Have you ever seen anything like this? I mean the Players Union explicitly calling the referees liars
They should have been appreciative he only got 3 games. Instead, they send an ill advised statement. Blaming stadium security for a goon walking in is lame. Obviously, no specifics as to what the "falsehoods" are, because we'll never see the videotape. They are not denying he entered the referee locker room and blame the victims.
Now if only either side would put their money where their mouth is and show their supposed evidence instead of alluding to it during their online pissing contest.
I know that the statement is from the players union and that they are going to back their members, but to me that reads like: 1. The officials lied and made it all up and 2. Actually it was stadium security’s fault because they didn’t stop him from going where he knew he shouldn’t go and doing what he knew he shouldn’t be doing.
As hyperbolic as this is (and it is inflammatory), you'd think the players union would have at least one lawyer sign off on their public statements ?
Nope. The only thing that came to mind was the Clattenburg-Mikel row, but that was very specific about a person-to-person interaction. More holistically insofar as sports go, this entire affair now at least makes me think about the infamous 1988 NHL playoff issue. Devils' coach was suspended from a critical game for verbally assaulting the referee ("you fat pig..." lore) but the team got a court injunction to let him coach. Referees refused to take the ice and the NHL had to use amateurs. This is different, because the league upheld the suspension. But it's starting to have some similar vibes given the stakes and that it was about post-match interactions with officials.
Wait, hold on. The league disciplinary committee ruled, the commissioner accepted the ruling and an appeal was denied. The evidence was considered by neutral (at worst!) bodies during those three quasi-legal processes. You're suggesting what, exactly? That the PSRA now release video that it doesn't own?
No. Not at all. The players union are the ones trying to stir the pot by mentioning it. But conveniently the video will never see the light of day. So the statement now just throws suspicion on the whole thing and makes the refs to be the bad guys. (As if that’s new). But if there is video I don’t really see a problem of putting it out there.
There is nothing that the referees do that can come close to this because it would violate the CBA? That type of nuclear option is off the table and it's not like the league is letting Miazaga play. On another note, it was highly unlikely that Rivas would ever referee Cincinnati/Miazaga ever again (at least until Miazaga was still on Cincinnati). Now it's essentially impossible.
Okay, that's fine. But it's MLS' responsibility or option to release, not PSRA's. So just with you saying that it was an "either side" issue, wanted to get clarity there.
I mean the worst part of the statement was essentially blaming stadium security for this. I know it's a horrible analogy but it would be like a person being accused of rape saying "its her fault she was wearing a short skirt." Just embarrassing. MLS is such a joke sometimes.
Alex Kemp is on the 49ers/Eagles game, I would say he’s in a worse position. The entire country except Ohio, LA, and Tampa Bay will be watching. At least 30 million viewers There’s only one man to call in a situation like this. A man who is currently a free agent.
“Your Honor, my client is innocent of DUI. The eyewitness said my client was drinking Budweiser. He was actually drinking a Jack and Coke.”
Semantics in that it would be libel since it is written and not spoken, but it was my first thought when reading it as well. What a world it would be if PSRA files suit against MLSPA.
I've been snarky at best and an outright smarta** at worst with some of my comments. However, in all seriousness, the MLSPA is essentially trying to plant doubt in the mind of the court of public opinion by attacking two inconsequential items. In the grand scheme of things they are so irrelevant. Doubt on whether Miazga was eating a pizza or a burger and fries. Doubt on exactly who removed Miazga from the referees' area. I get it - defense attorneys (and I'm sure there is legal representation advising MLSPA on this) are hammering on these to plant doubt in the mind of the court of public opinion. But man, if this is what MLSPA is basing their defense on, it's pretty weak sauce. My joke about "Budweiser vs Jack and Coke" highlights how absurd their defense really is. I have attorneys in my family. One of them does litigate. She has said that when you know your case isn't good, you take any inconsistency - no matter how small or inconsequential - and hammer on it to get the jury to think "wait, if they might have got that wrong, what else might have they got wrong?" But the big picture remains the same. Two independent witnesses - the security guard and the reporter - have very consistent accounts of Miazga's behavior and what it took to remove him from the area. If PSRA really is defaming Miazga, it's an all-time collusion job to get a reporter, two security guards (including the newer security guard who is indirectly referenced in the match report), and the officials to all come to the same story. And to do all of that in the bowels of Red Bull Arena with a bunch of other people milling around is quite a feat. I was an internal auditor in a previous life, and we couldn't even assume that TWO people would collude when assessing internal control. Now you're talking about seven people at a minimum, and possibly more if you include any sort of referee liaison, colluding. That's some real Ocean's 11 stuff right there.
To be fair, I never know which one is slander and which one is libel, so I punt and just use “defamation” for everything. Part of having a brother and a sister in law who are attorneys. I always mix those things up.
Ladies and gentleman, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: "What does this have to do with this case?" Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major sporting league, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does itmake sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.