From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Women Sports Reporters
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:28:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.001040.17179@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:


)>The one who fined Wyche $30,000.  Dunno the official title.
)
)Wyche would have been fined by the NFL Commissioner, not by a Commission.
)And you have yet to establish that Wyche was fined by the Commissioner for
)banning all reporters from the locker room, while providing access to the
)players in another fashion.
)
)You've been making a number of claims in this thread, but you've been doing
)it based on half-remembered stuff, not facts.

Yep.

) Might I suggest that if this
)topic is really of concern to you, that you do some research on the
)subject?

Don't look now, but you just did.  However, might I suggest that I
(for one) assume you are also quoting from memory rather than 'facts', unless
you quote specific references (as one poster already did) to support your
views?

I was under the impression, however, that we now actually agreed on what had
happened, and that it was our interpretation of the same that
was different, rather than a question of fact being the issue.  (Usenet is
probably not the best way of resolving disputes of facts, though it
occasionally works for that in a pinch.)

Here's the long version - in case there still is a disagreement on the
facts.  Next come the interpretations.


1)  Wyche had been fined in 2 previous incidents dealing with
reporters - once for punching one, and another for not allowing reporters
access to the players after a loss.

2)  The comission's inflexible rules were that all reporters were to
be allowed access to the locker room.  He was already fined once for
not allowing reporters access to the players as I mentioned before.  This
was the rule that he was apparently fined under for not allowing reporters
access after the loss.

3)  Wyche did not allow a female reporter in the locker room.  He apparently
offered to allow her to interview the players in another area (this 
come from other net.posters - you have not specifically agreed that this
occured as far as I know.)  More specific details have not been well
documented and may be worthy of further research as you suggest.

My concern was that There does not seem to be any room in these policies for
players to have privacy in the locker room.  This bothers me.  Hence my
comments on the rigidity and inflexibility of 'the commission'.  I don't
think reporters have any basic right to be in a players locker rooms, and
I think the Comission was far too inflexible in this matter.  I believe that
the rules as stated were originally set up to address concerns about network
rivalries, and that they poorly served the public interests
when rigidly and inflexibly applied to changing conditions.

Though I haven't mentioned it specifically, my futher concern is broader
than the rights of professional atheletes.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have
heard of similar lack of concern for privacy of atheletes in a less prominent
and less well paid position than professional ones from random intrusion from
members of the opposite sex.

We also seem to have disagreed on whether some players have a generic
'bad attitude towards women' (whatever that is).
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball