Noah Shannon part of gambling investigation....

[NorthKCHawk]

I absolutely disagree. A performance incentive is by itself a bet on your own team and every manager and coach has one of those. Kirk has all sorts of performance incentives. He gets bonuses for various wins, bowl games, division title, conference title, natty, etc. If anything, Pete simply created his own incentive plan except his actually had downside if he failed, so he had even more incentive to win.

You can debate the efficacy of the rule all you want, but the rule was as clear as the sun with no clouds in the sky. I may not like the speed limit, but when I cruise by a 75MPG sign going 140MPG in my brand new Lambo (hello Vikings fans), I get what I deserve.

Pete was betting on baseball and even his own team. He knew that was absolutely banned and he did it anyway. Illegally I might add. He then lied about it for decades. I got no sympathy for that.

And if you can't see the difference between a performance bonus offered by your employer and a bet made with an illegal bookie, I don't think we are going to have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Wrong. You can gamble up to your credit limit, which may very well exceed what you have.

I don't online gamble, so I assume what you are saying is true. My point is that these are regulated and licensed business. They don't collect with muscle. I assume they require you to use a credit card to pay, and if they are dumb enough to let you gamble over your credit limit, the site loses money. If they are that dumb, there remedy is presumably in civil court to collect. Either way, the notion that losses in this manner could lead to point shaving and undue influence seem pretty attenuated.

 

[okeefe4prez]

And if you can't see the difference between a performance bonus offered by your employer and a bet made with an illegal bookie, I don't think we are going to have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

The functional result of a performance bonus and a bet ON YOUR TEAM is pretty much the same, if your team wins, you get more money. The MLB implemented the ban on betting due to teams allegedly throwing games. If you bet on your team to win, there is absolutely no integrity issue raised by your activity.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I don't online gamble, so I assume what you are saying is true. My point is that these are regulated and licensed business. They don't collect with muscle. I assume they require you to use a credit card to pay, and if they are dumb enough to let you gamble over your credit limit, the site loses money. If they are that dumb, there remedy is presumably in civil court to collect. Either way, the notion that losses in this manner could lead to point shaving and undue influence seem pretty attenuated.

The State of Nevada collects with muscle. Failure to pay a gambling debt is a crime there.

The notion of the kids getting sideways is very attenuated, so we are in agreement there, but I think the bigger issue is that the mere creation of a giant pool of money that will change hands based on the outcome of games creates incentives for unscrupulous people to approach the kids and attempt to sway the outcome of games. Hell, the sanctioning bodies who run the leagues aren't even immune to these allegations and that is just with shared postseason revenue on the line. The recurring blown calls that always seem to shake out with a conference getting a team into a bigger game are a big reason I don't watch much sports outside of Iowa football anymore. The Big 12, SEC and Big Ten all pull that shit. Good luck getting a call if you're Mississippi State, Kansas or Illinois playing against someone like Texas, Georgia or Michigan. They know where the bread is buttered.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

The functional result of a performance bonus and a bet ON YOUR TEAM is pretty much the same, if your team wins, you get more money. The MLB implemented the ban on betting due to teams allegedly throwing games. If you bet on your team to win, there is absolutely no integrity issue raised by your activity.

Ok, I will go there. Let's say that you are gambling on your own team as the MANAGER. So, you have control over the line-up. You have the normal pitching rotation to have your worst pitcher going. The betting odds on the game so reflect. You place the bet with the worse odds on your team and then you switch your pitcher to your ace, who should have another's day's rest. Fair? Ethical? OK?

The notion that a manager betting on his own team could not play monkey business with his line-up to line his own pockets to the detriment of the team, opposing teams, and the betting public (which doesn't have this insider information) is truly laughable.

Including a bonus in the manager's contact for winning the pennant is not remotely the same thing.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

The State of Nevada collects with muscle. Failure to pay a gambling debt is a crime there.

The notion of the kids getting sideways is very attenuated, so we are in agreement there, but I think the bigger issue is that the mere creation of a giant pool of money that will change hands based on the outcome of games creates incentives for unscrupulous people to approach the kids and attempt to sway the outcome of games. Hell, the sanctioning bodies who run the leagues aren't even immune to these allegations and that is just with shared postseason revenue on the line. The recurring blown calls that always seem to shake out with a conference getting a team into a bigger game are a big reason I don't watch much sports outside of Iowa football anymore. The Big 12, SEC and Big Ten all pull that shit. Good luck getting a call if you're Mississippi State, Kansas or Illinois playing against someone like Texas, Georgia or Michigan. They know where the bread is buttered.

I did not understand that these kids were betting in Vegas and that has not been what we are discussing. To my understanding, these kids were doing online sports betting in Iowa. That is legal. Again, if these companies are giving open lines of credit to anonymous gamblers online, they are dumb indeed. I was under the belief that you needed a credit card to establish your line of credit to ensure the gambling site is paid for losses. If I am wrong, that is a questionable business model.

Either way, licensed and legal sports betting sites are not going to send muscle to collect or try to bend a player to throw a game. That is what bookies do. These are legitimate and heavily regulated companies, making billions of dollars, and they are not going to risk their gambling licenses to fix games. That makes no sense.

 

[oldhawk12]

I did not understand that these kids were betting in Vegas and that has not been what we are discussing. To my understanding, these kids were doing online sports betting in Iowa. That is legal. Again, if these companies are giving open lines of credit to anonymous gamblers online, they are dumb indeed. I was under the belief that you needed a credit card to establish your line of credit to ensure the gambling site is paid for losses. If I am wrong, that is a questionable business model.

Either way, licensed and legal sports betting sites are not going to send muscle to collect or try to bend a player to throw a game. That is what bookies do. These are legitimate and heavily regulated companies, making billions of dollars, and they are not going to risk their gambling licenses to fix games. That makes no sense.

It’s really quite unbelievable you don’t get this. By gambling on your own team, you have the inside edge on the game that joe public doesn’t have. And if you normally bet on them but then don’t sometimes, it’s really the equivalent of betting against your own team. And to think it somehow doesn’t affect their performance in every contest they are betting or the fact they are keeping it that quiet from teammates that also may be betting is incredible naive.

It’s a really bad scene man…for every obvious reason you can think of

 

[Will C]

These kids do not need to be wasting their money on gambling. Especially they should not be gambling with someone they do not know.

 

[99topdawg]

Pete was betting on baseball. The nuance that he was betting for his team changes nothing. He crossed the brightest goddam line in all of sports. Baseball players can't bet on baseball. Period.

I don't think the question is if Pete should have been banned from baseball. If he bet on his own team, he should have been banned because it's the rule. The argument over the rule. Is it a good rule? Should the rule be changed? If it is changed, should they reinstate Pete? IMO, the rule should have been changed a long time ago. But as it stood/stands, the rule is the rule, fair or not.

As a teacher, the worst thing that can happen to a teacher is to enforce a rule and have an administrator that won't back you. About 5 years ago, I had 2 students that cheated off of each other on a final. I called them on it, they admitted to it, but one of the parents thought they should get to retake it. The student handbook specifically states that a student that gets caught cheating will receive a zero. The principal allowed them to retake it. I ripped her ass and should have been written up, but she realized that she was a spineless bitch and I was right. For the record, the retake was a helluva lot harder than the original. They both failed miserably.

 

[99topdawg]

Pete simply created his own incentive plan except his actually had downside if he failed, so he had even more incentive to win.

The problem is that he could save relievers, rest position players, etc. in games leading up to the game he bet on to go all in for that game. I don't think there was no proof that he did that, but the incentive to win the game he bet on could affect his managing in general.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

It’s really quite unbelievable you don’t get this. By gambling on your own team, you have the inside edge on the game that joe public doesn’t have. And if you normally bet on them but then don’t sometimes, it’s really the equivalent of betting against your own team. And to think it somehow doesn’t affect their performance in every contest they are betting or the fact they are keeping it that quiet from teammates that also may be betting is incredible naive.

It’s a really bad scene man…for every obvious reason you can think of

What is it you think that I don't get? I just made the same argument you made in another post. I am getting the issue just fine. Thanks.

 

[Northside Hawk]

What is it you think that I don't get? I just made the same argument you made in another post. I am getting the issue just fine. Thanks.

This board used to be full of posters like him. @Caddy, @Playmaker, @iowalaw, @smitharooney.

They were all banned or moved to other sites where their tired and sophomoric takes would meet a more receptive audience. I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

This board used to be full of posters like him. @Caddy, @Playmaker, @iowalaw, @smitharooney.

They were all banned or moved to other sites where their tired and sophomoric takes would meet a more receptive audience. I'm sure I'm missing a bunch more.

I don't mind some sarcasm and even getting trolled now and then if it is cleverly done. Some people don't get clever.....

 

[Hawkboys]

I don't mind some sarcasm and even getting trolled now and then if it is cleverly done. Some people don't get clever.....

What's worse is the serious takes that everyone swears is either trolling or heavy sarcasm.