Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Main Forum > The Paddock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-09-2017, 09:46 AM
fantini33's Avatar
fantini33 fantini33 is offline
Churchill Downs
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62 View Post
Sorry Bud... There will be many people not happy with this outcome.

http://www.drf.com/news/two-players-...collusion-bcbc
Their conclusion that because they EACH only had 1 entry, and therefore it was the same as one person having 2 is kind of bogus. The difference is obvious....they are 2 people, NOT 1. Collusion, by legal definition, cannot be done by one person, only 2 or more. You cannot collude with yourself. They for sure got away with a rules violation here. No doubt.

So if Moomey and Ball each had 1 entry and employed their same tactics that it would have been fine? Because it seems that is what they are implying.

At least this should eliminate the majority of the group play and start to level the playing field off a bit.

I don't know....on to the next one I guess.
__________________
Good Luck......and may a Derby Trailer lead the way to the window!

Ed
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-10-2017, 04:30 PM
freddymo freddymo is offline
Belmont Park
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantini33 View Post
Their conclusion that because they EACH only had 1 entry, and therefore it was the same as one person having 2 is kind of bogus. The difference is obvious....they are 2 people, NOT 1. Collusion, by legal definition, cannot be done by one person, only 2 or more. You cannot collude with yourself. They for sure got away with a rules violation here. No doubt.

So if Moomey and Ball each had 1 entry and employed their same tactics that it would have been fine? Because it seems that is what they are implying.

At least this should eliminate the majority of the group play and start to level the playing field off a bit.

I don't know....on to the next one I guess.

This explanation is an ill-conceived legal argument add in they have played under an LLC for the propose of competing jointly and you have further hurdles to overcome. Let's get on with it give them their bounty and make some more cogent rules that aren't contradictory.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-11-2017, 06:07 AM
jms62's Avatar
jms62 jms62 is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,811
Default

And publish the details so we can see if others involved. Are players competing against a “Relay team” in these big money events? Sure seems like you see some well know players often bust out really early. Why would that be? It is all a game of math. If I hit a certain bet 10% of the time and have 2 entries and recruit 4 friends who also hit at that clip and they have 2 entries each and we each go ALL IN on that bet. How often does our team put themselves in position for a major score? All the more profitable if you are able to get some entries on the cheap via qualifiers or are backed by investors. Do I know this is happening NO but I would be the least suprised person in the room if it comes to light that it is. I didn't spend a dime this year trying to qualify for other reasons and looks like I was lucky I didnt.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-13-2017, 08:52 AM
freddymo freddymo is offline
Belmont Park
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,091
Default

Wondering who will be paying for the pending legal battle? Lawyers don't work for free.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.