I have comments on both Theron Martin's suspension and ABU's behavior:

Unfortunately, the DCI has a policy of not commenting on their decisions - effectively saying that their decision is final and unchangeable. That's okay as far as dealing with the individual being"reviewed," but not for the rest of the Magic-playing public. It's often important that the DCI explain portions of their decision. This case is one such example: If the DCI has evidence that Mr. Martin knew he was benefiting, even"indirectly," then show us, please. I'll support their decision even if I think five years is a bit excessive, I promise.

You see, innocent people and perpetrators are all going to shout"I'm innocent!" to the world. Whether it really matters to the Magic world is a moot point - but the community's ability to rely on DCI judgement is not. And you have to admit that it seems, at least on the surface, that Mr. Martin has a valid argument. So we need to see what has happened.

Let me make an analogy to the justice system: Grand Jury info is sealed and can't be discussed, because of the need to keep it secret until a decision is ultimately rendered. Not doing so could damage an innocent or the case against the guilty... So I'm glad the DCI keeps its deliberations to itself. However, once the case is decided, the decision and all the records pertaining to it (with rare exceptions) become public knowledge. Does that public display affect the ultimate decision? Usually not; it takes specific"status" to generate an appeal - the fact that some people thought it unjust doesn't change a damn thing. Once or twice, an innocent is ultimately released when the information can be used to generate a successful appeal. Isn't that a good thing? So it's time for the DCI to make more of the evidence available to the public.

Oh, yeah - and any deals made by people turning"state's evidence" must be revealed during the trial so that the jury can gauge accurately what they hear.

Now if the individual and the DCI want to agree on secrecy for some reason, fine, but then the individual should be precluded from publicly screaming"I'm Innocent!" Just seems logical to me.

Fewer uninformed players could make unsubstantiated attacks if the facts are known, but maybe more could comment when the facts don't seem to justify the decision. So is the DCI trying to keep dissent down by saying nothing? That would be ironic, since it implies that they are somehow afraid of"trash talk." Why - it is within the rules, isn't it? That leads me to my second issue, which arose after reading BP Shuler's report from PT: NY.

I won't go to extremes here; I'll keep it short. If the judges, DCI, and ultimately WotC, are not going to punish unsportsmanlike conduct, then eliminate it from the rules! Period. (Something like,"Trash talking is not considered unsportsmanlike, even when it is threatening, insulting, obscene, and refers to players' mothers in unflattering terms. Of course, responding to such language by beating the crap out of the trash talker is unsportsmanlike behavior and will result in a DQ.") There is no way to accept or justify the type of behavior I read in BP's report or in the featured match report on the Sideboard between Wise and Fuller. Yes, Wise reacted inappropriately and gave it away. So what? All that means to me is that he too should have been punished. The behavior I heard described would qualify as unsportsmanlike in any court in the land (be it legal or the court of public opinion) and the warning issued was appropriate. So why wasn't that warning followed with game and match loss when the behavior continued? Personally, I'd have given losses to both players involved (Wise and Fuller). But probably I wouldn't have had to, if I had already proven that I had a willingness to issue losses. Maybe trash talking is acceptable when it's"friendly," intended only to distract (although I don't agree with that either), but certainly what was described in the two reports I referenced was not acceptable - UNDER THE RULES.

I'm quite proud of the way judges and the DCI have been dealing with"issues" lately. So when does the DCI deal with these important issues? The new sheriff in town can't do something here? Why the hell not?

Mike La Beau