YES.

END the morality debate please? Its boring and is a debate that hasn't been settled since time began. Appreciated. SGT's post is #696 if your confused.

Saw this on my phone a few days ago, couldn't read it all. Cliffs please? Has anything progressed in this matter? Or it's over and done with?

Lol ZeeJustin...a guy with zero morals and remorse for his crimes who by all accounts continued to cheat after being caught...

He got his money back from party and stars, and gets to keep playing and then calls the kettle black along with annie puke (who developed UB and then f'd everyone).

If I was running a league, and a runner harassed my wife, banning and forfeiture seem more than reasonable.

Good thing you are no in charge of decision making at the EPL.... or wait, maybe you are? ROFLMAO

This guy may be worse than ZJ at being a yesman for the EPL. Not only do I dislike ZJ I can add this Joe Schmo to the list of people I dislike.

Just my $.02

Not when the harassment occurred weeks ago and they didn't notify him before the start of the satellite. If there was nothing posted/available that would make it clear that he was ineligible prior to the start (for either the satellite or the ME for which he was trying to win a seat into), and his conduct during the satellite was fine (and there's been no reports that he did anything during the course of the actual event that would warrant an ejection) then the EPL should have either let him play in the ME or given him just compensation for his seat.

as opposed to what? The same thing getting rehashed for 600 posts that is all one sided besides one or two people

Lol, I think you mistake peoples support of you let alone kind words.
The fact is the EPL swindled someone out of $20k (18.8K), that it happens to be you makes it more bearable but still wrong.

Also Zee should follow Bakes's lead and self ban.

LOL@Bakes self banning

Can't wait to see what happens at EPL series #3. Feel like i'm gonna need some more popcorn.

Would Annie let Howard play in her tournament? I definitely want someone in that family making decisions on morals and ethics.

What's awesome here is that your avi is exactly what I imagine Devita to look like.

Kiddy Game down the Street!

If not for the forward thinking of Annie and the good folks at Epic we might never feel comfortable letting our kids wander around the floors of a casino alone.

This is what the thread is now. Pretty simple argument 2 choices:

1. give the pedo his money
2. don't give the pedo his money

pedo

was out all day.

To clarify for a 2nd time, I wasn't interested in any league members rendering their opinion on sex offenders or even if this guy should have been permitted to play in the main event. Along with many ITT, I don't think there should even be an ethics committee at all. This thread was always about whether or not the player who was permitted to enter the pro/am, paid his entry fee, won the event and then wasn't given his prize(seat) or equivalent value(20K) has been treated fairly by the EPL.

Of all of the league members I had heard only three takes on this specific matter, and I wasn't referring to just this thread(interviews, blogs, etc.) Todd Terry and Steve Brecher voiced their thoughts that the player was owed the $18,500. ZJ argued vehemently ITT that he wasn't. My theory stating that a reason that some EPL league members may be silent on a matter that to many observers is such a horribly wrong decision stemmed directly from the statement from ZJ saying 'remember, we have wanted this league for a long time now', which I interpreted as 'we aren't going to mess up this good thing we've got going just to get some sex offender the $$ that he is owed, especially when he isn't even a member of the league'. Since ZJ used the word 'we', so did I. If anything it was more bad pronoun use than a league-wide accusation.

Was I calling out every league member, no. Apologies to Bakes as he clearly interpreted it in that manner. If I was calling out anyone specifically it would be the members of the EPL ethics committee would should have the clout to right this wrong. Do I still believe it's a shame that a group of top poker players, generally considered to be among the most intelligent, analytical and practical people haven't collectively stood up and said 'the decision to stiff this guy out of $18,500 is horribly wrong and it makes this league that I am part of look bad'? Yes.

For the record, Bakes is correct, we don't know each other at all. We chatted briefly on a couple of occasions at PCL in 2008 which in the poker world is eons ago. Which is why I'm slightly surprised that he interpreted my theory/statement as a direct attack on him.

I am actually starting to warm up to the idea that giving Devita 20k was not the best option for the league, as what they were playing for was a "seat" at the main event, one of 9 seats guaranteed. If they gave the 20k to Devita, they still would have had to fill that 9th seat they guaranteed, essentially taking 20k right out of their own pockets.....(Putting aside the idea that a seat in the tourney may not have exactly 20k of value etc etc)

In light of the Chino stuff, there is no way they, or any reasonable business, would risk the PR fallout from him making a FT with that past, so they just tested the waters to see if they could just make him withdraw and go away, and they succeeeded.

He can now make a case and go after them for the money, and whatever they pay him, if anything, will be a cost of doing business, will likely cost less than 20k, and the PR fallout for sticking it to a "child molester" (which carries with it one of the worst stigmas around) is probably something the league can handle.

Pretty cutthroat actions by the league imo, BUT I can see why they did itm and from a pure business perspective it makes perfect sense. Does Devita have a "case" against epic? Sure, maybe, sounds like it, but Epic would much rather deal with that than some of the other variations which could have arisen.

Man every time I reread my own post, something seems wrong with my own logic, but I do not know what it is lol....for now I am living with it.

Would be great to see OJ vs Bellagio Bandit for the 3rd Epic Fail League championship.

no that's perfectly logical, they didn't want to risk him making it deep and heaven forbid winning the main, after everything they just went through with Chino. So they just count on the guy not wanting to make all the gory details of his past public with some kind of lawsuit and he just goes away. He has a good case against them but I seriously doubt anything will happen.

Its because the man is allowed to enter so he is allowed to win and deserves his 20k value. That is the bottom line.

If they choose too screen they need to do so prior to the sattelite sign up. This involves time and money and doesn't cover all bases which is a deterrant for the screening process especially with the number of players/satties ran.

They either need to change the way they handle the signups or change their rules or both.

If the decision to "withdraw" was a decision made by the individual (as the Epic Poker League appears to claim) then why was his seat transferred to another player when they are not transferrable?

this

Because Annie Duke is supreme ruler and we all know she is a fair, upstanding, and ethical person just like her brother Howie "I stole 1 billion dollars" Lederer.

Under Pro-Am Rule 50(d), the League has discretion to award the seat to the next eligible finisher in the event that an eligible player who won a seat is unwilling to play.

http://www.epicpoker.com/events/~/me...aa508069c.ashx

Yes, it is often the dashing ones.