Wrestleknownothing

I think Brands was 23 when he started gambling and I do not recall anyone claiming he used alias.

Casinos don't like people to play wisely

I don't think inside information is applicable here. Most people think inside information in the US is about fairness, but it is actually about theft. Using information that does not belong to you to profit in capital markets is the crime. The idea is that it harms capital formation if it is allowed to happen. And capital formation is valuable to an economy. I do not think that applies in any way to betting markets which are not viewed as having a similar importance. I am not aware of any laws that disallow betting based on an information advantage. As a matter of fact it is legal in some jurisdictions to "cheat" at casino games. But it is also legal for casinos to ban you if they think you are doing things like counting cards.

57kg: Arujau - Arujau is just too fast and too technically sound for the field, even a helathy S. Lee 65kg: Lee - Lee has Diakomihalis' number, and now he has shown he can figure McKenna out. He may have been 7th at Worlds, but he was the third best 65 wrestler there. 74kg: Dake - this one worries me a bit. Something looked a tad off to me at Worlds. Is that what it was? Just a tad off. Or is time starting to move in the same direction for Dake as it is the rest of us? 86kg: Taylor - Too big, too strong, too fast for anyone in the world right now, and I do not see that changing in the next year. 97kg: Snyder - I do not see anyone domestically close to Snyder. 125kg: Parris - Parris showed his chops in Belgrade. The real deal internationally and a clear number one domestically. Rumor has it that there is a minor league, pretend wrestler who can challenge him, but for that to happen he would need to get a permission slip signed by his boss.

Seems like a Non Wrestling Topics post

I Iove that this thread is now at 95 pages.

It never ceases to amaze me that in a sport where 100% of athletes get injured, some do not want to believe it when an athlete says they are injured.

Should read 2-1

chef's kiss

Ok, I have wasted my entire lunch thinking about this. By weight the entrants in the MFS were: LARGE BRACKETS 57 kg, 65 kg, 74 kg, 86 kg, 97 kg, and 125 kg (the Olympic weights) are essentially 64 man brackets. In all cases when semifinals are complete, the repechage brackets can be constructed by best record, with tie breakers, to determine the six eligible wrestlers. Using 65 kg and 86 kg as examples, the records this year break down as follows: In both cases all wrestlers with 3-1 records make the repechage. We then use the current tie breaker system for places 7-10 to choose which two wrestlers at 65 kg, and four wrestlers at 86 kg, among those with 1-1 records makes repechage. Sticking with the easy example, 65 kg would result in Kazakhstan, Bahrain, and Belgium (all 0-1) being replaced with Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and USA (all 3-1) in the repechage. This is probably the most egregious example, 37.5% of the wrestlers eligible to finish third got there by failing to win a match. Said another way, more than half of the wrestlers at 65 kg outperformed these three wrestlers, but were blocked from placing third by them. Silliness. Note: it is also possible Japan at 2-1 would be replaced, depending on the tie breakers. In 92 kg two 0-1 wrestlers would be dropped for two 2-1 wrestlers. And perhaps there would be some swapping of 2-1 wrestlers, again tie breaker dependent. SMALL BRACKETS For 61, 70, 27, and 92 the math works out differently because they are essentially 32 man brackets with different possible records. Using 92 kg this year it looks like this: Note: while it did not happen in these brackets, it is possible to be 5-0 in large brackets or 4-0 in small brackets after semis. In 92 kg this year it is not clear that anything would change as all repechage participants won at least one match in the championship brackets (2 in the Qualifying/Pig Tail round / 2 in the 1/8 Final round). It would depend on the aforementioned tie breakers.

But did either of you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?

The Sadulaev I saw looked like he was working on a move to 125, not 86.

I'll take some of that action.

..., methinks.

My initial reaction is, replacing the 0-1's with the quarterfinalists who lost to the semifinal loser (the 3-1's at 86 and 65 in my above example) would be an immediate improvement. I will spend some more time avoiding work later to think it through. P.S. I will take this to mean that you also say the magic word when not in a professional setting. No sense denying it. Shhhhh.

No buddy at all. He's a pos who can go f himself. Let him know I said so.

And even if you don't have full consis, since the repechage participants cannot even be determined until the semis are over, why not take the time to have the right partial consis? 0-1 should never trump 3-1.

Repechage is nonsensical in the way it is practiced at the World Championships. We have multiple wrestlers in the repechage who have a shot at 3rd place who are 0-1 in the championship bracket. Meanwhile, there are wrestlers in the same bracket that are 3-1 with no chance to advance beyond 7th place. There has to be a better way. In large brackets like 65kg and 86kg there is no good reason to include 0-1 wrestlers in the repechage simply because they had the good fortune to lose in the first round to a finalist. And that is what it is, fortune. The point of these tournaments is about earning, not fortune.

I didn't even know I wanted to be on an archipelago until just now, but now I really want it.

I am too disagreeable to agree even when we agree. Can we agree on that? If your answer is yes, then I disagree.

But even that is inconsistent. They changed the enforcement AFTER they were alerted to the situation and made the change retroactive to just before the violations occured while delaying revealing what happened until after their announced enforcement changes. They are ridiculously conflicted in this entire situation.

Agreed. But I also agree with myself that they are crappy rules. The NCAA, by the way, also agrees with me on that. We just differ in degree. If they did not agree with me they would not have changed the punishments retroactive to immediately before these crimes.

I prefer an

I think I am on an island here, but I think it is a bunch of crap that these guys got these punishments. The punishment does not fit the crime in my decidedly not humble opinion.