The NBA appears to have done it last night - twice!

I knew it the moment I read about the 2012 NBA Draft Lottery.  But I didn't think I'd see two articles (one by Yahoo!'s Adrian Wojnarowski and one referencing him on YardBarker) stating the obvious...

Not only was the 2012 NBA Draft Lottery fixed, and OBVIOUSLY SO, but most of the rest of the owners pretty much were resigned to the fact that it happened!

Why else would the top three picks, including Anthony Davis (Freshman Phenom, One-And-Done U), go to:

#1 pick:  The team owned by the NBA and about to be sold to Saints owner Tom Benson
#2 pick:  The team supposedly ran by basketball (false-)God (and harbinger of the Corporate Era of (Rigged) Sports) Michael Jordan
#3 pick:  The last team Jordan played for

So, why would it surprise anyone that Wojnarowski would write this today?


""It's such a joke that the league made the new owners be at the lottery for the show," one high-ranking team executive told Yahoo! Sports. "The league still owns the Hornets. Ask their front office if new owners can make a trade right now. They can't. This is a joke."
 
The reaction of several league executives was part disgust, part resignation on Wednesday night. So many had predicted this happening, so many suspected that somehow, someway, the Hornets would walk away with Davis. That's the worst part for the NBA; these aren't the railings from the guy sitting at the corner tavern, but the belief of those working within the machinery that something undue happened here, that they suspect it happens all the time under Stern."

Happens all the time?  Like in 1985, when the league openly rigged the first Draft Lottery to make "basketball [is] back in New York!" with Patrick Ewing?

Or how about these statements, the last (supposedly) by an NBA team president:

"In New Orleans this season, everyone followed orders. The Hornets feared crossing Stern could cost them not only jobs with the Hornets, but futures in the NBA. They ate that trade for Chris Paul to the Lakers, and dutifully sold the commissioner's story that it was never agreed upon, never completed. The Hornets played Darryl Watkins, Jerome Dyson and Lance Thomas 41-plus minutes in the final game of the season in an 84-77 loss to Houston. They played them until the Hornets bottomed out with six points in the fourth quarter of the loss that left them at 21-45 for the season.

"I bet I could get my owner to tank if I knew the chance of getting the No. 1 pick was 100 percent," an NBA team president said in an email."

And that was just the rig-job the NBA did OFF the court.

It's now clear to me that the NBA wants the Anti-Heroes From Miami in the Finals again.  In a 115-111 overtime victory to put the Heat two games away from achieving just that over the Boston Celtics:

• The foul count was 33-18 against Boston.
• Miami had 47 free-throw attempts, to Boston's 29
• Miami needed them all:  For the game, they only shot 66% from the line while Boston shot nearly 90%!
• Miami only scored five more points from the line (31-26) for the game.  They won by four in overtime.

 So explain THIS CALL in overtime:  105-105, 1:45 to go.

Rajon Rondo drives the lane and clearly, even in the long shot, gets hacked down in the back of the shoulder in the act of shooting.

Maybe it was the four technicals that Boston got called for in Game One that was why there wasn't much complaining.

You can clearly see the foul, even in the long shot (:08-:11), but an even worse one on the replay, as Rondo gets a shot from Dwayne Wade right in the face.

There can be no dispute in these playoffs.  Dwayne Wade has taken dirty play to a new level, especially as what now (with the Lakers and Bulls gone) is his status as the most protected player in the NBA.

Pull the other one, $tern.  I'm not fooled.

53 Players With No Place in the National Football League -- Introduction

A bit of a project I'm doing.

I'm going to come up with a(n approximate) NFL roster of players who have no place in the National Football League -- they should not be in it, nor allowed to be a player in the league.

Some ground rules:

• The player must be in good standing with the league at present.  No Johnathan Vilma, for example.
• The player must either have been on the roster at some point last season (and not retired) or is on the roster now.

That's pretty much it.  So we'll start at the glamour position in the next post.

And just when the NFL couldn't get any crazier this season, enter the state of New Jersey!!!

I've said a number of times that one of the many ways a game can be fixed or rigged is "for the benefit of [Las] Vegas" -- spread considerations, over/under, what have you.

Well, if the governor of the state has his way, New Jersey will flaunt a Federal ban on sports gambling in the other 46 states (Nevada is the only one with books, Oregon, Montana, and Delaware being the other three) and attempt to challenge the ban by instituting sports gambling in the Atlantic City casinos and racetracks in the state.

*facepalm*

Great.  ANOTHER state is going to add it's name to the total.

It's bad enough when one state has casinos which openly influence contests...

Soccer stories: Barton's slap on the wrist totals 12, Webb warns simulation may kill

Two stories of soccer in the brief interval between end of club season and the start of the European championships in about two weeks:

-- The ban is in for Joey Barton:  Twelve matches, says the FA.

The pontification by the FA went as follows:

"The chairman of the regulatory commission stated after the hearing: 'There are rules of conduct that should be adhered to, and such behavior tarnishes the image of football in this country, particularly as this match was the pinnacle of the domestic season and watched by millions around the globe.'"

I'd say.  But twelve matches, for a man with his record,  plus the stature of the match, plus the very ominous possibilities that such anarchy on the pitch could be the undoing of Queens Park Rangers in the Premier League just doesn't sit well for me.

It's as if the FA, knowing it got exactly what it wanted, let this on-pitch hooligan off easy.  Here's what I think he should've gotten:

• Four matches for the red
• Five matches for the kick to Aguero
• Five more for the fact that the kick was after he was served the red card
• Five more for blatant intent to injure
• Six more for the headbutt attempt to Kompany
• Six more than that for the fact that the attempt was after he was served the red card
• and the rest of a season for several "acts which bring the game into disrepute" 

And that doesn't take into account his previous record, the stature of the match, the fact that another QPR player actually advised him to get a Manchester City player sent off (THAT is a 10-12 match offense...) and the situation at hand.  I could give a season for just his acts on the pitch at that moment.

Twelve matches is a JOKE!

On a better note, World Cup 2010 Final referee Howard Webb was asked to speak at a recent FIFA conference and gave the most compelling argument to end the scourge of football that is diving/simulation:

It could quite literally kill somebody!!

Don't believe me?  Webb should know.  He was the referee on the fateful day that Fabrice Muamba collapsed on the pitch during an FA Cup tie.

Webb's quick action was lauded as the basis on which Muamba was allowed to survive his massive heart attack and his heart being stopped for a significant period of time!

So listen to Webb as he talks about the act of simulation in this article:

''If players and if people cry wolf too many times, then there is a possibility that maybe we will not react in the way we need to,'' Webb said. ''If we come under criticism for stopping the games too many times for doctors or physiotherapists to enter the field of play, then referees might be inclined not to stop the game.''

And that would kill somebody.  Period.

They've been looking for a long time to deal with diving and faking injuries.  I think they may finally have found the cure.

If you don't think the NBA still wants to drag the Miami Heat to this and multiple NBA titles...

I have the video of 2 flagrant fouls from Tuesday night to show you.

Now, the Heat certainly won Game 5 with little contest (which should be taken into account when you see the second of the flagrant fouls), but I do have to wonder how much the game would've changed in the second quarter (with Miami only up 7) if the officials had done their supposed job and called this an ejection flagrant-2.

It appears as if, after the foul, the referee is pointing off the court, as if to imply that he was ejecting Udonis Haslem (correctly, IMHO) for his two-hand clobber of Tyler Hansborough.

Under the rulebook of the NBA (from a list of all the 2011-2012 flagrant fouls (.pdf file):

A Flagrant-1 is called when "unnecessary contact [is] committed by a player against an opponent".  This is what eventually was called -- two shots and the ball.

A Flagrant-2 is called when the contact is not only unnecessary, but additionally excessive.  That's an ejection on top of two and the ball.

So will someone -- ANYONE -- outside of a Miami Heat fan explain to me why that contact with two hands was not, by definition, excessive?

Yeah, the game was in Miami.

Yeah, the crowd was supportive of the hack job.

But it's clear that the foul was unnecessary and excessive and Haslem, as the announcers point out, is a needed player in the absence of Chris Bosh.

Or are we all supposed to accept this because Miami has all the remaining star power on the floor and will be the only team people are going to want to watch play Boston in the Eastern Conference Finals (or is the league going to get rid of them to clear the road?  Game 7 against Philly Saturday night)?

But the whole situation dissolved into ridiculous when the second of the flagrant fouls occurred.

Dexter Pittman, with the game 115-78 in favor of Miami in the last minute, literally forearms to the ground Lance Stephenson.  Hits him square in the neck!

Another Flagrant-1.

At least the NBA gets this right:  Haslem and Pittman have both been suspended.  Haslem for Game 6, Pittman for Game 6 plus two more!

I'll make a prediction right now:  There will be violence in Game 6.

Uh, yes, Mr. Goodell, there was collusion...

Your penalties to cripple the Redskins and hamstring the Cowboys indicate that there was an agreement to hold salaries down, and that's collusion.

An uncapped year is an uncapped year.  Period.

And you got caught, and rightly taken to court on it today by the NFLPA.

I mean, we all know the real reason you're doing this, other than holding salaries down, is to force new ownership in Washington and get Jerry Jones to think real hard about changing his ways in Dallas.

But what you've done is far too obvious.

Is the EPL trying to make money off of "Hollywood Sunday", or are we getting censored here?

Ah, the perils of trying to show evidence to the world, so they can draw their own conclusions.

The EPL article I and others wrote for "The Fix is In" has been having a serious problem:  We seem to be going through highlight clips about as quickly as the FA and the EPL can pull them down.

I think we're at least on #3 or #4.  So, as I was looking AGAIN for Brian today, I noticed something:

I went to Sky Sports' website, and I noticed they had the highlights of the game, but only if:

1) You PAID FOR THEM on a subscription service

and

2) If you lived in the UK or the Republic of Ireland.

So, are we trying to hide the evidence or make money off the drama, English Premier League?

The first Bounty-Gate lawsuit is on the table!

And Roger Goodell is a Defendant.

OK, that's not much of a shock.  I think the NFL has done enough to enable this kind of stuff.

But ESPN reports tonight that Jonathan Vilma, suspended for a year by Roger Goodell for his role in Bounty-Gate, has SUED Goodell for defamation:

"Suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma filed a defamation lawsuit Thursday against NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, claiming the league's top executive made false statements that tarnished Vilma's reputation and hindered his ability to earn a living playing football."

Let that process...

Let it process hard...

May I be the first to openly say (and this is where the visceral anger comes out that cannot go on my collaborative work if Brian needs me again!):

FUCK YOU JONATHAN VILMA!!

On his Twitter:

"Vilma wrote on his Twitter account that, "As I've said before..I NEVER PAID, NOR INTENDED TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY, TO ANY PLAYER FOR INTENTIONALLY HURTING AN OPPONENT."

If this is true, then not only does Goodell need to be fired, but the Player Safety Initiative scrapped.

You're either lying, dangerously delusional, or have a case to bankrupt Goodell.  He's got 50,000 pages of evidence, he's suspended you for a year -- and, if true, should make you basically unemployable on and off the field, because your ass needs to be in prison, boy!! -- and you have the unmitigated gall to sue him...

May he counter-sue to take your team off the field -- PERMANENTLY.

My first collaborative work for "The Fix is In"'s website has been posted

Brian Tuohy sent me an e-mail this morning and told me that my first contribution (with the help of two other contributors and Brian cleaning up messes like having to find different videos than I had posted here because of The FA taking down the ones I had put into the original draft of my portion of the essay) has been posted to his site.

You can read a quite comprehensive examination of the EPL's 2012 "Hollywood Finish" on Brian's website right here.

A number of comments:

• I would be remiss if I did not openly thank Brian Tuohy for the opportunity to post on his site as he needs and requires.  I know I can often be coarse, and do use expletives on this site.  I cannot do that over there, as Brian has a book, and soon two on the subject, to sell.  He is not paying me; I am posting there as a favor to him while he works on the second book and does not have the time to do as far-reaching of work as I know he would like.  Taking my style and anger at the current state of sport and curtailing it to a more professional standard will be a test for me, but I welcome the privilege.
• Secondly, I would be similarly remiss if I did not recognize the other parties in this work:  Matt Agosta of soccer site Suckyball, and Ken Smith, whom I don't have a link on and am not sure what he did, but Brian credited him with helping out.
• Matt Agosta said in the post:  "The main reason Manchester United and Manchester City were neck and neck for the final game is because they were tied on points. This is very rare and is the reason the season's end was such a big deal because both teams had identical points going into the last game."  According to the UK Guardian: 
  • "It's not often the title race has gone to the final day of the season recently. In the noughties, it only happened twice: in 2007-08 and 2009-10, and on neither occasion was there any genuine tension. Manchester United survived a couple of scares in 2008 at Wigan, but ultimately won 2-0 comfortably, while in 2010 Chelsea romped to an 8-0 victory over Wigan at Stamford Bridge as United sullenly and pointlessly beat Stoke City 4-0 at home. There were more nail-biters in the 90s: Andy Cole v Ludo Miklosko in 1995, Andy Cole's redemption at Middlesbrough in 1996 and Andy Cole's cute lob against Tottenham to secure the first part of United's treble in 1999."

•   So, for only the third time in the 20 years of the EPL, there was a competitive last weekend at the top.  And why was that?  Agosta notes in the article that there were two rather suspicious results for Manchester United when they appeared to have their sixth EPL title in seven years locked up:  a draw to Everton and a loss to relegation-threatened Wigan.  In fact, the article correctly points to that being eerily similar to the Packers losing to the Chiefs to drop their only regular-season loss -- a preview of their first-game playoff exit!
• These two games were before the second Manchester Derby of the EPL season, a game in which Suckyball and the New York Times reported was seen worldwide by 600,000,000 people -- three times the number worldwide of the most recent Super Bowl!!  On October 23, 2011, Manchester United went to Manchester City and drubbed them six goals to one on the road!  So, when the rematch occurred, City defeats United 1-0?
• So that sets up everything which you can read about on my part of the post.  It's clear that ratings were going to be high again, but who could've imagined this?  Someone like me.
• In fact, the Guardian has an post with the following title on it's website at this time:  "How Joey Barton Handed Manchester City the Premier League Title" -- just as I've posited.  I just question whether his actions were blatantly intentional in this regard!
• Something which has been understated in all this:  Barton says another QPR player encouraged him to try to get a Manchester City player sent off.  Where's The FA on this one?  THAT should be 10 matches!  (My best estimate for Barton would be, for the three Violent Conducts alone, about 3/4 of the season!)
• BOTH stoppage-time goals look suspicious as to the location of the goalkeeper.  I told you about the corner, Brian's added a note on the title-winner.
• The post notes, as a post-script, that Manchester City earned $97,000,000 in broadcast monies on their way to the title.
• Update on Barton:  Apparently, the appeal is tomorrow.  Barton, to be investigated by QPR afterwards, has requested his personal attorney to fight what The Daily Mail believes will be a 12-match ban.  At least one writer on The Telegraph believes the ban could be three months!  I think it should be much longer:  4 matches for the red, 5 matches for the kick, 5 more that the kick took place post-red, 5 more for intent to injure on the kick, 6 for the headbutt, 6 more that the headbutt took place post-red...  That's 31 matches (more than 3/4 of next season) right there.  I'd say a calendar year for starters, and then start investigating who the bloke might've talked to pre-match!

Barton Update II: Admits one charge, denies the other

Joey Barton now faces a minimum seven-match ban over his conduct.  He admits the obvious charge of kicking Sergio Aguero, but denies the headbutt on Vincent Kompany.

EPL Update: Barton Charged, Tuohy Wants Me To Guest Post

Got an e-mail from Brian Tuohy yesterday.  He said, given time constraints, that he wants me to reprise my post here about the EPL situation from last Sunday on his The Fix is In site.

First draft was sent off Tuesday night, and he'll get around to it when he has time.  It is a bit heftier than the one here.

Also, the Football Association has charged Joey Barton with only two counts of Violent Conduct.  The original action had him required to respond to the charges by Tuesday at 6 PM.  He has had that extended to today at midday (4 AM PDT).

The charges are apparently only the two acts which occurred after the sending off.  He is already banned for four matches following his second sending-off of the season.

Many believe that the total ban he will receive will be in the area of ten matches.  Four matches for the card, three each for the other two offenses (the Standard Penalty from the 2011-2012 FA Discipline Handbook (of which a PDF is here).

I have a large problem with that, on three different levels:

First:  To simply charge him with the two post-card acts ignores:

• That he's already on four matches as it is for the red card
• That he admits to attempting to create an incident in which at least one Manchester City player gets sent off
• That another Queens Park Ranger player appears to be involved in this incident, according to Barton on his Twitter
• His exchange with Balotelli at the sideline
• That he has to be forcibly wrestled off the pitch under a police escort by either two members of the team staff or by two members of stadium security -- "Failure to leave the ground in a timely manner" indeed!

Second:  My main gripe.  How can a professional footballer, of any stripe, commit those acts in that setting as a captain of a team endangered with immediate relegation and not be accused of openly trying to throw the match?

Third:  Barton's record, on and off the pitch, from Wikipedia:

• 2003-2004 FA Cup Tournament, Fourth Round Proper, Replay.  Tottenham Hotspur home to Manchester City.  Barton is sent off for an argument with the official during half-time.  Tottenham were 3-0 up at the time.  Shockingly, Manchester City, down to ten men, scored four unanswered goals to win the game 3-4.
• In a preseason friendly the following summer, a ten-man brawl broke out when Barton hacked down an opposition player.
• That Christmas (2004), his tenure with Manchester City was nearly ended when he almost put a youth player's eye out with a lit cigar after the youth player was seen trying to set his shirt on fire.  He was docked six weeks' wages by the team.
• The next pre-season (2005), he was sent home from Thailand and fined 120,000 pounds for assaulting an Everton supporter, 15.  He was finally ordered into behavioral rehab and anger management therapy.
• After being heckled by opposition supporters (Everton, again!) on September 30, 2006, he was caught by the cameras mooning the crowd.  After the police cleared him, the FA fined him 2,000 pounds for "bringing the game into disrepute".
• May 1, 2007 was the last straw at Manchester City.  Barton assaulted a teammate (Ousmane Dabo), leaving him unconscious and probably with a detached retina.  He was arrested, pled guilty, and sentenced to four months suspended sentence in prison, 200 hours of community service, 3,000 pounds in restitution to Dabo, and his court costs.  He was suspended for twelve matches (six deferred for two years) and fined 25,000 pounds by the FA.
• He tranferred to Newcastle United, and, in a derby match against Sunderland later in 2007, Barton appeared to commit another red card offense against a Sunderland player.  However, because the referee saw the conduct and chose not to sanction Barton, the FA rules prohibited them from stepping in.
• December 27, 2007:  Barton beats a man, being caught on camera punching a man in Liverpool to unconsciousness (20 blows, at least), plus attacking a teenager.  This, only eight months after the Manchester City incident.  Barton was jailed for six months after the 2007-08 season, but released after 7 days.  (The Dabo FA hearing and suspension took place after this!)
• Two further incidents in late 2008 almost reinstated the second half of the suspension -- a possible red-card offense versus Aston Villa, and a racism row which caused the FA to reconsider not punishing Barton.  Nothing proven, nothing done.
• Barton would be off the pitch due to injury most of the remainder of that season, but received a red card in his return match in May, 2009.
• Two days later, Newcastle United, in danger of relegation and without Barton for the remaining three matches of the season, opt to expel Barton after it is revealed that manager Alan Shearer had a confrontation with Barton after the match.  Shearer admitted later that it was a mistake to allow Barton to return.  Newcastle United would, in fact, be relegated.
• November 10, 2010:  Barton is charged with Violent Conduct by the FA for punching a Blackburn player in the chest (Morten Gamst Pedersen), which the officials did not see.  He was given a three-match ban, just barely missing the two-year cutoff from his suspension for punching Dabo.
• December 11, 2010:  Barton appears to give homophobic slurs and an obscene gesture to Fernando Torres.
• August 2011:  In what would be his last match with Newcastle (vs. Arsenal), incidents would be retaliated against Barton which would send one player off (Gervinho) and got a second player a three-match ban (Alex Song)
• January 2, 2012:  Barton (now with QPR) is sent off for a headbutt on Norwich's Bradley Johnson.
• And then the current incident.

It is hard for me to defend any penalty short of a life ban (with perhaps a one- or two-year last-chance sunset window).  But if there is any player in England who would throw a relegation game for his own benefit to the complete disdain of the good of his club (of which he is captain!), I assert it is Barton.

LATE UPDATE:  With the noon deadline passing this day, there is no word as to the extension for response by Barton.  The head of the players' union wants a stiff suspension, but doesn't give a length.

"Clueless", Part II: Rick Reilly is a blatant liar.

There are times that I just am in disbelief as to the blatant nature of the sports media to rewrite history.

Rick Reilly, in an ESPN.com column lamenting the power of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, had this blatant and out and out lie to try to foist upon the public:

"And don't forget, there's no video of any Saints player making illegal hits on Brett Favre or Kurt Warner in the two bounty games in question. To be ordered to carry out a hit and then doing it are two separate things."

That is an obvious lie, and I've posted to this effect on this blog before.

I posted on this on March 8th, 2012:  "An allegation which, if true, could kill the NFL."

 Ladies and gentlemen, a compiled YouTube video, which I posted before, which has at least a HALF A DOZEN illegal hits on Brett Favre in the NFC Championship Game.

And the Warner clip in my post against Mike Golic yesterday!

Look, I know you guys are desperate and flailing over there at ESPN.  You know you CAN'T tell the truth -- football would be shut down if you did.

But you're resorting to blatant lies to keep your backbone league happy, and there are 2,000 former NFL players who might wish to consider adding ESPN to the lawsuits.

For the first time, I think I've been personally exposed to the power of the Worldwide Leader...

First off, I want to thank the almost 100 views that my post on the Manchester City/EPL situation got, and I was going to post a follow-up.

Until Mike Golic came calling!!

This tweet (not to me) started it:

"That was a clean hit RT @dmmerk: @MikeAndMikehow come more people aren't talking about how the saints ended warner's career with a cheap shot"

(I inserted a space before the "RT".)

(I should note that the @MikeandMike account is Golic's.  Mike Greenberg, his co-host on ESPN's Mike and Mike in the Morning, has @ESPNGreeny as his.)

Yep, we're back to talking about Kurt Warner, the playoff game with the Saints, Bounty-Gate, and this hit.

So Mike Golic, an NFL veteran (which should color his opinions appropriately), has decided that the hit that put Warner out of the sport is clean.

Watch that clip I linked to very closely.  You may need the second replay, which starts at about :08 of the clip, to get a good look at it.

I made sure I got another good look at the clip before I decided to reply as I knew I was going to - and eventually did, in this tweet:

"@MikeAndMike The Warner hit was bullshit, Golic. That was a helmet to helmet up side the head. DIRTY HIT, and probably paid for too!"

Well, Golic effectively had a one word response when he got a hold of this one in the following:

"Clueless RT @darkstar7646: @MikeAndMike The Warner hit was bullshit, Golic. That was a helmet to helmet up side the head. DIRTY HIT,"

Mr. Golic (and "William J Holla"), I've seen that hit numerous times.  I've even linked to it before in my blog, sir.  He definitely gets shoulder, but lays the head right into the jaw to add to the whiplash.  Look at the shorter clip, about 8-10 seconds in.  You're going to need slow motion to see it.  You have to slow down the hit, or it certainly appears as if the hit (especially from your back-side angle (which you can see a clip of on "Holla's" tweet, which is why I linked to it) is shoulders.

That is probably why the guy didn't get penalized by the league, is that the hit would look clean until you slow the hit down.

But that didn't stop a bevy of NFL-worshipping Mike and Mike fans from chiming in.  (And those links are not all-inclusive!)

Look, I'm aware that the Neanderthals who follow the NFL these days have to live in a fairly serious state of denial.  And I'm also aware that the concept of ESPN effectively requires The National Religion for a lot of it's programming (even in the off-season!).  Additionally, I cannot be surprised that Mike Golic, who made his fortune and ESPN position on the game, would defend it like this.

But the video does not lie here.  Watch it for yourself.

Did Manchester City just get given the English Premier League title?

(I can make no guarantees that any of these YouTube clips will remain up for any length of time.  The FA is one of the more notoriously diligent removers of their material.)

There are situations which make me just boggle.

It appears as if we have one with the English Premier League's final day today, with dramatics all over England as two Manchester teams battle for the Premiership title, while three teams at the other end of the standings are trying to stay in the top tier.

For those who aren't aware:

English (FA -- Football Association) football is divided into a number of leagues.  The Premiership is the highest and richest of those leagues.  The top three teams in the Premiership are allowed to play in the Champions' League directly.  Normally, the 4th team is allowed in qualifying, but the Grand Final of this year's Champions' League has Chelsea, who finished 6th.  By rule, after this happened with Liverpool a number of years back, Chelsea can automatically qualify by defeating Bayern Munich in the Grand Final (as they would then be the defending champions, or "holders"), which would take the fourth team, Tottenham Hotspur, out of qualifying and into the lower Europa League.

(... creating the interesting scenario in which Chelsea must win the Champions' League Grand Final to play in European club tournament football next year at all!)

At the other end, the bottom three teams in the season are relegated (demoted) to the lower Championship level, which is a massive money hit due to television contracts and the like.  Two of those three teams, Blackburn and Wolverhampton, were already determined.

One spot remained, and two teams could've been relegated --a third mathematically, but two at the end of the day.

At the top entering today:

Manchester City, with 27 wins, 5 losses and 5 draws, the same as Manchester United.  (86 points)

Teams tied (or "level") on points are broken by goal differential.

Manchester City had a +63
Manchester United had a +55

So, by all reasoned manners of football, Manchester City would win the tiebreaker, so a victory at home over Queens Park Rangers would allow them to lift the championship for the first time in 44 years, breaking the stranglehold their cross-town rivals United had, along with Arsenal, Chelsea, and Liverpool.

A tie would mean that Manchester United could lift the trophy with a win at mid-table Sunderland.  A City loss would mean United would only have to draw.

Oh, speaking of Queens Park Rangers, the one remaining relegation spot and the three teams involved:

Aston Villa had only 7 wins on the season, but had 17 draws (!) entering today.  38 points, goal differential -14.  They played at mid-tabler Norwich.

Queens Park Rangers had to travel to Manchester City.  They had 10 wins and 7 draws for 37 points, goal differential -22.

Bolton Wanderers had the same ten wins, but had only five draws entering today.  They had 35 points, goal differential -31.  They played at lower mid-tabler Stoke.

So all the relegation candidates were on the road.  All games kicked off simultaneously.

Man City home to QPR
Sunderland home to Man United
Norwich home to Aston Villa
Stoke home to Bolton Wanderers.

Basically, Villa were to stay up, Bolton needed to win and have QPR lose.

If QPR lost, Man City were the champions.  So, all to play for.

We go into the second half of the Man City-QPR match.  We are in the 54th minute, and the nervous game is one goal each.

At the same time:

Manchester United were leading 1-0 on a first-half goal by Wayne Rooney.
Norwich are 2-0 up on Aston Villa, but Villa is safe.  (That would be the final.)
Most importantly, Bolton Wanderers are leading Stoke 2-1. 

If that last result held (and we'll get to that!), Queens Park Rangers would have to hold (and ultimately deny the title to, because 0-1 to Man United was the final at Sunderland) Man City.

THIS happened next (right at the start of the clip):

Just on the left edge of the screen, QPR's Joey Barton appears to have elbowed one of the Manchester City players (Tevez) -- off the ball -- either just outside or just inside the penalty area.

The linesman is flagging for the foul, because the whistle is slightly delayed. 

The elbow is clear on the second replay.  QPR has just tied the Premier League record for red cards in a season.

He's sent off.  The penalty is deemed just outside the box.  Barton, after being sent off, ATTACKS ANOTHER PLAYER -- the replay at 2:13 or so showing him kicking the guy in the knee.  He's probably cost himself about a fourth of next season (at minimum!) when he has to go in front of the FA and explain this one!

But here's why I post this here:

This is the 55th minute.  As of the moment, Joey Barton has just sent his team down to ten men and given up a free kick about 22-24 meters from the goal, a foot or two from giving up a penalty.

At this point, should this lead to Man City winning, Barton has just seen to it that he has sent down Queens Park Rangers (at least as of that point), a loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of British Pounds to the team.  How any man can call themselves a professional under that set of circumstances (not only on the end of deciding the Premiership at the top of the table, but deeply endangering your own chances of staying in the top flight yourself!) is unimaginable.

This would appear to be a tampered situation, especially with the second attack.  I assert, as a layman but familiar with how frequently soccer/football is fixed on occasion, that Joey Barton deliberately got himself sent off to attempt to ensure that Manchester City would win the Premiership, even if it meant his own team were sent down!

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!!

About 20 minutes later at Stoke, Bolton Wanderers still leading 2-1.  The first goal for Stoke was apparently controversial as well, as it appeared as if it was headed out of the goalkeeper's hands.

I have no video of this, YouTube, legal, or otherwise.  (I have Tweeted the link to this post to both Brian Tuohy and one of football's foremost authorities on match-fixing, Declan Hill of "The Fix", to see if they can find it.)

Peter Crouch draws a penalty for Stoke against that same goalkeeper, and Stoke put it in to square the match at 2-2.  Later, Owen Coyle blasted the officials for both goals...

Goals which ultimately sent down Bolton Wanderers -- the game ended 2-2.

BUT WE STILL HAVE A TITLE DECIDER!!!

QPR then rebounds from the bizarre antics of Mr. Barton and take the lead on City about ten minutes after the red card.

However, the incident by Barton has added significant stoppage time to the match -- a total of five minutes accruing in the second half!  At full 90 minutes, the match is still 1-2 to QPR, and Manchester United is about to lift the trophy -- again...

And that's when things got crazy...

On this YouTube clip at about 2:38 or so, you see the replay of the goal which squares the match at 2-2 at Manchester City.  About a minute into the extra five, a corner kick is given to City, and the center is perfect to an ABJECTLY UNCHALLENGED Edin Dzeko for the equalizer.  (Better look on second replay at 2:45 - 2:50)

He's five yards from the dead center of the goal!  And UNMARKED and UNTOUCHED, he is gifted an equalizer.

And then, just two minutes later in the match, with Manchester United still holding the trophy... 

Note at 3:06-3:08, the announcer says they just won the title.  There's 90 seconds plus however much it takes to get the game restarted still left!  (Not uncommon, frankly, for this announcer:  The David Beckham free kick which sent England to the World Cup tournament (with a draw to Greece) four years after his red card against Argentina got a similar response.)  A reference to the "Hollywood" nature of this is also mentioned.

The Manchester United match has already ended.  Wayne Rooney is saluting the crowd at The Stadium of Light (Sunderland's pitch).  And then the replay at 3:40.  The ball becomes very hard to follow, and it appears as if a player is nearly taken down in the circle at the head of the penalty area.

In the scramble, Sergio Aguero slots it in on the short side, and Man City are champions.

The NFL fraternity is getting very desperate for this story to die...

And knows it won't.

Just happened on an article on ESPN.com (more specifically, it's local Boston area) on a letter that Chad Ochocinco sent to Roger Goodell.

I think the letter speaks for itself on the frankness and desperation on the part of the pro-football fraternity, knowing that the game probably is about to die.

This first part of the letter is Chad talking:

"Many of you know I have a father son relationship with Roger Goodell. I love him and just had to reach out to him with all that is going on. We are at a crucial point in the history of football. The foundation of the game is in jeopardy based on all these factors and the future of the game is going to be shaped by him."

The letter follows:

"Dear Dad,
I know it has been a rough week, so I wanted to reach out. Players dying, players suing and on top of that my peers are just going off on you in the media. It does not help that ESPN has all of a sudden become Medical TV with damn near every brain expert on the planet. This has got to be the worst week ever. Since no one is showing any support, I figured I would be the first. You are in one big ass catch 22 and quite frankly, I am not sure there is any solution. One thing I think can help is killing the NFL PR machine.
Y'all do a darn near perfect job at portraying this game as one played by heroes.
But let's be real dad. This is a nasty, dirty and violent game with consequences. Sign up or go get a regular job. Watch it or turn off the TV and go fishing with your kids. It is really that simple. I know there are probably legal and financial implications that prevent this blunt depiction, but am not sure if you have a choice. If you don't say it now, the mounting evidence being revealed publicly will say it for you very soon. In all, I love you and if anyone can lead us out of this mess, it will be you. Oh by the way, I have a deal for you. Am having a rebound year and plan to do a lot of celebrating in the end zone. Can my fine money go to supporting ex-players suffering?
Sincerely,
Chad"

Chad, I have little use for you on the field.  However, I think there are several points you make in this open letter to your Commissioner:

1) This has been a tough week for Goodell.  I believe that he is trying to tamper with the Seau family decision, and the money involved in letting the world find out (as most anyone should be able to discern) that football killed Junior Seau is not only the NFL's, but probably the lifeblood and societal structure which keeps many colleges, universities, and local school districts from throwing in the towel in this society.

Football, in my honest opinion, is the only reason we have many school districts (and probably more than a few colleges).  "Portraying the game as one played by heroes starts at a young age", and these "heroes" are coddled and allowed free reign over the intellectuals, differents, and their harems (for that last one, read that as the cheerleading and dance squads) has allowed football to take such a societal hold that the last three months since The National Super Bowl Holiday have been met with disbelief or outright ignorance by most people.

I have friends who gave hips and knees to this game.  I have three brothers who gave knees (personally witnessed the third on an accidental helmet to the back of the knee on the last game of his senior season!).

I fully expect my old high school, two or three years removed from the state semifinal, to shut down football either this upcoming year or next.  The districts won't be able to afford skyrocketing medical insurance prices.



How many more Dave Duersons or Junior Seaus or Chris Henrys or who knows who else before someone finally steps in on an institutional level and says "NO MORE"? 

Won't happen with the Sports Fan in Chief in office, but if he gets replaced?

2) Why shouldn't ESPN start getting real serious about the medical impacts?  If football goes down, so does the 24-hour sports network!  The entire concept will fail (not just the NFL Network, but the entire ESPN concept without football as a backbone of it's programming -- both BCS college and NFL professional!).

3) He is in a Catch-22.  Of course, any Commissioner of the NFL would, but even more so now:  If the truth (as outlined in books such as Interference and The Fix is In) were ever revealed about the National Football League, it would be gone.

That is why, Mr. Ochocinco, there is no (other) solution.  Your chosen profession is little more credible than prostitution, if people were to take a real look behind the curtain of your National Religion.

4) It is a nasty, dirty game with consequences, but those consequences have been magnified by players like Mr. Suh and Mr. Harrison and others committing enough dirty hits that the fines you speak of later reach a weekly six figures.  The fact is that ESPN is partially responsible, as the violent nature of the game, to the point of the dirty helmet hits being the most desirable.

Now, you have one franchise crippled by the revelation that they openly paid people to commit an offense in California called "mayhem" -- the denial of the use of one's body through an illegal act.

5) You are most certainly correct on the legal and financial implications that prevent the league from telling the truth.

I truly believe if the NFL is held to account in the courts (and not declared above all law through societal status), that the league is bankrupt and finished, so prevalent are illegal acts not only in the rulebooks, but on the statute books as well.

That takes out the casinos, much of Las Vegas,  probably most of the bar business on Sundays (and more than a few other similar ventures)...

Basically, it rewrites this country in one fell swoop.

And all for a lie.  Not only are many of the games seen as fixed, but now players are dropping dead at alarming rates which only professional wrestling seem to match.

And son, you ain't (and there is no one in the NFL as articulate as) John Cena.

6) He can't say the truth.  If he does, he loses the sponsors, he loses the support of the legislatures (for one example of how important that is:  He just used the Vikings to strong-arm the Minnesota Legislature out of probably a billion dollars in taxpayer money -- in a state where they damn near had to stop welfare benefits due to a budget impasse a year ago!), he basically loses the league.

You want to see how bad this is already getting, Chad?  From the Kansas City Star:

"During the last eight months, more than 2,000 former NFL players have sued the league, alleging that it withheld information that could’ve signaled to players that lingering mental debilitation would be a consequence of the game’s constant pounding to the head."

And Bounty-Gate could not have come at a worse time for all this.  EVERY DAMNATED ONE of those ex-players suing now should be able to receive the 50,000 pages of evidence vis-a-vis the situation with the Saints, which should, almost on the prima facie basis, prove that the NFL deliberately withheld not only the information of the dangers, but also withheld enforcing it's own rules and the law to prevent this kind of situation from occurring.

And it's not as simple as "getting a real job" or "going fishing with the kids".  Football has been put on a pedestal next to (if not superior to) God Himself in this country.  If we, as a nation, correctly ban football (at the rate this is going), there will be such a gaping hole in the country that nothing can fill it.

7) Yes, if anyone's getting you out of it, it's going to be Goodell -- mainly because of the time involved.  I think you get this season.  Whether you get next season, though, is going to depend on a number of factors, not all of which in your control.

Chad, I'd suggest exploring another line of work -- more seriously than your MLS foray during last year's lockout.

"The Fix is In" and the Professional Football Researchers Association, Part Two

Continuing a look at a seven-page thread in which Brian's book, The Fix Is In, is discussed by professional football researchers of a very high level.

Starting page three, Brian had levelled several explosive allegations just previously.  (Read the previous post for my comments.)

1) Rupert Patrick, with a very good question:  "Why didn't MLB protect Pete Rose, and shut down the investigation against him that sullied the legacy of one of it's greatest stars? But Sports Illustrated got a hold of the story and published it, and I doubt the writer who broke the story was blackballed from ever working a baseball beat again."

Because MLB wasn't involved in fixing the games Rose was betting on.  And that's pretty much it.  If MLB had been tampering with games like the NBA has been and the NFL almost surely has been, I don't think Rose gets the life ban.  He might well be suspended to make it look good and then "retire", but he's in the Hall of Fame.

2) Several references are made in the third page about the Steelers and their Super Bowls with the Seahawks (win), Cardinals (win), and Packers (loss).

Those were three of the most blatantly rigged Super Bowls (and by the league) which did not involve the Patriots.

In both the cases of the Seahawks and the Cardinals, it's simple money.  Pile up all the cash for Seattle Seahawk/Arizona Cardinal Super Bowl Champion memorabilia.  Now pile up all the cash from Pittsburgh Steeler Super Bowl Champion memorabilia.  It's not close -- I'd even assert you could combine the piles for Seattle and Arizona.

You then also add in that Jerome Bettis, home in Detroit, gets his ring before retirement, and you understand why the Seahawk/Steeler Super Bowl was one of the worst-officiated sporting events in memory.

And there are at least two videos addressing the Cardinals getting jobbed on Tuohy's video library.

As for the Packers?  That's easy.  Rothlesberger had to be bailed out of rape accusations at least twice by now, and the Steeler defense was seen as the dirtiest in the league.  There was NO WAY that Rothlesberger was going to be given a third ring (and, effectively as such, that place on the NFL's Mount Rushmore) as a result.

3) "SixtiesFan", in questioning the whole process, asks a question a lot of people, especially if they read this blog, could ask:

"Then why didn't the NFL fix it so Tebow would make it to the Super Bowl?"

Because they had strained all sense of believability to get Tebow and the Broncos where they did.

Plans do change.  I do believe, at one point, that the Broncos could well have been the scripted team to emerge from a debacle of an AFC so that the fans can all go on one knee to pray to their Lord and Saviour. (Roger Goodell)

But it was obvious if you watched the games (and I saw the relevant parts of a number of them!) that this team STANK ON ICE.  This was a 4-12 (at best!) team without the push.  One of the least-efficient offenses of all time -- until it was Tebow Time at the end.

For all the reasons people pooh-pooh fixing allegations (in that the league would lose all credibility, blah blah blah...), it comes down to believability.  Can you fool the unwashed enough to silence or ostracize people like myself and Brian?

"Why didn't the NFL fix it so Vick could play in a Super Bowl?"

This one is a personal opinion of mine.  I believe there are members of the Philadelphia Eagles last year who want no part of being associated with Michael Vick, and threw games because they DID NOT want to go to the Super Bowl with him as the quarterback.

I don't know if I can find a clip, but the most flagrant allegations I can make are from a game with (I believe) the Washington Redskins, where it appears as if an Eagle ball-carrier deliberately fumbles the ball to the Redskins at about the 1 or 2 yard line.

I believe the NFL DOES want Mike Vick as a Super Bowl Champion Quarterback.

In response to Brian saying:


"Why hasn't someone come forward to say "I fixed this" or "the NFL made me rig that?" As I posted before - you'd have to have 100% iron-clad proof of it, and that sort of evidence does not exist. Even if some past player from the 1960s came out and admitted it, would he have more to gain from that admission - with the added bonus of being forever labeled as a game-fixer and perhaps stripped of his HoF status - or will he profit greater from maintaining that secret which no one is asking about while reliving the glory days and charging people $50 an autograph at card shows nationwide? You tell me what someone would do in such a situation."




"SixtiesFan" responds:

"You tell me what someone would do in such a situation?"

At least one individual would grab the money a book and movie deal would bring through exposing a fix. Yes, the NFL is full of not very bright and sometimes unsavory people. What makes you think this cast of characters could pull it off for decades without a hitch" 

Brian addresses it before.  How many people actually bought Canseco's two books?

One of my gravest fears about all the concussion lawsuits, etc., is that the NFL (especially) and football in general will be declared totally above the law in all respects -- there'd be too much damage to the social fabric of this country if the law were enforced.  And, at that, you are supposed to, if you are a good 'Mer-Kan, sacrifice your boys to the altar of The National Religion.

THAT is why you won't see the book and movie deals -- no one wants to expose the truth for the damage it would do to our country.

Another "SixtiesFan" response basically blows his ideas wide open:

"First, I don't like the people who run the NFL (they don't give a flying you-know-what about the fans) and don't have any illusions about the players either. You can trust the NFL to do what they think is in their best financial interest. This means having an "honest" game. The risk is to great and the rewards wouldn't be all that much to fix the Super Bowl and who makes the playoffs."

False.  Utterly and completely false!!

And I have two specific instances in which it can be financially demonstrated that your statement is false, and they are two of the worst-officiated Super Bowls of all time.  I already mentioned them:  Steelers/Seahawks and Steelers/Cardinals.

4) "rhickok1109" responds to Brian with one of the common ways that sports conspiracy theory is considered "debunked" by the general public, and which "SixtiesFan" bases a lot of his beliefs on the subject:

"Yes, I basically trust the NFL for a very simple reason. Fixing of the sort you allege cannot possibly go on for very long without being exposed, and the people who run the NFL, whatever else they may be, are intelligent people who are fully aware of that. A serious, well-documented exposure of manipulating outcomes would kill the golden goose. It would destroy the NFL's credibility (which is why Rozelle acted so quickly in the 1962 Hornung/Karras/Lions scandal), it would turn fans away, and it would cost the league millions and perhaps billions of dollars in the long run. It would kill the proverbial golden goose."

Would it kill the golden goose?

To do so, you'd have to make two assumptions of the American public:

First, that they are intelligent enough to "get it".

Second, that they even care.

I don't believe you can go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  And as for the second part:  TV Guide, just before the 1999 advent of the Million-Dollar Game/Reality Show Era, had a poll asking the people whether they would care about a re-do of the game show scandals of the 1950's.

Fully two out of five said they would not care if the games were rigged.

What makes sports any different?  Especially given the allegations and proven accusations and injuries we've learned about in the NFL just in this off-season, how much of "Just entertain me!!" has to be in the blood of the people of this culture to not look seriously at what's really been going on, over and above game-fixing and the like!

5) Brian, again:

"I don't believe the NFL says, "this is team X's year, here's what we do to get them a title." I think most of what occurs is legitimate. But if an opportunity arises where the league can make something beneficial happen with one team winning when perhaps they shouldn't, then it will take advantage of the controls they have in place. With the Browns, they haven't had a thing to promote. No stars, no draft picks of significance to promote, no story. Without that appearing, they will falter naturally and it would take an extraordinary amount of fixing to make a team like that champions. That would stand out. Giving a 9-6 team a 10th win to get them in the playoffs draws no attention. But making a 2-14 team into a 14-2 team might if far too many breaks are going their way."

Again, this is where Brian and I part company.

I DO believe the NFL says this, but can only carry it out within certain parameters.

I DO believe the NFL made a 2-14 to 4-12 team into a division champion and playoff team LAST YEAR -- Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos.  But the believability factor comes into play -- you can't fool the rubes if it becomes completely obvious at some point.

I do, also and however, believe the NFL can change the script at it's election.  Two of the most famous cases I can give you of this could come from last year's NBA playoffs (and we know the NFL can work the same way):  Kobe Bryant's homophobic slur against the official and Joachim Noah's against the opposing fans.  The NBA is very anti-homophobic slur (and has active campaigns against the derogatory usage of the word "gay"), and that probably cost both the Lakers and the Bulls a shot at going further.

6) Several posters on the fifth page question why Tuohy has not been sued for libel:

That's an easy one.  I use the Rafael Palmeiro Test:  If they aren't going to sue, they are all but admitting it's true.

If Rafael Palmeiro had the cojones to lie to Congress, and wag his finger at them, regarding steroids and Jose Canseco's claims, where was the freaking lawsuit against Canseco to shut him up?

There was none.  Canseco was true.  Same thing here.

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.

You really have to wonder about the future of sports when you read something like this...

Osi Umenyiora on his Twitter this morning:

"Its an awesome game and has done a lot for me, but i know when im 45 there is a strong chance il be in a wheelchair."

You know, there's approximately 1,500 former NFL players, according to NBC's Pro Football Talk, that are suing the league for concussions.

You almost begin to wonder if the league's only suitable defense is to say that these players actually want to be crippled.  Not that that's a reasonable defense, but there you go.

I will make a prediction here and now.  I believe there will be at least one state in this country (not a major football power -- we're talking maybe a North Dakota or a Wyoming here or somesuch) for which this fall might well be the last year of organized high school football.  This is gathering steam way too quickly for people not to take a lot of notice.

And HERE COME THE NEANDERTHALS to defend the Great American Institution of Football:

The article itself:

"It would be interesting to know how many of the 1,500 or so former players currently suing the NFL would have said the same thing during their playing days. Most NFL players are content to accept the possibility of serious injury so that they can play an awesome game."

 The commenters:

7thLombardiOnTheWay:  "This is why he isn’t a Steeler."

 cakemixa:  "He’ll also still be complaining about his contract."

 hairpie:  "I have an idea Osi, how bout you dont play football, you stop complaining and you get a regular job like everyone else?"

(Not understanding that part of the problem is that most of these people can't even get a regular job anymore, as they are so tied into football...)

 Theslex:  "GO. AWAY."

 chadmurdigan:  "Don’t these guys have anything else to talk about? Geezus, let’s get the season started so we have something actually newsworthy and interesting to read."

 burnzy32:  "yes Osi your life is so hard, the millions and millions of dollars to play a game, that most of us that God didn’t bless with amazing talent, would still play for FREE if it weren’t for issues of having to clock in 40 hrs a week to make a 1/3 of your one weeks game check."

 Maybe those caveman commercials are more appropo for NFL contests than I used to give credit for...

And the beat goes on with the San Francisco Giants and drugs...

Of the franchise of Barry Bonds and a National League Championship tainted with a ton of BALCO steroids (Don't believe me?  Pick up Game of Shadows.  It went FAR beyond Barry Bonds on that Giants team...)

Today, it was announced that Giants' pitcher Guillermo Mota was suspended 100 games for his second offense against the drug policy.  (Three strikes, and you're out of the game.)

Only two other players have been so suspended.  Manny Ramirez and Eliezer Alfonso.

The latter got his first suspension...  with the San Francisco Giants.

Meaning that, of the three players to go two strikes deep into the process, two were with the Giants for one of those "strikes".

Neither is THAT prominent on the Giants post-BALCOBarry, but it does make one go "Hmmmm..."

And you don't want "fans" like me going "Hmmmm..."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Nevada State Athletic Commission, and one of the most IDIOTIC e-mail responses I have ever received!!

I knew it was futile for me to send that e-mail, but I felt I had to send it.

This was the text of my e-mail:

Subject: Can I have any other reason than "Money" to understand how you allowed Floyd Mayerweather Jr. to fight tomorrow night?

I mean, seriously...  You mean to tell me, with the open knowledge that he's going to jail for domestic violence in Las Vegas after this fight, that, even with the state laws on the books, you're licensing the guy to fight Cotto tomorrow night?

I guess "Money" talks, and you-know-what walks...

Fairly straightforward, and to the point.

Keith Kizer, of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, the sanctioning body for boxing and mixed-martial-arts in the state of Nevada, sent THIS in response today:

Mike:

Yes, he was licensed to compete on 5-5.

Is there a real purpose for your email?

I now have NO DOUBT remaining that this fight was fixed.  I also have no doubt that Mayerweather Jr. would've won the fight anyway, but I was immediately suspicious upon hearing how well Cotto had acquitted himself, that everyone talking about the fight had the fight in the 116-112, 115-113 range (JT the Brick had it one or the other from what I could get from his Twitter during the fight, ESPN's experts had the former, Yahoo! Sports had the latter) that the three judges (similarly sanctioned and selected by the very same Nevada State Athletic Commission!!) had the fight 117-111, 117-111, 118-110!

I'm within sight distance, in my hotel here in Las Vegas, of the site of the fight, the MGM Grand.  There isn't one 6-story "Home of the Champion" Mayerweather banner.

THERE ARE TWO.

Yes, Mr. Kizer, there was a point to my e-mail that went completely over your freaking head!!!

I am fully aware (for those who couldn't figure it out, I sent the e-mail Friday night, the night before the fight) that the domestic abuser Mayerweather (and I can say that cleanly -- that's what he's going to jail for!) was licensed.

The point of my e-mail is that THAT DECISION, Mr. Kizer, is about as appropriate and about as sane as the decision to license the previous world-record guaranteed purse when your organization gave MIKE TYSON $30,000,000 to bite off Evander Holyfield's ear -- at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas!!!

From the Nevada State Athletic Commission's website, I give you NAC:  Chapter 467, governing Unarmed Combat in the state of Nevada (the chapter which addresses the authority the NSAC has over boxing and mixed-martial-arts), Section 476.885 (my apologies, the page on the site is a significant amount of text, 476.885 is about 80% or so down the page, the link is to that section):

    NAC 467.885  Grounds for disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)  The Commission may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline or take any combination of such actions against a licensee who has, in the judgment of the Commission:

     1.  Violated the laws of Nevada, except for minor traffic violations;

     2.  Violated any provision of this chapter;

     3.  Provided false or misleading information to the Commission or a representative of the Commission;

     4.  Failed or refused to comply with a valid order of a representative of the Commission;

     5.  Conducted himself or herself at any time or place in a manner which is deemed by the Commission to reflect discredit to unarmed combat;

     6.  Knowingly dealt or consorted with any person who:

     (a) Has been convicted of a felony;

     (b) Engages in illegal bookmaking;

     (c) Engages in any illegal gambling activity;

     (d) Is a reputed underworld character;

     (e) Is under suspension from any other Commission; or

     (f) Is engaged in any activity or practice that is detrimental to the best interests of unarmed combat; or

     7.  Had personal knowledge that an unarmed combatant suffered a serious injury during training for a contest or exhibition and failed or refused to inform the Commission about that serious injury.

     [Athletic Comm’n, § 152, eff. 4-25-78]—(NAC A 12-2-97; R083-00, 9-22-2000; R090-07, 12-4-2007)

You're going to tell me, Mr. Kizer, that Floyd Mayerweather Jr. is NOT subject to discipline under that section for his domestic violence CONVICTION under 476.885(1)?  This guy gets $32,000,000 plus the PPV portion and he goes to jail June 1st...

"Money" talks, bullshit walks.

I've seen two gigantic admissions that this pebble is turning into a snowball at frightening speed...

I've been in Las Vegas for about eight hours on vacation today and tonight.

In just those last eight hours:

-- CNN had an Sports Illustrated columnist about the "Ban College Football" article the author of "Friday Night Lights" wrote.

(CNN actually interviewed him on Saturday night.)

-- And an ESPN SportsCenter segment entitled "NFL Endangered?"

More and more, as the truth comes out, it is going to become clear that the sport is dirty, and that the players risk death on every hit they take.

Two stories which have to make you go "hmmm"...

First, as to no one's material surprise, "Money" defeated Cotto.  The surprise might've been that it went to a decision.  And, though everyone's reports on the fight said Cotto gave all, etc...

117-111, 117-111, 118-110

FOR THE CHALLENGER.

That NEVER HAPPENS.  I defy anybody to come up with a fight that the champion is left standing, did believably as well as he could, and loses (EDIT TO CORRECT) 9 rounds to 3, 9-3, 10-2.

-----

And a story no one is going to watch, but everyone should:

Yesterday or the day before, Junior Seau's family announced that they would allow the deceased ex-football player's brain be donated to research, probably for the history of concussions he is reported to have had.

So what do we hear today???

They're reconsidering, and hiring counsel for the question.

As much as I can understand if this were actually a "taking time to get a correct decision" situation, we are dealing with an NFL that, if this continues to get exposed, WILL DIE.

I don't trust this story any further than I can throw it!

Somebody finally gets that there is no "college" in "college football":

An article by the author of "Friday Night Lights" on WSJ.com:  (Hat tip to Drew Carey's Twitter)

Why College Football Should Be Banned

"That's because college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times.

Football only provides the thickest layer of distraction in an atmosphere in which colleges and universities these days are all about distraction, nursing an obsession with the social well-being of students as opposed to the obsession that they are there for the vital and single purpose of learning as much as they can to compete in the brutal realities of the global economy."

It took this long for someone to make the OBVIOUS statement that college football serves no academic purpose, and, at the major levels, only exists as an NFL feeder/minor league?

It is stupefying to me (but, at the same time, indicative of the societal hold football has on us) that it took this long for someone to state Captain Obvious, especially in the day and age that only 15 schools (and mostly, if not all, football powers) made money on their athletic programs last year.

And:

"According to the NCAA, 43% of the 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision lost money on their programs. "

That's 52 of the schools, if you lost count.

And then he brings the hammer home:

"This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are the medical dangers of football in general caused by head trauma over repetitive hits. There is the false concept of the football student-athlete that the NCAA endlessly tries to sell, when any major college player will tell you that the demands of the game, a year-round commitment, makes the student half of the equation secondary and superfluous. There are the scandals that have beset programs in the desperate pursuit of winning—the University of Southern California, Ohio State University, University of Miami and Penn State University among others."

I'll let his words here speak for themselves.

The Show Must Go On, Part IV: Floyd Mayerweather Jr. vs. Miguel Cotto, 5/5/12

Floyd Mayerweather Jr. basically appears to be a major-league pussy.

He basically spurns his one plausible rival because he's that certain Manny Pacquiao is on the juice.

The guy is going to jail after this fight for 90 days for domestic violence.  (And, from the article:  "has dodged significant jail time several times in domestic violence cases in Las Vegas and Michigan.")

And yet, not only is the state of Nevada allowing this fight to occur (when it has the ability, and I believe the OBLIGATION, to pull Mayerweather's license), this absolute dipshit is going to earn the highest ever purse for a boxer in the history of the sport.

$32,000,000 guaranteed, plus a cut of the pay-per-view.

This fight should not be taking place, nor any other with Mayerweather.

But he's basically about the only relevant boxer left on the planet, especially with the heavyweight division in utter shambles.  The fight with Pacquiao never happens -- both of them are getting in significant legal trouble, plus the aforementioned.

So this guy literally has a six-story "Home of the Champion" banner on the side of the MGM Grand in Vegas, and he's probably going to push $40,000,000 for this fight.

And it never should take place.  None of it.

And boxing is supposed to be regulated by the state.  YEAH RIGHT!!

RETRACTION: Seau did not appear in the Pats-Saints 2009 Contest

JT the Brick, on his Twitter, notes I'm probably not the only one who made what he believes to be a completely inappropriate charge:

Wow so many clueless producers and hosts trying to tie in the death of #JuniorSeau to the #Saints bounty gate story. What a sad reach!

 And, thanks to our friends at ProFootballReference.com, he turns out to be correct - hat tip to my friends.

Though the Patriots and Saints did play in 2009, Seau was inactive for that contest and did not play in the game.

So RETRACTION is in order.

The Show Must Go On, Part III: Today, we came two steps closer to the end of a national institution...

... the institution of the game of American football.

(However, if you read this post, please read the RETRACTION I put on the next post regarding something I had said which has been proven inaccurate.)

Today, two more steps were taken:  One which indicates the high cost of continuing the institution, and the other which indicates the utter and complete callousness of those in charge at the professional level.

As many people probably know by now, Junior Seau is dead today by a gunshot wound to the chest.  It is almost certain that bullet was self-inflicted.

Seau joins a growing list of people (Andre Waters, Dave Duerson, Chris Henry, and numerous others) whose deaths can be almost solely attributable to the game of football.  Seau was only 43.  He was my age.  Seau was only out of the league for two seasons, and he never, according to Wikipedia, formally retired.

And yet it is now clear that something happened which he, in no way, could accept.  And it appears to have ominous similarities to several other football players with only recent histories of violence before untimely death:  Those may recall that, about 18 months ago (seven months after his last game), Seau was arrested for an investigation of domestic violence against his girlfriend, and then probably attempted suicide then after taking his SUV off a cliff.

Anyone who is choosing to take a fair and reasoned examination of the costs of football has to take a look at the mounting number of lawsuits against football and the amount of (crocodile) tears that are being shed.  One has to take an open look, if there's a "moment of silence" before the games in the first week, just how many people we are actually having that moment of silence for.

Junior Seau was probably one of the most respected defensive players in the league -- certainly, one of it's highest profile players.  And, at 43, his brain basically orders him to exit.

This, on the same day that the NFLPA and Roger Goodell agree to and announce the action which should be the end of the fucking National Football League.

They announced such piddling penalties against only four players on the New Orleans Saints for Bounty-Gate that it is now obvious and apparent that the entire 2012 New Orleans Saints season MUST fall under The Show Must Go On.

The New Orleans Saints franchise should've been expelled from the National Football League (for at least one season) because of Bounty-Gate, and it is no less than, at the least, ironic, that on the day that Junior Seau probably kills himself due to repeated blows to the head:

• Johnathan Vilma, the recognized leader of the defense and admitted contributor to the bounty fund, is banned for an entire season.  He is only eligible for reinstatement after the Super Bowl.  Vilma has been given the NFL equivalent of a life ban -- banned for one season, and then he has to show cause that he should be allowed to return.
• Anthony Hargrove is suspended a half a season for admitting his role in targetting former quarterback Brett Favre in the infamous and tainted NFC title win.
• Will Smith, a defensive captain, suspended four games as a contributor and organizer of the bounty fund.
• Scott Fujita, as a contributor to the fund, got three game.

ALL FOUR SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE LEAGUE, NO APPEALS, FOREVER!!  THROW EM OUT!

But for Roger Goodell and the NFLPA to wash it's hands of this stain on organized culture (much less organized sport), and then, on the day that a player who played the Saints during this time blows his chest out, give such a piddling penalty that it makes one wonder where the motivations even lie here...

There should be 31 teams next year.   And, damned soon, there will be ZERO.  Anyone who is suing the National Football League for damages caused by the league's clear unwillingness to take real action for player safety needs only the information from the Bounty-Gate investigation (FIFTY THOUSAND PAGES of it!) and the complete limp-wristed approach of the league to literally get a BLANK CHECK from the courts.

The Saints should be bankrupted and disbanded, their assets sold off to pay for the lawsuits -- and that's just on players to which it could be tied.  There are literally HUNDREDS of these lawsuits, and the only way that I could see judges dismissing them is to basically treat the players the same way as the fans have been treated.  The fans have zero rights vis-a-vis the games they watch, which see Mayer vs. Belichick, Patriots, and National Football League.

The only way this league is continued, the only way organized football continues at this rate -- is to grant that the institution of football is beyond all sense of law.  With it's cultural reach, that's not a large stretch by which to see.

I'll have more on this later.