Your argument is so inconsistent. You said that "gambling isn't the issue" then you said "illegal gambling is the issue". No one implied that legal gambling was the issue here, that's a very sneaky little straw man.
Your argument has changed as follows:
- He's gonna get suspended because of his defiance. He's really had it coming to him!
- He's gonna get suspended because illegal gambling is against the CBA!
- Then it's not gambling that's the issue...
- Oops, it's illegal gambling that's the issue (One sentence after saying gambling's not the issue)
So, can you pick a stance or something? It's starting to get confusing exactly what you're arguing here. Seems to me like you just don't like A-Rod and would get kicks out of him getting suspended for petty crap like gambling. I don't blame you, he's a douche, but it's still a s*** reason to suspend him, considering all the other stuff they've let slip by.
They surely might end up suspending him, but considering that people who get DUI's get off scot-free, he certainly should not, I think that's the point every one here is trying to make, which you seem to be missing completely. (I'm surprised I've had to explain this to you so many times)