V8 Supercars and Gambling - Page 2

Average Punter · 3 Oct 2009, 22:21 (Ref:2553480)

There is a bigger issue when sport and gambling start getting tangled. It is the doubt that is sowed in the punters mind when unusual things happen in sport.

Let's use cricket as an example. When Australia got beaten by Bangladesh in the lead up to the 2005 Ashes, one could say that we just had a bad day (and that Andrew Symonds should have not had that last eleventy beers..

) But the fact that you could bet on the outcome would always make some people question the validity of the result.

When Lillee and Marsh put some cash down on Australia to lose that famous test at Headingley in 1981, they were rightly criticised. If you don't know, Australia were in a seemingly impregnable position so the players thought nothing of a side bet on them losing. History tells us that a man named Botham went beserk with the willow, The Goose (Bob Willis) tore through our batting and we lost. But Lillee and Marsh made 7500 pounds...There of course is no suggestion that they threw the match, but the spectre of that possibility remains.

Let's call it the "I wonder..." factor.

As in "I wonder if they really tried?"

How wrong is it that there is a potential financial gain to be made from crashing your car at Turn 1?

Apart from all the obvious social problems of gambling, I worry just as much about its ability to call into question the integrity of the contest. Horse racing is a classic example. The sheer fact that someone stands to gain from a result that appears unlikely (like a rank outsider getting up at Flemington) makes you doubt that very result when it happens.

Let's face it. Without gambling there would be no such thing as match fixing...

Aarrgh8 · 3 Oct 2009, 22:27 (Ref:2553483)

..or horse racing.

peckstar · 4 Oct 2009, 04:59 (Ref:2553582)

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

My opinion on this topic is strong (and any other 'types' of sponsership.

You make your own decisions, if you want to gamble, smoke, drink, or purchase playboy, you decide it, not some stickers on a car.

Anyone who brings kids into the discussion is just a failed parent. Try actually talking to your kids about whats right and wrong, then we can get rid of this pc crap.

is that was remotely true, why do companies advertise, they dont spend millions for no purpose?

anyone who says that "bringing kids into the discussion is just a failed parent" is a selfish turd and a sorry excuse for a human

STEALTHY · 5 Oct 2009, 21:31 (Ref:2554791)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

is that was remotely true, why do companies advertise, they dont spend millions for no purpose?

anyone who says that "bringing kids into the discussion is just a failed parent" is a selfish turd and a sorry excuse for a human

Their advertising is directed at adults. Not kids. If they were trying to make a new poptop called beam and apple juice, sure, i'd see a problem with it. They aren't.

I'm the biggest hater of drinking and smoking (don't do either, and probably never will), but adults can choose to do what they like (talking legal stuff here). Companies should be able to advertise in motorsport, and any other sport, since their products aren't directly aimed at kid (and if the law is enforced properly, kids wouldn't be able to get their hands on these products)

Denosaur · 6 Oct 2009, 00:49 (Ref:2554853)

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

if the law is enforced properly, kids wouldn't be able to get their hands on these products

I remember in those final years/months before I could purchase cigarette & alcohol, along with my mates, we knew of a few dodgy milk bars, newsagents, bottle shops and even some pubs/bars in my area and around Uni, that we could go into and get away in buying these items.

Sounds a bit double standard of me, but I would probably rip the local retailer a new one, before the kid would get there share, if I found out that my kid had bought something from them.

One thing I want to ask, anyone know a kid under 18 that has a credit card and an online betting account?? Most banks don't hand those things over unless your over 18, so they ain't going to get far there. Unless they pinch one from the oldies or the oldies give them a supplementary card to there's.

STEALTHY · 6 Oct 2009, 00:53 (Ref:2554856)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denosaur

I remember in those final years/months before I could purchase cigarette & alcohol, along with my mates, we knew of a few dodgy milk bars, newsagents, bottle shops and even some pubs/bars in my area and around Uni, that we could go into and get away in buying these items.

I've seen plenty get away with it. If i see someone buy something (usually cigarettes in a supermarket) and not get asked for id, i make sure the staff get a talking to. Funnily enough, i'm 24 and have still been asked for id when getting smokes for my mum.

stoned pony · 6 Oct 2009, 01:31 (Ref:2554865)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

is that was remotely true, why do companies advertise, they dont spend millions for no purpose?

anyone who says that "bringing kids into the discussion is just a failed parent" is a selfish turd and a sorry excuse for a human

Oh, grow up, Peckstar and stop feeling inadequate. He's essentially right.

Why do we grown-ups want our sport stymied because people won't take time to explain things to their kids?

Denosaur · 6 Oct 2009, 03:04 (Ref:2554877)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoned pony

Why do we grown-ups want our sport stymied because people won't take time to explain things to their kids?

I don't! My parents really didn't sit me down, but I saw the effects of drinking, smoking and gambling through life experiences. Not of my own, but of family and friends. Once you see the ugly side of these things you don't ever want that to happen to you.

But the main people behind such causes are the one's who don't have interest in the sport, and possibly don't have children. Not to mention some sort of religious belief's to boot, which $%&#'s me beyond no end as there's enough crap these days about don't do this and that, that I don't need someone forcing there beliefs onto me or my family.

stoned pony · 6 Oct 2009, 04:07 (Ref:2554884)

I made my own way through life as well and I decided what worked for me and what didn't.

I reckon anything that is legal has a right to be advertised in our "free" society, even if I don't paticularly agree with it.

Can't understand why tobacco advertising was stopped, don't agree with booze advertising on race cars but hey, whatever floats someone's boat and pays for their race team.

Ditto gambling. I don't get it and the only bet I have is with Mrs Pony, a $2 handshake on the outcome of the Bathurst 1000. But hey, if it's legal and people do it and it pays for a race team to exist then no problem here.

And anyway, while, while those suckers are enjoying their time at the TAB gambling their hard-earned its less tax that comes out of my wages.

And those who can't or won't explain it to their kids? Not my problem.

peckstar · 6 Oct 2009, 05:33 (Ref:2554901)

Bless you boys and your love in.

Im not sure if you realise , but V8 Supercars is not an adult sport, Its a family sport, menaing that there will be kids there. So why should products that are illegal for some of the viewers and attender be able to be adveretised

Im not sure if you also reralise that Alcohol is about to become banned in sport, its not a case of "if" its a case of when. Serious alcohol advertising in our sport is a recently new phenominum. and gambling is even newer. As a result it is better we cut it off before our sport relies on it, as opposed to relying on and then having it cut off

Holly Wood · 6 Oct 2009, 07:52 (Ref:2554955)

Meanwhile, it was interesting to see that the fourth ‘news’ story in Motorsport eNews this week is titled ‘Fancy a V8 flutter?’, and starts with…

“Betting agencies have followed Motorsport News magazine’s form guide in framing their odds for the 2009 Bathurst 1000!”

And finishes with…

“But in this 2010 world of on-line betting, there are all sorts of things, other than the winner, to have a flutter on. Other options include the race’s first retirement, #888 versus the field, #888 versus #2, #888 winning margin and winning team.”

Followed by a full list of ‘odds, credited to ‘V8bet’.

I’m sure that’s a genuine news article, because pushing gambling under the thin mask of editorial isn’t something these guys do…

Tourer · 6 Oct 2009, 08:06 (Ref:2554965)

Its all how you deal with it isn't it?

Personally, regardless of my age when I saw it, I've never once thrown myself headlong into a purchase due to sponsor signage alone. Does make me aware of the product though - which is all that marketing people expect from sponsorship - product awareness & recognition. Means that they hope that once the currently underage fans get to a legal age, they'll be all fired up to gamble with sponsor company if they want to gamble or to drink the sponsor's drink if they want to drink.

If the product can be legally promoted, then it can sponsor a team, simple as that. Just because any of us don't like a particular product is no reason to suggest that sponsorship should be removed or that it should not be allowed. Personally, I have no intention of ever getting involved in organised religion due to the Jesus racing sponsorship but just because I don't like god botherers is no reason to suggest the sponsorship shouldn't be allowed.

Its all too easy to get all PC on this but where do you stop? While it's legal, go for it I say.

peckstar · 6 Oct 2009, 08:16 (Ref:2554973)

its not legal though tourer, its only legal for over 18s

Holly Wood · 6 Oct 2009, 09:01 (Ref:2555009)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tourer

If the product can be legally promoted, then it can sponsor a team, simple as that. Just because any of us don't like a particular product is no reason to suggest that sponsorship should be removed or that it should not be allowed.

Really? So if studies were to show a clear correlation between promoting gambling, alochol brands, etc, to children, and them taking up these past times to the point of them becoming habit (for which they need social benefits to recover from, at the cost to the tax payer), would there be reason to suggest that the sponsorship should not be allowed? Isn't this exactly what happened with cigarettes?

Personally, I don't mind if JD, JB etc stay in the game or not... but you make it sound as if people object to their involvement because they don't like the taste of the drink or something!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tourer

Its all too easy to get all PC on this but where do you stop? While it's legal, go for it I say.

Sure, from a business perspective, 'while it's legal, go for it'.

But as human beings, we are debating if it should be legal. And there are very good arguments for pro-legality of alcohol sponsorship in sport... but effectively saying 'it should be legal because it is' is hardly sound logic... you can't attempt to over-ride a moral argument with law!

Tourer · 6 Oct 2009, 09:28 (Ref:2555030)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

its not legal though tourer, its only legal for over 18s

Sorry pecky - should have been clearer - it is legal to advertise gambling or alcohol currently. Agree that some of it is being looked at from a legislative point of view but as of right now, it is all legal.

Tourer · 6 Oct 2009, 09:34 (Ref:2555036)

Wood - I understand the passion that you clearly have on this but my main point is that teams applying this kind of sponsorship have every right to do so.

I do take your point re cigarettes but who are we (or the sports governing body or the teams) to take a "moral" stance when the sponsorship is legal and teams need money to go racing? Its not as if they are turning away other sponsors to take this money is it?

Like I said before, where do you draw the line? You mention cost to taxpayer but look at obesity etc. Cadbury sponsored motor racing and other sports (as many of those products do) - "energy" drinks are heavily involved in sponsorship, hell Red Bull run their own events. Where should the line be drawn? Whilst this stuff is still all legal, in my view that is the only line that you can draw.

STEALTHY · 6 Oct 2009, 09:57 (Ref:2555047)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

Bless you boys and your love in.

Im not sure if you realise , but V8 Supercars is not an adult sport, Its a family sport, menaing that there will be kids there. So why should products that are illegal for some of the viewers and attender be able to be adveretised

Im not sure if you also reralise that Alcohol is about to become banned in sport, its not a case of "if" its a case of when. Serious alcohol advertising in our sport is a recently new phenominum. and gambling is even newer. As a result it is better we cut it off before our sport relies on it, as opposed to relying on and then having it cut off

90% of sports are 'family' sports, nut just adult specific.

I'm not seeing the difference between seeing an awesome looking race car in the sport you love, or seeing a sip'n'save ad during prime time, people under 18 are still watching. Would you like to wrap everyone under 18 up in cotton wool? Ban these ads from their TV? Then convict any adult who happens to let someone who is 17 see these damaging ads?

I'm still of the opinion people choose what they want to do, if they want to smoke, they will smoke, if they want to drink, they will drink, if they are underage when they decide to do it, thats their choice. The effects of both are clearly known. My point is most kids 'try' this stuff who aren't even into motorsport, or any sport for that matter, they just do it to be one of the 'cool kids', and that is why i said it comes down to bad parenting.

peckstar · 6 Oct 2009, 10:02 (Ref:2555050)

stealthy they dont normally advertise the local sip and save during prime time, they are typically on later in the evening

but you can be sure that they will be baned going forward

Holly Wood · 6 Oct 2009, 10:20 (Ref:2555065)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tourer

Wood - I understand the passion that you clearly have on this but my main point is that teams applying this kind of sponsorship have every right to do so.

I do take your point re cigarettes but who are we (or the sports governing body or the teams) to take a "moral" stance when the sponsorship is legal and teams need money to go racing? Its not as if they are turning away other sponsors to take this money is it?

Ahh, this is the thing... I'm not passionate for or against alcohol sponsorship in V8 Supercar, but I am passionately against the attitude of 'but who are we to take a "moral" stance when the sponsorship is legal?'.

Who are we? We're citizens in a democracy for starters, but more to the point, we're individuals capable of independent thought. We may not have the economic data to back up our assertions regarding the effect of government policies on society, but we can use our own moral compasses, together with our life experiences, to each formulate an ideology on how something 'ought to be'.

And reading other people's perspectives on these issues is, in my opinion, interesting. Peckstar for example is concerned about children consuming the branding. Who is he to have a 'moral' stance? He's a parent, that's who!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tourer

Like I said before, where do you draw the line? You mention cost to taxpayer but look at obesity etc. Cadbury sponsored motor racing and other sports (as many of those products do) - "energy" drinks are heavily involved in sponsorship, hell Red Bull run their own events. Where should the line be drawn? Whilst this stuff is still all legal, in my view that is the only line that you can draw.

These are very good points... and all make for interesting discussion. For example, Red Bull was banned in France until only recently, because the boffins still don't really know what the chemicals in these 'energy drinks' actually do to the human body in the long run.... where the line is drawn is well open for debate.

And it's certainly more interesting than endless threads about pretty stickers and colours like I see on other V8 forums!

STEALTHY · 6 Oct 2009, 21:13 (Ref:2555464)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

stealthy they dont normally advertise the local sip and save during prime time, they are typically on later in the evening

but you can be sure that they will be baned going forward

That was just an exaggerated example. The point is, they are banning whatever they see fit too. Just like fast food places were banned from advertising during kids programs because of obesity. My comment is the same to this, learn2parent.

The alcohol (and tomacco) bannings will never effect me, but i'm still against it because it opens the door to them banning whatever they want, for whatever reason, and someday something 'might' have an effect on me personally.

stoned pony · 7 Oct 2009, 01:05 (Ref:2555565)

Peckstar, as proof of the fact that the subliminal advertising message does not work anyway I put forward the sponsorship of race cars by Condom Kingdom a while back.

Had that advertising message worked on you then you would not now be a parent. Simple remedy and problem solved.

The reality is that authorities shouold not be able to selectively ban legal product because they find it distasteful.

The example of the Jesus Racing thing was given in an earlier post. I know Muslims and Jews who love their motorsport. Should the whole Jesus thing be banned because they find it not to their liking?

The non-Christian folks I know certainly don't think it should. In fact it offends me more than it does them.

peckstar · 7 Oct 2009, 08:32 (Ref:2555699)

why does it offend you stone pony?

STEALTHY · 7 Oct 2009, 10:55 (Ref:2555798)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoned pony

Had that advertising message worked on you then you would not now be a parent. Simple remedy and problem solved.

As much as mine and his views are opposing in this thread, that example doesn't really work. Condoms highest use is for contraception, maybe he 'chose' he wanted to start a family, not just had accident baby.

Denosaur · 7 Oct 2009, 20:45 (Ref:2556170)

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Condoms highest use is for contraception, maybe he 'chose' he wanted to start a family, not just had accident baby.

Your right on the money there!! My partner and I chose to have a child. Same as I choose not to smoke, occasionally gamble and not drink excessively.

Where not all Homer Simpson's who see the new billboards at the start of the month, and then have to buy everything and enroll in Krusty's Clown College.
But the people who want the advertising to be removed, think that most people in society are like that.

stoned pony · 8 Oct 2009, 01:07 (Ref:2556294)

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

As much as mine and his views are opposing in this thread, that example doesn't really work. Condoms highest use is for contraception, maybe he 'chose' he wanted to start a family, not just had accident baby.

Perhaps I should have added one of these: