Question for John Kelly. John I was a guest on your radio show several years ago back when I owned and was running Sports Watch monitoring service. You made a point that I must have a second income at Sports Watch beyond the customary monitoring fees paid by the handicappers.
No monitor should have any other income unless he's dishonest. I get your point and sorry I failed to respond other than to deny that I had any additional income.
I ran Sports Watch for twenty years. You were not the first person to ask me such a question. I respect that as an interviewer you asked the tough question. So, what exactly was your question based on?
Is my legacy to be that Jack Stewart may have been dishonest at Sports Watch? There are plenty of ways a monitor can be dishonest and all of them would probably indicate additional income for the monitor. Here's a short list. (1) Sell the handicapper picks either to individuals or a consensus service, etc.. (2) Operate a sports service on the side. (3) Give a handicapper preferential treatment with a better record than earned or just give that handicapper a win instead of a push or push instead of a loss on games that land on or close to the pointspread OR count a hancapper's game that he posted AFTER the game had started, etc...
Was I guilty of any of the above or anything else not listed in my 20 years of running Sports Watch? Let's clear the air. It's not the American Way to convict someone by rumor and innuendo. I'd like to hear from anyone with knowledge or questions about the above subject. And in return I promise down to earth answers to any questions or statements from all who would like to respond or anyone who has any questions about the sports monitoring industry. Sports Watch was, by the way, founded about 27 years ago which makes it the oldest sports monitoring firm in existence just beating out the Sports Monitor in Oklahoma City.
No monitor should have any other income unless he's dishonest. I get your point and sorry I failed to respond other than to deny that I had any additional income.
I ran Sports Watch for twenty years. You were not the first person to ask me such a question. I respect that as an interviewer you asked the tough question. So, what exactly was your question based on?
Is my legacy to be that Jack Stewart may have been dishonest at Sports Watch? There are plenty of ways a monitor can be dishonest and all of them would probably indicate additional income for the monitor. Here's a short list. (1) Sell the handicapper picks either to individuals or a consensus service, etc.. (2) Operate a sports service on the side. (3) Give a handicapper preferential treatment with a better record than earned or just give that handicapper a win instead of a push or push instead of a loss on games that land on or close to the pointspread OR count a hancapper's game that he posted AFTER the game had started, etc...
Was I guilty of any of the above or anything else not listed in my 20 years of running Sports Watch? Let's clear the air. It's not the American Way to convict someone by rumor and innuendo. I'd like to hear from anyone with knowledge or questions about the above subject. And in return I promise down to earth answers to any questions or statements from all who would like to respond or anyone who has any questions about the sports monitoring industry. Sports Watch was, by the way, founded about 27 years ago which makes it the oldest sports monitoring firm in existence just beating out the Sports Monitor in Oklahoma City.