Sports and betting are two things that don’t always go well together. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the two almost seem intertwined yet mutually exclusive. Much like drinking alcohol, sports betting can be enjoyable in moderation but can be an addiction in excess.

Though betting on sports is becoming more socially acceptable, should a line be drawn between athletes and wagering? An athlete betting on their own sport can look shady indeed, but should athletes be banned from gambling and wagering altogether?

John Daly recently admitted to losing massive amounts of cash at casinos—a habit the golfer said could ruin him.

The Round Mound of Rebound, Charles Barkley also admitted to losing close to $10 million in gambling and admitted it is an ongoing problem.

Soccer star Wayne Rooney of Manchester United and English national team fame, apparently ran up close to £700, 000 or $1,301,587.01 in debts. Also, rumors circulated that there was animosity between Rooney and fellow England team mate Michael Owen relating to betting.

Phil Mickelson has wagered on a variety of sports in the past, as a matter of fact he bets with a group that has collectively cashed in on some long shots, including the Baltimore Ravens and Arizona Diamondbacks.

Pete Rose, MLB’s all-time hits leader, admitted to wagering on a variety of sporting events, including baseball. He still doesn’t have a display in the Hall of Fame.

Prior to the start of the Torino Olympics, word broke that the State of New Jersey was investigating Janet Gretzky, wife of hockey legend and Phoenix Coyotes coach Wayne Gretzky, and Phoenix assistant coach Rick Tocchet on involvement in a gambling ring.

His Airness Michael Jordan is said to have a massive appetite for gambling and betting and rumors still circulate that his retirement, the first time around, served as a smoke screen to massive gambling debts he had incurred.

People are generally allowed to spend their money however and on whatever they want. But should sports leagues, whether it be the MLB, PGA, NBA or English Premier League, regulate whether their membership can bet or not?

In Francis Ford Coppola’s epic “The Godfather,” lead character Don Vito Corleone said something to the effect that politicians turn a blind eye to gambling because they view it as a harmless vice.

But should athletes take part in this “harmless vice,” considering that it can potentially lead to a major conflict of interest?

It really depends on the personality of the athlete.

Gambling is much like alcohol. A person who can handle their alcohol has no problem going out for a drink because they know when to stop.

When a person is an alcoholic though, they need to drink to sustain an addiction and in fact they don’t control the alcohol, the alcohol controls them.

So it is with gambling. When people are compulsive like John Daly—who also is an admitted alcoholic—they shouldn’t bet or gamble because they can easily lose control. When someone isn’t compulsive, they are less likely to get caught up in the wave of euphoria that gambling can bring.

Although athletes should theoretically be allowed to bet if they so choose, they should never bet on their own sport, especially if it involves their own team.

Pete Rose’s cardinal sin wasn’t betting. It was betting on his own team. Even though he denies betting against Cincinnati, he was in a conflict of interest and he damaged his credibility. He was the manager of the Reds and could’ve risked a number of things to ensure a win—maybe even the health of his players.

Athletes should generally be allowed to spend their money how they want—alcohol, casinos and betting included. As long as there isn’t a conflict of interest, betting on sport can be a source of entertainment. As is the case with most things, moderation is the key.