| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/28/19 1:55 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Doesn’t sound like Sims is denying any wrongdoing.
| Quote: |
| “First off, I’d just like to apologize on behalf of Glen (Taylor), Cheryl Reeve and this organization,” Sims said after practice. “I take full responsibility for my actions. I know the consequences, and I’m going to get past it and move forward. I’ll continue to play hard every day in and day out and get over it eventually.” |
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 2:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Bob Lamm wrote: |
| . The "refusal of our court system to take these things seriously" is because our court system is part of and deeply influenced by our national pathology about cars. |
Having lived significant time in urban, suburban, and rural areas, it's not as simple as a "pathology about cars".
While I was living in urban areas I could have easily lived without a car and had it had little effect on my life. In the suburbs, it would have been very tough and would have impacted my ability to get to and from my job and would have had an effect on other choices I could make. In the rural setting, it would have been impossible.
This is not to say that people shouldn't have their privilege to drive revoked permamently after they prove incapable being able to make good decisions, but in a sprawling country like the USA there exists no reasonable alternative to automobiles for many, many people.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
Doesn’t sound like Sims is denying any wrongdoing.
| Quote: |
| “First off, I’d just like to apologize on behalf of Glen (Taylor), Cheryl Reeve and this organization,” Sims said after practice. “I take full responsibility for my actions. I know the consequences, and I’m going to get past it and move forward. I’ll continue to play hard every day in and day out and get over it eventually.” |
|
Nope, which is why I imagine they could coordinate with the league and figure out what an appropriate suspension would be and institute it sooner than later, which would be better for everyone involved.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
willtalk
Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1092
Location: NorCal
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 4:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I for one, have always felt that athletes should be judged by what they do on the court, field, diamond, pitch, etc and not in their private lives. They should be treated no different than anyone else in respect to their jobs. Repercussions should only come it their actions impact their ability to do their jobs.
That also should apply with respect to their using their athletic fame as a platform for other things like advertisements and making personal statements. A players ability in their sport does not make them more capable or give their opinions more weight or value in matters not directly related to their sport. This does not really reflect so much on the athletes as it does to the fans and public who illogically give them such power. It sort of speaks negatively to our society whose people feel incapable of making their own value judgments rather relying on others to make those decisions for them
_________________
No one one is ever as good as their best game, nor as bad as their worst.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 5:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="justintyme") This is not to say that people shouldn't have their privilege to drive revoked permamently after they prove incapable being able to make good decisions, but in a sprawling country like the USA there exists no reasonable alternative to automobiles for many, many people.[/quote]
There's no pathology when people use automobiles if there's no alternative. I intend no criticism of any person in that situation.
But our national pathology has included a shameful failure to create good public transportation. It couldn't serve every person in our sprawling country, but it could serve many. We are ridiculously behind so many countries because of our national pathology--which, by the way, has horrible environmental consequences of many kinds, including increasing the dangers of climate change.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 5:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think that ignores how sports works and why they are as popular as they are.
People build emotional bonds with their fandom, and that is what drives ticket sales, TV viewership, and merchandise purchases. Read through the treads here and see how many people speak of the team they support as "their" team, or use the first person plural pronoun "we" when referencing the things that team does.
And the leagues go out of their way to encourage this sort of connection. They want their fans to identify with their team like this.
So if people see their teams as an extension of themselves, if they have been encouraged to form this sort of emotional bond, it should not be surprising that there is going to be an expectation of behavior from them. And since they are the ones encouraging it and reaping the financial rewards from it, it is more than fair. On the other side they get to have a platform to use as they see fit.
Human beings are social creatures. To do what you are suggesting would require us to stop being human, to ignore how the human brain works and how we form social groups and social attachments. It would be to ignore human neuroscience and neuro-psychology and the formation of human culture since civilization began.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 5:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Bob Lamm wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| This is not to say that people shouldn't have their privilege to drive revoked permamently after they prove incapable being able to make good decisions, but in a sprawling country like the USA there exists no reasonable alternative to automobiles for many, many people. |
There's no pathology when people use automobiles if there's no alternative. I intend no criticism of any person in that situation.
But our national pathology has included a shameful failure to create good public transportation. It couldn't serve every person in our sprawling country, but it could serve many. We are ridiculously behind so many countries because of our national pathology--which, by the way, has horrible environmental consequences of many kinds, including increasing the dangers of climate change. |
I agree we could do a lot better. It's not zero-sum. We just have to accept that the geographical realities of the US means that we can't achieve this to the same degree as other countries that have succeeded at it. Now that doesn't excuse us from not doing everything we can do, however.
My point was just mostly that when it comes to DUIs, that is a calculation that had to be factored in. Some countries have the ability to be utterly draconian: one DUI, you never drive again! And it works because there are reasonable alternatives there. But we do that here, some rural kid makes a terrible decision at 18 years old and gets a DUI...now he can't drive for life and his economic realities are shattered. Obviously there's a point you need to step in for public safety, but where is it? And that is the issue that we run into here and why I said it's not a simple question. And even if we invested more in alternative transportation, that rural kid would still be the one on the outside because there is just no world in which mass transit makes sense for sparsely populated areas.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Last edited by justintyme on 06/28/19 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/19 5:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Dear justinyme--Something has gone wrong in your previous post. Words that were mine seem to appear as yours. Please fix this if you can. Thanks.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11135
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 11:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
My suggestion would be some kind of limited suspension, and then, after the court case is settled, any further punishment if justified.
At least acknowledge that beating someone up and threatening to shoot people is unacceptable behavior.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 2:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If employers are to serve as a parallel universe of retributive justices for employees who who have legal problems for behavior that has nothing to do with those employers, the multiverse lynch mob should be more creative. Why not these a priori retributions for Riquna and Odyssey, for some period of time:
-- Amazon refuses to take their orders.
-- Masterpiece Cakeshop refuses to bake them cakes.
-- Their churches refuse to offer them communion.
-- Facebook, Twitter and other socially sensitive platforms suspend their accounts.
-- ESPN shuts off its channel to their TV's and computers.
-- UPS refuses to deliver to their homes.
-- Starbucks refuses to serve them, forcing them to go to Chick-fil-A.
The possibilities for parallel justice regimes are endless. None of these organizations should do business-as-usual with these miscreants, because the legal system alone is insufficient, especially with its pesky rules such as due process, jury trials, representation by lawyers, cross-examination, the presumption of innocence, and sentencing by judges.
Oh, and RebKellians could boycott watching the games they play in, or maybe even boycott the entire WNBA, criminal enabler that it is.
Nah, that all sounds silly, goose. I'm a gander. |
|
Force10rulz
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1966
Location: Puget Sound
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| I'm sure the same people who wanted to give Diana Taurasi a pass for her DUI will do the same for Sims |
Did anyone on this board give DT a break for it? |
Maybe not on this board, but the league sure did.
If Sims gets anything worse than a 2-game suspension, she and the Lynx will have a serious complaint against the league for favoritism. |
If I remember right, the Mercury suspended DT for a couple of games and I guess the league agreed that was appropriate.
There's really no excuse for driving drunk, especially in the Uber era. But on the other hand if Sims gets anything worse than a 0-game suspension she could rightly question why putting other road users at risk of injury or property damage will get you suspended by this league while actually attacking a person won't. |
Uber era? Lol we used to have cabs in the good ole days that work just as well as Uber’s. No excuse anytime anywhere, and cell phones work really well for call a friend to c one and get you.
_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 4:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 4:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 7:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable. |
I am speaking of the league and the WNBA brand.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66887
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 7:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable. |
I am speaking of the league and the WNBA brand. |
The league could have suspended her earlier. She signed nine days before the season started, eleven days before the Sparks opener. That's more than enough time to make such a decision. The league would also show their hypocrisy if the suddenly decided months later that this was unacceptable.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 7:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable. |
I am speaking of the league and the WNBA brand. |
The league could have suspended her earlier. She signed nine days before the season started, eleven days before the Sparks opener. That's more than enough time to make such a decision. The league would also show their hypocrisy if the suddenly decided months later that this was unacceptable. |
Or they could just admit they screwed up big time by not, and are correcting their error. Preferably along with introducing a policy change that would prevent them from doing it again. Just like the NFL did when they screwed the pooch on domestic violence issues so they introduced the commissioner's exempt list. Making poor decisions in the past does not mean people must continually make those same poor decisions ad infinitum or else they are a hypocrite. Course corrections are legitimate, sound decisions.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
so-many-pickles
Joined: 17 May 2018
Posts: 97
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/29/19 8:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
exactly
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/30/19 1:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable. |
I am speaking of the league and the WNBA brand. |
The league could have suspended her earlier. She signed nine days before the season started, eleven days before the Sparks opener. That's more than enough time to make such a decision. The league would also show their hypocrisy if the suddenly decided months later that this was unacceptable. |
Or they could just admit they screwed up big time by not, and are correcting their error. Preferably along with introducing a policy change that would prevent them from doing it again. Just like the NFL did when they screwed the pooch on domestic violence issues so they introduced the commissioner's exempt list. Making poor decisions in the past does not mean people must continually make those same poor decisions ad infinitum or else they are a hypocrite. Course corrections are legitimate, sound decisions. |
I have no idea how this works, but if the league were to suspend her now or anytime before her court case is completed, could she have cause for legal action against the league for suspending her for something she didn’t before she signed and for knowing what she did and approving her signing without saying she will be punished in anyway. Because had she known about a punishment her decision to sign or what she signed may have been different.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/30/19 10:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
When you are employed by a company, you are a representative of that company. Trying to equate that to a company choosing who to provide their services to or who their customers are is a false equivalency and a compete scarecrow argument.
Hiring someone is by definition a selective process. A company typically rejects scores of equally qualified applicants for each position that they end up hiring. So if someone's behavior disqualifies them and opens up that slot for someone who does embody the behavior they wish emulated and representative of them, why is that an issue at all? |
The Sparks already knew she'd been arrested when they signed her. It would be hypocritical to now say that behavior is unacceptable. |
I am speaking of the league and the WNBA brand. |
The league could have suspended her earlier. She signed nine days before the season started, eleven days before the Sparks opener. That's more than enough time to make such a decision. The league would also show their hypocrisy if the suddenly decided months later that this was unacceptable. |
Or they could just admit they screwed up big time by not, and are correcting their error. Preferably along with introducing a policy change that would prevent them from doing it again. Just like the NFL did when they screwed the pooch on domestic violence issues so they introduced the commissioner's exempt list. Making poor decisions in the past does not mean people must continually make those same poor decisions ad infinitum or else they are a hypocrite. Course corrections are legitimate, sound decisions. |
I have no idea how this works, but if the league were to suspend her now or anytime before her court case is completed, could she have cause for legal action against the league for suspending her for something she didn’t before she signed and for knowing what she did and approving her signing without saying she will be punished in anyway. Because had she known about a punishment her decision to sign or what she signed may have been different. |
It depends on the CBA. Typically they are vague enough to allow punishment at the discretion of the leagues for cause. It could be potentially challenged in court, but employees tend to not win those sorts of suits.
But if you go back to what the league has said in their statements they keep saying "we are investigating the matter", all it really would take is for the league to say is "we've now concluded our investigation, and this is what we've determined the punishment to be..." and anything about her being allowed to sign would be chalked up to them not having enough info yet to come to a determination.
But, also, it doesn't even need to be that complicated. As long as you suspend her with pay it's not actually even considered a "punishment", thus doesn't run afoul of any other issue. It's why businesses use the "suspended pending review" for any touchy subject all the time.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11135
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/30/19 10:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
And let's not forget that other leagues -- male leagues -- now immediately suspend any athlete charged with domestic abuse of a woman.
But the most prominent professional women's league does not respond to acts of violence against women at all.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/30/19 10:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
speeding/DUI w/no damage is worse than physical assault w/ injury, because of potential? And there's a loaded gun involved in the assualt?
 |
I'm not a big fan of consequentialism when it comes to weighing someone's actions on a moral or ethical scale (on a legal one, it needs to matter a great deal). Just because no one is hurt should not minimize someone's actions when they behave contemptably.
For instance, what is worse, a DUI where someone gets into an accident and someone was injured, or a premeditated attempted murder where no one ended up being harmed because the gun misfired?
The difference between the DUI and the assault on a moral level for me is intent. In one someone intended to cause harm and to directly threaten another human being with harm and in the other while harm could have occurred and the behavior was so reckless and the danger so reasonably forseable that they would have been morally culpable of any harm that did occur, they were not in that car intending harm upon anyone at any time.
Just about every last moral philosopher that has ever wrote on the subject has held that there is greater moral fault with intentional acts than reckless acts. |
So Sims accidentally drove herself somewhere and accidentally sucked down enough alcohol to blow a .206 ??? Sorry, but DWI is not an unintentional act. This apologist excuse is exactly the reason drunk drivers get a slap on the wrist, repeat their offenses, and go on to injure or kill innocent people, which is an absolutely foreseeable consequence.
I hope to hell she wasn't drinking with a bunch of teammates who let her get behind the wheel again. Maybe that's the reason the team has been so slow to react. This 2 game suspension after the case works its way through the court system is bull****. Do everyone a favor, and get her into rehab now.
|
|
|
|
