Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
This is the frustrating part for me. Ignorance is forgivable (but still punishable), but lazyness is not when the stakes are so high. Feaster said in an interview he was aware of the rule, but just had a different interpretation of it - you would think if there was any room, even the slightest, for confusion, you would do your due dilligence and clearify this in written form? In any other industry in the world, you document the hell out of things like this to cover your ass.... how could a trained lawyer, of all professions, fail to do this?...
|
I agree, and already stated as much in an earlier post. My point here was merely to show that this was not just a straightforward misinterpretation of a CBA rule. It was an understanding of a rule that was in place but ambiguously worded in such a way that appeared in a document that had been drafted and signed virtually weeks earlier. A document that was still in the process of being finalised.
My point was to show that there were other parties who also seemed to share Feaster's understanding of the situation that resulted from the confusion at the time. This doesn't excuse what Feaster did, but it does set his actions in a broader context in which he was not entirely alone in his thinking. He's the one who got caught with his pants down, but we are certain there was at least one or two other teams who were right there with him, and several more for all we know.