Annie Duke: Ultimate Shill, Penultimate Cheat? UPDATED with Annie Duke Comments

As the Ultimate Bet scandal recordings continue to stir up the poker community, one intriguing, polarizing name has popped to the surface—Annie Duke. As mentioned in my prior post on the Ultimate Bet recordings, on the main three-hour recording, Russ Hamilton calmly states, ""Annie Duke used it [God-mode cheating software] on a fifteen minute delay quite a few times." On a second, somewhat shorter recording also released yesterday, poker media guru Kevin "Kevmath" Mathers reports that Hamilton stated Duke used the God-mode cheating software on a five minute delay. Certainly Duke has been accused of improperly looking at opponents' hole cards in live play (albeit by her nemesis, Daniel Negreanu), but this accusation of online cheating was completely new.

Creating further intrigue is a post by TwoPlusTwo member "dougmanct" (who has "Centurion" status at the site) which casts doubt on whether the "God-mode" cheating software could operate on a time delay:

"Just want to point out, as the researcher who collected UB client software and decompiled/examined it at great length to understand the specific cheating mechanism, I can tell you it never appeared to function on a "time delay"; i.e. revealing hole card data only after a certain period of time had elapsed. The cheat code appeared to reveal opponent's hole cards in real time as a hand was being played. I suppose one could have recorded a table using the cheat client and made the recording available to someone on a delay, but that seems like quite a bit of effort and at the very least, someone doing so would be quite aware the ability to cheat existed and chose not to come forward/be complicit in keeping the cheat ability secret for their own gain."

The official Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC) report regarding the Ultimate Bet cheating scandal likewise seems to suggest that the "God-mode" cheating software only operated on a real-time basis:

INITIAL INVESTIGATION

….

After several weeks of Commission investigation of the source code, a method was detected by which specific users could gain access to “hole” card data in real time. Once the cheating method was identified, the Commission’s agents confirmed through the audit process that:

1. The illicit software allowed only two accounts—AuditMonster1 and AuditMonster2—to access hole card information;

2. These two accounts were able to access hole cards via the normal poker client;

3. The “stealth observer” function was located in the normal code base where the normal card messages were sent to the poker client; and

4. The illicit software was disabled on UB servers on February 2, 2008.

The Commission also confirmed that when Tokwiro acquired UB, it was only provided with source code history dating back to November 29, 2005. The source code history of the Ultimate Bet poker software showed that the illicit code was not modified after November 29, 2005. Attempts to obtain source code historical records from prior to November 29, 2005 from the original developers were unsuccessful.

ANATOMY OF THE CHEATING

The following is an overview of the methodologies used to perpetrate the cheating incidences, based on the information the Commission obtained during the course of its investigations:

....

3. To perpetrate the cheating, one or more individuals logged into the UB client software using an account that accessed the illicit software. The name of the account was “AuditMonster2.” An additional account (“AuditMonster1”) had the same privileges, but there is no evidence this account was ever used;

4. The “AuditMonster2” account was used to view hole cards, but was never used to play in a game. Rather, the responsible individual(s) gathered hole card information using this account, and then employed a variety of other accounts to use the hole card information to cheat other players in actual money games; and

5. The user names of the player accounts maintained by the responsible individual(s)—see the list below—were changed repeatedly over the course of the cheating scheme in an apparent attempt to avoid detection.

Based on the information available, it seems unlikely Annie Duke ever used the "God-mode" cheating software as alleged by Hamilton. First, because Hamilton knew he was recording these conversations, any of his statements on the tape that are not damaging to Hamilton himself ("admissions against interest" in legalese) must be viewed with some skepticism. Second, unless Hamilton and Duke were in on the scam together, it seems unlikely Hamilton would give Duke access to one of the only two "AuditMonster" accounts that could support real-time cheating, nor that he would risk letting her know of the scam. Third, there is no evidence to date of Duke displaying any of the hallmarks of this type of scam: improbable cash game results, large player-to-player transfers, or large cashouts.

One other possible way to reconcile the real-time operation of the "AuditMonster2" account and Hamilton's comments about Duke using it on a time delay would be to surmise that there was a similar program used to monitor play in near-real-time for legitimate audit and security purposes. If such a program existed, an unscrupulous player might use it to gain access to hole card information to which they were not otherwise entitled, which undoubtedly would give them an improper edge over their opponents, and would be the type of cheating that should disqualify a player from online poker sites, much like multi-accounting, ghosting, chip dumping, and collusion have disqualified other players. If Duke did use such software to gain an improper advantage, she certainly deserves to be banned from poker. At this point, however, we have only the word of an admitted thief and scam artist as evidence of Duke's cheating. Without some kind of independent corroborating evidence, Hamilton's accusation, while scandalous, is still merely innuendo.

UPDATE (5/11/2013: 8:15 CDT): A screenshot of Annie Duke's Twitter responses to the hole card viewing accusations was posted on TwoPlusTwo. Essentially, Duke claims she only had access to hole cards while doing broadcasts of a limited number of online tournaments. While this would be a legitimate use of such a technology, it doesn't square with Hamilton's statements which implied Duke used the God-Mode software during her own play. Also, if Duke knew God-Mode software was available even for such limited purposes, why did she seem to pass it off in interviews and testimony (see below) as an improper "breach" of the software by a rogue employee? Much like Hamilton's comments, Duke's comments are obviously self-serving and should be viewed skeptically absent corroborating evidence.

UPDATE (5/14/2013; 8:47 AM CDT):  Martin "Short-Stacked Shamus" Harris has posted at Fushdraw.com an excellent analysis of two significant areas of concern with Duke's statements. First. the real-time viewing of hole cards by poker commentators was not commonplace until recently. Second, Duke's boyfriend (who had little poker experience) won an Ultimate Bet tournament—and $266,000—while Duke provided commentary. As with most things connected with Ultimate Bet, there are a lot of implausible stories and statements, but they are difficult to either corroborate or debunk.

UPDATE (5/18/2013; 10:42 PM CDT):  Annie Duke has released a lengthy statement denying any involvement in the Ultimate Bet scandal, and further asserting she has never used or been made aware of any "God mode" or other software that would allow her to see player hole cards in real-time or on a delay. Duke's statement was accompanied by brief statements by John Vorhaus (Duke's co-commentator on Ultimate Bet tournament broadcasts) and Joanne Primm (UB Pro Relations Manager and tournament broadcast organizer) who corroborate key points of Duke's statement. Again, we have no independent evidence to corroborate or debunk Duke's claims, but Duke certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt when her accuser is an admitted thief, liar, and scam artist like Russ Hamilton.

* * * * *

A more troubling issue for Annie Duke does arise from the recent Ultimate Bet recordings. It is unquestionable that Ultimate Bet management was looking to cover up the scandal as quickly and quietly as possible, and with the least cost. The problem is, this crisis management strategy required Ultimate Bet's management not only to lie to its customers, but also to attempt to find a way to minimize the amount it refunded to those of its customers who were victims of the cheating scam. Enter Annie Duke, Ultimate Bet sponsored pro and public spokesperson.

Following the scandal, and mere months after Ultimate Bet executives were conspiring with Russ Hamilton to control the public narrative and minimize their financial exposure, Annie Duke gave an interview in which she asserted that "new management" had handled the situation fairly:

"Everybody's horrified that it happened - including me. I just want to get that out of the way. There are no excuses for what happened. It's ugly, it's ridiculous and it's incredibly upsetting. With that being said, I think there's a large portion of people out there who got their money back which I think is amazing. I had one player call me up who's an old time player playing for a really long time and who said to me, "Annie in all the years that I've been playing and all the times that I've been cheated this is the first time I've ever gotten my money back." I think that there's recognizing there are things that have happened. This was not the site cheating anybody, this was individuals cheating people. It's really horrible that it happened but the site did good by it and made sure that everybody go their money back and let's move on because the site is secure."

~Annie Duke, Dec. 25, 2008 in a Gambling 911 interview

Also, as you may recall, back in July 2010, Duke testified before Congress on behalf of the Poker Players' Alliance (PPA) in support of the then-pending online poker bill (HR2267) sponsored by then-Representative Barney Frank. Duke's written testimony, which she also read into the record, whitewashed the scandal, asserting that the "God mode" cheating scam was the work of one person (Russ Hamilton), and that "new management" had refunded all stolen money to the victims of the scam:

"For me, the most critical component of regulation is player protections. As some of you know, I play at a site called Ultimate Bet. Under previous management, an associate of the website developed a breach in the software that allowed for players to be cheated out of a great deal of money. I agreed to continue to endorse the site only after I was sure that new management had addressed the problems, took voluntary steps to refund the cheated players and ensured tighter control over their site security. Nonetheless, an important benefit of regulation would be to ensure, through source code-based testing and outcome-based testing, that the games are fair and those players cannot be defrauded by the sites and that players cannot cheat others at the table. Further, under a U.S. regulated system players would have legal recourse should they feel they are harmed and regulators would be able to penalize licensed companies that breach the regulatory standards. Today, the best non-U.S. licensing regimes already do this, but, U.S. players deserve the protections and assurances of their own government."

In response to follow up questions from the committee members, Annie Duke repeated her claim that UltimateBet's new management had fully refunded the players who were victims of the "God mode" cheating scam. Below is video and a transcript of Annie Duke's sworn testimony in response to a question from Rep. Bachus (Rep. Bachus's question begins at the 3:23 mark, with Annie Duke's response beginning around the 3:51 mark):

“I’m affiliated with UltimateBet.net, which is a free play site. But they do offer games on .com, yes. … It was $22 million. The site self-regulated and refunded all the money to its customers. I would prefer to have something like HR2267 [the Barney Frank online poker bill] so that the government could oversee that regulation. I think that the customers of that site were lucky that they were playing on a site under new management that behaved in an honest way and refunded them. But the individual—and it was one individual—that perpetrated the crime and breached the software has not been prosecuted because, unfortunately, there is no jurisdiction to do so.”

Based on the recent Ultimate Bet recordings, it seems safe to say that Ultimate Bet's management neither "self-regulated" nor "behaved in an honest way". Simply listening to the ten-minute segment of one of the meetings shows Ultimate Bet management conspiring to concoct a plausible cover story, complete with Travis Makar and/or an unnamed rogue former employee as a possible fall guy, to sell to the KGC and the public. They even had the chutzpah to suggest perhaps Russ Hamilton himself should be painted as a victim of the scam. Further, rather than attempting to determine and repay actual losses for all cheating victims (which probably exceed the $22 million paid and are effectively impossible to calculate), Ultimate Bet management was intent on refunding as little money as possible, including asking the primary figure in the scam to think of ways to convince victims to waive their claims. Based on John Mehaffey's summary of other parts of the recordings, Ultimate Bet's management clearly was focused on minimizing its liability, even if doing so came at the expense of the victims.

If Annie Duke was unaware of the scope and nature of the cheating scam and Ultimate Bet management's response to it, then she quite likely believed that new management was cleaning house and taking care of the victims. But—and this is a critical caveat—it is extremely troubling that Duke's testimony emphasizes Ultimate Bet's "rogue operator" story, pinning all the blame on Russ Hamilton acting alone when Ultimate Bet's management had worked with Hamilton to concoct that precise official cover story. It's also quite rich for Duke to bemoan the fact Hamilton would never be prosecuted, considering Ultimate Bet executives had tried (unsuccessfully) to work with Hamilton to concoct a story that would let him avoid taking responsibility with the KGC. Perhaps Duke was naive and Ultimate Bet's management convinced Duke their official story was correct. Perhaps Duke was suspicious but didn't want to bite the hand that fed her. Perhaps Duke knew the story wasn't entirely accurate, but viewed it as public relations spin. Without more evidence, we simply cannot draw any conclusions.

Regardless of what Annie knew and when, she certainly earned her keep as an official Ultimate Bet shill. Ultimate Bet not only weathered the scandal, it was strong enough financially to merge with Absolute Poker into the Cereus network, which was then sold to Blanca Games in August 2010, probably putting some money in the pockets of the executives who saw nothing wrong with working with Russ Hamilton to minimize the recovery for Hamilton's victims. Duke stayed on board with Ultimate Bet until she jumped ship in December 2010, just a few months ahead of the demise and liquidation of the company in the wake of Black Friday. Annie Duke's loyalty to Ultimate Bet and her excellent sense of timing make her one of only a few poker pros—along with Phil Hellmuth and Russ Hamilton—who can say they made big money at Ultimate Bet.

Poker's Watergate Moment

"I did take this money and I'm not trying to make it right, Dan, so we gotta get that out of the way right away, real quick."

~Russ Hamilton to then Ultimate Bet legal counsel Dan Friedberg, Early 2008

Last night, Travis Makar, a former associate of disgraced poker pro Russ Hamilton, released a large number of files related to the Ultimate Bet cheating scandal. Over the past five years, significant information has come to light regarding the scandal, much of it involving internal Ultimate Bet records, emails, and other documents.  That evidence—much of which was analyzed extensively by Haley Hintze, Nat Arem, and other dedicated folks in the poker community—painted a compelling story that Hamilton and likely others at Ultimate Bet had used a software program that permitted a player to see his opponent's hole cards in real time, allowing them to play perfectly. This so-called "God mode program" was used to steal more than $22 million from high-stakes Ultimate Bet players, though the actual amount stolen was almost certainly north of that admitted amount.

Until last night, despite the official determination by regulators that Russ Hamilton was the primary figure in the cheating scandal, the evidence available actually suggested that the scandal was wider than just Hamilton, that other high-level executives and big-name players at Ultimate Bet had known of the "God mode" cheating and profited from it, either using the program directly or profiting indirectly from collusion, chip dumping, or assisting in hiding the money trail. But all of that evidence was circumstantial, allowing a surprising number of suckers and apologists in the poker community to maintain that the scandal couldn't possibly have infected the management of Ultimate Bet. After all, why would an online poker site that could generate millions of dollars in rake take the risk of cheating and stealing from its own customers?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present to you Prosecution Exhibit A, a ten-minute portion of a three-hour audio recording of a meeting between Russ Hamilton and several Ultimate Bet executives. This meeting occurred during early 2008,* after the original hand histories had been released and the cheating detected by the poker community. The point of the meeting is to concoct a damage control strategy.



John Mehaffey at LegalPokerSites has prepared an excellent detailed summary of key points from the full three-hour meeting. Some notable moments in this ten-minute part of the meeting include:

• Beginning:  Immediate discussion of fact that information about the God Mode account has gone public, and the need to create plausible (but apparently false) story to explain and minimize the cheating. 
• 2:55—Russ Hamilton: "Annie Duke used it [God mode software] on a 15 minute delay quite a few times."
• 3:10—UB Executive asks Russ to identify cheated pros who he could "explain it away" to prevent a claim being made.
• 4:00—Discussion of limiting exposure to $5 million, including any fine to the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC).
• 5:07—Russ Hamilton: "I did take this money and I'm not trying to make it right, Dan [Freidberg, Ultimate Bet legal counsel], so we gotta get that out of the way right away, real quick."
• 6:30—Russ Hamilton claims he spread his ill-gotten gains to high stakes players: "Freddy Deeb got the most cash." (NOTE: This is not to say those who got money knew about the cheating. This might have been staking, or a method of indirect cashing out to hide the cheating paper trail.)
• 8:20—Russ Hamilton justifies his fraud by claiming he used it to pump up UB: "I spent a lot of this money on [UB promotions]."
• 8:30 to end—UB exec suggests some of Russ Hamilton's cheating was "sanctioned" by management to help UB survive a financially difficult period.
• 9:00 to end—UB exec suggest shifting blame/liability for fraud to Excapsa is "my current goal".

In a courtroom, a standard instruction judges give to juries is that direct and circumstantial evidence can be given equal weight. But as a trial attorney, I know better. Direct evidence like an audio or video recording of the people involved in a crime is pure gold. Nothing beats an admission straight from a criminal's or witness's own mouth.

Ever since the original Watergate scandal back in the mid-1970s, the media attempts to analogize every new political scandal back to Watergate. But with the release of this new Ultimate Bet audio recording, the analogy is rather apt. In Watergate, the initial crime—a break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters—was a plot involving only a few key Nixon campaign staffers. But once the break-in was discovered, the cover-up efforts spread to more senior White House staffers, and eventually to the President himself. Initially, the investigation involved statements and testimony from individuals with circumstantial knowledge of key events, and a variety of circumstantial documents laying out a "money trail". White House staff denied or disputed all allegations of misconduct, and delayed or obstructed the investigation at every turn. But the scandal escalated when it was discovered that audio tapes of White House meeting existed. Once those tapes were released, there could be no further plausible deniability of the involvement of many senior White House staffers, as well as the President himself.

Just like in Watergate, the release of this Ultimate Bet audio recording (and another recording from a few months later) is a game-changer. It is no longer possible for the apologists to defend Russ Hamilton or any of Ultimate Bet's senior management who were at this meeting, or who are implicated by this recording. It is now crystal clear that Ultimate Bet's management was facing a financial crisis in the wake of the scandal, and thus never had any interest in coming clean about the scandal or in identifying and repaying customers who had been cheated. Instead, the entire focus of management was to perform public relations damage control and to minimize exposure for fines or customer claims. If that meant fabricating stories, shifting blame, or outright denial, so be it.

Of course, this scandal is now more than five years old. Ultimate Bet doesn't even exist anymore, a victim of Black Friday and shady player account practices. Much of this new evidence will simply confirm what has already been pieced together from other sources. It is unlikely that any criminal charges will ever be brought against Hamilton or the Ultimate Bet executives complicit in the cheating or the cover-up. Regrettably, this new evidence probably has surfaced far too late to assist any of the cheating scandal victims in recovering their money. But having an accurate historical record of the details of the cheating and the cover-up may well be useful in helping iGaming regulators detect and prevent future cheating. And, to the extent any of the involved individuals remain part of the gaming industry, they can and should be asked to explain themselves to gaming regulators. Frankly, given this audio recording, Hamilton and the others at the meeting should be permanently barred from the gaming industry, and attorney Daniel Friedberg should also be disbarred anywhere he is licensed to practice law.

Unfortunately, this new evidence may well have one additional Watergate-esque effect: staining the online poker industry's reputation. Certainly the Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet superuser scandals have been common knowledge within the poker community. In fact, these scandals were the subject of a 60 Minutes report discussing the "Wild West" of cheating on poorly regulated online poker sites. But the new Ultimate Bet audio recording adds a piece of the puzzle that makes the scandal more real to those folks who are potential casual poker players who haven't paid much attention to the scandals to date (or might even be too young to have heard of them). Certainly these new revelations come at an awkward moment in online poker legalization efforts, as legislatures wrestle with a variety of customer protection concerns. Ultimately, this new information probably won't prevent online poker legalization by itself, but it will give poker opponents fresh ammunition. But, if this new information leads to tougher online poker regulations and stricter security oversight, then poker players will be better for having this sordid mess finally put to rest.

Sunlight truly is the best disinfectant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
* UPDATE (5/12/2013; 3:45 PM CDT):  The original version of this post incorrectly placed the audio recording in "late 2008" based on other writers' ambiguous references to "Winter 2008". However, given the discussion in the recording of creating a cover story that did not implicate Russ Hamilton and discussions as to the ongoing internal investigation into the accounts used in the "AuditMonster" cheating scheme, the timing of the meeting in the recording must have been sometime after the cheating was discovered in January or early February of 2008, and certainly before the preliminary KGC report of September 29, 2008 which identified Russ Hamilton as the primary (or sole) cheater. Further, the Ultimate Bet internal investigation report was provided to the KGC in late July, 2008, so discussion of the official story to provide to the KGC would have occurred prior to that report.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the days ahead, follow Haley Hintze (Twitter, blog, and FlushDraw.com), TwoPlusTwo, Chris Grove, and Kevmath for updated information on the scandal, along with the usual excellent poker news sites like FlushDraw, LegalPokerSites, OnlinePokerReport, and PokerFuse.

Why I Race—A Runner Responds to The Boston Marathon Tragedy

Today's tragic news of the bombing of the finish line of the Boston Marathon hit me hard. Obviously all Americans are stunned and saddened by yet another terrorist attack at home (even if we don't know right now who perpetrated this atrocity or why). But this attack was like a sucker punch to my psyche because I am a runner, and the Boston Marathon is the quintessential road race, the ultimate running challenge for which merely qualifying to participate is a badge of honor.

The Boston Marathon is not just the ultimate road race, it is also the ultimate expression of the paradox of running. Running is inherently an individual pursuit, a solo sport. Runners generally train alone, spending hours with nothing but their thoughts as they trip off miles in the early morning or twilight hours. Running provides personal records (PRs) as a goal, rather than the team victories offered by softball or basketball leagues. Runners finish their workouts with Powerade and yogurt, while golfers finish their rounds with beers and cigars.

I run for a lot of reasons. I run for my health. I run to stay fit. I run to relax. I run to get lost in my thoughts. I run to enjoy the weather and the great outdoors. I run to exercise and bond with my happy and manic dog.

Yet while running is a lone wolf pursuit, racing is a gathering of the wolf pack. There is nothing quite like the experience of a road race, joining together with hundreds or thousands of fellow runners and even greater numbers of volunteers and spectators to run, still as an individual, but also as a member of a community that shares your love of running.

Over the better part of two decades, I have run dozens of road races for a myriad of reasons. In my youth, I was competitive and raced to beat my friends, to compete in my age class, and to set PRs. More recently, after several years away from road races, I was lured back by the opportunity to share an experience with friends, and an excuse to visit places I had never seen. And in the past year, I have come to appreciate a rather spiritual element of racing, where pushing yourself as an individual can lead to a special bonding with friends.

In the wake of the Boston tragedy today, I have no special insights to offer, no easy solutions to sell, no political position to push. My gut is twisted in knots by news of dead and injured children, by photos of maimed and bleeding runners and spectators. To many Americans, today's events may be just another attack by terrorists or a delusional sociopath. But today's bombings hit me hard; even though I don't know any of the victims, I feel as if I knew them because of the special bond between runners and those who support them at road races. Those hurt by the bombs in Boston were the family and friends of some of us runners, which makes them the family and friends of all of us runners everywhere. The only way I know how to explain this feeling is to explain why I race.

* * * * *

I race for my friends who are on the verge of qualifying for Boston.
I race for my friends for whom just crossing the finish line is a victory.
I race for the young girl with the rainbow covered sign that says, "Go Mom! Run Fast! I Love You!"
I race for the little boy in his favorite athletic jersey high-fiving strangers while he waits to see his Daddy run past.
I race for the old couple holding hands in their lawn chairs as we zip past their home.
I race for neighborhood groups schlepping Gatorade and raking up cups.
I race for the ladies with the funny signs that say, "Run like a bear is chasing you!" or "Those shorts make your ass look fast."
I race for the local bands covering classic rock songs at every mile marker.
I race for the amateur DJ spinning tunes out of a minivan parked at the bottom of the Big Hill.
I race for the spectators cheering for hours for complete strangers, even the slow, balding, and pudgy old guys like me.
I race for the gals in the rainbow tutus, the dude in the banana suit, and all the running Elvises.
I race for the high school kids, the mothers pushing strollers, and the old men who all pass me in the last three miles.
I race for my boyfriend and dog who magically appear every couple of miles to yell or bark my name.
I race for my friends who sit for ages just to pop up and pace me for encouragement after a rough hill.
I race for that last half mile kick past cheering throngs of people who don't know me but want me to finish strong.
I race for the folks who hand out the medals, the water, the yogurt, and the beer in recognition of a successful run.
I race for the police officers who take a day off to direct traffic, and for the EMTs and doctors in the volunteer medical tents.
I race for my friends at the finish line who high five me and buy me pancakes and beer despite my being a sweaty mess.
I race because runners aren't meant to run alone.
I race because I'm part of the pack.

* * * * *

I'm registered to run half-marathons the next two weekends at the Marion Rotary Marathon for Shoes and at the Drake Relays / Hy-Vee Road Races. As planned, I'll be running to enjoy Iowa's spring weather, to compete against myself and the field, and to celebrate an accomplishment with my friends.

After today, I'll also be running in honor of those innocents who died or were injured in the Boston attacks. I don't believe in any simplistic "Run or the terrorists win" pablum. I just feel that the best way to honor today's victims—and heroes—is to keep the Great Race alive. To high five cheering kids. To do a little dance when a DJ pumps up the volume along the course. To give a thumbs up to random spectators with a funny sign or a local band belting out an upbeat tune. To spare a breath for a "Thank you, sir/ma'am" for the police officer holding traffic at a crossroad. To respond to neighborhood volunteers' calls of "Gatorade!" or "Water!" with a sincere "Bud Light?!?"

To simply keep the pack together to race another day.

Don't Kill the Refs

"If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there."

~Assassin for hire Martin Blank (John Cusack), in Grosse Point Blank (1997)

Several close games in this year's opening rounds of the NCAA basketball tourney have resurrected that time-honored wail from the fans of losing teams: "The refs screwed us." Usually the fans' ire is directed at a close call or no-call in the final minute of a tight game, particularly one that looks questionable or even flat out wrong in slow motion replay. But for that one bad call, fans contend, their team would have won the game.

The whining du jour comes compliments of Iowa State fans, who saw their 10th seeded Cyclones battle back against the 2nd seeded Ohio St. Buckeyes in a West Regional game, only to lose to a buzzer beating three-pointer. Cyclone fans (including many of my fellow Ironmen) are incensed over an offensive charging call against a Cyclone player with roughly a minute left in the game. Replays showed that the Ohio State defender should have been called for a blocking foul, and the Cyclones awarded the basket and a free throw with a chance to take a three or four point lead into the final minute. Many Cyclone fans are now crying into their beer about how "the refs cost us that game".

The problem with this mentality is that focusing on one call in isolation just because it happens in the last minute of the game ignores the first 39 minutes of the game. Although the call feels critical because the game is close to an end, the same call at any point in the game would have had the same impact—a three point swing in favor of Ohio State. Of course, Ohio State fans probably can point to a handful of calls earlier in the game that they disagreed with, calls which created the same or greater swing in favor of Iowa State (and truthfully, "bad" calls and no-calls tend to even out over the course of a full game). Further, events earlier in the game could have put Iowa State or Ohio State comfortably ahead, rendering any call in the final minute largely irrelevant to the outcome. Finally, focusing on that one call ignores the succeeding nearly full minute of play, during which: a) Ohio State missed the front end of a one-and-one followed by an immediate Iowa State rebound and turnover with the score still tied with 58 seconds left, b) Iowa State failed to secure a defensive rebound with 33 seconds remaining, and c) Iowa State failed to defend Ohio State's winning shot (though it was still a tough, clutch shot by Aaron Craft). [FN1].

If a team is in a position to lose a game because of a questionable or bad call in the final minute, chances are that team did something wrong in the first 39 minutes that put them in that position. The team may have taken poor shots, missed free throws, committed turnovers, failed to rebound effectively, or played poor defense. The coach may have failed to adjust his offensive or defensive sets to take advantage of the opponent's weaknesses, or failed to adjust his lineup to create the most favorable player matchups. A star player may have tried to force the action rather than running the offense, or committed a silly foul forcing the coach to bench him for a critical part of the game. A team playing its best basketball should rarely be in a close game in the closing minutes of a game. [FN2].

Referees obviously impact a game. But referees rarely "decide" a game, and when they do, it's usually because the style of game they call (loose or tight on fouls) favors one team or the other, not because they booted an isolated call or two. So although it's tempting to blame the refs for "losing" a game for your team because of one or two bad calls, odds are strong your team has only itself to blame.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1].  In the interest of full disclosure, I refereed basketball at high school varsity level down to grade school games for roughly 18 years, including training and supervising college intramural referees during law school. In fact, back in the day, I wrote an op-ed in the college newspaper similar to this post. So I admittedly have a "pro-referee" bias.

[FN2].  In today's game, shooting from the field, free throws, and personal fouls were all essentially even between the teams. However, Iowa State committed 16 turnovers to Ohio State's 7, which probably had a much greater impact on the ultimate outcome than did the late block-charge call.

Dear Fathers: What If Your Son Is Gay?

Kurt's Dad:  My son's a homosexual, and I love him.  I love my dead gay son.

J.D.:  Wonder how he'd react if his son had a limp wrist with a pulse.

~Heathers (1988)

Friday, conservative Republican Senator Rob Portman published a shocking article coming out in favor of marriage equality for gays after years spent toeing the GOP anti-gay party line:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

Senator Portman's article drew plenty of criticism from fellow conservatives, hardly surprising given the influence of the religious right over Republican politics. More surprising—and disappointing—was sniping from many pundits on the political left who called Portman's change of heart a "confession of moral failure" or evidence of "a fundamental lack of compassion", causing "disgust" at Portman's lack of empathy and accusations of a "politics of narcissism".

All of the critics need to pipe down. There is no question marriage equality is a hot-button political issue, and a sitting U.S. Senator breaking with his party's position on the issue undoubtedly has political implications.  Yet I view Senator Portman's announcement as more of a personal and family matter, made public only because he is a fairly high-profile politician. Seeing the Senator and his wife publicly declare how proud they are of their son Will, how they love him as he is, not as they might have wanted him to be, and how they wish for their son to have the opportunity to be just as happy as they and their other children, only drives home for me how difficult the situation must have been for the entire family. Imagine being Will Portman, the gay son of a prominent politician whose party is anti-gay (often rabidly so), in a state where an anti-gay marriage amendment was cynically placed on the ballot in 2004 in a transparent effort to bring Republican voters to the presidential polls, whose father was even mentioned as a leading Vice Presidential candidate for an avowedly anti-gay Mitt Romney. Imagine the fear and anxiety that Will must have felt as he tried to work up the courage to tell his parents he was gay. Imagine Will's relief when his parents accepted him with love. Imagine Will's pride when his parents not merely accepted him, but went so far as to publicly advocate for his right to marry some day, in direct contravention of what would be politically expedient for his father. To me, Senator Portman's article was not a political statement, but a public declaration of love and support from a father to his son. I have nothing but admiration for how the entire Portman family has handled this situation.

Senator Portman's article was a strange counterpoint to another note making the rounds on the internet this week, a note in which a father told his gay son there was no reason to worry about coming out:

I overheard your phone conversation with Mike last night about your plans to come out to me. The only thing I need you to plan is to bring home OJ and bread after class. We are out, like you now. I’ve known you were gay since you were six, I’ve loved you since you were born.

—Dad

P.S. Your mom and I think you and Mike make a cute couple.

This note was pretty much the opposite of my personal experience. When I came out, my friends were overwhelmingly supportive. My mother, however ... well, she returned my Christmas letter unopened, with a post-it note attached stating:

We have no desire to know anything about the lifestyle you have chosen. Your letter will just upset us, so I am returning it.

~Mom & Dad

Now, my parents and I eventually worked through the issue, and our relationship is stronger than ever. But my experience, and the experience of the Portmans, is a reminder to fathers of young sons everywhere—your own son might well be gay. Of course, the odds are overwhelming your son will be straight—he only has roughly a 1-in-20 chance of being gay. Still, considering around 5% of kids will turn out to be gay, you will almost certainly be confronted with the issue of a gay teen at some point in your life. If it's not your son, it will be the son of a friend, or one of your son's friends. So, how will you handle the issue of your son growing up gay, or his growing up with a gay friend?

If your son is interested in sports, will you steer him toward football, basketball, hockey, wrestling, or baseball because they are more "manly"? If you coach a youth sports team, will you tell your team they are playing like "fags" or "pussies"? Will you tolerate a coach or fellow parent who uses anti-gay language? Will you stand by and let the more talented or popular kids on the team use words like "gay" or worse to taunt their opponents or even their own teammates?

What if your son excels in a sport like swimming, diving, gymnastics, ice skating, or volleyball; will you be embarrassed to attend his meets? Will you be openly disappointed if your son doesn't want to watch sports or go hunting or snowmobiling or hiking with you? Or what if your son wants to participate in drama, show choir, band, dance, or art? Will you attend every show? Take him to rehearsals? Brag to your friends about his awards? Or will you tell your son that he should stick to sports? Avoid his shows with forced excuses? Hide your discomfort from your friends with uneasy jokes?

When your friend confides over a beer that his son is gay, will you silently give thanks that your son is straight? When you learn for certain your son is straight, will you breathe a sigh of relief?

Knowing that gay teens are at substantially higher risk for depression and anxiety, being bullied or assaulted, abusing alcohol or drugs, dropping out of school or having educational problems, and attempting / committing suicide, will you be the strong father, coach, or role model who is someone a gay teen can turn to for support?

If you learn your son is gay, will you love him just the same? Will your son know this even before you tell him?

Frankly, though, if it turns out your son is gay, there are only two questions that really matter:

Will you be proud of your son?

Will your son be proud of you?

Especially proud of my dad today

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html …

~Will Portman, @wdportman, 6:34 AM; 15 Mar 2013