Conference hbahba::cam_sports

Top 3, in no particular order:

	Ed O'Bannon - led UCLA to a return to colege hoops titledom
	Gary Barnett - coached Northwestern to Rose Bowl
	Dom Capers - coached expansion to Painters to at least 6 wins

TTom

	1)  Jessica Long - for making the NH all-state 
		Field Hockey team

	2)  Mario Lemieux - for having the courage to battle
		back from Hodgkins Disease, and the radiation
		treatments that go with it, to threaten Wayne
		Gretsky's single season scoring record

	3)  Cal Ripkin - for obvious reasons, and being one
		class guy about the whole thing




	billl

    
    
       1 Cal Ripken
       2 Don Mattingly
       3 Mike Tyson

>       1 Cal Ripken
>       2 Don Mattingly
>       3 Mike Tyson

	Chap, I'd call #1 a no brainer, #2 fan bias, but
	I can't quite figure out what to call #3.



	billl

    
    
    	Cal Ripken
    	Greg Maddux
    	Ben Crenshaw

    
    
    
    		Cigar
    
    		Johnson of 200-400 World Championship fam
    
    		Marcus Camby ok  make that Tom Glavine

    Cal Ripken
    Randy Johnson
    Hakeem
    

Karen Derry
Tom Brydie
George Maiewski

OJ
Mark Furman
Don Fehr

    
    Cal
    
    Hakeem
    
    Elle Mcpherson

I agree with Billl on two out of three.  In alphabetical order:

Mario Lemieux
Cal Ripken
Monica Seles

and I agree exactly with Joe's list for NotY.

Steve

    1) Hakeem Olajuwon
    2) Cal Ripken
    3) Pete Sampras
    
    NAZZ

    Sampras is a good pick, I forgot him and his Davis Cup heroics cemented
    it.
    
    I am serious about Cigar - that is one unholy beast; perhaps next year
    if he continues his mastery.  Secretariat won it in '73 in a choice I
    agree with.

Karen, you get me the hockey scores quicker than CNN International.
That's pretty impressive.  Besides, as many great laughs as there
have been in this conference, none was bigger than your one-line,
deadpan response to a particularly dodgy analogy--can't remember
what or by whom, but I'll bet you know what I mean.

I actually don't think much of these popularity contests, but I've
been planning to vote for you ever since.

Which reminds me:  I'm going to be out of here through the entire
holiday season.  If the contest doesn't get announced before then,
would someone please cast my vote?

Steve

    
    Well to no one's surprise I'm sure, Ripken won the SI Sportsman of the
    Year award........
    
    mike
    

    Who???
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Is he that baseball player that broke a record this year or something?
    
    
    CHARLEY$sorryforbeingignorant.

>    Is he that baseball player that broke a record this year or something?
>    
>    
>    CHARLEY$sorryforbeingignorant.

Yup, he broke the record for consecutive games played, which was 2,130.  At
162 games a year, that means 13+ years without missing a game.  *Amazing* in
general, and especially for the position he plays...

    >    1 Cal Ripken
    >    2 Don Mattingly
    >    3 Mike Tyson
    
    >    Chap I'd call # 1 a no brainer, #2 fan bias, but
    >    I can't quite figure out what to call #3.
    
         How about a convicted rapist!

    If you are going to go by the verdict then OJ is an innocent man.
    
    How does a repeat offender at a university continue to matriculate and
    play football after breaking and entering and committing assault and
    battery on a woman and her male roomate and Tyson get three years for
    consensual sex with a woman who has a past record of hollering rape
    for money after the fact.
    
    I'm sick of the Tyson bashing.

    1/ Prince Naseem
    
    2/ Bernard Gallagher
    
    3/ Frank Bruno
    

    .22
    
    Replace 3/ with Mike Atherton and I'll go along with you.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    1 Nigel Benn
    2 Naseem Hamed 
    3 Teddy Sheringham
    
    Dave...
     

    Groaner is it too complex?  If you are going to hold the "verdict" over
    Tyson's head (and you really should "clue" yourself in to the reality
    of the "trial" and the individuals involved on the prosecution side as
    well as the obvious acquaintence of all us with King and Tyson) then
    why do you not respect the verdict on OJ.

    If he can't be found "innocent" then how can he be found guilty?  Both
    are not measurable terms.  The NOT GUILTY and GUILTY verdicts are
    measurable.  Many GUILTY verdicts have been found to be wrong and vv.
    
    Where's George when we really need him?
    
    And btw - OJ probably did it, only God knows what Tyson actually did;
    everyone knows what Phillips did.   My point was to contrast the first
    and third to the second, the only one receiving a harsh punishment.

  >  Do you understand the legal system.  In a trial a person can be found
  >  GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.  A person can not be found INNOCENT!

Groaner, he doesn't have to be found innocent, because in our legal system, 
someone is innocent until proved guilty.

>    Where's George when we really need him?
 
Don't know - I don't believe we've ever encountered that situation... :-)

You guys ought to watch that special on ABC tonight on lawyers....  


But this isn't the legal system note....  OJ's old new.  New news is whether or
not Wayne Newton will be charged with a crime for trying to cover TLC's
"Creep" 


'Saw

    >innocent in our legal system,
                     ^^^^^
    
    You mean in the court of public opinion.  Or a panel of
    interested,objective,informed people.  
    
    OJ has postponed this.
    Dershiwitz (sic) has presented along with other a pretty good case of
    Tyson's actual innocence at least in relation to the charge and
    penalty.

>New news is whether or
>not Wayne Newton will be charged with a crime for trying to cover TLC's
>"Creep" 

You can't legislate bad taste.  If you could, Wayne Newton would be staring
at the chair...

>
>You can't legislate bad taste.  If you could, Wayne Newton would be staring
>at the chair...
>

Amen!

    on OJ.. Innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
    
    On Tyson (Dont beleive TYSON Raped anyone) on another note I do
    beleive William Kennedy Smith raped someone....
    
    Tyson/OJ - This is a good example that OJ did not get off JUST becuase
    		he had money... Im sure Tyson was and is worth more then OJ
    
    							MaB

>   On Tyson (Dont beleive TYSON Raped anyone) on another note I do
>   beleive William Kennedy Smith raped someone....

	Is this based on some premise that the down trodden never
	do anything wrong and the rich are always guilty?

	Or did you maybe see the "smokin' gun"?


	billl

RE       <<< Note 255.28 by AKOCOA::BREEN "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" >>>

>    
>    Where's George when we really need him?

  On vacation the last 2 weeks.

>    If he can't be found "innocent" then how can he be found guilty?  Both
>    are not measurable terms.  The NOT GUILTY and GUILTY verdicts are
>    measurable.  Many GUILTY verdicts have been found to be wrong and vv.

  Under our system of common law a defendant is "entitled to the presumption
of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law". This means that at
any time a defendant is:

  - Treated as if he is innocent if he has not been convicted
  - Treated as if he is guilty if he is convicted.

  The system is not based on actually knowing if someone is innocent or guilty
since there are times when no one can ever know that for sure. As history
shows, they make mistakes all the time. The system is based on "treating"
people as if they are innocent or guilty based on whether or not they have been
found guilty in court. The standard for finding someone guilty is reasonable
doubt. 
    
  Cal for sportsman of the year, maybe the last decade or so as well. What
an accomplishment.

  George

    I can't understand why you people are arguing over something that is
    clearly a simple matter of deduction:
    
             1)  In our legal system, a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN
                 (key word) GUILTY.
    
             2)  O. J. was found NOT GUILTY (key words).
    
             3)  Since O.J. was not PROVEN (key word) GUILTY, so according
                 to our legal system he is INNOCENT (see #1).
    
                                                            D.J.

  No, the problem with your proof is in your original premise. A person is not
"INNOCENT until PROVEN (key word) GUILTY." I've heard that misquote many times
in the popular press but I've never seen it written into any law nor have I
seen it in the majority opinion of any case from the Supreme Court. 

  However cases interpreting the concept of "due process" under the 5th and
14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the right to trial guaranteed
under the 6th amendment have spoken of the right of a defendant to "The
presumption of innocence [by the government] until convicted in a court of
law". 

  That means that O.J. is entitled to be treated by the government as if he is
innocent. It does not mean that in fact he is innocent. 

  George 

>  That means that O.J. is entitled to be treated by the government as if he is
>innocent. It does not mean that in fact he is innocent. 
    
    If the government is treating him "as if he is innocent", shouldn't we
    be doing the same?  I understand your point about the phrase "innocent
    until proven guilty", not being written in any law, and your right.  It
    must have been all that grade school propaganda that I was remembering.
    I was never very good at law.
    
                                                                 D.J.
    

RE                    <<< Note 255.42 by FABSIX::D_HORTERT >>>

>    If the government is treating him "as if he is innocent", shouldn't we
>    be doing the same?  

  Well yes, in that if you see him on the street you can't gun him down or
kidnap him and lock him in your cellar. But you couldn't do those things even
if he was considered guilty.

  The State has the responsibility to apprehend criminals and criminal courts
handle actions between the State and an individual. The constitutional right to
a fair trial and the presumption of innocence which follows from that are meant
to be restrictions on the government's ability to intervene in the rights of
individuals, not individuals rights to interfere with each other.

  Civil courts are where individuals resolve differences between themselves.
Again the burden of proof is on the plaintiff but that burden is not as strict.

>                    -< Why is law nothing but "grey area"? >-

  Because it attempts to govern the behavior of individuals and institutions
and their relationship to their government and to each other which is at best
about as clear as a bank of fog. 

  George

                    <<< Note 255.42 by FABSIX::D_HORTERT >>>
                    -< Why is law nothing but "grey area"? >-

  >I was never very good at law.
   
   You and Marcia Clark...

   daryll

  Marcia Clark is as good a prosecutor as you'll ever see.

  Like anyone else, she can't beat an all-star team that has the jury in
their pocket. Clark winning that case would have been like a good NBA
team with a lid over their basket trying to beat the Dream Team while they
were shooting at an extra large rim.

  George

    She could have prevented Darden from having OJ try on the gloves.
    She could have checked the background of Furman better. She may be good
    but if she's as good as it gets then we're in a heap of trouble.

>  Marcia Clark is as good a prosecutor as you'll ever see.

The Seventh Seal has been opened...

Marcia Clark and the rest of the prosecutors blew it, pure and simple.
She was not alone in stinking up the place but she certainly was a
principle stinker.

As for OJ, he being a public figger, we can pretty much say whatever we
wanna about him. Since we have no authority to declare him either
innocent or guilty, we aren't bound by procedures, limits and other
rules.

And of course, the one making OJ look the most guilty is OJ hisself.

TTom

Any truth to the rumor that the Telecommunications Bill has a 
clause in it banning OF from appearing on more than 3 talk shows 
in a week? :-)

daryll

OJ maybe?

Well this telecomm bill is about a day old and already there's a bunch of
people in the courts.

The 2 main issues seem to be the vagueness of the indecency clause and
whether or not you can talk about certain currently legal things like
abortion, especially as it pertains to the Web.

I guees Big Brother will be reading SPROTS, too.

TTom

    
    	Another reason why OJ wasn't convicted, is he used his right to
    a speedy trial under California law. Marcia Clark would have had six
    more months minimum to prepare the case and do more background checks.
    The defense presented there case after Clark, so the defense had extra
    time to interview people and plan a strategy.
    	Speaking of Clark, here and Darden built up 9 months worth of
    comp time. They don't have to go back to work until this June. I
    know that Darden said he was leaving. It gives Clark plenty of time
    to write her book.
    
    Ron

  I know Groner, you can sent him email every 5 minutes saying he is not a
real U.S.C fan but he's just jumping on their bandwagon.

  :*)}
  George

That's the way to dish it out.  Clever, to the point, above the belt.

Steve

It's a fine line.

Personally I think it's kind of funny.  What does OJ most want in life?
To be loved.  To be a loved celebrity.  

Whether he's guilty or not, people have seen his feet of clay, and I don't
think that many are buying his assertion that the bruises came from her picking
her facial blemishes and his assertion that he's not a wife beater.

Guilty or innocent, he's a wife beater, and not many folks are going to love
him for that.


That's just the way I see it.


(Actually, I think Mike Leary put a hex on him for the O'Donnell comments)


'Saw

  Maybe this belongs in the O.J. note.

  That is unless someone's pushing O.J. for Sportsman of the Year.

  :*O}
  George

I admit to an idle curiosity about how many copies this video will sell.

For some reason, I think of it in the same category as Showgirls.  This
film was killed by the critics and bombed in the theaters, but I hear
from LA that it's doing land office business in rentals.

What was it H. L. Mencken said?

Steve

>What was it H. L. Mencken said?

Or was it P.T. Barnum?

Actually, in terms of volume of news and stories, OJ prolly could be the
sprots story of the lasted couple of years.

As for Showgirls, I'll wait until it makes in on Cinemax. Put this one in
the might_watch_but_won't_buy category.

TTom

Showgirls was on the TV in the EM lounge last week.

I must admit that the pool scene was quite breathtaking.

The rest of what I saw was pretty lame.

TTom, I assume you're referring to "There's one born every minute."  I was
thinking of "No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of
the American people," and I'm near dead sure that's from H. L. Mencken.

As for Showgirls, I think it's a disgrace that Paul Verhoeven is making
movies in America.  The guy started out here as a maker of cheap slasher/
porn flicks and somehow got a reputation as an artist, no doubt in France.
Then he got lucky with Basic Instinct, one of the worst plotted thrillers
I can remember, because of the same attributes that are driving Showgirls
rentals.  If I'm going to buy porn, I'm going to buy honestly labelled
porn, and not porn masquerading as art.

Actually, I don't have to buy it.  There's hours of it every week on
German TV.

Steve