[Gotham Dark Knight]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Shaquille O"Neal was fined $15,000 Friday for criticizing referees and an NBA senior vice president after the Miami center was for called for five fouls in the Heat's loss to New Jersey.
"That was the most ridiculous game I've ever been part of," O'Neal said after the 90-78 loss Sunday. "When you got a guy like Stu Jackson at the top, it shows why referees are the way they are. It starts at the top.

I guess freedom of expression is conditional in major league sports... ..Hmmm, out of curiosity why don't writers get fined when they write stories that are deemed critical of players etc?

Should a player be able to express a critical opinion of the league...and what is the difference than this and arguing a call in baseball in front of a live TV audience?...Just asking.

[Lefty Noob]

Arguing a call to the ref and/or umpire and taking it to the media are two vastly different things. I don't know if its right or not, but there is supposed to be an understanding that you leave it on the court. Don't take it to the papers.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Arguing a call to the ref and/or umpire and taking it to the media are two vastly different things. I don't know if its right or not, but there is supposed to be an understanding that you leave it on the court. Don't take it to the papers.

Such an understanding doesn't protect Mr. Barry Bonds from the media much, just ask his aunt who's on welfare. He gets personal attacks away from the game...and I do so hate double standards, ya know. Nothing seems to protect the players outside the lines...why can't everyone be free game then? ...Shaq is under contract with the Heat. I can understand a fine for being critical of his own management...the Refs should be free game when dealing with the media...Taking a swing at them in a game is a whole other matter.

[Lefty Noob]

Sometimes I wish the sports leagues would boot some of these more annoying media types, the kind that write these stories about Bonds' aunt's husband's second-cousin's dog needing gallstone surgery and evil, mean, puppy hating Barry refusing them the money to get the procedure done. But even if the league stripped these guys of their credentials, it couldn't do a thing to keep them from writing their stories. Then again, these reporters are not employees of MLB or the NBA. Shaq is, and as such he falls under the umbrella of their rules. He breaks them, he gets punished.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Sometimes I wish the sports leagues would boot some of these more annoying media types, the kind that write these stories about Bonds' aunt's husband's second-cousin's dog needing gallstone surgery and evil, mean, puppy hating Barry refusing them the money to get the procedure done. But even if the league stripped these guys of their credentials, it couldn't do a thing to keep them from writing their stories. Then again, these reporters are not employees of MLB or the NBA. Shaq is, and as such he falls under the umbrella of their rules. He breaks them, he gets punished.

All I am saying is that we accept that kind of hypocrisy in Sports...Sports are a business...its laws are but a reflection of what the general public is willing to accept...nothing more.

[wvuauthor]

I've got to stick up for the reporters because I have been there before. They are just trying to get the best story that they can. But I agree, sometimes they can take it a bit far...

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by wvuauthor

I've got to stick up for the reporters because I have been there before. They are just trying to get the best story that they can. But I agree, sometimes they can take it a bit far...

Wvuauthor what constitute a story? Where's the line between what is legit and what feeds the National Enquirer? How does Barry Bond's Aunt constitute good journalism and not fodder for the Enquirer?

...And in its censorship of Shaq, does Sports answer to a higher moral authority than the Press? How can two such opposite views of what constitutes free speech share the same stage without a standard platform of interaction?

I rather have the press of the 50's and 60's that let me have my heroes...Mickey Mantle was such an icon becuase for the most part the press kept it to what's between the line.

Pete Rose thanks a member of the press for helping him get a raise in the early 70's with the Reds (its in his book)...there was a certain amount of respect to which both sides adhered to then.

But with the creations of millionaires on the side of sports, there seems to be an air of "lets bring them all down," in how the press covers sports these days.

[Lefty Noob]

Ah... but this isn't a free speech argument, Gotham, in the same way that John Rocker wasn't either. We are guaranteed to be able to say what we want without the Government making laws restricting it.

The Constitution, in this regard, makes no mention of private sector employers being prohibited from asking their employees to refrain from saying or doing certain things. It's not illegal for you or I to get a license and ride a motorbike, but how many teams prohibit players from doing just that? Same issue.

You know, in the old days, they used to cover up the wrongdoings of athletes because they wanted them to seem like infallible heroes, so essentially the sports media has done a complete 180 in this regard. Which, I wonder, is worse?

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Ah... but this isn't a free speech argument, Gotham, in the same way that John Rocker wasn't either. We are guaranteed to be able to say what we want without the Government making laws restricting it.

The Constitution, in this regard, makes no mention of private sector employers being prohibited from asking their employees to refrain from saying or doing certain things. It's not illegal for you or I to get a license and ride a motorbike, but how many teams prohibit players from doing just that? Same issue.

You know, in the old days, they used to cover up the wrongdoings of athletes because they wanted them to seem like infallible heroes, so essentially the sports media has done a complete 180 in this regard. Which, I wonder, is worse?

Actually it is a free speech argument Lefty (not to turn this politcal in anyway, shape or form), I understand the laws by which Shaq was fined by...the point is, that those laws are not in balance with the free for all that journalism in Sports has become...Why is one governed by a set of laws, and one pushes the envelop to border of liable?

As for Rocker, regardless of the myopic bone head that he appears to be, was what he set "detrimental to the game of baseball, or the Braves Management?"...I have an attendance figure for his games in New York after the incident that say it wasn't.

As ignorant as his statements were, they did no damage to game itself, much in the same way that when TO mouths off tickets to a Dallas-Philly game gets sold.

If Rocker is labeled "detrimental to the game" what is Mr. Ty Cobb doing in the Hall of Fame? Where is the uproar to vote him out?


I am in no ways arguing for or against a strict interpretation of our freedoms...as that is not within the scope of this forum...I am basically stating that there is a "Double standard when it comes to free speech, sports, and the people who cover the game."

It doesn't matter if you argue for or against the old ways...but it does stand to reason that there needs to be an overall platform where the two sides meet.

Shaq for one (not that I am a fan) takes hits from the media on a daily basis. He gets no protection, though he represents the league and his team in doing so...he makes a statement on his own and it costs him...where is the balance? Is it just? Is it fair?

I make the same argument when I critique bad Web Blogs...and I have gotten flak...my argument was a simple one...why can Blogs to be critical without drawing a fair share of critique?...Anyone want to take a stab at that one?

[cjg11582]

Am I the only one who thinks Shaq actually receives favorable officiating? This guy perfected the elbow hook in the post and has always used his sheer force to plow over people. They are starting to call him for fouls a little more now because he is older, heavier and looks more clumsy when commiting such fouls.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by cjg11582

Am I the only one who thinks Shaq actually receives favorable officiating? This guy perfected the elbow hook in the post and has always used his sheer force to plow over people. They are starting to call him for fouls a little more now because he is older, heavier and looks more clumsy when commiting such fouls.

Most stars after a few years in the league get the benefit of the doubt on calls. In Shaq's case I remember him starting out here in Orlando, and he got his fair share of people hacking at him cause he was plain and simply the biggest kid in the sandbox...If he is getting it to go his way now, he certainly got more than his share of elbows and hacks early on.

But for what its worth, I also do believe he plows into people and seldom gets called for it.