Didn't Jose say that his lawyers advised him never to reveal his old sn's? Because he was playing on them underaged..convenient...

Quoted by RangeyMcTriplmerge from the hsnl xfer thread last December 12:

Also, posted by girah the following day:

Why PM Jungleman? An internet-savvy wizz like girah could easily find the box to allow PMs on his own 2+2 account. Also, if he has a backer other than Jungleman why is he looking for fund transfers?

I am not saying this proves anything but it does show an unusually strong connection between girah and Jungleman.

imo the key reasonable questions which girah has chosen not to answer are:

(1) What were the other breaches of ToS that lock referred to in their statement?
(2) Has the 'backer' played on any of girah's accounts on other occasions apart from the time he was caught out by lock?
(3) Was Jungleman the 'backer' who played on his account (this is not an allegation and a 'no' answer wouldn't reveal who the backer is)?

The above questions can all be answered without downside if nothing untoward happened. If girah is particularly keen to clear his name then he could also release other info such as hand histories, identity of backer etc.

Well I'm sorry Gregorio and Jungleman that I speculated so freely about JM. I'm just saying that if you combine Jungleman's relationship with Jose with the fact that Jose's backer jumped into a high stakes PLO match (which he won) seems a little odd to me. I mean it would take quite a degen backer to jump into a match like that if he didn't know exactly what he was doing. Sure this is all circumstantial and yes the backer could be anyone, but Jose's explanation that the backer was like 'oh I'm just gonna gamble it up since it's my money anyways' doesn't seem very credible imo.

I'm pretty sure the backer lost money in the PLO match, like 25k or something.

That's the best part of this whole "story".


Also why the **** would the backer play on girah's account?

It's posts like this that give the accusations in this thread 0 credibility without any evidence to support them.
Perhaps because Girah made the post on Dec 12, 2010, the day he registered to 2p2, so as a new user, he would not have access to PMs. In order to find the box to allow PMs, he would have to be internet savvy enough to hack into one of the Red or Blue admins' accounts and then enable his PMs manually using the Admin control panel.

You could have just given the answer to the technical point. No need for the sarcastic hacking comments. I don't agree that that your comment gives the accusations itt zero credibility, it just explains one part of that one post.

.... Please don't permaban me for disagreeing with you!

Your numerous posts show that you obv have a strong view on this subject and I agree that many posts itt are unreasonable wild accusations ... but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are some reasonable points too. One of them is why doesn't girah (or Jungleman) simply deny the accusations and confirm some simple facts which they could easily have done at any time during many weeks of this thread.

Its not as though the concerns are without any basis at all. Lock poker put out a statement and cancelled his win AFTER cheating concerns were raised on 2+2. The lock statement established that he had cheated by allowing another user on his account (which he said was his backer). Lock also said that was not the only issue. The quotes from the xfer thread establish a very close relationship between Jungleman and girah. That relationship may be just an innocent friendship but obv it makes Jungleman is a candidate to be the 'backer.'

Obv, when the facts raise serious concerns and the party involved refuses to answer them in any serious/transparent way (not 'play me hu4rollz to prove it', lol) then speculation will generally ensue (esp in NVG!).

Some people might suggest that his response was a bit of an overreaction, as the private message facility restriction section was only a minor part of your post and doesn't automatically negate everything else you wrote, along with everything else anybody else has written which expresses skepticism of the official story in the rest of this thread.

Not me of course. But some people might suggest that.

This thread is NVG at its maximum essence ^^. Keep it up Girah you beast.

All this could so easily stop with a few answers... I can't see people losing interest in this to be honest as long as there are so many unexplained holes. It's like that Chief Wiggum quote:

"Just what is your fascination with the secret closet of mystery?"

Basically, it's like a smoking hot chick coming up to you in a bar, rubbing her boobs against your face, nibbling your lips and lifting up her skirt to flash you her knickers.

For a split second you notice what looks like a bit of a bulge in the knickers. Just a split second glance, so you can't be sure if it was just a trick of the light or if there's something wrong down there. You like this girl, but you really, really don't want her to have anything disturbing down there... So you ask her to have another look as there was something a bit strange.

She just says "stop being such a hater yo!" and runs off, and then never answers your calls for months. You want to forget about it, you really do. But she was so keen to get your interest at the start, and now suddenly she wants nothing to do with you... and that bulge... what the hell was it, seriously...? Eventually it gets to the point where you don't even care about the girl any more, you just want an explanation ffs!!

Explain the bulge please Jose.

Just to be clear, my strong views on this subject are that:

a) peole are making a lot of allegations that threaten to damage people's reputations without providing any evidence to support those accusations
b) people shouldn't post things that are potentially damaging to someone's reputations without evidence, and speculation is not the same as evidence

Some of the allegations itt may very well be true, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Most of the allegations itt are being made blindly without any evidence being presented.

I believe this is false. On 05-04-2011, 02:34 PM this post appeared in the thread Shortly afterwards Girah posted a copy of the press release from Lock Poker.

I don't know when the press release was issued, but it was posted on gambling911 at 05/04/2011 - 14:09.

According to this timeline, the order of events is:
1. Lock Press Release
2. Post on 2p2
3. Girah's reponse.

When you say "Lock poker put out a statement and cancelled his win AFTER cheating concerns were raised on 2+2," am I missing a post in this thread that occured before the press release in which cheating allegations in the Lock Bluff Challenge were issued?

I have heard this mentioned many times, but I have never seen where Lock said this. Can someone point me to where they say there are other issues aside from somone else playing on his account towards the end of the challenge? All I have seen is the Press Release by Lock Poker that quotes Girah's story about the backer, which, to me, suggests that they are satisfied that that is indeed the accurate explanation.


Has anyone ever denied that they have a relationship? If it were just a matter of trying to figure out who backs him, that would be fine. There is nothing scandalous or wrong with backing anyone. That does not damage anyone's reputation. However, in this case, speculating about who his backer is means you are also accusing that person of playing on Girah's account. If you are going to speculate on who his backer is, and then de facto be accusing that backer of playing on Girah's account, you need to provide some evidence other than, "it seems reasonable" or "it makes sense." I do not disagree that it is possible that one of the HS players that Girah is friends with may be backing him, however I am not going to throw around names, knowing that I would be also accusing them of playing on Girah's account.

lol.

My super addition to this discussion.

Actually there was quite a substantially rambunctious hoo-haa before Lock's statement, threads were locked/removed IIRC. Someone pointed out the insane last-minute run by girah to win the bluff challenge. It was actually at least a day (maybe 2+, can't remember exactly now) after this heated controversy that Lock released their statement. So yes, there was a lot of debate about the dodgy last-minute run and there were accusations of cheating about it before Lock's statement.

Edit: found a reference to the pre-Lock press release - this was the guy who started the whole thing rolling about the last-minute Bluff challenge run out of nowhere but had 2 threads deleted almost immediately:

p.s. yes I'm well aware there's a fair bit of crazy in that post - the bold part is the reason I'm quoting it, this is the guy who started the threads about it before Lock said anything

Lock is disappointed to announce that their new LockPRO ELITE team member, José "Girah" Macedo has been disqualified. Runner up Michael "bigguylegend22" Drummond, who earned over $90,000 in profit during the challenge, will take the prize. In audits of all participants accounts at the close of the competition, violations of BPC rules as well as the Merge Gaming network rules were discovered with Girah account including a computer at a second location logging in and playing on his account. Lock's philosophy is built on player relationship and trust; any violation of fairness by any player is taken very seriously.


You seriously believe there are no other issues than the backer playing on his account? They have found violations against BPC and Merge Gaming Network rules but they only released one of the violations and a day after Girah comes up with the backer story. At first I thought Lock did a very honorable thing and exposing their new superstar sure wasn't easy for them but they still did it. Now that everything is getting shadier by the day I believe Lock is withholding information and not replying to any of my emails concerning this matter isn't helping either(they did answer other question concerning my account).

never mind JK posted the quote from Lock. But yeah in addition to this and my last response re: the timing of the controversy (i.e. cheating accusations preceded Lock's press release) it seems you've missed a lot of information - which may explain why you can't see the skeptics' viewpoint actually. If you saw the evidence we saw, maybe you'd think differently

This is very vague and does not mean he violated rules on any other occasion. Maybe he violated more than one rule in that once act. For instance, they do not specifically mention that he violated the rule, so maybe this is the other rule he violated that made it violations. I still don't see anything Lock has said that implies his violations of the rules extends beyond his backer playing on his account, and that his violations of the rules extends beyond that one incident.

Rangey, here are the threads by the guy you quoted that was deleted
His accusations have nothing to do with why Jose was DQ'd. They accuse Lock of cheating in their own challenge to make Jose win. AFAIK, cheating with the help of Lock Poker is not why he was DQ'd

I know this has been said before, but it bears repeating. I cited a load of 2+2 threads where people were accused of some wrongdoing and were subsequently found to be innocent. In every single case, the accused people immediately (in some cases a day or two later for additional info) provided all information that was requested in order to prove their innocence. And if you look at 2+2 threads where the accused turns out to be guilty, the pattern of avoidance, disappearance or misdirection is ubiquitous.

Please read the following:

Imagine people are slandering your good name on an incredibly public global forum, with hundreds of thousands of page views.

Imaginine the rage if you are innocent. Seriously, imagine how furious you'd be if you were wrongly accused of something - especially on a scale as vast as this.

Imagine you have information that can prove your innocence.

Imagine even before you immediately rush to prove your innocence (which everybody in this situation would do - don't even pretend it would be otherwise), people ask you to provide that information.

Now... imagine yourself thinking "meh, what's the point? haters gonna hate. let them believe whatever they want". If anybody reads this and truly believes that this is how they'd react, that they would not make any effort to prove their innocence, and indeed ignore repeated requests to provide information to clear their name, they are deluding themselves. Or they're just flat out lying. Nobody has an ego that huge that they don't care enough about their reputation to prove their innocence when they have the means to do so.

Of course. Maybe we're crossing wires here. You said that talk about cheating in relation to the Bluff challenge didn't happen until after Lock's statement. I was just saying that actually there was a fair bit of accusation (imprecise, speculative of course) of cheating before the statement. My point was a timeline one - obviously the WouldYouWakeUp dude didn't actually know what happened, and he was off the mark in terms of the official reason given. But controversy over the last-minute run did take place before Lock made the statement and disqualified him, that's all my point was.

Gregorio, you're trying to sell to everyone in this thread your just playing the neutral party and being fair, and in the process are insulting there intelligence.

It's glaringly obvious thats not the case. You are essentially trying to minimize all the damning allegations as nothing and moot, when in fact it's a whole lot of something.

In the process you are making yourself and your position here at 2+2 look terrible. And I wouldn't doubt your possibly freindly with some of these people involved, and are taking the position you are for that reason.

In all fairness mate, this is really grasping at straws... You don't see anything Lock has said that implies his violations extend beyond another person (they didn't say 'backer' btw, that was Jose's claim) logging in and playing on his account (i.e. ghosting) from a different location?

"In audits of all participants accounts at the close of the competition, violations of BPC rules as well as the Merge Gaming network rules were discovered with Girah account including a computer at a second location logging in and playing on his account."

'Including' is a very unambiguous word. It very clearly implies that a second computer logging in and playing on his account is one violation of multiple. This is not debatable lol.... now, the other violations could be he swore in the chatbox or something, and yes, it could be a bunch of violations at the same time without any evidence of prior misconduct - we obviously don't know (this is why we're asking!). But it is indisputable that the ghosting discovery by Lock is one of at least two violations.

fyp for irony

This has to be one of the most important factors in all of this. How can someone innocent possibly act this way?

Of course people like to come in and say "but Jose doesn't care about micro-droolers LOL" but clearly he does care about his public image considering that he made this thread in the first place.

Omn my phone for rest of the day so won't be qable to argue again for awhile.

Hey, I did an interview with Jose recently. Thought it would be of interest.

I still have to keep reminding myself that he's only 18. Most kids his age who have enjoyed his success would have turned into a douche by now and then gone busto, but if he can adapt to the live scene then I really sense that he could be a superstar.