Chess Grandmaster Hans Niemann Sues Champion Magnus Carlsen, Others For $100 Million Over Cheating Claim (cnbc.com) 108
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Chess grandmaster Hans Niemann filed a $100 million lawsuit against world champion Magnus Carlsen and others for alleged defamatory statements claiming that Niemann cheated in competition. The suit claims that the defendants, including Chess.com, inflicted "devastating damages" against Niemann by "egregiously defaming him" and "unlawfully colluding" to bar him from the professional chess world. "My lawsuit speaks for itself," Niemann said Thursday in a Twitter post.
Niemann, 19, has admitted to cheating on two occasions, once when he was 12 years old and a second time when he was 16. But he denied claims that he cheated in an over-the-board match against Magnus Carlsen this year. Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup in September after losing to Niemann, and eventually came forward with concerns that Niemann had cheated in the match in which he defeated Carlsen. The suit claims that Carlsen's comments were a retaliatory attempt to keep Niemann from damaging his reputation. Chess.com subsequently banned Niemann after reporting that an internal investigation revealed evidence of more cheating than Niemann's public statements had expressed.
The report from Chess.com did not find evidence of cheating in Niemann's over-the-board matches, including the match against Carlsen, though the website notes that its cheating detection is primarily used for online matches. The report does, however, allege that Niemann likely cheated in over 100 online chess games, including several prize money events. It also shows that Niemann's Chess.com "Strength Score" sits in the range of over a dozen anonymous grandmasters who have admitted to cheating. The report also notes that Niemann is by far the fastest-rising player by yearly gain in classical over-the-board chess. The lawsuit is available in full here (PDF).
Niemann, 19, has admitted to cheating on two occasions, once when he was 12 years old and a second time when he was 16. But he denied claims that he cheated in an over-the-board match against Magnus Carlsen this year. Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup in September after losing to Niemann, and eventually came forward with concerns that Niemann had cheated in the match in which he defeated Carlsen. The suit claims that Carlsen's comments were a retaliatory attempt to keep Niemann from damaging his reputation. Chess.com subsequently banned Niemann after reporting that an internal investigation revealed evidence of more cheating than Niemann's public statements had expressed.
The report from Chess.com did not find evidence of cheating in Niemann's over-the-board matches, including the match against Carlsen, though the website notes that its cheating detection is primarily used for online matches. The report does, however, allege that Niemann likely cheated in over 100 online chess games, including several prize money events. It also shows that Niemann's Chess.com "Strength Score" sits in the range of over a dozen anonymous grandmasters who have admitted to cheating. The report also notes that Niemann is by far the fastest-rising player by yearly gain in classical over-the-board chess. The lawsuit is available in full here (PDF).
Notable comment (Score:3)
Re:Notable comment (Score:5, Insightful)
In section 125 of the complaint, Niemann says "Carlsen represents that that he possesses private and undisclosed facts justifying his false factual assertion that Niemann cheated against him". From what I've heard in other US defamation cases, that's an important factor in overcoming the defence that the alleged libel was just opinion, and thus protected speech. (It's not clear to me that Carlsen is representing any such thing.)
It's similar to all those claiming the 2020 election was "rigged". They stated on numerous occasions they have "evidence" to show this, yet haven't produced said "evidence". In fact, in court, when asked point blank by the judge if they had evidence of fraud the reply was they were not suggesting there was any fraud [time.com] and had no evidence of such.
If Carlsen is claiming he has evidence of wrongdoing he better be able to produce it or suffer the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Carlsen is not a US citizen, why would he? Since when do US laws apply outside the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Carlsen is not a US citizen, why would he? Since when do US laws apply outside the US?
One of the principles of many jurisdictions is that an action is actionable where it has an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure, but then when I read the other story of today ("France Fines Clearview AI Maximum Possible For GDPR Breaches"), the sentiment among americans is rather different: The top-rated comment states that France has no jurisdiction despite that French citizens are effected (so the "action" is in France). According to you then it is actionable in France
Re: Notable comment (Score:2)
The US considers itself world police.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO does and the EU courts do, the US itself often does nothing unless some rich guy is going to get richer for it. Nobody powerful cares about chess here in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
2014 anyway. Could be earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Carlsen is not a US citizen, why would he? Since when do US laws apply outside the US?
He does have significant business interests in the USA.
He will likely agree to accept a US court's jurisdiction in order to protect those interests.
He is also likely to win -defamation is hard to prove under us law.
If he chooses to ignore the case, he would lose by default. If he responds he is likely to win. He has US business interests which could be affected by a loss. Which choice makes more sense to you?
Re: (Score:2)
1. You do not have to be a citizen to file a civil suit in the United States. Your lawyer does need to be recognized by the bar association of the state you filed in the court in. (or FBA for federal court, but this isn't in a federal court currently)
2. this case can be filed in the US because the actions and/or the defendant is in the US. Chess.com is a US headquartered company for example.
So no, laws do not apply outside of the US. This occurred within the US, and possibly occurred within multiple countri
Re: (Score:2)
All of the alleged defamatory actions occurred inside the US.
re: rigged election claims (Score:1)
You know .... it's funny you compare this chess situation to the 2020 elections. Because while I've always maintained that there was no evidence of ENOUGH election fraud to tip the election to favor Biden over Trump? I've also felt a lot of sympathy towards those who have a gut instinct that something wasn't right with the results.
Just from subjective observation, I noticed FAR more Trump yard signs and bumper stickers out there than ones supporting Biden/Harris. And that's significant because I was livin
Re: re: rigged election claims (Score:2)
Trump yard signs and bumper stickers out there than ones supporting Biden/Harris.
.
How many houses, cars, people, etc had no sign at all? I'm going to throw out a guess and say it was more than 99% of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Valid point to consider, except no .... it was FAR more than only 1% of homes that didn't display a yard sign or vehicle bumper sticker. If you're going to count people, vehicles and homes separately, that's not a fair metric because one guy might wear his Trump cap or shirt, but not necessarily put a bumper sticker on his vehicle to go with it. Another might have the yard sign but no other obvious sign of who they support.
Also though? With all the homes not displaying any sign? There's no real reason to
Re: (Score:2)
You know .... it's funny you compare this chess situation to the 2020 elections. Because while I've always maintained that there was no evidence of ENOUGH election fraud to tip the election to favor Biden over Trump? I've also felt a lot of sympathy towards those who have a gut instinct that something wasn't right with the results.
Like when Hillary lost, right? All the polls said she would win, there were thousands and thousands of yard signs out by people supporting her. Something didn't feel right.
And y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dislaimer: IANAL but I'm a qualified armchair attourney who pretends to know absolutely everything about everything while actually knowing nothing about anything.
Here is Wikipedia's definition: [wikipedia.org]
Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person that result in damage to that person's reputation.
So as best as I understand it, the plaintiff would have to prove that:
- The statements were made by the defendant
- The statements made are factual in nature
- The facts claimed in the statement were untrue
- The defendant knew the statements were factually untrue
- The plaintiff suffered damages as a result
- The defend
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, Carlsen's literal job is 'chess analysis.' And he's the undisputed world champion of it.
His analysis would constitute, I would think, expert testimony.
Re: Notable comment (Score:2)
Knowing the statement is false is the easiest way to satisfy the malice requirement, which in most jurisdictions is required for public figures suing for defamation and if you want punitive and not just compensatory damages.
Re: (Score:2)
(It's not clear to me that Carlsen is representing any such thing.)
Here is the Magnus statement [twitter.com], the last paragraph is probably the relevant part. "There is more I would like to say," etc.
Re: (Score:3)
(It's not clear to me that Carlsen is representing any such thing.)
Here is the Magnus statement [twitter.com], the last paragraph is probably the relevant part. "There is more I would like to say," etc.
And here's the full relevant part:
There is more that I would like to say. Unfortunately, at this time I am limited in what I can say without explicit permission from Niemann to speak openly.
Niemann can't complain that "Carlsen represents that that he possesses private and undisclosed facts justifying his false factual assertion that Niemann cheated against him" when all Niemann has do to do is give Carlsen permission to release those "private and undisclosed facts" (ie, put up or shut up).
It's the same thin
Re: (Score:2)
Niemann can't complain that "Carlsen represents that that he possesses private and undisclosed facts justifying his false factual assertion that Niemann cheated against him" when all Niemann has do to do is give Carlsen permission to release those "private and undisclosed facts"
He literally can complain about that.
It's the same thing Niemann did with chess.com, he was privately presented with additional evidence and given a chance to respond
He claims they didn't privately present him with additional evidence (in the lawsuit). At this point there is no way for us to know which side is telling the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Niemann can't complain that "Carlsen represents that that he possesses private and undisclosed facts justifying his false factual assertion that Niemann cheated against him" when all Niemann has do to do is give Carlsen permission to release those "private and undisclosed facts"
He literally can complain about that.
Ok, the literally can, but it's not a legitimate complaint.
It's the same thing Niemann did with chess.com, he was privately presented with additional evidence and given a chance to respond
He claims they didn't privately present him with additional evidence (in the lawsuit). At this point there is no way for us to know which side is telling the truth.
Well Exhibit B of the chess.com report is a copy of the letter (email?) they sent Hans on Sept 8th with fairly detailed accusations (with some evidence and an offer to go into more detail on the statistical evidence), so if chess.com is lying about that it's a pretty brazen and easily disproven lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Exhibit B is a pretty clear misrepresentation of what Hans said.
Re: (Score:2)
Exhibit B is a pretty clear misrepresentation of what Hans said.
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched it? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched it? [youtube.com]
Some of it, the part you linked is him rambling about his accent then talking about his game with Magnus.
I'm not willing to sit through 20 minutes of an interview to figure out what statement you heard that you think chess.com misrepresented.
He has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Carlsen actually needs to pony up the evidence on this one. Like sure Nielssen did cheat a couple of times , *as a child*, but kids are amoral little beings, the "Is this a sensible choice" circuitry hasnt formed yet. Most kids have cheated at things once or thrice. Thts very different to an adult.
I'm not saying it isnt true, I have no idea, but before destroying a mans career you BETTER have the evidence. Especially if you have something to gain by doing so.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First off most children don't cheat at all. Second 16 is not "as a child". Third chess.com says they have evidence of 100's of cheating incidents, as an adult. Based on Niemann's prior behavior it makes sense to believe them. People rarely change and the evidence shows that this guy is willing to cheat. What puzzles me is why anyone would support him.
Re: (Score:2)
Second 16 is not "as a child".
Have you ever spent time with a 16 year-old? They most certainly are children. The early 20's are typically when the "not a child" brain functions are more or less fully developed.
Re: (Score:2)
Niemann is 19 now.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 13 year old. We play chess. She doesn't cheat.
Re:He has a point. (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait until she gets her first vibrating anal beads...
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf is wrong with you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever spent time with a 16 year-old? They most certainly are children. The early 20's are typically when the "not a child" brain functions are more or less fully developed.
Have you spent time with supposed adults? Most of them peaked in high school and haven't changed appreciably since.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever spent time with a 16 year-old? They most certainly are children. The early 20's are typically when the "not a child" brain functions are more or less fully developed.
Disagree. There is a huge, HUGE, range of normal development, both physical and mental.
Having middle school aged kids, I see some children (mostly girls) who could physically, verbally, and somewhat behaviorly pass for college aged. I see some children (mostly boys) who could probably pass for tall 3rd graders.
I think I hit "adult brain" sometime in grad school, and I think I hit "adult maturity" maybe by late-20s.
I also knew people who were a lot more together than I was in their late teens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I cheated all the time playing chess as a child. There was the trick where you go to make your move, and "accidentally" knock over some pieces, and then put them back in slightly different spots. If the other person doesn't notice then it's fair. Or you wait for the other person to leave the room, and make your move, and also move the position of one of your other pieces by something like one square. Those tricks probably don't work on the grand masters though.
"Probably"?
Re: (Score:2)
From where I sit most 30yos are still children.
However adult rights and adult responsibilities.
But 16year olds are kids, and holy shit if you dont think kids dont cheat. Have you ever *met* a child?
Re: He has a point. (Score:2)
Um, the vast, vast majority of children cheat at something during their childhood. To varying extents and not in the same activities, but you bet your ass they cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you would be hard put to provide evidence that "most children don't cheat at all." It's just your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a problem with that?
Red Flags (Score:5, Interesting)
His inclusion of chess.com in the lawsuit is a bit of a red flag for me.
From the chess.com perspective, what seems to have happened is after Magnus pulled the resignation stunt someone at chess.com decided to run all of Niemann's historical games through their current anti-cheat detection.
In addition to the two games that they flagged back when they originally suspended him, they also found a bunch of additional games that stopped the moment of the original suspension (ie, his play stopped triggering the cheat detection the moment they caught him cheating).
That's a massive indicator that chess.com was right and Niemann was regularly cheating at the time of his original suspension.
I'd be a lot more prepared to give Niemann the benefit of the doubt if he admitted that additional online cheating. Instead he's completely ignoring it except where he includes chess.com (who was very measured in their statements) in his defamation suit.
Otherwise, I don't see how this defamation suit has any chance as IANAL but I think you need to prove that the accuser knew (or obviously should have known) the claims were wrong.
This looks like a PR/intimidation tactic on Niemann's part.
Re: (Score:1)
Under US law- and the suit was filed in the US- there are different standards depending on who is filing the suit. There's one standard for "public figures" and a different standard for private people. The standard you mention, that the defamatory statement must be knowingly false or made with disregard for the truth*, applies on
Re: Red Flags (Score:1)
Not entirely correct. In the US you require intent as well as knowledge or reasonable to know that you are making false statements. The injured party also requires standing (as in provable damages).
For public figures (like Niemann) the bar is higher and requires malicious intent, knowledge as well as significant damages.
The interpretation you quote is true in lesser speech countries such as the EU, countries under the English crown (Canada, UK, Australia etc).
Re: (Score:2)
For public figures (like Niemann) the bar is higher and requires malicious intent, knowledge as well as significant damages.
The damage is there (Hans was cancelled from a few tournaments). The malicious intent seems there, since Magnus tried to get Hans ejected from the tournament (according to the complaint). I'm not about to speculate on the outcome of the lawsuit.
Re: Red Flags (Score:1)
But it is true that he cheated on occasion and the algorithm says he cheated. That makes whether Carlsen knows that he is lying that much harder to prove.
Besides that, tournament winnings are not damages in a court of law, unless you can prove that you also would have won that tournament.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is true that he cheated on occasion and the algorithm says he cheated. That makes whether Carlsen knows that he is lying that much harder to prove.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Besides that, tournament winnings are not damages in a court of law, unless you can prove that you also would have won that tournament.
He's good enough that he gets paid to even participate in a tournament.
Re: (Score:1)
If Carlsen hears or believes there exists sufficient evidence for the cheating claim to be true, then it isn't defamation. If Carlsen KNOWS the evidence to be faulty or dodgy, then it is defamation. In the US, defamation requires intent and knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what he said (obviously). The way Carlsen worded it, he implied that he has secret information that he can't talk about, which shows Hans cheated. That can catch him for defamation if he's not careful.
Re: (Score:2)
When in doubt, you sue everyone.
That's the only way you can make everyone cooperate with your investigation and potentially point fingers at each other.
Re: (Score:2)
His claim is that chess.com lied in their public communications.
In addition to the two games that they flagged back when they originally suspended him, they also found a bunch of additional games that stopped the moment of the original suspension
A lot of people thought that, but according to the chess.com report [chess.com] it doesn't seem like they found anything special. They suspended his account and then started looking for evidence to justify it, and it doesn't seem like they found anything new.
Re: (Score:2)
His claim is that chess.com lied in their public communications.
I'm not sure how.
In addition to the two games that they flagged back when they originally suspended him, they also found a bunch of additional games that stopped the moment of the original suspension
A lot of people thought that, but according to the chess.com report [chess.com] it doesn't seem like they found anything special. They suspended his account and then started looking for evidence to justify it, and it doesn't seem like they found anything new.
Hmm, so I got that part of the timeline wrong, but I think they did find new evidence. So I think the timeline is more like this.
1. In 2020 chess.com (using current tech) catches Hans cheating in 2 games (one from 2020, the other from 2017). He says "sorry, just those two games, one time mistake, never do it again!".
2. Couple of year later rumours are starting to pop up around Hans, but nothing happens until Magnus pulls his stunt. At that point chess.com decides to pull Hans from their CGC
Re: (Score:2)
1. In 2020 chess.com (using current tech) catches Hans cheating in 2 games (one from 2020, the other from 2017). He says "sorry, just those two games, one time mistake, never do it again!".
No, why do you think this?
Proof would be... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's razor (Score:3)
Perhaps the simplest explanation is the best one. Perhaps Carlsen is simply getting old and beginning to lose to younger players, and his accusation was the last-ditch attempt to steer the public's attention away from his gradual decline.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest explanation is that a confessed cheater cheated again. The damage that he claims has been done to his career was entirely his own doing, and on top of that he wreaked havoc on the world of competitive chess.
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest explanation is that you're a fauxtistic nerd with no understanding of human behaviour other than what you think you understand from fantasy novels.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you feel like a moron now?
Carlsen's dilema (Score:3)
What if there's only a hand full of people who know chess so well that they can spot when some one is playing like a machine?
Carlsen would obviously be one of them as is Nakamura who is also being sued.
So in Carlsens position what do you do?
Do you say nothing and hope that they get caught, eventually? They might get away with it and rise in ranking to your level and be lauded as the next Bobby Fischer. Lance Armstrong comes to mind.
Or do you speak out and nip it in the bud now? My immediate reaction to Carlsen's accusation was "I hope you've got good lawyers and feel 100% confident you can prove it".
Sports people generally have a good gauge of their peers abilities and can spot anomalies in performance before anyone else can.
I'm old enough to remember Carl Lewis reaction to Ben Johnson beating him in the 100m right before the doping test confirmed what Lewis's face was trying to tell us all.
The thing about truth is always comes out eventually.
Re:Carlsen's dilema (Score:4, Interesting)
What if there's only a hand full of people who know chess so well that they can spot when some one is playing like a machine?
Thousands of people know chess well enough to recognize machine-like patterns of play. The algorithm for doing so is simple enough that it can be coded up and run on a computer.
Machines search much deeper and much more thoroughly. They find advantageous moves that a human would be very unlikely to see. If a human makes one machine-like move, that is happenstance. If they make three, that's suspicious. If they make ten, they're cheating.
The thing about truth is always comes out eventually.
No, it doesn't. People take secrets to their graves every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Carlsen's dilema (Score:4, Informative)
What you call "machine-like pattern" may be due to many players nowadays training against machines.
Playing against a machine doesn't give you the ability to scan ten million moves per second.
Humans don't play like machines because brains don't work the same as computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a question of a 'machine like pattern'. Its not a matter of 'being adventurous' either. Its a question of what moves you see. The difference between the strongest human players and the current generation of machines is mainly that the machines see moves which the humans do not. There is also going to be a gap in knowledge of the openings, but the decisive thing is which moves are seen.
The simple way to test for this is to compare the player's choices with a machine's choices. To make the compar
Re: (Score:1)
Only comment (other than mine, and I was going for Funny) to mention "circumstantial evidence"? Should have been modded up just for that reason, even if it ran long.
There were a couple of comments that did follow up on the "inspired play" line of analysis, but I wasn't persuaded. I'm not convinced people can't make themselves think like computers, even extremely complicated ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Recognizing cheating is a different skill than playing chess. You can be good at one, but not at the other. One of the most recognized experts on cheating (Regan) is an IM, not even a GM.
Re: (Score:2)
Thousands of people know chess well enough to recognize machine-like patterns of play.
That's what I thought, too. Then I watched Nakamura and Naroditsky analyzing a series of games between Niemann and Naroditsky which chess.com had flagged as being 100% cheating by Niemann. Nakamura and Naroditsky kept saying things like, "That all looks normal... that move isn't really weird... I don't see anything here that I'd flag as out of the ordinary." They were both hoping to find something that was obviously cheating, but neither of them could spot whatever it was that the algorithm was picking u
Re: (Score:2)
What if there's only a hand full of people who know chess so well that they can spot when some one is playing like a machine?
Someone smarter than me came up with a way that anyone who can click buttons can analyze how machine-like a given player has been in a given game. The algorithm takes each position and predicts the next best move using a collection of existing bots. The correlation of a given player's moves with those automated predictions then gives you a quantitative analysis of how machine-like a player was playing. The all-time chess greats (Kasparov, Fischer, etc.) average in the high 60%-to-low-70% range, but there
Slashdot ads (Score:2)
I use uBlock Origin, but I'm still seeing a bunch of indeed.com ads appearing on the page. Slashdot has a "disable ads" button on right of my browser (I think it's dependent on karma), but clicking doesn't remove the new ads.
I'm sure I could work out how to block these ads, but come on Slashdot, why are you doing this? Am browsing with Firefox on my laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
The desktop site is also functionally broken, with or without ad blocking. I'm not sure if it's worth waiting for a fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seeing expanding comments failing to load some of the comment header and, notably, the "Reply to This" link?
Re: (Score:2)
That is among the missing functionality.
Wishful thinking (Score:2)
Niemann was watching the Alex Jones trial hoping for a similar payday.
Finding out the actual cheating method would be interesting.
Hikaru Nakamura (Score:4, Informative)
Carlson, Hikaru and Danny Rensch need to pay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you can prove he wasn't cheating? I'm sure he'd be interested in hearing from you.
Oh, you're just speculating? And therefore you're only virtue signaling? How virtuous of you.
failing a job interview (Score:3)
No. Every quality performance by Hans Niemann has been where he had control over the some aspects of the environment. He says he'll play naked. Sure, that works. How about naked in a cave half a mile underground without real-time broadcasts and no cell signals?
A far lesser player needs to call out Hans Niemann and challenge him to the cave match. Offer a larger wager than normal matches to force his hand. If he refuses, then that would be pretty compelling.
Re: (Score:2)
How about naked in a cave half a mile underground without real-time broadcasts and no cell signals?
No need for that cave, a Faraday cage would do for cell signal blocking.
If you want to be extra careful, the game would be in an anechoic chamber. Any buzzer would sound loud, even if, ahm, hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
He's 19. There is not a long history to pull from to generate character witnesses.
Also, who is going to risk getting on Carlsen's and Chess.com's bad side, especially when Chess.com and Carlsen just inked a 80 million dollar deal to get in bed together. They are already seeing how Carlsen's displeasure destroys your career. Why commit suicide?
Easy enough to find out (Score:2)
Have the involved parties play in an all-meets-all tournament where cheating is more or less impossible.
Like, say, playing in only a robe, no cameras, jewelry, iPhones, smartwatches et cetera. Even glasses are provided by the arranger. No one may enter or leave the isolated space until all matches are concluded.
This would clear any wrongdoing much better than a court battle.
Too good play looks like inspiration. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No... too good is absolutely distinguishable from inspiration.
The gulf between what a good, modern chess AI comes up with routinely and what a top tier human can do is large enough to conclude that if you're routinely matching the AI, you're not just inspired. You're probably cheating.
If the gap were closer, sure. But it's not close.
So if this plays out and goes to court (Score:2)
Will both sides be obligated to make sworn testimony?
good luck with this one (Score:2)
A question remains (Score:2)
Does the ass-dildo company sponsor the suit?
Missing joke (Score:2)
At least I think the idea of catching him in the act should have been moderated as Funny.
How can they tell the difference between inspired play and outside help? Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient in this case. Maybe he lost the evidence in the men's room...
Seriously folks, they needed to catch him in the act, and I haven't seen the evidence that they did. Actually, if it was recovered from the dare-I-say toilet, then I wouldn't want to see it.
Even if 10 experts agree that no normal human could have
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, a lawsuit only requires "preponderance of the evidence." So, the defendants only need to show that more likely than not their accusations are correct. The statistics favor their side. Unfortunately, that does not convince me that he cheated, but if the judge asks me to make a statistical judgment, I'd have to say statistics favors the defendants.
Re: (Score:1)
Civil lawsuit, not criminal, but that must be the case in this story.
But I still wish there were more Funny on Slashdot. Or how about a way to detect even the comments that have a single but invisible Funny mod point?