It was well-written and not unfair.
He did have (at the time) a down season.
posted by grum@work at 08:19 AM on August 01
RIP Roddy Piper
One of the first "villains" I ever liked in wrestling, he was always entertaining when he got in front of the mic.
Also, one of my absolute favourite movie quotes of all time:
posted by grum@work at 10:51 PM on July 31
Imagine how much more he would have been paid if he hadn't thrown an interception on his last pass attempt...
posted by grum@work at 04:53 PM on July 31
Barcelona seems to have done quite well for themselves after hosting the Olympics.
posted by grum@work at 11:59 AM on July 31
Why do you boo Adam Goodes? Is it because ...
Oh, that last part of the cartoon at the bottom (white player celebrations) is gold.
posted by grum@work at 11:29 AM on July 31
So Toronto pushes the last of their remaining chips into the pot by picking up David Price from the Tigers for Daniel Norris and another prospect (Anthony Alford is what I've read).
It's Norris, Boyd, and Labourt.
If you are going to go for it, you might as well go all in.
If they don't sign Price to an extension, this will be a pricey rental.
If they make the playoffs (and I mean more than one-and-done wild card), then I still think it might be worth it. It's been over 20 years...
posted by grum@work at 01:00 PM on July 30
It's possible the NFL could petition his carrier to turn over records of texts both sent and received using the phone (the legalities of this are another subject altogether)
There is no way that the carrier would hand over the information as part of some internal NFL investigation.
Even if this goes to federal court, the content of those text messages (or recipients of the messages or phone calls) is irrelevant at this point. The argument is whether the punishment is fair, not whether the ruling was correct in the first place.
posted by grum@work at 04:21 PM on July 29
That shit's crazy, yo.
Your browser does not support iframes.
If I see that play in a video game, I call fake.
If I see that play in a movie, I say "too Hollywood".
The snag-flip-grab-turn-throw motions are so smooth...
posted by grum@work at 12:43 AM on July 29
So he failed to complete the "Jeter catch", eh?
posted by grum@work at 12:42 AM on July 29
No one expected the commissioner to overturn the commissioner's own ruling that was based on a report the commissioner commissioned himself.
Remember, it wasn't the commissioner that ruled he should get four games. It was NFL Vice President Troy Vincent who handed down the punishment.
It was his boss (Goodell) that gave him the authority to levy the punishment, and then was the one who heard the appeal.
I'm sure it was a fair appeal. /s
posted by grum@work at 04:17 PM on July 28
Read that his suspension was reduced because the woman he beat up couldn't be found to testify during his appeal? Time for the NFL lawyers to add some legal verbiage to the player contracts.
What verbiage would that be?
If a player isn't convicted of a crime but we're pretty sure that he did do it, then we can punish him anyways?
posted by grum@work at 04:10 PM on July 28
A new generation of people in power positions means the old generation with their prejudices is no longer in power.
I'm curious what my 2-year-old daughter will see as "normal" when she's in her adult years, but I'll still consider "ground-breaking".
Female MLB pitcher?
Female NHL coach?
posted by grum@work at 12:43 PM on July 28
With Hawkins coming to the Jays, that means they now have the oldest (Hawkins, 42y 219d) and youngest (Osuna, 20y 60d) players in the majors.
Hawkins MLB debut was 81 days after Osuna was born.
posted by grum@work at 11:26 AM on July 28
Dear American League left-handed pitchers,
The Toronto Blue Jays
posted by grum@work at 09:48 AM on July 28
As a Jays fan, I perfectly fine with this deal.
It's "win now" (being this year or next), so if you really are in that mode (and signing Martin and trading for Donaldson seem to indicate that), you might as well push all your chips in.
Do I wish they'd used those kids to get a star pitcher? Sure.
But I think the upgrade at SS is huge (offense and defense), so I'm happy.
I also don't think AA is done yet.
In the end, if the Jays don't make the playoffs this year (or next), I definitely won't blame AA for not trying.
posted by grum@work at 09:39 AM on July 28
Smart move by the mayor, and a sign of someone who looks past their current position and thinks of the future.
A rare feat in the world of politics...
posted by grum@work at 04:08 PM on July 27
Thirty years ago today, four Houston pitchers combined to give up 16 runs in a loss to the New York Mets...and none of the runs were "earned".
(Thanks to Baseball Think Factory.)
posted by grum@work at 04:01 PM on July 27
That aside, I should point out that it's a hell of an induction class.
Johnson and Martinez are top 20 historical pitchers (top 15? top 10? top 5?), while Biggio was a nice career accumulator while playing multiple (difficult) positions, and Smoltz was a great pitcher who had an odd career usage pattern and some amazing teammates.
posted by grum@work at 11:51 AM on July 27
posted by grum@work at 11:47 AM on July 27
I'm not sure that Pillar did the wrong thing there.
I think you assume that the runner is going to get caught in the rundown between 3rd/home, so you take 3rd on your own to make sure that the lead baserunner is there when the play ends.
If Carrera is caught in the rundown, you have a man on 3rd with two outs.
If Carrera retreats to 3rd and Pillar is already there, you have a man on 3rd with two outs.
What you don't expect is a rundown that fails to get the runner AND a professional baseball player getting the jimmy-legs standing on third and falling off the bag.
Yes, if Pillar had stopped on 2nd, life would be much easier, but I got the impression the rundown between 3rd/home was aborted when they saw Pillar on 3rd, because they are going to get their 2nd out no matter what if Carrera retreats to 3rd, so why chance it by throwing the ball away. If Pillar is still standing on 2nd, I'm pretty sure that they get Carrera in the rundown.
posted by grum@work at 10:53 AM on July 27
Knives in Toronto are already out for Lou Lamoriello.
Yawn. That's just the Toronto media doing their usual thing with the Maple Leafs.
It's July, and they need to write SOMETHING to draw eyeballs.
posted by grum@work at 11:13 PM on July 26
If he misses that second one, and it hits the ground, do you think the scorer would be smart enough to call it an error (and preserve the no-hitter)?
posted by grum@work at 02:20 PM on July 26
Originally, I thought he was a bit of a douchebag, but more and more I'm convinced that Bryce Harper is an awesome dude.
posted by grum@work at 04:08 PM on July 24
I'm actually hoping for a complete trainwreck that sees Babcock fired in March despite having the Leafs in first overall, and Lou moving behind the bench then getting blown out in the first round by the Sens.
The Senators beating the Leafs in the playoffs?
Even when the Senators are a MUCH better team, they still manage to choke against the Leafs.
posted by grum@work at 03:44 PM on July 24
Noah Syndergaard might have killed Yunel Escobar without even hitting him.
posted by grum@work at 12:05 PM on July 23
The Leafs since 1987 have 13 playoff appearances and did not reach a Stanley Cup Final.
Screw you, Kerry Fraser!
posted by grum@work at 12:00 PM on July 23
I was looking for an X years ago I said this, and came across this shitshow of a thread.
Oh, man. I forgot about that one.
My blood pressure was rising just reading some of that again.
That said, my heart smiled when I read this comment:
And thank goodness Aaron's record will remain intact. How many homers do you think he would have hit if he had used any kind of supplements?
posted by trox at 01:06 PM on August 02
posted by grum@work at 08:57 AM on July 22
Eight years ago, I said this:
It smells like someone in the upper-level of the government has turned the screws on the men in charge of this case to "do something", and dismissing a second grand jury without an indictment after all this time would be a monstrous blow to everyone involved (except Bonds). So they gritted their teeth, decided their "evidence" isn't going to get any better, and decided to take a run at it. Now consider this: What if the indictment gets tossed out, or Bonds is found not guilty of all charges? They'll have given him and his records "legitimacy". While it looks like Bonds is in trouble now, it could turn into a huge public relations boon for him in the end.
Of course, I didn't think it would take EIGHT YEARS to get to this point, so that last line is probably not true. If it had happened in half the time (say, before he became eligible for the HOF), then maybe it might have made a difference. At this point, almost every casual fan will think that "Bonds was found guilty of steroids", or something like that.
posted by grum@work at 01:49 PM on July 21
posted by grum@work at 01:53 PM on July 20
After seeing Spieth's putt on the 16th, I formally request that he does not hog ALL of the awesome in the world, and share some of it with the rest of us.
posted by grum@work at 01:10 PM on July 20
posted by grum@work at 01:03 PM on July 20
Of course, as soon as I finish typing that, Garcia goes completely "2015-Tiger-Woods" and falls apart.
posted by grum@work at 12:21 PM on July 20
Man, I hope it's an absolute clusterbunch at the top of The Open standings at the end of round 4 today. It would be amazing to see something like 5-6 guys go into the 4-hole aggregate playoff round.
The three Aussies, Zach, Garcia, and Spieth...hell, even Oost and the amateur joining the fun would lead to an amazing golf moment. If that happened, I'd be torn in so many ways.
I'd like to see Day finally break through.
I'd like to see Garcia finally achieve his (foretold) moment of greatness.
Spieth getting to the 3/4 mark of the grand slam.
The amateur doing something that hasn't happened in about 80 years.
Of course, like my annual "Let's have a 5-way tie for the baseball playoffs!" final weekend wish, it probably won't happen.
posted by grum@work at 11:38 AM on July 20
The comment on that article that wins the whole damn thing is:
"Um, we sent the Vikings to Mars forty years ago."
(reference for the confused)
posted by grum@work at 03:29 PM on July 17
I'd watch him call a hot dog being cooked.
posted by grum@work at 01:57 PM on July 15
Saw earlier this week on the ESPN crawl that this was Trout's 4th All-Star Game in his 5 seasons and jumped to baseball-reference to find out how such an omission could happen. MLB needs to get rid of that rule granting teams an extra year of service time if they hold a player in the minors for a few weeks. He should have been starting in the ASG that year too.
He was overmatched at 19, as the OPS shows (.672). This is one of those times where staying in the minors for the season wouldn't have been a bad idea (in retrospect). Then again, maybe that taste of the majors made him work even harder in the off-season.
posted by grum@work at 11:28 AM on July 15
As one article pointed out, it won't be long before they do a "Greatest Living Players" thing again and he'll be one of the four and the only one still active.
posted by grum@work at 11:02 AM on July 15
No one who bets on their sport should ever be allowed to participate again, in any capacity.
Are you trolling me, bro?
Rose's poor-me act is tiresome, but as I've said before, 15 years' banishment is a sufficient sentence for what he finally admits to doing. Baseball ought to respond to his admission by reinstating him. ... I don't agree with lifetime bans in sport.
posted by grum@work at 10:34 AM on July 15
Well, I'm still going to wear my Dhoni #7 Super Kings jersey around town. It's one of my favourites in my collection because of its rarity (almost impossible to purchase one in North America), style (the bright yellow colour and the lion logo are awesome), and feel (really nice light/strong material with an easy fit on the shoulders).
posted by grum@work at 02:22 PM on July 14
I feel that Navratilova's sustained excellence over four decades in all available disciplines (singles/doubles/mixed doubles) is what makes her the #1. If you go by "peak" performance (leaning on singles play), then I have no problem with rating Graf (and/or Williams) higher than Navratilova.
posted by grum@work at 10:42 AM on July 14
Uh, that new format for the HR derby?
That's a goddamn masterpiece.
Every round of the matchup (except Pederson winning his first one) was filled with drama, and the pace was quick as well.
posted by grum@work at 10:40 PM on July 13
Did you see her balance the Wimbledon championship plate on her head and walk several steps after winning this year?
That, and her delayed celebration when she got back to her seat after winning.
posted by grum@work at 04:42 PM on July 13
If Serena pulls off the calendar grand slam, that will put her right up there with Steffi Graf as the #2/#3 female tennis player of all time.
It would take a HELL of a late career run to match Navratilova (59 grand slam titles in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles).
It really is amazing that she doesn't get more attention outside of the tennis world. She's shown to the world that she can be both competitive/driven/ruthless and funny/exuberant/playful. The fact that she's fantastic in front of a microphone, a fashion template, and willing to speak her mind about almost everything, makes me think that someone should snatch her up the moment she retires and get her in front of a camera for tennis commentary.
posted by grum@work at 03:56 PM on July 13
My back just spasmed looking at that.
posted by grum@work at 08:58 AM on July 13
What's the over/under on fouls to Jordan by the Mavs in the first regular season meeting?
posted by grum@work at 05:56 PM on July 11
If the blogger is reporting the information for, say, Bleacher Report, wouldn't that be covered by the First Amendment?
Or would the person have to anonymously email themselves the information AND THEN post it as "news" to be covered by the 1stA?
posted by grum@work at 01:27 AM on July 11
I don't think we should be chipping away at the First Amendment rights of reporters.
If a blogger worked in a hospital and had access to private medical records, is he protected by those same First Amendment rights if he publishes the records of someone famous? He's breaking the HIPAA laws, but why isn't he protected by the First Amendment?
posted by grum@work at 10:13 PM on July 10
The slippery slope is when this concerns, say, the President or a Presidential candidate. In those types of cases, the public may well have a legitimate interest in knowing of any medical issues that the officeholder or candidate may not want to disclose.
Remember when people wanted to see Romney's tax records, and he hemmed/hawed about them (and then only released a partial set)?
It pretty much put the idea in everyone's head that he had some "bad stuff" he didn't want revealed.
If the press said "release your medical records" to a candidate, and the candidate said "Nope!", then it would be perfectly fine for the press to respond with "What is he/she hiding? Is he/she gravely ill? Can you trust him/her?"
I still don't think people's medical records should be released to the public without their consent (or a court order).
posted by grum@work at 02:23 PM on July 10
Do you really want a society where the media is breaking the law by reporting someone's medical condition?
Does knowing this person's medical condition provide an important public good? Is it some sort of communicable disease that may threaten others? Is the public protected by knowing this person's medical condition?
If a doctor is legally not allowed to reveal medical information about a patient without their consent (or a court order), then why is it acceptable for a reporter to disseminate that same information because someone else broke the law to give it to him?
I think the biggest problem I have with this whole story is the screenshot itself. If Schefter wanted to report that he had "inside sources" about the information, then I wouldn't care (or, obviously, even know he had that photo). Then it would be up to Schefter to convince the public without revealing the private medical information. Heck, it could simply be a janitor that saw the player being wheeled back to the room with a missing finger.
By releasing the screenshot, he's actually revealing that private medical information without the player's consent.
posted by grum@work at 01:12 PM on July 10
ESPN noted as much in its response to this issue: "HIPAA does not apply to news organizations."
Well, maybe it should.
It seems silly that ESPN can take legal action against someone for "rebroadcasting without expressed written consent" their game broadcasts, but ESPN is free and clear for publishing a person's medical information without that person's [expressed written] consent.
posted by grum@work at 11:38 AM on July 10
how is what Schefter did any different than when the media broke the story that Tommy Morrison was HIV-positive and Lyle Alzado had brain cancer?
Morrison had to take a public health test as part of pre-match requirements. When he failed that (and the second test), he came forward and announced it to the public in a press conference.
posted by grum@work at 07:57 PM on July 09
he's a public figure of such significant interest he receives millions of dollars a year in salary
What's the cutoff for privacy? $1million/yr?
Or do you need to check the person's Q rating to confirm they are "signifcant"?
In summary, Schefter is an asshole for posting that image, and I'd love it if the NFL/NFLPA (and other sports organizations) decided to cut all communication with him as a result.
Otherwise, why not let everyone know in the medical industry that they can get back at athletes that were rude to them by simply scanning/photographing private medical records and dropping them in anonymous cloud storage sites for journalists to dig through.
You want to report on information that is in the public record (marriage/divorce/real estate/financial transactions/etc)? Fine. Private medical records? Not cool.
posted by grum@work at 04:05 PM on July 09
Major news outlets don't pay for information and have an ethics policy forbidding the practice, so I regard that possibility as highly unlikely here.
It's one thing to have an ethics policy. It's another thing entirely to abide by it.
I'm not suggesting that he paid for the information, but I have to ask why was he chosen to receive this information.
(I've also wondered the same thing when TMZ gets their hands on previously unavailable private videos.)
posted by grum@work at 03:58 PM on July 09
Also, I wonder if a private citizen's health records really fall in the "newsworthy/public concern" bucket that the journalist would claim in order to use the Bartnicki v Vopper precedent as protection.
posted by grum@work at 01:51 PM on July 09
His activities in gathering news receive broad First Amendment protection.
It depends on the timeline.
1) Health care employee photographs records.
2) Employee approaches journalist to sell photo.
3) Journalist pays for photo.
1) Journalist approaches health care employee(s) with offer of money for photo of records.
2) Employee takes photo and gives it to journalist.
3) Journalist pays for photo.
Alternative A? That's legal.
Alternative B? That's probably illegal, as some sort of conspiracy charge could be laid on the journalist.
posted by grum@work at 01:47 PM on July 09
A journalist isn't legally bound by HIPAA, so I don't see the grounds to sue him.
If he paid money for those records (or to have them photographed), then I think he might be in legal trouble.
posted by grum@work at 12:58 PM on July 09
You need three of them\
posted by grum@work at 01:59 PM on July 08
I would find it hard to imagine any of the big sporting-goods concerns tromping all over the newly non-trademarked name: A) they'd rather not piss off the NFL, and 2) do you really want to be the people selling a lot of Redskins apparel?
I'm thinking of the bootleg sellers outside the stadium and online.
posted by grum@work at 12:31 PM on July 08
They can go ahead and keep the name if they want, but that means ANYONE can create t-shirts/hats with the name on them and avoid legal repercussions.
I'm pretty sure the NFL wants to keep the lucrative merchandising money to themselves, so they'll lean on Washington to change it. Think of all the new stuff they can sell with the new name!
posted by grum@work at 11:33 AM on July 08
The sports talk shows must be salivating over this ruling.
Now they can debate about:
- is it a racist term
- is it a correct legal judgement
- will the franchise change its name
- to what will they change their name
- what about all these other team names/logos
posted by grum@work at 11:32 AM on July 08
Copyright © 2015 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.