CSI-Mark Griffin First Response

[one stroke]

Well that's a bit different....when people are making accusations that are defamatory at worst and just rude at best it changes what should have stayed an internal tournament issue into a public debacle.

That then is the kind of stuff that makes promoters want to just say screw it and spend their money and time doing things that make them happy where they don't need to face the scrutiny of uninformed and borderline malicious speculators.

Seriously ! Coming from the guy who says even bad publicity is advertisement ,,

This is a chat forum if your worried about what people are saying I would make dam sure I made a statement as quick as possible since even you said a wrong decision was made
If your not worried about it ,tell everyone here to hold their panty hose on and we will get back to you later,,


1

 

[watchez]

Hey Einstein the first thread was from a guy sitting ringside and his version and remind you he did not have the benefit of reading 200 posts before he made his statement ,,

1

Hey pinnochio -- I was sitting ringside so my version that I like to comment on has to do with facts.

 

[driven]

What the heck is going on??
After reading this WHOLE thing I have just one question.

[years ago at the Venetion in Las Vegas, when my match with Mizerak was called..]
Island Drive said that.

What game were you playing and how did it go?
ok, two questions.

best of luck to those who are involved in this big controversy.
there is nothing like a little drama to bring the pool community together.
steven

 

[lfigueroa]

I'm prepared to say exactly what I already said. The evidence overwhelmingly points to someone at CSI initially deciding to consider the match a forfeit with no replacement player and no match to be played, proceeded accordingly and paid Ralf accordingly, and then later CSI changed their mind and decided to go with the different format of having a replacement player for Ralf and playing the match. There is a chance it occurred a different way, but that isn't what all the evidence overwhelmingly points to.

All the accusations of corruption and bad faith and lack of integrity etc is another topic entirely that I did not participate in and are not claims that I made. My post was solely addressing someone's comment that paying Ralf 3rd was done in error, and my point is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to it not being an error, but just changing their mind about which format to proceed under. And as I said, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to change your mind depending on the reasons.

I don't get all this about "evidence."

What you're presenting is highly circumstantial and second hand at best. Moreover it is contradicted by the direct testimony of the guys who were involved in running the tournament and making the decisions. They've told us all exactly what happened and for whatever reason you're choosing to ignore that.

I suppose that if this kerfuffle involved some other pool tournament promoter, with a track record of questionable deeds, I'd say there was reason for doubt and some speculation. But you're talking about Mark and if any single individual in this sport should have what they say taken at face value it's him. I can say that as both someone who has known him personally for 15 years and as a player who was played in many of his events and seen first-hand how he operates.

You are wrong in your speculation and do us all a dis-service by continuing down this path and slurring someone who doesn't deserve it.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Poolplaya9]

Well that's a bit different....when people are making accusations that are defamatory at worst and just rude at best it changes what should have stayed an internal tournament issue into a public debacle.

That then is the kind of stuff that makes promoters want to just say screw it and spend their money and time doing things that make them happy where they don't need to face the scrutiny of uninformed and borderline malicious speculators.

When it comes to a format decision made in the middle of an event and that potentially affects the integrity of the event, that the players had no advance notice of, and no choice or say in the matter, I think it is reasonable to expect some transparency and explanation from the promoter, and some discussion from the masses.

I agree that the accusations bordering on fraud etc coming from some seem to be out of line. Even if someone were to disagree with their format choice, I can't see any reason to believe they had any ill intent and there is no reason to treat them as if they did.

 

[one stroke]

Hey pinnochio -- I was sitting ringside so my version that I like to comment on has to do with facts.

So Sjm ringside report we are to disregard ,, oh and wipe that brown spot off the end of your nose before we hear your version


1

 

[BRussell]

Mark didn't cut the check. Mark didn't even know what went down, till Ralf had already left the building, which was 20mins before the match. (see threads #48 & #52)

I'd say that's relevant, Poolplaya.

 

[watchez]

So Sjm ringside report we are to disregard ,, oh and wipe that brown spot off the end of your nose before we hear your version


1

I didn't read SJM post --- go ahead and paste it here.

But if he reported that no explanation was given, he is incorrect. Because Ken S. gave one. I was 15 feet from Ken when he made the announcement.

 

[dom_poppa]

A man can run his tournament any way he sees how. Does it tarnish the game? Can't tarnish something that is already tarnished.

Yes, the integrity of the game is lost, but who cares. It is his tournament.

Even the great Barry Behrman would have never pulled this.

 

[lfigueroa]

So Sjm ringside report we are to disregard ,, oh and wipe that brown spot off the end of your nose before we hear your version


1

Personally, I'd like to hear Stu's opinion *now* having heard Mark and Ozzy explain the format and how the decision was made.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Poolplaya9]

You are wrong in your speculation and do us all a dis-service by continuing down this path and slurring someone who doesn't deserve it.

Given all the evidence it is the most reasonable explanation if someone looks only at the evidence and is not biased. It really isn't all that important though. In business people don't always tell things exactly 100% the way they happened and it is not the end of the world if it is not something of substance (and this isn't really). A good example is the "temporarily closed for remodeling" sign you may see on the front door of a business when in fact they may be temporarily closed for any number of other reasons. Plus I already made clear that it is possible it occurred another way, it just isn't as likely given the evidence. And "slurring" is quite a stretch there. I haven't even really disagreed with Mark about what he did, much less slurred him. You are really grasping there. There are dozens of posts that you could have responded to that would have been far closer to slurring Mark than mine.

 

[lfigueroa]

A man can run his tournament any way he sees how. Does it tarnish the game? Can't tarnish something that is already tarnished.

Yes, the integrity of the game is lost, but who cares. It is his tournament.

Even the great Barry Behrman would have never pulled this.

Please explain to me how this is an integrity issue in light of the format they were using and the explanation Mark and Ozzy gave on ABR last night.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Given all the evidence it is the most reasonable explanation if someone looks only at the evidence and is not biased. It really isn't all that important though. In business people don't always tell things exactly 100% the way they happened and it is not the end of the world if it is not something of substance (and this isn't really). A good example is the "temporarily closed for remodeling" sign you may see on the front door of a business when in fact they may be temporarily closed for any number of other reasons. Plus I already made clear that it is possible it occurred another way, it just isn't as likely given the evidence. And "slurring" is quite a stretch there. I haven't even really disagreed with Mark about what he did, much less slurred him. You are really grasping there. There are dozens of posts that you could have responded to that would have been far closer to slurring Mark than mine.

It's important enough for you to keep coming up with speculative, alternate explanations when the genuine one has been provided. Mark's explanation last night made perfect sense and there's no legitimate reason to question it.

And no, slurring is not a stretch. To slur means to insult, to slight, to slander, or smear. Take your pick.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Spimp13]

Please explain to me how this is an integrity issue in light of the format they were using and the explanation Mark and Ozzy gave on ABR last night.

Lou Figueroa

Lou...I will save you the time...dom_poppa is a "special" person here on AZ. All you need to do is go back and check previous posts/threads started etc...otherwise I would just recommend ignoring him

 

[Poolplaya9]

Mark didn't cut the check. Mark didn't even know what went down, till Ralf had already left the building, which was 20mins before the match. (see threads #48 & #52)

I'd say that's relevant, Poolplaya.

I don't see anything about that in posts 48 and 52 in this thread, and have no idea what threads 48 and 52 would mean. It is certainly possible that the person cutting the checks didn't have a clue what the format was, and just made an assumption instead of checking with Mark. I haven't heard any CSI spokesman say that though. If I missed it please point me to it. That isn't the kind of check cutting "mistake" Mark seemed to have been referring to in the posts I saw. In any case it still doesn't explain why CSI personnel would be discussing the ramifications of not having a match to stream due to Ko getting a bye though. What would realistically explain that conversation other than they were initially considering giving Ko a bye and not playing the match?

 

[one stroke]

Personally, I'd like to hear Stu's opinion *now* having heard Mark and Ozzy explain the format and how the decision was made.

Lou Figueroa

I like to see the format and the rules of the format that were presented to the players before hand ,,anybody got a copy of that


1

 

[Poolplaya9]

Mark's explanation last night made perfect sense

Another explanation makes much more sense. I'm still waiting to hear why CSI were discussing the ramifications of not being able to stream that match due to the bye left in Ralf's wake if a bye was never a possibility to begin with.

To slur means to insult, to slight, to slander, or smear. Take your pick.

I don't think I have done any of those things. And as I said before, there are other posters that are unquestionably closer to slurring than I ever was but you chose to respond to me instead. Makes me question your motive.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou...I will save you the time...dom_poppa is a "special" person here on AZ. All you need to do is go back and check previous posts/threads started etc...otherwise I would just recommend ignoring him

ahhh. I get it. Tank you.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Another explanation makes much more sense. I'm still waiting to hear why CSI were discussing the ramifications of not being able to stream that match due to the bye left in Ralf's wake if a bye was never a possibility to begin with.



I don't think I have done any of those things. And as I said before, there are other posters that are unquestionably closer to slurring than I ever was but you chose to respond to me instead. Makes me question your motive.

lol, not surprised, you seem to have a knack for questioning motives.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you, as someone who is willing to address this topic at length, even bothered to listen to the ABR stream in which the event format was discussed and the decision explained. If you had then you'd realize that no, another explanation doesn't make more sense.

Did you listen and if so, why are you using the term "bye"?

Lou Figueroa

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

I don't see anything about that in posts 48 and 52 in this thread, and have no idea what threads 48 and 52 would mean. It is certainly possible that the person cutting the checks didn't have a clue what the format was, and just made an assumption instead of checking with Mark. I haven't heard any CSI spokesman say that though. If I missed it please point me to it. That isn't the kind of check cutting "mistake" Mark seemed to have been referring to in the posts I saw. In any case it still doesn't explain why CSI personnel would be discussing the ramifications of not having a match to stream due to Ko getting a bye though. What would realistically explain that conversation other than they were initially considering giving Ko a bye and not playing the match?

Have you listened to the ABR broadcast?