Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="lynx000, post: 3091564, member: 2065"] I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse or you genuinely do not get it. It is not what value I put on anything or what I consider in a contest between the well-being of my family etc. From the perspective of Haas' employer and the governing body of the sport he plays to earn his substantial income, they view a failure to participate in an ongoing investigation by the integrity unit as a very serious matter. Haas made a personal choice of putting his family above his obligations to his employer and the governing body. A fair percentage of people will say that was a correct decision, others will disagree, but it warranted punishment. Now Fifita, if he was to now refuse to assist the Integrity Unit fully in their investigation of his incident, it would be a like for like case warranting similar punishment. A 19 year old, getting on the piss and making a stupid split second decision in the nature of a prank in my view of a spectrum of offences falls short of the actions of Haas and also falls short of the conduct of NAS three weeks earlier. Hence, a lesser penalty is justified. It is not his cooperation with the integrity unit that gets him a lesser penalty, it is the nature of his offence. Or do you believe that if you get done for shoplifting that warrants the imposition of the same penalty as for assault occasioning grievous bodily harm? Does that make my position clear for you? [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 33 (members: 0, guests: 33)