Deliberate collusion, refereeing shenanigans, and belittling all who propose the truth...
David $tern has what he set out to do -- he has his new super-team, as Miami only took two years to win the NBA Championship with the Collusion Three.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The WBO review is in....
And the five internationally-respected judges all scored the Pacquiao-Bradley farce for Pacquiao.
(Source: ESPN)
The WBO head announced that five world-title judges reviewed the fight and scored it for Pacquiao:
One had it about where most experts had it on the night of the fight: 118-110.
Two had it 117-111.
One had it 116-112, and the fifth had it 115-113. (I had the fight, upon viewing it, 116-113.)
So when is somebody with enough pedigree and political power going to challenge Keith Kizer and his ilk at the Nevada State Athletic Commission for what is clearly some funny business to make their boy, Floyd, the Pound-For-Pound?
(Source: ESPN)
The WBO head announced that five world-title judges reviewed the fight and scored it for Pacquiao:
One had it about where most experts had it on the night of the fight: 118-110.
Two had it 117-111.
One had it 116-112, and the fifth had it 115-113. (I had the fight, upon viewing it, 116-113.)
So when is somebody with enough pedigree and political power going to challenge Keith Kizer and his ilk at the Nevada State Athletic Commission for what is clearly some funny business to make their boy, Floyd, the Pound-For-Pound?
EURO 2012: Too much money in keeping England out, eh?
Watch this ESPN clip from YouTube and tell me that UEFA isn't rigging EURO 2012 for the big-money countries...
Second off, the whole of the ball over the whole of the line (0:41 of the clip). That would've made the match 1-1, but the goal itself would've made no difference.
With eliminated-Sweden's 2-0 upset over France, England still wins the group on five points, France defeating the Ukraine on head-to-head at four points in that scenario for second.
BUT: It still makes you wonder, as it falls under one of my concepts for rigging: Denial of the actual reality which took place in the event.
Second off, the whole of the ball over the whole of the line (0:41 of the clip). That would've made the match 1-1, but the goal itself would've made no difference.
With eliminated-Sweden's 2-0 upset over France, England still wins the group on five points, France defeating the Ukraine on head-to-head at four points in that scenario for second.
BUT: It still makes you wonder, as it falls under one of my concepts for rigging: Denial of the actual reality which took place in the event.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Miscellaneous stories, 6/14/12 AM (RETRACTION on baseball history point)
1) Germany's federation has been fined about 10,000 euros for their supporters throwing paper objects at Portugese players in their match. Portugal's federation has been fined 5,000 euros for their team being late for the second half of the same match. (ESPN)
2) More EURO 2012 trouble: A near-riot in Poznan, Poland, as Croatian fans taunted Italian fans before their match (which would end a 1-1 draw) today, burning an EU flag and parading far-right flags of their own, as well as other incidents, including flares and a blow-up sex doll wearing an Italian team shirt. (ESPN)
3) Yet MORE EURO 2012 trouble: Nicklas Bendtner celebrated his second goal against Portugal (in a 3-2 loss by his Denmark side to Portugal) by lowering his pants and exposing an ad for Paddy Power, a bookmaker!! That will certainly get him in trouble with UEFA, as it now appears that the entire affair surrounding his "advertisement" was pre-arranged with Paddy Power. I expect either a stiff fine or a probable suspension for Denmark's match with Germany, and possibly beyond. The Danish FA actually has a sponsorship deal with another bookmaker, so he could also be suspended or fined by the national association as well. (The Mirror, ESPN, and Yahoo!)
4) Floyd Mayerweather's appeal to ease his jail conditions has been denied. His lawyers believe his career may now be over. (Editorial comment: Good riddance.) (ESPN)
5) Joey Barton is back at it again. The soccer thug was apparently ejected from a nightclub in Liverpool, after which a fight broke out. It appears, at least to his story, that he was sucker-punched in the head. He was, yet again, arrested and bailed. No word on if he still has a job with Queens Park Rangers after almost deliberately getting the team relegated (and himself banned for 12 matches) for inciting an on-pitch riot in the Hollywood EPL finale with Manchester City. (The Telegraph)
6) In more evidence of the end of the Steroid Era and the continuance of the Absolute Dead Bat Era in Major League Baseball, we had a perfect game last night. Matt Cain pulled that off with a 10-0 win over the Houston Astros. It is the second perfect game and fifth no-hitter of the year. It is the third no-hitter within two weeks.
MY FRIENDS CAUGHT ME ON ONE EDIT: If the Commissioner's Office reverses the scoring decision, it will in fact be the SECOND time two no-hitters were thrown on the same day. The first? June 29, 1990 -- Dave Stewart of the A's and Fernando Valenzuela of the Dodgers both threw no-hitters. That's what I get for having baseball historians for friends. (Keep it up, by the way. :) )
The one hit did not even lead to the one run. The hit (in question) is a ground ball to third base with two out in the first inning by B. J. Upton. It clearly glanced off the bare hand of the third baseman for the Mets, but the scorer ruled it the one hit that the Rays got all night. It has been appealed.
I saw the play on MLB.com. It could really go either way -- it comes down to how fast Upton actually is and whether a cleanly-fielded ball could've beaten him.
7) And, in the continuing story of a quack who's gone to the dogs: Not only has a second Miss USA contestant come forward in stating that the pageant was rigged (this one claiming a pre-determined list of the 15 semifinalists was being circulated), but now sources are stating the Miss USA company will interrogate ALL of the contestants on such claims. (WebProNews and Fox News)
2) More EURO 2012 trouble: A near-riot in Poznan, Poland, as Croatian fans taunted Italian fans before their match (which would end a 1-1 draw) today, burning an EU flag and parading far-right flags of their own, as well as other incidents, including flares and a blow-up sex doll wearing an Italian team shirt. (ESPN)
3) Yet MORE EURO 2012 trouble: Nicklas Bendtner celebrated his second goal against Portugal (in a 3-2 loss by his Denmark side to Portugal) by lowering his pants and exposing an ad for Paddy Power, a bookmaker!! That will certainly get him in trouble with UEFA, as it now appears that the entire affair surrounding his "advertisement" was pre-arranged with Paddy Power. I expect either a stiff fine or a probable suspension for Denmark's match with Germany, and possibly beyond. The Danish FA actually has a sponsorship deal with another bookmaker, so he could also be suspended or fined by the national association as well. (The Mirror, ESPN, and Yahoo!)
4) Floyd Mayerweather's appeal to ease his jail conditions has been denied. His lawyers believe his career may now be over. (Editorial comment: Good riddance.) (ESPN)
5) Joey Barton is back at it again. The soccer thug was apparently ejected from a nightclub in Liverpool, after which a fight broke out. It appears, at least to his story, that he was sucker-punched in the head. He was, yet again, arrested and bailed. No word on if he still has a job with Queens Park Rangers after almost deliberately getting the team relegated (and himself banned for 12 matches) for inciting an on-pitch riot in the Hollywood EPL finale with Manchester City. (The Telegraph)
6) In more evidence of the end of the Steroid Era and the continuance of the Absolute Dead Bat Era in Major League Baseball, we had a perfect game last night. Matt Cain pulled that off with a 10-0 win over the Houston Astros. It is the second perfect game and fifth no-hitter of the year. It is the third no-hitter within two weeks.
MY FRIENDS CAUGHT ME ON ONE EDIT: If the Commissioner's Office reverses the scoring decision, it will in fact be the SECOND time two no-hitters were thrown on the same day. The first? June 29, 1990 -- Dave Stewart of the A's and Fernando Valenzuela of the Dodgers both threw no-hitters. That's what I get for having baseball historians for friends. (Keep it up, by the way. :) )
The one hit did not even lead to the one run. The hit (in question) is a ground ball to third base with two out in the first inning by B. J. Upton. It clearly glanced off the bare hand of the third baseman for the Mets, but the scorer ruled it the one hit that the Rays got all night. It has been appealed.
I saw the play on MLB.com. It could really go either way -- it comes down to how fast Upton actually is and whether a cleanly-fielded ball could've beaten him.
7) And, in the continuing story of a quack who's gone to the dogs: Not only has a second Miss USA contestant come forward in stating that the pageant was rigged (this one claiming a pre-determined list of the 15 semifinalists was being circulated), but now sources are stating the Miss USA company will interrogate ALL of the contestants on such claims. (WebProNews and Fox News)
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
So, Mr. $tern, have you stopped rigging NBA games and drafts?
Just going to post the transcript of the verbal altercation between Jim Rome and NBA Commissioner/Mafia Don David $tern from the article on Yahoo! Sports, with a few comments along the way:
--
"You know, New Orleans won the draft lottery, which, of course, produced the usual round of speculation that maybe the lottery was fixed," Rome said. "I know that you appreciate a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy — was the fix in for the lottery?"
"Uh, you know, I have two answers for that," Stern said. "I'll give you the easy one — no — and a statement: Shame on you for asking."
"You know, I understand why you would say that to me, and I wanted to preface it by saying it respectfully," Rome replied. "I think it's my job to ask, because I think people wonder."
"No, it's ridiculous," Stern answered. "But that's OK."
No, David. It is his job. With the reputation your league has, and the Tim Donaghy situation ALONE, there are people who DO wonder. I do, and I don't trust you any further than I can throw you.
"I know that you think it's ridiculous, but I don't think the question is ridiculous, because I know people think that," Rome said. "I'm not saying that I do, but I think it's my job to ask you that."
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Stern asked.
"Yeah, I don't know if that's fair," Rome responded. "I don't know that that's fair."
"Well, why's that?" Stern asked.
"Because I think that there are — and I know you read your emails and I'm sure you follow things virally on Twitter — people really do think it, whether it's fair or not," Rome said. "You don't think the question's fair to ask if your fans think it?"
"People think it because people like you ask silly questions," Stern said. "I expect it to be written about — and actually, I commented last night in my presser that there was one guy who I won't dignify by naming who says, 'I have no reason to know anything, and I don't know anything, but I tell you, I believe it's fixed.' OK, that's good. Why is that? 'Well, because this team won.' And if that team won, it would've been fixed also, and if that team won, it would've been fixed also. And if every team was invited to have a representative there, and there were four members of the media there, and if Ernst and Young certified it, would you still think it? 'Yes.' So, I guess ..."
Ernst and Young would be a red flag to me, because I've had personal dealings with them which make them very untrustworthy in my eyes. So I don't trust that company to begin with.
But is the process even publicly shown anymore, or the results simply announced?
"I think two things, which responds to this," Rome interjected. "Number one, I don't think so. I don't think so — and I'm not covering myself — I don't think so, and I think by asking the question, it would not suggest I think so. But the one thing I would say: The league does own the team, does it not?"
"... Yes," Stern said, a question mark at the end of his sentence.
"Does that not make the question fair?" Rome asked.
"I don't think so," Stern said. "Number one, we sold it. We're gonna close this week. We already have established our price. I think that if it had gone to Michael Jordan, which was the next team up with, in terms of a high percentage, they would've said, 'Oh, David's taking care of his friend Michael.' And if it had gone to Brooklyn, which is going into Barclay Center, it would have been fair to speculate, I suppose, that we want to take Brooklyn off of the mat. So there was no winning. And people write about it, and it's OK to write about it, and we sort of expect it, but that's not a question that I've been asked before by a respectable journalist."
Ridiculous, David. It would be the case in any such situation, especially after the Patrick Ewing debacle where you all but rigged a Draft Lottery with the cameras rolling!
And yes, I exactly charge that you're "taking care of your friend Michael" with the #2 pick -- maybe not the guy everyone is after, but...
"I think I understand why you're frustrated by that; I think that I understand why that would upset you," Rome said. "I would hope that you would not hold that against me."
"I wouldn't hold it against you — you know, you and I have been into more contentious discussions than that," Stern said.
"I don't know, I'd put that one right up there," Rome replied.
"Well, you know, it's good copy, and you do things sometimes for cheap thrills," Stern said.
"I did not do that for a cheap thrill," Rome answered.
"Well, that's what it sounds like," Stern said.
"No, not at all," Rome answered. "See, that's where you and I — that's our point of disconnect. That was not a cheap thrill and I was not throwing anything against the wall, and I was trying to be as respectful as possible. I'm just saying that people wonder about that. And here's what I don't want to do — I don't want to say, 'Hey commissioner, people would say ...' Because I'm going to ask a direct question. But people do wonder. But that was not a cheap thrill. I got no thrill out of that."
Mr. Stern, if your league was even remotely credible in it's dealings, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. We wouldn't!!
"Well, it's a cheap trick," Stern said.
"No, flopping is a cheap trick," Rome said.
"Well, no. But listen, you've been successful at making a career out of it, and I keep coming on, so ..." Stern said.
"Making a career out of what, though, commissioner?" Rome interrupted. "See, I take great offense to that. Making a career of what? Cheap thrills?"
"What offense are you taking? You're taking offense?" Stern asked.
"I am. Now I am," Rome answered. "If you're saying I've made a career out of cheap thrills ..."
"... taking on the world, and now Jim Rome is pouting? I love it," Stern said.
"I'm not pouting; I take offense," Rome said. "There's a difference between pouting and taking offense. I take offense like you took offense to the question. What if I said — were you pouting when I asked the question?"
Unfortunately, here, Mr. Stern is correct. Jim Rome HAS made a career out of cheap thrills, in his content and in his callers. So Stern is correct to call Rome on it, even if how we got here shows how smarmy he is.
I mean, give Stern credit: He's a lawyer and a smarmy motherfucker who knows the game, probably is in bed with a lot of people you don't want to know about, and he knows his way around and is not afraid to throw his weight around when he has to.
"What offenses? Do you want to hang up on me?" Stern asked.
"No, I can't hang up on you, because I'm running out of time — I would never hang up on you," Rome said.
"OK," Stern said. "Listen, I've got to go call somebody important, like Stephen A. Smith, right now. He's up next."
"All right, you go make that call, and I'll go talk to somebody else, too, I guess," Rome said.
"All right," Stern said.
"All right, commissioner. Have a nice day," Rome said. "I did not hang up on him — we are officially out of time. We will come back and reset that momentarily. Stay tuned."
Unfortunately, another successful deflection by the Teflon Don of the NBA, David Stern.
--
"You know, New Orleans won the draft lottery, which, of course, produced the usual round of speculation that maybe the lottery was fixed," Rome said. "I know that you appreciate a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy — was the fix in for the lottery?"
"Uh, you know, I have two answers for that," Stern said. "I'll give you the easy one — no — and a statement: Shame on you for asking."
"You know, I understand why you would say that to me, and I wanted to preface it by saying it respectfully," Rome replied. "I think it's my job to ask, because I think people wonder."
"No, it's ridiculous," Stern answered. "But that's OK."
No, David. It is his job. With the reputation your league has, and the Tim Donaghy situation ALONE, there are people who DO wonder. I do, and I don't trust you any further than I can throw you.
"I know that you think it's ridiculous, but I don't think the question is ridiculous, because I know people think that," Rome said. "I'm not saying that I do, but I think it's my job to ask you that."
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Stern asked.
"Yeah, I don't know if that's fair," Rome responded. "I don't know that that's fair."
"Well, why's that?" Stern asked.
"Because I think that there are — and I know you read your emails and I'm sure you follow things virally on Twitter — people really do think it, whether it's fair or not," Rome said. "You don't think the question's fair to ask if your fans think it?"
"People think it because people like you ask silly questions," Stern said. "I expect it to be written about — and actually, I commented last night in my presser that there was one guy who I won't dignify by naming who says, 'I have no reason to know anything, and I don't know anything, but I tell you, I believe it's fixed.' OK, that's good. Why is that? 'Well, because this team won.' And if that team won, it would've been fixed also, and if that team won, it would've been fixed also. And if every team was invited to have a representative there, and there were four members of the media there, and if Ernst and Young certified it, would you still think it? 'Yes.' So, I guess ..."
Ernst and Young would be a red flag to me, because I've had personal dealings with them which make them very untrustworthy in my eyes. So I don't trust that company to begin with.
But is the process even publicly shown anymore, or the results simply announced?
"I think two things, which responds to this," Rome interjected. "Number one, I don't think so. I don't think so — and I'm not covering myself — I don't think so, and I think by asking the question, it would not suggest I think so. But the one thing I would say: The league does own the team, does it not?"
"... Yes," Stern said, a question mark at the end of his sentence.
"Does that not make the question fair?" Rome asked.
"I don't think so," Stern said. "Number one, we sold it. We're gonna close this week. We already have established our price. I think that if it had gone to Michael Jordan, which was the next team up with, in terms of a high percentage, they would've said, 'Oh, David's taking care of his friend Michael.' And if it had gone to Brooklyn, which is going into Barclay Center, it would have been fair to speculate, I suppose, that we want to take Brooklyn off of the mat. So there was no winning. And people write about it, and it's OK to write about it, and we sort of expect it, but that's not a question that I've been asked before by a respectable journalist."
Ridiculous, David. It would be the case in any such situation, especially after the Patrick Ewing debacle where you all but rigged a Draft Lottery with the cameras rolling!
And yes, I exactly charge that you're "taking care of your friend Michael" with the #2 pick -- maybe not the guy everyone is after, but...
"I think I understand why you're frustrated by that; I think that I understand why that would upset you," Rome said. "I would hope that you would not hold that against me."
"I wouldn't hold it against you — you know, you and I have been into more contentious discussions than that," Stern said.
"I don't know, I'd put that one right up there," Rome replied.
"Well, you know, it's good copy, and you do things sometimes for cheap thrills," Stern said.
"I did not do that for a cheap thrill," Rome answered.
"Well, that's what it sounds like," Stern said.
"No, not at all," Rome answered. "See, that's where you and I — that's our point of disconnect. That was not a cheap thrill and I was not throwing anything against the wall, and I was trying to be as respectful as possible. I'm just saying that people wonder about that. And here's what I don't want to do — I don't want to say, 'Hey commissioner, people would say ...' Because I'm going to ask a direct question. But people do wonder. But that was not a cheap thrill. I got no thrill out of that."
Mr. Stern, if your league was even remotely credible in it's dealings, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. We wouldn't!!
"Well, it's a cheap trick," Stern said.
"No, flopping is a cheap trick," Rome said.
"Well, no. But listen, you've been successful at making a career out of it, and I keep coming on, so ..." Stern said.
"Making a career out of what, though, commissioner?" Rome interrupted. "See, I take great offense to that. Making a career of what? Cheap thrills?"
"What offense are you taking? You're taking offense?" Stern asked.
"I am. Now I am," Rome answered. "If you're saying I've made a career out of cheap thrills ..."
"... taking on the world, and now Jim Rome is pouting? I love it," Stern said.
"I'm not pouting; I take offense," Rome said. "There's a difference between pouting and taking offense. I take offense like you took offense to the question. What if I said — were you pouting when I asked the question?"
Unfortunately, here, Mr. Stern is correct. Jim Rome HAS made a career out of cheap thrills, in his content and in his callers. So Stern is correct to call Rome on it, even if how we got here shows how smarmy he is.
I mean, give Stern credit: He's a lawyer and a smarmy motherfucker who knows the game, probably is in bed with a lot of people you don't want to know about, and he knows his way around and is not afraid to throw his weight around when he has to.
"What offenses? Do you want to hang up on me?" Stern asked.
"No, I can't hang up on you, because I'm running out of time — I would never hang up on you," Rome said.
"OK," Stern said. "Listen, I've got to go call somebody important, like Stephen A. Smith, right now. He's up next."
"All right, you go make that call, and I'll go talk to somebody else, too, I guess," Rome said.
"All right," Stern said.
"All right, commissioner. Have a nice day," Rome said. "I did not hang up on him — we are officially out of time. We will come back and reset that momentarily. Stay tuned."
Unfortunately, another successful deflection by the Teflon Don of the NBA, David Stern.
EURO 2012: In addition to Russia, add the following further incidents...
This tournament is absolutely going over the edge!
Two other first-round matches are also going under investigation by the disciplinary committee:
Two other first-round matches are also going under investigation by the disciplinary committee:
- Both Germany and Portugal are being made to answer for incidents in their first-round match. German supporters were charged with throwing objects at people on the pitch, and Portugal's team is charged with delaying the start of the second half. That meeting is scheduled for tomorrow.
- Friday, Croatia is being called on the carpet for objects being thrown, a spectator pitch invasion, and fireworks being fired in the stands.
Miscellaneous and Follow-Ups: 6/13/12 PM
I get up and it seems to be coming faster and more furious:
- The Sandusky trial is moving quickly. Today's testimony included a Bob Costas interview with Sandusky. Prosecution is said to be wrapping up their case this week. I've got a bad feeling about that. (Source: Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports) REAL BAD...
- David $tern can't handle the truth, as he verbally attacked Jim Rome today with the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" card when he was asked about the (rigged) 2012 NBA Lottery for the NBA-owned New Orleans Hornets (to be sold to Bounty-Gate's Tom Benson, probably this week!) to get the #1 pick and the biggest potential talent many people think the NBA has seen in years. A transcript of the entire exchange is on the bottom of the article, and may well get a post in and of itself.
- Pacquiao-Bradley: The WBO is going to review the fight, about the way that I proposed to Brian Tuohy after his interview in Las Vegas Sunday night. Brian asked what proof could be found of a situation (never mind the rather blatant and obvious leading toward a rematch), to which I said that they could basically review the fight with other judges and apply the standard known scoring mechanisms (which could be very interesting in this fight, given the lack of real damaging shots) -- and this is, apparently, what the WBO will do. Five internationally-recognized judges will review after the Nevada State Athletic Commission (IMHO protecting their boy, "Money", just as they did May 5) turned their backs on looking at the decision. I get the sense that any monkey-business can be laid on the desk of Keith Kizer and chairman Skip Avansino.
- EURO 2012: The Russian soccer federation has been fined $150,000 for incidents after their first match, and charged further with incidents during their second match. They've also been threatened with a points deduction, though it is unclear whether that would apply to this tournament or to qualifying for EURO 2016 -- another incident (past the one in the second match) will cost the team the equivalent of two wins. The Polish federation has also been charged with a fireworks incident in the stadium itself.
- And none of these are probably even the biggest story of the day... Lance Armstrong is finally being formally charged by United States Anti-Doping Association with what the letter to him refers to as "a massive doping conspiracy from 1998 to 2011, and that “the witnesses to the conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists . . .”, according to The Washington Post. If proven, he loses his seven Tour de France titles. (Small editorial: When are people going to get it that the entire Tour de France is dirty and needs to be scrapped?)
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
And EURO 2012 finally blows up: Hundreds riot in Poland-Russia hooliganism
Knew it was coming, and it didn't disappoint. (Video clip and article on Yahoo! Sports. Video clip probably NSF children.)
I think UEFA has finally thrown in the towel on Poland, as it says that an incident before today's Poland-Russia match in which police had to use tear-gas to quell hundreds of hooligans on both sides of the equation creating an ugly scene near the match.
UEFA and FIFA have vowed to investigate, and it's now becoming clear that the tournament, with several purported racist incidents plus this, is teetering, at best.
I mean, what can UEFA really do? If you toss Russia, you have to toss Poland, and the latter is one of the hosts. And probably, given what we've heard, probably the SANER one...
I think UEFA has finally thrown in the towel on Poland, as it says that an incident before today's Poland-Russia match in which police had to use tear-gas to quell hundreds of hooligans on both sides of the equation creating an ugly scene near the match.
UEFA and FIFA have vowed to investigate, and it's now becoming clear that the tournament, with several purported racist incidents plus this, is teetering, at best.
I mean, what can UEFA really do? If you toss Russia, you have to toss Poland, and the latter is one of the hosts. And probably, given what we've heard, probably the SANER one...
Several miscellaneous stories
1) Floyd Mayerweather's solitary-confinement status may end his career, say his lawyers. (From ESPN)
To wit I say: Good. My understanding is that this is not the first time he got caught in violence against his significant other (Michigan, I believe, also has had several incidents record, with none charged.)
I have ZERO PATIENCE for Floyd Mayerweather Jr., especially after the fiasco judging in both his fight with Cotto and Pacquiao's fight with Bradley last weekend. I truly believe, though, that the motion to get him put in GP (are you really sure you want that high-profile a Black prisoner in General Population in any jail at all? I know he's Floyd Mayerweather and can handle himself, but his opponents won't fight bare-knuckled inside -- I know from experience.) will be approved, especially because it's now clear that Mr. Kizer and the Nevada State Athletic Commission are protecting their boy.
Let me make this clear: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY.
You don't. So let's just stop the insanity otherwise. Mayerweather is a thug, and if this is the best boxing has to offer us, it's no wonder Dana White is doing so well.
2) More racism claims in more matches, even as the tournament director openly lies and said:
"Nobody made any comments to us regarding racism -- no players, no teams, no fans," tournament director Markiyan Lubkivskyi said at a briefing in Kiev.
(From ESPN)
About 200 fans were noted as sending "monkey" chants at Mario Balotelli (who has made himself the centerpiece of such claims, as he said he would walk off the pitch if he heard them -- so he obviously did not hear them in this case) during Spain's draw with Italy in round 1.
This, in addition to the claims that a Czech player was abused by Russian fans in the Czech Republic's first match.
3) Rangers Football Club, one of only two relevant clubs in the Scottish Premier League, appears headed for liquidation after years of malfeasance.
(From the BBC)
This, in my own opinion, probably ends the Scottish Premier League. You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/etc. that the TV deals will be immediately renegotiated on demand. A one-team league won't survive in this day and age.
IMHO, one season, maybe two, before a merger of some kind is proposed between the Scottish FA and the English FA to save Scottish soccer.
4) As I was looking for articles on the effects of Rangers effectively being folded on the SPL, I came across this little ditty from Yahoo! Sport UK and Ireland:
Nine players from a Bulgarian team have been sacked for, and the national association has been asked to investigate, charges of match-fixing in a junior-league match.
In addition, the match was abandoned after three men, at least one armed, stormed the pitch and attacked the referee, a linesman, and one of the coaches.
Another day in the office, sadly...
To wit I say: Good. My understanding is that this is not the first time he got caught in violence against his significant other (Michigan, I believe, also has had several incidents record, with none charged.)
I have ZERO PATIENCE for Floyd Mayerweather Jr., especially after the fiasco judging in both his fight with Cotto and Pacquiao's fight with Bradley last weekend. I truly believe, though, that the motion to get him put in GP (are you really sure you want that high-profile a Black prisoner in General Population in any jail at all? I know he's Floyd Mayerweather and can handle himself, but his opponents won't fight bare-knuckled inside -- I know from experience.) will be approved, especially because it's now clear that Mr. Kizer and the Nevada State Athletic Commission are protecting their boy.
Let me make this clear: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY.
You don't. So let's just stop the insanity otherwise. Mayerweather is a thug, and if this is the best boxing has to offer us, it's no wonder Dana White is doing so well.
2) More racism claims in more matches, even as the tournament director openly lies and said:
"Nobody made any comments to us regarding racism -- no players, no teams, no fans," tournament director Markiyan Lubkivskyi said at a briefing in Kiev.
(From ESPN)
About 200 fans were noted as sending "monkey" chants at Mario Balotelli (who has made himself the centerpiece of such claims, as he said he would walk off the pitch if he heard them -- so he obviously did not hear them in this case) during Spain's draw with Italy in round 1.
This, in addition to the claims that a Czech player was abused by Russian fans in the Czech Republic's first match.
3) Rangers Football Club, one of only two relevant clubs in the Scottish Premier League, appears headed for liquidation after years of malfeasance.
(From the BBC)
This, in my own opinion, probably ends the Scottish Premier League. You can bet your bottom dollar/pound/etc. that the TV deals will be immediately renegotiated on demand. A one-team league won't survive in this day and age.
IMHO, one season, maybe two, before a merger of some kind is proposed between the Scottish FA and the English FA to save Scottish soccer.
4) As I was looking for articles on the effects of Rangers effectively being folded on the SPL, I came across this little ditty from Yahoo! Sport UK and Ireland:
Nine players from a Bulgarian team have been sacked for, and the national association has been asked to investigate, charges of match-fixing in a junior-league match.
In addition, the match was abandoned after three men, at least one armed, stormed the pitch and attacked the referee, a linesman, and one of the coaches.
Another day in the office, sadly...
Monday, June 11, 2012
So, Arum, not only fake tickets, but a poster for the second fight...
ELEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST ONE???
(If you go to his full page, you see that Tweet was posted May 29.)
That's Bradley's Twitter account, by the by. If you read most of the rest of it, it's obvious the ENTIRE PLAN was there to be TWO FIGHTS. This means they had to screw Pacquiao (and boxing) over.
Still want to believe? REALLY??
(If you go to his full page, you see that Tweet was posted May 29.)
That's Bradley's Twitter account, by the by. If you read most of the rest of it, it's obvious the ENTIRE PLAN was there to be TWO FIGHTS. This means they had to screw Pacquiao (and boxing) over.
Still want to believe? REALLY??
Ho ho ho... So Keith Kizer is the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the NSAC...
Don't think I forgot your little missive, Mr. Kizer.
And now you tell people the judges won't be sanctioned for that farce Saturday night?
Yep, protecting your boy very well, I see.
And now you tell people the judges won't be sanctioned for that farce Saturday night?
Yep, protecting your boy very well, I see.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Just about to listen to Brian Tuohy on a Vegas radio station, but wow...
200+ views between my three posts on Pacquiao-Bradley.
And now the real fun begins. Bob Arum no longer wants a rematch. He wants a Nevada investigation instead!
I admire his guts to stand up to the criticism. But then I listen to the words of judge Duane Ford, who spoke with Yahoo! Sports on the decision (and his reasoning to give the fight to Bradley 115-113):
"If this were American Idol, without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said. "But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.
"In the second half of the fight, Pacquiao picked off a lot of punches to the head, but Bradley landed some hard body shots. That hurt Pacquiao. I don't mean it hurt him in the sense of it physically hurting him, but in terms of scoring and piling up points. Bradley did an excellent job standing his ground as a boxer. Remember, it's a boxing match and Bradley demonstrated his ability to box expertly."
OK, except for one problem: HOW DOES PACQUIAO WIN THREE ROUNDS IN THE ENTIRE FIGHT AT THAT POINT?
Go back to my scorecard below. I openly admit, in giving the fight to Pacquaio seven rounds to four (9th round even) that six of the seven rounds were given on simple ring generalship. Pacquiao controlled the ring for the better of the round and took those body shots.
If you want to give that justification, then please explain to me how you had Pacquiao up 58-56, because not only would, under your view as stated in your interview, Mr. Ford, I couldn't give 4 of the first 6 rounds to Pacquiao (though I did, because of ring generalship in rounds 3-6!), I couldn't give Pacquiao 3 rounds in the entire fight. He gets the 4th round and maybe one more (the 3rd?), but that's it!
With that justification, I'd have the fight 118-110 for BRADLEY!
No. Just... no.
And now the real fun begins. Bob Arum no longer wants a rematch. He wants a Nevada investigation instead!
I admire his guts to stand up to the criticism. But then I listen to the words of judge Duane Ford, who spoke with Yahoo! Sports on the decision (and his reasoning to give the fight to Bradley 115-113):
"If this were American Idol, without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said. "But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.
"In the second half of the fight, Pacquiao picked off a lot of punches to the head, but Bradley landed some hard body shots. That hurt Pacquiao. I don't mean it hurt him in the sense of it physically hurting him, but in terms of scoring and piling up points. Bradley did an excellent job standing his ground as a boxer. Remember, it's a boxing match and Bradley demonstrated his ability to box expertly."
OK, except for one problem: HOW DOES PACQUIAO WIN THREE ROUNDS IN THE ENTIRE FIGHT AT THAT POINT?
Go back to my scorecard below. I openly admit, in giving the fight to Pacquaio seven rounds to four (9th round even) that six of the seven rounds were given on simple ring generalship. Pacquiao controlled the ring for the better of the round and took those body shots.
If you want to give that justification, then please explain to me how you had Pacquiao up 58-56, because not only would, under your view as stated in your interview, Mr. Ford, I couldn't give 4 of the first 6 rounds to Pacquiao (though I did, because of ring generalship in rounds 3-6!), I couldn't give Pacquiao 3 rounds in the entire fight. He gets the 4th round and maybe one more (the 3rd?), but that's it!
With that justification, I'd have the fight 118-110 for BRADLEY!
No. Just... no.
Pacquiao-Bradley, the official scorecards
From The Philippine Star's Sports Hub, an article which highlights the official scorecards (with a photo of them) for the fight. (They scored the 116-112, giving Pacquiao eight of the first nine rounds and Bradley the last three.)
You can follow along with my post below:
Round 1: Roth and Ross for Pacquiao, Ford for Bradley.
Round 2: The complete opposite. Roth and Ross for Bradley, Ford for Pacquiao. I gave both of the first two rounds to Bradley.
Rounds 3 and 4: All three judges to Pacquiao. All three judges have the fight 39-37 Pacquiao.
Round 5: Roth scores it for Pacquiao for 49-46. Ross and Ford score the round for Bradley for 48-47. Not exactly sure what Ross and Ford saw in Round 5 to give it to Bradley, as it appeared as if Pacquiao was cornering Bradley a lot better in this round.
Round 6: All three judges to Pacquiao. Roth has the fight 59-55. Ross and Ford have the fight 58-56.
Round 7: All three judges for Bradley. Roth is now at 68-65, Ross and Ford at 67-66. I also gave this round to Bradley. At this point, I had the fight 67-66, as Ross and Ford had it.
Round 8 : Same as round 5. Roth for Pacquiao for 78-74, Ross and Ford for Bradley , fight now even at 76-76. Can someone tell me a meaningful punch landed anywhere other than Pacquiao's arms by Bradley in round 8? And nothing for ring generalship? Hell, if the judges want to go that far, it's hard to see how, on punches alone, Pacquiao won two rounds!!
Round 9: Roth and Ross for Pacquiao. Roth now has the fight 88-83, Ross 86-85. Ford calls the round for Bradley to give him an 86-85 advantage.
Round 10: All three judges for Bradley! Nothing for ring generalship? Roth: 97-93 Pacquiao. Ross 95-95 even. Ford 96-94 Bradley. Fight's a draw at this point.
Round 11: Roth and Ross for Bradley, Ford for Pacquiao! 106-103 Pacquiao, 105-104 on two cards for Bradley.
Round 12: Bradley wins all three cards for the final margin.
Pacquiao only wins one round on each judge's scorecard after the eighth! He wins the ninth round on Roth's card and on Ross', and the eleventh on Ford's. They basically had Bradley winning the last four rounds 3 rounds to 1.
I'd really like to know what fight you were watching at that point, judges!
Please... Tell me... What fight were you watching? You gave nothing for ring generalship. Frankly, without ring generalship, it's a rout for Bradley! If we're going to benefit the "busier fighter" (even if almost everything landed on arms), then Bradley should've won this fight somewhere of the order of 118-110!!
You can follow along with my post below:
Round 1: Roth and Ross for Pacquiao, Ford for Bradley.
Round 2: The complete opposite. Roth and Ross for Bradley, Ford for Pacquiao. I gave both of the first two rounds to Bradley.
Rounds 3 and 4: All three judges to Pacquiao. All three judges have the fight 39-37 Pacquiao.
Round 5: Roth scores it for Pacquiao for 49-46. Ross and Ford score the round for Bradley for 48-47. Not exactly sure what Ross and Ford saw in Round 5 to give it to Bradley, as it appeared as if Pacquiao was cornering Bradley a lot better in this round.
Round 6: All three judges to Pacquiao. Roth has the fight 59-55. Ross and Ford have the fight 58-56.
Round 7: All three judges for Bradley. Roth is now at 68-65, Ross and Ford at 67-66. I also gave this round to Bradley. At this point, I had the fight 67-66, as Ross and Ford had it.
Round 8 : Same as round 5. Roth for Pacquiao for 78-74, Ross and Ford for Bradley , fight now even at 76-76. Can someone tell me a meaningful punch landed anywhere other than Pacquiao's arms by Bradley in round 8? And nothing for ring generalship? Hell, if the judges want to go that far, it's hard to see how, on punches alone, Pacquiao won two rounds!!
Round 9: Roth and Ross for Pacquiao. Roth now has the fight 88-83, Ross 86-85. Ford calls the round for Bradley to give him an 86-85 advantage.
Round 10: All three judges for Bradley! Nothing for ring generalship? Roth: 97-93 Pacquiao. Ross 95-95 even. Ford 96-94 Bradley. Fight's a draw at this point.
Round 11: Roth and Ross for Bradley, Ford for Pacquiao! 106-103 Pacquiao, 105-104 on two cards for Bradley.
Round 12: Bradley wins all three cards for the final margin.
Pacquiao only wins one round on each judge's scorecard after the eighth! He wins the ninth round on Roth's card and on Ross', and the eleventh on Ford's. They basically had Bradley winning the last four rounds 3 rounds to 1.
I'd really like to know what fight you were watching at that point, judges!
Please... Tell me... What fight were you watching? You gave nothing for ring generalship. Frankly, without ring generalship, it's a rout for Bradley! If we're going to benefit the "busier fighter" (even if almost everything landed on arms), then Bradley should've won this fight somewhere of the order of 118-110!!
OK, saw the Pacquiao-Bradley fight. A lot closer than a lot of people thought, IMHO, but still a fraud.
Helps to have some friends around, and was able to find the ability to watch the fight with one of them. So, after seeing the decision, I decided to watch the fight and judge for myself.
Round 1: Pacquiao came on late in the round, but Bradley more active with the jab in an action-packed round 1. 10-9 Bradley, for winning more of the round.
Round 2: Looked like Bradley hit Pacquiao with a number of rabbit and kidney punches in the clinch early on in the round. Pacquiao hit harder, Bradley did more. I'll give that round to Bradley as well. 20-18.
Can't see how Lederman gave Pacquiao both of the first two rounds. Bradley was busier and controlled the pace more. The ESPN card that had it 11-1 gave Bradley only round 1.
Round 3: Bradley continues busier in round 3. Pacquiao unwilling to respond. Couple of hard shots by Pacquiao in the middle minute. It's clear what the judges will say here -- those pawing jabs accomplished more in more rounds than anything Pacquiao did. But STILL... Pacquiao did the same thing to Bradley about 30 seconds to go in Round 3 that Bradley did to him in round 2. Hard shot right at the end of the round. Round to Pacquiao, 29-28 Bradley on my card.
Round 4: It's almost as if Bradley knew what the judges came to see, a bunch of pawing jabs that don't accomplish anything. Several warnings from the ref in the first half for his head and for low blows against Bradley. Nothing much for the first two minutes of the round. Pacquiao finally able to back up Bradley with a sustained flurry in the last 40 seconds of the round. Pacquiao's best part of the fight so far. 10-9 Pacquiao. 38-38 after 4.
It's clear by this point that Bradley wants his jabbing to force Pacquiao to move and test those legs and win the rounds through looking busier, even if he really isn't!
Round 5: Much like most of round 4, much ado about nothing, except that it now appears that Pacquiao can corner Bradley a lot easier than he did in the first four rounds. On "ring generalship", about the same reason I gave Bradley round 2, I give Pacquiao round 5. Bradley's got to accomplish something with those jabs, or he's going to lose favor. 10-9 Pacquiao. 48-47 Pacquiao after 5.
Round 6: Pacquiao is attacking in spurts and counter-attacking. Pacquiao corners Bradley and is able to general him around the ring. Huge uppercut about 15 seconds left in the round. 10-9 Pacquiao. 58-56 Pacquiao after 6.
Round 7: More of the Bradley jabs which really don't appear to be doing that much in actuality, but look good in the eyes of three judges who are obviously thinking he's busier. Bradley able to reassert himself in the first half of this round. A Pacquiao flurry is answered with a Bradley flurry. Big punches near the end by Pacquiao stopped by the ref for a warning to Pacquiao. Bradley reasserted what he did right in rounds 1 and 2, so he gets round 7 here. 10-9 Bradley. 67-66 Pacquiao after 7.
Round 8: HBO announcers, at this point, saying 67-66 either way, depending on how you scored round 6. Pacquiao now actually busier in the first minute of the round, like Bradley was most of the fight. Several decent shots by Pacquiao mid-round. And now Pacquiao general-ing Bradley around the ring a bit. Fight slows a bit here. Most everything by Bradley on the arms, Pacquiao's round. 10-9 Pacquiao. 77-75 after 8.
Round 9: Bradley loses his balance and nearly pays for it 50 seconds in. A great bit of power shots for Pacquiao halted by a warning for both fighters leading with their heads, which the announcers felt Bradley was doing all night. Couple of scoring blows by Bradley later on. It was a good round, and both fighters got good shots in. I'll actually (and a lot of judges don't like to) call that round EVEN. 87-85 Pacquiao after 9.
Round 10: Pacquiao able to stay in there a bit more in the face of what Bradley is able to do. Pacquiao getting roughed up with Bradley leading with his head. Not much ado with this round. Another round that it's hard to tell. Round to Bradley. 96-95.
Round 11: "Good solid work", the announcer says. It's a good even fight at this point. Pacquiao has another "generalship" round, and it really sounds as if HBO is pimping Bradley hardcore. Pacquiao on generalship, but I really wonder if HBO had a part to play in all this. 106-104.
Round 12: The big problem with giving Bradley a number of these rounds is, once he stops throwing that jab with any frequency, Pacquiao is leading him around the ring like a dog on a leash. He knows Bradley can't hurt him, so he's able to be in there and do what he needs to do. Pacquiao is winning several of his rounds by what is called "ring generalship", and this 12th round is a great example of it. Who has the offensive posture? Who looks like they're coming forward and who's going back for the most of the round? To me, Pacquiao is controlling the pace more, and, absent a HUGE shot, he gets the round.
116-113, seven rounds to four with one even.
116-114 for Pacquiao I can see. But still, 116-114 for Bradley probably has him winning round 9 and one of the rounds I gave Pacquiao for ring generalship.
And on what basis? Did Timothy Bradley land ONE SOLID PUNCH that hurt Pacquiao the entire fight???
No.
The four rounds I had for Bradley were the first (on just being busier), the second (ditto), the seventh (for reasserting himself), and the tenth (for Pacquiao giving it away).
The seven rounds I had for Pacquiao were the third (for finally being able to control the ring), the fourth (for some of his best shots of the fight), the fifth, sixth, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth (all on ring generalship).
He certainly didn't win the fight in Pacquiao style, but it still really did appear as if he won the fight.
I do note one thing of very strong concern here: It really does appear as if HBO is playing Bradley up very seriously over the latter portion of the fight. It really does appear as if HBO believes in Bradley and believes that he should win the fight. The announcers spend what I believe is an inordinate amount of time actually playing up to Bradley and supporting him, even though it's clear he's, at best, in a close fight.
So would I go so far as to say HBO is part of this? You bet.
Round 1: Pacquiao came on late in the round, but Bradley more active with the jab in an action-packed round 1. 10-9 Bradley, for winning more of the round.
Round 2: Looked like Bradley hit Pacquiao with a number of rabbit and kidney punches in the clinch early on in the round. Pacquiao hit harder, Bradley did more. I'll give that round to Bradley as well. 20-18.
Can't see how Lederman gave Pacquiao both of the first two rounds. Bradley was busier and controlled the pace more. The ESPN card that had it 11-1 gave Bradley only round 1.
Round 3: Bradley continues busier in round 3. Pacquiao unwilling to respond. Couple of hard shots by Pacquiao in the middle minute. It's clear what the judges will say here -- those pawing jabs accomplished more in more rounds than anything Pacquiao did. But STILL... Pacquiao did the same thing to Bradley about 30 seconds to go in Round 3 that Bradley did to him in round 2. Hard shot right at the end of the round. Round to Pacquiao, 29-28 Bradley on my card.
Round 4: It's almost as if Bradley knew what the judges came to see, a bunch of pawing jabs that don't accomplish anything. Several warnings from the ref in the first half for his head and for low blows against Bradley. Nothing much for the first two minutes of the round. Pacquiao finally able to back up Bradley with a sustained flurry in the last 40 seconds of the round. Pacquiao's best part of the fight so far. 10-9 Pacquiao. 38-38 after 4.
It's clear by this point that Bradley wants his jabbing to force Pacquiao to move and test those legs and win the rounds through looking busier, even if he really isn't!
Round 5: Much like most of round 4, much ado about nothing, except that it now appears that Pacquiao can corner Bradley a lot easier than he did in the first four rounds. On "ring generalship", about the same reason I gave Bradley round 2, I give Pacquiao round 5. Bradley's got to accomplish something with those jabs, or he's going to lose favor. 10-9 Pacquiao. 48-47 Pacquiao after 5.
Round 6: Pacquiao is attacking in spurts and counter-attacking. Pacquiao corners Bradley and is able to general him around the ring. Huge uppercut about 15 seconds left in the round. 10-9 Pacquiao. 58-56 Pacquiao after 6.
Round 7: More of the Bradley jabs which really don't appear to be doing that much in actuality, but look good in the eyes of three judges who are obviously thinking he's busier. Bradley able to reassert himself in the first half of this round. A Pacquiao flurry is answered with a Bradley flurry. Big punches near the end by Pacquiao stopped by the ref for a warning to Pacquiao. Bradley reasserted what he did right in rounds 1 and 2, so he gets round 7 here. 10-9 Bradley. 67-66 Pacquiao after 7.
Round 8: HBO announcers, at this point, saying 67-66 either way, depending on how you scored round 6. Pacquiao now actually busier in the first minute of the round, like Bradley was most of the fight. Several decent shots by Pacquiao mid-round. And now Pacquiao general-ing Bradley around the ring a bit. Fight slows a bit here. Most everything by Bradley on the arms, Pacquiao's round. 10-9 Pacquiao. 77-75 after 8.
Round 9: Bradley loses his balance and nearly pays for it 50 seconds in. A great bit of power shots for Pacquiao halted by a warning for both fighters leading with their heads, which the announcers felt Bradley was doing all night. Couple of scoring blows by Bradley later on. It was a good round, and both fighters got good shots in. I'll actually (and a lot of judges don't like to) call that round EVEN. 87-85 Pacquiao after 9.
Round 10: Pacquiao able to stay in there a bit more in the face of what Bradley is able to do. Pacquiao getting roughed up with Bradley leading with his head. Not much ado with this round. Another round that it's hard to tell. Round to Bradley. 96-95.
Round 11: "Good solid work", the announcer says. It's a good even fight at this point. Pacquiao has another "generalship" round, and it really sounds as if HBO is pimping Bradley hardcore. Pacquiao on generalship, but I really wonder if HBO had a part to play in all this. 106-104.
Round 12: The big problem with giving Bradley a number of these rounds is, once he stops throwing that jab with any frequency, Pacquiao is leading him around the ring like a dog on a leash. He knows Bradley can't hurt him, so he's able to be in there and do what he needs to do. Pacquiao is winning several of his rounds by what is called "ring generalship", and this 12th round is a great example of it. Who has the offensive posture? Who looks like they're coming forward and who's going back for the most of the round? To me, Pacquiao is controlling the pace more, and, absent a HUGE shot, he gets the round.
116-113, seven rounds to four with one even.
116-114 for Pacquiao I can see. But still, 116-114 for Bradley probably has him winning round 9 and one of the rounds I gave Pacquiao for ring generalship.
And on what basis? Did Timothy Bradley land ONE SOLID PUNCH that hurt Pacquiao the entire fight???
No.
The four rounds I had for Bradley were the first (on just being busier), the second (ditto), the seventh (for reasserting himself), and the tenth (for Pacquiao giving it away).
The seven rounds I had for Pacquiao were the third (for finally being able to control the ring), the fourth (for some of his best shots of the fight), the fifth, sixth, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth (all on ring generalship).
He certainly didn't win the fight in Pacquiao style, but it still really did appear as if he won the fight.
I do note one thing of very strong concern here: It really does appear as if HBO is playing Bradley up very seriously over the latter portion of the fight. It really does appear as if HBO believes in Bradley and believes that he should win the fight. The announcers spend what I believe is an inordinate amount of time actually playing up to Bradley and supporting him, even though it's clear he's, at best, in a close fight.
So would I go so far as to say HBO is part of this? You bet.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
RIG JOB OF THE CENTURY: Bradley beats Pacquiao???
ESPN's Dan Rafael had the fight 119-109 Pacquiao.
The fans on ESPN were given the right to vote round by round, and voted 119-109 Pacquiao.
Kieran Mulvaney had the fight 117-111 Pacquiao. So did the Associated Press.
The winner, by split decision, AND NEW WBO WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION, TIMOTHY BRADLEY!
115-113 on all three cards, two for Bradley, one for Pacquiao.
If someone can please explain to me how that is even plausible without basically saying that Pacquiao is of no value now that the Mayerweather fight never happens, I want to hear you.
NOW.
I mean, think: The fight was at the MGM Grand: "Home of the Champion -- Floyd Mayerweather Jr.", the six-story poster and all. Why isn't this a clear case of Vegas protecting their man from the one guy who can kick his ass?
EDIT TO ADD: Foxsports.com has one: Tim Bradley was "so confident he could win" that he had tickets printed for a date of November 10, 2012 -- for a REMATCH with Pacquiao should he win.
MORE UNOFFICIAL CARDS EDIT TO ADD 2306 PDT: All for Pacquiao: Yahoo! Sports (where I got these): 117-111. Bob Arum, the promoter of both fighters: 118-110 ("I had it 10-2!") Harold Lederman of HBO Sports: 119-109.
Arum said afterward:
""This is a death knell for boxing, and I'm going to make a ton of money on the rematch," Arum said."
The fans on ESPN were given the right to vote round by round, and voted 119-109 Pacquiao.
Kieran Mulvaney had the fight 117-111 Pacquiao. So did the Associated Press.
The winner, by split decision, AND NEW WBO WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION, TIMOTHY BRADLEY!
115-113 on all three cards, two for Bradley, one for Pacquiao.
If someone can please explain to me how that is even plausible without basically saying that Pacquiao is of no value now that the Mayerweather fight never happens, I want to hear you.
NOW.
I mean, think: The fight was at the MGM Grand: "Home of the Champion -- Floyd Mayerweather Jr.", the six-story poster and all. Why isn't this a clear case of Vegas protecting their man from the one guy who can kick his ass?
EDIT TO ADD: Foxsports.com has one: Tim Bradley was "so confident he could win" that he had tickets printed for a date of November 10, 2012 -- for a REMATCH with Pacquiao should he win.
MORE UNOFFICIAL CARDS EDIT TO ADD 2306 PDT: All for Pacquiao: Yahoo! Sports (where I got these): 117-111. Bob Arum, the promoter of both fighters: 118-110 ("I had it 10-2!") Harold Lederman of HBO Sports: 119-109.
Arum said afterward:
""This is a death knell for boxing, and I'm going to make a ton of money on the rematch," Arum said."
And the first apparent racism incident of the tournament comes in Game Two...
And BBC's Panorama called this perfectly...
In Russia's 4-1 win over the Czech Republic yesterday, anti-racism officials have reported at least two incidents in the stadium, one in which fans apparently gave racist chants to an African-heritage Czech player, and a second in which about three dozen fans battled stewards in the stadium.
A Czech defender, according to reports, had racist chants put to him while he was taking a corner kick in the match, and some Russian fans were apparently attacking stewards after the match.
In addition, at least one apparent white-supremacist/far-right flag was seen flown in the stadium during the match.
All it's going to take is one spark to blow the entire powderkeg -- sounds like we're through two days of it, though...
In Russia's 4-1 win over the Czech Republic yesterday, anti-racism officials have reported at least two incidents in the stadium, one in which fans apparently gave racist chants to an African-heritage Czech player, and a second in which about three dozen fans battled stewards in the stadium.
A Czech defender, according to reports, had racist chants put to him while he was taking a corner kick in the match, and some Russian fans were apparently attacking stewards after the match.
In addition, at least one apparent white-supremacist/far-right flag was seen flown in the stadium during the match.
All it's going to take is one spark to blow the entire powderkeg -- sounds like we're through two days of it, though...
Friday, June 8, 2012
And, as I predicted, EURO 2012 starts off as an absolute farce!
Well, at least the two matches were completed today.
But you have to see one of the most absurd refereeing decisions in history.
Carlos Velasco Carballo of Spain saw THIS fit for a second yellow and a red. After carding Sokratis Papastathopoulos nine minutes earlier with the match 1-0 for the hosts, a slight bump in the 44th minute is enough for Carballo to send the Greek player off for a second yellow and leave the team with ten men.
(You can see the ESPN clip of the incident on the Gamecast of the match here. UEFA is already judiciously removing clips of the incident right and left from YouTube. Click on the red card for Greece at the 44th minute of the timeline just below the commentary and main "screen" of the Gamecast, and a clip of the incident will be shown. Closer replay is at 39 seconds of the ESPN Gamecast clip.)
Hell, if the referee is going to be THAT harsh, wouldn't that be a straight red for, effectively, a DOGSO (Denial Of a Goal-Scoring Opportunity) if Carballo wants to be that idiotic? If he's going to rule an elbow for that, he might as well go all the way to DOGSO, because it's clear that Papastathopoulos is the last defender who can reasonably play the Polish player until the goalkeeper about 40-50 yards away!
And then ANOTHER incident in first-half stoppage time against the Greeks (45 minutes on the timeline, replay at about 48 seconds on the clip), three minutes later, as a clear handball in the box by Damien Perquis goes uncalled, and another player goes in the book for Greece. And only a very astute captain prevented several more.
If the officials have been told to card players mobbing the referee, as the announcers note, Greece could've gotten about 4-5 more yellow cards for those two incidents.
And yet, Greece, even at 10, equalize ten minutes into the second half and should've won the game on a 68th minute penalty in which the Polish keeper was sent off for a DOGSO challenge, but his substitute saved the penalty, and the match ends a farcical 1-1.
But you have to see one of the most absurd refereeing decisions in history.
Carlos Velasco Carballo of Spain saw THIS fit for a second yellow and a red. After carding Sokratis Papastathopoulos nine minutes earlier with the match 1-0 for the hosts, a slight bump in the 44th minute is enough for Carballo to send the Greek player off for a second yellow and leave the team with ten men.
(You can see the ESPN clip of the incident on the Gamecast of the match here. UEFA is already judiciously removing clips of the incident right and left from YouTube. Click on the red card for Greece at the 44th minute of the timeline just below the commentary and main "screen" of the Gamecast, and a clip of the incident will be shown. Closer replay is at 39 seconds of the ESPN Gamecast clip.)
Hell, if the referee is going to be THAT harsh, wouldn't that be a straight red for, effectively, a DOGSO (Denial Of a Goal-Scoring Opportunity) if Carballo wants to be that idiotic? If he's going to rule an elbow for that, he might as well go all the way to DOGSO, because it's clear that Papastathopoulos is the last defender who can reasonably play the Polish player until the goalkeeper about 40-50 yards away!
And then ANOTHER incident in first-half stoppage time against the Greeks (45 minutes on the timeline, replay at about 48 seconds on the clip), three minutes later, as a clear handball in the box by Damien Perquis goes uncalled, and another player goes in the book for Greece. And only a very astute captain prevented several more.
If the officials have been told to card players mobbing the referee, as the announcers note, Greece could've gotten about 4-5 more yellow cards for those two incidents.
And yet, Greece, even at 10, equalize ten minutes into the second half and should've won the game on a 68th minute penalty in which the Polish keeper was sent off for a DOGSO challenge, but his substitute saved the penalty, and the match ends a farcical 1-1.
Karma, or a coverup? We WON'T Have Another...
Well, the streak goes on.
24 hours before the Belmont Stakes, not only will I'll Have Another not run...
... an injury has forced the horse to RETIRE FROM RACING ON THE SPOT.
Swelling in the left front leg, apparently.
Forgive me if I don't buy it.
As I said earlier this morning, the trainer of the horse is suspended in California for illegal cardon-dioxide levels, and the horses were impounded into the detention barn at least 48 hours beforehand.
It was about then that the injury was discovered.
So I'm not buying this for a second. I think there's something fishy about the whole enterprise.
And, once again, I will reiterate: There will NEVER be another Triple Crown winner. The horses cannot handle running these three races five weeks apart.
24 hours before the Belmont Stakes, not only will I'll Have Another not run...
... an injury has forced the horse to RETIRE FROM RACING ON THE SPOT.
Swelling in the left front leg, apparently.
Forgive me if I don't buy it.
As I said earlier this morning, the trainer of the horse is suspended in California for illegal cardon-dioxide levels, and the horses were impounded into the detention barn at least 48 hours beforehand.
It was about then that the injury was discovered.
So I'm not buying this for a second. I think there's something fishy about the whole enterprise.
And, once again, I will reiterate: There will NEVER be another Triple Crown winner. The horses cannot handle running these three races five weeks apart.
The Show Must Go On, Part V: Euro 2012, A Farce In The Making
Today, the quadrennial European national-side Championships, EURO 2012, kick off today in Poland and the Ukraine.
To say that this tournament should not take place is almost certainly kind to the present state of European soccer throughout the continent.
A small subset of examples:
And that's just a small subset of the issues
To say that this tournament should not take place is almost certainly kind to the present state of European soccer throughout the continent.
A small subset of examples:
- The tournament, and the two home nations therein, are beset by significant racism incidents committed by the "Ultras" (the violent fanatics) of many of the teams therein. This was brought to light very well by the BBC's show Panorama, where, in "Stadiums of Hate", a BBC crew exposed most of Poland's and Ukraine's stadiums filled with venomous violence and racial hatred, including Nazi salutes and crosses all over the stadia as well as the fans. One derby in Poland had the fans battling police before the kickoff of the match, because they couldn't battle the opposing fans, they being banned from the stadium for their safety! (Sadly, I cannot tell you to go watch the entire program, as YouTube has been asked by the BBC (and probably UEFA as well) to remove the 24-minute program from the service, and has done so.) A striking interview with Sol Campbell (an African-heritage English player, left off the squad due to a racism row with former captain John Terry) said that any fans of racial concern should avoid the tournament, lest they lose their lives in going.
- But these controversies reignited only the day before the tournament began when charges came down that African-heritage players for the Netherlands were called "monkeys" (a common racial slur used against African-heritage players in Eastern Europe) during a pre-tournament practice in Krakow, Poland. UEFA denies the claims, and the standing story is that the 25,000 people present used the Dutch training session as a forum to protest that Krakow was not one of the sites for the tournament. (And if you believe that, I have some wonderful swampland to sell you somewhere around Chernobyl.)
- Oh, I mentioned John Terry, didn't I? England certainly does not escape the discussions surrounding this tournament, as Terry was finally included in the English squad, though not in his former captaincy, even though he faces an imminent criminal racism trial once the tournament ends! This may well have caused the then-coach of the English side to be sacked (fired) by the Football Association, only for Terry to be placed on the team anyway by his successor? No wonder no sane person should be taking England for any degree of a serious threat should this tournament be allowed to complete!
- Racism isn't the only huge negative clouding the beginning of this tournament. There is serious discussion as to why the Italian team is even being allowed in the tournament at all, due to the nature of the continuing "Last Bet" investigations by Italian authorities into match-fixing, up to and including the highest club in the land, Juventus. It has become so severe that one Juventus blog has reported that the premier of Italy wishes to see all soccer activities suspended in Italy for a period of two to three years (which would not only remove Italy from this Euro championship, but the next World Cup and probably the next Euros as well in 2016). Only the full expulsion of Italy, one of Europe's premier soccer powers, from FIFA until the corruption is dealt with. It has become so bad that the coach of Italy for this tournament actually said that he would not mind if the Italians were removed from the event entirely. (This after a listless 3-0 loss to Russia.) I point you to Declan Hill's continuing blog on soccer corruption for continuing news on the Italian story.
- And Italy is not the only nation with this going on. Non-qualifiers Turkey have also seen their most prominent club (Febernache) have their head arrested, but Declan Hill reports that punishments may be far too lenient for the crimes. Turkey has still not been held to true account for many crimes against soccer, and, though it is thankful that their national side is not in the tournament, a full set of officials is in the officiating pool for the EURO 2012 tournament!
- Tickets have not been selling well for many EURO 2012 matches. The English seem to be taking Campbell's advice and not coming. As a result, at least 10,000 tickets for matches in the Ukraine remain unsold as of Monday. (Think of this with possibilities of the "Ultras" ruining the tournament entirely!) In fact, one NBC report indicates there are still unsold tickets for the Grand Final match in Kiev!
And that's just a small subset of the issues
The Show Must Go On, Part IV: The 2012 Belmont Stakes
Found another one, and thanks to Brian's Twitter for reminding me before the race happens tomorrow.
It has been 33 years since the last Triple Crown, and I really and truly believed there would never be another horse to win the three big American horse races.
But, for the twelfth time in those 33 years, we have a horse two-thirds of the way through the Triple Crown.
Shame the horse and trainer should not be allowed to participate.
You see, "I'll Have Another"'s trainer, Doug O'Neill, was suspended in the state of California for 45 days after giving one of his (other) horses an illegal performance-enhancing substance.
He claims he did not do this, but one has to wonder, especially since the California racing authorities gave him the maximum possible punishment, why is he allowed to saddle "I'll Have Another" in New York?
This is, in fact, the fourth such violation (and third in California) of his career. He was actually to be suspended for 180 days, but most of the suspension was held up if he remains on the straight and narrow.
He was also suspended in 2010 in Illinois for the same offense -- "milkshaking" excessive amounts of carbon dioxide into the horse's system.
But, in fact, as The Albany Times-Union reports, only one of the eleven trainers in the Belmont tomorrow hasn't had at least one similar offense on their record.
Probably largely as a result, the horses were placed in the normal Belmont "detention barn" on Wednesday, at least 48 hours (if not more) beyond any such previous race.
The rationale: That a clean race is run on Saturday.
How on Earth is that possible? Seriously! This race should not be run at all.
It has been 33 years since the last Triple Crown, and I really and truly believed there would never be another horse to win the three big American horse races.
But, for the twelfth time in those 33 years, we have a horse two-thirds of the way through the Triple Crown.
Shame the horse and trainer should not be allowed to participate.
You see, "I'll Have Another"'s trainer, Doug O'Neill, was suspended in the state of California for 45 days after giving one of his (other) horses an illegal performance-enhancing substance.
He claims he did not do this, but one has to wonder, especially since the California racing authorities gave him the maximum possible punishment, why is he allowed to saddle "I'll Have Another" in New York?
This is, in fact, the fourth such violation (and third in California) of his career. He was actually to be suspended for 180 days, but most of the suspension was held up if he remains on the straight and narrow.
He was also suspended in 2010 in Illinois for the same offense -- "milkshaking" excessive amounts of carbon dioxide into the horse's system.
But, in fact, as The Albany Times-Union reports, only one of the eleven trainers in the Belmont tomorrow hasn't had at least one similar offense on their record.
Probably largely as a result, the horses were placed in the normal Belmont "detention barn" on Wednesday, at least 48 hours (if not more) beyond any such previous race.
The rationale: That a clean race is run on Saturday.
How on Earth is that possible? Seriously! This race should not be run at all.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
When I say any competitive event can be fixed, I do mean it!!!
And Brian Tuohy has one you guys probably never thought of.
In one of his latest articles for Examiner.com, Tuohy reports that a number of Korean video game players have been banned or severely fined for taking part in a match-fixing scandal for the professional players of the video game Starcraft.
Let that process.
The professional competitions in Korea can be wagered upon by the general public over there. (Not surprising, as their e-athletes have such a high regard over there that an Olympic-like event, the World Cyber Games, was created for e-sports. I actually was an attendee when the WCG was held in San Francisco one time. Got to meet, and get my butt kicked by, Fata1ty. Nice guy.)
So it should come as an even lesser surprise to people reading this blog that some of the Korean Starcraft players have been busted for match-fixing.
Sixteen people were involved, with one being a professional soccer player in Korea, while a known gangster was proven implicated.
Still laughing? The 12 matches proven fixed netted the ring over $120,000 US.
Players would not only be asked to throw the matches, but then would go online where the matches could be wagered upon and wager against themselves!
The company creating the game, Blizzard (same company as Diablo III and World of Warcraft) has seized control of professional Starcraft.
One of my major disagreements with Tuohy is that I, unlike the author (who has just finished the main writing on the follow-up book to The Fix is In), do believe that any relevant competition which can be fixed probably is.
Any wonder why I feel that way after reading something like this?
EDITED TO ADD 6/9/2012: I was going to leave this to Brian, but I'm just adding this for emphasis. You can now add the Miss USA Pageant to the list, as one of the contestants resigned after stating she saw another contestant rattle off, in order, the final five contestants before the show even aired. (To my understanding, as I haven't seen a beauty pageant in years, there is a televised "semi-final" round which is supposed to be judged in between.)
She's being sued by at least one Miss USA/Universe level company.
The point I wish to make is that I disagree with Brian on one very relevant level: ANYTHING WHICH CAN BE FIXED IS FIXED. For example, they're holding the Major League Gaming Spring Championships this weekend for Starcraft. Top prize: $25,000.
Now think of all the business interests within Miss USA -- and it's leader, Donald Trump, who named Arsenio Hall his "Celebrity Apprentice" over Clay Aiken, even though Aiken out-raised Hall in the final charity challenge, and members of Hall's team were donating to Aiken to aid his winning.
In one of his latest articles for Examiner.com, Tuohy reports that a number of Korean video game players have been banned or severely fined for taking part in a match-fixing scandal for the professional players of the video game Starcraft.
Let that process.
The professional competitions in Korea can be wagered upon by the general public over there. (Not surprising, as their e-athletes have such a high regard over there that an Olympic-like event, the World Cyber Games, was created for e-sports. I actually was an attendee when the WCG was held in San Francisco one time. Got to meet, and get my butt kicked by, Fata1ty. Nice guy.)
So it should come as an even lesser surprise to people reading this blog that some of the Korean Starcraft players have been busted for match-fixing.
Sixteen people were involved, with one being a professional soccer player in Korea, while a known gangster was proven implicated.
Still laughing? The 12 matches proven fixed netted the ring over $120,000 US.
Players would not only be asked to throw the matches, but then would go online where the matches could be wagered upon and wager against themselves!
The company creating the game, Blizzard (same company as Diablo III and World of Warcraft) has seized control of professional Starcraft.
One of my major disagreements with Tuohy is that I, unlike the author (who has just finished the main writing on the follow-up book to The Fix is In), do believe that any relevant competition which can be fixed probably is.
Any wonder why I feel that way after reading something like this?
EDITED TO ADD 6/9/2012: I was going to leave this to Brian, but I'm just adding this for emphasis. You can now add the Miss USA Pageant to the list, as one of the contestants resigned after stating she saw another contestant rattle off, in order, the final five contestants before the show even aired. (To my understanding, as I haven't seen a beauty pageant in years, there is a televised "semi-final" round which is supposed to be judged in between.)
She's being sued by at least one Miss USA/Universe level company.
The point I wish to make is that I disagree with Brian on one very relevant level: ANYTHING WHICH CAN BE FIXED IS FIXED. For example, they're holding the Major League Gaming Spring Championships this weekend for Starcraft. Top prize: $25,000.
Now think of all the business interests within Miss USA -- and it's leader, Donald Trump, who named Arsenio Hall his "Celebrity Apprentice" over Clay Aiken, even though Aiken out-raised Hall in the final charity challenge, and members of Hall's team were donating to Aiken to aid his winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)