RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Odyssey Sims Arrested
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 11:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No, that is not what I said at all.

She obviously intended to drive drunk. That is why she would have been morally culpable of any harm that came to anyone from her actions whether she intended harm or not. It is also why I have been unequivocal that driving drunk is a very serious thing and should be treated as such.

But we need to differentiate between intending to drive drunk which is a severely reckless act capable of causing harm to others, and intending to directly cause harm to others. Both are moral failings, so let me repeat one last time: to say that one is worse does not minimize the lesser of the two in any way (killing 100 people is worse than killing 1, but arguing the truth of that is not saying that killing 1 is not a big deal in and of itself). With that said, moral philosophers from time immemorial have held that people choosing to do something reckless is less of a moral failing than chosing to do direct harm.

I can give another example:
If I have my son in a car with me and I decide to go 80mph in a 55 zone, I have increased the chances of harm coming to him dramatically. This is a moral failing on my part. I have put him at risk needlessly. But I do not intend my son harm.

If I deliberately punch my son in the face, I have intentionally chosen to cause direct harm to my child. This is also a moral failing.

Seeing as that the second one would typically get someone called a "monster" in today's society, which is the greater wrong?



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 13671
Location: Los Angeles


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/07/19 11:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
GEF34 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
justintyme wrote:
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.

Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all?


The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable.

I am speaking of the league and the WNBA brand.


The league could have suspended her earlier. She signed nine days before the season started, eleven days before the Sparks opener. That's more than enough time to make such a decision. The league would also show their hypocrisy if the suddenly decided months later that this was unacceptable.

Or they could just admit they screwed up big time by not, and are correcting their error. Preferably along with introducing a policy change that would prevent them from doing it again. Just like the NFL did when they screwed the pooch on domestic violence issues so they introduced the commissioner's exempt list. Making poor decisions in the past does not mean people must continually make those same poor decisions ad infinitum or else they are a hypocrite. Course corrections are legitimate, sound decisions.


I have no idea how this works, but if the league were to suspend her now or anytime before her court case is completed, could she have cause for legal action against the league for suspending her for something she didn’t before she signed and for knowing what she did and approving her signing without saying she will be punished in anyway. Because had she known about a punishment her decision to sign or what she signed may have been different.

It depends on the CBA. Typically they are vague enough to allow punishment at the discretion of the leagues for cause. It could be potentially challenged in court, but employees tend to not win those sorts of suits.

But if you go back to what the league has said in their statements they keep saying "we are investigating the matter", all it really would take is for the league to say is "we've now concluded our investigation, and this is what we've determined the punishment to be..." and anything about her being allowed to sign would be chalked up to them not having enough info yet to come to a determination.

But, also, it doesn't even need to be that complicated. As long as you suspend her with pay it's not actually even considered a "punishment", thus doesn't run afoul of any other issue. It's why businesses use the "suspended pending review" for any touchy subject all the time.


So the league wouldn’t have to prove the found any new information, they can just go based off the information they already have and issue a punishment? I don’t know if there is new information, but people here are saying she should be punished based on what is already known. I have no knowledge of the situation, but from and outsider perspective, it seems like it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen if they have signed her without any consequences and have no new information and they suspend her with or without pay.

Also on a separate note, why are people so quick to ruin a persons life without any knowledge of what actually happened, without a verdict of guilt or hearing anything from the courts. As have been seen often people are wrongly convicted, and have false charges issued against them, not saying that is what happened in this case, but it is possible that is the case, and even if she is found non guilty people will still say and think she is guilty and she will have the follow her around, so unless she is found guilty I don’t see the need to issue any type of punishment right now. And maybe ruining a persons life is an exaggeration, but calling for firing and suspension is a bit extreme when there is a possibility she is completely innocent of the charges.



_________________
DeLisha Milton-Jones is my favorite player Smile

Win or Lose LA Sparks Fan for life!!!
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/08/19 1:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No one is calling for punishment without a finding of wrongdoing through whatever means of due process the league uses (whether that be their own investigation, or the criminal courts). What people are calling for is for a suspension (with pay, thus not punishment) while the due process is playing out.

Williams has been charged with a class one felony (burglary with assault or battery) and a class 3 felony (aggravated assault) and it involves someone she had been in a relationship with. To put that in perspective, MLB suspended Herrera the moment he was arrested and charged, and he was only charged with simple assault, a misdemeanor.

Any punishment issued by the league would come at the end of their investigation--which almost certainly would await the conclusion of her legal proceedings.

Once again, Herrera's case is a good example. MLB suspended him with pay the moment he was arrested and charged. Then they began conducting their own investigation into the matter. Just recently the charges against him were dropped by the prosecutor when his girlfriend refused to continue to cooperate and refused to be willing to testify. MLB then announced that they have found him in violation of their domestic violence policy and suspended him for 85 games without pay.

There is no reason the WNBA couldn't do the exact same thing. They have a conduct clause in their CBA that allows punishment for poor conduct, and she would have a heck of a hard time proving that this doesn't qualify. And since suspensions with pay are not considered punishment, there is no recourse if the league stepped in and sat her.

As for the "ruin someone's life", I think it is essential to make sure the state proves someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before their liberty is taken away. I think that burden drops significantly lower when we are no longer talking about liberty. For instance, if we are talking about punishment from an employer, a civil court burden of "more likely than not" is more than fair. And if we are talking about simply sitting with pay then the mere fact that you are arrested and charged with a serious crime is enough. Because while we don't want to "ruin people's lives" a sports league like the WNBA also has a responsibility to society, to their fans, and to their brand. And part of that responsibility is that there are certain things that have to take precedence to playing the game.

For instance, would we be okay with her playing if she were on trial for murder? For rape? If not, then there is obviously a line somewhere, and it is just a matter of where we feel it needs to be drawn. For me, because of my personal advocacy and volunteer work, intimate partner violence is one of those absolutes. If you are arrested for it, you should be suspended with pay until due process is able to be fulfilled. At which time hopefully enough of the facts are known to be able to make a fair decision on punishment.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
mavcarter



Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 4861
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 12:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

And Odyssey Sims is still playing ball.. *whistles*



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 12:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:
And Odyssey Sims is still playing ball.. *whistles*

Agreed. She should also be suspended. It is sad that they have not taken care of this. The league needs to step up and determine their punishment.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59105
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 1:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
And Odyssey Sims is still playing ball.. *whistles*

Agreed. She should also be suspended. It is sad that they have not taken care of this. The league needs to step up and determine their punishment.


They are most likely waiting for the new commissioner to take office so they can dump it in her lap.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 25159



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 1:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I really don't see why we, Justin, or anybody else should be prosecutor, judge, and jury until the real prosecutor, judge, and jury get the case. It's still innocent until proven guilty last time I looked.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14738
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 2:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
I really don't see why we, Justin, or anybody else should be prosecutor, judge, and jury until the real prosecutor, judge, and jury get the case. It's still innocent until proven guilty last time I looked.


Then I wonder why Ray Rice isn't playing football.

Technically, Aaron Hernandez died not guilty of murder.


lethalweapon3



Joined: 17 May 2018
Posts: 206
Location: ATL ITP, GA


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 2:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's almost as if the league prefers to wait until at least July 17 for someone to (literally) take charge in the front office.

Over at WNBAHQ, I imagine a freshly-vacuumed office and a clean desk, except for a VERY loaded "inbox."

~lw3


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 3:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
I really don't see why we, Justin, or anybody else should be prosecutor, judge, and jury until the real prosecutor, judge, and jury get the case. It's still innocent until proven guilty last time I looked.

Because the criminal justice system is only meant to adjudicate guilt of criminal offenses (ie: something someone could potentially lose their liberty for). There are specific standards that must be met by the prosecution, and a finding of "not-guilty" does not mean "innocent" or "did not do it", it means the "state did not meet its burden to prove that the person did". It is not the be-all-end-all of determining whether or not something actually happened. There are other venues with different burdens and different rules that are also deterministic (civil courts, league investigations, employer investigations, title IX hearings, etc).

This is why OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" of murder, but was found in civil court to have been responsible for the killings. Thus, not innocent. It is also why MLB suspended Herrera after his charges were dropped. The state determined they couldn't prove that he did it in a court of law "beyond a reasonable doubt", but MLB looking at the same facts and able to use evidence that would be inadmissible at trial determined that he had committed the offense and that it broke the CBA. Thus not "innocent" under the CBA.

So, in the case of Sims, is she fighting the charges? Does she deny it? According to her statement, it doesn't sound like she does. In which case it is easy for the league to determine that she violated the CBA without needing additional evidence that would be presented at a trial .That means they could easily conclude their investigation of a CBA violation and issue a punitive suspension.

If she was fighting it, then they have the option of a non-punitive suspension (in other words: with pay) until the case is resolved or they feel they have all the relevant facts to make a determination in their own CBA investigation.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 51765



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 3:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
I really don't see why we, Justin, or anybody else should be prosecutor, judge, and jury until the real prosecutor, judge, and jury get the case. It's still innocent until proven guilty last time I looked.


Not sure what needs to be tried here, unless you think Sims was set up and the sobriety tests were improperly administered. She’s already publicly stated she did wrong, although her “apology” came off more as sorry she got caught rather than being sorry for what great potential harm she could have caused. “I’ll get through this.”

You don’t need to be found guilty of a crime to be punished by your place of employment, especially in cases where you’re a public figure who represents your employer and are part of their image. Even not considering the criminal case, don’t you think being found extremely drunk just 18 hours before a game is irresponsible enough towards the team to warrant a suspension?

I really thought they were going to suspend Sims starting the first game after the news broke out. But then the timing of Dantas’ injury and then Christmas’ surgery makes it look like they’re putting off suspension until Augustus is cleared to play. If so, then they’re missing the point of suspension. Suspension is supposed to hurt the team. It’s supposed to emphasize the consequences of Sims’ irresponsible actions. It’s not supposed to be done when it’s convenient for Sims or the team. So it appears to me, unless they have an explanation otherwise, that the Lynx are putting winning ahead of doing what’s right on their own.

To me it sounds like Sims may have a drinking problem. Extremely drunk 18 hours before a game? If that’s the case they should be getting her whatever help she needs right now. Make this process transparent and public. This is how you help others from making the same mistakes. Make PSA’s against drinking and driving a part of her community service. This would make me proud of the team, even if they lose as a result. The way they’ve handled this situation is disappointing to me. It’s kind of a sweep it under the rug mentality that’s common among sports teams that lack integrity. The Lynx were supposed to be better than that. They weren’t supposed to be one of those teams.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned


Last edited by Shades on 07/11/19 3:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 2818
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 3:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

How many times do we need to say: innocent until proven guilty is the right standard for a CRIMINAL charge. But Sims, other athletes, and many of us on our jobs face various possible penalties without criminal trials and criminal penalties. All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59105
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 3:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bob Lamm wrote:
All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


Why not?



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 2818
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 4:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


Why not?


We could start with suspensions on this board. Should we have attorneys and public trials? Sure would be fascinating when 90% of people here, including the moderators, don't use their full, real names.


NYSports56



Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 574
Location: New Jersey, USA


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 4:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
To me it sounds like Sims may have a drinking problem. Extremely drunk 18 hours before a game?


I'm wondering at this. How early do players have to wake up the day of a game?

I am a former heavy drinker: never had a problem, never caused problems for others. Now, I barely drink: my last drink was a single shot over three weeks ago.

Isn't 18 hours enough to get alcohol out of your system? I have no factual knowledge on this subject. Personally, as long as I had enough time to get as much sleep as I wanted, the next day I awoke hangover-free and feeling as alert and energetic as I would have felt had I not been drinking (with like maybe 2 or 3 exceptions where I totally poisoned my body).

Of course, I am not a professional athlete, and the physical demands they face are far greater than mine. But the best game of tackle football I ever played in my life was only 12 hours after a night of heavy drinking. My brother and friend, who joined me in the previous night's debauchery, were also playing. In a 7 on 7 game, the three of us completely shut down our side of the field on defense. We had never played together in such a format, but awareness, teamwork, and physical execution were so good that it is almost my favorite sports memory from a personal standpoint. It wasn't the alcohol that made us play so well. But I have a hard time believing we were all that much impaired, if at all.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 4:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


Why not?

Your neighbor is arrested and charged with sexually abusing his child. There is significant evidence to suggest this happened, but the lynchpin is the child's testimony. The child is terrified, and can't do it, charges are dropped.

Because he must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, I must allow my child to play over at his house, right? I have to use the same standards as a criminal trial to judge this man and to treat him differently would therefore be unjust.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Bob Lamm



Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 2818
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 6:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


Why not?

Your neighbor is arrested and charged with sexually abusing his child. There is significant evidence to suggest this happened, but the lynchpin is the child's testimony. The child is terrified, and can't do it, charges are dropped.

Because he must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, I must allow my child to play over at his house, right? I have to use the same standards as a criminal trial to judge this man and to treat him differently would therefore be unjust.


Excellent example. There are at least 10,000 others.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 25159



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 6:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Bob Lamm wrote:
justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


Why not?

Your neighbor is arrested and charged with sexually abusing his child. There is significant evidence to suggest this happened, but the lynchpin is the child's testimony. The child is terrified, and can't do it, charges are dropped.

Because he must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, I must allow my child to play over at his house, right? I have to use the same standards as a criminal trial to judge this man and to treat him differently would therefore be unjust.


Excellent example. There are at least 10,000 others.


It's actually absurd. You never have to let your child play anywhere you don't want him/her to play. You can keep your child away from the home of a Black, hispanic, jew, catholic, muslim, lbgt, felon, non-felon, pot-smoker - whoever you want to keep your child away from. The child in this example is probably removed from the home by child services anyway. I just personally find it offensive to assume guilt because someone accuses you of something. I know a young man accused of sexual assault by a young woman and it took many months before finally the woman said she made it up because he pissed her off about something. It has totally affected him to where he is afraid to date or be anywhere around someone where it could happen again, and he was shunned by many 'friends' during the process. Assuming guilt based on someone's accusations may make you feel like you're doing justice but to me, it's simply jumping to conclusions.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
NYSports56



Joined: 03 Jul 2018
Posts: 574
Location: New Jersey, USA


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 7:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
Bob Lamm wrote:
All of life isn't conducted with the same standards as a criminal trial. And shouldn't be.


Why not?

Your neighbor is arrested and charged with sexually abusing his child. There is significant evidence to suggest this happened, but the lynchpin is the child's testimony. The child is terrified, and can't do it, charges are dropped.

Because he must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, I must allow my child to play over at his house, right? I have to use the same standards as a criminal trial to judge this man and to treat him differently would therefore be unjust.


Excellent example. There are at least 10,000 others.


It's actually absurd. You never have to let your child play anywhere you don't want him/her to play. You can keep your child away from the home of a Black, hispanic, jew, catholic, muslim, lbgt, felon, non-felon, pot-smoker - whoever you want to keep your child away from. The child in this example is probably removed from the home by child services anyway. I just personally find it offensive to assume guilt because someone accuses you of something. I know a young man accused of sexual assault by a young woman and it took many months before finally the woman said she made it up because he pissed her off about something. It has totally affected him to where he is afraid to date or be anywhere around someone where it could happen again, and he was shunned by many 'friends' during the process. Assuming guilt based on someone's accusations may make you feel like you're doing justice but to me, it's simply jumping to conclusions.


First of all, people who bear false witness like this are beyond contempt, exactly for the reasons you mentioned--a false accusation like that ruins lives. I wish there were penalties equal to the crime accused for that, but the reality is that rape victims would be even more hesitant to come forth than they are now (although being punished for admitting that you lied like in this intance probably should be enough to get you locked up, because I can't see an instance like that discouraging anyone). False accusations like this do everyone who is genuinely a victim a cruel and selfish disservice.

That said, is it fair to say that keeping your child away from an accused child molester is an acceptable solution, while at the same time lamenting the fate of someone who was shunned because of an accusation of rape? Aren't those two examples close enough to being the same thing?

This is such a tricky subject, for all the reasons everyone is bringing up.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 8:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The point in my example is that depending on the consequences, there are different burdens of proof morally required of us. There is very little burden of proof required for a parent to choose to keep their child away from a potential source of danger, and to be considered morally justified in doing so (a parent can keep their child away from whomever they want, as you have noted, even for racist reasons--but you are going to be hard pressed to convince people it is morally justified to do so, it just makes them a racist). It would be a harsh world in which we told a parent that they were only morally justified in treating someone as having done something if they were convicted in a court of law for it.

There is a huge gap between the burdens of proof for even civil court and criminal court. Because depriving someone of their liberty is something that should never be done lightly, the burden of proof is intentionally extreme and is slanted in favor of the defendant significantly. In civil cases, they are much more interested in fair and equitable treatment between two parties, so the burden of proof typically becomes "more likely than not", or the "preponderance of the evidence", and the verdicts typically no longer need to be unanimous. So why should we as a society be forced to blind adherence to a unanimous 12 person "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard or else innocent, when our own courts accept the nuance that as long as we don't plan on locking someone in a cage or somehow else depriving them of liberty, we can weigh evidence and dole out punishment based upon what a majority feels the evidence says is likely to have happened?

People should not be punished without due process. It's just that due process is not the criminal justice system, unless we are the state looking to punish for a crime. Here the WNBA should look at all the evidence, and determine what is most likely to have occurred. If it is more likely than not that she did it, you punish her for the violation of your CBA.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5622
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 10:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
People should not be punished without due process. It's just that due process is not the criminal justice system, unless we are the state looking to punish for a crime. Here the WNBA should look at all the evidence, and determine what is most likely to have occurred. If it is more likely than not that she did it, you punish her for the violation of your CBA.


You're the energizer bunny on this subject, JIT, but you oversimplify.

Of course, employers can discipline employees separate and apart from the legal system. But there are different types of employer-employee relationships, and the question of whether an employer should invoke discipline is almost always a prudential question not a moral one.

Most employees are "at will" employees. They have no employment contract. The employer can fire them, suspend them, lower their pay, take away their pay, all for any reason they want, or no reason. A commonsensical employer would not do any of these things, however, unless there was a compelling, prudential business reason for doing so.

Another big class of employees are unionized and have collectively bargained contracts. That includes all the sports figures we're talking about. Unionized employers cannot fire or discipline their employees unless that discipline is allowed for in the contract. (Those who think unionized teachers are easily disciplined are naive.) Therefore, the WNBA has only such disciplinary authority over players as is allowed by the CBA, which is very little, not a lot as you seem to assume. The CBA only has a boilerplate morals, prejudice and follow-the-law clause, which is very weak tea -- unlike the very specific drug or domestic violence clauses that are spelled out in great detail in other sport contracts.

You admit that players are owed some sort of "due process" even in your employer-as-separate-justice-system view. You say the WNBA should "look at all the evidence, and determine what is most likely to have occurred". You fail to note that the WNBA:

- does not have a detective force
- has no way to compel testimony or obtain documents
- is not entitled to the police's evidence
- has no authority to conduct searches or seizures or wiretaps
- has no authority to cross examine the police officers or test the breathalyzer
- has no mandatory exclusionary rules or other rules of evidence
- has no obligation to provide the player a right to counsel

How could the WNBA's total lack of criminal investigative manpower and authority provide any sort of "due process" to the player or result in "factual findings" beyond any proof standard whatsoever? It can't. And if, despite this inability to find out the inculpatory and exculpatory facts, the WNBA tried to invoke discipline under a flimsy morals clause, they would likely be faced with a breach of contract suit by the player.

That's why a rational WNBA should, as a matter of prudence, await the factual and legal judgment of the legal system before imposing discipline -- unless, as I've said several times already, the crime alleged is one that would make the player a clear danger to the workplace. Serial killer would qualify. One episode of drunk driving doesn't. If it did, a gigantic chunk of business sports executives, coaches, lawyers, judges, and school teachers all over the country would be suspended tomorrow.

Once the player is convicted or pleads guilty, the WNBA would have a clear contractual right under the CBA's follow-the-law clause to impose discipline. Only then would the WNBA "know" that the player has not followed the law.
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 13671
Location: Los Angeles


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 10:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Justintyme, I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion I don’t think people who are saying she should be suspend are for the suspension with pay, they want a suspension as a punishment, unless I am misunderstanding the tone of the people saying she should be suspended. And I think you know as well as I do if the league were to suspend her with pay and she is acquitted of all charges people will still say she is guilty and say she is a bad person and that she was suspended for assault and that negative stigma will follow her for the rest of her life. As for your question about other crimes, in my opinion the type of crime doesn’t matter I would feel the same way, unless it is a definitive conclusion that the person committed the crime I don’t think they should be placed in a situation to put their life on hold until the situation is resolved. And if we lived in a world where people don’t have preconceived notions and let people live their lives without judgment of what happened in the past I may feel differently. But in the current world we live in where a person is judged on the past and Sometimes on things that are not true and that is why I feel the way I do. Not a crime but a perfect example is in the thread about players being bad teammates someone said they were surprised Candace Parker has not been mentioned, despite no player ever saying she is a bad teammate and her teammates saying they love her, people still believe she is a bad teammate and are not afraid of hiding it. The way you describe the situation and how you think it should occur I would not have any issue with it, if it is legal to do (as I mentioned before about could her decision to sign be different if she was told or knew a suspension was possible and thus affecting her future decisions) and if people would use it to look negatively upon her if it turns out she is innocent.



_________________
DeLisha Milton-Jones is my favorite player Smile

Win or Lose LA Sparks Fan for life!!!
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7552
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/11/19 11:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

We've kind of combined the two cases here, and my belief on what should be done differs on each.

Sims: She has admitted fault in her statement. That is enough under the CBA to have a punitive suspension. Due process would have been served as she is not contesting the DUI (she may be contesting some of the facts in the case, or may be seeking a reduced legal charge, I don't know as far as that goes, but nothing that would prevent the league from reasonably concluding she violated the CBA).

Williams: I actually agree with Glenn that the league should wait until the trial has been completed to issue any punitive suspension, as that will give them the most access to the facts and will best ensure due process. That is why they should use a non-punitive suspension while the trial is ongoing, allowing her to be paid, but not have the problematic situation of a player charged with very serious crimes representing their brand and running counter to their established mission statements. Other leagues have used the non-punititve suspension to great success in giving them time to allow the due process to play out and eventually make the most informed decision they can on any potential CBA violations and on penalties if so warranted.

And yeah, I am the Energizer Bunny when it comes to this. Wink

I give what time I can as a volunteer and advocate for survivors of intimate partner violence/domestic abuse. I have worked for years with people who have had their lives shattered by this, doing whatever small part I can. It is not my profession, but it is something I am quite dedicated to.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
TAJ



Joined: 08 Jul 2019
Posts: 1



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/19 7:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
myrtle wrote:
I really don't see why we, Justin, or anybody else should be prosecutor, judge, and jury until the real prosecutor, judge, and jury get the case. It's still innocent until proven guilty last time I looked.


Then I wonder why Ray Rice isn't playing football.

Technically, Aaron Hernandez died not guilty of murder.


Technically, Hernandez was found guilty of murder the 1st time around and not guilty for the 2nd trial. He committed suicide and the conviction was overturned....



_________________
Until Next time Theresa
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 1256



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/12/19 9:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Personally, I think it would be better for all concerned if the policy for DWI/DUI provided for immediate suspension and referral for a rehab evaluation. Likewise, rehab should be covered under the league's health insurance. Letting Sims and her attorney drag this out and deferring treatment for a drinking problem isn't in her best interest either.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin