• Why Is Gambling Bad For Athletes Free
• Why Is Gambling Bad For Athletes Work
• Why Is Gambling Good
• Gambling Is Good
• Reasons Why Gambling Is Bad

There are plenty of people who can enjoy an occasional night of gambling, but the hobby can turn into a full-blown addiction for some. It becomes a problem when the person has a psychological urge to gamble, despite knowing it will increase their financial strain or make them feel upset if they lose money. Feb 03, 2014  As the introduction to the Room for Debate feature “The Stakes Off the Field” says, the Super Bowl is the biggest event of the year in sports gambling, despite such wagering only being legal in just a handful of states. Why do you think sports gambling is only legal in a few states? In her response to the Room for Debate question, should states be able to legalize sports betting and would. While pathological gambling is a problem that affects relatively few student-athletes, it is nonetheless a persistent health concern for some individuals: 1.9 percent of males and 0.2 percent of female student-athletes are exhibiting some clinical signs of problem gambling, placing them at extremely high risk for mental health issues. 6 Reasons Why Gaming is Bad for Your Health Some even say that excessive gaming can be as bad as smoking and gambling, but what exactly does make gaming so detrimental? In this blog, find out the truth about all the negative effects of gaming and how we can lessen it. Jun 06, 2014  However, Daly isn’t the only pro athlete to publicly battle with a gambling addiction. Here are seven other famous athletes who have rolled the dice a few too many times. Pete Rose: The only living player ineligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame, Rose was accused of betting 52 Cincinnati Reds game in 1987, where he wagered a minimum of.

Revelations of doping typically provoke moral outrage. The received view is that doping is morally wrong because it’s cheating, and those caught doing it should be punished.

The rhetoric of the media, the World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) and sporting officials – and, in the Rio Games, some athletes themselves – all embody this idea. But why is doping morally wrong? Would it be morally wrong if it wasn’t against the rules?

Athletes who dope are seeking to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals. But athletes seek to gain competitive advantages in numerous ways and many of these are not banned.

If it’s wrong to enhance your performance by doping, why is it not also wrong to enhance your performance by taking dietary supplements, for instance, or carb-loading, or by training at altitude?

Identifying the moral culprit

Banned substances are typically synthetic so they artificially enhance athletic performance. If the point of sport is to test the natural limits of human nature then, by artificially extending those limits, doping is at odds with the essence of sport.

Many banned substances, such as anabolic steroids, are synthetic. But many naturally occurring substances, such as Erythropoietin (EPO), and techniques that involve no synthetic substances, such as blood doping, are also banned.

Conversely, many synthetic enhancements are permitted. Think of the latest in streamlined clothing, cycling helmets, and running shoes.

Another problem could be the intended effect. Blood doping is supposed to increase red blood cell supply, thereby increasing stamina. But other means of achieving this effect are permitted by WADA.

Altitude tents, for instance, are currently not on WADA’s prohibited list. But even if they were, would WADA also prohibit athletes from going to high-altitude locations to train, which has the same effect?

Perhaps the real problem lies with the coercive effect of doping: the so-called “arms race”. If some athletes are at an advantage because they are doping, it puts pressure on others to dope too.

But elite sport is already highly coercive.

To remain competitive, athletes have to submit themselves to harsh training regimes and controlled diets that potentially causelong-term harm. If such measures produce better results, then all athletes have to adopt these measures.

Film sub indo. Yet no one suggests there’s anything wrong with this kind of coercion in sport.

Cheating and unfair advantage

The moral outrage points to a simpler reason for the wrongness of doping. Doping is cheating because it’s against the rules. But why is it against the rules? Because it’s cheating, of course!

This argument moves in an embarrassingly small circle. And it doesn’t help to expand the circle: doping is cheating, and cheating is wrong, so doping is wrong. But why is doping cheating? Because it is banned.

And so we arrive at the nub of the problem: what justifies the rule banning doping in the first place?

The most obvious answer is that doping confers an unfair advantage. But the advantage is only unfairly gained because doping is banned: by contravening the rules the doping athlete gets an advantage that her more rule-abiding competitors don’t get.

There are lots of ways in which athletes seek to gain advantage over their rivals: by using the best coaches, training techniques, dietary regimes, and so on. But we view these methods of gaining advantage as fair because they are within the rules.

The unfairness of the advantage secured by doping seems to be conferred simply by the fact that it is against the rules, and therefore cheating.

Why Is Gambling Bad For Athletes Free

A way forward

If there’s no prospect of a clear, non-arbitrary justification for why doping is wrong, one option would be to allow doping in some form or other. Many find that unappealing, presumably because the moral intuition that doping is wrong is so strongly felt.

But if it is to be maintained, we need to find another way of justifying it.

Here’s one suggestion: give up the view that doping is intrinsically morally wrong, and replace it with the view that the ban on doping is justified in the same way that the rules of any particular sport are justified.

The rules of any sport are arbitrarily designed with various aims in mind: to facilitate an even contest between the competitors; to reward certain skills and virtues; to produce an entertaining spectacle; and so on. They have no intrinsic moral significance.

Why Is Gambling Bad For Athletes Work

The rule banning doping in any given sport could simply be one of these rules, no more morally weighty than the offside rule in football. Doping would then be cheating in just the same way as taking the subway for part of a marathon would be cheating.

The International Olympic Committee’s recent decision not to ban the entire Russian team, leaving international sporting federations to rule on individual athletes, can be seen as a move in this direction. Rather than adopting a uniform, homogeneous view on doping across all sports, it has delegated to individual sporting bodies decisions about how to deal with doping athletes within that sport.

Perhaps we should curb our moral outrage. Rules against doping in a particular sport are no more morally weighty than any other rule in that sport.

In 2006 Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, legislation to stop the spread of Internet gambling. At the time, no one was sure whether a law could deter shady offshore operators. But by targeting the money flows and banks that facilitated these businesses, the law worked far better than most people imagined. Until now, that is.

The doors to the virtual casino are reopening, this time with the gambling sites based here in the USA, thanks to a 2011 Justice Department finding that earlier bans applied only to sports betting.

Thursday, New Jersey begins a five-day trial run of Internet gambling, with a full launch scheduled for next Tuesday. Existing Atlantic City casinos will be licensed to offer electronic versions of all casino games online to people within the borders of the Garden State.

Delaware has already begun online gaming, and Nevada has it for poker only. From there, who knows where it will go? Gambling tends to spread fast, fueled by state governments desperate for new revenue or desperate to protect existing revenue streams.

With legal gambling headed for an electronic device near you, it's time for Congress to rise above its current dysfunction and pull the plug. The only thing lawmakers have to do is clarify that the 2006 law, and a 1961 law from which it drew, apply to all forms of online gaming.

That cause is receiving support from an unlikely source: Las Vegas Sands CEO (and Republican superdonor) Sheldon Adelson, who plans to launch an anti-Internet gambling lobby next month. The rest of the gaming industry, aided by an activist community of poker players, will likely mount a furious counterattack.

The nation has enough social pathologies to worry about without unleashing a new form of domestic gambling that is all but impossible to police or keep contained in one place. People with addictive personalities would either have to give up their smartphones, tablets and computers, or have a casino at arms reach 24/7.

Whatever one might think of brick-and-mortar casinos, they do some things right. They are pretty good at checking IDs to keep minors out. And they at least require people to get dressed and into a vehicle if they want to gamble.

Internet gambling advocates say they have screening programs designed to keep minors out, and geolocation software designed to limit play to people physically located within a particular jurisdiction.

Does anyone seriously think that these firewalls wouldn't be circumvented?

The FBI doesn't. It told a House committee in 2009 that age verification programs were easily beaten because they generally relied on credit card numbers, easily purchased on the black market.

Why Is Gambling Good

Parents worried that their kids off at college will fritter away time and money on Internet gambling will be at the mercy of casinos' technological solutions. States like Utah can only hope that technology will prevent its strict anti-gambling laws from being undermined.

For everyone but the casinos and a smattering of skilled poker players, online gambling is a very bad bet.

Gambling Is Good

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

Reasons Why Gambling Is Bad