Decoding the Kawhi Leonard Investigation, with DeMaurice Smith

Welcome to Pablo Torre finds out I am Pablo Torre and today we're going to find out what this sound is. So the first thing that every fan should do when they hear the word "independent" is stop thinking that it's independent. After this. I want to do a thing that I think people are expecting me to do to the point of exhaustion, which is talk about the coi Leonard story. But what's happening? Well that's an operative question. What is going on? Look at the clock, look at the calendar. Could be happening in the world of almost 11 months. I mean, I don't know what could be happening. Well, on Tuesday, Adam Silver happened to address the whole coi Leonard. Clippers investigation timeline. In addition to the trade that was supposed to happen between the clippers and the raptors for coi. That seemed done and then wasn't. And so we have new sound of the commissioner at the big NBA Board of Governors press conference out in Vegas. I am not conducting the investigation nor is the league office that's being conducted by the walk tell law firm independent of the league. Of course, as I've said previously, we all have an interest in wrapping this up. And I think I most recently said in an interview that I'm hopeful that it will wrap up this summer. So that would continue to be the goal here. And I just want to clarify so everyone understands. I mean, the league did not pause the trade. The parties to the trade made a decision not to go forward given that the investigation remained open. We await the thing that's supposed to happen as the NBA continues its independent investigation. Independent investigation? Well, then we're fine. Well, this is why you're here, Demora Smith. Thank you for being back in the video with me. Please. It's always a pleasure. Well, I want to establish that you have a particular and I think singular ability to explain a complicated thing that is an NBA story, but a lot more than that. Yeah. Because your job for those not familiar executive director of the NFL PA, the players association for about 14 years. Almost 15. Before then, you were a federal prosecutor was working for the Justice Department as an assistant US attorney and DC. Yep. Was that fun? Best job I've ever had in my life. Why? I primarily handled violent crime and homicide. So I was there for about six, almost seven years. You get to go to work every day and do the right thing. And second, being a lawyer in the Justice Department where you are charged with, you know, first and foremost, defending the Constitution. I know that's a rare way of thinking about it, given the administration. But the role of a Department of Justice lawyer is to simply ensure that the dictates of the Constitution are followed. And it's a rare day that you have a job like that. It takes us in your professional timeline to lay them. Yep. Eight of Milwaukee is one of the premier white shoe law firms in the United States, where you did what? I co-chaired the white collar crime representing businesses, individuals who allegedly have to even laugh allegedly created, you know, offenses. It was primarily a business practice. But, you know, for the almost 10 years that I was a partner, you're representing large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, either in the middle of a criminal investigation. Or they think that they have uncovered some sort of criminal problem. And you're hired to do one of two things. Either A, if it comes to the attention of the government, obviously you now are the defense lawyer for the company. If the company thinks that they are aware of criminal activity that violates the securities laws, they might ask you as a partner to do an internal investigation. That we would call an independent investigation. That would be designed to uncover who, when, where, what? And in those cases, you're either reporting to the board. You might be reporting to the audit committee. You might be reporting to compliance. But let's level set. You're being paid by the company. Well, okay, I want to levels that here before we tumble down into that particular perspective. Because what you've just established in those three stops on your resume is a particular authority on questions of how a union in sports might oversee a controversial legal dispute. You've also just attested to the fact that from the Justice Department perspective, you have a sense of what the laws might be and how they are respected or not. And at Latham, you just said that you did. Now, let's put a number to it. How many independent investigations for such companies? I don't know. 50, 150, I don't know. I mean, literally, it is, it's the bread and butter of, of your practice. And you're doing probably four simultaneous. Honestly. And so this is a story. The Steve Balmer, Clipperist, Kauai Leonard story that involves a company in aspiration that has been under the microscope by the federal government for securities law. Sure. It involves the richest owner in American sports, Steve Balmer, who was an investor in that company to the tune of 50 then in total $60 million. It involves the superstar player, Kauai Leonard, aforementioned, who was the recipient of a no-show organic marketing deal, according to our reporting, which he did nothing to get paid. More than he got paid by his sneaker sponsor, new balance, as well as in totality, individually, more than four times what Leonardo Caprio, Robert Downey Jr. Drake, Orlando Bloom, made combined. Wow. So market rate, being a consideration, he blew that out of the water. Yeah. And the reporting on this, by the way, as I welcome others, as always, in total cool, where the water is quite warm. The athletic, Mike Vorkinov, has reported now that the outside council locked a lift and is examining now if Kauai Leonard had a previously unreported endorsement deal with yet another company. He's also reporting that team executives around the league have increasingly come to expect that the league will punish the Clippers, as always, mileage varies on such expectations. But the fun thing just to get into visually here is that there are graphics, which we will show on our YouTube channel here. There's some graphics. The quote here is that some in the aspiration marketing department heard that Leonard was in the comic books and superheroes. So that was floated as a concept. The efforts went so far as to create images reviewed by the athletic of Leonard as an offshoot of Marvel's Groot. And as the show that established that Kauai Leonard didn't plant trees as a part of his again, no show job that we have previously reported. Seeing what appears to be horrific AI images of Kauai Leonard just like tree of fire in what feels like I think a crime against intellectual property. I'm going to need therapy after this. I mean, Groot being the tree guy from Guardians of the Galaxy. Kauai having just like stick and sticks sticking out of his head. There is that. But according to athletic after weeks of trying to work with the Marvel concept and brainstorm other ideas, the creative team was told to quit according to multiple former aspiration marketing employees. This quote stop thinking about Kauai. The person said they were told this feels like a dead end and quote and I guess for that particular detail, it is a dead end. It is really the beginning of our conversation. We're thankful it was a dead end. And we also now are at a table at which we await what the NBA's preferred outside council. Walk tell Lipton, which is faint. Sure. Sure. One of the best law firms in the country. Very well respected. And they are doing the quote unquote independent investigation. And when I say the word independent, I see you smile. And I want to get now. Let's just get into it. Let's get into it. Let's get to capture convention in a bit. Yeah, but just the investigation and how this works and what it really means to be quote unquote independent, which is the word that I've heard every media member. It's the word that the league always goes to is not us. No, no, it's it's not us. It's independent. It's independent. Well, I would invite fans to think about the the NFL's independent investigation of Dan Snire, former owner of the Washington Commander team. And you remember there were certain allegations with respect to cheerleaders, certain allegations with respect to workplace misconduct, their allegations about all sorts of things, including whether or not he was adequately sharing. Revenue with with the other owners. And I want fans to think about when was the first time that they saw the results of that independent investigation. The answer would be never I was going to say I'm about to Google answer that I don't think it doesn't. There was a long term investigation actually done by a former partner of mine, Beth Wilkinson, we were both partners together at Latham and Watkins. She had started I think the investigation when she was representing or hired by the commanders later on, she was hired by the league. But if you remember, the results of that internal independent investigation has never been released. So the first thing that every fan should do when they hear the word independent. is stop thinking that it's independent. Start asking questions, is it independent of whom? Is it independent of the general council? Probably not. Is it going to be released to the public? We don't know. So instead of just adopting this word independent, as if it were some sort of magical, singular, truth-facing investigation that will then be released to the public so that everybody can see exactly what happened, that is probably not necessarily the case. Yeah, I mean, the thing that I have been waiting for is not vindication from this law firm that is, by the way, paid by the National Basketball Association. And by the way, hopes to be further employed. As the recurring go-to outside council-- Just made an observation. And also just observing here, also, that the guy, ultimately on the hook for the bill, happens to be Steve Palmer. Sure. And so, purely from a following the money perspective, if you follow the money as I try to do and try to be transparent in doing, what I am not waiting for here is vindication for the reporting I've done, which leans on two whistleblowers who submit it to the federal government, as I say, in a way that is almost like a jack-in-the-box at this point, under penalty of perjury in a federal whistleblower complaint in 2023, these two aspiration employees attested in there explicit written text that this whole story with aspiration was a cap-circumvention scheme with the clippers for Kawaii Leonard. What I'm waiting for is to know what the NBA is willing to tell us. If anyone out there is holding their breath waiting for this report to be a 250-page report that's going to include spreadsheets, I wouldn't hold your breath. And I love spreadsheets. Oh, who doesn't? You want spreadsheets. You want phone records. You want things that are on cell phones. You want the granular proof that demonstrates what happened. And what I would say about internal investigations that are done on behalf of a company, that's what they want. They may not want it to be public, but that's what they want. The question that I have that wants you to help explain is in the process of their investigation, who are they generally speaking as a guy who's done these investigations, who are they communicating with, how often and how does that inform what their scope is? Yeah, well, think about it in reverse. They will start off with, you know, and I can only talk about my profile. Yes, that's what we're here to do. You would talk about your scope first. After you determine the scope of the investigation, the next thing that you are going to do is literally just sit down and write a list of all of the individuals that you want to talk to. Now, that list will be much longer than the list of the people that you actually talk to. Why? Independent investigators for a corporation cannot compel people to talk to them. And you've cleverly pointed it out. There could be people in the course of this investigation, who will not talk to walk to a lim-- Correct. If you're an employee, you have to comply with the internal investigation or risk getting fired. If you work for the MBA in some capacity. Correct. But it's not like somebody is going to drag the individual into a grand jury. When you were a federal prosecutor, you had the power of subpoena, the power of people to the good old power of jail. And in private practice, you don't have that. So if an employee does not want to talk to you, the outcome there is someone makes a decision whether or not that employee is going to be fired. So the clipper is, for instance, they feel the authority of the MBA in a way that an aspiration, current or former employee does not have any legal obligation to. And the third thing is there are or could be certain people who might have a Fifth Amendment privilege. And if you have a Fifth Amendment privilege, a good lawyer, even hopefully a bad lawyer, would tell you not to answer questions in an internal investigation because anything that you would say to lawyers can be used by the government. It is no longer privileged. Okay. So this is interesting. I didn't fully appreciate this. So the Fifth, you know, pleading the Fifth meeting, you can remain silent in any legal setting. It's your constitutional right. The risk of participating in an MBA investigation, which is different from a federal or in any way, any state, local investigation, the risk is that that information in that setting can then be used 100% 100% the reason why the general counsel is coordinating this investigation is, I promise you, the first draft of that internal investigation is privileged, 100% privileged, meaning who can see it? Two things fall into the broad river privilege if you're a lawyer. One, I'm representing you, our conversation is confidential, it's privileged. Second large category is if I'm doing work to help you as my client, the work that I generate, we call attorney work product, which is also privileged, where this investigation would probably fall into. Later on, the general counsel or the company or the CEO or the board of directors can make a decision that they want to make portions or all of this internal investigation non-privileged. But in all likelihood, it's going to be privileged up until that point. So if someone makes a decision that they might have a criminal exposure, they will probably not talk to the investigators during an internal investigation. So the question really is, what is the cost-benefit analysis of participation for any of the people who might know anything that could help answer the question of what the **** really happened here? Well, I'll tell you what. I think that when fans and sometimes people in the media hear the word independent, they have this connotation that there's going to be some truth teller who is then going to tell the truth. Well, you're going to have people who are interested in the truth. But that independent investigation, let's put it this way, is still for the most part if it's privileged, under the lock and key of the general counsel to CEO and the other people in the organization. So this is where I want to get to something that I have learned in the course of my investigation of the investigation, which is to say that my understanding of how often walk tell is in communication with the NBA's general counsel with its internal legal counsel, those lawyers that work for the league itself, my understanding is that it is constant. It is every day and out of silver, essentially confirmed as much in that press conference we heard earlier in Vegas. I do get regular updates from our general counsel who's Rick Buchanan and he deals with walk tell on a daily, if not weekly basis or weekly, if not daily basis on in terms of who they are talking to and what they are finding. And I don't know if that feels extreme to you or if that jives with your experience. That would actually jive with my experience. Investigations are living, breathing organisms, right? I mean, you are constantly trying to follow evidence trails and following up on people. You schedule interviews. They don't happen. You go deal with somebody else. You hear something from that. You re-scheduled the one you have. The idea that there would be ongoing conversations isn't abnormal. There's also one more reason why they would be constant. I want to establish that on some level, the idea that you have a client, the league, and they want to know what you're finding so they can figure out what they want to do about this. It's on a rolling, updating basis. I can understand that even as it begins to explode the premise of independence, but what are you thinking of? Sometimes clients don't want you to write a lot down and they would prefer oral updates. Just make it an observation. Based on your experience. Convenience. So there's nothing really to turn over. It's the corporate law version of that quote from the wire of, "Are you taking notes on a criminal conspiracy?" Right. And an ancient art that I've come to appreciate in the world of law on all sides of the table is, "If we don't write it down, it can't be discovered later." It never existed. So, dude, this is where I point out that according to the last collectively bargained agreement that the NBA has with its counterpart, the NBA, the players union, teams can be punished for circumventing the salary cap, and the penalties include fines up to $7.5 million, direct for for true of draft picks, voiding any player contract, a suspension of up to a year for any team personnel found to have engaged in such a violation and so forth and so on. But I think for lots of people who have been processing the story as fans or even as media, the implication is to think, well, clearly the people who should be defending Kawaii Leonard and its representatives against the league here. here must be the player's union by its very nature and your perspective, which I want to really detail here, it seems more complicated than that. It's far more complicated. First of all, will the union represent the winner because of its obligation to represent a union member? 100%. The player has a duty of fair representation that he can be defended by his union and has to be defended by its union, but the salary cap violation makes it far more complicated because the union is a party to the agreement that creates the salary cap. The salary cap, as a premise for those not familiar, this is a restriction. It is a ceiling on what a team is allowed to pay. Correct. It's players. It's employees. And on one level, of course, you can imagine that that seems unfair by its very nature. It's a restriction on what money can be given to people. It seems like an unfree market. Right. And your view on what a salary cap is, what it embodies and therefore what position anyone who is sympathetic even to a union should have about it. It's complicated. So, let's start up from the macro to the micro. Please. The leagues have an anitrust exemption and that means for everybody out there, the leagues can operate in ways that normal businesses can't. They literally have a defined market. They have cornered the market on whatever it is, basketball, football, hockey, baseball. What the law says is that if you have an anitrust exemption, then you must also have a union. That union is allowed to come together with its members and with you create a collective bargaining agreement. So, if you think of the yang as the league gets to do whatever they want, yes. The yang is but they can be represented by a fully unionized workforce. Let me just make it 1,000% clear for the people who are listening. Every time you get done with a CBA at the end of those negotiations, the first thing that the league ensures is that there is going to be a union. Why? Because if there is no union, they worry about losing their anitrust protection. macro. The collective bargaining agreement exists because the owners want it because they want their anitrust exemption. The players want it because it gives them protection against an organization that has cornered the market. All right. So, and I get it and I get the players and like, oh, we don't need a salary cap, we know this and we're that. I'm like, you know, first of all, go somewhere and set out because the reality is if you didn't have a cap and the owners controlled and cornered the market, they could set a price that is far below what they're paying because of the cap. The union prevents that because it means that when they are negotiating salaries and things like healthcare and protection and pensions and things like that, you get to represent the entire body. And if there is no collective bargaining agreement, the risk is that the owners won't have talent. So, that's the leverage. So, if people hear this and they say, but wait a minute, a salary cap feels immoral to me. That's what it does, but so does monopolies, right? Let's flip it around just to make it really easy. You're coming out of college, there's the National Football League. There really isn't another place if you're the best talent in the world to receive the best salaries. So there's no salary cap, there's no collective bargaining agreement and you and I are owners of the National Football League and he comes in and he says, you know, I'm, you know, the best running back in the league and I'm coming out, I want to get paid. And you and I decide, hey, we're going to pay $100,000 and you go, man, there's no way I'm going to play for $100,000 and you and I say, uh, good luck. Go find another job. You can't. That's what we call collusion and we've had that conversation in a previous episode. So the idea, when people think about salary caps, would any union member love a free market if it was truly free? Yes, that is not what we have because the leagues already have an antitrust exemption, which means it's not a free market. So what you're saying is that a salary cap while philosophically imperfect and inconvenient compromise is a mechanism that nets out to the benefit of the collective population of professional athletes, playing in that sport in so far as it not only sets a limit on what they can be paid. It's the idea that if you don't have a cap, owners can just gather and communicate and get away with whatever they would like. And how do we know this is true? College, right? I mean, you think about it. I mean, yes, players now have the NIL deal, but what, what did that take? An antitrust lawsuit to win. So is your suggestion here that a salary cap is as much market guidance as it is a mechanism to enforce? It's both. It's absolutely both. And again, it's just like the draft and every now and then, you know, you would hear players, well, you know, D, I don't like to have the draft, the draft to be the free market. Again, just replay the same hypothetical that we went with. You would play for $100,000, $200,000 because you can't get any more money anywhere else. And if that's the case, the bad guys win. So the draft, the salary cap, everything that goes into a torturous, and I mean torturous, collective bargaining agreement is a compromise, but that compromise is predicated on the fact that there has to be a union because the leagues have an antitrust exemption. So when I look at a salary cap violation, I look at it as a violation of our agreement. You can't simply start an end with does a player benefit from it. Because the yang to that is who who doesn't. And if there's a salary cap violation, 30 teams are abiding by the rules. One team is not. It's very easy to come to a conclusion that the other 30 were victims of the salary cap violation. So I've been in that instance before as the executive director where I thought the teams were violating the rules. And I would file a grievance over it. A great example. For the fans out there who remember the Saints bounty investigation. 2012. 2012, once again, took a lining off of my stomach. But in that case, yes, did the union represent the players who were alleged to have engaged in the bounty system? Yes. Just to demonstrate how complicated that representation was, there was a walled off section of lawyers in our office who were not privy to what we were doing on the defense of the Saints, but who were working on this issue of, well, wait a minute. If there was a bounty, that bounty circumvented the salary cap. Right. These are payments for again, excessive physical harm that were not being accounted for on the cap sheet. Theoretically, it's a cap violation. This is a brilliant case study because it very clearly, so much more clearly than coilinert illustrates the, you got to do the thing over here to defend your player, but also what you're seeing in this violation by a team, by an owner, implies what in terms of what's available for the union to go after. Well, again, you're representing the players who theoretically were not violating this salary cap and were not able to access such payments. So it does become this duality that you live with as a union leader because yes, you are obligated. And by the way, I took no apologies for vigorously defending our players. That's the job. That's the job. But on the other side, you do have this obligation to vindicate and protect the deal because you cannot then have a world where if you are unwilling to enforce the rules of the salary cap, now team A, B, C, D and E make deals to circumvent the salary cap. And now you're in a position where you are perpetuating inequity in the system for which you are a co-owner. But I think there is some persuasion necessary here because the instinct again in the world of sports is to say, "But the owners are getting away with so much." And this is why my brain is broken a little bit when I think about this because what I'm hearing you also point out to me is that when you only defend the player, the union member in the bounty gate scandal to continue this case study, what you're leaving on the table is the ability to go after an owner for violating, for breaking the covenant. If they knew about it, for sure, if they knew about it, if you don't hold the owner to task. Two things. You have completely undermined the deal in the system for which you were a co-owner. the union and that collective bargaining agreement. I mean, that starts for NFL in 1993 and it continues until today. It's jointly owned. It's ours. And because it's ours, in the same way that the owners turn on the players, if they perceive some violation, whether it's drug use, steroid use, domestic violence, whatever it is. The first thing you hear from a group of owners is, "Well, you know, we have to punish you "because this is our system." Well, what is good for the goose is indeed fucking good for the gander, right? And so that's the first thing. The second thing is something that I am absolutely positive nobody else gets. The day you make a decision as a union leader to turn a blind eye to what a group of owners is doing, that you know is unlawful is the day that they got you. And they own you from that point. They've priced out everything, everything. But this is when it comes to what does an underestimation of the import of the rule of law cost a union. I'm not under selling this, everything. It cost you everything because the union is there to hold the owners accountable. What I will tell you is virtually no one else is. So the day that they know that they have leveraged over you to not hold them accountable is the day the union has lost everything. - It occurs to me that if you're in a fight against someone with more money and more power and more weapons in all of the metaphorical, and in the case of the government literal ways, the rule of law is meant in theory to protect those who have less. It is a system in which the people who don't have all the money and the guns and all that stuff can be protected with a suit of armor in which they can walk into a courtroom and stand with even footing against the richest people in the country. With a chance of winning, right? But the other thing that comes from that and it's more important with the ability to actually walk in court, it establishes a little bit of fear on the other side in the hopes that they won't break the law. And that's more important than the former. - Yeah, I know, it's true. Well, look, if the reason why the owners in all of these leagues are so dangerous is I know and it would keep me up at night what they can do. Without, almost without any recourse, without some FBI agent saying anything, without a department of justice saying anything, without the SEC saying anything. Imagine, and I talk about it in my book, and it's one of the first lines in the book, if you had the power to do anything, what would you do if you knew you wouldn't get caught? That's the second thing I'm talking about. Once you have come to a conclusion that it is highly unlikely that you are ever going to get caught, that you're gonna have to pay back money, that you're gonna have to go to jail, that you're gonna have to have public shame. Once you've reached that point in your either professional career or the amount of money that you have, I have come to the conclusion is that is when you see people behaving poorly. I used to say this to our players, because every now and then people didn't understand why I was filing grievances to enforce rules under the collective bargaining agreement. Cheating can never be the baseline. Full stop. Cheating can't be your baseline. Corruption can't be your baseline. Why does that matter in sports particularly? - The fundamental necessary ingredients for support is fairness and rule following. So when I'm with my class, and yes, I torture my class, and this is a sure shameless plug for my class that I'm teaching at Georgetown in the fall. - A bunch of nerds, a bunch of nerds. - Turn nerdy, dorky stuff. The business of ethics and sport. Sport requires fairness and rule following. Entertainment does not. Entertainment only asks for an audience. I think from a pure straight line business analysis, even if you lose the fact that people believe that it's any given Sunday, they believe that the rules are being followed. They believe that someone is trying to engender fairness. You've undermined your product. - Do you guys want the most valuable cultural institution in the United States to remain this valuable and in fact, to continue to increase in value? - Yeah. - Because the thing that I think is very easy to lose sight of when you don't play the longest possible game, even longer than the owners in these case studies. - Unions have to play longer than the owners. - It's the risking of everything that makes it worth watching. - Sometimes you just have to put it into different amount of language. For the basketball players, football players, hockey players, baseball players, all the players, even the players who are playing in the World Cup, you look at the insane effort and the industry that these players willingly put themselves through game after game, single elimination, World Cup champion or not. What do they absolutely insist upon fairness and rule following? So why on God's green earth would you come to a conclusion that you are going to expect less when it comes to the macro way in which the league is being operated? Why would you choose less fairness in the macro world than the fairness and rule following that you absolutely would insist on on the pitch? The league, the way it's run, the collective bargaining agreements, the business decisions that you make together have to be enforced. The history of the salary cap alone. I think it originated in the NBA. Insistence on the salary cap made the NFL come up with the slogan any given Sunday. Why? Yes, parody. Yes, equal opportunity. You know what it really did, man? It made for great entertainment. So why on God's green earth would you think that it's okay to have a baseline where it's okay to circumvent the salary cap? (upbeat music) (upbeat music) This brings us back to the NBA. And in the NBA, of course, there are only five players on a court on your side. Oh yeah. And so the value of a superstar mathematically speaking is nowhere more profoundly impactful. 100%. And so when it comes to why would you bother even doing this, attempting this according to our reporting for someone like Kawaii Leonard, it's because that's how you win. Historically speaking, that is what you need. It is necessary, although not always efficient, but it is certainly necessary to have a guy that you think can be the superstar. And what this brings me to is what the National Basketball Players Association has said about this ongoing NBA investigation. The NBA, which is under new leadership, has said is we agree with the Clippers. We expect there to be no there, there. Not from anything we've seen. We've been involved with Kawaii and his team. And the Union has taken the tack of, we are here to take the side of our player and what you've just heard in this episode for better and for worse, is not part of what the Union seems to be prioritizing or communicating at this moment of our recording. - We're continuing to do whatever we can in order to push the investigation forward. But all we can do is make sure that we're being responsive in his camp is being responsive as they have been. And hopefully it wraps up soon. - Just to clarify, when you say you don't think there's a there there, the current stance is still that you think the investigation will not find what's been accused? Not from anything that I've seen, correct. - Hey, look, I never, sort of as a rule, I never second guess another Union head because I know the jobs are nearly impossible. - It's really, really hard. - It's hard. - The job is awful for the most part and it's hard. - Yes. - But I do know this. And the rules that you tortuously negotiate are important for a lot of reasons. And that statement could have been when they knew X about the investigation and now they know why or you're doing it because you have an obligation to protect the player. I get all of them. And there are days when you have to make public statements as the head of a union because you have to make public statements. And this is the new executive director, David Kelly, at the MBPA's leadership rendition press conference at Summer League just last week. Yeah. And look, David's brilliant. The players are lucky to have him. I can only talk about the way that I would have perceived this issue knowing everything that I've read in the press and again, a lot of it because of your reporting. I think at the end of the day, every union leader, especially in sports, has to take the enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement as paramount. For all the reasons that I talked about. We've talked about why it's important for the rule of law. We've talked about why it's important for the players. But at the end of the day, I mean, none of these leagues would be here without fans. And so what is the obligation that a league has to its fans? I mean, my answer as a journalist is going to begin with the concept of transparency. That we have also been talking about how there is a league investigation that is not quite so independent, despite the labeling that will, according to our expectation, not be quite so transparent. There is a union that we can say here on the show did not do their own investigation or internal inquiry, and may in fact, as you suppose, be taking the side of the player as a matter of the default strategy. As here in this weird podcast studio that we have, we try to bring you at the very least the transparency of, at this point, a ridiculous 11-part investigation, which maybe, hopefully, in that ecosystem being balanced in that way, we get to a product that feels credible and worth spending your money and time and emotions on. And here, I'll push back on you a little bit. Here's what I worry about. In that sort of devolution from sports to entertainment, I wonder whether fans will care as much as you and I care. Over the last five or six years, is this feeling by some fans that they are willing to just take or accept what's being given to them? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We should realize that someone out there is aware of the price of your indifference. One thousand a percent. This has been Pablo Torre, "Finds Out", a metal-lark media production, and I'll talk to you next time.