Casinos call critics 'dishonest'

CHICAGO -- The casino industry's chief spokesman today accused gaming's academic critics of creating a "circle of disinformation" about the industry's downside.

Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the Washington-based American Gaming Association, charged that the handful of critics have been "intellectually dishonest" with the academic community.

"Over the last five years, a small group of anti-gaming university professors has created, out of whole cloth, a series of models which purport to show that any economic benefits derived from gaming will be exceeded by social cost caused by the industry," Fahrenkopf said.

"These professors, whose theories cannot stand the test of academic review, have created a circle of disinformation, wherein they continually cite each other as sources to validate their erroneous theories."

Fahrenkopf was to present evidence backing up his contention at a news conference, as the National Gambling Impact Study Commission started the second day of its hearing here.

"Faced with the reality that their moralistic arguments against gaming have been ineffective with the American people, gaming opponents have concocted unproven and untested economic theories in an effort to bolster their anti-gaming agenda," Fahrenkopf said.

Three of the professors -- Earl Grinols, John Kindt and Ricardo Gazel -- launched their campaign against gaming at the University of Illinois, Fahrenkopf said.

All three testify about the negative aspects of gambling at this week's federal commission hearing.

Two other academics in this reported circle of disinformation are Robert Goodman of the University of Massachusetts and Rachel Volberg of Gemini Research in Pennsylvania. Both testified at previous commission hearings.

Fahrenkopf said he hoped the commission would look past the"contrived rhetoric" of the professors and focus on the facts of gaming's proven success.

The basic arguments of the industry's critics are that gaming is a predatory industry in which its social costs exceed its economic benefits.

Those theories, Fahrenkopf said, have been soundly disproven in two Arthur Anderson studies the industry commissioned.

Among those who rely on the professors for ammunition against the industry is the Rev. Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling.

Grey, who also testified before the commission this week, accused Fahrenkopf today of "whining in the hallways" because the industry suffered a setback here.

"I think he's in a situation where this has been a blood bath for him," Grey said. "He's trying to come out of here with something that he can say that he did."

Fahrenkopf charged the circle of disinformation began in 1993, when Volberg combined figures from a 1981 study of problem gamblers in her examination of the social costs of alcoholics and those with gambling disorders.

Goodman, in turn, incorporated Volberg's figures in making a national estimate of the cost of problem gambling, Fahrenkopf said. The figures were recycled again in a study by Grinols.

The 1981 study, by Politizer, Morrow and Leavy, was heavily criticized this year in an analysis by the prestigious Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Wharton study concluded the Politizer work is "unsuitable for policy application to casino cost benefit analysis."

Even Volberg now has indicated she wouldn't attempt to defend her 1993 study in a formal review setting with her academic peers, Fahrenkopf said.

"They believe strongly in their cause, and what they've done is gone out and selectively picked up things that only support their cause," Fahrenkopf said.

archive