Sadly true. You have to say maybe UF was a good call for him.

And if you read my post, you will note that I addressed all that. It’s perfectly clear from your response that you only read part of it, then decided to attack the law and not discuss the behavior of those involved.

The act of transferring money or accepting money for the purposes of gambling online is illegal in most cases. The act of attempting to do so as a bettor is an activity in furtherance of an outlawed behavior, and even though it is not illegal, it is clearly unethical.

Please don’t do politics on this board. It is forbidden. I know you don’t post here much, so I thought I would make you aware of that. I believe (and enforce) a complete separation of politics and sport around here.

No matter what you think of the law, it is the law and therefore defines the outer boundary of acceptable behavior in this society. Ethical behavior is a much smaller subset thereof, and it was the ethics that I addressed, not the legality.

And the on-line gambling sites are flouting it. When money is transferred for the purpose of gambling online, it is breaking the law.

I can understand why, but it is unfortunate. If he had said, “I did nothing illegal or in violation of NCAA bylaws” I would have agreed with him and had no problem with his statements.

But you are 100% right. He was clearly repeating Donovan’s talking points.

It might happen, you never know. :-)

I disagree 100% with the assertion that doing something illegal is "wrong". That implies that somehow laws dictate what’s right and wrong, which clearly is not the case. Laws are just constructs of fallible human beings. History is replete with "wrong" laws including slavery, lack of civil rights, woman’s lack of right to vote, and even you not being allowed to enjoy a nice bourbon during prohibition.

Laws are creations derived from a system of ethics. That system is implemented by societal agreement, the purpose of which is to maintain a cohesive and orderly society. What you have pointed out, except for Prohibition, are laws which violated the very system of ethics that the society sought to implement. Those laws were wrong, but we cannot apply that judgment willy-nilly to all prohibited acts because they are inconvenient or violate our personal sense of harmlessness.

Prohibition was by no means “wrong.” Did the federal government free prisoners jailed for violations of the Volstead Act during Prohibition after the 18th amendment was repealed? No, of course not. The amendment wasn’t repealed as a moral judgment on it’s enactment, but as a matter of practicality, and because the values of the society changed. But the value of “rule of law” did not change with the 18th amendment’s repeal.

Looking at this specific case, if Calathes had gone to Las Vegas, NV, where playing poker is legal, he wouldn’t have done anything wrong by your definition. But because he played over the internet, it’s somehow wrong? I don’t buy it.

There is nothing to “buy” here. It is wrong because it is unlawful and that law is consistent with our societal mores and ethics. It is unlawful because our society has decided that it is, and there is no intrinsic right to gamble. In fact, gambling of all sorts has a long history of damage to society, and can be arguably described as a societal ill, which is why most forms of casino gambling are outlawed almost everywhere in the United States and poker is casino gambling. Why do you think we call Vegas “Sin City?”

Which brings me to another point — just because something is legal does not make it right, or ethical. Lying is legal. Making fun of people because of their weight or their color or way they worship is legal. Cheating on our wives is legal (if extremely unwise :-)). AIG sending executives on an obscenely expensive retreat after a government bailout was legal. All of the foregoing are unethical by the ethics system of our society, and if a behavior is unethical, it is by definition wrong.

Your suggestion that something has to be malum in se to be “wrong” is not defensible. Societal constructs such as laws and customs define the society, what the society stands for, and promote order and discipline. You may not agree, and if you don’t, you are free to try to change the society or remove yourself from it. But you may not decide which laws you will obey and which you will not, and that is what Calathes did. He undoubtedly knew what he was doing was furthering an activity that had been outlawed by the United States, who has jurisdiction over the telephone lines that carry the Internet signal in the U.S. as well as interstate commerce.

There are good and just arguments why Internet gambling should not be legal, and there are sound arguments to the contrary. But we cannot unilaterally decide which laws are “wrong” and which are not. The third party cost argument is utterly irrelevant — the same argument has been used for years against illegal drugs and prostitution. That doesn’t make the laws forbidding those activities wrong. You are making what is known as the “Trivial Trap” ethical rationalization, sometimes called the “Slippery Slope”, i.e. if no tangible harm arises from an unethical act, it cannot be “wrong.” That isn’t how it works.

Forty also makes a good point below. Calathes is not yet 21, and even where gambling is legal, it is forbidden to people below that age. Calathes had to know that, too. In sum, what he did was unquestionably unethical and therefore wrong according to the laws and mores of our society. Ipso facto.

Not in the least. It is a criticism of bad behavior.

Why should we ignore it when people stand up and pronounce to all the world, “I did nothing wrong” when it is perfectly clear that they did. Anyway, my main point was the last one, where Goodman defended the act.

People do things wrong all the time. I do, just like every other person. But when called on it, I don’t lie about it, or make up a, “devil made me do it” excuse. Watching Donavan effectively teach a college-aged kid how to lie in the media is just reprehensible, and a media figure defending that lie is even worse.

Then riddle me this, Mr. Funkee Homosapien :-)

Even if I acquiesce every sentence of your argument in the first two paragraphs, how is it that attempted online gambling, an act but for which there would be no need for the law, is not as unethical as the behavior we have criminalized under the law?

Nick absolutely requested that the sites engage in gambling when he sent them his money for the purpose of gambling. The fact that the online casinos advertised their illegal services does not remove the ethical liability for citizens to reject known illegal activity. If I accept an unsolicited offer by a drug dealer or a fraud artist to participate in his illegal activity, does that get me off the hook ethically, never mind criminally? Of course not.

Whether the law is cynical or not is irrelevant. It is the law, and I believe a well-intentioned one at that, even if impractical and poorly executed. That doesn’t remove the ethical burden of citizens to avoid the object of the law. If we find it onerous, we should change it, an act that is the only ethical response to legislation we don’t like.

Finally, no one has explained how it was not wrong for Calathes to engage in gambling activity underage, even if the gambling act itself were legal. Nowhere in the United States is gambling legal below the age of 21.

… excellent points. Yes, I thought about it, but frankly most of my defense has surrounded what people think of that particular law.

If the $600 figure is accurate (and we really don’t know if it is, Calathes didn’t fess up to that figure), one would have to question where it came from. In my college days, $600 was what I got for an entire semester for sundry expenses. Since outside employment is largely prohibited scholarship athletes, where did he find the coin to gamble on the Internet? His parents, maybe, but if so, I think we can suppose that they would take exception to him using their money that way.

The second point is also excellent, and again one I had thought of but hadn’t had the opportunity to discuss. I know several kids around the age of Calathes, and the ones that engage in gambling also do sports betting — in fact, they do more sports betting than anything else. Florida’s investigation of Calathes is not likely to have been completely objective given the fact that they have a stake in the outcome. Yes, it’s possible that Calathes did not engage in sports betting, but anecdotally at least, the odds would seem to be against it. Still, absent credible evidence to the contrary, we have to say that he is innocent of that, but it is worrisome — which is undoubtedly why the media were so interested.

As Kentucky fans who have a history including gambling scandals, I think we can speak with some authority on the “slippery slope” question and the danger involved in sports figures gambling. Pete Rose might have a thing or two to say about that as well.

… having you here, davw83. :-)

Imagine trying to have this debate over at KSR (where, btw, the blog moderator is an actual lawyer!) We get much better stuff here from Tru, who is a “middleman.” (Not to knock middlemen; I’m sure that’s a difficult, rewarding, and mentally challenging career.) It’s just nice to know that when you see 20 new posts on something overnight, it won’t be something asinine like “Maggard sux!” “That’s what she said.”

Not really a first.

One of the first posts as a front-page poster I ever made on this blog was a discussion of the ethics of decommitting from a verbal commitment. Needless to say, that one drew very many comments. :-)

This is kind of like A Sea of Blue’s substitute for political talk. We forbid politics, but when we discuss the actions of sports figures within the context of right or wrong, it is like removing the low-down political crap and looking at the world from the 50,000 foot view, i.e. from the standpoint of ethics and morality as it relates to sports.

It accomplishes much of the same in terms of debate, but elevates it out of the gutter of partisan nonsense to careful reasoning and, I think, enlightened examination without the excess passion. And because we have so many thoughtful readers and commenters, I believe it lends an interesting context to our shared passion of the Kentucky Wildcats.