- 08:54 AM
- 11/05/24
I'm not looking for fault. I am certain none was intended. But that doesn't make a public reference to the size of a woman's "boobs" in front of a family audience ok.
On review, however, I rescind my reference to sexual harassment, as I mistakenly considered the feelings of a third party observer to fall within that category - and now know by legal definition it does not. I looked it up, and admit my mistake. But I'm still entitled to believe that my four year old shouldn't be hearing light hearted banter about a woman's breast size from a potential role model when I take her to a tennis tournament.
posted by MW12 at 09:54 AM on January 22, 2011
The relationship between Clijsters and Woodbridge is relevant only in that she wasn't offended. But to borrow phrasing from rcade, I am surprised that anyone could watch that video and not see the similarity between this here exchange and the lap dance incident from the lacrosse game the other day. What may be perfectly reasonable behavior between friends (and/or consenting adults) is not necessarily reasonable to be shared with a family audience. Certainly not when that conversation references the size of a woman's breasts.
posted by MW12 at 08:48 AM on January 22, 2011
See and I think the issue here is Woodbridge was talking to one woman about the size of another woman's breasts. In most workplaces that could be considered a form of sexual harassment, regardless of the context.
posted by MW12 at 07:06 PM on January 21, 2011
Perhaps I'm alone here but when I first saw the subject of this post I thought, "Oh no..." and then when I saw that it was about a lacrosse team I just shrugged and said, "That explains it."
posted by MW12 at 06:28 PM on January 18, 2011
I'm with bperk and have to wonder if there is a free speech issue at stake here in reverse - ie the school is saying you are free to express yourself thusly on this particular day of the year, but only if you believe in this one prescribed way. Otherwise no free speech for you!
posted by MW12 at 08:07 AM on January 16, 2011
1) All these pictures of his wrist being down/not down are interesting and thought provoking but don't fall into the category of conclusive evidence required to overturn a call on the field (in my opinion)
2) Given that the whistle had not been blown, the officiating crew clearly did not believe the play was over and therefore would not have hit Oregon with a penalty if they had played until the whistle and put a hit on Dyer
3) Dyer's forward motion only came to a halt when he stopped running. That in and of itself is no reason to call the play dead
posted by MW12 at 12:22 PM on January 11, 2011
Time to rethink that Jason Whitlock article the other day about the Chiefs?
posted by MW12 at 05:46 PM on January 09, 2011
That being said, I will agree that Vick might not been the best example for Obama to cite, just too fresh of a case, and it's pretty obvious that Vick is an exception to the rule.
This content of this thread, save for a few unnecessary personal attacks, is precisely what I like about SpoFi, and why I think Obama is an absolute genius. A sports blog that spends two days (and counting) debating the merits of the American penal system!
posted by MW12 at 07:05 PM on December 28, 2010
You don't want to give them any confidence or feeling that they have the slightest chance if you meet again.
This. And this:
But if they kick the field goal in that situation, wouldn't that be cited as an example of running up the score?
The field goal would have been the easy choice, and statistically the more sure fire way of putting points on the board.
As for me - I've got two young kids and sleep is a premium these days, so it's rare that I get to see the end of a game, any game. But I stayed up til the score was 44-3 (didn't bother to watch the extra point), cuz up til then I knew there was always the chance that the Jets could put a couple quick scores on the board - which would not only make things more interesting with ~10 minutes left in the game, but also give the Jets the aforementioned confidence that, coupled with the ass-whooping they put on the Pats earlier in the season, could spell trouble for the team heading into the post season.
posted by MW12 at 08:25 PM on December 07, 2010
I hope Spoelstra did that on purpose, and I hope Lebron gets benched/fined. Has anybody seen this (my apologies if it was already posted):
(presumably a spoof but it's pretty good!)
posted by MW12 at 06:03 PM on November 28, 2010
Always was a fan, but thought it was exposure to a different type of blow, among other recreational pursuits, that contributed to his poor mental health (at least in part).
posted by MW12 at 08:49 AM on November 13, 2010
My question is will this increase in awareness about the violent nature of the sport have an impact on the decision to increase the number of regular season games?
posted by MW12 at 07:03 AM on October 24, 2010
Grum - I was being facetious. Thought that was implied but perhaps not. My (tongue in cheek) point was that the fans of a sport which encourages violence might benefit from first hand experience that'd make them think twice about engaging in inflammatory conduct.
posted by MW12 at 08:25 PM on October 20, 2010
On the one hand, for the NHL to get tough on fighting under any circumstances is hypocritical and an oxymoron. It's almost a lesson worth learning when a fan gets the crap kicked out of them for acting out of line.
On the other hand, this is beyond deplorable, and if the NHL wants to have any credibility they should do as the NBA did w Ron Artest and suspend Rypien for the balance of the season.
Zero tolerance is the only appropriate action. Of course, when Tie Domi gets fined a mere $1000 for punching a fan twice, the precedent is clear: the NHL has no problem whatsoever with fighting under any circumstances, and if a player is willing to sacrifice the equivalent cost of a nice night on the town with his girl then he's welcome to do as he pleases. Yeah - that was ten years ago, but still - this is their moment to reset the bar.
posted by MW12 at 06:36 PM on October 20, 2010
Poor, tortured demented soul. Talk about a very large, talented, accomplished man who really just needs a hug.
posted by MW12 at 06:56 PM on September 14, 2010
I'm confused here too - wearing jeans qualifies as dressing like a whore now? The woman has a great figure so that means she's supposed to wear loose fitting grannie clothes? I see no pics of her on a sideline in a mini skirt, short shorts, or anything like that.
posted by MW12 at 01:32 PM on September 13, 2010
I'm sorry - did anybody else notice that the Rudy true story fact's page says he was a championship boxer at Notre Dame? Don't remember that little tidbit being in the movie...
posted by MW12 at 08:41 PM on September 10, 2010
Shoplifting is wrong? What if it's the pooty?
posted by MW12 at 07:46 PM on September 08, 2010
Poor A Rod. Doesn't get an ounce of love from the SpoFi community (or anyone else) in spite of his incredible consistency. Sure his home runs are down this year, but if ever there was an argument to be made for a player suggesting steroids didn't necessarily help his productivity... He never did have that down year like Giambi after stopping / getting caught and being forced to go clean. He just keeps on putting up big numbers, and nobody gives a damn.
posted by MW12 at 04:36 PM on September 08, 2010
As much of an ass as this guy may be, the middle aged woman and the old man are the only ones whose behavior crossed the line. The guy is an obnoxious douche bag, but he attempts to sit down and let the argument go twice, and each time it's the woman and the old man who can't let it go. And in each instance when one puts their hands on the other, it's the woman and the old man who initiate contact.
posted by MW12 at 10:08 AM on September 04, 2010
OK I'll say it: sure hope Strasburg can get some HGH quietly and quickly!
Of course I'm kidding...........
posted by MW12 at 04:56 PM on August 27, 2010
As for the sexualisation aspect - it's human bodies in peak condition performing athletic tasks. To examine that subject, you're going to risk the viewer making a sexual inference.
Especially when you put the women in mini skirts, heavy make up and body glitter.
posted by MW12 at 06:41 AM on August 26, 2010
Back to the matter at hand... Elected officials have a vested interest in protecting the Youth of America. PED's and the perception thereof are a hot button issue in our society which do have an impact on said Youth. Thus, Congress most certainly has an interest - some would call it an obligation - to investigate. We're not talking all of Congress spending all of their resources - we're talking about one committee spending a handful days here. And when a figure so prominent as Clemens insists on having a voice, of course Congress will give him his day. So when he went and made a mockery of the proceedings, one important issue evolved into another - both of which are significant in their own way - and action had to be taken.
posted by MW12 at 12:41 PM on August 23, 2010
Congress needs to stop wasting time getting in the spotlight while dealing with trivial matters like this, and start working on the long list of more serious issues facing this country.
Like LBB said, lying to Congress is an extremely serious issue.
Clemens took a calculated risk - he thought if he could get away with lying to Congress then he'd be able to convince the Baseball Writers to elect him to the Hall in spite of what appears in the Mitchell Report - and he blew it. Doing a year in Federal Prison seems like the least he should get for gambling the taxpayers money for personal gain and losing.
And I love the recent increase in references to Clemens' relationship w Mike Piazza. I still think the bat throwing incident is the defining moment in Clemens' life and career.
posted by MW12 at 01:41 PM on August 22, 2010
Nothing particularly noteworthy in the Fox Sports article - but the USA Today / David Segui article brings to light one key piece of evidence that I don't believe anyone has heard previously: corroboration of the fact that the syringe McNamee kept w Clemens' blood and traces of steroids was not in fact manufactured recently but was indeed something McNamee had in his possession for a very long time.
posted by MW12 at 10:21 AM on August 22, 2010
How is that a good thing? Imagine the fun this winter, when the Yankees sign him to another big money deal, after coming off the worst full season of his career.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. I'm saying that no one in their right mind believes Jeter is worth his contract statistically. And when he signs a new one he'll still be overpaid. He's an anomaly, and it's the Yankees choice to over pay a player simply because they want him to be a life time yankee.
Why some believe Jeter is not overpaid
Could it be there is a similar argument to be made about A Rod and the attention he draws?
posted by MW12 at 06:31 PM on August 08, 2010
Little late but ultimately the right thing to do, and the fact that he did it in the Akron paper and not Cleveland should earn him some favor in his hometown - seems more genuine and less of a ploy - although his timing w the bike event gives me pause.
My guess is the talking heads give him a pat him on the head and decide that now it's time to move on.
posted by MW12 at 10:16 AM on August 03, 2010
How's this for a defense:
It's not his fault that Bosh's agent convinced Colangelo to build a team around the guy. His stats are solid but no one has ever accused him of being a good leader.
I have every confidence he'll be a strong #3 guy, and put up Ho Grant type stats.
posted by MW12 at 08:44 PM on July 30, 2010
Simply put: there is only one Favre, but EVERY celebrity on the planet does paid appearances in nightclubs - 99.9999999% of which are never reported.
How do you know this, if they were never reported?
I know this because I have been to a handful, organized a few, and get invited to them all the time. Events like these are a big business, and they are everywhere, in every major city (and some smaller ones too), every week.
And I wasn't suggesting that everyone with a negative opinion of ESPN is a hater - but increasingly it seems like ESPN is not only dominating the sports media but also SpoFi... And as much as we all seem to agree that The Decision was a ridiculous waste of an hour of our lives that none of us will get back, the obvious reason why ESPN aired it is because we are still talking about it - wasting additional hours of our lives which we'll never get back...
posted by MW12 at 03:14 PM on July 30, 2010
BIG difference between reporting on whether Favre will return and whether Lebron does celebrity appearances. HUGE. Simply put: there is only one Favre, but EVERY celebrity on the planet does paid appearances in nightclubs - 99.9999999% of which are never reported. Sure - you can point to the ones TMZ details almost daily. But that is still just .00000001% of the ones going on - many of which are MUCH more wild and crazy. And since ESPN doesn't report on the rest of them, I reiterate my kudos to them for pulling the plug on this one.
And to all the ESPN haters, I have two suggestions: turn the channel and stop talking about them. Your obsession only makes them stronger!
I mean seriously - no f'ing shit they are in bed w the NBA, MLB, NFL, and every superstar athlete on the planet. That is their business. Get over it!
And of course they aired The Decision. You watched, didn't you?
posted by MW12 at 09:53 AM on July 30, 2010
I commend ESPN for pulling this story. All in all it seems tame - just another weekend in the life - if you ask me. So if ESPN wants to keep their website above the tabloid fray in the wake of "The Decision," I say good for them. Nothing to see here - time to move on. Besides, as we learned with The Decision, Lebron and his team lack the creativity to plan something like what's described here, so I'm betting they were just paid guests - "the talent" as celebrity appearances go - and nothing more.
posted by MW12 at 06:57 PM on July 29, 2010
Not sure that living in the Twin Cities is conducive to clean living. It's a long, cold winter when you have nothing to burn... (and I haven't touched the stuff in a lot longer than Beasley)
posted by MW12 at 06:42 PM on July 29, 2010
Tea folks are too desperate to kick those clowns to the curb. Heck, they embrace Sarah Palin - but that's a whole nother conversation.
The interesting thing about white guys in the NBA these last several years (post-Bird era) is the majority of those that thrive are foreign born (including Steve Nash, although he did go to a Stateside college - also a Jesuit school) - so it ain't the color: it's the culture.
posted by MW12 at 07:38 PM on July 28, 2010
Bryant may be putting a target on his back, but Williams is the one "acting like TO." Not that I think the comparison applies to either one of them, but if "acting like TO" means "saying stupid things about your teammates to the media" and "being a cancer in the locker room" then Williams takes the cake in my book.
Now, if Bryant was smart he should offer to carry Miles Austin's pads tomorrow. That would send a message loud and clear.
posted by MW12 at 02:40 PM on July 26, 2010
Stay classy, Lane Kiffin
posted by MW12 at 06:25 PM on July 25, 2010
And my bad - totally spaced on that jury finding OJ guilty of those murders.
I was kidding. We're on the same page here.
posted by MW12 at 03:35 PM on July 22, 2010
The "lack of institutional control" finding may cause someone to lose their job, but I'd be real surprised if any qualified agent allowed his client to sign a contract requiring him to return a portion of his salary without hard evidence of direct involvement in any transgression.
And my bad - totally spaced on that jury finding OJ guilty of those murders.
posted by MW12 at 01:33 PM on July 22, 2010
Unless you can tie the coach directly to the transgression, how can you penalize him personally for it? "He had to know what was going on" so rarely results in a guilty verdict in a court of law.
As for OJ - should every university return every trophy, and forfeit every victory, when a former player is accused of a criminal offense? Is USC supposed to return his Heisman because he was convicted of armed robbery in '08? What that has to do with his performance on the football field in '68 is beyond me.
posted by MW12 at 08:36 PM on July 21, 2010
What I love about MJ's digs here is that Lebron holds MJ in such high regard that his words have to sting, and hopefully knock Lebron down a couple pegs (a blow Lebron's ego deserves in the wake of all the hoopla surrounding "The Decision").
But I think Barkley makes the more interesting point when he says:
"If you're the two-time defending NBA MVP, you don't leave anywhere. They come to you. That's ridiculous. I like LeBron. He's a great player. But I don't think in the history of sports you can find a two-time defending MVP leaving to go play with other people."
posted by MW12 at 03:40 PM on July 21, 2010
There will always be excuses, and examples that defy the rules. To me the logical conclusion is to draft a proposal and have all parties review it, rip it apart, examine it, test it using existing game footage, and figure out a criteria that makes sense for the betterment of the game. Anything less than that, and any arguments to the contrary, are more disrespectful to the game than not (IMO).
posted by MW12 at 03:33 PM on July 21, 2010
I never understand when people start talking like baseball is somehow different from, and better than, every other sport - and how the technological advancements that have been adopted by everyone else don't have a place in baseball.
I think when an umpire misses a call which directly affects the outcome of a game - or the place in history for a particular player - the message MLB sends is not "that's the nature of the game." Rather, in my opinion what they are saying is "the umpire is bigger than the game" - because in reality, the umpire is supposed to be not a part of the game: he's the guy in the background responsible for preserving the integrity of the game. And when he directly, adversely affects said integrity by changing the correct result, however inadvertently, his wrong should be made right.
posted by MW12 at 07:07 AM on July 21, 2010
Slap, and Double Slap. Hilarious!
posted by MW12 at 06:27 PM on July 20, 2010
Even if four instant replays over the course of the game add 12-15 minutes, the intensity of those moments when the crowd waits in suspense for a call to be reversed or upheld would a) be worth it; and b) have a ripple effect on the overall excitement of the game.
The only time I can see people growing weary of an instant replay is in the case of a blowout, when a reversal would have no impact on the outcome of the game.
posted by MW12 at 09:16 AM on July 20, 2010
I guess a corollary to help game times if this is instituted is the umpire having more latitude or encouragement to immediately toss the Piniella types, as entertaining as it normally is, for grandstanding.
Exactly. Throw the flag or your gone. And if you do throw the flag then everyone lives with the consequences - no one comes out of either dugout to complain or they are automatically ejected.
posted by MW12 at 06:48 AM on July 20, 2010
Umps miss calls. Egregious though some of them may be (and this one was pretty obvious), it happens. We're not talking about 20% of the time, we're talking once, maybe twice a game - sometimes more, sometimes less - out of, what, 100? More?
So I reiterate my belief that each team should be awarded one or two challenges per game - not on balls & strikes but on reviewable calls regarding plays at a base (or home plate), fair or foul, bobbled or caught, and home run or no. A max of four instant replays per game would not slow the game (and if anything would build some added intensity, excitement and moments for exuberance from time to time) and would not disrespect the authority of the umps. It would merely correct an error in judgement here or there that no one would fault. And if a particular ump is proven wrong more often than the next CBA deems reasonable, then reasonable penalties may be imposed, thereby policing and potentially elevating the quality of umps in the long run.
posted by MW12 at 07:26 PM on July 19, 2010
All true, Yerfatma. And wasn't suggesting the 100 yd per game benchmark was the ultimate stat defining greatness at the position - just that it's a very rare feat and TO is one of the very few who have achieved it multiple times. And to me, that trumps all the haters who talk about his stone hands and make up stats about his drop rate as if that will be his legacy.
On the field, he's one of the greats. In the media, he may be a bonehead (and that may unfortunately taint his legacy). But let's agree that the media has a tendency to blow these matters out of proportion, while the players that do their job are able to compartmentalize the BS - and if Tony Romo and Donavan McNabb had lived up to their own expectations in the post season then TO might have two rings in the last five years for two different teams and his legacy would be that of a great champion, rather than a jobless buffoon.
posted by MW12 at 08:35 AM on July 17, 2010
Fair point Yerfatma, so let's try this...
Here is one sites list of the top ten wide receivers of all time (not saying I endorse it but let's look at these ten players) - again looking at number of times they have averaged 100+ receiving yards per game in a season:
* Jerry Rice - noted above - 1 time
* Randy Moss - never
* Marvin Harrison - twice
* TO - noted above - twice
* Michael Irvin - 1 time
* Steve Largent - never
* Lance Alworth - 3 times
* Lynn Swann - never (nor did he ever have a 1000 yd season)
* Chad Johnson - never
* Chris Carter - never
posted by MW12 at 05:43 PM on July 16, 2010
TO career stats may not include dropped passes but let's review:
* 1000+ yds receiving in 5 of 8 seasons w SF, 1 of 2 seasons w Philly (the other he played just 7 games but still had 763), and all 3 seasons w Dallas * averaged 100+ yards per game twice (and for sake of comparison: Jerry Rice did this just once) * has fumbled the ball just 10 times in his career (six of which came in his first five years in the league)
But yeah - if you take away the stats, and overlook the fact that he's one of those guys that forces the defense to change their game plan, then I suppose you could argue that he's not very good.
Oh - and everyone was bashing Donavan McNabb when TO was an Eagle (as did they since until last year).
posted by MW12 at 02:39 PM on July 16, 2010
Love to see TO join the Pats and join the list of aging, supposed troublemakers (Randy Moss, Corey Dillon) who came in and were productive without ever once providing cause for concern.
And TO is right (though it's hard to decipher given his butchery of the English language): his numbers from last year are deceiving in that Buffalo wasn't exactly an offensive powerhouse. And come to think of it I don't recall a single reference to his stone hands.
posted by MW12 at 07:09 PM on July 15, 2010
Generally speaking I'm a believer that where there is smoke there is often fire. On the other hand, in the case of a witch hunt I always route for the accused, and like to see irrefutable proof that the accusations are true. To that end, there was an article posted somewhere just the other day refuting every single one of Landis' claims - can anyone else find it cuz right now I cannot - including the one referenced in this article about the tour bus stopping to do blood transfusions for the Postal Team, including Armstrong. You see, Armstrong doesn't actually take the team bus from stage to stage due to his contractual press requirements. Instead, he stays behind, then takes a car service or a helicopter to meet up with his team at the next stop on the Tour. So that particular accusation is patently false and there is supporting evidence to the contrary.
posted by MW12 at 07:40 PM on July 14, 2010
Presumably the writer meant that Riley is entering his sixth decade in the game.
He has played or coached in some kind of championship game or series in every decade since the '60s.
Pretty impressive stat.
posted by MW12 at 03:35 PM on July 11, 2010
I think the sports media needs to realize that "sport" is just another word for "entertainment", and the difference between "athlete" and "actor" is the presence of a script.
So do the fans.
And there's still no "I" in "team".
When Lebron is on the floor he can be a fantastically selfless player. The problem that seems to have emerged in the wake of this past season - which came out in the very first press conference he gave following the Cavs loss to the C's - is that he considers his "team" to be his agent, cronies, and hangers on, rather than the guys with whom he shares a uniform.
posted by MW12 at 07:38 AM on July 10, 2010
I posted this link in the other Lebron thread earlier today. Covers all the bases.
posted by MW12 at 09:56 PM on July 09, 2010
We've covered many of these points ourselves, but this article here seems to be the most comprehensive one I've seen - and is the most aptly titled.
posted by MW12 at 01:56 PM on July 09, 2010
Seems to me Gilbert's next announcement should be the signing of at least one major free agent acquisition, then never look back. The problem is there's no one left.
posted by MW12 at 01:18 PM on July 09, 2010
Gilbert's frustration is understandable, and his show is no doubt intended to keep the good people of Cleveland supporting the team in what's undoubtedly going to be a time of need. But he needs to be careful not to alienate other superstars from coming to the Cavs by inadvertently planting the seed that he's likely to bash them too on their way out the door if things don't go his way.
posted by MW12 at 10:45 AM on July 09, 2010
If money wasn't the motivation, why not convince players to come to Cleveland and take a cut to do it? The weather only applies the 6 months of the year you're playing and half of that is on the road. And the other half is in practice. Ohio's state income tax is almost 6%. That's almost $6 million over the course of the 5 year/ $99 million Miami offered.
If money was the motivation, he'd have stayed in Cleveland, where they could have offered him a 6 yr / $121 million deal, rather than the 5 yr / $96 million he'll get in Miami. The extra $1 million a year would makes up for the tax hit in Ohio, and he'd get another year on the back end of the deal.
posted by MW12 at 10:26 AM on July 09, 2010
Kim Clijsters Gives TV Commentator a Tennis Lesson
Light-hearted was clearly a reference to the manner in which the conversation took place. As in an acknowledgment that the two people discussing the topic didn't consider it a big deal.
Not sure where the idea that you should modify your life because of my belief system came into play.
Rather than insulting me, how bout explaining why you think talk about a woman's breast size at a sporting event - by the person you are paying to see - is acceptable behavior.