Bradley Williams Suspended

[DavidSauls]

I'm sorry, but Joe Schmo local pro pays the same $75 to the PDGA that the big boys do. A touring pro shouldn't get a different punishment because he has some credentials that are based on his playing performance, and not his behavior.

The real world often doesn't give one a free pass for that sort of thing when one ends up in real legal trouble, so I don't see why the PDGA should.

What about a different standard of notification, to the player, and public notification?

The idea that with players at a certain level, that the PDGA should, and should have permission to, issue a statement along with the suspension? (The permission presumably being granted with acceptance of Touring Pro status).

 

[gradus]

The touring pro has taken a bigger risk, and you are taking that into account. His punishment, while it might seem less, is greater. He's lost a chunk of his livelihood.

You'd think he'd take his livelihood a little more seriously. Many people would be fired from their job after multiple infractions and never allowed to return.

 

[onemilemore]

What about a different standard of notification, to the player, and public notification?

The idea that with players at a certain level, that the PDGA should, and should have permission to, issue a statement along with the suspension? (The permission presumably being granted with acceptance of Touring Pro status).

This is the heart of my column from yesterday. FWIW I've never argued for touring pros to have a different standard of discipline, just a different standard of communicating said discipline based on public interest in the sport.

 

[unclemercy]

nude boy lol

 

[lyleoross]

I'm sorry, but Joe Schmo local pro pays the same $75 to the PDGA that the big boys do. A touring pro shouldn't get a different punishment because he has some credentials that are based on his playing performance, and not his behavior.

The real world often doesn't give one a free pass for that sort of thing when one ends up in real legal trouble, so I don't see why the PDGA should.

I think the argument being made is that it's not equivalent. That the impact on a touring pro has a greater impact. Not necessarily asking you to agree, but to look at it from the perspective of that player. This is the reason Paul reacted so strongly. He can see it from BWs perspective and for him it's a bit frightening. Not saying it's fair, just looking from different positions.

 

[Consult20]

His last suspension was 3 months plus two years of probation. The most likely next step in length of punishment for another offense is 6 months. Not sure anyone would argue that.

He had 12 months of probation left to serve when this new violation occurred. Remaining probation becomes suspension and the new suspension is added to the end of that period. 18 months. Not really that hard to follow the logic here.

I very much doubt this was just a randomly made up period of suspension. But clearly stopping to think and use a bit of deductive logic isn't a strong suit in the hyper-reactive social media society we now live in.

You've been really patient with posters who keep asking the same question JC, I give you a lot of credit for keeping your cool and continuing to post the logic most likely used by the PDGA DC. This thread has really taken some wild twists and turns, and it's pretty clear not many have read all the posts.

None of us know the entirety of what the DC has for testimony in this complaint, and until the appeals process is complete the outcome is not set in stone. Even though Brad has quite a checkered past that's been well documented here and in other threads, this particular situation should be judged on it's own merit. And as part of the appeal process, I would hope the DC reconsiders whether this whole thing should have just been left as a courtesy warning and leave it at that, especially if those who originally gave their accounts agree. This isn't a court of law and players aren't robots, Brad was given only given a CW, and by all accounts it was over by the time they got to the circle. Again, on the surface, it just doesn't seem like this should have ever gotten this far. I know I'm in the minority but I still hope the whole thing gets thrown out if all parties who gave testimony don't believe there's enough there to warrant disciplinary action. And I know people will say it's not up to them to "decide", but if they all feel that way then to me that says a lot and should be factored into the final decision.

 

[Sketto]

Probation. Third strike.

Read the thread.

Read the thread. Understand the suspension. Questioning, as McBeth does, the severity and how the number 18 is chosen. And who decides. That's the missing transparency.

Again I ask, why not 36 months? Why not 12 or 42 or 9 months?

Do you not see that this is exactly what McBeth is questioning?

 

[stratedge]

The touring pro has taken a bigger risk, and you are taking that into account. His punishment, while it might seem less, is greater. He's lost a chunk of his livelihood.

First of all I think you are creating confusion because most people on here who are discussing identifying an upper tier of player, are doing so only to propose a different policy on public communication regarding suspensions. Not different suspensions. But you seem to be implying that the actual punishment would be different?

If I shoulder check someone at work, I'm going to lose my livelihood, and that's more than maybe all but 1 disc golfer. Life's like that, the more you make, the more you stand to lose, disc golf doesn't need to be any different. If Williams got a slap on the wrist because he'd placed well this year, this thread would be a lot bigger than it is now, I guarantee that. Long story short, tiered punishment is a complete non-starter so it's best not to even conflate the issue of PDGA suspensions communication with this.

 

[lyleoross]

What about a different standard of notification, to the player, and public notification?

The idea that with players at a certain level, that the PDGA should, and should have permission to, issue a statement along with the suspension? (The permission presumably being granted with acceptance of Touring Pro status).

Like this idea!

 

[stratedge]

Read the thread. Understand the suspension. Questioning, as McBeth does, the severity and how the number 18 is chosen. And who decides. That's the missing transparency.

Again I ask, why not 36 months? Why not 12 or 42 or 9 months?

Do you not see that this is exactly what McBeth is questioning?

No. Read the thread first, then feel free to post. And hopefully McBeth reads it too because there are things he doesn't seem to understand that have been clarified here.

 

[scarpfish]

What about a different standard of notification, to the player, and public notification?

The idea that with players at a certain level, that the PDGA should, and should have permission to, issue a statement along with the suspension? (The permission presumably being granted with acceptance of Touring Pro status).

In an alternate reality when our touring pros make substantial money I could perhaps see the point in that. As it stands, even our touring pros outside a handful of folks, make ramen noodle money. Mr. Williams best year didn't even exceed $17,000. (Granted he was on pace to exceed that this year).

Perhaps in our circles, BW is a public figure. In the grand scheme of things, he's just another Joe schmo who may have to or want to join the regular workforce one day. His PDGA sins should stay with the PDGA when that happens.

 

[Sketto]

It is insane how many people have missed this point.

I find it frustrating how many people miss the fact that McBeth is questioning the severity, not the suspension.

 

[DavidSauls]

This is the heart of my column from yesterday. FWIW I've never argued for touring pros to have a different standard of discipline, just a different standard of communicating said discipline based on public interest in the sport.

I found it to be an interesting point, and one that had not shown up in the 117,359 forum and facebook posts I've seen. It prompted me to start a thread about defining what "Touring Pro" means, but before I could this thread went off in that direction.

I'm not sure if the different communication standard is warranted, but it would have to be tied into a tighter standard for "Touring Pro".

Among other things, clearly for someone who is actually touring---on the road for months at a time---a certified letter isn't the most efficient form of communication.

Of course, a player wishing to be classified as a "touring pro" would have to agree to conditions the rest of us don't---communication by mobile phone or text or some other instant method, and perhaps a statement of the reasons for a suspension issued by the PDGA. I presume it would be an Opt-In status.

*

I also thought of the very limited "Touring Pro" status---a dozen or two people---in the suggestions about a players union, or board positions. Both of which strike me as silly. But if we had a small number of truly touring pros, perhaps they could also have a council to give input on all sorts of issues, from their perspective.

 

[lyleoross]

Read the thread. Understand the suspension. Questioning, as McBeth does, the severity and how the number 18 is chosen. And who decides. That's the missing transparency.

Again I ask, why not 36 months? Why not 12 or 42 or 9 months?

Do you not see that this is exactly what McBeth is questioning?

Not quite. Paul is questioning 18 months in a limited vacuum. That is, he knows BW, and he knows the guy has a history, and he knows there was an altercation. In that form, it looks simple and it seems like an over reaction. If Paul read the Disciplinary procedure, knew that BW was on a 12 month probation, and violated it, he wouldn't be so upset. None of this occurred out of context. The player has three DC actions in a year or so. At what point do we cry foul? He drank during a round, got a punishment, then deliberately damaged a course. Even then he got a few months suspension with probation. Now, during probation, he blows it. Hard to feel sorry for the guy.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

I find it frustrating how many people miss the fact that McBeth is questioning the severity, not the suspension.

Kinda wondering why he didn't do a little more research, as some have done on this thread, before questioning the PDGA.

The dude is a repeat offender. And the punishment SHOULD escalate for each subsequent infraction.
Easy Peasy Japanese.

 

[unclemercy]

Thanks for sharing the list! I did not know that existed. Not to get too sidetracked, but McBeth and Shultz are the only men who meet all (5) of the criteria.

Other than registration spots being reserved what does being a touring pro mean?

and wysocki since worlds

 

[DavidSauls]

In an alternate reality when our touring pros make substantial money I could perhaps see the point in that. As it stands, even our touring pros outside a handful of folks, make ramen noodle money. Mr. Williams best year didn't even exceed $17,000. (Granted he was on pace to exceed that this year).

Perhaps in our circles, BW is a public figure. In the grand scheme of things, he's just another Joe schmo who may have to or want to join the regular workforce one day. His PDGA sins should stay with the PDGA when that happens.

I suggested pretty tight standards for "Touring Pro", and I don't think Williams would meet them. Not yet.

I'd never heard of him before last week, myself.

But I was thinking of players being public figures in our little circle as perhaps reason enough for special attention, and a different communication standard. I don't worry that the outside world would even notice.

 

[Sketto]

No. Read the thread first, then feel free to post. And hopefully McBeth reads it too because there are things he doesn't seem to understand that have been clarified here.

Read the thread. My question isn't answered in it.

 

[lyleoross]

First of all I think you are creating confusion because most people on here who are discussing identifying an upper tier of player, are doing so only to propose a different policy on public communication regarding suspensions. Not different suspensions. But you seem to be implying that the actual punishment would be different?

If I shoulder check someone at work, I'm going to lose my livelihood, and that's more than maybe all but 1 disc golfer. Life's like that, the more you make, the more you stand to lose, disc golf doesn't need to be any different. If Williams got a slap on the wrist because he'd placed well this year, this thread would be a lot bigger than it is now, I guarantee that. Long story short, tiered punishment is a complete non-starter so it's best not to even conflate the issue of PDGA suspensions communication with this.

We actually do this all the time in the real world. Even at work. I guarantee if an executive comes to work drunk he will be treated differently than a line worker. Nd no, I'm not saying it's okay. Just true. You are correct though, two issues, communication and punishment. One mile has put forth an idea, followed up by David Sauls. Should touring pros agree to a different standard of reporting to the PDGA membership than other members? Now, I've stated that in the most negative light, but it's a legitimate question and it is exactly what Paul is demanding.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Read the thread. My question isn't answered in it.

You read all 600+ posts in 15 minutes?