Whether or not they invested in that company should not sway their ability to report the facts. I know this culture exists whether the betting is taking place amongst themselves in the newspaper buildings or through underground betting shops. Writers like Armstrong also use such information to write a book on a teams season or a player biography. When they write their book though, there is usually a line drawn as to how much a team or player will permit them to use. A person can say they dont bet. That doesnt mean they absolutely wont partake in it one day. Over half a century ago, sports writing and gambling were synonymous with one another. Armstrong happened to be someone who gambled like many sports fans.
You cant convince me writers privy with critical information are not tempted to put money down for or against the team based on the knowledge they have at their disposal. Information is key for investors and gamblers alike.
So are reporters crossing ethical lines using information they are privy to due to their time spent around a player, team, or sport? This does not even pertain to gambling sometimes. This article isnt about the breaking up of an illegal sports betting probe. Whatever the sports writer knows, the wise guys in Vegas probably know as well in most situations. The online sportsbooks that cater to the United States are still an option as well. Some newspapers have policies enacted to prevent their writers from gambling, especially on the teams he or she covers on a daily basis. Thats as close to insider trading as you can get, excluding the pathetic efforts of match-fixing or bribery. The business reporter should be able to deliver the facts on a company they cover. Mr. I have to take a day off from reading any more indictments after pouring over that disturbing 25 page report. The fact is had Jim Armstrong bet in Las Vegas his name would have never found itself on the indictment. Cross that line and the writer could find themselves in hot water.
But what if betting on a game involves your own financial risk and does not affect anyone else in the process? The only hot water involves the financial risk you took out of your own wallet. And I dont necessarily have a problem with it. The grand jury indictment revealed 23 high-profile Denver businessmen had engaged in betting for several years. This is about an individual involved and a person who reports and comments on the local teams he covered.
I learned a few years ago from an anonymous poll that over 40% of sports reporters bet on the games and sports they cover.
A couple days ago, a Grand Jury indictment from Jefferson County in Denver cited a former Denver Post sports reporter and columnist named Jim Armstrong for frequenting a Colorado-based sports betting operation. Business reporters are not allowed to invest in the companies they write or speak about in television interviews. That happens almost once a month practically from all the gambling news I check out. Im sure Jim Armstrong had plenty of scenarios where he won or lost a bet on the Denver Broncos. Some of the people involved had betting limits as high as $50,000. The writers are not affecting anyone but themselves from a financial standpoint. I, for one, believe the stock market and sports betting are parallel entities. Armstrong worked at the Denver Post for 27 years and was dismissed from the paper.
I read the grand jury indictment of former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sanduskys transgressions with minors from a charity he helped found. He probably would have kept his job and still been betting without the Denver Posts knowledge. I plan on reading this indictment as well when I find the time. He was able to deliver a commentary on the game without bias for 27 years. Now gambling is viewed as a distraction on how a writer interprets the game. It just so happens he chose to bet in the wrong place.