[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]

1. He had a single extra PokerStars account which he rarely used.

2. His big tournament win on PokerStars was legitimate (we checked it carefully). The amount of money that we ascribed to illicit play was relatively small (less than $5K), and we confiscated that entire amount. We permitted him to cash out the balance over that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that largely sidesteps the point. It simply doesn't matter if his BIG WIN was legitimate, because ALL of his wins are equally tainted by his behavior, regardless of whether it influenced the one BIGGEST win or not. We all appreciate you entering this thread, Lee, but implying that his one big score should stand unaffected because he only had one entry in THAT tournament is a poor interpretation of the long-term effects of cheating/probability/running good/bad.
Imagine I'm a ring game player whose cheating M.O. is to have two of my aliases sit at one table so I know all 4 of their downcards, and play accordingly. Assume further that sometimes, I sit one of my 2 screenames out, so that I am only playing one account just like everyone else. Let's say that I happen to run VERY well when I'm only playing one hand and sitting out my other screename (let's say I win $20,000), but I run only mediocre when I AM playing 2 sets of down-cards at the table and I win only $4,000. Using the same logic you employed in concluding that ZJ's big score was "legitimate" would lead you to conclude in my above example that ONLY $4,000 was ill-gotten. I've got to disagree with you. The amount that was ill-gotten was $24,000. A cheater shouldn't be able to get a "windfall" simply because one of the times he was actually playing legitimately he ran particularly well. The cheating pervades ALL of his play, just like in my example above, the cheating taints EVERY hand at the table, not just the ones where the cheater got to see 2 sets of down-cards.
If you subscribe to the belief that our poker EV is ALL ONE BIG GAME, and that any distinctions we make between days or sessions is just a fictitious one, then you've got to conclude that ZJ's big win on Stars was ILLEGITIMATE, even while he may have only had one horse in THAT tourney.