Epaminondas Pules wrote:Which Tyler wrote:Epaminondas Pules wrote:Yep, complicity requires proof of intent, at least from a legal perspective. And you don't know what they knew, or thought, and opinion therein does not prove complicity and thus has no weight whatsoever whether anyone thinks it or not. As such, saying they're complicit is akin to saying COVID doesn't exist. It is purely opinion and factually incorrect.
Bollocks is it
You have proof then?
What proof does he need?
The players WERE complicit in their activities. Those activities do not break the law. Those activities do break a set of rules set down by the governing body. If the rules stated that complicity was punishable, the players would have been or could have been punished. They were not. Therefore there was no provision for such in the rules and they did not break them.
Of course, it's a shitty situation, but I'm not going to blame the players when they're not breaking the law or, if we're to take their lack of punishment as proof, the rules!
That doesn't makes Which's statement's "factually incorrect" and to call it such is to misunderstand the point of a bloody discussion! And that's what this is, a discussion board, ffs!