HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Hockey Fights
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Hockey Fights Discuss and rate hockey fights and fighters of today and from the past. Videos welcome!

CBC Go Public: Should junior hockey fights be subject to criminal charges?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2013, 02:39 PM
  #151
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
As in all fighting sports, repeatedly striking a downed and defenseless opponent is frowned upon because it's when injury is most likely to occur. We expect participants who intend on fighting to understand this and let up when circumstance arises.
.
there is a big difference between not being able to defend yourself ( like getting KO'ed) and CHOOSING not to defend yourself. By your rationale I can do anything on the ice I like and if the other team takes offense, I can simply choose not to defend myself and I should have the expectation that they will stop ? Really ?

When whitey tuned fleischman for running georges, Fleischman at the very least put up a token defense in that mismatch. Even guys who dont fight wont go boneless and let themselves be ragdolled and put their well being in the sensibilities of their opponents who DO want to fight.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-02-2013, 03:20 PM
  #152
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
there is a big difference between not being able to defend yourself ( like getting KO'ed) and CHOOSING not to defend yourself. By your rationale I can do anything on the ice I like and if the other team takes offense, I can simply choose not to defend myself and I should have the expectation that they will stop ? Really ?

When whitey tuned fleischman for running georges, Fleischman at the very least put up a token defense in that mismatch. Even guys who dont fight wont go boneless and let themselves be ragdolled and put their well being in the sensibilities of their opponents who DO want to fight.

This is your second attempt at a straw man.

I'm saying - If someone chooses to be a 'punk' and not scrap, he should still expect to get tuned. But that does NOT mean the 'punk' should be put at undue risk for injury...especially for snowing a goalie. 10 repeated and unimpeded punches to the head is undue risk for injury in almost every sport (boxing and MMA included).

The punishment should fit the crime. And generally speaking, we expect the intent of every player dropping the gloves to abide by this.

Zine is offline  
Old
07-02-2013, 03:23 PM
  #153
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,510
vCash: 500
Fighting

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
there is a big difference between not being able to defend yourself ( like getting KO'ed) and CHOOSING not to defend yourself. By your rationale I can do anything on the ice I like and if the other team takes offense, I can simply choose not to defend myself and I should have the expectation that they will stop ? Really ?

When whitey tuned fleischman for running georges, Fleischman at the very least put up a token defense in that mismatch. Even guys who dont fight wont go boneless and let themselves be ragdolled and put their well being in the sensibilities of their opponents who DO want to fight.
First you do not have to fight to defend yourself, your teammates or establish a security perimeter for that matter.

Very easy to do without having to fight. See Gordie Howe - course on Elbows 101, telescoping the stick - handy besides taking faceoffs, knowing how to leverage weight on skates also helps a lot.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
07-02-2013, 03:50 PM
  #154
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
This is your second attempt at a straw man.

I'm saying - If someone chooses to be a 'punk' and not scrap, he should still expect to get tuned. But that does NOT mean the 'punk' should be put at undue risk for injury...especially for snowing a goalie. 10 repeated and unimpeded punches to the head is undue risk for injury in almost every sport (boxing and MMA included).

The punishment should fit the crime. And generally speaking, we expect the intent of every player dropping the gloves to abide by this.
so your saying that being a punk and refusing to scrap warrants a beating but that this kid got it bad. Was he not being a punk ?

and I can assure that as flippantly as you dismiss the action of snowing a goalie, there are at least as many who view this as a grave transgression.

you keep bringing up the 10 blows, its not germaine and no one is super comfrotable with the kid who kept throwing them. but if the tunee had gotten the same amount or worse consequences from one or two golden punches, this isnt the deal you are making it out to be. had he defended himself, its likely the consequences would also have been mitigated. Butting the plame on the tuner for a poor decision the tunee made ( and accepting the tuner also made a poor decision) seems nonsenical.

Rats need to get their commuppance because if they dont, it might be your numbers they run next time with their false sense on consequence free hockey.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-03-2013, 11:28 AM
  #155
Blayzer
Schenn ** JVR
 
Blayzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 338
vCash: 500
No, it shouldn't be banned. It is an inherent risk of the sport...don't like it? Play a different sport....

All this will do is turn the kids into sissy's and eventually the big league will be overrun with a bunch of spoiled brats.

Blayzer is offline  
Old
07-03-2013, 12:14 PM
  #156
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zine View Post
This is your second attempt at a straw man.

I'm saying - If someone chooses to be a 'punk' and not scrap, he should still expect to get tuned. But that does NOT mean the 'punk' should be put at undue risk for injury...especially for snowing a goalie. 10 repeated and unimpeded punches to the head is undue risk for injury in almost every sport (boxing and MMA included).

The punishment should fit the crime. And generally speaking, we expect the intent of every player dropping the gloves to abide by this.
There is absolutely no way that you can regulate what counts as 'undue risk' in a hockey fight through litigation. Assault doesn't become assault after the 5th punch, it becomes assault at the instant of the 1st punch.

If these people have their way, there will be NO fighting in the game. Violators will be charged with assault. That's the dynamic in play here.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
07-03-2013, 12:58 PM
  #157
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post

If these people have their way, there will be NO fighting in the game. Violators will be charged with assault. That's the dynamic in play here.
And I suspect that this is precisely their intent when they say they want to "change the culture of hockey".

I am still hoping that some sort of plea deal is struck so that the accused isnt saddled with an assault with bodily harm charge around his neck for the rest of his life.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-03-2013, 04:07 PM
  #158
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
There is absolutely no way that you can regulate what counts as 'undue risk' in a hockey fight through litigation. Assault doesn't become assault after the 5th punch, it becomes assault at the instant of the 1st punch.

If these people have their way, there will be NO fighting in the game. Violators will be charged with assault. That's the dynamic in play here.
I vehemently disagree; this isn't the end game at all. It's just more "the sky is falling, and we can't fight to defend ourselves against it" hysterics.

Years back, I had to take a sport law class, and a major issue was over the idea of litigation in sports. Essentially: how far is too far? The person teaching the class was both a lawyer and also had previously been extremely high up in a minor baseball league. When the league was young, he'd taken the steps of actually seeking an injunction against MLB, which was granted. Before that, he'd been involved in the OHL in some capacity. So this wasn't exactly some two-bit yahoo who couldn't tell a puck from a train. Anyway, the job was to convince him of:
1) Can the court system claim jurisdiction over something that takes place on the field of play?
2) SHOULD the court system claim jurisdiction over the same?
3) In what circumstances should the courts step in, and in what circumstances should they stay as far away as possible?

Not to pat myself on the back, but I ended up acing this particular assignment with what was described as "extremely convincing" and "the most consistent theoretical standard I've seen yet". I won't go into much in the way of details, but here's what it came down to.

In my humble opinion, the court system can claim jurisdiction over something that takes place on the field of play. The courts SHOULD take such a step only in the following circumstances:
1) When the matter is one of player/spectator interaction. If a fan comes on the field of play, or if a player goes into a spectator area, that's one thing that should at least be investigated if a crime takes place.
2) When something on the field of play takes place that is so egregious that it exceeds what can be reasonably expected as an occupational hazard or an inherent risk. This standard varies from sport to sport; I went into some detail on this. I vaguely remember citing an example of a hockey player getting clocked while driving to the net being part of the game, while a basketball player getting clocked while driving to the basket being beyond a reasonable standard. This is borne out by the fact that the likely outcome of such a play in basketball would be a flagrant foul against the perpetrator, compared to not being a penalty in hockey. There were several other examples of similar disparities between sports.
3) Even in cases where the league would look at assessing supplemental discipline, the courts should stay out unless the action goes well beyond the normal standard of what the leagues themselves would determine worthy of their own investigations. This would fall under something similar to the old pornography doctrine: "I shall not today attempt further to define...;and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

Now, stepping back into the realm of sports as we see it, and specifically in the cases of fighting.
1) Baseball forbids fighting at all levels. They have an extremely weird standard, and some would say no real standard, when it comes to bench-clearing brawls.
2) Football forbids fighting at all levels. Throwing a punch, regardless of whether it connects or not, is an automatic 15-yard penalty and an ejection. At the high school level and below, the ejection also carries at least a one-game suspension.
3) Basketball forbids fighting at all levels. Throwing a punch is an automatic suspension, connecting with a punch is a longer suspension.
4) Hockey forbids fighting at all levels. Penalties are a five-minute major at the NHL and various North American professional and junior leagues, plus an ejection in Europe and in lower levels of North America.

Now, how many times in the last 10 years has there been a lawsuit brought up as a result of a fight in any other sport at any level? How many times have police actually gotten involved? How about in the last 20 years? Unless it vastly exceeds what could be reasonably expected, no one bothers taking it beyond the sport hierarchy.

About 15 years ago, there was a lawsuit filed as a result of an incident during a college baseball game. Wichita State pitcher Ben Christensen threw at Evansville hitter Anthony Molina, who was on-deck. Christensen thought that Molina was timing his warmup pitches from the on-deck circle, which is regarded as "a punk move". In order to "correct" Molina, Christensen threw at Molina, who sustained a skull fracture and eye injury as a result of being hit with a ball thrown at him when he was 25' away from being in the field of play. Molina had 20/10 vision in his left eye, which was reduced to 20/400 with a blind spot and no peripheral vision or depth perception.

Throwing at someone on-deck who is timing pitches is considered to be acceptable and necessary to keep hitters honest. It's supposed to send a message. Christensen went well beyond that by throwing a fastball at Molina's face instead of simply lofting a ball in his direction. And THIS didn't even end up in court.

So with this in mind, why on earth does anyone honestly think that the end result is that all fights in hockey, all hits, all penalties, will be assessed by law enforcement and prosecuted?

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
07-03-2013, 06:11 PM
  #159
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I vehemently disagree; this isn't the end game at all. It's just more "the sky is falling, and we can't fight to defend ourselves against it" hysterics.

Years back, I had to take a sport law class, and a major issue was over the idea of litigation in sports. Essentially: how far is too far? The person teaching the class was both a lawyer and also had previously been extremely high up in a minor baseball league. When the league was young, he'd taken the steps of actually seeking an injunction against MLB, which was granted. Before that, he'd been involved in the OHL in some capacity. So this wasn't exactly some two-bit yahoo who couldn't tell a puck from a train. Anyway, the job was to convince him of:
1) Can the court system claim jurisdiction over something that takes place on the field of play?
2) SHOULD the court system claim jurisdiction over the same?
3) In what circumstances should the courts step in, and in what circumstances should they stay as far away as possible?

Not to pat myself on the back, but I ended up acing this particular assignment with what was described as "extremely convincing" and "the most consistent theoretical standard I've seen yet". I won't go into much in the way of details, but here's what it came down to.

In my humble opinion, the court system can claim jurisdiction over something that takes place on the field of play. The courts SHOULD take such a step only in the following circumstances:
1) When the matter is one of player/spectator interaction. If a fan comes on the field of play, or if a player goes into a spectator area, that's one thing that should at least be investigated if a crime takes place.
2) When something on the field of play takes place that is so egregious that it exceeds what can be reasonably expected as an occupational hazard or an inherent risk. This standard varies from sport to sport; I went into some detail on this. I vaguely remember citing an example of a hockey player getting clocked while driving to the net being part of the game, while a basketball player getting clocked while driving to the basket being beyond a reasonable standard. This is borne out by the fact that the likely outcome of such a play in basketball would be a flagrant foul against the perpetrator, compared to not being a penalty in hockey. There were several other examples of similar disparities between sports.
3) Even in cases where the league would look at assessing supplemental discipline, the courts should stay out unless the action goes well beyond the normal standard of what the leagues themselves would determine worthy of their own investigations. This would fall under something similar to the old pornography doctrine: "I shall not today attempt further to define...;and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

Now, stepping back into the realm of sports as we see it, and specifically in the cases of fighting.
1) Baseball forbids fighting at all levels. They have an extremely weird standard, and some would say no real standard, when it comes to bench-clearing brawls.
2) Football forbids fighting at all levels. Throwing a punch, regardless of whether it connects or not, is an automatic 15-yard penalty and an ejection. At the high school level and below, the ejection also carries at least a one-game suspension.
3) Basketball forbids fighting at all levels. Throwing a punch is an automatic suspension, connecting with a punch is a longer suspension.
4) Hockey forbids fighting at all levels. Penalties are a five-minute major at the NHL and various North American professional and junior leagues, plus an ejection in Europe and in lower levels of North America.

Now, how many times in the last 10 years has there been a lawsuit brought up as a result of a fight in any other sport at any level? How many times have police actually gotten involved? How about in the last 20 years? Unless it vastly exceeds what could be reasonably expected, no one bothers taking it beyond the sport hierarchy.

About 15 years ago, there was a lawsuit filed as a result of an incident during a college baseball game. Wichita State pitcher Ben Christensen threw at Evansville hitter Anthony Molina, who was on-deck. Christensen thought that Molina was timing his warmup pitches from the on-deck circle, which is regarded as "a punk move". In order to "correct" Molina, Christensen threw at Molina, who sustained a skull fracture and eye injury as a result of being hit with a ball thrown at him when he was 25' away from being in the field of play. Molina had 20/10 vision in his left eye, which was reduced to 20/400 with a blind spot and no peripheral vision or depth perception.

Throwing at someone on-deck who is timing pitches is considered to be acceptable and necessary to keep hitters honest. It's supposed to send a message. Christensen went well beyond that by throwing a fastball at Molina's face instead of simply lofting a ball in his direction. And THIS didn't even end up in court.

So with this in mind, why on earth does anyone honestly think that the end result is that all fights in hockey, all hits, all penalties, will be assessed by law enforcement and prosecuted?

Who defines what is "reasonably expected" ? The general populace or people familliar with the game ? I can see a lot of people who dont follow hockey would say what happened was not reasonable, but they would like say the same about a lot of the game. I'd say that it is far more resonable to expect a fight in the NHL than in a midget A legue, but which standard is applied ? To hockey as a whole or is it segreated into different catergories ?

Also there is the issue of separating the intent and the ultimate result. I dont think anyone is suprised that snowing the goalie might mean a fight, and as in all things the outcome of this fight are unknown to the combatants at the time. If the kid without the helmet had fallen to the ice and sustained a head injury, is the question going to be " is it reasonable to expect a severe head injury as the result of snowing the goalie?" ( probably not) or is it " is is reasonable to expect a fight after snowing the goalie"
( probably yes). I'm not sure you can evaluate every contingency to evaluate its "reasonableness" in the absence of specific context.

And as for hockey, in my mind it is different from the other sports as it only penalizes fighting and does not forbid it. In cases where it is the least likely to be injurious, I think hockey actually promotes it ( while maintaining the penalty)

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 04:57 AM
  #160
hlaverty06
Registered User
 
hlaverty06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NJ all day
Country: United States
Posts: 7,281
vCash: 500
Guys we should not allow people to shoot over 75 MPH since someone could get hurt and they're in control of the shot so they could be criminals

Give me a break you ******* fighting shouldn't be banned at all

hlaverty06 is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 10:16 AM
  #161
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Who defines what is "reasonably expected" ? The general populace or people familliar with the game ? I can see a lot of people who dont follow hockey would say what happened was not reasonable, but they would like say the same about a lot of the game. I'd say that it is far more resonable to expect a fight in the NHL than in a midget A legue, but which standard is applied ? To hockey as a whole or is it segreated into different catergories ?
"I know it when I see it". My own general litmus test is that something that truly shocks and offends the average person regardless of rooting interest will generally warrant additional investigation. 99.999% of such cases at even the highest levels merely end up before the league, with an extraordinarily small number going beyond that.

The standard applied for different levels, to me, is based on what the normal standard is for that league or level of play.

Quote:
Also there is the issue of separating the intent and the ultimate result. I dont think anyone is suprised that snowing the goalie might mean a fight, and as in all things the outcome of this fight are unknown to the combatants at the time. If the kid without the helmet had fallen to the ice and sustained a head injury, is the question going to be " is it reasonable to expect a severe head injury as the result of snowing the goalie?" ( probably not) or is it " is is reasonable to expect a fight after snowing the goalie" ( probably yes). I'm not sure you can evaluate every contingency to evaluate its "reasonableness" in the absence of specific context.
If it's not reasonable to expect a head injury as a result of snowing the goalie, why are we even arguing this specific incident? A kid suffered a head injury as a result of snowing the goalie.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 10:20 AM
  #162
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaverty06 View Post
Guys we should not allow people to shoot over 75 MPH since someone could get hurt and they're in control of the shot so they could be criminals

Give me a break you ******* fighting shouldn't be banned at all
No one is suggesting that fighting should be banned. Plenty are suggesting that jumping someone and beating his face into the ice for snowing the goalie is excessive, that the league itself acted improperly by treating a slap on the wrist as "discipline", and that in extreme cases such as this, it may well require the involvement of law enforcement.

Your straw man about shooting over 75 MPH can go right up there with the rest of them, which I believe involve banning checking, encasing all players in pads or a bubble, and singing "Kumbaya" when trying to defend against a player driving to the net.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 10:43 AM
  #163
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,510
vCash: 500
Age and Jurisdiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
"I know it when I see it". My own general litmus test is that something that truly shocks and offends the average person regardless of rooting interest will generally warrant additional investigation. 99.999% of such cases at even the highest levels merely end up before the league, with an extraordinarily small number going beyond that.

The standard applied for different levels, to me, is based on what the normal standard is for that league or level of play.



If it's not reasonable to expect a head injury as a result of snowing the goalie, why are we even arguing this specific incident? A kid suffered a head injury as a result of snowing the goalie.
Age is a factor. Midget hockey is strictly "minors" < 18, while Junior hockey is a blend of "minors" and adults, 18 and over.

You also have the "league" issue. Are we talking a league with a broad national/international base crossing jurisdictions or a narrow limited league with few jurisdictional issues like Alliance Hockey?

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 11:07 AM
  #164
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post

Your straw man about shooting over 75 MPH can go right up there with the rest of them, which I believe involve banning checking, encasing all players in pads or a bubble, and singing "Kumbaya" when trying to defend against a player driving to the net.
You show Trent McCleary catching one in the throat to a room of soccer moms and I suspect slappers over 75 do get banned.

And the " I know it when I see it" argument is completely arbitrary, and additionally was the precise way in which the league adjudicated it. They looked at it and decided that it was an extension of a normal hockey play and did not warrant supplemental discipline. But because YOU think it is egregious , they should revise their position and simply adopt where you would draw the line.
You, or the kids parents, are not the sole arbitrers of what is or what is not reasonable by fiat.

I've been on the ice when kids have been injured far worse on innocuous looking plays. If someone gets rubbed out and falls awarkardly, thats a normal hockey play that wenrt bad. If you don't think fighting is going to go away, why not adopt the same standard, that this was a warranted hockey fight that ended up going bad for one of them? Oh that's right because fighting is forbidden in all levels of hockey. Circuitous indeed.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 11:20 AM
  #165
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,510
vCash: 500
Poor Example

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
You show Trent McCleary catching one in the throat to a room of soccer moms and I suspect slappers over 75 do get banned.

And the " I know it when I see it" argument is completely arbitrary, and additionally was the precise way in which the league adjudicated it. They looked at it and decided that it was an extension of a normal hockey play and did not warrant supplemental discipline. But because YOU think it is egregious , they should revise their position and simply adopt where you would draw the line.
You, or the kids parents, are not the sole arbitrers of what is or what is not reasonable by fiat.

I've been on the ice when kids have been injured far worse on innocuous looking plays. If someone gets rubbed out and falls awarkardly, thats a normal hockey play that wenrt bad. If you don't think fighting is going to go away, why not adopt the same standard, that this was a warranted hockey fight that ended up going bad for one of them? Oh that's right because fighting is forbidden in all levels of hockey. Circuitous indeed.

Trent McCleary is a very poor example. Wrong way to block a shot. Head to the boards not to the inside like McCleary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpC0qWKGlg

Which is why the incident never raised any comment beyond unfortunate.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 11:54 AM
  #166
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Trent McCleary is a very poor example. Wrong way to block a shot. Head to the boards not to the inside like McCleary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpC0qWKGlg

Which is why the incident never raised any comment beyond unfortunate.
but hanging your hat on an incident where a guy CHOSE not to defend himself is a good example ?

If your blaming McClearey for what happened, as a Habs fan who watched that live, that's real classy.

sandysan is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 12:08 PM
  #167
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,510
vCash: 500
Understanding

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
but hanging your hat on an incident where a guy CHOSE not to defend himself is a good example ?

If your blaming McClearey for what happened, as a Habs fan who watched that live, that's real classy.
Issue is understanding why things happen or happened on the ice.

Playing the game properly at all levels eliminates the needless risks and activities.

If the game is not played properly then things fall apart rather quickly - be it injuries, fighting or whatever else you wish to include under the negatives associated with hockey.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 12:57 PM
  #168
Hooks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Throwing at someone on-deck who is timing pitches is considered to be acceptable and necessary to keep hitters honest. It's supposed to send a message. Christensen went well beyond that by throwing a fastball at Molina's face instead of simply lofting a ball in his direction. And THIS didn't even end up in court.

So with this in mind, why on earth does anyone honestly think that the end result is that all fights in hockey, all hits, all penalties, will be assessed by law enforcement and prosecuted?

Update on the baseball players


Molina sued Christensen, and the two settled out of court in 2002 (for a rumored $400,000). His case against Christensen's coaches was dismissed the same year.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=18208

Hooks is offline  
Old
07-04-2013, 02:50 PM
  #169
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,895
vCash: 500
Okay, we've beaten this to death. Closed.

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.