PDA

View Full Version : JO Will Return Saturday, but nothing is final



Anthem
12-23-2004, 12:34 PM
Any news? It's 9:30 here, which means 12:30 there. Didn't this start at 10? What's the holdup?

Hicks
12-23-2004, 12:37 PM
No news yet.

Hicks
12-23-2004, 01:35 PM
Update: ESPN.com is reporting that "A federal judge is expected to rule at 3 ET"

Guess we'll know soon.

I was feeling optimistic yesterday, today I'm not. :(

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 01:38 PM
I am expecting him to uphold Napolean's power

able
12-23-2004, 01:43 PM
Expectations I had from the presumably unbiased review of the arbitrator, that failed and since i still do not know what he based his decision on that he was prudent, I have no idea what to expect.
Are there no reports on what happened in court? no reporters during the case? that almost seems impossible, unless there was a freaky reason to do it behind closed doors.

if the "off court/ on court" thingie was used then it depens on how the judge explains "playing-court" If he used the $ 25K limit or a combination then chances are better then 0

Manuel
12-23-2004, 01:57 PM
Let us hope that since the incident involved fans the judge views it as an "off the court" situation. Hence, he will decree that the arbitrator has jurisdiction and O'neal's reduction will stand.

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 01:58 PM
But... but... David Stern is the best commissioner in all of sports - the best commissioner ever - he could never be wrong.

Blah.

ReGgieMiLLeR31
12-23-2004, 02:10 PM
As I said in my other thread...what other avenues for the reduction of Ron Artest's suspension are there, and what are the chances it might work? I know we can appeal to the Board of Governors, but what else can we do? Can we take it to federal court???? IT is vital we got Ronnie back or our title hopes are shattered...

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 02:14 PM
I am nervous, and I have a bad feeling about this.

Lord Helmet
12-23-2004, 02:22 PM
Why is everyone so nervous?What bad will it do if the reduction isn't granted?JO will just have to serve out the rest of his suspension right?I guess even if that is the case the false hope to maybe have JO back early and then have that shattered will sting a lot. :( I don't feel good about it either :(

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 02:26 PM
Right now this team is tough to take/watch. We are hoping that Jermaine will be back and save us from mediocrity! Reality is we will probably go 3-7 and welcome he and Jax back in January.

Lord Helmet
12-23-2004, 02:28 PM
Right now this team is tough to take/watch. We are hoping that Jermaine will be back and save us from mediocrity! Reality is we will probably go 3-7 and welcome he and Jax back in January. :cry: Please Mr.Judge let JO back.2:30PM Judgement Day is coming :(

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 02:28 PM
I was thinking of this on the train this morning:

The judge could tell Stern and Hunter that they need to fix this language in the upcoming CBA, but for right now he's just going to lock them in a room until the reach a compromise, considering Kaplan's opinion.

I still think that if the League wins today that Stern announces that he's moved sufficiently by Kaplan's opinion regarding JO and he's reducing his punishment.

If the union wins, all bets are off. But I still think that is very remote.

Can't wait to hear...

All I want for Christmas is my MVP candidate on the court. :pray:

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 02:33 PM
Jay - are you crazy? The only thing that moves Stern is his giant ego. He was right, end of story. Just ask him. Itwas a unanimous vote... 1-0... arrogant prick.

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 02:44 PM
Yeah, but Stern needs JO as an ambassador of the game.

And the Simons would have a compelling case with the B.o.G., - Hey, in the big picture we're not asking for much, but let us get JO back for Christmas, like Kaplan recommended...- once the courts, the NBPA, and this arbitration are out of the picture.

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 02:46 PM
Jay - no offense - but do you know that Santa isn't real?

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 02:48 PM
I've heard that, but I'll have to look into it further.

:D

Lord Helmet
12-23-2004, 03:08 PM
Its 3:10........

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 03:31 PM
Plus the Artest suspension was still upheld

Hicks
12-23-2004, 03:38 PM
Speculation already that the NBA will appeal this decision.

My question is, even if they do, does this stop Jermaine from playing or not?

My initial thought is no, because it's like when the PA appeals a suspension, the player can't play until a decision is reached. So now it's the NBA appealing an END of a suspension, so shouldn't he be allowed to play until the appeal is over, if there is one?

Alabama-Redneck
12-23-2004, 03:41 PM
If Stern gets an injuction from the Appeals Court, he can prevent JO from playing. :mad:

Shade
12-23-2004, 03:41 PM
Speculation already that the NBA will appeal this decision.

My question is, even if they do, does this stop Jermaine from playing or not?

My initial thought is no, because it's like when the PA appeals a suspension, the player can't play until a decision is reached. So now it's the NBA appealing an END of a suspension, so shouldn't he be allowed to play until the appeal is over, if there is one?
That's what I think too. I think it's safe to say that JO will be back in (retro) uniform Saturday. :cool:

able
12-23-2004, 03:45 PM
considering the verdict (I have not read or heard it besides this thread) is in favour of the PA the appeal court will not easily grant an injunction to bar JO from playing, and again the base for that will be that IF they overrule, the suspension can still be consumed, IF they don't then there is no repair to the damage of non played games.

That said, I'm glad he can play.

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 03:48 PM
Its not clear from what I've read whether the court ruled in favor of the arbitrator or just ruled that JO can play pending the outcome....

Bball
12-23-2004, 03:57 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3272686

Court clears O'Neal for Pistons game
Story Tools: Print Email
FOXSports.com
Posted: 20 minutes ago

A federal court has ruled in favor of Jermaine O'Neal, upholding an arbitrator's reduction of the Pacers forward's suspension, according to broadcast reports.

That means O'Neal is cleared to play in a Christmas Day showdown with -- of all teams -- Detroit.

O'Neal had originally been suspended for 25 games for his role in a brawl between the Pacers and Pistons. Earlier this week, arbitrator Roger Kaplan knocked 10 games off that penalty.

MORE TO COME!

Bball
12-23-2004, 04:01 PM
NEW YORK - Indiana forward Jermaine O’Neal can play against Detroit on Christmas after a federal judge upheld an arbitrator’s decision to reduce the Pacers star’s suspension for his part in a Nov. 19 brawl between the teams.


Judge George B. Daniels ruled from the bench Thursday after listening to arguments by lawyers for the NBA and the players’ union and watching a brief videotape of O’Neal punching a fan during the brawl.

The union asked Daniels to temporarily uphold an arbitrator’s decision Wednesday to knock 10 games off a 25-game suspension imposed on O’Neal by NBA commissioner David Stern. Bans on Ron Artest and two other Indiana players were upheld.

“We’re delighted,” union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. He called the ruling “a great Christmas present for Jermaine O’Neal and all Pacers fans. It’s the fair and right thing to do.”

The league did not participate in the arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the union leaves punishment for on-the-court behavior solely in Stern’s hands.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6646361/

Hicks
12-23-2004, 04:04 PM
ESPNews has Stephen A., and he said something about a 'restraining order' that let's JO play while this goes under further review.... or something like that. Sounds like he's playing Saturday.

able
12-23-2004, 04:05 PM
It slowly becomes more clear, as I said earlier, this was a likely decision:

SPN.com news services

NEW YORK -- Indiana forward Jermaine O'Neal can play against Detroit on Christmas after a federal judge upheld an arbitrator's decision to reduce the Pacers star's suspension for his part in a Nov. 19 brawl between the teams.

Presented by Citi

Judge George B. Daniels issued a temporary restraining order Thursday after listening to arguments by lawyers for the NBA and the players' union and watching a brief videotape of O'Neal punching a fan during the brawl.

The union asked Daniels to temporarily uphold an arbitrator's decision Wednesday to knock 10 games off a 25-game suspension imposed on O'Neal by NBA commissioner David Stern. Bans on Ron Artest and two other Indiana players were upheld.

"We're delighted," union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. He called the ruling "a great Christmas present for Jermaine O'Neal and all Pacers fans. It's the fair and right thing to do."

All parties will be back in the same court, before the same judge, at 2 p.m. on Dec. 30. It is possible that a final determination on the issue will come then.

The league did not participate in the arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the union leaves punishment for on-the-court behavior solely in Stern's hands.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 04:05 PM
While the next hearing is December 30th, and Stephan A just said this throws everything open, like maybe Artest and Jax.

Hicks
12-23-2004, 04:06 PM
Something about a "TRO" that lets him play for now, but if things turn for the worst, he plays the next 2-3 games, then goes BACK on the suspension list.

Bball
12-23-2004, 04:06 PM
Emphassis added by me....

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-bc-ny--bkn--brawlappeal1223dec23,0,1528197.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork


Judge OKs return of Pacers star for Pistons rematch

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer

December 23, 2004, 3:48 PM EST

NEW YORK -- A federal judge on Thursday approved suspended Indiana Pacers star Jermaine O'Neal's bid to play on Christmas in a rematch of two NBA teams whose last game in November ended in a wild brawl with fans in the stands and on the court.

Judge George B. Daniels ruled from the bench in Manhattan after listening to arguments by lawyers for the NBA and the players' union and watching a brief videotape of O'Neal punching a fan at the Nov. 19 Pacers-Detroit Pistons brawl.





The union asked Daniels to temporarily uphold an arbitrator's decision Wednesday to knock 10 games off a 25-game suspension imposed on O'Neal by NBA Commissioner David Stern. Three other suspensions were upheld.

"We're delighted," said union attorney Jeffrey Kessler. He called the ruling "a great Christmas present for Jermaine O'Neal and all Pacers fans. It's the fair and right thing to do."

The league did not participate in the arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the union leaves punishment for on-the-court behavior solely in Stern's hands.

Shade
12-23-2004, 04:06 PM
So, JO will definitely be back for at least 3 games before they meet again.

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 04:07 PM
The next hearing is 12/30, December 30th.

So J.O might play a few games then go back on the S list. Can the players union take Artest and Jax cases to court

Shade
12-23-2004, 04:08 PM
While the next hearing is December 30th, and Stephan A just said this throws everything open, like maybe Artest and Jax.
Yup. So nothing's done yet, AND we get JO back for the rematch.

Good news, good news. :)

Bball
12-23-2004, 04:09 PM
Emphassis added by me...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/pacers/2004-12-23-oneal-reinstated_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA

Federal court puts J. O'Neal back in play

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday approved suspended Indiana Pacers star Jermaine O'Neal's bid to play on Christmas in a rematch of two NBA teams whose last game in November ended in a wild brawl with fans in the stands and on the court. The NBA may still try to seek an injunction.


Judge George B. Daniels ruled from the bench in Manhattan after listening to arguments by lawyers for the NBA and the players' union and watching a brief videotape of O'Neal punching a fan at the Nov. 19 Pacers-Detroit Pistons brawl.

The union asked Daniels to temporarily uphold an arbitrator's decision Wednesday to knock 10 games off a 25-game suspension imposed on O'Neal by NBA Commissioner David Stern. Three other suspensions were upheld.

"We're delighted," said union attorney Jeffrey Kessler. He called the ruling "a great Christmas present for Jermaine O'Neal and all Pacers fans. It's the fair and right thing to do."

The league did not participate in the arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the union leaves punishment for on-the-court behavior solely in Stern's hands.

The NBA has already filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Kaplan's authority to hear the grievance in the first place, a complaint that remains pending before Daniels.

"We have consistently maintained that the arbitrator has no legitimate role in this matter," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "While we obviously agree with Mr. Kaplan's decision upholding virtually all of the suspensions, we don't agree with his conclusion that the conduct did not occur on the playing court, and we have no choice other than to challenge it in federal court."

In a 28-page decision, Kaplan upheld Ron Artest's season-long suspension and the penalties given to Stephen Jackson (30 games) and Anthony Johnson (five games). (Related item: Excerpts from Kaplan's ruling)

In reducing O'Neal's ban, Kaplan cited O'Neal's "character, community involvement and citizenship" while also deeming Stern's punishment "excessive."

"This should not be viewed as condoning what O'Neal did. He did punch a fan. The 15-game suspension is a significant penalty. The NBA cannot tolerate such conduct," Kaplan wrote in his decision, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The union had asked for substantial reductions in the penalties during a six-hour arbitration hearing at a Manhattan law office. The NBA declined to participate, saying Kaplan had no jurisdiction to arbitrate penalties for on-court behavior — an area in which the league contends the commissioner has sole discretion.

Kaplan ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that Stern had just cause to issue the suspensions he gave to Artest, Jackson and Johnson.

"It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports," Kaplan wrote.

Indiana has lost 10 of 15 games since the brawl, using patchwork lineups in an effort to make up for the loss of three of the team's five leading scorers.

O'Neal, a three-time All-Star and eight-year veteran, served the 15th game of his suspension Wednesday night when the Pacers lost to Philadelphia.

"It's good news," Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said. "It would have been great to get some good news on the other two — Stephen and Ron — but that didn't happen. But again, Jermaine's situation is far from resolved and we know that. We'll just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best."

***

Excerpts from arbitrator Roger Kaplan's ruling on an appeal of the suspensions issued by NBA commissioner David Stern to Indiana Pacers players Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson for their roles in a brawl with fans at a Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons game.

On Ron Artest, suspended for the rest of the season:

"By entering the stands, Artest precipitated one of the ugliest brawls in NBA history. It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports."

"Artest's complete NBA record must be considered. When his past record is closely examined, it shows that Artest has been suspended for 15 games during his career. Aside from flagrant fouls, his other two suspensions dealt with similar problems, anger management. If this was Artest's first offense, his argument for mitigation of the severity of his penalty might be more compelling. However I cannot discount his previous suspensions, which in any light, are serious. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Artest for the remainder of the NBA season."

"The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."

On Jermaine O'Neal, suspended for 25 games (reduced to 15 by the arbitrator):

"The videotape shows that when O'Neal was attempting to enter the stands and rescue his teammates, an unidentified person grabbed him around the neck from behind. ... I cannot fault O'Neal for attempting to free himself from an unidentified person whose hands were around his neck. He described the chaotic situation at that point in time as 'crazy' and a 'complete riot.' When asked whether he attempts to avoid trouble, O'Neal responded that he is a leader and a captain of his team. He stated it was his concern that his teammates were safe and protected. Unfortunately, when O'Neal attempted to assist his teammate Johnson on the floor, he punched a spectator. When asked why he hit the spectator, O'Neal answered as follows: 'Because I felt he was threatening Anthony Johnson's livelihood ... And that's a question you have to ask yourself, that when you start to see fans come on to the court, let alone in the stands hitting players, when they come on the court, then it becomes a scary situation.'"

"O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's. His career in the NBA has been a positive one. He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character. ... On balance, Commissioner Stern's penalty of 25 games is excessive. I reduce O'Neal's penalty to 15 games."

On Stephen Jackson, suspended for 30 games:

"Although Jackson testified that he had sought to bring Artest back to the court, the videotape shows conclusively that he did not try to do so initially. ... He entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans. Rather than attempt to bring Artest's altercation to a conclusion, Jackson's conduct exacerbated the situation. It cannot be said that Jackson acted as any kind of a peacemaker. The throwing of punches by an NBA player, whether those punches connect, reflects adversely on the NBA, the Pacers and Jackson himself. There was no justification for Jackson entering the stands unprovoked and pummeling spectators and fans. That conduct cannot be condoned. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Jackson for 30 games."

On the response of security guards during the brawl:

"The union argued that the NBA's lack of security at the Pacers-Pistons game should be considered, and the alleged failure of the referees to bring the incident under control. ... In my view, even if these assertions could be established, and there is insufficient evidence to do so, I cannot conclude that this somehow excused the behavior of the grievants."

SoupIsGood
12-23-2004, 04:14 PM
Monteith is messing up on ESPNEWS, they about lost him.

Don't look now, but both the Colts and Pacers are on the ESPN.com front page!

Lnjcarp
12-23-2004, 04:17 PM
Here's an article I saw about the judges ruling:

Judge OKs return of Pacers star for Pistons rematch
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
December 23, 2004

NEW YORK (AP) -- Indiana forward Jermaine O'Neal can play against Detroit on Christmas after a federal judge upheld an arbitrator's decision to reduce the Pacers star's suspension for his part in a Nov. 19 brawl between the teams.

Judge George B. Daniels ruled from the bench Thursday after listening to arguments by lawyers for the NBA and the players' union and watching a brief videotape of O'Neal punching a fan during the brawl.

The union asked Daniels to temporarily uphold an arbitrator's decision Wednesday to knock 10 games off a 25-game suspension imposed on O'Neal by NBA commissioner David Stern. Bans on Ron Artest and two other Indiana players were upheld.

``We're delighted,'' union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. He called the ruling ``a great Christmas present for Jermaine O'Neal and all Pacers fans. It's the fair and right thing to do.''

The league did not participate in the arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the union leaves punishment for on-the-court behavior solely in Stern's hands.

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 04:28 PM
The next hearing is 12/30, December 30th.

So J.O might play a few games then go back on the S list. Can the players union take Artest and Jax cases to court
And do what with them? Ask that the title on the season-long and 30-game suspensions be changed from Stern to Kaplan?

Kaplan agreed with Stern's punishments.

And the court has, to the best of my knowledge, not really sided with Kaplan... just given a TRO forbidding the NBA from holding JO out any longer.

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 04:49 PM
And do what with them? Ask that the title on the season-long and 30-game suspensions be changed from Stern to Kaplan?

Kaplan agreed with Stern's punishments.

And the court has, to the best of my knowledge, not really sided with Kaplan... just given a TRO forbidding the NBA from holding JO out any longer.



Jay, especially for the holiday season, you have been brutal lately. Throw me a bone once in awhile. Funny but brutal

able
12-23-2004, 04:52 PM
Ok let me make it clear for those who have not read all the previously posted stuff.

First: can they go to court for the suspensions on Jax and Ron: the answer is "perhaps".

Why perhaps? well usually when you agree to arbitration you sign away the right to go to court, you agree upfront to abide by the ruling made by the arbitrator, so that is hurdle number 1.
The only reason I say perhaps is because the NBA was a no-show, so "consensus" may not exist, hence excluding the signing of on the right to go to court.
Next hurdle is "on what grounds".
I fail to see any grounds in the Jax case, and only a few flimsy ones in the Artst case, the "main" one being the right to work, which then again depends on a lot of factors (what state to begin with)
Misrepresentation by Stern might be even flimsier, but every other thing I think of makes the even more flimsy category and makes this one look strong :D

Now, what happened in court (*yes I get to say: Told ya so)

The judge, hearing the case concluded that he could not pass verdict in the time-restriction put on the case.
Now why can some cases be judged and others not? that has to do with the judge and the difficulty of the case.
Now the case in itself does not come accross as "very difficult" in this case but we have to consider here that the judge in question is "Known" as being the slowest judge in the USA. his backlog is on average triple the size of other judges, so it was conceivable that he would not make a final ruling in a day (or a week for that matter)

On the basis of that (and good practise) the PA asked for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
This in effects says: Judge, we would accept you taking as long as you want, but in the mean time we would like you to agee with us.

So why would a judge agree with the union for the time being?

There are several reasons, one being that he thinks it looks like he will rule in their favour, but even if he has not considered that in this particular case the most important reason will be the possibility to have JO suspended remains in place, no matter when he passes verdict, even if it is next year.
So since JO is not running away, the league can have their "satisfaction" at any given time SHOULD the judge agree with them in the end.
On the other hand, if JO sits out the suspension while the judge in the end agrees with the PA/arbitrator, there is no way left to give back the games he sat out while he was in fact not suspended.
A consideration like that is so important that unless it is clear he will rule against the requestor, he will grant the TRO.

So in the end it means nothing, except for the fact that we can enjoy a Christmas WITH JO!

Now finally; Will there be a "final" decision on Dec 30 (the next date they are supposed to appear before the judge)?
Not likely, the fact that both parties need to appear usually means that the judge will look into the case, and hear parties more precise on questions that have arisen during his study of the case. He will then return a verdict, either final or temporary or any partial judgement, he can for instance rule that certain "proof" has to be delivered in a next session, he can ask to hear JO or the arbitrator, which again would be a verdict, he can suspend, the league and the PA can ask for extension on terms et cetera et cetera.

In my opinion it is very unlikely that a verdict will come on Dec 30.

In the mean time, let's enjoy JO :D

indygeezer
12-23-2004, 05:01 PM
Methinks it smells of fish Able....called TV ratings.


BAH....TRO my ARSE.

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 05:30 PM
Man, its hard to type on a blackberry....


UB, sorry. :buddies: this will be over soon, and we can get to talking about basketball. I know we'll both be happier then.

Able - I completely agree. Let me add two things: first, the judge probably just wants these guys to reach a compromise. So I'll help them - Stern can accept Kaplan's recomendations without admitting Kaplan had jurisdiction. Who wins? In order, JO, the Pacers, Stern, the B.o.G.

Who loses? The union, but their case was always a long shot and they've just been in the way, as far as I'm concerned. (Just don't tell me Uncle I said that about a union.)

Second, the judge could also rule in a similar way: telling Stern he had authority and acted correctly in all of the cases except JO, for which Kaplan had a better punishment.

I'm not sure how much I'll be online beteen now and January 3. Have a Merry Christmas everyone.

Hicks
12-23-2004, 05:32 PM
I initially merged this thread with able's thread which focused on the legal side of things. At first I left it this way, but now after being nicely asked by able about it, and looking at this thread again, I think I may split them so we have a thread for all the "YAY JO IS BACK! :dance: " stuff and the legal stuff.

So, do you guys want me to split it?

Shade
12-23-2004, 05:45 PM
I initially merged this thread with able's thread which focused on the legal side of things. At first I left it this way, but now after being nicely asked by able about it, and looking at this thread again, I think I may split them so we have a thread for all the "YAY JO IS BACK! :dance: " stuff and the legal stuff.

So, do you guys want me to split it?
:nod:

able
12-23-2004, 05:46 PM
Hicks, I think it would be nice to have a "joy joy joy" (read rejoice) thread and one that contains the legal stuff/remifications, there will be a lot of articles written (the ESPN one is heavily updated already) and likely several "legal aces" will give opinions in the press.

It is thread where some people have interest in and other don't. That was my original thought on making a seperate thread, so the happy thread and the dicsussion on the topic that leads to it, and what will happen now could be enjoyed seperately :)

But I leave it to others to decide now.

Jay: Merry Christmas and if we don't write anymore, happy new year!

I am still hunting for Kaplan's ruling, now that will be an interesting 38 pages post :)

(I know it is only 28 pages, but I will probably have a few lines of comment on it :D )

Hicks
12-23-2004, 05:49 PM
Threads have been split, this the one for legal "stuff" now. Are you happy with the thread's subject heading, or do you want it to read differently?