The Attorney General’s Bureau of Gambling Control, the state Gaming Control Commission and the Legislative Counsel will now recommend a structure for the system, analyze potential revenue and draft regulations to be included in the bill’s language as it moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee in August, its final stop before a Senate floor.

In a mark up of the Payments System Protection Act (H.R. 5767) in the House Committee on Financial Services on June 25, 2008, Rep. Bachus, citing research at McGill, claimed that one-third of college students who gambled online attempted suicide.

“This assertion, which is reportedly based upon our empirical research, is not predicated upon any factual evidence,” responded Derevensky in an interview with the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “None of the studies conducted with adolescents or college students, to the best of my knowledge, have looked at a connection between Internet wagering and suicide attempts.” Derevensky raised these same concerns in a letter sent last week to Reps. Bachus and Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

Derevensky believes there is an opportunity for Congress to better protect consumers in a regulated environment. “If Congress is serious about minimizing the threat posed by Internet gambling, it should look to create an environment where Internet gambling operators are required to put in place safeguards that protect against compulsive and underage gambling.”

Last week, a study conducted jointly by the University of Western Ontario and University of Nevada, Las Vegas called for the legalization and regulation of online gambling.

“Just as legalized commercial gambling in casinos allows for governments to regulate it, so, too, could the legalization of online gambling allow for better regulation and attempts to reduce the growth of problem gamblers,” said June Cotte, associate professor at the University of Western Ontario, as reported by Poker News.

Existing technology and security controls have already proven to be effective in addressing compulsive gambling. Safeguards currently available in the industry include the ability to control the amount of money wagered, set limits on amounts bet and amounts lost, restrict the duration that someone can play, identify and stop players whose gambling patterns seem out of the ordinary, and allow for consumers to be excluded from online gambling.

“It is disappointing that Rep. Bachus is using scare tactics and false claims in an attempt to justify why Congress should limit my ability to gamble online,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “We are encouraged by the academic community’s support of Internet gambling regulation. They emphasize the important point that consumers will be better protected if there are safeguards put in place to combat underage and problem gambling.”

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046), introduced by Rep. Frank, would establish an enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. A companion piece of legislation that would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523) was introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA).

Additionally, Rep. McDermott introduced last week, the Investing in our Human Resources Act (H.R.6051), which would direct new revenue generated by regulated Internet gambling activities to be spent on job training for those in the declining sectors of the economy and educational assistance for foster care youth. The bill also includes provisions to encourage responsible Internet gambling behavior and an awareness of unsafe practices, something which has been praised by problem gambling advocates.

“Though I support the dedication of resources to raise awareness about problem gambling, I encourage Congress to also provide appropriate funding for research, treatment and the prevention of problem gambling,” added Derevensky.

The World Trade Organization says the island can impose US$21 million in sanctions against the U.S.

Finance Minister Errol Cort says officials will know in about three months whether a compromise agreement is feasible.

Court said Friday that officials agreed to extend a July 11 deadline after a U.S. delegation recently arrived in Antigua for another round of talks.

Meanwhile, a new bill related to online gambling was introduced this week by U.S. Rep. James McDermott, D-Wash. H.R. 6501 amends the Social Security Act to establish a trust fund from the proceeds of taxing Internet gambling. The trust fund would be used to provide education, job training, public-transit subsidies and other services to individuals in foster care or in declining sectors of the economy. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on Education and Labor.

UIGEA, which bans gaming sites from accepting money transfers of any kind for bets deemed to be unlawful gambling, directs the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board to create regulations that would require banks and processors to block payments to those sites.

Two critics of the UIGEA, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, senior committee member, on April 10 introduced H.R. 5767, which would have prohibited the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department from implementing the regulations called for in UIGEA. The bill was defeated in committee on June 25.

A bill offered as a substitute to H.R. 5767 also was defeated at the June 25 committee meeting. Dubbed the “Payments System Protection Act of 2008,” the bill would have prohibited implementation of UIGEA until the Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Attorney General jointly developed regulations defining the term “unlawful Internet gambling.” That bill was sponsored by Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y.

Banks, processors, the Fed, and the Treasury Department have said the regulations for implementing UIGEA are unworkable and will hurt the financial industry while having little impact on illegal online gambling (Digital Transactions News, April 21 and March 24). Critics say the regulations fail to define what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling, leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws and court decisions, as well as inconsistent Department of Justice interpretations, when determining whether to process a transaction. In addition, some of the information needed to determine whether a transaction is illegal is unavailable to banks.

It’s unclear how H.R. 6501, the bill that would tax Web-based gambling, would impact the UIGEA. McDermott did not return calls for comment. However, one UIGEA critic says the bill might gain more support than H.R. 5767 because taxes on gambling would be used for programs to help the disadvantaged.

The high alert is aimed at big-time gamblers and the tennis pros who they are increasingly trying – sometimes successfully – to corrupt.

Coincident with opening day for the grass-court extravaganza, there are plans to announce strict new anti-corruption rules, involving fines and suspensions. Red flags have been raised repeatedly in recent years, with a resulting investigation revealing that at least 45 matches, including several at Wimbledon, are regarded as highly suspicious.

Significantly, it was British bookmakers who raised the alarm, as they noticed spikes in money bet for certain otherwise unexceptional matches. Tennis in general has begun to attract enormous betting interest, ranking behind only soccer and racing in the U.K. One online book alone says it took more than $1 billion (Canadian) in Wimbledon bets last year.

Such vasts sums are bound to attract sophisticated criminal interest. Whether such interests have been there all along or not is open to question, but fixing has been a problem in all of sports dating back to the very beginning.

Allegations of “tanking” are as old as tennis and include an ongoing probe into a match last year involving world No. 4 Nikolay Davydenko. What’s new is the suggestion that the practice is more insidious than anyone had suspected, aided by rocketing sums being bet worldwide on Internet gambling sites.

Why would one match attract 10 or 100 or 1,000 times more betting action than another? Something’s fishy and the bookies know it.

A low- or middle-ranked player can take a payment from gamblers that will guarantee a far richer payday than if he or she were to win a round or two. In tennis, of all sports, it’s easy to throw a match through moments of indifferent play or faked illness or injury.

Nine-time Wimbledon singles champ Martina Navratilova tells The Times of London: “The key is to not start doing it. Apparently once you do one match, then they’ve got you. The syndicate have got you. You are on the hook because now they have got proof that you have done it once.”

Investigators, headed by a pair of former Scotland Yard detectives, found that many top players said they “knew of” other players who had been approached to throw matches. The sport’s culture, apparently, has led competitors to keep quiet, not rock the boat.

Authorities appear determined to chase down any and all rumours, scare off the organized gamblers and scare straight the players.

“The joy of competitive sport for the spectator depends on the belief that the competitors are trying to win,” says The Independent, in an editorial. “If that belief is undermined by the suspicion that matches are being fixed, the life-enhancing quality of sport is sullied. …

“Part of Wimbledon’s charm is the assumption of fair play – not all sports have succeeded in preserving spectators’ confidence in good sportsmanship in the face of big money. Even if sportsmanship contains an element of myth, it is a good myth to have. It does no harm, therefore, to believe that tennis is a more courtly business than other professional sports.”
From: http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Tennis/article/447516

It’s an activity that is convenient and easily accessible, officials say, because it can be done at home at any time, often under no supervision from parents. Its novelty, high level of stimulation and low level of physical exertion also appeal to youths, many of whom are tech-savvy. [So lazy kids sit in front of the computer all day and happen to play poker? What if the parents forced them to go outside? Scary idea.-Editor]

“It’s the game of choice among youth, which is surprising for us,” Hausotter said. “It wasn’t on the radar screen.” The last survey done on youth gambling in Oregon was in 1998. It didn’t ask teens and their parents about free online gambling.

The article and the associated study goes on to talk about all the ills associated with free online gambling. Well, whats the difference between free online gambling and Solitaire card games that has come with every Windows computer since 1990? Playing games such as World of Warcraft or Everquest online with no actual money involved is in a way gambling.  Game of Monopoly (fake money involved) is gambling. NCAA March Madness Basketball pools among buddies is gambling. What’s the difference?  At some point in life people need to learn self-control, not everything needs government regulation. It’ll be just a matter of weeks before some politician starts citing this study as the need for more anti-gambling regulation? Would I bet on that?

NYTimes is running an interesting article about how some internet gambling companies alert the sports leagues when they see irregular betting patterns on their sport games.

Unfortunatly many sports governing bodies have refused the offer of help including the International Olympic Committee. A spokeswoman for the I.O.C., Emmanuelle Moreau, said that the committee had taken proactive measures to address gambling threats. She also said it expected to have a system in place to be alerted to irregular betting before the Beijing Games in August.

In December, the USTR provided a hint at the scope of the deals by revealing that they involved new U.S. WTO commitments for “warehousing services, technical testing services, research and development services and postal services relating to outbound international letters.”

“Americans have a right to know what kinds of trade concessions the U.S. government is granting other countries, especially when those deals have a significant impact on domestic policy and may be worth billions of dollars,” said Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, a Public Citizen attorney. “The Bush administration’s decision to withhold the agreement under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has more to do with its desire to prevent public and congressional scrutiny of the settlement before it is enshrined in a new WTO schedule than it does with national security. FOIA requires the agreement’s release.”

The ministry has made a list of 30-50 Internet gamers and has asked banks to stop services to these companies.
In the Netherlands only the Dutch state lottery De Lotto has a permit to offer online gambling, and last month the Dutch upper house defeated a bill that would have allowed Holland Casino to open a gambling website on a trial basis.

The Dutch approach to online gaming has put it on a collision course with the European Union, which is pushing for member states to open up their markets to competition. In February the EU gave Greece and the Netherlands a final warning before it initiates court action over restrictions in their gaming markets.

“This is a Dutch issue, so we have only asked banks operating in the Netherlands to participate,” the spokeswoman said.

With all the UIGEA issues that have come up in the US, including banks speaking out against trying to enforce the rules and the Congress holding hearings on the ineffectiveness of the UIGEA, its surprising that the Netherlands would attempt the same path to controlling internet gambling.

PurePlay is an online gambling site where everyone, including US residents can play for, and win, money in online poker games. There is only one other popular online poker website that is legal for US residents, DuplicatePoker, which slightly alters the rules to make it a more a game of skill, which is than permitted by US law.

PurePlay was planned out and started well in advance of the UIGEA laws, says CEO Jason Kellerman. The trick to PurePlay is that it works off a subscription model, with users paying set monthly fees to play, but gaining the potential to win large sums if they’re good enough to win tournaments.

Of that sizable pool of gamers, PurePlay has captured about a million people. It doesn’t disclose how many are paying, but some extrapolation is possible. The company says it pays out over $125,000 each month in prizes. Subscriptions are $20 a month, so if PurePlay gives back 25 percent of its subscription fees, it has around 25,000 paying subscribers; if it gives back 50 percent, then only 12,500 subscribers, and so forth.