ShareThis Page
Jagr insists he paid gambling debt in full |

Jagr insists he paid gambling debt in full

The Associated Press
| Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:00 a.m

WASHINGTON — Jaromir Jagr acknowledged Wednesday that he made mistakes when he lost $500,000 betting through an Internet gambling site, but he insisted he paid the debt four years ago and did nothing illegal.

“It was 1998, and I made mistakes,” Jagr told reporters after the Washington Capitals’ practice. “I just wasn’t smart. It was stupid. It wasn’t illegal, and it was five years ago. Everything was taken care of in 1999. That’s all I can tell you.”

Jagr owed the money to William Caesar, owner of the gambling Web site CaribSports, based in Belize. Sports Illustrated reported that Jagr agreed to pay $450,000, split into monthly payments, to settle the debt — and that Caesar leaked the story to the press after Jagr stopped making the payments.

Jagr disputed that part of the magazine’s story, reiterating that the debt was settled in 1999, and that he didn’t know why the story was coming out now.

There was no allegation that Jagr bet on NHL games, which would be violation of league rules. Caesar told the magazine he had technicians configure Jagr’s betting page so the hockey star could not bet on the NHL.

“We did that for our own protection, not just his,” Caesar said. “That would destroy us, if he destroyed the game.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.