Does the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to question defense counsel's allusions to the possibility that others had a motive to commit the crimes against Treto?

Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding questioning, regarding Treto's participation in a pool tournament several days earlier, designed to suggest that others had a motive to commit the offenses against Treto. "[E]vidence of the culpability of a third party offered by a defendant to demonstrate that a reasonable doubt exists concerning his or her guilt, must link the third person either directly or circumstantially to the actual perpetration of the crime. In assessing an offer of proof relating to such evidence, the court must decide whether the evidence could raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt and whether it is substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. [Citations.]" (People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1325, 65 Cal. Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259; see People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 501, 41 Cal. Rptr.2d 826, 896 P.2d 119.) Defense counsel's allusions to the possibility that, as a result of Treto's earlier participation in high-stakes pool tournaments, unnamed individuals might have committed these offenses, is inadequate to meet that standard.