The WBC Sulfan scandal. He was identified and apologized.

SSG Kim Kwang-hyun, NC Lee Yong-chan and Doosan’s Jung Chul-won have all been expunged from the first team roster. They will be suspended indefinitely.

Now comes round two: discipline.

The KBO will hold a punishment committee as soon as possible after completing a thorough investigation.

The Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) has conducted a full investigation and received statements from the players in question. It’s just a matter of determining whether it’s false. The time and place have been specified, so the punishment committee can be held based on the facts so far.

If there’s a lie in the statement, or if there’s additional evidence of misbehavior, then you can hold another punishment committee and impose more severe punishment.

You need to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. Clubs that have sent players to the national team will not call them up pending the outcome of the penalty committee. This is a double whammy, as they are dealing with the aftermath of the WBC and the uncontrollable behavior of their players.

▶What to base discipline on: two points from the ‘National Team Operating Regulations’

What kind of punishment will be handed down is a primary concern for fans and clubs.

Depending on the situation, it could indirectly affect not only the clubs, but also other clubs. The three players are key pitchers for the three clubs.

The criteria are clear. The criteria is clear: does it violate the National Team Operating Regulations?

The KBO said, “We will closely review the case and investigate whether there is any violation of the National Team Operating Regulations to determine the next steps.”

‘National Team Operating Regulations’. There are two things to note.

The first is Article 9, Athlete’s Obligations, which states that a player is obligated to “maintain the honor and dignity of the national team during the period of the call-up.

The second is Article 13, Discipline. It reads, “Discipline for national team players shall be applied in accordance with the KBO Rules and Penalty Regulations. One of the reasons for holding a disciplinary committee is “those who have caused social problems,” which leaves room for interpretation.

From now on, it’s a matter of interpretation.

Article 151 of the KBO Constitution provides clear sanctions for disgraceful behavior.

It specifically lists gambling, violence, sexual assault, drug offenses, military service irregularities, economic offenses such as drunk driving and theft fraud, doping, unsportsmanlike conduct toward spectators, religious, racial and sexual discrimination, slander of the league, and anti-social behavior such as defamation through social media. The penalties are also clear. The rules state that “any disruptive behavior not listed may be subject to appropriate sanctions in accordance with this table. These are the grounds for punitive sanctions

How to interpret the distinction between regular drinking and ‘entertainment’

The question is, how should we view the drinking in a nightclub during a national team call-up?

The players admitted to going to a snack bar in Akasaka, Tokyo. However, they denied the initial reports, saying, “We didn’t go there the day 먹튀검증 before the game.” They claimed that “there were no waitresses at the bar,” even though the bar is a sex shop where waitresses come and go.

If the players’ statements are true, the grounds for disciplinary action are somewhat muddled. The concept of “entertainment” is important in this case. It’s unlikely that a player would be disciplined for drinking alcohol at a local izakaya, or tavern, on the eve of a non-match day if they weren’t under an official ban. You can’t punish based on circumstance alone.

Regardless of the specific behavior, the focus of the disciplinary action is likely to be on the fact that the athlete went to a snack bar, a type of nightlife establishment, and drank alcohol, which made the news and brought dishonor to the national team.

The level of discipline will depend on how the disciplinary committee interprets the resulting responsibility.

Unjae Lee’s case, A-varsity weight is different for soccer and baseball

Here is the most similar case.

The drinking scandal involves four South Korean soccer players (Lee Un-jae, Woo Sung-yong, Lee Dong-guk, and Kim Sang-sik) who competed in the 2007 Asian Cup 16 years ago. It was revealed in the media about three months after the tournament that they had been drinking at a nightclub during the tournament.

The players held a press conference and tearfully apologized to the public. At the time, the KFA punished the four with a one-year suspension from the national team. Lee Un-jae was banned for three years from competitions organized by the KFA and the other three players were banned for two years.

The suspensions were based on the principle of proportionality, as the players’ behavior occurred during the national team call-up period. This is a severe punishment in a sport where A-matches matter.

Baseball is a different story. While there may be FA compensation, the national team is more of an honor and obligation than a benefit. While making the national team is very important for undrafted players, who can take advantage of the military service that comes with Olympic and Asian Games medals, it’s not really a benefit for players who have already completed their military service. In fact, it can be a burden that can make it difficult to stay in shape for a full season.

None of Kim Kwang-hyun, Lee Yong-chan, or Jeong Chul-won have completed military service. This is why a national team suspension is not an effective punishment.

That said, it’s not always logical to link national team issues to regular season suspensions. The court of public opinion can be a burden.

There’s also the consideration of the club, which is already suffering. You’re already out of the lineup, and a suspension will only add to the gap.

It’s a tough case. What kind of Solomonic wisdom will the penalty committee come up with?