In the case of the National Football League against an Arizona Cardinals executive, The Shield and Ryan Gold are forcing people to choose a side.
Their versions of events in the newest NFL betting scandal occupy ends of a spectrum so wide, you could not see middle ground with a telescope.
Earlier in July, the NFL suspended Gold indefinitely for allegedly providing inside information about 2026 Cardinals draft selections to unnamed people. The league also accuses Gold of making parlay bets on professional and college football games.
Gold, who is Arizona’s college scouting director, responded through his attorney that he could not share information about draft picks because only the team’s general manager and owner knew who they would choose. Attorney Mike Crespino also said Gold’s wife actually placed the wagers, which he contends were $10 parlays among high-school friends, and that his client will appeal the suspension.
So do you buy the NFL betting story …
The simplest and most powerful rebuttal to skeptics of the NFL’s side is this: why would the league dress up gambling charges against a team executive? As the wake of the Calvin Ridley and Jameson Williams scandals finally ebbs, commissioner Roger Goodell roiling those waters again hardly seems logical.
Yet because the NFL tends to run its investigations in relative silence, siding with the institution requires extending at least a shred of trust. The list of questions left unanswered by the league’s July 17 announcement includes:
- Who received the inside draft information Gold disclosed and why weren’t they named?
- What bets did Gold place and when did he place them?
- Did Gold use a regulated sports betting platform to place the wagers?
- Did Gold ever bet on the Cardinals?
- Who are the “relevant people” who spoke with NFL investigators and why weren’t they named?
The league’s statement detailed only that investigators spoke with sources and reviewed electronic records. In theory, those records could include text messages or betting account records but the NFL chose not to disclose its findings, at least to date.
… or do you believe Ryan Gold?
Because the league held its cards close, the polar-opposite claims made by Crespino find some daylight in the public eye. While it is by definition his job to speak up for Gold, Crespino fired verbally with a confidence that would leave him wearing egg if no evidence backs him up.
“The accusations made by the league regarding his participation in prohibited gambling activities are blatantly false. We have demanded an appeal, and we look forward to clearing his good name,” Crespino told ESPN.
His accusation that the league’s conclusion is “blatantly false” rests, however, on faith at the moment. Crespino did not yet respond to an SBC Americas request for supporting evidence of his claims.
That leaves similarly wanting questions hanging, including:
- While Gold might not have known the actual team draft selections on tap this year, did he share other nonpublic information about the Cardinals with bettors?
- Did Gold share any inside information about draft prospects he researched in his capacity as college scouting director?
- Did Gold’s wife have her own betting account or did she use her husband’s account to place the parlays? Or were the wagers placed without the use of online betting platforms?
- Why are the Cardinals choosing to support the league’s findings rather than back a longtime employee?
A team statement released in concert with the league’s reads in part, “We fully support the league’s decision in this matter, which involves a single employee.”
Both that single employee and the biggest professional sports league in America must answer more questions if either hopes to paint a picture clear enough to see.
