JL Calcutta,, Tourney Director

satman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I hate to start another thread about this, but was asked by Brian and Jack, the tourney directors to make this post for them. Neither can post here at this time, but wanted to let everyone know their take on the incident. He emailed me this morning, and hopes that we can stop all the speculation, as to who was right, and who was wrong. Here's their point of view..

By the way, I do not intend to answer a bunch of questions about this situation. I was not there, and from the points made to me, from people who were, the whole thing could have been avoided in several different ways.

"Speaking as the tournament directors, the incident
> that ocurred at the tournament at John Waynes on this past
> Saturday with regard to Jeanette Lee and the young man that
> brought her in the calcutta. We would like to 1st say, we
> regret anytime anyone that participates in a tournament we
> run would ever have anything less than great time. The
> situation that ocurred between them is a situation that we
> believe could and should have been handled better.
>
> We must begin by saying we did not observe everything nor
> did we overhear everything said between these 2
> individuals. So to say this is the end all story and will
> put an end to the ongoinging speculation would be inaccurate
> on our part. Our purpose is to provide our observations
> only, not to direct blame. Those observations may be made
> by others, we prefer to think the best about both
> individuals.
>
> The following is our entire observations and the
> ONLY comments we will have concerning it.
>
> Since it is impossible to recreate time we will not even
> attempt to provide a point by point moment by moment
> description. What we will do is try to illustrate our basic
> observations.
>
> The situation as it progressed was monitored by us
> AFTER it was realized that a disagreement between them had
> ocurred and we did in fact encourage them to discontinue
> their interaction as it would provide no remedy to either
> of them. It was apparent that Jeanette clearly felt
> insulted and the young man clearly felt he was in the
> right. The entire conversation between them was not
> overheard by us. So we can not speak as to the the entire
> content of their conversation between them. However we
> did take steps to control the situation so it could not
> escalate. We will say we did not hear, anything from
> either of them to one another that could be considered to be
> overtly disrespectful or provocative enough to warrant
> anyone's removal from the premises or being barred from
> the tournament. The sole reason we did step in and say
> something was to prevent any escalation. We will say
> that there was no evidence that we observed it could
> occur but we wanted to ensure all issues are avoided that
> is why we did speak up.
>
> There came a time after their discussion that Jeanette
> decided to forfeit out of the tournament, she did so
> voluntarily and voiced her opinion as to why she was taking
> that action. It was accepted by us as her decision and
> how she honestly felt. We will offer no opinion on it,
> only to say that each person is different and their
> perception of a particular situation may not be always
> be 100% right. But as individuals we all have
> experienced instances that what we feel is happening at
> any particular time is real to you. It was clear that
> Jeanette was doing what she felt was the right thing for
> her to do.
>
> We will also say, that it was communicated by us to the
> young man that we were not trying to take sides but that
> Jeanette was clear in her resolve and the situation would
> serve no purpose to continue. He accepted our observations
> as a gentleman and during the remainder of the tournament
> displayed no behavior that wasn't consistent with that
> of a gentleman. We will further say, we have observed this
> young man at our tournaments before and at other locations
> and he has always comported himself in a manner consistent
> with being a good sport and friendly competitor.
>
> We will say that the entire situation could have been
> avoided had it been taken care of earlier at the time of
> the calcutta. In the future we will be making a
> announcement that each player/buyor is responsible for
> settling their calcutta participation to whatever
> degree, prior to the commencement of the tournament.
>
> We hope this puts an end to all the wild and
> expanded speculation about this incident, it was
> unfortunate and we regret it occurred at one of our
> tournaments. We furthermore hope it will allow an end to
> all this speculation and neither of these individual's
> reputations be compromised. This was a situation where
> sadly the parties did not communicate timely nor
> effectively and the end result was a poor one for all all
> concerned.
>
> We however, would like to congratulate Frog (Jeremy) the
> winner of the tournament, Nesli O'Hare on her fine
> performance finshing 2nd, with Brian Gregg and Danny Glass
> finishing 3rd and 4th respectively.
>
> Thank you all for your time and attention, we sincerely
> hope this will put an end to this incident and allow both
> individuals to put it behind them. It would have been our
> preference that it never have occurred. We would leave you
> all with 1 parting thought, these 2 people truly believed
> they were right and stood on principle. We would submit
> that all can find blame on anyone at anytime if we look
> hard enough for it, it is our preference to believe the
> best about both these individuals."
>
 

vaplaya

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In this version from the T.D. I see no mention about J.L. asking him to relay her willingness to purchase herself.
 

satman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It's from Jack

vaplaya said:
In this version from the T.D. I see no mention about J.L. asking him to relay her willingness to purchase herself.

I haven't spoken with Brian, this was from Jack. The whole reason for this post, from them, is they want everyone to know that neither party is totally at fault. And neither of them need their reputation tarnished over a bunch of speculation on who was in the right, and who was wrong.

Basically, what it all means is, if 10 people witness a bank robbery. You will have several different points of view. Not all witnesses will give the exact description of what the guy looked like, said to the teller, or what kind of car he escaped in.
Both partie's were right in their perspective of the events, and both were wrong too. Can we find something new now that there are 5 threads about this, and let it die.
 

xianmacx

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Its funny how Jack mentioned multiple times that this "young man" has always carried himself as friendly and a good sport.

His response re-confirms my beliefs that JL was trying to make a move.
 

gulfportdoc

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I didn't witness this event. But from the descriptions I've read so far, Miss Lee acted like a spoiled brat.

Doc
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
The plot thickens.....:cool:

Hell, I could write a book about this one incident and the subsequent thread on AZ. Let's see, "The Calcutta Miscue". How does that sound? :)
 

MOJOE

Work Hard, Be Humble. jbk
Silver Member
This horse seems to be long past dead! I wish people would stop kicking it!!!
 

IA8baller

Family man.
Silver Member
chris_williams said:
I really dont see how anyone can make judgements about J.L. or the person buying her in the calcutta when none of us were there.

You said it all right there.

I sure wish common sense like this was more common.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
satman said:
> There came a time after their discussion that Jeanette
> decided to forfeit out of the tournament, she did so
> voluntarily and voiced her opinion as to why she was taking
> that action. It was accepted by us as her decision and
> how she honestly felt. We will offer no opinion on it,
> only to say that each person is different and their
> perception of a particular situation may not be always
> be 100% right.
But as individuals we all have
> experienced instances that what we feel is happening at
> any particular time is real to you. It was clear that
> Jeanette was doing what she felt was the right thing for
> her to do.
It sounds like in a nice way he is basically saying that the buyer was not being rude or disrespectful to Jeanette in any way, but that she took it that way anyway and made something out of nothing, although he does believe that she truly felt that way even though she happened to be wrong.

satman said:
> We will also say, that it was communicated by us to the
> young man that we were not trying to take sides but that
> Jeanette was clear in her resolve and the situation would
> serve no purpose to continue. He accepted our observations
> as a gentleman and during the remainder of the tournament
> displayed no behavior that wasn't consistent with that
> of a gentleman. We will further say, we have observed this
> young man at our tournaments before and at other locations
> and he has always comported himself in a manner consistent
> with being a good sport and friendly competitor.
Again, in a round about way so that Jeanette does not get pissed off at him, it sounds like he is basically trying to allude to the fact that the buyer was not the one that was out of line with their behavior. He makes a point to stress that the buyer was a gentleman not only throughout this tournament and during the confrontation, but at all the other events he has seen him at too.

satman said:
> We will say that the entire situation could have been
> avoided had it been taken care of earlier at the time of
> the calcutta. In the future we will be making a
> announcement that each player/buyor is responsible for
> settling their calcutta participation to whatever
> degree, prior to the commencement of the tournament.
Again, a nice way of saying that the primary problem was that Jeanette should have taken care of this before the start of the tournament, without explicitly saying it and pissing her off. He couldn't be referring to the buyer, because the buyer did try to take care of it before the start of the tournament. Unfortunately Jeanette was noncommittal and didn't get back to him with an answer until later when the tournament was already well in progress (and through a third party at that).
satman said:
> This was a situation where
> sadly the parties did not communicate timely nor
> effectively and the end result was a poor one for all all
> concerned.
Again, it appears to me that he is directing this more at Jeanette without wanting to call her out publicly, because the buyer did communicate timely and effectively. Jeanette's failure to give a yes or no answer when asked if she wanted to buy her half before the tournament started appears to be the ineffective communication, and her finally trying to commit and buy half of herself only after the tournament is well underway is the communication that was not timely.

The tournament director's version of events seems to help the buyer a whole lot more than it helps Jeanette, if it helped her at all.
 
Last edited:

Ironman317

Cash Me In....
Silver Member
jay helfert said:
The plot thickens.....:cool:

Hell, I could write a book about this one incident and the subsequent thread on AZ. Let's see, "The Calcutta Miscue". How does that sound? :)

then we would all be eagerly awaiting the release of 2 great books, jay ;)
 

corvette1340

www.EpawnMarket.com
Silver Member
The only way Jeanette gets my vote if Im on a jury is 1) the buyer told her it was ok to pay him later and they agreed prior to the tourney that she had half. and 2) the buyer acted like a total jerk AND didn't honor any ageement they had.

I see nothing in the TD's response that implies or alludes to either of these, so verdict is for the plaintiff in the ammount of $140.

Next Case please.
 

Big Perm

1pkt 14.1 8 Banks 9 10
Silver Member
By any chance, did either or both of these TD's write speeches for the Presidential Candidates? Although I didn't see any reference to "Change", I felt like I got just about the same amount of info regarding any answer to any question posed to either candidate during their run for election :rolleyes:

This was a canned PC answer.....they have a perception/opinion, and it ain't in this email.....
 

OrigZaphod

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
WOW, what a massive amount of time spent on what was at most I would guess a colossal misunderstanding based on lack of communication in a very hectic event.

There is also a saying. To all stories there are three sides, His side, Her Side and the Truth, Hearing the first two will in no way ever equal the third..

In my reading of the events, it sounds like a misunderstanding and lack of communication, it happens, has happened to better people and will continue to happen, best is to let it go, move forward and hold no hard feelings. Will strengthen everyone involved that way..


just my .0002
 

Sweet Marissa

www.Bella-Muse.com
Sounds like the buyer was a gentleman and not rude as made out to be by JL. Also no mention of her telling the TD she wanted to buy half of herself. Well, my conclusion is drawn.
 

Travis Bickle

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sounds like she may have "heard" rudeness just in having her intentions and ethics questioned. From her reaction, I'd guess she had no such ideas in her head (and that's why she got so upset), but as a grownup she should probably have realized there's no denying the "appearence of impropriety" in the situation and that maybe it was on her to stay cool and perhaps apologize for the misunderstanding. Too bad they both couldn't.
 

wahcheck

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
how bout something from Mr. Gregg

After reading all the "he said, she said", I was waiting for Mr. Gregg to come forward and confirm what she said. Now we get this, which is a whole lot of nothing. Mr. Gregg is the only one who can verify whether he actually got a confirmation from the buyer EARLY ON, about OK on the deal. Since we did not get this, but just a lot of stuff about forgetting this incident and letting it pass, it doesn't resolve anything, but leaves everyone to draw their own conclusions. For me, this means JL may have done many wonderful things in her pool career for the game and people, but she made a mistake doing this.
 
Top