Photo by Mark J. Rebilas/USA TODAY Sports Images
By IVES GALARCEP
With Hope Solo dominating the headlines amid growing criticism over her continued participation in U.S. Women’s National Team matches despite a looming criminal trial, the SBI Show discusses the topic in the latest Episode of The SBI Show.
Episode 166 touches on the Solo discussion, but first we dive into the plethora of MLS-related news, from the latest on Jim Curtin’s coaching future, to talk of Andrea Pirlo potentially coming to MLS, and more.
Co-host Garrett Cleverly and I also discuss last weekend’s MLS results, including Portland’s key victory against Vancouver, and the recent run by the New York Red Bulls. We also talk Americans Abroad, and even throw in a discussion in favorite TV shows and recent movies.
Give Episode 166 of The SBI Show a listen after the jump:
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/169131344″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=’166′ iframe=”true” /]
What did you think of the show? Agree or disagree with our take on Solo? Hoping Pirlo joins MLS? Think the Union made the wise choice in hiring Curtin to stay on as head coach?
Share your thoughts below.
Solid show, people…
Solid top 5, Ives. You should check out the show Justified that airs on FX, I’m betting it’s right up your alley (though with much less cursing and nudity than the shows you mentioned).
I would just eliminate Chivas USA. Why dilute the support for Galaxy by having another team in LA. I think the same thing about the NYRB NYFC situation. I would just sell the franchise to either Sacramento or San Antonio. I think San Antonio would be perfect. They already have a stadium that can be expanded. They could play in MLS right away. In the winters for the next two or so seasons they increase the capacity from 8k to 18k and boom.
Love those autoplaying video ads…
It must depend on your browser because it does not autoplay on Chrome.
Oh yes it does, it just takes a while. Leave it on the same page for an hour and it will randomly start at some point and scare the cr*p out of you. I actually make sure not to go to bed with SBI open these days after about ten such terrifying experiences.
“A week ago” – Jay-Z….nice choice!
Good to hear more people pointing out that there isn’t a glaring double standard because the Rice and Solo cases aren’t really that comparable in the first place.
No one is saying that they completely identical. Punching a guy a few times is different from taking bat to him, but it is still legally battery. All three cases in the NFL (Rice, Peterson, Marshall) are not the same. What Marshall did on a cocaine rage with the guns and threatening is different from Petersen taking switch to 4 year old kid for misbehaving (don’t agree with either). However, the police report is not good for Hope. She broke a bone in ocular cavity of her half sister. The report states she went over there drunk and started a fight with one family member and the other tried to break it up and got beat up too. Both her half sister and her nephew. The police have physical and documented evidence of injuries. The court has a restraining order against her to keep her away from them and an order to restrain from drinking AND she has a
November court date pending. It is technically battery and domestic violence, but there might be mitigating substances which could make it better. Keep in mind that neither Rice or Petersen are convicted either only Marshall.
Hope is not a stable person and has a history of altercations and issues. Not judging her, but I wouldn’t go near her.
“No one is saying that they completely identical.”
I haven’t seen anyone use the word “identical”. But otherwise, they certainly are saying that. Many, many people. Just take a look around. Indeed, the double standard outcry takes it for granted that Solo’s case and those of the NFL players are the same (otherwise, of course, the differing situations would not constitute any double standard).
Ives runs down each of the cases in the podcast (have you listened to it?) and his comments are just spot on.
Yes, I listened to it and I have to say I do not agree with Ives’ point. Rice and Peterson have not been found guilty. Rice, however, has video evidence that shows he did that is different, so you can suspend him. Peterson has evidence of wounds from a switch to the butt. Hope Solo’s sister has a broken bone in the ocular cavity. That is equal evidence (btw Hope and Peterson and neither has been convicted). They only difference is that she disputes the facts whereas Peterson agrees he did.
And that hers is a misdemeanor charge while the others are felony situations. And that broken bones, unlike switch wounds on the butt, can happen in all sorts of ways that don’t involve any attack.
But whatever. Ives nailed it, imo. (shrug)
Ahh…broken bones are a much more accurate indication of harsh force than switch wounds. Solo is charged with misdemeanors and so was Greg Hardy (I mistakenly said Marshall) who was found guilty and is appealing. Hardy was not found guilty of a felony (http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2014/07/carolina_panthers_defensive_en_1.html).
Listen, I usually agree with Ives on MOST things. However, He is wrong on this one. I am a licensed attorney. What is a misdemeanor or a felony is defined by state statute. Hardy was the most vicious incident of all 4 described (Solo, Rice, Hardym Peterson), but he was charged with a misdemeanor according to North Carolina state law.
Solo should be forced to sit. Seriously, if she were a man, people would be livid. She drunkenly beat up her nephew then beat up her sister when she tried to intervene. The police took a report when 911 was called and Solo refused a blood alcohol test. Then the police came by the next day and took report of the injuries. Hope Solo’s case is bad, seriously. I had to help a friend who filled DV case against her dirtbag ex a decade ago. Solo is a dirtbag and this is just a bad.
You’re stating everything she’s accused of as if it’s already been proven. At this point isn’t it her word versus the word of her sister and nephew? Also, let’s be honest, if not for the Ray Rice video leak none of those players would be sitting right now and nobody would be talking about Solo, so I’m not sure the “If she were a man” thing is all that accurate. I’m not sitting here saying she’s innocent, but for me I don’t get how anybody sits here and says her situation is the same as the NFL players currently in trouble.
I’m not trying to win a right or wrong contest, just offered my take. Nobody has to agree.
I agree Anthony. Yes, there are charges against her and she does get her day in court. She plead not-guilty after all.
However, there are many FACTS, the bruised faces, one bloody ear and the broken bone in the ocular cavity for instance. Okay, not pre-judging her but is there anyone but her that could have inflicted those injuries.
I believe all those saying nothing has been proven and her’s is different from those other mentioned cases are forgetting/ignoring the existing evidence of her drunken wild attack.
This story is a wack distraction from the beautiful game. Don’t go Peter King on us, Ives.
Ives, I agree that had the video not been leaked, none of these brouhaha would have happened. I am not a fan of most of the these people (including Hope) as human beings, but I am generally of the belief that an employer cannot take action unless the person has been proven guilty (unless the employee has it built into his/her contract). In this case, only one person has and he is appealing it.
We can agree to disagree, but I do believe that had that been Brad Guzan or Tim Howard going off on his sister and his nephew with the same injuries (as reported in the police report – which can be submitted as evidence), in the current climate, people would cry out for a disparity in treatment. I would say that that her case is somewhat similar to NFL RB Jonathan Dwyer
Not sure the link will take here but this Atlantic piece on the matter is well done: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/no-hope-solo-is-not-like-ray-rice/380626/
RB, I read the the article you sent. It goes to the connotations of an act, not just the act itself. I said it before, not all the cases are the same, but they all have to do with common law battery. There was an unlawful touching, Let me say it this way, the act that actually occurred was arguably illegal, however, the connotations and implications of the actions are something else. Spousal abuse against women has a much more negative implication and is a greater societal issue, but that does not change the fact that the act of battery occurred.
I don’t know what to make of your comments, frankly. You stress your authority as a lawyer, for example, but then repeatedly undermine it by throwing out these negative characterizations of Solo, even though no one is arguing that she is a great person, and by talking as if what people say to the police is necessarily accurate with respect to what happened…
Hear,hear, taking what people say to the police is necessarily accurate with…..what happened. Good point!
Now, pray tell, who told the police that Hope appeared drunk, refused to take a blood alcohol test, there were visible bruises on both her half-sister and her nephew, the nephew had a bloody ear and a bone in the ocular cavity was broken? And are those telling these things to the police/court believable and of good character.
Yes, clearly a she said, they said situation.
“Yes, clearly a she said, they said situation.”
Correct. At least until somebody appears with the video a la the Rice case, or until the court date arrives.
uuuuuh, RB. I am almost certain that was satire.
Given the comments particularly in the 2nd paragraph, leading off with the “Now, pray tell” phrase, I saw and continue to see Clark’s final remark as tongue-in-cheek rather than serious in its literal meaning. I could be wrong, but either way, I would respond as I did. (shrug)
RB, I really don’t know what to say to that comment…but what they hell, I like arguments. I was throwing out negative characterizations, I was only sharing the facts that were included in the police reports. Everything I stated was included in police reports and medical reports detailing injury. What plaintiffs do say to the police in a police report IS ADMISSIBLE in court. Sorry you don’t like it, but it is. Police reports are generally admissible as hearsay exceptions if the police report is prepared in the regular course of police business and made soon after the accident (LIKE IN THIS CASE). As such these police reports and medical reports can be submitted as evidence. The police stated she refused the alcohol test which they wanted to administer to her. That refusal can generally be admitted in a criminal case.
Legally speaking, he said, she said can be characterized as hearsay, but evidence proceedings generally have allowances for hearsay exceptions. This is a VERY common hearsay exception in most US jurisdictions.
In fact, the only thing I said about Hope’s character is “Hope is not a stable person and has a history of altercations and issues. Not judging her, but I wouldn’t go near her.” I am not submitting that in a court case nor do I think they will come to me ask me my opinion in her criminal trial. It’s an opinion of who she is. She is a beautiful woman, but sucks as a person. I would never go near her.
Sorry man, but again, don’t know what to make of your comments. I mean I guess I must have hallucinated the part where you called her a “dirtbag”… 🙂
I called them all (Solo, Rice, Peterson, Dwyer, Hardy) dirt bags. However, I stated that my personal opinions are not admissible in a court of law. I never said her past actions should be submitted as evidence because I know better.I did say the police report should be submitted evidence under hearsay exception.
I can separate my personal opinion from a court case. Anyway, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
That article is misleading. They try to portray Solo’s attack(of 2 people) as just a “fight” were as Rice’s attack was just him beating his wife.
They try to point out that Spousal abuse has a much more important history. Which is meaningless because if you allow “history” into the conversation you are once again making a double standard.
Men hitting women is extra bad because of history?
But Women beating up their family doesn’t have a history(author says tradition) so its not as bad.
That is a clear a double standard. If you are trying to equalize the role of genders you can’t turn to history or else you haven’t broken from the past of inequality.