Spectator, giving us a welcome chance for closure, files a strong closing argument on behalf of the prosecution: :- )
A woman says she is violated. She has male DNA on her person. The male DNA is Josh Lueke's. Without any embellishment or technicalities of the judicial system or anything else. I think that gets taken seriously in 30 of 30 cities.
You bet. Of course it's "taken seriously" in 30 cities. Everything in pro sports is taken seriously.
But did Johann Santana get drummed out of town because he was accused of rape, and his reply was merely a claim that it was consensual?
How did the NY media react? Did they swoon away, suffer the vapors :- ) and chew the story until Santana couldn't pitch in NY any more?
How about the LA media when Matt Kemp was accused of extreme domestic violence?
Was Kobe Bryant run out of Los Angeles when accused of rape?
I realize that these guys are more established than Lueke, certainly, but that's not the point -- we're not discussing expediency ("is this guy worth the bother"). We're discussing Right and Wrong.
You can see that the visceral reaction of the fans and media was certainly not "Let us discuss whether it is appropriate for Kobe Bryant to earn a living anywhere." The Times' argument is that Josh Lueke should be banned from baseball. That's a little different from asking, "Should the Mariners take the rap sheet seriously?"
Was Josh Lueke persona non grata in Texas?
Will readily admit that when the public has a sense that something ugly probably did happen -- Ben Roethlisberger, Shannon Sharpe -- that sure, the athlete is going to have some serious salt spray off the bow.
Even then, it's blinkin' seldom that he's banned from his sport.
I'm sorry, but Chuck Armstrong is not the only exec who doesn't want to get blindsided by a story like this.
I agree that this is a strong point.
My question would be, would John Schuerholz', Theo Epstein's or Walt Jocketty's bosses have responded by rolling their eyes and circling the wagons against the media, while handling discipline in-house? Or would they have reacted as Armstrong did?
But, I cheerfully concede that this point has traction. No senior exec "wants to get blindsided," as you put it, and perhaps Armstrong had a legitimate gripe with Zdurienick for Z's not anticipating the media firestorm.
It is a serious incident, and Geoff has accurately described it as a serious incident. And, frankly, I don't think that Jack Z. was necessarily dismissing it, either. I think he had blinders on in the heat of the trade negotiations, and he wanted Josh Lueke's arm.
On this one, we're talking past each other a bit.
Of course it was a serious incident, one that Josh Lueke did serious time in jail for. My question is why it re-surfaces as a fresh serious incident, after the jail time was served.