Nuntius wrote:
In theory yes but in practice? The Sixers outright discredited the third party medical professional that Markelle Fultz used. Similarly, people (not the Sixers themselves so far, at least) are discrediting the NBPA's medical professional. The Sixers keep insisting that Ben uses their own medical team (just like they did with Fultz) despite the fact that the Sixers' medical team has been proved to be untrustworthy in those matters. So, yeah, the practice is different from the theory and that's an issue.
Huh? Fultz barely played for the Sixers precisely because they tried to be extra careful with him. I am not sure what the Sixers did wrong here. For what it's worth, Fultz and his shooting form hasnt really recoverd from that "injury" to this day so Orlando's medical team hasnt faired any better. I get why Fultz did what he did (he was trying to save his career), but i dont see how Fultz trying to find a doctor to give him a diagnosis (TOS) that was virtually impossible to verify reflects badly on the Sixers medical team. His shooting form is still terrible and its been some years since he moved away from the Sixers medical team. In any case, i dont see how Fultz is in any way relevant here. Simmons has been treated by the same medical team (which, bear in mind, has changed over the years) multiple times over these years and he never had an issue with them. It's reasonable to say that the team's medical team might not be completely impartial but Simmons shouldnt have any reason to mistrust them. Also, i dont see how the Sixers are discrediting the NBPA medical proffessional (who shouldnt be considered impartial either). The only issue at the moment is that the team has the right to know what Simmons is doing, whether he has been diagnosed with any mental illness and what are the steps and the timeline for his return and Simmons' side is not cooperating. The same thing that any team would do with any injured player somehow has become a matter of controversy and debate here.
Nuntius wrote:The CBA excerpt in question was very murky when it comes to mental health related services, though. It is not clear what kind of information Simmons would have to provide the team, if any. We'll see how it goes in the following days. This definitely isn't the last we hear about this topic.
The excerpt was pretty clear. If the player is seeing a physician (psychiatrist or not) to get a diagnosis about an illness/injury then the team has the right to know what it's going on. i might add that it is pretty reeasonable for a player that is not able to provide his services for a medical reason to provide some proof for that and to be in contact with the team in the meantime. Again, this is a pretty standard and reasonable practice, i am not sure why the Sixers request is viewed as something extraordinary by some people here.
Nuntius wrote:Is it actually disingenuous, though, or is it something that you just personally disagree with? You can definitely say that athletes do not provide anything essential for society but the same goes for a ton of other jobs, some of which are paid even more than athletes. A prime examples? NBA team owners. They provide a lot less than the players and make almost 10 times more. These are the same people that a lot of posters in this thread have been defending, by the way. That's rather **** up, if you ask me.
NBA level athletes should never ever be compared with normal workers/employees since their bargaining power is orders of magnitude bigger, which is why they are getting these ridiculous salaries. No one is defending the owners here, but trying to compare NBA athletes, and stars at that, to normal people working 9-5 and claim that whatever agreement they negotiate with the owners will be relevant to and impact the working rights of normal people is indeed disingenuous.
