Posted on 11/27/2006 1:56:07 PM PST by RedCell
ESPN broadcaster Michael Irvin apologized on Monday for comments last week which said that Dallas Cowboys' quarterback Tony Romo's athletic ability must be the result of an African-American heritage.
"I do want to apologize for those comments," Irvin said on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio. It was on the Patrick show last week that Irvin made the comments on Romo's athleticism.
"They were inappropriate and insensitive. My whole thing, what I always try to do, is give people a first-hand knowledge of what it's like in the locker room and how we as players joke around with one another.
"This is how I joke around with Romo when we're playing basketball … certainly, there's a difference from me the player and me the broadcaster. We may joke around like that in the locker room, and I'm trying to bring them in the locker room.
"I certainly have to know where to draw the line and certainly I needed to draw the line last week and I did not, so I apologize for that."
Irvin told Patrick he was joking. He said the same thing in an interview with USA Today.
"I was joking, as you could tell, saying it then," Irvin said. "I've read it, and when it's been written, it comes off in a different tone. Certainly, we were joking there ... the last thing I want to do is offend anybody."
"Generalizations about heritage are inappropriate even in jest, and what Michael said was wrong," ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys told USA Today. "We have spoken to Michael about it."
This is the stupidest thing I've seen in print today. Most everybody, while joking with a friend, will make fun of their heritage. This spokesman, like most sports journalist, was picked last on the playground, so he decided to go into journalism. I have no problem with what crackhead Cowboy said, he was, obviously, joking. And in their own inarticulate ways Jimmy the Greek, John Rocker and others were not incorrect in what they had to say.
No, and that's the point. Irvin was joking that Romo should have some black ancestry to play so well.
It's really a harmless joke but it screams hypocrisy in contrast to what would happen if a black quarterback was told he must have some white ancestry to play so well.
Of course. We all know the double-standard exists.
We also all know that Rush Limbaugh was right about "social concern": compare the stats and completion percentages, TDs, turnovers, etc. of everyone from Vince Evans to Philip Rivers. Those are the only numbers that should count.
Speech codes are for the birds.
I hope he doesn't get too realistic describing what it's like behind the scenes. Next thing we'll hear is what it's like to be arrested while doing cocaine with skanky prostitutes.
I can't watch any pre-game, half time, or post-game show. It's all loud and inane. Can't listen to Phil Simms when he does color. Screech, screech, screech!
On Sunday, the uninsightful comments were thicker than the flies on an Ethiopean's forehead. I kept waiting for them to cut off his microphone ...
Can someone please tell me what the politically correct explanation is for the disproportionate number of successful black athletes in professional sports? Affirmative action? Or is it that whites are just generally inept, i.e., "White Men Can't Jump"?
What's the latest on Crackman Irvin's legal troubles? Somebody must know.
Agreed. I don't turn on the sound until the kickoff. I listened to Steve Tasker yesterday and almost every other comment he made was just flat-out wrong.
SeeBS is by far the worst network for televising sports.
That's the old Bill, right? Where does he have a program?
Yes. Same guy. Tasker does the color analysis for CBS games, usually a crap game like the Browns or the Raiders.
It's really not what one side or view said vs. what another side could've, or should've, have been allow to have said, since perceptions can be ill received either way. The crucial difference is one side has, over time, and by some more rebellious elements, embraced the offending terms and attempted to render them harmless as endearing when properly applied.
The touchiness of the matter is that it is perception that is the key, and not words in print. To risk, and venture in to the obviously cliche, it really isn't a black or white issue. It is possible to use the terms a endearing, inclusive, or in a painfully understanding way, the very same words that were originally were crafted to cause obvious pain and harm.
I'm about as conservative as you can be on many issues, but it is disturbing to witness the thinly veiled predjudice that rears it's head on many threads that in any way addresses race.
At the end of the day black people can make jokes about white people but not vice versa. It's a pretty common thing and saying it is so doesn't reveal hidden prejudice it just reveals fact.
Agreed. Of course it's not universally acceptable, but I would venture to say it's at least understandable. There was no switch thrown in the 1960s that instantly leveled the vernacular playing field to where what was deemed incredibly offensive was to now instantly benign. Time heals wounds, and to each differently. Some are more interested in having painful references instantly and foreverly banished, and others are more interested in disarming them through reducing their painful meanings through more common and benign usage. Neither method is inherently wrong, and both should be accommodated to some degree, and that's not to say that inappropriateness on any side is necessarily morally superior, or supremely acceptable to another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.