- Reaction score
- 3,333
- Points
- 1,260
Well, if that specific coach isn't allowed to coach for a year, makes sense.Reads to me like the funding is tied to the specific individuals. So get new staff I guess?
Well, if that specific coach isn't allowed to coach for a year, makes sense.Reads to me like the funding is tied to the specific individuals. So get new staff I guess?
No reason the government should pay for someone who’s suspended and cannot do the job the government provided funding for.Well, if that specific coach isn't allowed to coach for a year, makes sense.
It's a platoon, and any tactical advantages gained by the platoon commander or 2I/C violating a law or custom of war advantages the platoon as a whole. It's a business, and any competitive advantage gained by the executives violating competition law advantages the employees as a whole.It’s a team sport, and any uncompetitive advantages gained by the team’s staff cheating advantages the team as a whole. A meaningful deterrent has to therefore remove the incentive of greater team success, and that can only be done by a punishment that harm’s the overall team’s standings- pour encourages les autres. Nothing unusual or inappropriate about this in a team sports context, and the integrity of the sport demands nothing less.
Sucks that it’s our crew this time round, but it is what it is.
It’s competitive sport. Your analogy is garbage and you know it.It's a platoon, and any tactical advantages gained by the platoon commander or 2I/C violating a law or custom of war advantages the platoon as a whole. It's a business, and any competitive advantage gained by the executives violating competition law advantages the employees as a whole.
Not buying it.
Glass 1/2 full me: nothing to see here, a coach should be able to drone their own team while training to get a better big picture when needed.Makes sense now....View attachment 86914
Good counter-argument.It’s competitive sport. Your analogy is garbage and you know it.
Good counter-argument.
Either the principle of eschewing collective punishment means people not responsible don't suffer strong direct consequences, or it doesn't. The venue shouldn't matter.
A company can pay an anti-competitive fine or settlement and that will impact owners/shareholders and employees at the margins, but they don't have to wait four years for another opportunity.
It isn’t collective punishment. It is collective consequences.Good counter-argument.
Either the principle of eschewing collective punishment means people not responsible don't suffer strong direct consequences, or it doesn't. The venue shouldn't matter.
A company can pay an anti-competitive fine or settlement and that will impact owners/shareholders and employees at the margins, but they don't have to wait four years for another opportunity.