stowfan;979620; said:I'm not a lawyer so I have a question, is actual proof weaker than a court appointed "presumption"? If Lake can PROVE Bush was not at all impacted, Rather his life improved a thousand fold does the presumption supersede the proof? If Bush had been suspended, or his draft status hurt the presumption
makes it easy, the FACT is Bush and SC didn't miss a beat.
On the SC board they talked about one of the assistant coaches staying in a $500.00 a night hotel room paid for by Lake. If Lake can prove the SC coaches knew that a crime was going on and didn't stop it are they and USC also culpable? I somehow don't see SC coming through this unscathed.
The "presumption" should be understood as rebuttable. It's like innocent until proven guilty. That is, of course, one is assumed to have NOT committed a crime until it is shown they did. So, no, actual proof is surely not weaker than a presumption. The presumption is just the starting point, if you will.
BuckeyeNation27;979685; said:I'm not a law....talkin guy, but how does this discourage sports agents? It seems to me that it encourages it....since Bush won't get nailed because of the law. Maybe I'm not understanding it (very likely).
Having laws which address agents discourages agents from engaging in the conduct - criminal penalties, for example. It will never STOP a thing from occurring - indeed, murder is illegal, yet people still do it.... but, it is indeed designed to make agents think twice before acting.
Upvote
0