This is Brian Rast.
Here's the post on my facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/tsarrast/po...02227550537663
Dan Bilzerian recently biked from Vegas to LA because of a bet he made with Bill Perkins. There is a lot of discussion going on about whether or not Dan won the bet fairly, or if Dan cheated. This is going to be a defense of Dan Bilzerian having rightly won the bet within the established rules of said bet. I feel I am a good authority on the matter for a couple reasons. Less than a week after the bet was made, both parties agreed on me to arbitrate a matter for them, so I knew about the specifics of the bet. About a week after, I started betting on the situation myself, and in the process of betting, I learned even more about the situation by talking to both Dan and Bill extensively. Because I bet on Dan's side, I am not claiming that I am impartial at the present moment insofar as my financial interest. That aside, I think after hearing the evidence, there is only one clear conclusion. I want to state now that Bill paid Dan in full, yet there are many sidebets unresolved.
The general public may think that Dan won this bet by angle-shooting. That's simply not true, and I'm going to lay out the case supporting Dan's clear victory in this bet.
First let's clarify what exactly the rules of the bet were, since that seems to be a big issue. There is a now popular post on the internet you can find linked on Bill Perkin's twitter page which states 3 rules:
1) Dan must start his journey by 11:59PM on March 31st or fork over the 600k.
2) Dan cannot use any assistance from any motorized vehicle or device.
3) Dan's bike challenge must be completed in 48 hours. No exceptions. No excuses.
This rule list has been used by some to claim that Dan lost the bet by breaking Rule #2.
This list was not official, PERIOD. Every single rule on the list is very easily demonstrably incorrect. For #1, if Dan got injured prior to starting and didn't attempt, he would actually lose 100k. For #2, Dan was specifically allowed a support vehicle (which is a car/truck/van and IS motorized), and was specifically allowed to have one in front and in back, with no restriction on his distance from said vehicles. #3 is also false. Yes there was a 48 hour time limit, but there were exceptions. Under the rules of the original bet between Perkins & Dan, if Dan was stopped by the police, the clock was stopped and the time added on to the 48 hours.
So this list, which has made it's rounds and unduly influenced public opinion, is barely even applicable to their bet. Unfortunately, many people not involved with this now think Dan lost because of that list and posts referring to it. Allow me to enlighten you and them.
I got a list of the stipulations on March 23rd sent to me by Bill Perkins, because I asked him. That's a pretty reasonable thing to do when you're betting large sums of money and clarifying the bets. These are the stipulations Bill sent me for his original 600k bet with Dan:
1) Death a wash.
2) He can't purposefully get arrested but if arrested wash.
3) He gets stopped by cops a pause in clock. He can't game or disobey & get stopped again or arested again.
4) If injured before starting and no attempt, he loses 100k.
5) Once he starts he has 48 hours to complete or loses.
6) He must use his own muscle power by bike to make it.
7) He can walk if needed in spots with bike.
The one that is pertinent to the main objection being raised right now by many is #6, "He must use his own muscle power by bike to make it." Notice the wording of this. When the bet first started out, over 5 weeks ago, they used me to arbitrate a decision that both parties seemed to be fine with the result. At the time I had no action on the bet and was impartial. On that call, Bill specifically said, "I don't care if you use a tricycle, as long as you pedal it's fine." The idea was that Dan was not allowed to have any motorized assistance to his bicycle, but he obviously had motorized assistance in the form of support cars. That's why you see in the wording of #6, which Bill himself sent me, that he has to use muscle power by bike. Dan did that.
The following 3 statements are true. 1) Dan was allowed to draft. 2) Dan wass allowed a support car in front and in back. 3) There were no distance restrictions or qualifications on these support cars.
If you take all of those 3 statements together, than clearly vehicle drafting did not violate the rules of the bet. Practically though, he couldn't be close to the rear support car, as if he fell the car would run him over. There was NO distance stipulation on the front support car, which would have been necessary to prevent drafting. Having the front vehicle too far in front would create turbulence and cross-winds, making it worse than having no vehicle at all. Dan also practiced vehicle drafting with Lance Armstrong, and even discussed drafting prior to the bet in published interviews. Bill even asked Dan if he planned on vehicle drafting. Why would you ask if someone planned on doing something illegal? The facts in this case all lead to the obvious conclusion that Dan was allowed to draft, including vehicle drafting, and none of this broke the rules of the bet regarding #6, that Dan needed to use his own muscle power, in other words, that the bike could not receive any motorized assistance. So, this whole controversy is based on a false telling of the rules of the bet, and is being used to grossly manipulate the public to think Dan cheated when he in fact did not.
Despite Dan not breaking any rules, Bill was consistently pressured over the phone and eventually talked with Dan about this around the 190 mile mark. At this point, Dan and Bill met and discussed how to proceed from here. Dan relinquished the support car in front completely, which was something he was allowed under the terms of the bet. Dan did the last 100+ miles with NO problem, and finished incredibly quicly. How quickly? Well, Bill stated at that meeting that he felt like Dan had to finish the course by 10AM Thursday morning the 31st. That would have been LESS than 48 hours, as Dan started at 4PM on Tuesday the 29th, so that would only be 42 hours. Bill also stated that if he finished by 8AM (40 hours total) than he would, "FOR SURE PAY" with "NO QUESTIONS ASKED." Dan smashed this artificial limit imposed by Bill by 8 hours as he finished at 11:58PM, which means Dan completed the distance in 32 hours only. So, by Bill's own admission, he lost the bet. Bill paid Dan in full.
In addition to the fact that drafting didn't break the rules - I also want to argue that it didn't matter. Dan finished in 32 hours. He still had 16 hours on the clock. Dan did the final 100+ miles without drafting or even his support car in front of him, and he did them on a faster pace then when he had the support car. Bill himself said in an article written by Michael Kaplan for the NY Post, "But you need to look at the totality and spirit of the bet. His drafting might have saved him 5000 calories, but he had 14 hours in which to finish the bet. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and realized that he would have won even without the drafting." There you have it. In the words of Perkins himself, Dan would have won without the drafting. So in addition to not breaking the rules, it's pretty clear the drafting didn't even matter. Bill admits the drafting didn't matter.
The main 3 points that the other side claim are 1) Dan is not allowed to have an mechanical or motorized assistance in any way to get him from a to b (support vehicles are allowed). 2) Dan violated this cluase by using a vehicle to draft. 3) Dan modified the van to create egregious additional advantage which then results in him creating a machine to assist him. #1 is a mis-statement as the actual language used prior to the bet by Bill was that Dan needed to use his own muscle power. Thus this "mechanical or motorized assistance" would need to be in the form of work provided to the bike. A mechanical or motorized object nearby - in the form of the support car - that is correctly assisting according to the predefined rules the support car must follow, is perfectly fine. Dan did not violate clause #2 by vehicle drafting - as drafting was allowed, and because a support car in front was allowed, with no distance requirement, along with the fact that Dan practiced vehicle drafting prior to the race with Bill's knowledge and discussed it with Bill, all come together to clearly show that vehicle drafting was permitted. The last point #3, that Dan's van modifications created a mechanical assist also falls short. No restriction on the setup of the lead support car was given prior to the race, and I've already shown that the existance of the lead support car does not qualify as a disqualifying mechanical assistance unless the car is doing work for the bike.
Now I'd like to establish the following: That any sidebets made on Dan and Bill's bet will naturally have the same conditions unless otherwise specified by the betting parties. This is a crucial point! If I make a bet with "Steve" that's based on Bill's bet with Dan, the conditions will naturally mirror the original bet unless Steve and I specify different conditions beforehand. This happened for a number of conditions in my side action, as I would lose rather than wash in the event that Dan died or was arrested by the police. Since we specifically discussed these changes and agreed on new conditions, those were the stipulations for my bet with "Steve". All the other conditions that we didn't discuss would naturally mirror Dan's bet with Bill. For the exact reason why we are stipulating different conditions for our bet, conditions that aren't stipulated would naturally and logically follow the original conditions of the bet. "Steve" can't protest that Dan is doing something that Bill allows him to do (drafting), and use that to claim that the bet is either nullified or that he wins the bet. If "Steve" does want to protest something that's legal under Bill and Dan's terms, he would clearly have to do it beforehand and we would need to agree on said change in our separate bet. Otherwise, we are betting on another bet, and thus are naturally accepting their terms.
So in the end, I'll summarize why Dan won. Bill conceded the bet and paid Dan in full. So, any bets which agreed to be resolved as Bill and Dan do, obviously lose. Anyone who has a bet on Bill's side, and who wants to try to prove that Dan cheated, now has to prove that Dan should of lost in spite of Bill paying Dan in full. As I showed above in this argument, Dan was allowed to draft and allowed his support vehicles with no distance limit. There was also no qualifications of any kind put on these support vehicles, thus modifying them also does not break the rules. I believe this is an impossible argument to make. Bill Perkins ultimately didn't make it and paid. Any side bet which didn't specify about drafting or the support vehicles must naturally follow Bill and Dan's terms with regards to the rules and stipulations of the bet. Thus, even if anyone who bet on Bill's side doesn't like what Bill allowed Dan to do, and wouldn't of let Dan do those things if they were in Bill's place, they have to live with the terms of the bet as they accepted implicitly when they wagered on their bet without clarification on these conditions.
