Astros Staffer's Outburst at Female Reporters Illustrates MLB's Forgive-and-Forget Attitude Toward D

wtf does visibly shaken mean? I hear this phrase used more and more when people are trying to make something sound more dramatic than it was.

Unless something more comes out I’m leaning towards...



edited for a pic that I liked better and my post got messed up

 

I mean, as well as the obvious I don’t like to see domestic abusers rewarded and I don’t like to intentionally bring them into my group or life in any way.

 

I’m not excusing anything from Osuna because he looks like a knucklehead but was this a felony assault case? I couldn’t tell from any articles I saw. Significant can mean a lot of things but I know Canadian significant is usually pretty different than American significant with assault from a social perspective not sure about from a legal perspective. Osuna said there were facts he wanted to come out after the plea that weren’t allowed out which could be complete bullshit but just something to note.

The reason why I’m laying all that out is because I don’t believe the Astros would have traded for him if this was a Ray Rice scenario and yes there are degrees of assault .

 

I don't listen to Joe Rogan, and I'm decidedly not any kind of right wing leaner. I understand the distasteful connotation that comes from using a dog whistle term like virtue signaling. In this case, however, I don't think it's inappropriate.

As with any movement, there reaches a point where things have swung too much in the other direction. This in my opinion is one of those. The organization has come out publicly in defense of their employee. We all know what the journalist in question wants. She wants this guy to be fired, preferably blackballed from the industry. She wants the Astros organization shamed, right before the World Series no less. She has no ties to the city and couldn't give two ****s if it impacts our performance going forward.

That is not a benign presence from the perspective of Houston sports fans. Because of Osuna, we are stuck in the position where people in the media have an axe to grind with the Astros organization, and beyond that there are individuals will also use this as an opportunity to raise their own profiles in an attempt to boost their careers. People who do NOT have ulterior motives should be satisfied with an internal investigation or an investigation by MLB, to be conducted in the offseason when nothing that happens on the field will be overshadowed. That's all I care about.

 

meh. There’s no way they let every single journalist into the clubhouse, so there’s got to be some mechanism in place for determining who gets in. And I don’t see how mlb could fine/suspend if the org had a clear delineation for who got in and who didn’t (I.e. only reporters who have a direct link to the team).

 

What's Alyson footer's opinion on this. She's honest.

 

Disagree about MLB vs. Astros on whether Osuna should be allowed to play baseball. It should be a team's decision on what level of scumbag they are willing to tolerate. Astros have basically said we will take scumbags of Osuna-like quality.

 

Both of Snake Diggit's posts (previous page) are spot on to me.

The Astros responding so quickly and aggressively is not a good look. My guess is the PR team/director have a rocky relationship with the SI reporter and reacted emotionally and fired back instead of investigating.

This. It's perfectly justifiable to open the locker room for interviews for only a short period (not knowing what the MLB policy is however). Article stated this was over an hour after the game ended, granted the on-field celebration meant they didn't get into the locker room right away.

Just unfortunate all around, my hunch is the SI reporter has maybe prodded into the Osuna/DV situation before, and an alcohol fueled Taubman couldn't control himself.

 

Reporters with MLB credentials have to be let in. Astros don't get to pick.

 

i assumed alyson footer was one of the reporters in question and that this is exactly what caused it. Of course true context will never be revealed or taken into consideration when people have a chance to grab their pitchforks and join in.

I side with Taubman. This whole thing is completely stupid and benign unless you actually believe that his motive was to rub in completely innocent (of the situation's) women's faces that he is in full support of domestic violence and is happy they signed a domestic abuser. Is that realistic??

 

As someone who has no ulterior motives in this, I have a big problem with the Astros controlling the narrative here. If the incident happened a few days ago, it's absolutely fair game for it to be reported right now, and for the media to be asking Hinch, Lunhow, and the players about it. They don't have to answer, and the Astros can say they'll deal with it later, but they don't get to tell reporters what they're allowed to talk about.

 

Yawn....get the eff out of here with that cancel culture bs, anything for a cheap headline.

 

Osuna is definitely a loser that I would rather not have on the team

 

Hard to side with either of them without knowing the real context. It's not that hard to picture a scenario (and this is just me making this up), where Apstein and/or other reporters have held it against the Astros for acquiring Osuna so there is bad blood there, Taubman is drunk and adrenaline is running high after the big win, he's walking around the clubhouse celebrating and sees reporters who either he or the front office has at a minimum some underlying tension with and taunts them.

What we don't know is were any reporters prodding about the DV case/Osuna's past in the postgame interviews? IMO that would be uncalled for. If that's what Taubman was responding to, it's a little different -- still doesn't make it right what he allegedly did though.

I think something boiled over from one side or the other here.

 

Regardless of anything else, Tauchman's yell is as stupid as LeBron calling Morey uneducated and misinformed. I'm sure he felt that way. I'm sure he does internally scoff at reporters bringing this up all the time. But you cant say this stuff ever. And if you know you have loose lips dont put yourself in front of reporters.

If nothing else Tauchman is guilty of stupidity. And that's the most benign interpretation of the events. At worst he really does have a horrible attitude towards women.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response to what was admittedly an unkind post. I agree it's unfair to call all journalists "dishonest scumbags." The logical error that I (and perhaps others) make is that when I've seen more than one legitimately dishonest scumbag in an industry, it's hard for me to take the industry seriously. The same thing happens with politicians, lawyers, and preachers. In principle, you're right: generalizations are unfair.

Is it fair to say that saying all journalists choose their career because they want to "tell stories, uncover injustice and hold those in power accountable to do their jobs" may also be a generalization? I wouldn't imagine that any of them think, "when I grow up, I wanna write listicles!!" But how many ppl get into journalism because they have an axe to grind, a narrative or agenda to advance, or a movement or trend they want to either advance or crush? Please don't read that as a statement or a rhetorical question: I'm legit asking. Does that kind of thing happen a lot, or not so often? Do folks fall into those traps later? (And I don't mean to sweep all journalists into that category--you're still right that a generalization like that will be unfair.)

Maybe. But wouldn't journalists stick up for one another, regardless of competing publications? I've seen such a thing before--a bunch of guys rallying behind Drellich last year when David Price was being a prick. And, on one level, I appreciate that: if Taubman or David Price or Barry Bonds or anyone is being a complete prick to a journalist who's just trying to do his or her job, they deserve what they get. But because it's not uncommon for journalists to have an agenda or a narrative to push, and it's not uncommon (nor should it be) for them to stick up for one another, I can't personally believe the story just because a few journalists corroborate it. Perhaps I'm being unfair. But I need more evidence than that.

This is a good point.

But that raises some serious questions: what occupations are former DV perpetrators allowed to hold? If I own a McDonald's, and I let a DV offender flip burgers for me, am I endorsing DV? Is it somehow less heinous for me to let a DV offender flip burgers than it is for me to let a DV guy throw fastballs and sliders?

If hiring someone is now equal to endorsing their past sins, doesn't that now become a slippery slope? Pretty soon no one will be good enough for any job.

 

The Astros were smart when they traded for Osuna for a couple of reasons. They knew that the victim was no longer in Canada and as a result could not be compelled to testify under Canadian law and second the Astros knew that under Canadian law everything surrounding the even would be permanently sealed if the case did not go to trial. They knew the case would not go to trial because there is no ability to convict without the victim testifying. Had she stayed in Canada, they could have her testify regardless of whether she wanted to or not.

So that limited the Crown to a peace bond, which basically means we think you did, but we cannot prove it so we are giving you the option to stay out of trouble for a period of time and the complaint against you is frozen and the facts are sealed. He had a restraining order entered against him and had to attend counseling.

In Canada it is just assault. He faced 6 months in jail had he been convicted. It isn't the same as simple battery.

As far as a Ray Rice scenario, I only know that the night Osuna was arrested the police were quoted as saying the injuries to the victim were severe. Remember in the case of Ray Rice, he would have faced a suspension and likely played again had their not been video.

I am sure the Astros were privy to all the evidence through Osuna's attorney. I know there were supposedly photographs taken by the police but those are permanently sealed by the court.

With all the evidence sealed, and with the victim not cooperating it was a calculated risk.

I completely understand why the Astros did it, they dumped someone with little value at the time for a pitcher that was under long term control, successful on the field but had serious PR issues. Organizations can usually take one one rehabilitation prospect like that with minimal long term impact from the fans and media...... unfortunately it is possible an executive with the Astros just opened that wound back up.

I am an enormous Astros fan and had mixed feelings about the deal. From the baseball perspective it was a slam dunk....... and I am fine with that, but it doesn't mean he is a good person or he paid his debt to society. He hit the mother of his child and did it enough for a concierge to call the police and the police to make an arrest and to call the injuries substantial. I have no respect for a person that does that.

 

All champions face greater scrutiny. It's only going to intensify. There will be skeletons. There will be communication challenges. And there will be apologies. The PR team needs to be prepared and staffed. We cannot escape our past. It's just a question of what's the impact on the future. But we are in this together, and sometimes it means people changing, either becoming better people, or following tighter procedures. The organization also needs to adapt. Again, we are now at the big table and the rules are different.

 

Who cares. Astros are in the World Series.

 

That would take some balls.

That will not happen.