canucksaint

Then Grady could show her his azz...

ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs-

The only reason I pointed this out was because I feel there are some places that should be off limits to both men and women. Regardless of the fact that it might deprive them of certain jobs. But, for the record, I don\'t care whether they go in the locker room or not. Whatever floats their boat..................

saint5221

That would definitely be cruel and unusual punishment,didn\'t the supreme court outlaw that?


[Edited on 11/6/2003 by saint5221]

deadflatbird

TWO POINTS

1... she was team staff. She was in the locker room after practice. She would usually help tape players ect. She by today standards had rights to be there and was allowed in there

2... I am a journalist and male, we are not allowed in professional womens basket ball locker rooms, nor womens soccer locker rooms.

saintfan

1. Congradulations on being a Journalist

2. She\'s OBVIOUSLY in the wrong profession

[Edited on 7/11/2003 by saintfan]

canucksaint

I realize that she did have a right to be in the locker room. But the question was, should this continue? As for you being a jounalist and not being allowed into profesional womens locker rooms; are women journalists allowed in? If they are and you are not, then why not challenge that rulling? You have the precident based on male sports. But I guess my question would be is why do you want to go into the locker room in the first place. Is there somethings that you need to ask someone when they are in the shower, that cannot wait until they are dressed and out of the locker room? I just have an issue with any non-team/staff member in anyone\'s locker room. (which obviously is not the case in the lawsuit)

saint5221

While not directly relevant to the women in the locker room slant this thread has taken I saw this in Pro Football weekly. It echos most everyones feelings reguardless of which side of the women in or out of the locker room they find themselves on. Maybe some women should be allowed in, but definitely not this one.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW...koff110703.htm

how about the news that Peyton Manning is being sued for defamation by former University of Tennessee assistant athletic trainer Jamie Ann Naughright, who claims that Manning defamed her in the book he wrote with his father, Archie, in 2000, “Manning: A Father, His Sons and a Football Legacy.� In the book, Manning mentions an incident in which Peyton basically mooned Naughright in 1996 and says that the incident was “inappropriate.� Peyton also said that Naughright had a “vulgar mouth,� and she claims that it later cost her some job opportunities.

Oh, did I mention she’s also suing Peyton for $15,000 in damages on accusations that he placed his, and this really is a quote, “naked butt� on her face during the 1996 incident in the Volunteers’ locker room.

The defamation thing seems pretty ridiculous to me because she isn’t actually mentioned by name in the book, but the extra $15K lawsuit is what really got my attention. Shouldn’t the statute of limitations on complaining about being mooned top out at about 45 minutes? And what kind of moon job causes $15,000 worth of damages?

Mind you, this is the same Jamie Ann Naughright that agreed to a $300,000 settlement with the university in 1997 over 33 accusations of sexual harassment stemming from her time in the Volunteers’ locker room. Hey, if she was harassed, then she was entitled to pursue the matter in 1997. But in my world, you simply can’t go after someone seven years later over some stupid college prank.

Why did I even bring this up? First off, it never ceases to amaze me just how litigious a society we have become. Second, it just kills me how stupid the entire case is. Do you figure Naughright’s friends all rolled their eyes when she said she had decided to sue Manning for his indiscretion during the early part of Bill Clinton’s second term? It’s just amazing what people will do to try to get some money out of famous people.


[Edited on 11/7/2003 by saint5221]