U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–464 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 107–1092

AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT, S. 718

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 26, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director 

ANN CHOINIERE, Republican General Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 26, 2001 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Breaux ................................................................................. 52

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Statement of Senator Edwards ............................................................................... 48

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 3

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

Adams, Michael F., President of the University of Georgia ................................. 58

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Representative from Nevada ................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Friday, William, President Emeritus, University of North Carolina .................. 57

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, U.S. Representative from Nevada ......................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Graham, Hon. Lindsey, U.S. Representative from South Carolina ..................... 20

Hartle, Terry W., Senior Vice President, American Council on Education ........ 64

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

Hurd, Tracy Dodds, Associate Sports Editor, Cleveland Plain Dealer ................ 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Ivory, Titus Lovell, Student-Athlete, Pennsylvania State University ................. 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Looney, Ed, Director, Council on Compulsive Gambling ...................................... 61

Newell, Pete, Coach, Member of the Basketball Hall of Fame ............................ 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Osborne, Hon. Tom, U.S. Representative from Nebraska .................................... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S Senator from Nevada ........................................................ 7

Roemer, Hon. Tim, U.S. Representative from Indiana ......................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Saum, William S., Director of Agents, Gambling and Amateur Activities, 

National Collegiate Athletic Associations .......................................................... 69

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71

Shaffer, Howard J., Ph.D., C.A.S., Associate Professor, Harvard Medical 

School, Division of Addictions ............................................................................. 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Sheridan, Danny, Writer, USA Today ................................................................... 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

Williams, Gary, Head Basketball Coach, University of Maryland ...................... 24

APPENDIX

Holtz, Lou, Head Football Coach, University of South Carolina ......................... 85

Hynes, Charles J., District Attorney, Kings County, New York .......................... 86

Letter to Hon. John Ensign and Hon. Harry Reid from Dennis Neilander, 

Chairman, State of Nevada Gaming Control Board, Carson City, Nevada .... 89

Letters to Hon. John McCain from: 

Dean Smith, Men’s Basketball, University of North Carolina ..................... 87

Page

IV

Letters to Hon. John McCain from—Continued

Richard Buchanan, Vice President and General Counsel, National Basketball Association; William L. Daly, Executive Vice President and 

Chief Legal Officer, National Hockey League; Jeffrey Pash, Executive 

Vice President, National Football League; Tom Ostertag, Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball 90

Price, Nancy, North Las Vegas, Nevada ................................................................ 88

(1)

AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT, S. 718

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will address The Amateur Sports Integrity Act, S. 718. I will make a brief opening statement and I will 

ask my colleagues to do the same. We have two panels of witnesses 

to get through today, and so we will do everything we can, at least 

from this side, on behalf of brevity. 

We’re back again this year to pass a measure I am confident will 

receive broad support if it’s taken up before the full Senate. The 

Amateur Sports Integrity Act, S. 718, which I introduced last 

month with my colleagues Senators Brownback, Jeffords, Edwards 

and Fitzgerald, does two things: it amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, and high school sports, and it authorizes appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 

fund the detection and prevention of athletic performance-enhancing drugs. 

The Amateur Sports Integrity Act implements a recommendation 

made by the congressionally created National Gambling Impact 

Study Commission in response to the commission’s concerns regarding scandals in recent years involving college athletes, the extent of gambling among college athletes in general, the way in 

which legal gambling facilitates illegal gambling, and the mixed 

message that is sent to our youth, when we allow gambling on 

amateur athletics in one State while banning it in all others. 

In its final report, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission recommended that betting on collegiate and amateur athletic 

events be banned altogether. Senate Bill 718 accomplishes just 

that. Just as the use of performance-enhancing drugs threatens the 

integrity of amateur sports, so does gambling. 

Betting on amateur athletics invites public speculation as to the 

legitimacy of the competition and transforms student athletes into 

objects to bet upon. Adding unwarranted pressure from corrupting 

influences to the underlying pressures that these intensely competitive young people already feel is unacceptable. 

2

Although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act bans legal gambling 

on amateur athletics, I expect it will also reduce a substantial 

amount of illegal gambling as well. The relationship between legal 

and illegal gambling was addressed by the NGISC, which observed 

that, ‘‘legal sports wagering, especially the publication in the media 

of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads, fuels a much 

larger amount of illegal sports wagering.’’ 

I won’t pretend, however, that closing the one State loophole on 

legal gambling on amateur sports will put an end to illegal gambling on these athletes and competitors. 

For this reason I say to my colleagues who are backing a bill that 

has the support of the gaming industry that provides additional resources to combat illegal gambling, I agree with the intent of your 

legislation, appreciate your recognition that gambling on amateur 

athletics is a problem that must be addressed at the Federal level. 

That bill, however, while perhaps acceptable as a complement, is 

not acceptable as an alternative to the Amateur Sports Integrity 

Act. 

Senator Ensign. 

[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

We are back this year to try to pass a measure that I am confident will receive 

broad support if it is taken up before the full Senate. The Amateur Sport Integrity 

Act, S. 718, which I introduced last month with my colleagues Senators Brownback, 

Jeffords, Edwards, and Fitzgerald, does two things: it amends the Ted Stevens 

Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, 

and high school sports, and it authorizes appropriations for the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology to fund the detection and prevention of athletic performance-enhancing drugs. 

The Amateur Sports Integrity Act implements a recommendation made by the 

congressionally created National Gambling Impact Study Commission in response to 

the Commission’s concerns about scandals in recent years involving college athletes, 

about the extent of gambling among college athletes generally, about the way in 

which legal gambling facilitates illegal gambling, and about the mixed message we 

are sending to our youth when we allow gambling on amateur athletics in one State 

while banning it in all others. 

In its final report, the Gambling Impact Study Commission recommended that 

betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events be banned altogether. Senate bill 

718 accomplishes just that. Just as the use of performance enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur sports, so does gambling. Betting on amateur athletics 

invites public speculation as to their legitimacy and transforms student athletes into 

objects to be bet upon. Adding unwarranted pressure from corrupting influences to 

the pressures that these intensely competitive young people already feel is unacceptable. 

Equally important, although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act bans legal gambling on amateur athletics, I expect that it also will reduce a substantial amount 

of illegal gambling as well. The relationship between legal and illegal gambling was 

addressed by the NGISC, which observed that ‘‘legal sports wagering—especially the 

publication in the media of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads fuels a 

much larger amount of illegal sports wagering.’’ I won’t pretend, however, that closing the Nevada loophole on legal gambling on amateur sports will put an end to 

illegal gambling on these athletes and competitions. For this reason, I say to my 

colleagues who are backing a bill that has the support of the gaming industry and 

that provides additional resources to combat illegal gambling—I agree with the intent of your legislation and appreciate your recognition that gambling on amateur 

athletics is a problem that must be addressed at the Federal level. The direction 

of that bill, however, while perhaps acceptable as a complement, is not acceptable 

as an alternative to the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to moving this legislation at the 

earliest possible time.

3

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, as the Senator from Nevada where legal, regulated amateur sports betting takes place, I am looking forward to 

hearing from our witnesses today, and I am confident their testimony will confirm what I already know, that a ban on legal sports 

betting will only drive more money underground, lining the pockets 

of the Al Capones’ of this world, and will not make a dent in illegal 

gambling on college campuses. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the facts are on my side of this debate, 

but the emotion is on yours. I share your concern about the widespread gambling on college campuses. I want to make sure that 

sporting events are conducted fairly, untainted by scandal, that college athletes are not pressured by bookies to throw games or shave 

points. 

And congressional action may be needed to accomplish this goal, 

since the NCAA and college administrators have really done very 

little to curb college gambling. Let’s work together to find a solution to fit the problem, instead of unfairly blaming it on Nevada. 

Legal and regulated sports wagering represents less than 1 percent of all sports betting in this country. It is not the problem. Illegal gambling is, and we should be spending our time looking at the 

most effective ways to combat illegal gambling. 

The NCAA knows that gambling on college campuses is a major 

problem. A survey of division 1 male basketball and football players, commissioned by the NCAA, found that over one-fourth gambled on college sports, some of them on their own games. 

A University of Michigan survey revealed that nearly half of all 

male student athletes gambled on college and professional sports. 

These college athletes aren’t flying to Las Vegas to lay down their 

bets. By and large, they are betting through illegal campus bookies, 

or over the Internet. 

As a matter of fact, it is illegal to place a bet with a Nevada 

sports book unless you are physically present in the State of Nevada. And any bet over $3,000 today requires a picture ID to lay 

a bet down with a Nevada sports book. 

Students on college campuses don’t even have to leave their dorm 

room today to place a call or access one of the thousand sports betting sites on the Internet. When we look at the most recent points 

shaving scandals, which happened about 7 years ago, Northwestern 

and Arizona State Universities, we find that the players involved 

owed money to illegal bookies, not Las Vegas casinos. 

So what is the NCAA doing to stop illegal gambling on college 

campuses and protect its players? Very little. Last year the NCAA 

spent only $229,000 of its over $300 million budget on combatting 

illegal gambling. That’s about three cents for each student attending an NCAA school. In fact, the NCAA spent 40 times more on 

marketing and promotion, not on the games, but just on the NCAA 

itself, than on fighting illegal sports betting on college campuses. 

It’s time for the NCAA to put its money where its mouth is and 

show a true commitment to fighting sports betting on college campuses. CBS is paying the NCAA $6 billion over the next 11 years 

to broadcast just the March Madness basketball tournament, not 

4

including the rest of the college basketball games, or any of the college football games. How much of that $6 billion is the NCAA going 

to be using to protect college athletes from the clutches of illegal 

bookies? 

Banning legal, regulated sports betting in Nevada for adults of 

at least 21 years of age and physically present in my state’s borders will not reduce the number of games that are fixed. To the 

contrary, there were more than 20 schools involved in NCAA point 

shaving incidents before Las Vegas sports books were established 

in 1975, and only four—actually only two—that were indicted since 

that time. 

Right now, Nevada’s Gaming Control Board is the only mechanism in place to monitor sports betting to see if there’s any point 

shaving or fixing going on. The biggest gift you could give to organized crime is to get rid of the legal wagering on college sports in 

Nevada, and thus eliminating all oversight. 

And students will continue to do what they are doing today. 

Nothing in your legislation, Mr. Chairman, will stop Internet or illegal sports betting in America. As a matter of fact, you mentioned 

the line produced by the Nevada books. The newspapers will continue to produce the lines, I will produce documentation that says 

exactly that later. 

The Las Vegas books are actually one of just a very small percentage of people who produce lines. Certainly the Internet is one 

of the biggest places where the lines are produced and those are 

happening from offshore websites. Nothing we can do in this Congress can stop that have happening. 

Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as the Las Vegas loophole. 

You should be thankful for college sports betting in Nevada, because the coach of Arizona State was informed during half time of 

a possible fix because of the Nevada sports books. They had alerted 

the FBI and the Pac 10 conference of betting irregularities, which 

helped catch this scandal. 

Once again, I must repeat, there is no loophole in the law. When 

Congress passed legislation which limited sports betting, it was 

conscious that it was moving into an area that was in the purview 

of states’ rights. 

So Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with this. I believe that the 

facts of the hearing today will prove that banning legal sports betting in Nevada will do nothing but make illegal sports betting in 

this country proliferate, and will do nothing to solve the problem 

of sports betting on college campuses across America. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Ensign. And for the record, 

the facts are that there was no apprehension or revelation of the 

ASU basketball scandal until the arrest of an individual on an unrelated charge, who then, in order to get a reduced sentence on an 

unrelated charge, ratted out or informed the authorities about the 

scandal. There was no uncovering of this scandal at ASU by any 

gaming authority in the State of Nevada. 

Senator Brownback. 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for holding the hearing. It’s a bit of an uncomfortable spot for me 

to be in, next to my very good friend in the Senate, John Ensign, 

who is a very effective advocate for the other side, but this is one 

of only a couple of issues that I can think of that I disagree with 

Senator Ensign on. 

I have a full statement that I’d like to have submitted into the 

record, Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn’t mind, and I would renew my 

request to the Nevada delegation, much of which is here today, and 

I appreciate your appearance, to give states the option to opt out 

of your Sports book. 

Senator ENSIGN. Not much, we’re all here. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Very good, then let me plead to all of you, 

to allow the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, if you 

will set up a mechanism where a state can get off of your Sports 

book in your state, let us do it. Let us free. 

And then allow the states to move forward and say OK, Arizona 

State wants off the book, and put forward a procedure to let us off 

of your book so our coaches and our institutions can say, you know, 

we don’t want to be on those things, and we need to be able to get 

off of it, instead of forcing them to be able to deal with the problems that you create by causing and having a market, a Sports 

book in Nevada. 

I pleaded with you last year to allow us that option to get our 

schools out. It was turned away, it was turned away by the Nevada 

gambling commission or gaming board. Please let us free. In honesty, I don’t think you make that much money off of Kansas institutions, KU and K State, and the other institutions in the state. 

We’re not a whole lot of money to you. Let us free. Please let us 

do that. 

I support what the Chairman has put forward in his statement. 

This is an overall problem that we have in this country. The legislation that’s been put forward is supported by all of the college 

coaches in the institutions probably except those in Nevada. It’s 

supported by all the college presidents perhaps expect those in Nevada. They are asking and requesting that we change this and that 

we create a national system where you cannot have this betting 

take place on amateur sports in the United States. We should do 

it. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing and I look forward to the question and comment session. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

I am pleased that the Committee will once again consider and approve the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. 

My friends, during today’s session we will discuss the merits of legislation, the 

Amateur Sports Integrity Act, that, quite frankly, is a no brainer. S. 718 will ban 

the continued unseemly practice of legal wagering on high school, college, and amateur sports at the expense of the achievements of our nation’s student athletes. This 

bill closes the loophole in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 

1992 that allows legal sports betting in Nevada to negatively impact student athletics in other States. 

6

My continuing efforts on this issue are in direct response to the recommendation 

made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), which in 1999 

concluded a 2-year study on the impact of legalized gambling in our country. The 

Commission’s recommendation called for a complete ban on all legalized gambling 

on amateur sports. 

This legislation will serve notice that betting on college games or amateur athletics is simply inappropriate. We can not continue to allow bets to be placed on our 

student athletes. 

In addition, not only is legal sports gambling inappropriate, but it can result in 

significant social costs. The Commission in its report recognized the potential harm 

of legalized sports gambling, which ‘‘can serve as a gateway behavior for adolescent 

gamblers, and can devastate individuals and careers.’’ Citing a study by the National Research Council, the NGISC identified financial, physical, and emotional 

problems, including divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect as some 

of the costs S. 718 now seeks to prevent. 

The Commission’s recognition of sports gambling as a gateway behavior leading 

to these problems is especially troubling considering the heightened affect gambling 

has on our nation’s young people. According to the NGISC, ‘‘individuals who begin 

gambling at an early age run a much higher lifetime risk of developing a gambling 

problem.’’ In addition, ‘‘[a]dolescent gamblers are more likely than adults to develop 

problem and pathological gambling.’’ We must also address the fact that legal gambling has a real and telling impact on student athletes, and appears to facilitate illegal gambling activity. If there are any doubts, just ask Kevin Pendergast who orchestrated the basketball point-shaving scandal at Northwestern. He has stated 

that he never would have been able to pull off his scheme if it weren’t for the ability 

to lay bets with the Las Vegas sports books. 

The frequency of point shaving scandals over the last decade, and the tie-in to 

the Vegas sports books of the episode at Northwestern, and another scandal at Arizona State University, is a clear indication that legal gambling on college sports 

stretches beyond Nevada, impacting the integrity of other State sporting events. I 

categorically reject the notion that the integrity of Kansas college athletics should 

be jeopardized so the casinos in Nevada can rake in some additional gambling revenues. Until this past January, Nevada sports books were prohibited from taking 

bets on Nevada’s own college teams. I think this prohibition speaks volumes about 

concerns we should have with the impact of betting on our college sporting efforts. 

While the repeal of this rule in Nevada is a reaction to the fact that it just happened to catch the attention of Members of this Committee, it cannot retract the 

message the rule has already delivered: even Nevada realizes that legal sports gambling has a corruptive impact on college sports. 

This bill is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which represents more than 1000 colleges and universities nationwide. In addition, numerous 

coaches among the college ranks support this effort, and I can think of no better 

advocate than the coaches who spend time day in and day out with the athletes and 

prized sporting institutions negatively affected by legal sports gambling. 

I urge my colleagues to support S. 718.

Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, may I have a point of personal 

privilege? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Senator ENSIGN. You responded to what I had said and actually 

this was on the Fox sports show, and Agent Noble, Special Agent 

Noble, there’s a quote, admits that the FBI may have never known 

about the scam, referring to the Arizona state, if bookies didn’t 

blow the whistle. Agent Noble actually said this quote.

‘‘They have a pretty good idea on any particular game how much money 

should be bet. When unusual amounts of money are bet, it causes them to be 

alerted or alarmed, and in that particular case, that’s how we became aware 

of it.’’

The CHAIRMAN. That’s not how they found out though. So your 

point has no relevance to my response, which is that the Nevada 

gaming commission or anyone else did not uncover nor bring any 

charges against anything to do with that scandal until the arrest 

of a confederate. 

Senator ENSIGN. But their information helped. 

7

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve had your point of personal privilege, Senator Ensign. Now I’d like to ask my colleagues to be brief. We have 

two additional panels to follow you, so I urge you to be brief in your 

comments on this issue since they are pretty well-known, and I ask 

for 3 minute statements. 

Senator Reid. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,

U.S SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have always admired your going into areas where others don’t 

go, and I’ve followed you most every time. But I have to say here 

that I would ask that you step back a little bit and look at the 

facts. 

For example, Mr. Chairman, the National Gambling Impact 

Study Commission, as you know from the evidence, there was very 

little testimony taken but what was taken was very, very important. For example, the commission found that the best evidence 

came from one of the NCAA’s own witnesses, a man by the name 

of Bill Saum. 

Now here’s what the NCAA’s Bill Saum had to say when he testified before the Impact Study Commission, and I quote. Commissioner James Dobson asked this question.

‘‘Mr. Saum, you address most of your comments to illegal sports gambling. 

You didn’t have much to say about legalized gambling on sporting activities. 

Would you like to comment on that?’’

Here is Saum’s response.

‘‘Certainly we would be adamantly opposed to any further legalization across 

the United States. If we’re going to have sports wagering, let’s keep it in Nevada and nowhere else. Let’s not allow individuals to wager from outside State 

lines. 

We also have a rule that our athletes, our coaches and everyone involved in 

athletics including those of us at the national level may not wager legally. So 

we’re opposed to it. But we also recognize that society, or a segment of society 

believes that this is something that should be permissible, so I don’t think you 

will see the NCAA start a campaign to remove sports wagering from the State 

of Nevada.’’

Mr. Chairman, I think this says it all. The NCAA is wrong in 

their attempt to do this. This is a Congress that has fallen in the 

line of the last 8 or 10 Congresses to have as one of its guiding 

principles of the recognization of states’ rights. The State of Nevada is a sovereign state. They have made this decision. Out of the 

100 percent of gambling that takes place on college athletics, about 

one and a half percent of it takes place in Nevada and is done legally. 

In your effort to stop something that you think is wrong, you’re 

going after the wrong entity. Ninety-eight and a half percent of the 

gambling that takes place, I repeat, is done illegally, and it’s not 

all done on college campuses. It’s done on service stations, at pool 

halls and other places, where I think that that’s where we need to 

take a look. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that where you’re going is wrong, and 

for me to say this to John McCain is hard, but I just think that 

you have not had the opportunity to fully understand this. I appreciate—you know, it would have been easy for you to just report this 

8

to the Senate floor, but I appreciate your holding hearings. I think 

the hearings today will be revealing to you. 

We have a Hall of Fame coach, we have others who are here to 

talk about why this is going to, as Senator Ensign said, drive this 

underground. There is in America something called organized 

crime, and they are around today licking their lips with the idea 

that John McCain, who is a person who is known for his principle, 

is trying to drive out a little bit of legal gambling in Nevada, because it just makes their opportunities more sure. 

So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would take a real close 

look at what you’re doing. Without your strong voice, with all due 

respect to my friend Sam Brownback, who is an outstanding member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, without your 

support, this is dead. The only reason this has gotten as far as it 

has is because John McCain is supporting it, and I think John 

McCain is wrong. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Senator Reid. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I certainly thank you too. Your confidence 

in my abilities here was highly appreciated. 

Senator REID. Well, I say, Sam, this is meant in no way to denigrate you, and I said you’ve done a great job. But John McCain is 

who he is, and I can’t take that away from him. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I thank you, Senator Reid. We’ve known 

and appreciated each other and been dear friends now for 18 years 

and I appreciate it, and this too shall pass in one way or the other. 

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, may I be excused? The Senate is 

opening at 10 o’clock. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Reid. Thank you 

for your advocacy. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, Mr. Reid, could 

you please ask the Nevada gaming board to let my State free on 

this? I mean, maybe I’m not a good national advocate, but would 

you ask them? 

The CHAIRMAN. I think the Senator from Kansas has made his 

point. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Would you ask them for me? 

Senator REID. Sam, I think your question is silly and I’m not 

going to answer it. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you very much, Harry. 

I’d like to remind members of the audience that we don’t tolerate 

that kind of display in the hearing room and we will not accept any 

further expressions of either appreciation or condemnation. 

Congresswoman Berkley, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss S. 718 and share with you my knowledge and very 

serious concerns. 

I am the only Member of the House with gaming industry experience. Having worked in the industry for many years I’ve seen firsthand the positive role gaming plays in the Las Vegas community. 

Having devoted 8 years of my life to higher education as an elected member of the Nevada University Board of Regents, I want to 

9

see illegal gambling on campuses eliminated. S. 718 is not the answer. Since coming to Congress, I’ve been astounded by the misconceptions about Nevada’s gaming industry. The NCAA supporters of their legislation have been touting a number of misconceptions that must be cleared up. 

A February 22nd Dear Colleague letter stated that you can place 

bets on high school and Olympic sports in Nevada casinos. This is 

not true. The casinos in my district operate under strict State and 

local regulations that prohibit these types of wagers. 

That same letter insinuated that college games are scripted in 

the back rooms of legal gambling parlors. This accusation could not 

be further from the truth. There has never, never been an incident 

where a legal Nevada sports book has participated in scripting a 

game of any sort. 

Despite what the NCAA would have you believe, ending legal 

sports betting in Nevada will not stop the publications of betting 

lines. The Newspaper Association of America has stated clearly 

that ending wagering in Las Vegas will not stop its members from 

providing this information for interested readers. 

Anyone with a computer can get the point spreads for any game 

by logging onto hundreds of different offshore Web sites. 

This magazine that I’d like to present to you, Mr. Chairman features dozens of advertisements for online casinos. All 64 schools in 

this year’s NCAA tournament had Internet access on campus, even 

in the dormitories, to Internet gambling. And my son goes to the 

U of A in Tucson, and he told me of what was going on in the college campuses. 

I believe in local and State control. I believe in stiff penalties for 

any violation and I am adamantly in favor of a strong, effective bill 

to combat illegal sports betting. S. 718 is not that bill. It takes an 

upside-down position that the nation’s $380 billion a year illegal 

sports gambling problem will go away if Congress outlaws legal wagering in Nevada, a regulated business that generates far less than 

1 percent of the bets on college sports. 

The sponsors of this legislation failed to answer the threshold 

question of how closing legal sports books in one State will do anything about the illegal wagering by college students and others in 

the other 49 states. 

The illegal gambling taking place in and around our nation’s college campuses already violates numerous Federal, state, and local 

laws. Any college student placing bets on a campus is already committing a crime, and extremely unlikely to stop placing bets on 

sports regardless of the outcome of this legislation. 

There is not a single shred of evidence that S. 718 will have any 

effect on the illegal gambling currently taking place in our country. 

The NCAA argues that closing the legal sports books in Nevada 

will send a message to young people that gambling is illegal. With 

all due respect, I sincerely doubt whether young people care whether gambling is legal or not in Nevada, much less that Congress has 

acted. 

The NCAA and its member institutions already have the power 

to crack down on illegal betting taking place on campuses, they just 

haven’t done it. The NCAA has done virtually nothing to stem the 

10

tide of illegal betting on college campuses, even though it just 

signed a $6 billion contract to broadcast collegiate games. 

The NCAA has chosen to make Nevada its scapegoat rather than 

mandate that their member institutions take their share of the 

NCAA profits and use it to develop programs to fight illegal college 

gambling. Ask the coaches who testify today if they are willing to 

give up their multimillion dollar Nike contracts, or if they are willing to make the same salary that the university presidents who 

hired them make, and use the extra income to create programs on 

their own campuses to fight illegal gambling. 

If the NCAA and Congress are really serious about fighting illegal amateur sports gambling, then let’s get serious. I challenge the 

NCAA to take its multibillion dollar revenue, all generated by unpaid student athletes and not just a tiny fraction, and dedicate it 

to fighting illegal gambling through aggressive enforcement and 

prevention programs. 

We need a serious, real-world approach to this problem. Before 

our government tramples on legitimate states’ rights, does irreparable damage to my state’s budget, throws honest, hard working 

people out of their jobs and sets a dangerous precedent of Federal 

intrusion in the legal affairs of individual states, I ask you to abandon S. 718 and give full consideration to the legislation introduced 

by Senator Ensign and Senator Reid. 

The National Collegiate and Amateur Protection Act of 2001 is 

the same legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Gibbons and me. Our bill boosts law enforcement’s efforts to crack 

down on illegal betting operations, hitting hard at the illegal book 

making rings. 

Our bill would investigate the scope and uncover the causes of 

illegal campus betting. NCAA does none of those things. Our bill 

calls on the NCAA colleges and universities to step up gambling 

prevention programs on campuses. The NCAA-proposed bill takes 

no responsibility. 

Mr. Chairman, Nevada is not the problem. If you put the entire 

State out of work, you would not even touch the problem of illegal 

gambling unless to exacerbate it. The only way to deal with illegal 

sports gambling in the NCAA is head on. 

I challenge my colleagues to put an end to this destructive NCAA 

bill and give serious consideration to a bill that attacks illegal betting on our campuses. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to go over, and if I could 

have two more seconds, to Senator Brownback, who I think is an 

outstanding Senator, comparable to Senator McCain, as a former 

university regent who did dedicate 8 years of her life and has much 

dealings with the NCAA, I had the opportunity to meet many college presidents and athletic directors throughout my 8-year tenure. 

I contacted several of them. 

Not one that I contacted thought that S. 718 would get to the 

problem. But to be perfectly candid, when I asked them to come 

and testify with me, not one of them would, for fear of retribution 

by the NCAA. So when we say that all of the campuses and all of 

the coaches are opposed to sports betting in Nevada, I would beg 

to differ and I’ve spoken to more than a dozen of them. Not one 

of them, not one of them would come and testify for fear that their 

11

program would be in jeopardy. Thank you very much for your kind 

attention. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss S. 718 and share with you my knowledge 

and very serious concerns about this issue. I am the only Member of the House with 

gaming industry experience. Having worked in the industry for many years, I have 

seen first-hand the positive role gaming plays the Las Vegas community. Having devoted 8 years of my life to higher education as an elected member of the Nevada 

University Board of Regents, I want to see illegal gambling on campuses eliminated. 

S. 718 is not the answer. 

Since coming to Congress, I have been astounded by the misconceptions about Nevada’s gaming industry. The NCAA and supporters of their legislation have been 

touting a number of misconceptions that must be cleared up. 

A February 22, Dear Colleague letter stated that you can place bets on high 

school and Olympic sports in Nevada casinos. This is not true. The casinos in my 

district operate under strict State and local regulations that prohibit these types of 

wagers. 

That same letter insinuated that college games may be ‘‘scripted in the back 

rooms of the legal gambling parlors.’’ This accusation could not be further from the 

truth. There has never been an incident where a legal Nevada sports book has participated in ‘‘scripting’’ a game of any sort. 

Despite what the NCAA would have you believe, ending legal sports betting in 

Nevada will not stop the publications of betting lines. The Newspaper Association 

of America has stated clearly that ending wagering in Las Vegas will not stop its 

members from providing this information to interested readers. 

Anyone with a computer can get point spreads for any game by logging on to hundreds of different offshore websites. This magazine previewing the college football 

season features dozens of advertisements for on-line casinos. All 64 schools in this 

year’s NCAA tournament had internet access on campus, even in the dorms, to 

internet gambling. 

I believe in local and State control. I believe in stiff penalties for any violation, 

and I am adamantly in favor of a strong, effective bill to combat illegal sports betting. 

S. 718 is not that bill. 

S. 718 takes the upside-down position that the Nation’s $380 billion-a-year illegal 

sports gambling problem will go away if Congress outlaws legal wagering in Nevada, a regulated business that generates far less than 1 percent of the bets on college sports. 

The sponsors of this legislation fail to answer the threshold question of how closing legal sports books in one State will do anything about illegal wagering by college 

students and others in the other 49 States. 

The illegal gambling taking place in and around our Nation’s college campuses 

already violates numerous Federal, State, and local laws. Any college student placing bets on campus is already committing a crime and extremely unlikely to stop 

placing bets on sports regardless of the outcome of this legislation. There is not a 

single shred of evidence that S. 718 will have any effect on the illegal gambling currently taking place. 

The NCAA argues that closing the legal sports books in Nevada will send a ‘‘message’’ to young people that gambling is illegal. With all due respect, I sincerely 

doubt that young people care whether gambling is legal in Nevada, much less that 

Congress has acted. 

The NCAA and its member institutions already have the power to crack down on 

illegal betting taking place on campuses—they just haven’t done it. 

The NCAA has done virtually nothing to stem the tide of illegal betting on college 

campuses, even though it just signed a $6 billion contract to broadcast college 

games. The NCAA has chosen to make Nevada its scapegoat rather than mandate 

that their member institutions take their share of NCAA profits and use it to develop programs to fight illegal college gambling. 

Ask the coaches who testify today if they are willing to give up their multi-million 

dollar Nike contracts, or if they are willing to make the same salary as the university president who hired them and use that extra income to create programs on 

their own campuses to fight illegal gambling. 

12

If the NCAA and Congress are really serious about fighting illegal amateur sports 

gambling, then let’s get serious. I challenge the NCAA to take its multi-billion dollar 

revenue, all generated by unpaid student-athletes, and not just a tiny fraction, and 

dedicate it to fighting illegal gambling, through aggressive enforcement and prevention programs. 

We need a serious, real-world approach to this problem. 

Before our government tramples on legitimate States’ rights, does irreparable 

damage to my State’s budget, throws honest, hardworking people out of their jobs 

and sets a dangerous precedent of Federal intrusion in the legal affairs of individual 

States, I ask you to abandon S. 718, and give full consideration to the legislation 

introduced by Senator Ensign and Senator Reid, the National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001, which is the same as legislation introduced by 

Congressman Gibbons and I in the House. 

Our bill boosts law enforcement’s efforts to crack down on illegal betting operations, hitting hard at the illegal bookmaking rings. The NCAA bill does absolutely 

nothing to help law enforcement. 

Our bill would investigate the scope, and uncover the causes, of illegal campus 

betting. The NCAA bill does nothing. No studies, no investigations, no educational 

programs—nothing. 

Our bill calls on the NCAA, colleges and universities to step up gambling prevention programs on campuses. The NCAA-proposed bill takes no responsibility. 

Mr. Chairman, Nevada is not the problem. 

If you put the entire State out of work, you would not even touch the problem 

of illegal gambling, unless to exacerbate it. The only way to deal with illegal sports 

gambling in the NCAA is head-on. I challenge my colleagues to put an end to this 

destructive NCAA bill, and give serious consideration to a bill that attacks illegal 

betting on our campuses. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Berkley, 

and thank you for your passionate advocacy. 

Coach Osborne. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEBRASKA 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Chairman McCain and members of the 

Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you about 

something that I’ve had some knowledge of over 36 years of coaching, and my feeling is that gambling is very bad for intercollegiate 

athletics, and for several reasons, actually four that I’m going to 

enumerate. 

First of all, it’s very bad for the game, because when gambling 

is involved, the emphasis very quickly goes from that of excellence, 

competition and skill, to point spreads and money. 

And this certainly affects the atmosphere in which the game is 

conducted. Sportsmanship, respect for opponents is diminished, 

and certainly the integrity of the game is often compromised. In 

the nineties, we had four major point shaving scandals in NCAA 

athletics, and each time one of those occurred, there was always 

greater doubt in the mind of the fans as to the integrity of other 

contests. 

A recent study by the University of Michigan indicated that 

roughly one out of 20 male college athletes were involved in different activities, whether it be associations, gambling, whatever, 

that in some way cast aspersions on the game. And so it’s a fairly 

widespread problem. 

And usually if you look into those allegations and point shaving 

scandals, you’ll find that the reason they were uncovered was not 

because of a shift in the point spread or the odds. It was because 

somebody talked, because somebody got in trouble. And so I would 

13

like to make sure that people really investigate those as to why it 

happened. 

Second, I think the gambling industry has been very bad for the 

fans because the point spread, which is a very arbitrary number 

fixed by someone out there who hasn’t probably even seen the team 

play, who knows nothing about the health of the quarterback and 

so on, or very little, shapes the expectations of the fans. 

And so if a team is a 28-point favorite, and they come into the 

game and half time and they are tied, probably going to get booed. 

And if you’re a 28-point underdog and you only lose by 7, sometimes your fans feel pretty good about you. I remember one case 

where we played a team for the national championship. They were 

a 17-point favorite, and in that particular case, they won by two 

points, first national championship that team had ever won in the 

history of the school. 

And I talked to some of their fans an hour after the game, and 

they were upset and they were unhappy. They won the first national championship they had ever won, but they only won by two 

points and that wasn’t what they expected and that expectation 

was shaped primarily by the point spread. 

The third thing I’d mention that I think is very important is that 

gambling is tough for the coaches, because when you are involved 

with that particular situation, you have to win twice. You have to 

win on the score board, and then many people expect you to beat 

the point spread. We had a few times when we were 35-point favorites, and that meant at kickoff, we were down 35 in the minds of 

a great number of our fans and the people who watched the game. 

If it happened to be snowing or the wind was blowing 40 miles 

an hour, if your quarterback went down in the first period of the 

game, you probably weren’t going to score 35 points against your 

scout team, but you were still expected to get it done. And if you 

didn’t get it done, it was very unpopular. 

And so for the first few years of my coaching career, I read somewhere that Woody Hayes, the coach at Ohio State, never had an 

unlisted number. And so I thought, well, if it’s good enough for 

Woody Hayes, it’s good enough for me. And so I didn’t have an unlisted number, and after a few dozen phone calls in the middle of 

the night, many of them fairly obscene and some of them affecting 

my family, I decided I better get at least an unpublished number. 

And most of those phone calls, not all, but most of them, if you 

talked to the guy long enough, you’d find out that at the bottom 

of his animosity was not the fact that we lost the game, it was the 

fact that he lost a bet. And he would blame me. 

And so often they would say you cost me $500, you cost me 

$1,000, and I would say, well, how did I do that. They would say, 

well, I lost a bet. So some of those things happened. I had a few 

death threats, had a mailbox blown up, and my family at some 

times was subjected to some criticism. And I existed in a very good, 

generally healthy environment, as far as college athletics were concerned, and our fans were very good for the most part. 

But still, those things did happen, and usually, again, if you had 

any way to get at the source, you’d find that oftentimes a lost bet 

really fueled the fire. 

14

And then last I’d mention that gambling is bad for the players. 

As has been mentioned previously and very accurately, there is a 

huge gambling problem on college campuses, and there’s no question that this bill alone is not going to solve the problem. I agree 

totally with that. 

But on the other hand, I think we have to look at the fact that 

players, athletes live in an environment where gambling is very, 

very prevalent. There’s probably a bookie in most dorms and most 

fraternities on college campuses. Gambling over the Internet is 

very easy. And so there’s that environment. 

If you think that you know as a player a little bit better what 

the odds ought to be, you’re going to play a game and you’re favored by seven and the team is practicing well and everything is 

in sync and you think maybe you’re going to win by 14 or 17, you 

place a bet. 

You know, it’s kind of harmless, you’re betting on your own 

team. And then you lose a bit, and you lose a little bit more, and 

pretty soon you’re in debt and you’re to the point where you’re in 

over your head. And then somebody suggests, well, you know, you 

don’t have to lose the game, but just drop a pass, or miss a free 

throw. And that’s where it all starts, and that’s where most of 

these point shaving allegations have resulted. 

I remember one time we had a guy come in who was a very famous quarterback, professional quarterback and got involved in 

gambling. We had him talk to our team because he was supposedly 

recovered. And he made a very graphic presentation of the evils of 

gambling, and strangely enough, about a year later, that same guy 

was back in prison for the same thing. He couldn’t shake it. 

So it really does affect our players, it affects the integrity of the 

game, and I might just last say this. I see no socially redeeming 

value to gambling on intercollegiate sports. I see nothing, nobody 

in a legitimate way is benefiting in terms of the fans, the players, 

the game itself, and the coaches. 

And so, I guess in my final statement, I would say this. Would 

we say that counterfeiting should be legal in one State and not in 

49 others, particularly if there may be some interconnection? And 

my feeling is, in terms of consistency, in terms of consistent message, it’s important that you make a uniform statement to the public, and then you go after all forms of gambling that are illegal, but 

you first have to make that statement to be consistent in Congress. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Osborne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEBRASKA

Thank you, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about something 

that is near and dear to me—the effects of legal gambling on college sports. 

In my 36 years as a coach of the University of Nebraska football team, I witnessed first-hand the negative impact gambling can have on college athletics. The 

following observations are based upon some of the experiences and insights gained 

in coaching. 

(A) Organized gambling is bad for the game. The emphasis goes from that of appreciation for excellence and skill to point spreads and monetary gain. The best interests of athletic competition are served in an atmosphere that is conducive to good 

sportsmanship and respect for opponents. Gambling creates an environment antithetical to wholesome competition and sometimes creates doubt as to the integrity 

of the contest. 

15

(B) Organized gambling often has a negative impact on the fans. The point spread 

is an arbitrary number that supposedly reflects the true strength of competing 

teams. Sometimes the point spread is based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Point spreads are published in nearly every newspaper and are mentioned on 

television and radio newscasts to the degree where fans’ expectations are largely 

shaped by information from the gambling industry. If a team is favored by 28 points 

and wins by 3, in the minds of many fans the win is really a loss. If, on the other 

hand, a team is a 21-point underdog and only loses by 7 points, the loss is viewed 

in a more favorable light. I recall talking to some fans whose team had just won 

the first national championship in school history, yet, rather than being excited they 

were disappointed because their team, a 17-point favorite, had won by only 2 points. 

Fans often have a difficult time seeing the athletic contest for what it was meant 

to be, that of a contest of skill, intelligence and endurance, because they get lost 

in the economics of gambling. 

(C) Organized gambling is bad for coaches. Many times the coach is expected to 

win twice—once on the scoreboard and once by beating the point spread. A coach 

in charge of a team listed as a 35-point favorite starts the game behind 35-0 in the 

minds of the gambling community, which includes a high percentage of fans. If the 

coach’s team is heavily favored and is tied at halftime, there is a good chance that 

the team and the coach will be booed at halftime. Most of the truly ugly incidents 

that I encountered in my coaching profession were related to gambling. I have had 

a mailbox blown up, a few death threats, obscene phone calls in the middle of the 

night, and have heard the very common complaint that ‘‘You cost me x amount of 

dollars.’’ Since we did not beat the point spread, the person who lost the bet held 

the coach personally accountable for the gambling loss. Many times it is highly unpopular with fans to substitute second- and third-team players once the outcome of 

the contest has been decided if the point spread has not been beaten. The secondand third-team players need the experience and greatly appreciate the opportunity 

to play, yet their appearance in the game is not greeted with enthusiasm if it might 

jeopardize beating the point spread. Similarly, not scoring a late touchdown or basket by letting the clock run out is viewed with great displeasure if there are point 

spread implications. 

(D) Organized gambling is bad for the players. There is a huge amount of gambling on college campuses. This activity is heavily influenced by point spreads. Very 

few athletic contests are viewed as even matches; therefore, point spreads are established to provide bookies with a basis for gambling odds. Players sometime accumulate gambling debts, and, when a debt grows to a certain magnitude, pressures are 

put upon the player to alter his/her play in the game to affect the point spread. A 

great many of the point shaving incidents that have hurt college athletics so badly 

and have left the athletes in dire straights, have been prompted by gambling debts 

that have mounted to the point where the athlete sees no other way to pay for the 

debt. 

Gambling intensifies pressure on athletes. The player shooting a free throw with 

only 2 seconds left in a game in which his team has been favored by 10 points and 

is leading by 9 is unnecessarily pressured. The game is over as far as the win or 

loss column, yet making the free throw can result in millions of dollars changing 

hands. 

Gambling on intercollegiate athletics is illegal everywhere but Las Vegas. It is in 

the best interests of everyone involved in intercollegiate athletics to have gambling 

banned everywhere in the United States. 

Thank you again, Chairman McCain and Members of the Committee for allowing 

me to speak to you today about this very important issue. It is seldom I get to speak 

on an issue here in Congress in which I have so many years of experience dealing 

first-hand with the issue and I appreciate the opportunity to do so today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, coach. 

Do you know a single college coach who is not in support of this 

bill and concerned about this issue? 

Mr. OSBORNE. I really don’t, Senator, and maybe the former 

statement is true, I don’t know. Let me say this. I’m not here on 

behalf of the NCAA. 

Nobody from the NCAA approached me, talked to me. The only 

person that talked to me was Lindsey Graham, that’s why I’m 

here. I’m not a big fan of the NCAA at times. I think they do a 

very necessary service, but I really would doubt that I know anyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
16

body in intercollegiate athletics who would say that gambling is 

something that they want to have legalized. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Congressman Gibbons, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Committee, and I do want to thank you for the privilege of being 

here before you with a familiar recurring theme, and I would ask 

unanimous consent that my statement be admitted to the record 

and I’ll try to summarize and be as brief as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, and again I want to say that 

you are always welcome here. The Nevada delegation is always 

welcome before this Committee. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, and Chairman, I hope you’ll understand that I’m here to protect not only my State but the families 

who live and work in the State as well. And this issue is going to 

affect them. And as the senior congressman from the State of Nevada, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here and discuss this 

issue. 

Let me take just a brief moment to address my colleague, Coach 

Osborn’s statement about outlawing money or whatever to stop 

counterfeiting. 

Well, you could also say the same thing, that you could outlaw 

pharmacies in this Nation if you thought that was going to outlaw 

or prevent illegal drug use. 

Like all of you, I agree that firmly maintaining the integrity of 

college athletics is an important goal, but there’s absolutely no evidence that doing this to the State of Nevada with college gaming 

is going to have one iota of import or effect on our nation’s illegal 

college campus wagering. Nevada legal wagering makes up only 

about one to 3 percent of all sports bets nationwide, and no one, 

may I say, under the age of 21, to add what Congressman Ensign 

said, is allowed to gamble in the State of Nevada. And the other 

97 to 99 percent of all college betting occurs illegally and under existing Federal and State laws. 

So it isn’t Nevada, it is the prevalent illegal gaming that is the 

key problem here. Banning legal college sports betting in Nevada 

will only eliminate, as you’ve heard many times, one tool used by 

law enforcement to detect illegal betting pat patterns leading to the 

illegal activity. 

Law enforcement officials, including former FBI officials who currently—one of whom is a current member of the Nevada gaming 

control board—have stated that the ban, as proposed entitled to as 

section 718, would not make a dent in illegal gaming. So what 

would the effects and indeed unfortunate consequences of this misguided legislation be? Well, first of all, I believe, and many have 

also believed, including some writers throughout this country, that 

it would be the illegal bookie’s dream come true to have Nevada 

and that tool taken away from any enforcement opportunity that 

they may have. 

That’s an unintended consequence which I don’t believe was ever 

intended when this bill was thought out or proposed. Eliminating 

that would not in any way assist with law enforcement efforts of 

17

our current effort to limit sports gaming, even if the NCAA director 

of agent and gaming activities, as he has stated before on television, that when it comes to law enforcement, and I quote, ‘‘the 

NCAA has a good relationship with the sports books in Nevada.’’

Mr. Chairman, I see that the time is running short, but it is my 

hope that this Committee will think seriously and will not miss an 

opportunity to address the real problem—not the perceived problem—but the real problem of illegal sports betting. And rather than 

focus on Nevada’s highly regulated industry, in this what many 

have said a misguided attempt to remedy societal problems of illegal sports wagering on our college campuses, and instead I would 

hope that you would encourage you and your other members to 

consider a common sense approach that was sponsored by Senator 

Ensign, Senator Reid, Senator Hatch and others, and in the House 

by Congresswoman Berkley and myself, and a bipartisan group of 

over 80 other congressman to address the issue of illegal gaming, 

and I want to thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts 

with you on this important issue, and I welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of Nevada’s hardworking 

families, I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my 

strong opposition to S. 718, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. 

As the senior Congressman from the State of Nevada, where sports wagering is 

legal, it is my pleasure to share my thoughts on this issue. Like all of you, I firmly 

agree that maintaining the integrity of college athletics is an important goal. 

However, there is absolutely no plausible evidence to suggest that the legal betting in Nevada is in any way responsible for the illegal sports wagering occurring 

mostly on our Nation’s college campuses. Legal wagering on sports in Nevada makes 

up only 1 to 3 percent of all sports bets nationwide. (And no one under the age of 

21 is allowed to gamble in Nevada). The other 97 to 99 percent occurs illegally 

under existing Federal and State laws. 

By banning legal college sports betting in Nevada, you will actually eliminate an 

essential tool used by law enforcement to detect unusual betting patterns leading 

to illegal activity, such as the point shaving scandal involving some Arizona State 

University basketball players in 1994. 

Consequently, law enforcement experts, including a former FBI official who currently is a member of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, have stated that a ban, 

as proposed in S. 718, would not make a dent in illegal gambling. 

So, what would be the effects and indeed unfortunate consequences of this misguided legislation? 

First, S. 718 would create an unfortunate and undue economic burden on thousands of Nevada’s families, whose livelihoods depend on the upstanding reputation 

of the casino-entertainment industry. 

Second, Nevada’s gaming industry is the largest taxpayer in our State. Therefore, 

a significant amount of tax revenue for schools and social services would be lost if 

S. 718 becomes law. 

Third, S. 718 is an illegal bookie’s dream! It would not, in any way, assist with 

the enforcement of our current laws limiting sports gambling. Even the NCAA Director of Agent and Gambling Activities has stated on national television that when 

it comes to law enforcement, the NCAA has ‘‘had a good relationship with the sports 

books in (Nevada).’’ 

We need to support effective law enforcement measures which reduce the pervasiveness of illegal sports betting on and off of our college campuses. Perhaps the 

NCAA should look in the mirror and reconsider the numerous ‘‘Final Four’’ sweepstakes which the NCAA and its corporate sponsors promote during ‘‘March Madness.’’ 

It is my hope that this Committee will not miss the opportunity to address the 

real problems of illegal sports betting, rather than focusing on Nevada’s highly regulated industry, in a misguided attempt to remedy the societal problem of illegal 

18

sports wagering on college campuses. Instead, I encourage you to consider the commonsense approach sponsored by Senators Ensign, Reid, Hatch and others. In the 

House, I have sponsored companion legislation that is co-sponsored by a bi-partisan 

group of over 80 Members. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this important issue, and 

I welcome your questions or comments.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you you very much, Congressman Gibbons. 

Congressman Roemer, welcome. 

Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Senator. I’d ask unanimous consent to 

revise and extend my remarks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM ROEMER,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA 

Mr. ROEMER. Thank you very much. First of all, Senator, I would 

say that I would agree with Senator Reid that while you’re not perfect, you sure are on this issue. 

And we sure appreciate your leadership on this. Your leadership 

and your hard work on this following up on your campaign finance 

reform bill, we think that that will provide a lot of motivation and 

movement forward on the House side as well too. So thank you for 

that. 

It’s nice to see my friend, Mr. Ensign, from the House days here 

in this Committee. Congratulations on your election. 

I’d only make three points, Senator McCain. One would be, in my 

State of Indiana, where we have a rich Indiana tradition of Hoosier 

basketball, we have Larry Byrd, tiny Milan High School that was 

the motivation for the Hoosiers movie, and now we have Ruth 

Riley, who sank two free throws with 5.8 seconds left in the national championship game to deliver the championship to the University of Notre Dame. 

That was the purity, the integrity, the magic of college basketball 

coming forward. Nobody doubted the outcome. As Coach Osborne 

said, when you start doubting the outcome of college basketball, we 

turn it into Worldwide Wrestling Federation, scripted outcomes, 

predictable outcomes, and not the magic and uncertainty and the 

beauty of college sports. 

We have to maintain that, and with the number of scandals that 

have taken place in the last decade, we need to address that and 

do something about it. 

The second point is, I remember in addition to the great testimony that we heard from Coach Williams and Coach Osborne here 

today, I remember last year when I did a press conference with 

Coach Daugherty who was the Notre Dame basketball coach, now 

the coach of the University of North Carolina. And he said back in 

1983 when he played ball with Michael Jordan, and he would be 

getting ready to play a game and he would be on campus somewhere and somebody would walk up to him and say, Matt, how are 

you feeling today, how’s the ankle, I heard you sprained it, are you 

going to tape it, are you going to play tonight? 

And then they would ask about Michael Jordan’s health, and 

Matt looked at everybody at the press conference and he said, you 

know, after a while I figured out they weren’t asking about me because they cared about me, they were asking about me because 

19

they wanted to bet on me. And we need to make sure that doesn’t 

happen. 

Coming to the third point, I think there’s unanimity in this room 

that there’s a problem with illegal gambling. Let’s get after it. Let’s 

take that on, too. Let’s not ignore that. And I don’t think we are 

with our legislation that you’ve sponsored on this side and that 

Lindsey and I and Coach Osborne and Ron Kind have sponsored 

on the House side. 

We’re going to have a meeting I think next week with Attorney 

General Ashcroft and talk about ways to get at the illegal betting. 

But how do you get at the illegal betting if you have governmentsanctioned legal betting on this stuff? And the kids in their dorm 

room say gee, we can do it here, why is it illegal? 

So I think the first step is to go after this, and then let’s work 

together to go after the illegal betting. Thank you again for the 

time in this Committee and we appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roemer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM ROEMER,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Committee today in support of legislation to prohibit legal betting on college athletics. I thank you for the leadership which you, Sen. Brownback and others 

have provided on this issue. 

Over the years, college sports have become an integral part of our American culture. More people than ever play and watch college sports. They do so because college sports are exciting and unpredictable, and most of all, because they are real. 

The outcomes are decided by the players and coaches, not scripted by bettors or 

bookies. 

Today, sports betting is creating a dark cloud over college athletics. As the sports 

betting business grows, so too does the pressure on college athletes to miss a shot 

or drop a pass or otherwise tip the outcome of a game. If we ever reach the point 

where people begin to doubt that college games are being played fairly, or that the 

outcomes are honest, it will be the end of amateur athletics as we know it. We’ll 

have the Worldwide Wrestling Federation instead. 

There are three reasons why we should pass legislation to prohibit legal betting 

on high school and college athletics: 

1. It’s wrong to bet on teenagers. There are many forms of legalized gambling in 

America, such as State-run lotteries, but none of them involve betting on teenagers. 

This legislation would not prohibit legal betting on professional sports, which are 

played primarily by adults. It would simply put the segment of amateur athletics 

that is played predominantly by teenagers off-limits to legal betting. This is the responsible thing to do. 

2. Coaches, players and university presidents—the ones most directly affected by 

sports betting—overwhelmingly support this legislation. They know firsthand how 

difficult it is to deal with the pressures of gambling, and the threat which sports 

betting poses to the integrity of their athletic programs. We should listen to the people who know best. 

3. You can’t wage an effective war against illegal gambling, or even expect people 

to take this problem seriously, as long as the government sanctions legal betting in 

Nevada. I agree that we need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws against 

illegal gambling. But the fact is, gambling on student-athletes, whether legal or illegal, threatens the integrity of college sports. You can’t address one part of the problem without the other. 

As former U.S. Senator and basketball star Bill Bradley stated in his testimony 

before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission: ‘‘State-sanctioned sports 

betting conveys the message that sports are more about money than personal 

achievement and sportsmanship.’’ 

I agree with Sen. Bradley that the values and integrity of amateur athletics are 

worth fighting for, and I urge the Committee to pass this bill. Thank you.

20

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Roemer. 

Congressman Graham. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too like you. 

Everybody is giving you—yes, kiss-up day. But I was there before 

a lot of these other people, too. I want to let you know that. 

Sometimes it doesn’t turn out as well as we’d like, but the effort 

is what counts at the end of the day, isn’t it? And we gave a good 

effort then and we’re going to give a good effort now, and with all 

due respect to Senator McCain, if he wasn’t here, we could get this 

bill on the floor to pass. It’s an idea bigger than us. 

It’s an idea that makes sense, and if I was in Nevada I would 

be doing what my colleagues are doing. They are protecting their 

state’s interest, but I would challenge anybody in the Congress to 

show a record of supporting states rights any stronger than South 

Carolina. 

This is not about states rights. In 1992, we passed a national 

piece of legislation that banned gambling in every State except 

four, and now we’re down to one. And South Carolina, if you wanted to bet on college sports, you couldn’t because of what Congress 

did. So we took a national approach to a problem, and we created 

a loophole that’s consuming the whole issue. 

The exception is killing the rule that we tried to establish, so this 

is not about state’s rights. This is about making a Federal law effective. And the one State engaging in the activity is hurting the 

rest of us. 

And Senator Brownback’s question about exempting Kansas athletic teams from being bet on in Nevada wasn’t silly. I would make 

that same request but it’s not going to happen. 

But my colleagues from Nevada are doing what they think is 

best for their State and they have an approach to the issue that 

I disagree with. NCAA is not the bad guy, it’s not the coaches, it’s 

not the players. It’s not the people who are operating casinos in 

Las Vegas, they are not bad people. They are doing what the law 

allows. 

There’s a bad result. And if you want to have a connection between legal and illegal betting, you don’t have to talk to me. Talk 

to the FBI, I would challenge the Committee to talk to the FBI. 

The legal betting industry has an unhealthy relationship just by 

being in existence because it’s a way, it’s an infrastructure to illegal betting. 

No, it will not solve the illegal betting problems in this country 

if we pass this bill, but it will help. It will take a source of infrastructure away. And office pools are not the problem. We’re not 

going to go out and regulate everybody’s office pool. If you want to 

bet in the office, that’s not the problem, because people don’t throw 

games or shave points because of something that’s going in someone’s office. 

They will when a billion bucks is on the line, and that’s what we 

bet legally, a billion dollars, and that is the tip of the iceberg. But 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts. This is, at the end of the day 

21

about money politically, and if we could get the bill on the floor, 

it would be an overwhelming support for the NCAA position. 

I am just almost ashamed of Congress on this issue. When you 

get every coach, every president except the few that are afraid to 

say so, apparently, but the ones that I’ve talked to are saying this 

is hurting the game, this is hurting the kids that I’m in charge of, 

that I care about, it’s hurting my institution, and Congress is having a deaf ear because of money, because of campaign machine 

problems, and Mr. Chairman, the praise you deserve is taking that 

issue head on. 

But if you’re looking for an example in America where money affects public policy in an adverse way, this is it. And no one is doing 

anything illegal in Nevada, but we need to change the rules. And 

the sad thing about this whole debate to me is that before we started this bill, it was illegal to bet on a Nevada team. That was the 

law of the land in Nevada. They changed that law because I guess 

of some things that maybe I’ve said and we’re going backwards, not 

forward. 

But I’m hopeful, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for putting it on the 

agenda. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for being 

here today, and I want to tell all of you that I intend to do everything I can to make sure that all points of view are heard on this 

issue. This is an important issue, and all views need to be heard. 

I appreciate your participation and we will, as always, treat all 

opinions with the respect that they deserve in this important debate, and I thank you for being here. 

Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask coach Osborne a 

question? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Senator ENSIGN. Coach, I hope you don’t mind if I still call you 

coach. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Call me whatever you want. 

Senator ENSIGN. My partner in my animal hospital is from Nebraska and I’ve been hearing about you for many, many years, and 

I read your book Faith in the Game last year and I very much enjoyed it. 

But when you were talking about the point spreads being a big 

effect, one question; first of all, I want to understand the BCS 

rankings. Isn’t that one of the things that they take into account, 

you know, home, whether you beat the point spreads, you know, favored by 30, all those kinds of things, they take that into account, 

isn’t that correct? 

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, I would assume so, as I said, the point 

spread is particularly early in the year. See, the BCS only comes 

out, 6, 8 games in. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. OSBORNE. So BCS doesn’t set point spreads. 

Senator ENSIGN. No, they don’t set the point spreads but I think 

they take that into account. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Oh, I’m sure some do. 

Senator ENSIGN. The reason for my question is, do you realize 

that this bill will do nothing to affect the point spreads? The Newspaper Association of America has already said that they are going 

22

to continue to do the point spreads. Many of the point spreads, in 

fact many of the earliest point spreads now are done by offshore 

books now, not by Las Vegas. 

And then they continue to publish these point spreads. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, I understand that, but I do believe that it’s 

important that we send a message as a body that either this is a 

legal activity or it’s not. 

Senator ENSIGN. No, no, and I’m not——

Mr. OSBORNE. And I’m not talking about point spreads. I’m 

just—

Senator ENSIGN. I have no problem with anybody that has a 

problem with gambling. That wasn’t the the point I was trying to 

make. The point I was trying to make is if we’re going to make 

some argument for a particular bill, they should be on the merits 

of that particular bill. 

What you are—your main arguments, I was writing down the 

things you were saying, and your main arguments were about the 

point spread. When you talked about the pressure of winning by 

a certain percentage, all of the stories, and I can appreciate that 

pressure as a coach. 

The college coaches today with the huge salaries that they make 

and the, you know, you don’t win this year and you’re out, all that 

kind of a thing, big money is influencing college sports and it isn’t 

the purity that you talked about, Congressman Roemer, today, and 

it’s not just because of gambling. It’s because of the TV contracts, 

the Nike contracts and all of those things. 

There are huge amounts of pressure on these young athletes that 

come from, you know, inner cities or poor places all over the place. 

It’s a huge amount of money that influences the game. 

But the point was, when you’re talking about point spreads, and 

that’s where the pressure is coming in, the people that were calling 

you on the phone at night, those people weren’t making their bets 

in Las Vegas. They were making their bets in Nebraska. They were 

making their bets illegally. They weren’t making their bets in Nevada, and that’s the whole point of this that we’re trying to get 

across, is that it’s—I mean, I feel bad that illegal gambling is having this kind of influence across America, that there are kids that 

are being addicted on college campuses. 

Mr. OSBORNE. May I respond, Senator? One thing I would like 

to point out is I understand about point spreads probably as well 

as anyone in this room. I understand them very thoroughly. It’s the 

dollars that are spent on the point spreads. A point spread is 

meaningless if you don’t go out and bet a billion dollars, you see? 

And the point is that there is an interconnectedness in gambling 

across the country. 

I realize that many incidents are isolated, it may be in a dorm 

room or whatever. But if you send a message that it’s OK to bet 

on intercollegiate sports here and not here, I think you send a message that is very clear to the young people of this country and to 

the fans and everyone else, and that’s the only thing that I’m here 

to say. 

And certainly the point spread is a problem, but the money spent 

bet on the point spreads is the issue, and that’s the thing that I’m 

talking about. 

23

Senator ENSIGN. And you would agree based on the statistics, the 

minimum is 98 percent is bet illegally, on those points. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I agree, but the point is not real or illegal. The 

point is, is it legal across the country or not. And the question is 

is it legal across the country or not. And if so, if it is illegal nationally, then I can you have a better platform to from which to attack 

the illegal gambling. And I understand your point of view and I 

certainly respect the others here, and I understand their point of 

view. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ensign, it’s now 10:30. We have two more 

panels to go. 

Senator ENSIGN. Just one more comment on congressman Graham’s point on states’ rights. Congressman Graham, you talked 

about us going backward. I would also caution you that 1992 law 

that was put into place has never been tested constitutionally. And 

if this bill——

Mr. GRAHAM. I’ll bet you it will withstand scrutiny. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. Well, I would make a bet on the other. We 

have had some pretty good legal opinions bet the other way. And 

the point is, the point that I would make on this, because of two 

issues. The Tenth Amendment is something I have a deep amount 

of respect for, and I believe if this bill goes forward Nevada will 

have a very strong position to strike down the 1992 law, and it will 

have the exact opposite effect than what you were trying to accomplish. As a matter of fact, we’ll have more legal gambling in this 

country than we currently have today. 

Mr. GIBBONS. If I may respond, Senator, my good friend, by the 

way, who does a good job for the State of Nevada on a lot of issues 

including this one. 

There are people sitting in jail today who bet in Nevada on college games that they participated in that they wound up point 

shaving, and they are not from Nevada. The reason that there’s a 

Federal need here is that you’re affecting the quality of sports in 

my state, their state, Nebraska, all over the country. 

There’s people have gone in Nevada, got involved in the legal 

gambling business, who shaved points who are sitting in jail. I 

think there’s a national public policy to address the legal gambling 

in Nevada because it’s hurting the rest of the country, then let’s 

all get together and attack the illegal betting. 

Thank you very much for having me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I thank the witnesses. 

Our first panel consists of coach Gary Williams, basketball coach 

at the University of Maryland; Mr. Titus Lovell Ivory, a student 

athlete at Pennsylvania State University; Ms. Tracy Dodds Herd, 

associate sports editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer; Mr. Danny 

Sheridan, the sports analyst for USA Today; Dr. Howard Shaffer, 

associate professor and director at the Harvard Medical School, Division on Addictions; and Mr. Edward Looney, who is the Executive 

Director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling. Would you all 

please come forward. 

Coach Williams, welcome and again, congratulations on your 

magnificent record over many years, including your recent successes in reaching the Final Four. 

24

STATEMENT OF GARY WILLIAMS, HEAD BASKETBALL COACH, 

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Senator McCain. I was really pulling 

for Arizona if we didn’t win. 

The CHAIRMAN. I can’t understand it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. By the way, I’m a coach here without one of those 

multimillion dollar Nike contracts. 

My experience in coaching basketball, one of the stops I made, 

I was at Boston College in 1977 and 1978. There was a point shaving scandal at Boston College. Several of the players where I was 

an assistant coach at were involved. One went to Federal prison for 

5 years, one had already been accepted to law school and went into 

a witness protection program during that time, and their lives, 

there was three people involved, their lives were changed forever. 

They were no longer able to do what they wanted to do. Every time 

they go out in public now, they always have that concern of how 

people look at them from their past experiences, and you know, it’s 

just a shame that they have to live their lives in the way that they 

do. 

Our players are very aware currently of the gambling situation. 

The NCAA has done a good job of making it clear to the players 

what’s involved with the gambling experience. However, there’s 

many mixed messages out there, including the legalized gambling 

of college basketball in Nevada and Las Vegas. 

That is certainly a message that our players see and I’m sure in 

their minds, a lot of time, well, if it’s allowed there, then what’s 

the big deal about gambling here, what is the problem. And players 

are targets, there’s no doubt about it, whether it’s legalized gambling or illegal gambling, they are targets of people. 

People want to know, as has already been stated, the condition 

of the players, the physical condition, the mental approach that our 

players might have for a particular game. And, you know, the education process is important, but I think we have to make a statement. 

And this issue before us today is very important because it would 

make a national statement to our players that it just confirms 

what is being told to them. Our game is a great game. College basketball is a great game. And we don’t want anything to harm it 

that we can possibly control. 

And yes, there is a lot of money to be made by coaches, and you 

know, the NCAA does make a lot of money from the TV networks. 

But at the same time, we have to preserve the game. The game is 

a very important part of the fabric of the colleges involved. Certainly the University of Las Vegas has really benefited from the 

success over the years of their basketball team, just as the University of Maryland has with what we’ve done this year. 

And you can look at outstanding academic institutions throughout the country and see the benefit that they have derived, and we 

want to maintain the ability of a basketball program to be a very 

important part of the school, not be separate from the school, to be 

an important part of it. And I think the values that the universities 

do have, certainly we want to show that as our basketball team. 

And what can really tear that down is the gambling situation, 

and obviously, you know, there’s far greater problems in illegal 

25

gambling as well as legal gambling, but at the same time, it has 

to start somewhere and we really believe that this would be a great 

message to the players across the country if nationally there was 

this legislation that would make it illegal for college gambling. 

And if it’s only 2 percent or whatever it is out in Vegas of the 

total revenue generated, then let the game alone. Let college basketball, college football be separate from that type of thing and let 

us have the game. Because the kids growing up today really look 

at the players. They are role models a lot of times, they are the 

reason. Like this gentleman to my right, the reason kids grow up 

wanting to go to college and wanting to play sports in college are 

because of great young people like this. And anything that happens 

to tarnish that certainly disillusions a lot of people when that does 

take place. 

So we, as coaches, as players, hopefully we can do a good job, but 

this also needs to be said nationally, and that’s my reason for being 

here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, coach. 

Mr. Sheridan, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DANNY SHERIDAN, WRITER, USA TODAY 

Mr. SHERIDAN. Thank you. Senator McCain, as you may or may 

not know, I supported your bid for the presidency of the United 

States. We have a mutual friend in Sonny——

The CHAIRMAN. What was the line? 

Mr. SHERIDAN. You were an underdog, sir. Also, as most Americans, I applaud your campaign finance reform, and I would ask 

that this not be taken from my 5 minutes, that personal comment, 

sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. I have spoken at or visited most college campuses, Senator McCain, in the United States, and I don’t think 

there’s anyone in this room that has spoken to as many college students as I have about illegal sports wagering. 

I’ve been in this business some 25 years, campuses from coast to 

coast, whether it’s Princeton University, UCLA or the Floria campuses. I’ve interviewed the biggest book makers in the country, illegal book makers in the United States, offshore, legal book makers 

in Nevada, Australia, England, all over the world. I would stack 

my contacts against anyone here. 

My contacts include the top college and professional basketball 

coaches in the country. And again, I’m sure I’m not the smartest 

person in this room, I’m glad to be here, but I would stack my contacts in this area with anybody here and anyone that’s testified. 

I don’t bet on sports. My stock portfolio is probably seven figures. 

There’s no Nevada gaming companies in there and there’s no Nevada related companies in there. If this bill passes, it will greatly 

benefit me financially, substantial, six-figure money. I’m against 

this bill. Again, it will greatly benefit me financially. I’m not pulling against the NCAA or pulling for Nevada. 

I certainly commend you on the courage it takes to take on the 

tough issue of illegal gambling, and as other people have pointed 

out, I would only want to warn you and your colleagues of the serious, unintended consequences of this bill. If this bill passes, you 

26

will make, and I know it’s not your intent, fixing college basketball 

and football games very easy. There will be no fear of being caught. 

I’ll give you an analogy. No one in this room would remove the 

Securities and Exchange Commission from the stock market. Why 

would you do that. It would be chaotic. That’s a legal authority 

that monitors the stock market. That’s a deterrent. Whether you 

like, whether people like it or not in this room, so is Nevada. 

That’s a system that is in place. They are a deterrent against fixing college football and basketball games. Do they stop every fix? 

No, but they are a deterrent. You know, in the underground, if you 

fix a college game, you’re probably, almost 100 percent sure you’re 

going to get caught, tried, and convicted. You know that. And you 

know in the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission, you may not get caught, you can hide behind a foreign corporation. You can’t in illegal and legal betting. You have to have 

a face. 

If you remove this legal authority from the equation as this bill 

would, and I’m not looking for rhetoric or scare tactics, you’ll have 

conservatively two to three dozen college basketball and football 

games fixed within 90 days. It’s guaranteed. 

I’ll give you an example. The Tulane basketball scandal of seven 

or 8 years ago. The book makers in New Orleans, in my area, I’m 

from Alabama as you probably can tell, the book makers in the 

southern area of New Orleans took bets, there on the front line, not 

the FBI, not the NCAA, not the college coaches, the book makers, 

they took the bets. 

They took bets from college kids, an inordinate amount of money. Let’s say the kids bet $50 a game. They wanted to bet $500 a 

game. These book makers in New Orleans knew right away these 

kids are shaving points. Now, they have two options. Right now 

they can call the legal authority in Nevada, which they did, who 

was waiting for them when they came out there, and bet, and 

again, an inordinate amount of money on Tulane and Southern 

Miss. They were caught, tried, and convicted. 

If this bill were to pass and there were no legal authority, the 

book maker would have had again, two options—excuse me, would 

have had one option. He could have called the local DA, which 

would be suicide, he’s a criminal, he’s breaking the law, he’s certainly not going to call the local DA or the FBI and say hey, they 

are shaving points. Well, how do you know, sir? Well, I’m an illegal 

book maker. 

So what we will do, if this bill passes, and I promise you as sure 

as I’m sitting here, what the book makers across the country, and 

I’m not here to organize like the teamsters the book makers, and 

they are not choir boys, they have a vested interest in keeping the 

sport clean and they do a great job of policing the sport, rightfully 

or wrongfully for the NCAA and for college sports. 

What will happen, let’s assume I’m the book maker. I’m not 

going to call the local DA. I know that Tulane is fixing, shaving 

points. I simply call my brethren in Louisiana and all across the 

country and I take them off the board. You cannot bet on Tulane. 

That’s what’s going to happen. It’s going to be Tulane, it’s going to 

be Florida, it’s going to be UCLA, and what’s going to happen to 

some enterprising sports reporter when the NCAA tournament 

27

rolls around or the college bowl season rolls around, and he’s going 

to look and he’s going to say Southern Cal, they are three and two 

against its spread but they played 11 games, or the NCAA tournament, this team only has a record of 11 and 6 in basketball, but 

yet they played 25 games. 

He’s going to ask the question how come these book makers 

didn’t line these teams. No convictions, no charges. And he’s going 

to be told on the Internet and all over, sir, those 10 or 20 schools 

have been shaving points, and that’s going to be a major, major 

scandal. Again, as sure as I’m sitting here. I’m not trying to scare 

you. 

The book makers will do it, they hate it, but they will take the 

game off the record. They will not report it—there will be no legal 

authority if this passes, and again, not to be redundant, I wish you 

would ask me some questions on it. 

I don’t know if I’ve eloquently got the point across, but the book 

makers will simply take the game off the boards. The thugs, the 

criminals that are fixing these games, there will be no deterrent. 

The FBI is not going to catch them, no one is going to catch them. 

They are going to go about their business. You’re basically handing 

them the candy store. It’s not intentional, but without that legal 

authority, I know of know book maker that I’ve spoken to, and I’ve 

spoken to every—not every one in the country, but every large one, 

they’ve just said hey, it’s simple, we’ll let them fix college games 

and we hope they don’t fix the pro games. We can’t turn them in. 

That said, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I would 

certainly welcome any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheridan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANNY SHERIDAN,

WRITER, USA TODAY

Chairman McCain, I would like to thank you and the Members of the Commerce 

Committee for allowing me the opportunity to express my opinions on S. 718, the 

Amateur Sports Integrity Act. 

My name is Danny Sheridan, and I have been involved with sports and the sports 

promotion business for more than 25 years. I have published college and pro football 

magazines, written about sports in a variety of national publications, and have been 

the host of a number of sports TV and radio shows. I am a lifelong resident of Mobile, Alabama, and a graduate of the University of Alabama School of Business. 

I have written exclusively for USA Today since its inception in 1982. For USA 

Today, I set the daily odds on every sport along with political and esoteric odds—

for example, will Alan Greenspan lower the interest rate, and if so, by how much. 

My sports and political predictions have been featured on every major network and 

nearly every major newspaper and radio station in the country. I plan to continue 

setting these odds and providing them to USA Today even if this legislation is 

passed. 

However, I’m not just a sports—and sometimes political—analyst. I am friends 

with many high profile college and NFL coaches as well as many NFL and NBA 

owners. I have spoken at or visited most of the colleges and universities in the 

United States, and have talked to thousands of students about their concerns about 

sports betting on their campuses. I’ve also interviewed many of the world’s biggest 

legal, illegal, and offshore bookmakers. 

I’m sure there are a lot of people brighter than me at this hearing; however, I’m 

confident in saying that my predictions, contacts and knowledge of the sports world 

would stack up against anyone in this room. 

That’s why I’m here today. 

I do not bet on sports, don’t smoke or drink alcohol, but I do recognize, like you, 

that in a free society people do these things, sometimes to excess. 

I commend you for having the courage to take on the tough issue of fighting illegal gambling. However, I want to warn you of the serious, unintended, and adverse 

28

consequences that will surely result from the passage and implementation of this 

legislation. Your attempt to eliminate legal college sports wagering—while well intentioned—would only result in an increase in illegal college sports gambling and 

an increase in the amount of fixing and point shaving schemes and scandals. 

Currently, approximately 99 percent of all sports gambling takes place illegally 

outside of Nevada. In 1999, the National Gaming Impact Study Commission estimated that illegal sports wagering was as much as $380 billion—but I think that 

it’s higher. An estimated 40 million Americans currently wager $6 billion illegally 

every weekend during the entire 20-week college and pro football season alone. 

Comparatively, legal and regulated sports wagering in Nevada is only 1 percent—

a tiny fraction—of all of the betting that occurs on sports in this country. And of 

the approximately $2.3 billion that is legally wagered in Nevada, only about onethird—an even smaller percentage—is bet on college sports. 

These figures just show that there is no persuasive evidence that legal sports betting in Nevada is responsible for the betting scandals and illegal gambling everywhere else. 

Nevada’s legal sports books serve as a legal watchdog for college sports. The point 

shaving scandals 5 years ago surfaced only because there is a legal authority that 

exists to watch over the game and betting activity. So in essence, the proposed legislation would remove the only viable enforcement mechanism to monitor and report 

the fixing of college sports games. 

If you take college sports wagering out of Nevada, 100 percent of all NCAA betting would go on illegally. The Nevada Gaming Commission has an incentive to report the fixing of games and to continue to police sports betting to ensure that it’s 

clean. It is legally required to monitor and report suspicious activity, and has done 

an excellent job monitoring college sports betting. But if you get rid of legal college 

sports wagering, a person who wants to fix a game will no longer have to worry 

about the Nevada Gaming Commission, but only about the bookie he placed the bet 

with and the players involved. 

The proposed legislation would make it impossible to monitor and report the fixing of games. The effect of this legislation would be like removing the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) from monitoring and policing the stock market. Does 

the SEC prevent all insider trading? Of course not, but it lets would-be criminals 

know that they’ll be prosecuted. In Nevada, you can’t bet on a college game through 

a dummy corporation—you have to do so in person and be 21 or over—and most 

people know if you fix a sporting event, you’ll eventually get caught and prosecuted. 

The NCAA and its supporters also argue that legal betting in Nevada sends a 

mixed message about gambling to young people. But I’m not sure what mixed message they are talking about. 

Gambling and betting is a widely accepted form of recreation in this country and 

has been an integral part of our history. When our founding fathers needed money 

to finance the American Revolution, they held a lottery. Today, 47 States permit lotteries, horse and dog racing, commercial and Indian casinos, and/or video poker. 

Only Hawaii, Utah, and Tennessee have no form of legalized gambling. Since our 

culture sends the message that gambling is mainstream recreation, it will only 

make matters worse to deal with illegal sports gambling by making it illegal in Nevada, the one State where these activities are legal and closely monitored. 

Finally, it’s simply not reasonable to assume that the impulse to gamble can be 

controlled or reduced by legislation, particularly in this age of Internet gambling, 

which allows anyone to bet through an offshore sports betting site or casino or both 

just by the flick of a key on their computer. 

So yes, the passage of this legislation would send a clear message to this country’s 

young people. That message is: We want to cut down on sports gambling and gamefixing so let’s ignore the real problem and the impact this legislation would have 

on college sports. Now that is a scary mixed message. 

Again, I believe that the NCAA and its supporters are well intentioned and are 

only trying to do the best to protect students and college sports. But the idea that 

Nevada is to blame for the spread of illegal gambling in this country is preposterous. If the NCAA and its proponents think that the passage of this legislation 

would have any effect on illegal college sports wagering—by young people or 

adults—they are completely wrong. 

Finally, opposing this legislation goes against my financial interests. If it were to 

pass, it would benefit me financially. I also have no financial interest in any casinos 

or Nevada-dependent companies. With this in mind, I hope that this also shows you 

that my testimony is unbiased and honest. 

So I leave you with these odds and a prediction: pass this legislation and I am 

100 percent certain that there will be an increase in game fixing and other point 

29

shaving schemes and major college sports scandals—exactly the opposite from what 

I know you are trying to accomplish.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Titus Lovell Ivory, 

who’s a student athlete at Pennsylvania State University and also 

an outstanding guard on the recent successful Pennsylvania State 

basketball team. You didn’t run up against Maryland? 

Mr. IVORY. Didn’t want to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, Mr. Ivory, and thank you for being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF TITUS LOVELL IVORY, STUDENT–ATHLETE, 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. IVORY. Thank you. Chairman McCain, my Senator from my 

home state, North Carolina, Senator Edwards, and other distinguished members of the Committee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the impact of sports 

gambling on college athletics. For the past 5 years, I’ve been a 

member of the Penn State basketball team. As an entering freshman, I medically registered and did not participate. However, the 

past 4 years have not only provided me with the opportunity to 

play basketball for the school in one of the most competitive conferences, but it has also enabled me to gain a first rate education 

on life. 

Prior to this season, I received my undergraduate degree in kinesiology. During this past year, I’ve also pursued a second degree in 

teacher certification. 

As a member of the Division 1 basketball team, I can testify student athletes are well aware of the dangers of sports gambling and 

the strict penalties imposed upon them by the NCAA on those who 

bet or solicit bets on college or professional games, or who provide 

information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities. 

At the beginning of each season, our athletic department conducts a mandatory sports gambling seminar for the basketball 

team. This session includes a review of NCAA rules prohibiting 

sports gambling and messages from law enforcement officials about 

the pit falls of getting involved in sports gambling. 

Our team also watches a video which highlights the dangerous 

influences associated with sports gambling. In addition, there are 

always constant reminders in the looker room, in the gymnasiums, 

on the NCAA Don’t Bet On It posters that are posted in several 

locations. 

I am aware of the recent point shaving scandals at several or 

NCAA schools. The Northwestern point shaving scandal has special 

significance, since one of the tainted games also involved Penn 

State University. 

I have thought about what it would be like to play against guys 

who were, you know, throwing a game. I’m a very competitive person, and I always want to play against the best. These scandals 

surely would have rocked my confidence in the sport. Sports gambling threatens the game I love. In the end, no matter how much 

I try to avoid it, gambling on college campuses is a popular thing 

and is now growing. 

30

Ever since high school I’ve had a number of experiences where 

people have thanked me for winning basketball games on the outcome of the team based on bets. My reaction is always the same. 

I’m playing the game I love. I’m not playing the game to win 

money for you or anyone else. The presence of sports gambling in 

college sports has never been more apparent to me than during our 

team’s run to the Sweet 16 during this year’s men’s basketball 

championship. 

After a big second round win over North Carolina, my teammates 

and I boarded the plane, and before we even got off the ground, the 

pilot comes over the PA and announces I want to thank you guys, 

you just won me $150. 

After hearing this, our coaches were amazed, even shouting out 

I can’t believe he just said that. 

Some of you might ask what is wrong with this. Well, sports 

gambling interests can easily result in the game being tainted. I 

would hate to play against an opponent who was aware of the 

spread. As I’ve already said, I want to play against those who are 

giving their best. I’m so competitive, I don’t even like playing 

against players who aren’t 100 percent healthy. 

In addition, sports gambling threatens those who are fans of college sports. Students aren’t going to come to our games if they believe the games have already been influenced. If sports gambling 

continues and continues to grow in popularity, the threat will always remain. 

So why do student athletes support S. 718? We believe that steps 

must be taken to eliminate sports gambling from college students. 

I know that they won’t get rid of gambling in Nevada. I know 

that getting rid of gambling in Nevada will not eliminate betting 

on college games all together, but anyone can argue that it won’t 

send a positive message that sports gambling is illegal everywhere 

in this country, and maybe this message might also slow down the 

publishing the point spreads. 

I must say it is an awful feeling to open up the USA Today and 

find out that your team is losing by 20 even before the opening tip 

off. The game is supposed to be about hard work, having fun, team 

camaraderie, and the enjoyment of the game, and making someone 

money isn’t something us athletes would like to see. I would like 

to thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ivory follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TITUS LOVELL IVORY, STUDENT-ATHLETE, PENNSYLVANIA

STATE UNIVERSITY

Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, my Senator from my home State in North 

Carolina, Senator Edwards, and other distinguished Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the impact of sports gambling on 

college athletics. 

For the past 5 years, I have been a member on the Penn State’s men’s basketball 

team. As an entering freshman, I was red-shirted and did not participate in games. 

However, the past 4 years have not only provided me with the opportunity to play 

basketball for my school in one of the country’s most competitive conferences but 

it also has enabled me to get a first-rate education. Prior to this season, I received 

my undergraduate degree in kinesiology. During this past year, I pursued my second degree in teacher certification. 

As a member of a Division I college basketball team, I can testify that studentathletes are well aware of the dangers of sports gambling and the strict penalties 

imposed by the NCAA on those who bet or who solicit bets on any college or profesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
31

sional game, or who provide information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities. At the beginning of each season, our athletics department conducts 

a mandatory sports gambling seminar for the basketball team. This session includes 

a review of the NCAA rules prohibiting sports gambling and messages from law enforcement officials about the pitfalls of getting involved with sports gambling. Our 

team watches a video tape which highlights the dangerous influences associated 

with sports gambling. In addition, there are constant reminders in our locker room 

as NCAA Don’t Bet On It posters are posted in several locations. 

I am aware of the recent sports point shaving scandals at several other NCAA 

schools. The Northwestern point shaving scandal has special significance since one 

of the tainted basketball games involved Penn State. I have thought about what it 

would be like to have been playing against guys who were not giving their all. I 

am a competitive person, I want to play against the best. These scandals surely 

would have rocked my confidence in the sport. Sports gambling threatens the game 

I love. In the end, no matter how much I try to avoid it—gambling on college sports 

is popular and seems to be growing. 

Since high school, I have had a number of experiences where people have thanked 

me after a game because my team’s victory helped them win money on a bet. My 

reaction is always the same—‘‘I am not playing the game so someone can make 

money gambling.’’ 

The presence of sports gambling in college sports has never been more apparent 

to me than during our team’s run to the Sweet 16 in this year’s men’s basketball 

championship tournament. After a big second round win over North Carolina, my 

teammates and I boarded a plane headed for State College. We didn’t even get off 

the ground, when the pilot came over the PA and said: ‘‘I want to thank you guys. 

Because of you, I just won $150.’’ After hearing this, our coaches were amazed. One 

of them shouted, ‘‘I can’t believe he just said that.’’ 

Some of you might ask what is wrong with this? Well, sports gambling interests 

can easily result in the game being tarnished. As I have already said, I want to play 

against those who are giving their best. I am so competitive that I even hate playing 

against guys who I know are not 100 percent healthy. In addition, sports gambling 

threatens those who are fans of college sports. Students aren’t going to come to our 

games if they believe that the game is being influenced. As sports gambling continues to grow in popularity, this threat remains. 

So why do student-athletes support S. 718? We believe that steps must be taken 

to eliminate sports gambling on college students. I know that getting rid of sports 

gambling in Nevada will not eliminate betting on college games altogether, but how 

can anyone argue that it won’t send a positive message that sports gambling is illegal everywhere in this country? And maybe this message might also slow down the 

publishing of point spreads. I must say that it is an awful feeling to open up the 

USA Today and see that my team is picked to lose by 20 points before the game 

even begins. It adds stress and even puts the thought in your own mind that 

‘‘maybe we should lose.’’ 

The game is supposed to be about working hard and having fun, not about making somebody money who has bet on the outcome. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ivory, and again, congratulations. 

Dr. Shaffer, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD J. SHAFFER, Ph.D., C.A.S., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, DIVISION OF

ADDICTIONS 

Dr. SHAFFER. Thank you, Senator McCain and members of the 

Committee, and thank you for this invitation to comment on what 

is a very important and complex social matter. As a devoted sports 

fan, a long ago student athlete, and the father of a current NCAA 

Division 1 student-athlete, I have a very special interest in this 

area. 

For many years I have encouraged the return of athletics to 

sports. I remember when watching organized sports was focused on 

athleticism instead of whether a team would cover the spread. I 

also believe that amateur sports have the capacity to build indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
32

vidual character and integrity. Despite these personal interests, my 

comments today will reflect my work as a scientist and a clinical 

psychologist. 

I’d like to make three brief, specific and interrelated points that 

are relevant to the Committee’s deliberations on the Amateur 

Sports Integrity Act. First, youthful population segments have not 

demonstrated a meaningful increase in the prevalence of gambling 

related disorders during the past 25 years, a time when legalized 

gambling was expanding most rapidly throughout the United 

States. 

Consequently, I believe it’s unlikely that revising the status of 

licit sports gambling will influence their gambling rate. 

Students’ gambling-related activities already are illicit, and most 

illicit gambling among young people does not occur within within 

a licit gambling establishment. In the new era of Internet-based 

gambling, focusing on jurisdictions or the specific objects of gambling is even more likely to be ineffective than ever before. 

Second, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act might have unanticipated negative effects. The first principle of medical ethics is to do 

no harm. The reason for this guiding principle is that very good intentions can lead to adverse consequences. For example, since the 

vast majority of adults who gamble on sports in Nevada do so without any adverse consequence, a ban on sports betting can stimulate 

an underground market for sports-related gambling. 

This situation echoes our history with the Volstead Act and the 

many adverse consequences associated with alcohol prohibition, 

from which, in my opinion, America is still recovering. Unintended 

consequences of gambling prohibition could adversely impact the 

already too high rate of problem gambling among young people. 

Third, it occurs to me that the best laws are those that prevent 

wrongdoing and therefore rarely punish people. The worst laws in 

my opinion are those that punish the most people while rarely preventing misbehavior. The Amateur Sports Integrity Act holds the 

potential to prevent very little gambling amongst sports betters 

while simultaneously establishing the potential to punish many of 

them. 

Further, if this Act becomes law and it is not enforceable, or if 

high school or college students do not respect it, then they might 

ignore this law, and most importantly, also lose respect for the rule 

of law in general. 

In conclusion, if I could ensure the integrity of sports simply by 

prohibiting gambling, I would endorse it. However, I fear that prohibition will create problems. 

Senator Alan Simpson once said, ‘‘if you have integrity, nothing 

else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters’’ Integrity is an attribute of individual and collective character. It cannot emerge in a vacuum. To assist the development of integrity, we 

must help people learn to regulate their impulses and message 

temptation. This difficult task is not possible in a social setting 

that does all of the regulating for us. In a free society, occasional 

failing and even tragedy is the price of liberty. 

In the second century, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius 

noted that, ‘‘a man should be upright, not be kept upright.’’ Integrity is not the absence of vice, it’s something that emerges through 

33

a relationship with temptation. To protect the integrity of amateur 

sports, we need to protect everyone from developing gambling-related problems. 

We also need to identify people quickly when problems do 

emerge. New approaches to screening will become important. This 

will require new public policy at the local level, that is middle 

schools, high schools, and colleges, with attention to educating parents, clergy, teachers, coaches, and athletic directors about gambling. Unfortunately, our current research shows that high schools 

and colleges are woefully out of touch with gambling problems, and 

have few policies or resources in place to deal with them. 

Parents also fail to appreciate how gambling can influence young 

people. In 1999, my friend Bill Saum, the NCAA’s excellent director 

of gambling and agent activities, testified before a Senate judiciary 

Committee about the negative impact that sports gambling has on 

the lives of college student athletes. 

Bill described notable and tragic examples from great American 

colleges. He cited my research showing that young people often become introduced to gambling through sports betting. What he did 

not mention however was that this betting most often starts with 

family members at home, not in casinos with sports books. We 

must educate parents about gambling. 

I respectfully suggest two strategies. First, undertake a broad 

scientific review to evaluate the extent of the problem, the complexity of the risk factors, and the potential avenues available to 

address these concerns. 

The National Academy of Sciences recently undertook such a review of pathological gambling, and might be in a strong position to 

advise on this matter. 

Second, I suggest that we convene a consortium of college presidents to review their existing gambling-related policies and problems so that we can take a systematic approach to the education, 

prevention and treatment of America’s young people. 

America likes to gamble, and since the early days of civilization, 

people have shown a penchant to gamble on sports. We should not 

lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of Americans, young 

and old, do in fact regulate their impulses without difficulty and 

are healthy gamblers. 

This circumstance complicates all of our efforts to protect young 

people. Once again, Senator McCain and members of the Committee, thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this 

process. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shaffer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD J. SHAFFER, PH.D., C.A.S., ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, DIVISION OF ADDICTIONS

Senator McCain and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to 

participate in your deliberations and comment on this very complex social matter. 

As a devoted sports fan, a long-ago student-athlete, and the father of a current 

NCAA Division I student-athlete, I have a special interest in this area. For many 

years, I have encouraged the return of athletics to organized sports. I remember 

when watching organized sports was focused on athleticism instead of whether a 

team would cover the spread. I also believe that amateur sports in particular, and 

sports in general, have the capacity to build individual character and integrity. Despite these personal interests, my comments will reflect my work as a scientist and 

clinical psychologist. 

34

My associates and I recently completed a series of studies revealing that, throughout the United States and Canada, young people and college students in particular 

evidence meaningfully higher than typical rates of gambling related disorders than 

adults (Korn & Shaffer, 1999; Shaffer & Hall, 1996, in press; Shaffer, Hall, & 

Vander Bilt, 1997; Shaffer, Hall, & Vander Bilt, 1999; Shaffer, Hall, Walsh, & 

Vander Bilt, 1995). Since athletes represent a distinctive segment of the youthful 

population, they have unique risks that place them at special chance of developing 

gambling related problems. 

THE AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT

I would like to make 3 brief, specific, and interrelated points that are relevant 

to the committee’s deliberations on the Amateur Sports Integrity Act: 

1. Prohibiting legalized sports gambling likely will have little impact on young 

people; gambling already is illegal and unsanctioned for student athletes; 

2. Prohibiting sports gambling for the vast majority who do it safely and legally 

risks making matters worse by creating an ‘‘underground’’ market; 

3. Passing legislation that likely is unenforceable inadvertently diminishes respect 

for the rule of law. 

IMPACT OF PROHIBITION ON YOUTH GAMBLING

Youthful population segments have not demonstrated a meaningful increase in 

the prevalence of gambling-related disorders during the past 25 years—when legalized gaming was expanding most rapidly throughout the United States. Consequently, it is unlikely that revising the status of licit gambling will influence their 

gambling rate. While well intentioned, it is unlikely that this bill will have significant impact on youthful gambling. 

GAMBLING ALREADY IS ILLICIT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

If the purpose of the bill is to protect high school and college student-athletes who 

are at special risk for gambling related disorders, then prohibiting legalized sports 

betting in Nevada is unlikely to have broad impact for two primary reasons: (1) 

their gambling related activities already are illicit; and (2) most of their illicit gambling does not occur within a licit gambling establishment. In the new era of Internet-based gambling, focusing on jurisdictions or the specific objects of gambling is 

even more likely to be ineffective than before. 

COULD THE AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT INADVERTENTLY MAKE MATTERS WORSE?

The Amateur Sports Integrity Act might have unanticipated negative effects. The 

first principle of medical ethics is to ‘‘do no harm.’’ The reason for this guiding principle is that very good intentions can lead to adverse consequences. For example, 

since the vast majority of adults who gamble on sports in Nevada do so without any 

adverse consequence, a ban on sports betting can stimulate an underground market 

for sports-related gambling. This situation echoes our history with the Volstead Act 

and the many adverse consequences associated with alcohol prohibition from which 

America is still recovering. Unintended consequences of gambling prohibition could 

adversely impact the already too high rate of problem gambling among young people. 

DIMINISHING RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW: CONSIDERING LAWS THAT PREVENT, 

LAWS THAT PUNISH

Having spent the majority of my life studying the spectrum of human behavior, 

it occurs to me that the best laws are those that prevent wrongdoing and therefore 

rarely punish people. The worst laws are those that punish the most people while 

rarely preventing misbehavior. The Amateur Sports Integrity Act holds the potential to prevent very little gambling among sports bettors while simultaneously establishing the potential to punish many of them. Further, if this Act becomes law 

and it is not enforceable, or if high school or college students do not respect it—

athletes in particular since they often are role models—then young people might ignore this law and, most importantly, also lose respect for the rule of law in general. 

Such has been the case with certain laws (e.g., drug, seatbelt, helmet) that unintentionally created this circumstance many years ago. 

For example, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act will require that throughout 

America, if students are involved, illegal pari-mutuel and ‘‘Calcutta’’ style wagering 

on member-member and member-guest golf tournaments become active targets for 

enforcement. Currently, students watch eagerly as caddies or just onlookers when 

their parents and neighbors get excited about, and participate in, these events—

35

1Marcus Aurelius. Meditations, book 3, section 5. 

which already are illegal. Young people have learned through informal channels 

that laws are not equally enforced. The consequence too often is a diminished respect for the rule of law. 

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The language of the bill is unclear about whether the intent of this legislation is 

to protect the integrity of amateur and student athletes or the integrity of the institution of amateur sports. The Sports Integrity Act seems to apply only to Nevada, 

so the language of the bill seems to work against its broadly stated objectives. It 

already is illegal for underage young people to gamble, whether on sport or anything 

else. Further, to my knowledge, there is no legal bookmaking for high school sporting events. 

If I could assure the integrity of sports simply by prohibiting gambling, I would 

certainly endorse it. However, I fear that prohibition will produce problematic outcomes. Senator Alan Simpson once said, ‘‘If you have integrity, nothing else 

matters . . . if you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.’’ Integrity is an attribute of individual and collective character. It cannot emerge in a vacuum. To assist the development of integrity, we must help people learn to regulate their impulses and manage temptations. This difficult task is not possible in a social setting 

that does the regulating for us. In a free society, occasional failing and even tragedy 

is the price of liberty. In the second century, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius 

noted that, ‘‘A man should be upright, not be kept upright.’’ 1 Integrity is not the 

absence of vice; it is something that emerges through a relationship with temptation. 

Consequently, I respectfully suggest that, to protect the integrity of amateur 

sports, we consider how to protect students and youth in general from developing 

gambling related problems. We also need to identify people quickly when these problems do emerge; new approaches to screening will become important. This will require a shift in American culture. It will require new public policy at the local level, 

that is, middle schools, high schools and colleges—with attention to educating parents, clergy, teachers, coaches, and athletic directors about gambling. Unfortunately, 

our research suggests that high schools and colleges are woefully out of touch with 

gambling problems and have few policies or resources in place to deal with them 

(e.g., Shaffer, Forman, Scanlan, & Smith, 2000). 

Parents also fail to appreciate how gambling can influence young people (Shaffer, 

Hall, Vander Bilt, & George, in press; Shaffer et al., 1995). In 1999, my friend Bill 

Saum, the NCAA’s excellent director of gambling and agent activities, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government 

Information about the negative impact that sports gambling has on the lives of college student-athletes. Bill described notable and tragic examples from great American colleges. He also cited my research showing that young people often become introduced to gambling through sports betting (Shaffer et al., in press; Shaffer et al., 

1995). What he did not mention, however, was that this betting most often started 

with family members at home, not in casinos or with sports books. We must educate 

parents about gambling. 

While preparing for this testimony, I examined the National Collegiate Athletic 

Association’s (NCAA’s) list of representative sports-related gambling scandals that 

occurred during the past 45 years. Interestingly, none of these incidents directly involved Nevada-based legal sports gambling. 

I respectfully suggest two important strategies. First, undertake a broad based 

and rigorous scientific review to evaluate (1) the nature and extent of the problem, 

(2) the complexity of risk factors (e.g., alcohol use, depression, etc.), (3) whether student athletes in general or NCAA Division I student-athletes in particular, by virtue 

of NCAA rules, are at greater risk compared with other students for gambling related problems, and (4) the potential avenues available to address these concerns. 

The National Academy of Sciences recently undertook such a review of pathological 

gambling (National Research Council, 1999) and might be in a strong position to advise on this matter. 

Second, I suggest that we convene a consortium of college presidents to review 

their existing gambling related policies and problems so that we can take a systematic approach to the education, prevention and treatment of America’s young people, 

who are at higher risk for gambling related disorders than their adult counterparts. 

In conclusion, gambling represents a very complex human activity. People have 

gambled since at least the beginning of recorded history and they are not likely to 

stop soon. It seems that progressive public policy must attempt to: (1) provide sancVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
36

tuary for the vast majority of gamblers who safely enjoy government approved, legal 

gambling, while also (2) prevent or reduce any gambling related problems among 

the minority of people who choose to gamble and experience adversity. Balancing 

these issues is a thorny matter since state-sponsored gambling often stimulates a 

conflict of interest between promoters of gambling and public health officials. Public 

health considerations have been notably absent from the public deliberations that 

recently have focused on gambling (Korn & Shaffer, 1999). 

America likes to gamble, and since the early days of civilization, people have 

shown a penchant to gamble on sports. We should not lose sight of the fact that 

the vast majority of Americans regulate their impulses without difficulty and are 

‘‘healthy’’ gamblers. These circumstances make our efforts to protect young people 

much more complicated than simply prohibiting sports gambling in Nevada. 

Once again, thank you Senator McCain and members of the committee for inviting me to participate in this important process. 

Appendix 1 

THE PREVALENCE OF DISORDERED GAMBLING

This appendix briefly describes the some of the current and fundamental knowledge about the prevalence of disordered gambling. To begin, there is considerable 

conceptual confusion and inconsistency about the terminology scientists often use to 

describe intemperate gambling and the prevalence and natural course of this disorder. Consequently, my colleagues and I have adopted a simplified public health 

classification system to describe the prevalence of gambling and gambling related 

problems (Shaffer & Hall, 1996). This classification system is being adopted worldwide as a universal language. Level 1 prevalence rates reflect the people who do 

not have any gambling problems. Level 2 represents those individuals who fail to 

satisfy the multiple criteria for a ‘‘clinical’’ disorder but do experience some of the 

adverse symptoms associated with gambling. Level 3 reflects those people who meet 

sufficient criteria for having a disorder (e.g., the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual 

of Mental Disorders [DSM-IV]; (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)). These diagnostic criteria, for example, include among others being preoccupied with gambling, risking more money to get the desired level of excitement, committing illegal 

acts, and relying on others to relieve desperate financial needs. 

People with level 2 problems can move in either of two directions: toward a 

healthier level 1 state or toward a more serious level 3 disorder (Shaffer & Hall, 

1996). Psychiatric disorders in general, and disordered gambling in particular, are 

subject to shifting cultural values. Shifts in prevalence rates can reflect changes in 

behavior patterns, evolving cultural values, or a combination of both. 

Table 1 reflects lifetime and past year rates of disordered gambling along with 

95 percent confidence intervals. Past year rates tend to be more conservative and 

precise because these estimates avoid some of the timeframe problems often associated with prevalence research. Whether we use lifetime or past year rates, disordered gambling reveals itself with remarkable consistency across research study 

protocols. Disordered gambling does not, however, appear with equal prevalence 

among every segment of the population. Young people evidence higher rates of gambling disorders when compared with adults from the general population (National 

Research Council, 1999; Shaffer et al., in press). Psychiatric patients experience 

even higher rates of gambling disorders than do adults and young people from the 

general population (National Research Council, 1999; Shaffer et al., 1997).

Table 1

Adult Adolescent * College Treatment/Prison 

Level 3 Lifetime ............................................................ 1.92 

(1.52-2.33) 

3.38 

(1.79-4.98) 

5.56 

(3.54-7.59) 

5.44 

(11.58-19.31) 

Level 2 Lifetime ............................................................ 4.15 

(3.11-5.18) 

8.40 

(5.61-11.18) 

10.88 

(4.86-16.89) 

17.29 

(11.05-23.53) 

Level 1 Lifetime ............................................................ 93.92 

(92.79-95.06) 

90.38 

(86.49-94.29) 

83.13 

(74.71-91.55) 

67.61 

(58.10-77.11) 

Level 3 Past Year ......................................................... 1.46 

(0.92-2.01) 

4.80 

(3.21-6.40) 

Level 2 Past Year ......................................................... 2.54 

(1.72-3.37) 

14.60 

(8.32-20.89) 

37

2For example, among adults from the general population, estimates of level 2 lifetime disorders ranged from 2.95-3.85; and estimates of level 3 disorders ranged from 1.50-1.60. 

Table 1—Continued

Adult Adolescent * College Treatment/Prison 

Level 1 Past Year ......................................................... 96.04 

(94.82-97.25) 

82.68 

(76.12-89.17) 

* Although mean past-year estimates are higher than mean lifetime estimates for adolescents, there is considerable overlap between the confidence intervals of these measures; adolescents’ past-year gambling experiences are likely to be comparable to their lifetime gambling experiences. Differences between instruments that provide past-year estimates among adolescents and instruments that provide lifetime esti- mates among adolescents most likely account for these discrepancies. 

Our research reveals that these prevalence estimates are robust. Regardless of the 

methods used to calculate these rates, the research protocols that produced the estimates, or our attempts to weight these rates by a variety of algorithms, including 

methodological quality scores, the resulting estimates of pathological gambling remained remarkably consistent. The most precise past-year estimates tend to vary 

within a very narrow range around 1 percent 2 (Shaffer & Hall, in press; Shaffer 

et al., 1997; Shaffer, Hall et al., 1999). 

Table 2 presents our most recent findings that update and revise earlier estimates 

(Shaffer & Hall, in press). Table 2 also includes Andrews’ Wave M-Estimator estimates that are likely more accurate than our previous estimates since these values 

diminish the weight of research estimates that represent outliers.

Table 2

Estimate Time Frame & Statistic Adult Adolescent College Treatment or Prison 

Level 3 Lifetime.

Mean .................................................................... 1.92 3.38 5.56 15.44 

Median ................................................................. 1.80 3.00 5.00 14.29 

5% Trimmed Mean .............................................. 1.78 3.33 5.14 15.07 

Andrews’ Wave M-Estimator ................................ 1.73 2.74 4.64 13.49 

Level 2 Lifetime.

Mean .................................................................... 4.15 8.40 10.88 17.29 

Median ................................................................. 3.50 8.45 6.50 15.64 

5% Trimmed Mean .............................................. 3.76 8.35 9.83 17.01 

Andrews’ Wave M-Estimator ................................ 3.31 8.22 6.51 16.59

Level 3 Past Year.

Mean .................................................................... 1.46 4.80 

Median ................................................................. 1.20 4.37 

5% Trimmed Mean .............................................. 1.27 4.77 

Andrews’ Wave M-Estimator ................................ 1.10 4.65 

Level 2 Past Year.

Mean .................................................................... 2.54 14.60 

Median ................................................................. 2.20 11.21 

5% Trimmed Mean .............................................. 2.25 13.83 

Andrews’ Wave M-Estimator ................................ 2.15 11.26 

GAMBLING & DISORDERED GAMBLING

Gambling in contemporary America is virtually ubiquitous. Approximately 90 percent of high school seniors have placed a bet during their lifetime (Shaffer et al., 

1995). College and high school students represent young people who have lived in 

an America where widespread legal gambling has been endorsed and promoted for 

their entire lifetime. As this behavior has become normalized during the past several decades, with few educational messages to the contrary, young people have not 

had the opportunity to develop the ‘‘social immunity’’ necessary to protect them from 

developing gambling disorders. 

Our research reveals that, during the past 23 years and in spite of higher rates 

of disordered gambling among adolescents and substance abusing or psychiatric patients in treatment, only the adult segment of the general population has shown an 

increasing rate of gambling disorders (Shaffer & Hall, in press; Shaffer et al., 1997; 

Shaffer, Hall et al., 1999). Among the risk factors for gambling disorders, gender, 

age, psychiatric status, and family history appear among the most important 

(Shaffer et al., 1997). For example, adults in treatment for substance abuse or other 

38

psychiatric disorders are almost 9 times more likely to have a level 3 gambling disorder during their lifetime when compared with adults from the general population. 

Similarly, adolescents from the general population and college students have a 

greater risk of experiencing a gambling disorder compared with their adult counterparts by a factor of about 2.5-3 times. Males from the adult general population are 

almost 2 times more likely than their female counterparts to suffer level 3 gambling 

problems during their lifetime. Male college students are almost 4 times more likely 

to have serious gambling problems compared with their female counterparts. 

WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RATE INCREASE?

The rate increase we observed among adults from the general population could 

be due to many factors. For example, during the past two decades, the increased 

availability and accessibility to gambling, increased social acceptance of gambling, 

few messages about the potential risks and hazards of gambling, an increasing desire to participate in risk-taking activities, a decline in the belief that one can 

achieve the ‘‘American dream,’’ a growing sense of emotional discomfort, malaise or 

dysthymia, all could play a meaningful or small role in increasing the rate of disordered gambling among the general adult population. 

Observers tend to think that disordered gambling is growing in direct proportion 

to the expansion of legalized gambling opportunities. This is not an accurate perception (e.g., Campbell & Lester, 1999). Assessing shifting social trends is very difficult 

without evidence from prospective research. However, even the casual observer will 

find it is easy to see that gambling certainly has expanded much more rapidly than 

the rate of disordered gambling. Tobacco is arguably the most virulent object of 

chemical dependence. In spite of its wide availability and legal status, tobacco has 

a much smaller user base than 20 years ago. Therefore, we must conclude that 

availability is not a sufficient explanation for the increased rate of an addictive disorder. This observation has received additional support from the results of our new 

casino employee research (e.g., Shaffer & Hall, under review; Shaffer, Vander Bilt, 

& Hall, 1999). 

In part, the history of gambling research inadvertently has fueled the perception 

that expanded gaming (i.e., lottery, casino, charitable) is the sole cause of increased 

gambling problems. Of the more than 200 studies of gambling prevalence, the early 

gambling prevalence studies tended to focus on the adult general population—the 

population segment with the lowest rate of gambling disorder. More recent studies 

have examined young people and other potentially high-risk population segments. 

Consequently, the shifting evidence provided by studies of population segments with 

higher base rates of gambling disorders have biased the prevailing subjective impressions among the public that disordered gambling prevalence rates are rapidly 

increasing (Shaffer et al., 1997).

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Shaffer. 

Ms. Tracy Dodds Hurd, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF TRACY DODDS HURD, ASSOCIATE SPORTS 

EDITOR, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER 

Ms. HURD. Thank you, and I would like to take a minute to say 

thank you to Mr. Sheridan. As a former sports writer and now a 

sports editor, I’m very flattered that he thinks that while law enforcement agencies would have no way of knowing when points are 

being shaved, that sports writers would be all over it. We’re very 

flattered, thank you. 

I am here to address simply the publication of point spreads in 

hundreds of newspapers across the country. It’s a subject that 

sports editors have been debating for the past several years and 

I’ve been in the middle of it, first as the sports editor of the Austin 

American statesman, and now as a member of the Cleveland Plain 

Dealer sports staff. 

The publication of the college line became an issue for us when 

the NCAA’s Basketball Committee considered a plan to coerce us 

into dropping the line. Now, I don’t know if any of you have ever 

39

tried to coerce a newspaper editor into not publishing something, 

but that’s a bad plan, that’s not going to work. 

But it did open lines of communication on how everybody in the 

NCAA felt about the line and why we should be addressing it. But 

if you push that First Amendment button, you’re just going to get 

sports editors digging in their heels. 

The only reason I want to talk First Amendment is I can’t speak 

for sports editors of the country and I can’t tell you what other 

newspapers will do, because every paper in our country has the 

right to decide its own editorial content. And in that vein, I’m very 

curious about this national association, Newspaper Association of 

America, that I’m hearing quoted as saying that it would continue 

publishing the line. 

I’m not familiar with that organization, but I think you should 

look into the context of that statement because I strongly suspect 

that what they are saying is it would not mean we can’t publish 

the line. Whether they would continue or not, that’s what I’m here 

to talk about, because what I can tell you is I can share with you 

the debates among the sports editors on this subject. 

Ever since the NCAA challenged the sports editors to examine 

their policies and follow their judgment on whether they want to 

run that line, we’ve been discussing it at national conventions and 

it’s been a subject in our newsletters. We’ve seen some of the top 

publications discontinue publication of the college line. Notably, the 

New York Times does not run the line, the Sporting News does not 

run the line, and I’m told The Washington Post has never run the 

college betting line. The LA Times has recently scaled back its running of the line publishing only the football line, and only once a 

week instead of daily. 

Now, I found that interesting and I didn’t quite understand it, 

so I called Bill Dwyer, the sports editor at the LA Times, and asked 

him why he would distinguish between the two. He said basically 

he would rather drop all lines that he believes the NCAA has some 

very good points why we should not have lines on college sports, 

but he acknowledges also that the line gives some information that 

he knows a lot of people want to know on colleges. He thinks that 

it will show relative strengths and so forth, and that on football 

that’s valuable, but on basketball, a three-point spread can be used 

for nothing but gambling. That’s his opinion there. 

But what the LA Times is doing there is it’s striking a compromise between the two sides of this issue as sports editors break 

it down. On one hand, a lot of us feel we are not acting responsibly 

when we publish a betting line that we know full well is going to 

be used for illegal gambling. We don’t feel real good about that. 

On the other hand, we’re giving our readers information they 

want. And yes, it is very competitive, and yes, it is available in 

other newspapers, it’s available on TV, it’s on the Internet. You can 

subscribe to individual experts. But I don’t think the general public 

would go to that extreme. 

When I was asked to drop the line in Austin I was torn because 

personally I don’t think we should be running college lines, and I 

buy into what all the coaches and the athletes are saying. 

I’ve covered college sports for decades. I know what goes on with 

the kids on campus. They are not exaggerating about the bookies 

40

in every fraternity, in every dorm, they are there. And I know what 

a mistake a kid can make and ruin his life. So I am of the belief 

that the NCAA is not crying wolf, that there is a real crisis out 

there. 

But I continue the publication of the line because I was in the 

middle of Texas and that State is crazy for sports and Dallas and 

San Antonio and Houston run the line. Now I’m at the Plain Dealer, it’s Ohio’s largest newspaper, that’s a different situation. We 

still publish the line because our readers expect it and our sports 

editor says well, information can’t be illegal. But we are very aware 

of the fact that that line is set in Las Vegas where betting on college sports is legal, and we are simply telling our readers what the 

gamblers there are doing. 

If gambling were not legal anywhere in the United States, would 

we go out of our way to find information in another way to give 

people information on something that’s an illegal business everywhere? The Plain Dealer would not. If it were illegal everywhere 

in this country, we would not run the betting line, and what I have 

heard from other sports editors, and I know hundreds of them, I 

think a lot of other newspapers would take that same stance and 

would stop running the line in the daily newspaper. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hurd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRACY DODDS HURD, ASSOCIATE SPORTS EDITOR, 

CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER

I am here to address the subject of the publication of college point spreads in hundreds of publications across the country. 

It’s a subject sports editors have been debating for the past several years. I’ve 

been in the middle of it as the sports editor at The Austin American-Statesman and 

now as a member of the sports staff at The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The publication of the college line became an issue for us when the NCAA’s basketball committee considered a plan to coerce sports editors to stop publishing the 

line. At the time, I was an officer of the sports editors’ national organization, the 

Associated Press Sports Editors (APSE). Now, I don’t know if any of you have ever 

attempted to coerce a newspaper editor not to publish something—but I don’t advise 

it. It doesn’t work. You push that button and you’re going to hear all about the First 

Amendment. You’re going to see editors digging in their heels and calling their lawyers. 

Of course, you know all about the First Amendment, so I won’t give that speech 

now—except to issue the disclaimer that I can’t speak for other sports editors or 

other newspapers. Each newspaper has the right to decide its own editorial content. 

What I CAN do, what I am here to do, is share with you the positions and attitudes of the sports editors who have been embroiled in these discussions. 

Ever since the NCAA challenged the sports editors to examine their policies and 

follow their good judgment, the issue has been coming up at our national conventions and in our newsletter. 

We have seen some top publications discontinue publication of the college line, including The New York Times and The Sporting News. First on that front was The 

Washington Post, which I am told has never published the college line. 

The Los Angeles Times has scaled way back, publishing only the college football 

line, and that only once a week instead of daily. I asked Bill Dwyre, sports editor 

of The L.A. Times, why he would distinguish between football and basketball. He 

said he would like to drop all betting lines—for all the reasons the NCAA has put 

forward about why betting on college sports is a problem—but he acknowledges 

some informational value to the football lines. As he put it, ‘‘Knowing Texas is favored by 3 points over Texas A&M tells me a lot about the relative strengths of the 

two teams. A 3-point spread in basketball is good for nothing but gambling—and 

that’s not legal in California.’’

What the Los Angeles Times has done is strike a compromise between the two 

sides of the issue as it is most often broken down by sports editors. On one hand, 

we are not acting responsibly when we publish a betting line knowing full well that 

41

it is going to be used for illegal gambling; but on the other hand, we are in the business of giving our readers the information they want, because if we don’t, they’ll 

get it elsewhere. 

We are in competition, not just with other newspapers, but with television and 

the internet. 

When I was asked to drop the Latest Line from the Austin American-Statesman, 

I was torn. 

Personally, I don’t think it is right for us to publish college betting information. 

And I’m not saying that to take a moral stance against gambling. People who want 

to gamble can find legal outlets. But having covered college sports for decades, 

knowing what it’s like for those kids on campus, knowing the presence of bookies 

in the fraternities and dorms, knowing what a mistake in judgment could cost those 

young athletes, I am of the belief that the NCAA is not crying wolf. There is a real 

crisis pending for college sports. 

I continued publication of the Latest Line because I was a sports editor in the 

middle of Texas, a State crazy for college sports, at a newspaper trying to compete 

with Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. All of those newspapers publish the line. 

I am now on the staff of Ohio’s largest newspaper, The Plain Dealer. We publish 

the Latest Line because our readers expect it and because the sports editor, Roy 

Hewitt, is of the belief that information cannot be illegal. 

The line is set in Las Vegas, where betting on college sports is legal. We are simply telling our readers what the gamblers there are doing. But if gambling were 

NOT legal anywhere in the United States? Would we seek out information from 

bookies conducting an illegal business? The Plain Dealer would not. 

What I have heard from other sports editors leads me to believe that most newspapers would take the same position and stop publishing college betting lines—

which would take away the legitimacy college gambling gets from being included in 

daily newspapers.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Coach Newell, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PETE NEWELL, COACH,

MEMBER OF THE BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME 

Mr. NEWELL. Thank you, Chairman, distinguished members of 

the Committee. 

My name is Pete Newell, and I’m here to thank you for inviting 

me to testify. I spent my life in coaching and, teaching the game 

of basketball. I’m a member of the Hall of Fame, and I’ve felt the 

joy of winning the 1949 NIT championship while at the University 

of San Francisco, in 1959, the NCAA championship at University 

of California Berkeley, and was very proud of being the coach of 

the 1960 Rome Olympic team where we won a gold medal. 

And I’m grateful, very much grateful for the opportunity that the 

game of basketball has given me and my family. But I’m here 

today to voice strong opposition to the Amateur Sports Integrity 

Act. 

This legislation will not bring integrity to the game. It’s only 

going to make gambling worse. As someone who has lived through 

the mistakes of the past, I don’t want to see history repeated. In 

1949, when I was a young coach, I took my team, the University 

of San Francisco, to the NIT in Madison Square Garden. 

I was there during the era to witness the terrible point shaving 

scandals of that period. It took many years of investigation to reveal the full extent of those schemes and fixes. Thirty-two players 

were ultimately implicated in 86 games in 17 states. Hundreds of 

innocent teammates were hurt by these scandals. 

Now, 50 years later, the supporters of this legislation wrongly believe that changing the law will somehow prevent point shaving 

schemes and other fixes in college sports. But it isn’t Nevada that’s 

42

the problem. It is illegal bookies and widespread illegal gambling 

that occurs elsewhere that is to blame, and this has been pointed 

out by others before me. 

I’m here to strongly tell you that Nevada’s legal sport book actually helps keep college sports honest. Let me tell you why. They 

help uncover schemes and fixes by picking up suspicious betting activity. Legal bookies, in fact, act as a safety valve to blow the whistle on a fixed game. 

Now, 1948, and 1949, the 1950s and the early 1960s, we had no 

monitor that was overlooking the game. We had no way of understanding that there was any kind of an irregularity in the betting 

of the game, and so we were out there as coaches. We had a problem, in New York especially, of keeping your team away from any 

kind of a public contact. I wouldn’t even let the players go out of 

the hotel unless there were three of them in a group. I wouldn’t 

let a phone call come in or go out of a player’s room. The call came 

through me. That’s how concerned we were for the fixers of those 

betting the game. 

In 1994, Nevada sports books were the ones who tipped off the 

NCAA and legal authorities that possible point shaving was taking 

place at Arizona State. They informed the Pac 10 officials and the 

FBI before the game about possible point shaving in the game 

against the Washington Huskies. That’s why it’s hard for me to understand why the NCAA now wants to destroy the system that provides them with critical information on college sports. The NCAA 

has never single handedly uncovered a point shaving or game fix 

scandal. The NCAA even credits Nevada sports books with helping 

to uncover recent point shaving schemes. 

Right now, Nevada sports books provide one of the most consistent protectors for coaches, players and their sports programs. 

What Nevada also can do is to take the game off the board because 

of the betting pattern and regulations, and when the game is taken 

off the boards, it’s a spotlight on the game, and a red light for all 

coaches, especially those two coaches of the games involved. It also 

really frightens the fixers. 

Nevada’s power to take the game off the board is the ultimate 

deterrent against fixers. It can trigger an investigation of the players who can then finger the fixer. 

Let me be clear. I do not favor basketball gambling and the 

coaches that have been up here before the Committee, I agree with 

them. If I was coaching today and you asked me the question about 

gambling, as a coach, I’d say the same thing. But I would qualify 

my answer with have you got a better plan. Can you put something 

in motion that’s going to protect the players, the coaches, and the 

universities. The universities, they were involved in the scandals of 

the forties and fifties and sixties. In fact, one university president 

lost his job because the school was involved. It would be a real mistake, I believe, to get rid of a system that has proven its worth 

since 1975. College sports betting in Nevada could invite back far 

reaching scandals that plagued basketball in these periods I’ve 

talked about. 

The teams involved with these scandals had many talented players. Some of the players were involved had it not been for their association with the fix, would be in the Hall of Fame today, espeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
43

cially the University of Kentucky players. The Hall of Fame coaches, some of our greatest coaches and most respected coaches were 

involved in the sense that their team, some of their team members 

were in on a fix. 

And throughout the rest of their lives, they had that cloud of 

having coached a team that was involved in the fix. But even the 

best coaches and the college presidents did not prevent interference 

from these outside fixers. We should never return to those times. 

The current system is not completely fail safe, but it is the only 

protection that exists. And the bill would take that away. It is my 

belief that this legislation in no way protects the players, coaches 

or the institutions from the fixers. Supporters of this legislation ignore the fact that before Nevada sports books began operating in 

1975, there were at least 40 separate point shaving incidents from 

the late 1940s through the early 1970s and that since 1975, there 

have only been four such incidents. I fail to see in this legislation 

any measures that offer the protection from illegal gambling that 

college sports desperately needs. So finally, let me leave this with 

you, an old Irish expression from a young Irish lad: Beware of trading the devil you know for the devil you don’t. 

Once again I want to thank you for the opportunity to present 

my position on this legislation, and I’ll later be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Newell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETE NEWELL, COACH, MEMBER OF THE BASKETBALL HALL OF FAME

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Pete Newell 

and I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify. 

I have spent my life coaching the game of basketball. And I’m a member of the 

Basketball Hall of Fame. I’ve felt the joy of winning: the 1949 NIT championship; 

the 1959 NCAA championship; and coaching the 1960 Olympic Gold Medal team. 

I’m grateful for the opportunities that the game has given me and my family. 

I’m here today to voice my strong opposition to the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. 

This legislation will not bring integrity to the game, but will only make the gambling problem worse. 

As someone who has lived through the mistakes of the past, I don’t want to see 

history repeated. 

In 1949, when I was a young coach, I took my University of San Francisco team 

to the NIT in Madison Square Garden. I was there during that era to witness the 

terrible point-shaving scandals of that period. 

It took many years of investigation to reveal the full extent of these schemes and 

fixes. 

Thirty-two players were ultimately implicated in the fixing of 86 games in 17 

States. Hundreds of innocent teammates were hurt by these scandals. 

Now 50 years later, the supporters of this legislation wrongly believe that changing the law will somehow prevent point shaving schemes and other ‘‘fixes’’ in college 

sports. 

But it isn’t Nevada that is the problem, it is the illegal bookies and widespread 

illegal gambling that occurs elsewhere that is to blame. 

I am here to strongly tell you that Nevada’s legal sports books actually keep college sports honest. 

Let me tell you why. 

They help uncover schemes and fixes by picking up suspicious betting activity. 

Legal bookies, in fact, act as a safety valve to blow the whistle on a fixed game. 

In 1994, Nevada’s sports books were the ones who tipped off the NCAA and legal 

authorities that possible point shaving was taking place at Arizona State. 

They informed PAC-10 officials and the FBI before the game was over about possible point shaving in the game against Washington. 

That’s why it’s hard for me to understand why the NCAA now wants to destroy 

the system that provides them with critical information on college sports. 

44

The NCAA has never single-handedly uncovered a point-shaving or game-fixing 

scandal. The NCAA even credits Nevada’s sports books with helping to uncover recent point shaving schemes. 

Right now Nevada’s sports books provides one of the most consistent protections 

for coaches, players, and their sports programs. 

What Nevada also can do is take a game off the board because of betting patterns 

and irregularities. 

When the game is taken off of the board, it’s a spotlight on that game—and a 

red light for all coaches—and particularly for the two coaches of the teams involved. 

It also frightens the fixers. 

Nevada’s power to take a game off of the board is the ultimate deterrent against 

fixers. It can trigger the investigation of the players who could then finger the fixer. 

Let me be clear, I am strongly opposed to gambling on college basketball. I know 

the effects gambling can have on individual players and the damage it can cause 

to the coach and his program. But it would be a mistake to get rid of a system that 

has proven its worth since 1975. 

Getting rid of college sports betting in Nevada could invite back the far-reaching 

scandals that plagued college basketball in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. 

The teams involved with those scandals had talented players, Hall of Fame coaches, and the support of their universities. But, even the best coaches and college 

presidents did not prevent interference from those outside fixers. 

We should never return to those times. 

The current system is not completely failsafe, but it is the only protection that 

exists. 

This bill would take that away. 

So finally, let me leave you with this. An old Irish expression goes, ‘‘Beware of 

trading the divil you know for the divil you don’t.’’ 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present my position on this legislation. I would be happy to take any questions you may have at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, coach. 

Coach Williams, how aware are your players of the point spread? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. They are very aware. They read the newspapers 

and they are aware, but the good side of that is it makes them 

aware of the gambling situation and hopefully that helps. We talk 

enough about it so that they understand that whatever they trade 

currently will effect them the rest of their lives, and hopefully that 

keeps them from getting involved. But you better be able to talk 

about it because it’s certainly talked about on campus. You know, 

the idea of Las Vegas, that has an image in automatic the players’ 

minds, and whether you like it or not, that is is a code word when 

it comes to gambling, and we do fight against that, there’s no doubt 

about it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ivory, are your teammates very aware of the 

point spread, for example, say when you were competing in the 

NCAA Sweet 16? 

Mr. IVORY. Oh, definitely. We’ve had a number of conversations 

about the situation. Penn State is not a basketball powerhouse and 

this was the first year we’ve gone to the tournament, so we’ve always been on the bottom side of the point spread. So we used that 

to our advantage somewhat, but it’s sometimes very discouraging, 

you know, when you pick up the paper and you see you’re picked 

to lose before you even step in the gym. 

And it’s definitely apparent to all of us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Hurd, suppose that college betting and college sports was made illegal in all 50 states instead of the 49 that 

is presently the case. I’m intrigued by by Dr. Shaffer’s reference to 

prohibition, I guess we have prohibition in 49 states but not 50. 

But what would be the effect on the line being published by people, 

and spread by people like Mr. Sheridan that live in Alabama, 

45

etcetera, and not be posted in places in the casinos in Las Vegas 

and the places where they bet. What effects do you think that 

would have on the publishing of lines by various newspapers, and 

you mentioned some do and some don’t, of the line? 

Ms. HURD. Well, I think when they keep saying oh, the newspapers would still publish a line, there are a lot of lines available. 

Even sitting in our newspaper office at night, we can choose between the Tribune service and the Associated Press and there are 

several others. Mr. Sheridan’s line is often quoted. There are a lot 

of different people who do a line so you could always go and get 

a line, but what I am suggesting is that the editors of the country 

would then have a much tougher leap to say we’re going to go out 

of our way to give you information on something that can only be 

used illegally, and we’re going to have to go buy it. And I just don’t 

see sports editors or editors of newspapers saying yeah, let’s go buy 

a line to give people illegal information. I just don’t see—we will, 

I shouldn’t say illegal information, information on an illegal act. I 

don’t think it would happen. Because right now they use the argument, well, we’re interested. The betting line in Las Vegas shows 

you—but if there really was not good use to be made of it except 

for gambling, we would not go and look for a line like that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank you, and I think that’s a very important point. And again, I’m sorry that coach Lou Holtz is not 

here today, he fell and hurt himself. It is the likes of Joe Paterno, 

the people—I have to tell you, Mr. Sheridan and Dr. Shaffer and 

Coach Newell—the people that many of us here on this panel have 

grown up to to respect, admire, appreciate, like Coach Williams 

who now, day to day, have contact with these young athletes, tell 

us it’s a corrupting influence and it needs to be fixed. Now that’s 

what they tell us. Active coaches today, unanimously they tell us. 

We cannot, as a body and as a Committee, ignore the overwhelming body of advice that we receive from people like Coach 

Williams who tell us, who work with kids every single day, that 

they are corrupted by this present system and it’s our obligation 

to do something about it. 

Senator Ensign. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions. First of all, Coach Williams, congratulations on your great 

season, but also do you feel like your kids are corrupted? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I feel like they receive information that sets them 

up if the information is not countered by people like coaches, whoever can get to them. Parents hopefully do a much better job than 

I do. Some of the players don’t have parents, so that’s where we 

step in and, you know, have to take over that role. 

But they are aware of the money that’s out there in the gambling 

industry, and I think there’s a tendency when you have no money 

to say that should be part of mine, you know, and the sell is that, 

look, you’re not losing the game, you’re just changing the way the 

outcome of the game is, so what’s the big deal. So that has to be 

countered by the university. 

Senator ENSIGN. And I admire and respect the stuff that you’re 

doing with your kids, and I hope that it happens much more across 

the country. I think that’s important for that to be happening at 

46

college campuses, but not just with student athletes but with other 

kids on the campuses as well. 

What did you you think though, you have somebody like coach 

Newell, who obviously, his basketball credentials, they are untouchable almost, and he’s been through, you know, in the Bible, 

it talks about gray hair being a sign of wisdom, and he has more 

gray hair than you and I do. But when he talks about that, he’s 

been through it. He’s been—people don’t change over time. People 

are people. Human behavior is human behavior, as Dr. Shaffer was 

pointing out. 

But when you have somebody who’s been through what you’ve 

been through, except in a different era when we didn’t have the 

sports books in Nevada and he’s saying to you as a coach, he’s saying what we’re trying to do here or what the chairman is trying 

to do with this legislation is actually going to make the situation 

worse, and Dr. Shaffer is saying the same thing, it’s going to make 

the situation worse, and these are not people who are pro gambling, these are people who are against gambling on college sports, 

but they are saying that the system, based on this legislation, is 

going to be worse for coaches and for players because illegal gambling forces have more of an influence, more of a corrupting influence on your players, what do you think about that? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No one respects Coach Newell more than I do. I’ve 

stolen some ideas from Coach Newell in terms of how I coach. But 

at the same time, I have lived that. I was at Boston College as I 

mentioned in 1977 through the point shaving scandal there and 

saw that firsthand and saw what it did to the kids. What I know, 

and I’m not always right about everything, but what I know is 

gambling to players is gambling. It doesn’t matter to them a lot of 

times whether it’s illegal or legal gambling, it’s still gambling. 

Senator ENSIGN. At Boston College, was that illegal gambling or 

legal gambling that was involved? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That was, like all of them, illegal gambling I’m 

sure. But because it’s legal gambling, I don’t think that that is a 

reason for it to be there. I really don’t. That still is gambling, and 

as I said in the players’ minds, it doesn’t matter. It’s gambling 

Vegas bookies, it’s all the same to the players. 

Senator ENSIGN. That wasn’t the point. The point, whether you 

agree or you disagree with gambling, that really isn’t the point. 

You can be against gambling and you can say gambling on college 

sports is wrong. The question is is this bill going to do anything 

positively to decrease the effects of gambling on your players? And 

if 99 percent of the gambling is done illegally including the scandal 

that was there at the university where you were——

Mr. WILLIAMS. And including the scandals that Coach Newell alluded to too. 

Senator ENSIGN. Exactly, and what he’s saying is we had all of 

these scandals beforehand. Since the Las Vegas books have been in 

place we have only had four scandals. Now, four is too many, and 

I agree with that, one is too many. But we have had a decrease 

in the amount of scandals since the Las Vegas books, not an increase. 

47

Mr. WILLIAMS. Oh, I wouldn’t say that. I don’t think that’s statistically true. You’re talking about a much longer period of time before. And the other thing is—

Senator ENSIGN. OK, take the previous 25 years versus the last 

25 years. That’s the same amount of time. You have more in the 

previous 25 years than they had in the last 25 years. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It’s close, it’s close. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It’s very close, and that’s a fact. But at the same 

time, if you do have all the states in this country the same way, 

then at least you can throw that out there to the athletes involved, 

whether it’s football, basketball, it doesn’t matter, that this is the 

way it is, this is wrong, and we have national legislation to support 

this view. 

Senator ENSIGN. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, 1940s, at 

least six schools were involved. 1950s, at least nine schools were 

involved. 1960s, approximately 27 schools were involved, and like 

I said, since the Las Vegas books were in place, only four schools 

having involved. 

The CHAIRMAN. How long have the Las Vegas books been in 

place? 

Senator ENSIGN. 1975, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re talking about 60 years from the——

Senator ENSIGN. OK, let’s just take the fifties and the sixties before that. 25 years before that. OK. So we have 36 schools involved. 

Since that time we’ve had four schools involved. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think you’re talking about a 10-year period. 

Senator ENSIGN. I’m talking about 25 years versus 25 years. 

Anyway, 

The CHAIRMAN. That doesn’t make it any better. 

Senator ENSIGN. Bottom line is, I’ll even give you they are the 

same, bottom line it’s not worse, since the Las Vegas books have 

been involved. 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s no better, either. 

Senator ENSIGN. But it’s no worse. So doing this thing is not 

going to make it any better. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I disagree, I think we have to do something. 

It’s like when you put the warning on a cigarette box that says this 

is harmful to your health. It didn’t cut out smoking, but it did decrease the number of young people involved with smoking. 

Senator ENSIGN. And I agree. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re trying to decrease the number of young 

people involved with betting and hopefully this is a way to do it. 

Senator ENSIGN. And I agree you should continue with the warnings and do the educational thing and that’s analogous to the cigarette. 

Ms. Hurd, I would like to just ask you a real quick question and 

submit for, Mr. Chairman, for the record officially, if you, by unanimous consent, and that is you had asked the question about the 

Newspaper Association of America. I have a letter that they have 

sent me on April 25th, then I’ll just briefly read from it but I’ll submit the whole thing. And they agree with you, by the way, that 

first, like all editorial decisions, the decision whether to publish 

point spreads for college sports events is made by each newspaper, 

48

and is likely to vary from newspaper to newspaper. And they said 

that. He said if Congress prohibits gambling on college sports, NAA 

believes newspapers will continue to have an interest in publishing 

point spreads on college games, since point spreads appear to be 

useful to newspaper readers who have no intention of betting on 

games. Now, this is an association. You’re just a single person. 

Ms. HURD. Well, what I was saying was ever since the NCAA 

challenged us, all right, our organization, which is the Associated 

Press Sports Editors, it’s like 400 sports editors, that’s a very 

strong organization. All of the major papers are members of APSE, 

and at the time the Basketball Committee, what they were saying, 

what if we don’t give credentials to papers that run the line——

Senator ENSIGN. Are you representing your association? 

Ms. HURD. Well, I didn’t come here to do that but I can tell you 

that at the time that this was brought to me I was the president 

of APSE, yes, elected president by those 400 sports editors. And 

our first response was to say, well, we’re going to fight that. You 

cannot tell us that we cannot run this line. So that’s where I’m 

coming from. 

I’m further taking the next step to say that having had gambling 

panels on our national convention and having had this as an issue 

of great debate among the sports editors, I am representing to you 

that most sports editors are not going to go out of their way to go 

and buy another line to say that we know that this is an entirely 

illegal thing. 

You don’t find other illegal sports represented in the mainstream 

media. And you say well, what’s an illegal sport? Cock fighting. 

There’s illegal. Boxing that goes on in back rooms. You don’t see 

it covered. We know it happens. There’s a lot of stuff that the 

mainstream media just doesn’t touch. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Edwards. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN EDWARDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for being here to testify today. Let me say first of all 

that I’m proud to be associated with this legislation with Senator 

Brownback and Senator McCain. I think the effort here is very important to the integrity of college athletics. 

Regardless of the arguments about legal versus illegal gambling, 

I think it’s very important for us as a country to send a clear and 

unmistakeable signal that we do not condone gambling on college 

sports. And so that there can’t be any confusion among college athletes or college students, if they are placing a bet, a big bet on a 

college sport, it’s illegal, period. Right now it’s ambiguous because 

we know that at least in Nevada, there’s somewhere around $1 billion a year being placed. 

Mr. Ivory, thank you very much for being here. I loved your testimony. My only complaint is about your decision to play basketball 

at Penn State. And it was painful for me to watch you help destroy 

UNC Tarheels in the basketball tournament. But we appreciate 

very much you being here. 

49

I wonder if you would just comment briefly about some of the 

pressures that college athletes go through in terms of financial 

pressure and their vulnerability to gambling interests. 

Mr. IVORY. It’s tough. Like I said, I’ve been in college 5 years and 

just this year, in the past year, the NCAA has approved legislation 

that allows us to get jobs during the athletic and academic year. 

But before that, it’s very tough. Basketball is a bi-semester sport, 

so you can’t really catch up on academics like you would in, say a 

football sport, where you play in the fall only and you’re done by 

Christmas. Basketball is very tough, and you have academic responsibilities and you have athletic responsibilities. Those alone 

are 24-hour commitments. 

It’s tough when you have the betting and the availability of getting quick money when you really have none in your pocket. Kids 

are hard-headed these days. I’m one who has just jumped out of 

adolescence, and if I didn’t have the guidance from my parents, 

from my coaching staff, then it’s very easy for me to hop on a cell 

phone with the new technology, hop on the Internet, and make a 

quick phone call to anyone who can allow me to make some extra 

money and allow me to, you know, relieve some of the pressures 

that I feel of not having money to spend on movies, you know, 

books, or other things that regular students have the opportunity 

to do. 

And it’s tough to find sincere people out there who really care 

about you and ask those questions, how are you doing, how is the 

team doing, is anyone hurt, how is your family doing. It’s tough 

when you have to watch your back when you’re talking to a close 

friend over a pizza. And I think it would definitely help send a 

positive message to those out there that, you know, gambling is 

wrong on college athletes, and we really don’t need that stress 

when we have all those other responsibilities to worry about. 

Senator EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Ivory. 

Coach Williams, congratulations on a terrific job this year. I wonder if you could comment from your perspective as a coach whether 

it would be helpful for your student athletes to know that gambling 

on college athletics is illegal, period, nationwide. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think it would be very helpful, because 

there is some misinformation out there now because they know 

some gambling is legal. They are not sure how that affects them, 

whether the kids they see on campus making bets, is that legal or 

not legal. So I think if there was a national legislation out there 

that you could point to, they could see is more clearly, a little more 

clearer, and I think that’s important because people like this are 

really role models for the young people coming up. They are the 

people this they look to, not the coaches or anything else. They look 

to the current players. So when a current player really has a problem, that really hurts a lot of people, not just the players involved. 

So I think national legislation would be a very good thing for us 

in the game of basketball. 

Senator EDWARDS. Do you see anything inconsistent about banning legal gambling on college athletics and at the same time increasing our efforts and resources needed to crack down on illegal 

gambling on college sports. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. 

We could do both at the same time, can’t we? 

50

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, that’s what I feel, that whether it’s illegal 

gambling or so-called legal gambling, it’s still gambling. So I think 

one leads to the other. They are connected, no matter what people 

say I really believe they are connected, and I think if we can do 

something in one area, it certainly will help the other area. 

Senator EDWARDS. Coach Newell, I was interested in your comment about, the last thing you said, not trading the devil you know 

for the devil you don’t. From my perspective it is that we ought to 

be trying to get rid of the devil, either the devil we know or the 

devil we don’t. And we appreciate all the comments of the witnesses here today, but I have to say I agree with Mr. Ivory and 

Coach Williams that it’s very important for us nationally to send 

a clear and unmistakable signal that we don’t condone gambling on 

college sports, for there to be no question and no ambiguity for the 

American people and particularly for kids on college campuses, to 

misunderstand that if they may be placing a bet on college sports, 

that in fact that could be a legal bet because somehow it’s going 

through Las Vegas. So I think it’s very important for us to send 

a clear and unmistakable signal. 

I also just want to make a comment about Bill Friday who’s sitting back there on the front row, who we’re happy to have here, 

happy to have you here, President Friday, who is from our state, 

been a great educator in the State of North Carolina for many 

years, head of our university system. He’s a friend and also has 

been very involved in this issue over a long period of time, both 

personally and with the Knight Commission. And President Friday, 

we also look forward to the next panel of testimony. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brownback. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

panalists for being here and testifying and giving your wisdom to 

us. 

Ms. Hurd, let me ask you a question. Would it be your estimation 

that if this is made clearly illegal everywhere that a number of 

newspapers across the country would either cut back or eliminate 

altogether their publishing of the sports betting line? 

Ms. HURD. I think that’s what would happen. In discussing it, we 

have had a lot of people say but we’re just reporting what’s going 

on in Las Vegas so that our readers, you know, have a feel for 

what’s happening there. I think there would be a very different 

look at it if it were, you know, we’re going to give you information 

on an illegal endeavor. I think what we would start to see more involvement of editors in chief——

Senator BROWNBACK. That they would step in then, probably. 

Ms. HURD. I would think so. And again, it changes from newspaper to newspaper whether this is totally the decision of the 

sports editor or whether you would go to your editor and say what 

do you think, should we run this line. Right now, it’s just common, 

everybody does it. With saying now it’s an illegal act everywhere, 

are you going to go buy a line somewhere, I don’t think there would 

be a national run to go and do that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. There would probably be a number of papers that would cut back on the publishing or the amount of times 

51

that they would publish the line. And that would enter into the discussion and dialog a great deal too, wouldn’t it? 

Ms. HURD. Rather than daily, you mean? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes. I mean, like your paper that you testified——

Ms. HURD. I think you would either do it or not do it. I thought 

it was kind of unusual for the LA Times to say once a week but 

football you can do that. I would think you would either do it or 

not do it, and the ones that are not doing the college lines are still 

doing the pro lines. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But you would be confident that this would 

be a reduction, there would be a reduction in the amount of the 

sports lines published. 

Ms. HURD. Definitely. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Shaffer, I appreciated your comments 

and testimony. I particularly liked your first suggestion that we 

should have a National Academy of Science study on the extents 

of, I take it what you’re saying here, the overall gambling problem 

in America today? Is that what you’re suggesting we have the national academy of science do? 

Dr. SHAFFER. Sir, the National Academy of Sciences released just 

a little more than a year ago the first study that it had ever undertaken on the impact of gambling in America. It was a very critical 

review. It is, I think, the best scientific statement on the matter 

today. I was suggesting that perhaps we go further and specifically 

look at the impact of sports-related gambling on young people and 

adults in America and begin to examine the potential ways to reduce or eliminate the kinds of problems that result from that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And it seems regardless of what we pass 

here, we should do that either way. I mean, there is a bill up to 

make illegal all of college sports gambling and there is a bill up to 

try to focus in more on illegal gambling, that either way or if both 

bills pass this would probably be a good thing to do, at least a follow up to what the national academy of sciences has done. 

Dr. SHAFFER. I think it would be a wonderful follow-up. And of 

course I’m biased. I come at this from a scientific point of view, so 

I like to collect the evidence before I decide to take some action. 

In particular, I do worry about the fact that the evidence seems to 

show overwhelmingly that the kind of gambling activity that we’re 

all worried and concerned about, I mean, I do share Senator 

McCain’s previous comments, we’re all concerned about this. I 

think all the people on both sides of this issue are concerned about 

this issue of the vast majority of young people who are gambling 

on sports are doing it illicitly, and they are not likely to stop because they have been doing it illicitly since the beginning of this 

kind of legislation in America. They have continued to violate these 

laws, and there’s no reason to think that all of a sudden they will 

stop violating these laws. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You would agree that we do have a problem with youth gambling and youth gambling on sports, clearly? 

Dr. SHAFFER. Yes, sports gambling in general is one of the most 

prevalent forms of gambling in the United States and around the 

world. 

52

Senator BROWNBACK. Is it one of the most prevalent amongst 

youth? 

Dr. SHAFFER. It is highly prevalent among youths and adults actually, very close in prevalence. Youth, however, have about a two 

and a half to four or five times the rate of disorders related to gambling compared to their adults counterparts. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Is sports gambling one of the dominant 

areas of youth gambling that they then develop. 

Dr. SHAFFER. It’s one of the dominant avenues. However, interestingly, the research we’ve done has shown that among the many 

kinds or forms of gabling, sports gambling is actually related to a 

lower rate of disorder than other kinds of gambling, and I can only 

say that for adults. We don’t have good evidence for young people. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So we need to look at that more for young 

people to determine. 

Dr. SHAFFER. Yes. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But we have a youth gambling problem in 

America. 

Dr. SHAFFER. Clearly. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And we have a number of youth who do bet 

on sports, clearly. And that continues to take place in America 

today. And would you deem it a problem for America? 

Dr. SHAFFER. I think this sort of gambling is a serious problem 

for America. I think that it warrants our attention as a public 

health problem just as any other public health concern could be. 

Senator BROWNBACK. We clearly have public health problems 

that we have not prohibited. I mean, we have not prohibited tobacco in the United States. We have done education around the 

issue, we have warning labels, and then we permit people to make 

choices, hopefully that will be in their best interest and the interest 

of health. 

Dr. SHAFFER. I tend to favor those strategies, what I would call 

more informal social controls rather than formal social controls so 

that we don’t give young people and others the opportunity to act 

out against our legislation, and sometimes we know that there are 

people who will simply act out against prohibitions. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I understand your point and I think we all 

agree that the underlying, we’re having a terrible problem here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Breaux. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,

U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me congratulate both you and Senator Brownback for your determination 

and your efforts in this area and the sincerity with which you approach the problem. I want to apologize for not being here for the 

1st panel’s testimony. I was co-chairing the Aging Committee hearing. This business makes you age very rapidly, so we have an 

Aging Committee that’s looking at the problems of aging, which is 

very important. I was over there and could not be with you and so 

I missed your testimony and want to review what you have said. 

You are a very distinguished panel of men and women of great acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
53

complishment and I want to read in more detail what you had to 

say in your statements. I’ve been trying to catch up right here. 

It seems to me, and I’ll just make a statement of where I come 

from on this. It seems to me that if we all agree that betting and 

gambling on amateur sports is bad, that if we all agree on that, I 

would suggest that the legislation misses the target. 

I say that because statistics show us that 97 percent of the gambling on amateur sports is done in states where it’s already illegal, 

and that 3 percent is done in the States where it is legal. So if you 

want to control it, I would suggest that we look to trying to identify 

the real target, which is where it is done every day, every night, 

where it’s done by teenagers, where it’s done by telephone, where 

it’s done in secret, where it is not regulated, where it is not controlled. None of that fits the legalized gambling on sports that occurs in Nevada where 3 percent of it occurs. 

I mean, I’m amazed that the only place where it’s legal is also 

the only place where it’s regulated, where it’s controlled, where it 

is subject to Federal taxes, where it is subject to State taxes, where 

it is subject to State audit, where it is regulated by a gambling 

commission and a board to supervise it, where it is not conducted 

in secret but it has to be conducted in public places, where it cannot be done over a telephone or by other electronic methods. It has 

to be done by physically being present in the state. 

So it seems to me that if it is a bad influence on amateur sports, 

well then what we ought to be doing is try to address the 97 percent of the country where it’s occurring every day and where 

there’s no regulation whatsoever. And I just suggest that we 

missed the target by focusing on the only place where it is in fact 

legal and where it is regulated and where young people are absolutely prohibited from participating. So if it’s a problem, I think 

that what we have to do is to better focus in on how to eliminate 

the problem, and that doesn’t seem to be accomplished by the legislation that’s before the Committee. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Are you ready? Do you want to ask another question? 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I actually want to direct the comments that were made to Mr. Sheridan as far as can 

you comment just on whether, what your opinion is on the lines 

being published in newspapers across the country? 

Mr. SHERIDAN. Absolutely. Our survey showed that my column 

in USA Today, nationally read, about 75 percent of our readers, 

Senator McCain, are non-betters. They just want the information. 

It’s like the stock report, it’s 24 hours old, you’re not going to call 

your stock broker and say I saw General Motors at 50, I’d like to 

buy them today at 50. That’s a day old. You’re not going to call 

USA Today and say Sheridan said that the Chicago Bears are 7-

point favorites, I’d like to bet. You don’t bet with newspapers, you 

bet in the general public. So 75 percent of the people that read the 

betting lines, according to our survey, do so and they don’t bet on 

the games. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m amazed that 25 percent do. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. Well, you have in this country 40 million Americans that illegally bet $6 or $7 billion a weekend on football. The 

54

comment about fixing a game, my concern about Nevada being removed is that the deterrent will be gone and it will be very easy 

to fix a game. I don’t know Coach Williams. I know coach Holtz, 

he’s a dear friend. I could mention several other coaches I know 

but I’m aware they might get black listed by the NCAA. 

If I could sit down with those coaches and show them where college games would be easily fixed and there would be no deterrent 

to deter these criminals, that criminal element, I promise you they 

would not be in favor of this legislation. The legislation sounds 

great. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s quite a commentary on their intelligence, 

Mr. Sheridan. You deal with these people every single day. Very 

interesting commentary on their knowledge of the issue. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. Well, the knowledge, as I said, I’m not the smartest guy in the room but I do know in my mind. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think they are pretty smart. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. Well, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. They are at the top of their profession. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. I do know in my mind they have a lot of problems, discussion, steroids, et cetera, and if I told a coach and he 

believed me that this would make it easy to fix you are college 

games, he would not be in favor of this, if he believed me. When 

you send out a message like the super bowl, the national championship football game, the NCAA finals, the Final Four, and the 

see in the newspapers, the Governors, the Senators, the mayors, 

they are all betting the State commodity. That’s acceptable. 

So when you talk about this message about we’re going to wipe 

out Nevada, and when I talk to these college kids, I won’t say they 

laugh in my face, but they are going to continue betting. Nevada 

is like a blip on the radar screen. I don’t care if Nevada publishes 

lines, it doesn’t effect me. I’ve already been contacted by tons of 

Gannett papers and others to say hey, if they ban this, can we use 

your line, can we use the offshore line? The lines are still going to 

exist. 

Newspapers are going to carry them if they feel that 70 or 75 

percent of their readers are interested in them for nonbetting purposes, and if the other 25 percent are interested for betting purposes, they are going to carry them. Senator Brownback says, 

‘‘Well, take, Kansas and South Carolina off the betting, take them 

off the board.’’ Fine, take them off the board. What will that accomplish? Zero. 

Every bookmaker in Kansas and South Carolina, I don’t know 

every one of them, they would carry the betting line on Kansas because the people in Kansas want to bet on Kansas, they want to 

bet on sports. It’s not going to change a thing. It sounds like, I 

guess it’s politically correct, but again, I make this statement and 

I’ll make it to coach Holtz. I’ll have to go visit him but I don’t want 

to single him out because he’s a dear friend. If he knew and if he 

believed, and the same with you, sir, if he believed that if you took 

away this legal authority in Nevada and it would make it it easier 

to fix college football games, he would not be in favor of this bill. 

And I will stand here with what little reputation I have and tell 

unequivocally, 30 or 40 college basketball and college football 

games will be fixed if this bill passes, because there will be no deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
55

terrent, and criminal, and there are plenty of criminals out there 

that would love the opportunity, they are just rubbing their hands 

just like they would if you destroy the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, which you would never do, they are just rubbing their 

hands saying know what, I’m going to go bribe that kid at the University of Alabama, and the only person that’s going to know about 

it is that bookmaker in Tuscaloosa. And you know what my penalty 

is going to be? He’s going to take it off the board. So now I’m going 

to go to Auburn University and do the same thing. And this is 

what’s going to happen all across the country unless there’s a religious experience with these criminals out there, which I don’t expect to happen. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. 

Dr. Shaffer, I want to, since you are the only expert, the only scientific expert we have in these first couple of panels, I want to just 

clarify a point that you made. 

Do you think that this bill that is being proposed today will do 

anything to curb illegal gambling amongst our players, amongst 

our college students, or amongst the 49 states that it’s already illegal to bet on college sports? 

Dr. SHAFFER. No, I don’t, and the reason I don’t, and you’ve just 

said it. It’s already illegal. I think almost every NCAA player to a 

person, I haven’t surveyed them all, but I do know a number, as 

I said, I’m the dad of a NCAA player, I’ve talked to many of them, 

they all know that this is the wrong thing to do. And most of them 

don’t do it. We shouldn’t be here indicting a group of fine young 

people. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. 

Dr. SHAFFER. Given a time period of a year. 

Senator ENSIGN. About 1 percent, and what’s the percentage that 

will become addicted to alcohol. 

Dr. SHAFFER. Alcohol runs roughly, depending upon who you 

read, about 10 percent. 

Senator ENSIGN. About 10 percent. So of those three, it’s by far 

the lesser. The least. The thing that he brought up about why prohibition didn’t work, Senator Biden brought up why prohibition 

didn’t work, is he said it was because alcohol, we don’t have social 

cocaine users, we don’t have social methamphetamine users, but 

we have social drinking. It’s acceptable in this country. And as you 

pointed out earlier in your statement, if I recall correctly, you 

talked about, if you outlaw something, that people don’t respect the 

rule of law because it was socially acceptable. People looked at prohibition and it was kind of a joke. Whether it was in the Bible belt 

or wherever it was, they looked at it as kind of a joke and so it 

became kind of the in thing to do where they had these parties 

where they had alcohol and illegal alcohol and obviously it 

strengthened organized crime and all of the other things that it 

did. Is that analogous to what would happen with this type of legislation or is it happening today? 

Mr. SHERIDAN. I think it is analogous in many ways and not in 

other ways, so to try to be as precise as I can be, during prohibition 

we certainly did reduce the number of alcohol-related problems 

among a segment of the population while simultaneously increasing the number of problems a different segment of the population. 

56

People often forget during prohibition, we also outlawed tobacco 

use in the United States, and it clearly did not stop the development and growth of tobacco. 

Senator ENSIGN. By the way, that would be a good question from 

our Senator from North Carolina, whether he would suggest that 

we outlaw tobacco. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. That gets to my next point, which is——

Senator ENSIGN. Which last time I checked, causes a lot more 

problems than gambling amongst our youth. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. That is certainly true when we look at the public 

health consequences. There’s no doubt about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ensign, we’ve got another panel to go. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. Can he finish? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. My last point is we actually have legal drugs in 

America. We forget that we have legal drugs. Our legal drugs primarily are alcohol and tobacco. We have other pharmaceuticals, obviously. People in America understand which drugs are more dangerous, and which drugs are less dangerous. Our legislation in part 

correctly follows which are more and less dangerous. 

In some ways we actually permit dangerous drugs. Tobacco is a 

dangerous drug. I think the same would be true for young people 

and adults in America. They understand that gambling is not for 

everyone. There are certain things adults do, certain things children do, certain places people do things and certain other places 

people don’t do those things. We teach young people that from the 

earliest of days. It’s part of developing character. I think that while 

we have prohibition in 49 states as Senator McCain said, and not 

in the 50th, this same prohibition is not common around the world. 

The rest of the world is gambling, and given the Internet and 

given the shrinking of our world, our young people and our adults 

are getting very complicated messages, and they are not just simply looking at our own legislation. That simply leads me to conclude that the best way to help people live long, happy, healthy 

lives, is to help them learn their own social controls such as the 

informal mechanisms that start in the family and then spread 

throughout our great institutions, and if we can do that properly, 

I believe that we can regulate these kinds of problems even more 

effectively than legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Sheridan, I would 

point out that there were two reasons why we sponsored this legislation. One was the NCAA and the college coaches. The other is because of the recommendation of a commission composed of some of 

the smartest people in America who after 2 years came up with 

this recommendation. I’m sorry you didn’t have a chance to inform 

them of the evils that would accrue from this banning. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. Might I reply, or no? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. SHERIDAN. All right. Well, when you talk about that, these 

people have not talked to the nation’s bookmakers. They have not 

been in the trenches like I have. 

The CHAIRMAN. They did a thorough and in-depth investigation 

that took 2 years, Mr. Sheridan, and they are some of the most 

57

highly qualified people in America that had no financial interest in 

continuing the present system. 

I thank the panel, thank you very much, and we appreciate your 

involvement and the next panel includes Dr. William C. Friday, 

President Emeritus of the University of North Carolina; Mr. Michael Adams, President of the University of Georgia; Mr. Terry 

Hartle who is the Senior Vice President of the American Council 

on Education; Mr. William Saum who is the Director of Agents, 

Gambling and Amateur Activities of the National Collegiate Athletic Association; and Mr. Edward Looney is the Executive Director 

of the Council on Compulsive Gambling. 

I’d like to welcome the panel again, and we’d like to begin with 

Dr. Friday. 

Dr. Friday, welcome and welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you 

for your patience. Obviously this is an issue that has generated a 

great deal of interest and controversy. We thank you very much for 

coming today. 

Dr. Friday. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FRIDAY, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. FRIDAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Adams who sits here with me is also a witness is on the 

Knight Commission. We are currently serving there together, and 

we appreciate the chance to come here. 

Let me tell you why the Knight Commission is supporting the 

legislation. In 1989, a decade of very visible scandals in this country drew the Knight Foundation, a newspaper-based foundation, 

into looking at this problem as a national issue. And at that year, 

a Louis Harris poll came out that found that 8 out of 10 Americans 

agree that intercollegiate sport at that time was out of control, that 

athletic programs were being corrupted by big money, and that 

many cases of serious rule violations were under mining the basic 

integrity of the institutions themselves. 

In October 1989, the Knight foundation created the commission 

of which President Adams and I are members. That group, for the 

next 4 years, looked at intercollegiate sport in every dimension, 

and we tried to be responsive to the national opinion about intercollegiate sports and led to a series of recommendations which the 

NCAA has since implemented which call for Presidential control 

over university or intercollegiate sports and that this would extend 

itself itself into looking at the issue of academic integrity and fiscal 

integrity which had come into question in the testimony that had 

been given us. 

Ten years after the first of three reports that was issued by this 

foundation in 1991, 1992, and 1993, we got together again last fall. 

We got together and again last fall, the original commission members, and we invited others to come and join us. We did this to see 

what had happened to the particular recommendations made by 

this commission to the NCAA. Most of this governance commission, 

the recommendations of the commission pertaining to governance 

were implemented by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. 

What we have found this time, and we have listened to a number 

of witnesses over the last several months and will be issuing a 

58

statement later in the spring, is that we changed the whole culture 

of sport in this country by the impact of very large sums of money 

resulting from commercial television, and what is now called by 

Mr. Cedric Dempsey, the head of the NCAA, as the arms race 

among colleges and universities over intercollegiate sport. 

One aspect of this is the issue of gambling and its impact upon 

the whole dimension of college sport. What you heard Coach Williams say here today, my coach, one of my coaches, Dean Smith, 

has said before this same Senate Committee in the past as his reasons for being for this legislation. The Knight Commission I’m sure 

will be supportive of this for the reasons given and I will not take 

the time of the Committee now to repeat them again. Let me defer 

to president Adams. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. ADAMS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY 

OF GEORGIA 

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Dr. Friday, and Senator, we 

appreciate the opportunity to appear and appreciate your interest 

in this matter, although it’s apparent you and I may have different 

views on this piece of legislation. 

Let me ask, if I might, that my testimony be made a part of the 

record and I’ll summarize very briefly with all due respect. 

The CHAIRMAN. All of your testimonies will be made part of the 

record, full statements. 

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. I’ll just begin by saying that 

I’m here not only as president of the University of Georgia but also 

as immediate past chairman of the American Council on Education, 

which represents most of the college and university presidents in 

America, and I can tell you that there is overwhelming support 

among American’s college and university presidents for this bill. 

I would begin by saying that while we certainly support title 1 

of the bill that deals with illegal drug use, we’re going to focus our 

very brief testimony today on title 2 having to do with gambling. 

It’s apparent from the testimony you’ve already heard, and as my 

testimony indicates, this is a growing national problem. 

Gambling on college sporting events I believe should be prohibited in all states as is now done for high school and Olympic contests. Some of us who are university administrators are a bit mystified that we think this sort of participation for 18-year-olds 

should be illegal but 3 months later when they matriculate into college at 18 years and 3 months, it’s now OK to bet on their amateur 

issue athletic activities. I would also remind the panel that we are 

still dealing with minors, with young people. They may be very accomplished athletes, they may have strong bodies or may be excessively tall, but you’re still dealing in many ways with late teenagers and early 20-year-olds who are, I think, susceptible to some 

of the pressures to which they are subjected and I certainly believe 

that the PASPA legislation which left Nevada as the only State 

where this sort of activity is illegal, needs to have that loophole 

closed. 

I also would say to you, Senator, as Senator Cleland was gracious to come by and to mention earlier in his comments regarding 

myself, I worked for this body for 6 years. I have great respect for 

it. During the days I was chief of staff for Senator Baker, I’ve sat 

59

behind the dias where the ladies and gentlemen sit now, and I’ve 

watched this Committee through the years when Senator Baker 

was a member making legislation on many matters from interstate 

commerce to aviation safety to trucking safety and the list goes on 

and on. But not only do you legislate, but you also set a tone, and 

you send messages to the country as you legislate on a whole broad 

change of areas, and I think it’s incumbent for us to make an ethical statement. I think this is a classic debate between money and 

moralism. 

I think we do need to send a message that this type of activity 

on college campus is and should be illegal across the country inclusive of all 50 states, and I would respectfully urge the Committee 

to move S. 718 out of Committee and to the floor. Given the support for it around the country, I’m confident that if it reaches the 

floor it would pass and I hope that’s exactly what would happen. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. ADAMS,

PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

Chairman McCain, Senators Hollings, Brownback, Cleland and other distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Michael Adams, President of the University of Georgia. I would like to thank you for holding this hearing, and for inviting 

me to share my views on the topic of gambling on college sports. This is a matter 

of considerable concern to the University of Georgia as well as the rest of the higher 

education community and we welcome the introduction of S. 718 as a means of addressing these concerns. 

First let me say that I support Title I of the legislation which calls for research 

and training in the methods of detecting performance-enhancing drugs. Authorizing 

the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to sponsor prevention and intervention programs is a positive step to discourage use of the substances by amateur athletes. However, I would like to devote the bulk of my testimony to Title II of the bill, which focuses on gambling. 

Athletics are an integral component of the college experience. The link between 

mental and physical well-being is a well established fact. Involvement in athletics 

provides an important opportunity to foster team building and leadership skills 

among students, and to teach valuable life lessons about hard work, dedication and 

ethical behavior. Colleges endeavor to provide as many avenues as possible for students to engage in athletic pursuits in both intramural and extramural settings. For 

a relatively small number of young men and women, participation in college sports 

affords an opportunity to showcase their extraordinary athletic gifts, and for an 

even smaller handful, it will lead to a career as a professional athlete. 

From the road to the Final Four championships for men’s and women’s basketball 

teams, to the University of Georgia’s packed Sanford Stadium on a crisp autumn 

afternoon, to the fast-paced competition of women’s soccer, college sports are enjoyed 

by millions of American spectators. The hopes and dreams of the young athletes and 

our pride in our institutions are the ingredients that make these contests riveting. 

This is the point of the games. This is what makes them enjoyable. Gambling on 

the outcome of these games is not only unnecessary, it has enormous potential to 

compromise the integrity of the amateur sports tradition. 

Gambling on college student-athletes and the games they play, whether done legally in the sports books of Nevada, illegally in any other State, or on the Internet, 

is a growing problem. Gambling on college sporting events should be prohibited in 

all States, as is now done for high school and Olympic contests. I commend the 

chairman, together with Senators Brownback, Edwards, and Jeffords, for introducing S. 718 to address this problem. 

Congress first recognized the potential for problems associated with gambling on 

amateur sporting events a decade ago. In 1992, President George Bush signed into 

law the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) to prohibit gambling on most sporting events. PASPA exempted four States that already conducted, 

or had enacted legislation that permitted them to conduct sports gambling within 

their borders. At that time, Nevada was the only State where legal gambling on 

60

high school, college, and Olympic sporting events was permitted. Today, Nevada 

stands alone as the only State in the Nation that legally operates a sports books 

on college athletic contests. With the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent that the 

granting of that exemption was unwise. 

In the intervening years since the enactment of PASPA, Nevada has made some 

changes in its legally sanctioned activities that bespeak an awareness that gambling 

on young, amateur athletes is indefensible. For example, until last year Nevada 

gaming regulations prohibited gambling on Nevada college teams, whether they 

played at home or outside the State. In response to a request last February from 

the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) that other teams be extended 

the same exemption, the State Gaming Control Board reversed its longstanding policy and now permits betting on Nevada teams. In another example—perhaps fueled 

by the precursor to S. 718 and the attendant media scrutiny—the Control Board recently has banned betting on high school and Olympic contests. This action places 

Nevada on a par with our other 49 States in regard to protecting high school and 

Olympic athletes, but it raises a perplexing question about the distinction that was 

made. Why are some young players and their sport deemed worthy of safeguarding 

while others in a similar age cohort are not? Nevada’s small steps to undertake 

damage control clearly are inadequate. 

Over the years that Nevada has been accorded its exemption, ample evidence has 

accumulated that the existence of Nevada’s legal sports books has had a corrupting 

influence that taints the environment for intercollegiate athletics, and fosters a general climate of disrespect for our laws. Support for this point of view is derived from 

the work of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. This Commission, 

comprised of bipartisan members appointed by President Clinton and the leadership 

of the House and Senate issued its recommendations to the Congress in June 1999. 

A key finding of the Commission was that ‘‘sports wagering threatens the integrity 

of sports, it puts student athletes in a vulnerable position, [and] it can devastate 

individuals and careers.’’ To address this, the Commission urged that the ‘‘betting 

on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is currently legal be banned altogether.’’ The Commission also highlighted the connection between Nevada’s legal 

betting enterprise and the illegal wagering that goes on elsewhere. The report states 

that: ‘‘One reason Americans may not be aware of the illegality of sports wagering 

is that the Las Vegas ‘line’ or point spread, is published in most of the 48 States 

where sports wagering is illegal.’’ I would like to put these issues into context as 

they relate to college athletes and to college students. 

First, the impact of gambling on collegiate athletes. It is easy to stand among 

these young players, many of whom tower above the rest of us, or to witness their 

strength and physical prowess on the field or the court and to equate them with 

the adult competitors of professional sports. It is easy to forget that overwhelmingly 

these individuals are teenagers. These are youngsters taking their first steps toward 

adulthood, still lacking in maturity and sophistication. In contrast to their well-paid 

counterparts in the ranks of professional athletes, they have no independent means 

of support. For these reasons, students have a particular vulnerability to financial 

enticements from predatory individuals seeking to influence the outcome of a sporting event. Although they are statistically infrequent, several high-profile gamblingrelated incidents have occurred involving student athletes in the last decade. If the 

amount of money legally wagered on college sports is allowed to escalate, the pressures on these young athletes to provide inside information on the team or to shave 

points and fix games is bound to increase as well. 

It is worth noting that the operative word in the 1992 legislation is ‘‘protection.’’ 

Would we even be here this morning debating the efficacy of S. 718 if we were discussing high school athletes? Why should the period between leaving high school 

and entering college deprive college athletes from the protection that covered them 

a mere 3 months earlier? 

Now to my second point—the impact of gambling on the general student population. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that says gambling among the 

nation’s youth is on the rise and is occurring at earlier and earlier ages. A Gallup 

Poll taken 2 years ago found that teenagers say they begin betting on sports at age 

10. In addition, the poll found that teenagers engaged in betting at twice the rate 

of the adult survey respondents, 18 percent to 9 percent. Several factors contribute 

to this behavior. First, anyone with access to a newspaper can look up the point 

spreads on their choice of college sporting events. To my knowledge, only The New 

York Times and The Washington Post have adopted a policy against publication of 

the point spreads. Second, the publication of the point spreads gives an imprimatur 

of legitimacy to wagering on college contests. Third, the facility with which the 

younger generation uses the Internet and the proliferation of Internet gambling 

sites perpetuates the notion that this is a legitimate activity, and encourages ease 

61

of access. But for the existence of the Nevada sports books, illegal gambling would 

not be as profitable, as pervasive, nor as seductive to young people—many of whom 

have little awareness that it is an illegal activity outside of Nevada. 

The Nation’s colleges are mindful of the responsibilities we bear in helping young 

people become responsible adults. Our obligations start first and foremost with creating an environment where ethical choices and good character development can 

flourish. This task is made considerably more difficult when our campuses are 

bombarded with messages from society at large that gambling on intercollegiate 

sporting events is legal, legitimate, and encouraged. Each of our campuses deals 

with these challenges in ways that are appropriate to the culture of our institutions. 

At the University of Georgia, for example, we make it perfectly clear to our studentathletes that gambling or any contact with people involved in gambling is unacceptable and may lead to their expulsion from the university. Most of our effort is focused on education. We talk to our student-athletes not only about the dangers of 

gambling outright, but of the dangers of being associated with people who are gambling. We make sure they understand that such people are looking for information 

that may influence how bets are placed—information about injuries, information 

about coaches, information about arguments between teammates. The message that 

UGA student-athletes receive is that there is no safe way to associate with gamblers, and that any suspicions should be reported immediately. 

One of the most effective programs we have involves bringing student-athletes 

from other school who have been involved in gambling to Athens to speak to UGA 

athletes. All of us recognize the power of peer testimony, and these young men have 

chilling stories to tell about the damaging effect their involvement with gambling 

has had on not only their athletic careers, but their lives. 

We are confident that our athletic department is virtually free of gambling. We 

have caught no student-athlete engaged in gambling. In our annual exit interviews 

of graduating athletes, only one student has ever said there is a gambling problem 

at the University of Georgia. But we are not naive. We know that there are students 

on campus who place bets on games. We are also very much aware of the creeping 

influence of the city of Atlanta and the potential involvement of organized crime. 

We are, therefore, ever vigilant in guarding against this problem. 

In addition, the NCAA—of which the University of Georgia is a member—supports a number of programs that address the sports gambling issue. 

In conclusion, I do not wish to suggest that enactment of S. 718 will solve all the 

problems associated with sports wagering. Institutions, coaches, players, students 

and parents all have important roles to play in reversing the current trends. But 

I want to be very, very clear: while S. 718 will not solve all the problems, in my 

opinion it will solve the central one. By amending the Ted Stevens Olympic and 

Amateur Sports Act to ban betting on high school, college, and Olympic sporting 

events in all 50 States, it will end Nevada’s legal college sports book franchise. This 

will make it clear to one and all that betting on a collegiate sporting event is an 

illegal activity. The time has come at long last to honor the intent of PASPA by 

amending the Stevens Act to end Nevada’s preferential status. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity 

to testify in favor of S. 718 and I wish you smooth sailing in securing its passage.

STATEMENT OF ED LOONEY, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON 

COMPULSIVE GAMBLING 

Mr. LOONEY. I’m Ed Looney, I’m with the council on compulsive 

gambling in New Jersey. What we do is we do prevention education 

and referral services. We’re not making a stance on this bill. I 

think it’s vitally important that we don’t miss the mark on this legislation. I’ve been involved with compulsive gamblers for probably 

30 years. I speak at, or the council has spoken at, in the last 15 

years on an average of 35 to 50 high schools where we’re called in 

to do prevention education programs, and we also do about 20 colleges, not only in New Jersey but we’re called across the country 

to do some work with colleges. When they have a gambling problem 

go in and do some education. 

I’m also a certified gambling counselor, which means I treat compulsive gamblers. I’ve treated maybe a couple thousand compulsive 

gamblers on a regular basis during a 6- or 7-year period more inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
62

tensive than I am doing today. We also treat compulsive gamblers 

in prison systems. We know that about 30 percent of the people 

that are in prison are there due to illegal activity, many times at 

the root of their illegal activity is a compulsive gambling problem. 

I don’t know if everybody in this room knows how much education that we have provided for our young people across America. 

There is no education, no curriculums, in high schools, in grade 

schools, in schools across this nation. I just wanted to lay that 

foundation. I would also like to say we had a report, the Federal 

study report is out. 

In my written testimony there are 35 recommendations that pertain to compulsive gambling, and I would hope that sometime the 

Committee would look at what those recommendations were. Because I don’t think that was what the Commission recommended 

for this particular bill is what that recommendation was, and I 

looked at it very carefully. I would like to tell you that we have a 

major health problem in America today called compulsive gambling. That’s a fact, that’s a given. 

And what is interesting is that the adolescent rate is twice as 

high. Everyplace we’ve done any research we’re finding that to be 

true. In New Jersey, 12 percent of the adolescents that we tested 

had problems or compulsive gambling problems. Across the town in 

New York it was 14 percent. Connecticut it was 11 and a half percent. Canada is 18 percent. This is the adolescent rate. So the rate 

for adolescents is much higher. 

I can tell you that young people start gambling in the ages of 9 

and 10 years old. Inner cities they start a little earlier. By the time 

they are 12 and 14 they are playing cards for money, dice for 

money. They get involved in the problematic kind of gambling in 

high schools. By the second year in high school, many sports 

betters have book makers. Second year. We’re talking 16-year-old 

youngsters (not uncommon, particularly in the metropolitan area, 

where there’s a lot of availability and opportunity to gamble) they 

have book makers already. 

I can tell you I spoke 2 years ago at a Division 1 school in New 

Jersey and spoke to 32 young people in a dorm. How many kids 

here gamble? Twenty-eight hands went up. I asked how many kids 

have book makers. When I asked a couple other questions, there 

were 10 different book makers accessible to that one dormitory in 

the State of New Jersey. I can tell you that in studying compulsive 

gambling, and I’m very conservative about what we say and what 

we do, is that gambling is festering in every high school and it’s 

an epidemic in every college campus. I will make this statement 

that I’ve made many times that give me 1 hour, put me on a residential campus university anywhere in America, give me 1 hour, 

and I’ll show you where I can make a bet illegally. 

I’d also like to tell you a couple real fast things. I treated an Ivy 

League basketball player who fixed games. He fixed seven games 

in Ivy League in the late 1970s, and Ronny told me with two other 

people they fixed seven games. I have also treated a high school 

student in 1978 who committed a murder. He was a young fellow 

that had all kinds of athletic ability, he was getting all kinds of college offers, he was a great athlete, but he had a gambling problem, 

he got involved with a book maker. Owed the book maker $1,400 

63

and couldn’t come up with the money to pay him and he decided 

to break into his first house, and when he broke into his first 

house, there was a widow in there. The widow saw him, she 

stabbed him with a pen, he hit her with a bat and killed her. Their 

lives were over. She was dead and he was sentenced to life in prison. 

I treated a Division 1 football player who was suspended for book 

making on campus. He should be playing in the National Football 

League as we talk today, but because his gambling problem, got involved in paying off his debts by getting involved in bookmaking 

himself. 

I also treated a Division 3 baseball player that had tremendous 

athletic ability. He ended up selling marijuana on a college campus 

because he owed the book makers money. These are some of the 

things I’ve personally seen. New Jersey, 1992, we had 19 police investigations in high schools alone related to gambling issues. In a 

New Jersey high school in 1997 we had 17 adolescents caught gambling on the NCAA tournament. I can go on and on. I just want 

to tell you one other one. I have a 16-year-old that took $6,000 of his life savings, which 

took him 4 years to save, in 1 day he bet it all on the lottery. It’s 

not only sports betting. Kids gamble on everything that’s available 

to them. The reason we found out about his gambling problem is 

because he attempted suicide and they called the council’s help line 

and we went down to the hospital and we saw this youngster. He 

pulled through but the bottom line is it was because of a gambling 

problem. 

I just want to say, this bill, to eliminate sports betting, in my 

opinion, will not effectively stop gambling on college campuses. It’s 

not really worth putting this kind of a legislation in if you really 

want to attack the problem. Ninety-eight percent of betting is actually, as we know, illegal. We also have Internet gambling. 

I can give you some facts and figures but I’ll just give you one 

figure, that this year betting on the NCAA basketball game 

reached about a half a billion dollars, on about 440 Internet sites 

(illegal sites). Reports stated that these illegal off-shore sites accepted almost a half of billion dollars worth of bets on the NCAA 

this year alone, and that’s a growing thing. I remember there was 

one Internet site in 1995. Today we have over 1,000, and about 500 

just take sporting events. So we’re not going to, this legislation is 

not going to have any effect at all on this type of betting. 

The NCAA is here and they are trying to do a good effort, but 

I can say their efforts to stem gambling on a college campus will 

be ineffective, and it will continue to be ineffective because they are 

not doing the main thing that needs to be done if we really care 

about our kids, and that’s doing education, prevention, and curriculums from the kindergarten to the twelfth grade, and educate people that are involved with our kids about compulsive gambling. The 

NCAA, is before this Committee and I know Bill Saum and I respect the work that he’s trying to do, I’ve written a couple letters 

to them about their Pepsi Cola promotion, that during the NCAA, 

they get in bed with sponsors who promote gambling. 

During the NCAA basketball tournament, Pepsi has these look 

under the bottlecap contest. Kids are very, very susceptible to this 

64

type of thing. I treat the compulsive gamblers when they call me. 

They tell me that many times they start with these little contests. 

Here’s the NCAA saying, ‘‘Hey, we want to stomp out gambling, 

we’re going to close down sites that take bets on college games,’’ 

and at the same time they are contributing to the problem by lending their name to gambling contests. Educating key people can 

make a difference. NCAA people need to know what a compulsive 

gambler is, what makes him tick. These are some of the things we 

should be doing. I don’t want to go on because I’ve used up my 5 

minutes, but in my written testimony I have several suggestions. 

I want to just say one more thing. 

We’re worried about the integrity of the game. What about the 

integrity of the youngsters getting a good college education? 

They’re paying large sums of money and the college atmosphere is 

not what it should be. We’ve got gambling, we’ve got drugs, we’ve 

got all these kind of things. There’s got to be more work done. You 

can pass all the legislation you want, and all these prohibitive 

rules and regulations. It doesn’t work. When you prohibit something that the people want to do, and people want to gamble in this 

country, so that’s not going to work. What is going to work is prevention and education programs. Put your money in that and 

you’re going to educate young people who will then make better decisions and will not get caught up into this kind of negative activity 

that’s happening on many college campuses across America. 

Thank you. 

Senator ENSIGN. Dr. Hartle. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY W. HARTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION 

Mr. HARTLE. Thank you very much, Senator Ensign, I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here to present our views on on this matter 

of great concern, gambling on intercollegiate sports. 

The hour is late and you’ve been very generous in your time and 

listening to all the testimony so I will just simply summarize the 

points that are in my testimony. My statement is presented on behalf of 16 national higher education associations. Together we represent the nation’s 3,800 two- and 4-year public and private colleges and universities. We strongly believe that S. 718 is the right 

legislative approach to close the loophole that tarnishes sports and 

feeds the rapidly expanding gambling addiction throughout the nation. I talk to college and university presidents every day. I have 

yet to talk to a president that did not feel this was an essential 

first step to take in an effort to reduce gambling on campus. 

I would like to offer four specific observations on why we believe 

S. 718 is the appropriate remedy for the growing problem of gambling on intercollegiate athletics. 

First, gambling on college sports, both illegal and legal, is a problem that threatens the integrity of intercollegiate athletic competition. It was just a couple of years ago that we learned of a point 

shaving scandal at Northwestern University involving the men’s 

basketball team. The scandal involved both legal and illegal gambling on several games. Kevin Pendergrast, the former Notre Dame 

student who orchestrated the scam, told Time Magazine that, 

‘‘without Nevada, without the option of legally betting money in 

65

Nevada, the Northwestern basketball point shaving scandal would 

not have occurred.’’

In fact as Senator Brownback noted in testimony before this 

Committee last year, the last two major point shaving scandals involved legalizing betting in Las Vegas sports books. And as Senator 

Edwards said at the same hearing, there were more point shaving 

scandals in the 1990s than in the previous five decades combined. 

So we think we have a growing problem. 

Second, the State of Nevada has already recognized the threat 

that gambling poses to the integrity of amateur athletics and other 

competitions but it has been fairly arbitrary and selective when it 

comes to intercollegiate athletics. Until recently, Nevada imposed 

restrictions on betting on Nevada collegiate sports as well as high 

school and Olympic events. 

In January of this year, the gaming commission lifted its restrictions against betting on Nevada’s college teams, but reasserted its 

stand against taking bets on the Olympics and high school events. 

It’s also telling that the Nevada gaming authority prohibits betting 

on the Oscars and the outcome of political election contests, but allows gambling to continue on intercollegiate athletic contests. 

The state’s arbitrary and selective approach to the imposition of 

gaming restrictions begs a critical question. If Nevada’s gaming authority recognizes that there are ethical concerns about the effect 

of betting on high school or Olympic sports competitions or Hollywood’s Academy Awards or on political races, how can they possibly 

argue that betting on collegiate sports events does not threaten 

their integrity as well. 

There is no question in our mind that gambling on amateur 

sports is a widespread problem affecting many levels and many 

parts of society. We think S. 718 simply cuts through the Gordian 

knot of loopholes, uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding bets on 

amateur sports by making the prohibition uniform throughout the 

country. No loopholes. No mixed signals. No uncertainty. A clear, 

unambiguous message. 

The third reason we support this bill is because colleges cannot 

begin to hold the line on illegal gambling when society condones 

and encourages legal gambling on intercollegiate sports. Our ability 

to do anything about illegal gambling, point shaving or other related problems is effectively extinguished when large-scale, legal 

betting on intercollegiate sports is permitted. Over the past 10 

years while legal betting on college sports has been given a green 

light, illegal betting has flourished. 

According to Wayne Johnson, the chief investigator of the Chicago Crime Commission, ‘‘legalized gambling only perpetuates illegal gambling. It does not displace it.’’ Indeed, there’s no doubt in 

the minds of law enforcement authority that legal sports betting 

actually fuels illegal gambling and provides two services for illegal 

bookies everywhere. First, it gives them a reliable source for 

quoting the odds on a game, and second, it provides a vent place 

to spread the risk on their bets. You could call this risk-spreading 

service performed by Nevada’s casinos the equivalent of hedging 

done by currency traders. 

Even the head of the Nevada State gaming control board has 

said that, ‘‘a lot of money made through illegal gambling is laid off 

66

in Las Vegas.’’ If a bookie has a lot of money on one side of a bet, 

they bet the other one in Las Vegas to try and even the bet. In 

point of fact, the lines between illegal and legal gambling are so 

blurred that most Americans are completely unaware that most 

forms of gambling are illegal. Closing this loophole would make 

clear that there is a difference. 

Fourth and finally, there’s a gap between our approach to some 

dangers that we seek to protect our youth from, and those that we 

are tacitly encouraging. Now, more than ever, there are multiple 

efforts from government, colleges and universities, elementary and 

secondary schools, the news media and the public at large to combat some of the dangers confronting our youth Grass-roots and congressional efforts have been mounted to prevent tobacco use by minors and to guard against drug abuse. 

On college and university campuses we are enforcing alcohol 

statutes, drug laws and publishing crime statistics. Congress in recent years has been increasingly active on this front. Last Congress 

witnessed the enactment of legislation to protect students on college campuses from sexual predators based on a single incident at 

one Arizona institution. In this Congress, legislation has been introduced to protect students from the threat of dorm fires and to 

notify parents when students go missing for more than 24 hours. 

We hope that no student ever encounters a dorm fire or a sexual 

predator, and we certainly pray that none ever go missing for more 

than 24 hours. But we do know that they are much more likely to 

be exposed to dangers of gambling than they are to have any of 

those things happening to them. There is no doubt that gambling 

among young people is on the rise and betting on college sports 

poses a serious threat to the welfare and well-being of student athletes who participate in these events. 

There’s no doubt that gambling compromises the reputation and 

credibility of our academic institutions or that it threatens the integrity of collegiate athletics. We believe the Amateur Sports Integrity Act represents the best path forward. The legislation is not an 

effort to cripple the gaming industry. The casinos will barely feel 

the impact. Where it will be felt most palpably will be in the locker 

rooms, the coaching offices, the fraternities, the classrooms and in 

homes around the country. For that reason we strongly support 

this bill and urge its swift passage. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY W. HARTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate 

your invitation to testify on a matter of deep concern to the entire higher education 

community—gambling on college sports. 

My statement is presented on behalf of 16 other national higher education associations. Together, we represent the Nation’s 3,800 colleges and universities. We believe that S. 718 is the right legislative approach to closing a loophole that tarnishes 

intercollegiate sports and feeds the rapidly expanding gambling addiction throughout the Nation. 

Right now, Federal law prohibits betting on college sporting events in every State 

except Nevada. However, there is an exemption that allows books in Nevada to accept bets on college sports. This single exemption virtually nullifies the impact of 

the broader Federal prohibition. The justification for this exemption is difficult to 

fathom as a matter of public policy. Following the logic of Nevada’s exemption, 

should Michigan be exempt from Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations? 

67

Florida from the drug interdiction rules? Or Colorado from the Fair Labor Standards Act? Why not exempt California from the Immigration and Nationalization 

Act? 

As long as there is legalized gambling on collegiate sports in Nevada, we will be 

encouraging illegal gambling on these same events in every other State of the 

Union. With the growth of the Internet and its reach into virtually every home in 

America, this problem will undoubtedly mushroom in the years ahead. 

We believe this problem will be dealt with most effectively and appropriately by 

the enactment of S. 718, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. This legislation would 

extend to Nevada the current restriction that now applies in other States against 

betting on high school, college, and Olympic sporting events. 

S. 718 would implement the thoughtful recommendations of the bipartisan National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which advocated that all currently legal 

betting on college sports be banned. As the Commission stated in its Final Report: 

‘‘Sports wagering threatens the integrity of sports, puts student athletes in a vulnerable position. It can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and it can 

devastate individuals and careers.’’ 

We applauded the Commission’s findings when they first appeared. If anything, 

since the release of the report, even more compelling evidence has emerged that 

gambling on college sports requires the solution proposed in S. 718. Without such 

a change, the integrity of our young athletes and amateur athletic competition from 

high school to the Olympics is placed at risk. 

I would like to offer four observations on why we believe that the Amateur Sports 

Integrity Act is the appropriate remedy for the growing problem of gambling on college sports contests: 

First, gambling on college sports—both legal and illegal—is a problem that threatens the integrity of intercollegiate athletic competition. It was just over 2 years ago 

that we learned of a point shaving at Northwestern University involving the men’s 

basketball team. This scandal involved both legal and illegal gambling on several 

games. 

Kevin Pendergast, a former place kicker at Notre Dame who orchestrated the 

scam, told Time Magazine that ‘‘without Nevada, without the option of [legally] betting money in Nevada, the Northwestern basketball pointshaving scandal would not 

have occurred.’’ In fact—as Senator Brownback noted in testimony before this Committee last year—the last two major point shaving scandals involved legalized betting in Las Vegas sports books. And, as Senator Edwards has remarked, there were 

more point shaving scandals in the 1990s than in the previous 5 decades combined. 

Clearly, there is a problem and a growing one at that. 

But point shaving by players and former players is only one aspect of the problem. 

Equally disturbing is the impact of pervasive wagering by those who officiate college 

sporting events. 

In March 2000, the University of Michigan conducted a study, entitled ‘‘Gambling 

with the Integrity of College Sports,’’ that found 84 percent of college referees admitted having participated in some form of gambling since beginning their careers as 

referees. Almost 40 percent admitted placing bets on sporting events and 20 percent 

said they gambled on the NCAA tournament. Two said they were aware of the 

spread on a game and that it affected the way they officiated. Others knew of referees who did not call a game fairly because of gambling influences. 

Second, the State of Nevada has already recognized the threat that gambling poses 

to the integrity of amateur athletics and other competitions, but has been arbitrary 

and selective when it comes to intercollegiate athletics. The threats posed by legal 

and illegal gambling affect all levels of competition in American society. And recent 

actions by the Nevada Gaming Control Board demonstrate a profound awareness of 

this problem. 

Nevada has flip-flopped several times in its effort to get its gaming regulations 

right where teenage athletes are involved. For the better part of the past decade, 

Nevada banned betting on its own college teams—whether they were playing at 

home or away. Now, they have lifted this prohibition and home State teams are fair 

game. Also, for most of the decade, Nevada permitted gambling on high school and 

Olympic sports. Less than a year ago, the State switched gears and no longer allows 

wagering on these two types of amateur athletic events. And yet, it remains legal 

to gamble on intercollegiate athletic contests. 

From the start, however, Nevada has been dead-set against betting on political 

races or the Oscars. If Nevada’s gaming authority recognizes that there are ethical 

concerns about the effects of betting on high school or Olympic sports competitions, 

on Hollywood’s Academy Awards and on political races, how can they possibly argue 

that betting on collegiate sports events does not threaten their integrity as well? 

68

Is there any question that gambling on amateur sports is a widespread problem 

affecting many levels in our society? The answer, clearly, is no. S. 718 simply cuts 

through the Gordian knot of loopholes, uncertainty, and ambiguity surrounding bets 

on amateur sports by making the prohibition uniform throughout the country. No 

loopholes. No uncertainty. A clear, unambiguous message. 

Third, colleges cannot hold the line on illegal gambling on campus when society 

condones and encourages legal gambling on intercollegiate sports. Our ability to do 

anything about illegal gambling, point shaving, or other related problems, is vitiated—indeed, it is effectively extinguished—when any kind of legal betting on intercollegiate sports is permitted. Over the past 10 years, while legal betting on college 

sports has been given a green light, illegal betting has flourished. 

This is a big deal. According to Wayne Johnson, chief investigator of the Chicago 

Crime Commission, ‘‘Legalized gambling only perpetuates illegal gambling. It does 

not displace it.’’

Time Magazine reports that years of wiretaps by Federal and State 

lawenforcement agencies have documented the links between legal and illegal gambling. For example, in 1 day during the 1997 NCAA playoffs, a Schenectady bookie 

took bets on 65 games and placed them all with sports books in Las Vegas. There 

is no doubt in the minds of law-enforcement authorities that legal sports betting actually fuels illegal gambling and provides two services for bookies everywhere. First, 

it gives them a reliable source for quoting the odds on a game and, second, it provides a convenient place to spread the risk on their bets. You could even call this 

risk-spreading service performed by Nevada’s casinos the equivalent of the hedging 

done by currency traders. 

Even the head of the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, Steve DuCharme, has 

said that ‘‘A lot of money made through illegal gambling is laid off in Las Vegas. 

If a bookie has a lot of money on one side of a bet, they bet the other one in Las 

Vegas to try and even the bet.’’ 

Psychologist Jim Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and a member of the 

Gambling Impact Study Commission, has made the point forcefully: ‘‘Proponents of 

gambling attempt to tell us that there is no link between legal and illegal gambling 

on college sports, that the problem lies entirely with illegal betting. They are wrong. 

The two are inextricably intertwined. The legality of gambling on amateur sports 

in Nevada conveys a false sense of legality to people—especially young people—

across the Nation. That most major newspapers publish the point spreads issued by 

Nevada serves in further heightening both the sense of legitimacy and the interest 

in college sports gambling nationwide.’’ 

In point of fact, the lines between legal and illegal gambling are so blurred that 

most Americans are completely unaware that most forms of gambling are illegal. 

From offices, to fraternities to high school lunchrooms and middle school playgrounds, the average citizen does not distinguish between illegal and legal betting. 

Closing this loophole would make it clear that there is a difference. 

Fourth and finally, there has been a critical (or perhaps a hypocritical) gap between our approach to some dangers we seek to protect our youth from, and those 

that are tacitly encouraged. Now, more than ever, there are multiple, united efforts—from government, colleges and universities, primary and secondary schools, 

the news media, and the public at large—to combat some of the dangers confronting 

our youth. Grass-roots and congressional efforts have been mounted to prevent tobacco use by minors and to guard against drug abuse. On our college and university 

campuses, we are enforcing nationwide alcohol statutes, drug laws, and publishing 

crime statistics. Increasingly, we are heeding the call for more vigilant efforts to 

prevent guns from entering our schools. 

Congress, in recent years, has become increasingly active in developing legislation 

to protect students from potential dangers that might affect them. Last Congress 

witnessed legislation to protect students from sexual predators on campus. In this 

Congress, legislation has been introduced to protect students from the threat of 

dorm fires and to notify parents when students have going missing for more than 

24 hours. While we hope no student ever encounters a sexual predator or a dorm 

fire, we know they are much more likely to be exposed to the dangers of gambling. 

Make no mistake as to the danger. As Ken Winters of the National Research 

Council has told this committee, one of the NRC’s most reliable findings is that 

‘‘gambling is highly associated with other behavioral disorders, particularly depression, alcoholism, and drug addiction.’’ And according to the National Academy of 

Sciences, in a 1999 Report on Pathological Gambling, ‘‘problems that arise as a result of the gambling lead to an intensification of the gambling behavior. Characteristic problems include extensive indebtedness and consequent default on debts 

and other financial responsibilities, disrupted family relationships, inattention to 

work, and financially motivated illegal activities to pay for gambling.’’ 

69

There is no doubt that gambling among young people is on the rise, and that betting on college sports poses a serious threat to the welfare and well-being of the student-athletes who participate in these events. There is no doubt that gambling compromises the reputation and credibility of our academic institutions, or that it 

threatens the integrity of intercollegiate sports. 

Despite clear evidence that the existence of legal betting on college sports encourages illegal betting, compromises integrity, and ruins lives, gambling on collegiate 

sports goes on year after year. This all hinges on the fact that there remains a safe 

harbor where betting on intercollegiate sports is permitted—a situation that Congress can remedy by outlawing gambling on intercollegiate athletics. It is imperative 

that we stand firm: to protect the integrity of college athletics, we need to declare 

betting on these games illegal. 

We believe the Amateur Sports Integrity Act represents the best path forward. 

This legislation is not an effort to cripple the gaming industry. The casinos will 

barely feel the impact. Where it will be felt most palpably will be in locker rooms, 

coaching offices, fraternities, classrooms, and homes around the country. Student 

athletics should not serve as money-making magnets for Nevada casinos. 

When you endorse S. 718, you will score a winning goal for our college and university athletes and for all of amateur athletics. 

On behalf of: American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers; 

American Association of Community Colleges; American Association of State Colleges & Universities; American Council on Education; Association of American Universities; Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design; Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities; Association of Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools; 

Council for Advancement and Support of Education; Council for Christian Colleges 

& Universities; Council of Independent Colleges; National Association for Equal Opportunity and Higher Education; National Association of College and University 

Business Officers; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; 

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators; U.S. Student Association.

Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Saum. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. SAUM, DIRECTOR OF AGENTS,

GAMBLING AND AMATEUR ACTIVITIES, NATIONAL

COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SAUM. Senators, on behalf of the National Collegiate Athletic 

Association, thank you for inviting us to testify today to provide the 

association’s perspectives on college sports wagering and to express 

our strong support for S. 718. Our message to you today is simple. 

We are asking you to do what is right for the college game and 

what is right for the young people who have earned the privilege 

of participating in those games. 

We are asking you to take steps to eliminate legal wagering on 

college competitions in the State of Nevada. When you cut through 

the rhetoric, the posturing, the accusations and everything else this 

discussion has become over the past 2 years, the reason the NCAA 

is so vigorously supporting this legislation is this: It’s right for the 

game, and it’s right for our student athletes. 

I am not here to promise or even suggest that banning legal wagering on college sports is the total answer to such an insidious 

problem as gambling on college sports. The NCAA has never said 

that. But it is part of the equation, and as much as some others 

would not like to do so, it is the part that we are here to address. 

We learned that in the Arizona State and Northwestern scandals, Nevada casinos were used legally to lay off large bets that 

could not be accommodated in the illegal world. Further complicating the matter is the money laundering of illegal dollars through 

legal sports books. Steve Ducharm, former chair of the Nevada 

gaming board is quoted in a February 1999 sports business journal 

article as saying,

70

‘‘We’ve taken step to crack down on the amount of illegal money being 

laundered through legitimate sports books. We really have no way of knowing 

how much is laundered through the legal sports books. Based on transcriptions 

of wiretaps, it is millions of dollars.’’

Legal and illegal sports wagering have been a part of nearly 

every major collegiate sports wagering scandal. Let me repeat that. 

Legal and illegal wagering have been involved and both pose 

threats to our game. Illegal wagering is part of the problem. It is 

not, however, the only problem. Our efforts will only be successful 

by addressing the whole picture, legal and illegal wagering. The 

National Gambling Impact Study Commission issued its final report in June 1999 following 2 years of comprehensive study of all 

forms of legal gambling activity. The commission’s report included 

a recommendation that has formed the basis for this legislative 

proposal before you, to extend the current Federal law banning 

gambling on amateur sporting events to Nevada. 

Let me be clear that the NCAA testified twice before this commission and on neither occasion did the association suggest a complete ban on sports wagering. We made our association’s position 

on gambling clear, but in an effort largely directed at raising the 

commission’s awareness of the problem associated with sports wagering, did not take the step of proposing a ban. 

Even so, without a request from the NCAA, without urging, the 

commission made the recommendation based on a volume of testimony on the problems associated with gambling in young people. 

What has been most interesting to me has been to watch what 

began as a proposal to extend an a ban on legal betting on amateur 

athletics, doing what is right for student athletes and doing what 

is right for the college game escalate into a battle about everything 

but the merits of the bill. 

Those who oppose the legislation will go to any lengths to divert 

discussion. We have been criticized repeatedly because of the size 

of our gambling staff and the budget dedicated to this program. Approximately 94 percent of all NCAA revenues including moneys 

that will be received from the $6 billion CBS contract are returned 

to the colleges and universities that are members of our association. Those revenues help support the 363,000 participation opportunities for men and women on campus. There are currently four 

gambling staff members with an additional member to join the 

staff, a staff that operates similarly to others at the NCAA national 

headquarters. It is imperative in an association such as ours that 

our member institutions police our own campuses by knowing the 

rules, by educating, and by self-policing. Our gambling staff provides the framework and many of the tools, but we count on others 

to implement what we put in place. 

The NCAA strategy to attack problems associated with wagering 

on college sports is multi-focused. We continue to carry the message that sports wagering is an issue for our student athletes, and 

we have worked diligently to educate them about the problem. But 

we need assistance. We believe the loophole that allows wagering 

on college sports in Nevada should be closed. 

We need to encourage enforcement of existing laws regarding illegal gambling, and we believe legislation is needed to prohibit 

71

gambling over the Internet. The system of intercollegiate athletics 

we have is unique to the world. 

We must do everything we can to protect the rich heritage, tradition and integrity of intercollegiate competition. The Professional 

and Amateur Sports Protection Act has successfully stopped the 

growth of state-sponsored amateur sports gambling. But we need 

to close the lone remaining loophole. We need to do what is right 

for the college game and what is right for our student athletes and 

make sports wagering on college sports illegal everywhere, all of 

the time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saum follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. SAUM, DIRECTOR OF AGENTS, GAMBLING AND

AMATEURISM ACTIVITIES, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and other distinguished Members of the 

Committee, on behalf of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, thank you for 

inviting me to testify today to provide the Association’s perspectives on collegiate 

sports wagering and to express our strong support for S. 718. This is a matter of 

great importance to the more than 1,000 colleges and universities that are members 

of the NCAA and to hundreds of thousands of student-athletes who participate in 

intercollegiate athletics annually. As an individual on the NCAA staff who has spent 

nearly 5 years working daily on this issue, it is a matter of personal and professional importance, as well. 

Our message to you today is simple: we are asking you to do what is right for 

the college game and what is right for the young people who have earned the privilege of participating in those games. We are asking you to take steps to eliminate 

legal wagering on college competitions in the State of Nevada. 

When you cut through the rhetoric, the posturing, the accusations and everything 

else this discussion has become over the past 2 years, the reason the NCAA is so 

vigorously supporting this legislation is this: it’s right for the college game and it’s 

right for our student-athletes. 

I am not here to promise or even suggest that banning legal wagering on college 

sports is the total answer to such an insidious problem as gambling on college 

sports. The NCAA has never said that. But it is part of the equation and as much 

as some others would not like to do so, it is the part we are here to address. In 

recent months, discussion of the proposed ban has escalated. With that has emerged 

a mountain of material and accusations, the ‘‘real truth’’ about this and that, protestations about what this group has done, or what that group hasn’t. This is for sure. 

That mountain has caused everyone to lose focus on how very simple this issue is. 

It’s about what’s right for student-athletes. It’s about what is right for college 

games. 

NCAA SPORTS WAGERING POLICIES, RULES AND ACTIVITIES. 

Over a number of years, the member schools of the NCAA have adopted a relatively simple approach to rules governing sports wagering as they affect studentathletes and institutional representatives as well as conferences and the national 

office. The NCAA’s position on sports gambling is this: 

The NCAA opposes all forms of legal and illegal sports wagering. Sports wagering 

has the potential to undermine the integrity of sports contests and jeopardizes the 

welfare of student-athletes and the intercollegiate athletics community. Sports wagering demeans the competition and competitors alike by a message that is contrary 

to the purposes and meaning of sport. Sports competition should be appreciated for 

the inherent benefits related to participation of student-athletes, coaches and institutions in fair contests, not the amount of money wagered on the outcome of the 

competition. 

For these reasons, the NCAA membership has adopted specific rules prohibiting 

athletics department staff members and student-athletes from engaging in gambling 

activities as they relate to intercollegiate or professional sporting events. 

It is not permissible to provide information to individuals who are involved in organized gambling activities, not permissible to solicit a bet on any intercollegiate 

team or to accept a bet on any team representing the school, not allowable to solicit 

or accept a bet on an intercollegiate competition for any item that has tangible value 

and not permissible to participate in any sort of gambling activity that involves 

72

intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics through any method employed by 

organized gambling. 

We demand these things of our young people and our staff members at all levels. 

In addition, in 2000, we imposed stricter sanctions on those who violate our rules. 

Student-athletes who participate in point-shaving activities or who solicit or accept 

bets utilizing organized gambling methods that involve wagering on their own institution lose all of their remaining eligibility. Those who are found to have bet or accepted bets generally on intercollegiate or professional athletics by utilizing organized gambling methods are ineligible for intercollegiate competition for a minimum 

of 1 year and lose one season of competition. 

We have established other Association policies for activities associated with gambling. The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship may not be conducted 

in areas where gambling activities based on the outcome of games is permitted. So, 

for example, there are no men’s basketball championship sites in the State of Oregon, where the lottery is based on the outcome of National Football League contests. The NCAA does not permit its committees to meet or conduct formal social 

activities in casinos. We have also requested the companies that are our corporate 

partners not to engage in promotions connected to the outcome of games. For the 

second straight year, we have conducted background checks on game officials recommended to serve in our marquee events, the Division I Men’s and Women’s Basketball Championships, to assure they’ve had no involvement in sports wagering. 

We do the same for our men’s basketball staff members and the members of the 

Division I Men’s Basketball Committee. 

We have committed to conducting formal research about student-athletes and 

gambling. We will initiate this project in the fall to ascertain the amount of wagering that occurs and the impact of our educational initiatives on student-athletes. In 

addition, the NCAA is part of a task force directed by the National Association of 

Student Personnel Administrators that also is studying gambling on campuses. 

The Association has developed relationships with and made presentations to various law enforcement groups, including the FBI and the United States Attorney 

General’s Advisory Group, the American Council on Education’s secretariat, campus 

security officers, coaches associations and student life personnel. This spring we are 

again reaching hundreds of our Association members through sessions about sports 

wagering at our annual compliance seminars at three locations around the country. 

We utilize a multitude of tools to reach our student-athletes and coaches with our 

messages about sports wagering. Among those initiatives are locker-room visits with 

members of the Final Four men’s and women’s basketball teams, the Frozen Four 

teams and the finalists of the College World Series. 

Our approach is truly grassroots and must be. In the midst of all of the rhetoric 

surrounding this issue, it is easy to forget that the NCAA is a member of the higher 

education community. Among our primary functions are those of providing athletics 

participation opportunities within the framework of higher education and providing 

protection for student-athletes. We are about education and providing information 

to our membership that can lead to life-changing experiences, both in the classroom 

and on the playing field. Our mission as an Association is to build an infrastructure 

of awareness and support to equip those involved with student-athletes with the 

tools to educate them about damaging influences, including sports gambling. 

We are not an organization poised to infiltrate illegal gambling networks. We are 

not an organization with the authority or the charge to investigate illegal gambling 

activities on college campuses or elsewhere. We have and continue to process cases 

involving sports-wagering when they come within the authority of the organization. 

We have brought attention for more than 5 years to a problem we would rather not 

have exist: there is illegal gambling on college campuses, some involving studentathletes. We support closer scrutiny of illegal wagering throughout society—this is 

not isolated to college campuses—and certainly it should be discussed within the 

framework of the entire issue. Today, however, we examine another piece of the 

puzzle, which is eliminating the loophole that allows legal wagering on college 

sports in Nevada. We ask you to do what is right for our student-athletes and what 

is right for college games. 

NCAA PATH TO FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT. 

It has been interesting for me to watch this issue unfold. When I first started in 

my position 5 years ago after a number of years on the enforcement staff, the NCAA 

was already well aware of the direct threat sports wagering poses to intercollegiate 

contests. From the 1950s and the City College of New York men’s basketball team 

point-shaving scandal to several others that followed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, 

73

the Association maintained an awareness that was largely within the intercollegiate 

sports community. 

In the early 1990s, then NCAA executive director Richard Schultz testified in support of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that was enacted and 

is currently in effect. But attention to college student-athletes and sports wagering 

exploded in the late 1990s with revelations of point shaving scandals on the campuses of Arizona State University and Northwestern University. An audience far 

larger than the intercollegiate athletics community became concerned about the 

problem. For the first time, research showed serious links between student-athletes 

and gambling and that betting reached to those of even younger ages. 

We learned that in the Arizona State and Northwestern scandals Nevada casinos 

were used to legally lay off large bets that could not be accommodated in the illegal 

world. According to Federal law enforcement officials, more money was wagered in 

the Arizona State case than on any point-shaving scam in the history of intercollegiate athletics—at a minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars. Further complicating the matter is the money laundering of illegal sports book dollars through 

legal sports books. Mr. Steve DuCharme, former chair of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, is quoted in a February 1999, Sports Business Journal article as saying: 

‘‘We’ve taken steps to crack down on the amount of illegal money being laundered 

through legitimate sports books. We really have no way of knowing [how much is 

laundered through the legal sports books]. Based on transcriptions of wiretaps, it 

is millions of dollars.’’ 

Legal and illegal sports wagering have been a part of nearly every major collegiate sports wagering scandal. Let me repeat that: legal and illegal wagering have 

been involved and both pose threats to our game. Illegal wagering is a part of the 

problem. It is not, however, the only problem. Our efforts will only be successful by 

addressing the whole picture—legal and illegal wagering. 

The federally-appointed National Gambling Impact Study Commission issued its 

final report in June 1999 following 2 years of comprehensive study of all forms of 

legal gambling activity. The commission’s report included a recommendation that 

has formed the basis for the legislative proposal before you: to extend the current 

Federal law banning gambling on amateur sporting events to Nevada. 

Let me be clear that the NCAA testified twice before this commission and on neither occasion did the Association suggest a complete ban on sports wagering. We 

made our Association’s position on gambling clear but in an effort largely directed 

at raising the Commission’s awareness of the problems associated with sports wagering did not take the step of proposing a ban. Even so, without a request from 

the NCAA, without urging, the commission made the recommendation based on a 

volume of testimony on the problems associated with gambling and young people. 

And that is how we’ve become so involved in the very political process of trying 

to get Federal legislation passed, a process that is very unfamiliar to us. What has 

been most interesting to me has been to watch what began as a proposal to extend 

a ban on legal betting on amateur athletics—doing what is right for student-athletes 

and the college game—escalate into a battle about everything but the merits of the 

bill. Those who oppose the legislation will go to any lengths to divert discussion 

from problems associated with legal gaming and place blame for all illegal sports 

wagering on college and universities. There is seemingly no end to these far-fetched 

attempts. But we are not here to argue with the casino industry. There are philosophical differences that will never be bridged. 

For the NCAA, this is about doing what is right for our student-athletes and the 

college game. 

We have been criticized repeatedly because of the size of our gambling staff and 

the budget dedicated to the program. Approximately 94 percent of all NCAA revenues, including monies that will be received from the $6 billion CBS contract, are 

returned to the college and universities that are members of the Association. Those 

revenues help support the 363,000 participation opportunities for men and women 

on campus. There are currently three gambling staff members with an additional 

member to join soon and that staff operates similarly to others at the NCAA national headquarters. It is imperative in an association such as ours that our member 

institutions police their own campuses by knowing the rules, by educating and by 

self-policing. That is how a private, nonprofit association works. Our gambling staff 

provides the framework and many of the tools, but we count on others to implement 

what we put in place. 

LEGAL AND ILLEGAL SPORTS WAGERING. 

As I mentioned previously, the NCAA believes that efforts are needed to address 

legal and illegal sports wagering. The presence of any sports wagering, whether 

74

legal or illegal, potentially threatens our contests. Our games should be viewed for 

the spontaneous action that occurs, not because one has money wagered on the outcome. Having said that, the Association is concerned that legal collegiate wagering 

fuels much larger illegal collegiate wagering, which now is impacting youngsters 

under 18. A 1999 Gallup Poll showed that teenagers begin wagering on college 

sports as young as 10 years old. The poll also showed that 18 percent of teenage 

respondents said they had bet college sports, contrasting with 9 percent of adults 

who wagered on college games. 

The economic argument about impact on Nevada forwarded by opponents of The 

Amateur Sports Integrity Act is not supported by the facts. In 2000, approximately 

$2.3 billion was wagered in Nevada sports books. Casinos retained $124 million or 

about 5.33 percent of the total amount wagered on sports. Mr. DuCharme has said 

the amount kept by casinos on sports wagering is ‘‘very small’’ compared to other 

casino games. And, the amount wagered on college sports is only a little more than 

one-third of the total. Total revenues for casinos were $9.6 billion in 2000. It follows, 

then, that elimination of collegiate sports wagering would have little impact on 

State revenues or the bottom line of casinos. The amount bet on college sports is 

reportedly only four-tenths of 1 percent of overall casino revenues. 

The image of legal sports wagering makes far more of an impression on the general public, however, than the dollars spent. Legal wagering fosters an attitude and 

mindset that any wagering is OK. We have reached the point today that young and 

old alike believe that wagering is acceptable. This acceptance isn’t because of the 

illegal wagering that occurs. We’ve arrived at this belief because wagering is positioned as glamorous, sexy and cool. That kind of message has a huge impact. 

We have heard the arguments that the system in place in Nevada provides protections and security measures for the industry. Still, in the two cases I cited earlier 

at least hundreds of thousands of dollars were wagered legally in the point-shaving 

cases. Though valuable afterward in investigating the point-shaving incidents, the 

measures did not prevent them from occurring. It would be much more helpful for 

us to do what is right for student-athletes and the college game and ban all legal 

gambling on college sports events. We have enough faith in Americans to believe 

that those who wager legally will not race to wager illegally. 

H.R. 641 AND S. 338. 

The NCAA supports closer scrutiny of illegal wagering and encourages increased 

efforts by law enforcement to ensure compliance with Federal and State gambling 

laws. We encourage harsher sentencing for these crimes, which will help law enforcement make illegal gambling a priority. We do not, however, support H.R. 641 

or S. 338, The National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001. 

Certainly, there are elements of the bill the NCAA favors. In fact, some sections 

are similar to recommendations the NCAA made to the National Gambling Impact 

Study Commission. For example, in January 1999, the NCAA recommended that 

penalties be increased for violating Federal sports gambling statutes, which also is 

part of The National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001. 

Colleges and universities are addressing illegal gambling issues and they should 

expand what they are doing. But it makes no sense to threaten loss of all Federal 

funding—including grants that go directly to students—and impedes privacy rights 

to accomplish that goal. The legislation would require that colleges and universities 

monitor student and staff use of the Internet to determine who is gambling and to 

report that information to the Federal Government. It is simply wrong to assume 

that the NCAA and colleges and universities are responsible for illegal gambling activity in this country and that those same groups can single-handedly wipe it out. 

If that were the case, then certainly we would have taken steps to make that happen. The proposed National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001 

punishes colleges and universities simply for having the courage to speak against 

the powerful Nevada gambling industry and assumes that illegal gambling activity 

occurs only on college campuses. That is simply ridiculous. 

CONCLUSION

The NCAA’s strategy to attack problems associated with wagering on college 

sports is multi-focused. We continue to carry the message that sports wagering is 

an issue for our student-athletes and we have worked diligently to educate them 

about the problem. But we need assistance. We believe the loophole that allows wagering on college sports in Nevada should be closed; we need to encourage enforcement of existing laws regarding illegal gambling; and we believe legislation is needed to prohibit gambling over the Internet. 

75

The system of intercollegiate athletics we have is unique to the world. We must 

do everything we can to protect the rich heritage, tradition and integrity of intercollegiate competition. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act has successfully stopped the growth of state-sponsored amateur sports gambling. But we 

need to close the lone remaining loophole. We need to do what is right for the college game and what is right for our student-athletes and make gambling on college 

sports illegal everywhere all of the time.

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you all for your testimony. I have a few 

questions myself here. 

First of all, Mr. Saum, do you or the NCAA or anyone else that 

is testifying in favor of this bill here today, do any of you have any 

medical experts, or any scientific evidence that would contradict 

what Dr. Shaffer has said today? We have two medical experts so 

far testifying that this bill basically will do nothing to curb gambling, the illegal gambling especially, that’s going on on our college 

campuses, which we all agree, without question, is the biggest 

problem. Do you have any medical experts and if so why didn’t 

they testify today? 

Mr. SAUM. Well, actually I’m not sure that we have said illegal 

gambling is the biggest problem, but our position is is any type of 

gambling, legal or illegal is the biggest problem. 

Senator ENSIGN. The question was, do you have medical or scientific experts that will testify or that can get us testimony that 

will contradict what really two of the leading experts on gambling 

addiction and gambling problems in America have said and that is 

that this bill will do nothing except make the problem worse. Do 

you have medical experts or scientific experts who will contradict 

that testimony? 

Mr. SAUM. Well, I have been a several-year acquaintance, friend, 

and business associate of Dr. Shaffer and have a great deal of respect for him. I think I’ve read most of his studies on gambling and 

youth, et cetera. I’m not familiar of any study that he has conducted on the topic that we’re talking about here, removing legal 

sports wagers. 

Senator ENSIGN. And he is an expert in this field and his testimony today said that this bill will do nothing except maybe make 

worse the problem that currently exists today that we’re all worried about. My question, do any of you have any medical experts 

or scientific experts who will testify or that you know about who 

will contradict that expert scientific statement. 

Mr. ADAMS. Senator, I would say with all due respect, that’s a 

little bit of a crystal ball question because what we’re talking about 

is the current climate, and research in the current climate, I would 

argue with you, would be different if we were able to change the 

climate down the road. And I think that’s basically what we’re talking about here today. I think college students participate less in illegal drug use because they know it’s illegal. And what we’re doing 

right now on the issue of gambling is we’re sending fuzzy, inconclusive, and sometimes contradictory messages to these young people 

about the legitimacy of gambling. I would argue with you that if 

he were to come back and to conduct this research 5 years down 

the road after this bill were put in place a different result would 

ensue. 

Senator ENSIGN. Dr. Adams, are you an expert on the gambling 

addiction? 

76

Mr. ADAMS. I have not claimed to be. 

Senator ENSIGN. I did not think so. 

Mr. ADAMS. But I do think the culture would be different. 

Senator ENSIGN. Dr. Adams, our expert today, I asked you if you 

had any experts on your side that could contradict an expert that 

is contradicting what you said, and what is he going—and by the 

way, I’m a veterinarian so I have a little bit of understanding of 

the scientific process myself. You don’t only look prospectively, you 

look retrospectively. What he testified today is he was looking retrospectively at other gambling problems. Remember, the Las Vegas 

books have only been there since 1975. You can look retrospectively 

beyond that period, but you can also look at other types of addictive type of behavior like alcoholism during prohibition. And that’s 

some of the testimony he was talking about today. 

My question is do you have any testimony, and obviously I’m 

guessing because you haven’t come up with any that the answer is 

no. 

Yes, Dr. Hartle. 

Dr. HARTLE. Yes, I obviously have deep respect for anybody who 

is an academic Ph.D. or a medical, veterinarian Ph.D. as well. 

What our expertise is in dealing with the students, and what we 

would say is that almost every coach you have heard from, every 

college university president I have talked to and I believe every one 

that Dr. Adams and Dr. Friday have talked to, every college and 

university trustee, people who deal with students on a day-to-day 

basis, will tell you this is a first and essential step. I believe this 

evidence is just as good and just as important to the Committee, 

indeed probably more important, than an academic study that is 

not totally on point. 

Senator ENSIGN. What scientific evidence do you have? 

Dr. HARTLE. The day-to-day interaction with students, of presidents, coaches, athletics directors——

Senator ENSIGN. I said scientific study. You have none. 

Dr. HARTLE. Well——

Senator ENSIGN. You have none. You have no scientific study. 

Dr. HARTLE. The answer you want is we do not have any and——

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Dr. HARTLE [continuing]. And based on the answer you want, we 

don’t have any. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Dr. HARTLE. We do have plenty——

Senator ENSIGN. I want to point Dr. Adams——

Dr. HARTLE [continuing]. We do have plenty of evidence to make 

the case just——

Senator ENSIGN. You do not have scientific evidence though. Scientific evidence is different than anecdotal evidence. Dr. Adams, 

what is the University of Georgia doing to curb gambling. We’re 

talking about mixed messages. What programs do you have in effect not only for your student athletes, but for the general population. 

Dr. ADAMS. Well, we do have programs at orientation, Senator, 

that deal with gambling, with alcohol, illicit drug use across the 

board and the incoming students are made aware of those concerns. We also have a number of programs directed specifically at 

77

our student athletes. We do bring back to campus those that have 

been addicted to excess active gambling. We have them talk to student athletes. We participate in the NCAA program that the NCAA 

representative has already mentioned, and we make clear to all of 

our student athletes the dangers in this area. 

Senator ENSIGN. So you feel like you monitor this thing fairly 

closely, and you have a policy, correct, of expelling students if they 

are involved in illegal gambling activities or student athletes. 

Dr. ADAMS. I’m not aware of the specific regulation to which you 

speak——

Senator ENSIGN. I’m talking about your own campus. You’re not 

aware——

Dr. ADAMS. I would certainly think if a student athletes were involved in this kind of activity, the coach would dismiss him to start 

with. 

Senator ENSIGN. And you’re aware of the studies, NCAA, University of Michigan studies, about the numbers of athletes that are 

gambling? 

Dr. ADAMS. I am. 

Senator ENSIGN. Have you ever expelled anybody or have you 

ever found any of your athletes that are gambling. 

Dr. ADAMS. Thankfully not, and I hope it doesn’t come to that, 

but I do think there’s a heightened awareness today of the issues, 

Senator. 

Senator ENSIGN. Based on the statistics, do you think that University of Georgia athletes are gambling on sports? 

Dr. ADAMS. Well, I don’t know the answer to that. I certainly 

hope not. I have no indication that they are. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. I just want to point something out to you. 

If you look at the visual over here, it’s pretty hard to read but we’ll 

get you a copy of this. This is via the University of Georgia official 

Web site. You allow students to have their Web sites tied to your 

Web sites. And the bottom line is that this is one of your students, 

OK? 

And on this student’s Web site, is a link to an offshore betting 

site. So you may want to look into that yourself because I believe 

that that’s kind of a mixed message that you’re sending to the University of Georgia. 

Dr. ADAMS. Well, I don’t believe we’re sending that message, Senator. It would be pretty hard for me to control the individual actions of 33,000 students and 10,000 employees. But I don’t think 

there’s any doubt what the institutional policy would be. This Web 

site connection is certainly not initiated by the university or any 

official representative of it. 

Senator ENSIGN. I never suggested it was. I’m just saying policing, part of University’s responsibility is policing. If we’re going to 

do things about—all we’re suggesting is that the NCAA and its 

member institutions need to do a better job. I think that’s what Mr. 

Looney was saying. If you heard his testimony, another expert in 

the field, he is saying that the universities, the NCAA are not 

doing enough today. 

Dr. ADAMS. Well, now we have a point, Senator, on which we can 

agree, and I would certainly affiliate myself with those remarks, 

but I also think with all due respect the Congress has an opporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
78

tunity to help us create a backdrop that would make that sort of 

intervention on the part of college college and university administrators more effective and to go directly to the problem, rather than 

to send the kind of mixed messages that we’re now sending. 

Senator ENSIGN. And I would agree once again with your statement. The disagreement I would have is this legislation doesn’t do 

what you want. What you want is we’ve got to do something about 

the illegal gambling because that’s where the problem is, and it is 

the Congress’s responsibility to help, because the states, universities, the NCAA cannot deal with that problem by itself, and that’s 

why Senator Reid and I have proposed legislation to do exactly 

what you’ve talked about, and that’s to go after the problem. 

Senator Brownback. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Maybe what we can do is find more, fund 

some studies about the overall addictive impacts of gambling and 

the problems we’re having of addictive gambling across the country. I think those would be well worth it. We’ve got a number of 

studies we’ve been working off of. University of Michigan did a 

study of coaches—excuse me, not coaches, referees that were betting on games. A number of them said that it affected their calls. 

We’ve got that study. We’ve got another, I think University of 

Michigan study that looked at the players and the students’ involvement in that. 

That’s a study that has frequently been cited. But I would certainly support additional, if we want to have additional studies 

from the Federal Government, I think we’ve got a big problem 

here. I think Dr. Shaffer was testifying about the problem of youth 

gambling and we’ve got an enormous amount of addiction that’s 

taking place in this country and it’s hurting us. It’s hurting our 

kids. I haven’t heard any testimony that counters that. Now, that’s 

I think maybe a broader issue than what we’re about on this particular bill this year. 

Senator ENSIGN. Sir, if you would yield, I think you make a very 

valid point and that’s some of—you weren’t here for Mr. Looney’s 

testimony on that but that’s some of the stuff that he was alluding 

to earlier as well. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Which I would certainly support that, because I think we’ve got a big problem. And we’re seeing some of 

the manifestations of it taking place here. And I think that’s why, 

I respect the fervor of everybody’s opinion and feel for this, but 

what we’re getting is all these coaches and players and university 

presidents saying we’ve got a problem here and we’re confronting 

it regularly and now we grasp for how do we start to deal with this. 

I think this is a legitimate way to deal with it. Now, others 

would say not, but to the extent, if we need to and I think it would 

be wise to document the fuller nature of the problem, I’d be all for 

that and we can put some amendments forward even maybe on the 

education bill to authorize that. I don’t think anybody would be opposed to greater review of what this problem is. 

Mr. Looney, I’m going to ask a question of Mr. Saum unless you 

wanted to speak on this point. 

Mr. LOONEY. I just wanted to say that at the root of every kind 

of gambling activity is usually compulsive gambling. Eighty percent 

of the people can gamble and kids will gamble, they are going to 

79

gamble and get through it with no problem. Ten to fifteen are going 

to have some problems with it. Now, 5 percent become addicted. 

Now, I was at a college when Bill had three of the people that were 

caught in this gambling fix, they were going around to the colleges 

and talking and I happened to talk to all three of them. I know for 

a fact that two of those gentleman are compulsive gamblers. There 

was no college campus policy set in place to help them with their 

addiction. So I think these are the things we need to do. Because 

we have a responsibility to take care of people who are sick, and 

many times young people involved in these fixes, they are compulsive gamblers. 

What we need to do is have a policy in place in colleges where 

they could be referred to professionals, get evaluated, find out for 

a fact they are compulsive gamblers, get them into treatment. 

Compulsive gambling is a treatable illness. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It would be. Now you’re speaking contrary 

to the coaches we’ve had testify, which the coaches have said I’m 

always getting probed for information, I’m being harassed about 

this, I’m having to protect my players. Remember, the coach is acting like a parent over the players and they are really trying to protect them and they are seeing this constant push here by billions 

of dollars being bet. 

Mr. Saum, there’s been a pretty rough criticism, I think unduly 

sown although there’s a good positive side effect, it causes people 

to do more, of the NCAA not doing enough to prevent illegal gambling on college campuses. But you’ve taken upon yourself to make 

some efforts and I think you’ve stepped up some efforts. Could you 

identify what those are or even if you—I’ve seen previous advertising or PSAs that you’ve required the network that carries your 

sports events to put on. 

Mr. SAUM. Well, Senator, after hearing today that we do nothing 

at the NCAA, I’m hopeful this public hearing doesn’t get back to 

my wife and three kids, because they are going to ask me what I’ve 

been doing for the last 5 years. We do have public service announcements. I don’t know if it’s appropriate or not to show. We 

have the arrangement to show it here. It would take about a 

minute and 12 seconds if the Senators would like to see it. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yeah, sure, put it on. 

Mr. SAUM. These are public service announcements that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. When do they show Saum Sam that ran 

during the men’s and women’s basketball tournament? 

Senator ENSIGN. Yeah, and I actually saw this and I was glad 

and I agree with Senator Brownback, I’m glad that you’re doing 

more. 

Mr. SAUM. This is our women’s PSA. 

[Videos played.] 

Mr. SAUM. Senator, I’d also like to point out that while actually 

I enjoy the criticism, because we look in the mirror and it’s a 

healthy thing for all of us to do I think, these PSAs have ran way 

before the casino industry or the U.S. Senate took any interest in 

sports wagering issues. So the NCAA has been doing this for many, 

many years. Other ideas and educational materials that we’ve done 

over the past several years we have developed a poster, and it apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
80

pears in our locker room. We’ve actually upgraded that post tier, 

we have one for males and one for females, so we’re more directive. 

You heard Titus Ivory say earlier today that he saw those in his 

locker room. We have, this public service announcement was put 

on beta tape and sent to school in the NCAA to use on their coaches shows and in their stadiums and arenas. We also developed a 

relationship with the national endowment for financial education. 

It’s about a 40-page booklet that deals with financial education and 

sports wagering, and that was distributed to every student athlete 

in the NCAA at all three divisions. 

We’ve met continuously with our national student athlete advisory council groups. We’ve met with our coaches’ associations. I, 

myself and an FBI agent make a personal presentation to the four 

teams at the men’s Final Four, to the four teams at the hockey 

Frozen Four. My associate, Dina Gardner, met with the women’s 

Final Four teams this year, and last spring and this spring we will 

meet with the College World Series eight final teams. 

We also have a program where we conduct background checks on 

our men’s and women’s basketball officials, and we have met with 

the official at the Frozen Four, at the College World Series, and at 

the women’s Final Four. 

Those are just several of our educational programs. We have implemented our curriculum into our yes clinics that we put on for 

young Americans at all of our championship sites, and we also 

have a program that is called life skills, and gambling is now a 

chapter in that. So I appreciate others’ comments but I think they 

are uninformed. Can we do more, absolutely. 

And one other thought I’d like to share with you you, Senator 

Brownback, and I’m sure the Senator from Nevada, say with great 

respect for his medical background, would understand that any 

time a researcher puts his point of view out there, any conflict of 

interest should be put out there aligned with that, and I think for 

the record we should understand that Howard Shaffer excepts tens 

of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars from 

the casino industry. 

Senator ENSIGN. Just to make one comment on that, Senator 

Brownback. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Let me finish up, if I could——

Senator ENSIGN. Hold on. People have been asking the gaming 

industry to do something about their, in other words part of their 

responsibilities, like they’ve been asking you to do things about 

your responsibilities with the NCAA. People have been asking the 

gaming industry to do something about their contribution to gambling addiction, and so what they are doing, they are funding some 

people, some organizations, but they have nothing to do with them. 

They are sending money to make sure that they are being responsible. But that doesn’t mean that they control any kind of research or any kind of statement financially, they are just doing 

part of the job that people have been asking them to do. And then 

to criticize them, you know, you put them in a no-win situation. I 

think that that’s very unfair. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well, if I could get the floor back, I think 

it is fair to reveal what the sources are. I’m not accusing anyone 

of questioning their academic sincerity or ability or what they put 

81

forward, nor would I suggest that of Dr. Shaffer who remains in 

the room, and I appreciate his testimony. 

What I want to finish up with is the point that I’ve started with 

and with Dr. Shaffer, we’ve got an epidemic problem now in the 

country and we’re seeing the manifestation of it here at this very 

high-level visible point and we’re trying to deal with it. We may 

have to, at some point here, we probably should drop back and see 

how we deal with this epidemic problem that we have of youth 

gambling and compulsiveness that’s hooking our youth in this 

country. This is a terrible situation. I think the bill should move 

forward, I hope we can move forward with more independently 

funded, government funded studies. I’d hoped the gaming industry 

would step forward with its own set of PSAs saying we don’t think 

these things are right, we want to discourage compulsive gambling 

from taking place. 

I have personally witnessed individuals getting caught in this 

mental game, and it is terribly destructive, what happens. And I 

think as gaming has expanded across the country, we need to step 

up and recognize that this problem has occurred and we need to 

deal with it. 

Dr. Friday, if you’d like to comment, then I’ll yield back. 

Dr. FRIDAY. I don’t want either one of you to leave without knowing that the American Council on Education, the NCAA, the 

Knight Commission, and many college presidents are getting together, looking at these kinds of problems quite seriously, looking 

at things we can do ourselves. Please understand though that our 

study of this whole question in the context of intercollegiate sports 

in this country clearly demonstrates that we have changed the culture in the last 10 years in the United States because of the presence of so much money, and we’re dealing with a mass active problem here. Gambling is one piece of it, but there are many other aspects of it that we are trying very hard, now this group of very responsible people, to come forward in a few weeks with a document 

that will speak to the very context you’re talking about, Senator 

Brownback. And I want you to know and take courage in the fact 

that there is responsible action here meeting its obligations. But 

it’s a problem that has got to reach farther into society than just 

college presidents and trustees. It needs to be looked at as a major 

society issue. We made sports a religion in this country, and that’s 

what we’re talking about. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Senator. Dr. Friday, I want to follow 

up on that briefly, and Mr. Saum, you’re one of four people who are 

dealing with gambling, who are also dealing with agents, correct? 

You’re over agents, correct? Those same people deal with both. 

Mr. SAUM. Actually, I work in the enforcement services staff that 

have about 42 people and all those people are at my disposal. And 

more importantly, Senator, for one moment, we approach this probably much like you to get elected. We have a grass roots effort. 

We’ve educated all the people at president Adams’ institution, to 

use a specific example. His compliance officer, Hoke Wilder, is 

Georgia’s expert on gambling, right, and then they bring those people in. So what we have is tens of thousands of people involved. 

82

Senator ENSIGN. Right, but the four people you mentioned, do 

they do both gambling and agents or just gambling? 

Mr. SAUM. They actually do three things, Senator. They work on 

international student athlete issues, they work on gambling issues, 

and they work on sports agent issues. 

Senator ENSIGN. Dr. Friday, when you were talking about the 

problem with money and big-time college athletics today, mainly 

men’s basketball and men’s football, although women’s basketball 

is certainly becoming larger and larger. The agent thing is obviously a big problem. I think we’re all starting to recognize that. 

And something the NCAA, and I hope you’re adjusting, you’re taking kids from the inner city and the rurals sometimes, and this is 

one of the problems, if you get coaches, not in public, but you take 

them aside and they will say one of the biggest problems with the 

NCAA is some of the incredibly onerous rules, you know, a coach 

can’t even have one of his players over to Christmas dinner. And 

a lot of these kids are coming, you know, if you’ve got parents from 

a rich background, it’s one thing. But a lot of these kids are coming 

from the very poor inner city background and they are expected, 

you know, to wear a suit and tie and many of them can’t even afford it. And it’s a situation where the temptations are so great because the universities make a lot of money, the coaches make a lot 

of money, the NCAA gets a lot of money back, but these kids—do 

any of you now, do any of you want to comment on the graduation 

rates of student athletes at these big, especially at the successful 

programs, as far as the graduation rates? In other words, these 

kids are being taken advantage of. 

They are not sharing in the money because a small percentage 

of them actually go on to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. 

It’s a very small percentage of them, it’s less than half of them that 

are actually going on to argued, unless you have people like Joe 

Paterno who need to be complimented for the type of graduation 

rates he has. But most of them are not like that. And these kids 

are being taken care of. 

Mr. FRIDAY. Our stats show that one out of 100 ever make a living at professional sport once they leave the campus, graduate or 

not. That’s why we are very concerned at our campus about what 

happens to this young person, staying there, if he goes, he comes 

back and finishes his degree work. We try to insist on that. But 

president Adams can give you some other case histories too. 

Senator ENSIGN. But doesn’t this seem to be a bigger part of the 

problem? 

Mr. FRIDAY. Sure it is. 

Senator ENSIGN. It fosters the environment for the illegal bookies 

to come in. 

Mr. FRIDAY. I saw a story in the Boston Globe that the showed 

that in the recent 64 teams in the NCAA competition in basketball, 

24 of them had a graduation rate below 45 percent. That’s got to 

be looked at. You shouldn’t be allowed to make, I think post season 

play without meeting a certain graduation rate. 

Mr. SAUM. All right. I think now we are to the point, Senator 

that you really are preaching to the choir. We’re here because we 

agree with you that those are the kind of issues that need to be 

addressed. Again with all due respect, I do think the NCAA has 

83

made some real progress the last few years. We do now have funds 

whereby we can deal with the kind of issues with poor students 

you talked about. There are pools whereby we can buy physical necessities, clothes et cetera, take care of a plane ticket home to a funeral that a student athlete needs. They can now get jobs making 

up to $2,000 a year as the NCAA participant mentioned this morning. We are moving down the road to——

Senator ENSIGN. Just go back to that job again. When I was 

going to college I remember watching these kids, and like when are 

they going to get a job, from 9:30, 10 at night after their studies 

are done until 3:00 in the morning? Because they are practicing or 

going to school or studying the rest of the time. 

Mr. SAUM. Many of these are now off-season opportunities that 

are available that were heretofore not available, and we are moving 

in the direction of addressing some of those issues that you raise. 

The University of Georgia football team led the SEC in graduation 

rates this last year. Many of us are working very hard in those 

areas. We are not yet where we need to be, but the people on this 

panel are the very ones that are trying to work with you and address these climate kind of issues, and again with all due respect, 

I don’t think this is a legal or illegal issue. It’s a cultural and a 

climate issue, and that’s what we’re asking for help in changing. 

Senator ENSIGN. I guess what we can do as we conclude today, 

and I want to just thank all of you for coming and your testimony, 

I guess first of all we’ll have to agree to disagree as far as what 

the solution to the problem. We obviously have a pretty strong disagreement here. Having said that, however, I think that some 

positives can come out of these hearings. I think that, first of all, 

and I’ve been the first one since I’ve criticized, so don’t feel bad, 

I’ve criticized the NCAA, I’ve also criticized the gaming industry for 

some of the things that they haven’t done in the past on doing 

something about cleaning up their own back yard. You know, when 

the tobacco industry got up before Congress and said it’s not addictive, you know, we all thought that was ridiculous. For gambling, for a small percentage of the population is addictive, it is a 

problem, the gaming industry should do its part. There are problems at your universities, you know the problems, we need to address more of them. I agree with Senator Brownback and with Dr. 

Shaffer was talking about about us doing some more studies and 

really coming up with some of the roots, because I did not think 

the legislation today is going to go after what you all are talking 

about and it’s simply because of the pervasiveness of illegal and offshore betting, which is going to be there regardless of whether the 

McCain bill goes through or not. So I want to thank everybody and 

call this meeting adjourned. 

With that, I’ll adjourn the meeting. 

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(85)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOU HOLTZ, HEAD FOOTBALL COACH, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the committee, I truly appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the record to the Committee today. Last summer, 

I had the opportunity to appear before the House Judiciary Committee as a witness 

on this same subject. Several individuals appeared before that Committee and eloquently presented their points of view. After listening to so many educated people 

express their points of view in such a convincing manner, I now understand that 

this is not a situation where one side has all the correct answers. Although, I respect the opinions of the people who favor the status quo, I firmly believe that eliminating an individual’s legal opportunity to bet on a college football game is an absolute necessity. I arrive at this conclusion based on 40 years as a college coach and 

as an educator. 

Washington, we have a problem. 

The only possible solution is for Congress to pass legislation to prohibit legal gambling on college sports. I do not say this without a great deal of thought and meditation. Las Vegas is one of my favorite cities in the world. There is a reason why it 

is the fastest growing community in America, one of the most popular tourist spots, 

and an overwhelming favorite location for national conventions and conferences. I 

enjoy visiting there. But my reasons for supporting S. 718 are many and varied. 

As the University of South Carolina football Coach, I can assure you of my genuine concern about gambling on college sports. We do everything we can to eliminate and educate our football players about it. But then you ask yourself, is this 

enough? I have been deeply affected by the recent scandal at Northwestern. I asked 

myself, how could Kevin Pendergast be involved in a point-shaving scheme at 

Northwestern? After talking to his family, I still do not know. I have heard his 

name bandied about as this issue is discussed. To my knowledge, no one has talked 

about his background. If you would indulge me and be kind enough, I would like 

to give you a few facts about a beautiful and talented young man who went astray. 

It was 1992, Kevin Pendergast was a senior soccer player at Notre Dame. I had 

never met him. Late in the year when Notre Dame was playing Tennessee, we lost 

a great kicker by the name of Craig Hendrick, who is an all-pro punter to this day, 

with a leg injury. The following day the soccer coach called and reminded me that 

Kevin Pendergast could be a good kicker. We accepted him on the team, but for the 

next four games he never appeared in a game. 

We accepted a Sugar Bowl bid to play a great University of Florida team. Craig 

Hendrick would be able to kick in the game. We took only one kicker with us to 

New Orleans. Four days before the game, my daughter visited the University of 

Notre Dame and was out socializing when she ran into a fellow student, Kevin 

Pendergast’s brother. My daughter then informed me that Kevin’s mother had cancer and was not doing very well. I said out of compassion, ‘‘Let’s bring Kevin down 

for the game. It would be good for him, but more importantly, it would be good for 

his mother.’’ We called, he came, he dressed. 

Just before the half, Craig Hendrick was injured once again. Kevin was our only 

kicker. I was asked by ABC TV what would I do in the event of a field goal the 

second half and I said, ‘‘we have no kicker. If you see us line up for a field goal, 

you will know it is a fake.’’ 

We were down by 10 at the half but made a great comeback. We scored 32 second 

half points, and Kevin Pendergast kicked two critical field goals, made every single 

extra point, and was the hero of the football game. This exceptional performance 

from an individual who 4 days before had not even been a member of our football 

team. Kevin’s mother died shortly after the outcome of the game. Kevin asked for 

a fifth year at the University of Notre Dame, which was granted. He kicked for us 

his last year. 

When I think about Kevin Pendergast, I do not think about the games he won. 

Instead, I think about him as a talented, witty, caring individual with morals and 

86

values. In addition, he could do a Ross Perot imitation that was worthy of being 

on prime time TV. I looked forward to following his success. 

Four years later, he is in jail. Where did he go wrong? I do not know. However, 

he did say this point-shaving incident could have never happened had he not had 

the opportunity to place the bet legally in Vegas. It was the only place that would 

have covered a bet that large. 

I am a great believer that life is a matter of choices and choices have consequences. Kevin made the wrong choice, as did the basketball players who shaved 

points. Their lives will never be the same. Did legalized gambling force Kevin to do 

this? Absolutely not. However, I do believe that the choice and the opportunity to 

cheat a system and make some easy money was very enticing. This decision has 

been made by people far too frequently. 

People in general, and college students in particular, have the belief that betting 

on college athletics is OK because it is legal in Nevada. And it is not just confined 

to the athletes, it is shared by the student body as well. We have a problem with 

gambling on college sports. Many people have ruined their lives because they have 

over-gambled and got themselves in a situation where there is no other way out. 

We will do a great disservice to the youth of this country if we do not take action 

now. To make it illegal to bet on college athletics will not completely solve the problem. We must stop all betting on the Internet as well. I see no way that curbing 

betting on college sports can be accomplished without taking the first step to make 

betting on college athletics illegal in Nevada. If it is illegal to bet on college athletics 

in 49 States, why isn’t it in the 50th State as well? 

As a football coach, I have witnessed our football players be idolized, praised, and 

cheered after a win. I have also witnessed them being ridiculed, demonized, and ostracized after a win. The only difference was in one case we covered the point 

spread, in the other we did not. I think that we have to do everything we can to 

remove this temptation and to stop the pressure this betting places on our young 

people. 

I will not take your valuable time to delve into all the important reasons why this 

bill should be passed, such as the integrity of the game, the importance of getting 

the point spreads off the sports page, and the fact that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission recommended that we ban betting on college sports. There 

are other important reasons as well. I will simply close with a phrase that I learned 

years ago and have observed as absolute truth through the years: abuse leads to 

restriction. 

We need restrictions because of the abuse that has resulted from legal betting on 

college sports—college students and athletes are the victims. Harry Truman, one of 

my heroes, said ‘‘The freedom to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose 

begins.’’ The freedom to bet on athletic events should stop when college contests 

start. The fact that many college students’ lives have been altered for the worst because of gambling cannot be disputed. However, it must be prevented. College sports 

is too important to the fabric of our society to jeopardize it. I urge this Committee 

to move quickly and pass S. 718. 

I thank you for this opportunity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. HYNES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to submit my views on S. 718, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. 

I am the District Attorney of Kings County, New York, also known as Brooklyn, 

New York, one of the five boroughs of New York City. Brooklyn has a population 

of nearly two-and-a-half-million people and is the seventh largest county in the 

United States and the largest county in New York State. I have been the elected 

District Attorney of Kings County since January 1990. 

Since I became District Attorney I have presided over annual gambling raids 

known as ‘‘Operation Kings Flush’’ (an acronym which refers to gambling and Kings 

County), which take place just prior to Super Bowl Sunday of each year. I have chosen Super Bowl Sunday to dramatize the enormous sums of money that flow to organized crime as a result of illegal gambling operations. Here is a sample of what 

we recovered in just the past 3 years. 

In January 1999, we raided eight illegal wagering sites in Brooklyn and Staten 

Island, New York, and seized betting slips valued at $200,000, $15,000 in cash and 

equipment that included computers, calculators, recording machines and telephones. 

Our analysis of the total amount of betting slips recovered, and information gathered by electronic surveillance, showed that this operation was capable of handling 

87

more than $100 million a year in illicit bets. The ten defendants arrested in this 

sweep were charged with felonies carrying a prison sentence of up to 4 years. 

In January 2000, we raided illegal sports betting locations in Brooklyn and 

Queens, New York. We seized betting slips in excess of $100,000, $15,500 in cash, 

and television sets, telephones, recording machines, computers, calculators and 

shredders. These locations, some taking in $50,000 per day, had a potential of handling more than $65 million per year in illegal wagering. 

In January 2001, Operation Kings Flush focused on a mob controlled organization 

that operated in Brooklyn and Staten Island. A task force of 75 police officers from 

the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office and the New York City Police Department 

raided seven wire rooms and six homes of bosses and managers of illegal gambling 

operations. The raiders seized betting slips in excess of $90,000, $40,000 in cash and 

telephones, recording machines, calculators and computers. It was estimated that 

these operations handled $30 million in illegal bets each year. The Brooklyn District 

Attorney’s Office filed a $3.8 million civil lawsuit against the bosses and managers 

of this operation, seeking forfeiture of their illegal gains. 

Since the inception of the Kings Flush Program, we executed over 100 search warrants, we have arrested over 200 people and seized profits of over $3 million in forfeitures. If all of the records of these operations were tallied, the total receipts for 

these gambling operations over the past 10 years would be in excess of $1 billion. 

This staggering amount of revenue generated in the criminal world is of enormous 

benefit to organized crime operations. It is used to fund all other enterprises of organized crime, including stock market scams, loan sharking, narcotics, labor racketeering and mob-dominated construction projects. 

Although S. 718 has the well-intentioned purpose of addressing a serious problem 

on our college campuses, I am constrained to say that a prohibition against legal 

amateur sports betting in Nevada would have the detrimental effect of increasing 

revenues for organized crime and not ending the practices of influence peddling on 

college campuses. I do not believe that the elimination of Nevada sports books will 

stop college athletes from being induced into fixing games, nor will it end the proliferation of gambling on college campuses. 

As a lifetime career prosecutor, which includes having been Chief of the Rackets 

Bureau of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, as well as District Attorney, 

I am fully committed to fighting illegal gambling and all of the crime that is 

spawned by it. 

Let us not increase the cash cow of organized crime by eliminating legal amateur 

sports betting. Let us strengthen our efforts to prosecute organized crime and let 

us educate our young people about the dangers of gambling, as we do about the dangers of drug abuse. 

I am ready to assist the Committee in its efforts to address this very serious problem. 

Thank you. 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

April 20, 2001. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Committee 

DEAR SENATOR MCCAIN: I am writing; to express my support for the legislation 

you and Senator Brownback have introduced to extend the ban on betting on college 

and amateur sporting to every State. 

In 1992, the Congress enacted legislation to prohibit gambling on amateur sporting events. It seems to me that if a matter is serious enough to merit a Federal 

ban, the ban should apply to all States. Of course, from my point of view, if there 

is opposition to this legislation for all States to be included, you should draw up the 

legislation to allow any State the same benefit as Nevada if the State chose. 

The printing of point spreads in newspapers has long been a problem to me. In 

the mid-1980s, I spoke to the Associated Press sports editors on this subject with 

mixed reviews about point spreads beginning to appear in more and more legitimate 

newspapers. I should point out that a few days following that talk, I received a call 

from Ben Bradlee, the courageous publisher of The Washington Post, in which he 

wanted to know more about the problem. He indicated at that time that they would 

not print point spreads on college games, and The Washington Post has continued 

that courageous policy. I realize that you cannot stop newspapers from printing 

what they wish to print, but it does not seem correct to promote illegal betting odds 

in a daily newspaper. As Indiana coach Bobby Knight once said, there are no papers 

of which he was aware that print the telephone numbers of prostitutes where prosVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
88

titution is against the law. Perhaps with the passing of this legislation, we would 

have a better stance in encouraging the removal of point spreads from our daily papers, which does encourage gambling on college games. 

I am not naive enough to think that closing the Nevada exemption will end gambling on amateur contests nor even ensure that scandals will not happen, but it 

could reduce the potential for corruption of young athletes and the staining of 

schools’ reputations. I urge the Senate to act on this important legislation in this 

Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DEAN SMITH, 

Men’s Basketball. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY PRICE, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

My name is Nancy Price, I served as Regent of the University and Community 

College System of Nevada for 6 year. I support S. 718. On March 2, 2001, I testified 

against a resolution to Congress by the Nevada Legislature AJR 2. The following 

is a handout given to the committee. Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American 

Gaming Association says there is a great deal of disinformation given to Congress. 

Brian Sandoval Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission and former legislator refers 

to myths. There are basically six areas of disagreement and interpretation outlined 

in the handout. Nevada Gaming Control and the gambling industry are in lockstep. 

The legislature followed unanimously, but not without hearing another side—from 

the ‘‘soccer moms.’’ There is another view on this issue in Nevada. 

Please take a moment to review the counter arguments to the gaming industry 

and gaming control in Nevada. Thank you. 

JOINT MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND SENATE COMMITTEE

ON JUDICIARY ON A.J.R. 2, MARCH 2, 2001

(By Nancy Price, Former Nevada Regent) 

Urges Congress to refrain from enacting measure to repeal ability of Nevada to license and regulate sports wagering in its current form. 

It’s not the facts that matter; it’s the interpretation of facts that move men. Aristotle. 

Myth #1. Advocates of the ban are the radical religious right. 

Most agree that if the betting ban bills get to the floor of Congress, they will pass 

with bipartisan support from across the country. That doesn’t sound like radical politics; rather it sounds like rational public policy. Gamblers have an understandable 

interest in defeating the national legislation. Media does as well because of their 

financial interest. Newspapers print betting lines even though it is illegal in their 

areas. Enormous amounts of money change hands for advertising. ‘‘It was never intended that the First Amendment could be invoked as protection for the punishment 

of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.’’ United States Supreme Court (Case outlawing polygamy) 

Myth #2. Gambling is ‘‘gaming’’ a legitimate entertainment industry. 

If this is true, we don’t need gaming control that has come to protect the industry 

rather than regulate it. Instead look to State of Nevada v. Rosenthal—Gaming is 

a privilege conferred by State and does not carry with it rights inherent in useful 

trades and occupations. Gambling was further defined as a ‘‘tolerated nuisance.’’ 

How is it that an agency can make it possible for bookies to take bets on UNR and 

UNLV? Why not the Regents or the legislature? 

Myth #3. Making college betting illegal will not stop the problem. 

If so we don’t need lawmakers—just make everything legal. You’re legislators, no 

law involving human behavior ever stops that behavior. Rather the laws you support or do not support make up our country’s public policy. What kind of country 

gambles on its children? 

Myth #4. It’s not the legal gambling that’s the problem; it’s the illegal gambling. 

In 1997 at the American Council on Education, Cedric Dempsey Executive Director of NCAA said that to me; my response, ‘‘That’s like saying it’s o.k. to be hit with 

a defensive missile; it’s only the offensive missile that hurts you.’’ If you’re suicidal 

over loosing everything, the fact that you lost it legally or illegally won’t change 

your predicament. In the movie ‘‘Bugsy’’ Siegle says, ‘‘We’ll do legally in Nevada 

what’s illegal everyplace else and we’ll do it through the government.’’ You, ladies 

and gentlemen are the government. 

Myth #5. If you make college sports betting illegal, it will shift to organized crime. 

89

Where there is legal gambling, there is an increase in illegal gambling according 

to studies. For an explanation see ex-FBI agent Bill Rohmer’s book The Enforcer. 

You’re fine in a casino as long as you have money or credit cards. Lose that and 

you go to the underworld. We act as an incubator for the spread of gambling, and 

we make it look dignified and invite children. 

Myth #6. This is a States’ rights issue. 

Gambling is a State issue within the meaning of the Tenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution when you’re talking about slot machines; craps; keno, 

etc. Inter-collegiate sports are inter-state commerce. If not then the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act is unconstitutional. Take it to court. 

In NCAA vs. Tarkanian, the Nevada legislature passed a bill requiring ‘‘due process’’ from NCAA. As part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, it said Nevada could 

not enforce such a law because inter-collegiate athletics is inter-state commerce and 

therefore Federal jurisdiction. A game between colleges in Connecticut and Wisconsin played in Florida has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of Nevada. Why is 

it that the gambling industry does not pay for the ‘‘fair use’’ of that game produced 

with taxpayer money? 

Future of gambling—cable through Nevada law. 

The X and Y generation want Survivor—reality TV and the gambling industry is 

ready for the worst case for addiction—alone at home with a credit card betting on 

every play or inning. But you will feel secure knowing that Nevada Gaming Control 

and the laws of Nevada protect you. 

There is a small window of opportunity to protect amateur athletics. Remember 

this, Bill Bradley U.S. Senator and NBA basketball player said the following October 1992 in a far more difficult economic climate. 

‘‘We all recognize the fiscal constraints under which States operate in these tough 

economic times,’’ Senator Bradley said, ‘‘but we must not forget the consequences 

of sports betting. Based on what I know about the dangers of sports betting, I am 

not prepared to risk the values that sports instill in youth just to add a few more 

dollars to State coffers... State-sanctioned sports betting conveys the message 

that sports are more about money than personal achievement and sportsmanship. 

In these days of scandal and disillusionment, it is important that our youngsters 

not receive this message. Sports betting threatens the integrity of and public confidence in professional and amateur team sports, converting sports from wholesome 

athletic entertainment into a vehicle for gambling. All of this puts undue pressure 

on players, coaches and officials. Sports would become the gamblers game and not 

the fans game.’’ 

He closed by congratulating his colleagues for acting in the best interest of youngsters and athletes—there was little media coverage—almost none in Nevada where 

it should have been a big story. 

STATE OF NEVADA GAMING CONTROL BOARD, CARSON CITY, NEVADA

May 2, 2001 

Hon. JOHN ENSIGN, AND HON. HARRY REID. 

DEAR SENATORS: It has come to my attention that certain Members of Congress 

are advancing an argument that Nevada played no role in the investigation, prosecution, and ultimate conviction of individuals involved in the Arizona State point 

shaving scandal. Attached please find an interoffice memorandum that describes the 

facts pertaining to the role Nevada played in this case. I hope this information is 

useful. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DENNIS K. NEILANDER, 

Chairman. 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: Paul Stolberg, Agent 

From: Keith Copher, Chief of Enforcement 

Subject: Arizona State Basketball Game Fixing Investigation 

Date: May 8, 2001

This is a brief chronological recap of the GCB’s involvement in the investigation 

of game fixing of Arizona State Basketball games during the 1993/1994 season. 

On March 5th 1994, the GCB was called by the Horseshoe Race and Sports Book 

because of unusual betting observed on the Washington University/Arizona State 

basketball game. Agents of the Enforcement Division responded and obtained inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:40 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 088464 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\88464.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
90

mation regarding this activity. Joseph Gagliano (later convicted in the case) was 

identified as a bettor. Agents were then advised that unusual betting activity on the 

game was taking place at the Mirage. Agents responded, identified and interviewed 

the bettors. It was learned that these bettors had also placed wagers at the Treasure Island. 

Senior Agent Lloyd established a liaison with Arizona law enforcement and the 

local office of the FBI. 

Agent Keeton and I interviewed a number of race and sports book personnel and 

reviewed surveillance video. The result was the identification of several individuals 

involved in placing unusual bets on ASU games. Additionally, we identified two 

other suspicious games involving ASU. We obtained betting records for all 1993/

1994 ASU basketball games from the major sports books. Agent Vetter performed 

financial analysis on this information. All this information was forwarded to the FBI 

and Arizona law enforcement agencies. 

In July 1994, I was contacted by the FBI and told that a Federal Grand Jury 

would be convened to look into the ASU case. I was asked to provide copies of our 

reports as well as copies of Agent Vetter’s analysis. I was also asked to assist the 

FBI in obtaining needed casino documents for the grand jury and in arranging 

interviews of casino personnel. 

Several events, including the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing, precluded 

the case from going rapidly forward as Special Agents of the FBI received higher 

priority assignments. However, the FBI continued to develop information from the 

individuals we had identified. As a result, several cooperating individual’s began to 

identify the key people involved. 

In November 1997, I was again contacted by the FBI and requested to assist in 

serving subpoenas at casinos for casino records. 

In late 1997, the basketball players who had been involved admitted that they 

‘‘fixed’’ the games for bookies. Indictments and arrests followed with convictions obtained against all those indicated. As late as March 1998, The U.S. Attorney’s Office 

in Phoenix Arizona asked for copies of our case for his trial presentation and served 

me with a subpoena as a witness. The defendants ‘‘made a deal’’ and the trial did 

not take place. Our case was closed in December 1998, with the final sentencing 

for the defendants. 

NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, 

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, 

NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, 

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, 

May 2, 2001. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Committee recently held a hearing on S. 718, a bill 

that proposes to end legalized gambling on amateur sports. Currently, under the 

Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA), gambling on both 

professional and amateur sporting events is illegal in virtually every jurisdiction, 

with the exception of a sports book in Nevada and a sports lottery on NFL games 

in Oregon. S. 718 would partially close one of these loopholes, by eliminating the 

Nevada sports book on amateur games only. 

Our leagues support any reasonable effort to control sports betting. Nonetheless, 

we think that a college-only bill is flawed, and should be amended to prohibit gambling on professional sports as well. 

On at least three prior occasions, Congress has addressed the subject of sports 

gambling, but has never before distinguished between betting on amateur games 

and betting on professional games. In 1961, Congress maintained parity between 

amateur and professional sports when it made fixing athletic contests a Federal 

crime and banned interstate sports wagering over the telephone. The same approach 

was applied in 1974 when Congress amended the Federal lottery laws to allow 

States to conduct lotteries, but expressly prohibited sports lotteries. 

In 1989, the professional sports leagues, in conjunction with the NCAA, sought 

an extension of the sports lottery ban to all forms of sports gambling. The legislative 

effort lasted for 3 years, culminating in the 1992 PASPA law. PASPA obviously 

made no distinction between professional and amateur athletics, and, indeed, was 

supported by definitive Congressional findings regarding the pernicious effects of 

gambling on both professional and amateur sports. When PASPA was considered in 

the Senate, it passed by 88-5. 

91

Although the movement for PASPA came from the professional leagues, and the 

Oregon lottery never included college games, the NCAA was an active partner in 

the effort to enact the 1992 law. On sports gambling, both then and subsequently, 

the professional leagues and the NCAA have been united. 

As we understand it, there are two primary rationales underlying S. 718, both of 

which are grounded in the report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. The first relates to fixing athletic contests and the second to the attraction of 

sports betting as a gambling gateway for college students. 

With respect to the first issue, we understand the view that student-athletes may 

be exposed to economic temptation, but do not believe it is reasonable to conclude 

that these forces are only at work in college athletics. Indeed, all of the professional 

leagues take quite seriously the effect that gambling can have on the integrity of 

our games. All have adopted—and vigorously enforce—strict anti-gambling policies 

that are intended to insulate professional athletics from the corrosive impact of 

sports betting. 

As to the attraction of sports betting to students, there is no reasonable basis to 

conclude that collegians are merely betting on college teams. If Congress wants to 

address gateway sports gambling, it cannot ignore the attraction to students of highprofile professional games. Indeed, that attraction will only increase if S. 718 is 

passed and betting on professional sports contests becomes the only lawful form of 

sports wagering in Nevada. 

Some would argue that the legislation must be limited to college games because 

that would implement a recommendation from the Gambling Commission. However, 

the mere introduction of S. 718 already breaks with the Commission, which recommended that the Nevada legislature, not Congress, end legalized gambling on 

amateur sports. Further, the Commission made a specific finding that sports betting 

is a gateway form of gambling for young people, a conclusion that merits Federal 

intervention. Amending S. 718 to include professional sports would be entirely consistent with—and would in no way contravene—the report of the Gambling Commission. 

We doubt that Congress intends to suggest that gambling on college games is 

harmful and undesirable, but that gambling on professional games is benign and 

tolerable. Nor do we believe that Congress seeks to instigate more gambling on professional contests, a result that is certain to occur if S. 718 extends only to gambling 

on amateur games. A college-only bill, though well-intentioned, only imperfectly 

solves problems at the college level, while creating new and substantial problems 

for professional sports. 

If Congress intends to re-open Federal sports gambling law, we urge that any 

such legislation maintain parity of treatment between amateur and professional 

sports. Any departure from this approach, to which Congress has consistently adhered, will result in a highly regrettable precedent that is needlessly damaging to 

professional sports. 

We ask that this correspondence be made a part of the official hearing record on 

S. 718. Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look forward to working 

with you on this legislation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

RICHARD W. BUCHANAN, 

Vice President and General Counsel, 

National Basketball Association

WILLIAM L. DALY, 

Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, 

National Hockey League

JEFFREY PASH, 

Executive Vice President, 

National Football League

TOM OSTERTAG, 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel, 

Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Æ