11/05/24
September 08, 2002
how does the NYT justify publishing horse racing results but not a 'vegas line': call me retarded or assinine. but as a a dedicated NYT print reader for several years now, i find it hard to justify publishing horse racing results and not a 'vegas line' for betting odds on sporting events. being it week 1of nfl football one would think that horse racing captivates the betting public just as much as nfl football.
posted by oliver_crunk to football at 04:31 PM - 2 comments
That's not all. For a number of months, the NY Times online edition ran ads for off-shore betting Web sites, while at the same time opining against legal betting on their editorial and sports pages. I always found it funny.
posted by emcerlain at 02:54 PM on September 09, 2002
I think you can justify publishing horse racing results because they also publish baseball results, hockey results and other sporting results. The "Vegas Line" information for football is strictly for betting. That said, what you should have pointed to was this link, the Stardust Hotel and Casino line on the Kentucky Derby. That's where they come across as hypocritical. The other reasoning might be that horse racing is "the sport of kings" but football is for the "common man". That's assuming the NYT has some sort of high-brow image to maintain.