I was thinking Barry Mannilow even before I read…
**
<cue spooky music or Barry Manilow>
Amen to that.
Not really. Just the scoring stats don’t really say enough to demonstrate the kid was legitimately the MVP; a good defenseman with half the points may be a vastly better player.
It’s different
-
Because Sale and Pelletier were actually robbed of winning the sporting contest itself by a judging fix. The hockey equivalent to Sale/Pelletier would be not an MVP award, but if the kid’s team had the championship robbed from it by referees who had been paid to throw the championship game. I think you’d be entitled to sue over that. This kid was robbed of a postseason MVP Award, which isn’t actually part of the competition per se, and is not a sporting contest. MVP Awards ARE, to a large extent, popularity contests.
-
In the case of the Olympics scandal, that was quite obviously an honest-to-God fixed event. In this case we’ve seen no evidence there was a conspiracy to rig the MVP vote.
My issue vis-a-vis this lawsuit - the precident has already been set. Don’t like the result, cry and sue. Was the issue of the fix brought up before the protest was entered (as opposed to suspected)?
From that perspective, it is not a huge leap from competition to MVP voting.
I am in no way defending the father’s lawsuit. He is a shitlicking cum nugget. But I am seeing his justification for it. And that sucks…
RickJay wrote:
“Just the scoring stats don’t really say enough to demonstrate the kid was legitimately the MVP; a good defenseman with half the points may be a vastly better player.”
Fine. But if that’s the case, the association’s defenders should say so. The only lame reason they gave for awarding the MVP to the other kid is something like “On any given night any kid could win this award.”
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?
If they had nothing to hide (…pardon my conspiracy theories…), wouldn’t they just come out and say, “Hey the kid who won the MVP award was a defensive star of the league and a not-bad scorer to boot”? Or, “He carried his entire team who could barely ice skate without him”? Or, “Hey, this kid got the biggest heart in the league – he comes from a broken home, has a life-threatening disability and practices from dawn to midnight when he’s not working to support his family”?
But no, they don’t say that. They say that "any kid could win this award.
Fuck that. They got some ‘splainin’ to do, IMO.
Yes, up here the loser usually pays much of the winner’s legal costs. For really stupid cases, the loser may even have to pay the winner’s entire legal costs. The idea behind it is to make people think twice before running off to court.
There is also an entire appeal process within the Canadian Hockey Association that deals with this sort of stuff all the time. Thus if the father chose not to go the CHA tribunal route and instead go straight to court for a rather large amount, he could very well face a nasty costs award if he loses.