Oh whoops. I missed that. I’m not sure how he could have possibly accepted the money and then still be a part of the class action suit. It’s a civil suit right now, but it’ll also be interesting to see if there’s a crime here. Is it illegal to lose games if no one’s betting on them and you’re just trying to gain draft position? Will the Eagles be investigated for putting that trash QB in against WFT a year ago? The Browns were also rumored to have sort of thrown that last game against the Steelers for draft position when they refused to give Nick Chubb the ball in the second half.
I don't believe he is part of the suit. This suit was filed by Flores, Jackson just shared that the Browns had a similar scheme, that he profited from, when he was asked about it on twitter
No, because no team has any legal obligation to betters to try to win. Only when games are fixed in conjunction with a betting entity to deliberately manipulate an outcome for financial gain is it a crime, but gamblers are not owed any refund or damages in those situations.
Of course it’s not illegal. The only crime close to that is point shaving because that is a conspiracy between multiple parties to defraud the gambling entities. The individual gambler has no legal claim in those scenarios. No NFL team has a legal obligation, which the government can prosecute, to do everything in their power to try and win and every game.
The rooney rule is a slap in the face to possible coaches IMO. you have them get hopeful, bring them in for an interview, even though you have no intention of hiring them. I get the spirit of the rule but in reality it just doesn't work. NFL teams are not racist. hell the player pool is 70% black. It's a win at all cost league. the reality is most head coaches don't get a chance without 15-20 years experience. it's rare a head coach is hired before the age of 40 (for us, saleh is 43 and had 18 years coaching experience before the hire). only a few exceptions have happened to that with mcvay and then his success led to zac taylor . The reality is there is a lack of qualified head coach candidates of any race, and there are only 32 jobs available in the entire US. saying coaches aren't being hired due to race and the league is racist when 70% of players are black despite only mkaing up 13% of the population is just nonsense. the best people get the jobs and yes there is a little nepotism but it's not like there is a degree you can get and get an entry level job as a head coach. alot is having connections to an old coaching tree. It would be like saying flores is racist against Hawaiians because he didn't want tua and instead wanted a white herbert or a black watson. The reality is it had nothing to do with race and that the 2 non Hawaiin QBs are just better. The part about ross trying to tank though is IMO the bigger deal. it also came out that apparently cleveland did the same. That is the part that needs to be looked into.
Previously this would be true, but now the NFL and many of the NFL owners, are also owners and investors in the betting platforms
Owning a betting platform does not equate to fixing games for the sole purpose to manipulate the gambling. The claim is that they wanted to lose games to tank for draft positioning, not to profit from gambling. Without evidence that the Dolphins were purposefully trying to alter the outcomes for the profit of their gambling business, the two simply can’t be conflated.
So they can run the games, rig the games, make out at the box office and betting window and be free from any legal consequences? I dont think thats true
again, the team trying to lose is not the same thing as rigging a bet. The latter would be dependent on the gambling entities deliberately setting betting lines, and accepting bets on those lines, knowing the team was going to purposefully fail at achieving those lines and they would profit. that would be illegal, but you need evidence of such before making that claim. Simply owning the team and owning the gambling business does not equate to such which is what you are claiming and is, in fact, wrong.
I dont think it works that way. By paying his team to lose the owner is absolutely rigging the game. People are betting on a rigged game whether he sets the line himself or not. But then you consider he is actually an owner of the betting platform setting the lines too and well hell, we're both not attorneys here but it sounds like you should be wrong
No, trying to lose the game is not illegally rigging a game. The elements of illegally rigging a game include fraud, bribery and conspiracy and no team has any legal obligation to the fan or gambling market to try and win a game and thus has defrauded them when they do not. Owning both is not conspiracy, and trying to lose for competitive purposes of draft position, without any conspiracy with the gambling entity, would not be bribery.
uh huh.... sure WWE dont necessarily rig their wrestling matches either, they just pay one wrestler to lose. The court of JetBlue has spoken
Actually they do rig the matches, and it’s not illegal. But don’t let facts interrupt your ignorance. Your position has been illegally rigging the games, not simply rigging the games. Are you truly unaware of your own argument? Keep making statements that simply prove you don’t know what you are talking about. none of this is complicated, and with even the slightest ability everything you need to actually educate yourself on topics you participate in is at your fingertips, and yet you continuously don’t have the facts you need to have the positions you take.
