Art, you must have missed one of the very first messages
posted in this thread.
At first blush, your question sounds reasonable. Passing up a chance like the one that Herb could not resist is not the same as intentionally throwing a match, but it could cost an investor just as much.
When examined more closely, however, its fallacy becomes obvious. When you swap equity with a player, back him in a side pool, pay a portion of his entry fee, or purchase him in a calcutta, you are buying an outcome. Your are betting that the judgements he makes in checker play, cube actions, and even in issues of ethics will yield a good return.
Your investment does not give you the right to dictate a decision made regarding rules any more than it does a checker play.
In this specific case, the rules leave it to the judgement of the player whether to let an illegal move stand or not. That decision belongs wholly to the player, not his backers.