Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Galloway: Cocaine, blackmail converge on Texas Rangers

But in July that was going to be the end of that story. Washington kept his job, and nobody would know. The entire episode would be swept under the bat rack. And was, as the season gave way to fall and winter.

Then, however, came the blackmail threats.

Somebody, you see, did know. How or why he knew, that’s unknown.

But this team employee, fired after the season, had all the details. He also had a list of demands for the club, which if not met would mean the Ron-does-dope story would suddenly become national news.

Some of his demands were met, but the club balked at personally giving this person a glowing letter of recommendation and also refused at least one other item. By January, word leaked that the former employee was bad-mouthing Washington around north Arlington.

Blackmailer was real unhappy, but all was still quiet as spring training opened in Arizona nearly four weeks ago. Then this week, Washington received a call from a national baseball writer saying he had the Ron-does-dope details.

It’s uncertain if this is how the blackmailer made good on his threat to disgrace Washington and embarrass the ballclub, but I’d definitely wager that way.

Thanks to BeVi.

Repoz Posted: March 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM | 78 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: rangers, special topics

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.

   1. Jacob Posted: March 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM (#3481345)
You gotta rub out the blackmailer. Doesn't anyone watch Columbo anymore?
   2. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: March 18, 2010 at 11:51 AM (#3481346)
   3. Dale Sams Posted: March 18, 2010 at 12:22 PM (#3481353)
You gotta rub out the blackmailer. Doesn't anyone watch Columbo anymore?


"Just one more question Mr. Ryan, ahhh...you seem to have dropped your gun, let me get that for you....ahhh..hmm."
   4. Greg K Posted: March 18, 2010 at 12:39 PM (#3481356)
I just bought "How to Irritate People" by John Cleese on DVD. I had never heard of it before seeing it in the store today, it doesn't appear to be official Python, but it has Cleese, Chapman and Palin and appears to be from the same time as Flying Circus. Does anyone know what on earth this is?
   5. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM (#3481359)
Slightly pre-dates Python, a bit more straight-forward than what the latter group produced. Haven't seen it in many years, but it was decent.
   6. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:09 PM (#3481366)
Some of his demands were met, but the club balked at personally giving this person a glowing letter of recommendation and also refused at least one other item.
So they gave in to the guys somewhat, but wouldn't write him a letter of recommendation? And despite that, he kept quiet for a while? Does no one understand how blackmail works?
   7. RJ in TO Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:12 PM (#3481367)
So they gave in to the guys somewhat, but wouldn't write him a letter of recommendation?

I'm more impressed by the sort of guts it must take for a blackmailer to ask for a letter of recommendation, and curious as to what that resulting letter would look like.
   8. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:18 PM (#3481373)
So they gave in to the guys somewhat, but wouldn't write him a letter of recommendation? And despite that, he kept quiet for a while? Does no one understand how blackmail works?

My question is why blackmail? It's just like the Letterman guy. You can get more $$$$$ selling your story to The Enquirer, with no legal liability.
   9. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:24 PM (#3481377)
My question is why blackmail? It's just like the Letterman guy. You can get more $$$$$ selling your story to The Enquirer, with no legal liability.
You probably could with Letterman, I don't think you can with Ron Washington. He's just not a big enough figure for mainstream press like the Enquirer to pay for.
   10. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:34 PM (#3481385)
Possible reasons.

1. Going to the Enquirer will get you blackballed from the industry. This blackmailer seems to have been very concerned to preserve his career (hence the letter of recommendation).
2. The information was obtained illegally or there's a duty of confidentiality etc. I don't know anything about Letterman but this must surely apply here. So you'll get legal liability anyway.
3. What RB said.
4. You've got plenty of skeletons in your own closet that you don't want spilling out when you are inevitably attacked in the second wave.
   11. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:43 PM (#3481391)
mainstream press like the Enquirer

Those five words alone made this thread worth visiting.
   12. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2010 at 01:52 PM (#3481396)
There are laws against blackmail. Find the guy, prove the blackmail, and throw his sorry (and perhaps racist) ass in jail.
   13. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:12 PM (#3481417)
There are laws against blackmail. Find the guy, prove the blackmail, and throw his sorry (and perhaps racist) ass in jail.

This is the only action I'd like to see taken in all of this.
   14. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:14 PM (#3481422)
Racist?
   15. heyyoo Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:23 PM (#3481431)
There are laws against blackmail. Find the guy, prove the blackmail, and throw his sorry (and perhaps racist) ass in jail.


I'd be shocked if the police were not already investigating.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:27 PM (#3481439)
Racist?

My question too.

Actually, why do we care about a criminal's motives? Would you feel better if the guy did it b/c of greed, vs. personal hatred, vs. racism? It's the same crime.

I've always questioned "hate crime" laws for that reason. To me, bashing someone in the head with a brick for his wallet is equally heinous as bashing him b/c you don't like his skin color. Same crime, should have the same punishment.
   17. AROM Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:34 PM (#3481446)
SBB, If Washington was white, would you suspect racism as the motive? Do you know what skin color the blackmailer is? Why did you have to go there?
   18. SoSH U at work Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:37 PM (#3481448)
Eh, I wouldn't worry too much about accidentally impugning the character of a blackmailer.
   19. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:39 PM (#3481453)
Does SBB usually align himself with the Van Buren Boys? If so, I find it odd that he is on the opposite side of Andy on this one.
   20. RJ in TO Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:40 PM (#3481454)
Why did you have to go there?

He's trying to get the thread closed.
   21. depletion Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:41 PM (#3481455)
I don't see this as a hate crime, either, unless he was engaged in a pattern of trying to get negative info on a variety of black people. Sounds like someone on their way out of the org grasping at straws to preserve her or his self.
The first call Ryan made as soon as the guy hung up should been to the cops, second to RWashington. In any organization there is always negative business information to be exploited; there should be no tolerance of such people.
   22. Spivey Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:43 PM (#3481456)
Throw this potential child molester in jail.
   23. Craig in MN Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:46 PM (#3481461)
Racist?

Blackmail... Ron Washington.... black male..... racism! All we need is a chalkboard and Glenn Beck to connect those dots.
   24. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:56 PM (#3481467)
SBB was blackmailing the blackmailer but now it's time to let the truth come out: The blackmailer is racist.
   25. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 02:58 PM (#3481468)
I've always questioned "hate crime" laws for that reason. To me, bashing someone in the head with a brick for his wallet is equally heinous as bashing him b/c you don't like his skin color.


Should painting a swastika on a synagogue be punished any differently than painting "Kilroy Was Here"?
   26. salvomania Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:02 PM (#3481470)
The hate crime designation exists because by targeting people solely because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., the assailant is seeking to terrorize a group of people and to let them know that their type is not only not welcome, but will be attacked or even killed simply because they exist.

I can see why some people have some issues with the "hate crime" concept, but it wouldn't be an issue if there weren't racist, homophobic people that keep trying to keep the institutionalized "Good Ol' Days" alive through acts of terror.
   27. Spivey Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:07 PM (#3481477)
Should painting a swastika on a synagogue be punished any differently than painting "Kilroy Was Here"?

Shouldn't be punished at all. The idea of ownership is one of the worst things in society.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:10 PM (#3481480)
Should painting a swastika on a synagogue be punished any differently than painting "Kilroy Was Here"?

Unless there's some link to advocating/perpetrating violence, yeah pretty much. i.e. if it's the Aryan Nation doing it as part of an intimidation campaign, you might want to add some "menacing" charges, or even RICO if it was systematic, but if it's some dumb kids or average weirdos, I'd treat it as vandalism.

I'm actually more concerned about crimes against persons, rather than property. Treating some crimes as more serious b/c of protected group status, makes victims unequal before the law.
   29. dazzle Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:14 PM (#3481484)
The Rangers just need a larger wagon. First Hamilton falls off, now Washington. The team probably doesn't let them have any closed door meetings.
   30. Spivey Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:16 PM (#3481485)
The Rangers just need a larger wagon. First Hamilton falls off, now Washington. The team probably doesn't let them have any closed door meetings.


Gonna paint a wagon, gonna paint it good.
   31. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:25 PM (#3481493)
Do you know what skin color the blackmailer is?


Probably white, statistically speaking. Not that that implies racism as a motivation, of course.
   32. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:31 PM (#3481496)
I wouldn't enhance his criminal punishment if he was racist. Just suggesting the possibility.

In certain situations, I guess I might sympathize a little more with a guy getting railroaded if the guy's black. He had a tougher road to get to where he got, and I'd hate to see him lose it over this hysterical nonsense.
   33. Barnaby Jones Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:31 PM (#3481497)
Would you feel better if the guy did it b/c of greed, vs. personal hatred, vs. racism?


Yes.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:33 PM (#3481501)
You gotta rub out the blackmailer. Doesn't anyone watch Columbo anymore?


Yes. And what I've learned is that you can't rub anyone out without setting up a clumsy alibi for yourself first. So you gotta set the blackmailer's watch ahead after you kill him, and then smash the watch on the ground to fix the supposed time of death to some point in the future when your alibi is supposed to kick in (e.g., you have tickets to an art gallery and you show up there constantly asking people what time it is).

It totally works.
   35. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3481504)
Do you know what skin color the blackmailer is?

Probably white, statistically speaking.


Yes, but there's a shortage of white blackmailers in baseball right now, so there's an increased chance that the blackmailer is actually of some other race. Probably Latino, non-US born. I understand that group is currently over-represented in MLB. Although nobody realizes this, because people think the Latino blackmailers are actually African American.
   36. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3481505)
And people think you don't have a sense of humor, Ray. That was spot on.
   37. Zipperholes Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:39 PM (#3481506)
The hate crime designation exists because by targeting people solely because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., the assailant is seeking to terrorize a group of people and to let them know that their type is not only not welcome, but will be attacked or even killed simply because they exist.
Are terrorizing and letting people know they will be attacked or even killed for other reasons more acceptable?
   38. Harold Reynolds Number Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:40 PM (#3481509)
I'm actually more concerned about crimes against persons, rather than property. Treating some crimes as more serious b/c of protected group status, makes victims unequal before the law.

Sometimes it's more about jurisdiction than punishment. Having the local yokels deal with crimes targeting the "undesireables" in their community will deprive them of justice.

Concern for recidivism is another issue, as someone who harms others for pleasure (hate crime) is distinct from someone who harms others for need (e.g. robbery) or by accident. People who see violence against others as a desireable end rather than a means to an end are more dangerous to the community.
   39. RJ in TO Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:42 PM (#3481513)
And people think you don't have a sense of humor, Ray. That was spot on.

Much to my chagrin, I am forced to agree. That was some good comedy.
   40. Cris E Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:46 PM (#3481519)
So who left the Rangers org after last year without a glowing recommendation?

Lesssee, Hurdle replaced Jaramillo last fall. But Rudy isn't white so he can't be a racist. Hicks is white and is on his way out, but he's not gone yet, so he can't be the guy. Some guy named Jay Robinson who used to be a special assistant to the GM was not renewed after the season. I've never heard of him so I'm not certain he's not a racist, so I guess he's the one. Cue the Bartman mob!

EDIT: Just for the record, the guy's actual name is Jay Robertson and I still have not heard of him. Please do not submit his name to Deadspin.
   41. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:46 PM (#3481520)
For those of you interested in hate crimes, this was a nice introspective article written by a white victim of a black assailant.
   42. salvomania Posted: March 18, 2010 at 03:50 PM (#3481525)
Are terrorizing and letting people know they will be attacked or even killed for other reasons more acceptable?

No, if those reasons, too, are part of a continuation of a quasi-institutionalized deprivation of Constitutionally protected rights.
   43. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:07 PM (#3481539)
I'm more impressed by the sort of guts it must take for a blackmailer to ask for a letter of recommendation, and curious as to what that resulting letter would look like.


The letter should have some code that spells out "this guy sucks" when you lineup all the first letters of each sentence:

There are a lot good things to say about Peter. He always has a smile on his face and takes pride in knowing more than he needs to for his actual job. In the past he has used this extra knowledge to make a big difference in our club. Sadly we'll never really be able to pay him back the way he deserves.

Going forward we wish Peter the best in his future endevors. Usually we we don't write letters like this but Peter's case is an exception. You'll soon find out from the type of employee he is we really didn't have a choice.

So in summary Peter learns everything he can about the team he works with. Understanding even the smallest details can provide surprising results. Collecting information isn't all Peter is good at, though. Knowing what do with it is what makes him special.

Sincerely...
   44. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:10 PM (#3481542)
Well done,Mr. Foli
   45. Steve Phillips' Hot Cougar (DrStankus) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:11 PM (#3481543)
#12 does an awesome job of being so insane to make you question any argument that SBB makes on the topic.

It's almost like he's working for the other side.
   46. Dr. Vaux Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:14 PM (#3481546)
#43 is awesome.
   47. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:15 PM (#3481547)
The hate crime designation exists because by targeting people solely because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., the assailant is seeking to terrorize a group of people and to let them know that their type is not only not welcome, but will be attacked or even killed simply because they exist.

I can see why some people have some issues with the "hate crime" concept, but it wouldn't be an issue if there weren't racist, homophobic people that keep trying to keep the institutionalized "Good Ol' Days" alive through acts of terror.
Assuming for the sake of argument that your arguments are valid, the problem is, "hate crime" laws have little to do with planned attacks by organized groups with some sort of larger agenda that you describe. They're generally applied, for obvious reason, to a guy who gets into a fight, and yells an epithet. Or a couple of bored teenagers who vandalize a synagogue and draw a swastika for shock value. ("Police believe alcohol was involved.")

(The "obvious reason" being that there just aren't very many Klan members around anymore. If these laws were limited to those sorts of situations, prosecutors would never get to use them, and wouldn't get to put out all those press releases at election time.)
   48. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:19 PM (#3481554)
So who left the Rangers org after last year without a glowing recommendation?


Vicente Padilla?
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:37 PM (#3481566)
For those of you interested in hate crimes, this was a nice introspective article written by a white victim of a black assailant.

Very good article.

My reaction, who gives a #### if it was a hate crime. This "kid" attacked an innocent man with no provocation and caused serious injuries. 16 is plenty old enough to be tried as an adult. He should have gotten 3 to 5 for aggravated assault. That he got off with probabtion is unconscionable.
   50. Ellis Valentine's Bright Future Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:39 PM (#3481568)
Bravo Mr. Foli,

I can't begin to assess how much time I will waste in the future while looking for secret messages in recommendation letters. All I know for sure is that I will never again be as productive as I was before reading that post.

Bravo
   51. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:42 PM (#3481572)
I can't begin to assess how much time I will waste in the future while looking for secret messages in recommendation letters. All I know for sure is that I will never again be as productive as I was before reading that post.

Bravo


Don't spoil the ending ....
   52. McCoy Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:42 PM (#3481573)
No, if those reasons, too, are part of a continuation of a quasi-institutionalized deprivation of Constitutionally protected rights.

Getting robbed doesn't deprive you of your constitutional rights?
   53. Danny Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:50 PM (#3481579)
I've always questioned "hate crime" laws for that reason. To me, bashing someone in the head with a brick for his wallet is equally heinous as bashing him b/c you don't like his skin color. Same crime, should have the same punishment.

I assume you also think terrorists are just the same as criminals, and they should be tried in federal civilian court, right?

Hate crime legislation doesn't make certain victims more special than others; it recognizes that hate crimes victimize more people than just the direct victim.
   54. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:51 PM (#3481581)
Foli's #43 reminds me of the Frasier episode where Frasier is forced to make a toast at Niles' and Mel's fake "wedding reception," to keep up appearances after Niles had already run off with Daphne:

Dr. Frasier Crane: Love... is an awesome force. It can make us do things we never imagined possible. For you see, we don't actually choose love - it chooses us. And once it has, we are powerless to do anything about it. Ladies and gentlemen, raise your glasses with me in toasting my brother, and the love of his life. For she is truly the woman of his dreams, and my father and I could not be more thrilled with his choice. To the happy couple!
   55. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 04:56 PM (#3481586)
#12 does an awesome job of being so insane to make you question any argument that SBB makes on the topic.


In general, SBB tends to come clear out of left field more than any other poster I've seen on this site. Not always, but enough times that it's noticeable.
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:05 PM (#3481592)
I assume you also think terrorists are just the same as criminals, and they should be tried in federal civilian court, right?

Depends. If they are enemy combatants, belonging to an organized group waging war against the US, they should be dealt with under military law, which prescribes summary execution for espionage, sabotage, and non-uniformed combatants. i.e. they have no rights under international law, and should be treated as such.

If they are general wackos and cranks like the Unibomber, or the radical environmentalists, or Timothy McVeigh, then civilian courts work fine.
   57. Barnaby Jones Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:12 PM (#3481597)
enemy combatants, belonging to an organized group waging war against the US


This statement could mean anything, depending on how you define the terms.
   58. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:15 PM (#3481598)
In general, SBB tends to come clear out of left field more than any other poster I've seen on this site. Not always, but enough times that it's noticeable.


My first memory of him was some digression about Rosie Ruiz. Anyone else remember that?
   59. Zipperholes Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:25 PM (#3481602)
Hate crime legislation doesn't make certain victims more special than others; it recognizes that hate crimes victimize more people than just the direct victim.
If victimization of others is the concern, then it should be an element of the crime.
   60. Danny Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:29 PM (#3481604)
Military law prescribes summary execution? And you can't just appeal to law, since hate crimes legislation is the law.

More to the point, do you not acknowledge that hate crimes terrorize communities? Or do you just think that shouldn't matter?
   61. Jose Molina wants a nickname like "A-Rod" Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:31 PM (#3481608)
who calls coke dope?
   62. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:33 PM (#3481611)
#43 is awesome.


Nicholas Butler Murray is not impressed.
   63. Accent Shallow Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:34 PM (#3481613)
Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer 'extortion.' The 'X' makes it sound cool.
   64. esseff Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:38 PM (#3481616)
#43 is awesome.


Yes, much better than Arnold Schwarzenegger's.
   65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:39 PM (#3481617)
Military law prescribes summary execution? And you can't just appeal to law, since hate crimes legislation is the law.

Yes. Non-uniformed combatants can be executed on the spot. You don't have to, e.g. if they have intelligence value, but you can. Witness the German spies executed in WWII.

I'm not appealing to it as statutory law, but as a universal law, much like if I say murder is wrong, that comes from natural law, not the actual criminal statutes. The international standard, for centuries, is that non-uniformed combatants, like spies, have no rights as soldiers, and can be executed.

More to the point, do you not acknowledge that hate crimes terrorize communities? Or do you just think that shouldn't matter?

Random murders, rapes and street crimes terrorize communities too. If someone issues threats against a group, charge them with that crime.
   66. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 05:41 PM (#3481619)
My first memory of him was some digression about Rosie Ruiz. Anyone else remember that?


Ah, the Bonds Exposed thread.
   67. Tricky Dick Posted: March 18, 2010 at 06:15 PM (#3481641)
Over the years, I have seen a few fired employees where I have worked who used lawsuit demand letters or EEO complaints to force concessions. In each case, the employees were really bad employees, well deserving of termination. But in each case, the outcome was a "settlement" in which the employer agrees to give a good recommendation and sometimes an agreement to seal records of their performance evaluations. The attorneys generally strongly recommended agreeing to give good recommendations "to make it go away." That's one reason, when I am involved in hiring people, I have some skepticism of recommendations from other employers.

With that background, I am surprised that the Rangers gave in to some demands from the blackmailer but refused to give a "glowing" recommendation (whatever that means). On the other hand, I don't know the nature of all the demands. Maybe they are so despicable that the Rangers finally decided they had to draw the line.
   68. PerroX Posted: March 18, 2010 at 06:38 PM (#3481656)
Found a point of agreement with snapper - hate crime laws. And glad to have SBB in left field - consistency is boring. Save it
for after I'm dead.
   69. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 18, 2010 at 06:48 PM (#3481668)
In general, SBB tends to come clear out of left field more than any other poster I've seen on this site. Not always, but enough times that it's noticeable.

Still amped up about the Palmeiro thing, huh?
   70. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 06:58 PM (#3481677)
Over the years, I have seen a few fired employees where I have worked who used lawsuit demand letters or EEO complaints to force concessions. In each case, the employees were really bad employees, well deserving of termination. But in each case, the outcome was a "settlement" in which the employer agrees to give a good recommendation and sometimes an agreement to seal records of their performance evaluations. The attorneys generally strongly recommended agreeing to give good recommendations "to make it go away." That's one reason, when I am involved in hiring people, I have some skepticism of recommendations from other employers.
Uh, the attorneys were giving bad advice. If you're trying to avoid a lawsuit, the only safe choice is no recommendation at all -- merely confirm dates of employment and job title, and nothing more. (If you give good recommendations to "really bad employees," a new employer relies on those recommendations, hires them, and something goes wrong, the new employer may sue you.)
   71. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 07:06 PM (#3481686)
MLB is a really small community. If you give good recommendations to bad people like that, word will get around and it will seriously tarnish the organisation.
   72. Zipperholes Posted: March 18, 2010 at 07:11 PM (#3481690)
(If you give good recommendations to "really bad employees," a new employer relies on those recommendations, hires them, and something goes wrong, the new employer may sue you.)
Interesting. Do you have a cite for a recommender being held liable?
   73. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 07:32 PM (#3481705)
Found a point of agreement with snapper - hate crime laws.

Every time you go to the ballpark you see something you've never seen before :-)
   74. Tricky Dick Posted: March 18, 2010 at 07:44 PM (#3481722)
No.70, I tend to agree with you. And some of the instances I'm thinking about may have ended in an agreement not to give a bad recommendation or disclose certain performance issues. Also, one of the instances is over 20 years ago, and I'm not sure that the risk of a lawsuit by another employer related to a job reference was considered a significant possibility then.
   75. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 07:48 PM (#3481728)
Interesting. Do you have a cite for a recommender being held liable?
Yes, but not here. Wait 'til I get home or back to the office, and if you're interested, I can give you cites.
   76. Steve Phillips' Hot Cougar (DrStankus) Posted: March 18, 2010 at 10:17 PM (#3481874)
Every place that I have worked in my career has the policy of giving no recommendation, good nor bad. All they will do is confirm dates of employment.
   77. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2010 at 03:46 AM (#3482063)
Still amped up about the Palmeiro thing, huh?


Nah. But I am still roided up about it :)
   78. Zipperholes Posted: March 19, 2010 at 03:53 AM (#3482067)
Yes, but not here. Wait 'til I get home or back to the office, and if you're interested, I can give you cites.
I'd like to see them, if it's not too much trouble to find them.

Also, in Tricky Dick's examples, is it possible that the potential for getting sued over a bad recommendation was outweighed by the dismissal of the EEO complaint?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(403 - 10:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jeltzandini

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3732 - 10:54pm, Oct 24)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(72 - 10:08pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(381 - 9:55pm, Oct 24)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(18 - 9:40pm, Oct 24)
Last: puck

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(76 - 9:25pm, Oct 24)
Last: boteman

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(17 - 8:40pm, Oct 24)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(13 - 8:11pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(5 - 8:05pm, Oct 24)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(915 - 7:37pm, Oct 24)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(15 - 5:31pm, Oct 24)
Last: zonk

Page rendered in 0.8133 seconds
52 querie(s) executed