As you all undoubtedly recall, last Wednesday's post was about the absurdity involved with Brian Urlacher being fined by the NFL for his vitaminwater hat. Today, the story is even more absurd, leading to a peculiar Wednesday trend... does Wednesday need a special moniker, such as Wacky Wednesday? You be the judge...
Torii Hunter is both a good baseball player and a general all around good person. He is articulate, well spoken, thoughtful, and most of all, likes to have fun. As center fielder for the Minnesota Twins, fun must abound for Mr. Hunter, but late last year, he decided to create some more fun.
During the last week of the season, Hunter's Twins were in second place in the AL Central, behind Detroit. The Tigers were in Kansas City to rip the lowly Royals a new one before heading off to the playoffs. Something strange happened on the road to the playoffs for Detroit, however; they lost to the Royals, and the Twins ended up winning the division, with the Tigers taking the wild-card spot.
When alerted of this news, Torii Hunter jokingly quipped that he would send each member of the Royals a bottle of champagne for helping out the Twins. This weekend, he semi-made good on his promise, having four bottles of champagne delivered to the Royals locker room before their game with the Twins. Then, things went awry.
Major League Baseball caught wind of this seemingly harmless joke (which also doubles as a nice gesture, which is a rarity among jokes), and acted swiftly with the hand of judgement. First, the league ordered the champagne be returned to Minnesota unopened, as this was in violation of the league's antiquated "No Gift" policy. Then, the league had to decide what to do with the sinister perpetrator, Torii Hunter.
The "No Gift" rule is a rule that exists to prohibit players from one team giving gifts to players of another in an attempt to bribe the opposing team to throw the game or what have you. It most assuredly came about in the wake of the Chicago Black Sox scandal, but has since been enforced maybe this once, and here's why: violation of the no gift rule carries a minimum suspension of THREE YEARS!!!!! Minimum three years. Minimum. The least amount is three years. Years. Three sets of twelve months. Three cycles of 365 days. That's a long time in baseball.
The league, it appears, is not going to level the harsh punishment upon Torii Hunter, since the bottles were returned unopened, although slightly confused as to why they (being champagne bottles) were almost wasted on the Royals. What a horrible life for champagne, but I digress. Hunter should not have the punishment levied upon him for a plethora of reasons. First, the drinks were a thank you for an act already performed, so the gift served no purpose in influencing the Royals present day performance (although many fans would argue it always seems as though the Royals are drunk). Second, the rule is antiquated. There is so much riding on any game late in the season, and there is so much press in every locker room the entire season, that it has to be impossible for anybody to sneak a gift to an opposing team without someone noticing. Third, IT WAS A JOKE! It was meant to thank a team that is a perpetual bunch of losers, and give them a reason to enjoy champagne. The Twins were going to the playoffs anyway, so the only repercussion of KC winning was the the Twins drew the A's in the first round instead of the Yankees (which backfired anyway, seeing as the Twins got pasted in the first round).
In addition to all of this, the penalty most definitely does not fit the crime. In a league where players found guilty of taking a performance enhancing drug get a 10 game suspension, a man found guilty of having fun gets a 3 year suspension. How does that even begin to make sense? The league refuses to suspend the big headed, pill popping "slugger" from San Francisco when everybody knows hes on the 'roids, but it was ready and willing to pass swift judgement upon a man who represents the league with class and dignity for just having a little bit of fun. Imagine the scene when Bud Selig found out about Gift Gate (yeah, its gate-worthy): the commish is seated in his huge leather chair, behind his huge mahogany desk, lighting a cigar with a five dollar bill, when his pee-on aide rushes in. Upon hearing the news from the pee-on, the commish drops his cigar, utters a nice "Oh my sweet lord", opens the second drawer of his desk, and presses a huge red button labeled "GIFT GIVER". At this moment, air raid sirens go off, and the office transforms into a defense bunker, where a huge map of the US has a tiny blip on it in Minnesota. Only one person could be responsible.
Luckily, it appears as though leveler heads are going to prevail, and Hunter will not get the three year ban, since the bottles were returned unopened. That's good for Hunter, in that he doesn't owe three years of salary to the Twins. Its good for baseball in that it doesn't look quite as ridiculous. It's good for the champagne, because it won't be wasted on the Royals. And it's good for the Royals, because they won't be confused as to what type of play merits champagne. Of course Hunter, in his usual good nature, had a laugh about the whole thing, saying, "I have three brothers that can help me finish them". That sounds like one hell of a party. Thank god there are people like Torii Hunter in sports that can keep things like this in perspective.
Peace.
Showing posts with label absurd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label absurd. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Constitution Need Not Apply
This just in from the Department of Absurdity...
The No Fun League came down hard on Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher today, leveling him a $100,000 fine for wearing an unauthorized hat during Super Bowl media day. An unauthorized hat. An unauthorized... hat. They were also going to cite him for wearing a hat without a license, wearing a hat while intoxicated, wearing a hat under the influence, and operating a vehicle while wearing a hat, but thought those rules were just silly.
Seriously, why does Brian Urlacher, a grown man who could inflict physical damage upon almost anybody, have to ask a room full of scrawny, white old men for permission to wear a particular hat? Money, of course, is the answer.
The hat Urlacher was wearing featured the logo of vitaminwater, a company that Urlacher apparently endorses, given that he was drinking said beverage at the infamous press conference. Unfortunately for Urlacher, vitaminwater is not an official NFL sponsor. In fact, only Gatorade is to be consumed by players in public, as it is the "Official Drink of the NFL". As such, Urlacher would have been well within his rights to wear a Gatorade hat, shirt, pants, shoes, socks, underwear, bathing suit, bath robe, tube top, hula skirt, or mumu, but is getting slapped with a rather hefty fine for having vitaminwater scribbled across his hat.
Its times like these when you just shake your head at what the NFL does. Uniform police aside (different rant for another day), this dictating of appropriate corporate attire has to border on Unconstitutional. Isn't Urlacher simply exercising his right to freedom of expression? To me, it seems like he is expressing his opinion that vitaminwater is better than Gatorade, and therefore more worthy of his endorsement. His opinion is costing him $100,000 to express, and that just seems absurd. What other Constitutional rights have been sacrificed to play in the NFL? Isn't this the same league that ran rampant with felons up until a week ago, and these felons had no repercussions? This act took place after most of Pacman Jones' transgressions, but the rulebook did not have to be rewritten for Mr. Urlacher... the NFL is very clear on what opinions the players may or may not have.
Have you ever seen a player on the sidelines wearing Under Armour? Possibly. Was the logo visible? Definitely not. Players can, by NFL contractual obligations, not show any logo on their clothing besides RBK (Reebok). This very instance involving Under Armour was discussed by John Feinstein in his book, Next Man Up. While on the sidelines during a Raven's game, one of the trainers was asked to cover up an Under Armour logo that was clearly visible, as Under Armour is only a sponsor of the Ravens, not the NFL. So while every player wears it, and most players endorse it, Under Armour is not allowed to benefit from the free advertising that it is entitled to from the support of NFL players.
In all honesty, vitaminwater may be enjoying this story, as any publicity is good publicity, especially when you're vitaminwater. Who has actually heard of vitaminwater before this story anyway. But the principle remains true; the contract rules of the NFL are ridiculously, unflinchingly rigid. Does baseball mandate that all players wear one type of batting glove? No. Does the NBA require that all players wear one type of headband? No. The NFL does though. Ask Jim McMahon.
When former Bears QB McMahon (what is it about the Bears?) wore an Adidas headband during a game, he was slapped with a fine from then-commish Pete Rozelle. The next game, McMahon wore another headband, with ROZELLE written across it (see Chad Johnson, thats called originality in comedy). McMahon was an innovator, and thank god there was someone out there willing to make a total mockery of a horrible rule.
Let's just hope that after Urlacher finished his vitaminwater (while wearing his hat), he asked permission to use the restroom, so as to not take an unauthorized pee.
Peace.
The No Fun League came down hard on Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher today, leveling him a $100,000 fine for wearing an unauthorized hat during Super Bowl media day. An unauthorized hat. An unauthorized... hat. They were also going to cite him for wearing a hat without a license, wearing a hat while intoxicated, wearing a hat under the influence, and operating a vehicle while wearing a hat, but thought those rules were just silly.
Seriously, why does Brian Urlacher, a grown man who could inflict physical damage upon almost anybody, have to ask a room full of scrawny, white old men for permission to wear a particular hat? Money, of course, is the answer.
The hat Urlacher was wearing featured the logo of vitaminwater, a company that Urlacher apparently endorses, given that he was drinking said beverage at the infamous press conference. Unfortunately for Urlacher, vitaminwater is not an official NFL sponsor. In fact, only Gatorade is to be consumed by players in public, as it is the "Official Drink of the NFL". As such, Urlacher would have been well within his rights to wear a Gatorade hat, shirt, pants, shoes, socks, underwear, bathing suit, bath robe, tube top, hula skirt, or mumu, but is getting slapped with a rather hefty fine for having vitaminwater scribbled across his hat.
Its times like these when you just shake your head at what the NFL does. Uniform police aside (different rant for another day), this dictating of appropriate corporate attire has to border on Unconstitutional. Isn't Urlacher simply exercising his right to freedom of expression? To me, it seems like he is expressing his opinion that vitaminwater is better than Gatorade, and therefore more worthy of his endorsement. His opinion is costing him $100,000 to express, and that just seems absurd. What other Constitutional rights have been sacrificed to play in the NFL? Isn't this the same league that ran rampant with felons up until a week ago, and these felons had no repercussions? This act took place after most of Pacman Jones' transgressions, but the rulebook did not have to be rewritten for Mr. Urlacher... the NFL is very clear on what opinions the players may or may not have.
Have you ever seen a player on the sidelines wearing Under Armour? Possibly. Was the logo visible? Definitely not. Players can, by NFL contractual obligations, not show any logo on their clothing besides RBK (Reebok). This very instance involving Under Armour was discussed by John Feinstein in his book, Next Man Up. While on the sidelines during a Raven's game, one of the trainers was asked to cover up an Under Armour logo that was clearly visible, as Under Armour is only a sponsor of the Ravens, not the NFL. So while every player wears it, and most players endorse it, Under Armour is not allowed to benefit from the free advertising that it is entitled to from the support of NFL players.
In all honesty, vitaminwater may be enjoying this story, as any publicity is good publicity, especially when you're vitaminwater. Who has actually heard of vitaminwater before this story anyway. But the principle remains true; the contract rules of the NFL are ridiculously, unflinchingly rigid. Does baseball mandate that all players wear one type of batting glove? No. Does the NBA require that all players wear one type of headband? No. The NFL does though. Ask Jim McMahon.
When former Bears QB McMahon (what is it about the Bears?) wore an Adidas headband during a game, he was slapped with a fine from then-commish Pete Rozelle. The next game, McMahon wore another headband, with ROZELLE written across it (see Chad Johnson, thats called originality in comedy). McMahon was an innovator, and thank god there was someone out there willing to make a total mockery of a horrible rule.
Let's just hope that after Urlacher finished his vitaminwater (while wearing his hat), he asked permission to use the restroom, so as to not take an unauthorized pee.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
