WORLD CUP news! Avalanche caught cheating!

[Gyroscope]

so....

Is there any reason to believe that this matter will be investigated by anyone within the NPPL, PSP, or any other governing body that is within the league itself?

I mean, even if you believe that the whole team (except the former field captain) was ignorant of this business, there is some doubt, yes? And credibility for our sport is an agenda that I believe all those who post here share. The fact that an incident of this level of dramatic interest has occured at our "WORLD CUP" could pique the interest of a lot of people who would ordinarily only read about paintball when another 12-year-old shoots his eye out. Isn't it obvious that the burden is now on us to prove the innocence of the sport as a whole?

Avalanche may have been in the dark here. I don't know, and other than morbid curiousity I don't care. I look to other figures for role-models. I do care that this sport establishes it's ability to police itself. Innocent until proven guilty is a defense against government abuse of individuals. This isn't a matter of staying out of jail, though. It is a matter of seeking investors! We want money from Coke and At&T and (ha ha) Disney. To get investment, the burden of proof is always on the supplicant.

We need to investigate this. We need to prove that the rest of the team was innocent of wrong doing. We need to do this because if there is any doubt of their innocence, someone else will try something similar. When they get caught, it will take us further from public respect. Hell, our own entry level doesn't respect us!

We carry the burden of proof because we want something from outside corporations and outside people. Money and respect don't come for nothing.

Incidently, I was there.

 

[acsik]

if you want to have money from coke bro I can hook you up with ma men Juan and Carlos!! What would be the quantity?

 

[TJ Lambini]

Why?

When a player shoots a few guys from the deabox, do we have to find out whether it was pre-planned, or whether his team-mates knew, or does Cookston just mete out penalties?

The penalty has been given, the deed is done, let's all move on or it just becomes a witchhunt. I understand all the outrage, but really - he's been penalized, they've been penalized, and I don't see the representatives of tha Pro teams who stand to gain from Lanche's demise shouting for an inquiry.

And call me crazy, but I'd much rather the public read about pball like this than about 'some 12 year old shooting his eye out'...

 

[Gyroscope]

My point is that any publicity is good publicity doesn't apply to paintball. We want paintball to grow and that means mainstream acceptance (to some degree).

The twelve year old is bad publicity (this happened in my city several years ago and the county still won't license a field). So is a rumor that a top team is using nefarious means to stay on top. Both are harmful because they are interesting to people who don't care who Avalanche even is.

Also, it would belie all our claims of being a sport if cheating is perceived to be the path to success in paintball. Rec players already believe it.

Angel heaven was a bit watered down at Cup, in part as a public relations gesture. If it is worthwhile to make beautiful models put their shirts on so we don't look like NASCAR, isn't it worthwhile to make cheating appallingly unatractive so we don't look like WWF?

I am not talking about wiped hits, here. I think that in most professional sports there would be an inquiry.

What are the facts about this shooting from the dead box? Did this keep someone from investing in the sport of paintball?

 

[Robbo]

Answer me this, do you think potential outside investors are going to be affected more by the Salm incident or the fact that when they arrived at the World Cup, there were only twelve portaloos for thousands of people that after one hour of use became an area unfit for pigs.
Does the fact the bleacher provision for spectators was a joke and if you wanted to view the final games, this also was a joke, does this not seem to be more serious failings ?
Does the fact that the promoters could only provide in some cases, only 3 judges for a ten man game cast a bad light on organisation ?

All of these would, in the real world, in my opinion, have a much greater affect on a company's decision to get involved in a particular sport especially since this was supposed to be the flagship tournament of the US series.
Argue all you want about Salm and its affects but if you ponder what I have just mentioned, at least you have cast iron facts to work with in this case instead of idle speculation.
Robbo

 

[TJ Lambini]

Guess who's back in black?

http://www.p8ntwears.com/start.html

 

[manike]

Guess who's back in black?

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
http://www.p8ntwears.com/start.html

LMAO

Do you think WDP will stop his sponsorship because he was using a matrix and not an angel?

Now there is a marketing opportunity for the Matrix...

"Quietest gun in the woods... as used by Avalanche"

 

[Baca Loco]

All of a piece

Originally posted by Robbo
Answer me this, do you think potential outside investors are going to be affected more by the Salm incident or the fact that when they arrived at the World Cup, there were only twelve portaloos for thousands of people that after one hour of use became area unfit for pigs.
Does the fact the bleacher provision for spectators was a joke and if you wanted to view the final games, this also was a joke, does this not seem to be more serious failings ?
Does the fact that the promoters could only provide in some cases, only 3 judges for a ten man game cast a bad light on organisation ?

All of these would, in the real world, in my opinion, have a much greater affect on a company's decision to get involved in a particular sport especially since this was supposed to be the flagship tournament of the US series.
Argue all you want about Salm and its affects but if you ponder what I have just mentioned, at least you have cast iron facts to work with in this case instead of idle speculation.
Robbo

I would say which leads back to the old complaint about a few guys wearing all the hats. The difference is if the organizers can't manage to fulfill the minimum basic structure to put on a decent event that's on them but the sniper incident demonstrates (once again) that some sort of quasi-independent and well-sorted rules superivisory group needs to have control over enforcement and (ideally) vetting and rating reffing standards at individual events. And of course we are unlikely to know the truth in the Salm biz 'cuz nobody who might be able to find out wants to know. For the moment it's not a huge deal but in the long run this sort of thing must be dealt with more effectively than a few public denials and a quick brooming. (You know, that tired old integrity of the game thing not to mention plain public relations gaffe of low atomic yield dimensions)

 

[TJ Lambini]

Hmmm

>>>And of course we are unlikely to know the truth in the Salm biz 'cuz nobody who might be able to find out wants to know.

You telling me that if Jerry could hang Lanche high he wouldn't? Gotta disagree with you on that one...if Mr B. had found/been able to find any complicity I believe he would have used it straight away. Discrediting Avalanche would benefit many - certainly teams pushing for their own X-spot, or looking hungrily at tLanche's sponsorship deals.

 

[Baca Loco]

You been following the Dead again?

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
>>>And of course we are unlikely to know the truth in the Salm biz 'cuz nobody who might be able to find out wants to know.

You telling me that if Jerry could hang Lanche high he wouldn't? Gotta disagree with you on that one...if Mr B. had found/been able to find any complicity I believe he would have used it straight away. Discrediting Avalanche would benefit many - certainly teams pushing for their own X-spot, or looking hungrily at tLanche's sponsorship deals.

They leave a trail, ya know.
Anyway, there are plenty of reasons Jer or somebody else in a similar position under these circumstances wouldn't want to be the agent responsible for taking them down.
It's one thing to take advantage of a situation and a completely different thing to be responsible for it particularly when the only persons you're accountable to, if any, are in exactly the same position you are. What goes around comes around. Additionally there is a possibility that any "take down" would have of necessity involved others which would have escalated the damage way beyond any potential gain.
There are also so many other factors currently at play that a smart man or men play their cards close to the vest and don't initiate a sequence of events they can't at least foresee the fallout from.
Besides there's talk now of more than 8 X-ball teams so maybe that pressure no longer exists.
My point isn't to speculate into the realm of the ridiculous but simply reiterate that ultimately some independent mechanism must be put in place to deal with such issues.

And while I'm at it. Nick, "innocent until proven guilty" applies to legal proceedings not the Court of Public Opinion and in legal proceedings there is usually an investigation conducted by, one hopes, independent authorities.