This Seems...Wrong

From Bodog (click to enlarge):


So you can gamble on whether someone will be caught gambling. This is what our world has come to. Good times.

Although this is obviously very specific--"spotted on a Casino Gaming Floor". In theory, Barkley himself could bet on the "no" side of this prop, thus get his gambling fix while knowing he'd win. Although I suppose the $100 limit would drive him away.

The qualifier at the end, "Blogs do not count towards wager" is pretty questionable, even beyond the (probably warranted) blatant discrimination. So if Deadspin publishes pictures of Barkley at a casino, that doesn't count. But if the Post publishes a rumor that he was seen gambling, that counts. Does that really make any sense? Shouldn't they just say that it has to be published by a "credible source"? Or "confirmed", or something?

Photo: About.com.