It's a nice notion, trying to protect the record book from someone who isn't believed to have the character of others in there before him. It's easy to see where petitioners are coming from, and their devotion to to a proud Chiefs history is commendable.Which is exactly why we should help to block investigations into dog fighting, steroid use, sexual assault allegations, and other things that hinder players from playing the game (like what look to be intentional eye gouging attempts). Damn it, they need to be able to play the game without being hindered by investigation or displeasure for hateful, criminal, or "enhancing" activities.
If it were my team, though, and some disreputable character was about to put his name in my team's record book ... I don't think I'd sign a similar petition. At the end of the day, what's most important to me is that the team is doing its best to win football games.
It's about winning dammit, not character!
Posts
14 comments:
Ok, so character is important. Yes. But, to assume that players of the past were of a better character is naive. There have always been ignorant, racist, sexist, repulsive people in all areas of life including sports. To pretend that we only allow people of superlative moral character to run across a patch of lawn with a football for our enterainment is laughable.
Also, as much as I oppose the atitude Johnson is showing, it is hardly the same thing as dog fighting and sexual assaults. be careful Adam, pretty soon you'll be writing your own crazy letters to the editor.
No need to chastise.
I'm just saying that the tone of MGD's column, combined with the recent eye-gouging incident last week, and numerous incidents of fame, fortune, and or skill playing a hand in the leniency shown to athletes is pretty alarming.
I don't mean to make a slippery slope argument. There's an arrogance and sense of privilege that runs through most of these events from the obvious bigotry on a very public site to sexual assault and violence. I don't think that one of these things necessary leads to the other, just that there are underlying correlative causes to these behaviors.
Developing character early on (by say laying the proper penalty on blatantly trying to poke another player's eyes) is what is important. The skill comes after that and the message of this column is that winning is more important.
"There have always been ignorant, racist, sexist, repulsive people in all areas of life including sports. To pretend that we only allow people of superlative moral character to run across a patch of lawn with a football for our enterainment is laughable."
I'm certainly not making that assumption, nor do I think the petition writers were necessarily trying to imply that all record holders of the past are better. I believe they are making a direct comparison between Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson in this instance.
And I would hope you're not trying to imply that because there were bad people in the past, we shouldn't worry about current bad people.
I don't know what you're talking about, with the eye gouging stuff. All I was responding to is your response to the portion of the blog post, where you sarcastically suggest that not launching investigations into violent crimes and drug use are comperable to not signing a petition against a player for using the word faggot.
I don't know the rest of the story.
You should check the link in the parentheses of the last full paragraph. Half a game suspension for intentionally doing something that could quite easily cause blindness.
"where you sarcastically suggest that not launching investigations into violent crimes and drug use are comperable to not signing a petition against a player"
The comparison I was trying to draw was that the tone of the column is essentially, "I don't care if a disreputable character is on my team as long as they contribute to winning games."
The point is that in a lot of (but not all obviously) instances, many people are quick to jump to the defense of a "disreputable character" as the columnist describes them because that person contributes significant skill to the game, having a positive impact on the win/loss record of the team they play for.
That is not a position I feel comfortable with, whatever activity has caused the player to lose societal respect. I certainly wouldn't want a child reading this column or seeing what happened in the eye-gouging incident and take that lesson away from it.
"pretty soon you'll be writing your own crazy letters to the editor."
And I know you were half joking but I really try to avoid falling into that position because every time I write a post with a hyperbolic tone, controversial stance, or a stance that could easily be misunderstood, my anxiety shoots way up. It's an anxiety about the fact that I could be wrong and I'm about to be schooled, sometimes rightfully so.
And as painful as it can sometimes be, I'm open to it. It stretches me and I learn about myself and what I truly believe.
The attitude I get from a lot of the letters is inflexible impenitence.
see, i don't even think it's a nice notion to "protect the record book." i think these fans would be honored to have had lj break holmes record if he hadn't used the offensive term on twitter. these fans have shown all along that they were willing to support a petulant athlete who has repeatedly fought with coaches, teammates, has been arrested twice for spousal abuse, and i think he was arrested for a d.u.i. all of those were acceptable to chiefs fans. none of those were petition worthy.
now, i would agree with the chiefs if they suspended him indefinitely for his continued disruptive behavior, thus eliminating his chance for breaking holmes' record.
in reading the yahoo piece, i don't get any sense of the blogger wanting to block investigations into poor behavior. where are you seeing that?
Actually, the petition lists his lackluster numbers this season and his general attitude and dislike for the team and fans.
Here's a couple of quotes Ed. If you don't read them like I do, that's fine, but they read as both flippant and vague. And I absolutely believe there are plenty of fans who would say these two things about any player they think will help their team (see Vick or Bryant for example).
"At the end of the day, what's most important to me is that the team is doing its best to win football games."
"You Play To Win The Game. The fans who play to watch their team deserve the best effort to win. The rest of the guys on the team deserve the best effort to win. If that happens to come in the form of a not-so-nice guy running the football, then so be it."
flippant, vague - but are those calls to block investigations?
You did get that I was being sarcastic right? Justin did.
You read my clarifying comments above?
i did read the comments, but for some reason the one where you address sarcasm didn't sink in.
having read them now, i'm still a little confused. yes, i see you are being sarcastic in saying that we should block investigations. obviously, you do not feel that these investigations should be blocked. but i think there is a level that can be distinguished between illegal activities, poor conduct in a game, and stupid tweets. there are different levels of 'character.' i don't see the yahoo blogger making that jump to 'block investigations of illegal activity,' as you imply through your sarcasm.
it seems the yahoo guy is saying 'who cares if this guy is a knucklehead that uses slurs, his on field play is what matters in this case.' i don't think he would categorically extend that to all conduct off the field (like his d.u.i.'s, his domestic abuse, mike vick's dog fighting, or other illegal activity - illegal activity has impact on the ability to play the game). the role of an owner of a team (or other business) is about producing a quality product on the field. the goal of every team is to win. now, we (all) can come to different conclusions as to how that goal is accomplished, and how a quality product is achieved.
perhaps to put this in another context, should everyone who calls their boss a faggot on twitter be fired? or is there another way to discipline an employee? the chiefs seem to be disciplining him for the totality of his conduct this year by suspension, which i'm sure will lead to trade later or contract expiring. the chiefs seem to be saying, you aren't helping us win with your conduct that distracts and disrupts a quality team environment. it's hard to know how much of this conduct would be dismissed or accepted if he was producing or the team was winning.
the eye gouge, on the other hand, was an on-field incident, and were it caught, would have directly impacted the game. regardless of being caught, i do think it would be responsible for florida to punish their athlete appropriately, which they initially weren't, and a game suspension is pretty much in-line (if he had been caught & ejected he probably would have been suspended 1 game). btw, in the article the writer says replay show the athlete "digging in the eye socket." no, they don't. they show a pile, where you see the athlete jamming his hand into the other guy's face mask, fingers extended. you can't see in the mask, or if he actually makes contact, although i'm assuming he did as it would be difficult not to. not at all justifying actions, just clarifying some hyperbolic reporting.
i find this discussion about character in sports and thread to be very interesting, and i think i might write a blog post for the sports blog and link to this.
"but i think there is a level that can be distinguished between illegal activities, poor conduct in a game, and stupid tweets. there are different levels of 'character.'"
I think that's a validly supportable position. My theory, which I admittedly didn't present very clearly, is that some of the underlying factors that contribute to any of that spectrum of behaviors are probably the same. Should Johnson be fired for bigotry, probably not. Is there an underlying factor in his personality or socialization that is intrinsic to the whole of his behaviors? Probably. Do players that actually commit crimes get off easier because they are famous and/or skilled? Sometimes, yes.
Based on that information and supposition, I think it's irresponsible of the writer to wave away or ignore any and/or all of that so flippantly.
I honestly don't think that Justin, you, or I probably differ all that much in our positions. A lot of my ire stems from the poorly written article than from anywhere else, which is ironic considering my poorly communicated response.
Anyhow, it got a discussion going in both cases I guess. Lesson learned. Feel free to link away.
Post a Comment