What a guy!

Haney's generous gesture wasn't enough to win the prize he was after, however. The Nats ownership went to the Lerner ownership group, and Haney was left with the thrill of the chase and the good will he gained with the city and the media with his matching gift pledge. He was also left with $400,000, because Haney never matched the donations that night over a year ago, and now claims, through his lawyers, that he never made a "binding" promise to do so. It now seems pretty plain to all that his offer to match the donations was a ploy to give his prospects for ownership a boost, and once he didn't get the team, he reneged on his promise.

What a guy.

Yeechh.

Revolting though it may seem, Haney's lawyers could be correct. Promises without consideration (that is, promises that are made with no exchange of benefits or even a promise in return) do not usually create a contractual obligation. The foundation contends that Haney's offer-for-show-not dough amounted to a fraud, and is seeking the matching funds plus four million dollars in punitive damages. It has a good argument too. A court will have to decide what the law says about Haney's ploy.

The Ethics Scoreboard can confidently lay down the ethics verdict on Haney's conduct right now. It was dishonest, deceptive, and thoroughly unethical, and establishes him as someone nobody should trust to honor his word, his promise, his handshake or his vow. The Scoreboard doesn't really have a category for Franklin Haney, who is not so much an "Ethics Dunce" as he is an "Ethics Creep." But Ethics Dunce will have to do.

And whatever happens in the Halls of Justice, there is a silver lining for Washington and the Nationals. Haney could have been awarded the team. Between the alternatives of getting an additional $400,000 and having the Nationals owned by someone with Haney's integrity vacuum, and not getting the money but having an owner who keeps his promises, the city is far better off with the latter.