courtsiding is a trucking term of art and has nothing to do with tennis
-
Opinion
What Drives Success?
-
Opinion
How Long Have I Got Left?
-
Food Chains
-
Editorial
The Koch Party
-
Holocaust Told in One Word, 6 Million Times
-
Maureen Dowd
Now Playing in Denver: Reefer Gladness
-
Seahawks’ Richard Sherman Is Much More Than Just Talk
-
Home-Price Economics
The Tale of a House, and an Entire Market
-
Common Sense
A Lawyer and Partner, and Also Bankrupt
-
The Next Big Picture
-
Op-Ed | Steven Rattner
The Myth of Industrial Rebound
-
Nicholas Kristof
3 Enemas Later, Still No Drugs
-
The Sexual Healer
-
Beijing’s Bad Air Would Be Step Up for Smoggy Delhi
-
Accidents Surge as Oil Industry Takes the Train
-
Big City
Loehmann’s, Out of Step and Closing Down
-
Lessons From a Master Cat Photographer
-
Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance
-
A Harder Outlook for Today’s Cowboy
-
In Housing, Big Is Back (Not Counting the Extras)
-
-
Loading...
MELBOURNE,
Australia — The strangest story of this Australian Open so far involved
a man, a smartphone, a consultant service for online gambling, a tennis
match, an arrest, allegations of corruption, a new law and much
confusion. Naturally, it unfolded without precedent.
This
story also brought new attention to the gambling boom around
professional tennis and introduced many to the term courtsiding.
The
accused is Daniel Dobson, 22, of Britain. The police said he came to
the tournament last week with an electronic device stitched inside his
clothing and linked to a smartphone. They said he used these devices to
relay the outcome of points to his employer, Sporting Data, as much as 10 seconds faster than those results could be transmitted through official channels.
Dobson
was arrested and charged with engaging in conduct to corrupt a betting
outcome. The accusation fell under a law passed in the Australian state
of Victoria last April called the Integrity in Sports Act, which was
supported and promoted by a coalition of sports organizations, including
Tennis Australia.
At
a news conference after the arrest, Graham Ashton, a deputy
commissioner with the Victoria Police, described courtsiding as a “type
of cheating and betting on sports.” He said the advance notice provided
by Dobson allowed bets to be placed on particular points after they
happened and before agencies could close their betting windows.
“Courtsiding
is really only one step away from then contacting players and getting
engaged in more illicit and sinister types of sports corruption,” Ashton
said.
But
many of those who bet on tennis do not agree. They say it is unlikely
that Dobson relayed that information so someone else could bet on
individual points. Most bookmakers have policies in place to prevent
that; some allow bettors only to bet three points ahead; others
institute a five-second delay after transactions.
On
Thursday, Dobson will appear before a judge. His case, to industry
insiders, is more about sports results data and who owns them. Among the
bullet points in its news release to announce its exclusive data rights
for the tournament, the sports data provider Enetpulse listed
“exclusive official data service designed for bookmakers,” “fastest live
scoring service in the market” and “all data direct from the Umpire’s
Chair.”
Brendan
Poots, the chief executive of the Melbourne-based sports investment
fund Priomha Capital, said the value of that rapid data could be seven
figures. The question, then, is whether it is against the law for
someone other than Enetpulse — like Sporting Data — to try to transmit
it faster.
“I
think it’s all blown out of proportion,” Poots said. “I can’t see any
relevance to match fixing. The value is in providing the best data as
quickly as possible.”
In
many ways, tennis is tailored for those modern gamblers who are
mathematically inclined. Enetpulse noted that in 2010 the ATP and WTA
scheduled 19,000 matches, which included more than 400,000 games and
nearly 2.5 million points. There is no shortage of statistics.
The
amount of money wagered on tennis increased exponentially in the last
five years, according to Poots and others. The boom took place outside
the United States. “In terms of live betting on tennis, it’s
nonexistent,” said Ted Sevransky, a longtime bettor and analyst based in
Las Vegas. But in Europe and elsewhere, tennis often ranks behind only
horse racing and soccer in its appeal to bettors.
Poots
noted that an innocuous fourth-round women’s singles match here between
No. 28 Flavia Pennetta and No. 9 Angelique Kerber attracted more than
$4 million in wagers on the betting site Betfair on the first set alone.
“From
a gambling or trading perspective, tennis is magnificent,” Poots said.
“It’s one-on-one. It’s global. And it takes place almost year round.”
What
separates tennis betting from other sports is that most bets are placed
on events that happen during a match. That stems from the scoring
system, with all the back and forth, which shifts the odds often and
significantly enough to exploit.
The more the betting increased, the more opportunities emerged for gamblers. Many center on statistical analysis. Sites like Tennis Ratings advertise analysis of the best and worst players at defending a break advantage, or which players tend to most often play three-set matches.
As
gambling on tennis became more popular, concerns spread. In 2007, the
Australian Open hired Sal Perna, a former homicide detective who
specialized in combating fraud and corruption. The tournament wanted a
policy in place by 2008.
Perna
studied other sports organizations, including Major League Baseball,
the N.F.L., cricket and rugby. What emerged was an anticorruption policy
that borrowed from each.
The
tournament hung signs around the grounds that read: “Tennis Australia
has a zero tolerance policy on illegal gambling, match fixing and the
communication of sensitive information which may affect the outcome of a
match and will investigate all reported instances.” The signs included a
telephone number for a “Tennis Integrity Hotline.”
At
the first tournament under the new policy, officials detained a
Bulgarian man who Perna said had been placing his hand into a bag after
each point. When they played a videotape back, they could see a laptop.
The man then left Melbourne in the middle of the next night.
“The
challenge with that was, how do you identify what the criminal charge
is?” Perna said. “Because what they’re really doing is transmitting live
information about a match.”
The
Integrity in Sports Act tried to clarify that matter with a law,
focused largely on match-fixing and race-fixing and corruption. The most
serious penalties carry a potential jail sentence of 10 years.
Courtsiding,
though, is not as clear-cut as, say, bribing a player or throwing a
match. Someone like Dobson is sitting in a public place, watching a
public event. The information he is processing is available to thousands
sitting around him. The way he is accused of transmitting data appears
nearly identical to what the chair umpires do for Enetpulse.
Professional
tennis has its own integrity unit, a joint venture among the men’s and
women’s tours, the International Tennis Federation and the four Grand
Slam tournaments. The unit is an independent body that can request phone
records, computer records and travel arrangements. But it cannot make
arrests.
Since
last June, betting violations have led to fines and suspensions for
four players. They came from the lower rungs of the professional
circuit, where money is tighter and expenses often exceed prize money.
Sporting
Data did not respond to requests for comment, but released a statement
in defense of Dobson. The statement said the company planned to fight
“this grossly unfair accusation.” It said the company could not use “out
of date” television broadcasts for its mathematical models.
IMG
Media, which purchased a majority share in Enetpulse in 2012, said in a
statement that the agreement with the Australian Open pumped money back
into tennis, while courtsiders do not.
Bill
Babcock, director of the Grand Slam committee, said of Sporting Data:
“I don’t agree they have a right to use the data. Scoring is the right
of the tournament.”
Correction: January 22, 2014
An earlier version of this article included an erroneous link to a sporting data company. It is sportingdata.co.uk, not sportingdata.com.
An earlier version of this article included an erroneous link to a sporting data company. It is sportingdata.co.uk, not sportingdata.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment