Isaac Burton seemed the most contrite for his involvement. ''I made a mistake. A dumb, well-publicized mistake. I wish they hung articles about me in every college locker room, so kids could learn from my mistake,'' he said. Burton had been playing in Australia when the FBI came to visit in 1997. Like Smith, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two months in jail. He had taken $4,300 for his part in the scheme. ''I thought I was rich,'' he said. ''I didn't know that $4,300 is nothing. I didn't think.''36 One thing this case highlights is that gambling-related scandals are not always lucrative. They always, however, bring unwanted negative attention to a team, and many times to an entire sport.
RIGGING THE BREEDERS' CUP-THE PICK-SIX WAGERING SCHEME
Three former fraternity brothers nearly pulled off the greatest scam in horseracing history when they applied computer expertise to fix the Breeders' Cup Pick Six in October 2002. Their plot was undone by bad luck or greed, as they claimed the lone winning ticket by picking the correct winner of six consecutive races. The win drew attention because some of the races were won by long shots, reducing the likelihood that anyone would have picked correctly. When the Breeders' Cup Classic was won by Volponi, which had started at long odds of 43-1, the prize pool swelled to over $3 million and seasoned handicappers believed that picking all six races was impossible. When the conspirators tried to claim the prize, they found that an investigation was already underway.
They were described as computer geeks who had found careers in information technology after graduating from Drexel University, where they were members of the fraternity Tau Kappa Epsilon in the 1990s. They kept in touch over the years, and then, at age 29, stumbled on a way to exploit the computer system that takes bets. Programmer Chris Harn worked for Autotote, which processes bets, when he discovered that he could manipulate betting tickets after the early races were completed in a multirace wager. He enlisted the help of friends Glen DaSilva and Derrick Davis. Harn placed bets through a telephone betting account created in Davis's name. After the first four races, Harn created a ticket with all four winners and then bet on every horse in the remaining two races. The bet cost the group $1,152, but it was sure to win. Autotote launched an internal investigation and fired Harn, labeling him a ''rogue software engineer.''37
Harn pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering and received the lightest sentence of the trio, at one year and one day. ''I realize I've hurt a great number of people. Forgiveness is earned, not granted, and I hope to pay my debt to society not with words but with my future actions,'' Harn said.38 If he had not agreed to help authorities, Harn faced up to seven years in prison. Many were troubled that the mastermind was given a lighter sentence than his accomplices.
Davis and DaSilva were sentenced to thirty-seven months for wire fraud and twenty-four months for fraud and money laundering, respectively.
Racing fans were outraged that the scam seemed to be treated as a victimless crime when, in fact, the seventy-eight rightful winners who had picked five race winners would have been denied their winnings, about $44,000 each, if the trio had not been detected. DaSilva's attorney suggested the prosecutors were wise to offer a short sentence for a plea, given that there was no paper trail or hard evidence. ''They never would have made the case,'' he said for a Vanity Fair article.39 Prosecutors maintained that they would have made the case, but that the plea brought immediate closure.
Harn and his crew had used their system in previous months, winning smaller amounts on races in Illinois and New York through the off-track-betting phone account. Although some of the rightful winners were found and paid, it is unclear whether all of the money could ever be properly allocated. Ultimately, they were done in by their big win being simply too big. On a day when too many eyes were on horse racing, judge Charles Brieant commented, ''A little less arrogance and they would have done it on a day other than the Breeders' Cup.''40
When two men partnered to legally win over $2.6 million in a Pick Six in 2003, they were not surprised when racing fans were skeptical. After careful examination of the ticket, the money was awarded and excited winner Graham Stone commented about the scrutiny, ''That was fine … I've never even been to Drexel.''41 This scandal demonstrates that no sport is immune from unscrupulous behavior. Further, it shows that even the most technologically advanced cheats cannot always evade scrutiny.
NEUHEISEL FIRED, WINS HUGE SETTLEMENT
Successful football coach Rick Neuheisel was fired from the University of Washington in summer 2003 after lying to NCAA investigators about his participation in an auction-style NCAA basketball pool the previous two years. The firing, however, was no open-and-shut case as it became apparent that both the university and the NCAA made serious missteps in the process, which allowed the coach to launch a civil lawsuit seeking millions of dollars.
He accused the university of wrongfully terminating his contract and the NCAA, among other things, of encouraging the firing.
Neuheisel admitted betting more than $11,000, winning $18,523, in neighborhood pools for the 2002 and 2003 NCAA basketball tournaments.
These bets were a violation of NCAA rules. However, Washington compliance officer Dana Richardson had sent an e-mail to coaches in 1999, and again in 2003, that authorized participating in pools with friends. In the memo she wrote, ''The bottom line of these rules is that if you have friends outside of ICA [the intercollegiate athletic department] that have pools on any of the basketball tournaments, you can participate.''42 Richardson's position was erroneous and reflected that she had not properly reviewed all information available to her from the NCAA before issuing the memo. NCAA rules prohibit gambling on college sports by all athletic department staff.
When it appeared that firing Neuheisel for gambling was going to present the university with a problem, given the presence of the Richardson memo, the primary reason for his dismissal changed to focus on the lies told to the NCAA investigators, as well as his ''untruthfulness'' with then-athletic director Barbara Hedges about an interview he had with the San Francisco 49ers,43 which had caused the university some embarrassment. While the NCAA did find that Neuheisel had violated NCAA gambling rules, it did not sanction him, citing the internal memo that authorized the behavior. Particularly concerning was that Hedges, according to Neuheisel's lawyer, Bob Sulkin, tried to cover up the existence of the e-mail altogether. ''She knew the e-mail [memo] is death to the university,'' he said.44
As the cause for firing shifted away from gambling and towards the coach's dishonesty, the university faced a contractual problem. Under the terms of the contract, his lies would be considered minor transgressions and not likely meriting his firing. As Sulkin pointed out in court, ''The contract doesn't say you can add up all the acts.''45 Sulkin defined the cause for firing in this way, ''There has never been an issue about dishonesty. Dishonesty is nothing but a subterfuge. What they did was, to try to get a lesser penalty for themselves, was fire Rick Neuheisel. … The NCAA was out to get Rick Neuheisel. ''46
Neuheisel's case against the NCAA had a number of components, including defamation from NCAA officials, including NCAA president Myles Brand.
The coach felt that comments from NCAA officials acted to pressure Washington to fire him, in part because the university believed doing so would soften the NCAA sanctions that were likely forthcoming. The investigation that initially focused on his gambling habits had spiraled into minor recruiting violations and revealed that several athletic department employees, including compliance director Dana Richardson, competed in NCAA basketball pools. The university would ultimately be placed on probation for two years, but the penalty could have been worse.
As the case progressed, Neuheisel's lawyers demonstrated that the NCAA interviewed the coach in violation of its own recently passed bylaws that stated investigators must notify interviewees of the purpose of the interview in advance. The NCAA had not done so and, in essence, had blindsided the coach. The bylaw had been passed into effect only six weeks prior to the June 2003 interview.47
Neuheisel initially lied about whether he had been in the gambling pools. He recanted his story the same day and admitted participation.
Twenty-one months after the legal battle began, Neuheisel walked out of court with a $4.5 million settlement in his favor. He received $2.5 million from the NCAA, $500,000 from the university, and secured an agreement that the university would not seek repayment of a $1.5 million loan. ''I feel fully vindicated,'' Neuheisel said. ''Obviously, they're going to have their stories, too, but I feel like this is the best scenario.''48 The settlement brought to a close five weeks of testimony. The case was set to go into closing arguments and the jurors, reportedly, were leaning in Neuheisel's favor.
Neuheisel had worked as a volunteer coach at the high school level for two years following his dismissal from Washington. He accepted a position in the professional ranks, with the Baltimore Ravens, in 2005. Over four seasons with the Washington Huskies he had a 33-16 record that included a Rose Bowl victory and a third-place national ranking in 2001.
University of Washington athletic director Barbara Hedges announced her retirement within months of Neuheisel's firing. She had been at the helm at UW for nearly thirteen years. Compliance director Dana Richardson received a letter of reprimand and is no longer a university employee. However, the Pac-10 Conference determined her mistake was an honest one. In fact, UW law professor Robert Aronson supported Richardson's interpretation of the NCAA rules, which many coaches and compliance officers believe are complicated and sometimes convoluted. He said, ''You know, I could make a pretty good argument, in fact I think Dana's made a pretty good argument for why there is something in here [NCAA gambling rules] that is allowed. ''49
The situation with Neuheisel supported what critics of the NCAA had long contended-that is that rather than focus on some very significant problems in college sports (like many of those documented in this text), the organization many times polices minutia.
OPERATION SLAPSHOT SCARES NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
In the first season back on the ice for the National Hockey League following the 2004-5 lockout, the last thing hockey needed was a gambling scandal.
Fortunately, what seemed to threaten the sport's revival turned out to be far less damaging than many anticipated when it first made news in February 2006. The name of the investigation alone, Operation Slapshot, implied that the sport of hockey was heavily involved when New Jersey authorities announced that a former player (coaching at the time) and a state trooper had been charged with running a gambling ring that handled millions of dollars The former player, Rick Tocchet, played in the NHL from 1984 to 2002 and was the assistant to Wayne Gretzky on the Phoenix Coyotes' bench at the time.
As concerning as Tocchet's involvement in the gambling ring was, more problematic for hockey was that Janet Jones, Gretzky's wife, was named as a high roller who placed bets on sporting events with the bookies. She married Gretzky in 1988 and they have five children together. They were known to frequent Las Vegas casinos. The National Hockey League had no more iconic figure than Wayne ''The Great One'' Gretzky. Immediately there was fear that hockey could face a similar situation as Major League Baseball had with Pete Rose betting on his sport. Jones immediately claimed she had never placed a bet for her husband, and he denied involvement in the ring and defended his wife against accusations that she had done anything wrong.
As the case moved forward, there were no ties made to hockey betting and the sport dodged a potentially fatal blow. The gambling had, in fact, been on college and professional football and basketball games. The amounts wagered were staggering; in one forty-day period, the gamblers handled more than $1.7 million in wagers. Of the three men charged, the authorities appeared most interested in state trooper James Harney, who took bets while sitting in his patrol car watching traffic. Harney pleaded guilty to conspiracy, promoting gambling, and official misconduct and was sentenced to five years in prison.
James Ulmer, who acted to pass wagers from bettors to Tocchet and Harney, pleaded guilty but cooperated with prosecutors in exchange for a light sentence of two years of probation. Janet Jones and other bettors were never charged because placing bets, even with bookmakers, is not illegal in New Jersey.
Fifteen months after the case began, it ended with Tocchet's guilty plea to promoting gambling and conspiracy to promote gambling. He was sentenced to two years of probation. Tocchet had faced up to five years in state prison, but there is a presumption against incarceration for first-time offenders who plead guilty to third- or fourth-degree crimes.
In July 2007, Tocchet was playing in the World Series of Poker while awaiting his sentencing on August 17. He survived the first day of play, but did not return to the tournament for the second day, essentially vacating his chips amid speculation that he decided being in a high-stakes gambling event could hurt him in both his sentencing hearing and his attempts to get back into hockey. Janet Jones also played in the event, which had a $10,000 entry fee.
She was eliminated in the early going. Tocchet was reinstated by NHL commissioner Gary Bettman in February 2008 and resumed working with Wayne Gretzky and the Phoenix Coyotes as an assistant coach.
NBA OFFICIAL TIED TO GAMBLING ON GAMES HE WORKED
The National Basketball Association faced the most dreaded form of scandal for a sports league when, in summer 2007, thirteen-year-veteran referee Tim Donaghy was accused of fixing games for the purpose of gambling throughout the two prior seasons. Officials who had worked with Donaghy had thought he had a bright future. Mike Mathis, who officiated NBA games for twenty-six years, said, ''I would have told you he had a hell of a future. He had moxie, arrogance, a little over the edge. But he had the cojones to make calls at the end of games and to make them on superstars the same as on anybody else.''50 His future took a precipitous downturn when he began providing inside information to gamblers regarding which officials would work which games (which was not public information), and about the relationships certain officials had with specific players. The gambling operation came to light after the FBI stumbled across it while investigating the Gambino crime family.
As soon as the story broke that Donaghy was involved in gambling, local sports writers began revisiting games he had worked, looking for odd outcomes. They quickly found them. Donaghy had worked a game in which the underdog New York Knicks upset the Miami Heat after being awarded thirty nine free throws. The Heat had shot only eight. Donaghy also worked Game 3 of the Spurs-Suns playoff series, which was roundly criticized as being horribly officiated. The Suns' Amare Stoudemire played only twenty-one minutes, relegated to the bench with foul after foul, while the Spurs' Tim Duncan ran wild for thirty-three points and nineteen rebounds.
The now infamous NBA official Tim Donaghy oversees a Washington Wizards-New Jersey Nets game in April 2007. He would soon become the source of one of the league's worst gambling scandals. Courtesy of AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari.
Donaghy pleaded guilty in August 2007 to conspiring to commit wire fraud and conspiring to transmit wagering information across state lines.
While he did not plead guilty to fixing games, some of the tips he gave involved games he worked. It is assumed that he was also making bets and calls in his own interest, but that was not part of the plea agreement. His sentencing, originally scheduled for November 2007, was rescheduled for January 2008. Donaghy's legal problems may have not all been addressed by the plea deal. Maricopa County (Arizona) attorney Andrew Thomas submitted requests to the NBA and FBI to determine if the Suns were cheated by a fixed game in the loss to the Spurs.51 He could file charges if evidence supports his belief.
NBA commissioner David Stern believed the event to be isolated and called Donaghy a ''rogue, isolated criminal,'' even though there had hardly been sufficient time or an investigation to make that determination.52 This begged the question; if the league did not know about Donaghy until informed about his activity by the FBI, how could the league know that no other referees were involved? Some journalists called for Stern to re
sign should he be wrong, and other referees be implicated later. Journalists also wondered how Stern could call the event ''unforeseeable''53 when he also had claimed that the league took every precaution to avoid just such an incident.
It appeared the damage to the NBA would be kept to a minimum (in part due to the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal dominating headlines at the time).
Then, as part of his cooperation requirement, Donaghy informed law enforcement officials that twenty other referees had violated NBA rules against gambling. With the exception of gambling on horse races that occur outside the NBA season, the referees were not allowed to gamble. ''You are not permitted to bet if you're a referee,'' Stern said. ''The legal betting will cost you your job. The illegal betting, depending on the context, may cost you your freedom.''54 A law enforcement source said that Donaghy's disclosure seemed to come in an attempt to offer any information that could lighten his sentence.
The NBA launched a review of league rules and practices relative to gambling and its officiating program. Lawrence B. Pedowitz, a former chief of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, was asked to lead it. At the time, the NBA had no indication from the FBI that any other officials had actually wagered on or affected the outcome of NBA games, according to NBA spokesman Tim Frank. Pedowitz determined that Donaghy was the lone official involved in gambling on games. However, as Donaghy suggested, about half the officials admitted to violating the league's gambling rules. In a surprise move, Stern did not fire them as he had said he would do. Rather, he suggested the rules were antiquated and announced that the league would refine them, allowing for some casino gambling by referees during specific parts of the year. The league also will make public the names of the officials assigned to games, reducing the potential impact of this as inside information. Stern added, ''We're developing a wide array of statistical screens that we will use … to detect signs that something might be amiss.''55
Sports Scandals Page 11
