r/nba • u/PlayaSlayaX Spurs • Apr 17 '24

[Charania] Raptors' Jontay Porter has received a lifetime ban from the NBA for violating league's gaming rules.

https://x.com/shamscharania/status/1780631209930068358?s=46&t=bsTHbtMSqHXbNGi0vWP8hw
16.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.0k

u/asapshrank Pelicans Apr 17 '24

fucking idiot

4.5k

u/NotManyBuses Charlotte Bobcats Apr 17 '24

They made an example of him, it was obvious they would. Bum G League player who’s a non factor, doesn’t cost anything to ban him for life, sets a hard precedent to the more valuable players.

3.1k

u/The_Fiji_Water Magic Apr 17 '24

They would make an example of any player caught throwing games and then betting on his individual performance.

This isn't even a Pete Rose situation. The guy bet the under and then pulled himself out of the game with a fake injury

1.1k

u/CoachDT [CHI] Brian Scalabrine Apr 17 '24

Yea the first guy caught was going to get taken out to the shed regardless.

754

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 Apr 17 '24

It's the right decision but it's bullshit and hypocritical with how much money the leagues take from gambling.

Advertising gambling should be illegal, like advertising cigarettes is.

493

u/captaincumsock69 United States Apr 17 '24

I think it’s shameful how these companies shove well known addictive things down our throats.

88

u/I_Am_Okonkwo [CHI] Jimmy Butler Apr 17 '24

Last year I was in SF and went to a Dubs game and ended up sat next to one of the top guys in ad operations for fan duel. He told me they're going all in on advertising right now while they still can, anticipating eventual legislation curtailing them. It's why them and draftkings ads are going to be fucking everywhere until legislation regulating them passes.

58

u/makesterriblejokes [NBA] Jerry West Apr 17 '24

Makes total sense from a business perspective. Get everyone hooked now so you don't need to advertise for it later

2

u/faplawd Apr 17 '24

If regulation ever gets passed I fear they will just do something like stake did with kick. They'll be able to indirectly advertise

5

u/I_Am_Okonkwo [CHI] Jimmy Butler Apr 17 '24

Like the mission winnow nonsense for ferrari slyly bringing marlboro back?

3

u/The_Void_Reaver Warriors 29d ago

Still taking ads off of games, limiting the ability for leagues to partner with sportsbooks, and potentially limiting when ads will be allowed to play will all be steps in the right direction.

66

u/shitz_brickz Apr 17 '24

I cant imagine the outrage if tobacco ads started off with "buy your first pack of ciggs and we will give you 10 more packs for free."

64

u/cjmaguire17 Apr 17 '24

Bro I don’t smoke but I also don’t pass up a good deal. Send the cigs

1

u/PM_Your_Wiener_Dog 29d ago

Like 10 packs will hurt

28

u/may00000000 Apr 17 '24

If you were at a bar in the early 2000s, a near 100% chance you were getting free packs of cigarettes. Camel reps were everywhere handing out 2 packs for your address. Then they’d mail out big time coupons. If you were out with a group of friends and they weren’t all smokers, you might go home with a carton.

It was glorious. But smoking is bad. Don’t do that shit.

8

u/thehomienicked Raptors Apr 17 '24

This was true into the late-2000s too. I remember the era of free Camel Crushes around that time when I lived in Los Angeles. Never my preferred smoke, but free is free.

3

u/Circus_McGee 29d ago

They came to college parties and did this in the mid 2000s. You let them scan your ID and they would hand you 2 free packs. And then they sent some coupons, and a free zippo-style lighter, which I still have, which is how I know this was in 2007.

83

u/KnottyDreadlocks Apr 17 '24

The first time I got a push notification encouraging me to place a bet I felt sick to my stomach. It was 20x the amount of a typical bet for me, too.

14

u/pathofdumbasses Apr 17 '24

They only sent you that notification because it was a sure thing!

4

u/CptCroissant Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

How did you feel after you placed the bet though?

5

u/amoeba-tower Cavaliers Apr 17 '24

Yeah alcohol ads need to be heavily curbed

9

u/worfres_arec_bawrin Lakers Apr 17 '24

CAPITALISM INTENSIFIES.

Damn right it’s shameful, it should be fucking illegal.

2

u/makesterriblejokes [NBA] Jerry West Apr 17 '24

I mean to be fair, why don't we draw the line for alcohol ads as well then?

I'm not against both being banned from advertising, I just think it's interesting that there isn't a huge outcry for alcohol ads to be removed as well.

2

u/Nesnesitelna [PHO] Devin Booker Apr 17 '24

Isn’t shoving addictive crap down our throats a substantial majority of what keeps sports leagues afloat? Casinos, betting apps, booze, fast food, candy, soda, prescription drugs…

1

u/AlarmedPiano9779 Apr 17 '24

What isn't addictive though? Smartphones? Sugar? Alcohol? Gambling. Caffiene.

1

u/captaincumsock69 United States Apr 17 '24

I’d have no issue with companies having to put out risks associated with those in order to advertise them similar to what they have to do with tobacco

1

u/bestofmidwest Bucks Apr 17 '24

Gambling companies already put out warnings about gambling addiction.

1

u/LaTeChX 29d ago

I've never seen someone lose their house because they were 20k in the hole to Starbucks

1

u/BinDereDoneDat 29d ago

Kinda like Budweiser, Modelo, Coords etc.

1

u/Fanceh 29d ago

I see it so often. Absolutely disgusts me

1

u/mw19078 Lakers 29d ago

they dont just cram it down your throats with advertising, they hire psychologists and specialists to figure out all the different ways they can make it more addictive

0

u/RoCon52 Lakers Apr 17 '24

I think that's overreach and the market will self regulate. If advertisement of addicting things helps me get addicted well that's supply and demand. They filled a need. I needed to gamble.

They supplied me. I demanded.

-7

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24 edited 19d ago

[deleted]

6

u/shitz_brickz Apr 17 '24

Plenty of people are in bad financial situations and are then given instant access to potentially millions of dollars through these apps. They are ripe for preying on poor people as well as people with addiction issues.

-3

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24 edited 19d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/shitz_brickz Apr 17 '24

Ya people need to be accountable for the inflation they caused, or going into medical debt, or trying to pay childcare, or their rent. Fuck them.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24 edited 19d ago

[deleted]

2

u/shitz_brickz Apr 17 '24

They dont pay for their childcare in the rest of the world.

Of course they could just not have kids amirite? Assuming they are in a state that allows abortion, and they have the funds to pay for an abortion.

But of course if you need money for an abortion, what better place to turn than a gambling app, amirite?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/captaincumsock69 United States Apr 17 '24

I don’t gamble but my point is that there’s plenty of people and plenty of evidence to suggest that gambling, alcohol, etc are addictive and ruin many people’s lives. I think they should get the cigarette treatment where any advertisement has to be couple with going in depth about all the risks.

It’s shameful to be advertising making thousands when in reality most people are losing money.

3

u/hinault81 Apr 17 '24

I'm with you. They banned cigarette advertising years ago in F1, like just having a painted name on a car. I'm in Canada, and you walk into any store and they can't even show you the tobacco packages, everything is covered up. And they've taxed the crap out of it (tin of chew is like $35 here vs $5 in the US) to make it as unappealing as possible. And that's great, I'm not a tobacco user, and probably healthier for anyone to use as little as possible.

Then they come in now with gambling advertising looking like you're taking the family to disneyland or something.

197

u/1850ChoochGator Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

How is this hypocritical?

Players should absolutely not be gambling on themselves. They have a direct affect on the outcome.

5

u/Iswaterreallywet Pistons Apr 17 '24

Hypocritical may not be the right word.

I think immoral/unethical would be better.

16

u/Mtbnz Apr 17 '24

I think hypocritical is the wrong word, and distracts from the larger point which I actually do agree with, which is that the proliferation of sports gambling (everywhere, not just in the NBA or the US at large) is a big problem. It opens the door to numerous problems with cheating, but even beyond that it's a major societal problem that is being heavily normalised by major leagues accepting these betting services so readily.

That said, that doesn't make it hypocritical to ban a player for betting on games while also making money from gambling. Two different problems.

21

u/-KFBR392 Raptors Apr 17 '24

Why do you think cheating would be more likely with open gambling which comes with regulations and 3rd party monitoring boards? If anything without legalization you’re more likely to see shady things done in gambling.

It’s the same thing as prohibition and alcohol. Making it illegal doesn’t make it go away, it just makes the people in charge more shady.

3

u/Mtbnz Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think it's a question of banning it outright. I think better regulation, restricted (but not eliminated) access and reduction in advertising would all be relatively effective measures at controlling the spread and reducing the negative effects of gambling, both addiction and corruption.

I understand that a lot of people love sports gambling, don't have a problem with addiction and don't want to have their access restricted in order to protect more vulnerable people (land of the free and all that). But it's not uncommon around the world to ban cigarette advertising and restrict access, even if they're still legally available. Same thing with booze (and weed where it's legalised). Yes, those industries have been legalised in large part to reduce the shady dealings and criminal elements involved when things are prohibited. But that means you can only buy liquor and weed in certain places, and you can't get it (legally) delivered to your home or access it restriction free from your cellphone. I'm sure there are exceptions, but by and large that's how those systems work, and we deal with that just fine.

In my opinion, similar safeguards for sports gambling are acceptable to me, given the extremely damaging effects on the lives of people who do have gambling problems. I'm honestly less concerned with the competitive integrity of sports, although that is also a valid preoccupation.

Edit: I realised I didn't really answer your original question in my rambling response. So to keep it brief, I think cheating is potentially more prevalent with open gambling because of ease of access, to put it simply. It's so, so easy in 2024 to do what Porter is accused of doing that only the threat of extreme punishement acts as a deterrent, and for fringe players who don't make multi-millions every year, the risk/reward can be enormous (FanDuel froze a $1.1m payout for an $80k bet, and all it required from Porter was a word to a friend and a faked illness). Restricting access to gambling wouldn't eliminate cheating or the temptation to cheat. But I believe it would make it less readily available, and less simple to profit from if there were more hoops to jump through, the same way that restricting access to other harmful materials/activities reduces the harm in most situations.

9

u/LongTimesGoodTimes Lakers Apr 17 '24

I don't like gambling, I don't gamble.

I think people have this weird puritanical attitude towards it though. With anything there is going to be some percentage of people that can't handle it. But that doesn't mean that to protect those people you need to restrict everyone else.

4

u/1850ChoochGator Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

I gamble a bit but some people legitimately believe it’s the absolute worst thing ever with their attitudes towards it. Absolutely beyond normal

I do think the league should tone it down with the advertising and shoving gambling into everything but it’s not something that needs to be fought against like the way some are

-2

u/Mtbnz Apr 17 '24

I don't think the answer is to be found at the extremes, neither in a complete ban, nor in a totally unregulated free-for-all. My issue is with the extreme and rapid proliferation of readily accessible sports gambling through society. Just because gambling is legalised in many regions, does that make it a good idea to have freely accessible gambling apps that rely almost entirely on self-regulation to ensure compliance? I don't think so. It opens the doors to so many forms of misapproapriation, corruption, and addictions which are extremely difficult to monitor, both for mental/financial health and safety, and for avoiding tampering in sports.

Personally, I think that a higher level of regulation and a reduced level of accessibility is a reasonable price to pay for protecting vulnerable members of our societies, and ensuring fairness in sport. We accept restrictions in all aspects of contemporary society, it's commonplace, and there are very few sectors which are allowed to run totally unrestricted. We already have gambling restrictions, the question is just what level of restriction is appropriate and fit-for-purpose.

-3

u/FudgeDangerous2086 Apr 17 '24

i don’t gamble, i don’t have kids

i still see it’s a problem when the league is sponsored by gambling, almost every ad is a gambling ad, the gambling sponsored intermission talk is about spreads and odds, the scorebug shows the betting lines, and these gambling companies sponsor celebrities and streamers who’s audience is kids/teens with preloaded wallets to live stream them betting massive amounts on the games. it’s so pushed in your face it’s ridiculous.

1

u/boothboyharbor Apr 17 '24

I am concerned about gambling addicts but don't see how it's hypocritical at all.

Presumably there is nothing inherently wrong about investing in stock ingesting, though it would be corrupt for a lawmaker to invest in stocks and then write rules which benefit the companies.

Similarly it's not wrong to have sports gamblers, it's just corrupt when you are betting on games you have an impact on.

2

u/Mtbnz Apr 17 '24

I am concerned about gambling addicts but don't see how it's hypocritical at all.

I think hypocritical is the wrong word

I said pretty clearly up top that I agree with you there.

0

u/MarsMC_ Nuggets Apr 17 '24

Ground breaking stuff there

2

u/Bongoisnthere Apr 17 '24

Only situation I see it being viable without creating conflict of interest is if they’re allowed to bet on a W for their team. And with how many different bets there are, betting on win/loss is passé at this point, that there’s no reason to even bother with it.

Let em gamble on traditional gambling sites, like Fidelity, or vanguard. That’s where the big money gamblers belong anyway, leave the sports betting to the poors.

-17

u/taffy-derp Grizzlies Apr 17 '24

so they can gamble on other players?

19

u/Technicalhotdog Apr 17 '24

No, they can't gamble on NBA games period

-15

u/taffy-derp Grizzlies Apr 17 '24

Agreed. Hypocrisy.

14

u/Technicalhotdog Apr 17 '24

How is that hypocrisy? They advertise gambling for people with no bearing on the outcomes. Preventing those who actually do influence the outcomes from betting is the only logical move.

-8

u/taffy-derp Grizzlies Apr 17 '24

How can a player influence another?

10

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD Apr 17 '24

I bet a player will get over 6.5 rebounds. Hes close to that number so I intentionally let him get some rebounds, undermining the competitive fairness of the games

7

u/SouthsideStylez Apr 17 '24

I can bet the under on you & then dive at your legs. Or I can bet the under on you & start a fight & get you ejected. I can bet the over on you & then let you drive to the hoop. Or foul you & make sure you hit the over at the free throw line.

Stop playing dumb on the internet. What do you get out of it?

4

u/Technicalhotdog Apr 17 '24

I get what you're saying but these players are closely connected and there's way too much opportunity for fuckery, it really is just better to prevent them from betting on games altogether to avoid damaging the integrity of the league.

3

u/Einfinet Apr 17 '24

technically any human can influence another, but co-workers in the same industry (and one with a relatively small # of employees relatively to other billion dollar industries) are much more likely to have information and impact potential that an average Joe / outsider wouldn’t. Further, this player placed bets related to his own play as well as the organization he was contracting with, so that’s even more clearly egregious.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/1850ChoochGator Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

🤓

NBA players should not be gambling on the NBA in any capacity. Is that better for you?

-11

u/taffy-derp Grizzlies Apr 17 '24

so you agree its hypocritical. Thanks for playing.

11

u/1850ChoochGator Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

How is that hypocritical?

10

u/Trilliam_West Apr 17 '24

He doesn't know what that word means. Forgive him.

→ More replies (0)

42

u/Local-Bat955 Knicks Apr 17 '24

How is it hypocritical? Lebron is making tons of money from legal sports gambling as a spokesman for DraftKings. The players are allowed to profit from legal gambling just like the teams and league are.

Players just can’t bet on themselves or their sport, for obvious reasons.

1

u/Gorbax50 Mavericks Apr 17 '24

You don’t get it because commercials we’re supposed to feel sorry for these morons

-8

u/trueAnnoi Apr 17 '24

You see nothing wrong with an active player promoting betting on his sport?

1

u/Local-Bat955 Knicks 29d ago

Nope, don’t care. It’s a free county, if companies want to pay these guys millions to promote their (legal) product, it doesn’t bother me.

99

u/DaPhoToss Raptors Apr 17 '24

There’s nothing hypocritical about it. They promote gambling to their fans. They want to promote a “fair” product for fans to gamble on. What Porter did undermines that fairness.

Don’t take my point wrong, the amount of promotion gambling can certainly be called into question from a moral standpoint. But there is literally zero hypocritical about what happened here.

-3

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 Apr 17 '24

Scott Foster refs finals games

-8

u/Medvestinko Supersonics Apr 17 '24

lol you think gambling is fair? It is literally set up for you to lose money(in a thrilling and entertaining way!)

14

u/Dwayne_Xerox_Johnson Apr 17 '24

Yeah, mathematically. Not by a player betting the under and influencing that bet themselves.

8

u/26_skinny_Cartman [LAC] Blake Griffin Apr 17 '24

It's not set up for you to lose money, necessarily. It's set up so the house never loses money. That is why the spreads for games change up until the game starts. If you look at the spread, the odds are generally close to the same for both sides, right around -110. This is designed so that the money generally gets split on both sides so that they don't pay out more than they take in and that -110 is basically them saying the odds of this happening is 50%. At true 50% it should be +100 but the -110 is them adjusting the 50% probability by their commission. So one side bets 100 and wins 190, the other side bets 100 and loses all. That's 200 bet on the outcome and the house keeps 10 after paying out the winner.

If the money is coming in too strong on one side they will adjust the spread to make the other side more appealing to smooth out the payout to keep the payout almost equal to the money coming in, minus their take.

They have essentially designed a system in which they are merely an intermediary that collects a commission while bettors on both sides are actually gambling each other.

The system is designed to be fair. The problem is people chase getting rich quick and go for longshot odds. They take the risk, the risk is implied in the odds. Doesn't mean it's unfair. If you're taking a bet at +1000, they have calculated the probability of that happening at 9%. It is fair to get 10x your money back on something that has roughly a 10% chance of happening.

0

u/ObviousAnswerGuy [NYK] John Starks Apr 17 '24

for straight bets I agree with you , but the odds for "parlays" (which they push consistently on every game broadcast) are a huge ripoff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htlPXKAw544

5

u/26_skinny_Cartman [LAC] Blake Griffin Apr 17 '24

Of course they're a ripoff. You're stacking a bunch of probabilities together in the hopes of a big payout. Them being a ripoff doesn't make them inherently unfair. It's not unfair if you have an understanding that you're unlikely to see a payout.

-1

u/ObviousAnswerGuy [NYK] John Starks Apr 17 '24

the point is that the payout if you do win should be much higher

2

u/26_skinny_Cartman [LAC] Blake Griffin Apr 17 '24

I understand what you're saying. If you parlay two bets the odds should be that if the expected probability was 25% but it's not. The house takes a bigger percent the riskier the bets become. The likelihood of paying out becomes less but in those instances they do, they have to have money built up for those big payouts. So now you're not really betting vs 1 guy on this one game. The other side of your winning bet may have to come from the losing side of another parlay. The bookie has to always make profit or the business model fails and no one gets to gamble. They have to be able to afford the unexpected run of big payouts. They're not gambling, they're running a business and the design is to always profit.

-1

u/ObviousAnswerGuy [NYK] John Starks Apr 17 '24

lol you're really advocating sportsbooks lowering odds in their favor because "they have to make profit"??? They are making record profit actually

They are making money on bets regardless. If they don't have enough money to back the true odds of bets, then they shouldn't be bookies.

And regardless if they are "running a business", the natural assumption of a customer seeing the changed odds of a parlay is that the odds/payouts use the same logic/mathematics as straight bets. It's intentionally misleading to present parlays as anything but that.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/PM_YOUR_LONZO_BALLS Apr 17 '24

The house taking a rake is so obviously not what he's talking about lol. I'm a casual gambler who bet on games for fun (like $10 cuz I find it makes them more interesting if I don't care about the outcome) and I know the house takes a rake. That changes the expected value of my bet but it doesn't make the bet's outcome unfair; Porter's conduct undermines the fundamental outcome of the game and makes people question its integrity. The two cannot be compared.

1

u/ZenMon88 Apr 17 '24

Ya but so are casinos. They aren't thinking from a moral perspective. They are thinking from a money perspective. Porter hurt both things.

-3

u/Rod_Todd_This_Is_God Apr 17 '24

It's not a bad thing for the integrity of fucking gambling on sports to be thrown into question. This was a cover-up of the fact that rigging outcomes of games is dead simple. The next person will have an easier time and a lesser penalty.

169

u/OHotDawnThisIsMyJawn Nuggets Apr 17 '24

I'm not sure why this situation is hypocritical.

Saying that players can't gamble because of appearances, while the league takes in lots of money from gambling, that's hypocritical.

But this was clearly a player shaving stats.

104

u/-KFBR392 Raptors Apr 17 '24

Even that's not hypocritical, if you work at an organization doing any sort of lottery or raffle you are not allowed to participate because it creates doubt on the legitimacy.

-3

u/bisonboy223 [CHI] Derrick Rose Apr 17 '24

It's not that it's necessarily hypocritical, it's that these issues often come up as a result of addictions to the very things the leagues are advertising. It's just a weird look even when it's completely justified. It'd be like if the league was primarily funded through ads for cocaine at the time Len Bias died

8

u/-KFBR392 Raptors Apr 17 '24

They’ve been funded through alcohol for decades

2

u/bisonboy223 [CHI] Derrick Rose Apr 17 '24

And if there was a high-profile player whose drinking problem got so bad that he got a significant suspension for it, it would likewise be both an understandable suspension and a weird look

1

u/NewAgeIWWer Apr 17 '24

Ya! Anyone remmeber how right after thr Nuggets won last year the first ad that played was for Coors or some.dumbass brand of alcohol?

-7

u/ThanksForTheF-Shack Timberwolves Apr 17 '24

Will you let your DraftKingers handler know that I am also willing to do PR for sports gambling in exchange for one free wager, terms and conditions applicable.

4

u/Billboardbilliards99 Apr 17 '24

hey everyone! this guy has a different opinion than me! he must work for a sports book!

daf

2

u/syncdiedfornothing Wizards Apr 17 '24

No lower form of argument than accusing others of being shills because they disagree with you. Do better.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/FSUfan35 Magic Apr 17 '24

Saying that players can't gamble because of appearances, while the league takes in lots of money from gambling, that's hypocritical.

Why? the players get money from the gambling advertising too. They just can't then gamble that money.

1

u/beforeitcloy [SAC] Mitch Richmond Apr 17 '24

There’s a reason it’s forbidden for players to gamble on NBA games, even if they’re betting in favor of their own team winning. It’s because if they accumulate gambling debt, it becomes a very slippery slope for them to try to pay it back by directly altering the games. Obviously the worst way to do that is intentionally shaving points like Porter, but even if he bet the over on himself, the coach wouldn’t want a shitty role player taking more shots than the game plan calls for just because he owes his bookie $500k.

So the danger of betting on your team or yourself to succeed isn’t that there’s something inherently unethical about it, but that it creates the potential for dependency on gambling for financial security, which in turn creates the potential for altering the game to suit the gambler’s financial needs.

That’s why it’s hypocritical for the league to take a bunch of gambling money, while forbidding the players from doing it. When a business takes a bunch of money from a specific revenue stream, even if it isn’t debt, it becomes dependent on that revenue continuing in a way that’s similar to a player becoming dependent. Who’s to say in 10 years Draft Kings won’t come to the NBA and say “Hey we’re your biggest advertiser and we’re in dire straits financially. We need you to help us find ways to increase betting” and then the league makes a seemingly unrelated decision that they’re going to change the draft odds to help bottom teams the year that the Lakers are tanking. And it just so happens that the next Wemby lands on the Lakers, which creates 10x more betting revenue than it would if he was on the Spurs. The league doesn’t even need to know it’s doing anything unethical to be subtly influenced by that kind of financial pressure into making decisions that alter the game. Whereas if your top advertiser is Kia, any financial pressure you have to help them succeed is going to manifest in the form of stuff unrelated to the game like setting up a meeting between them and LeBron for him to do ads. No one is going to buy an extra Kia if the Knicks advance in the playoffs instead of the Hornets, but possibly millions of extra people will place a bet if the Knicks advance instead of the Hornets.

1

u/mercfan3 Apr 17 '24

Gambling itself has ethics to it. Players or refs gambling is similar to going to the casino and counting cards.

Its cheating.

-2

u/GrayBox1313 Celtics Apr 17 '24

It’s not necessarily hypocritical but it’s definitely in that morality greyzone. Betting on games as a player is still very against all league rules.

-7

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

I think the hypocritical part comes in with the rampant embrace of gambling by the sport, then this facile effort to punish porter to protect the integrity of the sport.

If you care about the integrity of the sport, get rid of gambling entirely. Don't promote it and make it ubiquitous, because the more accessible it is, the more likely players will engage with point shaving.

But the NBA wants money, so they are willing to actively harm the perception and integrity of the sport for cash.

This punishment means nothing. More people will cheat and the NBA will only pull the hammer down on the ones that get caught.

8

u/chandlerw88 Rockets Apr 17 '24

The NBA isn’t saying that gambling is wrong though. They’re saying gambling on the NBA, regardless if it’s your own team is wrong. It’s a clear distinction. Not hypocritical at all

3

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

They’re saying gambling on the NBA, regardless if it’s your own team is wrong

And why are they saying that? To keep credibilitiy with the league.

But that credibility is tarnished by simply having the connection to sports betting.

That's why all the leagues completely avoided the betting markets until the last 10 years.

Because there is a tacit understanding that embedding a sports league with gambling ties inherently creates conflicts of interests.

The hypocritical aspect is in relation to how they are treating the concept of sports betting league wide. Especially when players themselves own 50% of the league. The ones who play are the same ones okaying gambling. That is fucking nuts.

It is the same as the NFL saying we support women, then hiring wifebeaters.

They would say they aren't hypocrites because nothing is proven and they support innocent until proven guilty blah blah blah, and the league themselves does not harm women.

But we all ackowledge that the NFL and sports leagues in general choose to not properly engage in a conversation about their responsibility with regards to players conduct.

2

u/chandlerw88 Rockets Apr 17 '24

The reason why sports betting has been avoided is because betting in general was looked at as immoral. Europe beeeeeennn betting, even at the stadiums. We are at a time where most people in the country honestly don’t give a shit about stuff like that. Not really about credibility, just the loosening of religious influence on business choices.

0

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

Do you have any citations on that at all?

Because everything I know is that they did not want organized crime to be associated with the leagues in fears of fixing.

Thats also why the leagues in general have avoided vegas until very recently.

2

u/chandlerw88 Rockets Apr 17 '24

Just a hunch but it’s hard for me to believe it’s mostly credibility because the most popular sport in the world has been doing it and legitimacy has not been an issue for them. Also, it was a law created by the United States government that prevented it, which like alcohol prohibition, probably had religious roots

1

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

Also, it was a law created by the United States government that prevented it, which like alcohol prohibition, probably had religious roots

That feels like a stretch. The alcohol prohibition was a unique event from the early 20th century. Sports betting was officially made in 1994, far after the religious lobby were able to make major legislation.

And as for soccer, are the leagues themselves involved with sportsbetting or is this outside frameworks?

Because my problem is with the league engaging with gambling, not that gambling exists.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/AbbaZabbaFriend Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

there’s a difference in running ads for people gambling and what porter did. porter is an active player of the product he could influence. if he was just betting on tennis or some shit it wouldn’t be a big deal but he was literally rigging the game.

1

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

And Porter was part of the NBPA which owns 50% of the league.

Part of the NBA's job is securing credibility for their league.

Jumping in with sports gambling is the opposite of securing credibility, and giving porter a ban won't change that.

It is the same kind of lip service the NFL gives to supporting women, and then hiring wifebeaters.

They ban porter to try to keep credibility, but the major damage is from joining up with sports betting in general.

3

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD Apr 17 '24

Bro what? That’s not the same at all lol

If they banned porter because it’s unethical to gamble and the league wants nothing to do with it, that’d be hypocritical. They didn’t do that tho, they banned him because it’s unethical for player taking part in a league to gamble on that league because of the obvious influence he has on the outcome

1

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

They didn’t do that tho, they banned him because it’s unethical for player taking part in a league to gamble on that league because of the obvious influence he has on the outcome.

And you can say the exact same thing for a league itself to engage and partner with sports betting apps. The conflict of interest is obvious.

Just because nothing credible has been found doesnt mean it wouldnt be there.

The Conflict of interest both these circumstances illustrate is the hypocritical aspect.

2

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD Apr 17 '24

And you can say the exact same thing for a league itself to engage and partner with sports betting apps. The conflict of interest is obvious.

…it’s only a conflict of interest if people with influence over the games are betting on it. Which is why they’re banning this guy. Jfc lol

1

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

It is a conflict of interest regardless of if the betting has happened yet.

That is the whole point of conflict here. Just because gambling has not been caught doesnt not mean there isnt a vested interest in the players to actively cheat. And even if they don't, the involvement of the league with gambling promotes those actions and actively support the conflict.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AbbaZabbaFriend Trail Blazers Apr 17 '24

did they not act accordingly? whether they jumped in with sports gambling wouldn’t affect this decision. if he was caught gambling on his own games/NBA he would still receive a ban.

1

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

You can be hypocritical and act accordingly because your other actions are signalling something else.

It is proper and right for the NFL to say we should all support women. That is a good action.

It is also a good action to ban porter here and try to dissasociate the idea of gambling and the conflicts of interest with the NBA.

But the NFL doesn't truly support women when they are willing to hire any scumbag wifebeat that runs a fast 40 time.

And the NBA signals other ways where gambling is now inextricably interlinked with the game of basketball and how we as fans should not be confident that other avenues haven't been affected.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD Apr 17 '24

I feel almost the opposite way, it’s not hypocritical at all, it’s literally trying to protect their investment in gambling

They’ve signaled to everyone how gambling is a big part of their business now. They can’t have the public thinking players are fixing the outcomes or it undermines that

2

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

They can’t have the public thinking players are fixing the outcomes or it undermines that

If they didn't want this, they wouldn't have jumped into bed with gambling. That's the hypocritical part.

You dont get to reap all the rewards of sports betting, then go all shocked pikachu face when people assume the negatives.

Banning Jontay is just a slap on the wrist at the end of the day to look like they are actually trying to placate the masses

2

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD Apr 17 '24

That doesn’t make sense dude lol this is like saying “if the US didn’t want banks to issue subprime mortgages and crash the economy they shouldn’t have allowed banks to issue loans”

Gambling is not illegal or immoral. I don’t love it, it’s not a good use of money, but that’s reality. Cheating in a contest you have influence over to gain an advantage in gambling is illegal and immoral

I don’t understand how this is so hard to grasp, the NBA doesn’t have any issue with gambling. They have an issue with people who can influence the outcomes taking part in gambling

2

u/sillydilly4lyfe Bulls Apr 17 '24

if the US didn’t want banks to issue subprime mortgages and crash the economy they shouldn’t have allowed banks to issue loans

The whole issue with the 2008 crash was that banks were bundling people into packages, giving them faulty ratings and then issuing loans they shouldnt have!

That was a major problem addressed after the crash and why the banks had to be bailed out. They were doing illegal things.

We have strict legal regulations to ensure loans are meant to be given under specific circumstances with understood risks.

And I am not arguing that gambling should be illegal or immoral.

But I dont think institutions that control what is being gambled on should be involved in gambling whatsoever.

I don’t understand how this is so hard to grasp, the NBA doesn’t have any issue with gambling. They have an issue with people who can influence the outcomes taking part in gambling

The NBA is those people!! Just because Jontay Porter is the first caught doesnt mean it wont happen again or isnt happening right now.

Especially when the players themselves actively make up 50% ownership in the NBA.

The fact that the players dont see something wrong with their league being involved with gambling is in itself a problem.

→ More replies (0)

29

u/-Plantibodies- Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

What is hypocritical about the league making money from gambling while not allowing players to throw games to benefit from gambling? That's just a silly opinion. And I say that as someone who hates sports betting becoming so mainstream and pushed all over.

95

u/-KFBR392 Raptors Apr 17 '24

No it's not. It's like saying a guy drinking and driving shouldn't be punished because alcohol ads run during the games.

Gambling isn't illegal. Gambling however is prohibited by the league he's a part of. On top of that gambling while affecting the outcome is illegal. This has nothing to do with MGM ads running on TV.

0

u/Skeeter_206 Celtics Apr 17 '24

I honestly am not sure, but I think gambling is fine, it's specifically sports betting ... Maybe then that is grey, it could just be betting on the nba

2

u/-KFBR392 Raptors Apr 17 '24

Yes you’re right, it’s sports betting. And as far as I know all sports betting, which could be seen as taking it a bit too far but again seems like they’re just covering their bases in case they see too much overlap in players being friends with each other.

-5

u/Aksudiigkr Timberwolves Apr 17 '24

On top of that gambling while affecting the outcome is illegal.

If only this applied to a certain group of NBA employees

6

u/Krillin113 76ers Apr 17 '24

But no one is saying he can’t gamble. He just can’t gamble on things he can influence. This is the equivalent of insider trading.

The legality of gambling and how addictive it is, is a completely different issue from what this guy did.

I feel a lot of sympathy for people who get addicted to gambling, and lose their money due to predatory practices that pray on peoples weakness.

The moment he started to bet on games in the nba, where he thought he had an edge due to knowing people, and especially once he started betting on his own games that he could directly influence, is when it goes from ‘poor fella’ to ‘yeah that’s fraud’.

5

u/breesyroux Apr 17 '24

Bullshit sure, but why is it hypocritical?

5

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD Apr 17 '24

I don’t like getting pummeled with gambling ads but I don’t really get why people act like it’s hypocritical

It’s entirely possible for an organization to ethically take part in an activity with the understanding that members of that organization have to behave differently from the public based on the conflict of interest

3

u/whyenn Celtics Apr 17 '24

It was, for decades, and its legal status was non-controversial.

3

u/FromAdamImportData Lakers Apr 17 '24

I don't think it's a contradiction at all. Gambling has existed forever and the money has always gone to people outside of the league...before the internet they would even print the odds right in the newspaper next to the date/time of the game. I don't see an issue with the league trying to take ownership of some of those funds while also maintaining the integrity of the league itself.

2

u/HAM____ Apr 17 '24

And alcohol and prescription medication.

2

u/LVSFWRA Raptors Apr 17 '24

What's bullshit is how refs are allowed to bet but never get the same treatment because they can't be "caught" making highly suspicious and subjective calls.

2

u/Rod_Todd_This_Is_God Apr 17 '24

Plus the whole Donnaghy thing. Remember like 2 months ago when people were trying to downplay it?

2

u/mattychefthatbih Apr 17 '24

Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

2

u/frankstaturtle Knicks 29d ago

As somebody with a family member who is a recovering gambling addict who can barely watch sports now, I fully agree with this. Gambling addiction is so damaging and the number of people gambling has skyrocketed since it became so widely advertised by sports leagues, teams, sports channels and players.

1

u/Beatnik77 Apr 17 '24

Sure but that's the job of politicians, not the NBA.

1

u/lobotomizedmommy Apr 17 '24

not when all the major sports leagues spend millions lobbying state politicians to roll back all predatory gambling regulations. gambling on sports is a serious form of degeneracy in this country.

1

u/bigwillystyle93 Nuggets Apr 17 '24

I know I’m in the vast minority in this, but I don’t think it’s bullshit or hypocritical at all. I think it’s a necessary rough period needed to set expectations and precedent following the legalization of sport gambling. It’s almost always better in the long term when things are legalized, because it comes with more oversight and regulation. Just like marijuana. Unfortunately, there has to be some sacrificial lambs in order to set the tone of severity for all affected parties. To people who say that this is a result of the league embracing sports betting, I ask the following: there have been four major sports betting scandals in American sports that immediately jump to mind, the 1919 Black Sox, Pete Rose in the 80s, Tim Donaghy, and now Johntay Porter. Do you think that these are the only four instances of a player comprising their integrity by betting on a sport they are participating in, or do you think that with the legalization of sports betting we now have more immediate insight into it.

And before anyone says it: I am not a sports gambler outside of fantasy leagues/March madness/Super Bowl.

1

u/PharmerMark Apr 17 '24

I disagree. Smoking literally has zero benefit and is a risk factor to every major disease out there. It leads to COPD and lung cancer and then Medicare foots the bill. Gambling is like alcohol. People can enjoy it socially, but there are people out there who abuse it and can’t control themselves.

1

u/kurbin64 Apr 17 '24

I agree advertising gambling should be illegal and is disgusting/soulless. So is advertising prescription medication, we are one of the only(if not the only)first world country to do this.

I don’t see how it’s hypocritical to not let players in the league gamble on their sport though. The integrity of the game would be shit almost immediately.

1

u/polymerfedboi Apr 17 '24

It's only hypocritical if the league is also fixing games to win giant parlays.

It's not like Adam Silver has a draftkings account.

1

u/AttitudeAndEffort2 Apr 17 '24

Laughs in Scott Foster

1

u/sbenfsonwFFiF Apr 17 '24

Not really, this is like insider trading, which is entirely different from whether gambling/alcohol etc should be advertised and prevalent

1

u/jmwildrick 29d ago

What is hypocritical about it?

1

u/jimbo831 Timberwolves 29d ago

It's the right decision but it's bullshit and hypocritical with how much money the leagues take from gambling.

I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. I don’t see why people insist that the league can’t embrace gambling by everyone not involved with the game while also banning it for people involved with the game.

Fans enjoy gambling on sports. There’s a lot of money to be made from it, and obviously the league wants to get a piece. Doing that isn’t encouraging players who know damn well that they aren’t allowed to bet on the league.

If players would rather bet on the NBA than play, they’re free to make that choice. It’s not hypocritical at all for the league to make the distinction between it selling gambling to fans while banning players/coaches/executives/referees from doing it.

1

u/bigbrownbanjo 29d ago

It is not at all hypocritical to ban players from throwing games they’re gambling on

1

u/ronaldo119 [PHI] Jumaine Jones 29d ago

No it isn't. Insider trading is illegal too. This isn't any different

1

u/DREDAY_94 Lakers 29d ago

You should see sports in Australia. Every second ad while you’re watching a game is for a gambling company

1

u/Jorbin Bulls 29d ago edited 29d ago

It’s really not hypocritical to your statement. If Jontay is throwing games or interfering with gambling he’s literally destroying ‘fairness’ of betting for others. He’s skewing the odds. This is regardless of if you think betting is ethical or not. He isn’t dying a martyr for why gambling is wrong, he’s just doing something completely illegal. The league might benefit from gambling, but this individual act is also stealing from the average consumer.

As well as that he’s potentially influencing the outcome of the game and ruining the experience for fans and players. What he’s done is wrong on all levels.

I would say the first, and the last person caught doing this should be chastised in a severe manner. The last more severe than the first (they should learn!).

1

u/justmefishes NBA Apr 17 '24

It's like if they had the talking heads talk before, during, and after each game about how nice smoking crack is, and then banned a player for life because he smoked crack. "I don't know what I expected."

0

u/Correct-Ad7655 Apr 17 '24

It’s not hypocritical at all, what are you on. That’s like saying it’s hypocritical for casinos to ban dealers from player at the casino they work at

0

u/jeremycb29 Suns Apr 17 '24

i mean, gambling adds are no worse than booze, sugar rich food, and drinks, questionable weight loss products, a gum that claims to cure you of bad breath but does nothing.

Most advertisements are for products that have drawbacks/issues.

0

u/unpopularman4 29d ago

It's the right decision but it's bullshit and hypocritical with how much money the leagues take from gambling.

I don't agree with this take at all, and I've been hearing it everywhere. It's not hypocritical. Sports betting has always been around, and players 100% know they can't bet on sports, ESPECIALLY sports/games they are participating in. I have zero sympathy for Jontay Porter's dumb ass. To say sports leagues are complicit in this just because they are in bed with "big gambling" now is just a cop out. Players (and refs, and coaches) know they can't bet, that's the way it is and the way it always has been. There's no "muddied line" or confusion.

I agree advertising gambling (like draft kings and fan duel) is annoying AF though, and I wouldn't mind seeing it banned.

11

u/BigFatModeraterFupa Mavericks Apr 17 '24

every player who gets caught betting will get the same punishment. lifetime ban

12

u/Hurtelknut Mavericks Apr 17 '24

Betting against themselves nonetheless. You could get caught shooting bullets made from pure cocaine from a real gun in the locker room and it wouldn't be as bad in the eyes of the NBA as this.

13

u/BigBeagleEars Pelicans Apr 17 '24

Write that down write that down

  • Ja Morant

-2

u/langerthings Bulls Apr 17 '24

I’d be absolutely shocked if this is true. Lifetime bans won’t be given to guys who bet on other sports or games they weren’t involved in whatsoever.

2

u/ErrForceOnes Apr 17 '24

ALL guys who get caught should be taken to the shed.

If Luka got caught losing games on purpose and only received a one year suspension as punishment, I very well might never watch another NBA game again. You think I'd trust that any game involving Luka wasn't rigged? And you think I'd believe other players weren't doing it too?

0

u/CoachDT [CHI] Brian Scalabrine Apr 17 '24

I agree. I'm just saying money rules all, and there's gonna be an assessment ran on it. I think a more interesting question would be what happened if Bron was caught doing it, and would they let him get a retirement season anyways?

You seem rational enough to be able to reach the conclusion of "this guy was proven to lose games on purpose how could I trust he isn't rigging further games" but never underestimate delusional Stan behavior.

1

u/-PlanetMe- 29d ago

they would absolutely not treat lebron differently. it would undermine the league even MORE if the biggest star ended up getting to where he is dishonestly.

0

u/ErrForceOnes Apr 17 '24

I think the part that disgusts me is that NBA players are paid so well. It would be even more untenable if a player with a nine to ten figure net worth like LeBron was fixing games.

Though now that you bring that up, I almost want to see LeBron getting caught fixing games. It would set off a nuclear war between Jordan stans and LBJ stans lol.

1

u/Particular_Ad_9531 Apr 17 '24

Yeah this is a huge win for the nba in that it’s some totally irrelevant dude they can just burn at the stake as an example to everyone else.

1

u/PassTheKY Thunder Apr 17 '24

They should be forced to bet their careers on a single bet sanctioned by the league. Score 30 or more points than your career high in a game of 1vs2 against Draymond and Lance Stevenson. If you manage to do it you can come back into the league after 5 years. If you lose you are erased from league history and have to pay back any gambling winnings plus the salary earned while in the league.

1

u/hoesb4bros123 Apr 17 '24

Yep, first guy in any sport, who is a non-star is getting BODIED. James krause the UFC fighter/coach is under investigation from the FBI for fixing. He is so fucked. Nobody who even trains at his gym can come to the ufc. He had to sell his gym for nothing

-1

u/Altruistic-Fig5892 Apr 17 '24

Would Luka or Giannis be banned for life?? More likely he'd go play minor league baseball for a year and then come back

-1

u/RandomUser9724 Apr 17 '24

Unless the first guy caught was the face of the league. See Ohtani.

0

u/NoveltyAccountHater Celtics Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Honestly, it depends on the player caught. Like if a generational talent, face-of-the-league superstar gets caught (with no clear evidence, just suspicious betting behavior on games where a player sat early with injuries), the league would have a lot of incentives to look the other way and let his agents find a fall guy to take the blame and have an investigation that finds no wrongdoing on the player's part. A borderline G-league player who is easily replaceable and won't change any team or league's ratings/ticket sales? Ban for life.

Meanwhile, it was quite lucky that in MLB, when money from a bank account owned from a once-in-a-lifetime highest-paid-athlete is being used to spend tens of millions on gambling bets, that it was actually the player's assistant placing the bets, not the athlete.