An arbitrator has ruled that Mr Selig overstepped his bounds, isn't Selig the Commissioner, with his suspension of LHP Ken Rogers--- great fun isnt it--are the prisoners loose and running the prison?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
A mlb player can be in a bar fight, beat the **** out of another human being, with or without provocation. The guy can have multiple injuries, spend weeks in the hospital with significant injuries. ESPN will cover it for a day, maybe two if you consider the daytime Sportscenter reruns.
Another player can push the camera out of a cameraman's hands inflicting nothing but minor scrapes. Maybe a bruise or two as the cameraman lost his balance and fell to the ground. ESPN covered it for 13 consecutive days as it's lead story or next in line story.
Why?
Poor little media got it's feeling hurt.
Commissioner, not an independent thinker, succumbs to the pressure of the media. He, like most human beings, prefers to be led, rather than think independently. Therefore, he is incapable of doing the right thing. He can not show leadership, compare the differences between the two examples and sell the decision. Therefore, he makes a ridiculous choice.
THIS SUSPENSION WAS WAY TOO LONG.
This country's media tells America how to think and most American's buy it. Very scary. Way too much power in their hands.
Last summer in the Arizona V St. Louis baseball game where the fan was accused of stealing the foul ball from the mother with the young child is another great example.
Watch the video without volume.
Then watch it with volume.
You get two very different opinions of what happened.
Time to think for yourselves people.
Another player can push the camera out of a cameraman's hands inflicting nothing but minor scrapes. Maybe a bruise or two as the cameraman lost his balance and fell to the ground. ESPN covered it for 13 consecutive days as it's lead story or next in line story.
Why?
Poor little media got it's feeling hurt.
Commissioner, not an independent thinker, succumbs to the pressure of the media. He, like most human beings, prefers to be led, rather than think independently. Therefore, he is incapable of doing the right thing. He can not show leadership, compare the differences between the two examples and sell the decision. Therefore, he makes a ridiculous choice.
THIS SUSPENSION WAS WAY TOO LONG.
This country's media tells America how to think and most American's buy it. Very scary. Way too much power in their hands.
Last summer in the Arizona V St. Louis baseball game where the fan was accused of stealing the foul ball from the mother with the young child is another great example.
Watch the video without volume.
Then watch it with volume.
You get two very different opinions of what happened.
Time to think for yourselves people.
ozzir
You ask others to think for themselves--but they dont have a number of id's-- they stand up and can be counted--you cannot even find an identity for yourself and you give advice !!!
Since you have trouble finding your own identity how can you give advice ???
You are simply lost in cyberspace and may never find yourself !!!
You ask others to think for themselves--but they dont have a number of id's-- they stand up and can be counted--you cannot even find an identity for yourself and you give advice !!!
Since you have trouble finding your own identity how can you give advice ???
You are simply lost in cyberspace and may never find yourself !!!
What is the name of player in the bar fight. I somehow missed that one?
With regard to the inmates running the asylum:
Is the arbitrator a player or representative of the player's union?
With regard to the length of the suspension:
The "victim" winking afterward (if you watched all the footage, the pushed cameraman winks at the other cameraman who just happened to have his film running and camera pointed in the right direction) strongly implied to me that this was a setup. The cameraman was baiting Rogers, hoping for some lawsuit material (easy bucks, double his annual salary in just one shove) and some footage. Based on that, I would not impose a long suspension.
Is the arbitrator a player or representative of the player's union?
With regard to the length of the suspension:
The "victim" winking afterward (if you watched all the footage, the pushed cameraman winks at the other cameraman who just happened to have his film running and camera pointed in the right direction) strongly implied to me that this was a setup. The cameraman was baiting Rogers, hoping for some lawsuit material (easy bucks, double his annual salary in just one shove) and some footage. Based on that, I would not impose a long suspension.
Texan
The point is that the Commissioner set the penalty--who are the others stepping in?
The point is that the Commissioner set the penalty--who are the others stepping in?
So the commissioner should have absolute power with no recourse at all?
He could ban Rogers for 20 years on a whim, and Rogers would just have to take it?
He could ban Rogers for 20 years on a whim, and Rogers would just have to take it?
TR
Agree 100% with you on this one.
Texan
I personally don't care what the cameraman's motives were or were not. If Rogers was baited ... does that excuse getting physical and assaulting the baiter? Is that something we should tell our sons ... that under similar circumstances it is okay to assault someone, to be physical with them? That certainly isn't anything I would ever want my son to emulate and is completely contrary to the lessons we taught him.
ozzir whoever you are ..
Don't know to which player you are referring with regard to the bar brawl, so I can't compare Selig's decisions on the two cases. But I personally felt that Rogers' "punishment" wasn't enough ... his fine was totally negated by his All Star bonus so the suspension with pay doesn't seem like much of a penalty to me. What did he miss ... 2 starts but got paid anyway? I am sure a lot of people who are penalized at their jobs for something wish their pockets weren't impacted for screwing up. And was he charged with assault and battery? Or is this another professional athlete who gets away with physically challenging someone without accountability?
And by the way, since I am generally much farther to the right than mainstream media, no one is telling me what to think. Not even my family tries that anymore ...
Agree 100% with you on this one.
Texan
I personally don't care what the cameraman's motives were or were not. If Rogers was baited ... does that excuse getting physical and assaulting the baiter? Is that something we should tell our sons ... that under similar circumstances it is okay to assault someone, to be physical with them? That certainly isn't anything I would ever want my son to emulate and is completely contrary to the lessons we taught him.
ozzir whoever you are ..
Don't know to which player you are referring with regard to the bar brawl, so I can't compare Selig's decisions on the two cases. But I personally felt that Rogers' "punishment" wasn't enough ... his fine was totally negated by his All Star bonus so the suspension with pay doesn't seem like much of a penalty to me. What did he miss ... 2 starts but got paid anyway? I am sure a lot of people who are penalized at their jobs for something wish their pockets weren't impacted for screwing up. And was he charged with assault and battery? Or is this another professional athlete who gets away with physically challenging someone without accountability?
And by the way, since I am generally much farther to the right than mainstream media, no one is telling me what to think. Not even my family tries that anymore ...
quote:Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
Texan
I personally don't care what the cameraman's motives were or were not. If Rogers was baited ... does that excuse getting physical and assaulting the baiter? Is that something we should tell our sons ... that under similar circumstances it is okay to assault someone, to be physical with them? That certainly isn't anything I would ever want my son to emulate and is completely contrary to the lessons we taught him.
Excuse me, but where did I say that Rogers was correct in his action? Could you quote me anywhere on that? Your response certainly seems to indicate that you believe I thought Rogers was correct. If you want to respond to my post, please respond to what is really in the post.
There was no assault in the practical sense of the word. Rogers pushed the camera. The rest was acting on the cameraman's part. Yes, Rogers should not have pushed the camera.
But in considering the length of the suspension (not whether or not to suspend), I would consider the deliberate baiting.
Why aim such heat at Rogers for his misdeed without also aiming some heat at the cameraman for his misdeed?
quote:Originally posted by ozzir:
Time to think for yourselves people.
You are killing me dude. I'm laughing so hard I have to get to the bathroom - immediately.
The cameraman was doing his job, and if you are a pro baseball player you look at the media as part of the grass, the lights, the ambiance as it were.
Rogers was out of line, period.
Rogers was out of line, period.
TRhit, off the subject I sent you a PM.
Texan ...
Granted, you did not say whether or not you thought Rogers was correct. However, I do believe ... based on your comment about the cameraman's alleged motive and coupled with your statement that "Based on that, I would not impose a long suspension." ... that you feel Rogers was not totally INcorrect in his actions, and therefore should be given some consideration in his punishment because his victim "started it".
Well, whether or not Rogers actually is guilty of striking the camerman (battery), he did nevertheless respond to verbal comments with physical actions which were perceived to be threatening to the victim, and which is considered a form of assault. I don't think the cameraman's actions warranted the response and I believe that no consideration of the cameraman's actions should be given in doling out Rogers' punishment. Rogers could have just walked away. As Ramrod intimated, the media are basically part of the scenery ... just like heckling fans. In that light, I believe that they should be treated as such without the kind of reactions Rogers exhibited, baited for monetary motives or not.
By the way, how would the cameraman know ahead of time that Rogers would react in a volatile way, thus paving the way for monetary gain?
Granted, you did not say whether or not you thought Rogers was correct. However, I do believe ... based on your comment about the cameraman's alleged motive and coupled with your statement that "Based on that, I would not impose a long suspension." ... that you feel Rogers was not totally INcorrect in his actions, and therefore should be given some consideration in his punishment because his victim "started it".
Well, whether or not Rogers actually is guilty of striking the camerman (battery), he did nevertheless respond to verbal comments with physical actions which were perceived to be threatening to the victim, and which is considered a form of assault. I don't think the cameraman's actions warranted the response and I believe that no consideration of the cameraman's actions should be given in doling out Rogers' punishment. Rogers could have just walked away. As Ramrod intimated, the media are basically part of the scenery ... just like heckling fans. In that light, I believe that they should be treated as such without the kind of reactions Rogers exhibited, baited for monetary motives or not.
By the way, how would the cameraman know ahead of time that Rogers would react in a volatile way, thus paving the way for monetary gain?
I agree with Ozzir and Texan-What the heck were Roger's teammates thinking? They should
have jumped on the other cameraman as well. How dare they stick those cameras in their
faces?!!
have jumped on the other cameraman as well. How dare they stick those cameras in their
faces?!!
quote:The point is that the Commissioner set the penalty--who are the others stepping in
...and screwed up. Bob Watson handles discipline. Bob Dupay handles appeal of discipline. Bud tried to handle both the punishment and appeal leaving room for the arbitrator to ask how that can happen. Bud went around his own system, got caught and now looks like the buffoon he is.
DAD04
Do you know who the arbitor was?
Do you know who the arbitor was?
quote:Arbitrator Shyam Das also ruled Tuesday that Rogers' $50,000 fine will be converted to a charitable contribution. The ruling followed a hearing Monday in Chicago.....
As part of the ruling, Das said the games Rogers missed could be taken into account if the pitcher falls short of any incentive clauses in his contract.
Union general counsel Michael Weiner said Das made an "expedited ruling" because Rogers' suspension was in effect. The union originally appealed the penalty to Selig, then filed a grievance and argued that the commissioner broke precedent.
In recent times, baseball disciplinarian Bob Watson imposed penalties and another official in the commissioner's office heard the appeals. In Rogers' case, Selig both issued the penalty and heard the appeal.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2129925
I think that Rogers suspension was too long based solely on the fact that Raffy was only suspended for 10 games for cheating. With all due respect, and I do not condone Rogers behaviour at all, the penalties have been shown to be inconsistent in baseball. I don't understand baseball being so tough on behaviour (it should be tough) and so weak on cheating. Mole Hill Selig cannot even follow baseball's rules in dishing out discipline. The guy is such a loser.
quote:Originally posted by FutureBack.Mom:
Texan ...
Granted, you did not say whether or not you thought Rogers was correct. However, I do believe ... based on your comment about the cameraman's alleged motive and coupled with your statement that "Based on that, I would not impose a long suspension." ... that you feel Rogers was not totally INcorrect in his actions, and therefore should be given some consideration in his punishment because his victim "started it".
There you go again...
Your belief is incorrect.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Your track record for doing so accurately isn't real great at this point.
Heck, how about if I say that based on an interpretation of what might possibly be implied in your post that you think Rogers should receive the death penalty and the cameraman should receive the Pulitzer prize?
Wow. I never thought we were talking about guilt. But rather appropriate punishment. And the last time I checked, even the U.S. court system takes the circumstances into account when setting the punishment.
There are some people in this world subscribe into the "they're the media, they can do whatever they want because the public has a right to know" line. I don't. Rogers asked the cameraman to get the camera out of his face. The cameraman is wrong for not having complied with the request. Rogers is wrong for having pushed the camera. JUST BECAUSE ONE IS WRONG DOES NOT MEAN BOTH CANNOT WRONG! Neither does one excuse the other. I repeat, neither does one excuse the other.
I hope that this will be clear enough that it cannot be misinterpreted again.
I don't think that it is fair that every time Ozzir posts, he is attacked personally. It is not fair and he is entitled to voice his opinion whether I agree with him or not. As long as he doesn't make it personal, the other posters should not try to bait him. If moderator's don't like his posts, they should delete them, not hurl insults and personal attacks towards ones credibility.
I guess this is the first Ozzir post I had seen. But I certainly did not see anything in it to merit some of the responses he received. But then some (NOT ALL) on this board can be rather insular at times.
I concur with Bighit.
I concur with Bighit.
quote:Originally posted by Bighit15:
I don't think that it is fair that every time Ozzir posts, he is attacked personally. It is not fair and he is entitled to voice his opinion whether I agree with him or not. As long as he doesn't make it personal, the other posters should not try to bait him. If moderator's don't like his posts, they should delete them, not hurl insults and personal attacks towards ones credibility.
You have a good point Big. And I am usually the first one to go after ozzir - and all of his other ids.
I think the main problem is all of his posts usually attack the credibility of someone. In most cases - the credibility of many posters here - or coaches - or just about anyone that disagrees with him.
It has been going on for years. Even his latest id is a play on the word "rizzo" - and many of us remember that demeaning debacle.
My guess is - either he learns to be civil - or he puts his helmet on and takes the hits.
Just the way I see it.
Time will tell IMO.
quote:My guess is - either he learns to be civil - or he puts his helmet on and takes the hits.
I agree. I would just as soon see the stuff deleted rather than have to suffer the onslaught of a back and forth nasty exchange.
No question about that Big. Agree 100%
Then delete it--arent you a moderator?
Texan ...
What bee got in your bonnet on this? Don't understand why you are so angry with me because I interpretted something you posted differently than you apparently intended. That is what happens when people try to express their opinions on a message board with delayed readings and responses and no ability to hear inflections or read facial expressions. But I certainly don't see the need to slam me or my "track record" for understanding and paraphrasing what I understood you to mean. So I was wrong in my understanding of your post ... big deal. A simple "that is not what I meant" ... perhaps with further clarification ... would have been sufficient. Besides, you and I obviously disagree on this matter ... you apparently believe that the punishment was inappropriate because it went to far and I believe the punishment was inappropriate because it didn't go far enough. or did I misinterpret that, too?
Until then, I guess I won't kick myself in the a$$ too hard for reading and interpreting your post so imperfectly. I swear it is getting to be (on this site) that other than a few select posters, people can't misread something or infer or unintentionally misinterpret postings anymore without getting slammed and having sarcastics remarks thrown at them. And those select few who can make mistakes always manage to have a "support system" waiting in the wings to defend them as tho no one else is entitled to an opinion that differs. Besides putting "disclaimers" like JMHO on our messages now, are we going to have to close our posts with something like JMIOWYWAIR (JustMyInterpretationOfWhatYouWroteAndIRead)?
And as far as the legal system and punishments go... first off, I don't believe the Supreme Court actually doles out punishments; they rule on the constitutionality of a punishment already imposed. As for discretion based on the circumstances of a crime and the punishment assigned, there are a lot of places where the judge has no discretion in passing out punishment as it is dictated to him/her based on the "crime". And perhaps that is what should be done in professional sports ... as BigHit has stated, the penalties have been inconsistent, which I agree with wholeheartedly. And perhaps something needs to be done to remedy that with some hard and fast guidelines.
JMO
What bee got in your bonnet on this? Don't understand why you are so angry with me because I interpretted something you posted differently than you apparently intended. That is what happens when people try to express their opinions on a message board with delayed readings and responses and no ability to hear inflections or read facial expressions. But I certainly don't see the need to slam me or my "track record" for understanding and paraphrasing what I understood you to mean. So I was wrong in my understanding of your post ... big deal. A simple "that is not what I meant" ... perhaps with further clarification ... would have been sufficient. Besides, you and I obviously disagree on this matter ... you apparently believe that the punishment was inappropriate because it went to far and I believe the punishment was inappropriate because it didn't go far enough. or did I misinterpret that, too?
Until then, I guess I won't kick myself in the a$$ too hard for reading and interpreting your post so imperfectly. I swear it is getting to be (on this site) that other than a few select posters, people can't misread something or infer or unintentionally misinterpret postings anymore without getting slammed and having sarcastics remarks thrown at them. And those select few who can make mistakes always manage to have a "support system" waiting in the wings to defend them as tho no one else is entitled to an opinion that differs. Besides putting "disclaimers" like JMHO on our messages now, are we going to have to close our posts with something like JMIOWYWAIR (JustMyInterpretationOfWhatYouWroteAndIRead)?
And as far as the legal system and punishments go... first off, I don't believe the Supreme Court actually doles out punishments; they rule on the constitutionality of a punishment already imposed. As for discretion based on the circumstances of a crime and the punishment assigned, there are a lot of places where the judge has no discretion in passing out punishment as it is dictated to him/her based on the "crime". And perhaps that is what should be done in professional sports ... as BigHit has stated, the penalties have been inconsistent, which I agree with wholeheartedly. And perhaps something needs to be done to remedy that with some hard and fast guidelines.
JMO
quote:Then delete it--arent you a moderator?
TRhit
I would rather just let my opinion be known to you and have you do the right thing. You could delete it as well. I think that you deserve the respect to be asked nicely and I feel deserved of letting my opinion be known.
quote:Until then, I guess I won't kick myself in the a$$ too hard for reading and interpreting your post so imperfectly. I swear it is getting to be (on this site) that other than a few select posters, people can't misread something or infer or unintentionally misinterpret postings anymore without getting slammed and having sarcastics remarks thrown at them. And those select few who can make mistakes always manage to have a "support system" waiting in the wings to defend them as tho no one else is entitled to an opinion that differs. Besides putting "disclaimers" like JMHO on our messages now, are we going to have to close our posts with something like JMIOWYWAIR (JustMyInterpretationOfWhatYouWroteAndIRead)?
Agreed
Gotta agree with Bighit on this one....ozzir has at times provided positive and educational posts....and sometimes just plain entertaining ones.
Seemed to me that the bee was in your bonnet. { Heck, I don't even wear one.} The interpretation seemed so far from what was posted as to be a complete disconnect. But hey, that was JMIOWYWAIR.
Forgive me for not having excepted the Supreme Court from my reference to the "U.S. court system". As to the remainder of the U.S. court system - excluding the Supreme Court - there is a degree of discretion. There may be minimums and maximums (re: the recent controversies and appellate court rulings on federal sentencing guidelines), but if there are stipulated "no variation" sentences, they are few & far between. For example, some type of armed robbery may have a stipulation of 5 to 15 years. But the judge decides whether it is 5, 10 or 15 years. To my knowledge, seldom does a crime carry with it a single sentence (e.g., armed robbery is exactly 11 years, with the judge having absolutely no leeway).
I also agree with Bighit, consistency is needed.
You are correct that boards are not the perfect communication medium, for the exact reasons you stated. Accordingly, I will leave this part of the discussion where it lays.
Forgive me for not having excepted the Supreme Court from my reference to the "U.S. court system". As to the remainder of the U.S. court system - excluding the Supreme Court - there is a degree of discretion. There may be minimums and maximums (re: the recent controversies and appellate court rulings on federal sentencing guidelines), but if there are stipulated "no variation" sentences, they are few & far between. For example, some type of armed robbery may have a stipulation of 5 to 15 years. But the judge decides whether it is 5, 10 or 15 years. To my knowledge, seldom does a crime carry with it a single sentence (e.g., armed robbery is exactly 11 years, with the judge having absolutely no leeway).
I also agree with Bighit, consistency is needed.
You are correct that boards are not the perfect communication medium, for the exact reasons you stated. Accordingly, I will leave this part of the discussion where it lays.
quote:Originally posted by Bighit15:
If moderator's (sic) don't like his posts, they should delete them
No they should not, unless the post violates the acknowledged 'rules of engagement' for these boards.
quote:No they should not, unless the post violates the acknowledged 'rules of engagement' for these boards.
That is not what the the disclaimer states. Actually, the owner can delete any post at his descretion.
quote:We expressly reserve the right to deny authorization to any person at any time, for any reason, as well as to delete in its entirety any post or link to material which we, in our sole discretion, deem to be offensive to the sensibilities of ordinary persons, or which might subject us to legal liability.
The membership doesn't get to decide what does or does not get deleted. The owner and her agents do. I hope that helps.
Of course, a moderator would (I hope) use descretion.
If one of my posts gets deleted, it offended somebody. I might not like it, but some moderator did not like it. His descretion. Very few posters (including me) will think that a deletion is warranted when it happens to them. That is just the way it is. A moderator cannot be too concerned about an unhappy poster getting his posts deleted.
Are the HSBBWeb Old timers the ones who are the moderators? How does that work?
At a minimum, a moderator owes the poster the courtesy of a place marker announcing 'post deleted'. I've seen this practice several times. If an explanation for deleting the post is requested a moderator should also be courteous enough to respond on the thread, or by private message.
quote:Originally posted by Iscream:quote:Originally posted by Bighit15:
If moderator's (sic) don't like his posts, they should delete them
No they should not, unless the post violates the acknowledged 'rules of engagement' for these boards.
Iscream - we are not playing Battleship here.
Its the HSBBWEB.
If your post gets deleted - tough. Suck it up and move on.
JMHO
Being a Rangers fan, I have been following the Kenny Rogers story since the incident was first reported. I have watched the replays numerous times and I cannot see where Kenny had any reason to pursue the cameraman and push his camera like he did. Someone posted that Kenny had told the man to "get that camera out of my face" but the replays I have seen show Kenny coming out of the dugout and walking directly over to the camera man who was not even within a few yards of Kenny initially. How was Kenny provoked to attack this guy? I did not see evidence that the camera was ever in Kenny's face. What I saw was Kenny deliberately pursuing the guy with the camera and attempting to knock the camera to the ground. Why did this happen?
I have been a Kenny Rogers fan for years and I was in attendance at the old ballpark when he threw his perfect game. I have always thought of him as a very good team leader for the younger players to look up to. This just seems so out of character for the Kenny Rogers that I have respected for all these years.
I heard that he has been generally upset with the media in regards to some things they reported concerning contract negotiations. But even so, that does not warrant him "losing it" on the field and attacking a photographer.
I don't know what would be a fair punishment in this case so I won't even speculate on that. It just concerns me that someone of Kenny's stature would allow his conduct to fall so far below what is expected of him as a professional athlete. Yes, he is only human but so are we all and we all have to be held accountable for our wrong actions. I am a teacher and I get terribly annoyed at the behavior of some of my students. However, due to my position I cannot allow myself to act in a manner that is not acceptable in my position. The consequence could be losing my job and teaching certificate.
If Kenny somehow felt provoked he should have walked away from the situation instead of being the aggressor that it appeared that he was. His actions were totally unacceptable and hopefully he will learn from this experience and not get involved in any further incidents of this nature.
In light of some of the other posts on this thread, I will add the following disclaimer to my comments:
The preceding message was brought to you by OUBsbMom and is in no way meant to flame, criticize, cajole, harrass, or offend anyone.
These statements are simply IMHO.
I have been a Kenny Rogers fan for years and I was in attendance at the old ballpark when he threw his perfect game. I have always thought of him as a very good team leader for the younger players to look up to. This just seems so out of character for the Kenny Rogers that I have respected for all these years.
I heard that he has been generally upset with the media in regards to some things they reported concerning contract negotiations. But even so, that does not warrant him "losing it" on the field and attacking a photographer.
I don't know what would be a fair punishment in this case so I won't even speculate on that. It just concerns me that someone of Kenny's stature would allow his conduct to fall so far below what is expected of him as a professional athlete. Yes, he is only human but so are we all and we all have to be held accountable for our wrong actions. I am a teacher and I get terribly annoyed at the behavior of some of my students. However, due to my position I cannot allow myself to act in a manner that is not acceptable in my position. The consequence could be losing my job and teaching certificate.
If Kenny somehow felt provoked he should have walked away from the situation instead of being the aggressor that it appeared that he was. His actions were totally unacceptable and hopefully he will learn from this experience and not get involved in any further incidents of this nature.
In light of some of the other posts on this thread, I will add the following disclaimer to my comments:
The preceding message was brought to you by OUBsbMom and is in no way meant to flame, criticize, cajole, harrass, or offend anyone.
These statements are simply IMHO.
Very nice post OUBsbmom! 
You are right when you say that you or I would probably lose our jobs if we "lost it" while in the workplace. I only wish that the reprocussions for professional athletes would be strict AND consistent. You and I know what the consequences would be if we acted inappropriately at the workplace....do the athletes KNOW what will happen to them? Maybe that is part of the problem...consequences in the sporting world always seems so "arbitrary".
I "ditto" OUBsbmom's disclaimer!
You are right when you say that you or I would probably lose our jobs if we "lost it" while in the workplace. I only wish that the reprocussions for professional athletes would be strict AND consistent. You and I know what the consequences would be if we acted inappropriately at the workplace....do the athletes KNOW what will happen to them? Maybe that is part of the problem...consequences in the sporting world always seems so "arbitrary".I "ditto" OUBsbmom's disclaimer!
OUB, boy your post ticks me off. Just Kidding. Good post and I agree 100%. My only issue is with the inconsistency with doling out the punishments. They are ridiculously soft and pamper the athletes. IMO that enables the bad behaviour and cheating.
Big, I think you are correct. I don't think many people would have had a problem with a 20 game suspension for Rogers if the suspensions for cheating would be greater
OUBsbmom ...
quote:In light of some of the other posts on this thread, I will add the following disclaimer to my comments:
The preceding message was brought to you by OUBsbMom and is in no way meant to flame, criticize, cajole, harrass, or offend anyone