Legal disability is different than some BS excuse for not doing something. Like I said CBA was agreed to before he was in the league. Yes he didn't have to join the union but he also has a semi reasonable case to go against it. I understand there are all sorts of legal issues, but that is something for somewhere else as I think it is a much bigger issue then just here. I don't see anyway you can defend what the Rockets did. I understand the 76ers though. I think that cutting someone for a disability is wrong but cutting him because of talent or him not fitting in with their vision is.
It may be difficult to do but it is the right thing to do.
I'm not trying to sound like I'm taking a side on this. If it came across that way i apologize.
I'm just trying to say that it becomes a very slippery slope when trying to establish "Legal Disability" relative to the CBA. It sounded to me like Royce was trying to establish a "protocol" to deal with these situations relative to the NBA as a whole, not just the Rockets. That is pretty much an impossible task, as every NBA owner has had to deal with egotistically disabled players for ever.
Basically, Royce was arguing to allow private doctors (not NBA paid doctors or team physicians) to determine the course of treatment for players like him. The NBA didn't want to put the actual "availability" of such highly paid assets into the hands of people that might not toe the line.