What I'm saying is, professional sports leagues in the United States have the ability to decide who can or cannot work for them. Baseball's lifetime ban of Pete Rose is a good example. When you sign a contract and start collecting paychecks from the NBA, you agree to certain rules. I don't know the specifics behind the NBA's CBA, but I can gaurantee you that the NBA holds the right to suspend or dismiss you completely from all forms of NBA sanctioned competition if they deem that your behavior is worthy of such action.
Once they've made that decision, you no longer "meet all objective standards to play", and the rest of the considerations are moot. > > So Artest doesn't get to play even though: > > A) There are teams that want him > B) He meets all objective standards to play > C) He has the talent to play > D) He didn't violate any rule in the collective barganing agreement? > > Either you are suggesting that the CBA be changed to include such > unacceptable behavior or you are suggesting that Artest be judged > against a different, and more subjective, set of rules. If you are > suggesting the first, then one can't say he doesn't deserve or has no > business being in the NBA. Because according to the rules as they are > set now, he has as a legitimate reason to be there. > > Personally, I like to see him gone because a) I do think that the NBA > maybe too much pressure for a man of his intensity b) he isn't the best > role model for kids and c) the Pacers are an Atlantic Division foe. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:137489 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
