The American horse racing's legal carve-outs to try and thwart online gambling are now being criticized harshly and probable extremely costly court battles, such as that in the World Trade Organization with the high powered United States against Antigua conflict.  

An article this week in the Financial Times only exacerbated the problem, when it was followed by a vast number of other central media, when it claimed that a lawful hassle is unraveling between the American law enforcement bodies and the horse racing sphere.

People visiting the Twinspires.com website, according to the article, which is run by the Kentucky Derby proprietors, receive an encouraging announcement regarding the legality of horse race gambling on the Internet. 

Twinspires, in its FAQ section, claims its operation in the United States are legal, and quotes the regulations passed by last year's Congress which strengthened the laws against gambling, when at the same time it protected firms that operate under the new regulations the horse racing betting operations.

The newspaper claims that Twinspires and a number of additional websites do not reveal that the Department of Justice in the United States does not concur on this evaluation.

The report in the Financial Times indicates that in letter recently sent to a veteran lawmaker in the Democratic Party in asking for clarity concerning the position of Internet horse racing, the Department of Justice claimed its well preserved opinion that gambling on horses between states in the United States was not legal, and the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act passed last year does not change that.

The opinion of the DoJ letter expressed the idea that this legality aimed at overseas Internet gambling companies and unequivocally claimed that it had not intention to solve any current arguments over interpreting Internet horse racing gambling's federal rulings.

A number of the industry's people viewed excluding Internet horse racing betting as a means for Congress to maintain protection of its home gambling industry by intentionally keeping the ambiguousness of a number of its rulings.

According to the article in the Financial Times, the heart of the legality conflict argued between judicial enforcement people and the industry is a conflict about whether the year two thousand amendment to the IHA, Interstate Horseracing Act, which made Internet pool wagers legal in a number of states, embraces federal criminal regulations that outlaw gambling between states.

The continuation of the article summarizes the industry's position, which considers that the IHA actually made an amendment to the Wire Act, and the DoJ which is insistent, and claims in public that the Wire Act stays most important, and that the illegality of interstate horseracing betting on the Internet is maintained.

The DoJ, the Financial Times underlines, has still not begun prosecuting any horse racing firm providing Internet betting services, however, it has demonstrated under oath to the Congress that this activity is being investigated.

A specialist on the industry was interviewed for the Financial Times article and stated the well known mantra of Internet casino operators in claiming that his inner feelings are that they haven't attempted to sue anybody as they have no wish not to succeed, as then the case legality will say they are not in the right. And according to him, in such a case they would not win.

The report goes on to state that it currently doesn't seem that the view of DoJ is creating too great a worry in the industry, indicating that desire of well founded firms to go against the Department of Justice may underscore the certainty in the industry that in its understanding of the law it is the more successful.

The article finishes by stating that it also shows the private approach among those in the know in Washington circles, which indicates that the industry that is relying on the Internet's future expansion, is well defended politically to be exposed to any enforcement of the law.  

According to the proprietors of Twinspires.com, and its vice-president of national public affairs at Churchill Downs, Kevin Flanery, the IHA claims legality. According to him, Congress is actually the spokesperson for all the issues in this matter and the company simply observes the law.

Posted on: September 24, 2007

Add This Gambling Article To:
Del.icio.us	Digg	Google	Spurl
Furl	Simpy	Y! MyWeb

Back to September 2007's archive
Back to latest News