I would love to agree with you but we have seen this before in the past. I’m not saying this is what happened here. But we have had first-hand accounts of this happening in the past. Most people were not around when it was big though.
3 Likes
Totally agree.
The fact that the statement is vetted or written by a lawyer is important for context. It is intended to speak select facts (and quietly omit others) while giving cover to the client. It if was a statement jointly reviewed and issued by both sides, that would be very different.
If it were as simple as the statement makes it and no actual ban (formal or shadow) was put in place, someone would have quickly and officially said, “What ban?” and it wouldn’t have required a third party to get involved and take a month to resolve — all the fine details of misunderstanding would have simply have been a non-issue in the context of a clarification.
I do believe there was a cultural issue at play in Japan, but not purely on Taka’s side … and the legally vetted statement seems to speak to the reality of a shadow ban and conditional removal:
“He has not been formally banned from attending or sponsoring such events, and until 2021 the JYYF reports that it continued to send sponsorship proposals to Mr. Hasegawa in order to give him the option of supporting and participating in these events.”
Note the use of “formally”.
And why the condition of sponsorship to even participate as an individual?
2 Likes