Controversy at the BCBC.

[kingfin66]

Originally Posted by cj

There was close to a 0% chance I'd ever play these tournaments before, it is less than zero now.

If I ever do play these types of contests I will take comfort in knowing that you are not in them! Seriously, but I may just use your figures, so you would still sort of be in them anyway. You should consider playing in some of the big contests. With your knowledge of pace you would likely do well.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Thumbs-up to Ed Peters...for doing a better investigative job than the "authorities" did.

He didn't "investigate" anything. He merely voiced his opinion.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

He didn't "investigate" anything. He merely voiced his opinion.

He probably isn't the only one that didn't really investigate anything.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

He didn't "investigate" anything. He merely voiced his opinion.

Had you actually read the link that RainMan posted...you would have seen that the attached article mentions Peters' "painstaking research" while "reconstructing this tournament". You must have plenty of spare time on your hands now that you are no-longer betting horses, Andy...spend a little of it on actually reading these articles before you post a reply.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Had you actually read the link that RainMan posted...you would have seen that the attached article mentions Peters' "painstaking research" while "reconstructing this tournament". You must have plenty of spare time on your hands now that you are no-longer betting horses, Andy...spend a little of it on actually reading these articles before you post a reply.

I did read it and saw this line, “Not getting a response on being able to see the plays of the competitors that I thought may have committed some improprieties is disconcerting,”. So I will admit that he tried to do some research to figure out what happened but without evidence he was merely voicing an opinion on what he thought happened.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I did read it and saw this line, “Not getting a response on being able to see the plays of the competitors that I thought may have committed some improprieties is disconcerting,”. So I will admit that he tried to do some research to figure out what happened but without evidence he was merely voicing an opinion on what he thought happened.

Yes, Peters "tried to do some research"...and I think he did a more thorough "investigative job" than the tournament authorities did...in spite of the limited data at his disposal. Which is what I stated in my initial post here...which you found disagreement with.

When the "hard evidence" of a case is supressed...then, even the thorough investigator must ultimately just "voice an opinion on what he thinks happened".

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

He probably isn't the only one that didn't really investigate anything.

I think it was thoroughly investigated. The problem being that there was no hard evidence of cheating by the winner. There was evidence of cheating by the 2 who got DQ'd. What is left are assumptions made by people regarding the intent of the winner and conclusions based on the assumptions. Any decision to DQ the winner would have most likely seen a courtroom where I doubt sufficient evidence could have been produced.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes, Peters "tried to do some research"...and I think he did a more thorough "investigative job" than the tournament authorities did...in spite of the limited data at his disposal. Which is what I stated in my initial post here...which you found disagreement with.

And I think the tournament authorities did a more thorough job, so what? Do you have any knowledge that the authorities didn't look at everything in their investigation? They did DQ 2 players so we do know that they tried to connect the dots when they could.