Gambling, violence, sex: three words that do a lot to rouse the interest of the average male. The sponsorship marriage between Full Tilt Poker and Randy "The Natural" Couture has at least two of the three covered.
The 45-year-old Couture is a five-time Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) champion, with titles in both the light heavyweight and heavyweight divisions. He is now being called a "friend" of Full Tilt Poker, joining the ranks of other noted UFC fighters such as Mike "Quick" Swick and Matt Hughes.
Couture's new status with Full Tilt appears to be part of a bigger trend which is seeing athletes of all sorts, including NHL hockey great Mats Sundin, take on roles with major online poker rooms.
In 2007, Couture walked away from the UFC in an attempt to get a fight with the man largely considered to be the best heavyweight MMA fighter in the world, Russian Fedor Emelianenko.
However, Couture rejoined the UFC in early September, which was good news not just for Full Tilt Poker, but for the entire UFC.
"As you all know, we've had problems with Randy over the last few months, but we've got them all worked out now. Randy has always been our heavyweight champion," said UFC President Dana White when Couture rejoined the UFC after a layoff of more than a year.
"I think a lot of compromises were made on both sides," said Couture. "But we're both ready to try and move forward. We've cleared the air and we're both in different places than we were a year ago. Spending the last year in legal fights is not some place that I've had a very good time."
Couture returned to the octagon last Saturday to face former World Wrestling Entertainment heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar.
Watching what was dubbed by some as the biggest fight in Mixed Martial Arts history, fans, many of whom were probably playing poker at the same time, couldn't help but notice that Couture was branded by Full Tilt from head to toe.
Gone are the T-shirts of Couture's former sponsor Affliction; in their place is Full Tilt Poker's ubiquitous inverted triangle. Couture and Affliction are now locked in a bitter dispute that's taken a very personal and now legal tone.
"Randy, if you're listening right now, I hope Lesnar kills you," Affliction CEO Todd Beard told reporters before the Championship fight.
"I really don't understand where Todd Beard's coming from in his attack to me, my wife, and my attorney [...]," said Couture.
"He feels there's this adversarial relationship created and I just don't get it. It's gone beyond kind of the antics of being a promoter, so we'll see how all that unfolds, and where the relationship stands, and where we end up with that down the road. Frankly, it's a bunch of crap and I don't need anymore crap in my life."
All of that conflict opened the door for Full Tilt, and the company appears to be taking advantage of the chance to place itself front and center in what is the fastest-growing spectator sport in the world. Unfortunately, it was a bad beat that was waiting for Couture in his first fight in his new sponsor's duds.
Couture was the victim of Lesnar's toaster-sized fists, finished by the Minnesota Mixed Martial Arts Academy product after being caught behind the ear and then pounded on until the referee wisely stopped the fight.
"I think the thing that surprised me the most and I don't think I was prepared for, which is always an issue with any fighter, is figuring out that range," Couture told Sherdog.com reporters after the fight.
"He's got ten inches of reach on me and I didn't anticipate that. I didn't think of that. I didn't know that little tidbit of information that his reach is what it was."
Couture was also spotted wearing his Full Tilt duds in the lead-up to the fight on mainstream television shows such as The Best Damn Sports Show Period.
This has many fans of both mixed martial arts and poker wondering if the U.S. Department of Justice is finally starting to lay off the multibillion dollar global poker industry. Let's hope so.
PLAY POKER FOR ONLY $ 1 !! CLICK BELOW TO START PLAYING NOW !!
Bet On All Your UFC / MMA Fights Here !!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
FITCH , WELLISCH BACK WITH THE UFC !!!!!!!
The Ultimate Fighting Championship's feud with highly regarded welterweight Jon Fitch lasted all of one day.
Fitch said on Thursday that he and heavyweight Christian Wellisch are back with UFC, barely 24 hours after the company terminated their promotional contracts. Fitch was the company's No.1 welterweight contender as recently as August, when he lost a decision to champion Georges St-Pierre. One of Fitch's teammates at American Kickboxing, Josh Koscheck, is also a top-five welterweight in UFC.
The company cut Fitch after he declined to quickly sign over lifetime exclusive rights for video game licensing. He agreed to the deal on Thursday after his manager directly contacted UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta, Fitch said.
UFC President Dana White earlier this week faulted American Kickboxing's management, but Fitch said the problem was White's approach.
"It was never about the agreement itself," Fitch said. "I feel like I should be talked to like I'm an educated adult. Sometimes I don't feel like Dana speaks to me that way."
Earlier this week, the company also had said it would not renew or renegotiate the contracts of Koscheck and heavyweight Cain Velasquez, each of whom have one fight remaining on their current deals. Velasquez is still negotiating with UFC, Fitch said. Koscheck said Thursday he won't think about contractual issues until after Dec. 10, when he is scheduled to fight at a UFC fundraiser for a hospital to treat veterans with brain injuries.
Fitch said on Thursday that he and heavyweight Christian Wellisch are back with UFC, barely 24 hours after the company terminated their promotional contracts. Fitch was the company's No.1 welterweight contender as recently as August, when he lost a decision to champion Georges St-Pierre. One of Fitch's teammates at American Kickboxing, Josh Koscheck, is also a top-five welterweight in UFC.
The company cut Fitch after he declined to quickly sign over lifetime exclusive rights for video game licensing. He agreed to the deal on Thursday after his manager directly contacted UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta, Fitch said.
UFC President Dana White earlier this week faulted American Kickboxing's management, but Fitch said the problem was White's approach.
"It was never about the agreement itself," Fitch said. "I feel like I should be talked to like I'm an educated adult. Sometimes I don't feel like Dana speaks to me that way."
Earlier this week, the company also had said it would not renew or renegotiate the contracts of Koscheck and heavyweight Cain Velasquez, each of whom have one fight remaining on their current deals. Velasquez is still negotiating with UFC, Fitch said. Koscheck said Thursday he won't think about contractual issues until after Dec. 10, when he is scheduled to fight at a UFC fundraiser for a hospital to treat veterans with brain injuries.
UFC - 2 UFC Fighters Let Go !!!!!!!!!!!!!
More Cuts Are Coming !!!
Jon Fitch, who last competed at UFC 87 in August against welterweight champion Georges St. Pierre, has been released from his contract with the Ultimate Fighting Championship, as confirmed to MMAWeekly.com by members of Fitch's camp.
According to sources close to the situation, Fitch was in negotiations with the UFC about a lifetime contract for likeness rights for their upcoming video game release and future video games. An agreement could not be reached and the Indiana native was subsequently released from his fight contract.
During his time with the UFC, Fitch went 8-1 while in the promotion with his only loss coming at the hands of St. Pierre, as previously mentioned.
There were rumors that he was set to return in January to fight Japanese fighter Akihiro Gono, but all that came crashing down with the news of his release on Wednesday.
Other fighters including Christian Wellisch have also been released as a part of this contract negotiation of likeness rights, but at this time Jon Fitch is the biggest name that has been confirmed as being cut by the promotion. Speaking anonymously with MMAWeekly on Wednesday, a source said more names could follow in the coming days.
Jon Fitch, who last competed at UFC 87 in August against welterweight champion Georges St. Pierre, has been released from his contract with the Ultimate Fighting Championship, as confirmed to MMAWeekly.com by members of Fitch's camp.
According to sources close to the situation, Fitch was in negotiations with the UFC about a lifetime contract for likeness rights for their upcoming video game release and future video games. An agreement could not be reached and the Indiana native was subsequently released from his fight contract.
During his time with the UFC, Fitch went 8-1 while in the promotion with his only loss coming at the hands of St. Pierre, as previously mentioned.
There were rumors that he was set to return in January to fight Japanese fighter Akihiro Gono, but all that came crashing down with the news of his release on Wednesday.
Other fighters including Christian Wellisch have also been released as a part of this contract negotiation of likeness rights, but at this time Jon Fitch is the biggest name that has been confirmed as being cut by the promotion. Speaking anonymously with MMAWeekly on Wednesday, a source said more names could follow in the coming days.
UFC Dana White defends MMA !!!!!!!!!!
Todd duBoef, the president of the powerful boxing promotional company Top Rank, clearly does not understand mixed martial arts very well, as his recent comments in a Los Angeles Times article would indicate.
During a media day workout for Manny Pacquiao on Monday, duBoef questioned the safety of MMA based upon the finish of the Brock Lesnar-Randy Couture heavyweight title fight on Saturday at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Lesnar knocked Couture down with a right to the back of the ear and then finished him with a series of blows on the ground.
That caused duBoef to question the widely held belief that MMA is a safer sport than boxing in an interview with the Times' Lance Pugmire.
"When I see stuff like that, it looks like nothing more than a Toughman contest," duBoef told Pugmire. "There's no way it's safer than boxing."
Au contraire, Mr. President.
The UFC was founded in 1993 and began the modern era of MMA. Since that time, there have been two deaths in MMA competition. Douglas Dedge died on March 18, 1998, from injuries sustained in a fight on an unregulated card in Kiev, Ukraine, two days earlier. And in 2007, Sam Vasquez died on Nov. 30, 2007, from injuries sustained in an Oct. 20 fight in Houston.
The Journal of Combative Sport has documented 71 deaths since 1993 in boxing, including several from shows that Top Rank promoted.
DuBoef's comments did not escape the notice of UFC president Dana White, who ripped him upon reading the Times story.
"What Todd duBoef said the other day in the L.A. Times, this is the same Todd duBoef who got the free tickets from me to be at that event that night," White said. "He said that the Randy Couture stoppage proves that boxing is much safer than MMA. [Top Rank chairman] Bob Arum is 95 years old and senile, when he says crazy [expletive] you know, it goes over your head because you expect it from him. Bob has been saying crazy [expletive] since Day 1. But Todd duBoef? What does Todd duBoef know about MMA?
"I have a study from Johns Hopkins that proves that MMA is safer than boxing. Todd duBoef ought to stick to what it is he knows, but I don't know what that is. He's Bob Arum's stepson and that's how he got that job at Top Rank. This is insane. Bob Arum's stepson commenting on MMA safety? He doesn't know what he is talking about. I don't know what he knows, but whatever it is, he ought to stick to that."
The Johns Hopkins' study White referenced was published in the July 2006 edition of the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.
In it, it makes several references to the fact that MMA is a safer sport with fewer traumatic brain injuries than in boxing.
"With MMA competitions, the opportunity to attack the extremities with arm bars and leg locks and the possibility of extended periods of grappling could serve to lessen the risk of traumatic brain injury," the article noted.
In its conclusions, it noted that "Knockout rates are lower in MMA competitions than in boxing. This suggests a reduced risk of TBI (traumatic brain injury) in MMA competitions when compared to other events involving striking."
During a media day workout for Manny Pacquiao on Monday, duBoef questioned the safety of MMA based upon the finish of the Brock Lesnar-Randy Couture heavyweight title fight on Saturday at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Lesnar knocked Couture down with a right to the back of the ear and then finished him with a series of blows on the ground.
That caused duBoef to question the widely held belief that MMA is a safer sport than boxing in an interview with the Times' Lance Pugmire.
"When I see stuff like that, it looks like nothing more than a Toughman contest," duBoef told Pugmire. "There's no way it's safer than boxing."
Au contraire, Mr. President.
The UFC was founded in 1993 and began the modern era of MMA. Since that time, there have been two deaths in MMA competition. Douglas Dedge died on March 18, 1998, from injuries sustained in a fight on an unregulated card in Kiev, Ukraine, two days earlier. And in 2007, Sam Vasquez died on Nov. 30, 2007, from injuries sustained in an Oct. 20 fight in Houston.
The Journal of Combative Sport has documented 71 deaths since 1993 in boxing, including several from shows that Top Rank promoted.
DuBoef's comments did not escape the notice of UFC president Dana White, who ripped him upon reading the Times story.
"What Todd duBoef said the other day in the L.A. Times, this is the same Todd duBoef who got the free tickets from me to be at that event that night," White said. "He said that the Randy Couture stoppage proves that boxing is much safer than MMA. [Top Rank chairman] Bob Arum is 95 years old and senile, when he says crazy [expletive] you know, it goes over your head because you expect it from him. Bob has been saying crazy [expletive] since Day 1. But Todd duBoef? What does Todd duBoef know about MMA?
"I have a study from Johns Hopkins that proves that MMA is safer than boxing. Todd duBoef ought to stick to what it is he knows, but I don't know what that is. He's Bob Arum's stepson and that's how he got that job at Top Rank. This is insane. Bob Arum's stepson commenting on MMA safety? He doesn't know what he is talking about. I don't know what he knows, but whatever it is, he ought to stick to that."
The Johns Hopkins' study White referenced was published in the July 2006 edition of the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.
In it, it makes several references to the fact that MMA is a safer sport with fewer traumatic brain injuries than in boxing.
"With MMA competitions, the opportunity to attack the extremities with arm bars and leg locks and the possibility of extended periods of grappling could serve to lessen the risk of traumatic brain injury," the article noted.
In its conclusions, it noted that "Knockout rates are lower in MMA competitions than in boxing. This suggests a reduced risk of TBI (traumatic brain injury) in MMA competitions when compared to other events involving striking."
Woman gets 10 years for poker pro slaying and alot of people out there say they dont need help and look what happens !!
LAS VEGAS—A woman has been sentenced to 10 years to life in a Nevada prison for stabbing her poker player husband to death in a luxury Las Vegas condominium.
Jill Rockcastle, 50, sobbed and professed her love for her dead husband, William Gustafik, during a rambling apology before sentencing Tuesday by Clark County District Court Judge Michael Villani.
"I just lost control," Rockcastle said.
Rockcastle pleaded an equivalent of no contest Sept. 16 to second-degree murder in the slaying of Gustafik, 44, a former California a corrections officer and chiropractor who became a Las Vegas poker pro and used the nickname "The Manipulator."
Her so-called Alford plea avoided trial and acknowledged that prosecutors could prove the case against her.
Rockcastle's public defense lawyer, Joseph Abood, cast his client as a battered wife who grabbed a knife and stabbed Gustafik after he grabbed her by the hair. Authorities said Gustafik was stabbed up to 15 times.
Prosecutor Sam Bateman said there was no evidence Gustafik was violent toward Rockcastle.
Police found Gustafik's body April 13, 2007, after a lawyer in California directed authorities to in a blood-spattered bedroom in a 23rd floor condo at the Panorama Towers across Interstate 15 from the Las Vegas Strip.
Rockcastle was arrested several days later, after she was found unconscious at a motel in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Police said they believed she overdosed on
medication after leaving a note in a car for her children and sending confessional e-mails to friends.
In a suicide note, Rockcastle claimed Gustafik hired a hit man to kill his ex-wife so she wouldn't get custody of their daughter, and that Gustafik took performance-enhancing drugs and used cocaine.
Rockcastle said she and Gustafik underwent cosmetic surgery and hatched a scheme to sell fake real estate to maintain their high-roller lifestyle.
"We were living this fake life of millionaires. But we weren't," she wrote. "We were going broke."
Jill Rockcastle, 50, sobbed and professed her love for her dead husband, William Gustafik, during a rambling apology before sentencing Tuesday by Clark County District Court Judge Michael Villani.
"I just lost control," Rockcastle said.
Rockcastle pleaded an equivalent of no contest Sept. 16 to second-degree murder in the slaying of Gustafik, 44, a former California a corrections officer and chiropractor who became a Las Vegas poker pro and used the nickname "The Manipulator."
Her so-called Alford plea avoided trial and acknowledged that prosecutors could prove the case against her.
Rockcastle's public defense lawyer, Joseph Abood, cast his client as a battered wife who grabbed a knife and stabbed Gustafik after he grabbed her by the hair. Authorities said Gustafik was stabbed up to 15 times.
Prosecutor Sam Bateman said there was no evidence Gustafik was violent toward Rockcastle.
Police found Gustafik's body April 13, 2007, after a lawyer in California directed authorities to in a blood-spattered bedroom in a 23rd floor condo at the Panorama Towers across Interstate 15 from the Las Vegas Strip.
Rockcastle was arrested several days later, after she was found unconscious at a motel in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Police said they believed she overdosed on
medication after leaving a note in a car for her children and sending confessional e-mails to friends.
In a suicide note, Rockcastle claimed Gustafik hired a hit man to kill his ex-wife so she wouldn't get custody of their daughter, and that Gustafik took performance-enhancing drugs and used cocaine.
Rockcastle said she and Gustafik underwent cosmetic surgery and hatched a scheme to sell fake real estate to maintain their high-roller lifestyle.
"We were living this fake life of millionaires. But we weren't," she wrote. "We were going broke."
Here is a good joke for all you married couples out there that have kids that dont live at home !!!!
A man in Phoenix calls his son in New York the day before Thanksgiving and says,"I hate to ruin your day, but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough.
"Pop, what are you talking about?" the son screams.
"We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the father says. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Chicago and tell her."
Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "Like heck they're getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this."
She calls Phoenix immediately, and screams at her father, "You are NOT getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there.
I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.
The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay," he says, "they're coming for Thanksgiving and paying their own way !"
"Pop, what are you talking about?" the son screams.
"We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the father says. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Chicago and tell her."
Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "Like heck they're getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this."
She calls Phoenix immediately, and screams at her father, "You are NOT getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there.
I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.
The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay," he says, "they're coming for Thanksgiving and paying their own way !"
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
POKER NEWS
Appeals court grants stay in Kentucky case
A Kentucky appeals court Friday granted a stay of the forfeiture order that would have affected 141 Internet domain names belonging to various gambling sites. The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) had requested the stay.
The move curtails a forfeiture hearing scheduled for Dec. 3, giving the appeals court time to consider the issues raised in iMEGA's petition seeking the overturn of the original order.
"We're glad that the Appeals Court recognized the need to prevent the immediate forfeiture of those domain names," said Joe Brennan, Jr., chairman of iMEGA.
"The Commonwealth's attorneys have tried from the very beginning to push this seizure action through at a breakneck pace, so that by the time any of the domain owners realized what was happening, they would have lost their rights to their domains," added Brennan, referring to the fact the original complaint was filed under seal and the affected domain names were unaware that there had even been a seizure motion and hearing.
Panel of judges to assess petitions
The hearing on iMEGA's petition is scheduled for Dec. 12 in front of the same three-judge appellate panel that granted the stay. At that hearing, the panel will first consider whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the domain seizures and whether Secretary Brown lacked the authority to initiate the seizure action in the first place.
If jurisdiction was lacking, then the other issues become moot. However, if the lower court's exercise of jurisdiction is found to be proper, then the appellate court will consider whether the lower court misapplied Kentucky's specific "gambling devices" law in ordering the seizures and whether Kentucky's actions violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
In a separate procedural ruling, the appellate panel agreed to combine iMEGA's petition with a separate one filed against the forfeiture order by the IGC, an international online gambling trade group. Their petition echoes some of the arguments in the iMEGA petition, attacking the lower court's jurisdiction over the domain names on the grounds that they are not located in Kentucky and are not "gambling devices."
Two amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petitions to overturn the seizure order. The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), a one-million-plus-member poker advocacy group, filed a brief, focused primarily on the issue of the lower court's failure to address, analyze and rule on the issue of poker being a game of skill that should be exempt from Kentucky's antigambling legislation.
The PPA argued that the trial court judge had the responsibility to engage in fact finding on the issue of whether it was skill or chance that predominates in poker. Had he done so, they claim, the judge would have properly ruled that poker is not a game of chance and therefore should not be banned under Kentucky's antigambling statute.
Free speech, civil liberties advocates chime in
The Commonwealth's attempt to seize Internet domain names also drew the attention, and support, of various free speech organizations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU) have joined in filing an amicus brief in support of IGC's petition for an order vacating the seizure order.
In their amicus brief EFF, CDT and the ACLU argue that the lower court's actions ordering seizure of the domain names violated the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
The brief also argues that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering seizure of domain names for registrars located outside of the state.
While the brief does not address the substantive issue of whether online gambling is legal in Kentucky, it focuses on the broader question of whether a state court judge can order Web site operators around the world to block access to their sites based on local law and then reach beyond the state's borders to seize noncomplying Web sites.
"The court's theory - that a state court can order the seizure of Internet domain names regardless of where the site was registered - is not only wrong but dangerous," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman.
"If the mere ability to access a website gives every court on the planet the authority to seize a domain name if a site's content is in some way inconsistent with local law, the laws of the most world's most repressive regimes will effectively control cyberspace."
Attorney General distancing himself?
In another development, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has asked to have his name removed from the domain name case. This confirms earlier speculation that the attorney Ggeneral, who had failed to comment on the domain name case, was distancing himself from the case.
The original seizure action was brought not by the attorney general, but by Secretary of Justice and Public Safety J. Michael Brown.
The issue of whether Secretary Brown, as opposed to the Attorney General, had standing to bring the original action was argued at the lower court, but Judge Wingate allowed the case to go forward as presented.
The case, while brought on behalf of Secretary Brown, is actually being handled by outside counsel working on a contingency fee basis.
In its writ petition to the Court of Appeals, iMEGA had added Attorney General Conway as a real party in interest as, according to Kentucky law, the attorney general must appear on behalf of Kentucky in all cases in the Court of Appeals in which the Commonwealth is involved.
There is cautious optimism following the issuance of the stay as the petitioners now look forward to having their day in court.
"Now, we hope to have a fair hearing regarding our petition, because we're confident that Kentucky law is on our side, and that the lower court erred in ordering these seizures," said iMEGA's Brennan.
"The bottom line is that this move by Kentucky cannot be allowed to stand, because if it did, it would hand an 'ultimate weapon' to governments here and abroad to stifle Internet content that does not meet their approval."
A Kentucky appeals court Friday granted a stay of the forfeiture order that would have affected 141 Internet domain names belonging to various gambling sites. The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) had requested the stay.
The move curtails a forfeiture hearing scheduled for Dec. 3, giving the appeals court time to consider the issues raised in iMEGA's petition seeking the overturn of the original order.
"We're glad that the Appeals Court recognized the need to prevent the immediate forfeiture of those domain names," said Joe Brennan, Jr., chairman of iMEGA.
"The Commonwealth's attorneys have tried from the very beginning to push this seizure action through at a breakneck pace, so that by the time any of the domain owners realized what was happening, they would have lost their rights to their domains," added Brennan, referring to the fact the original complaint was filed under seal and the affected domain names were unaware that there had even been a seizure motion and hearing.
Panel of judges to assess petitions
The hearing on iMEGA's petition is scheduled for Dec. 12 in front of the same three-judge appellate panel that granted the stay. At that hearing, the panel will first consider whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the domain seizures and whether Secretary Brown lacked the authority to initiate the seizure action in the first place.
If jurisdiction was lacking, then the other issues become moot. However, if the lower court's exercise of jurisdiction is found to be proper, then the appellate court will consider whether the lower court misapplied Kentucky's specific "gambling devices" law in ordering the seizures and whether Kentucky's actions violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
In a separate procedural ruling, the appellate panel agreed to combine iMEGA's petition with a separate one filed against the forfeiture order by the IGC, an international online gambling trade group. Their petition echoes some of the arguments in the iMEGA petition, attacking the lower court's jurisdiction over the domain names on the grounds that they are not located in Kentucky and are not "gambling devices."
Two amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petitions to overturn the seizure order. The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), a one-million-plus-member poker advocacy group, filed a brief, focused primarily on the issue of the lower court's failure to address, analyze and rule on the issue of poker being a game of skill that should be exempt from Kentucky's antigambling legislation.
The PPA argued that the trial court judge had the responsibility to engage in fact finding on the issue of whether it was skill or chance that predominates in poker. Had he done so, they claim, the judge would have properly ruled that poker is not a game of chance and therefore should not be banned under Kentucky's antigambling statute.
Free speech, civil liberties advocates chime in
The Commonwealth's attempt to seize Internet domain names also drew the attention, and support, of various free speech organizations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (ACLU) have joined in filing an amicus brief in support of IGC's petition for an order vacating the seizure order.
In their amicus brief EFF, CDT and the ACLU argue that the lower court's actions ordering seizure of the domain names violated the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
The brief also argues that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering seizure of domain names for registrars located outside of the state.
While the brief does not address the substantive issue of whether online gambling is legal in Kentucky, it focuses on the broader question of whether a state court judge can order Web site operators around the world to block access to their sites based on local law and then reach beyond the state's borders to seize noncomplying Web sites.
"The court's theory - that a state court can order the seizure of Internet domain names regardless of where the site was registered - is not only wrong but dangerous," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman.
"If the mere ability to access a website gives every court on the planet the authority to seize a domain name if a site's content is in some way inconsistent with local law, the laws of the most world's most repressive regimes will effectively control cyberspace."
Attorney General distancing himself?
In another development, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has asked to have his name removed from the domain name case. This confirms earlier speculation that the attorney Ggeneral, who had failed to comment on the domain name case, was distancing himself from the case.
The original seizure action was brought not by the attorney general, but by Secretary of Justice and Public Safety J. Michael Brown.
The issue of whether Secretary Brown, as opposed to the Attorney General, had standing to bring the original action was argued at the lower court, but Judge Wingate allowed the case to go forward as presented.
The case, while brought on behalf of Secretary Brown, is actually being handled by outside counsel working on a contingency fee basis.
In its writ petition to the Court of Appeals, iMEGA had added Attorney General Conway as a real party in interest as, according to Kentucky law, the attorney general must appear on behalf of Kentucky in all cases in the Court of Appeals in which the Commonwealth is involved.
There is cautious optimism following the issuance of the stay as the petitioners now look forward to having their day in court.
"Now, we hope to have a fair hearing regarding our petition, because we're confident that Kentucky law is on our side, and that the lower court erred in ordering these seizures," said iMEGA's Brennan.
"The bottom line is that this move by Kentucky cannot be allowed to stand, because if it did, it would hand an 'ultimate weapon' to governments here and abroad to stifle Internet content that does not meet their approval."
Michael Binger wins WSOPC Tahoe
It turns out Lake Tahoe may be a lucky place for the poker pros to play. Chris "Jesus" Ferguson took down the World Series of Poker Circuit main event there last year, and this time around Michael Binger picked up the win.
Chris Ferguson did make a good return to the Lake Tahoe event. He ended up out in 11th place, leaving Michael Binger, Allen Kessler and Scott Clements to represent the pros at the final table.
Binger looked to be the clear favorite when the action got under way. He went in as the chip leader, but it was Ty Stewart who took control and soon looked to be the man to beat.
Stewart's first casualty was Clements. The two clashed early on in the final table and Clements couldn't muscle his way to a winning hand. Binger worked to keep up, taking out Bill Bostick when he sucked out an ace on the turn.
But for the most part it was "The Ty Stewart Show," as Martin Derbyshire so aptly put it in his recap of the final table.
Stewart is a relatively unknown cash-game player who was playing in his first major tournament. The only other cash he has on his Hendon Mob record is an eighth-place finish in a small tournament in San Pablo back in 1999.
The deck was very kind to him at the final table in Lake Tahoe, and Stewart seemed on the fast track to victory. Binger hung in and managed to make it to heads-up against Stewart.
Stewart was looking at a chip advantage when heads-up began. His $1.1 million in chips was hedging out Binger's $825,000.
According to the PokerListings Live Updates for the event, Stewart went to work fast, using his advantage to push Binger around. It got to the point where Stewart was sitting with about $1.7 million in chips in front of him to Binger's $200,000.
Binger kept his cool despite the huge disadvantage and started clawing his way back into contention. He started shoving in with an ever-growing stack of chips and soon he was taking the chip lead.
On the final hand, Stewart raised $40,000 pre-flop, and Binger called. They saw a flop of 984, and Stewart bet out again to make it $60,000 to go.
Binger popped it up $180,000 and got an all-in from Stewart. Binger nearly insta-called and turned up Q9 for a lead over Stewart's A8.
The rest of the board came TQ to give Binger the win, a $181,379 top prize and a $10,000 seat in the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event.
The final-table results were:
Place Name Prize
1st Michael Binger $181,379
2nd Ty Stewart $112,675
3rd Jake Solis $77,464
4th Michael McClain $53,777
5th Tay Nguyen $40,653
6th Allen Kessler $31,370
7th Travis Erdman $24,968
8th Bill Bostick $18,566
9th Scott Clements $13,444
Chris Ferguson did make a good return to the Lake Tahoe event. He ended up out in 11th place, leaving Michael Binger, Allen Kessler and Scott Clements to represent the pros at the final table.
Binger looked to be the clear favorite when the action got under way. He went in as the chip leader, but it was Ty Stewart who took control and soon looked to be the man to beat.
Stewart's first casualty was Clements. The two clashed early on in the final table and Clements couldn't muscle his way to a winning hand. Binger worked to keep up, taking out Bill Bostick when he sucked out an ace on the turn.
But for the most part it was "The Ty Stewart Show," as Martin Derbyshire so aptly put it in his recap of the final table.
Stewart is a relatively unknown cash-game player who was playing in his first major tournament. The only other cash he has on his Hendon Mob record is an eighth-place finish in a small tournament in San Pablo back in 1999.
The deck was very kind to him at the final table in Lake Tahoe, and Stewart seemed on the fast track to victory. Binger hung in and managed to make it to heads-up against Stewart.
Stewart was looking at a chip advantage when heads-up began. His $1.1 million in chips was hedging out Binger's $825,000.
According to the PokerListings Live Updates for the event, Stewart went to work fast, using his advantage to push Binger around. It got to the point where Stewart was sitting with about $1.7 million in chips in front of him to Binger's $200,000.
Binger kept his cool despite the huge disadvantage and started clawing his way back into contention. He started shoving in with an ever-growing stack of chips and soon he was taking the chip lead.
On the final hand, Stewart raised $40,000 pre-flop, and Binger called. They saw a flop of 984, and Stewart bet out again to make it $60,000 to go.
Binger popped it up $180,000 and got an all-in from Stewart. Binger nearly insta-called and turned up Q9 for a lead over Stewart's A8.
The rest of the board came TQ to give Binger the win, a $181,379 top prize and a $10,000 seat in the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event.
The final-table results were:
Place Name Prize
1st Michael Binger $181,379
2nd Ty Stewart $112,675
3rd Jake Solis $77,464
4th Michael McClain $53,777
5th Tay Nguyen $40,653
6th Allen Kessler $31,370
7th Travis Erdman $24,968
8th Bill Bostick $18,566
9th Scott Clements $13,444
UFC UPDATE
Report: Anderson Silva could headline UFC 95, against Chuck Liddell
When the UFC returns to London, England, for a show at The 02, UFC middleweight champion Anderson Silva (23-4 MMA, 8-0 UFC) could headline the event -- possibly in a non-title fight at 205 pounds against Chuck Liddell (21-6 MMA, 16-5 UFC).
The Sun, a reputable newspaper from the U.K., reported the possibility of the UFC 95 main event overnight.
However, neither fighter has been officially booked for the Feb. 21 event, and the Silva-Liddell fight is only being discussed a possiblity.
When the UFC returns to London, England, for a show at The 02, UFC middleweight champion Anderson Silva (23-4 MMA, 8-0 UFC) could headline the event -- possibly in a non-title fight at 205 pounds against Chuck Liddell (21-6 MMA, 16-5 UFC).
The Sun, a reputable newspaper from the U.K., reported the possibility of the UFC 95 main event overnight.
However, neither fighter has been officially booked for the Feb. 21 event, and the Silva-Liddell fight is only being discussed a possiblity.
UFC 91 SALARIES
UFC 91 salaries: Brock Lesnar ($450k), Randy Couture ($250k) top earners
Headliners Brock Lesnar and Randy Couture were, as expected, the top-paid competitors from the Nov. 15 UFC 91 fight card, according to the Nevada State Athletic Commission.
MMAjunkie.com today requested and received the official disclosed fight purses from the NSAC.
The total payroll for the event, which took place in front of 14,272 spectators at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, was $1,118,000. Nearly two-thirds of it, 63 percent, was paid to Lesnar and Couture.
Headliners Brock Lesnar and Randy Couture were, as expected, the top-paid competitors from the Nov. 15 UFC 91 fight card, according to the Nevada State Athletic Commission.
MMAjunkie.com today requested and received the official disclosed fight purses from the NSAC.
The total payroll for the event, which took place in front of 14,272 spectators at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, was $1,118,000. Nearly two-thirds of it, 63 percent, was paid to Lesnar and Couture.
Las Vegas Sands Proposes $ 2.14 B Rescue Plan
Adelson injects $525M in bid to save struggling Las Vegas Sands from default, bankruptcy
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has doubled down on his half-billion dollar bet this fall on Las Vegas Sands Corp. in a plan intended to keep the casino company from defaulting on its debt and falling into bankruptcy.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plan for infusing $2.14 billion in new capital into the company dramatically reduces Adelson's controlling stake even as he agreed to invest another $525 million.
The casino giant with operations in Las Vegas and Macau will not seek shareholder approval for the emergency plan it announced Tuesday, even though it more than doubles the number of outstanding shares, massively diluting their value for current shareholders, claiming an exception in New York Stock Exchange rules.
The company warned that any delay caused by getting shareholder approval "would seriously jeopardize the ability to complete the offerings as well as the financial viability of the company."
The transactions are set to close Friday.
Trading in the Las Vegas-based company's stock on the New York Stock Exchange was halted briefly Tuesday. It closed down 33 percent, or $2.66, at $5.34, after trading resumed. The stock has traded between $4.32 and $122.96 during the past 52 weeks.
Analysts greeted the plan with caution.
"We view the capital raise as a mixed blessing," Morgan Stanley analyst Celeste Mellet Brown said in a research note. "While it appears the company has alleviated bankruptcy risk, it has done so at a heavily dilutive price."
"In this market, capital comes at a high price," noted Stifel Nicolaus analyst Steven Wieczynski, "and Las Vegas Sands is certainly paying for it."
The company said it would raise $1 billion in capital by selling 181.8 million new shares at $5.50 apiece and another $519.6 million in the form of new preferred stock priced at $100 each.
Adelson, the 75-year-old founder and chief executive, will buy with his wife Miriam $525 million in preferred stock and must convert into common stock the $475 million in convertible notes they purchased a month ago.
Investors in the preferred shares, including the Adelsons, received with each one a five-year option to buy another 16.7 common shares at $6 -- which could raise another $1.04 billion.
Some 460.5 million new common shares will be released on top of the 355.7 million already in circulation so -- despite the new investment -- the Adelson family's stake in the company will fall to just over 51 percent, down from 69 percent earlier this year. Once the plan goes through and the capital is raised, their stake will be about $2.2 billion.
The company's current situation is a remarkable setback for Adelson, once considered the third richest man in America by Forbes magazine with an estimated worth of $28 billion as recently as September 2007, much of which was tied up in shares.
Since hitting $145.57 on Oct. 2, 2007, Las Vegas Sands shares have lost 96 percent of their value.
The action follows Sands' announcement last week that it is in danger of breaching lending conditions and defaulting on $5.2 billion in credit facilities secured by its Las Vegas operations.
Construction on casino projects in Macau, Singapore, Pennsylvania and Las Vegas put the company in a financing squeeze as falling revenue from gamblers made it difficult to meet its debt obligations.
It faced the choice of canceling or delaying some projects, raising equity, or reducing debt, and its capital program is an attempt to address all those problems.
Sands reported weaker-than-expected results Monday for the third quarter and said it suspended several projects, including its $600 million St. Regis condominium tower in Las Vegas and two sites on the Cotai Strip in Macau.
The Macau sites cost $1.16 billion so far and would cost another $430 million through June to suspend.
On Tuesday, Macau's leader, Chief Executive Edmund Ho, said the government of Chinese gambling enclave was aware of Las Vegas Sands' funding difficulties, but was not in a position to intervene.
"Because of its over-leveraged borrowing in the U.S. and around the world, it's normal and expected that it has to suspend some of its projects," he said.
"Until now, the Macau government has no concrete measures to help it solve its financing difficulties immediately," he said.
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has doubled down on his half-billion dollar bet this fall on Las Vegas Sands Corp. in a plan intended to keep the casino company from defaulting on its debt and falling into bankruptcy.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plan for infusing $2.14 billion in new capital into the company dramatically reduces Adelson's controlling stake even as he agreed to invest another $525 million.
The casino giant with operations in Las Vegas and Macau will not seek shareholder approval for the emergency plan it announced Tuesday, even though it more than doubles the number of outstanding shares, massively diluting their value for current shareholders, claiming an exception in New York Stock Exchange rules.
The company warned that any delay caused by getting shareholder approval "would seriously jeopardize the ability to complete the offerings as well as the financial viability of the company."
The transactions are set to close Friday.
Trading in the Las Vegas-based company's stock on the New York Stock Exchange was halted briefly Tuesday. It closed down 33 percent, or $2.66, at $5.34, after trading resumed. The stock has traded between $4.32 and $122.96 during the past 52 weeks.
Analysts greeted the plan with caution.
"We view the capital raise as a mixed blessing," Morgan Stanley analyst Celeste Mellet Brown said in a research note. "While it appears the company has alleviated bankruptcy risk, it has done so at a heavily dilutive price."
"In this market, capital comes at a high price," noted Stifel Nicolaus analyst Steven Wieczynski, "and Las Vegas Sands is certainly paying for it."
The company said it would raise $1 billion in capital by selling 181.8 million new shares at $5.50 apiece and another $519.6 million in the form of new preferred stock priced at $100 each.
Adelson, the 75-year-old founder and chief executive, will buy with his wife Miriam $525 million in preferred stock and must convert into common stock the $475 million in convertible notes they purchased a month ago.
Investors in the preferred shares, including the Adelsons, received with each one a five-year option to buy another 16.7 common shares at $6 -- which could raise another $1.04 billion.
Some 460.5 million new common shares will be released on top of the 355.7 million already in circulation so -- despite the new investment -- the Adelson family's stake in the company will fall to just over 51 percent, down from 69 percent earlier this year. Once the plan goes through and the capital is raised, their stake will be about $2.2 billion.
The company's current situation is a remarkable setback for Adelson, once considered the third richest man in America by Forbes magazine with an estimated worth of $28 billion as recently as September 2007, much of which was tied up in shares.
Since hitting $145.57 on Oct. 2, 2007, Las Vegas Sands shares have lost 96 percent of their value.
The action follows Sands' announcement last week that it is in danger of breaching lending conditions and defaulting on $5.2 billion in credit facilities secured by its Las Vegas operations.
Construction on casino projects in Macau, Singapore, Pennsylvania and Las Vegas put the company in a financing squeeze as falling revenue from gamblers made it difficult to meet its debt obligations.
It faced the choice of canceling or delaying some projects, raising equity, or reducing debt, and its capital program is an attempt to address all those problems.
Sands reported weaker-than-expected results Monday for the third quarter and said it suspended several projects, including its $600 million St. Regis condominium tower in Las Vegas and two sites on the Cotai Strip in Macau.
The Macau sites cost $1.16 billion so far and would cost another $430 million through June to suspend.
On Tuesday, Macau's leader, Chief Executive Edmund Ho, said the government of Chinese gambling enclave was aware of Las Vegas Sands' funding difficulties, but was not in a position to intervene.
"Because of its over-leveraged borrowing in the U.S. and around the world, it's normal and expected that it has to suspend some of its projects," he said.
"Until now, the Macau government has no concrete measures to help it solve its financing difficulties immediately," he said.
Bush Administration ( UIGEA )
Bush Administration moving to push through last-minute UIGEA regulations
Bush administration officials to meet regarding U.S. ban on online gambling
Justice Department repeats request to throw out UIGEA restraining order
The following is a press release from lobbying group Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. We encourage all readers to learn more about this important issue that will effect all online poker players
The Bush Administration is working to finalize regulations to enforce a ban on Internet gambling despite concerns raised by leading financial service companies that the regulations are ambiguous, burdensome and not likely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online. It is expected that the regulations, issued to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), will be finalized at the last minute before they can be stopped by the Obama Administration – an orchestrated move being linked to a former National Football League (NFL) lobbyist now working in the Bush Administration. The NFL has actively campaigned against clarifying UIGEA and has opposed legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to regulate online gambling in order to protect consumers and generate billions for critical State and Federal programs.
“At a time when the financial system is in crisis, it is irresponsible for the Bush Administration to rush through a fundamentally flawed regulation that even representatives of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have stated on record is unworkable,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “We are skeptical of the Administration’s motivation to get this done at the very last minute, especially given the apparent involvement of a NFL lobbyist turned Bush appointee.”
Last week, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to detail what role Deputy Director of Public Liaison William Wichterman played in the Treasury Department’s decision to send the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final review on October 20. In a November 7 letter to Mr. Fielding, Rep. Cohen said he had been told that Mr. Wichterman “has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through.” The letter further stated, “The National Football League has been among the most vocal advocates for the proposed rule and the underlying law. I am sure you will agree that, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest is undeniable.”
As recently as March 2008, Mr. Wichterman was a paid lobbyist for the NFL, which has been a strong opponent of all forms of Internet gambling except for fantasy sports – an activity that generates more than $1 billion a year in revenues. Mr. Wichterman recently left the law firm of Covington and Burling, which represents the NFL, to serve as a political appointee in the few remaining months of the Bush Administration.
Movement on UIGEA comes despite a commitment by the Bush Administration not to issue final regulations after November 1, 2008 except in “extraordinary circumstances.” A delay in issuance of the final regulations was also expected given the September passage of the Payment System Protection Act by the House Financial Services Committee. The legislation would have delayed UIGEA implementation in order to develop regulations that do not harm the payments system.
“The Bush Administration is setting a horrible precedent of pushing through flawed regulations at the very last minute to deliberately circumvent the in-coming administration,” added Sandman. “The special interests, including the NFL, are clearly the big winners with this last minute maneuver, leaving already struggling banks and financial companies to implement costly and poorly crafted regulations.”
A fundamental flaw in the proposed regulations to enforce UIGEA is that they leave U.S. financial service companies to interpret ambiguous State and Federal gambling laws, which do not clearly differentiate between legal and illegal Internet gambling activities or transactions, according to a report issued by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
Representatives of the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System acknowledged the challenges U.S. financial institutions will face in attempting to comply with UIGEA in testimony before Congress in April. Since most payment systems are not designed to comply with this law, “it will be very difficult to shut off payment systems for use of Internet gambling transactions,” said Ms. Louise Roseman, Director, Division of Federal Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “The implementing statute will not be iron clad at all.”
At the April hearing, representatives from the American Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable, Wells Fargo & Co. and Credit Union National Association unanimously opposed regulations proposed to implement UIGEA. They all questioned the fundamental approach taken by Congress in enacting legislation that forces financial institutions to implement unreasonable and costly solutions to achieve compliance.
“The UIGEA and the Proposed Rule do not provide a rational path towards halting unlawful Internet gambling,” said Wayne Abernathy, American Bankers Association’s executive vice president of financial institutions policy and regulatory affairs. “The path leads to an increased cost and administrative burden to the banks and an erosion in the performance of the payments system, but it will not result in stopping illegal Internet gambling transactions. Imposing this enormous unfunded law enforcement mandate on banks in place of the government’s law enforcement agencies is not likely to be a successful public policy.”
Mr. Leigh Williams, president of the technology division of the Financial Services Roundtable stated in his testimony concerns that enforcement of the proposed rules “could impose significant compliance burdens on financial institutions by increasing their role in policing illegal activities, determining whether a transaction is illegal, or by imposing ambiguous compliance requirements that could be subject to wide variations in interpretation by regulators and law enforcement agencies. We believe these functions are more appropriate for law enforcement agencies.”
The testimony supports over 200 comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System on the burden and ambiguity in the proposed rules to implement UIGEA.
“The reality is that UIGEA is unclear, burdensome and doomed to fail,” said Sandman. “It simply does not make sense to impose more costs and burdens on financial companies, while the activity they are expected to stop flourishes in an unregulated, uncontrolled and underground marketplace. Congress should look to regulate Internet gambling in order to protect consumers and collect billions of dollars that are being lost to offshore Internet gambling operators.”
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046), introduced by Rep. Frank, would establish an enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. A companion piece of legislation that would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523) was introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA). According to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, taxation of regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first 10 years.
Bush administration officials to meet regarding U.S. ban on online gambling
Justice Department repeats request to throw out UIGEA restraining order
The following is a press release from lobbying group Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. We encourage all readers to learn more about this important issue that will effect all online poker players
The Bush Administration is working to finalize regulations to enforce a ban on Internet gambling despite concerns raised by leading financial service companies that the regulations are ambiguous, burdensome and not likely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online. It is expected that the regulations, issued to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), will be finalized at the last minute before they can be stopped by the Obama Administration – an orchestrated move being linked to a former National Football League (NFL) lobbyist now working in the Bush Administration. The NFL has actively campaigned against clarifying UIGEA and has opposed legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to regulate online gambling in order to protect consumers and generate billions for critical State and Federal programs.
“At a time when the financial system is in crisis, it is irresponsible for the Bush Administration to rush through a fundamentally flawed regulation that even representatives of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have stated on record is unworkable,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “We are skeptical of the Administration’s motivation to get this done at the very last minute, especially given the apparent involvement of a NFL lobbyist turned Bush appointee.”
Last week, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to detail what role Deputy Director of Public Liaison William Wichterman played in the Treasury Department’s decision to send the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final review on October 20. In a November 7 letter to Mr. Fielding, Rep. Cohen said he had been told that Mr. Wichterman “has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through.” The letter further stated, “The National Football League has been among the most vocal advocates for the proposed rule and the underlying law. I am sure you will agree that, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest is undeniable.”
As recently as March 2008, Mr. Wichterman was a paid lobbyist for the NFL, which has been a strong opponent of all forms of Internet gambling except for fantasy sports – an activity that generates more than $1 billion a year in revenues. Mr. Wichterman recently left the law firm of Covington and Burling, which represents the NFL, to serve as a political appointee in the few remaining months of the Bush Administration.
Movement on UIGEA comes despite a commitment by the Bush Administration not to issue final regulations after November 1, 2008 except in “extraordinary circumstances.” A delay in issuance of the final regulations was also expected given the September passage of the Payment System Protection Act by the House Financial Services Committee. The legislation would have delayed UIGEA implementation in order to develop regulations that do not harm the payments system.
“The Bush Administration is setting a horrible precedent of pushing through flawed regulations at the very last minute to deliberately circumvent the in-coming administration,” added Sandman. “The special interests, including the NFL, are clearly the big winners with this last minute maneuver, leaving already struggling banks and financial companies to implement costly and poorly crafted regulations.”
A fundamental flaw in the proposed regulations to enforce UIGEA is that they leave U.S. financial service companies to interpret ambiguous State and Federal gambling laws, which do not clearly differentiate between legal and illegal Internet gambling activities or transactions, according to a report issued by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
Representatives of the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System acknowledged the challenges U.S. financial institutions will face in attempting to comply with UIGEA in testimony before Congress in April. Since most payment systems are not designed to comply with this law, “it will be very difficult to shut off payment systems for use of Internet gambling transactions,” said Ms. Louise Roseman, Director, Division of Federal Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “The implementing statute will not be iron clad at all.”
At the April hearing, representatives from the American Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable, Wells Fargo & Co. and Credit Union National Association unanimously opposed regulations proposed to implement UIGEA. They all questioned the fundamental approach taken by Congress in enacting legislation that forces financial institutions to implement unreasonable and costly solutions to achieve compliance.
“The UIGEA and the Proposed Rule do not provide a rational path towards halting unlawful Internet gambling,” said Wayne Abernathy, American Bankers Association’s executive vice president of financial institutions policy and regulatory affairs. “The path leads to an increased cost and administrative burden to the banks and an erosion in the performance of the payments system, but it will not result in stopping illegal Internet gambling transactions. Imposing this enormous unfunded law enforcement mandate on banks in place of the government’s law enforcement agencies is not likely to be a successful public policy.”
Mr. Leigh Williams, president of the technology division of the Financial Services Roundtable stated in his testimony concerns that enforcement of the proposed rules “could impose significant compliance burdens on financial institutions by increasing their role in policing illegal activities, determining whether a transaction is illegal, or by imposing ambiguous compliance requirements that could be subject to wide variations in interpretation by regulators and law enforcement agencies. We believe these functions are more appropriate for law enforcement agencies.”
The testimony supports over 200 comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System on the burden and ambiguity in the proposed rules to implement UIGEA.
“The reality is that UIGEA is unclear, burdensome and doomed to fail,” said Sandman. “It simply does not make sense to impose more costs and burdens on financial companies, while the activity they are expected to stop flourishes in an unregulated, uncontrolled and underground marketplace. Congress should look to regulate Internet gambling in order to protect consumers and collect billions of dollars that are being lost to offshore Internet gambling operators.”
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046), introduced by Rep. Frank, would establish an enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. A companion piece of legislation that would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523) was introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA). According to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, taxation of regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first 10 years.
UIGEA update !!!!!
Absolute Poker threatening legal action against G911?
Bill to examine intra-state online poker in California introduced
There’s been a lot of chatter this week following the finalization of UIGEA regulations by the Fed and Treasury. There’s also been a good deal of action from pro-poker forces aimed at fighting the move.
First up is a new chapter in an existing story - iMEGA filed their response brief in their standing challenge to the UIGEA on constitutional grounds. The core of iMEGA’s claim has to do with the vagueness of the law; read more about their brief and the lawsuit against UIGEA here.
Second is a more interesting and recent development - it looks like the PPA is considering a class action lawsuit against the Federal Government over UIGEA. Yesterday, several PPA members received an email that laid out the idea of the lawsuit in broad terms. Here’s an excerpt:
Right now, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is preparing for a potential lawsuit against the UIGEA because its vagueness will likely force banks and other payment processors to over-block lawful Internet poker transactions. Thusly, the PPA is looking for a few good men and women to stand with us in a potential lawsuit. As a paid PPA member, your support has been crucial to our successes. The PPA is prepared to underwrite the complete cost of potential litigation we just need members like you to be part of our action.
Thanks to Pokerati for the heads up on that one.
Finally, Rick Alm over at the Kansas City Star has an interesting take on the new regs - he thinks they might actually have accidentally laid the foundation for legalized online poker. Excerpt:
[…]the states and tribes appear to be quite free under these new rules to let the cyber dice roll - and start raking in a new and lucrative category of tax dollars.
Nevada, New Jersey and a handful of other states have been held back so far only by threats of prosecution from the Justice Department - which now may be handcuffed itself.
Legal intrastate gambling may prove to be the game changer that rapidly paves the way to legal interstate and ultimately international gambling by Americans on the Web.
Bill to examine intra-state online poker in California introduced
There’s been a lot of chatter this week following the finalization of UIGEA regulations by the Fed and Treasury. There’s also been a good deal of action from pro-poker forces aimed at fighting the move.
First up is a new chapter in an existing story - iMEGA filed their response brief in their standing challenge to the UIGEA on constitutional grounds. The core of iMEGA’s claim has to do with the vagueness of the law; read more about their brief and the lawsuit against UIGEA here.
Second is a more interesting and recent development - it looks like the PPA is considering a class action lawsuit against the Federal Government over UIGEA. Yesterday, several PPA members received an email that laid out the idea of the lawsuit in broad terms. Here’s an excerpt:
Right now, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is preparing for a potential lawsuit against the UIGEA because its vagueness will likely force banks and other payment processors to over-block lawful Internet poker transactions. Thusly, the PPA is looking for a few good men and women to stand with us in a potential lawsuit. As a paid PPA member, your support has been crucial to our successes. The PPA is prepared to underwrite the complete cost of potential litigation we just need members like you to be part of our action.
Thanks to Pokerati for the heads up on that one.
Finally, Rick Alm over at the Kansas City Star has an interesting take on the new regs - he thinks they might actually have accidentally laid the foundation for legalized online poker. Excerpt:
[…]the states and tribes appear to be quite free under these new rules to let the cyber dice roll - and start raking in a new and lucrative category of tax dollars.
Nevada, New Jersey and a handful of other states have been held back so far only by threats of prosecution from the Justice Department - which now may be handcuffed itself.
Legal intrastate gambling may prove to be the game changer that rapidly paves the way to legal interstate and ultimately international gambling by Americans on the Web.
Goverment caps new poker machine numbers
The Queensland Government has announced a permanent cap on the number of new poker machines allowed in the state's clubs.
There are already almost 45,000 poker machines in clubs and pubs across Queensland.
In April, the Government introduced a two-year moratorium on new poker machine allocations in clubs, but this has now been extended to a permanent cap bringing it into line with the long-held moratorium in pubs.
The decision is expected to cost the Government about $20 million a year in lost revenue.
Premier Anna Bligh says the decision to introduce a permanent cap has not been taken lightly.
But she says the Government is determined to get tough on gambling and do what is in the public interest.
The Opposition says the Government's promise to limit poker machine numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg has welcomed the idea of the cap and supports Salvation Army calls to reduce the number of poker machines.
But he says he does not expect the cap will last as the Government has flip-flopped on gaming machine policy before.
He says in 2005 the Government added an extra 1,200 licences despite having limits in place.
There are already almost 45,000 poker machines in clubs and pubs across Queensland.
In April, the Government introduced a two-year moratorium on new poker machine allocations in clubs, but this has now been extended to a permanent cap bringing it into line with the long-held moratorium in pubs.
The decision is expected to cost the Government about $20 million a year in lost revenue.
Premier Anna Bligh says the decision to introduce a permanent cap has not been taken lightly.
But she says the Government is determined to get tough on gambling and do what is in the public interest.
The Opposition says the Government's promise to limit poker machine numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg has welcomed the idea of the cap and supports Salvation Army calls to reduce the number of poker machines.
But he says he does not expect the cap will last as the Government has flip-flopped on gaming machine policy before.
He says in 2005 the Government added an extra 1,200 licences despite having limits in place.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
3 Filipinos Make Final Poker Table
THREE Filipino aspirants made it to the final table past three Korean hotshots in the penultimate day of the second season of the PokerStars.net Asia Pacific Poker Tour Saturday night at the Hyatt Hotel in Malate, Manila.
Ramil Tandoc, Benjamin Lim and first-timer Rainier Aquino were among the nine finalists after they showed enough patience to keep pace with their Korean foes Hyoungjin Nam, Chang Young Suk and Noh Taeh Jun.
Tandoc, who turned professional two years ago, reached the final table with 184,000 chips, while Lim and Aquino had 115,000 and 40,000, respectively.
The three assured themselves of a minimum payout of $9,228 (P461,400) for making it this far in the tournament, which drew a record field of 285 vying for prizes totaling P30 million.
The 33-year-old Tandoc, who is also known as Richard Malikan among his peers, got his biggest break in the 16th round when he busted out Iraqi foe Nali Kazelias, who went all-in.
Kazelian, who had a king of hearts and a 10 of spades, went all-in on Tandoc’s ace of club and king of club. The flop showed a king of diamonds, which went with a jack of clubs, six of diamonds, nine of hearts and a seven of clubs.
The win put Tandoc’s total to 3,800 chips, good enough for seventh spot.
“Sana mayroon pang kasunod,” said Tandoc, a father of three.
The 33-year-old Nam, a business administrator from Seoul, emerged as the chip leader in 17 rounds after ousting Filipino standout William Te Jr. in a three-way showdown with Canada’s Dimitrios Pappis.
Te’s hand revealed a 10 of hearts and a king of hearts, to Pappis’ seven of diamonds and eight of diamonds.
But the flop’s 10 of diamonds, four of clubs and six of diamonds favored Nam, who showed a pair of sixes.
The play had Nam collecting 500,000 chips and gain a total of 561,000 when the night was over.
Chang had 539,000 chips for second spot at the expense of Pappis, who showed a jack of clubs and a king of hearts to his ace of kings and 10 of diamonds. The Korean took 6514 chips after the river card showed a jack of diamonds.
The two Koreans gun for the top purse which had reached around P8,142,800 ($162,856), with Noh trailing with 466,000 chips. Peter Atencio
Ramil Tandoc, Benjamin Lim and first-timer Rainier Aquino were among the nine finalists after they showed enough patience to keep pace with their Korean foes Hyoungjin Nam, Chang Young Suk and Noh Taeh Jun.
Tandoc, who turned professional two years ago, reached the final table with 184,000 chips, while Lim and Aquino had 115,000 and 40,000, respectively.
The three assured themselves of a minimum payout of $9,228 (P461,400) for making it this far in the tournament, which drew a record field of 285 vying for prizes totaling P30 million.
The 33-year-old Tandoc, who is also known as Richard Malikan among his peers, got his biggest break in the 16th round when he busted out Iraqi foe Nali Kazelias, who went all-in.
Kazelian, who had a king of hearts and a 10 of spades, went all-in on Tandoc’s ace of club and king of club. The flop showed a king of diamonds, which went with a jack of clubs, six of diamonds, nine of hearts and a seven of clubs.
The win put Tandoc’s total to 3,800 chips, good enough for seventh spot.
“Sana mayroon pang kasunod,” said Tandoc, a father of three.
The 33-year-old Nam, a business administrator from Seoul, emerged as the chip leader in 17 rounds after ousting Filipino standout William Te Jr. in a three-way showdown with Canada’s Dimitrios Pappis.
Te’s hand revealed a 10 of hearts and a king of hearts, to Pappis’ seven of diamonds and eight of diamonds.
But the flop’s 10 of diamonds, four of clubs and six of diamonds favored Nam, who showed a pair of sixes.
The play had Nam collecting 500,000 chips and gain a total of 561,000 when the night was over.
Chang had 539,000 chips for second spot at the expense of Pappis, who showed a jack of clubs and a king of hearts to his ace of kings and 10 of diamonds. The Korean took 6514 chips after the river card showed a jack of diamonds.
The two Koreans gun for the top purse which had reached around P8,142,800 ($162,856), with Noh trailing with 466,000 chips. Peter Atencio
CHUCK LIDDELL NEWS
The abrupt end to Chuck Liddell's participation in an international USO tour to support American troops has raised a few eyebrows.
The former UFC light heavyweight champion was part of a contingent of five celebrities joining a U.S. Marine general on an eight-day, five-country USO tour this week.
Liddell made the first part of the trek on Monday to Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, Alaska, with rap duo the Ying Yang Twins, model and singer Mayra Veronica and comedians Gabriel Iglesias and Edwin San Juan. However, Liddell pulled out of the tour on Tuesday due to what both the USO and his management team, Zinkin Entertainment, deemed to be an unspecified illness.
However, unconfirmed reports quickly surfaced following Liddell's decision to bow out, including one that he was asked to leave by the USO after members of his entourage were found partying with minors, and a separate report that he was arrested while in Alaska.
A Zinkin representative told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) the report about Liddell's arrest "completely false," and that statement is supported by a public affairs officer at Eielson, who said that Liddell was "not detained or arrested" while on the base Monday.
According to Zinkin, Liddell is back home in California resting and was "disappointed" in not being able to continue the tour.
On the surface, the reason behind Liddell's bail out on the tour seems to check out. However, rightly or wrongly, Liddell's fondness for the nightlife often leads to speculation that goes beyond public statements.
Liddell is expected back in the octagon in February or March.
The former UFC light heavyweight champion was part of a contingent of five celebrities joining a U.S. Marine general on an eight-day, five-country USO tour this week.
Liddell made the first part of the trek on Monday to Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, Alaska, with rap duo the Ying Yang Twins, model and singer Mayra Veronica and comedians Gabriel Iglesias and Edwin San Juan. However, Liddell pulled out of the tour on Tuesday due to what both the USO and his management team, Zinkin Entertainment, deemed to be an unspecified illness.
However, unconfirmed reports quickly surfaced following Liddell's decision to bow out, including one that he was asked to leave by the USO after members of his entourage were found partying with minors, and a separate report that he was arrested while in Alaska.
A Zinkin representative told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) the report about Liddell's arrest "completely false," and that statement is supported by a public affairs officer at Eielson, who said that Liddell was "not detained or arrested" while on the base Monday.
According to Zinkin, Liddell is back home in California resting and was "disappointed" in not being able to continue the tour.
On the surface, the reason behind Liddell's bail out on the tour seems to check out. However, rightly or wrongly, Liddell's fondness for the nightlife often leads to speculation that goes beyond public statements.
Liddell is expected back in the octagon in February or March.
LESNAR WINS TITLE !
LAS VEGAS - Brock Lesnar won the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s heavyweight title in stunning fashion on Saturday at UFC 91 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, forcing a referee stoppage of legendary champion Randy Couture at 3:07 of the second round.
Lesnar, the former NCAA wrestling champion who became a superstar in World Wrestling Entertainment, vindicated himself as a mixed martial artist by defeating one of the sport’s greatest fighters.
Lesnar (3-1) landed a booming right hand that sent Couture tumbling backward and onto his back in the center of the ring. Lesnar pounced immediately and jumped on top of his 45-year-old foe, pummeling him with fists and elbows before referee Mario Yamasaki stopped it.
“They are some big-ass ham hocks coming at you,” Couture said.
The first round was an even and cautious battle, much of it spent with the two former collegiate wrestling stars battling for position along the cage.
Couture’s plan was to try to stand and move and wear Lesnar down, but Lesnar’s stand-up was significantly improved even from where it was when he met Heath Herring in his last out, in August at UFC 87.
“I believe in hard work and that it pays off, honest to God,” Lesnar said. “I may come across as a cocky SOB, but I’m confident. That’s what the Lord gave me, my body and my mind.”
He needed his mind to remain composed against Couture, a master game planner who was fighting for the first time in 15 months after a legal dispute with UFC. Lesnar, who appeared nervous at the beginning of the bout, never made the big mistake, like he did when he met ex-champion Frank Mir in his UFC debut in February, and he capitalized when he had his chance.
He won the belt in his fourth fight, which, ironically, was when Couture captured the heavyweight belt for what would be the first of three times when he defeated Maurice Smith.
Lesnar was able to neutralize Couture’s wrestling ability and was using his size and weight to wear down Couture.
“I can’t believe it,” Lesnar said. “I want to thank [UFC president] Dana White, the UFC and I’d like to thank this guy, Randy Couture. It takes a lot of balls to take a year off and come back and fight a young buck like me.”
Lesnar will face the winner of the Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira-Mir bout, which will be held at UFC 92 on Dec. 27 in the same arena, sometime next year for the undisputed title. Nogueira won the interim belt by defeating Tim Sylvia when Couture was in the midst of his legal dispute with the UFC.
In the top undercard bout, lightweight Ken Florian earned a title shot with a first-round submission victory over Joe Stevenson.
Lesnar, the former NCAA wrestling champion who became a superstar in World Wrestling Entertainment, vindicated himself as a mixed martial artist by defeating one of the sport’s greatest fighters.
Lesnar (3-1) landed a booming right hand that sent Couture tumbling backward and onto his back in the center of the ring. Lesnar pounced immediately and jumped on top of his 45-year-old foe, pummeling him with fists and elbows before referee Mario Yamasaki stopped it.
“They are some big-ass ham hocks coming at you,” Couture said.
The first round was an even and cautious battle, much of it spent with the two former collegiate wrestling stars battling for position along the cage.
Couture’s plan was to try to stand and move and wear Lesnar down, but Lesnar’s stand-up was significantly improved even from where it was when he met Heath Herring in his last out, in August at UFC 87.
“I believe in hard work and that it pays off, honest to God,” Lesnar said. “I may come across as a cocky SOB, but I’m confident. That’s what the Lord gave me, my body and my mind.”
He needed his mind to remain composed against Couture, a master game planner who was fighting for the first time in 15 months after a legal dispute with UFC. Lesnar, who appeared nervous at the beginning of the bout, never made the big mistake, like he did when he met ex-champion Frank Mir in his UFC debut in February, and he capitalized when he had his chance.
He won the belt in his fourth fight, which, ironically, was when Couture captured the heavyweight belt for what would be the first of three times when he defeated Maurice Smith.
Lesnar was able to neutralize Couture’s wrestling ability and was using his size and weight to wear down Couture.
“I can’t believe it,” Lesnar said. “I want to thank [UFC president] Dana White, the UFC and I’d like to thank this guy, Randy Couture. It takes a lot of balls to take a year off and come back and fight a young buck like me.”
Lesnar will face the winner of the Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira-Mir bout, which will be held at UFC 92 on Dec. 27 in the same arena, sometime next year for the undisputed title. Nogueira won the interim belt by defeating Tim Sylvia when Couture was in the midst of his legal dispute with the UFC.
In the top undercard bout, lightweight Ken Florian earned a title shot with a first-round submission victory over Joe Stevenson.
UFC LESNAR AND COUTURE
UFC Big BROCK LESNAR TAKES DOWN RANDY COUTURE IN 2 ND ROUND , OVER ALL I THOUGHT THE FIGHT WOULD BE MORE PHYSICAL , ALL THE BIG TALK ABOUT THIS FIGHT AND ANOTHER UFC FIGHT SOAP OPERA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
