OT: Ducks GM does a mean Bobby Knight impression
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs/2009/news?id=4171546
I chuckled. A complete non-story from ESPN, but what else is new. I'm sharing it for the comments, some of them are pretty great
This from a source very close to the situation:
Not only did Murray indeed throw the chair (and is now lying about it), he also slammed her against a wall. She is currently hospitalized (though her injuries aren't life-threatening). She "declined to press charges" only because the Red Wings threatened to fire her if she did so against an ex-NHL player. Classy there, Ilitch.
jmblue- I highly doubt that to be the case. There is no way in hell Ilitch would fire her if she pressed charges on Andy Murray.
That sounds so idiotic to me. Are you McFarlin?
No, I am not McFarlin and yes, it is true. I did not observe it but I happen to know someone who is very close to the situation.
I'll grant you that Ilitch himself may not have issued the gag order; who knows maybe someone from the league office urged the Red Wings to do that. The NHL loves to "protect its own." Regardless, it's absolute bullshit. Murray should have spent the night in jail.
I thought I read somewhere that she was a red wings fan that worked for the Ducks. Which is why she was there, and getting excited about the Wings. I have no idea though. Just thought I remember seeing it.
That sounds crazy, but in the wake of losing THAT playoff series, it almost sounds believable. I don't know enough about Murray, but it seems that kind of action would be the work of a repeat offender, someone with very severe issues.
This is a lot more like Edge and Christian doing the "con-chair-to" than Bobby Knight harmlessly sliding a chair on the floor. Knight threw his chair for to make a point(I'm not saying it was successful by any means), and he made sure he didn't hit anyone.
I don't know how long it is up there, but in Florida, she would have up to three years to sue. If she has any documentation, like medical treatment, especially in an emergency room, and any witnesses, she will have plenty of time to decide whether she wants to try and create a little retirement account at Murray's (and Ilitch's) expense or not.
If Murray did, indeed, say "it was a total accident" on the record, that means he acknowleged that something happened. That, especially considering the economy and the litigous nature of today's society, was not a good move at all.
I'll bet she eventually goes for the money. Three years is a long time for friends and relatives to convince someone to go for a nice chunk of change.
So I'll just say, way to take the high road regarding a woman who got hit with a fucking chair. Without a shred of evidence (not surprising for you), you've made Murray into a victim while turning this anonymous woman into a greedy scumbag simply looking for a quick buck.
Stay classy, Tater.
Listen, I feel for the woman who got hit, and I like anything that brings some pain back to what is perhaps pro sports' least classy franchise.
But I think you owe an apology to Tater. That was just a legal analysis he provided. He was playing devil's advocate, in real terms. Your response seems to me to be way over the top.
Playing Devil's Advocate is generally a tool used to identify flaws in an original argument, without necessarily believing in the rebuttal argument. The problem is that there was no original argument relating to a lawsuit. He brought it up himself. I can discern no other reason than to shit on this anonymous woman.
Even moving forward with the premise that he was just providing a legal analysis, he could have done so without peppering his comment with phrases like:
…a little retirement account at Murray's (and Ilitch's) expense or not.
and
I'll bet she eventually goes for the money. Three years is a long time for friends and relatives to convince someone to go for a nice chunk of change.
Even assuming this eventually happens, at this time there is simply no reason to make these accusations against this woman or her friends and family. We are a litigious society, but that’s no reason to assume the worst of people, especially from someone whose name we don’t even know.
This is really just vintage Tater. He tends to make claims or insinuations without any basis in fact. It's the reputation he's established for himself. If he doesn't like it, he can either defend his comments himself to clarify what he meant, or take greater care in formulating his comments. Until then, his comments stand as they are, and I interpret them accordingly.
Replying to wrong post.