Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski
I think there are a number of obvious benefits from the course of action taken by Admo. The extent of such, cannot be quantified at this time:
1. This thread alone has brought awareness to many issues (real and possible) regarding charities and how money goes from your pocket to the purported beneficiary.
2. It puts focus on how charities and fund raising events use funds for administrative purposes (such as an after-party at PURE ... assumption on my behalf, but still its hard to stomach ANTE UP footing this bill - wait for it - while there are children starving in Africa).
3. Anything Annie Duke is associated with should be open game for questioning as long as she refuses to come clean. Again, organizations should be more careful in choosing their business associates. No matter how you want to spin it, AD's hands are dirty and she has done little to clear the air (except for issue self-serving statements of little substance to the UB scandal).
4. The behavior of the staff after the tourney was beyond the pale. On that basis alone, Admo (imo) was morally justified in changing charities.
5. Admo has done nothing but put the ball in Ante Up's court to answer some questions and clear up some concerns. So far, they have not issued appropriate responses and it looks like a different charity will get the donation.
Now, I am sure one might say: "Well, you should have looked into this before you decided to play ... once you enterd, you make a tacit agreement to donate to the host charity." Perhaps that should be given some weight, but its not that simple.
No matter what Admo's intentions were, at some point, he was not going to be satisfied with handing money over to a charity fronted by Annie Duke without her answering some questions. After being harassed after the tourney, Admo left his money at the cage and issued some simple instructions explaining that he will settle up at a later date under some specified conditions.
Now, in the interim, and (it seems) in response to this thread, come questions have come up regarding the "charity" itself. Is it now wrong to insist on having some fundamental questions answered regarding the charity? If its all on the up-and-up, I am sure this will be sorted in short-order and everyone will be happy.
Unfortunately (and this should not be lost on us) "Hunter" who apparently issued an email with some purported authority, brought the issue out in the open. At this point, Admo is pushed into a no-win situation (at least if he decides to donate to Ante Up) since the negative publicity has already been released and any donation to Ante Up at this point will be carry the taint of coercion.
Now, since Hunter and Ante Up decided to take this course of action and deprive Admo of the benefit of the bargain, they will only get their donation under the conditions set by Admo.
1. Woah, woah, woah, I respect your opinion, but the hell could anyone not know this? It has been blown way out of proportion by people like Mr. Sanford who is an "accountant" claiming to know something fishy, when in reality he would actually need to be an "official authority," to have any access to the real info he needs, i.e. IRS auditors. Lance Armstrong made 200K as president for "Livestrong," in 2007 and probably makes more today, these salaries are standard in the charity industry (a lot of these people could be making in the high millions elsewhere on another board).
2. You have never been to a party hosted by a charity? Everyone who donated knew of the after party, and probably most went to it. If there was an unlimited tab, or a bit too much out of control, I think they would be better to comment better than someone who wasn't there.
3. What were Admo's requests? Sure Admo was having issues getting the money out, and his personal situation didn't help, but everyone that donated presumably had busy schedules and were ready and able to donate because they split their cash prize right there. Admo presumably could not because of his donation was contingent on his "request." People running the charity would be understandably confused.
4. The staff behaved inappropriately, but they are expecting to receive half a donation, a simple yes or %, not some request that cannot be answered to within a few hours of the tournament ending. He should have not followed Admo into the bathroom, but the guy is probably makes 12 dollars an hour and was on the hook for getting the donation. Why make a huge deal out of this, when this guy had almost nothing to do with the way the event was run, which in Admo's opinion, was excellent.
5. If you have ever tried getting through to any charity, you know that you will get answers, you must just ask twice, its a shame, but its true. If you really believe that an organization that is as public and prominent as these guys are siphoning money off the top to promote a socialistic agenda, than more power to you.
"Hunter," wrote an email to a blog, which said blog posted. Admo would never win on defamation, one because its the internet, two he has no "real damages." Someone said something bad about you on the internet, this has been blown out of proportion by Admo IMO, and AUFA has no duty to release any statement about something an employee wrote to a blogger. Annie Duke may be untrustworthy, but Nolan Dalla, in the poker world, is not, and as far as I know, neither is Don Cheaddle.