Baseball great Roberto Alomar has full-blown AIDS but insisted on having unprotected sex, his ex-girlfriend charged Tuesday in a bombshell lawsuit.
The shocking claim was leveled by Ilya Dall, 31, who said she lived with the ex-Met for three years and watched in horror as his health worsened.
In papers filed in state and federal court, Dall said Alomar finally got tested in January 2006 while suffering from a cough, fatigue and shingles. “The test results of him being HIV-positive was given to him and the plaintiff on or about Feb.6, 2006,” the $15 million negligence suit says.
Nine days later, the couple went to see a disease specialist who discovered a mass in the retired second baseman’s chest, the court papers say. Alomar’s skin had turned purple, he was foaming at the mouth and a spinal tap “showed he had full-blown AIDS,” the suit says.
Alomar, 41, who quit baseball over health issues in 2005, could not be reached for comment.
His lawyer, Charles Bach, would not say whether Alomar is HIV-positive. “We believe this is a totally frivolous lawsuit. These allegations are baseless,” Bach said. “He’s healthy and would like to keep his health status private. We’ll do our talking in court.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Sure, although "risky behavior" could just mean having unprotected sex with someone who hasn't been tested, or having anal sex with a woman, etc. I'm sure he wouldn't be the first ballplayer to have done either one.
Allow me to answer that question with a quote FTA:
The definition of AIDS, IIRC, is a t-cell count below 100. People can live for years when they get below that level if the opportunistic infections are controlled. My younger brother has lived for several years with full-blown AIDS, and is being treated for lymphoma for the past year. When I worked for an attorney we represented a family who were all diagnosed with AIDS. The mom and two kids lived for several years with full-blown AIDS.
It's not the AIDS that kills you, it's the other stuff that takes advantage of your lack of an immune system.
I wanna rock.
No in this case you earned it the old fashion way.
I read in one of Hirsi Ali's (the Somali-born former Dutch parliamentarian) books that Muslim men have that same preference. That seems extremely odd, and uncomfortable. Is there some sort of religious/supestitious reason for this, or does a whole religion and continent just not know how to **** properly?
"I have no comment," she said outside her lavish home in Whitestone, Queens, after getting out of a black Cadillac Escalade.
Of course. Duh. Should've thought of that.
Incidentally, I've been wondering how everyone seems to know you're having a kid, David. I couldn't find the thread that announced it or anything. Anyway, allow me and my brilliant observational skills congratulate you!
It is likely that Alomar has had AIDS for at least 4 years now maybe longer. So is several 10 years? 5 years? 3 years?
Wait, so it does allow for judging everything?
I deal with patients all the time, and there is so much shame and stigma attached to getting disease, and often so little sympathy that it breaks my heart. I worked with an older homeless man with AIDS the other day, and yeah, he was a drug addict. He engaged in high-risk behavior, but do you know why? He grew up basically without parents who ever looked after him, he wasn't able to graduate high school, and he turned to drugs because they made him feel better about having a crappy life that was going nowhere. Sure, people who engage in risky behaviors tend to have a higher burden of disease, but why did they have/take those risks in the first place? What were the underlying causes? For all the attention paid to risk factors, people seem almost actively disinterested in how those risk factors develop.
I'm going to assume that you're not being a dick intentionally.
There's being exposed to the HIV virus, which is a condition called HIV-positive, and there's having AIDS, which is when your immune system essentially ceases to function, leaving you open to other infections. In the case of my brother, I don't know exactly when his t-cell count dropped below 100, which if you read earlier, is the clinical definition of AIDS. I would guess it has been several years, meaning somewhere between 3-6 years. I know that is the approximate time period that he's been covered under a state catastrophic health insurance plan, which kicks in when there's no other option and you're deathly ill.
Regarding the mother and her two kids, she lasted at least five years with AIDS, long enough to bury her two children, who were infected through placental exchange in one instance, and via breast milk in the other.
You're point is valid, but in the real world there is a hell of a lot of judgment passed when someone is known to have AIDS.
It is not simply just an issue of judging or "deserving".
It is that one can get HIV via unprotected heterosexual sex. It is that this idea that HIV is contracted via gay sex, or use of needels, can lead to risky behaviour by heterosexuals.
Let them deal with this in court.
This has got to be the stupidest person on the face of the earth.
Magic Johnson was diagnosed with HIV in 1991, and is apparently still in excellent health (although he has had the advantage of the most progressive treatment available). Also, contracting HIV does not automatically lead to development of AIDS:
Assuming that the accusations are true, and Alomar is actually suffering from AIDS, it's entirely possible that HIV/AIDS just took a long time to develop.
Where did I say any of that? I said that if you know that you have AIDS and you have unprotected sex with someone who doesn't, and infect them, that it's just as bad as shooting them or stabbing them or hitting them in the head with a blunt implement until brain goo comes out. Which is true.
In any event, it clearly warrants one's children being taken away.
At the very least, they owe Keith Hernandez an apology.
Thanks bunyon. I appreciate it.
I note for the record that both he and Alomar are switch-hitters.
Just sayin' is all."
Now if Roberto Alomar has a daughter that goes on to star in basketball at Stanford, we will really have a coincidence.
It's hard to tell, but I think you missed the joke.
The catch is that unless you have an injury (like getting HIV), you can't recover (more than a nominal amount). That is why you have these mental distress allegations.
I think he did, but I had never heard of Candace Wiggins before. Making lemons into lemonade, that's what we do here.
I just hope the Media leaves him alone, and lets him do his thing in peace.
Quoted for a high ratio of uber misleadingness.
The same link tells you that 74% of people diagnosed with AIDs are male.
What we know is that very few woman die between the ages of 25-44 years, so death only happens through an extraordinary disease or event. When you go down to 5th or 6th on the list, it means it happens very, very, rarely. The link actually says that 4,128 U.S. woman died of AIDs in 2005 out of a population exceeding 150 Million. Over 260,000 woman died of cancer in 2005, over 450,000 died of heart disease, 76,000 died in accidents, 14,000 murdered, etc.
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Number of Deaths 113 Causes 2005.html
AIDs is horrible. It's also rare.
Far be it from me to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't find pleasurable, but...WTF?
I wanna Rock (Raines) in the BBHOF.
Fixed that for you.
It gets worse when you find out that they use desiccants to dry it out beforehand.
Magic Johnson was diagnosed with HIV in 1991, and is apparently still in excellent health (although he has had the advantage of the most progressive treatment available).
Isn't that last bit kind of the crux of the issue? Alomar would have had years of inferior 80s treatment and it seems, if his ex has any credibility, he wasn't exactly treating it aggressively.
Please, please stop. I just...words fail me.
As noted in the next bit:
Not getting treatment doesn't mean that HIV will always kick in at the same time. He could be the 1 out of 10 for whom it takes longer to develop into AIDS.
More importantly, I cringe at seeing these sorts of personal details about Robbie Alomar's life exposed to the public. Is he gay or bi? THAT'S HIS BUSINESS AND NOBODY ELSE'S. Was he (egads) really raped and infected as a teenager? Then even moreso, I feel dirty having read about this without his consent. Either way, everybody loses in this matter: Alomar is degraded by having these issues made public, the woman may well have a legitimate grievance fit for legal adjudication, and the rest of us play the role of unwitting voyeurs.
I wish I could take a shower.
Please, please stop. I just...words fail me.
So, are the desiccants considered foreplay?
At least Bip Roberts has been getting the treatment. He looks pretty healthy on tv during Giants pregame.
So, Epstein Barr's parents were too lethargic to come up with a good name. Why should he be punished for that?
Something wrong with your plumbing?
Seriously, you're right, of course.
Are you trying to start a flame war? Because, if so, that comment looks like a winner.
STERIODS!!!
Nothing in particular against Islam...the same misogynistic distaste for female sexual pleasure can be found in religions the world over, from Catholicism (NO BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!!!!!) to Orthodox Judaism to those folks that perform female genital mutilation.
Foote and Mouth Disease?
I get Barry Foote but who is Mouth?
Women enjoy sex? I think not--not if I have anything to say, or do, about it.
I remember in high school where, as part of our IB English program, we had to read Ngugi's The River Between, with its primary focus on female circumcision. Maybe I was just a squish back then, but I couldn't get through it without feeling so revolted that I wanted to cry. To this day I think it's so barbaric that I can't even speak or write about the subject without getting actively angry (and damn near hysterical). I mean, dear god, who would come up with a religious practice whose SOLE PURPOSE was to deny women pleasure during sex? To make it PAINFUL for them? What kinds of sick bastards come up with this idea, and then work insidiously to sanctify it with the cloak of religious respectability? Jesus, maybe the radical feminists were right...men really are pigs.
I thought it back then, I still think it now.
"In April or May of 2005, the doctor again advised the defendant to have an HIV test performed, which stands for Human Immune virus."
First of all, they misidenitifed the name of the disease (Human Immunodeficiency Virus); second, the subordinate clause is an adjectival clause modifying HIV, but it is misplaced after the verb performed.
There is a "Howard Carter had an Oedipus Complex" joke to be made here somewhere but damned if I know what it is.
Best Regards
John
The use of dessicants in Africa was not on that list.
But, it's really bad for the men too, I assume.
I'm just full of random knowledge.
The point of the desiccants (so they say) is that males feel it more. Personally, I can't say I'd want to use sandpaper on myself, but I guess some people like that feeling.
There are so many things wrong with this sentence I don't know where to start. Wow, she was deeply upset AND dismayed! Was she "suffering extreme distress" before she was "extremely depressed," because that's what the tenses seem to indicate. I also like how the sentence starts with "Upon learning the defendant was HIV positive" and ends with "after she was advised that the defendant was HIV positive," in case we forgot the prepositional phrase the first time!
To compare the Catholic stance on contraception to these other things is just absurd.
If you were to check out modern Catholic writings, they are very positive about marital sex. John Paul II (before he was Pope) actually wrote a book in which he stated that it was a husband's duty to see to his wife's pleasure during sex.
Glenn Burke died after contracting AIDS. I thought I heard that Eric Show had AIDS too, but I can't confirm that.
And I thought Lionel Hutz was just a caricature!
She is actually saying that children were exposed to HIV because they hug and kiss Roberto Alomar!
Many Catholic writers over time have said that sex during marriage is inherently sinful, and that pleasure during sex is sinful. Modern Catholicism is much better about marital sex, but the writings of people like Augustine of Hippo still leave their mark on the church.
By providing her with good reading material or a clear view to the flat-screen TV?
That settles it. I'm staying Lutheran.
Dry sex is a traditional practice currently found (mostly) in Africa of using herbs, leaves, or even household detergent to minimize a woman's vaginal secretions. Like many traditional behaviors in Africa, it probably predates Islam, and is not practiced exclusively by Muslims. And its main purpose was most likely _not_ to reduce women's sexual pleasure, but to maximize _men's_ sexual enjoyment. (I know, I know--YMMV on that one.)
It has been hypothesized that the dry sex might increase the risk of HIV transmission, because the lack of lubrication causes lacerations in the vaginal tissue, which would afford HIV multiple entry points. The real-world evidence for this is pretty spotty, though (it would be a very difficult association to prove). It may be that men who prefer dry sex also are more likely to avoid condoms; a study conducted a few years ago showed that a decline in HIV prevalence in Zambia occurred at the same time as a general decrease in reported risk behavior (including a decrease in reported practice of dry sex). However, I believe that I have read that if dry sex produces a greater risk of HIV transmission, that elevaton in risk would be more for the woman than for the man.
I know this is totally irrelevant to Robbie Alomar, but the topics came up in the thread, so I thought I would chime in. By the time I have finished this message and posted it, who knows what direction this thread may have gone in?
OK, back to work/lurk.
Holy crap, you just won the thread.
Really? I think it just shows that a lot of us here have ###### up hobbies.
Correct. This was individual theologians, and never doctrine of the Church, but it certainly had its influence, even more so on your more "puritanical" Protestant groups than Catholics.
The Catholic position on sex and marriage is very consistent but very nuanced, and needs to be taken in its totality. It requires a great deal of study to fully understand, and has often been badly explained. e.g., you can't analyze the no contraception doctrine in isolation from the no pre-marital sex doctrine.
Well, birds of a feather and all that.
Yeah, but the MEN'S subjecting themselves to that, uh, dryness points to some fanatical devotion on their part to the cause of denying women pleasure. Gadzooks.
Yeah, that's what I hear.
While not an expert in that field, I'd still be interested in trying to discuss it - my interests in terms of language lean more toward the impact of language on the shaping of thought among the users of that language, and the development of technical dialects and their impact on the transfer of knowledge between technical disciplines.
Given your handle, I'd expect nothing less of you.
OK, looks like the topic is about to move on to Augustine's take on Indo-European language change during marital sex, but to the point above, well, who knows what's going on inside other people's heads? (Especially when it comes to sex.) But the belief in the field is that men who practice it do so because they find dry sex more pleasurable: Instead of "dry", think "tight". It's the women who use the herbs or leaves or chemical, and they generally say they do it because their partner prefers it that way. (Though many women will also say that they think sex is neater and cleaner that way as well.)
The asceticism of the early churh and of late antiquity definitely influenced Roman Catholicism, especially the medieval Church. Monastic culture enjoyed its most widespread success in the medieval Catholic west, for instance, and celibacy continued to be viewed as a higher calling for women than mere marital chastity. Following a tenant that was "optional" (celibacy) rather than "required" (no extramarital sex) was thought to make you a "better" Christian.
Although we think of the Protestant Reformation as being run by joyless Puritans, one of the first things that happened when the Reformation took hold in England in the 1530s was the dissolution of the monateries, and the marrying off of nuns, monks, and priests (along with, more importantly, the seizure of lands and funds). Mainstream protestants of the early 16th century generally had a more permissive view of sexuality, at least within the confines of marraige, and they rejected celibacy and monasticism as presumptuous and quasi-idolatrous. The "asceticism" of radical Puritans in the 16th century is something very different from Catholic asceticism, although there are points of contact (the value of self-flagellation, abstemiousness, etc.).
Most of sub-Saharan Africa is not Muslim.
More important to Henry VIII, anyway.
He had powerful influence on many popes even if a lot of things he wrote about were only temporarily part of the Papal policies (I separate that from doctrine in that doctrine lasts centuries, but policies change when popes do). There were popes who engaged in warfare and actively asserted the superiority of celibacy for all (not sure how well you can link the celibacy of priests to Augustine's writings). JC would be a good person to talk about on this, because I'm sure he knows far more than I do.
Could be worse.
I heard that A-Rod hires illegal immigrants to choke him in the shower.
As long as he's current with their payroll tax, this is OK.
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis hijack time! I lean against it's validity, but somebody who knows more than me tell me why I'm wrong, go go!
Dr. Hibbert: You have an absolutely unique genetic condition known as "Homer Simpson" syndrome.
Homer Simpson: Oh, why me?!
second, the subordinate clause is an adjectival clause modifying HIV, but it is misplaced after the verb performed.
I don't understand a word of this. Is it some incomprehensible dead language, like French?
(Seriously though, reconstructive grammar is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle without the box to look at, and missing several pieces, yet with the understanding that if you can put enough of them together you can reveal a stunning secret picture. You wouldn't BELIEVE what our language tells us about what our forefathers believed and emphasized in their lives...evidence that is otherwise inaccessible through any historical record or archaeological dig.)
Epstein and Barr are two different people. And there's no disease named after them.
A linguistics discussion fells another one.
David,
Catholicism teaches the same thing. It just not been communicated real well over the years.
Also, I generally agree with Sapir-Whorf.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main