Master Index of Archived Threads


Pedro at a Cockfight

Valadius Feb 07 2008 06:35 AM

]Video posted of Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez and Hall of Famer Juan Marichal at cockfight By The Associated Press February 7, 2008 A video of New York Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez and Hall of Famer Juan Marichal at a cockfight was posted this week on YouTube. Martinez and Marichal laugh before releasing the roosters. The two took part as honorary "soltadores," the word used to describe the person who puts the animal to fight. The animal released by Martinez appears to be killed on the video, which was posted Tuesday. The fight takes place in the Coliseo de Gallos (Rooster Coliseum) in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic's biggest cockfighting venue. Cockfighting is legal and popular in the Dominican Republic. By early Thursday, the video was removed "due to terms of use violation."

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2008 06:50 AM

Disappointing, but it's a cultural thing. And as someone who had chicken for dinner last night, I can't be casting any stones here.

metirish Feb 07 2008 06:51 AM

I've no problem with it.

Rockin' Doc Feb 07 2008 07:06 AM

I find cruely to animals is repugnant. I doubt that Pedro Martinez, Juan Marichal, or anyone else in attendance of the cockfights had the slain rooster(s) for dinner.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 07:18 AM

I sure like Pedro's gardening hobby better. I'm switching my vote on the opening day starter to Santana.

metsmarathon Feb 07 2008 07:22 AM

if pedro's going to be doing things that i find repugnant, at least he has the decency to do them in nations where it is both legal and culturally accepted.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 07 2008 07:32 AM

Did you see the video? Maracial's chicken pulled out a bat and finished Pedro's off.

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2008 07:37 AM

I liked the real high leg kick on Marichal's chicken.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 07:41 AM

They're roosters, you eejit.

attgig Feb 07 2008 07:47 AM

metsmarathon wrote: if pedro's going to be doing things that i find repugnant, at least he has the decency to do them in nations where it is both legal and culturally accepted. thumbs up context is a bitch.

Willets Point Feb 07 2008 09:18 AM

The question is, did Pedro grab the cock by the head and throw him to the ground?

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 09:21 AM

You know, if I'm looking for Mets content on youtube, and I see a link titled "Cockfight with Pedro Martinez and Juan Marichal," I'm just a little bit afraid to click the link.

HahnSolo Feb 07 2008 09:30 AM

]The fight takes place in the Coliseo de Gallos (Rooster Coliseum) in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic's biggest cockfighting venue. Cockfighting is legal and popular in the Dominican Republic. There's something quite breezy, casual, and funny about how they wrote this. Almost like it came from page 1 of the Santo Domingo Chamber of Commerce's brochure.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 07 2008 10:39 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Did you see the video? Maracial's chicken pulled out a bat and finished Pedro's off. Bad ass!

metsguyinmichigan Feb 07 2008 10:40 AM

Now anybody who complains about the name "Citi Field" can look to "Rooster Stadium" and realize we didn't do that poorly after all!

Farmer Ted Feb 07 2008 12:14 PM

I would have predicted Jose Valentin and his porn 'stache to be seen at a cock fight.

soupcan Feb 07 2008 12:33 PM

As printed in the [url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/02072008/news/worldnews/pedros_fowl_ball_475252.htm]New York Post[/url] WILD PITCH:Pedro Martinez and Juan Marichal throw their roosters into the ring... ...and seem to genuinely enjoy the blood sport. PLUCKED:Pedro's fighting rooster appears to have been killed.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 12:39 PM

So, somebody's bound to ask why Michael Vick goes to jail --- indeed, was cut loose by his team very early in the legal process --- and Pedro continues to pitch.

seawolf17 Feb 07 2008 12:41 PM

Most likely because what he did was illegal, and what Pedro did wasn't.

Methead Feb 07 2008 12:41 PM

Cockfighting on astroturf. I had no idea. All I have in my yard is a small ring filled with sawdust. Astroturf would last a lot longer, and look better too.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 12:46 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Most likely because what he did was illegal, and what Pedro did wasn't. (Devil's advocate)Understood, but the key difference there is jurisdiction. That should matter to a DA, but should it matter to a team?(/Devil's advocate)

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2008 12:48 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Most likely because what he did was illegal, and what Pedro did wasn't. Yeah, and people don't love chickens the way they love dogs. I think cockfighting is cruel and awful and I wish it wouldn't happen. But as someone who eats chicken, and therefore patronizes an industry that surely conducts all kinds of cruelty to chickens and other poultry, I can't really say a whole lot about this.

metsmarathon Feb 07 2008 12:52 PM

if michael vick was running his dogfighting operation in a nation where it was both legal and culturally accepted, he would be gainfully employed by a football team today. unfortunately for him, he chose to do so in one where it is rather illegal, and widely unaccepted, and managed to violate both federal and state statutes in the process.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 01:05 PM

Surely we all acknowledge there's a self-serving logic here.

seawolf17 Feb 07 2008 01:19 PM

Yes, absolutely... but if Pedro was caught beating his kids, or electrocuting people in his pool, or murdering people after getting into car accidents, then we'd come down on him like we would on any other player.

metsmarathon Feb 07 2008 01:37 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="seawolf17"]Most likely because what he did was illegal, and what Pedro did wasn't. (Devil's advocate)Understood, but the key difference there is jurisdiction. That should matter to a DA, but should it matter to a team?(/Devil's advocate) i think that whether or not you are breaking a law influences the level of morality of your actions. i also believe that the type of animals you choose to have engaged in bloodsport also affects the morality of your actions.

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2008 06:37 PM

AG/DC wrote: (Devil's advocate)Understood, but the key difference there is jurisdiction. That should matter to a DA, but should it matter to a team?(/Devil's advocate) There are a helluva lot more differences than merely juristiction.

Nymr83 Feb 07 2008 06:53 PM

its legal there, not the Mets' business.

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 07:23 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 07 2008 07:26 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: ="AG/DC"](Devil's advocate)Understood, but the key difference there is jurisdiction. That should matter to a DA, but should it matter to a team?(/Devil's advocate) There are a helluva lot more differences than merely juristiction. Well, I'm Kaz Ishii, and quite wild today. Please include the quote I was responding to when I wrote "there."

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 07:25 PM

Nymr83 wrote: its legal there, not the Mets' business. How far do you want to take that logic?

Nymr83 Feb 07 2008 08:13 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="Nymr83"]its legal there, not the Mets' business. How far do you want to take that logic? Whether or not the government should care, I don't think an employer should take any action against an employee for his actions that were legal in the country where they were taken (unless explicitly prohibited by his contract or something)

AG/DC Feb 07 2008 08:38 PM

Well, they do, all the time. Players fuck up, embarass the team, fans object, advocacy groups write letters, and they suspend him to save face. Happened with John Rocker. They have some pretty broad language about embarrassing conduct. I'm more concerned with how it concerns people. You and me.

Nymr83 Feb 08 2008 12:04 AM

I don't know that Rocker deserved to be punished. He wasn't on the field or even on company time, and he didn't DO anything. I wouldn't punish freedom of speech.

Elster88 Feb 08 2008 05:55 AM

Nymr83 wrote: I don't know that Rocker deserved to be punished. He wasn't on the field or even on company time, and he didn't DO anything. I wouldn't punish freedom of speech. This argument gets thrown out there all the time and cracks me up. The interview was done by SPORTS ILLUSTRATED. They were interviewing him because he was a pitcher for the Braves. He was representing his team. If I made the same comments while being interviewed, and was identified in that interview as an employee for my company, my shit would be packed for me when I arrived the next day. Do you really think Freedom of Speech should give you carte blanche to be a dumbass and reflect negatively on your organization? Of course he's going to be punished.

metsmarathon Feb 08 2008 05:57 AM

freedom of speech does not abdicate you of responsibility for that which is spoken.

metirish Feb 08 2008 07:09 AM

Freedom of course is not free, or so I've read on the Sprain Brook. That vid was from two years ago if that means anything( probably not to the Rooster) Pedro's at bat music now must ne Alice in Chains "Rooster".

Centerfield Feb 08 2008 10:25 AM

Michael Vick broke the law, Pedro did not. For me that's difference enough...though I think it's important to note that Pedro appears to have attended an event where Vick set up the whole operation. I think if Michael Vick got caught attending a dog-fight, he would still be gainfully employed. As far as from a moral standpoint, I don't get worked up over cruelty to animals because I simply don't understand or see any logic in our arbitrary definitions of cruelty. By our society's standards, dog-fighting, or cock-fighting is cruel, but it is perfectly legal to take a gun and shoot certain animals. People say hunting is different, because the animals are not tortured, but if I were an animal, I would think any sport where I'm unarmed and people are shooting at me would qualify as cruel. To make matters more complex, shooting deer, ducks, geese, rabbits, foxes etc. is perfectly ok so long as they are in season, but if anyone were to shoot a dog, that would be considered cruel. Making chickens fight each other is bad, but making horses run really fast to the point they break their legs and have to be put down is not. No one blinks when we eat cows, chicken and pigs, so long as they are killed humanely, but if one were to serve dog and cat burgers, people would flip out no matter how humanely they were killed. Mice are rodents and can be killed in traps, but hamsters and guinea pigs are pets. It all seems too arbitrary to me.

AG/DC Feb 08 2008 10:34 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Feb 08 2008 10:49 AM

People blink all the time at it. We all have trouble reconciling these distinctions, as individuals, as societies, and as a species. Do any of us have any idea whether electrofying your swimming pool is illegal in Panama? Did you pause to find legal details before judging Rivera?

metirish Feb 08 2008 10:38 AM

IIRC someone here at the time checked out the legal codes for swimming pools in Panama, or tried too at least......maybe I am confused but I remember a lot of chat about that incident.

Nymr83 Feb 08 2008 10:52 AM

The age of consent in a hypothetical country, lets say France, is 16. Player X goes to France and bangs a 16-year-old, should the team punish him? 15? 13?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 08 2008 11:06 AM

If a team decides to punish a player because of some activity (whatever it is) that doesn't break any laws, then they're doing it for public relations purposes. And that's not necessarily the wrong thing to do; these are public figures and the teams are public business. But you have to draw a line somewhere. I can see ditching or suspending a player if it's discovered that he went on a pedophile cruise in Thailand, for example. But on the other hand, the public reprimand that the Mets gave Cleon Jones back in 1975 was unnecessary and it embarrassed the team (or at least, it should have) as much as it did the player.

soupcan Feb 08 2008 11:09 AM

Centerfield wrote: Mice are rodents and can be killed in traps, but hamsters and guinea pigs are pets. It all seems too arbitrary to me. Can you imagine if you had 30 or so hamsters and/or guinea pigs living in your walls and leaving little (or not so little) shits all over your basement and kitchen cupboards? Yeesh.

Nymr83 Feb 08 2008 12:31 PM

i'd exterminate their asses faster than you can call the PETA idiots. FYI i think Mice are cuter than Guinea Pigs. ]But on the other hand, the public reprimand that the Mets gave Cleon Jones back in 1975 was unnecessary and it embarrassed the team (or at least, it should have) as much as it did the player. what did he do? i wasn't around

soupcan Feb 08 2008 12:42 PM

If memory serves he was caught naked in a van with an underage girl. 'Zat right?

AG/DC Feb 08 2008 12:47 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i'd exterminate their asses faster than you can call the PETA idiots. That'll show 'em. I've read no account that places Cleon's paramour as anything less than a consenting age.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 08 2008 12:50 PM

I don't think it was underage -- in the 70s I'm pretty sure they didn't care what age you were. The scandal was that she was white and Cleon was married. Grant was a terrible blueblood stuffed shirt who fancied himself a "sportsman" -- the kind of guy Ted Knight parodied in Caddyshack -- and they were obliged to act horrified by what the "help" had done. They arranged for a press conference where Jones alongside his properly chocolatey wifey, apologized to the fans.

soupcan Feb 08 2008 01:14 PM

I stand corrected. Do I get any points for naked in a van with a woman?

Frayed Knot Feb 08 2008 01:51 PM

soupcan wrote: Do I get any points for naked in a van with a woman? We'll need to see pictures of the woman before we decide on how many points we give you.

Methead Feb 08 2008 03:52 PM

Pictures of the van for extra credit.