R: [sumo] [spoilers]Asashoryu's open armed and beloved return.

[Jezz]

Hi again,

On 10/12/2007, Scott M. Kahn <smk1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> Let's not forget that the Kyokai did not ask for Asashoryu to return
> to Japan until after the press had flamed the issue to the point of
> mass hysteria.

There is the strong possibility of non-causality between these two instances.

> You are correct that Asashoryu was denied his day
> in court upon his return because the Kyokai and the consortium of
> angry oyakata had decided to make an example out of him in order to
> counter the bad publicity.

That is one possible interpretation of the facts.  There well may be others.

> While Moti makes much out of Asashoryu
> responsibility for having to respond to all the Kyokai's whims and
> wishes,

I am not 100% certain that is exactly what Moti has been saying.  He
generally reports what is being said in the Japanese press (Many
thanks Moti :-).  But anyways, I am sure Moti is entitled to his own
point of view.

> it is incredible that he was not allowed to defend himself
> in front of the Kyokai at that time.

I personally find it quite credible.   I may not be only one to do so.
 (Please note that I am not saying that the Kyokai were correct in
their actions, I am just saying that their actions were credible.)

> Even Tokitsukaze was
> permitted to present his defense of manslaughter charges after
> months of non action by the Kyokai and only after the Ministry that
> looks after the Kyokai got involved.  The Kyokai could have and
> should have had an internal investigation BEFORE formal charges
> were brought up.

I think Shomishu made a very good point concerning this last
statement.  We must try and compare apples with apples whenever
possible.

>
> Sukubidubidu
>

Jejima