|
I would imagine that a good district attorney could make a case for fraud. Think of it this way: A player signs a contract to play a sport. Implied, if not specifically termed (the technical flaw in this, perhaps?) is that he will do his best to stay healthy and play at a level that will help the team win.
Then he goes out and tanks or purposely lurks on the sidelines for the purpose of ill-gotten gains. Sound like fraud? It does to me.
So if the player is accused of fraud, then I would say the person(s) who finance it are complicit and therefore also subject to law enforcement. For, that is something you are leaving out of your argument, Ragnar. "If a player tells me he is going to go easy tonight," he would not be doing it free of charge. You would be paying him for that information.
__________________
- Bru
|