Month: March 2025

Can Shattered Trust Be Restored? Should it?

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Last September I wrote about minor league catcher Derek Bender. He was playing for the Fort Myers Mighty Mussels, the Minnesota Twins’ Low-A affiliate, and was accused after a game of tipping off several hitters for the Lakeland Flying Tigers, a Detroit farm team, regarding the next pitches the Mighty Mussels pitcher was going to throw. Lakeland scored four runs in the second inning to win the game 6-0 and win the Florida State League West division, eliminating the Mighty Mussels from playoff contention.

Lakeland’s coaches alerted Fort Myers coaches regarding Bender’s alleged pitch tipping, and the fact that Bender had told several teammates that he was exhausted and wanted the season to be over was sufficient to convince the organization that Bender had deliberately lost the game for his own team.

The Twins released him. Despite his previous status as a high-rated prospect, the catcher is now a pariah in the game. MLB’s investigation has not been completed, though news stories last fall stated his pitch-tipping as fact. Bender’s agency representing him advised him to make no public statements until there was official report. That seems to have been bad advice: the belief that the player cheated to cause his own team to lose has taken hold as the accepted narrative.

Now he has given an extensive interview to The Athletic, the New York Times sports publication. He says he is innocent of the accusations. Bender met with investigators in November, going over the fateful inning pitch-by-pitch to prove that he was innocent. If the report concludes he did tip off opposing batters to his pitcher’s pitchers, Bender’s baseball career is almost certainly doomed.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (and Further Observations on the Oval Office Fiasco) [Expanded]

/ Jack Marshall / 80 Comments

I worked for many years for a fascinating man, a brilliant negotiation specialist and consultant, Richard Halpern. My first thought yesterday after watching the astounding argument that broke out among the President, Vice-President Vance and Ukrainian president Zelenskyy was, “Boy, I wish Rich was still here to analyze what went wrong.” Rich died in 2009, but I learned enough about the art of negotiation from working with and observing him to be confident in how he would have reacted to what occurred on live television yesterday. My thoughts also reached back across the decades to the seminar I took on negotiation in law school with Adrian Fisher, then Dean of Georgetown Law Center after a career as a top arms control negotiator for the United States.

Both Richard Halpern and Adrian Fisher would have agreed that Zelenskyy was incompetent. I would add that he behaved like a deluded fool who had come to believe his fawning press notices.

First, Zelenskyy did not sufficiently research his negotiation partners, their preferences, their character, and their “hot buttons” that should never be pressed without sound reasons. Second, he did not properly prepare to insulate his own hot buttons from making him behave against his country’s best interests. Third, he did not comprehend why he was in the Oval office and what was expected of him.

Finally, he did not understand that as a supplicant nation seeking critical aid from the United States, he was not on a level playing field, particularly since he was in the U.S., on the President’s home turf. His job was to be respectful, compliant and non-confrontational no matter what occurred or was said.

The previous press conference with a foreign leader that President Trump had completed just the day before should have served as a guide. Keir Starmer was content to stay in the background and barely speak while the President rambled on in his inimitable fashion, and Great Britain has accumulated far more credits and greater good will with the U.S. than Ukraine. One commenter said that yesterday Zelenskyy failed to “read the room.” It was far worse than that: he failed to read the room, whom he was talking to, why he was there, and what he had to accomplish.

Continue reading →