Recent content by sdiver68

What strikes me as odd is that in most of these cases involving celebs, you see several #metoo claims. Yet nothing of that sort has happened here. I know technically other incidents have nothing to do with this 1, but as a human it sure adds credibility for either side in the court of public...

Make that trip every year Although if you are tired of driving by then, take 40 to Flag instead of getting off at Holbrook then down 17 to the 202 is the lazy route. And only a few minutes more particularly if you get stuck behind RV's on the mountain roads.

If he starts dominating like UConn, probably retires at 85.

Edey was Kofi 2.0, not the other way around.

Beyond ridiculous, even after accounting for HackEdey.

How do you like them apples?

Yes, the landscape is quickly changing in general for athletes and contractors to be considered employees. All part of the legal/political landscape that many IAAL don't have exposure to unless they work in this area of the law.

Here is the problem, and it's a problem created by the legal system. Due process is only NOT extended in all situations involving goverment-supported institutions because judges have decided it doesn't apply. Constitutional rights, which pre-exist and sit above the law, have systemically been...

Depends on the situation. If the employee has a contract, or is is otherwise covered by union or law, there can be all kinds of outcomes. But in many at‐will situations, most employers would suspend or fire.

Good write-up. As an aside, Qualified Immunity is a court created disgrace, and was likely incorrectly applied in the Connecticut case, but I won't bore people with that discussion.

So your position is people give up their due process rights by agreeing to it with compensation? So as an employer, I can just make up any rule and as long as I pay employees for giving up their rights, it's all good? IANAL, but I am eligible to be a US Supreme Court Justice.

OSCR deals with the exact same scenarios and has multiple levels of due process protection. So, why the difference, outside of administrative bias?

Strawman. But I'd strongly favor, absent additional information, that no suspension is valid unless they've gone through a full and fair due process evaluation, in compliance with legal and constitutional rights. See UUIC OSCR policy.

Perhaps others would not feel it unfair absent personal interest but if the full facts of this case were known to me, then yes I would still judge the circumstances in opposition to the athlete's core natural and legal rights. Very black and white for me. Just as it's very black and white that...

The problem with that strategy is that federally funded UUIC has legal and constitutional obligations to uphold the law and Constitution. And should have the backbone to stand by these principles. The DIA policy is a reputational disgrace, seeking to appease culture warriors over bedrock rights...