IVEY COMMENTS ON POKER COURT CASE RULING (Update)
"Can someone tell me how you can have honest cheating?"
Professional poker player Phil Ivey has commented on losing his civil appeal in a GBP 7.7 million winnings confiscation case against Crockfords Club in London.
In a statement Thursday Ivey professed he was confused by the finding of the three-judge appeal panel, saying:
“This decision makes no sense to me. The trial judge said that I was not dishonest and the three appeal judges agreed but somehow the decision has gone against me. Can someone tell me how you can have honest cheating? I’d like to add that I am very grateful to Lady Justice Sharp who decided that the trial judge was ‘wrong’ to decide that I had cheated.”
Matthew Dowd, Iveys legal representative, said that the appeal courts decision has left the law unclear regarding the definition of cheating in gambling.
"Four judges have looked at this issue now and none of them have been able to agree on the correct interpretation of section 42 of the Gambling Act," Dowd said. "It (is) essential that the law is clarified and in light of today’s decision we are seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Its been a bad week for Ivey; only days before the London appeal court finding, a New Jersey court adjudicating a separate civil case involving Ivey and the Borgata found that the poker professional had breached his contract by winning $10 million playing baccarat amid allegations of edge-sorting.
In the New Jersey case, U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman said: “Even though Ivey and Sun’s (Iveys companion Cheung Yin Sun) cunning and skill did not break the rules of baccarat, what sets Ivey and Sun’s actions apart from deceitful maneuvers in other games is that those maneuvers broke the rules of gambling as defined in this state.”