Let Slip the Dogs of War

The WPT lawsuit's getting ugly. Presented without comment: [edit: ok, I lied - I need to comment on this. Comments inline.]

Raymer, as posted on 2+2:

"Let's hit this one issue at a time.

Reasons for the lawsuit.
The players are paying all the legal bills, and there is not a single online site that is involved in any way whatsoever. We have publicly stated, and we sincerely mean, that we will not accept any settlement that only serves our personal best interests. We will not settle unless the WPT agrees to change their deleterious and illegal practices with respect to ALL players who enter into WPT events. So, while we are doing this for ourselves, we are also doing it for all of you who do already or might in the future play in WPT events.

Validity of the lawsuit.
It is my personal opinion, as a lawyer who studied antitrust law in Law School, that the WPT is violating the law. Much more importantly, it is the opinion of our attorneys, who are the preeminent sports antitrust lawyers in the world, that the WPT is violating the law.

Daniel's actions re the lawsuit.
Daniel did not go to law school, nor even to college. He knows nothing about the law, and has never studied it. However, he is openly and continually expressing his opinions about the lawsuit to the public. He knows or should know that his doing so will tend to turn at least some of the public opinion against the plaintiffs. And he knows or should know that his legal opinion is worthless, since he has zero training or experience in the area of antitrust law. Therefore, he is either stupid for repeatedly expressing an worthless opinion, or he is acting at the request of the WPT or one of their agents. Hence, I said he is stupid or a sockpuppet. I really don't see how there is a legitimate 3rd option.

I know I sometimes express an opinion on an issue where I'm not an expert, but I pretty much always preface it with a reference to the fact that this is only my opinion, and that I'm not an expert. I have not seen Daniel do this.

So, while there are very good reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut about Daniel and just continued to ignore him, I failed to do so. However, I have no problem with what I said. For some reason Daniel has decided to attack the 7 of us who are trying to help every player in the poker world, and I find that very distasteful. As far as I know, he never came up to any of us and asked us why we were doing this. As far as I know, he immediately decided (on his own or with the prompting of the WPT) that we were wrong, and went after us. I thought Daniel was smart enough to understand that maybe he should educate himself on an issue before jumping to (and publicizing) a conclusion. Maybe I was wrong.

And to those of you who have supported me and our lawsuit in this thread, I express my thanks. As I said above, I am spending my own money, without any expectation of making a profit, let alone getting that money back, to help all of us. The only disappointment in this whole process to date has been those very few poker players who have posted here and on other forums their displeasure with us for our decision to file this lawsuit. I am sad that they don't understand how we are doing this to help them.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

It's *my* personal opinion, as a lawyer who studied antitrust law in law school, that Raymer's being a pedantic ass (and that the lawsuit has a serious uphill battle). Also, I thought Greg Raymer was smart enough to know that not every one is going to be pleased by this action, no matter that "we are doing this to help them". Did he ever consider that maybe some people don't want or *need* his "help"?

That he's doing this to "help all of us" is a load of tripe, of course. The average player stands to gain nothing from this lawsuit. The antitrust arguments are a stretch and anyway won't really matter much to a guy who satellites into a WPT event off of Party Poker, and the portion of the poker community that will benefit from a change in the WPT release is less than 1 percent. Who's got whose hand in whose ass, Greg? And really, don't expect any pity party that you're using your own money to fund this lawsuit.

Negreanu's response on FCP:

Actually Raymer, your post shows how close minded you can be. You state that there are only two options, either A) I'm stupid, or cool.gif I'm a sock puppet for the WPT. You also state that I haven't studied the suit.

You are wrong on all three fronts. First of all, I am not a lawyer but I have spoken to several lawyers about this case. Lawyers that I trust. Now maybe I'm "stupid" for trusting some of these lawyers, but I don't think so.

Without the WPT you'd likely still be selling pieces of yourself to buy into events. That's not supposed to insult you, it's just the truth. The WPT is the key reason that poker has become such a big hit. We could argue that fact, but I just don't see how anyone could possibly argue that the WPT was the catalyst for the WSOP, online poker, and the huge fields we play in today.

Frankly, as I've stated before, I really don't even care who is right or wrong in this case. It is my opinion, that everyone will lose because of this lawsuit. While you think you are doing the poker world a favor, I strongly believe that all of the negative attention is the last thing we need right now.

Why do you care if the WPT made a deal with MGM/Mirage to hold only WPT events there? If you want to run a tournament, try the Wynn, Stratosphere, Luxor, Golden Nugget, Palms, Hard Rock Cafe, Barbary Coast, Gold Coast, Red Rock, Imperial Palace, Green Valley Ranch, the Orleans, or the hundreds of other casinos in Las Vegas that are available.

Lastly, you guys just don't seem to see the bigger picture. Sure, you say this has nothing to do with PokerStars or online poker in any way, but man, it would be totally naive to think that that won't come up. That you will be put under major scrutiny concerning the legality of your relationship with PokerStars. It's going to happen, and the seven of you could potentially make us all suffer.

With the legality of online poker making headlines today, the last thing you should want is for some smug politician to find a "new cause."

For a guy who "didn't even go to college", he puts forth much more coherent thinking and persuasive arguments than the man with the J.D. I think Daniel misses one point, though - the WPT release *is* patently unfair to the less than 1 percent of poker players on whom it has a negative impact. The players should not be required to give WPT an unlimited license to use their likeness, and they were unsuccessful in negotiating with the WPT to change the release.

However, I still don't think the lawsuit was the right answer. Maybe they should have considered starting a competing circuit with a more favorable release. Yes, the legwork involved would be tremendous, and they would suffer from a serious lack of goodwill (WPT brand firmly entrenched) but what are the negative repercussions of the lawsuit going to be?