Sports Gambling Controversy

Gambling in sports has always been an issue of controversy for many decades and continues to be an issue until today. Many states take their initiative to bust down on gambling by prohibiting and imposing laws to prevent it with the exception of Nevada. As recently as last week on May 14th, 2018, the Supreme Court allowed sports gambling around the country, while backing up New Jersey’s push to allow sports gambling. New Jersey and Chris Christie challenged the federal ban. The argument that was stated is that it violates the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has said prohibits federal laws that compel states to carry out federal dictates. The gambling law, Christie said, “commandeered the states by forcing them to prohibit sports wagering”

according to NBC News. This is a really big turnaround from how gambling was dealt with in the 1990s. In Detroit, during the 1990 N.B.A.'s Eastern Conference championship, one of the Piston’s most valuable player Isaiah Thomas faced a controversial gambling story that Vince Wade of WJBK-TV2 investigated his way and released to the public.
In this story, Vince Wade’s report stated “that a grand jury had subpoenaed checks totalling about $100,000 cashed by Thomas at a supermarket owned by a neighbor” according Wark, who is a staff writer for The Detroit News. The story also included that the neighbor, who owned the supermarket was suspected of laundering gambling money. Wade also talked with Mark Aguirre, who is another Piston player, had told a former FBI agent that “Thomas had been involved in some high-stakes craps games, and Aguirre feared Thomas would become entangled” in the federal investigation, this led to Wade asserting this controversial comment
“If Isiah Thomas was playing high-stakes craps, he may face state misdemeanor charges… But his fellow Pistons and his fans have to hope Thomas has not engaged in illegal sports gambling.
These last assertions made by Wade led to another question; If Thomas was not a target of the investigation, and if the only indication of gambling was Aguirre’s comments about the simple dice games, had Thomas done anything to risk his basketball career? In fact, an attorney for Thomas stated that Thomas admits to cashing the checks at the market.
In addition, In this article, Wade failed to balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.

He got to focused on the allegations made by a teammate and did not consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges. The Detroit Free Press, which published a similar, follow-up story the next morning, June 16, based its report on “people familiar with the investigation.” Ironically, the use of anonymous sources led the Free Press to publish another different editorial piece the next day criticizing Wade’s and their own report. The editorial emphasized that Thomas was entitled to “the presumption of innocence and to be based on more solid information.” This shows that at least this editorial followed and held their own accountability of their mistakes and corrected them the next and prominently. The manner their mistake was explained is interesting because they did not apologize but based their corrections and clarifications should be done more carefully and clearly by basing on their information on more solid sources. The reporter Wade, did not practice ubuntu, as he did not have compassion for Isaiah and went directly to search for his own “sources” instead of seeking the suspect, in this case Isaiah Thomas and perhaps attempt to get a clear understanding of the story. In this story, the categorical imperative that Wade jumped on one witnesses’ remarks in an attempt to be the first to cover the story is immoral. This story is very risky because not only can it tarnish Isaiah’s reputation but it can also end his NBA career just like its ended many athletes including Pete Rose. The steps Wade took in effort to cover the story first are very unethical as he did not seek a legitimate source to support his story, instead his egoism took over the report when it was published by stating “people familiar with the investigation”, which theoretically can mislead the reader to think about

anybody.
Furthermore, being the source, which in this case is Mark Aguirre, would be a difficult scenario. Mark who trying to defend himself would not want to go down alone if he does get caught for gambling, so in a sense, it’s understandable why he would include Isaiah into the gambling investigation. If I were Aguirre I would try to speak the minimum so that I’m not throwing my friend under the boss. If I know it can ruin their career and cause defamation, I would try to be cautious with what I speak specially with authorities. If I were the suspect, Isaiah Thomas