Twinspires.com is a website where horseracing enthusiasts can go to place bets. It is operated by the owners of the Kentucky Derby, who claim it is a legal gambling operation. Within their FAQ page, they cite a provision that was added to the anti-gambling laws in the year 2006. They interpreted the provision as protecting online horse betting, but the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has a different opinion.
Why the confusion?
The DoJ claims that the provision from 2006 was strictly to enforce the laws put in place against foreign companies, and does not address domestic horse betting. However, they confirm that online horse betting is illegal in the U.S.
On the other hand, the online horse betting industries believe that the IHA amended the Wire Act, legalizing horse betting in the states. Peggy Hendershot is the senior vice president of legislative affairs for the National Thoroughbred Racing Association. Even she states, “The Interstate Horse-racing Act, as amended in 2000, confirms the legality of online pari-mutual wagering (or pool wagering) on state-regulated horseracing.”
Perhaps one reason for different opinions and interpretations of the law is that the DoJ has never prosecuted an Internet horse betting company. Could it be that they are afraid to lose the case? Many people from the horseracing industry believe this to be the truth. It would be dangerous for the DoJ to lose a case because of the message it would send to the people—that our Department of Justice is wrong. But isn’t that the message they are sending anyways by not pursuing what they claim to be law?
The DoJ should save themselves further embarrassment by either changing their stance on the issue, or clarifying their current law.
First of all, how can there be a law that is understood differently by everyone? This is obviously a problem when the people interpret a law one way and the DoJ decodes it in another. Just how does that happen?
Secondly, if they are stubborn enough to uphold an unconstitutional and unpopular law, at least do it right! My suggestion to them is to recognize the true importance of the issue and convey that to the people they are making laws (in a straight-forward way). If this can’t be done without political drivel and puzzles, drop it. If a law in the making isn’t merely for a personal agenda, then the DoJ should have no problem explaining the law and its purpose.
And to all you horse lovers, don’t be discouraged by the mess the DoJ is creating. It is their own mess, and they will be the ones having to clean it up. So keep betting on your favorite horse and have fun; and of course, Good Luck!
By Victoria Maro
