Meanwhile, other players get into domestic violence altercations but face less penalties, if any at all.Wrong. It's basically insider trading when players bet on games.
They might be thinking that even if they fill in the necessary holes, it might be too late for Russ to take advantage of it when those players finally establish themselves.
Meanwhile, other players get into domestic violence altercations but face less penalties, if any at all.
It's one of those rules in which exceptions don't have to be taken seriously and its easy to enforce. Legal rules are often have a precedent as well. If someone is let off the hook easy, then there will be a wave in the future where everyone can claim the same exception or mitigating circumstances.Meanwhile, other players get into domestic violence altercations but face less penalties, if any at all.
Are said owners and refs also betting on said games?It's one of those rules in which exceptions don't have to be taken seriously and its easy to enforce. Legal rules are often have a precedent as well. If someone is let off the hook easy, then there will be a wave in the future where everyone can claim the same exception or mitigating circumstances.
Whereas, domestic violence doesn't affect things "in the building" exception for bad reputation. Even in small occupations with less well-paying jobs, that is the case. My first Domino's manager had assault charges but that never leaked out in his conduct as manager towards anyone in the store.
My beef is that owners and refs can "nudge" the result here and there all the time in games but they CAN hide behind the excuse of incompetence or the rationale that "it's arguable the call could have been made", and there's nothing much anyone can do about that.
Yes and? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?Meanwhile, other players get into domestic violence altercations but face less penalties, if any at all.
Are said owners and refs also betting on said games?
They might not be betting on games but they might want to humor Vegas' profits by keeping the score close.Are said owners and refs also betting on said games?
They might not be betting on games but they might want to humor Vegas' profits by keeping the score close.
Or sometimes a Steeler is about to retire and well...they give him the best "final ride" they can. Corrente bumping into that Bears player jogging off the field was one such event. It did ultimately help PIttsburgh get in the playoffs before the Chiefs dismantled that broken junker of a team. And now Corrente retires after this season after pleasing father Rooney using father Mara's pet rule.
Out of curiosity, how far removed does an athlete need to be in order to be able to bet on their own sport? Is it for life?Despicable yes, but completely unrelated.
Can't have professional athletes/staff betting on their own sport.
I just wanted to bring up the double standards at play. What I'm trying to say is: if the argument that players who aren't even on the active roster and don't use the team's facilities or interact with the staff should not be able to bet is because it's unethical, then that's a hard sell for me. If the reason is that having a player bet on their own sport means the integrity of the sport is compromised in such a way that average Joes lose faith that the sport is fair, which affect sports betting, ticket sales, and revenue in general, then I can believe that.Yes and? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
When there is privacy, there is plenty of room for gentleman's agreements and other ploys to be formed in the dark. It's not like the league or its teams will disclose its secrets.Thats some tinfoil hat stuff right there.
Out of curiosity, how far removed does an athlete need to be in order to be able to bet on their own sport? Is it for life?
No affiliated with the team would be a good starting point.Out of curiosity, how far removed does an athlete need to be in order to be able to bet on their own sport? Is it for life?
I just wanted to bring up the double standards at play. What I'm trying to say is: if the argument that players who aren't even on the active roster and don't use the team's facilities or interact with the staff should not be able to bet is because it's unethical, then that's a hard sell for me. If the reason is that having a player bet on their own sport means the integrity of the sport is compromised in such a way that average Joes lose faith that the sport is fair, which affect sports betting, ticket sales, and revenue in general, then I can believe that.
I understand that the NFL is a business, but to say that this decision of penalizing Ridley for a whole year on the claim of "integrity" is just BS to me when the NFL is super cool about sports betting (so many ads for being an "official NFL bookie") and the NFL doesn't penalize more egregious and arguably more illegal behavior, like domestic violence. I wish the NFL should just come clean and say that they slapped Calvin Ridley's wrist for betting because it might negatively affect their bottom line, but I know they'll never say it straight like that.
Ok, well you get your foil hat fitted. Enjoy.When there is privacy, there is plenty of room for gentleman's agreements and other ploys to be formed in the dark. It's not like the league or its teams will disclose its secrets.
I mean, no one knew Jon Gruden was a racist and if Washington was not run with a frat boy culture, no one would have ever known.
Thats some tinfoil hat stuff right there.
The last part of your post, exactly. People don't realize how important that is to gambling.Sadly after a certain amount of smoke you have to assume at least SOME fire. I would bet my left nut the fix has been in more than once in the past in the NFL.
However that's just water under the bridge.
Things have changed in the last few years in the NFL in that we are at the point with legal sports betting AND 24/7 4k instant-replay (available to everyone) where the unquestionable integrity of the game is worth exponentially more revenue then getting the "fix" in could ever dream of being.
Gotcha. Thanks for weighing in.Far as I'm concerned "retired" should get it done although I'm not 100% certain what the actual league rule is.
The whole "integrity" aspect is a suspect reason. Like @Torn Mind says, there's tons of other factors outside of just players that affect the outcome of games (not saying that refs fix games), such as when teams literally tank games to get better draft spots, etc. Another example, Austin Ekeler and many others play fantasy football, albeit in free leagues, but who can say their FFB advice doesn't affect betting lines at Vegas, yet Ekeler is an active player who understand play calls and how players perform. I remember this past season when Ekeler was out of a game due to Covid and he openly endorsed his back up, Justin Jackson, who blew up in the game he played. Meanwhile, Ridley puts down some parlays, not just betting on his own team, as an inactive player and gets slapped with a one-year ban. Where does one draw the line?No affiliated with the team would be a good starting point.
You realize players like interact with each other right outside of practice games right? Like do you know how social interactions happen? They had to because it affects the integrity of the game itself. The game, not the people playing in it or what they do outside of it, the game itself. If people know or suspect players or teams are willfully altering games, that opens up HUGE issues.
Outside factors... no shit? What in the hell are you rambling about Ekeler being out talking up his back up have to do with anything? You guys are all over the map. Was Ekeler gambling? This is a pretty simply idea and you two are just being in all sorts of random -ish.Gotcha. Thanks for weighing in.
The whole "integrity" aspect is a suspect reason. Like @Torn Mind says, there's tons of other factors outside of just players that affect the outcome of games (not saying that refs fix games), such as when teams literally tank games to get better draft spots, etc. Another example, Austin Ekeler and many others play fantasy football, albeit in free leagues, but who can say their FFB advice doesn't affect betting lines at Vegas, yet Ekeler is an active player who understand play calls and how players perform. I remember this past season when Ekeler was out of a game due to Covid and he openly endorsed his back up, Justin Jackson, who blew up in the game he played. Meanwhile, Ridley puts down some parlays, not just betting on his own team, as an inactive player and gets slapped with a one-year ban. Where does one draw the line?
The last part of your post, exactly. People don't realize how important that is to gambling.
The closest I've come to the tin foil hat was the Brady tuck rule, but the rule was on the books years before this and it (iirc) had been used before. But given the optics of everything it seemed like the fix was in.
Actually, it just means you lack experience and education in these matters. Occam's razor and other related principles are for inexperienced people to masturbate good feelings about their own minds.Ok, well you get your foil hat fitted. Enjoy.
You must be fun at social functions.Actually, it just means you lack experience and education in these matters. Occam's razor and other related principles are for inexperienced people to masturbate good feelings about their own minds.
For example, Three guys are involved in breaking into a house but only two are caught with video showing the situation. After such a thing, one realizes "testimonial-based facts" may very well not be facts all. The court filings will "officially" have the narrative that two people were involved and pled guilty to the crime and person #3 is a phantom to the "public" despite video evidence.
That's irrelevant to the matter being discussed.You must be fun at social functions.
I was just following your lead.That's irrelevant to the matter being discussed.