View Single Post
11-05-2003, 06:53 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,074
vCash: 500
The problem with this article is that it is written by a total hack that has no business writting about a sport that the only thing he knows about is what he reads on the AP wire and then steals for his own.

Loud mouthed P.O.S. Guz, You ask a solid question as BP has had his toungue up Bryants tail from the start of this thing and I would be more than willing to bet that IF he (kb)plead down to a lesser charge to make the trial go away that BP would say something like "he has paid enough already in the court of public opinion and sponsorship losses and that along with what the courts have given him should be enough". By the way, if Plaschke is reading this DON'T STEAL IT YOU FISHWRAP HACK!

Corvo plead out on the case so unfortunately we don't get to know what exactly happened or how guilty he actually was. He may have done everything he is accused of and if that were the case then he should have gone to prison or he may have done less. The truth is that we the fans OR Bill Plaschke don't know what happened so we HAVE to accept what we have heard and what has been done and let it go.

I also like the duplicitous feelings that some of us share towards our sportsmen. On one hand we will argue that they are people just like us doing a job and shouldn't recieve any special treatment and on the other we demand that their teams punish them for what they do away from the game. I understand the "morals clauses" that our "celebrities" have in their contracts and while I think they are total BS I can understand why they are there. The people hiring these people have to protect their investments and are really just saying "don't do anything to make us look bad" away from the "game". The problem I have with it is that IF we are going to have them sign morals clauses then when one of them gets into trouble THEIR EMPLOYER should pay for their court costs and treat them like the military treats its EMPLOYEES.

Its called double jepordy. In the military if you commit a crime away from your service then you know for a fact that you are going to pay again when they get ahold of you because it is in your contract with them. So, if you do get in trouble while in the military, you have the right to request (and usually recieve) a military lawyer to argue your case in public court for you. They treat you like you are their property (which you are when you sign the contract) and that they have a vested interest in you. When you get back they do what they see fit to you based on what you did wrong and how it applies to the situation.

With our atheletes, we tell them to behave and then when they get into trouble the teams (fill in your favorite industry) back off and take the "say nothing until we know if you are guilty" approach. Then, when the person comes back they dispense a BS punishment to save face.

My long point (as usual) is that we the fans NOR the owners can have it both ways. Either these people are just people payed to play a game (or play make believe whatever) or they are signing a deal that makes BOTH parties responsible for eachother. Sadly it doesn't work that way.

If I were King I would have said, "What Joe Corvo is alleged to have done happened away from our team in his private life and we refuse to be responsible for what these grown men do on their off time". "As for what he is alleged to have done I find that type of action morally reprehensive and shameful and wouldn't ever condone that type of behavior". I would leave his actions, as a legal adult, in his private life, his. The way it is now you are just sitting on several time bombs hoping that you draw what you are paying for from these people before they go off on you. Some will be great guys like 99 who do everything right, while others will be deviant. It is EXACTLY like the rest of us. No better, no worse.

I have a decent number of employees that work for me and if I found out one of them had done what JC is alleged to have done I would have asked them about it and then let it go. As long as what happened didn't take time away from their ability to do their job or impact their ability to perform their tasks as instructed I, BY LAW, couldn't do anything about it. EVEN IF I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY DID. The law protects them from me firing them because they have done something in their private life that I don't agree with.

Why is it different for these guys? They are employees of a company. Sure they are public employees but still, the laws of the land SHOULD apply to them in the same manner that it does to all of us.

IGM is offline