All the talk at the epl main event was about michael devita.

Apparently someone googled him at the final table of the pro am to check out his results, and learned he was a registered sex offender.

This was made known to epic staff who made the decision after he won the 20k seat, to refund devitas $1500, and give his $20,000 seat to the next finisher.

I've never heard of anything remotely similar to this occurring. Can this legally be done after the fact?




Edit, Mod Note -
Everyone,
This thread is about the EPL and them banning a player for his sexual offenses.
DO NOT turn this into a thread about whether 12 is bad, is 15 bad? what about 16? etc etc.

That tangent is just too far away from the actual topic at hand and we'll be throwing around infractions for those who

To repeat, this thread is about the EPL and them banning a player for his sexual offenses. Thanks for your cooperation.

that's kind of lame, but then again so is being a diddler

As much as I hate sex offenders (LDO) this seems a bit out of order

you can become a registered sex offender for extremely minor acts, such as being 22 and having sex with a 17 year old, which I'm sure plenty readers of 2+2 have done. My ex girlfriend was a federal public defender and trust me that not all sex offenders have done anything even remotely sketchy (although of course many of them have), so it's very dangerous to just assume that because someone is a sex offender that they molested a young child or anything of that nature. I think nowadays you can be put on it if you do some crap like sexting. Here's a good example:

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=5190

I could give more examples of the absurdly minor things you can do that would


It sounds like a completely insane decision of course....also is there some kind of rule that sex offenders can't play poker?

I don't think it can and have expressed that opinion to various people with authority to do something about it. I think they arguably had the authority to disqualify him from the main event (although whether they should have in light of their previous actions is highly debatable IMO), but they did not have the right not to compensate him for the loss of the seat.

It looks like his sex offense was public exposure and approaching an adult male.

I am not defending the guy, but there should be two clear distinctions with sex offenders:

1- Pedophiles, who should be permanently removed from society.

2- Others, who should be dealt with based on their specific violation.

If they are going to take action based on being a sex offender, they need to research everyone before the tournament starts, or make it a known rule that you cannot be a sex offender. He is essentially reverse free-rolling due to the way this was handled.

pretty sure he could take them to court (and win)

Paying their debt to society, being labelled a sex offender publically, this guy's scummy past is deservingly part of the way people treat him now. It's silly to think that the $20k seat removal makes one shred of difference in the grand schemes of what he's done wrong in his life. F Epic Poker and their High Horse.
And ya, probably against the law or against his rights...

i thought they 'officially' said in explanation of the chino thing and their 'code of conduct' that only actions from the foundation of the league onwards were held accountable, as it would be unfair to penalise people for past trangressions?

soon we'll all have to have background checks before playing poker.

I choked my own chicken once or twice.

Luckily I'll never be good enough for the EPL and its high moral ground.

LOL at Epic Poker. Being a registered sex offender does not mean you do not have the right to gamble. If this guy won a slot machine jackpot could the casino take away his winnings and refund whatever he put in the machine? If you don't want sex offenders playing in your tournaments then you need to screen every satellite entrant to make sure they have clean records before you let them play.

as much as i hate his kind, it seems that the EPL has basically stolen 20k from him because he is/was a sex offender. theres really no other way of putting it

A casino has a virtually absolute right to ban whoever it wants in its casinos, since it is a private establishment. It is only subject to certain civil rights provisions, none of which apply in this case. Think of the instances where courts have upheld casinos banning and taking a blackjack winner's winnings because of card counting. I could be missing something here, but this is generally how it works. DeVita is screwed, and he should be happy they gave him his 1.5k back.

You are wrong. If a casino is going to ban you it needs to ban you before you win the money. So are you saying I could win a million dollars playing craps but then the casino could take it away from me because they are a private establishment and they have the right to ban whoever they want? And card counting is not illegal. I've never heard of a case where card counters have to give back the money they won.

I hope this gets taken to court and EPL gets sued into oblivion.

Will forward on the details to mainstream media anyway and with any hope get some negative press for Duke and Co.

Please see this for refutation: http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-new...ck-player/7586

these are his charges (taken from another thread):

ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SPECIFIED SEX OFFENSE

ANNOY OR MOLEST CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE

SEXUAL BATTERY

SEXUAL BATTERY INVOLVING A RESTRAINED PERSON

SEXUAL BATTERY

I think a bigger story would be if Double Joker lost money at the slot machines.

yeah this, even if he was a pedo they shouldve A. compensated him for the seat or B. not let him play in the first place.

There is no chance if they found out he was a sex offender after he lost they'd ship him his buyin back, they are freerolling him hard.

Why would anyone register for a title like that?

You're definitely missing something. Those are completely different circumstances because the alleged card counting led to the money won. This is more akin to someone hitting a jackpot on a slot machine and then not being awarded the jackpot because it was discovered he had a DUI conviction a few years back - and offering him the quarter back.

I'd gladly pro hac vice in and represent this guy. My guess is that this ends with him receiving the buy in for the tournament and not just the $1500. I'd like to read the waiver players have to sign but there's very little chance the waiver is so specific something like this is covered.

That didn't refute anything. I never said casinos couldn't ban people. You said card counters have been made to give back the money they won after it was discovered they were counting cards. I say that is BS.

what a joke