submitted by Not_C to Sports2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 21:20:11 ago (+17/-0) (Sports)
A pro sports team must try to win every game. If a team purposely loses, they aren't just breaking league rules, they're breaking the law. By suspending a top player, the Brooklyn Nets are throwing the season. The Nets are purposely and deliberately doing something that they know will result in more losses, and a worse season. This is illegal.
One way they will profit off of this - By suspending a star player and having a worse season, they will gain better draft pick selections.
Match fixing, point shaving, and throwing games are extremely hard to prove. But in this case, it's undeniable. By suspending a star player, the Brooklyn Nets are purposely losing games. Which is illegal.
Those other kinds of cheating are illegal because they're more deceptive. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to very publicly fire any player they want. Bettors can take that into account when handicapping the game. Players get dropped from pro sports teams for off-the-field conduct sometimes. I've never heard of it being called illegal.
Yeah if it's the last few games of the season and you play your rookies or sit out your goalie or pitcher so they're better rested for the first round of the playoffs, that's one thing. No one can say that the purpose was solely to lose the last few games to get a better spot in the draft or to face a different team in the first round of the playoffs. There's been plenty of times teams have been accused of throwing games in these ways. And investigated for it. But it couldn't be proven that the sole reason was to lose the games.
But in this case he wasn't suspended by the league. So according to the league, he did nothing wrong. (Or nothing worth warranting a suspension.) This is the Nets purposely and deliberately putting a weaker team on the court. There's no way the Nets could argue against this.
So where's the line? What's stopping a team from suspending all its players and using its farm team for the last few games (or even having fans tryout and playing them) knowing it will lead to intentionally losing the games? Bettors could take that into account, but it'd still be illegal. Not just from a gambling perspective, but also for draft picks or who they play in the first round of the playoffs.
And yes, players do get suspended by their teams for many different reasons. But.... it technically could be illegal in many cases. Like if the team is significantly less likely to win, and the justification for the suspension is something as unjustified as punishing a player for using twitter wrong.
[ - ] 3Whuurs 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 22:08:18 ago (+1/-0)
Even outside the default answer of “because they just can”.
This was even better displayed with all the corporate BLM and MeToo support. It’s illegal for a publicly traded company to knowingly do anything that can cost the shareholders money. And there’s a dozen examples like Gillette here:
Costing themselves 8 billion for an SJW ad campaign they couldn’t possibly argue in court they didn’t realize would happen. AND then the CEO even admitted it was worth it after..
The SEC is specifically tasked to enforce this stuff and not a single share holder claim was ever started.
It’s no different then the SEC stripping Elon Musk of his chairman position of Tesla for smoking weed on Joe Rogan. And the rule there was no more complicated then it could cause uncertainty for share holders.
I see your point when it comes to company shares and such. But sports is different.
In sports, a team that knows it isn't going to make the playoffs can't bench their top players, intentionally loose the last 5 games of the season so they end up with a better draft pick. Or a team knowing they'll make the playoffs, but intentionally losing the last couple games so they go up against a different team in the first round. Both are illegal. Both actions will increase the value of the team. But both are illegal because every team must try to win every game.
At all times, a team is required to try to win games. They aren't allowed to lose games just because they can.
It is of course extremely hard to prove the loss was intentional. Playing the rookies so they get more experience and playtime. Saving your good pitcher or goalie so they are more well rested for the playoffs. - You can make mountains of excuses for playing your shittiest players and not "intentionally" losing the game.
They could bench the nigger. But suspending a top player is blatantly putting a poorer team on the court than what they're capable of.
And the argument of - Well it's in the contract that players will be suspended for doing bad things. That's not an excuse. Like in the above examples, a team could suspend all of their players and play their farm teams for the last few games of the regular season to end up with a better draft pick, or play a better team in the first round of the playoffs.
I don't know the specific laws. But throwing games, point shaving, and match fixing are all investigated by the FBI.
Then there's league rules. Throwing games to get better draft picks or play a different team in the playoffs is breaking league rules.
I remember around 10 years ago (or more) the Ottawa Senators were investigated for losing the last few games of the season to gain a better draft pick. That investigation hinged on whether or not the players were playing their hardest. But they made a pretty big deal about it, claiming that there would be criminal charges and stuff if it could be proven.
Of course suspending or benching top players would make it far easier to prove that the team was losing on purpose.
Ya, just the way you’re talking about it needs to made clear that sports rules have nothing to do with the law. It has to be either a gambling regulation or some kind of contract law or something like that. Cheating at professional sports on its own has nothing to do with the law as far as I can tell.
Cheating at professional sports on its own has nothing to do with the law as far as I can tell.
Conspiracy. Operation Slap Shot. Rick Tocchet, former NHL player and at the time assistant coach for the Phoenix Coyotes. He avoided the gambling charges because gambling wasn't illegal. But because he gambled on games he was associated with, he was charged with conspiracy. They couldn't prove that the games were thrown, which would have led to more charges. But he still received 2 years probation.
"The investigation also referred to the possibility of an NHL team owner, half a dozen active NHL players, and other coaches and team staff members being involved in this investigation."
"In 2007, members of the Toledo football team were CHARGED with participating in a point shaving scandal. Members of the football team were connected with Detroit-area gamblers and were paid to intentionally affect the final score so that certain point spreads were covered. The 2005 GMAC Bowl was mentioned as a game that was affected."
1978–79 Boston College basketball point-shaving scandal "After a four-week trial, each conspirator was convicted on charges of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy, conspiracy to commit sports bribery, and interstate travel with the intent to commit bribery." - Again, charged with conspiracy.
Match Fixing - "Often, substitutions made by a coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (such as having key players sit out, using minimal or phantom injuries as an excuse), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, are cited as the main factor in cases where this has been alleged." - Suspending a player for using twitter wrong would clearly fall under this definition.
In the US match fixing is investigated by the FBI. In England it is investigated by the National Crime Agency.
But if a black man in the NBA dares fucking talk/tweet about a movie he probably bought/rented from one of the richest fucking kikes in the world, he has his career canceled.
I do feel really bad for the regular jews who are about to have a REALLY REALLY bad time in this country in the near future over this. You have NO idea what I've been hearing in just causual converation amongst the many blacks where I live. I thought they would lose their shit over Kanye, but its Kyrie these guys are ready to start gunning down jews for.
But should any pro team be allowed to enforce that? He wasn't suspended by the league. So as far as the league is concerned, he did nothing wrong.
And where do you draw the line? If a team intentionally loses the last few games of the regular season, to get a better draft pick or to face a different team in the first round of the playoffs - That's illegal.
What's stopping a team from putting stuff in a contract that allows them to suspend the entire team for the last few games of a season and bring up the farm team in order to intentionally lose the last few games?
You can put any excuse into a contract. But that's all it is, is an excuse. You can have an excuse for speeding, but no matter what you excuse is, you still broke the law. Which to me is what they did. They broke the law. They have to play the best team they can. If not, then they broke the law.
He signed the contract. These kinds of clauses aren't unusual. I've heard of C level execs having a clause barring them from dangerous activities such as sky diving. In the end they signed that contract because they wanted the pay on offer.
You're right. They can put anything in a contract, and threaten a player with punishment for any reason. But....
Match Fixing - "Often, substitutions made by a coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (such as having key players sit out, using minimal or phantom injuries as an excuse), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, are cited as the main factor in cases where this has been alleged."
Benching or suspending a star player for using Twitter wrong is "Match Fixing". Regardless of what a contract says. The contract just makes it so the nigger is not complicit in the match fixing. But the match fixing still exists.
And again, where do you draw the line? - It's the last couple games of the regular season. And if the team loses all of them they get a better draft pick, or play a different team in the first round of the playoffs. Suddenly all of the star players have slight injuries sidelining them (they cut their finger nails too short, or they stubbed their toe and are under observation), or are suspended or benched for something that was written in their contract (like they said a bad word). At what point does it become match fixing? My answer is - When it changes the outcome of a game.
And yes, they should be allowed to have anti-skydiving rules in the contracts. They can fine a player, even cancel the contract if they go skydiving. But the team CAN NEVER do things that will change the outcome of a game. Regardless of what a contract says. Changing the outcome of a game is match fixing. A team enforcing a punishment that changes the outcome of a game is match fixing.
They will also argue that suspending him protects the profits of the team in the long term. They will argue that the damage to their image will be a greater damage than suspending someone who has made controversial statements.
They only play these cards when it benefits them if course. Ezra Miller is an example of them (different company, same thing)looking the other way. There are dozens of sportsball players doing much worse than questioning jews. Violent crimes get ignored all the time.
They will also argue that suspending him protects the profits of the team in the long term. They will argue that the damage to their image will be a greater damage than suspending someone who has made controversial statements.
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Because you just used my argument.
Teams will purposely and deliberately lose games to make the team more profitable (like for getting a better draft pick). But that's illegal. Any time a professional sports team purposely and deliberately does something that increases it chance of losing, that is match fixing. To argue that they are protecting the team's image, or pleasing the fans - They're pleading guilty to match fixing.
Benching a star player and changing the outcome of a game is match fixing. Regardless of whether they bench the player because they used Twitter wrong, or because the crowd will boo them. A professional sports team MUST play to win each and every game. Otherwise it is match fixing. Which is illegal.
The Harlem Globetrotters exist. But they're actors. They are not a professional sports team. Just like how WWE Wrestling is "Sports Entertainment".
If someone wants to, they can create an entire league of Harlem Globetrotter teams, and have rigged games and play for the crowd. But they will never be allowed call themselves a professional sports team.
A professional sports team must play to win every game. Regardless of whether that hurts the team's profitability. And if a professional sports team plays for profitability instead of for the win, they are breaking the law.
They put being virtuous and their team's image above putting the best team on the court.
They have to put the best team on the court. They have to try to win. This is why they can't do things like put a female on the court in order to please the fans and sell tickets. (Well, they can put a female on the court for exhibition or preseason games. But not regular season or playoff games.)
There's a difference between the Harlem Globetrotters and professional sports teams. Pro teams have to try to win every game.
A professional sports team can't suspend a player to please the fans, or to act virtuous. Just like they can't put a female on the team to do the same things.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 2 points 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 22:29:50 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] -1 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 00:45:45 ago (+0/-1)
No one can say that the purpose was solely to lose the last few games to get a better spot in the draft or to face a different team in the first round of the playoffs.
There's been plenty of times teams have been accused of throwing games in these ways. And investigated for it. But it couldn't be proven that the sole reason was to lose the games.
But in this case he wasn't suspended by the league. So according to the league, he did nothing wrong. (Or nothing worth warranting a suspension.)
This is the Nets purposely and deliberately putting a weaker team on the court. There's no way the Nets could argue against this.
So where's the line?
What's stopping a team from suspending all its players and using its farm team for the last few games (or even having fans tryout and playing them) knowing it will lead to intentionally losing the games?
Bettors could take that into account, but it'd still be illegal. Not just from a gambling perspective, but also for draft picks or who they play in the first round of the playoffs.
And yes, players do get suspended by their teams for many different reasons. But.... it technically could be illegal in many cases.
Like if the team is significantly less likely to win, and the justification for the suspension is something as unjustified as punishing a player for using twitter wrong.
[ + ] GeneralDisarray
[ - ] GeneralDisarray 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 06:52:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 22:08:18 ago (+1/-0)
This was even better displayed with all the corporate BLM and MeToo support.
It’s illegal for a publicly traded company to knowingly do anything that can cost the shareholders money.
And there’s a dozen examples like Gillette here:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/08/02/gillette-ceo-8-billion-loss-over-woke-ads-worth-paying/
Costing themselves 8 billion for an SJW ad campaign they couldn’t possibly argue in court they didn’t realize would happen. AND then the CEO even admitted it was worth it after..
The SEC is specifically tasked to enforce this stuff and not a single share holder claim was ever started.
It’s no different then the SEC stripping Elon Musk of his chairman position of Tesla for smoking weed on Joe Rogan. And the rule there was no more complicated then it could cause uncertainty for share holders.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 23:59:28 ago (+0/-0)
In sports, a team that knows it isn't going to make the playoffs can't bench their top players, intentionally loose the last 5 games of the season so they end up with a better draft pick.
Or a team knowing they'll make the playoffs, but intentionally losing the last couple games so they go up against a different team in the first round.
Both are illegal.
Both actions will increase the value of the team. But both are illegal because every team must try to win every game.
At all times, a team is required to try to win games.
They aren't allowed to lose games just because they can.
It is of course extremely hard to prove the loss was intentional.
Playing the rookies so they get more experience and playtime. Saving your good pitcher or goalie so they are more well rested for the playoffs. - You can make mountains of excuses for playing your shittiest players and not "intentionally" losing the game.
They could bench the nigger. But suspending a top player is blatantly putting a poorer team on the court than what they're capable of.
And the argument of - Well it's in the contract that players will be suspended for doing bad things. That's not an excuse.
Like in the above examples, a team could suspend all of their players and play their farm teams for the last few games of the regular season to end up with a better draft pick, or play a better team in the first round of the playoffs.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 00:08:38 ago (+0/-0)
Like what gov agency’s regs are being violated there?
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 01:02:02 ago (+0/-0)
Then there's league rules. Throwing games to get better draft picks or play a different team in the playoffs is breaking league rules.
I remember around 10 years ago (or more) the Ottawa Senators were investigated for losing the last few games of the season to gain a better draft pick.
That investigation hinged on whether or not the players were playing their hardest.
But they made a pretty big deal about it, claiming that there would be criminal charges and stuff if it could be proven.
Of course suspending or benching top players would make it far easier to prove that the team was losing on purpose.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 02:24:16 ago (+0/-0)
It has to be either a gambling regulation or some kind of contract law or something like that.
Cheating at professional sports on its own has nothing to do with the law as far as I can tell.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 14:07:25 ago (+0/-0)
Conspiracy.
Operation Slap Shot. Rick Tocchet, former NHL player and at the time assistant coach for the Phoenix Coyotes. He avoided the gambling charges because gambling wasn't illegal. But because he gambled on games he was associated with, he was charged with conspiracy.
They couldn't prove that the games were thrown, which would have led to more charges. But he still received 2 years probation.
"The investigation also referred to the possibility of an NHL team owner, half a dozen active NHL players, and other coaches and team staff members being involved in this investigation."
"In 2007, members of the Toledo football team were CHARGED with participating in a point shaving scandal. Members of the football team were connected with Detroit-area gamblers and were paid to intentionally affect the final score so that certain point spreads were covered. The 2005 GMAC Bowl was mentioned as a game that was affected."
1978–79 Boston College basketball point-shaving scandal
"After a four-week trial, each conspirator was convicted on charges of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy, conspiracy to commit sports bribery, and interstate travel with the intent to commit bribery." - Again, charged with conspiracy.
Match Fixing - "Often, substitutions made by a coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (such as having key players sit out, using minimal or phantom injuries as an excuse), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, are cited as the main factor in cases where this has been alleged." - Suspending a player for using twitter wrong would clearly fall under this definition.
In the US match fixing is investigated by the FBI. In England it is investigated by the National Crime Agency.
[ + ] RMGoetbbels
[ - ] RMGoetbbels 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 06:04:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 14:42:44 ago (+0/-0)
And showing the niggers that one of their own was unjustly punished when they dindu nuffin - That will cause the chimpout to increase exponentially.
[ + ] goalpost
[ - ] goalpost 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 23:52:21 ago (+0/-0)
Funny how a jew is alowed to sell/rent a movie :
https://www.amazon.com/HEBREWS-NEGROES-Wake-Black-America-ebook/dp/B00QPEGI8S
But if a black man in the NBA dares fucking talk/tweet about a movie he probably bought/rented from one of the richest fucking kikes in the world, he has his career canceled.
I do feel really bad for the regular jews who are about to have a REALLY REALLY bad time in this country in the near future over this. You have NO idea what I've been hearing in just causual converation amongst the many blacks where I live. I thought they would lose their shit over Kanye, but its Kyrie these guys are ready to start gunning down jews for.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 00:03:10 ago (+0/-0)
Honest question -
How many of those "regular jews" point out the bad things the evil jews do?
Any jew who refuses to acknowledge all of the bad things the evil jews do, is not a "regular jew". They are just as evil as the rest of them.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 23:33:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 00:17:21 ago (+0/-0)
He wasn't suspended by the league. So as far as the league is concerned, he did nothing wrong.
And where do you draw the line?
If a team intentionally loses the last few games of the regular season, to get a better draft pick or to face a different team in the first round of the playoffs - That's illegal.
What's stopping a team from putting stuff in a contract that allows them to suspend the entire team for the last few games of a season and bring up the farm team in order to intentionally lose the last few games?
You can put any excuse into a contract. But that's all it is, is an excuse.
You can have an excuse for speeding, but no matter what you excuse is, you still broke the law.
Which to me is what they did. They broke the law.
They have to play the best team they can. If not, then they broke the law.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 04:54:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 14:35:13 ago (+0/-0)
Match Fixing - "Often, substitutions made by a coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (such as having key players sit out, using minimal or phantom injuries as an excuse), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, are cited as the main factor in cases where this has been alleged."
Benching or suspending a star player for using Twitter wrong is "Match Fixing". Regardless of what a contract says.
The contract just makes it so the nigger is not complicit in the match fixing. But the match fixing still exists.
And again, where do you draw the line? - It's the last couple games of the regular season. And if the team loses all of them they get a better draft pick, or play a different team in the first round of the playoffs. Suddenly all of the star players have slight injuries sidelining them (they cut their finger nails too short, or they stubbed their toe and are under observation), or are suspended or benched for something that was written in their contract (like they said a bad word).
At what point does it become match fixing?
My answer is - When it changes the outcome of a game.
And yes, they should be allowed to have anti-skydiving rules in the contracts. They can fine a player, even cancel the contract if they go skydiving. But the team CAN NEVER do things that will change the outcome of a game. Regardless of what a contract says.
Changing the outcome of a game is match fixing.
A team enforcing a punishment that changes the outcome of a game is match fixing.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 14:58:40 ago (+0/-0)
They only play these cards when it benefits them if course. Ezra Miller is an example of them (different company, same thing)looking the other way. There are dozens of sportsball players doing much worse than questioning jews. Violent crimes get ignored all the time.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 15:32:12 ago (+0/-0)
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Because you just used my argument.
Teams will purposely and deliberately lose games to make the team more profitable (like for getting a better draft pick). But that's illegal.
Any time a professional sports team purposely and deliberately does something that increases it chance of losing, that is match fixing.
To argue that they are protecting the team's image, or pleasing the fans - They're pleading guilty to match fixing.
Benching a star player and changing the outcome of a game is match fixing. Regardless of whether they bench the player because they used Twitter wrong, or because the crowd will boo them.
A professional sports team MUST play to win each and every game. Otherwise it is match fixing. Which is illegal.
The Harlem Globetrotters exist. But they're actors. They are not a professional sports team.
Just like how WWE Wrestling is "Sports Entertainment".
If someone wants to, they can create an entire league of Harlem Globetrotter teams, and have rigged games and play for the crowd. But they will never be allowed call themselves a professional sports team.
A professional sports team must play to win every game. Regardless of whether that hurts the team's profitability.
And if a professional sports team plays for profitability instead of for the win, they are breaking the law.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 17:55:27 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 23:30:26 ago (+0/-0)
But the fact remains - They did break the law. They are purposely and deliberately doing something that will result in them throwing games.
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 8, 2022 02:27:06 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C [op] 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 8, 2022 13:20:44 ago (+0/-0)
They have to put the best team on the court. They have to try to win.
This is why they can't do things like put a female on the court in order to please the fans and sell tickets. (Well, they can put a female on the court for exhibition or preseason games. But not regular season or playoff games.)
There's a difference between the Harlem Globetrotters and professional sports teams. Pro teams have to try to win every game.
A professional sports team can't suspend a player to please the fans, or to act virtuous. Just like they can't put a female on the team to do the same things.