I think you are significantly overstating the extraordinariness of these claims. People are entitled to their own priors, I suppose, but if someone asked &quot;What is the probability that there is at least one player that has taken money to lose a match in Tennis&quot; if you answered something less than 1% you are probably being far too trusting. It doesn&#x27;t take that much evidence to turn 1% probability to 80% probability. I also don&#x27;t understand why you&#x27;re focusing on the 4.7% player. You have to set the cutoff somewhere, and it&#x27;s not like they specifically named Michael Russell. The accusations in this case do not have much magnitude. People are accused of cheating all the time, and the evidence in this case is as strong as in other cases.<p>Edit: On further thought, you are probably saying that the people who published this Medium post are being irresponsible publishing the names. That&#x27;s a little different than I was thinking, and more reasonable I think. That said, I don&#x27;t think Michael Russell is in much risk here professionally, unless this statistical analysis is much more iron-clad than I expect it to be.