If any screening is ever going to be part of a high enough buy-in poker event, it should be clear!

The player's by sighning there name should understand if they fail to fall under any of the requirments of the EPL, there prize will be forfeited.

Without the grey area, I believe this would have never happened in the first place. It falls right in line with a new effort like the EPL. Good luck in the future.

Comparing someone with a personal drug problem to a child molester is ridiculous.

Unless you are selling the drugs to a child.....

Yeah but that all happened BEFORE the league was started...See?

He wasn't charged for drug possession. He was guilty of drug trafficking.

They came for the bungee jumpers, but i wasnt a bungee jumper, so

I did nothing.

They came for Eamonn Holmes and I think im right in saying I applauded.

They came for Dani Behr, I said "She's over there behind the wardrobe"

Sometimes it's best to turn a blind eye

Its been posted by Moki. Dont feel like looking back through the documents but ill type what I remember

two prior to 1991 convictions of sexual battery (no clue if plead to reduced charges)

a bunch of counts in 1991 that pled to two counts despite the first judge rejecting the plea

charges in 2008 that were dropped

2 charges in 2010 that were mysteriously dropped after holding up to an evidence review. These were battery with an attempt to rape and some kind of charge for an attack with a deadly weapon (not firearm) that produced great bodily injury.

He was also charged with assaulting a police officer or emergency worker along with the other two charges. This hasn't been dropped but doesn't seem to be open either.

Would be very interesting to know the circumstances of the last case. Seems like something sudden happened that derailed the case. May have been luck.

fyp

My whole issue with the "it's good for the game to exclude people convicted of X, Y, or Z" is this:

Although I know some crimes are worse than others, and some crimes are so bad that it hurts poker, it's clear that if the crime was SO bad the person wouldn't be out of jail. If the government feels they served their debt (whether I or you agree with that judgement or not) to society, then we must as a civil society accept that judgement. If the justice system decides they do not deserve to be released, then obviously the issue resolves itself (they can't play a tourney from prison).

But can we stop and look at the NFL, NBA and MLB for a moment?

How many felons that are "bad for the image of the game" are in these leagues? Mike Vick has rebranded himself as a star again, right? These leagues have enough criminal stars in them with felonies (drugs, violence, etc.) to make All-Felony Teams, for God's sake.

I personally beleive it's -EV to exclude these released, probation serving, or charges pending people, EVEN IF the charges happened while in the tourney.

What if the next Stu Ungar was alive today? The best player on Earth...would you exclude this awesome +EV for the game talent if he came in obviously wrecked from a cocaine bender? What if he was arrested day 2 of a Main Event? How about once convicted and placed on probation? How about if he was let out of prison and then was on parole? What about after the parole was over, and it was behind him (at least until the next time)?

Anyone with this draw for the game would be +EV for the game...despite all his issues. In fact, the controversy might draw in more +EV for the game, as it would be a spectacle (Mike Vick gets ratings, or did at first, precisely because he had just been released for killing animals, for example).

Every controversy is not -EV. Not every thing we do in our personal lives is releavant to our careers.

The next thing you know, like someone I worked with in the construction business, you'll be fired for having an affair on your spouse! (I think that's just BS...company image is one thing, but your private life should be your business, and most indiscretions, legal or illegal (like nonviolent crimes) should be irrelevant to your employment status.)

So, what I'm saying is, in order to avoid a situation that is -EV for poker by going on one of these moral crusades against some next great player (the next Stuey Ungar), or having to make arbitrary exceptions for these folks (which would be unfair), we should just treat everyone the same, and say "if you're not in prison you can play". It's if soooo -EV for poker, players will boycott the event, forcing the hand of the tourney admins, OR the onscreen TV tourney will not be able to find advertizers (notice I didn't say they will lose an advertizer, as advertizers can be replaced and poker leagues shouldn't bend to the whims of single advertizers that can be replaced).

In prison, no play. Out of prison, you can play. This seems fair, and totally +EV for the game. Afterall, there are a lot of players with felonies who dream the dream...why shatter that in the beginning fishy stages when they are giving their money away learning how to play, just by saying "you will never have a future in this game". Poker shouldn't be like every other job, where felonies mean you'll never get anywhere if you're lucky enough to even get hired. It should be a gamne where anyone can go from busto in life to robusto...and not just financially. It's a great story of redemption and undergod comebacks.

So, the less the requirements and standards, the better for poker, imho.

That being said, this DeVita guy should get 20k or the seat (the tourney is over by now I'm sure, just speaking in terms of ethics in the future)...but I don't think he should of been disqualified at all. These terms and conditions are just going to end up -EV for poker if you ask me. Some people want to control everything, and making all these rules and by-laws just eventually constrict the game down to nothing...look at the stupid no-talk rule at the WSOP! Rules always sound good, but rarely make sense in the long run...but it's always easier to pass them than to repeal them.

The only exception I'd say that would count is offenses directly related to the game of poker or gambling in general, like being a cheater (in that league or caught in any other), being violent during a game (that one or any other), or things like spitting on dealers, etc. Although you wouldn't be in prison, this would surely be unethical and -EV for poker from any perspective. But how often does this happen? More than it should, but still rarely.

Other than that...

..I'd like to say I hate all violent crime, especially against children (minors). To me, every judge would be smart to give maximum sentences for violent crimes (like child molestation, theivery), and minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes (like drug cases, etc.). So, it's not that I'm a bleeding heart for what this guy did or did not do...it's that I want to think about what we do if someone like Stu Ungar were here...and I want consiatncy, not exceptions being made. Since Stu would be obviously drugged out, he would be probably banned from certain leagues/tournies/events today...but I don't want to ban Stu, and either should you. He was great for the game, and so great in fact I'm using him in an example decades after his death. To stay consistant we have think about WWWDWS (What Would We Do With Stuey?).



PS. I'm available for full time work at the EPL, and to be an advisor on your ethics board...lol.

If the Epic Poker League wants to maintain any credibility, they will have to suspend or at least discipline Lederer and Ferguson. If not, they lose all credibility within the poker community.

This is stupid in so many levels.

They have been charged but not convicted.

So? Breach of the EPLs 'code of conduct' is not based on whether or not someone is convicted.

What a joke EPL is.

Devita, IMO, is still owed 20K. Even if he is a scumbag, he still earned the 20K. Maybe he eventually got it and I haven't gotten word, but until he does, I ain't watching one minute of this "poker league".

And hey, he got the last laugh: at least his brother isn't a greedy, egotistical, lying thief who owes players hundreded of millions.

they need to be banned for life. if they are ever allowed to play under the epl banner again i'm pretty sure it will be the end of the league.

Banned for life, at EVERY casino and poker room, until they pay back the money owed.

That ****ing simple

Would you care to quote a case where a court upheld take the winning of a blackjack player just for cardcounting in the U.S?

They can ban them but I don't think they can take there winnings.

There is zero chance they play in any public tournament, let alone an epl event. No need to ban anyone

They can never take winnings unless cheating occurred, for example rigging a machine to payout incorrectly.

This is plain cheating on management side. Simply outrageous.

Surprised they took action against Howard and Jesus since they are only accused, but not yet convicted of anything.

i mean i seriously doubt we see them in public for a long time, but imagine what would happen if they played the one in december and took it down

Neither of them has played in a public tournament for quite some time. It would never happen.

This was the exact reason given by Stephen Martin as to why action had not been taken against any of the Full Tilt pros in his QuadJacks interview -- there were just allegations against them but no decision. The pronouncements and decisions of the Standards committee have been incredibly inconsistent -- Chino, don't look at past, DiVita, look at past, FTP pros, only allegations, then suspend Chris and Howard based on only allegations. And, as Chainsaw pointed out, this one was pointless because there's no way in hell Chris or Howard was ever playing in any of the events.

Also something is amiss when being an FTP owner and director gets you suspended, but being only an owner (and thus recipient of millions is stolen player funds and owner of a company that the Government has charged with being illegal at its core) gets you a seat on the Standards committee.

What's amiss, IMO, is that people making these decisions are acting first and thinking later (if at all). People like Martin then have to retrospectively justify the decisions as best they can (not that I have any sympathy - that's the life he chose). I could make a pretty good guess who it is who's making these decisions without thinking them through...