William Bennett considering lawsuits against casinos

The Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | Tuesday, July 29, 2003 | ROD SMITH

[lelio]

Or he could offer to be the voice on the loudspeaker outside of Bally's. "Man these slots are loose! That's Vegas action baby!"

[gcruse]

He alleges documents were selectively leaked to
create a false impression that he had a gaming problem.

While Bennett did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents

A false impression  of a legitimate problem.  This isn't
making a lot of sense.  Of course, he also said,

"Did I fall short of my standards by doing too much,
by engaging in this at an excessive level? Yes, but that
doesn't make my arguments any less good or not."

Quit while you're behind, Bill. Language is not your forte.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Release of the information was not legal...but you have no problem with its release?

[Lockbar]

I do agree that he should go on the offensive for leaking his personal info if it will make him feel better. But he no longer can make any case that he is a spokesperson for people living more responsible lives, even if it was his own money to do with what he pleased. That much gambling is too stupid for words. Bill, shut up and go away.

[ilgipper]

Way to go, Bill! The release of this information is a clear violation of his privacy, and is illegal. This was the biggest issue related to the Bennett gambling saga.

[tracer]

There is a world of difference between a multi-millionaire losing a large chunk of change without jeopardizing his family's financial security and a $25,000/year Joe-Six-Pack who loses his still-doubly-mortgaged house and his kids' college fund at the craps table.

And the truth of his writings in the area of morality remains, the rearing, both here and elsewhere, of the ugly head of class envy notwithstanding.

Regardless of who wins or loses in court, market forces will exact a price from the casino in question. As they should....

[N. Theknow]

'What happens here stays here.'

What happened?

I lost my money and it stayed there.

[Bluntpoint]

Linda Tripp taping Monica was not legal either.

But it did educate me a great deal about the characters involved.

[kellynla]

"What happens here does not stay here." I agree. Whoever was responsible for releasing that information was totally out of line and probably libel. The casinos had no business releasing that information. It was his money, legal, his business and certainly none of anybody else's business. We all have a right to privacy.

[tracer]

"Language is not your forte(' needed here).

And how many best sellers have you written and thereby become a multi-millionaire?

[MagnusMat]

Overall my respect for him has gone down, but I hope he does sue the Casinoes for releasing this information. Someone had it in for him and they need to pay.

[rellimpank]

--enlignten me--of what was Linda Tripp convicted?

[lelio]

There is a world of difference between a multi-millionaire losing a large chunk of change without jeopardizing his family's financial security and a $25,000/year Joe-Six-Pack who loses his still-doubly-mortgaged house and his kids' college fund at the craps table.

Speaking from a purely financial look at the situation, yes. But if you're loosing millions on something it can hardly be called "entertainment" any more and should be looked at as an addiction.

[gcruse]

No, no. He didn't write the virtues, remember?
How many times did we hear that? Heh.

And this...

"Yes, but that
doesn't make my arguments any less good or not."

...is not the mark of a language maven.

[Bluntpoint]

She was indicted on Maryland state charges of wire-tapping.

She said she did it to protect herself.

I'm not sure what ever happened to that aspect of the case.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Linda Tripp taped Monica Lewinsky because she was being asked to break the law. She did it to protect herself.

Why did the casino release Bennett's information illegally, do you suppose? Certainly not for any reason so lofty as that.

And what is the character problem with gambling, exactly?

[onedoug]

Oh, so he moves his games of chance from the casino to the courts.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

How is addiction defined, in this case?

Does anyone know what Bennett's net worth is, so that we can put his loses into perspective?

[Owen]

There was a problem with this story from day 1. Consider the numbers. The claim was $8 million lost. For an average casino house advantage of . . . oh, say, 5% (roulette), he'd have had to bet $160 million to lose that much.

He is apparently a blackjack player, and skilled players of blackjack who do not count cards give the house an advantage of < 1%. This would require even larger betting totals.

My suspicion is the guy plays a lot of blackjack. He probably lost $8 million in so doing, but *not net*. He probably won $7.9 million over that time too. For such a big hitter, over who knows how many years, losing 100K isn't that big a deal. If it was . . . oh, 15 years, that would be 8K/yr, which is not a bad price if he was comped all his rooms and evenings at shows and was in Vegas once a month.

[Acolyte]

Bennett must have had a ghost writer/editor for his "Book of Virtues" series...