- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Drug cartel’s hidden Nevada pot farm seized
- Number of visitors to Las Vegas slides in August
- 16-year-old suspect in boy’s stabbing surrenders
- O.J. Simpson seeks new armed robbery/kidnapping trial
- Justin Timberlake to help register voters at Obama rally
- High school football scoring updates
- ‘Girls Gone Wild’ mogul posts bail, walks free
- Lopez ‘100 percent’ a Rebel; two ex-Pilots return to Findlay
- Clean tech seen as safe bet
- Titus backs renewables; Porter says, ‘drill, baby’
Blogs
Sports: Upon Further Review
Bridges tryout goes well for Wranglers
Ex-51 Victorino having stellar playoffs for Phillies
LSU QB Hatch cuts Florida deficit to 20-14, then Gators roll
Boxing Live Update: Dawson wins by unanimous decision
Elsewhere
Klitschko takes back heavyweight title
Klitschko aims to reclaim WBC title
Sports: UNLV
Women's soccer match moved to noon Saturday
Lopez '100 percent' a Rebel; two ex-Pilots return to Findlay (7 Comments)
Calendar
- Age of Chivalry Renaissance Festival (10 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
- World Championship Chili Cookoff at the Tropicana (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
- New Found Glory at House of Blues (6 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
- Live Lakers Basketball (6:30 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.


Why don't you try reading the Nevada statutes sometime? If you did, you'd see there are many other reasons -- not mentioned in your article -- for requlators to take disciplinary action against the Trop.
To be qualified for a gaming license in Nevada, you are required to be a "person of good character, honesty and integrity." [NRS 463.170]. The New Jersey Gaming Commission basically accused Trop execs of perjury. Doesn't that raise a question of whether Yung and the Trop are still qualified?
In addition, a licensee also is required to have "adequate business probity, competence and experience, in gaming..." [NRS 463.170] For a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and widely viewed by most in the industry as running the Trop in Vegas and AC into the ground, there are real questions here as well.
Your argument seems to be because the Nevada regulators rarely ever take displinary actions against a licensee, there are no (or little) grounds to do so. But if you read the statute, you'd see that regulators have wide latitude. They choose not to take action because of they are politically controlled by the industry.
But to write that article, the chief apologist for the industry and regulators would bite the hand that feeds...