Jeanette Lee's version - it's different

crawfish

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Man, you guys are gonna hate me for this. There is no room for delay. The first time she was asked, it's a "yes," or "no." After a match, or even a ball, is hit, it's after the fact. Now, I don't know what was said or who was rude. Noone will ever get the facts of that. She paid her entry money and "retired" early before a match. Does forfeit sound like Jeanette? Hmmm. Sounds like one of two things: 1. Payback for not going halvers. 2. He WAS being rude and she couldn't take it.

I have to say that JL has been around this a long time. Ever seen her forfeit? If he was being bad enough that she couldn't take it, that would be pretty darned bad. You don't think other people would've gotten involved if he was getting outta line? Hmmm. The only thing that got hurt was JL and the calcutta man. If the guy was so rude to make her forfeit, then where was the owner and promoter, or td?

I hate this kind of business, period. That's why all of this is handled BEFOREHAND. I always jelly. Unless it's less than I spent.

Okay, let's imagine that you or I played a couple of matches and then went in search of the "calcutta" man. What now? We wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Last edited:

metallicane

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks Willie for clearing this up in my mind. I have always liked Jeanette and could not imagine her up and leaving unless someone treated her with disrespect.
 

xianmacx

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
crawfish said:
Man, you guys are gonna hate me for this. There is no room for delay. The first time she was asked, it's a "yes," or "no." After a match, or even a ball, is hit, it's after the fact. Now, I don't know what was said or who was rude. Noone will ever get the facts of that. She paid her entry money and "retired" early before a match. Does forfeit sound like Jeanette? Hmmm. Sounds like one of two things: 1. Payback for not going halvers. 2. He WAS being rude and she couldn't take it.

I have to say that JL has been around this a long time. Ever seen her forfeit? If he was being bad enough that she couldn't take it, that would be pretty darned bad. You don't think other people would've gotten involved if he was getting outta line? Hmmm. The only thing that got hurt was JL and the calcutta man. If the guy was so rude to make her forfeit, then where was the owner and promoter, or td?

I hate this kind of business, period. That's why all of this is handled BEFOREHAND. I always jelly. Unless it's less than I spent.

You make a GREAT point...Why didn't the TD kick this "rude guy" outta the tournament for heckling a professional?
 

crawfish

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What if 99% of us said, "Let's check out the pot and field first." then played a match or two, won, and then went looking to buy into the calcutta? We wouldn't even be having this discussion. We ALL know how that would (or wouldn't) work out. Next question.
 

Beware_of_Dawg

..................
Silver Member
seems clear from my view in the cheap seats;

She was sidetracked and there was a miscommunication while using a intermediary about the "agreement".

He saw $$$ with her being "in the money", and got greedy.

They had communication styles that don't mix well... It escalated, and crashed. Milk spilled. Standard stuff.

Damn it, I can't believe I wasted an hour of my life reading these threads.

lol.
 

crawfish

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Beware_of_Dawg said:
seems clear from my view in the cheap seats;

She was sidetracked and there was a miscommunication while using a intermediary about the "agreement".

He saw $$$ with her being "in the money", and got greedy.

They had communication styles that don't mix well... It escalated, and crashed. Milk spilled. Standard stuff.

Damn it, I can't believe I wasted an hour of my life reading these threads.

lol.
Probably a great account. But, if she said yes and paid before the matches began, there would be no spilled milk. Calcutta is a bet. Period. You don't have to go half, although most people offer this. You choose to lose or forfeit and the "buyer" makes no cash. And neither do you. I've felt like walking out many times for all kinds of reasons. Most of the reasons concern money. It's pool, folks. No pinball, just pool. This is Aames, mister.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
This sounds the most reasonable.....

Williebetmore said:
Jeanette Lee contacted me yesterday evening when she heard there was some controversy regarding her decision to withdraw from the tournament last weekend; and asked me to present the details (which are significantly different than presented in the other threads) and to explain her motives (which are VERY different than those proposed and speculated upon in the other threads).

She was quite reluctant to do this, as it is not a flattering story regarding the person who bought her in the Calcutta; but felt forced to respond to clarify things for her fans, who might be confused by the large amount of misinformation and speculation on the forum (unfortunately par for the course here on AZB?we LOVE to speculate and pontificate).

#1. She did NOT enter the tournament to ?take off? a ?C tournament? as has been proposed elsewhere. She has tremendous respect for Brian Gregg (and his partner Jack Taylor), considers him a good friend, and wants to support his ventures in any way possible. She also enjoys the competition (which is QUITE strong ? open to local players such as Brian Gregg, Steve Oaks, Jeff Beckley, Everett Snow, Tony Blankenship, Brian Groce, George Breedlove, Dan Walden?.Efren does NOT have to win this thing if he enters). She takes time away from family and business to play in these events in hopes of helping to promote the local pool scene. The money involved is small, insignificant, and played NO part in her decisions. She was ASKED by the promoters to participate as often as she can to help the tournament.

#2. She felt forced to withdraw and forfeit because of the extreme rudeness and poor behavior of person who bought her in the Calcutta, NOT through any petulant desire to make a few bucks at the last minute ? the money had NOTHING to do with it. Also, it was NOT THE LAST MATCH OF THE TOURNAMENT when she withdrew, just near the end of the winner?s bracket (the person to whom she forfeited had 2 or 3 more matches to play afterward). Here is the sequence of events:

Jeanette did not buy herself in the Calcutta; and in fact almost never bids on herself (it just drives up the price, and someone always bids on her). As most local players know, she almost always offers to split with the person that does buy her. Unfortunately, when the person who bought her came up to her and offered her half, she stated she would PROBABLY buy half, but wanted to wait a few minutes and check things out. This was definitely a mistake on her part, because though she decided nearly immediately that she wanted to buy half, she then had to get back on the phone and computer, and started with her matches; totally forgetting about the Calcutta. During their initial conversation the buyer seemed understanding and polite.

As the first match began, she did remember the Calcutta, but could NOT initially remember what the buyer looked like (she is approached by a LOT of people at every pool event she attends). She then asked Brian Gregg to find the buyer and let him know that she would take half of herself. Brian told her that he DID find the buyer, and that the buyer WAS in agreement. A few matches later, the buyer had not approached her for the money, and she had been too busy to find him; so she again asked Brian Gregg to remind the buyer that she was in for half. Brian did so, and told Jeanette that the buyer had responded ?That?s fine.? Nesli O?Hare was with Brian at this time, and confirms that this is what the buyer said in agreement. Jeanette felt that an agreement was in place, but did want to pay him at the first opportunity. The buyer never approached her for payment.

Near the end of the winner?s bracket (NOT the finals of the tournament, NOT the finals of the winner?s bracket), Jeanette had the buyer paged to the desk; wanting to pay him her share. Evidently at this point the buyer changed his mind and now wished to renege on his verbal agreement to buy half, and that he should have been paid the cash ahead of time. He let loose with an extremely rude and accusatory tone; flatly implying that there was no agreement since he had not been paid, and that she was lying about her intentions (despite his conversations with Brian Gregg); declaring, ?Well, you had time to get on the microphone and talk about your school, talk to your friends, and you couldn?t come up with $70.? Jeanette states that, ?he talked to me like I was garbage, he was a complete and utter jerk; and was flat out rude.? His contention was that she was just going to wait until the end of the tournament, and if she did well try to get half; and evidently not pay him if she didn?t do well (despite his statement to Brian Gregg that it was ?no problem? for her to buy half). He even said, ?you can?t just wait until the finals to decide? (even though he should have known this was obviously NOT the finals or even close). After protesting his assertions, assuring him (as Brian had told him at the beginning of the tournament) that she wanted to buy half all along; Jeanette specifically asked if the buyer really believed that she was just waiting to pay him so she could weasel out if she didn?t do well, he smugly replied, ?absolutely?, seeming to derive great enjoyment from this fiction.

Jeanette felt so very offended and disturbed by the buyers now antagonistic and disturbing behavior that she withdrew immediately; wanting nothing further to do with him. If physical payment of the money was so important to him, he should have said so to Brian, and he should not have agreed early on to a split. He could have approached her at any time during the tournament for the cash if it was important to him. The paltry amount of money involved had nothing whatsoever to do with her decision. She apologized to Brian Gregg and Jack Taylor for withdrawing, and explained that she could have nothing further to do with this very offensive person, and told him she would be ill if she did anything to make money for this person.

#3. Jeanette (as someone who loves pool more than almost anyone, and as someone who aspires to the highest standards of sportsmanship) totally agrees that it was the buyers right to sell or not. She feels badly that she didn?t just ?hunt him down? right away ? she is in total agreement that such deals are OBVIOUSLY better to be made BEFORE the tournament starts. She would not have had ANY ill feelings toward him if he had politely declined her offer before, during, or after matches had started ? it is totally his right to make the call, HOWEVER HE SHOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO BRIAN IF THE MONEY COLLECTION WAS A PROBLEM FOR HIM. She would NOT just ask someone at the end of a tournament to sell half, just because she did well; and is offended by the buyers allegations (and very rude insistence) that she did. She is confident that Brian Gregg, Jack Taylor, and Nesli O?Hare can confirm that she did intend throughout the tournament to buy her half; and confirm that the buyer did know of this intention before the end of the tournament.

#4. All the buyer had to do was politely decline (or even semi-politely; it was his right), and Jeanette would have continued to play her heart out in the remaining matches (again, this did NOT occur before the ?final match? as asserted elsewhere) ? she loves to play, and hates to lose. The issue of buying/selling was NO BIG DEAL, BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED AN AGREEMENT WAS IN PLACE. Unfortunately the buyer behaved unbelievably rudely and boorishly; and she felt that she needed to completely dissociate herself from the situation. She wanted no part of any association with this buyer, and wanted no part of helping to reward him after his extreme discourtesy. When such unpleasantness exists; it is often best for the high-profile athlete to just walk away. She did.

#5. Jeanette does not want to get into any dialogue over such a thing; she only wanted to correct the misapprehensions of many posting here, and to clarify for her fans. Posters are free to believe whomever they want; Nesli O?Hare, Brian Gregg, and Jack Taylor can confirm the true version of events.

P.S. - She specifically wanted me to tell satman that yes she forgot her cue (has done so on multiple occasions; her life is HECTIC), but was still able to be back before the start of the Calcutta and the tournament.


This sounds very reasonably what likely occurred; and while I understand why JL quit, I think it would've gone much better to her high level of character to have completed the tourney anyways and would've prevented any misqualification of what went down.

Just my 2 cents....


Jaden

p.s. This also is NOT in contradiction to what the buyer stated and it was still her responsibility to make sure he was aware instead of relying on third party communication or to accept that she had no right to it and move on with the tourney.....
 
Last edited:

corvette1340

www.EpawnMarket.com
Silver Member
Unless she told the calcutta buyer SPECIFICALLY before the tourney started that she wanted half of herself and she would pay later and he said "ok", then it was 100% her fault. Period.

It is up to the player to find the calcutta buyer or get the TD to find the calcutta buyer and PAY UP BEFORE the tourney starts. I understand how she might have gotten sidetracked by fans, downloading poker sites, etc.. and that is fine. She just doesn't get half of herself in the calcutta.

Case Closed.
/Thread.
 

iba7467

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
KoolKat9Lives said:
:frown: I don't get some people here. We're supposed be the enthusiasts of pool enthusiasts at AZB. When one of the most popular, successful women in pool gives her side of a calcutta incident gone awry, replete with available witnesses, who do many people side with? The anonymous poster representing "the buyer" ? WTF?

What available witnesses? I have tried to stay out of this, but I put money in action all the time. I don't care who the player told. If the player didn't tell me, they are not in. If they told me they would pay later, and I trusted them (as I would with Jeannette), I would allow them to pay later.

My point is, there are three sides to every story. I feel certain that neither of these accounts is exactly what happened, but in this instance I feel I have to side with the person with the least experience. JL has played in more tournaments that probably everyone who has posted on this thread combined. She knows the proper way of handling any action, not just a calcutta, is to approach the bettor(s) prior to hitting a ball.

I even posted that I thought George had the most respectful request to gamble I have ever heard just about a month ago, but it only takes one mistake to ruin a reputation (not saying this has been done).
 

cincyman

Banned
crawfish said:
Probably a great account. But, if she said yes and paid before the matches began, there would be no spilled milk. Calcutta is a bet. Period. You don't have to go half, although most people offer this. You choose to lose or forfeit and the "buyer" makes no cash. And neither do you. I've felt like walking out many times for all kinds of reasons. Most of the reasons concern money. It's pool, folks. No pinball, just pool. This is Aames, mister.
I believe the rules of the Calcutta are that the buyer HAS to offer half to the player no ifs, ands, or buts. The player may refuse and once the matches start its over.

My opinion is they are both wrong
 

Sweet Marissa

www.Bella-Muse.com
cincyman said:
I believe the rules of the Calcutta are that the buyer HAS to offer half to the player no ifs, ands, or buts. The player may refuse and once the matches start its over.

My opinion is they are both wrong
The player is under no obligation to even offer to buy half themselves.
 

cincyman

Banned
Sweet Marissa said:
The player is under no obligation to even offer to buy half themselves.
THE BUYER,, THE BUYER THE BUYER HAS to offer the PLAYER half as per rules of the Calcutta,, the PLAYER the PLAYER can refuse to buy half, thats ok but... what i am saying is the BUYER, the one who bought has to offer half to the PLAYER no exceptions....... am i wrong??:thumbup:
 

Ktown D

Neverwuzzz
Silver Member
Sweet Marissa said:
The player is under no obligation to even offer to buy half themselves.
No, but the buyer is obligated to offer at least half of the bid to the player. The player doesn't have to accept but the buyer must give the player the option up to 50%.

That is the way it is here anyway, I think it is pretty universal.
 

KoolKat9Lives

Taught 'em all I know
Silver Member
iba7467 said:
What available witnesses? I have tried to stay out of this, but I put money in action all the time. I don't care who the player told. If the player didn't tell me, they are not in. If they told me they would pay later, and I trusted them (as I would with Jeannette), I would allow them to pay later.
----------------------------------
Willie wrote: As the first match began, she did remember the Calcutta, but could NOT initially remember what the buyer looked like (she is approached by a LOT of people at every pool event she attends). She then asked Brian Gregg to find the buyer and let him know that she would take half of herself. Brian told her that he DID find the buyer, and that the buyer WAS in agreement. A few matches later, the buyer had not approached her for the money, and she had been too busy to find him; so she again asked Brian Gregg to remind the buyer that she was in for half. Brian did so, and told Jeanette that the buyer had responded ?That?s fine.? Nesli O?Hare was with Brian at this time, and confirms that this is what the buyer said in agreement. Jeanette felt that an agreement was in place, but did want to pay him at the first opportunity. The buyer never approached her for payment.
----------------------------------------------------
The buyer was under no obligation at this time to agree to this. It was now his option, as the first matches had begun. But he did. The buyer assumed some risk in this agreement when he said yes without Jeanette's $70 in hand.

Yes, both parties should have handled this differently, but IMO, there was an agreement. If I had said yes to Greg, I would have honored it. But that's me. Sometimes I am too loyal to my word, sometimes it bites me in the back, but I'm ok with that.
 

Ktown D

Neverwuzzz
Silver Member
cincyman said:
THE BUYER,, THE BUYER THE BUYER HAS to offer the PLAYER half as per rules of the Calcutta,, the PLAYER the PLAYER can refuse to buy half, thats ok but... what i am saying is the BUYER, the one who bought has to offer half to the PLAYER no exceptions....... am i wrong??:thumbup:
You beat me by a few seconds. :thumbup:
 

crawfish

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
cincyman said:
THE BUYER,, THE BUYER THE BUYER HAS to offer the PLAYER half as per rules of the Calcutta,, the PLAYER the PLAYER can refuse to buy half, thats ok but... what i am saying is the BUYER, the one who bought has to offer half to the PLAYER no exceptions....... am i wrong??:thumbup:
Not where I'm from. Most do offer, but you don't HAVE to.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Williebetmore said:
She is confident that Brian Gregg, Jack Taylor, and Nesli O?Hare can confirm that she did intend throughout the tournament to buy her half; and confirm that the buyer did know of this intention before the end of the tournament.
Well I have read all of the accounts, and there seem to be two main points in dispute. At what point in the tournament (or time) did the buyer first find out that Jeanette wanted to buy half of herself, and what was the buyer's exact response to it? Perhaps Brian can clarify as the accounts from the two involved differ greatly on both of those things.

The buyer says that he was first contacted at about 8pm (hours after the tournament started), and Jeanette's version only says that it was "before the end of the tournament" (although she does say that she asked the TD to find the buyer during her first match). The buyer says that he never agreed to give Jeanette half and basically did not reply to the TD when he was told that she wanted half, and Jeanette's version is that he agreed to it (but we still don't know what time this was supposed to have happened).

Generally speaking I would say that after the first break of the tournament (or after the brackets are drawn depending on the local custom), a player no longer has a right to buy half of themselves. If for some reason the buyer agrees to allow a player to buy half of themselves after the tournament has started anyway, then the buyer should be held to their word. The player in turn needs to make payment (or payment arrangements) before the start of their next match though, and if they don't, then the buyer has the right to call off the deal since he still has no no cash in hand. It is the player's obligation to find the buyer, not the other way around. If the player can't find the buyer then they should immediately enlist the help of the TD in getting the money to them asap.

The one thing that does not appear to be in dispute is that nearing the end of the tournament the buyer still had not received any payment from Jeanette, and therefore he had every right to not let her have half at that point IMO.
 

crawfish

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Let's just say we both pick a player in a tournament to see goes the farthest. I am not quite sure. I want to "check the field and payout." After my guys wins a couple, I don't come to you. I send someone else to make sure we still are betting. Come on. What would you tell me? Bottom line is.... BEFORE a ball is struck, you want half, you got it. Not after. She knows this. And... it 's hard for me to believe someone was so rude, she'd forfeit. If he was at that level, he would've been leveled by someone as loved as Jeanette is in there I'm sure.

Just because someone is famous, doesn't change the rules. How about this. Put yours truly in JL's spot. If I did this, would we be having this discussion? No. I would be told I should've gotten down when I had the chance.
 
Top