forums

Brenden Sorsby- The Gambling Addiction

STG said:
This dude bet on professional and collegiate sports, including his own team. If he is allowed to actually play, what prohibits ANY player from participating in shaving or providing any info regarding there team to outside sources? I mean, won't there be precedent now that would allow all collegaite athletes to place any kind of wagers, including on or against there own teams? If so, the integrity of the sport is done.
Click to expand...
And that's gambling. What happens when players just openly start taking PEDs? Peds can be a legit medical use. Sure they enhance your performance, but you can come up with better bs than "I'm an addict you can't punish me for that"... To defend use of PEDs than gambling imo. So what's stopping that even?
 
wnycanesfan said:
It wasn't that he bet on sports it was that he bet on his own team which per NCAA rules means you lose all eligibility at least that is my understanding.
Click to expand...
Betting on you're own sport is mandatory half season to full season suspension by NCAA I believe. Betting on Your own team is complete career in eligiblity - which he did and admitted to. Not sure if the NCAA has a punishment for any Collegiate sports gambling outside your sport...

And obviously gambling on pro sports should face zero consequences as a College athlete.
 
STG said:
This dude bet on professional and collegiate sports, including his own team. If he is allowed to actually play, what prohibits ANY player from participating in shaving or providing any info regarding there team to outside sources? I mean, won't there be precedent now that would allow all collegaite athletes to place any kind of wagers, including on or against there own teams? If so, the integrity of the sport is done.
Click to expand...
Well clearly those other people are not addicts like Mr. Sorsby who need accommodations for his health not punishment...

Too many times does a loophole get created then exploited. Liken it to the insanity defense, I think anyone that goes and commits a mass murder likely has some screws loose, to me that was NOT the intent behind the insanity self defense, it was the guy not knowing he was on earth and thinking he was shooting aliens or some ****.

People are focusing on the irreparable injury, that to me was the easiest element to hit. TT needed to show 4 elements, irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, likelihood of success on merits and that the injunction would be in the public's interest. 1 and 2 are simple in this case, assume the NCAA was wrong to suspend him, how would you quantify damages for not playing? wayyyy too hard to do if not impossible which is what makes the harm irreparable because you cannot affix a dollar figure to it.

My questions however are how did he show likelihood of success? or how is this in the public interest? All over the addiction is a disease and thus this is a medical thing? Ok, how about the people "addicted" to weed or crack, should they have reasonable accommodations? Or take it a step further, I am addicted to steroids. Cant suspend me because its a medical issue.

However, if I am UT, I am now calling TT bluff about buying out the first two games of the season to play UT. Legal team had no problem offering up two cupcakes as his "punishment" lets see if the position changes if it is Texas as game 2.
 
rsa coral gables said:
anyone have a copy of the order?
Click to expand...


1780942509029.gif

1780942521277.gif

1780942540116.gif

1780942551492.gif
 
Me thinks that TT is going to have some really fishy officiating taking place if Sorsby suits up and whatever they do win will be vacated once Sorsby is eventually ruled ineligible sometime in 2029 after his team wins their second girls high school flag football championship
 
Likelihood of success?

This is the element I am not understanding. There are rules, he broke them clearly.

Is there an argument stating there are actually no rules? And thats how they would win.

Or is the argument, yea there are rules and he broke them, but the punishment is too severe?

Very odd ruling.
 
Back
Top