"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy Started by Marble_Eye

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: Because of the “missing” posts and other things that seem to have been done to this thread,
it is in the process of being re-edited and, hopefully, it will be completed by Thanksgiving.
The excessive spacing, etc. was created when posts were removed and was not noticed here.

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 1 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#1 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:57 PM
I dont recall ever seeing a discussion of this book in this Forum before, but in its chapter on gambling it discusses a 1943 investigation of Sammy Baugh for potential game fixing in a game lost against the Phil-Pitt "Steagles". It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.

The one I want to primarily discuss here is Layne, as several different sources, former players Bernie Parrish and Paul Hornung (who also, naturally comes in for some discussion here) and gambler Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation to Len, that I am aware of) make Layne sound like a routine & regular game fixer and gambler. Dawson claims he knows of many instances where Layne either outright threw games or at least shaved points. Hopalong Cassady (the Lions end of course, not the movie cowboy) allegedly told Bernie Parrish that Layne faked an injury against the Bears in a December 1956 game that meant the Division Title (which the Bears won.) Hornung mentions a 1958 Green Bay tie with Detroit where Layne had bet on Detroit to cover a 3-1/2 point spread. In FG range in a tie game very late, Layne waves the kicker off the field and proceeds to overthrow a reciever in the end zone, costing the Lions the win, and Layne his own bet. Thats not game fixing, but it IS playing to influence the outcome of a bet, not to win the game.

I guess what I am wondering what, if anything, was ever made public about Layne. How did he get in the HOF without any comment being made if so many people had such a perception of him. I do know when he retired he was the all time NFL leader in career TD passes. Was there a cover up? Was Pro Football still so far behind baseball in the sports hierarchy that no one really cared? What do any of the members - posters here know about Layne or any one else that isnt really "common" knowledge?

The book mentions many situations, some of which are fairly famous and well known to any fan with a historical bent. Some, like the Baugh investigation, were new, at least to me.

Anyone care to comment on anything they may know about any NFL game fixing situation, from any era? I can add any info anyone might be curious about from the book, if someone doesnt have a copy.

#2 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:41 PM
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please the 1980 Coffin Corner article on the subject) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff like this is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.

#3 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:53 PM
'Gabe', on 22 Apr 2012 - 8:41 PM, said:
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please see the 1980 Coffin Corner article on) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.

Fair enough. I didnt write the book, just read it and wondered what people may have known or thought. I knew about the Ed Meadows incident, but didn't recall in which of the 2 Bear-Lion matchups that season it occured. If you say it happened in the second game, I have no reason to doubt you. (I will go back and re-read the CC article.) The 1958 story re: the GB-Lions tie game was attributed to Paul Hornung in the book. Bad memory? Sour grapes or a desire to portray the league as having more gamblers than himself? I do not know. The gambler-bookmaker Don Dawson, who was later involved in the Len Dawson affair before Super Bowl IV, claimed that Layne fixed or shaved points in at least seven games that he personally knew of, in addition to betting on the whole schedule regularly. Credible, or not? I dont know either way so I wanted to see what folks here either know of, or think.

EDIT for content:

I re-read the 1980 CC article and this is all it says about the actual hit:

"What had happened was that 220 pounds of Bears defensive end, all of it named Ed Meadows, had blindsided Bobby with enough force to level any reasonably well-constructed brick building. Bobby was down and out of the count. They carried him off the field, through for the day with a concussion."

Take the adjectives out and it says: "What had happened was that Ed Meadows had blindsided Bobby with force. Bobby was down and out "of" (for) the count. They carried him off the field, through for the day with a concussion."


The rest of it is all about the aftermath, charges/counter charges and about Meadows' unsavory reputation. I dont see that this actually refutes the accusation. I am inclined to believe he really WAS knocked senseless, but he could have faked being dazed. COULD HAVE. Not saying he did. Meadows hit him with a blindside hit which at 220 lbs could have hurt him badly, but didnt necessarily have to. Our modern day QB's get blindsided too and usually by someone weighing a whole lot more than 220, (not to mention modern day steroids, weight and strength training) and they dont always wind up with a concussion or removed from the game. Has anyone ever seen film of the hit?

#4 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:02 PM
'Gabe', on 22 Apr 2012 - 8:41 PM, said:
I have not read the book, but those two examples attributed to Layne are dubious. First off, the second-hand allegation made by Bernie Parrish about Layne faking an injury is actually in reference to the infamous "mugging" of Bobby Layne by the Chicago Bears' Ed Meadows in the final regular season game of the 1956 season (please the 1980 Coffin Corner article on the subject) in which a cheap shot taken by Meadows knocked Layne out of the game and cost the Lions the title. By all accounts, it was an ugly play and there was nothing faked about Layne's injury. The second incident from the 1958 game is also not supported by the facts. While Layne was intercepted in Packers' territory in the 4th quarter, that play did not in itself cost the Lions a victory in that game. After Layne threw the interception, the Lions drove twice more deep into Green Bay territory. In one instance Jim Martin missed a 15 yard field goal, and in another Gene Gedman fumled a pitchout at the 16. If stuff is the basis for alleging game-fixing and points-shaving in the book, then I'll take a pass on reading it.

I agree with everything here except that Layne's injury cost the Lions the game (and title) against the Bears in 1956. Chicago's running game was big that day, especially Rick Casares, and this was the main reason for Chicago's victory, IMO. Also, Harry Gilmer played well in relief of Layne, throwing 2 TD passes and completing another to the Bears 1 yard line which resulted in another Detroit TD a play or two later. Detroit always had a difficult time against the Bears in Wrigley in those days, and the Bears were up for that game.

I doubt that Detroit would have been able to beat the Bears that day, even with a healthy Layne, but I guess that anything is possible.

#5 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:44 PM
Point well taken and I don't disagree. My main contention was with the author's ill-founded allegation that Layne threw the game and the title by faking an injury.

'Jagade', on 22 Apr 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:
I agree with everything here except that Layne's injury cost the Lions the game (and title) against the Bears in 1956. Chicago's running game was big that day, especially Rick Casares, and this was the main reason for Chicago's victory, IMO. Also, Harry Gilmer played well in relief of Layne, throwing 2 TD passes and completing another to the Bears 1 yard line which resulted in another Detroit TD a play or two later. Detroit always had a difficult time against the Bears in Wrigley in those days, and the Bears were up for that game.

I doubt that Detroit would have been able to beat the Bears that day, even with a healthy Layne, but I guess that anything is possible.

#6 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:27 PM
'Marble_Eye', on 22 Apr 2012 - 5:57 PM, said:
I dont recall ever seeing a discussion of this book in this Forum before, but in its chapter on gambling it discusses a 1943 investigation of Sammy Baugh for potential game fixing in a game lost against the Phil-Pitt "Steagles". It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.

The one I want to primarily discuss here is Layne, as several different sources, former players Bernie Parrish and Paul Hornung (who also, naturally comes in for some discussion here) and gambler Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation to Len, that I am aware of) make Layne sound like a routine & regular game fixer and gambler. Dawson claims he knows of many instances where Layne either outright threw games or at least shaved points. Hopalong Cassady (the Lions end of course, not the movie cowboy) allegedly told Bernie Parrish that Layne faked an injury against the Bears in a December 1956 game that meant the Division Title (which the Bears won.) Hornung mentions a 1958 Green Bay tie with Detroit where Layne had bet on Detroit to cover a 3-1/2 point spread. In FG range in a tie game very late, Layne waves the kicker off the field and proceeds to overthrow a reciever in the end zone, costing the Lions the win, and Layne his own bet. Thats not game fixing, but it IS playing to influence the outcome of a bet, not to win the game.

I guess what I am wondering what, if anything, was ever made public about Layne. How did he get in the HOF without any comment being made if so many people had such a perception of him. I do know when he retired he was the all time NFL leader in career TD passes. Was there a cover up? Was Pro Football still so far behind baseball in the sports hierarchy that no one really cared? What do any of the members - posters here know about Layne or any one else that isnt really "common" knowledge?

The book mentions many situations, some of which are fairly famous and well known to any fan with a historical bent. Some, like the Baugh investigation, were new, at least to me.

Anyone care to comment on anything they may know about any NFL game fixing situation, from any era? I can add any info anyone might be curious about from the book, if someone doesnt have a copy.

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.

#7 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:42 PM
'John Turney', on 22 Apr 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:
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 ala' Karras and Hornung had he not retired after the 1962 season, or in other words Layne retired rather than be suspended.

So it could be then there was something to the total package of allegations, even if we discount the Meadows incident as not being legitmate. (Which it probably wasnt.) The above is sort of ironic and sad for Art Rooney who always maintained that had Layne played in 1963 the Steelers would have won the Division Title, which they almost did under Ed Brown at QB. Hornung made the HOF anyway, while Alex Karras never did. Wonder how Layne would have fared in HOF voting/selection, had he been suspended. Guess it would depend on both, what they had on him, and what they chose to make public in terms of charges.

#8 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:14 AM
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.

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.

#9 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:38 PM
The Lions brass was very concerned about Layne in 1958. He played a terrible game against the College All Stars, throwing five interceptions in a 35-19 loss, a game that the Lions were 13 point favorites.

From what I have researched from s and my own interviews with former Lions players, coaches, local and national media and Detroit law enforcement, that performance sent up gambling red flags on Layne.

The Green Bay game was another bad outing. The following is from the Detroit News the day after the tie (10-6-58):

Quote
"It is well to take a look at Layne's record:

1. After Jim Doran's second-period touchdown on a 65-yard pass play with Tobin Rote, Layne flubbed the extra-point try.

2. With the score tied at 13-13 in the last seven minutes, Layne had a field goal in sight directly in front of the goal posts. On third down he slanted Gene Gedman away from the posts, leaving Jim Martin with a difficult angle on the kick from the 15, which he missed.

3. On third down behind his 37, Layne fell down with nobody near him. He didn't get up in time to pass or run.

4. Within range of another field goal in the final 70 seconds, Layne tried a pitchout to Gedman on third down at the 14. The toss was low. Gedman couldn't handle it and was charged with the fumble (recovered by Carleton Massey, of the Packers) that cast the die on the tie.

Later in the same article:

Quote
Before it is valid to ask what's wrong with the Lions, one must figure out what is wrong with Layne.

'I wish I knew,' said a member of the Lion staff, conceding that there is official worriment over Layne.

They were worried enough that they traded him the very next day to Pittsburgh.

Vincent Piersante, who at the time was still with the Detroit Police Department, but would later head up the Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly's Organized Crime Division in the 1960s and 70s, said that "Detroit team management broke up the operation" when they traded Layne to Pittsburgh.

Was Layne a gambler on NFL games like Hornung and Karras? There has never been a smoking gun found yet, but the smoke from that rumored gun has never went away.

#10 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:45 PM
'John Turney', on 22 Apr 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:
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.
Well, that's what Zimmerman said. It may have been a lot of stuff, or a few things. But really, it is his word only that we have to go by. By going through those files and not making copies there is no printed evidence. And since that was 50 years ago, who knows if those files are even still around. If they've been d, etc. But even if Layne just hung out with gamblers, that may have been enough.

So, I don't have any knowledge other than what Z told me (and others). He suggested there were others that retired rather than be suspended. But I don't know if he meant one or two or 5 guys.

#11 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:50 PM
'Marble_Eye', on 22 Apr 2012 - 5:57 PM, said:
It has lengthy discussions (a page and a half at least for both) of game fixing allegations against Len Dawson and Bobby Layne.

A Google search turned up what appears to be strong and repeated implications of Len Dawson for possible point-shaving funny business of some kind between 1966 and 1970 in the book "Betting the Line: Sports Wagering in American Life," by Richard O. Davies and Richard G. Abram (Ohio State Univ. Press, 2001), pages 112-114. It also involves Len's repeated involvement with Donald "Dice" Dawson, and mentions that Len met "Dice" through Layne. It does say that Len passed polygraph tests in connection with this issue, and that despite the allegations, Len's level of play supposedly belied point shaving. Unknown how accurate all this is.

This link to the book's pages in question may or may not work:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YR9eg_ ... ng&f=false

This blog article by Bill Dow says Layne was traded from the Lions because of gambling on games. It cites the book “Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football” by Dan Moldea and cites "Dice" as asserting Layne “had fixed games or shaved points in no fewer than seven games over a period of four years while Layne played with the Detroit Lions and later the Pittsburgh Steelers.” No idea how accurate all this may be:

http://blog.detroitathletic.com/2009/11 ... bby-layne/

#12 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:46 PM
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.

Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.

#13 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:28 PM
'97Den98', on 23 Apr 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.

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.

Tuohy does seem to make a stretch of logic from time to time in his book as well as in interviews. But there are times however when he does present some interesting stuff. According to his website, he is working on an updated edition of his book.

Quote
As I work on my next book about sports gambling and game fixing, I will periodically post actual quotes from the over 400 FBI files I have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It is shocking how much the FBI knew, but were unable to prove to the point of bringing charges against the athletes, coaches and officials involved in rigging games.

For you information and understanding, when you see [redacted] in one of these posts, it means a portion (usually a name, but sometimes more) that was blacked out by the FBI and cannot be read. A PCI is a Potential Criminal Informant. SA stands for Special Agent.

Here is an excerpt of an FBI document from Jan. 1963 he posted that may pertain to Layne.

Quote
From the Albuquerque Division. Dated January 2, 1963: The following comes from the same file as above. My first thought was that this described the actions of Hall of Fame QB Bobby Layne, who was a notorious gambler (and likely game fixer). But Layne died in the 1980s, and if this was about him, the name should not be redacted. So who is this describing?

“[redacted] also advised that the word is out among various gamblers that [redacted] of the Pittsburgh Steelers bets rather heavily on his own team on some of the Steeler games. He always bets on the Steelers to win and when gamblers received information that [redacted] is betting on his own team they bet everything with him.”


#14 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:30 PM
'BD Sullivan', on 23 Apr 2012 - 8:46 PM, said:
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.

Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.
Actually, Hornung and Karras were both suspended indefinitely, with the penalties to be reviewed by Rozelle after the 1963 season. As it turned out, of course, they were both one-year suspensions, although Karras might have been suspended for another season or more if he hadn't sold his interest in a bar that attracted shady characters.

The Lions were fined specifically for ignoring police reports on gambling activity by their players and for allowing suspected gamblers to sit on the team's bench during games.

#15 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:20 PM
Regarding Bobby Layne's trade to Pittsburgh in 1958: Detroit also had Tobin Rote at quarterback, and Rote came up big in the 1957 championship game. Layne, coming back from an injury (broken leg), was not as sharp as usual in 1958. Evidently, Detroit's coaching staff decided to go with Rote at QB, especially after a bad day for Layne against Green Bay.

I don't doubt that Layne did some gambling, but I don't believe that he ever intentionally threw a game or shaved points. JMO.

#16 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:50 AM
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
• Late-game TDs that made the final score bump up against the point spread in Super Bowls 10, 13, and 14 (all Steelers wins). I forget what the spreads were in those games, but I remember reading that there was a big change in gambling fortunes late in those games.
• In the 1958 NFL Championship, Johnny Unitas going for the TD against the Giants in OT on account of the point spread. I discount this one for all the reasons we know (Myrha’s shaky kicking, Unitas’s bravado and confidence, the desire to end the game with a TD, etc.)

There have also been countless “easy” missed FGs we’ve all seen over the years, and strange interceptions thrown and fumbles lost that would be easy to raise an eyebrow of suspicion about. But the more likely explanation is “stuff happens”.

The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.

#17 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 25 April 2012 - 02:36 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.
• Late-game TDs that made the final score bump up against the point spread in Super Bowls 10, 13, and 14 (all Steelers wins). I forget what the spreads were in those games, but I remember reading that there was a big change in gambling fortunes late in those games.
• In the 1958 NFL Championship, Johnny Unitas going for the TD against the Giants in OT on account of the point spread. I discount this one for all the reasons we know (Myrha’s shaky kicking, Unitas’s bravado and confidence, the desire to end the game with a TD, etc.)

There have also been countless “easy” missed FGs we’ve all seen over the years, and strange interceptions thrown and fumbles lost that would be easy to raise an eyebrow of suspicion about. But the more likely explanation is “stuff happens”.

The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.

*Bubba was selling a book at the time and his accusation undoubtedly was the most controversial part of what was another ho-hum bio.

*In both Super Bowl 10 & 13, Dallas scored with about a minute left. I believe in the first one, the late score made it a push (i.e. no bet), while the second one depended on your bookie, since the spread was anywhere between 3.5 and 4.5--with the final margin four points. In 14, the Steelers were 11-point favorites, but the Rams led by two at the start of the fourth quarter. Pittsburgh tied it with 12 minutes left to go up by five, then scored on a Franco Harris plunge with 1:49 left. The Rams (Pat Thomas) had been flagged for pass interference just before the Harris score.

*In the '58 game, the rumors have generally been that Carroll Rosenbloom (whose name swirled around gambling allegations through much of his tenure as an NFL owner) wanted a touchdown because the spread was 3.5, and another Myrha field goal obviously wouldn't have covered.

#18 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:10 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
The only play I ever witnessed that I still feel uneasy about was actually in a college game, one of the greatest ever. The way that Irving Fryar dropped that TD pass in the 1983 Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl looked so unnatural, so spastically clumsy, that I remember thinking at that moment “something is not right here.” Given Nebraska’s huge status as favorite in that game, I’ve always wondered a little bit about it. But it turned into such a great game to watch, I sincerely hope nothing insidious ever surfaces about it.

A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.

The one sequence in a game I witnessed that seemed very suspicious was the Eagles play calling late in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl 39 against New England. It seemed the Eagles wasted several minutes when they were two scores behind and inexplicably did not go into a two minute offense and seemed to be taking their time going down the field.

As far as Super Bowl 13, the casinos lost huge taking bets on the game. Most of the Pittsburgh fans placed their bets when the Steelers were 3 1/2 point favorites, but the odds shifted and most of the big money that was bet on Dallas was giving the Cowboys 4 1/2 points, so most of the people who bet on the game won, and the casinos lost millions on the game.

#19 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:22 AM
'Rupert Patrick', on 25 Apr 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:
A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.

At the time, I actually saw a local college newspaper where the student writer (an obvious Steeler fan with apparently limited knowledge of libel laws) flat out wrote that O'Donnell threw the game. I suppose the kid could have gotten in trouble if the circulation was higher than the 50 or so people who read it.

I've mentioned this anecdote on a few occasions, but given the topic, it's worth repeating: around the time of the Art Schlicter scandal in 1983, Art Modell recalled a tale from the mid 60's where he was at a Browns' practice when Gary Collins sprained his ankle. Modell left soon after to go back to his office, about a 10-15 minute drive. When he got to his desk, he almost immediately got a call from Pete Rozelle about why the Browns game was off the board.

#20 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:48 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:
At the time, I actually saw a local college newspaper where the student writer (an obvious Steeler fan with apparently limited knowledge of libel laws) flat out wrote that O'Donnell threw the game. I suppose the kid could have gotten in trouble if the circulation was higher than the 50 or so people who read it.

A lot of people expected a Dallas blowout in the game, or something along the lines of the Chargers 49ers Super Bowl the previous year. It was 20-7 after three quarters when the Steelers came back with the FG and onside kick that the Steelers turned into a TD to pull within three. During that final drive where O'Donnell was picked with about three minutes to go, I remember when that drive started talking to the TV (as if Bill Cowher could somehow hear me) to put Kordell Stewart in at QB instead of O'Donnell; I thought O'Donnell was shaky but felt Kordell was a playmaker who would find a way to score the winning TD.

Page 1 of 7

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

Page 2 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#21 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:34 AM
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.

I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?

I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?

In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.

#22 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:58 AM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.

I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?

Doubtful, considering the Colts still needed to beat the Patriots at home the following week. If anything, fans in Miami probably thought the ref in the Colts-Pats game was on the take, since Bert Jones' late fumble deep in Patriot territory (with the Colts trailing by one) was blown dead by the infamous quick whistle:

(the play in question starts at about the 1:25 mark)

Six years earlier, another season-ending Colts-Patriots game was open for questions about intent. The 10-3 Colts were hosting the 5-8 Pats, with a win giving them the AFC East division title. It would also send them to Kansas City on Christmas Day against the still-formidable Chiefs. In an "upset," the Pats won 21-17, sending the wild card Colts to a much more beatable Cleveland (they won 20-3) and Miami to Kansas City for their classic battle.

#23 Jagade
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 01:38 PM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.

I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?

I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?

In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.

The one I was always suspicious of was the Detroit Lions/New York Giants game in 1958. Detroit, eliminated from contention in the NFL Western Conference, would eliminate the Giants and put the archrival Browns into the championship game against the Colts with a win over the Giants.

With 4th and about 19 with Detroit leading 17 to 12, Yale Lary ran in punt formation instead of punting resulting in the Giants stopping Lary and having good field position. Coach Wilson took responsibility for the apparent bonehead call. The Giants later scored a TD after completing a long pass to an end who didn't seem to be covered. There was also a game ending blocked field goal that would have won the game for Detroit.

Part of that game is on you tube starting with Lary's run in punt formation.

#24 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:16 PM
'97Den98', on 23 Apr 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:
I have heard of this Tuohy guy. He was on a sports radio show in Washington a few years ago.

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.

Some questions for Tuohy:

Who puts up the money for the fix? How much more was Peyton Manning's cut than what he would have made if he won?

#25 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:40 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 4:16 PM, said:
Some questions for Tuohy:

Who puts up the money for the fix? How much more was Peyton Manning's cut than what he would have made if he won?

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.

#26 paulksandiego
PFRA Member
Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:31 PM
'evan', on 25 Apr 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:
Among the gambling-related rumors I’ve read about:
• Bubba Smith accusing Earl Morrall of throwing Super Bowl III. It is hard to explain some of Morrall’s play (the Orr play in particular) in that game, but man, it’s hard to believe any one would really sell out their team in the Super Bowl.

Maybe that's why Shula put Griese in to start Super Bowl VII...

#27 IvanNYC
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:35 PM
'evan', on 26 Apr 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
Another question, is it considered throwing a game if you benefit from the loss? I'm not talking about teams that rest s because they don't care about the outcome of a late-season game, but I'm referring to teams who actually benefit in a meaningful way from a loss.

I'm talking about the 1977 Colts loss to Detroit, which has been written about in many places as to the circumstances whereby the Colts benefited from the loss. In this article (http://www.patsfans....s-Than-Now.html) the author credits this game with bringing the two wild cards into action the next year. I'm not sure about that, can anyone in the Forum corroborate this?

I don't think there's been any intimation that the Colts threw that game against the Lions, although apparently they had reason to, thanks to the NFL's tiebreaking procedures of the day. Any other circumstances one come to mind?

In 1976 there was a lot of talk that the Raiders would lay down against Cincinnati to eliminate Pittsburgh, but they showed on MNF that they had no reason to lay down against anyone that year.

If the Colts benefited in any way it's that by losing to Detroit, and with the Dolphins defeating 3-10 Buffalo on Saturday in Week 14, they would face a New England team that would be already eliminated prior to their showdown vs. the Patriots. The complaints on the Colts loss to the Lions really came from the Patriots and their fans since with that outcome, the Patriots lost control of their own destiny for the AFC East division title since a Baltimore win over Detroit would have eliminated the Dolphins and would have created a winner-take-all scenario between Baltimore and New England. (The Patriots would have won the two-way tiebreaker vs. the Colts based on H2H sweep or three-way tie with BAL and MIA based on better H2H record among the clubs, 3-1 to MIA 2-2 to BAL 1-3). With the Baltimore loss to Detroit, Miami stayed alive and New England now needed a MIA loss to Buffalo and then beat the Colts the next day because the Patriots would lose a two-way tiebreaker at 10-4 with Miami based on division record.

Also, that this scenario brought about a change to the playoff format in 1978 is simply not true. The owners had already approved the new 16-game schedule and the addition of two wildcards for 1978 at the owners meeting in March 1977.

As for 1976, just want to clarify that the Bengals loss to the Raiders did not eliminate Pittsburgh. But what it did is that the Bengals lost control of their own destiny since they needed to stay ahead of Pittsburgh since the Steelers had swept the Bengals. (The Steelers also held the potential three-way tiebreaker with CIN and CLE on better H2H record among the clubs). With Oakland defeating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh then only needed a win over Houston to win the AFC Central. The Bengals needed a win and a Pittsbugh loss. Had Cincinnati defeated the Raiders, they would have only needed to beat the Jets, while the Steelers would have needed a win and a Bengals loss in the final week.

#28 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:14 PM
Greetings all! I am actually Brian Tuohy, the author of The Fix Is In. Someone gave me the heads up on this forum and I decided to join.

A couple of things to chew on: One, the NFL claims that no game in its history has even been fixed. The league goes one step further to say that only two attempts have even been made - the 1946 Championship Game and a 1971 Houston Oilers game. This is an absolute falsehood. I have interviewed several people in the casino bookmaking world as well as two former FBI agents for another book on game fixing, and all emphatically state NFL games have indeed been fixed. I also possess over 400 FBI files relating to investigations of the Sports Bribery Act, some of which detail fixed NFL games (as well as MLB, NBA, college football & basketball, boxing and more). I would reveal the names of the NFL Hall of Famers implicated by the FBI, but I won't do that until this next book is released.

I think many NFL (and sports fans in general) cannot believe that a professional athlete would shave points/fix a game. It's a extremely naive stance to take. Granted, as no player, mobster or gambler has ever been convicted of fixing an NFL game, the league is free to make the claims it does. That does not mean, however, that the sport has been and remains "pure." Dan Moldea in his overlooked book Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football has evidence of 70 NFL games being fixed (prior to 1989). I know, I know - evidence, not proof positive (unless you believe the confessions of Dice Dawson who fixed games in league with certain players). Well, if the FBI cannot prove these games were fixed, who can? There is little to no physical evidence for such an event. All one can do is watch for erratic movements in the point spread coupled with erratic play. Do both these equate to a fixed game? Not necessarily, but when you add in other surrounding circumstances then perhaps a better conclusion can be reached.

As for the aforementioned DC radio appearance - yes, I did anger Redskins LB Lorenzo Alexander so much that he had to call to argue with me. In the two minutes he talked, I got him to admit that 2-3 members of the Redskins as well as several other NFL players were actively taking illegal steroids. So while he may not have felt Peyton Manning would stoop so low as to throw the Super Bowl (which, I admit was not my strongest argument, though I do firmly believe the NFL manipulates its own games), Alexander had no issue with players cheating by using steroids.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about this subject. I will answer any and all as best I can. Cheers!

#29 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:29 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 26 Apr 2012 - 4:40 PM, said:
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.

If Manning threw the Super Bowl vs. the Saints - and that is a big IF - I believe the NFL directed him to do so, therefore no ramifications would follow. Why? Because the Saints victory completed the storyline the NFl cultivated since Hurricane Katrina in which the NFL touted that the team rebuilt and revitalized the city. The NFC Championship game vs. the Vikings was also highly suspect in my opinion and might have been given to the Saints in a similar fashion. As for Peyton Manning, he had more connection to that city than Brees and most of the other Saints. His legacy is already assured: Super Bowl ring, multi-MVP and a bust in Canton awaiting him. His losing that game did not affect this legacy. Yet I believe his play was very suspect, including that game-sealing INT which was returned for a TD. I wish I could find video or a photo of him pre-game which showed Manning red-faced and clearly upset because it was a highly unusual look for the starting QB in the Super Bowl just minutes before kick off.

I admit this is more of a conspiracy theory than fact, but I don't believe a $10 billion industry like the NFL leaves everything up to random chance.

#30 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:32 PM
'IvanNYC', on 27 Apr 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:
If the Colts benefited in any way it's that by losing to Detroit, and with the Dolphins defeating 3-10 Buffalo on Saturday in Week 14, they would face a New England team that would be already eliminated prior to their showdown vs. the Patriots. The complaints on the Colts loss to the Lions really came from the Patriots and their fans since with that outcome, the Patriots lost control of their own destiny for the AFC East division title since a Baltimore win over Detroit would have eliminated the Dolphins and would have created a winner-take-all scenario between Baltimore and New England. (The Patriots would have won the two-way tiebreaker vs. the Colts based on H2H sweep or three-way tie with BAL and MIA based on better H2H record among the clubs, 3-1 to MIA 2-2 to BAL 1-3). With the Baltimore loss to Detroit, Miami stayed alive and New England now needed a MIA loss to Buffalo and then beat the Colts the next day because the Patriots would lose a two-way tiebreaker at 10-4 with Miami based on division record.

Also, that this scenario brought about a change to the playoff format in 1978 is simply not true. The owners had already approved the new 16-game schedule and the addition of two wildcards for 1978 at the owners meeting in March 1977.

As for 1976, just want to clarify that the Bengals loss to the Raiders did not eliminate Pittsburgh. But what it did is that the Bengals lost control of their own destiny since they needed to stay ahead of Pittsburgh since the Steelers had swept the Bengals. (The Steelers also held the potential three-way tiebreaker with CIN and CLE on better H2H record among the clubs). With Oakland defeating Cincinnati, Pittsburgh then only needed a win over Houston to win the AFC Central. The Bengals needed a win and a Pittsbugh loss. Had Cincinnati defeated the Raiders, they would have only needed to beat the Jets, while the Steelers would have needed a win and a Bengals loss in the final week.
Thanks for the breakdown Ivan, good details there. I think although as you pointed out the Colts-Lions and Bengals-Raiders games were not necessarily deal finishers, part of the mystique of these circumstances was that the conventional thinking was there was just no conceivable way that the Bills would beat the Dolphins or the Jets would beat the Bengals in the games you mentioned, which made the Colts-Lions game and Bengals-Raiders games so paramount.

Page 2 of 7

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 3 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#31 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:35 PM
'Brian2E', on 27 Apr 2012 - 1:14 PM, said:
Greetings all! I am actually Brian Tuohy, the author of The Fix Is In. Someone gave me the heads up on this forum and I decided to join.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about this subject. I will answer any and all as best I can. Cheers!
Thanks for offering your thoughts and research Brian, I'm sure there are myriad questions from the Forum that might be posed to you. I just have one: Did Irving Fryar drop that pass on purpose in the Miami-Nebraska 1984 Orange Bowl? I've got to know if my eyes really saw what I think they saw. Thanks.

#32 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:37 PM
'BD Sullivan', on 23 Apr 2012 - 8:46 PM, said:
When Hornung and Karras were suspended in 1963, they both got the same length--one year. Not sure why Hornung got more, considering that he was "only" guilty of betting on games, and was apologetic about it. Karras, on the other hand, was hanging out with some sleazy characters, and was combative about his actions.

Five of Karras' teammates (John Gordy, Joe Schmidt, Wayne Walker, Gary Lowe and Sam Williams) were fined $2,000 each for betting (along with him) on the Packers in the 1962 title game. Karras bet $100, while the others bet $50. The Lions were fined $4,000 for not paying closer attention.

Hornung was more guilty that that. He was questioned by the FBI for his relationship with Manny Skar, who was a known mob front and gambler. Skar was gunned down exiting his car in a mob hit a few years later. Hornung was also know to be friendly with Gil Beckley who was the mob's top bookmaker and ran its nation-wide layoff system. Beckley likely fixed games, perhaps as many as 19 in the early 1960s and mostly in the AFL. Hornung mentions both in his book Golden Boy. The FBI had information to the effect that Hornung himself bet $5,000 on the 1962 Championship (on the Packers to win). He was gambling heavily, more that Karras and the rest of the Lions combined. He was just lucky to have Lombardi protecting him.

#33 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:41 PM
'evan', on 27 Apr 2012 - 2:35 PM, said:
Thanks for offering your thoughts and research Brian, I'm sure there are myriad questions from the Forum that might be posed to you. I just have one: Did Irving Fryar drop that pass on purpose in the Miami-Nebraska 1984 Orange Bowl? I've got to know if my eyes really saw what I think they saw. Thanks.

No problem. I enjoy debating these issues. As for your question, I have not dug into college sports as of yet. I plan on following up this next book on professional game fixing with one about college football and basketball. So honestly, I don't know though I have many files on fixed college games which are never mentioned in the usual rundown of NCAA scandals. Fryar, however, was known to have a drug problem and as the FBI would tell you, they feel that compromising an athlete via his drug use would be the best way currently to get one to fix a game.

#34 paulksandiego
PFRA Member
Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:23 PM
'Brian2E', on 27 Apr 2012 - 2:29 PM, said:
I admit this is more of a conspiracy theory than fact, but I don't believe a $10 billion industry like the NFL leaves everything up to random chance.

That is the exact reason that makes me sometimes wonder about the league tampering with the outcome of games....the fact that there's too much money at stake.

#35 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:14 PM
'Brian2E', on 27 Apr 2012 - 2:29 PM, said:
If Manning threw the Super Bowl vs. the Saints - and that is a big IF - I believe the NFL directed him to do so, therefore no ramifications would follow. Why? Because the Saints victory completed the storyline the NFl cultivated since Hurricane Katrina in which the NFL touted that the team rebuilt and revitalized the city. The NFC Championship game vs. the Vikings was also highly suspect in my opinion and might have been given to the Saints in a similar fashion. As for Peyton Manning, he had more connection to that city than Brees and most of the other Saints. His legacy is already assured: Super Bowl ring, multi-MVP and a bust in Canton awaiting him. His losing that game did not affect this legacy. Yet I believe his play was very suspect, including that game-sealing INT which was returned for a TD. I wish I could find video or a photo of him pre-game which showed Manning red-faced and clearly upset because it was a highly unusual look for the starting QB in the Super Bowl just minutes before kick off.

I admit this is more of a conspiracy theory than fact, but I don't believe a $10 billion industry like the NFL leaves everything up to random chance.

Who puts up the money for the fix? Who decides what the cut will be for each player? What did Manning gain from throwing the Super Bowl and what kind of pressure did they apply to make him throw the game? Wouldn't Manning or any other player gain more from being the winner? Why hasn't one of the "losers" who wasn't satisfied with his share of the money blown the scheme? How big a profit do you make if you have to pay so many people off?

Speaking of Peyton Manning's legacy, he was severely criticized after the Saints won. Many said it diminished his reputation.

#36 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:29 PM
'paulksandiego', on 27 Apr 2012 - 4:23 PM, said:
That is the exact reason that makes me sometimes wonder about the league tampering with the outcome of games....the fact that there's too much money at stake.

That's the kind of thinking that sent me on this quest. Consider this: Last year (2011) two of the hottest offenses in the NFL were the Saints and the Packers. As offensive holding is assumed to be one of those penalties that "could be called on every play," guess how often those two teams were flagged for said penalty? The Saints had 7 entire games without a holding call against them with only 15 total holding calls against them. The Packers were even better off - 11 entire games without an offensive holding call against them and and only 9 holding calls all season.

The NFL can control games through their referees - 100% legally. We know this. Look at the NFC Championship Game last season where it was clear Gregg Jennings fumbled that ball, yet even after instant replay, the officials gave the ball back to the Packers - in my mind - in order to keep the game from becoming a blowout. If they can do it there, they can do it everywhere. This is what my book was about, a caution for fans to fear what the leagues may for ratings and the money associated with the TV networks.

#37 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:32 PM
'Brian2E', on 27 Apr 2012 - 2:41 PM, said:
No problem. I enjoy debating these issues. As for your question, I have not dug into college sports as of yet. I plan on following up this next book on professional game fixing with one about college football and basketball. So honestly, I don't know though I have many files on fixed college games which are never mentioned in the usual rundown of NCAA scandals. Fryar, however, was known to have a drug problem and as the FBI would tell you, they feel that compromising an athlete via his drug use would be the best way currently to get one to fix a game.

Here is the Fryar play:


#38 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:13 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 27 Apr 2012 - 7:14 PM, said:
Who puts up the money for the fix? Who decides what the cut will be for each player? What did Manning gain from throwing the Super Bowl and what kind of pressure did they apply to make him throw the game? Wouldn't Manning or any other player gain more from being the winner? Why hasn't one of the "losers" who wasn't satisfied with his share of the money blown the scheme? How big a profit do you make if you have to pay so many people off?

Speaking of Peyton Manning's legacy, he was severely criticized after the Saints won. Many said it diminished his reputation.

I do not believe a player would throw the Super Bowl in this day and age. I view this as a conspiracy theory such as we never landed on the Moon. With all the money that could be made from a book written by a former player fessing up after the fact with concrete proof of a fix, why hasn't one person come forward? If the Super Bowl is fixed every year, there are about 100 players who are in on the fix, and over the last ten years, probably upward of 1000 players, coaches, and officials have participated in Super Bowl games and not one of them has come forward with evidence. And most of these guys are married or have girlfriends and if the Super Bowl was rigged, some guy would have blabbed it to his wife at some point; how come none of those women came forward to say that X was involved in fixing NFL games. If organized crime is involved, those guys get pinched by the FBI a lot, but not one of them has cut a deal to spill the beans about the throwing of games. Every team is covered by a group of journalists and bloggers, at the local and national level, and if there was something truly suspicious, why has not one of them come forward over the years with proof as many of them are in the locker rooms and are close to the athletes and often overhear things. Being the journalist to break this conspiracy would make you very famous, think Woodward and Bernstein.

Next point, as competitive as a guy like Bill Belichick is, how much money does it take to get him to help his team willingly throw a Super Bowl, particularly Super Bowl 42 against the Giants, when winning that game would have made the Patriots 19-0 and they would be considered by many the greatest football team ever to step on the field. How much money does it take Belichick to throw away all that glory? Also, if these guys were getting money on the side for throwing games, big money in many cases, how come the IRS has never uncovered financial irregularities with any of these players? Because of the amount of money NFL players make, I would imagine most of them get audited by the IRS, but the Federalis have never found a single instance that would lead them to believe the NFL was fixing games.

Like the Moon Landing being faked, thousands of people would have had to have been in on the fix, and all these years later, the fact that not one of them has come forward with proof to admit his or her guilt in deceiving the American people about it is the strongest indication that we actually landed men on the Moon. And I think the same about the NFL in this day and age. 50 or 60 years ago, that was a different time when the players did not make much money and I think some of them may have thrown a game here or there, but these days, I seriously doubt they would get away with it.

#39 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:53 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 27 Apr 2012 - 9:13 PM, said:
I do not believe a player would throw the Super Bowl in this day and age. I view this as a conspiracy theory such as we never landed on the Moon. With all the money that could be made from a book written by a former player fessing up after the fact with concrete proof of a fix, why hasn't one person come forward? If the Super Bowl is fixed every year, there are about 100 players who are in on the fix, and over the last ten years, probably upward of 1000 players, coaches, and officials have participated in Super Bowl games and not one of them has come forward with evidence. And most of these guys are married or have girlfriends and if the Super Bowl was rigged, some guy would have blabbed it to his wife at some point; how come none of those women came forward to say that X was involved in fixing NFL games. If organized crime is involved, those guys get pinched by the FBI a lot, but not one of them has cut a deal to spill the beans about the throwing of games. Every team is covered by a group of journalists and bloggers, at the local and national level, and if there was something truly suspicious, why has not one of them come forward over the years with proof as many of them are in the locker rooms and are close to the athletes and often overhear things. Being the journalist to break this conspiracy would make you very famous, think Woodward and Bernstein.

Next point, as competitive as a guy like Bill Belichick is, how much money does it take to get him to help his team willingly throw a Super Bowl, particularly Super Bowl 42 against the Giants, when winning that game would have made the Patriots 19-0 and they would be considered by many the greatest football team ever to step on the field. How much money does it take Belichick to throw away all that glory? Also, if these guys were getting money on the side for throwing games, big money in many cases, how come the IRS has never uncovered financial irregularities with any of these players? Because of the amount of money NFL players make, I would imagine most of them get audited by the IRS, but the Federalis have never found a single instance that would lead them to believe the NFL was fixing games.

Like the Moon Landing being faked, thousands of people would have had to have been in on the fix, and all these years later, the fact that not one of them has come forward with proof to admit his or her guilt in deceiving the American people about it is the strongest indication that we actually landed men on the Moon. And I think the same about the NFL in this day and age. 50 or 60 years ago, that was a different time when the players did not make much money and I think some of them may have thrown a game here or there, but these days, I seriously doubt they would get away with it.

I would add also that the NFL has much more to lose than gain by rigging the outcome of the Super Bowl. Is it really plausible that it made a difference to the NFL financially if the Giants or Patriots won the Super Bowl this past year? Would the NFL stand to lose a whole lot more if it was determined to be fixing the outcome of the games? I think if anything the NFL has a vested interest in doing its utmost to combat even the hint of cheating.

Another thing about conspiracy theories - innocent people get hurt. It's all fine and well to speculate and wonder who cheated and when, but when we consider that an athlete's bad game or poorly executed play is possible proof of cheating, we better have the supporting evidence because the target of that speculation is a person whose reputation and character is being shadowed by innuendo and rumor. Conversely, let's say for grins and chuckles that the Saints won the SB honestly, arguing that the outcome was fixed diminishes their achievement. In pursuing conspiracy theories not only are we casting innuendos on those who may have lost a game in spite of their best efforts, we are also diminishing the achievements of those who played well and won.

This is not to state that cheating has never occurred and I respect anyone's attempt to investigate the issue (and I can't say that I'm not curious about what's in those 400 FBI files). But given what the NFL has to lose if cheating on a large scale were to be discovered - and as was pointed out above there would need to be a coverup of massive proportions to hide that fact - and also that peoples' reputations are at stake when we have these discussions, I'm going to maintain a healthy skepticism absent hard evidence.

#40 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:00 PM
OK. Here we go:

1) A vast majority of people don't think it is even possible to fix a game; therefore, no one is looking for it. Investigative journalism in sports media is dead. It doesn't exist. Many, if not all, of the major sports broadcasters sold out years ago. ESPN/ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX all fund the NFL. Without their money, the NFL does not exist as it does today. When the Donaghy scandal broke in the NBA, did ESPN do its due diligence in investigating it? Or did they do just enough to appear as if they did and instead protect their recent $1 billion investment in the league? The answer was clearly the latter. Donaghy fixed games - I've spoken to one of the guys betting in that ring and the book Gaming the Game makes it a closed case. The FBI didn't charge him with that crime because they couldn't prove it (more on this in a moment).

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.

2) 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."

3) No one would make millions off of a confession of a fixed game. For one, see Jose Canseco's book. He was dead on with that book, offering the truth of steroids in baseball. What happened? The sports media lambasted him and labeled him a liar (at first). Did he make millions with that book? Nope. He's still trying to play minor league baseball because he's broke.

To come out with such a story, the player would need clear-cut, solid evidence. Such as what? What proof would do it for you? A note from Commissioner Goodell on NFL letterhead? You think any of this would be written down? Please. Even if Peyton Manning came forth and said, "I intentionally lost the Super Bowl," he'd be destroyed. No one would believe him. The NFL would call him a liar. So would his teammates and coaches. It would be him against the world, and he'd lose.

4) NFL Security. Now I interviewed former NFL Security Chief Warren Welsh for this book I'm working on. To be kind, I'll say he was less than 100% honest with me and I can prove it. But NFL Security is staffed with former FBI, CIA, and DEA agents and always has been. The exist to cover up wrongdoing within the league. Outside of this recent bounty scandal, name one major crime/player they revealed to the media? I've looked and cannot find any case of them being praised by law enforcement for their help in an investigation, arrest, etc.

NFL Security has used their contacts within the FBI to eliminate investigations. They've outright squashed them. Far-fetched? Hardly. One FBI file clearly states that the investigating agents on a fixing case believed that the NFL was "whitewashing" the case in order to keep both the FBI and the media out of it. Because the FBI stated time and again that it was not the NFL's personal police force, often they would allow NFL Security to take their place. And it was not in the NFL's best interest to reveal wrongdoing on its players' part - especially if they were fixing games. My ??????????

Page 3 of 7

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

Page 4 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#41 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:49 AM
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 ahold of the story and published it, and I doubt the writer who broke the story was blackballed from ever working a baseball beat again.

#42 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:01 AM
None of the questions I asked was answered. Par for the course on this subject.

#43 james
PFRA Member
Posted 28 April 2012 - 11:49 AM
'Brian2E', on 27 Apr 2012 - 2:29 PM, said:
If Manning threw the Super Bowl vs. the Saints - and that is a big IF - I believe the NFL directed him to do so, therefore no ramifications would follow. Why? Because the Saints victory completed the storyline the NFl cultivated since Hurricane Katrina in which the NFL touted that the team rebuilt and revitalized the city. The NFC Championship game vs. the Vikings was also highly suspect in my opinion and might have been given to the Saints in a similar fashion. As for Peyton Manning, he had more connection to that city than Brees and most of the other Saints. His legacy is already assured: Super Bowl ring, multi-MVP and a bust in Canton awaiting him. His losing that game did not affect this legacy. Yet I believe his play was very suspect, including that game-sealing INT which was returned for a TD. I wish I could find video or a photo of him pre-game which showed Manning red-faced and clearly upset because it was a highly unusual look for the starting QB in the Super Bowl just minutes before kick off.

I admit this is more of a conspiracy theory than fact, but I don't believe a $10 billion industry like the NFL leaves everything up to random chance.

That does make so much sense. The Saints were the NFL's "glamour" team so to speak after Katrina, of how the Saints revitalized New Orleans and then won the Super Bowl a few years later. Now it comes out AFTER the Saints Super Bowl win about the bounties and now the possible wire tapping, that the league new about, at least the bounties, for a few years now.

I also have often wondered in the last few years that the NFL would want certain teams to win games and having the refs call a game in the team that the league wanted to win's favor, would be how they could get away with it. Just my two cents on this.

#44 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 01:31 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 28 Apr 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:
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 ahold of the story and published it, and I doubt the writer who broke the story was blackballed from ever working a baseball beat again.

The writer in question, Craig Neff, wasn't really a baseball writer, so it's not as if he had anything to be blackballed from. If Sports Illustrated did take any heat from MLB, they certainly didn't pay much attention, because Neff is still with the magazine today (23 years later) as an assistant editor.

#45 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:12 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 28 Apr 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:
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 ahold of the story and published it, and I doubt the writer who broke the story was blackballed from ever working a baseball beat again.
For MLB to attempt that would be asking for trouble. I know of many, many cases during my career at six newspapers in three states when someone tried to keep a story from being written and published, and it only led a redoubled effort. In fact, I know of two rather significant cases when we didn't even know of the story before we were contacted, and the attempt to suppress the story led directly to its being investigated and published.

#46 paulksandiego
PFRA Member
Posted 28 April 2012 - 03:06 PM
'james', on 28 Apr 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:
That does make so much sense. The Saints were the NFL's "glamour" team so to speak after Katrina, of how the Saints revitalized New Orleans and then won the Super Bowl a few years later. Now it comes out AFTER the Saints Super Bowl win about the bounties and now the possible wire tapping, that the league new about, at least the bounties, for a few years now.

I also have often wondered in the last few years that the NFL would want certain teams to win games and having the refs call a game in the team that the league wanted to win's favor, would be how they could get away with it. Just my two cents on this.

I concur with your second paragraph James...I'm a diehard Steelers fan but even I was astonished at the calls that went their way in those Super Bowls with Seattle and Arizona....the weirdest part is that a couple years later I had no confidence they were going to beat the Packers because deep down I figured the Steelers got their rub with those wins against Seattle and Arizona and no way the league was going to let the Packers lose as Aaron Rodgers was being groomed as the new Prince of the NFL.

Maybe it's just paranoia on my part, but I've seen a lot of screwy things involving the Steelers in the last 20 years.

To whomever posted that link to the Irving Fryar play in the Orange Bowl...yes, it sure as hell looks like he let that one go on purpose...it's kinda sad when you watch it.

#47 james
PFRA Member
Posted 28 April 2012 - 04:03 PM
'paulksandiego', on 28 Apr 2012 - 3:06 PM, said:
I concur with your second paragraph James...I'm a diehard Steelers fan but even I was astonished at the calls that went their way in those Super Bowls with Seattle and Arizona....the weirdest part is that a couple years later I had no confidence they were going to beat the Packers because deep down I figured the Steelers got their rub with those wins against Seattle and Arizona and no way the league was going to let the Packers lose as Aaron Rodgers was being groomed as the new Prince of the NFL.

Maybe it's just paranoia on my part, but I've seen a lot of screwy things involving the Steelers in the last 20 years.

I have been thinking the same things for a few years now. Maybe I'm being paraniod, I don't know. I've often wondered that the NFL would want "certain" teams to win over other teams.

#48 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:48 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 28 Apr 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:
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 ahold of the story and published it, and I doubt the writer who broke the story was blackballed from ever working a baseball beat again.

Sports Illustrated did not break the story by investigating Rose's gambling habits. Law enforcement arrested Rose's gambling "beard" (who was also dealing steroids) and he spilled the beans on Pete - that's how the story came to light. SI followed up on it, sure, but they didn't make it happen. And baseball had to react because the feds were already on the case.

Rose had in fact been investigated by MLB in the early 70s for gambling. They had evidence that he was doing so (and Rose was certainly gambling at the race track at the time), but they did not have enough on which to punish Rose for his actions. This investigation never was made public until after his banishment. In fact, I interviewed (briefly) John Dowd who led MLB's investigation of Rose the second time around. He stated that MLB actually destroyed all of the evidence, leads, etc. they had developed from that first investigation and that he had to start fresh.

A somewhat similar story involves the MLB writer Steve Wilstein (I think that's the spelling) who wrote the story of McGwire taking andro during his 1998 HR chase with Sosa and Griffey. While he wasn't banished for writing that piece - which was correct and quite predictive of the future baseball steroids scandal - he was ostracized by the other members of the Baseball Writers of America.

#49 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:11 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 28 Apr 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:
None of the questions I asked was answered. Par for the course on this subject.

I didn't forget you, SixtiesFan. There's just only so many hours in the day.

If Manning's legacy was diminished by losing that Super Bowl, what about Tom Brady's? Or John Elway's? Brett Favre's? Roger Staubach's? They all won Super Bowls and lost Super Bowls as well. All Hall of Famers. And then there's Jim Kelly. He lost four - still HoF material. Dan Marino, too. And Dan Fouts - he never even played in one, and he's an all-time great as well. Manning's SB loss will be forgotten in short order.

As for how/why the NFL may have gotten Manning to do their bidding...well, if I knew that then I'd have sold a few more copies of my book than I did. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes of the NFL? Could it be that the $90 million deal he signed with the Colts - when they knew he had a serious neck injury that led to 4 surgeries and him missing the entire 2011 season, perhaps more - was in a sense a payoff for a job well done in the SB? Neil O'Donnell and Larry Brown (who was the beneficiary of two of O'Donnell's horrific SBXXX INTs) both signed massive free agent deals after that SB, and went on to do little to nothing in the NFL. Maybe Manning cut a deal with the devil/NFL, "we'll give you a ring vs. the Bears, you give us something in return if/when we need it" ala the Godfather. Maybe Manning's a drug addict or was one, and the league knew it, got him out of it and kept it out of the press, and this was how he had to repay them. Maybe the league offered him a future cushy front office job or a talking head spot on CBS's pre-game show. I can't say for certain - I don't even know if it happened - but it doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with methods for the NFL to get a player to do their bidding.

The problem is that most every fan assumes that all these players do is play for the love of the game and the want to win a championship. This is the furthest thing from the truth. To many, this is simply a job. One that pays well due to the violence and risk involved in participating in it. Every player - even Hall of Famers - have bad games. Why? It could be they just had a bad game. It could also be because other things in their life matter more and kept their mind far from the field that day. It could be that player is just out there collecting a paycheck. It could be someone bribed him to throw the game. How can you tell one from the other?

Manning winning that Super Bowl wouldn't have added anything to that $90 million contract. And him losing didn't subtract from it either. You assume he'd be happier walking around with two rings on his hand rather than one (and granted, I'm assuming he may not care). The point is no matter how big Manning is, the league is bigger than him. It possesses he means and motive to control a game - even the Super Bowl which each year becomes more and more about production and product placement than the action in the game on the field. Who's to say Manning wasn't an actor that day simply playing the role assigned to him by the league?

Page 4 of 7

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM
"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 5 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#50 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:19 PM
'james', on 28 Apr 2012 - 4:03 PM, said:
I have been thinking the same things for a few years now. Maybe I'm being paraniod, I don't know. I've often wondered that the NFL would want "certain" teams to win over other teams.

The NFL is a business, first and foremost. Though they will certainly profit no matter what occurs, there is greater profit to be made when certain outcomes happen. You don't think the NFL loved seeing Tim Tebow get into the playoffs then beat the Steelers in that OT game? How much more cash did every team make (thanks to revenue sharing) when even more Tebow jerseys sold after that win? And how much more money does the NFL make off of similar sales when a legacy team like the Steelers win a Super Bowl with all the related merchandise?

I know I'm a bit paranoid myself, but when you can't seemingly find an honest institution anywhere you look (banking, government, and even the church sometimes), why do sports fans assume the leagues are operating in the fans' best interest? I would argue that the leagues only do so to a degree - in order to keep fans shelling out money for them to remain in business - otherwise they operate as any other business does with a me-first, money grubbing attitude.

#51 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 08:08 PM
'Brian2E', on 28 Apr 2012 - 7:19 PM, said:
The NFL is a business, first and foremost. Though they will certainly profit no matter what occurs, there is greater profit to be made when certain outcomes happen. You don't think the NFL loved seeing Tim Tebow get into the playoffs then beat the Steelers in that OT game? How much more cash did every team make (thanks to revenue sharing) when even more Tebow jerseys sold after that win? And how much more money does the NFL make off of similar sales when a legacy team like the Steelers win a Super Bowl with all the related merchandise?

I know I'm a bit paranoid myself, but when you can't seemingly find an honest institution anywhere you look (banking, government, and even the church sometimes), why do sports fans assume the leagues are operating in the fans' best interest? I would argue that the leagues only do so to a degree - in order to keep fans shelling out money for them to remain in business - otherwise they operate as any other business does with a me-first, money grubbing attitude.

Then why didn't the NFL fix it so Tebow would make it to the Super Bowl? There have been other players much favored as corporate endorsers, Michael Vick before the dogfighting scandal, for example. Why didn't the NFL fix it so Vick could play in a Super Bowl? Why didn't the fixers get Dan Marino into another Super Bowl? For that matter, why did it take 9 years for Peyton Manning to be allowed into a Super Bowl? Wouldn't Manning have been upset with the fixers for keeping him out of the big game?

Why didn't Manning or some other star blow the fix? He would have been a national hero if he did.

Anyone recall the most popular pro athlete of the 1970's? It was a fellow named O.J. Simpson. Why didn't the NFL and whoever gives the orders put O.J. into a Super Bowl? The Bills did make the playoffs in 1974 and could have in 1975 if a few calls had gone the other way.

Over the decades, many teams and individual stars fail to make the big game who would have drawn higher TV ratings than those who did.

#52 Bob Gill
PFRA Member
Posted 28 April 2012 - 08:12 PM
>I know I'm a bit paranoid myself,

No, really?

#53 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:00 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 28 Apr 2012 - 8:08 PM, said:
Then why didn't the NFL fix it so Tebow would make it to the Super Bowl? There have been other players much favored as corporate endorsers, Michael Vick before the dogfighting scandal, for example. Why didn't the NFL fix it so Vick could play in a Super Bowl? Why didn't the fixers get Dan Marino into another Super Bowl? For that matter, why did it take 9 years for Peyton Manning to be allowed into a Super Bowl? Wouldn't Manning have been upset with the fixers for keeping him out of the big game?

Why didn't Manning or some other star blow the fix? He would have been a national hero if he did.

Anyone recall the most popular pro athlete of the 1970's? It was a fellow named O.J. Simpson. Why didn't the NFL and whoever gives the orders put O.J. into a Super Bowl? The Bills did make the playoffs in 1974 and could have in 1975 if a few calls had gone the other way.

Over the decades, many teams and individual stars fail to make the big game who would have drawn higher TV ratings than those who did.

Who's to say Tebow doesn't get a Super Bowl ring with the Jets? Maybe it'll be Tebow-time in NYC when the SB is played there. The kid's only in his second year (and who's to say the NFL didn't already push him into the playoffs? Would any NFL fan believed it was real if he and the Broncos were in the SB last year?) With Vick, did you notice that NFL Security apparently had no idea one of its top athletes was involved in a dog fighting ring? That, again, was actual law enforcement at work. I know information on Dan Marino that I can't publicly release because I can't get my sources to go on the record about. But that could've-been, should've-been scandal would've easily kept Marino on the outs with the NFL in his heyday, believe me.

I admit I don't have all the answers - but at least I'm searching for them. I don't believe everything the NFL does has been/will be rigged. I believe as the league evolved and became more and more tied into the TV networks due to the money flowing in from them, they altered the game to suit the networks' desires. I believe when the NFL sees a storyline it can market and sell, it is willing to "pull a few strings" to ensure it is maximized. Because of this, I'm asking questions that few are willing to but more people should. I don't believe anything that comes out of Roger Goodell's mouth (or Rozelle's or Tagliabue's for that matter). These guys are corporate shills and have made bold faced lies to fans on behalf of the owners. If you think the bounty scandal is really about the Saints having a bounty program (which has been ongoing in the NFL for DECADES), then you're lost. It's about money - millions of dollars which are on the line in these justified concussion-based lawsuits brought about by former players. It's a PR move meant to show that the NFL cares about player safety, even though the athletes are for the most part used up and thrown away.

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.

#54 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:06 PM
'paulksandiego', on 28 Apr 2012 - 3:06 PM, said:
I concur with your second paragraph James...I'm a diehard Steelers fan but even I was astonished at the calls that went their way in those Super Bowls with Seattle and Arizona....the weirdest part is that a couple years later I had no confidence they were going to beat the Packers because deep down I figured the Steelers got their rub with those wins against Seattle and Arizona and no way the league was going to let the Packers lose as Aaron Rodgers was being groomed as the new Prince of the NFL.

Maybe it's just paranoia on my part, but I've seen a lot of screwy things involving the Steelers in the last 20 years.

To whomever posted that link to the Irving Fryar play in the Orange Bowl...yes, it sure as hell looks like he let that one go on purpose...it's kinda sad when you watch it.

I want to thank Mr. Tuohy for joining in this thread that I started. Never once did I ever even consider that as a possibility. All I ever really wanted to do was discuss Bobby Layne, but in reading over the thread since my last post, (I was away for a week tending to other business) I was surprised to see Mr. Tuohy's entry and all the discussion since.


Re: Layne, I tend to think fixing NFL football had to be pretty easy to fix (or point shave) in the 1950's and early 60's when comparatively few were watching / cared much and the money involved in the NFL and AFL had just started on its explosive exponential path upwards to todays level. I tend to think that re: Layne where there is smoke, there is fire. There are too many stories in my view for some of them not to be true. * IF * you believe Donald Dawson, then Layne is surely "guilty". I dont really see why he would lie about it myself. He wasnt pointing the finger at George Wilson, or Tobin Rote or Jim Doran or (Insert any Lion player's name here.)

As for some of Mr Tuohy's other conjecture, I can certainly agree that I think the NFL can manipulate it's games if it chooses to do so. What he says about them "owning" all the networks is basically true. They surely have a tremendous amount of influence over all the networks they deal with. And the whole Saint thing, the feel good ending to a much promoted story followed by the hammer on all the Saint transgressions now, after the "feel good" loop was concluded. I can see the possibility at least, of that being a valid theory. We'll probably never have proof positive.

I have read, (perhaps it was in "The Fix Is In"; I honestly dont recall at this moment) that NASCAR manipulated the Daytona 500 that Dale Jr. won right after Dale Sr. died and that sure seems-feels like a manipulated scenario right along side the whole Saints "storyline". True or not? I dont know, but that one smells bad & did to me at the time, and so could the Saint story if you choose to view it that way.

Finally, I quoted the above post because I have always believed the Seattle-Pittsburgh Super Bowl was manipulated (to say the least, thrown to say the most) by the officials. Seattle was jobbed in that game. Worst officiating I have ever seen. With the Steeler-Cardinal game, I didnt watch it as dispassionately or objectively as I did the Seattle game. In that one (Seattle), I just wanted a good game, didnt care who won. With the Cardinals game I was openly rooting for Arizona to win. If it was ever proven to me that I was manipulated, the credibility of the NFL would be irretreivably gone. Sad story if its true, cautionary tales even if it isnt.

You know, if the UFL plays this year, you probably COULD throw one of their games with ridiculous ease, but would any one even bother? Is there even a betting market for that league? And how easy must college football be to fix, there are fixing and point shaving scandals in college basketball all the time.

#55 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:47 PM

'Marble_Eye', on 28 Apr 2012 - 9:06 PM, said:
I have read, (perhaps it was in "The Fix Is In"; I honestly dont recall at this moment) that NASCAR manipulated the Daytona 500 that Dale Jr. won right after Dale Sr. died and that sure seems-feels like a manipulated scenario right along side the whole Saints "storyline". True or not? I dont know, but that one smells bad & did to me at the time, and so could the Saint story if you choose to view it that way.

Earnhardt's son won the 2001 Pepsi 400 that was run at Daytona about 4 1/2 months after his father's death. I think if NASCAR wanted to manipulate things, they would have fixed the race the following weekend, which Dale Jr. did compete in. He finished in 43rd place after a wreck abruptly ended his day--hardly a storybook finish.

Regarding the stern expression of Manning before his losing Super Bowl effort--I'm pretty sure they call that "game face." When the elder Clay Matthews played for the Browns between 1978-93, a clubhouse guy said that he was the nicest guy around--unless it was in the hours leading up to a game. Then, the strong advice was to stay away from him.

Finally, if the NFL was truly pulling the strings, wouldn't they have fixed Super Bowl XXXV in favor of the Giants, instead of the Ravens. After all, the Ravens' top player was a guy who had already dragged the League's name into the mud after being briefly jailed for murder, then lying about what actually took place. That's hardly a feel-good story. Another game to fix for positive PR would have been the Pats-Eagles Super Bowl four years later. An Eagles win would have vindicated Donovan McNabb as a quality QB the year after Rush Limbaugh insulted him on ESPN.

#56 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 28 April 2012 - 10:00 PM

'BD Sullivan', on 28 Apr 2012 - 9:47 PM, said:
Finally, if the NFL was truly pulling the strings, wouldn't they have fixed Super Bowl XXXV in favor of the Giants, instead of the Ravens. After all, the Ravens' top player was a guy who had already dragged the League's name into the mud after being briefly jailed for murder, then lying about what actually took place. That's hardly a feel-good story.
Not every game can be fixed and not every player can be bought.

As for the certain Colts QB discussed earlier, there are rumors that he may have things to hide. Could it be enough to blackmail him on a scale so large? How far would you go to protect secrets?

#57 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:18 AM

'Brian2E', on 28 Apr 2012 - 9:00 PM, said:
Who's to say Tebow doesn't get a Super Bowl ring with the Jets? Maybe it'll be Tebow-time in NYC when the SB is played there. The kid's only in his second year (and who's to say the NFL didn't already push him into the playoffs? Would any NFL fan believed it was real if he and the Broncos were in the SB last year?) With Vick, did you notice that NFL Security apparently had no idea one of its top athletes was involved in a dog fighting ring? That, again, was actual law enforcement at work. I know information on Dan Marino that I can't publicly release because I can't get my sources to go on the record about. But that could've-been, should've-been scandal would've easily kept Marino on the outs with the NFL in his heyday, believe me.

I admit I don't have all the answers - but at least I'm searching for them. I don't believe everything the NFL does has been/will be rigged. I believe as the league evolved and became more and more tied into the TV networks due to the money flowing in from them, they altered the game to suit the networks' desires. I believe when the NFL sees a storyline it can market and sell, it is willing to "pull a few strings" to ensure it is maximized. Because of this, I'm asking questions that few are willing to but more people should. I don't believe anything that comes out of Roger Goodell's mouth (or Rozelle's or Tagliabue's for that matter). These guys are corporate shills and have made bold faced lies to fans on behalf of the owners. If you think the bounty scandal is really about the Saints having a bounty program (which has been ongoing in the NFL for DECADES), then you're lost. It's about money - millions of dollars which are on the line in these justified concussion-based lawsuits brought about by former players. It's a PR move meant to show that the NFL cares about player safety, even though the athletes are for the most part used up and thrown away.

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.

"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?

#58 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:21 AM
'Wildcats Unite', on 28 Apr 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:
Not every game can be fixed and not every player can be bought.

As for the certain Colts QB discussed earlier, there are rumors that he may have things to hide. Could it be enough to blackmail him on a scale so large? How far would you go to protect secrets?

If Peyton Manning has something to hide, why hasn't it already been exposed? Plenty of writers would love to do so for the same reason they would enjoy exposing the fixing of games. This is the 21st Century, not the 50's and 60's.

#59 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:24 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 28 Apr 2012 - 9:47 PM, said:
Earnhardt's son won the 2001 Pepsi 400 that was run at Daytona about 4 1/2 months after his father's death. I think if NASCAR wanted to manipulate things, they would have fixed the race the following weekend, which Dale Jr. did compete in. He finished in 43rd place after a wreck abruptly ended his day--hardly a storybook finish.

Regarding the stern expression of Manning before his losing Super Bowl effort--I'm pretty sure they call that "game face." When the elder Clay Matthews played for the Browns between 1978-93, a clubhouse guy said that he was the nicest guy around--unless it was in the hours leading up to a game. Then, the strong advice was to stay away from him.

Finally, if the NFL was truly pulling the strings, wouldn't they have fixed Super Bowl XXXV in favor of the Giants, instead of the Ravens. After all, the Ravens' top player was a guy who had already dragged the League's name into the mud after being briefly jailed for murder, then lying about what actually took place. That's hardly a feel-good story. Another game to fix for positive PR would have been the Pats-Eagles Super Bowl four years later. An Eagles win would have vindicated Donovan McNabb as a quality QB the year after Rush Limbaugh insulted him on ESPN.

Absolutely. Donovan McNabb winning a Super Bowl would have been very welcome PR for the NFL.

Page 5 of 7

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 6 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#60 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:39 AM
'Marble_Eye', on 28 Apr 2012 - 9:06 PM, said:
I want to thank Mr. Tuohy for joining in this thread that I started. Never once did I ever even consider that as a possibility. All I ever really wanted to do was discuss Bobby Layne, but in reading over the thread since my last post, (I was away for a week tending to other business) I was surprised to see Mr. Tuohy's entry and all the discussion since.

Re: Layne, I tend to think fixing NFL football had to be pretty easy to fix (or point shave) in the 1950's and early 60's when comparatively few were watching / cared much and the money involved in the NFL and AFL had just started on its explosive exponential path upwards to todays level. I tend to think that re: Layne where there is smoke, there is fire. There are too many stories in my view for some of them not to be true. * IF * you believe Donald Dawson, then Layne is surely "guilty". I dont really see why he would lie about it myself. He wasnt pointing the finger at George Wilson, or Tobin Rote or Jim Doran or (Insert any Lion player's name here.)

As for some of Mr Tuohy's other conjecture, I can certainly agree that I think the NFL can manipulate it's games if it chooses to do so. What he says about them "owning" all the networks is basically true. They surely have a tremendous amount of influence over all the networks they deal with. And the whole Saint thing, the feel good ending to a much promoted story followed by the hammer on all the Saint transgressions now, after the "feel good" loop was concluded. I can see the possibility at least, of that being a valid theory. We'll probably never have proof positive.

I have read, (perhaps it was in "The Fix Is In"; I honestly dont recall at this moment) that NASCAR manipulated the Daytona 500 that Dale Jr. won right after Dale Sr. died and that sure seems-feels like a manipulated scenario right along side the whole Saints "storyline". True or not? I dont know, but that one smells bad & did to me at the time, and so could the Saint story if you choose to view it that way.

Finally, I quoted the above post because I have always believed the Seattle-Pittsburgh Super Bowl was manipulated (to say the least, thrown to say the most) by the officials. Seattle was jobbed in that game. Worst officiating I have ever seen. With the Steeler-Cardinal game, I didnt watch it as dispassionately or objectively as I did the Seattle game. In that one (Seattle), I just wanted a good game, didnt care who won. With the Cardinals game I was openly rooting for Arizona to win. If it was ever proven to me that I was manipulated, the credibility of the NFL would be irretreivably gone. Sad story if its true, cautionary tales even if it isnt.

You know, if the UFL plays this year, you probably COULD throw one of their games with ridiculous ease, but would any one even bother? Is there even a betting market for that league? And how easy must college football be to fix, there are fixing and point shaving scandals in college basketball all the time.

I'm happy to join in because my main goal is to get fans to think about the sport and league they love. Most accept what the league does without question. This is an extreme foolish path to take. I would ask the people on this forum, why do you trust the NFL? What has the league done to make you feel they are 100% honest with you all the time?

The thing about Layne was, Dice Dawson told Moldea he fixed games because Layne had passed away. He didn't feel the need to protect him. And in Interference, Dawson claimed other QBs worked with him as well, but he wouldn't name names because they were still living.

From my research, I believe games are (or at the very least, could be) fixed by gamblers. Everything has simply ramped up since the 1960s in the illegal gambling world. There's more money involved and more places to bet as gamblers can now literally bet NFL games around the globe. A current professional sports bettor told me that a few years ago when working with a gambling syndicate, occasionally an "open order" would come in on a game. That meant everyone was to bet on that team regardless of the line. The notion was this is a "can't lose" game, and he said 99% of the time, that was the case. He couldn't definitively say game X was fixed, but clearly information came in to them (and they never asked where the info came from or why) that this was as sure of a thing as possible.

#61 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:52 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 28 Apr 2012 - 9:47 PM, said:
Earnhardt's son won the 2001 Pepsi 400 that was run at Daytona about 4 1/2 months after his father's death. I think if NASCAR wanted to manipulate things, they would have fixed the race the following weekend, which Dale Jr. did compete in. He finished in 43rd place after a wreck abruptly ended his day--hardly a storybook finish.

Regarding the stern expression of Manning before his losing Super Bowl effort--I'm pretty sure they call that "game face." When the elder Clay Matthews played for the Browns between 1978-93, a clubhouse guy said that he was the nicest guy around--unless it was in the hours leading up to a game. Then, the strong advice was to stay away from him.

Finally, if the NFL was truly pulling the strings, wouldn't they have fixed Super Bowl XXXV in favor of the Giants, instead of the Ravens. After all, the Ravens' top player was a guy who had already dragged the League's name into the mud after being briefly jailed for murder, then lying about what actually took place. That's hardly a feel-good story. Another game to fix for positive PR would have been the Pats-Eagles Super Bowl four years later. An Eagles win would have vindicated Donovan McNabb as a quality QB the year after Rush Limbaugh insulted him on ESPN.

I did write about Junior's tainted win in The Fix Is In. Perhaps the following week's race was to be fixed, but Earnhardt - as you pointed out - crashed. You can't fix that. But his later win - the first race back at Daytona, in prime time broadcast on NBC as the first race of their new TV deal with NASCAR - looked extremely suspect. Couple the result with the fact that at least two drivers openly stated they were not going to attempt to pass Junior at the end of the race, and I'd call that fixed.

As for why the Ravens over the Giants in SB XXXV, it's simple: the NFL gave one to old-time owner Art Modell for moving to Baltimore. The NFL did a study and determined the five cities that it would most like to expand to. Those were Jacksonville and Charlotte (who got the Cat teams), St. Louis, Baltimore, and Memphis. Amazing the 3 non-expansion cities all reached SBs shortly after uprooting established franchises with two of the three winning it all. You can call that an amazing coincidence, but I'll call it something else.

With the Eagles, recall this was during the Pats' Spygate years. Once that scandal came to light, there were a couple of Eagles who questioned that Super Bowl and the Pats' play calling selection. And that's what got Sen. Arlen Spector involved. Maybe the NFL couldn't get to Belichick until after he was busted - by another coach, remind you, not the NFL itself. Kraft is in fact a very powerful owner in the league, and set up many profitable deals plus he had connections with CBS as he once worked at Viacom. All of this may be why the NFL didn't throw the Eagles a bone.

#62 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:03 AM
'Brian2E', on 29 Apr 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:
I'm happy to join in because my main goal is to get fans to think about the sport and league they love. Most accept what the league does without question. This is an extreme foolish path to take. I would ask the people on this forum, why do you trust the NFL? What has the league done to make you feel they are 100% honest with you all the time?

The thing about Layne was, Dice Dawson told Moldea he fixed games because Layne had passed away. He didn't feel the need to protect him. And in Interference, Dawson claimed other QBs worked with him as well, but he wouldn't name names because they were still living.

From my research, I believe games are (or at the very least, could be) fixed by gamblers. Everything has simply ramped up since the 1960s in the illegal gambling world. There's more money involved and more places to bet as gamblers can now literally bet NFL games around the globe. A current professional sports bettor told me that a few years ago when working with a gambling syndicate, occasionally an "open order" would come in on a game. That meant everyone was to bet on that team regardless of the line. The notion was this is a "can't lose" game, and he said 99% of the time, that was the case. He couldn't definitively say game X was fixed, but clearly information came in to them (and they never asked where the info came from or why) that this was as sure of a thing as possible.

Of course, there's another, perhaps even better, reason for making the claim after Bobby Layne died--because Layne was no longer around to dispute it.

I'm going to read the book, but frankly, if your postings here are examples of what you say in the book, it's very sloppy journalism. In fact, it borders on not being journalism at all. What "current professional sports bettor" told you this? and what "gambling syndicate" did he work with? As one who grew up in the newspaper business (my father and grandfather were both newspapermen and I was, too, for about 15 years), I know that allegations based on anonymous are not much better than totally unsourced allegations.

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.

And I simply believe that it couldn't be concealed for very long. Do you know why the Hornung/Karras thing came to light? It was because bookies knew that something was going on. In late 1962, it was impossible to bet on a game involving the Packers or Lions because those games were taken off the board. I was aware of this even though I was working for a newspaper in Ohio at the time. Certainly most Packer fans were aware of it, even those who didn't bet on games. Bookies complained to the NFL because they were losing money, with those games off the board.

Does anyone here honestly think that a Super Bowl could be fixed without an alert being sounded by that early warning system? I don't.

#63 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:04 AM
'SixtiesFan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:
If Peyton Manning has something to hide, why hasn't it already been exposed? Plenty of writers would love to do so for the same reason they would enjoy exposing the fixing of games. This is the 21st Century, not the 50's and 60's.

You're right - it's not the 50's and 60's, but I wish it was. Today's sportswriters actually have less integrity than their earlier counterparts. Find me a handful of negative stories about NFL players today. You can't. They don't exist because they aren't written. The biggest names in sports media, the ones who should have the power to write/broadcast whatever story they want, the Bob Costases and Dan Patricks of this world, do nothing of note. Nothing. Jason Whitlock and a few others write opinion pieces, but they are just that - opinion, not actual investigative reporting.

Case in point: the recent story of Sam Hurd, who was making $700,000 a year as a WR for the Bears, but was busted attempting to purchase $700,000 worth of marijuana and cocaine a WEEK. Sources stated that he sold these drugs to "high end" clients, some of which were other players. Who? Who knows? No one's following the case which is currently ongoing. This is potentially a major scandal within the NFL, but not a single sportswriter that I can find has written a follow-up piece since the initial story broke (and notice too, that once again a case law enforcement made this happen, not NFL Security).

The reason is what I stated before: the major media corporations invest in broadcasting these games and some even own teams. Why would they allow their reporters to publish negative stories against their investments? That's not good business.

#64 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 11:22 AM
'rhickok1109', on 29 Apr 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:
Of course, there's another, perhaps even better, reason for making the claim after Bobby Layne died--because Layne was no longer around to dispute it.

I'm going to read the book, but frankly, if your postings here are examples of what you say in the book, it's very sloppy journalism. In fact, it borders on not being journalism at all. What "current professional sports bettor" told you this? and what "gambling syndicate" did he work with? As one who grew up in the newspaper business (my father and grandfather were both newspapermen and I was, too, for about 15 years), I know that allegations based on anonymous are not much better than totally unsourced allegations.

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.

And I simply believe that it couldn't be concealed for very long. Do you know why the Hornung/Karras thing came to light? It was because bookies knew that something was going on. In late 1962, it was impossible to bet on a game involving the Packers or Lions because those games were taken off the board. I was aware of this even though I was working for a newspaper in Ohio at the time. Certainly most Packer fans were aware of it, even those who didn't bet on games. Bookies complained to the NFL because they were losing money, with those games off the board.

Does anyone here honestly think that a Super Bowl could be fixed without an alert being sounded by that early warning system? I don't.

I will publish the name and background of my source on the "open orders" bit in my next book. I'm not doing here on this board. And believe me, in the gambling world, he is very well known.

Hornung wrote in Golden Boy that other members of the Packers were betting on games and "got away with it." He also wrote in the book that Chicago Bears RB Rick Casares was betting on games with Hornung, and he got away with it although it was rumors about Casares that kicked this whole thing off. Hornung also told Sports Illustrated in the mid-1980s that 10-12 other Packers were gambling. Where was Rozelle back in 1962? You really believe the NFL fully investigated this? What about Carroll Rosenbloom, the Colts owner, who was known to bet for and against the Colts? And that's the tip of the iceberg because those same gamblers and bookies who tipped off the NFL also told the FBI about many, many other games that were likely fixed but guess who didn't pick up a finger to look into them? The NFL, and the AFL for that matter. My next book will explain this all in greater detail that I will attempt to do here.

I believe you should hold back on the "sloppy journalism" claim 'til you get all the facts. Everything in my book is noted and sourced. You may not like my conclusions, but you can't deny my sources upon which they are based.

#65 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 12:42 PM
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.

#66 Kelly1105
PFRA Member
Posted 29 April 2012 - 01:45 PM
'Rupert Patrick', on 25 Apr 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:
A lot of Steelers fans I know swear that Neil O'Donnell threw the Super Bowl to Dallas, but I disagree.

The one sequence in a game I witnessed that seemed very suspicious was the Eagles play calling late in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl 39 against New England. It seemed the Eagles wasted several minutes when they were two scores behind and inexplicably did not go into a two minute offense and seemed to be taking their time going down the field.

As far as Super Bowl 13, the casinos lost huge taking bets on the game. Most of the Pittsburgh fans placed their bets when the Steelers were 3 1/2 point favorites, but the odds shifted and most of the big money that was bet on Dallas was giving the Cowboys 4 1/2 points, so most of the people who bet on the game won, and the casinos lost millions on the game.

Actually I can vouch for the Eagles on this one. Through out Reid's tenure with the Eagles their 2 minute offense has had a tendency to "waste time". This is one of several faults that drive Eagle fans nuts about Andy Reid.

#67 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:14 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:
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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, my friend. You'll admit that the owners don't care about the fans, but then you'll turn around and say that they'll willingly provide those same fans with an "honest" game? That's akin to saying, "I don't like those people in Congress because they don't care about their constituents, but I'm certain they're doing their best to represent us when making/voting for laws." It can't be both. If you believe the owners don't care about the fans, and are willing to go a step further and say you don't have any "illusions" about the players either, then how can you believe that it would be below them all to fix a game? Especially when I've pointed out here that no one is actively looking for the NFL to fix a game. Since this is the case, then there is no risk in rigging a game; there is only reward. This sort of action would be in their best financial interest.

I've said this before in interviews, but think of it this way: If McDonald's could alter the taste of their hamburgers to make them tastier as you're consuming one, would they do it? Of course they would as this would make the eating experience there that more pleasurable for people, making them more willing to return for another meal. This is what I'm saying the NFL can do: they can alter their games (and the story lines within a season) while you are watching them to make them more exciting and entertaining, meaning fans will want to tune in next week to see what happens. So what exactly is stopping them from doing this? Nothing besides what fans believe is the league's honest intentions. But no law prevents this action, and it would make incredibly good business sense for the league to do this. So fans take it on faith this hasn't/won't occur. What I'm saying is, don't be such a rube.

All the dominoes are aligned for a league like the NFL to manipulate their own games. It wouldn't take much to tip that first one over and watch the rest fall.

#68 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:23 PM
'Brian2E', on 29 Apr 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:
Case in point: the recent story of Sam Hurd, who was making $700,000 a year as a WR for the Bears, but was busted attempting to purchase $700,000 worth of marijuana and cocaine a WEEK. Sources stated that he sold these drugs to "high end" clients, some of which were other players. Who? Who knows? No one's following the case which is currently ongoing. This is potentially a major scandal within the NFL, but not a single sportswriter that I can find has written a follow-up piece since the initial story broke (and notice too, that once again a case law enforcement made this happen, not NFL Security).

When he was indicted:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... 52381014/1

Noting that the start of his trial has been pushed back August (from April):

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football ... ugust.html

Exactly what would you have said sportswriters do before then? Engage in mindless speculation about what might happen (i.e. who the "high-end clients" might be?) In addition, neither the defense or prosecution is going to provide information on this case to the media. If there is no coverage of this in August, then you'll have cause to scream coverup, but until then, the concept of innocent before proven guilty springs to mind.

#69 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 05:31 PM
'Brian2E', on 29 Apr 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:
As for why the Ravens over the Giants in SB XXXV, it's simple: the NFL gave one to old-time owner Art Modell for moving to Baltimore. The NFL did a study and determined the five cities that it would most like to expand to. Those were Jacksonville and Charlotte (who got the Cat teams), St. Louis, Baltimore, and Memphis. Amazing the 3 non-expansion cities all reached SBs shortly after uprooting established franchises with two of the three winning it all. You can call that an amazing coincidence, but I'll call it something else.

By that logic, shouldn't the Browns have won SOMETHING since their return in 1999? That would have be a less-tragic version of the New Orleans "storyline," since the city had had its team ripped away after supporting it for 50 years. Instead, they've ironically resembled the early decades of the Saints.

Page 6 of 7

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 6 of 7

138 replies to this topic
#70 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:29 PM
'Brian2E', on 29 Apr 2012 - 3:14 PM, said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, my friend. You'll admit that the owners don't care about the fans, but then you'll turn around and say that they'll willingly provide those same fans with an "honest" game? That's akin to saying, "I don't like those people in Congress because they don't care about their constituents, but I'm certain they're doing their best to represent us when making/voting for laws." It can't be both. If you believe the owners don't care about the fans, and are willing to go a step further and say you don't have any "illusions" about the players either, then how can you believe that it would be below them all to fix a game? Especially when I've pointed out here that no one is actively looking for the NFL to fix a game. Since this is the case, then there is no risk in rigging a game; there is only reward. This sort of action would be in their best financial interest.

I've said this before in interviews, but think of it this way: If McDonald's could alter the taste of their hamburgers to make them tastier as you're consuming one, would they do it? Of course they would as this would make the eating experience there that more pleasurable for people, making them more willing to return for another meal. This is what I'm saying the NFL can do: they can alter their games (and the story lines within a season) while you are watching them to make them more exciting and entertaining, meaning fans will want to tune in next week to see what happens. So what exactly is stopping them from doing this? Nothing besides what fans believe is the league's honest intentions. But no law prevents this action, and it would make incredibly good business sense for the league to do this. So fans take it on faith this hasn't/won't occur. What I'm saying is, don't be such a rube.

All the dominoes are aligned for a league like the NFL to manipulate their own games. It wouldn't take much to tip that first one over and watch the rest fall.

First, I found your site and read some interesting pieces. I'll try to read your book and will give it a fair hearing.

The owners provide an "honest" game because it is in their financial interest to do so, not for the sake of the fans. Being caught in a fix puts them out of business.

Do the owners, coaches and players have the competency to pull this off for decades? How many times are coaches and players unable to make a game plan work when they are trying their best? More than a few. Speaking of making the games entertaining, why were most Super Bowls so boring for a long time?

Again, why hasn't a disgruntled loser blown a fix? This is what happened in the TV quiz show scandals of the late 50's.

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 7 of 7

138 replies to this topic

#71 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:23 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 7:29 PM, said:
How many times are coaches and players unable to make a game plan work when they are trying their best? More than a few.

The owners provide an "honest" game because it is in their financial interest to do so, not for the sake of the fans. Being caught in a fix puts them out of business.

Which reminds me of the Bud Grant quote that laughed at coaches who sleep in their offices to supposedly get an extra edge, then lose because they can't control what a football does when it hits the ground.

The owners also like the tax benefits they derive from owning a team, as well as the government pretty much staying off their back. Let some game-fixing happen and the government will undoubtedly come down on them hard with antitrust issues, among other things.

#72 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:23 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:
If Peyton Manning has something to hide, why hasn't it already been exposed? Plenty of writers would love to do so for the same reason they would enjoy exposing the fixing of games. This is the 21st Century, not the 50's and 60's.

I'm not saying that I was referring to Manning, but how often do you see newspapers publish articles about pro athletes cheating on their wives, going broke, doing drugs, getting STDs, having sex with people of the same gender, and racking up children in various cities? You'll see some things come to light because of failed drug tests that have to be reported, or when pro athletes have to testify at a major trial (see the Gold Club trial), but otherwise, the beat writers stay away from outing players for everyday sins.

Consider the case of a recently retired NFL star who sent photos of his manhood to a woman via cell phone. Do you think it was the first time that he strayed from his wife or even the first time that he had sent photos of that sort to someone? Do you think the beat writers haven't seen married players getting cozy with "road beef"?

#73 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:34 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 5:23 PM, said:
When he was indicted:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... 52381014/1

Noting that the start of his trial has been pushed back August (from April):

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football ... ugust.html

Exactly what would you have said sportswriters do before then? Engage in mindless speculation about what might happen (i.e. who the "high-end clients" might be?) In addition, neither the defense or prosecution is going to provide information on this case to the media. If there is no coverage of this in August, then you'll have cause to scream coverup, but until then, the concept of innocent before proven guilty springs to mind.

Really? There's nothing contained within this story that's worth reporting on until the trial? Did you happen to see any of the coverage of the Zimmerman/Trayvon shooting in FL, or any of the the other kidnappings, murders, etc. that get national news coverage well before the trial begins? There are many stories, leads, investigations that sports reporters could be doing right now on the Hurd case, but I guarantee you they won't....unless law enforcement releases more information.

#74 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:43 AM
'BD Sullivan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 5:31 PM, said:
By that logic, shouldn't the Browns have won SOMETHING since their return in 1999? That would have be a less-tragic version of the New Orleans "storyline," since the city had had its team ripped away after supporting it for 50 years. Instead, they've ironically resembled the early decades of the Saints.

Shouldn't have Jacksonville? Or the Lions? 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.

#75 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:51 AM
'SixtiesFan', on 29 Apr 2012 - 7:29 PM, said:
First, I found your site and read some interesting pieces. I'll try to read your book and will give it a fair hearing.

The owners provide an "honest" game because it is in their financial interest to do so, not for the sake of the fans. Being caught in a fix puts them out of business.

Do the owners, coaches and players have the competency to pull this off for decades? How many times are coaches and players unable to make a game plan work when they are trying their best? More than a few. Speaking of making the games entertaining, why were most Super Bowls so boring for a long time?

Again, why hasn't a disgruntled loser blown a fix? This is what happened in the TV quiz show scandals of the late 50's.


The counter to your SB question is why are they so nail-biting now? Perhaps the NFL left the games play out as they should, only to hear complaints from both the TV networks and advertisers because too many fans stopped watching blowouts. Now it seems more and more SBs are coming down to the fourth quarter, meaning fewer are changing the channel as games remain exciting longer.

As for the quiz show scandal, recall though a whistleblower brought them down, it was a government investigation that made it all possible. Without that investigation, there would've been no whistleblower. With the NFL, as I've pointed out here a few times, no one's looking for corruption. And without concrete evidence of a fix, no one's going to believe the whistleblower. It took pre-sealed and postmarked answers from a quiz show contestant to bring them down. An athlete or coach would need something similar, and that's not going to exist.

And really, isn't in the owners best financial interest to have exciting, interesting games rather than those that are necessarily "honest?"

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

Page 7 Contined

138 replies to this topic

#76 97Den98
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:15 AM
'Brian2E', on 29 Apr 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:
I did write about Junior's tainted win in The Fix Is In. Perhaps the following week's race was to be fixed, but Earnhardt - as you pointed out - crashed. You can't fix that. But his later win - the first race back at Daytona, in prime time broadcast on NBC as the first race of their new TV deal with NASCAR - looked extremely suspect. Couple the result with the fact that at least two drivers openly stated they were not going to attempt to pass Junior at the end of the race, and I'd call that fixed.

As for why the Ravens over the Giants in SB XXXV, it's simple: the NFL gave one to old-time owner Art Modell for moving to Baltimore. The NFL did a study and determined the five cities that it would most like to expand to. Those were Jacksonville and Charlotte (who got the Cat teams), St. Louis, Baltimore, and Memphis. Amazing the 3 non-expansion cities all reached SBs shortly after uprooting established franchises with two of the three winning it all. You can call that an amazing coincidence, but I'll call it something else.

With the Eagles, recall this was during the Pats' Spygate years. Once that scandal came to light, there were a couple of Eagles who questioned that Super Bowl and the Pats' play calling selection. And that's what got Sen. Arlen Spector involved. Maybe the NFL couldn't get to Belichick until after he was busted - by another coach, remind you, not the NFL itself. Kraft is in fact a very powerful owner in the league, and set up many profitable deals plus he had connections with CBS as he once worked at Viacom. All of this may be why the NFL didn't throw the Eagles a bone.

I think that Modell had his eyes on Baltimore since the early-90's. He moved the Browns Backers fan club to Baltimore, and he said that Baltimore was a bad expansion city during the early-90's expansion meetings.

#77 John Grasso
Board of Directors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:20 AM

'Brian2E', on 30 Apr 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:
And really, isn't in the owners best financial interest to have exciting, interesting games rather than those that are necessarily "honest?"
But if that's the case you now have professional wrestling or roller derby.

#78 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:22 AM

'Brian2E', on 30 Apr 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:
The counter to your SB question is why are they so nail-biting now? Perhaps the NFL left the games play out as they should, only to hear complaints from both the TV networks and advertisers because too many fans stopped watching blowouts. Now it seems more and more SBs are coming down to the fourth quarter, meaning fewer are changing the channel as games remain exciting longer.

I think the reason the Super Bowls are so close since 1996 is one of two things, or a combination - (1) it can just be a random trend, in the same way so many of the Super Bowls from 1984 to 1995 were blowouts, or (2) the competitive balance between the teams in the league (aka Parity) has narrowed to the point where there isn't much difference between the best teams. There is really no way to check a random trend; sometimes when you toss a coin in the air ten times it comes down heads seven or eight times in ten. However, there are ways you could check if Parity is narrowing, one way is to look at all games (regular season and postseason, but you could leave the Super Bowls out of it) in which two teams who would make the playoffs in that season played one another, and what the point differential was between the two teams in those games and also measure 1984 - 1995 against 1996 - 2012, and maybe as a control measure it against 1967 - 1983 as a control as there were a good mix of close games and not so close games in the first 17 Super Bowls. Just to be thorough I would advise one should also check 1933 - 1949 and 1950 - 1966, although you might have to pick the division winners and runner ups in each division and check games between the top four teams, or any games between all teams with a .600 winning percentage or better. I would bet you would find in each of those five segments of Pro Football history covering roughly 12-15 years, is that the differential, or Parity, between the teams at the top have been narrowing over the years. Sometimes you need cold, hard statistical evidence to back up a point, and as somebody who does statistical research I sometimes find the evidence does not support my point, and I have to rethink my position. If you check Parity over the years and find it is not narrowing, but rather increasing, it may help bolster your argument, because it would explain that the gap between the best teams is increasing but the gap between Super Bowl teams is closer.

I would much rather believe that Parity is narrowing or close Super Bowls are a random trend than believe that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are intentionally throwing Super Bowls.

#79 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:16 AM

'Rupert Patrick', on 30 Apr 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:
I think the reason the Super Bowls are so close since 1996 is one of two things, or a combination - (1) it can just be a random trend, in the same way so many of the Super Bowls from 1984 to 1995 were blowouts, or (2) the competitive balance between the teams in the league (aka Parity) has narrowed to the point where there isn't much difference between the best teams. There is really no way to check a random trend; sometimes when you toss a coin in the air ten times it comes down heads seven or eight times in ten. However, there are ways you could check if Parity is narrowing, one way is to look at all games (regular season and postseason, but you could leave the Super Bowls out of it) in which two teams who would make the playoffs in that season played one another, and what the point differential was between the two teams in those games and also measure 1984 - 1995 against 1996 - 2012, and maybe as a control measure it against 1967 - 1983 as a control as there were a good mix of close games and not so close games in the first 17 Super Bowls. Just to be thorough I would advise one should also check 1933 - 1949 and 1950 - 1966, although you might have to pick the division winners and runner ups in each division and check games between the top four teams, or any games between all teams with a .600 winning percentage or better. I would bet you would find in each of those five segments of Pro Football history covering roughly 12-15 years, is that the differential, or Parity, between the teams at the top have been narrowing over the years. Sometimes you need cold, hard statistical evidence to back up a point, and as somebody who does statistical research I sometimes find the evidence does not support my point, and I have to rethink my position. If you check Parity over the years and find it is not narrowing, but rather increasing, it may help bolster your argument, because it would explain that the gap between the best teams is increasing but the gap between Super Bowl teams is closer.
I would much rather believe that Parity is narrowing or close Super Bowls are a random trend than believe that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are intentionally throwing Super Bowls.

I'm no statistician myself, but I believe that parity is a myth. An intentionally created falsehood for which the NFL can hide behind. One of the things I did in my book was say, OK, if the NFL wanted parity what would be the opposite? That would be baseball where clearly the notion of parity doesn't exist. Yet in the Super Bowl era - which is pretty much when Rozelle introduced the idea - a higher percentage of MLB franchises either played in or won the World Series than NFL teams for the Super Bowl. In other words, for the championship at least, MLB has had greater parity than the NFL.

But parity also allows for the notion that "anything can happen" and "any team can win it all this season." From a business-sense, that's a great promotional tool whether its true or not. Cubs fans, Orioles fans, and a few others can look at this 2012 season and state unequivocally "we have zero hope of a playoff berth this year." Could any NFL team's fans say the same thing? This wiggle room allows for manipulation to occur unnoticed. Two wins turn a 7-9 team into a 9-7 team with a playoff berth, which makes that seemingly struggling team 3 wins away from a Super Bowl. A couple of penalties, a turnover here or there, and any team can get two extra wins - legitimately or perhaps with some help from above.

#80 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:24 AM
'John Grasso', on 30 Apr 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:
But if that's the case you now have professional wrestling or roller derby.

Maybe that is in fact what you have. What does the WWE have the audacity to do that (so far) even the NFL won't try? Pay-per-view events. And how many millions of dollars does the WWE bring in each year? Even though wrestling is "fake," many people watch.

But how far removed are NFL players from professional wrestlers, really? Great athletic ability? Check. Steroids? Check. Loud mouths? Check. Storylines with heroes, underdogs & villains? Check. The only difference really is that one is completely staged while the other is believed to be 100% real. What if it's only 90% real? Or 50% real? Could you tell the difference? And are you even trying to look?

Page 7

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 7 Continued

138 replies to this topic
#81 John Grasso
Board of Directors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:31 PM

'Brian2E', on 30 Apr 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:
Maybe that is in fact what you have. What does the WWE have the audacity to do that (so far) even the NFL won't try? Pay-per-view events. And how many millions of dollars does the WWE bring in each year? Even though wrestling is "fake," many people watch.

But how far removed are NFL players from professional wrestlers, really? Great athletic ability? Check. Steroids? Check. Loud mouths? Check. Storylines with heroes, underdogs & villains? Check. The only difference really is that one is completely staged while the other is believed to be 100% real. What if it's only 90% real? Or 50% real? Could you tell the difference? And are you even trying to look?

Interesting response. Professional wrestling in the 1940s, 50s and 60s never acknowledged the fact
that it was staged even though most fans were aware of that fact. It was only within the last decade
or two that wrestling and wrestlers have discussed the role-playing it involves. Makes you wonder whether
football thirty years from now will also acknowledge a lack of authenticity. I certainly hope not.

#82 Dwarren
Forum Visitors
Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:45 PM
History shows that baseball, boxing, horse racing, as well as college and pro basketball have been fixed. There is no doubt in my mind that pro football has been 'manipulated' many more times than they have been forced to admit.

Pete Rozelle's NFL Security has done a masterful job in nipping problems in the bud before they come to light. They learned their lessons from 1962 very well and there is no league anywhere better at cleaning their dirty laundry in house.

There is so much money involved regarding the NFL now, that it would take a scandal of monumental proportions to get the feds involved in an investigation - which is my opinion is the only way any of the smoke surrounding questionable events ever turns into a fire. Will Sam Hurd be that case? Maybe. Time will tell.

Take the Ed Martin NCAA scandal with Michigan basketball, the only reason that came to light was that the feds (FBI, IRS) were investigating Martin's numbers running operation in the Detroit auto plants. And during that probe they stumbled onto the fact that he was sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wolverine recruits and players.

Thanks to all for a great thread. And I look forward to reading Mr. Tuohy's new book.

#83 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:31 AM
Fascinating topic, and it always will be. I wonder if any players started to throw a game, then went straight, Paul “Wrecking” Crew-style (Burt Reynolds of course, not Adam Sandler). Like maybe Ryan Grant in the 2007 playoff game against Seattle, when he fumbled twice early to set up the Seahawks for a 14-0 lead, then ran for 201 yards and three TDs in a 42-20 win. Or was Frank Reich on the take in the first half of the playoff with Houston, then shook free of the bookies and decided his team was more important in the second half.

Have coaches ever thrown games? That might make Flutie rest easier knowing Phillips was on the take when he started Johnson in the playoff game.

Of course, being a Vikings fan I’m looking for any conspiracy to explain the team’s January foibles (thanks Mr. Tuohy, now I’m tossing and turning re-examining every speck of purple history). Actually, the only Super Bowl that I could possibly see even an iota of impropriety was Super Bowl IX.

Yes, the Steelers dominated the line of scrimmage, but … John Gilliam intimated that the Pittsburgh secondary was holding him all game, and that certainly would have made a difference if those interferences were called, as one of them finally was in the fourth quarter.

Also the Larry Brown non-fumble late the game was originally called for the Vikings to take over the ball, but then the refs huddled and gave it back to Pittsburgh. I think instant replay bore out that the call was correct, however it was a bit muddled how it came about.

And certainly the storyline of good guy Art Rooney winning a title after 42 years of lousy football was one that the NFL and Rozelle had to love.

So I think I’m going to jump into a time machine and go Woodward and Bernstein on those refs. Follow the money … follow the money.

P.S. I’m still suspicious of Irving Fryar and that dopey-looking Orange Bowl drop. And I always will be.

#84 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:52 AM
I am at a loss to respond to most of the content in this thread. The "evidence" that is brought up to support the idea that NFL games are fixed is mind-blowing. The Saints had 15 holding penalties called on them last year...NFL games are fixed. A bad call goes against the Giants...NFL games are fixed. Peyton Manning threw a Super Bowl, and as a reward he was given a big contract (because prior to that contract Manning was making the league minimum)...NFL games are fixed.

The inference I did not understand at all was in regards to Super Bowl XXX. If the game was fixed, then why was the outcome still in doubt at the end of the game? How would Larry Brown, a Cowboys player, also be in on the "fix" (late in the game, stand over here and Neil will throw you the ball)? Was Brown told by the NFL to "play better than you usually do"? The Jets and Raiders made terrible free agent signings in the mid-90's, with the Raiders in particular being infatuated with the latest Super Bowl star. How can the O'Donnell and Brown signings possibly be construed as the NFL "paying off" those players for participating in the Super Bowl fix? If no one is investigating these fixes, then wouldn't it be easier to simply give O'Donnell and Brown the money directly? Why involve the Jets and Raiders? Even by the low standards of conspiracy theorists, this scenario doesn't make any sense.

Lastly, some people pointed to the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl as evidence of the NFL fixing games. If the NFL was so desperate for the Steelers to win the Super Bowl, then explain the call in the Colts-Steelers playoff game a few weeks prior, when ref Pete Morelli incorrectly overturned Troy
Polamalu's apparent game-sealing interception?

Its easy to take an incident in isolation and claim "fix" whenever a bad call or bad play takes place.

#85 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:41 PM
'Bryan', on 01 May 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:
I am at a loss to respond to most of the content in this thread. The "evidence" that is brought up to support the idea that NFL games are fixed is mind-blowing. The Saints had 15 holding penalties called on them last year...NFL games are fixed. A bad call goes against the Giants...NFL games are fixed. Peyton Manning threw a Super Bowl, and as a reward he was given a big contract (because prior to that contract Manning was making the league minimum)...NFL games are fixed.

The inference I did not understand at all was in regards to Super Bowl XXX. If the game was fixed, then why was the outcome still in doubt at the end of the game? How would Larry Brown, a Cowboys player, also be in on the "fix" (late in the game, stand over here and Neil will throw you the ball)? Was Brown told by the NFL to "play better than you usually do"? The Jets and Raiders made terrible free agent signings in the mid-90's, with the Raiders in particular being infatuated with the latest Super Bowl star. How can the O'Donnell and Brown signings possibly be construed as the NFL "paying off" those players for participating in the Super Bowl fix? If no one is investigating these fixes, then wouldn't it be easier to simply give O'Donnell and Brown the money directly? Why involve the Jets and Raiders? Even by the low standards of conspiracy theorists, this scenario doesn't make any sense.

Lastly, some people pointed to the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl as evidence of the NFL fixing games. If the NFL was so desperate for the Steelers to win the Super Bowl, then explain the call in the Colts-Steelers playoff game a few weeks prior, when ref Pete Morelli incorrectly overturned Troy
Polamalu's apparent game-sealing interception?

Its easy to take an incident in isolation and claim "fix" whenever a bad call or bad play takes place.

I could give evidence of many, many more NFL games that were suspicious and may have been fixed, but that's why I wrote a book on this subject.

But what sort of proof would you require to be convincing to you? There have been no admissions of fixing by players or gamblers (that I am aware of outside those in the book Interference). So what sort of evidence would you like? Give me something concrete one could find regarding a fixed game.

What I base my research off of is two-fold: for games I believe gamblers/mobsters have fixed, I have examined the games played, the players allegedly involved, and the FBI files associated with them. This is the basis of my next book. For my book The Fix Is In, I bring up the seemingly coincidental results, the oddities within or leading up to those games, and how the NFL profited from them. There is little else to go on in these cases. Yet lack of evidence does not mean lack of a crime. This, in a sense, is like trying to prove a rumor of something someone once said. It doesn't mean it wasn't said and it doesn't mean it was, but confirming that exact statement was made is impossible since it was not recorded.

I admit that certain games I believe were fixed very well may not have been. But if I'm right about just one game - one - that the NFL itself fixed, then what?

I feel that examples like the fact that holding was rarely called against the offenses of both the Saints and the Packers in 2011 is in fact evidence of not all being on the level within the NFL, and that the league directly caused this inaction by its referees. Because I watched every single one of the 11 games in which the Packers offense did not get a hold called against it, and the lack of flags thrown on obvious holds was absolutely ridiculous. Either the NFL needs to fire many members of its officiating crew for failure to do their jobs, or something else was occurring and the league's rule book is completely subjective.

I believe I'll prove in my forthcoming book based on these FBI files I have that the NFL is lying to fans and that numerous NFL games have been fixed in the past by gamblers/mobsters despite its claims that this has never occurred. And when I do that, topped by the fact that the NFL lies about concussions, steroids, drugs, criminals, etc. that have all infiltrated the sport, the league's credibility should be wrecked in many fans eyes. Once one looks at that objectively and couples with it the fact that this "sport" is really a huge business, and the notion of the league fixing its own game doesn't seem so absurd.

#86 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:44 PM
'evan', on 01 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:
Fascinating topic, and it always will be. I wonder if any players started to throw a game, then went straight, Paul “Wrecking” Crew-style (Burt Reynolds of course, not Adam Sandler). Like maybe Ryan Grant in the 2007 playoff game against Seattle, when he fumbled twice early to set up the Seahawks for a 14-0 lead, then ran for 201 yards and three TDs in a 42-20 win. Or was Frank Reich on the take in the first half of the playoff with Houston, then shook free of the bookies and decided his team was more important in the second half.

Have coaches ever thrown games? That might make Flutie rest easier knowing Phillips was on the take when he started Johnson in the playoff game.

Of course, being a Vikings fan I’m looking for any conspiracy to explain the team’s January foibles (thanks Mr. Tuohy, now I’m tossing and turning re-examining every speck of purple history). Actually, the only Super Bowl that I could possibly see even an iota of impropriety was Super Bowl IX.

Yes, the Steelers dominated the line of scrimmage, but … John Gilliam intimated that the Pittsburgh secondary was holding him all game, and that certainly would have made a difference if those interferences were called, as one of them finally was in the fourth quarter.

Also the Larry Brown non-fumble late the game was originally called for the Vikings to take over the ball, but then the refs huddled and gave it back to Pittsburgh. I think instant replay bore out that the call was correct, however it was a bit muddled how it came about.

And certainly the storyline of good guy Art Rooney winning a title after 42 years of lousy football was one that the NFL and Rozelle had to love.

So I think I’m going to jump into a time machine and go Woodward and Bernstein on those refs. Follow the money … follow the money.

P.S. I’m still suspicious of Irving Fryar and that dopey-looking Orange Bowl drop. And I always will be.

This is the reason I wrote the book I did. I wanted fans to question their favorite leagues in the same way they should question their government. Why a league like the NFL always gets the benefit of the doubt in its proclamations is beyond me. But I believe you hit the nail on the head: Follow the money.

#87 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:33 AM
I've been reading this thread with much interest. Brian, a couple devil's advocate thoughts below, which you may have already considered:

'Brian2E', on 01 May 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:
I admit that certain games I believe were fixed very well may not have been. But if I'm right about just one game - one - that the NFL itself fixed, then what?

Depending on what you write, there's a chance you could be leaving yourself open to a libel lawsuit. As you're probably aware, Ken Stabler did bring such a suit against those alleging that he threw games and shaved points -- and he won. And that's in spite of what folks like Paul Zimmerman may or may not know on the subject. Reading between the lines on some things Dr. Z has written obliquely suggests he has significant questions about Stabler's behavior despite the acquittal. Dr. Z may be right, but things get sticky without good paper trails. Here's hoping you've got some solidly ironclad info regardless of what you eventually write. I have no legal knowledge on this, but just a thought.

'Brian2E', on 01 May 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:
I feel that examples like the fact that holding was rarely called against the offenses of both the Saints and the Packers in 2011 is in fact evidence of not all being on the level within the NFL, and that the league directly caused this inaction by its referees. Because I watched every single one of the 11 games in which the Packers offense did not get a hold called against it, and the lack of flags thrown on obvious holds was absolutely ridiculous. Either the NFL needs to fire many members of its officiating crew for failure to do their jobs, or something else was occurring and the league's rule book is completely subjective.

A couple thoughts:

--one might perhaps argue that calling penalties (especially holding and pass interference) is indeed subjective. And it may be too hard for the NFL brass to prove enough of a bias to actively come down on its officials if they suspect bias and not subjectivity.

--there may be an unconscious bias on the refs part to give more accomplished teams or players more of a break in general on subjective-type penalties. This reminds me of the fact that in baseball, Greg Maddux would often get strike calls on pitches just off the outside part of the plate other less accomplished pitchers didn't get because of his elite reputation. Maybe the thinking is that the Saints and Packers o-line players have a similarly elite reputation? I don't know, but my unscientific perception is that it's not unheard of to see inexperienced DBs get flagged for pass interference while established ones get more leeway.

#88 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:17 PM
'bachslunch', on 02 May 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:
A couple thoughts:

--one might perhaps argue that calling penalties (especially holding and pass interference) is indeed subjective. And it may be too hard for the NFL brass to prove enough of a bias to actively come down on its officials if they suspect bias and not subjectivity.

--there may be an unconscious bias on the refs part to give more accomplished teams or players more of a break in general on subjective-type penalties. This reminds me of the fact that in baseball, Greg Maddux would often get strike calls on pitches just off the outside part of the plate other less accomplished pitchers didn't get because of his elite reputation. Maybe the thinking is that the Saints and Packers o-line players have a similarly elite reputation? I don't know, but my unscientific perception is that it's not unheard of to see inexperienced DBs get flagged for pass interference while established ones get more leeway.

Maybe it's more nuanced than we imagine. Is it possible that the NFL assigns certain crews to pump up (or extinguish) the points for certain regular-season match-ups? In other words, the officiating is honest, but the league knows each crew's tendencies.

Or it could be a Tim Donaghy (i.e., the disgraced former NBA referee) situation in which crews or certain officials blow or swallow the whistle for whatever reason. In Donaghy's book, he outlines reasons why refs make (or don't make) calls: "keep the game competitive," "star treatment," "makeup calls," and the most dangerous one, "what the refs think the league wants."

I personally think it's easier to fix a baseball or basketball game because you don't need as many players on the take. If you have the pitcher or the catcher, or if you have the PG or leading scorer, you can do some damage. In pro football, you'd need the star QB in your pocket, in my opinion. Otherwise, you have to involve too many guys and risk detection.

#89 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:32 PM
'bachslunch', on 02 May 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:
I've been reading this thread with much interest. Brian, a couple devil's advocate thoughts below, which you may have already considered:

Depending on what you write, there's a chance you could be leaving yourself open to a libel lawsuit. As you're probably aware, Ken Stabler did bring such a suit against those alleging that he threw games and shaved points -- and he won. And that's in spite of what folks like Paul Zimmerman may or may not know on the subject. Reading between the lines on some things Dr. Z has written obliquely suggests he has significant questions about Stabler's behavior despite the acquittal. Dr. Z may be right, but things get sticky without good paper trails. Here's hoping you've got some solidly ironclad info regardless of what you eventually write. I have no legal knowledge on this, but just a thought.

A couple thoughts:

--one might perhaps argue that calling penalties (especially holding and pass interference) is indeed subjective. And it may be too hard for the NFL brass to prove enough of a bias to actively come down on its officials if they suspect bias and not subjectivity.

--there may be an unconscious bias on the refs part to give more accomplished teams or players more of a break in general on subjective-type penalties. This reminds me of the fact that in baseball, Greg Maddux would often get strike calls on pitches just off the outside part of the plate other less accomplished pitchers didn't get because of his elite reputation. Maybe the thinking is that the Saints and Packers o-line players have a similarly elite reputation? I don't know, but my unscientific perception is that it's not unheard of to see inexperienced DBs get flagged for pass interference while established ones get more leeway.

Who is this Dr. Z I've seen mentioned within this thread? I'm curious because he seems to have some interesting information.

I realize I could potentially be sued over what I write. But nothing in my first book caused any sort of legal action, and the statute of limitations is one year - so if someone took offense at what I wrote there, well, tough. For this second book I'm writing, it's based off of FBI files which are public domain, so again if some player/coach/NFL has an issue with what I'm about to publish, take it up with the FBI. Everything else (like with my first book) is taken from other works by other authors and are quoted and sourced as such. I'm allowed to ask "could player X have fixed a game based off of this information," and I'm smart enough not to say, "player X did fix this game" because I know it can't be proven...despite where the evidence may lead and/or show.

With the refs, there have been plenty of bias studies done, especially with basketball. One that drove me up the wall was in the book Scorecasting about "home field advantage", which I broke down on my website here: http://thefixisin.net/homefield.html But in the case here in the NFL, when you look at a game and see the Packers gets zero holds against them while their opponents get three, and this happens over and over, how can it really be an unrecognized bias? Disgraced NBA ref Tim Donaghy spelled out (convincingly in my mind) how the NBA would instruct its refs to call games - with certain teams/players given intentional breaks due to a league mandate. I don't think it's out of the question for the NFL to do exactly the same thing and say to it's refs, "hey, we new-look, pass-first, heavily-weighted-for-the-offense league we now have in place. Let's give our star QBs a little more leeway to do what it is they do. So unless it's egregious, lay off calling holding." To me, that would be manipulation.

We've all heard it before on broadcasts, "Boy, the refs are really letting them play out there." How can that be? If there's a rule book with definitions of infractions that the refs are there to enforce, how can they get away with not doing their jobs? And then, how can they justify when they do enforce the rules? For three quarters, this play is pass interference, but in the fourth quarter it's not? Why? I say such action goes beyond bias to something perhaps darker.

Sure, one could counter, "well, if they called holding every time it happened, the game would bog down, blah, blah, blah." Then change the rule, or eliminate it altogether. Because if you enforce it selectively, how do you (1) justify it and (2) expect fans not to think there's a reason for this inaction? An occasionally missed call is one thing, but when you can see a complete systematic failure within the league then I feel it means something else is going on.

Page 7

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

NOTE: You will see some Posts “missing” but, as you already know, this is not unusual.

NOTE to BD Sullivan: Your clip of the Fryar play has “disappeared.”

NOTE: Post #28 is author’s comment. Evidence that some people do lurk here. Trolls?

Page 7 continued

138 replies to this topic

#90 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:36 PM
'Wildcats Unite', on 02 May 2012 - 1:17 PM, said:
Maybe it's more nuanced than we imagine. Is it possible that the NFL assigns certain crews to pump up (or extinguish) the points for certain regular-season match-ups? In other words, the officiating is honest, but the league knows each crew's tendencies.

Or it could be a Tim Donaghy (i.e., the disgraced former NBA referee) situation in which crews or certain officials blow or swallow the whistle for whatever reason. In Donaghy's book, he outlines reasons why refs make (or don't make) calls: "keep the game competitive," "star treatment," "makeup calls," and the most dangerous one, "what the refs think the league wants."

I personally think it's easier to fix a baseball or basketball game because you don't need as many players on the take. If you have the pitcher or the catcher, or if you have the PG or leading scorer, you can do some damage. In pro football, you'd need the star QB in your pocket, in my opinion. Otherwise, you have to involve too many guys and risk detection.

Actually, I think baseball's the hardest to fix because even if a pitcher gives up 6 runs, he can be yanked and the offense may come back. Football, I feel, is actually easier. I think I could fix a game with an offensive lineman. A missed block here, slow pulling there, false start, holding, etc. and the entire offense can be disrupted. It'd be the same as having a QB without the glaring attention. You'd lack control of the defense, but give the ball to the other team enough times and eventually they'll score.

#91 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:54 PM
'Brian2E', on 02 May 2012 - 1:32 PM, said:
Who is this Dr. Z I've seen mentioned within this thread? I'm curious because he seems to have some interesting information.
Paul Zimmerman, formerly of the LA Times, Sports Illustrated, et al. Google him.
'Brian2E', on 02 May 2012 - 1:32 PM, said:
I realize I could potentially be sued over what I write. But nothing in my first book caused any sort of legal action, and the statute of limitations is one year - so if someone took offense at what I wrote there, well, tough.
I hope that you have an attorney on retainer. You probably weren't sued because 1) it's tough for plaintiffs to win libel cases in the U.S., and 2) no offense, but how many copies of your book did you sell?

#92 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:01 PM
'Brian2E', on 02 May 2012 - 1:32 PM, said:
Who is this Dr. Z I've seen mentioned within this thread? I'm curious because he seems to have some interesting information.

I realize I could potentially be sued over what I write. But nothing in my first book caused any sort of legal action, and the statute of limitations is one year - so if someone took offense at what I wrote there, well, tough. For this second book I'm writing, it's based off of FBI files which are public domain, so again if some player/coach/NFL has an issue with what I'm about to publish, take it up with the FBI. Everything else (like with my first book) is taken from other works by other authors and are quoted and sourced as such. I'm allowed to ask "could player X have fixed a game based off of this information," and I'm smart enough not to say, "player X did fix this game" because I know it can't be proven...despite where the evidence may lead and/or show.

With the refs, there have been plenty of bias studies done, especially with basketball. One that drove me up the wall was in the book Scorecasting about "home field advantage", which I broke down on my website here: http://thefixisin.net/homefield.html But in the case here in the NFL, when you look at a game and see the Packers gets zero holds against them while their opponents get three, and this happens over and over, how can it really be an unrecognized bias? Disgraced NBA ref Tim Donaghy spelled out (convincingly in my mind) how the NBA would instruct its refs to call games - with certain teams/players given intentional breaks due to a league mandate. I don't think it's out of the question for the NFL to do exactly the same thing and say to it's refs, "hey, we new-look, pass-first, heavily-weighted-for-the-offense league we now have in place. Let's give our star QBs a little more leeway to do what it is they do. So unless it's egregious, lay off calling holding." To me, that would be manipulation.

We've all heard it before on broadcasts, "Boy, the refs are really letting them play out there." How can that be? If there's a rule book with definitions of infractions that the refs are there to enforce, how can they get away with not doing their jobs? And then, how can they justify when they do enforce the rules? For three quarters, this play is pass interference, but in the fourth quarter it's not? Why? I say such action goes beyond bias to something perhaps darker.

Sure, one could counter, "well, if they called holding every time it happened, the game would bog down, blah, blah, blah." Then change the rule, or eliminate it altogether. Because if you enforce it selectively, how do you (1) justify it and (2) expect fans not to think there's a reason for this inaction? An occasionally missed call is one thing, but when you can see a complete systematic failure within the league then I feel it means something else is going on.

"Who is this Dr. Z I've seen mentioned within this thread?"

Dr. Z is one of the most famous football writers of the last half century, Paul Zimmerman. He's written several books on pro football and wrote a long time for Sports Illustrated. It's funny that someone who claims to be an expert on football history doesn't know who Dr. Z is.

In light of this, just how seriously should we take Mr. Tuohy's assertions?

#93 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:02 PM
'bachslunch', on 02 May 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:
--there may be an unconscious bias on the refs part to give more accomplished teams or players more of a break in general on subjective-type penalties. This reminds me of the fact that in baseball, Greg Maddux would often get strike calls on pitches just off the outside part of the plate other less accomplished pitchers didn't get because of his elite reputation.
I would not be surprised at all if the umpires helped the Braves beat the Indians in the 1995 Series. And I wouldn't be shocked one bit if it were intentional. The umps hated Belle, Murray, and some of the other Indians. The generous strike calls afforded to Glavine and Maddux were well documented by the NBC(?) crew that did the Series, too.

#94 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:08 PM
'Wildcats Unite', on 02 May 2012 - 1:54 PM, said:
Paul Zimmerman, formerly of the LA Times, Sports Illustrated, et al. Google him.

I hope that you have an attorney on retainer. You probably weren't sued because 1) it's tough for plaintiffs to win libel cases in the U.S., and 2) no offense, but how many copies of your book did you sell?

The Paul Zimmerman known as Dr. Z did not write for the LA Times. He wrote for the New York Post before writing for Sports Illustrated. It was another man, Paul D. Zimmerman, who wrote for the LA Times.

#95 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:16 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 02 May 2012 - 2:08 PM, said:
The Paul Zimmerman known as Dr. Z did not write for the LA Times. He wrote for the New York Post before writing for Sports Illustrated. It was another man, Paul D. Zimmerman, who wrote for the LA Times.
I stand corrected on that.

#96 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:42 PM
'Wildcats Unite', on 02 May 2012 - 1:54 PM, said:
Paul Zimmerman, formerly of the LA Times, Sports Illustrated, et al. Google him.

I hope that you have an attorney on retainer. You probably weren't sued because 1) it's tough for plaintiffs to win libel cases in the U.S., and 2) no offense, but how many copies of your book did you sell?

I've sold enough to earn back my advance plus royalties. At one point, my book was in the top 600 at Amazon in sales and was reviewed in the Wall Street Journal. Plus, I've appeared as a guest on over 100 radio programs including a few nationally syndicated sports radio programs as well as on Coast to Coast AM (on six different occasions). If what I know about the major leagues is correct, then they are well aware of my book and thoughts. Most likely, the leagues figure suing me over my allegations would bring more light to what I'm saying rather than crushing me. So it's best just to leave me be...or as I believe, the facts and sources in my book are indisputable and since we live in America, I'm free to write my conclusions/opinions which are based upon those facts.

#97 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 02:52 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 02 May 2012 - 2:01 PM, said:
"Who is this Dr. Z I've seen mentioned within this thread?"

Dr. Z is one of the most famous football writers of the last half century, Paul Zimmerman. He's written several books on pro football and wrote a long time for Sports Illustrated. It's funny that someone who claims to be an expert on football history doesn't know who Dr. Z is.

In light of this, just how seriously should we take Mr. Tuohy's assertions?

Wow, because I didn't know Dr. Z was Paul Zimmerman that makes my claims incorrect? Did Paul Zimmerman investigate game fixing to the point of getting the FBI's files on the subject via the Freedom of Information Act? Perhaps I know more about this subject than he did (or would've openly admitted to). I never claimed to be an expert on NFL history (even though I know quite a bit about it), but I have spent the past 7-8 years investigating the subject of game fixing (and not just on the NFL) and would say that few - if anyone - knows as much as I do.

#98 BD Sullivan
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:38 PM
'Brian2E', on 02 May 2012 - 2:52 PM, said:
Wow, because I didn't know Dr. Z was Paul Zimmerman that makes my claims incorrect? Did Paul Zimmerman investigate game fixing to the point of getting the FBI's files on the subject via the Freedom of Information Act? Perhaps I know more about this subject than he did (or would've openly admitted to). I never claimed to be an expert on NFL history (even though I know quite a bit about it), but I have spent the past 7-8 years investigating the subject of game fixing (and not just on the NFL) and would say that few - if anyone - knows as much as I do.

I think it's the fact that you note your voluminous research on the subject, but seem unaware that Zimmerman was (for almost 30 years) the main pro football writer for what has been THE sports publication for two generations. He wrote the magazine's article about the Art Schlicter case, and a simple Google check would bring up stories about his suspicions concerning Stabler.

#99 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:52 PM
'BD Sullivan', on 02 May 2012 - 3:38 PM, said:
I think it's the fact that you note your voluminous research on the subject, but seem unaware that Zimmerman was (for almost 30 years) the main pro football writer for what has been THE sports publication for two generations. He wrote the magazine's article about the Art Schlicter case, and a simple Google check would bring up stories about his suspicions concerning Stabler.

I knew the name of Paul Zimmerman as a SI writer, just never heard him referred to as "Dr. Z." My bad.

As for Sports Illustrated as an institution, I find the publication lacking. For one, they haven't published a serious article about sports gambling in decades, even though the illegal side of it is a multi-billion dollar industry in which (to continue on the game fixing end of this) it's extremely easy for game fixers to hide their money. If you believe Las Vegas would sniff out a fix in this day and age, you're sorely mistaken. SI has also never given the time of day to author Declan Hill (a acquaintance of mine), whose recent work The Fix: Soccer and Organized Crime proved that international soccer is incredibly corrupted by game fixers who've fixed Olympic and World Cup games. Plus, a colleague of mine (who's a prof at a major university) told me his friend who's a senior writer/editor (currently) at SI told the college prof that he would not write or publish certain articles - even if it was a scoop - due to the fear of losing access to certain teams/leagues. In other words, a SI editor admitted they censor their own work so not to infuriate certain league entities. Though I'm sure none of you may belief this because I won't reveal either party's name, it's a true story. So as Ripley once said, believe it or not.

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

Page 9 Post #100 - #120

138 replies to this topic

#100 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:20 PM
Before this thread devolves due to my not recognizing Dr. Z by that name, I began a new topic thread here: http://www.pfraforum...?showtopic=2186 It asks the specific question: do you believe NFL games have ever been fixed by gamblers/organized crime? I'm curious to know your responses.

#101 jackfu
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:49 AM
Do I believe the NFL is telling the truth in their denials about gambling/point shaving? My cynicism is often aroused when very large organizations issue patent denials of any wrongdoing in their organizations, so IF the NFL says that those things have never, ever happened, then my answer as to whether I think they’re being truthful is “No.”
I can’t name any specific games that I think were fixed/thrown, had points shaved, etc., but plenty of games had me scratching my head at least, screaming at the TV at worst; unfortunately, when emotions are involved, it’s difficult to see clearly and I may be more likely to assume the worst about the outcome of a game that should have gone the way I wanted it to go.
In my opinion the NFL can always hedge its denials with the claim that they have no material evidence and that only anecdotal evidence has been presented.
If organized crime syndicates (“syndicate” - is that term still used nowadays?) are involved, then certainly the Feds should be investigating and the situation is ripe for an undercover sting operation. Clandestine recordings can certainly shine new light on the subject.
I apologize for such a long post, but if I may add to what others have said, these sort of dealings almost always require conspiracies with buy-ins and buy-offs, blackmail and intimidation; but there again, big money often finds a way. With all the furor and publicity ongoing now, perhaps this is a good time for some serious investigations and self-evaluation by the NFL. Thanks! - jack

#102 bachslunch
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 09:11 AM
Have NFL games been fixed or points shaven in NFL games? I'm thinking it's entirely possible, especially back in the league's earlier days, perhaps even recently. It's also possible none have been for some time, too. I just don't know.

The trick, though, is knowing for sure, which is a different issue. And the question at least in part is: where does evidence end and speculation begin? I'm a person who tends to err on the side of getting facts and things I can quantify and measure as much as possible first -- which may make me cautious, but so be it. Others may have different thoughts on this, and that's fine.

The old saying more or less goes that "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck." Sure, that's often true. But if it happens to be a goose, you've got a problem. Myself, I like to try as much as possible to make sure I've got a duck. Brian, you may well have one big duck here, but I don't know if you do or not -- only you can weigh and decide. Best of luck, regardless.

#103 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:42 AM
'jackfu', on 03 May 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:
Do I believe the NFL is telling the truth in their denials about gambling/point shaving? My cynicism is often aroused when very large organizations issue patent denials of any wrongdoing in their organizations, so IF the NFL says that those things have never, ever happened, then my answer as to whether I think they’re being truthful is “No.”
I can’t name any specific games that I think were fixed/thrown, had points shaved, etc., but plenty of games had me scratching my head at least, screaming at the TV at worst; unfortunately, when emotions are involved, it’s difficult to see clearly and I may be more likely to assume the worst about the outcome of a game that should have gone the way I wanted it to go.
In my opinion the NFL can always hedge its denials with the claim that they have no material evidence and that only anecdotal evidence has been presented.
If organized crime syndicates (“syndicate” - is that term still used nowadays?) are involved, then certainly the Feds should be investigating and the situation is ripe for an undercover sting operation. Clandestine recordings can certainly shine new light on the subject.
I apologize for such a long post, but if I may add to what others have said, these sort of dealings almost always require conspiracies with buy-ins and buy-offs, blackmail and intimidation; but there again, big money often finds a way. With all the furor and publicity ongoing now, perhaps this is a good time for some serious investigations and self-evaluation by the NFL. Thanks! - jack

From my understanding, the FBI no longer really investigates game fixing unless something pops up on their radar during another investigation. The last few point shaving investigations all flowed out of other, completely different probes. Donaghy's scandal came from an unrelated organized crime investigation in which someone mentioned having an NBA ref in their pocket. The BC basketball point shaving scandal came out of Henry Hill when he mentioned to the feds in passing that he was in Boston working with some kids on a basketball thing. I believe the U of San Diego point shaving investigation started with a marijuana probe. And even Pete Rose's downfall began with arrests made on a steroid ring.

The FBI wrote in the early 1960s that it was not the leagues' police force. And after it failed on several attempts during the 60s and early 70s to get arrests in these cases, I honestly believe the FBI sort of gave up and said if some good evidence comes our way, we'll follow it, otherwise without something more concrete to go on, we're out of this business.

#104 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 10:44 AM
'bachslunch', on 03 May 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:
Have NFL games been fixed or points shaven in NFL games? I'm thinking it's entirely possible, especially back in the league's earlier days, perhaps even recently. It's also possible none have been for some time, too. I just don't know.

The trick, though, is knowing for sure, which is a different issue. And the question at least in part is: where does evidence end and speculation begin? I'm a person who tends to err on the side of getting facts and things I can quantify and measure as much as possible first -- which may make me cautious, but so be it. Others may have different thoughts on this, and that's fine.

The old saying more or less goes that "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck." Sure, that's often true. But if it happens to be a goose, you've got a problem. Myself, I like to try as much as possible to make sure I've got a duck. Brian, you may well have one big duck here, but I don't know if you do or not -- only you can weigh and decide. Best of luck, regardless.

My hope is that when I formally present all the evidence, etc. that I've collected in this regard, people will recognize that much more has occurred that has been both covered up and ignored. Whether it will convince everyone, I can't say. But it should definitely change more than one opinion on the subject.

#105 Wildcats Unite
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 12:33 PM
'Brian2E', on 02 May 2012 - 3:52 PM, said:
As for Sports Illustrated as an institution, I find the publication lacking. For one, they haven't published a serious article about sports gambling in decades...
That depends on what you define as "serious." I recall that they covered scandals at Northwestern and Arizona State in the 1990s.

#106 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:50 PM
'Wildcats Unite', on 03 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:
That depends on what you define as "serious." I recall that they covered scandals at Northwestern and Arizona State in the 1990s.

I meant serious investigations of actual illegal sports gambling - which is about 98% of the sports gambling market in the US - and not point shaving scandals. That's where the fixers hide because it's unregulated and unmonitored. If you were fixing a game, you'd be a fool to go to Vegas to bet it nowadays. It's all done offshore or with underground bookies in the US. And SI hasn't touched the subject in well over a decade despite the fact that the industry continues to grow while at the same time has been somewhat dented by federal regulations.

#107 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:10 PM
I want good examples of how a game can be fixed. I have not yet seen a good example in this thread.

I do not believe NFL games are fixed.

Not too many people can be involved. If more than a half dozen players are involved, then a leak will eventually occur.

If a kicker is involved, his team may never put him in position to fix the game.

A quarterback could be in on it and stink on purpose, but his team might win the game or cover the spread based upon great defense and/or special teams play.

Also, Rupert- we never landed on the moon for it is made out of cheese.

#108 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:14 PM
'JWL', on 03 May 2012 - 7:10 PM, said:
I want good examples of how a game can be fixed. I have not yet seen a good example in this thread.

I do not believe NFL games are fixed.

Not too many people can be involved. If more than a half dozen players are involved, then a leak will eventually occur.

If a kicker is involved, his team may never put him in position to fix the game.

A quarterback could be in on it and stink on purpose, but his team might win the game or cover the spread based upon great defense and/or special teams play.

Also, Rupert- we never landed on the moon for it is made out of cheese.

There's a subtle difference between "point shaving" and "game fixing" though the terms are often interchanged. Neither offers a legitimate contest to fans. In point shaving, a team can win, yet lose against the spread. I would think this is a much easier sell to a player. As would be having an underdog team lose as expected, but by more than the spread, which is a much sneakier and more difficult maneuver to detect. In a fixed game, one team/player outright loses the game in question.

As to how you can do this, I'll defer to two former players. First is Bernie Parrish who wrote in his book They Call It A Game, "There are four basic ways to fix a football game: (1) Through a referee; (2) through an important player, or, more subtly (3) through the coaching staff and team management, or (4) by drugging a key player or a number of them. I have played in NFL and AFL games that left me with an uneasy feeling that something was wrong; a penalty called at a bad time, a score on a field goal that looked no good, interceptions in the flat, a quarterback eating the ball and getting sacked when he could have thrown it, a poor game plan, bad strategy, or a win that was just too easy. With $139 million at stake for the owners, $84 million for the television networks, and up to $66 billion for organized crime’s bookmaking syndicates, and with what I learned as a player, no one will ever convince me that numerous NFL games aren’t fixed.”

If that's not good enough, I'll pass along the wisdom of Joe Namath who wrote in his book I Can’t Wait Until Tomorrow...’Cause I Get Better Looking Every Day, “Hell, you’d have to be an idiot to make it [fixing a game by throwing interceptions] that obvious. If you want to throw a game, you don’t have to allow a single pass to be intercepted. You just screw up one or two handoffs, and the running back can’t handle them, and he fumbles the ball, and he takes the blame. Then maybe you throw a critical third-down pass a little low, and you let the punter come in and give the ball to the other team. You don’t give it away yourself.”

A gambler/mobster controlling one player may not be able to 100% guarantee a rigged game. But it definitely gives the bettor an incredible edge, and if you talk to enough professional gamblers, you'll hear them say they're always looking to take advantage of an known edge. The more players (or a coach) in one's pocket increases those odds. As I wrote before, you could guarantee a fix with just three players: a QB, an O-lineman, and a DB.

Namath briefly explains a QB's role in this. With an offensive lineman, all he needs to do is wreck a drive in a similar nonchalant fashion: missed block, slow on a pull, holding, false start, etc. Kill enough drives and the other team's time of possession increases as does their chances for scoring. A DB (be it a cornerback or a safety) can miss a tackle, allow a WR to get behind him, pass interference call, etc. and the other team's scoring chances increase.

Sure, a lot this can be seen simply as "bad" play. And probably 99% of the time it is. But you can't pick out that 1% if you tried. You can't say for certain as a fan watching the game - and I don't care what that fan's background is, even if he played pro ball or coached it in the past - why a player made such a "bad" play. Was it an honest mistake, or was it intentional? "Why didn't that guy wrap up his tackle? He's been taught that since Pee Wee football!" "How'd the QB shortarm that swing pass to the RB?" "How can that O-lineman false start? He's knows the snap count and he's at home! There's no crowd noise!" Well, maybe if someone paid you a ton of money, these mistakes can happen more often.

Look, if the Saints entire franchise can be brought down by this bounty program in which players were apparently willing to go out and try to injure another player for perhaps $10,000 (though some reports put the numbers at much less, $1,000-$1,500), then how much cash would it take to get the same player to do less in a game? Could I get a DB to let a WR get behind him on a key play for $20,000? Would $50,000 buy me a holding penalty on an important third down? Would $100,000 passed under the table to a QB put him in my back pocket for a game? Considering the big-time gamblers are betting hundreds of thousands on a single regular season game - hiding that money within the estimated $1 billion bet on regular season NFL games each week - adding an extra $500,000 here or there isn't going to be noticed.

Seeing as how there aren't as many million dollar players in the NFL as is assumed, you find a guy like Matt Forte (and I'm in no way saying Forte is a part of this, he's simply an example) who's making $500,000 a season (as he was) - which is how much exactly after taxes, agent fees, management fees, buying a house, a car, etc.? - who's willing to "do business" due to greed (or perhaps a drug or gambling problem), and offering $100,000 for a game could easily buy him off. Then a couple of "bad" plays seals the deal.

It's really that easy.

#109 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:15 AM
'Brian2E', on 03 May 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:
There's a subtle difference between "point shaving" and "game fixing" though the terms are often interchanged. Neither offers a legitimate contest to fans. In point shaving, a team can win, yet lose against the spread. I would think this is a much easier sell to a player. As would be having an underdog team lose as expected, but by more than the spread, which is a much sneakier and more difficult maneuver to detect. In a fixed game, one team/player outright loses the game in question.

As to how you can do this, I'll defer to two former players. First is Bernie Parrish who wrote in his book They Call It A Game, "There are four basic ways to fix a football game: (1) Through a referee; (2) through an important player, or, more subtly (3) through the coaching staff and team management, or (4) by drugging a key player or a number of them. I have played in NFL and AFL games that left me with an uneasy feeling that something was wrong; a penalty called at a bad time, a score on a field goal that looked no good, interceptions in the flat, a quarterback eating the ball and getting sacked when he could have thrown it, a poor game plan, bad strategy, or a win that was just too easy. With $139 million at stake for the owners, $84 million for the television networks, and up to $66 billion for organized crime’s bookmaking syndicates, and with what I learned as a player, no one will ever convince me that numerous NFL games aren’t fixed.”

If that's not good enough, I'll pass along the wisdom of Joe Namath who wrote in his book I Can’t Wait Until Tomorrow...’Cause I Get Better Looking Every Day, “Hell, you’d have to be an idiot to make it [fixing a game by throwing interceptions] that obvious. If you want to throw a game, you don’t have to allow a single pass to be intercepted. You just screw up one or two handoffs, and the running back can’t handle them, and he fumbles the ball, and he takes the blame. Then maybe you throw a critical third-down pass a little low, and you let the punter come in and give the ball to the other team. You don’t give it away yourself.”

A gambler/mobster controlling one player may not be able to 100% guarantee a rigged game. But it definitely gives the bettor an incredible edge, and if you talk to enough professional gamblers, you'll hear them say they're always looking to take advantage of an known edge. The more players (or a coach) in one's pocket increases those odds. As I wrote before, you could guarantee a fix with just three players: a QB, an O-lineman, and a DB.

Namath briefly explains a QB's role in this. With an offensive lineman, all he needs to do is wreck a drive in a similar nonchalant fashion: missed block, slow on a pull, holding, false start, etc. Kill enough drives and the other team's time of possession increases as does their chances for scoring. A DB (be it a cornerback or a safety) can miss a tackle, allow a WR to get behind him, pass interference call, etc. and the other team's scoring chances increase.

Sure, a lot this can be seen simply as "bad" play. And probably 99% of the time it is. But you can't pick out that 1% if you tried. You can't say for certain as a fan watching the game - and I don't care what that fan's background is, even if he played pro ball or coached it in the past - why a player made such a "bad" play. Was it an honest mistake, or was it intentional? "Why didn't that guy wrap up his tackle? He's been taught that since Pee Wee football!" "How'd the QB shortarm that swing pass to the RB?" "How can that O-lineman false start? He's knows the snap count and he's at home! There's no crowd noise!" Well, maybe if someone paid you a ton of money, these mistakes can happen more often.

Look, if the Saints entire franchise can be brought down by this bounty program in which players were apparently willing to go out and try to injure another player for perhaps $10,000 (though some reports put the numbers at much less, $1,000-$1,500), then how much cash would it take to get the same player to do less in a game? Could I get a DB to let a WR get behind him on a key play for $20,000? Would $50,000 buy me a holding penalty on an important third down? Would $100,000 passed under the table to a QB put him in my back pocket for a game? Considering the big-time gamblers are betting hundreds of thousands on a single regular season game - hiding that money within the estimated $1 billion bet on regular season NFL games each week - adding an extra $500,000 here or there isn't going to be noticed.

Seeing as how there aren't as many million dollar players in the NFL as is assumed, you find a guy like Matt Forte (and I'm in no way saying Forte is a part of this, he's simply an example) who's making $500,000 a season (as he was) - which is how much exactly after taxes, agent fees, management fees, buying a house, a car, etc.? - who's willing to "do business" due to greed (or perhaps a drug or gambling problem), and offering $100,000 for a game could easily buy him off. Then a couple of "bad" plays seals the deal.

It's really that easy.

So you're using Bernie Parrish's book to prove your point? What a joke. I remember when the book came out. Parrish was interviewed on TV by Howard Cosell and a sportswriter. They demanded some specifics for the game-fixing allegation. Parrish sheepishly said that he didn't know anything about fixing or point shaving and never saw it when he played.

By the way, the sportswriter who jointly interviewed Parrish with Howard Cosell was Paul Zimmerman, then of the New York Post, sometimes called Dr. Z on this Forum.

As for Namath's book, it was much less serious than Parrish's.

If "the Saints entire franchise can be brought down by this bounty program," why would point shaving schemes escape discovery for decades? With even 3 or 4 players involved, someone would eventually talk.

#110 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:08 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 04 May 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:
So you're using Bernie Parrish's book to prove your point? What a joke. I remember when the book came out. Parrish was interviewed on TV by Howard Cosell and a sportswriter. They demanded some specifics for the game-fixing allegation. Parrish sheepishly said that he didn't know anything about fixing or point shaving and never saw it when he played.

By the way, the sportswriter who jointly interviewed Parrish with Howard Cosell was Paul Zimmerman, then of the New York Post, sometimes called Dr. Z on this Forum.

As for Namath's book, it was much less serious than Parrish's.

If "the Saints entire franchise can be brought down by this bounty program," why would point shaving schemes escape discovery for decades? With even 3 or 4 players involved, someone would eventually talk.

Despite you're dismissals of Parrish and Namath, nothing I present here in terms of information from either is incorrect. And if Parrish couldn't prove game fixing (which I would argue no can definitively - yet that does not mean it hasn't occurred), why wasn't he sued by the NFL? If he's nuts, why was he chosen to represent retired NFL players in recent lawsuits? Clearly some former NFL players trust him.

As for Cosell, recall he quit Monday Night Football by stating he no longer wanted to be a "shill" for the league. In 1971, perhaps he and Zimmerman were willing to do that job.

Despite this, you're still not refuting how a game can be fixed. What I presented here is undeniable. I don't believe in this notion that "someone would talk." You've gotten away with a crime - a federal crime - in fixing a game. Why would you admit that?

#111 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:13 PM
Not the players themselves. Somebody close to them would eventually say or write something.

I think there are too many players on a team to fix games today. This definitely could have happened before the 1950s.

#112 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:17 PM
'JWL', on 04 May 2012 - 1:13 PM, said:
Not the playerd themselves. Somebody close to them would eventually say or write something.

I think there are too many players on a team to fix games today. This definitely could have happened before the 1950s.

I'm curious on this "someone would talk notion." Who would "talk" and who would believe them?

Scenario: For example, say Joe Montana or Phil Simms or Ken O'Brien has one too many one night and is talking with a close friend. He tells this friend, "you know, football isn't all it seems. Remember back in 1985 when I had that cocaine problem? Yeah, well, I got in too deep with the dealer and was short. But I needed, you know? So to pay him off, I shaved points in a game which he bet on. You know, threw a couple passes away, took a sack I shouldn't have, and even tossed an interception. But it was a one time thing - and I know others did it - but just this once for me because right after that I cleaned up and cut those ties."

So this friend passes this juicy tidbit on to other friends and one decides to go public. "A friend of mine who's a close, personal friend of Joe Montana told me Joe fixed a game to pay off a debt." Do you or anyone buy this tale with second hand information? Of course not. It's chalked up as rumor or BS and when Montana gets his ESPN interview, it's all denials.

But let's say the close friend of Phil's is hard up for cash himself. He goes to ESPN and tells them, "I'm Phil Simms' close friend and he told me he fixed a game because of his cocaine habit." What's ESPN ask? Where's your proof? Okay, you have Phil's number and a few photos of you together. Prove he was a cocaine user and fixed a game. In fact, which game was it? Oh, he didn't tell you/you don't know? You think it was against the Bears? You can't prove any of this? It's just your word against his? Even if ESPN would run the story, would you buy this one? He heard it from the horse's mouth, but again, no proof. No one would buy this story, either.

I'll even go one step further. Ken O'Brien goes directly to Sports Illustrated and tells them his tale. Ken has no evidence either besides his personal experience, knowledge of others who threw games and willingness to go public. Can SI prove his story? Well, Kenny heard of others throwing games and even names the names he heard, but he doesn't know which games. And all those he outs instantly deny. OK, well, scratch that, will go with his own story. He only threw eight INTs in 1985 and he did throw one in this game he says he fixed, but the Jets still won that day and no one on the team thought the game was strange or knew he had a habit. Can SI find the dealer or the bookie who took the action? Nope. Does SI even run this story, and if it decides to, would you believe this one? I bet a vast majority of NFL fans would not. They'd think O'Brien was hard up for money and sold the story to the magazine.

"Someone would talk." So what? Who would listen? Few would believe these tales even if the story was very convincing.

#113 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:57 PM
It is my opinion that somehow something would get out. There would at least be rumors. I haven't read any rumors about any games being fixed in my lifetime. Nothing. I don't hear anything. All manner of other bad activities (steroids, bounty programs, salary cap violations) eventually get uncovered.

As far as a QB taking a sack or purposefully throwing an interception, I'm not sure where shaving points would come into play. I'll use a guy in your example. At what point in the game was O'Brien to throw an interception on purpose? Was he going to do it with the team up 28-20 with a minute left in a game with a 3.5 spread? The problem is the OC and HC would not be looking to throw the ball in that situation. If O'Brien threw the interception earlier in the game it would make more sense for your argument. Problem with that is the Jets might be trailing and now O'Brien would have to do something great just to make up for the interception and get the score back to where it was prior to the purposeful interception.

That's enough for now. I'll wait for your reply. I'm just having a really hard time buying this notion of games being fixed in the modern era.

#114 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:31 PM
'JWL', on 05 May 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:
It is my opinion that somehow something would get out. There would at least be rumors. I haven't read any rumors about any games being fixed in my lifetime. Nothing. I don't hear anything. All manner of other bad activities (steroids, bounty programs, salary cap violations) eventually get uncovered.

As far as a QB taking a sack or purposefully throwing an interception, I'm not sure where shaving points would come into play. I'll use a guy in your example. At what point in the game was O'Brien to throw an interception on purpose? Was he going to do it with the team up 28-20 with a minute left in a game with a 3.5 spread? The problem is the OC and HC would not be looking to throw the ball in that situation. If O'Brien threw the interception earlier in the game it would make more sense for your argument. Problem with that is the Jets might be trailing and now O'Brien would have to do something great just to make up for the interception and get the score back to where it was prior to the purposeful interception.

That's enough for now. I'll wait for your reply. I'm just having a really hard time buying this notion of games being fixed in the modern era.
As I hinted in an earlier post, bookies are the best warning system. They're the people who really get hurt by a fix. Bookies exposed the Filchock/Hapes fix attempt in 1946 and (indirectly) the Hornung/Karras scandal of 1962. It was a bookie who tipped off one of DA Frank Hogan's detectives that revealed the college basketball point shaving scandal of 1961.

When they see betting money moving in peculiar, bookies get suspicious. That's how investigations start. And investigations have a way of making conspiracies unravel.

#115 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:41 PM
'rhickok1109', on 05 May 2012 - 3:31 PM, said:
As I hinted in an earlier post, bookies are the best warning system. They're the people who really get hurt by a fix. Bookies exposed the Filchock/Hapes fix attempt in 1946 and (indirectly) the Hornung/Karras scandal of 1962. It was a bookie who tipped off one of DA Frank Hogan's detectives that revealed the college basketball point shaving scandal of 1961.

When they see betting money moving in peculiar, bookies get suspicious. That's how investigations start. And investigations have a way of making conspiracies unravel.

Well said.

#116 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:34 PM
'rhickok1109', on 05 May 2012 - 3:31 PM, said:
As I hinted in an earlier post, bookies are the best warning system. They're the people who really get hurt by a fix. Bookies exposed the Filchock/Hapes fix attempt in 1946 and (indirectly) the Hornung/Karras scandal of 1962. It was a bookie who tipped off one of DA Frank Hogan's detectives that revealed the college basketball point shaving scandal of 1961.

When they see betting money moving in peculiar, bookies get suspicious. That's how investigations start. And investigations have a way of making conspiracies unravel.

You are correct...sort of. The FBI set up a network of informants and sources of bookies & sports gamblers in the early 1960s. In most of the FBI's cases in this era, those sources were the starting point. What seems to have happened, however, is this network fell apart over the years and the FBI took no effort to reinforce it. By the 1980s, it was in complete disarray and has never recovered. So is it a coincidence that most of what is publicly known about fixing in the NFL dates from this 1960s era when the FBI had informants in every major city? I don't think so.

At the same time, I have spoken to a few current professional sports gamblers who tell me that they often see aberrations within point spreads, over/unders, and trends/streaks that defy the odds and look suspicious. Do they tell anyone? Nope. They bet into them. As one flat out told me, "I don't care if a guy or a team is fixing a game as long as I recognize the trend and capitalize on it." Granted, that's the gambler and not the bookie. However, today the professional gamblers literally bet all over the world, so a potential fixer could be betting in Hong Kong or Britain or elsewhere. Think those bookies are going to be contacting the FBI? Even bigger US illegal bookmakers - who are often mob connected - aren't necessarily going to waltz in the FBI's offices with info on game fixing when they could instead piggyback on a potential fix and profit from it. Of course, the fixer could himself be a bookie. Then what?

Today's illegal gambling market is in the billions of dollars. Estimates put it in the $90-100 billion a year range. So is a couple of million bet here or there really going to stand out? Especially when it may be a game fixed once in a while. Maybe once a year. Maybe once every three years. That aberration will not stick out. It will be seen as an aberration and nothing more. Even if a gambler/mobster/bookie had a hold of a player and fixed a series of games in a season, it may not stand out. Not all teams are 8-8 against the spread. Teams' records against the spread can be as varied as their regular season standings. The key then would be following the money, and if no one is following the money - or can follow the money due to the vast amounts bet - then there's nothing find.

#117 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:52 PM
'JWL', on 05 May 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:
It is my opinion that somehow something would get out. There would at least be rumors. I haven't read any rumors about any games being fixed in my lifetime. Nothing. I don't hear anything. All manner of other bad activities (steroids, bounty programs, salary cap violations) eventually get uncovered.

As far as a QB taking a sack or purposefully throwing an interception, I'm not sure where shaving points would come into play. I'll use a guy in your example. At what point in the game was O'Brien to throw an interception on purpose? Was he going to do it with the team up 28-20 with a minute left in a game with a 3.5 spread? The problem is the OC and HC would not be looking to throw the ball in that situation. If O'Brien threw the interception earlier in the game it would make more sense for your argument. Problem with that is the Jets might be trailing and now O'Brien would have to do something great just to make up for the interception and get the score back to where it was prior to the purposeful interception.

That's enough for now. I'll wait for your reply. I'm just having a really hard time buying this notion of games being fixed in the modern era.

Who would you be hearing rumors from may I ask? The guys controlling (or working with, depending on whose story you buy) Donaghy fixed games for seasons before the FBI got wind of it through an unrelated wiretap. No one was talking. A few sharp bettors saw the pattern in Donaghy's games and profited from it - without telling anyone else. They managed to keep this secret, especially from the mainstream. So where would

Post #118 - Post #120 has been removed. It was removed before this Thread was copied.
Same old, same old...

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

Next to Last Page of Original Thread

138 replies to this topic

#121 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:46 PM
'JWL', on 06 May 2012 - 1:35 PM, said:
There could be a paper trail of some sort.

If a specific game was mentioned, we could look at the film and see if the particular player played as if he was a drunk pulled from the stands.

Of course the league would release a statement saying that no game was fixed and the player would be treated as a nut.

So in the end, if one wanted to say NFL games are fixed you could go on with all this stuff and make someone like me look like a naive rube.

I posted the following in the closed thread:

"I believe that gamblers have certainly fixed NFL games at some point. Baseball, Basketball, College Basketball, Hockey, College Football, have all had game fixing or point shaving scandals. Gambling is one of the oldest pastimes known to civilized man. Why would human nature be any different for people in the NFL then it is in all these other big money sports, especially those like NCAA hoops and grid where the players get nothing at all? I think it would be easy to fix a game in such a manner that it was difficult to detect, and since widespread use of point spread betting came into vogue in or around WW II, I think fixing NFL games from 1946 to at least the sixties would have been very easy, with minimal risk of detection. Especially if the fixing player was NOT a known gambler like Layne, Hornung, Karras, or (as was mentioned in the other thread) Rick Casares. Suppose it was just someone with a grudge against Halas or Rosenbloom or George Preston Marshall or whoever?

There are other factors. Blackmail, be it for drugs (in todays world) or love-sexual affairs or whatever of a player or coach or referee could be a controlling force. The gay population is estimated at between 1 to 10 % of the general population. Lets say for argument it's 1 %. Does anyone think there has never been a closeted gay in the NFL? I'm sure there must be at least 10 gay players in todays league. Could they be identified and blackmailed? I would think they could. What about the old "take over the bank manager's house, threaten his family and make him give you the money" plot we have seen in movies, and in even in real life. That couldnt happen to a player?

Human nature is what it is. The NFL is by no means immune. I think most of what we see is legitimate. A fix is never going to be obvious, a point shave even less so. But that the possibility exists of outside influence? Sure. League influence? I am not as hard core a believer in that as is Mr. Tuohy, but I can see the possibility for it, if done carefully and subtly and would think that goes on as well, or could.

I mentioned my lack of faith in the veracity of the Seattle-Pittsburgh Super Bowl. The officiating was blatantly horrendous. How do we know that crew wasn't "gotten to" somehow? Blackmail? Direct threat? I think its surely possible. Somewhere between 1940 and today I am sure we have seen a lot of football influenced by outside forces. Fixes, Point shaving, I think it has all happened. Too much gambling money out there involved with the game for (evil) human nature to not take a hand."

=============================================================================================================================

I think peoples perception, when they hear the word "FIX" is WWE wrestling or the Roller Derby. In the post above "looking for a player who played like a drunk pulled from the stands" isnt going to happen. It's going to be more subtle and infrequent also. I think most of what we see is legit. I also believe that not all of what we see is.

#122 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:48 PM
Brian2E,

For the purposes of my query I will assume what you wrote here is all true.

How come it always seems to me that fixing games involves a player messing up on purpose?

Might a gambler go to someone like Tom Brady and make sure that his team covers the spread? Might this explain why the Patriots run up the score so frequently? How many times have we seen Brady throwing TD passes with his team up 31-10 with 3 minutes left?

Are any head coaches involved in this stuff? Is this why Belichick likes to leave Brady in blowouts much longer than other HCs tend to stick with their starting QBs in similar blowouts?

#123 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:13 PM
'Brian2E', on 06 May 2012 - 1:25 PM, said:
Four reasons: One, the player could be flat-out greedy which is why he participated in the fix to begin with. Two, he could have been pressured into fixing a game due to some sort of blackmail - drugs, own gambling habit, etc. A player may agree to throw a game in order not to wind up in that proverbial barrel. Three, fixing a game with a gambler/mobster is a federal crime (though the league fixing its own games is not). Why would you admit to that? Everything an athlete built up in his career would vanish with such an admission because...Four, once again, what proof would you have besides that player's word?

No one questioning my claims on this message board has explained (1) what proof of a fix would exist or (2) why someone's admission of fixing a game would be taken as credible? You have all said, "you can't prove this" or claimed "someone would talk." Well, someone answer my two questions now.

None of the above would keep a fixing scheme from blowing up on the fixers at some point. Again, why doesn't one of the "flat-out greedy" (to use your term) players go to the press and/or law enforcement when he isn't satisfied with his share of the money?

I'm something of a trial junkie and the more people involved in a crime, the greater the likelyhood of somebody talking. A LOT of people would know about fixing and point-shaving if it was anywhere near as widespread as you claim.

#124 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:39 PM
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. In 1971, Houston Oilers center Jerry Sturm went to the FBI and NFL saying that he was approached by a former teammate to shave points in the final three games of the season. The offer was for $10,000 per game. The $30,000 equaled Sturm's 1971 salary. The Oilers were 1-9-1 at the time. Still, to his credit, Sturm turned the offer down,and remarkably the Oilers won their final three games to boot.

What happened? Nothing. Because Sturm was the only witness, the FBI did not pursue this (which the Bureau wrote in its notes of the case). Yet this is one of only two admitted fixes the NFL admits to, the other being the 1946 Championship Game.

So here a center (of all position players) was approached, he talked to the FBI, and no arrests came out of it. Yet the league admits this was a valid attempt to fix a game.

So here, someone talked...albeit because he turned down the offer. He also gave the FBI the name of his former teammate who offered the bribe, yet no arrests, no convictions. Why? No proof.

#125 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 03:24 PM
'Brian2E', on 06 May 2012 - 2:39 PM, said:
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. In 1971, Houston Oilers center Jerry Sturm went to the FBI and NFL saying that he was approached by a former teammate to shave points in the final three games of the season. The offer was for $10,000 per game. The $30,000 equaled Sturm's 1971 salary. The Oilers were 1-9-1 at the time. Still, to his credit, Sturm turned the offer down,and remarkably the Oilers won their final three games to boot.

What happened? Nothing. Because Sturm was the only witness, the FBI did not pursue this (which the Bureau wrote in its notes of the case). Yet this is one of only two admitted fixes the NFL admits to, the other being the 1946 Championship Game.

So here a center (of all position players) was approached, he talked to the FBI, and no arrests came out of it. Yet the league admits this was a valid attempt to fix a game.

So here, someone talked...albeit because he turned down the offer. He also gave the FBI the name of his former teammate who offered the bribe, yet no arrests, no convictions. Why? No proof.

Shaving points involving the 1971 Houston Oilers is one thing, doing it with the Super Bowl teams would blow sky-high.

#126 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 06:41 PM
'SixtiesFan', on 06 May 2012 - 3:24 PM, said:
Shaving points involving the 1971 Houston Oilers is one thing, doing it with the Super Bowl teams would blow sky-high.

Why? A football game is a football game, and we've all seen bad performances and questionable calls in the Super Bowl. If game fixers can fix games in the World Cup - which is a bigger event on the world-wide scale than the Super Bowl - and this fixing has been confirmed, why couldn't a Super Bowl be fixed? Just because some people place great importance upon this game, it doesn't mean everyone does.

#127 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:05 PM
'JWL', on 06 May 2012 - 1:48 PM, said:
Brian2E,

For the purposes of my query I will assume what you wrote here is all true.

How come it always seems to me that fixing games involves a player messing up on purpose?

Might a gambler go to someone like Tom Brady and make sure that his team covers the spread? Might this explain why the Patriots run up the score so frequently? How many times have we seen Brady throwing TD passes with his team up 31-10 with 3 minutes left?

Are any head coaches involved in this stuff? Is this why Belichick likes to leave Brady in blowouts much longer than other HCs tend to stick with their starting QBs in similar blowouts?

You can't over-succeed on purpose, but you can always under-achieve. Hornung claimed, "I always bet the Packers to win." Well, Hornung could play the game of his life and not ensure the Packers won or covered the spread, but conversely, he could miss a hole, slip, fumble, whatever it took to screw-up and have the Packers lose/not cover. Betting against yourself in most cases makes the most sense, even with a power team like the 1960s Packers - although in some cases as a player and knowing what they do, certain games have to look like easy wins especially with a weak betting line. So I can see it happening, but then it's not really a "fix" by definition - it's just betting. Either way, the player's breaking league rules.

I think ensuring a favored team covered was very possible in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. when QBs called their own plays.

Now what you suggest via the Patriots is intriguing, and in the modern game would require a coach's input as Brady couldn't keep going for it on fourth down & passing when up 20 in the fourth quarter without Belichick's say-so. It could happen, but it would be much trickier. What would be easier today, I'd argue, is to get a team that's a 14 point underdog to ensure they lose by 15 or more than to get the favorite to win by 15 or more. That big of an underdog is expected to lose, and doing so raises no suspicions (and granted, the same could be said of the favorite). But again, it's easier to do less than 100% as opposed to rising to the mythical 110%....unless a team had been holding back for some reason or another which raises other questions.

As for coaches, I've heard rumors regarding a few. The most substantiated revolves around Hank Stram in the late 60s. I've heard and seen evidence of owners gambling for/against their own teams more so than coaches though.

#128 Gabe
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:34 PM
'Brian2E', on 06 May 2012 - 1:25 PM, said:
No one questioning my claims on this message board has explained (1) what proof of a fix would exist or (2) why someone's admission of fixing a game would be taken as credible? You have all said, "you can't prove this" or claimed "someone would talk." Well, someone answer my two questions now.

Actually, I never stated you can't prove this, but rather that I would need to see proof before believing that games have been fixed. There is a significant difference between the two. With all due respect, I would expect the researcher to establish the criteria for proving or dis-proving his or her theory or hypothesis. The “I don’t I have to prove anything because the evidence probably does not exist” argument does not cut it. And quite frankly, each time it gets repeated the more my skepticism increases. I also think there’s a distinction between the issue of whether it is possible that a game has been fixed or manipulated, and whether it is probable that this has occurred. I think many are willing to concede that the possibility exists, but this does not mean that it has happened, and the existing evidence such as it is, suggests that even the possibility is not that great. As has been mentioned earlier, the NFL would have more to lose if discovered manipulating games, so why take that chance given its enormous popularity? Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes the NFL and considers it capable of such manipulation, the basis of its popularity is the game itself, not necessarily whether the Saints or Colts, or Giants or Patriots win the Super Bowl. The NFL’s biggest concern would not be manipulating the outcome of the Super Bowl, but rather ensuring that nobody was damaging the integrity of the product by manipulating the game. In short, I would take your argument and reverse it vis a vis the NFL’s motives – that business reasons and all the money involved would compel the NFL to do its utmost to ensure that its customers get the genuine article and not a rigged or fixed game.

So okay, what would I need as evidence to be convinced that cheating actually occurred? Well, for s, I would expect statements from witnesses. I don’t buy that the reason why absolutely nobody has come forward is that nobody would believe them is not a convincing argument. In today’s society where conspiracy theories have become a cottage industry, there is every incentive for an individual to come forward and if someone could testify that they witnessed the planned manipulation of NFL games, I believe they would do so. In short, as with any other allegation of wrong-doing, I would expect a smoking gun – a confession, a statement. Another thought that comes to mind regarding evidence is mathematical formulas and algorithms that would indicate anomalies in game and season statistics, and the probabilities of such anomalies. It is one thing to state that it looks suspicious that one team was penalized less than others, but another to show that this is a statistical improbability. I understand that such evidence may be hard to find, particularly if it did not occur. But that is the challenge for any researcher. There has to be a benchmark for proving any theory to be fact. Otherwise we end up with the circular argument that the lack of evidence only goes to prove the cover-up of the conspiracy.

Maybe such evidence is in your book. Based on what I’ve read thus far in this thread, I’m not seeing that. Having witnessed first-hand how easy it is for an innocent person to lose a hard-earned reputation due to being unable to disprove a negative, and the ensuing damage to the individual, I will not go there in presuming anyone guilty unless proven innocent. This applies to any type of conspiracy theory and allegation whether applicable to sports or non-sports. I state all of this respectfully and wish you luck with your research. You asked a question regarding acceptable evidence and I answered not so much to score debating points as to indicate what it would take to convince me.

#129 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 May 2012 - 01:58 AM
'Gabe', on 06 May 2012 - 9:34 PM, said:
Actually, I never stated you can't prove this, but rather that I would need to see proof before believing that games have been fixed. There is a significant difference between the two. With all due respect, I would expect the researcher to establish the criteria for proving or dis-proving his or her theory or hypothesis. The “I don’t I have to prove anything because the evidence probably does not exist” argument does not cut it. And quite frankly, each time it gets repeated the more my skepticism increases. I also think there’s a distinction between the issue of whether it is possible that a game has been fixed or manipulated, and whether it is probable that this has occurred. I think many are willing to concede that the possibility exists, but this does not mean that it has happened, and the existing evidence such as it is, suggests that even the possibility is not that great. As has been mentioned earlier, the NFL would have more to lose if discovered manipulating games, so why take that chance given its enormous popularity? Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes the NFL and considers it capable of such manipulation, the basis of its popularity is the game itself, not necessarily whether the Saints or Colts, or Giants or Patriots win the Super Bowl. The NFL’s biggest concern would not be manipulating the outcome of the Super Bowl, but rather ensuring that nobody was damaging the integrity of the product by manipulating the game. In short, I would take your argument and reverse it vis a vis the NFL’s motives – that business reasons and all the money involved would compel the NFL to do its utmost to ensure that its customers get the genuine article and not a rigged or fixed game.

So okay, what would I need as evidence to be convinced that cheating actually occurred? Well, for s, I would expect statements from witnesses. I don’t buy that the reason why absolutely nobody has come forward is that nobody would believe them is not a convincing argument. In today’s society where conspiracy theories have become a cottage industry, there is every incentive for an individual to come forward and if someone could testify that they witnessed the planned manipulation of NFL games, I believe they would do so. In short, as with any other allegation of wrong-doing, I would expect a smoking gun – a confession, a statement. Another thought that comes to mind regarding evidence is mathematical formulas and algorithms that would indicate anomalies in game and season statistics, and the probabilities of such anomalies. It is one thing to state that it looks suspicious that one team was penalized less than others, but another to show that this is a statistical improbability. I understand that such evidence may be hard to find, particularly if it did not occur. But that is the challenge for any researcher. There has to be a benchmark for proving any theory to be fact. Otherwise we end up with the circular argument that the lack of evidence only goes to prove the cover-up of the conspiracy.

Maybe such evidence is in your book. Based on what I’ve read thus far in this thread, I’m not seeing that. Having witnessed first-hand how easy it is for an innocent person to lose a hard-earned reputation due to being unable to disprove a negative, and the ensuing damage to the individual, I will not go there in presuming anyone guilty unless proven innocent. This applies to any type of conspiracy theory and allegation whether applicable to sports or non-sports. I state all of this respectfully and wish you luck with your research. You asked a question regarding acceptable evidence and I answered not so much to score debating points as to indicate what it would take to convince me.

I have posted several facts on this forum and made arguments in defense of my position. If you choose to believe the fallacy that no NFL game has ever been fixed by gamblers/mobsters, there's not much more I can do here. Certain evidence I have collected in FBI files and interviews I am choosing not to reveal here because I don't wish to make them public prior to my book's publication. For some nay-sayers, I sure this still will not be enough to prove the NFL has lied to its fans regarding the supposed integrity of the game. Oh well. Some people believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

One of your supposed proofs - a confession - is contained in Dan Moldea's book Interference in which he obtained statements from gambler Dice Dawson who admitted he 32 fixed games with Bobby Layne and others unnamed. (If you have not read this book, do so now as Moldea has evidence of 70 NFL games having been fixed). The Dawson/Layne fix kicked off this thread and some dismissed it as nonsense. This is what a confession as proof gets you with some people - nowhere. As for statistics, this is outside my realm of expertise. Several analytic papers have been written detailing oddities within both NBA and college basketball and a few on baseball (one of which I detail in my book involves MLB fixing the World Series to get more Game Sevens). Sadly, football apparently does not lend itself to such examination as very few analytic papers on the subject exist. Why this is, I can't say, but my guess would be that the game doesn't break down statistically in the way basketball and baseball do (plus, the sample size is smaller in football due to fewer games played in a season).

I would contend that the reason the NFL claims no game has been fixed is the same reason you believe the league does its utmost to keep the game's appearance clean - business. If fans realize gamblers/mobsters can get to players - which is what happens when a fix is admitted - then every game that ends strange gets closer scrutiny whether deserved or not. Why does the NFL constantly lobby against legalized sports gambling, even though it is well aware that people gambling on games keeps them watching week after week? Because it's publicly a better stance to take (the appearance of integrity). Yet if legalized on national level, then more attention would be paid to the line and oddities occurring within it each week. Why does soccer and tennis have so many gambling scandals in recent years? Because the major bookmaking operations in Europe are closely monitoring the betting action against what's occurring on the field of play. The NFL currently has no worries because Vegas - the supposed watchdog of the gambling world - is actually nothing in the sports betting industry as it covers maybe 2-5% (if that) of all bets on football. But if legalized, then 100% of the bets and action would be monitored and sooner or later, those corporate bookies would catch something in an NFL game that leads to scandal. I guarantee it.

The NFL's business sense is very high, but is it really trustworthy? Their drug testing program is a complete sham. Teams draft players who test positive for drugs. Steroids and HGH are rampant throughout the league. Yet the NFL maintains the game is clean. Why? Business. Criminals like Michael Vick are welcomed with open arms. Why? Business. The NFL's anti-gambling stance is enforced...except on owners like Rosenbloom, Mara, Rooney and others known to have bet on NFL games or continue to make money in the gambling industry. Why? Business. Concussions? Business. Bounties? Business.

So despite all these lies, half-truths and spin, you're going to tell me the NFL would be above fixing a game because it's in their best business interest? This same business which success is directly tied to the TV networks and their resultant ratings? These same TV networks that give us "reality" TV which is anything but real as it is filled with re-shoots, manipulated editing, willing participants, writers, producers, etc.?

Again, there is only so much I can write/argue here which I why I wrote the book I did. If you don't feel that the facts that fill it coupled with my opinions on them amount to enough evidence to prove manipulation by the league is occurring, fine. That's your choice. Feel free to believe that Jeff Fisher was just "joking" when he claimed two years ago that at the two minute warning of a blowout on MNF the head referee came to him and asked him to call time outs so that ESPN could air more commercials - a clear manipulation of a NFL game by both the TV networks and the league itself. Of course, if this did occur as Fisher claimed, it would've simply been a business decision and in the league's best interest.

#130 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:28 AM
Would seem more credible if you just stuck to the (hard) facts. Instead it appears you'll conjure up a reason that any game was/probably was "fixed," which takes away from any validity that you may have.

Whoever wins the Super Bowl this year, you can manufacture a "reason" out of thin air that the league fixed it for whatever team to win, then tell everyone, "see! the league is fixing games because they won." Then that's your "proof" of the league fixing games;

For example;

If Oakland wins the SB it's because the league wants to reward Mark Davis for "something" or because the league wants them to be a championship team for a potential move to LA, or to get a new stadium built in their current city. The latter can be your "reasoning" for SD, STL and MIN as well.

If KC wins it's because they wanted another black HC to win the SB. If Denver wins it's because they want to reward them for playing Tebow last year, or because they want to reward Manning for "throwing" SB XLIV.

If the Steelers win it's because....hell, the league always wants the Steelers to win. If the Browns or Bengals win it's because they want a marquee team in Ohio and to give one of them their first SB win. If the Ravens win it's because they wanted a great defensive team to win, to quiet complaints about the league not allowing defenses to play actual defense anymore.

If the Jets win it's because they're in NY and the league loves the Jets, who surely wouldn't have made the AFC Championship in 2 of the last 3 years without the league fixing games for them, or you could just say "Tebow." If the Dolphins win it's because the Miami Dolphins "stock" is falling and they wanted to make them popular again. If the Bills win it's to reward Ralph Wilson for playing ball with Toronto these past few years. If the Patriots win it's to reward Robert Kraft for all his work in the CBA negotiations (then why didn't the league fix last years SB for the Pats to win? Surely they had a better "fix" claim than the Giants would have had?)

If the Titans win it's to reward Hasselbeck for staying quiet about the SB XL fix, where he knew the league would hand the game to the Steelers but he was guaranteed a future SB win. If the Jags win it's to reward Shad Khan for buying the team and keeping them in Jacksonville. If the Colts win it's because they want to make Luck the new face of the NFL. If the Texans win it's to reward Bob McNair for bringing the NFL back to Houston.

If the Giants win it's because the NFL is ready to make a new dynasty and want it to be a NY team with a Manning. If the Redskins win it's because they want RG3 to be the new face of the league. If the Cowboys win it's because it's their turn in the "popular team gets a free SB win" rotation. If the Eagles win it's to reward them for purposely losing all those NFC Championships and a SB.

If the Packers win it's to reward them for agreeing to lose to the Giants in last years playoffs. If the Lions win it's because the league wants to make Detroit a premier NFL city and they love Megatron (who the league clearly conspired with EA Sports to fix the voting so they could get him on the cover of madden, the signs for this SB fix were obvious from the start, NFL gets EA sports to put Calvin on the cover, because they knew in advance they'd have them win this years SB. See guys, the proof is there, you just have to be smart enough to look for it.) If the Bears win it's to reward them and Jay Cutler for him agreeing to fake an injury to get out of the NFC Championship against the Packers because the league wanted the Packers to win that year.

If the Panthers win it's because they want Cam to be the new face of the league. If Tampa Bay wins it's because (insert something cynical about player safety and Eric LeGrand.) If the Saints win it's to reward them for "taking one for the league" with the "bounty" situation. If the Falcons win it's to reward them for agreeing to be one and done in the post-season in recent years.

If the Seahawks win it's to reward them for the league giving the Steelers SB XL. If the Cardinals win it's to reward them for letting the Steelers beat them in the SB. If the 49ers win it's to reward them for having Kyle Williams fix last years NFC Championship, or because they feel it's time to make the 49ers one of the league's glamour teams again, with the new stadium on the way and all.

I don't mean to come off as mocking you, just merely pointing out that this is a relatively simple game to play.

[oldecapecod11]

"The Fix Is In" - Book by Brian Tuohy
Started by Marble_Eye, Apr 22 2012 05:57 PM

Last Page of Original Thread

138 replies to this topic

#131 Brian2E
Rookie

Forum Visitors

47 posts
Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:30 AM
'Reaser', on 07 May 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:
Would seem more credible if you just stuck to the (hard) facts. Instead it appears you'll conjure up a reason that any game was/probably was "fixed," which takes away from any validity that you may have.

Whoever wins the Super Bowl this year, you can manufacture a "reason" out of thin air that the league fixed it for whatever team to win, then tell everyone, "see! the league is fixing games because they won." Then that's your "proof" of the league fixing games;

For example;

If Oakland wins the SB it's because the league wants to reward Mark Davis for "something" or because the league wants them to be a championship team for a potential move to LA, or to get a new stadium built in their current city. The latter can be your "reasoning" for SD, STL and MIN as well.

If KC wins it's because they wanted another black HC to win the SB. If Denver wins it's because they want to reward them for playing Tebow last year, or because they want to reward Manning for "throwing" SB XLIV.

If the Steelers win it's because....hell, the league always wants the Steelers to win. If the Browns or Bengals win it's because they want a marquee team in Ohio and to give one of them their first SB win. If the Ravens win it's because they wanted a great defensive team to win, to quiet complaints about the league not allowing defenses to play actual defense anymore.

If the Jets win it's because they're in NY and the league loves the Jets, who surely wouldn't have made the AFC Championship in 2 of the last 3 years without the league fixing games for them, or you could just say "Tebow." If the Dolphins win it's because the Miami Dolphins "stock" is falling and they wanted to make them popular again. If the Bills win it's to reward Ralph Wilson for playing ball with Toronto these past few years. If the Patriots win it's to reward Robert Kraft for all his work in the CBA negotiations (then why didn't the league fix last years SB for the Pats to win? Surely they had a better "fix" claim than the Giants would have had?)

If the Titans win it's to reward Hasselbeck for staying quiet about the SB XL fix, where he knew the league would hand the game to the Steelers but he was guaranteed a future SB win. If the Jags win it's to reward Shad Khan for buying the team and keeping them in Jacksonville. If the Colts win it's because they want to make Luck the new face of the NFL. If the Texans win it's to reward Bob McNair for bringing the NFL back to Houston.

If the Giants win it's because the NFL is ready to make a new dynasty and want it to be a NY team with a Manning. If the Redskins win it's because they want RG3 to be the new face of the league. If the Cowboys win it's because it's their turn in the "popular team gets a free SB win" rotation. If the Eagles win it's to reward them for purposely losing all those NFC Championships and a SB.

If the Packers win it's to reward them for agreeing to lose to the Giants in last years playoffs. If the Lions win it's because the league wants to make Detroit a premier NFL city and they love Megatron (who the league clearly conspired with EA Sports to fix the voting so they could get him on the cover of madden, the signs for this SB fix were obvious from the start, NFL gets EA sports to put Calvin on the cover, because they knew in advance they'd have them win this years SB. See guys, the proof is there, you just have to be smart enough to look for it.) If the Bears win it's to reward them and Jay Cutler for him agreeing to fake an injury to get out of the NFC Championship against the Packers because the league wanted the Packers to win that year.

If the Panthers win it's because they want Cam to be the new face of the league. If Tampa Bay wins it's because (insert something cynical about player safety and Eric LeGrand.) If the Saints win it's to reward them for "taking one for the league" with the "bounty" situation. If the Falcons win it's to reward them for agreeing to be one and done in the post-season in recent years.

If the Seahawks win it's to reward them for the league giving the Steelers SB XL. If the Cardinals win it's to reward them for letting the Steelers beat them in the SB. If the 49ers win it's to reward them for having Kyle Williams fix last years NFC Championship, or because they feel it's time to make the 49ers one of the league's glamour teams again, with the new stadium on the way and all.

I don't mean to come off as mocking you, just merely pointing out that this is a relatively simple game to play.

Oh, I'm sure there's a little bit of mocking in there, but your point is taken. However, I have never said every NFL game or Super Bowl has been fixed. My argument has always been that if the NFL sees an opening whereupon it can further profit by Team A beating Team B and it has the means and motive to make that happen, what's stopping the league from doing so? Nothing (despite many fans' notion that the league is "pure" or wants to remain so because that's more profitable than fixing an outcome). And based on certain calls, plays and results, I believe that has happened. Maybe it happened once last year. Maybe just once in the past five years. Either way, if it has happened just once, the league's credibility is shattered. I'd argue that the league has no credibility as it is, that as part of the entertainment industry its willingly manipulated itself in several ways to make games more exciting (just look at how the AFL was once mocked for it's wide-open games which is now what the NFL is creating and selling by altering its rules) and fixing a game is just a part of that.

But in returning to your argument, I can't think of a good reason why the NFL would've wanted the Giants to win last year and therefore made it happen. Or why Denver should've won a second Super Bowl by beating Atlanta. Or why Tampa Bay should've beaten the Raiders (although as written in Bloody Sundays, Rich Gannon gave away the Raiders game plan to his former coach John Gruden prior to the game - and why that revelation never became a huge scandal is beyond me). Other championships, I find suspect such as the Saints after the NFL continually built up the team in the national zeitgeist as the saviors of a ravaged New Orleans. And now that they brought that title home with all the surrounding hoopla and profit, it's those same Saints that have been made scapegoats in this ridiculous bounty scandal.

I'll admit at times I may seem to throw too much s*** against the wall to see what sticks. However, the NFL seems to have an endless supply of s*** with which I can arm myself. And while you're guessing game is neat, it's really not one I'm apt to play.

By the way, nice tag line. It's wrong, but a comforting thought nonetheless.

#132 Brian2E
Rookie

Forum Visitors

47 posts
Posted 07 May 2012 - 01:21 PM
Let's examine two examples from last season in regards to the idea of the NFL fixing its own.

First, is the timing of the rise of Tim Tebow. As a non-starting, backup, rookie QB, he managed to possess one of, if not the, best selling jerseys in the NFL. He played sparingly in 2010, and came into the 2011 season as the Broncos #3 QB. Yet after a weak start, the Broncos decided to start Tebow at QB (and not their #2 QB) in a road game against the Miami Dolphins...the very week the Dolphins planned to honor Tebow's Florida Gators 2008 National Championship team (which made little sense as the Gators are not a Miami-area team). Prior to the Broncos decision, the Dolphins were some 20,000 tickets short of a sellout for this game and looking down the barrel of a TV blackout. Luckily Tebow was announced the , and those remaining tickets sold out instantly. Everyone won - including Tebow, who despite looking horrific for 3.5 quarters, managed to create a last-second, come-from-behind win that sent his fans home happy. That all just coincidence?

Second, reexamine Greg Jennings fumble in last year's playoff game between the Packers and Giants from last year. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, everyone saw that play as a fumble. The sole exception? The ref looking at it on instant replay. Despite having multiple HD, slo-mo angles on this play - which we all had at home - he ruled it not a fumble. This call was 100% incorrect (and if you argue the NFL's take that Jenning's ankle was down prior to the ball coming out, you're just nuts because that's never been called before. Look at numerous short-yardage, goal line plays and tell me you look for the players ankle to be down and not his knee). Why would this ref make this decision? Honest mistake? Doubtful if he knows his job well enough to be considered a playoff caliber official. So why made the wrong call? I'd argue that it was made intentionally to keep the Packers hopes alive in a game where that turnover would've made it a bigger blowout than it already was. This non-call was a good business decision, and one I feel was directed from the top down.


#133 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:47 PM
'Brian2E', on 07 May 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:
Oh, I'm sure there's a little bit of mocking in there, but your point is taken. However, I have never said every NFL game or Super Bowl has been fixed. My argument has always been that if the NFL sees an opening whereupon it can further profit by Team A beating Team B and it has the means and motive to make that happen, what's stopping the league from doing so? (rest cut to keep it short) ...

It was meant to be constructive criticism, in a way. Let's say we put all these things in (loose) categories;

In Category 1 we have: 1946 Championship, Paul Hornung, Alex Karras, 1971 Oilers situation...

Category 2: Bobby Layne, the two refs that were from what, the 80's?

Category 3: Something like the 1958 championship where people are taking 2 and 2 and coming up with 4.5, looks good but doesn't quite add up.

Categories 4-99: Put whatever here, empty space

Category 100: Connecting the pre-game look on Mannings face to him throwing the SB against the Saints, the league fixing games so Tebow would be in the playoffs, the league having the Packers beat the Steelers in the SB because they wanted Rodgers to be their new poster boy (as an aside, worst call in that game in my opinion was the facemask that benefit the Steelers.)

Even categories 1 and 3 are too far apart to put in the same conversation, and you're throwing 100 in with 1, as if it's all in the same conversation. That is what I had meant about credible. You're mixing the "categories" all in with eachother, the known in with the rumored in with the far out conspiracy theories.

Now maybe that's just how I'm seeing it, and it's unintentional on your part due to the fact that you're responding to multiple people in multiple posts. If you claimed that the case then I'de give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's not really what I'm seeing from you. Looks like you've got it all grouped in together, to me.

Say the average person throws 2-3 things at the wall and see what sticks, well you're throwing "everything" at the wall then not even bothering to see what sticks, just move right past that, before and without the confirmation of anything sticking, just blind belief that something probably stuck.

I haven't read your book, but I imagine it's similar to what you're posting here, which if that's the case it appears you've taken what is already known, taken the work of others (the numerous previous authors on this/similar subject that you've mentioned) and probably expanded on it? Then you've added in you own intellectually lazy conspiracy theories...that last statement is not meant to be offensive or insulting, just to say that it's all the "easy" things to conjure up, "the league wanted team x to win the SB because (insert blatantly obvious reason the league would be happy with that team; storyline, market, hype, and most of all profits, etc...)"

The admissions, valid suspicions, research and the little actual proof all seems to be of things pre-90's. Anything 2000-current seems to be conjured up conspiracy theories. I think that's what people are asking for proof of, not prove something already known about from the 60's, but prove the league is manipulating games currently. Those are two very different things that are being mixed together, apparently to continue the narrative.

I imagine everyone here gets the "why" the various entities would fix a game in current times, I figure most get the "hows" also, but neither why or how proves anything. I could say why I would want to rob a bank (to have money to buy my own NFL team) and I could even say how I would rob a bank, neither means that I've robbed a bank, or come close to giving it a serious thought, attempted it, or even wanted to or would want to do it.

Switching gears a bit, since you've asked people and created a thread (now closed) asking if people believed a game has ever been fixed. I would think any logical thinking person would say of course (but again, that doesn't prove anything about the last 2-3 decades.) You could even make a case that the 1925 Cardinals-Badgers game was rigged/fixed, depending on how one defines it. Plus anyone who's ever read about 1920's pro football has surely read stories about "hometown refs" and the adventures that went along with them. They had a lot of control over the games, favor the home team by marching off 50 yard penalties? I've read it, surely some of the stories are hyperbole, but there's likely a lot of truth in there and that's essentially a ref favoring a team, which you can loosely take one step further and say "fixing" ... and that's just starting in the 20's, of course there's the stories from the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's. That's old news.

As for modern times though, I don't see it. The players make too much money, obviously he would have to be paid a large sum to fix a game, would get noticed. Gambling/betting is much more sophisticated these days, a large sum of money would get noticed, by either the spotlight on the player, or by the gambling world. It seems highly unlikely that a player (or coach) would be involved, plus the media doesn't protect athletes the way they used to, many other reasons, etc...To me that takes out that aspect of manipulating games, not plausible.

So to have game results "fixed" it would have to come from the league. In which case it'd be going through the owners, ALL of them would have to be in on it (for obvious reasons that I don't think I need to explain.) Sure some are milktoast, some are pure business men who don't care if they win as long as they make money, but there are some competitors that make this unlikely as well. Say what you want about Jerry Jones, but I can't see him being okay with the league fixing it so the Packers and Steelers meet in a SB in his stadium, and definitely wouldn't go along quietly while the league fixes things to have the Giants win two super bowls in five years, while he has nothing in the last decade and a half. Even a Dan Snyder, who might not have a clue about how to put together a championship winning organization, but he surely wants to win a SB. These guys aren't just going to sit around and be okay being looked at by their fans as failures. There are huge ego's in play here, too many for the owners to be colluding to manipulate the outcomes of games/seasons/super bowls.

So take that out, the owners would all know and be in on it, wouldn't work, by extension that takes out coaches and players.

So for modern times all you're left with is "the league" using officials to fix games. but the league is ran by the owners. Goodell, essentially a puppet, isn't going out on his own to use the officials to fix games, the owners would know, and again, that is illogical and wouldn't work.

So how is it happening then? The likely answer is that it is not.

Finally, one last quote; you said "And while you're guessing game is neat, it's really not one I'm apt to play."

I believe, if you're being honest, I think you would admit that after this years Super Bowl no matter which two teams are involved and no matter who wins that you'll come up with "something" that's along the lines of "(super bowl winning team) won because the league wanted them to win, because (instert something close to my examples from my previous post)"... Am I wrong in assuming that? I don't believe I am.

#134 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:40 PM
'Brian2E', on 07 May 2012 - 1:21 PM, said:
Let's examine two examples from last season in regards to the idea of the NFL fixing its own.

First, is the timing of the rise of Tim Tebow. As a non-starting, backup, rookie QB, he managed to possess one of, if not the, best selling jerseys in the NFL. He played sparingly in 2010, and came into the 2011 season as the Broncos #3 QB. Yet after a weak start, the Broncos decided to start Tebow at QB (and not their #2 QB) in a road game against the Miami Dolphins...the very week the Dolphins planned to honor Tebow's Florida Gators 2008 National Championship team (which made little sense as the Gators are not a Miami-area team). Prior to the Broncos decision, the Dolphins were some 20,000 tickets short of a sellout for this game and looking down the barrel of a TV blackout. Luckily Tebow was announced the , and those remaining tickets sold out instantly. Everyone won - including Tebow, who despite looking horrific for 3.5 quarters, managed to create a last-second, come-from-behind win that sent his fans home happy. That all just coincidence?

Second, reexamine Greg Jennings fumble in last year's playoff game between the Packers and Giants from last year. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, everyone saw that play as a fumble. The sole exception? The ref looking at it on instant replay. Despite having multiple HD, slo-mo angles on this play - which we all had at home - he ruled it not a fumble. This call was 100% incorrect (and if you argue the NFL's take that Jenning's ankle was down prior to the ball coming out, you're just nuts because that's never been called before. Look at numerous short-yardage, goal line plays and tell me you look for the players ankle to be down and not his knee). Why would this ref make this decision? Honest mistake? Doubtful if he knows his job well enough to be considered a playoff caliber official. So why made the wrong call? I'd argue that it was made intentionally to keep the Packers hopes alive in a game where that turnover would've made it a bigger blowout than it already was. This non-call was a good business decision, and one I feel was directed from the top down.
You have officially crossed the line from being silly to being totally absurd.

#135 SixtiesFan
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:23 PM
'Reaser', on 07 May 2012 - 3:47 PM, said:
It was meant to be constructive criticism, in a way. Let's say we put all these things in (loose) categories;

In Category 1 we have: 1946 Championship, Paul Hornung, Alex Karras, 1971 Oilers situation...
Category 2: Bobby Layne, the two refs that were from what, the 80's?
Category 3: Something like the 1958 championship where people are taking 2 and 2 and coming up with 4.5, looks good but doesn't quite add up.
Categories 4-99: Put whatever here, empty space
Category 100: Connecting the pre-game look on Mannings face to him throwing the SB against the Saints, the league fixing games so Tebow would be in the playoffs, the league having the Packers beat the Steelers in the SB because they wanted Rodgers to be their new poster boy (as an aside, worst call in that game in my opinion was the facemask that benefit the Steelers.)

Even categories 1 and 3 are too far apart to put in the same conversation, and you're throwing 100 in with 1, as if it's all in the same conversation. That is what I had meant about credible. You're mixing the "categories" all in with eachother, the known in with the rumored in with the far out conspiracy theories.

Now maybe that's just how I'm seeing it, and it's unintentional on your part due to the fact that you're responding to multiple people in multiple posts. If you claimed that the case then I'de give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's not really what I'm seeing from you. Looks like you've got it all grouped in together, to me.

Say the average person throws 2-3 things at the wall and see what sticks, well you're throwing "everything" at the wall then not even bothering to see what sticks, just move right past that, before and without the confirmation of anything sticking, just blind belief that something probably stuck.

I haven't read your book, but I imagine it's similar to what you're posting here, which if that's the case it appears you've taken what is already known, taken the work of others (the numerous previous authors on this/similar subject that you've mentioned) and probably expanded on it? Then you've added in you own intellectually lazy conspiracy theories...that last statement is not meant to be offensive or insulting, just to say that it's all the "easy" things to conjure up, "the league wanted team x to win the SB because (insert blatantly obvious reason the league would be happy with that team; storyline, market, hype, and most of all profits, etc...)"

The admissions, valid suspicions, research and the little actual proof all seems to be of things pre-90's. Anything 2000-current seems to be conjured up conspiracy theories. I think that's what people are asking for proof of, not prove something already known about from the 60's, but prove the league is manipulating games currently. Those are two very different things that are being mixed together, apparently to continue the narrative.

I imagine everyone here gets the "why" the various entities would fix a game in current times, I figure most get the "hows" also, but neither why or how proves anything. I could say why I would want to rob a bank (to have money to buy my own NFL team) and I could even say how I would rob a bank, neither means that I've robbed a bank, or come close to giving it a serious thought, attempted it, or even wanted to or would want to do it.

Switching gears a bit, since you've asked people and created a thread (now closed) asking if people believed a game has ever been fixed. I would think any logical thinking person would say of course (but again, that doesn't prove anything about the last 2-3 decades.) You could even make a case that the 1925 Cardinals-Badgers game was rigged/fixed, depending on how one defines it. Plus anyone who's ever read about 1920's pro football has surely read stories about "hometown refs" and the adventures that went along with them. They had a lot of control over the games, favor the home team by marching off 50 yard penalties? I've read it, surely some of the stories are hyperbole, but there's likely a lot of truth in there and that's essentially a ref favoring a team, which you can loosely take one step further and say "fixing" ... and that's just starting in the 20's, of course there's the stories from the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's. That's old news.

As for modern times though, I don't see it. The players make too much money, obviously he would have to be paid a large sum to fix a game, would get noticed. Gambling/betting is much more sophisticated these days, a large sum of money would get noticed, by either the spotlight on the player, or by the gambling world. It seems highly unlikely that a player (or coach) would be involved, plus the media doesn't protect athletes the way they used to, many other reasons, etc...To me that takes out that aspect of manipulating games, not plausible.

So to have game results "fixed" it would have to come from the league. In which case it'd be going through the owners, ALL of them would have to be in on it (for obvious reasons that I don't think I need to explain.) Sure some are milktoast, some are pure business men who don't care if they win as long as they make money, but there are some competitors that make this unlikely as well. Say what you want about Jerry Jones, but I can't see him being okay with the league fixing it so the Packers and Steelers meet in a SB in his stadium, and definitely wouldn't go along quietly while the league fixes things to have the Giants win two super bowls in five years, while he has nothing in the last decade and a half. Even a Dan Snyder, who might not have a clue about how to put together a championship winning organization, but he surely wants to win a SB. These guys aren't just going to sit around and be okay being looked at by their fans as failures. There are huge ego's in play here, too many for the owners to be colluding to manipulate the outcomes of games/seasons/super bowls.

So take that out, the owners would all know and be in on it, wouldn't work, by extension that takes out coaches and players.

So for modern times all you're left with is "the league" using officials to fix games. but the league is ran by the owners. Goodell, essentially a puppet, isn't going out on his own to use the officials to fix games, the owners would know, and again, that is illogical and wouldn't work.

So how is it happening then? The likely answer is that it is not.

Finally, one last quote; you said "And while you're guessing game is neat, it's really not one I'm apt to play."

I believe, if you're being honest, I think you would admit that after this years Super Bowl no matter which two teams are involved and no matter who wins that you'll come up with "something" that's along the lines of "(super bowl winning team) won because the league wanted them to win, because (instert something close to my examples from my previous post)"... Am I wrong in assuming that? I don't believe I am.

Very well said. Why is Jerry Jones content with being shut out of the Super Bowl? The late Carroll Rosenbloom might have bet on his own team at some point (but I haven't seen any evidence and do you think Unitas took orders from anybody in the 1958 title game?), but no way would Rosenbloom have willingly lost Super Bowl III. He was publicaly humiliated when the Colts lost to Namath's Jets and Rosenbloom was not a man to play the fool on purpose.

Yes, the players make too much money to risk shaving points or fixing a game. By the same token, the owners would have to pay out vast sums to fix the games on top of what they are already paying in salaries.

As I wrote several posts ago, it is in the self-interest of the owners to have an "honest" game. These are men who act in their financial self-interest if nothing else.

#136 Brian2E
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:54 PM
'Reaser', on 07 May 2012 - 3:47 PM, said:
It was meant to be constructive criticism, in a way. Let's say we put all these things in (loose) categories;

In Category 1 we have: 1946 Championship, Paul Hornung, Alex Karras, 1971 Oilers situation...

Category 2: Bobby Layne, the two refs that were from what, the 80's?

Category 3: Something like the 1958 championship where people are taking 2 and 2 and coming up with 4.5, looks good but doesn't quite add up.

Categories 4-99: Put whatever here, empty space

Category 100: Connecting the pre-game look on Mannings face to him throwing the SB against the Saints, the league fixing games so Tebow would be in the playoffs, the league having the Packers beat the Steelers in the SB because they wanted Rodgers to be their new poster boy (as an aside, worst call in that game in my opinion was the facemask that benefit the Steelers.)

Even categories 1 and 3 are too far apart to put in the same conversation, and you're throwing 100 in with 1, as if it's all in the same conversation. That is what I had meant about credible. You're mixing the "categories" all in with eachother, the known in with the rumored in with the far out conspiracy theories.

Now maybe that's just how I'm seeing it, and it's unintentional on your part due to the fact that you're responding to multiple people in multiple posts. If you claimed that the case then I'de give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's not really what I'm seeing from you. Looks like you've got it all grouped in together, to me.

Say the average person throws 2-3 things at the wall and see what sticks, well you're throwing "everything" at the wall then not even bothering to see what sticks, just move right past that, before and without the confirmation of anything sticking, just blind belief that something probably stuck.

I haven't read your book, but I imagine it's similar to what you're posting here, which if that's the case it appears you've taken what is already known, taken the work of others (the numerous previous authors on this/similar subject that you've mentioned) and probably expanded on it? Then you've added in you own intellectually lazy conspiracy theories...that last statement is not meant to be offensive or insulting, just to say that it's all the "easy" things to conjure up, "the league wanted team x to win the SB because (insert blatantly obvious reason the league would be happy with that team; storyline, market, hype, and most of all profits, etc...)"

The admissions, valid suspicions, research and the little actual proof all seems to be of things pre-90's. Anything 2000-current seems to be conjured up conspiracy theories. I think that's what people are asking for proof of, not prove something already known about from the 60's, but prove the league is manipulating games currently. Those are two very different things that are being mixed together, apparently to continue the narrative.

I imagine everyone here gets the "why" the various entities would fix a game in current times, I figure most get the "hows" also, but neither why or how proves anything. I could say why I would want to rob a bank (to have money to buy my own NFL team) and I could even say how I would rob a bank, neither means that I've robbed a bank, or come close to giving it a serious thought, attempted it, or even wanted to or would want to do it.

Switching gears a bit, since you've asked people and created a thread (now closed) asking if people believed a game has ever been fixed. I would think any logical thinking person would say of course (but again, that doesn't prove anything about the last 2-3 decades.) You could even make a case that the 1925 Cardinals-Badgers game was rigged/fixed, depending on how one defines it. Plus anyone who's ever read about 1920's pro football has surely read stories about "hometown refs" and the adventures that went along with them. They had a lot of control over the games, favor the home team by marching off 50 yard penalties? I've read it, surely some of the stories are hyperbole, but there's likely a lot of truth in there and that's essentially a ref favoring a team, which you can loosely take one step further and say "fixing" ... and that's just starting in the 20's, of course there's the stories from the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's. That's old news.

As for modern times though, I don't see it. The players make too much money, obviously he would have to be paid a large sum to fix a game, would get noticed. Gambling/betting is much more sophisticated these days, a large sum of money would get noticed, by either the spotlight on the player, or by the gambling world. It seems highly unlikely that a player (or coach) would be involved, plus the media doesn't protect athletes the way they used to, many other reasons, etc...To me that takes out that aspect of manipulating games, not plausible.

So to have game results "fixed" it would have to come from the league. In which case it'd be going through the owners, ALL of them would have to be in on it (for obvious reasons that I don't think I need to explain.) Sure some are milktoast, some are pure business men who don't care if they win as long as they make money, but there are some competitors that make this unlikely as well. Say what you want about Jerry Jones, but I can't see him being okay with the league fixing it so the Packers and Steelers meet in a SB in his stadium, and definitely wouldn't go along quietly while the league fixes things to have the Giants win two super bowls in five years, while he has nothing in the last decade and a half. Even a Dan Snyder, who might not have a clue about how to put together a championship winning organization, but he surely wants to win a SB. These guys aren't just going to sit around and be okay being looked at by their fans as failures. There are huge ego's in play here, too many for the owners to be colluding to manipulate the outcomes of games/seasons/super bowls.

So take that out, the owners would all know and be in on it, wouldn't work, by extension that takes out coaches and players.

So for modern times all you're left with is "the league" using officials to fix games. but the league is ran by the owners. Goodell, essentially a puppet, isn't going out on his own to use the officials to fix games, the owners would know, and again, that is illogical and wouldn't work.

So how is it happening then? The likely answer is that it is not.

Finally, one last quote; you said "And while you're guessing game is neat, it's really not one I'm apt to play."

I believe, if you're being honest, I think you would admit that after this years Super Bowl no matter which two teams are involved and no matter who wins that you'll come up with "something" that's along the lines of "(super bowl winning team) won because the league wanted them to win, because (instert something close to my examples from my previous post)"... Am I wrong in assuming that? I don't believe I am.

For one, you are correct in the entanglement of these threads. On the one hand, there's the "have games been fixed by gamblers/mobsters" question which I tried to separate into a separate thread, but the admin here wouldn't allow it. On the other hand is my belief that the NFL has fixed its own games in the past. These two argument have intermixed here in a funky way and really should not have.

With the gambling question, if one is willing to concur that NFL games have been fixed/seen points shaved in the past, then its an agreement with me that the league is lying to its fans on this subject. It doesn't matter if this happened in the 1940s, 1960s, 1980s, or 2000s. The NFL claims it's never happened. This is bunk. Yet you assume that this cannot happen in modern times. This, too, is bunk. As I have explained is several places in this thread, with billions being wagered on NFL games, a few extra million placed here or there will go unnoticed - especially when the smart fixer would place these bets in the vast illegal market. I've spoken with gamblers and bookmakers who would back this statement and I'm not about to list all the quotes and names regarding this here. Granted it may be more difficult to do today, but it certainly can be done. And though players may get paid a great deal today, but some s are getting the league minimum. Even stars don't necessarily make Peyton Manning money and those salaries don't equate to as much as you may think after taxes, agent fees, etc. Certain stars have gone bankrupt soon after leaving the game (like Warren Sapp and Mark Brunnel). But there's other ways to get an athlete to fix a game: drug problems, their personal gambling problems, etc. But you don't think the media is protecting athletes today (an incorrect assumption), so we all know which athletes are druggies, gamblers, womanizers, homosexual, etc. so no one could take advantage and blackmail a player with these real world problems because it's all out in the open.

Now, for the second issue of the NFL fixing its own. Definitive proof of this is admittedly virtually nonexistent, for if it did exist, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I believe that the control the NFL possesses over its athletes and referees - which is likely a greater force than a mobster could have - can be leveraged into fixing a game. Can I prove this beyond a doubt? Nope. All of the examples I could put forth would be written off as conjecture, a stretch, etc. I believe all of these examples put together add some to something sinister, other don't see it. So be it.

The fact that TV funds the NFL to the tune of $6 billion a season - which is enough to cover every athlete's salary and account for over 60% of all NFL revenue - doesn't bother some people. Of course, many athletes have written how, even dating back to the 1960s, that when this influx of money came into the league, it appeared as if the TV networks bought the NFL (but I forget, you don't like that I reference other writers/researchers as apparently I'm supposed to work on an island). It probably doesn't bother some fans that the NFL argued before the Supreme Court in attempt to get anti-trust status last year that it's not 32 individual teams, but one entity known as the NFL and acts as such. Nor does it bother some fans that legally a ticket to an NFL games grants you only a license to see a football game which the court declared does not have to be played by the league's own rules.

As a former fan of the NFL, these types of facts are what drove me to write the book that I did because I know the league lies to me about virtually everything surrounding the game in order to protect this nonexistent "integrity." Game fixing by the league - which at this point in the conversation is just a theory - isn't my only gripe against the major leagues. I'm just willing to play the devil's advocate and say, if I know the league's lying to me about everything surrounding the game, how can I trust the game itself?

Of course, you make the blind assumption that certain owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Synder want to win at all times. That may just be a public perception. Unless you know them both intimately, forgive me, but I'm not going to believe it to be true. You claim its therefore "illogical" for the owners to allow refs to manipulate games because again, you assume they are all credible and out to win. Remember collusion in baseball in the mid-1980s? When all the owners got together with the commissioner and decided winning and losing be damned, they weren't going to pay for any other teams' free agents? They did that for three years - a clear cut "conspiracy" which showed owners could agree on one thing: money. This was so obvious that it was broken up by the union which sued the league for $280 million.

Does that mean I think that at the owners meeting each year they sit around and predetermine whose going to win the Super Bowl? No, and I've never said as much (and I never made a case for why the NFL would've let the Giants win the Super Bowl last year, so it doesn't mean I'll make a case for this year's winner either). But do I think these same owners dictate how their employees - the referees - do their jobs? You bet I do. And if that means not following certain rules and giving more leeway to certain stars/teams, then what is that but a manipulation of the game? And if that sort of manipulation is occurring - and it is - then is it really a stretch to think those same refs could be influencing the outcomes of games via the same methodology at the league/owners' direction? That's up to you to decide.

#137 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:28 PM
'Brian2E', on 07 May 2012 - 7:54 PM, said:
With the gambling question, if one is willing to concur that NFL games have been fixed/seen points shaved in the past, then its an agreement with me that the league is lying to its fans on this subject. It doesn't matter if this happened in the 1940s, 1960s, 1980s, or 2000s. The NFL claims it's never happened. This is bunk.

Not the first time the NFL has lied to it's fans. Though as I alluded to, things in previous eras were done in a much different climate than currently. Something from 1946 doesn't "prove" the same or similar is happening in 2012.

Quote
Yet you assume that this cannot happen in modern times. This, too, is bunk. As I have explained...

No. I never said it can't happen, I even said we all can see the why/how it could happen...then said just because it's possible doesn't prove it's existence. Pretty sure I said it's unlikely and for various reasons it's likely that it is not happening.

Quote
But you don't think the media is protecting athletes today (an incorrect assumption)

No. I said they don't protect them "the way they used to" (i.e. as much) as they did in the past.

Quote
it appeared as if the TV networks bought the NFL (but I forget, you don't like that I reference other writers/researchers as apparently I'm supposed to work on an island).

No. I did not say I didn't like your referencing other writers. I was pointing out that pre-90's is where all that work is done (by others, and as I said, possibly you've expanded upon their work, I haven't read your book so I wouldn't know) and that 2000-current is nothing but conspiracy theories, unless you have documents/FBI files to present on something "new"? That was my point. You've taken what is known, talked about it. Taken what others worked on, talked about it (possibly added to it?) but anything within last two decades appears to be you're own stuff which, at least by all accounts posted here, are all conspiracy theories.

Quote
Of course, you make the blind assumption that certain owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Synder want to win at all times. That may just be a public perception. Unless you know them both intimately, forgive me, but I'm not going to believe it to be true. You claim its therefore "illogical" for the owners to allow refs to manipulate games because again, you assume they are all credible and out to win. Remember collusion in baseball in the mid-1980s? When all the owners got together with the commissioner and decided winning and losing be damned, they weren't going to pay for any other teams' free agents? They did that for three years - a clear cut "conspiracy" which showed owners could agree on one thing: money. This was so obvious that it was broken up by the union which sued the league for $280 million.

Football isn't baseball, and there is a pretty big difference between not paying for other teams free agents and a league fixing games.

Quote
(and I never made a case for why the NFL would've let the Giants win the Super Bowl last year, so it doesn't mean I'll make a case for this year's winner either).

I had read on a "fix is in" website questions about someone "higher up" than Bill Belichick possibly deciding to let the Giants score the winning TD. I had assumed that was your work (reads similar at least,) and also it reads as if they had a case, prior to the game being played of course, as for why the NFL would let the Patriots win the SB last year (like it was a lock to happen, because of course the SB is fixed,) but as that obviously didn't happen, this person decided to go the route of questioning plays from the game and pointing out an online ad, to hint at a possible conspiracy that the Giants were supposed to win all along. Either way, apparently I was mistaken, so my sincere apologies on attributing to you, what was some others thoughts on the game, that's my mistake.

[oldecapecod11]

This Page was not needed.
When Posts were removed. the purger left behind thousands of unused characters.
When the Thread was edited, this day, 16 November 2014, the unneeded characters were deleted.

[oldecapecod11]

This Page was not needed.
When Posts were removed. the purger left behind thousands of unused characters.
When the Thread was edited, this day, 16 November 2014, the unneeded characters were deleted.

[7DnBrnc53]

This is from a blog called Super Fraud:

Part 1: http://superfraud.blogspot.com/2012/05/ ... s-vis.html

Part 2: http://superfraud.blogspot.com/2012/05/ ... tball.html

Here is a highlight from the second link. RHickok said this:

"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."

And, this was the response from the author of this blog, Starcade:

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!