No one is saying he doesn't have the right to gamble...

They're saying he doesn't have the right to gamble in THEIR league...which is totally justifiable. Do you think the NFL, MLB, PGA, ATP, etc. don't ban players from participating for off-the-field incidents? It's extremely common. If this particular organization feels that this player potentially winning the tournament would tarnish their brand, so be it.

And your slot machine analogy is ridiculous.

GTFO thinking you are a victim. I dont care if epic ****ed you over. I hope you sue and they drag you through the mud.

They were fine letting him play in a satellite. So in other words they only said he didn't have the right to gamble in their league AFTER he won something. What if he had busted out of the satellite and then it came out that he was a sex offender? Would they give him his money back?

Why is it ridiculous? Because it would never happen? Of course it would never happen. Just like a poker league taking money away from a player after he won it fair and square would never happen..... or so we thought.

I don't care if the EPL wants to have its league consist of only fine, upstanding members of society (Chino Rheem, Mike Matusow, ZeeJustin......*cough*). It is totally their right to do that.

But then don't let pedophiles play in your satellites.

They only said he didn't have the right AFTER learning he was a sex offender who could tarnish their brand. As a business or league, I think it's completely within their right to revoke someone's eligibility because of a situation(s) that may harm their image.

In a time where the poker world is being scrutinized more than ever, I take absolutely no issue with the EPL trying to protect the game or the way the public or politicians perceive it. If someone like Devita were to win this tournament, the first thing we'd see on Fox News is "Pedophile Wins Poker Tournament".

No, it would never happen because a casino isn't a "league" consisting of a tiered management system, set of customized policies, and character screening guidelines. Nor does a casino have to protect their "image" if someone hits a jackpot, because said person wouldn't be a headline story or garnering sponsorship opportunities in the name of the casino. If you're going to use an analogy, at least draw some ****ing parallels.

Chino Rheem was banned from the EPL, btw.

If the NFL sells lottery tickets for roster spots on a team and a pedophile is allowed to buy a ticket and wins that lottery, they have to give him a ring if his team wins the Superbowl.

Or just throw him out of the league after learning his history. Or ban him for a number of games.

Which is what would happen.

(See Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Washington, etc.)

But they didn't have a "no pedophile" rule. Nowhere in their Code of Conduct does it spell out what is and isn't allowed. So where's the line? Having a convicted sex offender win one of their tournaments (and he won the Pro/Am - it's highly unlikely he would have won the actual ME for that stop) - how about a convicted armed robber? Oops, no wait, they have a pro with that conviction, guess we'll have to allow that. How about drug possession/distribution? Dammit, there's a pro with that conviction too, guess we'll have to let that slide. How about stealing from other poker players, surely we can all agree those guys shouldn't be allowed to play, right? ****, not again, guess we've already allowed several of those guys in as well. Those are some mighty high moral standards they've got there in the EPL.

The problem is the ambiguity and selective enforcement of their CoC. It's a complete sham that they ignore when it doesn't suit them and apply to some random unknown, who, yes, had a felony sex conviction. But he didn't know (and they didn't tell him) that he wasn't allowed to play, then they found out and not only threw him out (oh, no wait, I'm sorry, they convinced him to "voluntarily withdraw"), but they took away the prize that he legitimately won and didn't compensate him for it. Almost no one would have had a problem with this had they just given him $20K.

And unless something has changed recently, Chino wasn't banned. He was put on probation. Huge ****ing difference.

You want some ****ing parallels? The only ****ing parallel that matters is that the EPL offers a prize for people who put up the entry fee just like a casino offers a prize for people who put money into a slot machine. When somebody wins that money FAIR AND SQUARE the casino, or in this case, the EPL should be obligated to give them what they won.

I am very happy for the EPL that they have a "tiered management system" (and LMOA at Annie Duke of all people being part of that system) and a "screening process."

Screening process? Are you pulling a joke on me? Where is the screening process for people entering the satellites? Oh, so you only get screened AFTER you turn 1.5k into a 20k seat and then if they don't like you you are SOL??

Nice to see you are carrying on ZeeJustin's frighteningly illogical line of reasoning.

http://www.epicpoker.com/events/stan...d-conduct.aspx

It's pretty spelled out there. I mean, what are you asking exactly? Do you want them to have a list of every US law on the page? They practically say, cut and dry, that it's a judgment call made by them...much in the same way the NFL says in their "personal conduct policy". Although, the NFL is a bit more descript because it's under much greater scrutiny.

See Terrell Pryor & NFL (which I disagree with btw). If the league feels like it hurts their brand, I don't blame them for pulling the plug on him. Why would they willingly jeopardize the brand during a critical period of time where poker is under massive scrutiny? It is 100% impossible to draw a line, because there are too many factors that determine what harms or doesn't harm the image of the league.

Mike Matusow doesn't hurt the brand. Straight up. He has been on television enough and has won enough to deter public perception away from his criminal history. I, personally, would have no problem with him playing in the league if the decision were up to me (google Mike Matusow and see if anything about cocaine pops up...because I bet it doesn't). Someone like Chino 100% hurts the brand. His negatives outweigh his positives. Bonomo is fine. etc.

Also, the NFL or MLB comparison is hard because the players are under much greater scrutiny than the EPL.

I really think it's a case by case basis and I really think expecting a cut and dry line to be drawn is ridiculous. In the same way Roger Goodell and Bud Selig make judgment calls when issuing player penalties, I'd expect the same here. In my opinion, nothing should jeopardize the reputation of your brand, regardless of anything. If someone on the EPL staff feels like their financial investment can take a hit because of someone's reputation or history, they should do something about it, and I don't blame them.

I'm still not seeing parallels. Just you furthering the fact that their is a massive difference between a casino paying out and a poker LEAGUE that clearly spells out it's policies and character guidelines paying out.

But continue your rant of irrelevancy, I'm sure someone in here can pretend to make sense of it.

The pro sports league analogies are so flawed. With the exception of maybe a Monday Qualifier into a PGA event, pro sports leagues don't take money from random people off the street for an opporunity to participate in their league. All players would be properly screened well ahead of being allowed to participate at all and random people off the street would never come into the equation. In most pro sports leagues, the players are employees with contracts.

As for the example where a player in a pro sports league is banned for off-field behavior, when that does happen, the league doing the banning certainly wouldn't take money from the player that they had previously earned.

If you want to be an exlusive member-only league with strict rules, don't run satellite qualifiers. If you want to be an exclusive semi-private league that allows 9 satellite qualifiers, don't have an ethics committee.

I tend to agree with this. I was only mainly comparing the professional sports leagues "player conduct policies" to the EPL's and how all of these penalties and bans are judgment calls made by the commissioner(s).

I don't know why everyone expects everything to be cut and dry. When dealing with character qualities, I can't envision a way a conduct policy could be black and white at all.

Nope, just the convictions which they consider too serious a breach of their ethics to allow the individual to play.

The CoC means nothing when you read it then look at their official role of pros. There are multiple players with felony convictions, just like Devita (whose conviction was 20 years ago). So what is a player supposed to go off of? The CoC is broad enough they can exclude anybody for anything, so the only guideline a random would have to go off of is HOW THEY'VE APPLIED THEIR OWN STANDARDS to people already allowed to play in their league. And their application, until this incident, has been that past criminal behavior, even SERIOUS past crimes, are not necessarily a bar to admittance.

So how was this guy supposed to know? And since he didn't know, and they didn't make it clear, he should be compensated for his seat. I don't get how this isn't obvious to everyone. They can bar him if they want, but since their own rules don't OBVIOUSLY disallow him from playing when he registered, he should receive fair compensation for the seat he won.

I already said this, but it would be much easier if they either a) actually spelled out what past or future conduct could result in disqualification from league eligibility or b) just admit that pretending to have a high moral standard for your ****ed up league was a huge mistake and just play poker.

As it stands now, their CoC is randomly and hypocritically applied only when they choose to do so. Shockingly, only an unknown player has faced the wrath of their ethics board, rather than all those well known, felonious pros. What a strange coincidence.

if you want a more accurate sports analogy--the closest would be a US Open qualifier won by a black man and who was then denied his entry into the Open because it was held at Augusta National which banned blacks at the time. Or more currently Michelle Wie winning a US Open qualifier and then not being allowed to play because she was a woman.

What ZeeJustin is talking about tho is more along the lines of MJ-uh go play baseball for a year and then come in ur 45 jersey and we will all make a lot more $$$$$ instead of you getting the massive banstick for your gambling issues/threatening and assaulting teammates. Roy Tarpley--you dont make us any money so see ya.

I'll play nice with you.

I don't have a problem with EPL having policies and "character guidelines." I really don't. Whether or not those policies are clearly spelled out is a subject open to debate, but I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say they are clear.

Whether or not those policies are fairly enforced when you have known poker cheaters (ZeeJustin), known convicted drug dealers (Mike Matusow), and known scam artists who rip off people in the poker community (Chino Rheem) as league member is another topic open to debate. However, I will even choose to ignore that.

The issue, which probably 95% or more of the people participating in this thread tend to agree with, is that it is not right for the EPL to apply those guidelines to somebody after they have already been granted entry into a qualifier and won a prize.

I agree with you that in the unlikely event that this sex offender won the main event it could be a PR problem. I don't see it being a big enough story for FOX News to interrupt its Obama bashing to cover, but again, that is really beside the point. I sympathize with the fact that the EPL wants to maintain a positive image and I think they have the right to do that. I will even go so far as to say that if somebody wins a qualifier then they have the right to do a background check on that person and determine if he is "fit" to participate in the 20k tournament. I'm stretching pretty far on that one because I believe it should be done before the person wins anything, but again, I'll give you that.

My problem is with what they did once they determined he was not fit to play in the tournament. He won a $20,000 seat but he was only given back $1,500. Nothing about that seems at all wrong to you? Do you think it would seem at all wrong to the Nevada Gaming Commission?

If the EPL were to simply change its rules to clearly state that if you win a satellite but are deemed not worthy to play in the main event you will be given cash in lieu of a seat, I'm guessing that would satisfy a lot of people.

You are right, it does not say in the rules what is and what isnt permissible. So, the EPL has every right to revoke a satellite seat to their event at anytime they please. Your argument is what is and what isnt right. But according to whom? If this was your buddy I could see you being upset for them. The truth is this guy has a checkered past that doesnt sit well with the EPL board and they are well within their means to do this.

They did compensate him his entry fee and I think it was right for them to give the seat to the next eligible person, which I think is the right thing to do.

QFT +1

If they don't wanna let the guy play that's probably their right, but no way in heck they shouldn't give him the cash equivalent of the seat he won.

You can't give out a prize and then retroactively take it back because you found out something about the winner you didn't like unless you put in the rules up front that you could do such for particular reasons.

The only thing I would expect EPL to do is give the guy whatever the seat is worth then a swift kick in the ass telling him he's not welcome.

In the future they need to have players participating in the pro am to sign an agreement clearly stating that they could lose their seat based on x,y and z and that it's at the sole discretion of the league blah blah blah.

It's really pretty simple.

Agreed. The fact that the league hasn't done this, or that people are still defending the way they handled the situation when there are several other ways they could have handled it better that would have a) preserved their image and b) been received by the general poker community as fair under the circumstances is really baffling to me.

He entered a Pro/Am that awarded a seat into a tournament he had no way of knowing for sure he was ineligible for. Given that the EPL hasn't made their CoC clear, he should get the money for his seat, and the EPL should formulate something that clearly spells out what conduct, past or future, makes one ineligible for their league.

Honestly, I think the problem is that they know if they spell things out, they are going to have to either have a very weak CoC or get rid of some of their pros. So instead they are going to keep blundering around, applying their rules in an unfair way. At least have the decency to compensate the people you **** over because you aren't willing to kick all the felons and cheaters who just happen to be pros out of your league.

They can differentiate their league players from Pro Am players, I have no problem with that.

I have no problem with guys like Mike, Justin and whomever else I might be missing being granted admission into the league. These guys have shown no further criminal type behavior and it's pretty clear, they, like any other member, would be history if they did get busted/cheated, etc.

Pro Am players are impossible to screen prior to the satellite so just make it clear that they can lose their seat, have them sign a waiver and if the Pro Am person doesn't like it they don't have to play.

This.

really annoying u keep quoting people while leaving who u quote out of it.

If the man would have been paid the EPL would have saved themself allot of bad press and it started of alredy as a joke.Bad management if you ask me.

Seems pretty ridiculous that they didn't have a waiver in place for amateurs to sign stating something along the lines of 'blah blah blah bringing the EPIC! Poker league into disrepute blah blah blah'.

Butlets face it, the old school Vegas pros who I bet are heavily involved in this one don't need to be good or even competent business men to make millions.

I think shame on the pros that are taking part but arent directly taking a cut (that is wrong obv but is easily addressed). My suspicion is the others are hoping to get a slice of the pie next time round.

For the EPL to avoid this type of mess, and ethically enforce their COC for qualifiers, they need everyone who signs up for the satellites to sign a waiver that includes something like this:

"The award of the prizes of entry into the EPL Main Event is contingent on entrants meeting the eligibility requirements outlined in the EPL COC. Since it is impossible to list every disqualifying offense, any entrant with questions should contact the EPL prior to paying for the satellite in order to get a determination of eligibility. Failure to due so may result in an entrant being ruled ineligible for the Main Event seat and will not be entitled to the seat, any monetary compensation in lieu of the seat, or a refund of the satellite entry fee. All entrants acknowledge that they enter this tournament at their own risk.".

If they actually did that, then fine. BUT SINCE THEY DID NOT with DaVita, then the way they needed to handle it was this:

You have been determined to be ineligible for a seat in the Main Event IAW the EPL COC, based upon your past behavior of XXXXX. Since our policy statement is not a comprehensive listing of disqualifying actions, you could not have made this determination by yourself before entering the satellite. Since you risked your entry fee in good faith, and we would not have refunded it to you if you failed to win a seat, we are going to pay you the $20,000 value to the Main Event seat prize your fairly won, even though we cannot allow you to compete in the Main Event. Sorry for the incovenience.

If they did that, no one would have a problem with them excluding the guy. It's a matter of treating everyone (even distasteful people) fairly. All the arguments about "but a pedophile is bad so we should just **** them over for the rest of their lives anyway" miss the point. In order for the EPL to have integrity in the eyes of the public, it must act with integrity when dealing with the public. It's that simple.

In this case, they didn't. IMO, the reason is that some of the people leading the EPL don't have personal integrity themselves, and therefore are blinded as to why people are so upset about this move.