http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/espn-suspends-host-domestic-abuse-724380?mobile_redirect=false
This is starting to get silly.
This is starting to get silly.
Last edited:
Max Kellerman suspended by ESPN.
- Thread starter DesotoCountyDawg
- Start date
I know the SEC network was a no-brainer for the SEC because of the money. I am in no way an authority or even informed on the details of the contract between the SEC and ESPN. BUT I`ll be totally unsurprised if the relationship doesn`t get really squirrely pretty quickly (within the first year). Don`t know where the strife will come from but I believe ESPN will over step their bounds and "push the envelope" at some point. Color me elated with the package financially and cynical about getting in bed with ESPN.
I've seen a difference in finebaum in the last year since he went to espn. He's not as bombastic and doesn't say nearly as many crazy things he did when he was on his own. He sold out. His callers are still loony as ever though.
Yea that already started for me about 5 years ago. I only watch ESPN for live events now and the occasional 30 for 30.
SEC has nothing to worry about with ESPN. SEC is the product. They aren't going to 17 with the product. Who they will 17 with is the announcers and sportscasters they hire.
I think Finebaum will continue to rustle the jimmies of the fans of the popular or controversial team/subject of the day. That's what made his show and generates the audience and callers. I doubt ESPN will allow him to spend 3 days debating the tea bagging incident on a National Network although it was some comedy gold
Speaking of tea bagging I will park these here.
Speaking of tea bagging I will park these here.
Finebaum's show was better when it was just Bammers and Barners calling in to dog each other out. All these national fans who call in to actually talk about sports are ruining the show
I got attacked horribly for pointing this out a few weeks back when they suspended Stephen A and the post got locked. This is exactly what I said would happen.
It obviously is a liberal mindset that causes a guy to get suspended because he admits to hitting his wife 20 years ago when they were both drunk. I don't see any conservatives causing ESPN to think they have to suspend a guy for that reason. Conservatives mostly agree or admit they are valid teaching moments concerning the statements of Stephen A and now Max Kellerman. What liberal type statement has ever gotten an ESPN reporter suspended? If you can give me an example I will admit I was wrong and take back what I wrote.
They are tricking you that it is capitalism. I have clearly seen a conservative backlash looking at all comments, and many threats to no longer watch ESPN from those folks, and ESPN has not backed off the suspensions. This is purely an ideology suspension.
Last edited:
ESPN has heard all the empty threats a thousand times over. Sports addicts couldn't boycott ESPN if their lives depended on it.
Here we go again. But, why is it 'liberal' to think that a guy who hit his wife is not a great guy? I have been drunk many times and have yet to ever hit my wife. Please expand upon why its only liberals who feel that these people are not good role models...
Sorry, but the typical liberal response is surprise that his punishment is so light.
Granted, I don't speak for all liberals, but the vast majority of men in this country would be fired for going to the media unprompted and just throwing out "btw I beat my wife once."
There's no reason why conservatives shouldn't be miffed too. Men who hit women are scumbags, period. ESPN is being unusually lenient on this *******.
Granted, I don't speak for all liberals, but the vast majority of men in this country would be fired for going to the media unprompted and just throwing out "btw I beat my wife once."
There's no reason why conservatives shouldn't be miffed too. Men who hit women are scumbags, period. ESPN is being unusually lenient on this *******.
Has nothing to do with the act of hitting a woman. What I refer to as the Liberal mindset is to fire or suspend the guy because he says something you don't like. Punish people because they offend you. Shout them down. In the USA I grew up in we said I disagree with you strongly, but I defend your right to say it.
There was a time that conservatives did similar things and they were wrong then. That was before I was on this earth, but the pendulum has swung too far if we can't discuss issues reasonably.
I am done with this discussion.
Well women who hit men are also scumbags. A Harvard study showed that as much as 70% of domestic violence is committed by women.
Disagree. Two 21 year olds drunk at a party. Person "A" assaults "B." Person "B" responds in like fashion. Person "B" is a man and because person "A" is a woman, person "B" was definitely in the wrong and should be reprimanded/punished. But when the episode happened 20 years ago and person "B" admittedly regrets it and uses it as a teaching moment to others, he should not be suspended by his employer 20 years after the fact.
Absolutely. Any violence within a relationship is reprehensible, regardless of the gender or sex of any involved parties. Surely you didn't expect me or any other liberal to think anything different?
But I find your statistic highly suspect if the best source you can give is some "alternative news blog" whose content is "I swear I saw this study from Harvard one time but now I can't find it! Those liberals!!!1"
Out of curiosity, what do you think is the appropriate punishment by an employer of a 40-year old employee who admits that:
(a) he did hard drugs in high school/college/early twenties
(b) drank and drive in high school/college/early twenties
(c) shoplifted in high school/college/early twenties
(d) cheated on a test in high school/college
(e) initiated a physical altercation in high school/college/early twenties that was not justified self defense
(f) vandalized a property in high school/college/early twenties
I'm guessing many of your co-workers would like to know before they ever open their mouth in front of you.
To add to this point:
But ESPN didn’t suspend the radio and television host for what he said, according to the report. According to the Post’s industry sources, Kellerman was suspended for not following an edict handed down by management at ESPN to avoid discussing Rice entirely. ESPN hosts have clearly had issues with the topic.
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/2014/08/11/max-kellerman-learned-the-hard-way-that-espn-doesn-want-hosts-discussing-ray-rice/B7wBvwPobsghzXCS97LbMP/story.html
I would absolutely fire a wife beater if one worked for me and I found out about it.
None of your examples are as bad as hitting a woman (B comes close) so as long as the person was remorseful I wouldn't fire them ... unless they went and ran their mouth in public about it, causing backlash and leaving me no choice.
Right or wrong, be aware that most companies wouldn't be as lenient as ESPN with an employee whp just puts it out there that he has hit his wife.
What I find the most outrageous..
is that anyone was watching this show to hear what he said. And anyway, he was suspended for bringing up the Rice situation when they were told not to talk about it, not for a horrendous act 20 years ago. Of course, this brings up all sorts of questions that could be directed toward ESPN about why they don't want it talked about, but the answer is that the NFL and ESPN make each other a bunch of money. The suspension has jack **** to do with him hitting a girl way back when and everything to do with messing with the brand. But again... do enough people still watch that show for it to have registered without them taking action against him?
is that anyone was watching this show to hear what he said. And anyway, he was suspended for bringing up the Rice situation when they were told not to talk about it, not for a horrendous act 20 years ago. Of course, this brings up all sorts of questions that could be directed toward ESPN about why they don't want it talked about, but the answer is that the NFL and ESPN make each other a bunch of money. The suspension has jack **** to do with him hitting a girl way back when and everything to do with messing with the brand. But again... do enough people still watch that show for it to have registered without them taking action against him?
Last edited:
To be fair, your definition of "wife beater" is probably different than Johnson86-1's definition (and mine for that matter). You are defining "wife beater" as someone who exchanged slaps with his college girlfriend one time when they were both drunk. I would define wife beater as someone who beats (not exchanges slaps) their wife (not drunk girlfriend).
To be clear, I'm not condoning in any way what Kellerman did. But I would not classify him as a wife beater. Context matters.
1st Amendment has NEVER protected you from repercussions from expressing your free speech. It provides you the ability to speak your mind if you so choose. However, to be called out for being a bigot, racist, wife beater, etc and possibly punished if it breaks the code of conduct of your employer is not something that is new to our society. It is also not something that 'liberals' have recently fought and won for you.
To be frank, why would ESPN not punish him for something he did (and got away with) 20 years ago if they would have punished him for doing it today?
To be frank, why would ESPN not punish him for something he did (and got away with) 20 years ago if they would have punished him for doing it today?
Once you get out of the statute of limitations, all is good, huh? I have news for you. You admit to beating your wife 20 years after the fact, most people are still going to think you are a POS. Don't try to be too cute and compare beating your wife with spray painting a wall in high school. You know there is a difference unless this issues sits a little too close to home with you...
Uh, he is saying 20 years after the fact, through maroon colored glasses and drunken memories that he 'exchanged slaps' with his college girlfriend. I wonder how that would work with her memories... I do not care what his point was, that revelation is never going to end well. Exchanging slaps with a girl is still an adult male slapping a daughter to moms and dads of girls everywhere. And there is no way around that. Doesn't have to make sense.
First amendment is not in play here. First amendment only protects you from government (not private employers) infringing upon freedom of speech.
And to answer your question, ESPN did not punish him for an altercation he had 20 years ago with his wife; it punished him for disobeying orders from corporate to not speak about domestic violence or the Ray Rice situation. But, to be clear, ESPN, nor any private employer, should be in the business of punishing its employees for slapping a drunk female (or male) 20 some odd years ago when the drunk female (or male) assaulted the employee first. That is insane. Now, if the employee were to have beaten a female, that would be a different story. Again, context matters.
Then what is the argument? he disobeyed his company policy. end of story. And, again, you are taking 100% accuracy on ONE side of the story when it paints him in the best light. To your point of context, does his story not sound a little rosy for remembering 20 years later on a drunken night?
So how long since you quit beating your wife, AHSDawg?
But also, it's clearly not just about being outside of the SOL. Sure, he's apparently gone 20+ years without hitting a woman, and the woman he slapped (who slapped him first) apparently thought the issue was resolved enough to marry him, but you have a better handle on how the punishment should be doled out. I'm just curious as to what else you think needs punishment 20+ years after the fact. Surely if slapping a girl so hard she decides to marry you and stay married to you for 20 years deserves suspension from work, then destruction of property deserves a loss of privileges at the company water cooler or something. I'm just trying to figure out where the wise AHSDawg, someone who apparently hasn't beaten his wife in some time, would draw the line.
Last edited:
According to the previous poster, he broke company policy. THAT is why he was suspended. Sorry, we don't even have to get into the particulars. If your boss says 'don't say this' and you say it, yep, you are going to be in trouble.
And, to answer yet again about the wife beating... Nope, I have never done it. Never hit a girl at all. And, I don't care what kind of drunken rage I have been in, doing that makes you a wife beater. There are some things that do not go away. I don't wish death upon you for disagreeing (unless it was my daughter you hit) but it just makes you a POS. If you cannot control yourself better than to slug a woman, you are a pretty rotten core. What else can you not control yourself over?
And, to answer yet again about the wife beating... Nope, I have never done it. Never hit a girl at all. And, I don't care what kind of drunken rage I have been in, doing that makes you a wife beater. There are some things that do not go away. I don't wish death upon you for disagreeing (unless it was my daughter you hit) but it just makes you a POS. If you cannot control yourself better than to slug a woman, you are a pretty rotten core. What else can you not control yourself over?
You admit that you "do not care what his point was" and that your argument "doesn't have to make sense" to be valid. Interesting.
Look, no one is advocating returning a slap received from your drunken girlfriend at a college party. It is wrong, pure and simple. My problem is that you and others are branding the guy as a wife beater. That is not fair to the story. A drunken mistake, in the heat of the moment, as a college student, after you have just been struck in the face may make you a flawed individual with bad judgment, but that does not equate to being a POS wife beater (and all wife beaters are POS scum). When one uses the term "wife beater," it is usually is to describe one who beats on their wife, often routinely. That is not the case here, and if you can't draw that distinction, I am sorry. (And no, I have never laid my hands on a woman, at least not that way, as my wife would probably stab me in the heart in the middle of the night).
1. The argument posters (including you, I believe) are making is that the guy is a POS wife beater and should be suspended, or worse, by ESPN for that reason. My point is that there is no evidence to suggest he is a POS wife beater. And if ESPN wants to suspend him for disobeying company policy, that is totally its right to do so. But you (and other posters) have not argued that he should be suspended for disobeying company policy; y'all have argued he should be suspended for being a POS wife beater.
2. And yes, his story does sound a little rosy. But it is the only evidence I have on which to pass judgment. If there exists more evidence that shows he struck his girlfriend for no reason, or did it more than once, or she had not assaulted him first, or that he continued to strike her after that night and during their marriage, then yes, he is a POS wife beater who, if there is any justice in this world, will burn in hell (maybe a slight overstatement, but you get the point).
I agree with you that Twinkle-toed, flagburning, limp-wristed Leftist REgressive Progladykes are destroying our country, and leading our nation to Eternal Damnation. However, it's isn't a 1st Amendment issue...it's a business one. If ESPN gets enough grief (and low ratings) for their Marxist shenanigans and (more importantly) lower ratings, they'll get over their butt-hurt over "controversial" remarks very quick.