Brian Tuohy got some attention vis-a-vis pro football from some big researchers -- and the admins didn't like it!!

I keep up with Brian Tuohy's ongoing "News of Note" page on his website about his book, "The Fix is In", which anyone who actually even has a suspicion about sports needs to get and read.

(Of course, if you're here, you either are laughing at me or probably already have it -- or wrote it, as Brian does drop by from time to time.)

Anyhow, his latest set of remarks about "News of Note" is a seven-page thread on a forum about his book.

However, this is, in no way, just some fan site or some football hacks talking about it.

The forum is from the Professional Football Researchers Association, which can pretty much speak for itself.

I don't expect that link (which is to the thread) to be working at all in a short period of time.  I fully expect the site to take the thread down Real Soon Now.

So I'm taking a look at the seven-page thread for any interesting things:

1) Brian has made reference to several accusations surrounding Bobby Layne (one of them in the second case on his "FBI Files" page).

John Turney, a "Veteran" poster (that's what the site gives, so it's not just some hit-and-run poster), said the following about Layne:

"Dr. Z says he was doing research at the NFL offices and was left alone, overnight, they forgot he was there. He says he snooped around and found files on Layne and others. Says Layne would have been suspended al la Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended."

As people well know, the 1960's had a bunch of scandals regarding unsavory characters, gambling, and some of the highest profile players in the National Football League.  Later in the first page, DWarren, another poster, notes allegations against Layne going back to at least 1958, in an NFL-College exhibition match where it is believed he threw the game to the collegians!

Poster "Bachslunch" mentions allegations against Layne and Len Dawson in the book -- Dawson, if you read Interference by Dan Moldea, was being looked at by the league for years, and games by the Kansas City Chiefs were being routinely taken "off the board" because they were believed to be fixed!

2) "97Den98":  "He said something about how Peyton Manning had a frown on his face before SB 44, and that may have meant that he tried to throw the game (which basically is saying that he tried to throw to Tracy Porter).

Lorenzo Alexander, a Redskin LB, called up the show and yelled at him for accusing players of cheating."

I know the accusation, and 97Den98 is stating it wrong.  Manning didn't want to throw Super Bowl 44, and he was frowning because it is believed he was being forced to throw the game -- by the National Football League itself.  It is a rather auspicious accusation, and it's not just Tuohy who brings it.

Watch this YouTube clip -- it is basically the play in Super Bowl 44 which is believed to have consummated the fix which is almost-certainly believed to be from the National Football League toward the Saints (how ironic is this now -- this was the first known bounty year and the Favre crippling!) from Hurricane Katrina.  (Tuohy states this himself later in the thread.)

A blatant pick-six to seal the game.  A zinger right to the guy who's cut in on the route.  From one of the most accurate passers in the history of the league, and one of the most decorated.

It's like Favre in the playoffs.  There were several passes which just looked like they were thrown at the defense.  Draw your conclusions -- I have mine!

And as for Alexander (and the hosts of that show, which you can hear at this clip):  Take a look at most of the pictures in the video portion of that clip.  How many of those men would not be allowed on the outside today without the institution of professional football to protect them and "fix" any problems?

We know the NFL has "fixers" to "fix" problems that players have.  (Former player Billy "White Shoes" Johnson is, or was, one.)  The NFL truly believes that many players owe them for their careers, and, hence, can control what they do.

Consider, also, as Tuohy points out in his discussions on the Saints Bountygate situation:  If the players can be motivated to cripple another human being for $10,000 or whatever, what would it take for them to blatantly take a dive?

3) "evan" makes mention of Earl Morrall being accused of helping to throw Super Bowl III.  People forget something Moldea wrote about -- "The Guarantee" may well have been made because of Joe Namath's ties to unsavory characters with a restaurant he owned (and that the league was not crazy about him being part of!).

Brian's video page has a YouTube video which is the first part of the game coverage (additional parts can be found at YouTube, which is where I got this link)!  It is widely believed the game was tampered with, but the glamour of "The Guarantee", plus the credibility of the AFL as an equal league, worthy of a merger with the NFL (which was already in the books to happen a year later), force people to pooh-pooh this.

4) Rupert Patrick makes a point when, in response to "questions for Brian" (who later posted to the site):

"And was it worth risking his career and reputation (not to mention his place in history) over? All professional athletes are well aware of what MLB did to Pete Rose, banned one of the greatest players from the game for life."

Here's the thing:  After the Black Sox Scandal, Commissioner Landis put in that ironclad ban to ensure it never happened again, because it was widely believed that most every World Series of that day could have been polluted by gamblers outside the purview of Major League Baseball.

The NFL, at least in my honest opinion, wants to control the process.  It isn't a matter of whether the reputation is there.  The league creates the reputation, and can destroy it if the person involved refuses to play along.  For example, Tuohy himself believes that Eric Mangini was blackballed from the National Football League because he snitched about Spygate.

One of the major changes from the origins of the NFL to today is that it is no longer shady mobsters behind the scenes in smoke-filled bars trying to woo the players.  The NFL (and the BCS for college) appears to openly manipulate the process for their own, league-driven, means.

It would, in fact, be more risky to career/reputation to refuse such a request, especially if the NFL is behind the rigging these days.

5) Brian makes the following explosive claim in this thread (2nd page, last post):

"Sports reporters can and have been barred from locker rooms and lost access to players for writing the "wrong" type of story. I spoke to a member of the Pro Football Writers of America about a year ago. He told me at least 75% of NFL players are using HGH. Would he put a story out on the subject? No way. These people are self-censoring, and often their higher ups are outright censoring of negative stories....unless law enforcement has already made an arrest. Then it's open season."


As I have said, I plan to have a friend of mine who is a former NFL fan post on beliefs that the game has to be shut down, one of the reasons being that the "speed of the game" has gotten far too much for the body to handle even the clean hits.


Take Brian's statement into consideration when you think about that.  You'll never see this publicly -- if the truth were ever known about much of the institution of football (of which I've only scratched the surface with the coverups of the football riot in Georgia, the criminal records of the coaches who assaulted the referee in Florida, not to mention the BCS and NFL...), you'd have to nullify most of the legal statutes to allow it to continue!

Tuohy:  "It is extremely easy to fix a game. I could guarantee a fixed game controlling three players on a team: a QB, an O-lineman, and a DB (and could effectively shave points with just one). It does not take hundreds of people. It can literally be a one on one plot. This notion that "everyone would talk" is nonsense. As the mafia has proven, everyone has a weak point. All one needs to do is find it and exploit it. Players are people. They have money problems (and current NFL players have literally gone bankrupt despite million dollar salaries), they have girlfriend (and even boyfriend) problem, drug problems, alcohol problems, criminal problems, etc. In other words, they are open to blackmail...if outright greed doesn't consume them. It could even be as simple as "you do this here, we'll do this for you there.""

 The "fixer" thing.  Here's the thing:  That's if you're outside the league and trying to manipulate a result, which CAN be dangerous if the league has something else in mind.

But I can guarantee a fixed game by ONE person:  The official.  The referee:  If the league is trying to ensure a given result, all it has to do is instruct the official to ensure that the game goes the way the league wants it.

The Tuck Rule.  The ensuing Super Bowl.  Two of the most FLAGRANT rig-jobs in the league's recent history -- and, yet, that's not an action by the players.  That's the officiating.  If you want to talk about "the Human Factor" with respect to mistakes, you must also do so with respect to bias.

Tuohy:  " I have never stated or even believe that every game is fixed. I don't think the NFL (or NBA, NHL, etc.) are on par with professional wrestling. But I also don't believe that a league like the NFL which can control everything that surrounds the game as well as they do, don't extend that reach onto the field as well. What I do is simply question results that seem too coincidental to me to be real. Often in recent NFL history, I've seen too many of the highly hyped storylines play out all the way to the Super Bowl. Do I think the NFL gained anything by the Giants beating the Patriots this year? No. But did they when the Saints won it all? Yep. Did highly questionable refereeing allow the Steelers to beat both the Cardinals and Seahawks? Yep. And I'm allowed to question why and how these results came about. Even if the NFL fixed a single game in its history (and I'd say that would be Super Bowl III - because the Jets win would've been the best business decision the league could make given the time and situation), then the league's credibility is destroyed."

I'll split the posts here -- I'm just two pages in, and this is getting very long already!

This is one place I will disagree with Tuohy.  I believe that any meaningful sporting event in which it is feasibly possible for the game to be fixed is fixed.

There may well be sporting events in which the disparity between the two teams is so large that the best you can do is keep the margin down.  But, as we all know, sports are a business -- and what business, especially with billions on the table (nine of them, at least, in the NFL!), operates under that many variables?

Do I think the second Giants Super Bowl win over the Patriots was fixed?  Yes!  First off, the NFL gets exactly what it wants when it has such a huge number on the ratings:  The ball in the air, at the gun, game on the line.

I will also say this:  I can point to at least one play, and the supposed partying of at least one Patriots wide receiver after the game, which makes me wonder if somebody didn't get to the wide receiving corps of the Patriots to fix the game.  Watch the wide shot, if you can find it, on the Brady safety.  No receiver in a Patriots uniform is making any real effort to bail out Brady, forcing him to chuck it and hope someone gets under it!  No one did, 2-0 Giants.

(And that, as well, could bring into question betting patterns on Super Bowl proposition bets.  I wonder how many people got how much money based on betting that a defensive safety would be the first points scored, by penalty rule -- so no person actually scored the first points of the Super Bowl!!)

I use the same criteria for fixing games that I would in game shows and competitive entertainment programming like American Idol.  You don't need to fix the result for the show to be fixed.  You can fix a situation like that in part or in whole, and I believe that you have a fixed result if you fix in part, even if the result comes cleanly.  (Which is why I believe Mayerweather-Cotto was fixed, even though most everyone believed Mayerweather won the fight.)

I'm going to split this into multiple posts.  This is getting far too long.