# KATU says Woods pleads guilty to Animal Abuse 1



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

they say a plea deal has been reached....
link


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

He also lost his house to foreclosure. Man, someone needs to advise this guy how to take care of his money. I know he hasn't been paid this year, but what about savings. Anyway, good riddence. Animal abuse is disgusting and shows very poor character. If he blows up on another team and averages 20pt, I'll still applaud Patterson for suspending him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so how long till this is spun that he's not actually guilty, just there's enough proof to suggest he is, and he knows he's hosed.

I don't want to put the cart before the horse, but I wonder if all the talk about how the team had "no proof" is silly now.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

There is speculation that he'll plead guilty to a lesser charge. This makes a lot of sense. It let's him walk away "free", but would still allow the Blazers to void his contract.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

A misdemeanor allows a team to cancel a contract? I don't see how this is possibly the case. The Blazers might end up cutting Qyntel, but they'll be owing him a lot of money.

Hopefully the team can consider the matter closed and will activate him tomorrow. Then he can succeed or fail on the court, rather than in it.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

From KATU article...



> _Woods has been named a suspect in a case that includes allegations of dog fighting, which is a felony that carries a five-year prison sentence and up to $100,000 in fines.
> 
> A KATU News source says, as a part of the deal Woods will plead guilty to a lesser charge of Animal Abuse 1, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $6,200 fine.
> _



OK, Ed.. I know your the legal eagle and went to law school... let me ask you this to clarify it....


When is it a felony vs misdemeanor? And at what level are the Blazers allowed to void his contract?

Just curious.... maybe its not a line drawn in the sand...


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

My reading of the Oregon Animal Abuse statutes shows a few qualifiers that would elevate this lesser charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.

1. two prior convictions of similar offenses.

2. Abuse in the presence of a minor.

I wonder if the second applies in this case and might be a part of the deal?

I would expect that the Blazers have been a party to the negotiations in some way to make sure that they are protected from having to honor the contract of this person of poor moral character.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Dude got a misdemeanor:laugh: 

Ed is right, good luck voiding his contract for that!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

A misdemeanor is generally a crime that is punishable by a sentence no longer than a year. A felony allows for longer sentences.

Of course, criminal law is often a local matter, and states can deviate from that general rule.

In this case, Animal Abuse I is a Class A misdemeanor. You can find it here:

http://egov.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/docs/offlist2.pdf

Aggravated Animal Abuse 1 is listed under felonies, and Animal Abuse 1 is listed under misdemeanors.

ORS 167320 probably has more info. I gotta eat dinner now, though, so if someone else wants to quote the statute feel free 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>obiwankenobi</b>!
> I would expect that the Blazers have been a party to the negotiations in some way to make sure that they are protected from having to honor the contract of this person of poor moral character.


Why would Woods let the Blazers be a part of it, if they were not going to honor his contract? Maybe for a buyout.

Considering players simply don't (which doesn't mean *can't*; I don't know that for a fact) get their contracts voided over misdemeanors, I don't know why Woods would want a buyout unless they'd be essentially paying him in full.

With this all said, that Woods and his camp haven't called for a hearing of his suspension leads me to believe that the Blazers ARE involved in a significant way, and that:

1. They are going to put him back on the roster, or
2. They are going to buy him out and waive him immediately.

Either way, it's good for Woods, considering where he HAS been.

Ed O.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I hope the best for Woods, and hope he can screw the Blazers managment over. 

Maby that could get the sleeping Patternash team a pulse.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Ian on 1080 The Fan this afternoon, said he spoke with Patterson about this and Patterson said that with this, combined with Qyntel's previous issues, the team would be able to void his contract. Only time will tell.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> I hope the best for Woods, and hope he can screw the Blazers managment over.
> 
> Maby that could get the sleeping Patternash team a pulse.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Interesting. With J. Thomas on the roster, aren't we now at 15 players and Q on the suspended list?

My guess is that Q is gone. I don't think we'll let JT go.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Here's the relevant language in the standard player's contract regarding termination:

_16.TERMINATION.

(a) The Team may terminate this Contract upon written notice to the Player if the Player shall: 


*(i)at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here to mean not engaging in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts would constitute a crime), and good sportsmanship, to keep himself in first class physical condition, or to obey the Team’s training rules;* or 

(ii)at any time commit a significant and inexcusable physical attack against any official or employee of the Team or the NBA (other than another player), or any person in attendance at any NBA game or event, considering the totality of the circumstances, including (but not limited to) the degree of provocation (if any) that may have led to the attack, the nature and scope of the attack, the player’s state of mind at the time of the attack, and the extent of any injury resulting from the attack; or 

(iii)at any time, fail, in the sole opinion of the Team’s management, to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability to qualify to continue as a member of the Team; provided, however, (x) that if this Contract is terminated by the Team, in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph, prior to January 10 of any Regular Season, and the Player, at the time of such termination, is unfit to play skilled basketball as the result of an injury resulting directly from his playing for the Team, the Player shall (subject to the provisions set forth in Exhibit 3) continue to receive his full Compensation, less all workers’ compensation benefits (which, to the extent permitted by law, and if not deducted from the Player’s Compensation by the Team, the Player hereby assigns to the Team) and any insurance provided for by the Team paid or payable to the Player by reason of said injury, until such time as the Player is fit to play skilled basketball, but not beyond the Season during which such termination occurred; and provided, further,  that if this Contract is terminated by the Team, in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph, during the period from the January 10 of any Regular Season through the end of such Regular Season, the Player shall be entitled to receive his full Compensation for said Season; or 

(iv)at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this Contract. 
_ 


Sounds to me like it's likely that the Blazers can terminate Q's contract based on paragraph a(i). I guess we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think that animal abuse is an act of moral turpitude. Here's a list of crimes that are considered to be of moral turpitude:



> 1 murder;
> 2 voluntary manslaughter;
> 3 accessory after the fact to murder;
> 4 kidnapping;
> ...


That's a pretty big list, and there's no mention of animal neglect or abuse. Of course, the Blazers and the NBA aren't restricted to any such list, but by using legal terms of art they are probably going to be bound by them and not free to be too expansive in their definitions.

Listen: the NBA couldn't void Latrell Sprewell's contract following his attack on his coach. Is it sensible that the Blazers will be able to void Qyntel's contract over a misdemeanor involving animal abuse? I just can't see it.

There's an interesting recent article about the subject, albeit not about the NBA nor Woods specifically, here: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33084%7E2592021,00.html

Ed O.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> Here's the relevant language in the standard player's contract regarding termination:
> 
> _16.TERMINATION.
> ...



A skilled union rep could also bring up the point of other players on the team with a less than stellar record that are still playing and under contract.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Todd</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> A skilled union rep could also bring up the point of other players on the team with a less than stellar record that are still playing and under contract.


and they can just say "tough noogies. That was then, this is now. Kiss my butt, and show me how..Wait a second, why would I want you to show me how to kiss my butt? Anyways, we can get rid of players at our descretion. Get bent Players union rep..."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> and they can just say "tough noogies. That was then, this is now. Kiss my butt, and show me how..Wait a second, why would I want you to show me how to kiss my butt? Anyways, we can get rid of players at our descretion. Get bent Players union rep..."


One strong argument against your position is selective enforcement undermines the authority to act, Hap. It's pretty common for someone to be able to claim that the rule doesn't apply simply because it hasn't BEEN applied (either consistently or at all) in the past when it could have been.

Woods would have a pretty good position in this regard because:
-- the NBA has never (to my knowledge) been able to void a contract based on this clause... and it's possible they've never sought to do so, and
-- the Blazers have never been able to void a contract based on this clause.

The Blazers certainly can take a stand: they can waive him, and make a claim that he violated the terms of his contract. I'd bet dollars to donuts, though, that they'll simply end up paying him his salary when it's all said and done.

In the mean time, they'll have squandered him as an on-court asset.

The Blazers have bright people working for them, though, and it might all be worth it for PR purposes... 

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> One strong argument against your position is selective enforcement undermines the authority to act, Hap.


never said its what I think they should do, I just said its what they could say.



> It's pretty common for someone to be able to claim that the rule doesn't apply simply because it hasn't BEEN applied (either consistently or at all) in the past when it could have been.


since the stuff that was bad before, happened *before* the current guys have been here, it's really not comparable.



> Woods would have a pretty good position in this regard because:
> -- the NBA has never (to my knowledge) been able to void a contract based on this clause... and it's possible they've never sought to do so, and
> -- the Blazers have never been able to void a contract based on this clause.
> 
> The Blazers certainly can take a stand: they can waive him, and make a claim that he violated the terms of his contract. I'd bet dollars to donuts, though, that they'll simply end up paying him his salary when it's all said and done.


I don't know why they didn't just do that in the first place, if they really wanted to get rid of him. Paul Allen is quibbling over a measly 1 million? Didn't stop them from waiving Steppy, did it?



> In the mean time, they'll have squandered him as an on-court asset.


qyntel is as much to blame for that as they are. If not more.


> The Blazers have bright people working for them, though, and it might all be worth it for PR purposes...
> 
> Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> since the stuff that was bad before, happened *before* the current guys have been here, it's really not comparable.


Absolutely it is. Woods is employed by the Blazers, not Nash and Patterson. The Blazers don't get to invent a history of enforcement of rules simply because they hired new people.

And new Blazers management doesn't explain away a total lack of NBA-wide enforcement of the clause.



> I don't know why they didn't just do that in the first place, if they really wanted to get rid of him. Paul Allen is quibbling over a measly 1 million? Didn't stop them from waiving Steppy, did it?


You make a good point, but the difference is that even if the Blazers thought they had, say, a 25% chance of winning an arbitration over Woods's salary, it might have made sense to wait.



> qyntel is as much to blame for that as they are. If not more.


That's irrelevant.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Absolutely it is. Woods is employed by the Blazers, not Nash and Patterson. The Blazers don't get to invent a history of enforcement of rules simply because they hired new people.


yah it is. if you hire a new guy who's the one who enforces the rules, how the old guy enforced them is not important. It's how they enforce them now



> And new Blazers management doesn't explain away a total lack of NBA-wide enforcement of the clause.


because other teams chose not to enforce this claus, doesn't mean they aren't able to.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

If Woods only gets probation, which KATU reported last night, that sure would make him easier to trade.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> yah it is. if you hire a new guy who's the one who enforces the rules, how the old guy enforced them is not important. It's how they enforce them now


What is that based on? Your common sense, or some legal standard?

Th concept of respondeat superior indicates that the employer is generally responsible for the actions of its employees. As such, the Blazers are responsible for the acts (or failures to act) by Whitsitt. Merely replacing him does not change the past acts of the company, whether you think that it should or not.

The Blazers will probably argue that the players were put on notice by the new regime... through the 25 points, communications to the players, and maybe even the (unsupported) suspension of Damon.

There's simply overwhelming history, IMO, to indicate that the moral turpitude aspect of the contract could not reasonably have been expected to be enforced to terminate a contract in the situation that Woods is reportedly in.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

So we can apply that same logic to traffic tickets right?

Since so many people drive and do not get ticketed (Similar to Blazer problem players).... the cops let it go. Then when some get caught, we say... others in the past have gotten away with it, depsite the new cops in the cars. So it does not apply? :rofl:







just kidding.........


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Portland would be committing PR suicide if they reinstate Woods. This is a very liberal, dog loving, bike riding, weed smoking community. The second Woods hits the hard wood, he will be booed like none other. Portland has to find a way to get rid of Woods for good. I don't care how. But it's really the only choice they have right now.

I told you he was guilty!!!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The Professional Fan</b>!
> Portland would be committing PR suicide if they reinstate Woods. This is a very liberal, dog loving, bike riding, weed smoking community. The second Woods hits the hard wood, he will be booed like none other. Portland has to find a way to get rid of Woods for good. I don't care how. But it's really the only choice they have right now.
> 
> I told you he was guilty!!!


Dont worry, he wont EVER wear a Trail Blazer uniform again.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

"I raised the Dogs, but I didn't fight the dogs (other dogs did the fighting)"


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Looks like they not only can do this with a misdemeanor, but they have. Even more than that, they will not honor the contract! I guess it's a good thing management is in their positions and we all just post on these boards.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Looks like they not only can do this with a misdemeanor, but they have. Even more than that, they will not honor the contract! I guess it's a good thing management is in their positions and we all just post on these boards.


I can go out and slash my neighbor's tires, or my boss can fire me after I refuse to give into his sexual advances. I can sue McDonalds for clogging my arteries, and McDonalds can charge me more for hamburgers because I'm white.

The Blazers can do whatever they want, but there's no guarantee that they can do so *legally*.

The Blazers can say they're not going to pay Woods, but suspending him doesn't make it legal.

If you don't see the difference, that's unfortunate.

Ed O.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Zach*

has anyone heard anything else about a man associated with the investigation claiming that Q and Zach threatened to "get him"?

I hate to say it but I am convinced that Zach had some level of involvement in this. He and Q are very close friends. It seems like Q is the fall guy here.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't even have to study these threads about Qyntel, read the newspaper articles for the particulars, or think about this too hard to give you my opinion, which is:

The Blazers can posture all they want.

The Blazers can whine all they want.

The Blazers can spin the PR all they want.

In the end they cannot and will not be able to get away with voiding Qyntel's guaranteed contract and paying him little or nothing. It's not going to happen. It is not within their rights to take that course of action. Forget it.

If that is the real position of the Blazers, and they pursue that course of action to the bitter end, they will lose, get smacked down, and look like idiots in the process. Kinda like holding a press conference to announce the signing of a free agent before it had been certified by the league.

Stupidity by players. Stupidity by Management. Enough already.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> I don't even have to study these threads about Qyntel, read the newspaper articles for the particulars, or think about this too hard to give you my opinion, which is:
> 
> The Blazers can posture all they want.
> ...


Then the obvious question is: What should they have done?

I personally feel the Blazers are well within their rights to waive Qyntel and void his contract based on the "breach of contract" argument. If Qyntel and/or his lawyers and/or his agent want to challenge that via arbitration or court, they're probably more than welcome to. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

PBF


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I find it sad that the concept of consequences for actions has totally been abandoned. He did something (again) that was really stupid, wrong and illegal.

I am proud that the Blazers are taking him on and trying to void the contract. He doesn't deserve to keep it and be paid for wasting three years!!

Leave it to lawyers to want to represent the side of proven criminals in order to make a buck.

Woods had gotten what he deserves!!


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ProudBFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Then the obvious question is: What should they have done?
> ...


1) They shouldn't have come out with the 25 point pledge. The day it came out I hated it. The way the real world is; the way the NBA is, does not allow a team to act on some of the points without the significant risk of being a very, very bad team on the floor. It is the worst kind of pandering to whining, nattering, nabobs, who aren't really big fans of the team anyway. 

Ron Tonkin is exhibit A for this group. Got TONS of press, including national interviews. The Blazers do everything according to "Tonkin World". Tonkin still does not renew the lease on his luxury box.

Attendance is not up compared to when we had all the "knuckleheads", even though the local economy is much improved, having gone from 8% unemployment to 6%. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that the 25 point pledge has INCREASED interest in the team.

And why should it when the pledge does not apply to Damon and Zach.

Now, mind you, I am happy they haven't dumped any more talent away in a fire sale then they already have, to comply with the pledge. Yet, I would argue that those few folk actually impressed with the ideals of the pledge are far from satisfied with the duality. And we know the fans that love winning at (nearly) all costs are not happy with all the losing.

So, who is actually happy with the pledge. I suggest, not many. I suggest the day it came out was the day the Blazers set themselves up for failure.

2) Since the pledge exists, what should the Blazers have done with Qyntel?

I agree with their stance that they cannot have Qyntel be a part of the team, unless he was exonerated.

Suspended him during the investigation as they have done.

Paid him during that time, as is required by them.

Once the plea deal was announced with the DA, the team should have stashed Qyntel on the injured list, and worked a trade for him. If they were unable to find a trade. If it turned out there was no interest, then they could negotiate a buy-out of his deal.

They can announce publicly that the Blazer organization will propose to the other owners that they should negotiate into the new collective bargaining agreement tougher and more enforceable "morals" clauses into the standard contract. Heck, some owners are already pushing for partially (instead of the completely) guaranteed contracts. That may be a better overall solution to this and other problems. Don't like a player for whatever reason - waive them - and not get stuck with big bills for years.

Unfortunately for the Blazers, their new policy flies in the face of long-standing pattern and practice of the team and all teams in the NBA. Courts can't and won't ignore that just because the Blazers have a "25 point pledge", and a never before invoked "morals" clause in the standard contract. Broadly, the system is weighted to favor employees. In Oregon, much more than other states, it is a bozo no-no to withhold compensation to employees. Employers can be liable for Triple unpaid wages. If the Blazers suspension of Qyntel is not upheld, they could owe that.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

attendance isn't up, and part of thats because because the team isn't playing good, and people still have a bitter taste in their mouth.

As someone who's gone to most of the home games this year, a lot of the seats that aren't filled, are the "preferred" seating.

Meaning rich people aren't spending the money.

Us regular fans are still going.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> I can go out and slash my neighbor's tires, or my boss can fire me after I refuse to give into his sexual advances. I can sue McDonalds for clogging my arteries, and McDonalds can charge me more for hamburgers because I'm white.
> ...


Sorry for pointing out how wrong you were. My bet is that they can do it legally, care to take the bet? Your last sentence was just another of your condescending remarks that make this so much fun. But we can discuss that can't we?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> Sorry for pointing out how wrong you were.


You didn't prove diddly. You either don't understand nuance or you're ignoring it on purpose.

You just reiterated the news of the day and ignored the difference between being able to do something and being able to do it legally.



> My bet is that they can do it legally, care to take the bet?


Why on earth would I bet with you?

I've provided insight into the language of the "moral turpitude" aspect of the standard NBA player contract. I've shared my understanding of some basic legal concepts that are almost certainly in play here. I've given my opinion, based on these factors, of the situation.

What have you done? Made some statement about not only could they do it, but they did it. And then you claimed you showed how "wrong" I was and made a comment about me being condescending.

If you've got something other than an gut-level opinion on the matter, I'd love to hear it. "Wanna bet?" just isn't that interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> Sorry for pointing out how wrong you were.


You didn't prove diddly.

You just reiterated the news of the day and ignored the difference between being able to do something and being able to do it legally.



> My bet is that they can do it legally, care to take the bet?


Why on earth would I bet with you?

I've provided insight into the language of the "moral turpitude" aspect of the standard NBA player contract. I've shared my understanding of some basic legal concepts that are almost certainly in play here. I've given my opinion, based on these factors, of the situation.

What have you done? Made some statement about not only could they do it, but they did it. And then you claimed you showed how "wrong" I was and made a comment about me being condescending.

If you've got something other than an gut-level opinion on the matter, I'd love to hear it. "Wanna bet?" just isn't that interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I don't see how the current suspension without pay (and with fines on top of that) can be upheld under the CBA unless (a) the legal proceedings move forward against Woods, or (b) they Blazers can use the catch-all "detrimental to the team" justification.
> 
> Ed O.


Catch all or not, I'm betting it's used and he gets squat. I think another possibility (probability IMO) is that everyone was involved with this little plea bargain and Q won't even fight it. I'm not too sure what you know about plea bargains, but I can say this beyond a doubt. If you're making a plea and still getting CS and probation, you didn't have a chance of staying out of the felony charges and part of the plea is that you go out quietly.

This isn't gut level guessing either, nor are my abilities to understand "unfortunate" and I'm going to ask that you refrain from those kind of comments.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> If you're making a plea and still getting CS and probation, you didn't have a chance of staying out of the felony charges and part of the plea is that you go out quietly.


I trust you here, RG, but the two parties most interested outside of Woods weren't party to the plea bargain: the Blazers and the NBPA.

Whether Woods goes after his money from the Blazers should not be the concern of the criminal courts or the prosecutor, and even if Woods has made an agreement with the prosecutors and the Blazers, for some reason, the NBPA should (and seemingly will) seek to overturn the voiding of the contract.

A similar situation occurred in baseball when the Red Sox were trying to acquire Alex Rodriguez... the team wanted to rearrange the money owed to A-Rod to reduce the burden of taking him on. The arrangement was agreeable to all partied, but the Players Association had to look out for the rest of their members to ensure that A-Rod wasn't giving up rights that were collectively bargained for.

In the hypothetical where Woods won't fight it (and that remains hypothetical, since it's my understanding there's a grievance in place and/or the Blazers expect to go to arbitration) the NBPA would have to do so to reduce the likelihood of a precedent being established that would weaken the guaranteed status of their membership's contracts.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> 
> This isn't gut level guessing either, nor are my abilities to understand "unfortunate" and I'm going to ask that you refrain from those kind of comments.


You can ask all you want, but once again you're either misinterpreting or purposefully distorting what I'm saying.

I haven't seen any support from you other than gut-level reaction as to the legality of the voiding of the contract. As I said in my previous post (which was before you added your little addendum to your post which I am quoting here): I trust your experience with the criminal process and believe your opinion about his plea bargaining.

If you have similar experiences or insight into contract or employment law, but all means share them and let me know that you're speaking from experience, and I will gladly retract my "gut-level" comment (which was not intended as an insult; everyone is entitled to an opinion on this).

As for refraining from the "unfortunate" comment: you're out of luck there. It truly is unfortunate if you think your first post in this thread pointed out that my earlier thoughts were "wrong".

Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm sure the player's association will pursue it. But being someone who was a union business agent for a few years and party to a few arbitrations, I can tell you this. When the party involved doesn't cooperate your case severely weakens. Let's not forget, he admitted guilt.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> I'm sure the player's association will pursue it. But being someone who was a union business agent for a few years and party to a few arbitrations, I can tell you this. When the party involved doesn't cooperate your case severely weakens. Let's not forget, he admitted guilt.


That is very true, RG. I wonder how typical the arbitrations are involving major pro sports, though, since there are so few cases and they're all involving so much money.

Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Don't forget, before arbitration you have to go through mediation. That gives both sides an opportunity to work something out that is most beneficial to all involved. At that point I think you could see one of those, "all parties were satisified but details will not be released" statements.

The "unfortunate" response you gave was before the post about you being wrong. But hey, it was a civil request. That's about the best I can do over the internet. Trust me, it wouldn't fly in person.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

I also don't think it's a big difference when athletes are involved. Although there is a lot more individual income involved, it works out pretty equally when you consider the volume of people effected in other union desputes.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Don't forget, before arbitration you have to go through mediation.


I don't think that's true. Parties can contract to go straight to arbitration, and I believe that's what the CBA calls for. 

http://www.nbpa.com/cba/articleXXXI.html

Ed O.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Yeah, "have" to was an overstatement. Picking an arbitrator in itself is a compromising process and can take forever.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> I'm sure the player's association will pursue it. But being someone who was a union business agent for a few years and party to a few arbitrations, I can tell you this. When the party involved doesn't cooperate your case severely weakens. Let's not forget, he admitted guilt.


Yeah, he admitted guilt to a misdemeanor level animal abuse charge. What he admitted guilt to IS NOT listed in the morals clause. So for the purposes of revoking his guaranteed contract, the Blazers have nothing. A big fat zero.

Now, if the Blazers want to pursue an investigation and evidence to attempt in a civil proceeding to prove Qyntel was guilty of something on the list, that may be a course of action they take. Since the County didn't deliver to them a felony conviction on a silver platter, the Blazers have to prove the morals clause violation on thier own.

They could do that, win that battle, and still lose the war based on the historical precedent of the Blazers not uniformly enforcing the morals clause where applicable.

They could do that, create lots of bad publicity for Qyntel's misdeeds, yet find that constant publicity backfires and tars the organization as much as Q.

I sure hope the Blazers have their ducks in a row this time, and aren't setting themselves up. If they think using Q as a scapegoat who they will nail to the wall as an example for all concerned is a good idea, they are making a big, big, big mistake.

1) Q, seems most interested in putting this all behind him a.s.a.p., getting out of town and on to a new team so he can start fresh. He doesn't look like a guy who wants to fight more battles. Now would have been the time for the Blazers to make the best deal with Q. A buyout settlement, or a deal with another team to pick Q up on waivers - whatever. They will never get a better deal from him than right now. And the whole thing will be over. 

Let Q get some distance - physical and mental - from this, let him get playing on another team, let him have a paycheck again, let him have meetings with lawyers who will tell him the Blazers are wrong, and easy settlement with Q will be over.

2) Trying to break the guaranteed contract of a player will make it that much harder for Portland to keep and attract free agents.

3) The Blazers will be keeping this in the news as a current, topical news story, which will rub off badly onto them, and give plenty of opportunity for news story after news story that fixate on team troubles, player troubles, management gaffes, ownership issues, etc.

4) The Blazers will look silly when they end up paying Q more than they could have settled for, paid a bunch to lawyers, and created this distraction they could have let die a natural death.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Another possibility is that there was a behind the scenes deal. You just never know. He could leave and resign with someone and not challenge the Blazers at all. Just put it behind him to acknowledge a behind the scenes deal and get out of Oregon to satisfy the DA's requirements. :whoknows:

Don't hang the "its only a misdemeanor" hat out too much. I think its the tip of the iceberg. And it only represents the final legal filing of the charges.

Q was fortunate to get a plea bargain that brought it down to a misdeamenor. Did Q get preferential treatment because he was a Blazer? perhaps... plea's are bargained all the time to eliminate court time and costs, more so than to serve justice. Why not take a hard line with Q? they seemingly had lots of evidence. But they did not. He got off easy.

Perhaps its not legal to void Q contract, but its certainly within their grasp to try. Q has a nice laundry list to read through.



I do hope Q puts it all behind him and becomes a solid player for someone. He has great natural athleticism.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Folks, take a deep breath, stop arguing and see that this is obvious.
The team is in a win-win situation.
They waive Woods. They say they won't pay him. Woods and/or the NBAPA sue for his dough.
If the Blazers win, they don't pay Woods.
If the Blazers lose (and they may well), they pay Woods. That is not much skin off Paul Allen's nose. BUT it is good PR. This guy did something not only illegal but something that makes many people feel revulsion. The Blazers come off as the good guys, they took a stand on principle; even if they lose on the detail of paying Woods they have made it clear that they will not permit certain conduct on the team. Woods gets his money and the Blazers get the halo.
I mean, it is so obvious to me I don't understand what everyone is getting foamy at the mouth about!
As far as attendance, irrelevant to this thread, unless anyone seriously believes that Qyntel Woods is enough of a draw to make a significant difference in Rose Garden attendance.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>crandc</b>!
> 
> As far as attendance, irrelevant to this thread, unless anyone seriously believes that Qyntel Woods is enough of a draw to make a significant difference in Rose Garden attendance.


Having him on the team definitely would have a negative impact on attendance.


----------

