Calvin Ridley out for ‘22 for gambling on football

[kurtfaulk]

.

i wonder if his mental health issue was his gambling problem?

.

 

[RhodyRams]

if he took a year off to deal with mental health issues, then is he still officialy condidered yo be NFL personnel?

 

[Selassie I]

Lol inside intel. He played in the nfl long enough to have inside Intell this isn’t like the stock market where buying and selling have a direct influence on stock prices. The guy was away from the team not at practices on his own time. This isn’t like Pete rose betting on games he played in.

The rules are the rules and he got what the rules said he should have got. But acting like it’s some big conspiracy and insider trading is crazy

You can find out who isn't 100%... and that ain't on the injury report.

You can easily find out game plans too.

This list could go on and on...

 

[HX76]

He’s coming to Cheltenham with me next week.

 

[Mackeyser]

Unpopular take: I think it’s bullshit posturing by the NFL. Unless he bet on the spread (he did bet on his team to win while he was out, so no ability to affect the outcome… I think it’s a non-issue.

The NFL owns a stake in Fan Duel/Draft Kings and regularly promoted gambling as well as having a team in Vegas…

All of those things were considered IMPOSSIBLE 10 years ago…

So the league can make 10s of millions on gambling, but a player can’t bet a $1500 parlay?

It’s just puritanical, hypocritical bullshit, imho

 

[Mackeyser]

And people wonder why Pete Rose is banned for life and ineligible for the baseball HOF.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Ridley.

Disagree.

Rose was a bit of a knucklehead, but Giamatti and MLB HATED Rose because he refused to completely lay down.

Rose would be in the hall now, obviating any objections, if he had just done the walk of shame and he tried, but they kept moving the goal posts and he refused.

Forensic accounting of Rose’s substitution patterns and other managerial inputs prove he changed nothing so there was never a breach in the integrity of the game.

Meanwhile, at the same time that MLB was messing with Rose about the “integrity of the game”, they were knowingly looking the other way during the McGwire/Sosa HR race about rampant PED use.

Sorry, the Rose thing is a sore spot and will only be worse once they start letting in the PED cheaters like Bonds and McGwire.

 

[RamFan503]

Unless he bet on the spread (he did bet on his team to win while he was out, so no ability to affect the outcome… I think it’s a non-issue.

Most bets placed to win are based on a spread so not sure how you narrow the definition to make it a "non-issue". Generally speaking, when Vegas sets the odds on a game, they are based on a spread or you can bet head to head straight up. Regardless, I fail to see how betting straight up is any different than betting the spread as far as a player using information he has gained from his connections to the team to have an advantage.

I may agree with the rule, but the point I look at is it's non-defensible. Why gamble on the NFL when it is prohibited as a player? You can bet on virtually ANYTHING. What a dumbass.

And the idea that he would not have access to inside information is naive at best. He no doubt is in contact with the team. He would know if a RB has an injury that might keep him from playing 100%. He would know what they were doing in practices. He would know if a WR was unlikely to be part of the game plan. He would know a lot of things that actually no doubt led him to bet that $1,500. And NO ONE on here can say with any certainty that is incorrect.

And though this would not be the case here, who is to say that a player would not do as Gurley did and go down when he could have scored easily. That play no doubt affected millions in bets. So Gurley should have been able to bet on that game and take the under?

Do you make a convoluted rule that allows certain players to gamble on the NFL? That players can bet as long as they only bet the money line? It's pretty simple. Don't bet on the NFL if you're being paid by the NFL. Bet on a baseball game or a horse race if you have to bet.

 

[RamFan503]

Lol inside intel. He played in the nfl long enough to have inside Intell this isn’t like the stock market where buying and selling have a direct influence on stock prices. The guy was away from the team not at practices on his own time. This isn’t like Pete rose betting on games he played in.

The rules are the rules and he got what the rules said he should have got. But acting like it’s some big conspiracy and insider trading is crazy

What's crazy is thinking this guy should get a pass even though he knew the rule was in place. You act like these guys would not have access to fellow players and coaches because he was currently not with the team. The rule is there for pretty good reasons. We've all seen plays that would affect the outcome of betting lines. We've all seen player health that affects the outcome of betting lines. The idea that he couldn't pick up his phone and find out that their star RB, WR, or QB is feeling like shit or that the coach gave a player a butt reaming and told him he was going to sit him, etc... is not akin to insider trading is a bit naive IMO.

I'm curious. Why do people defending his actions think he bet on this game or NFL games in general? Because he had no clue as to the current affairs of his team or the opponent? RIGHT!!!

 

[dieterbrock]

How is it even considered gambling when he was betting on the Falcons to win? That's more like a donation....
Smells to me like they are making an example out of this cat, and he's being a good soldier while taking one for the team.

 

[Mackeyser]

I just disagree about a $1500
parley being worth all this and in light of the NFL’s own interests, I find it grossly hypocritical of the NFL.

I know it’s not a popular take, but it’s how I see it.

 

[dieterbrock]

And people wonder why Pete Rose is banned for life and ineligible for the baseball HOF.

Not to change the subject, but Rose's "ban" from the HOF is one of the most misconstrued realities. First of all, his likeness and accomplishments are all over the Hall of Fame. The truth of the matter, and why Rose is such a scumbag, is because he chose to accept the ineligible list as a plea deal. At the time he was being heavily investigated for all sorts of improprieties outside of the gambling, and had he not accepted the deal, MLB was going to have to turn over the findings, IIRC he had ties to organized crime. So he took the deal, saved his own ass, and frankly owed MLB one. But instead, he got off from legal trouble and then became a real thorn in Giamattis side. There are many who partly blame Giamattis heart attack on Rose.
He could have kept his mouth shut, made his mea culpas and eventually might have made his way back. But he's a degenerate gambler scumbag who to this day still isnt taking any responsibility.
Sorry for the rant.......

 

[Memento]

Disagree.

Rose was a bit of a knucklehead, but Giamatti and MLB HATED Rose because he refused to completely lay down.

Rose would be in the hall now, obviating any objections, if he had just done the walk of shame and he tried, but they kept moving the goal posts and he refused.

Forensic accounting of Rose’s substitution patterns and other managerial inputs prove he changed nothing so there was never a breach in the integrity of the game.

Meanwhile, at the same time that MLB was messing with Rose about the “integrity of the game”, they were knowingly looking the other way during the McGwire/Sosa HR race about rampant PED use.

Sorry, the Rose thing is a sore spot and will only be worse once they start letting in the PED cheaters like Bonds and McGwire.

Rose was a major gambler, as both a player and a manager, and I don't care if he bet on his own team or others; either way, it's illegal. Considering that Shoeless Joe Jackson isn't in the Hall and never will be, I don't think that Rose should be in the Hall either for doing far more harm than Jackson ever did. For that matter, David Ortiz shouldn't be in the Hall because he was absolutely a known juicer; he just happened to be "popular with the media".

Either way, gambling on sports is wrong when you're a player, coach, or front office person. Rose got his just desserts (not really, considering that he still makes plenty of money and still has his commercials in Cinci); so too should Ridley.

 

[Dxmissile]

Most bets placed to win are based on a spread so not sure how you narrow the definition to make it a "non-issue". Generally speaking, when Vegas sets the odds on a game, they are based on a spread or you can bet head to head straight up. Regardless, I fail to see how betting straight up is any different than betting the spread as far as a player using information he has gained from his connections to the team to have an advantage.

I may agree with the rule, but the point I look at is it's non-defensible. Why gamble on the NFL when it is prohibited as a player? You can bet on virtually ANYTHING. What a dumbass.

And the idea that he would not have access to inside information is naive at best. He no doubt is in contact with the team. He would know if a RB has an injury that might keep him from playing 100%. He would know what they were doing in practices. He would know if a WR was unlikely to be part of the game plan. He would know a lot of things that actually no doubt led him to bet that $1,500. And NO ONE on here can say with any certainty that is incorrect.

And though this would not be the case here, who is to say that a player would not do as Gurley did and go down when he could have scored easily. That play no doubt affected millions in bets. So Gurley should have been able to bet on that game and take the under?

Do you make a convoluted rule that allows certain players to gamble on the NFL? That players can bet as long as they only bet the money line? It's pretty simple. Don't bet on the NFL if you're being paid by the NFL. Bet on a baseball game or a horse race if you have to bet.

Lol come on you’re talking about a guy that PLAYING in a game vs a guy that couldn’t. No matter what type of information he has that information isn’t going to tell him that a team will play for the field goal instead of going for a touchdown. So much changes IN the course of a game that if that person isn’t the one with the ball in his hands he has no effect what so ever on the outcome.

 

[Mackeyser]

Rose was a major gambler, as both a player and a manager, and I don't care if he bet on his own team or others; either way, it's illegal. Considering that Shoeless Joe Jackson isn't in the Hall and never will be, I don't think that Rose should be in the Hall either for doing far more harm than Jackson ever did. For that matter, David Ortiz shouldn't be in the Hall because he was absolutely a known juicer; he just happened to be "popular with the media".

Either way, gambling on sports is wrong when you're a player, coach, or front office person. Rose got his just desserts (not really, considering that he still makes plenty of money and still has his commercials in Cinci); so too should Ridley.

The difference is that MLB is at least consistent wrt gambling although not so much wrt “integrity of the game”. Also, Shoeless Joe not bring in is a damned disgrace.

The NFL is embracing gambling in a major way including putting a team in Vegas, refuses the additional legal liabilities that come from being a sport as opposed to sports entertainment and is WILDLY inconsistent wrt “the integrity of the game”

I’m think both Rose and MLB acted immaturely and both went in to any deals with antipathy for the other side.

This is just the latest salvo from the NFL trying to stem the growing sentiment that the NFL isn’t a sport (a point the NFL itself readily agrees with in court, though it tries to hide it in public). If the NFL REALLY cared about the integrity of the game, they’d divest of all connections to gambling operations, fund year round full-time refs and appoint an independent commissioner.

But they won’t because all this is theater. The NFL doesn’t give a shit about a $1500 parley. They care about the image of the NFL even as they actively invest in gambling venues like Fan Duel and Draft Kings. It’s hypocritical BS.

I know folks are gonna come down hard on Ridley and yes he should have known that you can’t bet on your team in any capacity because dem’s de rules.

But it’s like Congress and insider trading. Any regular person is imprisoned for doing it, but those in Congress from both parties do it every single day.

Point being that for those in charge, it’s not about the rules which many fans are noting as their reasons for not supporting Ridley. The NFL is not nor has it ever been a bastion of integrity and assigning ANY integrity to the NFL is misplaced imho.

 

[Dxmissile]

What's crazy is thinking this guy should get a pass even though he knew the rule was in place. You act like these guys would not have access to fellow players and coaches because he was currently not with the team. The rule is there for pretty good reasons. We've all seen plays that would affect the outcome of betting lines. We've all seen player health that affects the outcome of betting lines. The idea that he couldn't pick up his phone and find out that their star RB, WR, or QB is feeling like shit or that the coach gave a player a butt reaming and told him he was going to sit him, etc... is not akin to insider trading is a bit naive IMO.

I'm curious. Why do people defending his actions think he bet on this game or NFL games in general? Because he had no clue as to the current affairs of his team or the opponent? RIGHT!!!

Lmao who said he should get a pass. As I have said all alone what’s in the rule book is what’s in the rule book. But I also think that for HIS infraction and how it went down shouldn’t be this severe of a punishment maybe half a year and forfeit half his salary but a ban have to go through reinstatement And a lost of the entire year salary. All for a guy who wasn’t on the team. Like I said rules are rules this rule just need some tweaks

 

[Dxmissile]

The difference is that MLB is at least consistent wrt gambling although not so much wrt “integrity of the game”. Also, Shoeless Joe not bring in is a damned disgrace.

The NFL is embracing gambling in a major way including putting a team in Vegas, refuses the additional legal liabilities that come from being a sport as opposed to sports entertainment and is WILDLY inconsistent wrt “the integrity of the game”

I’m think both Rose and MLB acted immaturely and both went in to any deals with antipathy for the other side.

This is just the latest salvo from the NFL trying to stem the growing sentiment that the NFL isn’t a sport (a point the NFL itself readily agrees with in court, though it tries to hide it in public). If the NFL REALLY cared about the integrity of the game, they’d divest of all connections to gambling operations, fund year round full-time refs and appoint an independent commissioner.

But they won’t because all this is theater. The NFL doesn’t give a shit about a $1500 parley. They care about the image of the NFL even as they actively invest in gambling venues like Fan Duel and Draft Kings. It’s hypocritical BS.

I know folks are gonna come down hard on Ridley and yes he should have known that you can’t bet on your team in any capacity because dem’s de rules.

But it’s like Congress and insider trading. Any regular person is imprisoned for doing it, but those in Congress from both parties do it every single day.

Point being that for those in charge, it’s not about the rules which many fans are noting as their reasons for not supporting Ridley. The NFL is not nor has it ever been a bastion of integrity and assigning ANY integrity to the NFL is misplaced imho.

On Gawd

 

[Neil039]

I wonder if Ridley bet on any of these signs, cuts or trades today. He could have made thousands