YIKES

[molsaniceman]

Show me the money

The NFL suspended Calvin Ridley "indefinitely at least through the conclusion of the 2022 season for betting on NFL games in the 2021 season."​

 

[redseat]

Guess we won't be seeing Ridley in New England huh?

Also - Is that the real reason why he "left" the game for a bit?

 

[Shanemansj13]

Those Bama kids aren't very smart

 

[Cyder]

Bet parlays on his cell phone. Brilliant!

 

[molsaniceman]

Guess we won't be seeing Ridley in New England huh?

Also - Is that the real reason why he "left" the game for a bit?

The NFL suspended Calvin Ridley "indefinitely at least through the conclusion of the 2022 season for betting on NFL games in the 2021 season."​

The league's statement clarified that Ridley bet on games during a five-day period in November. This was after he had left the team to tend to his mental health. The memo also states that Ridley was not betting with any insider information. No players or staff members of the Falcons knew he was betting. These notes make it abundantly clear that Ridley was doing this on his own and the integrity of the game was not compromised. Ridley can appeal the suspension but the NFL takes gambling offenses extremely seriously. They will likely push to keep his indefinite punishment in place. After missing most of the 2021 season, this suspension puts Ridley's career up in the air. If he only misses the upcoming season, which is far from a given, he will be coming up on 29 years old the next time he can take the field.

 

[Judge Fudge]

 

[Tapey]

 

[Mebert]

So he was away from the team and did not use inside information? who gives a shit.

 

[Tapey]

Idk Calvin, that’s more then I’ve ever bet

 

[Mebert]

Idk Calvin, that’s more then I’ve ever bet

total number? or % of networth?

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

So he was away from the team and did not use inside information? who gives a shit.

The league?

Because that rule is pretty much posted at the entrance of every locker room in the sports?

 

[Mebert]

The league?

Because that rule is pretty much posted at the entrance of every locker room in the sports?

I get the rule, but at what point to we stop letting a 103 year old incident control a discussion. Any player betting against themselves by all means punish, I just don't see an issue of betting on themselves, or betting in games they have no impact on.

 

[Judge Fudge]

 

[Manster7588]

I get the rule, but at what point to we stop letting a 103 year old incident control a discussion. Any player betting against themselves by all means punish, I just don't see an issue of betting on themselves, or betting in games they have no impact on.

I can see both sides of this coin. I agree if players are betting on other teams fine, but it gives too much opportunity for corruption to happen. What if Ridley and a player from another team work out bets on each others teams.



Oh and put Pete in the HOF.

 

[ducky]

I get the rule, but at what point to we stop letting a 103 year old incident control a discussion. Any player betting against themselves by all means punish, I just don't see an issue of betting on themselves, or betting in games they have no impact on.

It needs to stay the way it is. No tolerance.

With the contacts that football players have, there is way too much chance of insider information. And we all know that gambling can lead to some really dumb things. Calvin gets down $450K and needs to make it up, there isnt much stopping him from betting on the Falcons or against them.
I would have no problem them banning him for life honestly. If a player is so dumb as to why they have this rule in place, then they dont deserve to be in the league. It is as simple as it gets.

Save your betting till the day you retire. Then have at it.

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

I get the rule, but at what point to we stop letting a 103 year old incident control a discussion. Any player betting against themselves by all means punish, I just don't see an issue of betting on themselves, or betting in games they have no impact on.

Fair… but I have another question.

 

[Manster7588]

I'm hearing he bet at least one parlay, that incuded an ATL win.

That's not betting, thats donating.

 

[Manster7588]

Fair… but I have another question.

Gotta prove it first.
















Oh wait, NFL nevermind no proof needed.

 

[ducky]

I'm hearing he bet at least one parlay, that incuded an ATL win.

That's not betting, thats donating.

It must have paid out....why else would the gambling site report him.

 

[Clayton]

I'm hearing he bet at least one parlay, that incuded an ATL win.

That's not betting, thats donating.

Yeah, anyone betting that the Falcons win is probably not getting the right information.