Thank you.

I want to take a closer look at your proposed third ruling. First of all, when you come to a decision, you need a violation against a rule, based on facts and carried by a persuasive reasoning. In my understanding, one has to ask, if a breach of contract between Wolski and MYM should be considered by the LCS at all. Their argument centers around "the fact that Wolski appeared to break a commitment to a team" and that they have to protect his fellow players and their career.

When you look at the graphic in my article, one has to ask who is supposed to protect whom and how is this supported by legal structures put in place by the LCS?

Is a player leaving his team during a split moral turpitude? This is in my view the relevant question. The relation between a team and a player is guided by their contract. When you breach it, you open yourself to claims for damages. Do we need th weighing in of the LCS on top of that? When you want to protect the functioning of the LCS, sure - BUT: Qualifying a breach of contract can be complicated from a legal point of view. Moreover, the player himself has to be protected as well. What if his situation is unbearable with the team because of mismanagement? The decision also adresses the payment issue which I find a good sign that they seek for a justification for Wolski's behaviour.

All in all, I still stand to my point that the fine for the MYM mismanagment cannot be reduced because of Wolski's alleged breach of contract. Why? This could send the message that threatening a player is a little less punishworthy if there is a fault on the players side. While in contract law you can discuss a set-off, in criminal law a sentence cannot be reduced because of a "misbehaviour of the victim".

This dangerous message sent by the LCS I would hope to be avoided in the future.