Page 3

WO: Why in your opinion has the British government not raised more of a stink about the United States detaining one of their citizens, especially a CEO of a publicly traded company?

LGW: I guess you’d have to go back to them on why not? This is, I’m sure, a very sensitive matter between the U.S. and the U.K. I’m sure it’s been discussed at higher levels in a non-public forum. The results of those discussions are yet to be seen but certainly if I were involved in the British government I would have a significant problem with another country detaining one of my citizens for an activity which has been legalized in my host country and one which the country is going to license in the near future.

This should be something on which the U.K. is outspoken and incensed about but we’re not seeing that for whatever reason. There may be some backroom negotiations. The United States has taken a firm stance against online gambling, they’re attempting to expand their legislation and take on even more types of online gambling and so we are certainly at logger heads with the U.K. on their approach to online gambling, their legalization approach, and this is going to be a sore subject for year’s to come between the two countries as we try to sort out the differing cultural approaches to gambling, particularly online gambling, and this is going to be, in my prediction, one of several of these kinds of cases of an increasingly isolated U.S. policy of absolute prohibition that is going to get us into trouble as we confront other countries that take a more progressive view towards this popular activity in the United States.

WO: What are the implications of BetonSports’ legal team not showing up for their hearing in St. Louis?

LGW: It was likely a tactical decision that was made so as to not give the court a sense that they’re going to be participating, to make it very clear that their position is that the courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction over the entity, that the entity is not responsible for compliance with the U.S. law to the extent that if the company made any sort of appearance, even what’s called a limited appearance for purposes of contesting jurisdiction, it would give some credibility to the process in the United States and it would allow the judge to start making rulings, issuing directives to the attorneys who showed up, and my guess is this was a strategic decision to avoid any appearance that they’re going to be participating from a substantive standpoint in the prosecution or the civil case.

Page 1, 2, 3