Should commissions pay attention to the odds? You bet
Published by Charles Jay on December 4th, 2008 in Operation Cleanup

 Print |  Email |  RSS

Commentary on MMA history….as it’s happening

SHOULD COMMISSIONS PAY ATTENTION TO THE ODDS? YOU BET

As part of a long, inflammatory comment that was caught on YouTube in the midst of what has become known as StandUp-Gate, Dana White, the president of the UFC, made mention of the fact that in the process of managing the course of the fight between Kimbo Slice and Seth Petruzelli back in October, Elite XC betrayed the fans in a number of ways, not the least of which involves the fact that the sport of mixed martial arts has elevated itself to the point where Nevada sportsbooks place odds on the events, and that to do something artificial to affect the result of a fight hurts not just the sport, but the fans, the sportsbooks, and the bettors as well.

That point is well-taken.

On the surface, you might think that an organization like the Florida State Athletic Commission, or any athletic commission for that matter, would pooh-pooh the idea that they might have any responsibility whatsoever to the betting community. And if they are only thinking superficially, then they don’t.

But there IS a responsibility, and I’ll tell you why. Because #1, they are perfectly willing to exercise their own police power over events like this, which lays a basic responsibility at their feet. In other words, it is not something that is foisted upon them and which they accept unwillingly, but something seek, because the trade-off for them (authority, and the revenues that are derived on the basis of that authority) is worth their while. Once you get your arms around that concept, you then can understand that people who are wagering legally on these things are doing so while relying on the fact that there is a good faith basis surrounding the competition itself. And once you are communicating that good faith is something that need not exist, then you are bringing into question any number of events that might fit the same model. And that doesn’t do anyone any good. We’re talking about the “bigger picture” scenario here, and that is very relevant.

Let me put it another way – if I walked into a sportsbook in Las Vegas and placed a bet on a fight, figuring it was legit, and then found out, after losing the bet, that it was not on the level, and that the athletic commission that declared itself in charge of the event had not taken all safeguards before the fight and did not exercise prudent judgment after the fight to ensure public confidence both looking back and going forward, I’m going to have the feeling (and we’re not speaking a strict legal sense here) that I had been defrauded; not just by the promoters and whichever contestants were complicit in such a thing, but in the body that held some kind of regulatory authority over that fight. And if Florida does not share that kind of sensibility, they are shirking their responsibility.

Insuring the integrity of a contest under their jurisdiction is very much a duty of an athletic commission. That gravitates over into the betting arena, whether they like it or not. And if was the governor and the public has any question about the legitimacy of something my appointee had overseen, I would be questioning my appointed regulator.

And let me go maybe a step further – no one has any control over the kind of propositions (i.e., betting opportunities) that are offered in a sportsbook. It doesn’t have to always be a matter of which fighter is going to win, but whether it ends by decision, knockout, or submission, whether the fight goes the distance, or even how many rounds the fight will go. There are a lot of things that could be the subject of wagering, and a lot more accessibility to such wagering (on the internet, for example), and this is where the “arrangements” similar to that which were made before the Slice-Petruzelli fight become magnified in their importance.

That’s because a fighter doesn’t have to necessarily agree to lose a fight in order to manipulate an outcome. He could agree to fight in a certain way so as to virtually guarantee a knockout or submission result, or “carry” a guy so that it goes past a specific “over/under” in rounds. Those discussions that took place between Jared Shaw/Jeremy Lappen and Seth Petruzelli, or similar discussions that might take place before other fights, could be extremely relevant when it comes to those propositions.

Whichever way you “slice” it (pardon the pun), there is the potential for behind-the-scenes chicanery when these kinds of things are arranged in private and the bettor has no knowledge of them. Anyone who seeks to wager legitimately on pro sports will tell you that such a thing is not a healthy situation, and that the preferable scenario is where there is not even the appearance of impropriety.

“Sunshine” should be the golden rule, and not just in Florida.

Comments are closed.