[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh please ......, Jesus, your sense of "doing what is right" and "admirable" is kind of off man

I'm still waiting Daniel, Greg, Paul, or you to present where Harrahs promised that no players would be included in the freeroll; it's easy to prove your point, just present the terms and conditions of the Circuit tournaments and point out the lie by Harrahs. I'm not saying I agree with Harrahs move, but I'm not sure if I agree with the lying and stealing part. In a nation use to be mislead in much more important matters, it's kind of funny to see the outrage caused by the misleading in this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's really no question that Harrah's has gone back on its word. However, that does not mean that they've violated a contract.

The original PR Materials released clearly set up the "qualifier" system as an improved alternative to the 2004 system.
[ QUOTE ]

The 2004 Tournament of Champions — a winner-take-all, invitation-only tournament — was established by Harrah’s to determine the world’s best poker player. Participants in the 2004 World Series of Poker were asked to name the top no-limit Texas Hold ‘Em players in the world. The top 10 vote-getters qualified for the Tournament of Champions.

The 2005 version of the Tournament of Champions will be held November 6-8 at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, and will match the top 20 point earners from each Circuit Tournament, as well as the final table from Event 42 of the 2005 World Series of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Subsequent releases described players as "eligible to participate:"
[ QUOTE ]

Among those eligible to participate in the TOC are top-ranked professional players such as Phil Ivey, Howard Lederer, Antonio Esfandiari, Jennifer Harman, T.J. Cloutier, Chris Ferguson, Robert Williamson, Russ Hamilton, Yosh Nakano, Michael Mizrachi, Tony Le, Eric Cloutier, and Mimi Tran.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's quite clear what's gone on.

At the same time, I'm 1,000% sure that the agreement included a generic, "Harrah's reserves the right to make rules changes..." clause, which gives the itthe right to do whatever they want. I'm certainly not suggest that Harrah's committed fraud in a legal sense, but they certainly went back on their word, and in so doing, took value from the qualifiers. I think that's wrong.

Should 2+2ers get so exercised about greater wrongs in other spheres? Perhaps, but that's an entirely different question.