的确，两篇报导的差距颇大。我试着去找出更 确切的消息却没有办法找到。 不过，ESPN的Chad Ford也引用了Boston Globe 的报导内容在他的文章中，并表示不只是 Boston Globe，其他的消息来源也证实Celtics、 Baker以及球员工会的确有这麽一个协议存在。 前两天的Boston Globe则再一次解释了这份协议 的内容。 "The agreement that Vin Baker and the Celtics reached in February 2003 does not by itself give the Celtics the power to terminate his contract. According to someone who has seen the document, there is no such language in the agreement. But here's what it does do: It sets up a very specific aftercare program with testing and consequences. And if Baker does not stay in compliance, there is a Mechanism in place (after his suspension reaches 10 games) whereby the Celtics could terminate the contract by going to the Uniform Player Contract. As such, Baker's deal could be terminated Not because of his alcohol problems, or his failure to comply, but because he would be deemed unfit to play and thus in breach of the contract. The Celtics would have by then a baseline of evidence to use -- including the documentation of the independent doctor overseeing the aftercare -- when the Players Association takes the matter to arbitration." 也就是说，当禁赛达到十场之多时，Celtics有权 利终止合约；但是所凭藉的理由不会是因为Baker 的酗酒问题或不遵守复建疗程，而是Baker必须被 认定为状态无法继续打球，并因此违反合约。 当球员工会申请仲裁时，Celtics必须提出证据， 包括独立医生监督此一复建疗程的文件。 有一点是值得观察的。虽然没有任何一方出面 承认这份协议的存在，但是面对ESPN及 Boston Globe两大媒体的报导，目前为止却也没 有任何的辩驳。先不论球员与球团。通常，牵扯 到球员工会的事情，若是媒体报导有误，工会应 该会出面澄清才是。所以这是否代表三方面都默 认这份协议的存在？ 其实即使情况演变到Celtics有权终止合约， 球员工会也不会轻易让步。一但进入仲裁，所 耗费的时间，对急着摆脱薪资上限压力的Celtics 来说既不划算又没有帮助。也许买断合约会是最 简单快速的解决方法。 不过既然Baker还有至少一次的机会，空想这些 似乎太早些……静观其变吧！ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.223.30.46