LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I just read this over at the coast dispatch, so I’ve posted the story and included some of my opinions.
Please Note: where you see bold italicized “tunahelpermd comments”, those comments are NOT part of the story by Shawn J. Soper.
White Marlin Open Controversy Settled
By Shawn J. Soper, News Editor, mdcoastdispatch.com
Originally published July 18, 2008
SNOW HILL – The multi-party lawsuit asking the court to sort out who among the top three finishers in the blue marlin category of last year’s White Marlin Open should be paid the prize money was resolved this week when a Worcester County Circuit Court judge ruled the first-place finisher deserved to his money and the third-place winner was entitled to his prize money and the money earmarked for the now disqualified second-place winner.
Amid confusion over alleged failed or untimely polygraph tests, White Marlin Open organizers last September filed a complaint of interpleader in Worcester County Circuit Court essentially asking a judge to intercede on its behalf and assess who among the top three winners in the 2007 tournament’s blue marlin division should be awarded the several hundred thousand dollars in prize money at stake. The complaint was filed after it came to light there were irregularities in two separate polygraph tests taken by the second-place winner and the first-place winner did not take his required polygraph test until after the tournament’s award ceremony.
After months of legal posturing during which the case was made more complicated by the winners of the tuna division laying claim to all of the blue marlin category prize money, Worcester County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Groton on Monday granted a motion for summary judgment filed by angler Carl Hurlebaus essentially qualifying him as the first-place winner in the blue marlin division.
Groton also granted a motion for summary judgment filed by third-place winner Robert Belansen, disqualifying second-place winner William Mathews and the winners of the tuna division from any claim to the blue marlin division prize money. In the end, Groton ruled Hurlebaus was entitled to his $378,210 in first-place money, while Belansen was entitled to the rest of the blue marlin prize money because he was entered in the blue marlin Level F, or winner take all, entry level.
In short, Hurlebaus was awarded his $378,000-plus for catching the biggest blue marlin in the tournament, while Belansen, who came in third, was awarded the rest, including the $289,640 for second place and the $176,569 for his third-place blue marlin, giving him a combined $466,209.
White Marlin Open founder and organizer Jim Motsko was generally pleased with the judge’s decision and happy to put the complicated case behind him with the 2008 version set to begin in a little over two weeks.
“I’m glad it was resolved the way it was,” he said. “The judge’s decision removes any doubt about the integrity of the tournament and adds to the credibility of how the prize money is dispersed. We’re ready to move on with another White Marlin Open just around the corner.”
(tunahelpermd comment: Mr. Motsko, why would you make such a silly statement to the media? 2nd place FAILS two lie detector tests AND is not registered as an angler, and YOU NEVER DID ANYTHING TO DISQUALIFY HIM! Where is the “credibility” and “integrity” that you tout? 1st place is a no show for EIGHTEEN DAYS to take his polygraph test, but that’s just fine by you? Such credibility! IMO, the credibility and integrity of your tournament is shot to hell because of YOUR unwillingness to enforce the rules! But there are tournaments out there that DO know how to enforce their rules. Mr. Motsko, here’s an example of how it’s done:
Wie Devastated by Scorecard Gaffe, By DAVID MERCER, Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (July 19) - After finishing Friday and Saturday in second place at the State Farm Classic, Michelle Wie was one good round away from finally living up to her deep potential. Then, minutes after tapping in her last putt of the third round, Wie sat red-eyed at a folding table in front of a couple dozen baffled reporters and photographers, explaining why she'd been disqualified from the tournament. The 18-year-old, playing her best golf of the year, broke one of the game's most basic rules: She failed to sign her scorecard before leaving the scoring area. "I don't know why or how it happened," said Wie, who had been crying moments earlier. Wie took no questions before leaving the clubhouse at Panther Creek Country Club. She climbed into an SUV with her parents and drove away. That left Yani Tseng leading the tournament at 18 under, followed by Katie Futcher at 16 under and Hee-Won Han and Ji Young Oh another shot back. Sue Witters, the LPGA's director of tournament competitions, disqualified Wie in a small office in an LPGA trailer at the course after asking her what had happened. "She was like a little kid after you tell them there's no Santa Claus," Witters said. And with that, Wie was gone from a tournament where either the $255,000 winner's purse or the $155,252 second prize would have put her comfortably within the top 80 money winners for the year - and virtually guaranteed her a place on the LPGA Tour next year. The State Farm seemed tailor-made for Wie, a part-time player trying to become a full-fledged tour member for the first time. Only two of the top 10 money winners were in town for the event, and Wie said before play began that she was looking forward to opening up her long game on the wide fairways and flat greens of Panther Creek. She shot a solid 67 on Thursday, then a 65 on Friday that tied her with Tseng, the woman who rallied to beat Wie in the final of the U.S. Women's Amateur Public Links in 2004. Wie told reporters that after she finished her round Friday, she left the tent just above the ninth green where players sign their scorecards. She was chased down by volunteers working in the tent, who pointed out she hadn't signed. Wie returned to the tent and signed the card, and "I thought it would be OK," she said. But Wie, according to Witters, had already walked outside the roped-off area around the tent. At that point, the mistake was final, Witters said. Witters said she and other tour officials didn't learn about the mistake from volunteers until well after Wie teed off Saturday morning, so they let her finish the round. "Is it real?" Tseng asked reporters just after Wie's qualification. Without Wie, the tournament loses some of its luster, and likely some of the viewers who might have tuned into Sunday's final round. "She was one shot off the lead, she was going to help boost the ratings," said Christina Kim, who entered play Saturday as the leader before falling back to 12 under and a tie for seventh. "She was the player to beat this week." Wie's short career has been colored by controversy, starting with her disqualification from her pro debut at the 2005 Samsung World Championship for taking an improper drop. Since then, she's angered LGPA icon Annika Sorenstam for withdrawing from last year's Ginn Tribute - a tournament hosted by Sorenstam - and leaving early to start practicing for the next stop. And she's withdrawn from multiple events after poor starts, citing injuries. LPGA veteran Betsy King, working as a TV analyst at the State Farm tournament, said Saturday that she always had her caddy stand over her as she turned in her scorecard, making sure nothing had been missed. Tour officials weren't sure whether Wie's caddie accompanied her into the scoring tent. Wie said she usually signs her scorecard immediately, and had no idea why she didn't Friday. "Hopefully it won't happen again," she said. Tour officials and other players, while sympathetic, said the signature rule is at the heart of golf's honor system. "Bottom line, we are held accountable to maintaining our scorecards and making sure that we attest the scorecard," Kim said. "But it's such a shame.")
Motsko said the judge’s decision represented what tournament officials hoped for the outcome all along.
(tunahelpermd comment: Huh???????????)
He said the various claims by the many parties involved in the case left him with little choice but to ask a judge to sort it out in the interest of fairness to all involved.
“It basically went the way we would have done it,” he said. “I’m glad the judge did what he did. We would have liked to have resolved this ourselves without getting to this point, but the White Marlin Open was forced to defend ourselves when these claims were made.”
(tunahelpermd comment: So, it went the way you would have done it? Sir, why then didn’t you just do it! I’m sorry, but you were “forced” to defend yourself because, when you had the chance and duty to do so, you opted not to enforce the rules of your tournament, exposing several anglers to unnecessary and costly litigation.)
Belansen, fishing aboard the “Beast” out of Cape May, N.J., weighed the first qualifying blue marlin, a 567-pounder weighed on the tournament’s first day that briefly took the top spot in the standings. On Tuesday, of White Marlin Open week, Mathews, fishing aboard the “Gale Force II,” weighed a 590-pound blue marlin, jumping into first-place in the division and knocking Belansen and the “Beast” into second. On Thursday of the tournament, angler Carl Hurledaus, fishing aboard the “Wireless,” hauled in a 632-pound blue marlin, taking the tournament’s top prize in the division and knocking Mathews and Belansen down to second and third place, respectively. While each of the winners participated in the tournament’s award ceremony and were photographed with their ceremonial “big checks,” the official prize money checks were not immediately awarded to the winners. Instead, tournament officials attempted to sort out who should be paid what after the third-place winner, Belansen, through his attorney, made a formal complaint demanding the first- and second-place money as well because of the alleged failure to pass the required polygraph test by the second-place winner, Mathews, and the untimely taking of the test by the first-place winner, Hurlebaus. Unable to reach a conclusion on their own, White Marlin Open officials filed a complaint for interpleader, asking the court to sort out the prize money mess.
According to court documents, tournament officials met with Hurlebaus at his boat, the “Wireless,” at Sunset Marina in West Ocean City on Saturday, Aug. 11 and told him he had missed the scheduled polygraph exam required of anglers who win more than $50,000 in prize money in the tournament. According to court documents, tournament officials told Hurlebaus at the time it was no big deal and provided him with contact information for the tournament-approved polygraph test administrator and instructed him to arrange to take the test. Hurlebaus later took the test and passed, but the test was taken after officials received a letter from Belansen’s attorney on Aug. 13 demanding the first- and second-place prize money.
(tunahelpermd comment: This is the one that exposes this story for what it is. On the busy Saturday morning of the polygraph / awards banquet, WMO officials decided to drive down to Wireless after Hurlebaus failed to confirm a test time the previous night and after he missed his scheduled polygraph test. So they drove down to his boat for what purpose? Apparently, WMO has taken the position that they drove down to his boat simply to inform him that he missed his test, and to inform him that it “was no big deal”. If WMO took the time to drive to his boat, why not drive down BEFORE his missed the test? After all, if Hurlebaus and Scooby did not know about the polygraph test schedule, they presumably did not confirm a test time the previous night, so WMO should have known there was a problem. I can only imagine how the conversation at Hurlebaus’s boat went: “Hello, HELLO Mr. Hurlebaus, are you in there? Oh, hello Mr. Hurlebaus, good morning, sorry to disturb you, would you care for some coffee or doughnuts? Mr. Hurlebaus, we are officials from the WMO. We are here to inform you that although you failed to confirm your polygraph test time and failed to show for your scheduled polygraph test, it’s really no big deal at all. No reason to be concerned, or drive immediately to the Clarion and get in line with the rest of the winners for the test. You, Mr. Hurlebaus, you can take the test at your leisure, whenever you want. Heck, take a few weeks if you please!" The judge apparently bought this load of poop, but obviously I do not.)
Groton ruled on Monday the untimely nature of Hurlebaus’ polygraph test did not warrant knocking him out of the first-place prize money. Attorney Hugh Cropper IV, who represented Hurlebaus in the case, said the judge got it right in terms of his first-place client.
“At the end of the day, Mr. Hurlebaus got his first-place money, which he was absolutely entitled to,” he said. “It was ridiculous that anybody challenged that. Now he did take the test 18 days after the end of the tournament, but there was nothing in his test to suggest he wasn’t entitled to his prize money.”
(tunahelpermd comment: EIGHTEEN DAYS LATE! What if it were EIGHTY DAYS, or EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATE? That’s what I call ridiculous, Mr. Cropper! Now that’s “integrity”, Mr. Motsko)
Cropper, who had the unique experience of representing both Hurlebaus, the first-place winner, and Mathews, the second-place winner, in the case said he felt Mathews was short-changed in the end result. Mathews did take the polygraph test on two separate occasions and there were “inconsistencies” each time according to court records, but in the end, it was an error in how he filled out his pre-tournament paperwork that sealed his fate, according to Cropper
“I really think the second-place winner, Mr. Matthews, really deserved to get his money,” he said. “Nobody ever accused him of cheating and there were no allegations of him doing anything wrong. His biggest problem was a clerical error in the way he filled out his paperwork. He registered as a mate and not as an angler, which is why he didn’t get his money in the end.”
(tunaherpermd comment: If Mathews was not registered as an angler in the tournament, and being registered as an angler is a prerequisite for collecting prize money, why did the tournament allow Mathews to take ANY polygraph test and attempt to collect prize money? So much for that infamous WMO credibility!)
Cropper acknowledged there were problems with Mathews’ polygraph test results, but said there was nothing in them to suggest he cheated in any way and, therefore, nothing to preclude him from winning the prize money. “He did fail two separate polygraph exams, but there is a lot of dispute about that,” he said. “Those things aren’t infallible which is why they are not admissible in court in the first place.”
(tunahelpermd comment: WOW, grab yourself some china and silverware because in the previous few paragraphs Mr. Cropper served up one of the all-time great banquets of bullshit. For example, from the polygraph given on August 11th: “Q: “During the 2007 White Marlin Open, did you knowingly violate any of the tournament rules?”, A: “No”, Result: “Deceptive Response”. From the second polygraph given on August 14th: Q: “Did Fredricks pass the pole to you immediately after the fish was hooked?”, A: “Yes”, Q: “Did you have any help form anyone while fighting the fish?”, A: “No”, Result: “above questions were asked on three polygrams utilizing Air Force Modified General Question Technique. At the conclusion of the examination there were significant physiological responses to the above relevant questions.” “Mr. Mathews was then asked the following relevant questions” Q: “Did you cheat in any manner during the 2007 White Marlin Open?”, A: “No”, Q: “Did you violate any of the rules during the 2007 White Marlin Open?”, A: “No”. “The above questions were asked on three polygrams utilizing the Backstar Zone Comparison test technique.” “At the conclusion of the examination there were significant physiological responses to the above relevant questions.” “It is my professional opinion that Mr. Mathews was not truthful on either of the above tests”.
Mr. Cropper, “there was nothing in them (polygraph tests) to suggest he cheated in any way”? WHAT, are you serious???? I understand that it is your job to represent your client, but man, talk about spin! Well, I guess if 18 days late doesn’t matter, why should a few “deceptive responses”?)
When all was said and done, one of the big winners in the case was the White Marlin Open itself, which avoided a protracted legal battle on the eve of this year’s tournament and resolved the issue of the blue marlin prize money equitably without dispersions cast on the integrity of the tournament.
(tunahelpermd comment: Congrats to one of the “big winners”, White Marlin Open!)
“The judge basically said two things: the White Marlin Open was within its rights to schedule the polygraph tests when it saw fit, and the winner in the blue marlin division, Mr. Hurlebaus, was entitled to his first-place money,” said Motsko. “In the opinion of the White Marlin Open, we felt all along this was the fairest outcome.”
(tunahelpermd comment: Mr. Motsko, you forgot to mention the man who caught the 3rd heaviest blue marlin, you know, the man who had to get his lawyer involved because you did not enforce the rules of your tournament. How much money did he have to spend on legal fees to collect his prize money in your tournament? 15k, 30k, 45k, maybe more? For that matter, how much did all of the parties spend on legal? I can think of many words to describe your actions in this fiasco sir, but “credibility” and “integrity” would not make the list.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by fish4fun
