This is not a political post, so let's not go there.
However, the matter of GOL's contract is becoming like the worst kind of politics (and journalism). That is, local reporters are hinting at a scandal and are requesting GOL's contract because they have "questions."
They won't detail what questions will be answered by viewing the contract. Instead, they try to make a scandal of the coach's refusal to reveal his contract. They try to imply that refusal to reveal equates to concealment.
This is all a logical fallacy.
I'm sorry if I'm giving in to my instincts as a litigator, but the burden is always on the party requesting a document to justify the need/relevance of the document.
Instead, the reporters make a false equivalency: All the other coaches share their contract, so why isn't GOL? However, the coach has no legal or ethical obligation to share his contract.
I've asked the usual suspects what they want to see in the contract, and to date none have replied. I'll share their responses if they do.
However, the matter of GOL's contract is becoming like the worst kind of politics (and journalism). That is, local reporters are hinting at a scandal and are requesting GOL's contract because they have "questions."
They won't detail what questions will be answered by viewing the contract. Instead, they try to make a scandal of the coach's refusal to reveal his contract. They try to imply that refusal to reveal equates to concealment.
This is all a logical fallacy.
I'm sorry if I'm giving in to my instincts as a litigator, but the burden is always on the party requesting a document to justify the need/relevance of the document.
Instead, the reporters make a false equivalency: All the other coaches share their contract, so why isn't GOL? However, the coach has no legal or ethical obligation to share his contract.
I've asked the usual suspects what they want to see in the contract, and to date none have replied. I'll share their responses if they do.
