PDA

View Full Version : I wonder if the league settled with Tarpley because....



Peck
03-17-2009, 03:23 AM
they were not sure that they would win in court? Obviously that is why almost anyone settles, well that and they know lawyer fee's might end up costing as much anyway.

First, here is what I am talking about.

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=indystar&sParam=34461114.story


But in this case I just wonder about a couple of issues.

1. Could they be afraid to test this just before they go into the next C.B.A. talks? If Tarpley would have won then the players association would have a HUGE bargaining chip to hold over the owners.

2. Does the Americans with Disabilities Act supercede a collectively bargained contract? My guess is, it must. The reason I think that is because if it didn't then this would have been an open and shut case and the courts would have either thrown it out or the league would have pressed for victory on this.

Of course I am not a lawyer so I am just speculating on both of these.

3. Did the N.B.A settle because if they lost, the financial toll could have been devistating in the current economy?

This is not a speculation but a general question, when the N.B.A. does something like this can they act with just the commisioner and his staff or do they have to get approval from any owners or committee of owers?

I don't know why this strikes me as intersting, it might be because the way the season is going, but I just thought that this might be one of those story's that you never read about but in reality might have some substance to it?

count55
03-17-2009, 06:41 AM
2. Does the Americans with Disabilities Act supercede a collectively bargained contract? My guess is, it must. The reason I think that is because if it didn't then this would have been an open and shut case and the courts would have either thrown it out or the league would have pressed for victory on this.

I'm not a lawyer, either, but I suspect the Americans with Disabilities Act would supercede a collectively bargained contract, and that would be the key here. I was not aware that drug and alchohol addiction qualified, but I am not challenging the notion that such addictions are physical maladies, or diseases.

I could be wrong, but I think that the NBAPA would have had to specifically bargained this redress away for the CBA to have prevented action on behalf of Tarpley. The CBA does allow for the possibility of being banned from the NBA, but I am guessing that if Tarpley had followed all of the prescribed actions to gain reinstatement, the NBA would almost have to grant it to him.

As to the large bargaining chip, I'm not sure what leverage could be gained. I'm of the opinion that the owners are going to go to the wall on this next CBA. Some of them, Simons included, don't really have much to lose, as the current CBA is not a survivable situation for what I would guess to be about 1/3 of the the league (off the top of my head).

Bball
03-17-2009, 12:00 PM
as the current CBA is not a survivable situation for what I would guess to be about 1/3 of the the league (off the top of my head).

The number is probably higher than that and how survivable and sustainable would the remaining teams be if the league lost that many teams? Seems like a vicious cycle to me but I'm not sure if those other teams can see past their own greed for the good of the league.

-Bball

beast23
03-17-2009, 01:30 PM
Filed a lawsuit in 2007 after being banned in 1995? Jeez, doesn't a statue of limitations apply? Just seemed strange to me.

In signing the $20M with Dallas with known addictions, shame on Dallas/Cuban if they did the contract did not contain language regarding the addictions. And if such language was included, shame on Dallas and the league for not holding their ground.

But as far as settling, it's always about risk. They either knew that it would be settled in Tarpley's favor, or that even if they won, the amount spent on defending themselves might approach or exceed the amount of the settlement. If that's the case, why not just settle and get the whole matter behind you?

Unclebuck
03-17-2009, 01:32 PM
As someone who used to work for the insurance company that insures the NBA for such things, I might have a little insight.

1) I doubt it, the insurance co probably settled because it made dollars and cents to do so.

2) Yes it does

3) No, not at all. The NBA had an insurance policy with very high limits and have excess insurance with an excess carrier - with incredibly high limits.

The decision to settle such a claim is made by insurance co, with the approval of the NBA.

Overall, I would not read anything into this case being settled.

count55
03-17-2009, 01:47 PM
Filed a lawsuit in 2007 after being banned in 1995? Jeez, doesn't a statue of limitations apply? Just seemed strange to me.

Tarpley applied for reinstatement in 2003:


In the lawsuit, Tarpley said after applying for reinstatement he successfully completed 52 weeks of drug and alcohol testing, which the NBA had requested. But his reinstatement was still denied, according to his attorneys.

So the clock probably would have started in late 2004 or 2005.


In signing the $20M with Dallas with known addictions, shame on Dallas/Cuban if they did the contract did not contain language regarding the addictions. And if such language was included, shame on Dallas and the league for not holding their ground.

But as far as settling, it's always about risk. They either knew that it would be settled in Tarpley's favor, or that even if they won, the amount spent on defending themselves might approach or exceed the amount of the settlement. If that's the case, why not just settle and get the whole matter behind you?

Cuban didn't buy the Mavs until 2000.

Players don't get paid while suspended. For league suspensions, the team, I think, still has to pay half to the league, and therefore, charity. I don't know what the settlement involved, so I don't know that the $20mm is in play.

kellogg
03-17-2009, 09:23 PM
What a messed up, PC, deal this is. Let me get this straight, a bozo with unbelievable talent comes into the NBA, snorts his way out of the league, gets a second chance and blows it, THEN files a lawsuit against the NBA???
Does this mean that if I go to flight school, then get two DUIs, but go to rehab...that I should be allowed to fly planes again according to the ADA nonsense?

I guess I'm not PC here...somehow if an employee continues to screw up and I am paying his salary (in the case of Tarpley, millions by the way), I feel I should be able to say 'I just don't want you in my life anymore'. Besides, it's not like the NBA is/was the only place to play if you munged up your life by acting like an idiot...just ask David Harrison (who the last time I checked was brushing up on his Mandarin).