Stupid Outrage Over Athlete Behavior

I know I've written about this recently (here) but I'm tired of the way that society reacts towards opinions. Since when did every act have to be met with indignation and outrage?

The latest example of this has to do with Frank DeFord's comments about Ben Rothlisberger's latest indiscretions. In case you are not aware of this knucklehead, he is the franchise quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers. He has had a couple of brush-ups with the law in the last year and he also risked ruining his career by summersaulting over the handlebars of his motorcycle a couple of years ago.

So what did DeFord say?

"Why can't we just let the thugs play?"

Was your first reaction to this some kind of consternation? Probably. It is a rather harsh statement. If you go take a look at this article you will see how people reacted to this statement. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I am really really bothered by this on several levels.

1) Forget about the topic for a second. Since when can't we just have a conversation about something? It wasn't like DeFord said that "maybe Hitler wasn't such a bad guy". Notice how the author of this article took the most potentially inflammatory sentences out of the original interview (see it here). DeFord did not in ANY way pretend to defend Rothlisberger. That was not the point of his commentary. He went out of his way to say that 'ol Ben was a scourge.

So what did people do? Rather than having an intelligent debate about something they immediately hit the "outrage" button. You can completely disagree with DeFord's statement. Maybe you think that we should care about how athletes behave. That is perfectly ok. But outrage and the mere suggestion? That is ridiculous.

2) Ok, back to the topic it hand. Is it really that ridiculous to suggest that maybe we stick to the reasons why we liked these people in the first place? As DeFord says, if he is guilty then he deserves everything penalty that the law says he should get. But then what? Should he not ever be allowed to work anywhere ever again? Why is an athlete different than anyone else in this matter?

And please do not get me wrong here. I am not saying that I want an ex-con on my team. There is a HUGE difference between not wanting someone on your team and not allowing him the right to sign with some other team. It isn't like we're talking about a doctor that is guilty of malpractice.

3) Think about the hypocrisy here. If you like sports you are already rooting for several ex-cons. If you like football, there are hundreds of ex-cons in the league. How many of you do not watch Mel Gibson movies because of his anti-semetic statements? That would be just about none of you. We love to toss this stuff around and we're happy to toss aside a fringe player or artist. But if it is someone that we really enjoy... well, we'll make an exception.

4) I can't stress this enough - he wasn't even charged, let alone convicted. People are extremely upset because the alleged crime is against a woman, and on some levels I get that. But still, it is an alleged crime. What kind of society would we be if you were automatically more guilty because of the charge? That is why we have the rule of law.

Besides, didn't we go through this a few years ago with Kobe Bryant? The same people were outraged that he was allowed to play. And you know what? He didn't do it. Of course, you won't hear the same outrage at the woman that falsely accused him. To many she was still a victim and that is disgusting.

5) Once and for all, can we get over the idea that there are role models in this world? If your kid grows up and is a productive member of society, are you going to give an athlete the credit? Of course not. Yet when one of these clowns messes up you will invariably hear someone ask "but what about the kids?". As Carlin said, if your best argument is "but what about the kids", you do not have an argument.

6) I can (and will) make an argument that the Jezebel article is acutally far worse than DeFord's comments. At several points the author presumes guilt and to me that is downright irresponsible. You have to be able to step back from the situation and ignore the facts of the case. The person in question isn't the most likeable guy and the crime, if true, is heinous and worthy of serious punishment. But we have no idea if it is true or not. As Deford and Jason Whitlock point out, at the very least he is guilty of being an idiot. But it might not be more than that. If they have it wrong then they have wronged an innocent man.


So what are my thoughts on the actual question at hand? I completely agree with everything DeFord said. I like these people because of what they do on an athletic field and I'd probably hate most of them if I met them off of the field. Would I root for a convicted rapist? Not a chance. I wouldn't want him anywhere near my team. But who am I to have some kind of indignation about his right to make a living? I'm tired of the way that society digs into the personal lives of celebrities. What Tiger Woods did off of the course is between him and his wife.

You may or may not agree with DeFord's opinion and that is fine. But that doesn't mean that we should be outraged at the thought of having the conversation. I think this whole topic is an example of how conditioned we have become to reacting the way that the rest of society reacts when presented with a given scenario. It is sad that people can't take a step back and think about what is actually being said.