UpperDeck Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Handyman....I don't know the whole story but I am reasonably sure that there is a "rest of the story". Note that in my post, I emphasized "allegedly". If (big "if") the word used by Wayne was "implicated", it has a more extended meaning than; "Is it necessary to reveal that my wife made a bet?" I accept that simply placing a bet (even for $100,000) is not illegal. However, if that is all she did, I don't understand why Wayne would have any concern with her being "implicated". If Tocchet's operation of a bookmaking operation was illegal and if that enterprise was knowingly funded in whole or in part by Wayne's wife then I suggest that she may very well be exposed to criminal liability. Any attempt to conceal the facts that would lead to that result is called "obstruction". So---as usual, we must wait for ALL of the facts before coming to any conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I accept that simply placing a bet (even for $100,000) is not illegal. However, if that is all she did, I don't understand why Wayne would have any concern with her being "implicated". Take a look at the media onslaught! Would you like your family's reputation dragged through the mud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Handyman...I think you misunderstand. Assume that his wife did nothing more than place a bet or two. No question....completely understandable for Wayne to say; "Can it be kept quiet that my wife placed a bet?" You and I are on the same page there. Why would he want the press to know she was a gambler at all? But it DID come out and the press is on the subject like buzzards on road kill. BUT....is their continued interest simply because she made a bet OR do they sniff the possibility that she was more involved than simply as a bettor? All I was saying in the posts above was that the alleged use of the word "implicate" in the taped conversation was surprising and MAY have increased the intensity of press scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Uperdeck, I guess we will find out soon enough just how involved she is but I do find it interesting that she has only been accused as a gambler and the other gamblers are only known as the 5 or 6 gamblers among the NHL. Fame is not always your friend is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Handyman....I don't know the whole story but I am reasonably sure that there is a "rest of the story". Note that in my post, I emphasized "allegedly". If (big "if") the word used by Wayne was "implicated", it has a more extended meaning than; "Is it necessary to reveal that my wife made a bet?" I accept that simply placing a bet (even for $100,000) is not illegal. However, if that is all she did, I don't understand why Wayne would have any concern with her being "implicated". If Tocchet's operation of a bookmaking operation was illegal and if that enterprise was knowingly funded in whole or in part by Wayne's wife then I suggest that she may very well be exposed to criminal liability. Any attempt to conceal the facts that would lead to that result is called "obstruction". So---as usual, we must wait for ALL of the facts before coming to any conclusions. Again, this falls into the category of gossip and heresay right now, but you are probably right that there is more to this whole story... Supposedly Wayne himself doesn't gamble... But is that the truth, too? http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...ws/5845066.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.