Oops Chris

[sherb]

I'm not arguing that looks don't come in to it. I would say that they do in many, many circumstances, for both sexes. Outside of media as well.

Generally, people who are regarded as more attractive do receive benefits and special treatment. That's a completely different issue though and I agree it's not right. What does that have to do with the particular incident though?

Cricketer full of his own self-importance constantly gets good looking chicks thrown in his face for interviews. Nothing could go wrong there.

On top of that, the media (whether they like it or not) is sending out the message that these women are only hired for their looks. So some sportsmen may not rate these women on their ability as journalists as a result.

 

[kozi]

If he is a professional sportsman no it doesn't. He plays cricket but that's not all he gets paid for. You are basically saying anyone who gets paid for doing a job only has one task, if they are asked to do anything else they dont have to, not sure if you have ever been employed but it doesnt work that way for sportspeople or anyone else.

Actually, it obliterates your point. You said doing interviews is not his job. It definitely is part of his job. Even if it comes secondary to cricket, most people's jobs are multi-faceted and aren't limited to just one thing.

Doing interviews is a small part of his job. As I said, it comes secondary to his actual job, which is being a professional cricket player.

Just like paying taxes isn't your job, it's a secondary part of it.

 

[phantom13]

So the defences of his behaviour essentially amount to

- It was a bit of harmless fun
- She is hot and works in the media so she has to cop this
- He is a cricketer and can do what he wants in interviews
- Everyone is racist
- Not harassment cause its not a workplace

Have i missed any here?

 

[phantom13]

Doing interviews is a small part of his job. As I said, it comes secondary to his actual job, which is being a professional cricket player.

Yeh... Nah... We can probably leave this here i think.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Doing interviews is a small part of his job. As I said, it comes secondary to his actual job, which is being a professional cricket player.

But it is part of his job. Glad we agree.

 

[kozi]

Yeh... Nah... We can probably leave this here i think.

If you think that talking to the media is an equal or greater part of a professional sportsman's job than actually competing in that chosen sport, then yes we can leave is here as you have no clue.

 

[STFU Donnie]

But it's 27 pages

On paper, it didn't sound too bad, but on seeing it, totally awkward and a bit creepy. Mel had a right to be pissed and Gayle should offer a proper apology, not the faux one.

I think the Renegades response was ridiculous on two fronts. I definitely think Gayle was in the wrong but the $10,000 fine is completely unnecessary. More so when they then try to dismiss it as 'cultural differences', which is such an absurd response.

Not all of the pages! Generally, all of the really important points will get made in the first 5 or so pages. Then it becomes rehash city.

 

[Chief]

Doing interviews is a small part of his job. As I said, it comes secondary to his actual job, which is being a professional cricket player.

Just like paying taxes isn't your job, it's a secondary part of it.

Come on. Nowhere in your job description is "pay your taxes". It isn't an applicable analog.

 

[Juddy88]

Just like paying taxes isn't your job, it's a secondary part of it.

The analogy here is pretty far off.

Media responsibilities are include in the job title/description, they are a part of why they earn the money they do.

Taxes are a result of earning money in any field. They have nothing to do with your role, and is not even close to being a part of your job description.

You couldn't pick a worse analogy if you tried.

 

[JackOutback]

Not all of the pages! Generally, all of the really important points will get made in the first 5 or so pages. Then it becomes rehash city.

Good point. I read the first two, reckon that covered most of the 'defences' anyway.

 

[Nikita Blue]

So the defences of his behaviour essentially amount to

- It was a bit of harmless fun
- She is hot and works in the media so she has to cop this
- He is a cricketer and can do what he wants in interviews
- Everyone is racist
- Not harassment cause its not a workplace

Have i missed any here?

And if you have a problem with his behavior then you are just a politically correct SJW feminazi etc

 

[phantom13]

If you think that talking to the media is an equal or greater part of a professional sportsman's job than actually competing in that chosen sport, then yes we can leave is here as you have no clue.

I didn't say that, im not going to do the contract explanation again but f**king up any part of your job is still your job. Also i suppose you would support him suing the Renegades as his employer for the fine as unlawful cause this isn't part of his job? You should hit him up and pass that nugget of wisdom on.

 

[phantom13]

And if you have a problem with his behavior then you are just a politically correct SJW feminazi etc

Correct, good call. Ill add it to the list as a cliffnote

 

[kozi]

Come on. Nowhere in your job description is "pay your taxes". It isn't an applicable analog.

You have to do it, even though nobody wants to. Just like professional athletes have to give interviews, even though most don't want to.

Whilst paying taxes isn't part of your job description, both have repercussions if not met, so it can be used as an analogy here.

 

[ManWithNoName]

You have to do it, even though nobody wants to. Just like professional athletes have to give interviews, even though most don't want to.

Whilst paying taxes isn't part of your job description, both have repercussions if not met, so it can be used as an analogy here.

Media commitments will be part of his contract though.

 

[phantom13]

You have to do it, even though nobody wants to. Just like professional athletes have to give interviews, even though most don't want to.

Whilst paying taxes isn't part of your job description, both have repercussions if not met, so it can be used as an analogy here.

Youre right, just like if they dont want to train they dont have to. If they dont want to wear sponsors gear during the game they dont have to. I'll bet if they dont want to play they probably dont have to either do they. In fact i'm sure that they dont have to do anything in their contract if they dont want, probably results in some sort of fine or termination of their contract though doesn't it.

 

[Juddy88]

it can be used as an analogy here.

No, it really can't.

Taxes are a compulsory contribution to state revenue enforced on anyone who earns an income. It's not part of the job requirements or description, it's a law.

Media responsibilities are incorporated in to a sportsman's contract; it effects their earnings and they are required to partake in training for it.

It's really not hard to understand. This is possibly one of the worse analogys I've ever heard.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I definitely think Gayle was in the wrong but the $10,000 fine is completely unnecessary.

It sounds a lot for something best described as "mischievous", but $10K to Gayle is a drop in the bucket. I'd like to know what they would've fined (or done to) a battling state cricketer.

No suspension = symbolic gesture.

 

[phantom13]

Decent chance if he had of taken out his iPod when he apologised they might have gone "that's probably enough, no fine". Also im not so sure it was best described at "mischevious"... baby.

 

[Chief]

You have to do it, even though nobody wants to. Just like professional athletes have to give interviews, even though most don't want to.

Whilst paying taxes isn't part of your job description, both have repercussions if not met, so it can be used as an analogy here.

No - you won't get sacked if you don't pay your taxes. Two different masters.

 

[kozi]

No, it really can't.

Taxes are a compulsory contribution to state revenue enforced on anyone who earns an income. It's not part of the job requirements or description, it's a law.

Media responsibilities are incorporated in to a sportsman's contract; it effects their earnings and they are required to partake in training for it.

It's really not hard to understand. This is possibly one of the worse analogys I've ever heard.

Both have repercussions if not met.

Both are a secondary responsibility to a person's paid employment.

Both are things for the most part that people don't want to do.

If this is the worst analogy you've ever heard then you need to get out more. But that's already been established.

 

[kozi]

Media commitments will be part of his contract though.

Nobody has denied that to my knowledge.

Whilst being a part of a player's contract and being an obligation for them, it isn't their main obligation, or an equal part to actually competing in their chosen sport that the contract relates to. That's the simple point in all of this.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Nobody has denied that to my knowledge.

Whilst being a part of a player's contract and being an obligation for them, it isn't their main obligation, or an equal part to actually competing in their chosen sport that the contract relates to. That's the simple point in all of this.

But what does that have to do with the discussion of Gayle's comments though?

 

[JackOutback]

It sounds a lot for something best described as "mischievous", but $10K to Gayle is a drop in the bucket. I'd like to know what they would've fined (or done to) a battling state cricketer.

No suspension = symbolic gesture.

I agree it's not much to him, but really, no fine and a genuine slap down of his behaviour would have been better than a fine and then defence because of 'cultural differences'.

 

[phantom13]

Nobody has denied that to my knowledge.

Whilst being a part of a player's contract and being an obligation for them, it isn't their main obligation, or an equal part to actually competing in their chosen sport that the contract relates to. That's the simple point in all of this.

You did, you clearly realised you were wrong and weve forgiven that but you know keep picking the eyes out of this dead horse.