dc.

I think it's based on a book by the same guy who wrote Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Great acting but they can be very hard to get into - that one more so perhaps because it was all about British SIS which I know a bit less about. Bet Hoffman nails it. Man will I miss him.

Stephen A Smith is a moron. Let's all yet to leave him out of this conversation so that we can ask survive.

Thanks to David Price, that chance is now greatly diminished. Their arms can keep it up, but not their bats.

Average the lead in the win column and the lead in the loss column. One game in wins plus for games in losses equals give - divide two equals 2.5. Idea is that is we lose our next three and jays win those three, they'd be up half a game. They'd be two ahead in wins and only one behind in losses.

You don't think every QB has done this at least a few times? I have seen tons do it - and I don't really watch a ton. It happens frequently. The Ravens D has forced most QBs they've played against do it. Are you really saying most QBs haven't done this occasionally? I will look for video - but I have a feeling it's hard to find much (even of Flacco) because they are generally not considered big or important plays.

Crav - two responses. 1. To the effect of the convo I was having with Rasta, etc - I was more saying that given that those facts are unchallenged, it is not hard to see why someone would want him to get four games. 2. To the effect of reality, had Rice NOT admitted it, he would not have been able to get off easy with the "remediation program" from the courts - because to get into that you have to say, "yes, I am sorry, it was a mistake." If he hadn't taken that deal, we'd be looking at trial or a greater punishment from the courts and, without doubt, a greater suspension from the league - if he was even done with his trial (and possible incarceration) at this point, which is certainly not a given.

He admitted it. (Also - quick clarification so no one goes off the rails on that statement -- Rice has admitted to his role in a physical altercation with his then-girlfriend which resulted in her being unconscious).

I think you misinterpret. There is an argument on both sides. I can easily justify why fewer than four. But it's equally easy to justify four or more - conduct detrimental to the league, sending a message to future offenders on the issue, equitable policy with drug violations and the like. All I'm really saying is - there is tremendous support for four or more games and the argument is easy enough to make. You can disagree with it, but no reason to be an ass in doing so and claiming that anyone who says "two wasn't enough" has their head on wrong. It's also as simple as, "I think it was worth four because I think it was. Who care about precedent? Morally, he knocked a woman unconscious in a drunken rage and that's unacceptable. Just like I think marijuana shouldn't be suspendable at all, I think knocking someone unconscious should be more!" (Again, that's not my view - but it's perfectly valid in this territory and someone saying that is not wrong for having that feeling.)

Very cool video from the campers. Always wondered what lightning looked like at that distance as it strikes.

Cleetz - precisely, I have seen those markings but never anything like the pic.

Rasta, I'm not even on that side but the case has been made effectively and is pretty well agreed upon by the masses nation wide... Why act like anyone who address with that wisdom is out of their mind?

Pretty sure it's fake.

I don't think you can compare Pryor because it's not the same kind of case. You also cannot generally compare to PEDs or other drugs. That's a much larger discussion. I think some of those penalties are too harsh, but it's not comparable to this case. You can be bound by precedent without being bound by all precedent. Precedent means related cases - violence, domestic violence, fights, etc. Not any other suspension ever. As for "conduct detrimental," and the Ben comparisons - Ray had one incident, fessed up and has taken steps to adjust behavior. To my recollection, Ben had accusations, opportunities to adjust, and then more accusations. So there is some difference there at least, in the league's eyes, of best efforts. Ultimately, as I said earlier, I just don't get people straining this into "he beat his wife." He hit - in a fight - his girlfriend/wife. That is not ok at all. But it's also a bit different from "beating his wife." When other players have been in fights, they get one game if anything. It is perfectly valid to ask, does it matter that the other person in the fight was a woman? Maybe it does. I am not sure.

Looks bogus- especially given the "tan line" at his boxer line. Source?

East is heating up - scary. Yanks and Jays are being up on each other, Rays have best record in baseball since June 25, Six have lost a few to the Rays but before that had win about 8 in a row...

If TMZ had the video, we'd have seen it. Authorities saw it but that doesn't mean it didn't warrant a conviction, only that a plea and 1st offense program were agreed to be sufficient.

I guess I just mean regardless of what the evidence says, there is clearly more evidence than we have

Right - no way they DON'T have cameras. So how can you say there is no more evidence than what we have??

Crav - aren't you the one who right away said, "no way they don't have cameras in an elevator in a casino".

I guess one thought on the matter could be this: What's the suspension norm for when a player gets in a fight in general? I am sure there are examples out there. (Most don't get in trouble for fighting on the field of course). Now, should the penalty be any different because the other person in the fight was: a) a woman? b) a partner in a relationship? c) knocked unconscious? I don't really know the answer to question one. Again, I am sure we could find out. But I am not sure that any part of the second question requires a harsher punishment. All that said - I think he probably deserved four games. The League is just silly about some things.

But you're forgetting that Hunter went two innings ... and Tillman didn't have another inning in him. It's his job to get people out in an effective manner. 105 pitches in 6 innings is about 18 per inning. Not huge, but not good either.

Tillman has always been a flyball pitcher. I worry more that Tillman can't get through 6 innings without throwing 100+ pitches. So then we have to bring in Tommy Hunter for 2+ innings and watch him walk three and give up a pair of runs.

I don't think there are any favorable matchups with the Ms - their rotation is good. But I am thrilled with our play against the Angels - they have been one of the hottest teams in the league for the last two months.

That wasn't the past of the statement I had a problem with.

Swinging for the fences, perhaps... (trying to keep a consistent extended metaphor here...)