Slur costs ump Opening Day assignment

Post by **Big-O Mark** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 10:59 am

Anti-Semitic slur costs ump Opening Day assignment

Friday, January 31

Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Longtime umpire Bruce Froemming has been suspended for 10 days and has lost his Opening Day assignment in Tokyo for using an anti-Semitic slur to describe a Major League Baseball administrator, sources said.

USA Today reported Friday that Froemming had been pulled from the Japan trip and was expected to be suspended for the slur in a conversation about umpiring administrator Cathy Davis.

The newspaper said Froemming called Davis a "stupid Jew bitch."

Two baseball management sources, speaking on the condition they not be identified, told The Associated Press late Thursday night that Froemming was suspended for 10 days without pay.

Three league officials independently told USA Today they had heard a recorded phone message in which Froemming used the anti-Semitic slur. According to the newspaper, Froemming was upset after being chided by baseball officials for booking his own transportation to Japan and not letting the major league office handle it as he was instructed to do.

"Bruce did not ask for union assistance regarding this matter," Larry Gibson, a lawyer for the World Umpires Association, said Thursday. "Therefore, we are not involved in it."

Baseball officials told USA Today they have a copy of the recorded phone message.

At 63, Froemming is baseball's most senior umpire. He was to start off his 33rd major league season by working the two-game, opening series between the Oakland Athletics and Seattle Mariners in Tokyo on March 25-26.

Davis also is a longtime baseball employee, having worked many years for the National League with umpires before taking over her present job.

In June 1996, NL president Len Coleman spoke to Froemming after the veteran crew chief went into the Los Angeles Dodgers' locker room before a game against the Mets in New York to get players' autographs. Froemming was reported to have gone into the trainer's room to seek Mike Piazza's signature.

At the time, Coleman said it was against league policy for umpires to seek autographs from players because it was a conflict of interest.

Baseball and its umpires have had a bumpy relationship for a few years.

During the 1999 season, 22 umpires lost their jobs after a mass resignation plan designed by former umpires' union head Richie Phillips failed. Twelve have since been reinstated, with the fate of the others still in federal court.

The WUA is meeting Feb. 22 and 23 in Florida, and umpires will then meet with baseball officials for three days before the start of exhibition games. The WUA and baseball have been fighting since last summer over management's use of a computerized system that rates their balls-and-strikes calls.

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:48 pm

I'm sorry but people are taking things too far. I don't get upset when people call me a "white devil" or slurs are directed toward me because of my religion.

If anything he should've been punished for calling her a b*tch. Throwing the word jew in front of it doesn't make it any worse or better in my mind. To me it would've been no different than if he had called her a "stupid blonde b*itch", or a "stupid white b*itch" or any other variation you can think of. Either way it didn't warrant a 10-day unpaid suspension and a loss of his starting game priviledges. A fine maybe, but not that.

Moon Child · Post by **Moon Child** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 12:59 pm

But, if they don't stop it when their officials do it, then what's to keep the players from doing it and not having any form of punishment?

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:10 pm

When I lived overseas (Singapore), I was subjected to severe forms of racial profiling and persecution because I was a WHITE AMERICAN. A lot of the Asian countries viewed the American youth (white or black) the same way the cops and other authorities view minorities here. When we walked into a store we were followed and often run off because we were assumed to always be up to no good. I put up with that for 5 years. I know it's not the same thing as growing up black, or a jew, or another oppressed culture, but I can sympathize a little bit.

Even through all that I am against legislating morality. To me when you start making it illegal to not be nice to someone, then I just feel things have gone too far. There will always be hate in this world. There will always be evil. You can have good without the bad. I just tend to try and ignore ignorant people. I have found punishment just gets those people being punished more riled up.

It's like the case of a guy who beats up a guy because he's a jerk and runs off at the mouth. Later it's found out he is gay. The guy goes to jail for gay bashing (this happened to a friend of mine in NC). Where does it stop. We, as people, are identified by our skin tone and our religions (especially if you are Jewish, Muslim, LDS, JW, or Scientologist). To me to say "jew b*itch) is only bad because he called her a b*itch. If he called her some other negative term for a jew (the Jewish equivalent to the N-Word) that would be a TOTALLY different story.

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:13 pm

Moon Child wrote:But, if they don't stop it when their officials do it, then what's to keep the players from doing it and not having any form of punishment?

Trust me.....they are never going to stop it until the Parents no longer teach it. The parents pass this kind of mentality onto their offspring.

Also, if the American public stopped holding up athletes like living gods, who would care what these over-paid children do.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:18 pm

I am actually split on this 50-50, but I start to lean towards the "punish him" side only because using any word in public (work place, or someone you don't know) that could be thought of negative should not go with out some action. If they yell at the person, or suspend the person as they did here that is to be decided as another subject.

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:22 pm

I'm not necessarily concerned with the fact that they punished him. I am concerned for the REASON they punished him. It wasn't for calling her a "b*itch". It was for using the word "jew" in front of it. I guarantee you if he'd left that word off, it would've been dismissed without much fanfare. Plus, the word wasn't used publically. It was in a phone message (to whom it wasn't identified).

Punish him for calling her a "b*itch". There are far too many women being intimidated through words or actions in the workplace and race and/or religion never enters into it.

Moon Child · Post by **Moon Child** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:26 pm

I'm looking at it from the view point that the way he did it was wrong. He probably wouldn't have had any suspension if he just used the word b*tch. Once he threw her religion into it, that was the reason.

I guess its just because of how I am careful what I say. My district manager at work is Jewish and noone makes comments about his religion when he is around unless he said something about it in a joke. Aparently, there was an employee (before I started working at the specific store) that made a comment about Jews and the DM went and got his check and told him to leave.

I guess we look on their religion a little differently because of the holocost.

Moon Child · Post by **Moon Child** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:28 pm

harra wrote:Punish him for calling her a "b*itch". There are far too many women being intimidated through words or actions in the workplace and race and/or religion never enters into it.

I don't think its wrong to call someone a b*tch. I call myself that very often and get told I act like one sometimes. It doesn't bother me. Its just the way it is viewed by people today. B*tch is becoming less and less of a word that one take offense to.

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:34 pm

This could spawn a debate of it's own that could easily become one of the largest threads on this board. I am stopping my input here.

I just think there is too much emphasis placed on sports in this country (as exemplified by the other thread about the athlete under investigation for receiving expensive gifts). If we didn't put these people on such a high pedestal, we wouldn't care much what kind of language was coming out of their mouths

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:36 pm

Moon Child wrote:
harra wrote:Punish him for calling her a "b*itch". There are far too many women being intimidated through words or actions in the workplace and race and/or religion never enters into it.
I don't think its wrong to call someone a b*tch. I call myself that very often and get told I act like one sometimes. It doesn't bother me. Its just the way it is viewed by people today. B*tch is becoming less and less of a word that one take offense to.

But when you use the word for intimidation factor. Which is what I thing is going on here. That is when it's bad. I agree. There is being a b*itch and then there is being called one because someone wants you to back down on some decision you made or because you are standing in their way of doing something they aren't supposed to. That was what I was talking about.

Moon Child · Post by **Moon Child** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:42 pm

When someone tries to use it as an intimidation factor towards me, I ignore it because it has become so common. I think it is wrong to use it in that sense, but alot of it depends on the person its aimed at. If the person has a strong enough backbone, then things like that won't bother them and they'll go on doing what they were doing. Sometimes I think that the old impression of females is just too strong still today. We aren't the weak, I'll do what you say if you get in my face type. Yes, there are a lot of females out there that act that way because its the easy way out, but you don't hear about the ones that stick up for what they think and feel. If you do hear about it, its usually in reference to being called a b*tch. Its more or less a double edged sword no matter how it is looked upon.

If this made sense...

harra · Post by **harra** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:49 pm

My wife works in the public education system in Texas. She works as an Athletic Trainer (sports medicine). Every day she has to work with men. She has a particularly hard time with the football coaches (specifically the head coach). They use all kinds of language with her when she steps in and tells them that their training exercises are placing the athletes in danger (one such exercise was having them put on boxing gloves and hit each other until one gives up or passes out....no headgear, no mouthguard). Every time she has stood up to them she has been written up. The other women who work in her district have the same problem. Their solution is that they don't stand up and just do whatever they are asked, regardless of the ethical or moral implications of what they are being asked to do. I have a problem with that. I know women are tough. My wife can kick my butt with one arm and leg tied behind their back. But I don't know very many people can take 15 hour days, 6 days a week of constant intimidation, nasty looks, false truths being told about you, etc. Eventually it becomes too much. Then when you quit, they won and got their way.

Moon Child · Post by **Moon Child** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:54 pm

I guess I haven't really had to deal with that as much since I'm the one that would be giving out the punishments, but you are right. Things like that cause issues that get way out of hand and create moral issues on top of it.

Big-O Software

Slur costs ump Opening Day assignment

Slur costs ump Opening Day assignment

Who is online