Perhaps it was the "4:20" mile!:p

And some people develope these long narrow shaped heads, similar in shape and size to Neanderthrals and as innovative and flexible as granite. Unable to ever comprehend and accept and admit, that someone who looks different then them, may just be better and smarter.

And then to think that these people have sex also. How degrading to mankind can you get?

It is our business who sleeps with whom if it affects or gives the appearance of affecting the performance (including independence).

(okay -- not necessarily "our" business, but, in this instance, MiLB's business).

It doesn't give the appearance of anything if it isn't brought up, and it wouldn't be brought up if our society had its priorities in order and had a more realistic interpretation of true freedom and a contemporary outlook on human sexuality. It's only anyone's business if it comes out and there's a conflict. And if no one knows, there's no conflict. And no one should know, or even ask.

Also--and I know that this is bad news for some of the obsessed--sex is not immoral. Sex is a necessary joy, not an evil. In fact, anything that anyone does with another consenting partner or partners is not immoral. Nor is it anyone's concern but theirs. It's 2009. Things change. It's easier for the morally concerned or obsessed to ignore something that's supposed to be private than it is to draw it out. So why don't they just ignore it, rather than draw it out?

"Free country" means freedom for all, not merely those who claim moral superiority. That includes freedom to have any kind of sex one consents to having with anyone who consents to having it with them. It does not afford any faction the right to impose their religious dogma on all of us. Acting on interpretations of religious dogma is a choice that certain people make. Ignoring it, or filtering out the madness is the choice some other people make. When the dogmatic impose that religious dogma on all of us, well, then we go backward as a society, like we have.

We're laughingstocks all around the modern world. Cases like Clinton's, Letterman's and even Mark Sanford's make us look like fools when it causes a national uproar.

All that considered, because we are so backward and immature about sex as a society, things like this indiscreet umpire pose conflicts. If sex weren't misperceived as being a bigger deal than it is, maybe it could pass. But until that point where we grow up and act real about human sexuality, judges having sex with prosecutors, or some such thing, cannot be allowed to go on.

So this one woman professional umpire should not be having sex with players, and should go down for doing so. (Pardon the pun.)

Is it a conflict if a professional umpire goes out to the bars and celebrates a win with the players?

If that's a conflict, how is it not a conflict if the professional umpire does the same thing in bed? Don't ask, don't tell does not remove the conflict.

What makes this a big deal, as already pointed out is immaturity, jealousy, as well as ones need to excel at all costs. Umpiring is a cut-throat occupation. At all levels, there are those that have to degrade, belittle and ridicule another umpire to feel better and spread false hoods or accusations, all in an attempt to "move up", at any cost or expense. No doubt something we all have done one time or another to some degree. I've worked with one umpire that I know of on this forum, I would go to war with him anytime, hopefully he feels the same. I try not to make "those" statements, as I also have some glass in my house. I will never make an accusation on hear say or innuendo. Especially if I have never worked with that individual. Nor should you. Ria's goal was to become the first woman in MLB, do you really believe she would jeapordize that, knowing she is/was under the microscope at all times. Maybe the next time a single fellow umpire goes out and gets laid, you should also report him to your assigner, church and the moral police.

Hehehehe
 

Report me for last night!

Why, did you have sex with yourself again?:)

Well ... Sleeping with the girl at the hotel front desk is a conflict of interest, sleeping with the promo girl is a conflict, sleeping with the GM's wife or daughter is a conflict, but those things happen and you don't hear about em, so they are a CoI to you are they?

Just saying, only a CoI if it affects an umpire's work, and most that I know only want one thing, to get **** right.

No actually its a spectacle and probably quite uncomfortable. Could you imagine people trying to sign in while your having sex.

DING DING, "Oh bellboy, can you make sure this bag gets safely to my room"

It is a CoI if it is reasonable to predict that it will affect the umpire's work. A close personal relationship with a person over whom you are expected to carry out unbiased authority is always a CoI, whether in umpiring, the military, business, or government. Conflict of Interest does not require actual bias for it to be present. All it requires is that the person who is supposed to be unbiased has a conflict presented by his two interests (friendship v umpiring, for example).

I'm only speaking in the abstract here, not in the specific wrt the female umpire. She may very well have been submarined by false accusations, I don't know. But the CoI by an umpire having an intimate relationship with a player has nothing to do with whether the intimate relationship is immoral, or even whether it is known. It it exists, it is a CoI.

Yes.

It does to a partial extent. The rest is up to the particular umpire to perform on the field in a way that rises above the possible conflict.

It's the same as any kind of cheating: If it's not disclosed, it isn't happening.

And again, if our attitudes about sex were not so backward, there would be fewer conflicts.

Bob, it's time to close the thread. Tyler doesn't want to play nice in the sandbox with the rest of us.

1) You should know by now that I'll delete the posts as soon as I see them (that is, the next time that I log on). Your responses just make it worse.

2) Didn't you recently chastise someone for "playing moderator?" (those are my words)

1) I'm not letting his crude insults slide. I don't want to allow his comments to stand uncontested or unrebuked waiting for the moderator to come to my rescue. I can handle it. Anyway, I was just making a joke in response to Tim's post, and the "poster" in question was acting EXACTLY as I described him.

2) No, I chastised someone for taking it upon themselves to monitor the thoughts of one of the posters. I actually came to the defense of someone who was being called out for having an opinion. This was very different.