I question a league's ability to take an individual player's livelihood away without due process. I would rather Mayfield's sponsors or team owners (if he tries to drive for another team) take it away. I have always felt this is the most effective form of punishment.
I also would rather see a criminal judge or jury determine if Mayfield is a meth (ab)user. If he has it in it his system, then he is probably still doing it or has done it repeatedly. I am sure a good detective could find the criminal evidence needed to convict. A criminal sentence is much harsher than any league suspension.
I also think the media mis-reported what the judge's ruling was. All he said was NASCAR could not suspend Mayfield while he was "appealing." He said nothing explicitly about Mayfield's guilt or innocence. The Stallworth case is another example of reporters not explaining law and rulings properly. From what I read, the reason he only got 30 days was because the prosecution didn't have much of a case showing Stallworth was negligent. If Stallworth wasn't drunk and stoned, he would have probably had no charges filed against him. (Admittedly, I might be wrong on my interpretation of the events.)
MLB implicitly suspended Barry Bonds last year. Jose Canseco said MLB did it to him too. I have a feeling Vick and Pac-Man are going to go through the same thing. These implicit suspensions because no one is willing-to-pay (put up with your shit) are much more effective and hold more deterring power.
No comments:
Post a Comment