No win­ners

Los Angeles Times - - Sports - T.J. SIMERS

Nei­ther side ap­pears cred­i­ble in the McCourt case, but T.J. Simers gives the nod to Jamie.

Fi­nal ar­gu­ments heard in the Dodgers trial, and here in sports it is all about wins and losses.

Both sides are so bad, though, it’s a shame some­body has to win.

But I declare Jamie vic­to­ri­ous, so long as Judge Scott

Gor­don doesn’t blow it on some mumbo-jumbo le­gal tech­ni­cal­ity.

That puts Dodgers fans a day closer to Frank post­ing a “For Sale” sign in front of the sta­dium.

Sure, it could be an­other 90 days be­fore the judge of­fi­cially in­val­i­dates the mar­i­tal agree­ment be­tween Frank & Jamie. It could also be months be­fore the Raiders are of­fi­cially elim­i­nated from Su­per Bowl con­tention. But we know right now, don’t we? Frank’s lawyers suc­cess­fully drove home the point that Jamie is just not cred­i­ble. Jamie’s lawyers suc­cess­fully drove home the point that Frank is just not cred­i­ble. They’ve got that right.

So the judge prob­a­bly plays Solomon and splits the nest egg in half. Un­less he blows it.

Frank will ap­peal. We know he will spend more money on lawyers. We don’t know if he will do the same on his base­ball team.

If the court­room losses pile up, he will have to pay off the love of his life. And Frank prob­a­bly doesn’t have enough money to make Jamie go away un­less he sells the Dodgers.

In the mean­time, who knows the price to be paid by fans?

Frank’s at­tor­ney-Stephen Sus­man says, “I don’t think the divorce has had any ef­fect on the team.”

That’s in­spir­ing. The Dodgers ap­par­ently just stink.

Wait un­til they suf­fer be­cause Frank doesn’t have the money to make them any bet­ter. How bad will they be then?

If Dodgers fans could af­ford to take a day off or the en­tire 11days it took for this trial, they might never buy a ticket again from these peo­ple. They did not dis­tin­guish them­selves.

Frank’s lawyer got it in on the record last week that Jamie had an af­fair even though Cal­i­for­nia is a no­fault state. Her lawyers re­vealed in doc­u­ments that Frank had two of their sons on the pay­roll even though they weren’t work­ing for the team. Sounds like the pi­lot for “Mod­ern Fam­ily.”

If Jamie wins, does Frank work harder on his ap­peal or im­prov­ing the Dodgers?

What if the judge does blow it? Will the Dodgers’ faith­ful for­give and for­get? Will Frank give them more than

An­dre Ethier, who flat­tened out, Matt Kemp, who doesn’t like Dodgers fans, and Clay­ton Ker­shaw, who pitches once ev­ery five days?

Jamie is the one with per­son­al­ity. She can say she’s the face of the Dodgers and later laugh about it when ridiculed.

Early in the trial she has a Star­bucks cup in front of her with “Jeff ’s” name across it. Her body­guard. She sits for fi­nal ar­gu­ments with Page 2’s name writ­ten on her cup.

Jamie, by the way, is wear­ing a black jacket atop a black skirt with the Chris­tian Louboutin tell­tale red soles be­neath black pumps that go for $600plus. We in the court­room busi­ness just know these things.

Frank is los­ing it, and I don’t mean the case. Most peo­ple are a for­giv­ing lot. But it takes some hu­mil­ity, sin­cer­ity and prob­a­bly a win­ning team to re­bound. Frank doesn’t have a whole lot of that go­ing for him these days.

Tell me that’s not Frank McCourt coach­ing our old team the Rams when you look at Steve Spag­n­uolo.

Maybe that ex­plains why it seems like he’s been in hid­ing for months. He cer­tainly hasn’t had much to do with the Dodgers. When the trial started, the Dodgers were still alive, but then it’s been a long time since he acted like an owner.

The Dodgers are play­ing the Rock­ies onWed­nes­day af­ter­noon and Frank is lis­ten­ing in­tently to a trans­mu­ta­tion ar­gu­ment. Just what does win­ning pitcher Ra­mon Tron­coso have to do to get his at­ten­tion?

It’s so strange to spend all day in a court­room for a sports story, two adults who slept to­gether for decades try­ing to ig­nore each other. I skipped a Clip­pers prac­tice for this.

The judge has read ev­ery doc­u­ment given to him and sat through 10 days of tes­ti­mony — most of it a re­hash of what is in those doc­u­ments.

The lawyers must think he’s re­ally dense, be­cause now they are re­mind­ing him in clos­ing ar­gu­ments of what was said the past 10 days.

Frank’s lawyer, Sus­man, slob­bers so much over the judge he has to pull out a hand­ker­chief to wipe off his face. Then Sus­man calls on Sor­rell

Trope, a fam­ily law in­sti­tu­tion and the clos­est thing to Mat­lock we have in these parts. The judge is all smiles be­cause he ob­vi­ously loves Mat­lock.

Mat­lock talks about a dog, gets all philo­soph­i­cal and tells the judge, “I know a lot about you by look­ing at your eyes.” I won­der if the name Vladimir

Sh­punt, the spir­i­tual healer the McCourts hired, crosses the judge’s mind. He’s smil­ing.

Jamie’s lawyer hands the judge 27 pages of bul­letin points to start his clos­ing ar­gu­ment. He reads them all to the judge, page by page. The whole thing has a “Sesame Street” feel to it.

Later the judge calls for a re­cess. He says he has a child cus­tody case he needs to hear.

It’s a jar­ring re­minder of more im­por­tant things.

t.j.simers@latimes.com

Nick Ut

STYLE POINTS: Jamie McCourt could wind up win­ning the divorce case, which prob­a­bly would mean a sale of the Dodgers.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.