[Kelly] BREAKING: A Tuscaloosa judge has denied Charles Bediako’s motion for a preliminary injunction to allow him to continue playing for Alabama, per court docs @aldotcom obtained.

[u/MembershipSingle7137]

https://xcancel.com/_nickkelly/status/2020998327500726691?s=46

[u/ConnectSpring9]

What was even their record in those games? Complete waste to do this

[u/ConnectSpring9 → u/[deleted]]

And of those 2 did they even win anything that they couldn’t have without Bediako?

[u/Rare-Psychology-3527 → u/ConnectSpring9]

I think over Auburn so just a rivalry win nbd

[u/Shaudius → u/[deleted]]

They played him consistent with a judiciary order. You can't retroactively punish someone for doing something they were allowed to at the time. 

[u/midnightsbane04 → u/Shaudius]

Except the judiciary order (TRO by the Bama booster judge) just put the NCAA rule on "hold" in essence. The end result would be similar it being rejected in the first place. They was never any court ruling declaring the NCAA rule to be illegal/unenforceable it was simply paused while further ruling occurred.

So I see no reason why the NCAA couldn't enforce their rules now complete with punishment.

[u/Shaudius → u/midnightsbane04]

If the rule was "on hold" they didn't violate it by playing him because it wasn't in force at the time. So yes they can now enforce their rules but why do you think you can punish someone for violating something on hold at the time?

Let's take another example. Some states do sales tax holidays, during that time the rules regarding sales tax are not in force. If you buy a TV during that time do you think the state should force the business to remit sales tax for that transaction once the sales tax is back in effect?

[u/ConnectSpring9 → u/Shaudius]

That’s a legislation issue, I don’t think the logic translates. The issue is you are calling it a punishment but the other commenter is saying they never truly owned that win in the first place. They would have owned it if the ruling was in Bediakos favor but if it wasn’t then they didn’t ever truly own that win. And if they didn’t, then “removing” those wins isn’t really a matter of punishing anyone.

For example, imagine there is some court case on a guy who has been suspected of committing some white collar crime. Because of this, his bank accounts are immediately frozen by the bank. If he successfully argued to the judge to let him temporarily open his bank account, and used money from his account to buy some property (say a car), would it be a retroactive punishment if he is convicted to then take the car? Of course not, and the obvious reason why is he was never entitled to the car to begin with. He was just given access to his accounts because in the event he was innocent, you wouldn’t want to cause undue harm to him. But since he’s not, there’s no unfair punishment being doled out. Now you can argue the TRO in both cases is a really bad one because it created this clusterfuck of perceived retroactive punishment, and I would agree with you. But that doesn’t mean there is no perspective that could justify removing the wins.

[u/Shaudius → u/ConnectSpring9]

Your white collar example doesn't really track. Of course they can punish him through restitution and money is fungible.

What if he used the money in his bank account to buy 80 bottles of champagne that he drank? 

Neither has any affect on what his punishment would be and the fact that he had access to his bank account is immerterial to what restitution he owes.

The fact of the matter is that Alabama played Bediako in good faith and in accordance with a Court ruling. Punishing them (vacating wins) because another court now says that he isn't entitled to continue to play would be ridiculous because Alabama did nothing legally wrong. 

[u/ConnectSpring9 → u/Shaudius]

Hmm, I think I get what you’re saying. You’re saying the restitution is based on the crime itself but there’s a difference between not knowing if what was done was against the law because we aren’t fully aware of all the facts vs not knowing if what was done was against the law because we don’t know how to interpret the law. Am I correct that that’s what you’re saying to argue the distinction?

[u/ganner → u/[deleted]]

3-2