Looking for a casino scapegoat
$6,000 Welcome Bonus
Your May 19 article on Scott Sibella starts with a pejorative characterization (“the disgraced former Las Vegas gaming executive”) then prods that “the jury in the court of public opinion is still out.” It’s ironic because the Review-Journal has more impact on public opinion than anyone. This is a case of “corporate culpability,” with the best solution being a commensurate “corporate fine.”
The article doesn’t mention several mitigating factors that obviate the need to prosecute Mr. Sibella as a scapegoat. First, the article lacks real-world context because numerous employees are involved in the oversight process when a high roller is on property and every casino has large compliance, security, cage and training departments with numerous well-established protocols to assure the enterprise is not shuttered due to losing its gaming license. Ironic.
Secondly, saying Mr. Sibella “invited a known bookie” is misleading and prejudicial. The truth is that the VP of player development and several lower tier managers/hosts are incentivized to actively prospect for high rollers worldwide to drive Wall Street profitability.
Third, although the article does highlight 81 impressive letters of support from peers who understand the casino business context first hand, it’s ironic that the story spotlights two very biased sources: a casino executive with an axe to grind and a banned, social media litigant who is suing Mr. Sibella.
Fourth, the mention of Mizuhara is unfounded “TMZ-style” speculation.
The most ironic thing: Mr. Sibella has an excellent attorney, named … Spilotro.
