do work son
Banned
- May 22, 2010
- 17,118
- 5,186
What's the difference?
covering it up in the 90s: you don't think it was absolutely beneficial to the NBAs image to keep under wraps that it's literal top star was a gambling addict who could have been gambling on nba games? if i was stern, i'd want that buried as deep as possible too. the nba would survive it, but it's a huge black mark on the integrity of the game.
keeping it under wraps now: what's the point of unearthing it? unless some DA is decided on catching the killer, I can't think of any benefit in unearthing 25 year old gambling allegations. Not to mention, no DA's office is approving the expenditure of resources to go into a 20+ year old murder.
Nice. There’s a reason why it’s a running joke in our profession that a lawyer’s answer to any legal questing always starts with “it depends...”
because any time we give advice, y'all wanna come back with "BUT YOU SAID _______________". speaking in conditional terms like "it depends" gives us leeway to present all the options/outcomes with protection against malpractice suits and grievances when y'all don't like the results.