A Brief History Of Sportswriter Gambling

The ombudsman over at The Washington Post is appalled to learn that Post, saying, "maybe the Masters bets next year should be in Oreos, not cash," which, if you've looked at the people covering The Masters lately, is probably what they're spending their money on anyway.

Sportswriters gambling on the events they cover is theoretically unethical (and, of course, illegal, wink wink). An NFL writer in say, New York, could have a bunch of money on the Giants' opponent and spend the whole week writing articles that would distract Eli Manning and make him cry. (Not too difficult anyway.) Of course, the real world doesn't work this way, and at the high levels of tenured sportswriting, gambling is pretty much the only way the games can hold any of these guys' attention. So, henceforth, these little gambling games, $50 here or there, because do you realize how boring it is to cover golf?

It's really quite logical: Years of covering sports make you hate sports and turn gambling into the only way you can tolerate it any longer. It doesn't seem fair to take that away from them. It's all they have.

Washington Post Writers Shouldn't Have Met In Masters Pool [The Fanhouse]