OK, this seems about as cut and dried a case of abuse as possible - why isn't he in jail? Why was his suspension so insanely short at 20 games over this? What the heck did the other guys who got 80+ do that was worse? MLB really dropped the ball on this one.

Why does this kind of thing seem to happen so often with pro athletes?

Or does it happen every bit as often in the general population, and the athletes are just the ones we hear about?

Why does this kind of thing seem to happen so often with pro athletes?

Or does it happen every bit as often in the general population, and the athletes are just the ones we hear about?

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but both seem like logical positions. Pro athletes are testosterone-fueled man-children used to getting their way. It's easy to see how someone like that would be more prone to domestic abuse.

On the other hand, I tend to think that there are probably a lot of people like that throughout the general population and we just don't hear about them because they're not public figures.

I'm more curious about the question posed in #1 above. Why the heck was this only a 20-game suspension?

The video may not be as clear cut as the headline suggests. Ozuna’s hand was on her neck, but it’s difficult to tell whether he was choking her, or fending her off with a stiff arm, just from the brief video. To make a strong case, you need the wife’s testimony, and my guess is that neither Atlanta law enforcement nor MLB were able to get her cooperation. I’m agnostic on whether that’s because of how things actually went down or a desire to protect their income. The article makes no mention of any statement by her about her husband’s conduct, or evidence beyond the video, so my guess is that the relative leniency stems from her not supporting the choking allegation.

Things not to do when cops burst in

1. Choke wife

Or does it happen every bit as often in the general population, and the athletes are just the ones we hear about?

I feel like I’ve seen studies that say it’s actually less common among pro athletes but as you say, we don’t hear about it when Bob the Plumber beats the #### out of his wife.

I'm more curious about the question posed in #1 above. Why the heck was this only a 20-game suspension?

My guess is that this is effectively a plea bargain. Ozuna missed 114 games so it’s really down to how much money it costs him. They come to an agreement on the number and it gets put to bed which frankly benefits everyone (Ozuna for obvious reasons and MLB gets it over with).

The other thought I had is that they needed to wrap this up before the CBA expired. I don’t know how something like this works in this situation. MLB didn’t want to be in a position where they couldn’t punish him if ther are changes to the CBA or whatever.

As I said, those are just blind guesses for me.

#6: Also it provides some precedent for handling the Bauer case.

Things not to do when cops burst in

One of the rare instances when Option J is not a good idea.

Good thing baseball retroactively punished Ozuna. I'm sure he's learned his lesson.

The video may not be as clear cut as the headline suggests. Ozuna’s hand was on her neck, but it’s difficult to tell whether he was choking her, or fending her off with a stiff arm, just from the brief video. To make a strong case, you need the wife’s testimony, and my guess is that neither Atlanta law enforcement nor MLB were able to get her cooperation. I’m agnostic on whether that’s because of how things actually went down or a desire to protect their income. The article makes no mention of any statement by her about her husband’s conduct, or evidence beyond the video, so my guess is that the relative leniency stems from her not supporting the choking allegation.

Ya, I was expecting the video to be more cut and dried given the headline. Looked to me like they were pawing at each other and he just has a slightly longer reach. The cop immediately assumes he’s the aggressor and orders him to the ground, but 50-50 it was the other way around. She was apparently arrested at one point for domestic abuse against him, so it’s not out of the question that he isn’t the bad guy everybody thinks he is. At least this time.

What does it mean that this film has been around since May, and it is coming out now? It cannot be they didn't know it existed or they thought it was unimportant. I do not take any position that the firm is doctored or not valid; I just suspect the timing of this.

In this particular owner-players standoff, I'm on the players' side based on the issues I know of. However, once those are settled, I would love for the owners to say, "Oh, we have one more thing," which we can call the Ray Rice Rule - that any player who commits these heinous types of acts can have their contract terminated. I don't think it would be fair to give the owners that unilateral power. I'd say they'd have to present their case to an arbitrator.....let's say Gloria Allred.

Would love to see Tony Clark go into his usual buffoon mode and try to defend the union stance on this.

She was apparently arrested at one point for domestic abuse against him, so it’s not out of the question that he isn’t the bad guy everybody thinks he is. At least this time.

Notwithstanding my comment above, I don't disagree with this at all. I can't stand when people act as if the woman can not have done something to provoke an angry response. (Which I tend to doubt would ever be fairly exposed on the man's behalf.)

That said, there's a line you can't cross.

I feel like I’ve seen studies that say it’s actually less common among pro athletes but as you say, we don’t hear about it when Bob the Plumber beats the #### out of his wife.

This is my recollection as well. You hear about athletes because they are famous, or in the case of college sports, more salacious. But overall crime rates by athletes are lower than the general population.

This is my recollection as well. You hear about athletes because they are famous, or in the case of college sports, more salacious. But overall crime rates by athletes are lower than the general population.

I doubt that's true if you control for income.

This is my recollection as well. You hear about athletes because they are famous, or in the case of college sports, more salacious. But overall crime rates by athletes are lower than the general population.

I doubt that's true if you control for income.

Why would you control for income?

Why would you control for income?

Lots of crimes are motivated by economics. Rich men are unlikely to be burglars, robbers, car thieves, drug dealers, etc. Beyond the primary economic crime, being a criminal puts you in a situation where you commit other crimes to further your criminal enterprise (e.g. drug dealers shooting rivals) and also puts you in a milieu where violence is common and accepted behavior.

Rich neighborhoods are very safe because rich people don't commit much violent crime. Poor impulse control doesn't help one get rich.

16, I took a Criminology course way back when in Law School.

It's a completely different way of looking at the world, including things like what you wrote (some of the things I learned way back when in 1991 would probably be pilloried today, due to political correctness, but it is what it is).

It's a completely different way of looking at the world, including things like what you wrote (some of the things I learned way back when in 1991 would probably be pilloried today, due to political correctness, but it is what it is).

I'm sure. At the most basic level, the richer you are, the more you have to lose by committing a crime, and getting caught. Even if the rich and poor were identical in every other trait (spoiler: they're not) the risk reward trade-off of any criminal act is going to look far worse the more you have to lose.

I doubt that's true if you control for income.

Lots of crimes are motivated by economics. Rich men are unlikely to be burglars, robbers, car thieves, drug dealers, etc. Beyond the primary economic crime, being a criminal puts you in a situation where you commit other crimes to further your criminal enterprise (e.g. drug dealers shooting rivals) and also puts you in a milieu where violence is common and accepted behavior.

Rich neighborhoods are very safe because rich people don't commit much violent crime. Poor impulse control doesn't help one get rich.

Are you saying you think athletes commit more crimes than the general 'well endowed financially' population? And that's because they have poor impulse control? Or because they are suddenly wealthy prior criminals and now their crimes are more in the public eye?

Rich men are unlikely to be burglars, robbers, car thieves, drug dealers, etc.

On the other hand, rich men are far more likely to steal money from people via white-collar crime than poor people from poor neighborhoods are.

I'm sure. At the most basic level, the richer you are, the more you have to lose by committing a crime, and getting caught. Even if the rich and poor were identical in every other trait (spoiler: they're not) the risk reward trade-off of any criminal act is going to look far worse the more you have to lose.

This is complete bullshit. At the basic level getting put in jail for a crime doesn't impact the wealthy more than the poor just because the rich supposedly can't spend their money any more.

On the other hand, rich men are far more likely to steal money from people via white-collar crime than poor people from poor neighborhoods are.

Agree 100%, but that's not the kind of crime we're talking about here. Athletes have very little opportunity to embezzle.

Are you saying you think athletes commit more crimes than the general 'well endowed financially' population? And that's because they have poor impulse control? Or because they are suddenly wealthy prior criminals and now their crimes are more in the public eye?

I'm saying athletes are generally highly aggressive, physically aggressive, "alpha" males in a way doctors, executives and lawyers aren't. There job is often to impose their physical will on someone (especially in football, boxing, MMA, hockey etc.). You'd expect them to be more prone to violence than those who make their living with their minds, or their hands in non-aggressive ways.

This is complete bullshit. At the basic level getting put in jail for a crime doesn't impact the wealthy more than the poor just because the rich supposedly can't spend their money any more.

If your income is $500,000 p.a. you think robbing a bank for $10,000, or dealing drugs to make $2,000 a week, looks as attractive as it does to someone with an income of $0? That would be absurd.

Rich men are unlikely to be burglars, robbers, car thieves, drug dealers, etc.

Where do you think all that drug money goes?

Why does this kind of thing seem to happen so often with pro athletes?

Or does it happen every bit as often in the general population, and the athletes are just the ones we hear about?

This was the original question. And the answer is that it doesn't, and we just hear about them more.

This was the original question. And the answer is that it doesn't, and we just hear about them more.

That's an assertion without evidence. I'd love to see the actual statistics. You'll have to control for a lot of things that impact crime stats in order to get a reliable answer.

I'd be pretty confident, however, that football players, boxers, and MMA fighters are more violent than the general population. There willingness to compete in these endeavors shows a comfort level with violence that most of us don't have.

student-athletes-commit-rape-sexual-assaults-more-often-peers

Here's one study on college athletes.

She said that statistics on sensitive crimes are difficult to compile and rely on because of the low incidence of reporting. But, the findings that nearly one-third of sexual assaults on college campuses are perpetrated by athletes have been proven by respected researchers like Jeff Benedict and corroborated by others. That’s a rate almost six times higher than that of their peers, she said.

That's an assertion without evidence. I'd love to see the actual statistics. You'll have to control for a lot of things that impact crime stats in order to get a reliable answer.

I'd be pretty confident, however, that football players, boxers, and MMA fighters are more violent than the general population. There willingness to compete in these endeavors shows a comfort level with violence that most of us don't have.

Study by 538

Note this is for the NFL only, which has a higher crime rate than any other sport. Overall crime is lower in the NFL in every category. Yes, when you break out domestic violence of people with $$$ NFL players are more likely to be violent. My assertion stands.

Yes, when you break out domestic violence of people with $$$ NFL players are more likely to be violent. My assertion stands.

I doubt that's true if you control for income.

So, apparently does mine.

What does it mean that this film has been around since May, and it is coming out now? It cannot be they didn't know it existed or they thought it was unimportant. I do not take any position that the firm is doctored or not valid; I just suspect the timing of this.

That's not exactly true. When Ozuna was originally arrested, the bodycam footage was referenced in reporting, so it's not like its existence was being hidden. At some point recently, the charges were dropped in exchange for Ozuna entering a diversion program. So maybe the video was considered evidence up to that point.

12. This is equivalent to the old Chris Rock bit on OJ “ I understand “

Athletes (and rich and famous generally ) are targets for grifters and scammers. Both of the bauer cases have elements of extortion (I’m getting my claws into him ) and Puig alleged something similar. You can almost always tell by whether the case is prosecuted criminally or civilly. So even if the stats say athletes are more likely to do this, I’d say athletes are a target rich environment.

On the other hand, rich men are far more likely to steal money from people via white-collar crime than poor people from poor neighborhoods are.

That is what the popular culture would tell us, but I do not believe there is any basis for this assertion other than what we watch on Netflix. Small (and old example): at point there was a study done and 87% of murders shown on TV were done by business executives. However, at the time of the study, no c-suite person of a public company had ever been convicted of murder.

Murder isn’t a white collar crime. Even so, if we’re looking at conviction rates, those definitely drop as wealth of the accused goes up.

Murder isn’t a white collar crime.

Agreed, and my point on the murders shown on TV is that there is a severe, (ridiculous) distortion by the popular culture on who was committing murders in the USA (just look at Chicago and Baltimore on any given week-end, and you will find your answer).

That same desire to create a criminal class among business executives (white collar types) by the popular culture exists at lower level crimes, too.

I'd be pretty confident, however, that football players, boxers, and MMA fighters are more violent than the general population. There willingness to compete in these endeavors shows a comfort level with violence that most of us don't have.

So, apparently does mine.

And are you going to agree you were incorrect in #26?

And are you going to agree you were incorrect in #26?

No. I'm still confident that if you control for income, athletes are more violent than ordinary people. Especially athletes in violent sports. You have to read both paragraphs.

Your 538 link certainly points in that direction. Every pro athlete is earning $500K plus. You can't compare them to average guys in their 20s making next to nothing.

I wonder how they compare to other entertainers, or people who come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.

I’d also add that reported / prosecuted rates of crime don’t necessarily equal actual rates of crime. People who have a lot may have a lot to lose by committing crimes, but they also have a lot of resources to make problems go away. And their victims often have a lot to lose by coming forward.

...athletes are more violent than ordinary people. Especially athletes in violent sports.

you continue to argue this both ways. WHich is it? DO you assert athletes in general are more criminal, violent athletes? or violent crimes?

In post 14, you argue athletes in general and crime in general. In post 22 you've clearly moved the goal posts slightly although not in any specific. BY post 26 now you've confined it to violent crimes and violent sports

SO which is it?

If your income is $500,000 p.a. you think robbing a bank for $10,000, or dealing drugs to make $2,000 a week, looks as attractive as it does to someone with an income of $0? That would be absurd.

This is a totally absurd argument, obviously. Look at the crimes rich people are being accused of. Do you think Eliz Holmes or Denny McLain or Donald Trump or Lori Loughlin or John Gotti whomever are looking for low level stuff? Why they have no reason to.

You also seem to make dubious conclusion that fear of consequences is some sort of deterrent factor. For most of us, probably. For 80% of people, maybe possibly. But what fraction of people really commit crimes? Both white collar and violent. A small fraction of people are criminal. Do we actually know that fear of repercussions motivates them? do you have any actual references on this?

Again your arguments are incredibly clumsy. YOu try to use thinking applied to the population in general when we are talking about a specific class of people with specific personality traits and fairly small numbers. These over generalizations dont apply.

I'm saying athletes are generally highly aggressive, physically aggressive, "alpha" males in a way doctors, executives and lawyers aren't...You'd expect them to be more prone to violence than those who make their living with their minds, or their hands in non-aggressive ways.

This is another overgeneralized, stereotyped argument that contains a mish mash of ideas. Lets try to break it down.

You even highlighted the term "PHYSICALLY AGRESSIVE" to make your pt. but in fact you just show how weak your overall pt. is. You seem to think that by tarring agressive, alpha males (females too?) with the PHYSICALLY AGRESSIVE brush you have proved some sort of point without any references or statistics.

THere are plenty of aggressive, alpha people in all walks of life. You dont have to run a 4.4 40 or bench 300 lbs to be aggressive. Nor does one have to be an athlete to be: GREEDY, PSYCHOPATHIC, SELF CENTERED, and all the other personality defects that criminals seem to have.

In my careers so far Ive worked in: federal government, law and private business. Everyone of these professions is filled with greedy f'ckin a-holes. There's no doubt the legal profession is full of crooks. Also worked with auction houses. Lots of crooks there too. I dont know about doctors, hopefully not as many.

Have you ever dealt with real estate agents? Auto mechanics? law enforcement? you think successful people in those careers are somehow less crooked?

I would tend to agree that lots of athletes are PHYSICALLY agressive, but I dont at all see that having much to do with crime. There are AGRESSIVE ALPHA and GREEDY people in all professions. I would say that the people that rise to top of most professions are AGRESSIVE, and probably GREEDY and ALPHA and probably DETERMINED. Its not unreasonable to think that selecting a population having all those factors would make these people more likely to be criminals. I don't know but it wouldnt surprise me.

. Poor impulse control doesn't help one get rich.

Luis Sanchez and Mike Tyson say: BITE ME!

Do you think Andrew Cuomo has great impulse control? Harvey Weinstein?

you continue to argue this both ways. WHich is it? DO you assert athletes in general are more criminal, violent athletes? or violent crimes?

In post 14, you argue athletes in general and crime in general. In post 22 you've clearly moved the goal posts slightly although not in any specific. BY post 26 now you've confined it to violent crimes and violent sports

SO which is it?

It's multi-layered. I believe:

1) Athletes (and especially athletes in violent sports) are more aggressive than average, and therefore are more prone to violence.

2) For professional athletes, this propensity to violence is mitigated by them being rich. Looking at the study of college athletes I linked, they were in fact more violent, and are not rich.

3) To assess the relative violence of pro-athletes you need to control for income. If you do this, I believe you will find 23-35 y.o. male professional athletes commit more violent crime than 23-35 y.o. males making $400,000+ who are not athletes.

This is a totally absurd argument, obviously. Look at the crimes rich people are being accused of. Do you think Eliz Holmes or Denny McLain or Donald Trump or Lori Loughlin or John Gotti whomever are looking for low level stuff? Why they have no reason to.

The number of opportunities to steal $1M are incredibly infrequent relative to the opportunities to steal $10,000. Even if wealthy people all wanted to steal, most of them will never be presented with an opportunity that is worth their while.

Do you think Andrew Cuomo has great impulse control? Harvey Weinstein?

Yes. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and did it intentionally. They believe that because they were rich, powerful, and liberals, and supported all the right causes, they could get away with it forever. Until 5 years ago they were right.

I don't think for a second they thought their political stances would allow them to do whatever they wanted.

It's far more likely they didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Most people don't think they're evil and that what they are doing is evil.

See Jeff Garlin for the latest example of this.

They believe that because they were rich, powerful, and liberals, and supported all the right causes, they could get away with it forever.

Do you similarly believe that Donald Trump's liberalism allowed him to get away with violating women for so long? Or Roger Ailes' liberalism?

At the most basic level, the richer you are, the more you have to lose by committing a crime,

That's not exactly true. Even setting aside the obvious fact that the richer you are the easier time you have evading punishment in the first place, a rich person has more of a cushion. A rich person who goes to prison can come back to a home, a family, possessions. A poor person who goes to prison is likely to come back to nothing.

That's not exactly true. Even setting aside the obvious fact that the richer you are the easier time you have evading punishment in the first place, a rich person has more of a cushion. A rich person who goes to prison can come back to a home, a family, possessions. A poor person who goes to prison is likely to come back to nothing.

If you start with nothing, coming back to nothing isn't much of a downside.

Do you similarly believe that Donald Trump's liberalism allowed him to get away with violating women for so long? Or Roger Ailes' liberalism?

Strangely, no high profile feminists defended Trump or Ailes like they did Clinton.

They believe that because they were rich, powerful, and liberals

1) You have no idea what they believe.

2) Even if they do believe what you say they do, they (Weinstein, Cosby, the Cuomo's ETCETERA) have been proven wrong.

Strangely, no high profile feminists defended Trump or Ailes like they did Clinton.

Times change. Do you think Clinton wouldn't be part of the group parenthesized above, today?

If you start with nothing, coming back to nothing isn't much of a downside.

Even people with "nothing" have aspirations. Going to prison puts a crimp in those.

If you start with nothing, coming back to nothing isn't much of a downside.

Sure, if you were literally living on a sidewalk grate. But if you were merely poor — you had a crappy apartment and a crappy job and a crappy car — you're going to come back to not having an apartment or job or car, and no good way to replace them.

But if you were merely poor — you had a crappy apartment and a crappy job and a crappy car — you're going to come back to not having an apartment or job or car, and no good way to replace them.

This is why crime is a viable option for the desperately poor, and why white collar punishments should be far harsher than they are now. Poor people are generally motivated to do crime because they're hungry. White collar crimes are generally committed by people who aren't hungry or cold, but are stealing because they can, and because the penalties for white collar crime aren't deterrent enough.

Poor people are generally motivated to do crime because human beings are bad at probability, have poor impulse controls, cannot put long term effects into proper perspective and because human beings generally get away with a lot of petty law breaking (see bad at probability).

The vast majority of poor people that break the law don't do so because they think they have to to survive. They do it because they think they can get away with it or because they aren't thinking at all.

People on BBTF make stupid, bland generalities because they think they can get away with it or because they aren't thinking at all.

Indeed. I mean we're talking about a lot of people here so bland generalities is all one can really do. Anyone being more specific is just blowing smoke up your arse.

The number of opportunities to steal $1M are incredibly infrequent relative to the opportunities to steal $10,000. Even if wealthy people all wanted to steal, most of them will never be presented with an opportunity that is worth their while.

Not sure this holds.