Gambling on a sport/event you cover

Breaking this one off from the NASCAR thread, because it is definitely a tangent.

I say that reporters should not gamble on a sport they cover, and that there is an absolute ethical bar to doing so because you can theoretically affect the betting line with your coverage.

Others say that, practically speaking, reporters can report with integrity and gamble on the outcome.

Here is some of my posts from the other thread:

 

Dick, I think you needed to make a distinction in the first place between betting on a sport you cover, and writing, in advance, about an event you intend to bet on. There's potential for unethical behavior, especially among professional handicappers, because they're affecting people's opinions. But the most obvious scenario -- picking a horse in the paper that you don't believe is going to win -- is ultimately self-defeating to the handicappers, whose bread and butter is winning percentage and ROI.

 

Here's one for you: Not reporting a key injury in a team sport because the line now has value for you that it won't have if the world knows about said injury and the line swings.

 

Call me naive, but I like to believe that if one little score based on something that you alone know is that important to a supposed journalist, that person is so fundamentally not equipped to do the job that they're going to be exposed soon enough.

 

SI profile of Crist and Beyer.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1068464/index.htm

 

Because gamblers are so ethical.

 

In some cases - it's the equivalent of insider trading. I've heard of instances where someone would hear what a strategy would be from a coach and bet the over/under accordingly.

It's funny though - whenever I watched Eight Men Out - I always identified with the ballplayers. Now players who can change a game, make too much to make fixing a game worthwhile to them.

 

And that's exactly why you shouldn't be allowed to serve two masters. The readers are deprived of information so the reporter can take advantage of an overlay/underlay that he had the power to correct.

 

If you are my horse racing writer, I'm good with it. Otherwise, a lot more skeptical. And that includes March Madness brackets for college hoops writers and fantasy sports with cash prizes for leagues a writer covers.

 

I've never seen anyone on this board advocate homer-ism. How can it be clear that an emotional interest in the outcome is unacceptable, but a financial interest is immaterial?

 

This thread should have the Long Beach columnist squirming ...

 

Not letting hoops writers do brackets seems pretty silly, but to each his own. One thing you can bet on, being an "expert" means very little. Dr. Z wrote about his disastrous foray into football gambling a few years ago.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1043098/index.htm