Speaker 1: What is up, fellows, echos, I am Dan Favalley coming
at you with the one, the only, my certified fantabulous
co host, mister Grant Hughes. We're here to talk about
the latest NBA gambling scandal or a NBA gambling scandal,
however you want to frame it. We're gonna go through
with the major individuals involved so far, we'll break it down,
we'll give you the cliff notes of what's happening in
our thoughts on them. But first and foremost, Grant, how
the heck are you doing? Parlays?
Speaker 2: Before?
Speaker 1: You're lucky?
Speaker 2: Dan, you're just ready to ready to throw some throw some. Yeah,
we do need to talk about this, uh so, I
guess uh before we get into the some of the particulars,
and we'll break it down as a preliminary matter. When
this story dropped, what was your first like interaction with it?
And what was your first like how did you come
across it? And then what was your very first thought
as you see Chauncey Billups, Terry Rosier indicted or arrested.
I think was the first thing I saw which was
that piqued my interest?
Speaker 1: I first saw it because the Sham's notification popped up
on my phone as I find out about most things,
and my reaction to it was, I, I don't want
to say it was indifference, but it's not something that
I found shocking. And I was almost, I guess, not
surprised at how big of a deal. Not to downplay
the significance of it, but that even the Terry Rozier
stuff specifically, we didn't learn much about, aside from the
anecdote that he may and we're gonna get into it,
but he may have paid for someone to drive somewhere
to collect the money so they go count it at
his house. I just it didn't. I guess it didn't
move me the same way other people did. And there's
also and this is probably the spot to put put this,
and so what could we anyone who's not gonna come
into this with an open mind. I want to be
inherently skeptical of anything coming out of the mouth from
anyone associated with this current administration, because it's why was
Patel up in his FBI raid jacket, were up there
giving notes on this. I just didn't it seemed to
scale above the level that this was, especially when one
of the individuals involved or one of the primary matters,
like the Terry Rozier thing. I don't want to say
it was old news, but it was like we knew
most of it. Yeah, so and just the Toronto Rangers
like maybe not don't have chat GPT write your element
from there, and just I don't know you had said
this in our discord too when it first came up.
Is this just I'm just in I will just reiterate
I'm inherently skeptical and I want to wait and see
more the people who were involved. Terrot's here has already
been linked to it, So no, this doesn't the project
that his name was there. We know about Chauncey Billups
and the rape allegations from previously it was made. It
became a headline story again when he was hired as
the coach of the Portland Trailblazers, and now it's kind
of faded into the background because that's how the news
cycle works. That's not Oh, he was playing poker and
might have like might have passed on information. We're gonna
get into all the individual things so that it wasn't shocking,
and so I want to wait to hear just more
information I'm sure they don't. I don't think they were
up there making things up. They clearly have to have something,
and some look, the terro Zier stuff was already just
in the ether, but I don't. I haven't seen anything
or read anything that makes me think, Okay, yes, if
it's true, these players, these individuals that are so they
need to be banned. Terror Zier, Chounci Bilps, they need
to be banned. And quite frankly, I think that's how
this is all gonna end, just to kind of spoil
before we even get into it. But that's what I
had a tough time reconciling, is we're sitting there, Oh,
we're just taking everything that's being said at face value
given the source here that was That was one of
my first reactions.
Speaker 2: I would echo basically all of that, and and I
felt similarly. One of the only other difference was I
didn't get a sham's notification. I opened up the New
York Times on my phone and this was the top story,
and I was just like, so, there's no news today.
I guess was like my first thought was like, how
is this the banner? Your a one? And then that
ties to the skepticism about where this is coming from,
and just like, oh, that's interesting that this is being
pushed as a major story now when I don't know,
there's a few other things that seem like bigger deals.
Maybe that's like just a few you know.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: I just felt like maybe maybe some part of that
is me minimized, trying to minimize how big a deal
this is because I don't know how you feel, but like,
on some level, if it is true that on a
much wider scale, the competitive integrity of NBA basketball is compromised,
like it's not good for me, it's not good for us,
it's not good for our industry. But that that was
like a second or third thought after like, really, this
is this and it's the way it was packaged as
this is all one thing, as opposed to once you
read a little more carefully, how separate a lot of
this was. So Yeah, some skepticism, for sure, but mostly
just kind of bewilderment that this is our top story
with where we are in the world today.
Speaker 1: And I think it probably also it's more about how
where do you land on sports betting in general, which
is probably what this discussion turns into as we move
through it. But I think let's begin with you mentioned
integrity of the game. The terror Rozier allegations are the
one in theory that would impact the integrity of a game.
So I'll take us through those. If you're on YouTube,
you can see it on screen. We have most of
our notes in a doc because it's already kind of
cramped on screen as it is. But the indictment accuses
Terry Razier participating in an illegal sports betting scheme using
insider NBA information. As part of the scheme, gamblers use
non public info to bet on at least seven NBA
teams between March two thousand and two twenty three and
March twenty twenty four. Those games involved the Hornets, the Magic,
the Blazers, the Lakers, and the Toronto Raptors. This is Lankers,
Toronto Rangers. Excuse me, and this is this is under
the same umbrella as the Jontay Porter allegations that he
was I guess it was proven enough and he was
pled guilty. He is now banned from the NBA for life.
Six defendants are named as part of this gambling scheme,
and because it was tied, I think, as you said before,
was tough to kind of it felt like they were
inextricably tied together the poker, like the illegal gambling with
the poker and then going on with sports betting. Thirty
one people were named in the poker scheme, but six
defendants were named as part of this sports betting scheme
that involved Terry Rozier. The allegations are that when he
was with the Hornets in March twenty twenty three, he
allegedly told a co defendant and a childhood friend, de
Niro Laster, that Rosier would remove himself from a game
against the Pelicans in the first quarter due to a
supposed injury. Laster then allegedly sold that information to two
betters for about one hundred grand. From there, Rosier allegedly
removed himself from the game after nine minutes. He finished
with like five points to assist whatever it was using
a network of associates. Then the people who presumably bought
the information wagered hundreds of thousands of dollars on Rosier's unders,
which cashed because he pulled himself after oh, I haven't
written five points to assists in four rebounds. After this,
Rosier allegedly paid for lastyear to travel to Philly to
collect quote proceeds from the scheme. He then apparently drove
Laster then apparently drove to Rosier's home so they could
count the money with him. And I think there is
two big takeaways from this, just before I throw at you,
this is the one, more so than Chauncey Billups or
Damon Jones passing along non public information which eventually becomes
public anyway, this is the one that impacts the integrity
of the game more than anything because it involved the
player who a significant player at the time. This was
the season that Rozier was averaging thirty four to thirty
five minutes per game for the Hornets, removing himself from
a game, So that this isn't Jon de Porter a
player's on a two way connor. This is someone who
is a core part of his team at that time.
And that's where I think the real concern starts to
creep in throughout all of this is that I'm not
trying to minimize the other allegations, but this is the
if you had to focus on one like, this is
the one that and we already knew most of this,
this is the one I was hyper focused on.
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I think I think this feels different. One,
not new Rosier had been Rosier's name had come up,
I don't know when, a long time ago, with basically
this exact set of allegations. But two right, I agree
that if you are, if you're the NBA, I think
there's an argument to be made that this feels like
a bigger problem because it goes directly competitive integrity. It
goes directly to a player who is totally in control
of his production, managing that for reasons that have nothing
to do with whether his team will win or lose
the game, And that touches on just like the whole
the absolute core of sports, and like why we're interested
in it, Like we need to believe that it is
being played by players who are trying to win the game,
so as opposed to whatever this was trying to help
hit unders. I think the counter to that might be
Rosier doesn't have the same level of like overall influence
as say a coach might, And so even though what's
so you could see how the Chauncey Billups inclusion in
this kind of blumped together set of indictments might seem
like a bigger deal just because in theory, a coach
can play or not play, players can dictate strategy, could
pull different levers than just an individual player. I still
think this feels different. This feels worse if what is
alleged here is true than anything else that we've come
across in all this reporting. I think another aspect of
this that's interesting to me, or maybe I'll throw it
to you, Like you mentioned John say Porter, it's sort
of easier to understand the motivation of someone that does
not have an established NBA career and or a big
NBA salary, like chasing the money here, because a few
hundred thousand dollars to him is real to Terry Rozier,
who I don't know what his deal was, but he's
making mid twenties in mid twenty millions, right.
Speaker 1: I think that was the first year I think of
his current four year contract, right, So he was a yeah,
four year, ninety six million, and he was on twenty
that was the first year of it, twenty one point five.
And it's by the way, wasn't like he was earning
his rookie scale. Before that, he had made about an
average of eighteen million in each of the previous three seasons.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so what that what that fact does is
put the lie to a defense that these players make
so much money they'll they would they'll never they'll never
try anything untoward because like a few hundred grand is
nothing to them. Because now you can point to Terry
Rozier and say, well, he was on a ninety million
dollar contract and still was you know, was manipulating his
performance for a few hundred grand like that. That's another
level here, that's problematic, right, because you can't just show.
Speaker 1: It makes you think down anyone then, is what the thought?
I know that there are ye players who are paid
more than Terry Rozier, and there are more. There are
players who make way more off the court. So this
doesn't rise to a level of why would Lebron James
ever do this as a billion dollar athlete? I think
you could have said the same thing for the time period.
Why did Michael Jordan Field the need to gamble or
play a bunch of poker when he was in the
I mean, this is something that interests people, it's something
that can become a problem. We don't know just the
other thing would be, and people have speculated its kind
of been. Did they just get like, did they have
gambling debts and this is something that they needed to
do to clear them. It doesn't get into that we
don't know. That's why I want to know more information.
And to your point, by the way, about people latching
onto the Billups one of it all, I think that
also speaks to that was the new wrinkle in this.
And Chauncey Billups not only is an active head coach,
but he's just a bigger name than Damon Jones or
he's a bigger name than Terry Rose. Here's an NBA
champion and he's All Famer. So yeah, yeah, this is
I I that that's what's tough for my brain to
square around. And it's Terry Rozier's lawyer. Camp comes out
and forcellly just rebukes and says that they were doing
this for show. The administration wanted to put, you know,
his head on a spike, basically like they want to
make these high profile rests. I do think that's true
of any administration, is like they want to show they're
making high profile arrests. At the same times, when you
bring up the aspect of what he was making, what
is your incentive or reasoning for doing this and that
part of paying for someone to go collect what was it?
How much was it? They don't really get it, or
at least I haven't seen them getting into this specific
amounts that you go count it your like what why
are you as Terry Rozier, who at that point so
forget about what he's earning that season and in the future,
has already made over sixty million, Like why is that?
And you know you're guaranteed his contract was partially guaranteed
in the final season, he was still guaranteed basically ninety
million bucks or whatever it was. What is I don't understand?
Speaker 2: Insentive there, no, and it's just you you just have
to get into the speculation. And we've done some of it.
And like you just well, if you're associating with these
kinds of people, maybe they're able to exercise leverage on
you that makes you act in ways that you logically
otherwise wouldn't, right, Like that's a possibility depending on who
you know he was, who he'd come as come across
in the gambling world, Like that's that's on the table.
I just I agree. I don't think either of us
is saying we don't believe this because he's making so
much money. I think what the point to take away
is that you don't get to say, well, because he's
making so much money, player X would never have done
this right right, Like that, that argument loses steam. You
want to move on to Billips. I can kind of
go through what was alleged here very quickly.
Speaker 1: Can we talk about is that good or bad brand
marketing to have a Clutch Sports Group sweatshirt on as
he's like walking.
Speaker 2: Out of that big I clocked that too. I thought
that was, like, oh okay, maybe a different sweatshirt. So
Chauncey Phillips is not named in the indictment of Terry
Rozier that's centered on sports betting. He does match like
down to like it's one of those like ge who
could this be? Descriptions of co Conspirator eight. He is
described as a resident of Oregon who played in the
NBA from nineteen ninety seven through twenty fourteen and has
been a coach since twenty twenty one. Like all Right,
co Conspirator eight allegedly told Eric Ernest that the Blazers
would be resting top players on March twenty fourth, twenty
twenty three. Of note Eric Ernest also was also indicted
in the gambling scheme to defraud card players in poker
games that were said to have involved numerous members of
the Bonano, Gambino, Lukesey, and Genovi's crime families.
Speaker 1: I just sudden urge to watch Goodfellas.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, you see those names again. Throwing the names
in the indictment is also kind of like, ok, okay, FBI,
we get at the show, so to me, I'll just
before I throw it to you. This is separate from
what's alleged with Terry Rozier, aside from I guess some
tangential links, right or maybe entirely. And the poker game
of it all is also something that as more people
have read the indictments and like just looked back at
the news, like the poker game was a known thing,
or at least it was. People in Billip's circle and
NBA circles were aware that there was a poker game
that Chauncy Billups was involved in that was I forget
the exact verbiage, but was like you're gonna want to
stay away from that is kind of the vibe that
that people had around it. But just just to be
clear This is one of the things that threw me
upon reading a little more is that, Okay, this is
basically a separate thing from the Rosier stuff, and it
certainly paints Billups in a in a light that is like, oh,
he's he's in trouble or co Conspirator eight is in
trouble for the same stuff, right, like didn't didn't? Isn't
that the feel that you sort of got initially is
it is just like co Conspirator eight slash Billups was
just named in all the reporting. So I'll stop with that.
Billups and Rosier indicted in federal gambling fraud probe whatever.
It was like, oh shit, like that's it's all connected.
It doesn't if unless I'm missing a lot, it's not
quite that clear.
Speaker 1: No it's not. But what I will say that I
don't think was receiving enough attention. And maybe it did,
and I'm just not consuming enough of that content. So
people have made the point that if you're just talking
to someone and this is a Chauncey Billups just says
the example, you are a coach of a team, and
if you're just letting a friend in your life know
name's not going to play tonight. That's just might come
up in conversation if you don't know they're going to
go use that, sell that information, or use it to
make money themselves in some way. And place Bets is like,
what is your culpability there? I'm not everything is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. But he's linked to Eric Ernest
with the poker game too, and so if he actually
told Ernest this, if that's the one he's passing the
information to, you have no cover, right because you already
know that this character is linked to Unless your argument is, well,
I know I was never at a poker game. I
had no idea that those existed. So the fact that
he is tied to that person specifically in both of
these instances, that's what I locked the most out of this.
And when I came away from it, it was short
of I don't want to get oh, he definitely did it,
but I was just, oh, this is if this is
all true, this is too much smoke. I don't know
what his cover would be.
Speaker 2: I think another element of this that we're kind of
brushing up against is is from the NBA side, and
Seth partnow mentioned this. He's worked for teams that you
get instructed more than once in the course of every
season as players, staff coaches that among the sort of
acts that are no nos that aren't technically gambling, is
exactly this, like tipping, like it's called you know, tipping,
telling people outside the sphere of the team or that
that are outside the like need to know uh little
circle who is or is not playing, like so that
feel in a way that's relevant, But in another way
it's also irrelevant because it's not like that's not an
element of a federal crime. It's against the rules of
the NBA, and so if you violate those, the NBA
will you know, maybe ban you for life, suspend you whatever,
like unless we get total exoneration here. I think Billups
is kind of cooked as a member of the NBA
going forwards like that doesn't really matter that he if
he was tipping because for like his legal status, but
for his NBA status it definitely does because that's exactly
the kind of thing you're told never to do a
short separate from like betting on the results of your team,
which is not alleged here at any point with respect
to Billups, you know what I mean, Like from the
NBA's perspective, it's just like, well, open and shut.
Speaker 1: I guess you could say it's open and shut. But
what do you think is different? I mean, what how
firm is what Seth Partner was saying. How firm is
the you shouldn't be sharing this? Is it a mandate?
Because what is it? Like it's mandated that players in
the NBA can't bet on their their own sport. Essentially,
they're not just their own games, but their own sport.
But like, so are you? Does it cross the boundaries
of saying like you can't talk to people about anything
with this job. If you're saying, let's use it to
coach his staff members, doesn't that cross into the realm
of when people would argue, well, this is what you
can't tell pro athletes if they can't bet on other sports.
You're just telling people that they can't interact with people
in their everyday lives or have that. It's not I mean,
you're not I know, injury information is close a closely
guarded secret now, but you're not actually working for this
fucking CIA, and this is you need to ultraate top clearance,
like security clearance to to get this info. And also
it's info that's being paid. I'm not again, I'm not
defending this. I'm just trying to rational like play Devil's
advocates to oh you can't, they just shouldn't share this information,
and that in itself is damning. I just it's damning
to me. If Ernest is the person he physically.
Speaker 2: Scared it, No, I think for sure, your right to
focus on that element of it is is kind of
like the again, this is not gonna be well, this
might be an argument he would make if you're trying
to prosecute a case against him, is like, what did
he reasonably think this person was going to do with
this information based on what he knew of him, what
you could establish about his character and like sort of
what he was into. Like, I think it's a pretty easy.
Speaker 1: Like it's it's difficult.
Speaker 2: It would be difficult for Billups to say, like how
was I supposed to know what? Like, you know, I
never thought for a second that that information might be
used for something in particular, you know what I mean?
Like that, it's a tough, a tough pill to swallow,
a tough argument to make.
Speaker 1: The other thing I struggle to separate with and maybe
we could say this for the Damon Jones talk or
stegment of it too. But how is this different? You
could say it gives certain betters because in this in
this situation, who is the victim. It's the sports book specifically, right,
And you're not hurting your team because you're not Billup.
And now if Billups is a benching dame specifically, like
so that I can give this, Yeah, that we're getting it.
We're veering into the integrity of the sport thing. But
how is this different from if people are using algorithms
to place there and the like? How is it different
from it where they're capital or they're paying for someone
else's advice on how to do this, or how is
it different from just well, sports books are trying to
gain advantages over the consumers because if you're too successful,
like they can kind of cut you off. So I
just I'm I understand that it's a it's a terrible
look given the source he gave it to. But just
the relaying of information to me that information is gonna
come out anyway that feels more like the flow of information,
That feels more like an NBA problem. It's well, then
you should force is it too much to ask to
either have like the injury reports need to just be
due earlier so we know that this is and you
can't change them. No more game time decisions or something,
And I know that sounds stupid. There might be late scratches,
then I think those would still be allowed. But if
you are getting in bed with sports books as partnerships,
and this is something if you, as the NBA, view
this as a cardinal sin, forget about the gambling like
the poker part of this. If you viewed the flow
of information here as a cardinal sin or just taboo,
then maybe you need to look at your protocol for
how injury information is handled and guarded while you're also
going to be in bed with sports books.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's it's sort of it feels unsolvable
independent of there just not being sports gambling, because you're right,
the only the only reason it matters if there's a
late scratch, assuming like assuming there's a good reason for
it is to gamblers and to the house, right like,
so if they're if that element weren't involved, like I yeah,
you could say whatever you wanted, right cause who I
don't know, like people buying tickets for the game that night,
might be pissed if Dame got benched for no reason
or whatever not that, which isn't what happened here. That's
the other thing that's kind of funny about this is
like everybody knew the Blazers were tanking, and nobody like
they were routinely sitting guys all the time.
Speaker 1: So, like, isn't it a bigger deal that the secondary
market or you're gonna the secondary ticket market after Lebron's
like fake out of the decision part two that those
tickets went through the roof, and look, people have their
own agency. They decided to pay above market value, but
they went and spent all this money on the final
game home game of the regular season for the Lakers.
To me, that feels like a bigger deal than a
team that's tanking. You found out a little earlier than
other people that their star player or one of their
players wasn't going to play that night.
Speaker 2: It's not a perfect use of this term, but I
think the reason that it's still concerning, beside from the
person to whom the information was allegedly leaked by Billips,
the problem is like, well, if those channels are open,
then there's at least the opportunity for what didn't seem
to happen here, but could if you're worst case scenarioing
this where you do have someone in a position to
make lineup decisions that is then manipulating the lineup for
purposes of betting, right like that, which isn't what happened.
Like the fact that that channel of communication exists, it
opens up that possibility if you have bad actors or
you have people that are incentivized to to behave that way.
And maybe that's why the whole like somewhat unrealistic expectation
of like no tipping, can't, can't got to be totally
tight lipped about all this type of stuff if you're
a trainer, if you're a coach, if you're a player,
Like maybe that's why it's it just exists, is like
you have to make that the rule, or at least
I don't Again, I don't know if it's like this,
if it's a hard and fast rule that's punishable by
like death right away, or if it's just like, hey,
this is among the stuff that we'll look at if
you get caught as the NBA and potentially punish you
for like that needs to be there, just because the
potential for like a much worse version of what we
see here in the Billups situation is possible. Right like
that that you see what I'm saying like, it's it's
you have the rule in place to prevent like something
much worse than what happened here.
Speaker 1: There's isn't it doesn't it come back to what we
talked about with Rosier when it's it's not just intent
but the incentive for that intent, because Billips would be
another one where it's what is like, what was his
incentive to do this? Specifically? Was he indebted to this person? Again,
we're veering into speculation, which I don't necessarily want us
to have, although that's pretty much our entire job at
this point, and so I'm not trying to condone this
by play Devil's advocate either. I just don't the intent
matters more to me than the flow of information. I
guess is really where I land.
Speaker 2: Sure, of course? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Right, Finally, before we gets lean into an overarching discussion
about sports betting, we have the Damon Jones allegations, which
are sort of just similar to what's going on with Rosier,
except that it seems like he sold like specific tidbits
of information and there were dollar amounts assigned to it,
so he was identified in the indictment as a teammate
or coach of a prominent NBA player aka Grant Players three.
Remember that indictment says that Damon Jones used his relationship
with player three to get information that he sold to gamblers.
Among the examples given where in February of twenty twenty three,
he allegedly found out player three would not play in
the Lakers' game against the Bucks and told an unnamed
co conspirator to place a quote big bet on the
Bucks because player three was out. Player three wasn't on
the injury report at the time, and then Lebron James
did not play in that game. This is how everyone
connected the dots and decided it was Lebron James. League
sources told the athletics Joe Varden and Mike Vorkanov that
Lebron had no knowledge of this, that what Damon Jones
was doing. Then, in January of twenty twenty four, Jones
allegedly sold the info to on another top Lakers player.
That one isn't quoted from the indictment. After learning quote
from a trainer that the player was hurt and his
minutes or performance would be affected. The defendant Marbs Fairly
bet one hundred thousand dollars against the Lakers for that game,
and the injury report simply said that the player in
question was probable. The Lakers won that game and the
player ended up playing to form. Fairly asked Jones for
his money back, which was twenty five hundred dollars for
the flow of the information was the cost, and that
is the player. I believe that everyone assumes, as Anthony
Davis or that they've identified, Damon Jones was passing injury
information on Anthony Davis and Lebron James. Do you have
any further extrapolated thoughts on this compared to what was
going on with Bill because in this, I mean in
the indictment on Billups, it doesn't seem like you can
question the intent just because of the earnest being linked
to the two separate things. You would have to believe
that Phillips is being wrongfully accused in both instances. In
this one, it's more clear cut. It wasn't just the flow.
He was being compensated for the flow of information with
Billups it was was he selling the information? Was he
trying to happen?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Was he getting a cut of the people who are
capitalizing on this information? This seems a little bit more
cut and dry than that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, it's it's more cut and dry, and
it feels worse if you're just like ranking them, like
the rosier thing is the biggest problem. This is the
second biggest because it is just you are selling inside
information for gambling purposes, and then the Billups one is third.
The cutting dry is the right way to put this.
If all these allegations are proven true, it's I mean
there's text message stuff alluded to and the so it's
just kind of it is. It does seem to be
what it looks like. Again, though this gets this this
is what I'm talking about, is like, this is what
you're concerned about with the escape or the release of
information that should be in house and which it's only
a problem if you're allowed to gamble on these games,
because who gives a shit if Lebron James is or
isn't playing in a game or it's not, I shouldn't
say that it's it's not nearly as potential as big
of a potential problem if Damon Jones is leaking who
is or isn't playing in a given Lakers game, if
there's not this other, this way to profit off of
that information. So maybe that's the segue into the more
overarching discussion.
Speaker 1: I think the question is just what is the issue
at hand? Here?
Speaker 2: Is it?
Speaker 1: That? Is it just should sports betting be legal? Is it? Like?
What is the actual It's the integrity of the game,
and that's of sport in general. Because if people start
there are people already think that the end well, let's
just focus on the MBA. They think that the NBA
is scripted. If it if that actually becomes a prevailing
consensus to where you believe that what you're watching has
already been predetermined, that's a real problem. I don't know
that anything we've discussed here rises to that level. I
think the question becomes, does anything we've here make you
think that at some point it could right to that level?
And it also then goes into like, what are your
personal beliefs when it comes to the legalization of sports
betting and the way it's offered, the way it could
be used.
Speaker 2: I guess I falled. I kind of think this stuff
will if you already are of the mind that this
is all fixed, or you're conspiratorially minded or whatever. This
is just more info or more ammo I guess, or
more support for that opinion. I'm not sure what we've
got so far is going to take a person that
believes the league is competitively pure or you know, are
very close to that tanking is what it is, but
and and will get you into the camp of oh
this this is these games are fixed like on mass,
like there's we can't trust the results, the integrity is compromised.
I don't I don't know that this is enough to
get you from A to B. I think it's just
it will reinforce your position if you already are like, ah,
this is it's all fixed and all rigged, which is
personally that always just again, there's probably some self defense
in this, like I I deeply want to believe that
everything's on the up and up. But that sort of
thinking like other refs have it in for this team,
or this game was rigged, or you know, this draft
pick was manipulated. That always just with no real evidence.
It's a lot of coincidental stuff. It's lazy analysis. If
you're saying it as a joke or whatever. I find
it funny sometimes too, But it's just you if you're
especially if you're not. I mean, I don't know if
I'm gonna read that case that you're gonna make, but
like you need to make like a real argument behind it,
and invariably there's almost just no real evidence behind you
start asking why or how and the argument's just completely
fall apart. Or what are the incentives? Now with gambling
you can say, well, the incentive was financial, like you know,
there's this money to be made over here, or I
don't know. Some people just need to get get addicted
to it. And it's not about the money. It's about
the rush, it's about the edge, it's about the dopamine whatever.
So I so that's kind of my thought on like
does it affect your view on the competitive integrity? It's
kind of you think what you think? I don't feel
like this is going to move you one way or
the other necessarily, I guess the answer. The next thing
to get to is like what do you do about this?
Like is this a widespread problem or do you? And
and if so, what's what's the solve like it or
is this a problem? Like that's the other thing here,
like is this a big enough deal? We already led
this off with like we're skeptical of the administration that
is spearheading this investigation just as the starting point. But
if this is a real issue, what do you do?
Like what's what is what is the role of gambling
going forward? And can it can it change? If that's
how you think this gets solved, I don't.
Speaker 1: Know how you change it. If you're going to allow
betting on player props, and that's been the thing, there's
the NCAAA ban put on them. I do think when
you say that, it sounds better in theory than in practice.
Looking at this from a business perspective, not getting into
my personal beliefs on it. I don't think people understand
how much the prop betting market contributes to overall sports betting.
I think in twenty twenty four the estimate was that
it was a fifty percent of all legal bets placed.
That is a huge part of your business share as
sports books, as the league who's partnered with these sports
books to just wipe away. I think you can more
closely guard the flow of information, but that isn't that
just gonna make this more of a saga when it
does get out. I think if you're looking at this
and wondering how to pro or improve it, short of
actually banning player props, try I think fix some of it,
but not all of it. I don't know what the
answer is. I don't think that there's an answer. You're
never gonna weed it out in time. Look, the illegal
sports betting market is still a billion dollar industry every year,
even though it's a legal and basically forty states at
this point. And the thing I would push back is
why this not used specifically, but the book beliefs in general.
This is what we're talking about. It is a problem,
but to me, it's also a theoretical problem when you're
looking at it through the NBA's lens. In particular, the
Terry Rozier situation specifically gives opens up the possibility, as
we just mentioned before, that these contracts have not gotten
so lucrative that for most of these players that could
impact the game if they traded, if they not, if
they traded but they pulled themselves out, or they impact
their own alter their own performance, it leaves open the possiblity.
No this this could happen like this legitimately could happen,
but it hasn't happened yet. It happened with Terry Rozier,
we think on a team in the Charlotte Hornets that
season that wasn't like it wasn't Lebron James pulling himself
off of the Lakers. I'm not saying it needs to
rise to Nikole Jokic doing something with the Nuggets. So
it is an issue, but I do think a lot
of this is trying to project forward, which leads me
to my final point here that should be part of
all this is that so much of my I don't
bet on sports like I just don't. It's not something
that like interests me. I understand why people do it.
It helps them lock in on games. I get it.
This podcast wouldn't exist without sports betting advertisements, like we
just negotiated a deal with a sports book like this
is the nature of the business. We're all hypocrite, or
we're hypocrites to some extent. I'm willing to like we
could talk about that if we need to. But when
we talk about problem gambling, so much comes down to
the reaction, the treatment of it. How many resources are
being devoted to detecting when these bets are happening, or
to treat people who report having problem gambling. There probably
needs to be more preventive measures in place, And when
it comes to sports betting in general, like that you
know the same way, or at least when you and
I came up, it was we were educated on like
the perils of alcohol or tobacco, Like it probably needs
to be the same way. Like that. Education needs to
start young so that when you are exposed to all this,
you have a better idea of what you're getting into
and you're not just subjected to all these advertisements or
even more so, I don't know how much ads actually impact.
They could be predatory. I'm sure I don't know how
much they I haven't seen an ad and be like,
oh yeah, like you got to use that promo code
and they go bet on sports. It might. I think
the bigger danger is when you're looking at the individual
is coming up in a culture to where it's just
so ingrained into the fandom of sports that you're just
that's how you're grandfathered into it. And I think that
probably starts with more education, which leads to more prevention
but when you're looking at it from the NBA specifically,
I don't know how you let so much of this
just operates on good faith. It's on a smaller scale.
If we say you and I are going to sit
down and record this podcast at ten am Pacific time,
I trust that you're going to be there. There's really
not much else I could do about it. Am I
going to send someone to your house and watch you
twenty four to seven when I have to do it sometimes?
So you're notoriously flaky? And that's what I struggle with
is because if your argument is sports betting shouldn't be legal,
and the people it impacts not just the leagues, not
just the million dollar athletes, but the people who are
providing you content that are we are just you and
I are capitalizing off of this. If you're okay with that,
maybe even impacting yourself to where that's what, then I'm
totally I think that's an acceptable stance to take. But
there's also the discussion that we had about well is
that reasonable? Because you have to be pragmatic about all
this too. It's is it trendy to sit here and
say band player props or sports betting shouldn't be legal,
but is that realistic? And I don't think any of
that's realistic because one illegal gambling is always going to exist,
and I do think to some extent regulated markets are safer.
Maybe there need to be more safeguards when it comes
to advertisements like a ready set or the way that
they target customers, for sure, But would we have detected
this if it was all happening through offshore online bookies
or if it was just physical bookies, Probably not. So
it's I don't want to say I understand both sides,
but I understand both sides, and I just don't have
a perfect answer.
Speaker 2: I don't have one either. I think I think I
think one thing, if we're looking to be solution oriented,
if we concede that this is a problem based on
these latest reports.
Speaker 1: The player socide, can I ask you a question though,
is it this what we're talking about, is a problem,
But do you think the NBA has more of a
macro problem with I want to focus on the Terry
Rosier stuff, or even if you think that coaches are
selling information to capitalize off that, do you think that
that is actually a widespread problem in the NBA right
The idea of it is a problem. What we're talking
about right now is a problem. Do you think that
the NBA actually has this specific problem on a scale
to where it's problematic.
Speaker 2: I do not, I think, but what I think it
has among again, people that are predisposed to think this
way is a perception problem. Is an optics problem now,
because this is something you can point to if you
want to make the case that the NBA is rigged,
which I don't believe it is. I think the fact
that Terry Rozier getting allegedly I don't know, getting caught
on a few hundred thousand dollars a couple of years
ago would suggest to me that if there was a
larger problem, that would have been caught too, because that
is some small potatoes stuff based on like who it was,
when it was, how much it was for. Again, that
makes it feel like, oh, the fact that somebody got
caught doing this is proof that it isn't a problem.
That Okay, that's I can grant you that that's like
a tenuous argument to make. So no, I don't think
it's a real a widespread issue, but I think in
the way that it's being perceived, Yeah, that that's kind
of the the bigger deal at the moment, and perception matters.
Speaker 1: I don't want to write that element at it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. I think that is the bigger part
of this eth unless more comes out, which who knows.
I'm skeptical that more will if we're trying to be
solution oriented. I do think there's a case that curbing
or eliminating player props goes a really long way, and
I think it's it's one that because of what we
know about gambling and what you talked about a moment ago, like,
it is essentially like for some people, scientifically an addiction.
That is why there's disclaimers on almost every you know,
advertisement for it. People have some people have difficulty moderating
that behavior. So if that is true, and we sort
of know now that it is, eliminating prop player props
is not going to cost these books any money because
these people are going to find other stuff to gamble on.
I just like, you know what I mean, if you
want to do it and you have the means to
do it, you're just gonna pick something else. You're gonna
pick what's available. I don't think there's a meaningful share
of business that will be lost. And the NBA cares
about this too, But these books in particular, if you
just said we're gonna severely limit or eliminate player props,
because if you want to gamble, you're still gonna do it.
You'll bet on the team, You'll they'll find other ways
to make that money back. I don't think it's like,
I don't think that's like a nuclear option, you know,
It's like it seems like a fairly clean solve for
a lot of the problem for the rosier stuff in
particular is what we're talking about, and because like, honestly,
the one of the problems that we're either dancing around
when we're getting to the heart of is just the
accessibility of it all is because these play not only
is it so easy to do this from your phone
in the middle of the games, but it's all these
props are now. It used to be, remember when we
were coming up, it was these props are available mostly
just for football and there for like these big games,
and now there's just such nuanced player props. And so
I would agree with where you're saying that people would
find other ways to still bet on sports, and that
the bottom line may not be impacted that much. But
I almost wonder if we're running into so it's been
in twenty eighteen is when the Paps Act was overturned
by the Supreme Court and each have the ability to
now individually legalized sports betting.
Speaker 1: Are we get to the point that we saw with
streaming services to where this has been such a growth
market and now you have to figure out a way
to continue growing And the only way to continue growing
is to offer more of these options. And I'm not
condoning that. I'm just if what you're saying sounds reasonable
to me, it sounds unrealistic knowing that well, okay, like
might not be impacted much, but it's still going to
be impacted, and we answered our shareholders, so we can't
allow that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, that's a great point. Like the idea that like,
well you won't lose any money is a good argument.
Is it kind of falls apart when it's like, well,
growth is always we forget staying even we want to
figure out ways to make more. You can't take this
avenue to make more away from us. We need to
come up. Not only do we need to keep player props,
we need to find other ways, like to to some
you know, to make the pile bigger. That's a good argument.
I think like you would have to threaten something more
severe to get that concession from a lot of these books,
probably where and I don't know that just to keep
it sort of local, the NBA should, like I don't
know that that's the league's responsibility because they're trying to
grow revenue too, and the gambling partnerships are a huge
driver of that. I don't know if they should have
to threaten anything or if they and I very much
doubt that they would unless you know, there was some
kind of compulsion to do that.
Speaker 1: And the two final things I'll add, well maybe even
the three final things is one, this changes if more
names come out, which it felt like the was it
the deputy at AG or what was it? Ptel himself
said it would. If it doesn't, that's only gonna lead
to my further skepticism. Why was this such a dog
and pony show. Two, the NBA doesn't get to like
cry foul here at all, Like Adam Silver inextricably tied
this league to sports betting when that op ed however
many years ago, Like you just have to eat the
crow on this and too, because we didn't talk about it.
If all this stuff is true, Chauncey billups terror like, yeah,
bannon them like you've done, bring the hammer down like
we went through this with the Clipper stuff. Is you
need to set a precedent to if money, if the
money these players are making clearly isn't gonna in the moment,
isn't gonna dissuade them from doing it, show that well
it's gonna impact like your future livelihood then too. And
so if this all turns out to be true, this
is you're not gonna hear me all like, well, Chauncey billups, No,
you could argue that Chauncy Bilts didn't even deserve this
job that he has right now. So I would say
those would be the final things I would add. I
don't know you have any more thoughts on this. I
do hope people. I don't know that we came to
any mega conclusions, but I hope people at least appreciate
that we were trying to be honest. Just tell you,
this is a tough It's a tough thing, and I
don't have perfect answers, only terrible takes.
Speaker 2: As No, the same that's gonna do it. Thanks everybody
for listening, for watching Rate Review, subscribe to all that stuff,
let us know what your thoughts are. And this is
this is a this is a real, like thorny complicated issue.
So just ripe for comments. I would say.
Speaker 1: Spokes to Yet, I would like to bet on.
Speaker 2: Frank Mila Quina being unfairly excluded from the NBA shouts
udom apologies. Jared Allen, m HM