Here is the letter sent by the Philippine Football Federation to Loyola FC regarding the indefinite suspension of Matthew Hartmann. I agree that he should be suspended for leaving the national team but an indefinite suspension? Does the punishment fit the "crime"? Is this of Hammam-esque proportions (and to think they are not pursuing the case against the former deposed president -- who is of poor health at the moment -- who is accused of misusing funds)? Now I heard from Hartmann that there is more than meets the eye in his leaving Jakarta. My beef with this is one, Hartmann's side was not heard, and two, what is the "crime" here? It's not even stated on the memo what he did wrong. If he was asked to write a letter then was that sufficient? Was due process followed? As it is, this suspension should have been served before the start of the league so Loyola should have gotten a replacement. As it is, they have to wait for the March transfer window before they can do so. Someone said that Loyola knew that Hartmann was going to be suspended and they should have gotten another player. Not exactly correct. Suspended yes. Indefinitely suspended, no. And like it is easy to get players. Again, I believe that regardless of the circumstances surrounding his leaving the national team, Hartmann should be suspended. But indefinitely? Maybe from the national team but not his club? You are cutting him from his livelihood. You want more proof? Look at the French National Team and the debacle in South Africa. In spite of the suspensions and removals from national team duty, Nicholas Anelka, Patrice Evra, Thierry Henry and all those involved in the mutiny are all still playing club football. And where is it written that abandonment of the national squad merits this and that kind of punishment. The decision is hardly just. So go figure.