Jason Bent announces retirement

[Richard]

I would be interested in the CSA point of view on all this, there are always two sides to every story. So far all we have seen is Jason's story and Neil Davidson's rant.

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

The lawsuit was needed to get any action/response at all. This could've been alleviated by the CSA talking to their insurance company, I would think.

It's an insurance company, when they receive a reclamation they have to get the necessary informations (medical history and stuff like that) and take a decision.

I'm not sure is the CSA job to intervene. But if the insurance company asked the CSA for some documents and the CSA didn't answered or delayed it, I would say that the CSA was at fault too (but that's just speculation).

[loyola]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I would be interested in the CSA point of view on all this, there are always two sides to every story. So far all we have seen is Jason's story and Neil Davidson's rant.

True, but I'm afraid we'll have to wait for a while because of the ongoing pursuit....

[youllneverwalkalone]

Rich, let me be the first to say we all respect your accomplishments at the gay olympics. Although, to be fair, Rainbowland is not a country.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

"What does that have to do with you being asinine?"

Because if he had then he would have some understanding of what I was expressing.

As it is all he has displayed is his own ignorance.

If you are saying that it is Jason's fault that his career got shortened while playing for Canada for assuming the risk and that the CSA bears no allegiance to its players, then why did you publish Jason's letter.

[Richard]

I am not for one moment saying it was Jason's fault that his career was so unfortunately and prematurely ended through injury, where did you get that idea from? Career ending injuries are an occupational risk for any professional athlete. He or any other pro athlete for that matter, had to have been aware of that risk every time he stepped onto the field of play. Professional sport is a business. Everybody bears responsibility for their own actions and if the terms and conditions of playing are unacceptable then either don't play, accept the consequences or buy your own disability insurance as with any other occupation. Seems some of our pro players have already taken that stance.

Whilst I am profoundly sympathetic to Jason's plight, I am quite sure there is more to this whole business than any of us in this forum is aware of. It may be that the CSA has been remiss in not communicating more promptly with Jason but we have yet to hear the CSA's side of the story and I think it unwise to jump to conclusions knowing only part of one side of the story.

Clearly this is also a larger problem that is by no means unique to Jason Bent and the CSA. The current legal wranglings in Europe are evidence of that.

As for publishing his letter, why would I not do so?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Where are the boys on this board who jumped all over me for "jumping to conclusions" now? The habitual losers on the Voyageur board. I expect an apology, and I know from your cowardly behaviour in the past that I won't get it.

At least admit I was totally right to speculate in the way I did.

http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8996&whichpage=2

Read this thread and the other on Bent and you can see who the people are with a nature that is diametrically opposed to that of a football fan, those who know how to adjust their position with relative maturity, and those who believe that from the very start a bit of humanity and sensitivity for the interests of the players who represent us is an essential part of supporting the national team.

[An Observer]

Neil Davidson to the rescue....seems as I speculated Jeffrey S. (touche!), his injury was a long term one that never healed properly and was misdiagnosed. It also seems that this is an issue between the player and the insurers (and not really the CSA). I would suspect that the CSA was advised by their lawyers to not contact Bent and let the insurers deal with it directly.

Bent sues to speed up insurance claim

NEIL DAVIDSON

Canadian Press

Toronto — Tired of waiting for insurance companies to sort out his injury claim, former Canadian soccer international Jason Bent has gone to court to accelerate the process.

Bent, 29, maintains he suffered a career-ending right knee injury playing for Canada in a 3-0 loss to Ireland on Nov. 18, 2003.

The former midfielder from Brampton, Ont., is suing Lloyd's of London and Citadel General Assurance, the insurance companies engaged by the Canadian Soccer Association at the time.

Adding a twist to the matter is the fact that the insurers have not actually turned down Bent's claim. But Bent, out of pocket for significant medical and rehab expenses, wants action.

"It's been the most difficult period — emotionally, spiritually, physically — I've ever had to endure," Bent said in an interview. "Being on your own, trying to get yourself fit."

Kevan Pipe, COO of the Canadian Soccer Association, declined comment, citing the ongoing litigation. Marguerite Locke, an adjuster for Lloyd's, also refused comment. A call to Citadel was not immediately returned.

The CSA is listed in the lawsuit but not targeted financially — presumably because paying out the claim is not the CSA's call.

A stylish presense on and off the field, easy to spot for his dreadlocks (now shorn), Bent won 32 caps for the Canadian World Cup team from 1997 to 2003. He worked his way up the national team ranks, representing Canada in the under-17, under-20 and Olympic competition.

At the club level, he played in the U.S. for the Colorado Rapids of Major League Soccer and in Europe for Germany's FSV Zwickau and England's Plymouth Argyle. He could probably have played at a higher level in Europe had he had access to a European Union passport, but work permit problems restricted his movement.

Bent is trying to get on with life — he is now working as a soccer coach in his native Brampton. The knee does not usually bother him in day-to-day life — although going up stairs in the morning can be problematic — but there is still pain when he tries to sprint or shoot a ball.

And he is out of pocket for his treatment in the U.S., and for daily physio expenses. Citing the litigation, Bent declined to say how much he spent.

While he accepted the coaching job six weeks ago, he notes he went without a paycheque for two years. He lived off his savings. "Luckily, I was good with my money when I played."

Bent says he did not want to involve lawyers, saying it has been "an honour to play for my country."

But he feels let down.

"I am disappointed in the treatment that I've received since — and the lack of support."

He is also frustrated at lack of action. He flew to Ottawa last year to meet with Pipe and the CSA's Dr. Rudy Gittens, who is a member of FIFA's sports medical committee.

"They sat there and told me they would get back to me in two weeks — from March 20, 2005. Guess what? I haven't heard an e-mail, phone call, nothing since then," Bent said.

"(I'm) disappointed, very disappointed," he added. "That's 12 years of service (to Canada) since I was 16 years old. At every single level ... I think about all the club versus country rows that I've gone through, with all the coaches."

Bent also wonders about today's Canadian players and future internationals. Will they have to go through what he has?

The CSA no longer holds career-ending injury insurance, a decision it says it made with its players. The premiums were just too expensive. Most other national federations have made the same choice, the CSA says.

Now such insurance falls to clubs, with the CSA encouraging players to take on their insurance on top of that.

Bent injured his knee on an innocuous play. Taking on Irish defender John O'Shea, he felt a sharp pain in his knee. He had it checked it at halftime and was given the green light to keep playing.

He still felt something awry, however, and the things went from bad to worse when he attempted a shot on goal late in the game.

"I felt this really sharp pain in the same area. And right then and there, I knew there was something wrong."

The initial diagnosis was a strained tendon, out for three to four weeks. He returned to Plymouth and started rehab.

"But every time I attempted to get better and was about to go back into either training or playing, I would break down again," he said.

With his contact expiring at the end of the season, it was a poor time to get hurt. He had exploratory surgery in England at the end of the 2003-04 season and was told he would be OK in six weeks time.

"I returned to Canada and did physio," he said. "I've been doing physio ever since. That would have been May 2004."

In January 2005, his doctor sent him to the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, where he was told here might be something else going wrong with the tendon. He had more explanatory surgery in March 2005, which showed the sprained tendon was actually severed — a fact five MRIs had failed to unearth.

More surgery was needed to repair the tendon. Bent was told he should know in three months where he could play again.

"And after three months, I was nowhere near to being able to play. So I continued to do rehab every day."

Months and months went by with no improvement. So in December 2005, he saw another surgeon in Toronto. This one, Dr. Hugh Cameron of Sunnybrook Hospital, told him he would never play again professionally because of the tendon damage.

It is his second knee injury suffered playing for Canada. In 2000, he hurt a different part of the same knee playing against Bermuda. But he was back in action in five to six weeks.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

Neil Davidson to the rescue....seems as I speculated Jeffrey S. (touche!), his injury was a long term one that never healed properly and was misdiagnosed. It also seems that this is an issue between the player and the insurers (and not really the CSA). I would suspect that the CSA was advised by their lawyers to not contact Bent and let the insurers deal with it directly.

No An Observer, it seems you missed the point from the start to the finish.

There is no evidence in this report that the injury that ended his career was either reoccuring, or had been mis-diagnosed previous to it occuring the first time (the wonderful tautology you have come up with, or so it seems).

We don't know the relationship between this particular knee injury and previous problems he'd had. But if I recall correctly most of his problems were muscular in the upper leg at Plymouth. So that would not only be why they are not mentioned in the article (though Davidson could have asked), but why Bent could even be advised by his lawyers that he has a case. Since it is clear that if medical records show you have exacerbated an existing problem you have a much weaker legal case.

In any case, the original issue was not between the player and insurers, it was between the player and who he was playing for. The insurers come in way later, as does the litigation. The CSA could never have been told by lawyers to not talk to Bent if there was no legal case on the table to create such animosity, when regardless he still had hope of being healed, as all players understand that injuries can happen. Precisely because he does not think the CSA has any responsibity to be good physicians, that he has no problem mentioning the possible difficulties doctor's had. It does not affect the case, again, or at least it seems that his lawyers think it does not, he has been so advised.

It was simply a human and professional failure on the part of Kevan Pipe and his staff to do their job as I would expect anyone to do their job, as decent, responsible people.

One of the reasons you insure is to give people confidence that they can act and work and do other things without it meaning an undue risk in case of problems. When an employer insures for an employee, or one hiring for the hired, the idea is that part of the contract involves, the risk of one party being shared by the other. The concept of mutual trust is thus at the very basis of such insurance agreements. Another motivation for insuring is to protect against negligence (usually your own).

The CSA, ironically, has taken the position that the argument based on mutual trust between them and Bent is not valid but the argument protecting them from their own possible part or share in the responsiblity is. That is extremely mean-spirited.

The excuse of not speaking because of the legal proceeding comes a long time afterward, perhaps years later. Which is why Bent focusses his complaint with the CSA on their personally lying to him when they said they'd stay in touch or help in his professional problem. They lied to him. That is his complaint.

I am not surprised, if this is the case, that other Canadian national team players leave the team citing Pipe as a problem (Onstad) or are showing rather open support for other players not treated rightly by the program(a certain friend of Bent's at Spurs). This is not just a legal tiff. It is another in a long line of events that undermines the relationship of trust our players have to have with the CSA to represent us in international competition. And thus, in the end, has a real effect on our results in them.

[An Observer]

Jeffrey S. From the Bent article "In January 2005, his doctor sent him to the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, where he was told here might be something else going wrong with the tendon. He had more explanatory surgery in March 2005, which showed the sprained tendon was actually severed — a fact five MRIs had failed to unearth". If that is not mis-diagnosed from the beginning i don't know what is. I am not saying the Doctors were incompetent but it is clear that he was not properly diagnosed from the beginning. And as for it being reoccurring, we definitely know from media reports that Bent 1. played matches for Plymouth after the injury; and 2. trialed for Motherwell the next year. So obviously (which was not fully reported in Davidson's article) he was able to play matches after the injury in Nov 2003. The issue to be seems from his point of view that the severity of the injury was not fully understood from 2003 Nov to 2005 Mar as stated in the above article. And coincidentally, the meeting with Pipe occurred in Mar 2005 exactly the month he had exploratory surgery and found out the extent of the problem. From that point on where insurance claim was likely, it is when the CSA stopped talking to Bent. I am a lawyer. This standard practice. You report a possible claim to your lawyers/insurers and they deal with it from there. From that point in time you do not let your client speak to the (potentially) aggrieved party (or the media about the matter). And even Bent admits that his claim is against the insurers.

[Cheeta]

Playing at lawyer. Takes time.

I never thought that a career ending injury had to make one bed ridden. I thought it was enough that the injury would make it no longer possible for so-and-so, in this case Bent, of continuing at a reasonable level he'd previously proven capable. As Jason was let go by Plymouth, unable to attain work at Motherwell or even train in a professional footballers fashion any longer after the never healing injury and has since been found to have sustained an injury which I'm sure 99.999% of licensed doctors will testify is a sure career killer for a footballer, what are we talking about?

Clearly the injury isn't enough to cripple up the man as was proof enough by Jason being mobile, still trying to carry on, going through physio, etc. But also clearly he couldn't cut it at that level any longer. Career ending injury.

Seems the previous MRIs missing the injury doesn't amount to anything either. To suggest that this career ending injury occured after the Ireland match and that the undiscovered injury during the Ireland match had healed in the mean time comes off as a rather long stretch. Our Mr. Bent at the very best saw limited action, was unable to perform to his recongnised standards and has had the same consistant complaint through-out this ordeal. Hell, I'd say the fact the previous MRIs DIDN'T find the injury would suggest that the injury HAD to have occured during the Ireland match and previous to Bent's return to club football since clearly this injured player was getting advanced medical attention upon his return to club football. With each MRI showing "no-change" in the areas licensed doctors felt must be the region of concearn you strengthen an argument that it was impossible for Bent to have sustained this career ending injury at the club level. As sad as it may be that the source of the injury wasn't found until some time later, the MRIs, along with the consistant condition Bent displayed, do make the argument that the injury didn't occure at club level or was a result of club play aggrevating a previous injury. Which would bring us back to the starting point of this saga, the injury during the Ireland match. Are these reasonable conclusions or no?

And anyway, what are we really talking about here? A half million pounds of lost potential wages over the remaining years of his career plus medical expences? Maybe more, maybe less. And if it's all rather up in the air I'm sure it's negotiable to a point where all partys concearned can come to some sort of conclusion without Lloyds or the CSA admitting any liability but money still changing hands and Jason getting at least some of his due.

For what it's worth this looks really, really bad on the CSA. This is rotten to the core bad. If anyone in authority in those offices has half a brain and a whole testicle between them they'll get on this and make it go away. And make it go away now.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Where are the boys on this board who jumped all over me for "jumping to conclusions" now? The habitual losers on the Voyageur board. I expect an apology, and I know from your cowardly behaviour in the past that I won't get it.

In case this is in reference to me, I made it plainly obvious in that thread to anyone that is literate that I was only "jumping on you" for the conclusions you</u> were jumping to about me</u> (and not about Jason Bent). I simply refuted what you were accusing me of saying about the situation, accusations that were, are and no doubt will continue to be way off base and completely incorrect. So if you are expecting me to apologize to you for you having taken another un-provoked shot & making another incorrect accusation about me, you are going to be disappointed.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

For what it's worth this looks really, really bad on the CSA. This is rotten to the core bad. If anyone in authority in those offices has half a brain and a whole testicle between them they'll get on this and make it go away. And make it go away now.

And it is getting noticed - the article with a colour photo of Jason appeared in the Toronto Star today (next to a Cathal Kelly article about the legal dispute that is happening between the clubs & FIFA).

[An Observer]

Not sure what you are on about Cheeta... I never said Bent doesn't have a career ending injury or that it was not sustained in the Ireland match. What I said was it was likely misdiagnosed (as obviously the MRI scans failed to detect it). The problem he has from a legal perspective is the fact that it took so long to diagnose...its easy for insurer to argue that the career ending injury happened later during the period between Nov 03 and Mar 05 (almost a year and half later). Your assertion that "Hell, I'd say the fact the previous MRIs DIDN'T find the injury would suggest that the injury HAD to have occured during the Ireland match and previous to Bent's return to club football" sounds ridiculous. If I am an insurer, I am going to say the exact opposite. The reason that the scan didn't find it was it was not there. And what happen was Bent didn't give himself enough recovery time and reinjured it doing more damage. Would you not say that if you were the insurer? Or at least investigate the possibility? Or would just write a check for every tom dick or harry that puts in claim?

As for the CSA (or any company, etc.), they are not going to consider paying out until the insurance claim is dealt with. That is what they have insurance for. If the claim is investigated and denied, then the CSA will have to make a judgment as to whether they believe the grounds for the denial was fair and accurate. And if they don't agree, they will have to decide what action they take. I am certain they want it resolved as well.

All this being said, I really hope Bent gets some compensation. I certainly do not want to see the kid denied compensation. I am all for it. But lets be clear, if I was advising the CSA, I certainly would not advise them to simply pay him out something without their insurers agreeing. And insurers are notorious for taking their time as time is always on their side in such situations (and there is little the CSA can do in that respect).

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Where are the boys on this board who jumped all over me for "jumping to conclusions" now? The habitual losers on the Voyageur board. I expect an apology, and I know from your cowardly behaviour in the past that I won't get it.

I'm sorry you're a condescending jerk.

From that thread you're now gloating over, the only conclusions you jumped to was that Gian-Luca was a CSA apologist based on his recollection of the timeline of Bent's playing time with the national team.

quote:At least admit I was totally right to speculate in the way I did.

Congratulations. Would you like a cookie for your accomplishments?

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Where are the boys on this board who jumped all over me for "jumping to conclusions" now? The habitual losers on the Voyageur board. I expect an apology, and I know from your cowardly behaviour in the past that I won't get it.

I'm sorry you're a condescending jerk.

From that thread you're now gloating over, the only conclusions you jumped to was that Gian-Luca was a CSA apologist based on his recollection of the timeline of Bent's playing time with the national team.

quote:At least admit I was totally right to speculate in the way I did.

Congratulations. Would you like a cookie for your accomplishments?

[RS]

Based on this ongoing drama, perhaps Yallop has a far tougher job bringing players on board than anybody realizes.

[RS]

Based on this ongoing drama, perhaps Yallop has a far tougher job bringing players on board than anybody realizes.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

In case this is in reference to me, I made it plainly obvious in that thread to anyone that is literate that I was only "jumping on you" for the conclusions you</u> were jumping to about me</u> (and not about Jason Bent). I simply refuted what you were accusing me of saying about the situation, accusations that were, are and no doubt will continue to be way off base and completely incorrect. So if you are expecting me to apologize to you for you having taken another un-provoked shot & making another incorrect accusation about me, you are going to be disappointed.

I am usually of the opinion that the answer corresponds to the question immediately before it. If a person says they are hot you say "have a drink", and then, if they say their dog died, you say "my condolences". Your answer Gianluca is liking trying to make me believe that I said my dog died and you really suggested I have a drink. Was not what happened, but it makes sense. Problem then is that you have me saying I am hot and you replying with your condolences.

If you put a bunch of pieces together and speculate on a conclusion, and someone posts immediately afterward to infer you are jumping to them, well, I'd say the post is about them. And if you go back and read the sequence just as it happened, not mixing up the answers to suit yourself, that is what I do think you were responding to.

But it's tough. There's the story about the guy who goes drinking with a bunch of colleagues, is bitching about his wife, one asks if he loves her though and he says "no". Would you kill her if you could another asks, and he says "yes".

A few months later after she's been knocked off and he's standing trial, the conversation comes up in court because some snoopy bartender testified. The newfound widower insists that in fact what happened was the opposite, that he said "no" he would never kill his wife, and "yes" he did love her, bit of play acting with the cracking voice on the stand. They call in the buddies and they corroborate what he was saying, the bartender got it wrong, since they know he said he'd kill her, can't believe he really did it, and want to save him for drinking's sake (Rudi, one of these guys is you, don't be offended, it is a good bit part and the casting agents will take notice).

So anyways, then the accusation calls the bartender to the stand, the guy who mentioned this to the cop in the first place when the habitual drinking hole was being investigated. And he says it was not that way at all. They were sitting at the bar the three of them, the guy had just come in, was sober, pissed off with the spouse after another spat, and he said he did not love her and would kill her if he could.

And the judge, who thinks a neutral testimony is more valid than that of friends, takes it into account when finding the guy guilty.

I guess to make the story better but ruin the morale you'd make the bartender a psycho who had befriended the poor women after hearing about her from the husband, and killed the poor lady for sheer pleasure one evening he had off but knew the husband was in his bar, knowing he could always pin a motive on the guy.

If anyone want a bit part in this just tell me and I'll try to work you in when we come to a further version of "why lawyers are the most hated profession" in North America.

[Grizzly]

This board is starting to become a Jeffrey S. versus Toronto guys board instead of a Canadian soccer board. It is getting very tedious to read this stuff everyday so lets try talking about soccer instead. If not at least make your own thread in the general discussion forum and keep the arguments there.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

This board is starting to become a Jeffrey S. versus Toronto guys board instead of a Canadian soccer board. It is getting very tedious to read this stuff everyday so lets try talking about soccer instead. If not at least make your own thread in the general discussion forum and keep the arguments there.

Okay, by this I am to understand you want the role of the janitor in the bar?

[Guest Domi Rulezz]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I am usually of the opinion that the answer corresponds to the question immediately before it. If a person says they are hot you say "have a drink", and then, if they say their dog died, you say "my condolences". Your answer Gianluca is liking trying to make me believe that I said my dog died and you really suggested I have a drink. Was not what happened, but it makes sense. Problem then is that you have me saying I am hot and you replying with your condolences.

If you put a bunch of pieces together and speculate on a conclusion, and someone posts immediately afterward to infer you are jumping to them, well, I'd say the post is about them. And if you go back and read the sequence just as it happened, not mixing up the answers to suit yourself, that is what I do think you were responding to.

But it's tough. There's the story about the guy who goes drinking with a bunch of colleagues, is bitching about his wife, one asks if he loves her though and he says "no". Would you kill her if you could another asks, and he says "yes".

A few months later after she's been knocked off and he's standing trial, the conversation comes up in court because some snoopy bartender testified. The newfound widower insists that in fact what happened was the opposite, that he said "no" he would never kill his wife, and "yes" he did love her, bit of play acting with the cracking voice on the stand. They call in the buddies and they corroborate what he was saying, the bartender got it wrong, since they know he said he'd kill her, can't believe he really did it, and want to save him for drinking's sake (Rudi, one of these guys is you, don't be offended, it is a good bit part and the casting agents will take notice).

So anyways, then the accusation calls the bartender to the stand, the guy who mentioned this to the cop in the first place when the habitual drinking hole was being investigated. And he says it was not that way at all. They were sitting at the bar the three of them, the guy had just come in, was sober, pissed off with the spouse after another spat, and he said he did not love her and would kill her if he could.

And the judge, who thinks a neutral testimony is more valid than that of friends, takes it into account when finding the guy guilty.

I guess to make the story better but ruin the morale you'd make the bartender a psycho who had befriended the poor women after hearing about her from the husband, and killed the poor lady for sheer pleasure one evening he had off but knew the husband was in his bar, knowing he could always pin a motive on the guy.

If anyone want a bit part in this just tell me and I'll try to work you in when we come to a further version of "why lawyers are the most hated profession" in North America.

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

This board is starting to become a Jeffrey S. versus Toronto guys board instead of a Canadian soccer board. It is getting very tedious to read this stuff everyday so lets try talking about soccer instead. If not at least make your own thread in the general discussion forum and keep the arguments there.

Hey, he argues with Winnipeggers and Montrealers, too. You should know that by now...

Now back to your regularily scheduled Jeffrey S.-initiated threadjack...

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I used to slag Bent a bit until I saw him play, think it was the Scotland game, combining well with Stalteri down the left side. He had pretty good ball skills, was tough, and looked cool.

Though that last attribute is off topic, two out of three ain't bad.

[Rupert]

Greetings from Plymouth. Just caught up with all this stuff about Jason. First things first: I'm glad he is not worse off. I was told by somebody in Plymouth a while ago that he had a more serious health problem (Gianluca knows what I'm referring to). Looks like that story was completely untrue, which is good news.

Anyway, Jason did indeed make one full and one sub appearance for Argyle in March/April 2004. He was released in May, and there was no indication (in public at least) that the decision was fitness-related. And he then went on trial to Motherwell in Scotland and Halmstad in Sweden later that summer. Now, I'm just guessing here, but maybe the CSA (or the insurance companies) are arguing that attempting to play on at club level caused more damage than what happened in Ireland. I was at that game in Dublin and spoke to Jason afterwards. He didn't know how serious the problem was at the time, of course, and it didn't look a serious injury from the stands. But sadly it was. Anyway, I can only add my best wishes - he was always a pleasure to deal with as a journalist - and hope he gets something sorted out. In English law these cases are often settled by out-of-court financial settlements. Does the same thing tend to happen in Canada?

[Richard]

Rupert, thanks for your input. It seems I was right in my sense that there was far more to the Jason Bent issue than any of us here including me, were aware of. Rushing to condemn the CSA on this as some have done was unwise.