It would be illegal if they started a betting platform though and encouraged people to bet on their rigged royal rumbles
Why present an example that defeats your own position? That’s stupid. You just proved that the act of rigging an outcome isn’t inherently illegal. I’ve already provided the elements that would make it illegal, of which disputes your previous arguments that simply owning both is inherently illegal.
well no shit rigging the outcome isn't illegal on its own, I never made that point. Obviously the discussion we were having was on the rigging scheme as it relates to betting. Actually, you tried to claim they weren't rigging games at all, and now you seemed to acknowledge they were? Super weird
This lawsuit may have serious ramifications for a league that is increasingly "in bed" with gambling enterprises.
No, discussing the hypothetical for the sake of argument is not making the claim. That shouldn’t be confusing. there is no evidence that they were rigging games. I was merely addressing your claim that if they did, and they own a betting organization, that doing so is inherently illegal. That’s not true and you have not presented any evidence, or even an anecdotal argument that addresses the necessary elements (fraud, bribery, conspiracy) that owning both equates to criminal activity.
Gambling is the thing that will see this go wild. People go to prison in other countries for throwing games and having bets on it. Ross has been accused of offering to pay to lose the game, Jackson has said he was paid during his 0-16 season. What if they told someone to put bets on their teams to lose the games and then profit off this? You play to win the game, no team will ever tank. The NFL has said this message since it's inception. If the browns/Ross cannot prove this has not happened, the NFL might not be in a position to offer gambling options and become just like the WWE. Betting is worth billions to this league. Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk
For those wondering about the legality of the tanking/fixing that Ross (Miami) and Haslam (Cleveland) allegedly did, check out the federal Sports Bribery Act, 18 U.S.C. 224. On its face, it looks like it would be a crime for an owner to pay a coach a bonus to lose or even offer that coach a payment to lose. Of course, we'd need to do a lot more research, but the point is that these if these allegations are true, these owners may be in deep shit. A coach who accepts such a payment may also join the owner in the deep-shit pool.
They don’t have to prove that it didn’t happen; it has to be proven that it did by any entity claiming it has. Beyond that, how do you actually define what it means to throw a game from an organizational standpoint when you are talking over 30 players and dozens of coaches playing a part in the outcome? Benching a player? Calling bad plays? What happens if the players execute the bad play call? What if the substitute plays great? And how do you exclude other organizational acts such as trading away good players, which immediately weaken your team, or simply not signing good players? What defines illegally throwing a game at the organizational level that supersedes the efforts of the payers and coaches not involved in it?
Just a question? Have you ever heard of match fixing? Gambling is seriously regulated across the whole of the world. The moment your league gets caught up in it, prepare to lose sponsors, money, TV rights. Human error and incompetence is different to intent. If intent can be proven, it will be illegal. If either Hue Jackson or Flores can show these additional payments for losing games, these billionaires will lose a ton of money. Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk
Ross was offering $100k per game lost. Not sure what the Browns were offering but can we put away the notion that tanking doesn't happen. Flores just Kap'd himself and he knows it so why not go out swinging? If they do have proof, I can't see how Ross can keep the Dolphins.
I was thinking this as well, nobody can be that dumb to text the 'wrong' Brian, he is a sly old cunt.
Depends. Would the offer legally be considered a bribe when it is from employer to employee? The first element that would need to be established would be is it legal for an employer, any employer, to demand specific performance of a duty from an employee. If the organization decides they want to lose for a season, knowing doing such can hurt the coaches reputation, future job prospects, etc., and offers him additional payment for the loss as compensation, is that a bribe or simply compensation? point fixing is a conspiracy between two parties to defraud a sports book for monetary gain — conspiracy and fraud, two required elements of illegal point fixing. That’s not the same as a team not wanting to win, and not engaged in a conspiracy to defraud a market.
That's why God invented Westlaw. It would be interesting to see how various U.S. attorneys have applied the statute and how the courts have interpreted it. The statute has been around since 1964. It looks like Congress intended it to target gamblers who bribed collegiate athletes to fix games, but nothing in the wording of the statute limits it to that. Incidentally, Pete Rozelle testified in favor of this legislation.
Flores's legal team has told the press they have evidence and witness's to back up their claim, including around GM Chris Grier. Hue Jackson's foundation have also advised they have records to prove the bribes that were paid out to Jackson and the Front office. In 2019, Ross invested in a gambling start up. Therefore potentially investing money to profit from gambling whilst incentivizing his team to lose games. Feel like we're just scratching the surface with this. Sent from my M2007J20CG using Tapatalk
How a law has been enforced will generally dictate its intent. And the intent is clearly to eliminate corruption. I doubt the government wants to make the claim that an organization that strategically tries to lose to improve its draft status equates to corruption. Clearly corruption was intended to apply to external factors like gambling where there is a profit that is separate from the team but tied to the outcome.
