All due respect and concern should be granted to Brendan Sorsby and his gambling addiction -- a medical condition diagnosed by professionals.
That said, the argument that the Texas Tech quarterback should be granted an injunction to maintain his NCAA eligibility after getting busted for prolific sports wagering stands up about as well as an igloo on a West Texas oil patch in June.
The NCAA deemed Sorsby permanently ineligible earlier this spring after discovering he made thousands of bets on sports the past four years while a member of the Indiana, Cincinnati and, since December, Texas Tech programs. That includes at least 40 wagers on IU football while he was a part of that team.
This was a complete and total violation of NCAA rules, and the banishment followed precedent that ended the careers of other athletes in similar, or even lesser, circumstances.
Regardless, the scandal found itself in court -- as just about everything involving college sports does these days.
On Monday, Sorsby's high-profile legal team argued to Judge Ken Curry, brought in from Tarrant County to assure impartiality, that the NCAA should treat Sorsby's addiction as a medical condition, which he has since treated with a 35-day inpatient rehab stint.
There is no reason to question Sorsby's illness. After all, he knowingly risked his career, including a reported $5 million this season playing for the Red Raiders, to gamble mostly small amounts on not just college sports but everything from Romanian soccer games to the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest.
That shouldn't override, however, the absolute right and need for the NCAA -- or any sports organization -- to enforce integrity standards in relation to sports wagering.
Actions must have consequences, especially when the NCAA spends so much time and money educating its athletes about not just its clearly defined rules but the dangers of gambling in general. This is third rail stuff.
If Sorsby can claim a medical condition as a way to circumvent statutes that prohibit, for example, wagering on a game involving your own team -- whether you play in it or not -- then every case going forward will be determined on the same criteria, leaving the sport helpless.
It wasn't me who shaved those points or threw that game; it was my illness.
And should Sorsby get preferential treatment because he gambled so often that he displayed an obvious addiction over another athlete who just foolishly placed a few bets?
Further, and this is where Sorsby's argument becomes even more ridiculous, his attorneys said the NCAA should prioritize supporting a player's "mental health" -- which would be negatively impacted by being banished -- over enforcing discipline. The ban, Sorsby's attorneys argued, would impede his recovery.
Such a precedent could be used to eliminate any ruling.
Suspended for a game due to repeated late hits? What about my mental health? Denied a sixth year of eligibility? What about my mental health?
Even accepting Sorsby's addiction as a medical condition doesn't excuse the behavior. His actions show he knew what he was doing was wrong.
The stipulated facts of the case include Sorsby loading more than $60,000 into a FanDuel account registered to his brother-in-law but which Sorsby could access. Then there was the $5,000 he sent to friends to place bets for him after he enrolled at Texas Tech.
The only reason to do that is to avoid detection.
Sorsby's attorneys argued that his more than three dozen bets on Indiana never occurred in a game he played in, were always pro-Hoosier and didn't disclose any nonpublic information. However, his betting records show he twice bet the under on his team, though he says he doesn't remember doing so.
Not that such a distinction should matter, but Sorsby's argument isn't even intellectually sound. Any sportsbook that realizes a player is betting on his team one week but not the next (or on a passing total or a rushing total or whatever) could easily glean valuable inside information.
The NCAA -- or any organization -- should have the absolute right to not just prohibit such actions but use severe penalties to discourage them by others. Stripping those powers, even slightly or circumstantially, would cause enormous and far-reaching harm.
The reason Sorsby was on scholarship, and earning millions in revenue share and NIL deals, is because fans love college athletics. The single quickest way to kill that passion is for those same fans to no longer believe in the integrity of the competition.
Sorsby has already done enough damage. After all, it took four full seasons for his gambling to be discovered by law enforcement. It's fair to wonder how many others are slipping through the cracks.
Sports wagering is dangerous and increasingly addictive with each advancement in technology. It's sad and unfortunate when any person gets caught up in it, let alone a star quarterback.
The addictions are real. So are the rules, though.
They shouldn't be ignored. They should be reinforced, in this case, with Judge Curry issuing a clear and crisp denial of this temporary injunction -- and a resounding message along with it.