed guilty?

Re gambling on other sports: I looked up the basketball referee scandal and found that it involved NBA referee Tim Donaghy, who resigned after allegations that he bet on NBA games (including some in which he officiated) and gave information to others to allow them to profit from betting on NBA games.
In a press conference, NBA commissioner David Stern was asked about restrictions on officals' gambling. Apparently racetracks are OK for basketball officials (at least in the off=season) but casinos are not: http://tinyurl.com/2c6hak

"Question: Two quick things. One, is it illegal to bet on it's not illegal for your employees, they are not allowed to bet on NBA games or they are not allowed to gamble the slot machines, cards, betting on NFL games?
Stern: The prohibition is on all forms of gambling.

Question: Slot machines included?
Stern: Slot machines included. If you want to go to the racetrack in the summertime, you get a pass, that's it."

And, I'm sure it comes across that I think there's a definite, non-fuzzy case for Davydenko to answer. However clumsily the ATP may be pursuing it (according to Davydenko), I'd be mightily critical of them if they weren't pursuing it.

I only hope the outcome is clear-cut one way or the other, but I fear that, like previous such cases, it won't be.

"BTW, what Davydenko is being investigated for is a lot more serious for the sport than what Hingis' drug test showed (recreational drugs versus match-fixing)."

Agreed. I would expand that to include any doping. I am struggling with how doping can really effect the performance of a tennis player (beyond endurance) that is not overwhelmed by the metal aspect of the game. Now if it were to be shown that a drug improved the mental facilities of a player, then I would be more worried. Makes me wonder if Valium is a antidote for concrete elbow.

Race tracks surprise me, even in the off season.

"I only hope the outcome is clear-cut one way or the other, but I fear that, like previous such cases, it won't be."

It is very hard to prove a negative.

Well, Sher - just suppose that there is some explanation that involves someone passing information that is deemed to be definite, when it isn't? I must admit, I can't come up with a good story for how this could work, but I'd be foolish if I didn't admit that there could be an explanation that no-one has thought of yet. So, I'm suspicious, but I do believe in establishing facts where it's possible.

And, while I have no evidence whatsoever - other than the stuff about accounts in Russia (which could be anybody) - of mafia involvement - there's little doubt that there are some thuggish elements around in Russia who have no scruples when it comes to tennis players. Anna Chakvetadze could vouch for that.

I spent enough time working in Russia to know how real and scary the criminal elements there can be.

Well, that killed the conversation stone-dead:-(

Perhaps I should go back to writing new RNKAS rules.

LOL, Ros.

Roseangel,

>here are some thuggish elements around in Russia who have no scruples when it comes to--

anybody. Yes, absolutely.

I obviously do not know the sequence or momentium / timing of the betting - was it slowly building up and then pop or was it early relative to trainers?

as an example -

someone with locker room gets idea Kolya is dodgy fitness so alert is on regarding outcome or someone sitting court side notices trainer and conversations - text messages betters chance Kolya will default - and assume betfair was not paying close attention = simply following flow. So does anyone know when the heavy bets arrived (as I thought they were during the match not before as betting during a match seemed to feature in discussion).

Now if chance of default goes from 40% to 90% would guys pile in with big bets mid match? Did Betfair adjust odds when money started piling in and how much or did they close window or continue to take money.

Hyppothetical but examples of factors to consider as there are so many factors to look at beyond the absolute amount of money wagered on match (althought that drew attention to the situation).

Obviously the key centers not so much on the betting but did Kolya throw the match faking an injury or was a punter or combination of punters better informed at the margin than the bookies regarding how serious the injury progressed during he match. How does anyone prove one or the other short of Kolya or betters coming forward to confess??

just a thought not an opinion.

TT: as I recall, the amounts being bet against him increased after Kolya won the first set.

I think quite a few matches attract dodgy betting patterns on speculation, even "tennis insider" speculation - the key issue was the unusually large amounts, especially coupled with the timing, at a time when it looked as though he was half way to winning.

It is just going to be a slow conversation. I thought my 3 successive posts had fatally wounded it. I usually find myself last anyway.

thanks Rosey - I looked it up and seems not first time Kolya has been in matches with strange betting patterns - but my point was only that there are so many factors that could have prompted the bets versus a feeling of actual physical problems= we have all seen matches turn around on an injury that gets worse and worse and he seemed to fall apart after the first set - I even defaulted out a university match leading one set and up 4 - one when I turned an ankle - still remember it. How does one prove, short of a confession from someone, that the first set was to set up the odds versus an injury early second set or end of first set (or perhaps injury of already taped dodgy foot), caused someone to up that percent of retirement from low to very high?

short of confession, traced money wires, written or cell conversations - that sort of thing.

I would assume that they would need proof he threw the match, when, in fact, he did not lose he retired.

Rosangel - Are you involved in tracking insider trading issues, or just a curious observer?

Ok-k: I used to be a front-line regulator in the financial services industry.

Today I analyse the industry, among others. Not prepared to say more (who I work for, etc).

Not going to ask.

It is an interesting analogy between insider trading and match fixing. The one element that insider trading has that match fixing doesn't is the strong arm of the law. Most insider trading cases end, not by conviction in court, but admission of guilt. The reason is that the prosecution can just keep coming at the suspect, mounting up the defense legal bills, until they capitulate. This has its own downsides.

OK-K, Actually most insider trading cases end with a few people making a boat load of money and no one ever being the wiser.

And as for Roddick playing celebrity poker, i have no idea what that has to do with betting on tennis. why not prohibit him from chewing gum in public, since that's illegal in singapore.

"The one element that insider trading has that match fixing doesn't is the strong arm of the law."

Just off the top of my head I can recall an FBI investigation into match fixing in the NBA and a University of Toledo football player being charged in a point-shaving scheme, so this isn't quite true, at least not in all jurisdictions.

Doesn't anyone else find it hilarious that tennis has turned to someone from the Internation Cricket Council, of all venal, godforsaken international sporting bodies? Not that I'm questioning Rees's qualifications, it's just funny to me is all. Sign of the times perhaps.

I don't see what banning tennis players from playing poker is expected to achieve, except maybe a shiny patina of puritanism.

Rosangel

One thing that struck me -- the large amounts of the bets struck me as unprofessional, rather than otherwise: betting organizations, like banks, are immediately alert to unusually large amounts. So it seems likely to me that this is an amateur-hour situation. To me, that also points to the likely innocence of Davydenko (the other facts of the case do not, like refusing his phone records and the betting pattern by set). If I were a crooked bettor, with a professional player who had once taken the fall for me (and therefore would be almost certainly obliged to do so again), the last thing I would do is kill the golden goose by betting a silly amount on one match.

I think it's the whole been there done that thing lucy.

Grant - Jurisdictions is correct. I said match fixing, and this can get the law involved if, as in each of those cases you cited, the gambling act itself was illegal in the jurisdiction. The FBI would be involved if the illegal activity (gambling) crossed state lines. The act of tanking a match, game, or shaving points is not, in and of itself, illegal.

However, the ban of gambling in general for participants of the sport by a governing body may include a legal gambling activity going to a casino. The enforcement of this rule is left to the governing body, which does not have the same resources.

I think this is interesting how this whole thing is going to play out. It's a shame that now they're taking the matter seriously considering they had absolutely had Andy Murray's head on a platter for making comments about gambling.

Oh, by the way: GEAUX Tigers!!!!! I'm so excited that my Tigers won last night. I've got my championship t-shirt on the way, and a hoodie won't be far behind! I was absolutely giddy last night :)
(sorry AmyLu!)

Ok-k, what charge would that be, and would the punishment in another jurisdiction be stricter than US sentencing guidelines (which are merely an advisory tool now).

The shiny patina is part of a strong shield.

Oh--also, consider that the No. 1 task within the FBI, right now is terrorism. Agents are increasingly pressed to focus their time on that, rather than white collar crime. The only thing that may allow the FBI to take the case is if the ATP gets as active with Congress and the US Attorney's office as baseball has. I just don't see that happening given the tasks at hand. Again, tennis is treated like a stepchild and the US Powers That Be, would consider baseball's PE issues to be more pressing--frankly, while I'm adamantly opposed to PE's and their usage, I don't see how they make it any kind of federal offense. I mean, who is the victim in the case? How you prove that a single person caused a team loss?
I think with tennis and betting, identifying the victim (and that's not necessarily the opponent) is a harder thing to do unless they find some way to do it as a fraud case.

Most gambling is governed in the U.S by state law. Not federal (however, this gets dicey and way beyond me when it comes to Indian casinos). Federal sentencing guidelines would not normally apply, as they apply to federal offenses.

The broken window theory of match fixing?

Given that, as you point our, resources are limited, it seems to me the ATP/WTA/ITF are best placed devoting their resources to, well, bets placed on tennis. Getting on players' backs about roulette is just going to annoy them at a time when their cooperation is most needed.

OK: um, how many states actually prosecute cases? They're going to have a tough time with the international players. Also, in state prosecutors' offices--unless the AG's office in each state takes the case (which is rare), betting cases would be on the backburner for many years because the cases where someone's already in jail awaiting trial--including murderers and sex offenders ---must go first because of liberties at stake. Also, they're just higher up on the food chain since that's what elects a prosecutor, not a betting case. Consider also, that many PD's are not equipped to handle an investigation of that magnitude. In Texas, it would likely be the Texas Rangers handling it, but it's still a hard sell to prosecute.

Lisa - the reason Congress is involved in the baseball drug issue is solely due to the fact that Congress has granted MLB baseball an exemption to the Sherman anti-trust laws. It is removal of that exemption that is the club Congress is using.

I do not believe the FBI was involved in any part of the investigation cumulating in the Mitchell report.

OK: but again, you said it'd have to be done in state court and I just don't see it happening. I don't have a lawyer that would take it on in my office. And, how would I explain to reporters why we're spending an inordinate amount of resources on a betting case instead of prosecuting a capital case or the many horrible sex offenses. Those affect the people more than the betting does. Since I have to come up the answers, there is no way that I'd be able to effectively spin a betting case in the media.

This does not mean that I don't think betting is wrong. It absolutely is. The question is a matter of prosecuting it effectively in a jurisdiction. I can't sell it in mine.

Lisa - I am not advocating that law enforcement is the mechanism used. It is up to the ITF, ATP and WTA to set the rules, and then investigate and enforce them, the punishment is suspension or banishment. The Professional leagues in the US do this today.

It is perfectly legal for anybody over 18 to go to Las Vegas and place a wager on a sporting event. If that person happens to be a basketball player, and the NBA finds out (the teller at the betting window rats the fellow out), then the fellow can be banned from playing in the NBA. This does not preclude him from playing pro ball in Europe.

"The shiny patina is part of a strong shield."

Disallowing pro athletes from gambling is at least in part a remnant of the days when gambling was run by organized crime and pro athletes weren't paid much. There was a much greater risk back in the day of athletes becoming deep in debt to mobsters, who'd then recruit them to pay them back by throwing matches. Today legal gambling is easy and pros get paid well. In North America as of late match fixing has been the domain of referees and college players.

The shiny patina is a vestigal tail.

Grant

1) Keep in mind, that if I have you on the hook for a wager gone bad in cricket, then I may wish to use it to my advantage your next upcoming match. The idea of keeping gambling interests separate is a canard and the sports world understands that.

2) It is not for the liberty and freedom of the player, it is for the belief in the truth of the battle. The fans need to absolutely believe the battle is of skill and will, not money under the table. It is this problem the professional sport world combats (and the "sweet science" has a losing record on). The fact that there was a debate surrounding the recent exo's should be evidence enough of the danger of this. "Everybody knows exo's are fixed so why watch?"

Like I said before, tennis is ripe for a major problem. The damage would last for years if it were to be allowed to happen.

Grant - one other thing, the US maybe a happy place with organized crime removed from the gambling scene today. Not sure I would say the same for many other places where tennis tournaments are held, and tennis players come from.

Why would a wager go bad in cricket? Presumably Nikolay Davydenko has no way of determining the outcome of an Australia-India test match nor of obtaining inside information about said match. Without those two factors, the conflict of interest disappears and you're left with moralising about how gambling is "bad", which isn't how everyone sees it.

Also, by banning players from becoming involved in legal, regulated gambling, you risk forcing the gamblers underground and towards those organised crime rackets you fear so much.

Okay, just got home from drill (I sucked today).
OK: the sport's governing body is the one who should handle things--although they've not been swift and consistent in their PE cases. There's not a lot of good answers in this case.

Lucy: waves hi!!!! I've missed you :)

I have have not moralized against gambling at all. I could care less about it in fact. If I sense a sport is tainted by it, I wont watch it. I vote with my dollars and my dollars right now go to tennis. If I thought for a moment that there was a problem, it would go some where else.

I am merely pointing out what other sports organizations and franchises have discovered in their long histories. They did not come up with the rules they have today because of puritan beliefs.

They discovered the hard way that gambling can hit their bottom line. It hits the bottom line because fans do not trust the participants to be giving what they paid for, so they stop paying.

Sam,
Ankles is about to play against Srebotnik while Kuzzy leads Fran by one set, 6-4

OK-k: the FBI may not have been involved in any of the investigations culminating in the Mitchell report, but Federal courts were/are involved in prosecuting both the BALCO case and the involving McNamee (the trainer of Clemens and Pettite). McNamee says that he didn't tell Mitchell anything he hadn't already said to "Federal agents." But there are lots of Federal laws involving drugs; I'm not sure what Federal laws apply to gambling. I assume the prohibition on online betting must be based on Federal law, since it applies to the entire USA.

"Also, by banning players from becoming involved in legal, regulated gambling, you risk forcing the gamblers underground and towards those organised crime rackets you fear so much."

ding ding ding we have a winner.

The problem isn't gambling, it's match fixing. Gambling is only to be feared in so far as it leads to match fixing. If it doesn't, who cares?

Now a blanket ban wouldn't be a bad idea except for the fact that athletes are naturally competitive. They tend to gamble. If they're scared of being caught in casinos then some will in fact stop gambling. Others will take it underground and risk getting caught up in shady things. And it's the shady things that cause problems.

1) I'd be much happier with the tennis governing bodies designating safe casinos and websites where gambling is allowed than with a blanket ban. That can help to deal with problems like the following:

"Keep in mind, that if I have you on the hook for a wager gone bad in cricket, then I may wish to use it to my advantage your next upcoming match."

Because any jurisdiction with a decent gaming commission will come down HARD on a sports book that does this.

2) "It is not for the liberty and freedom of the player, it is for the belief in the truth of the battle. The fans need to absolutely believe the battle is of skill and will, not money under the table."

Once upon a time there were two fine basketball players named Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan. In their prime, they gambled. A lot. The public knew this. They didn't particularly care. 'So what?' people said, 'they're rich!' 'They can afford the losses!'
Strangely enough, it was not a dark age for basketball.

Jhurwi
Yes, the Mitchell report could use public information gathered by the FBI in his report. He, whether contracted by Congress, or by MLB could not use them to obtain any new information. There are federal laws governing the use drugs. Not so with gambling. The internet gaming issue is sticky one for a lot of reasons.

Grant - Now name the jurisdictions you trust and websites you trust. Michael Jordon story - lost 900,000 on his golf game. Negotiated it to 300,000. Paid 200,000. Obviously money did matter.

That's what I meant, Grant; better to have the athletes gambling at a casino than with the Russian mob or whatever. I can't think a blanket ban on gambling would be anything but totally unproductive.

"Now name the jurisdictions you trust and websites you trust."

Yes, I'm going to do that research for the sake of an internet argument.

Then I will buy you a pony.

Yea. I dont know of any either.

nora: interesting thought about the possible amateurish nature of the bets placed in the Spot case. And you're right - logic suggests that there's no reason (at least, not a straightforward one) for an experienced criminal bettor to do something that ends up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I don't see the logic in someone experienced doing something that they knew would point to Davydenko - unless that was the intention. But at this point, I'd better stop, because there are far too many ways in which this could be interpreted, and it's all speculation.

It's reported that David Nalbandian has injured his back while practising, and may be doubtful for the Australian Open. Which will be very disappointing, if it comes to pass. Nothing more frustrating, given the high hopes that he might do well at the AO after his run at the end of last year.

I'm writing on the fly here... haven't read the entire post (sorry everyone, I'm at work) because I got caught on the number one goal of the "comprehensive review", (i) an identification of the threats to the integrity of professional tennis. It's pretty subjective, however I can't help but think that one threat might be the length of the season that could/might "force" players to act less than stellar. The potential and probable damage to their bodies and minds over close to eleven months of international play is daunting. Would a shortened year, say 9 months, help players perform better? Last longer on the tour? Increase ticket sales at events other than tier one and grand slams? Allow players to fufill charity committments or begin one?

Nalbandian to be replaced by Brydan Klein.