Rogers suspended 20 games

DMZ · July 1, 2005 at 2:20 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Kenny Rogers has been suspended 20 games and fined (I presume heavily) for knocking around a couple of cameramen before a game. If he appeals (and we should figure he will), he would still start for Texas in Sunday’s game.


29 Responses to “Rogers suspended 20 games”

  1. Jeff on July 1st, 2005 2:29 pm


    Anything less than 10 games would have been a joke. I almost did a whole ranting post on this. What a clown.

    I wish the short, portly, bald cameraman he walked 20 yards to assault had been a short, portly, bald kung fu master with a short fuse.

  2. Ken-rod on July 1st, 2005 2:41 pm

    [deleted – see comment guidelines]

  3. paul on July 1st, 2005 2:49 pm

    If he’s suspended for 20 days, does that mean someone else has to run the deep fryer?

  4. David J Corcoran on July 1st, 2005 2:50 pm

    Good. Although that seems like awful harsh punishment to the Rangers organization as they will have to go with 24 men for 20 days, no? It’ll make teammates dislike Rogers more. This will screw up team chemistry and the Angels will win the west, angering me. Rogers really screwed up this time. He deserves it.

  5. Matt Williams on July 1st, 2005 3:01 pm

    I’m glad the league is recognizing that they have to give starting pitchers much larger sentences than position players.

    Really this means he misses 4 or 5 starts.

  6. Jeff on July 1st, 2005 3:08 pm

    This makes me even angrier with Rogers:

    In a statement Friday before the ruling, Rogers’ attorneys said: “Kenny Rogers would like to make a statement. However, in light of the ongoing investigation, it is not advisable for Kenny to comment directly and publicly at this time.

    “On Kenny’s behalf, though, we would like to express to Mr. Rodriguez, Ranger fans, all baseball fans and his teammates that Kenny is truly sorry for the incident that occurred and regrets that it happened.”

    The passive voice is used to avoid accountability. An incident didn’t occur; Rogers caused an altercation. It didn’t just “happen”; Rogers did something.

    Allergic to personal responsibility, I guess.

  7. Brian Rust on July 1st, 2005 3:14 pm

    Jeff, I am aware he’s been silent with the press, but does his apparent anger problem have a long history?

  8. Tom on July 1st, 2005 3:16 pm

    Check out this awesome coverage they have over there at from Scott Miller:

    “the commissioner could have gone further with the punishment for Rogers’ reprehensible behavior. But 20 games — costing him at least four starts — and a fine sure beats a week or two on the sidelines.”

    Basically Rogers just kicked his team in the shins.

  9. petec on July 1st, 2005 3:18 pm
  10. Jake on July 1st, 2005 3:18 pm

    The Player’s Union already filed an appeal on Roger’s behalf. Obviously, they don’t care much for PR.

  11. eponymous coward on July 1st, 2005 3:20 pm

    Allergic to personal responsibility, I guess.

    More like allergic to being found guillty of assault, on the advice of counsel. You don’t go confessing to crimes in the media if you want to have any prayer of beating a rap.

    I suspect it will get pled to a misdemeanor with a suspended sentence + community service…

  12. paul on July 1st, 2005 3:34 pm

    #11 –

    Allergic to being found guilty of assault = allergic to personal responsibility.

    The incident was recorded, it was broadcast, it’s obvious Rogers did it – he should be a man about it and admit it, serve his suspension and be done with it. But because nothing’s anybody’s fault these days, he won’t.

  13. Rusty on July 1st, 2005 3:38 pm

    Okay, I’ll take the other side… not the Rogers sympathetic side but the side that is unsympathetic to the cameraman and to sports media, in general. I guess I wonder about all the support for the cameramen in the sports media, i.e. they’re “just doing their job.” I realize that this comparison stretches to the absurd but the cameramen that were following Princess Diana all around were just doing their job, too.

    Personally, one of the things I like about this forum is that it’s a peek into the world of baseball with an objective lens, i.e. statistical analysis. Whenever you’re dealing with a real camera lens you’re dealing in the world of the subjective, for the most part. No camera can capture what a player is truly feeling, what his true intentions are, etc. I find the whole interview thing of less interest every day. And since the media as a whole has become more about sensationalism and less about revealing the truth, it doesn’t surprise me that we have more altercations like the ones with Rogers and the cameramen.

    Most of the writers and pundits are no better. I find a guy like Miller of CBS Sportsline to be a total hack. He spouts opinions like he knows something about the game beyond what a casual fan knows, when in reality his baseball knowledge is pretty rudimentary. He could make up for his lack of knowledge with superior writing technique but his writing talent is akin to a .200 hitter in baseball.

    All of these trends both in the Sports media and general media make me less sympathetic to any struggles that they might endure. If you want to talk about accountability, there is practically zero in the media. And in fact, the cameramen will make out like bandits once they win their civil suits against Rogers and/or the Rangers.

  14. LB on July 1st, 2005 3:41 pm

    #6: “Mistakes were made.”

    #10: The MLBPA has a responsibility to represent its members, even the ones who do monumentally stupid things.

  15. Jonathan on July 1st, 2005 3:47 pm

    #13 – sports media (and the media in general) can certainly suck. But pro athletes are celebrities, and dealing with the media is part of that. And unlike Princess Di, Rogers was on the field (or at least in the park) and in uniform. To paraphrase, you gots to know when to hold it!

  16. Morisseau on July 1st, 2005 3:48 pm

    not all that relevant …. but humorous nonetheless:

  17. strong silence on July 1st, 2005 3:51 pm

    I can’t open that link but one of them has to be Henry Rollins, right?

  18. paul on July 1st, 2005 3:58 pm

    #13 –

    Your opinion of the role of the media aside, can you agree that it’s wrong for a person to assault another person while person #2 is, to re-use the cliche, just doing their job?

    The cameraman that Kenny went after wasn’t crowding his space, wasn’t impeding Rogers’ way to wherever he was going, and wasn’t doing most of the things that the celebrity-hounding media are (quite rightly, for the most part) demonized for. Why is it OK that Kenny Rogers or anybody can do this, just because they don’t like the attention?

    The fact that most writers for mainstream media may be “hacks” has no relevance in a situation like this – Rogers should be a bigger man than his actions say he is. He knows it’s part of the territory, so he should have done like most modern athletes and just ignored it. He didn’t, and now he has to pay the price. Good.

  19. eponymous coward on July 1st, 2005 4:32 pm


    Not exactly. It’s the “on advioce of counsel” part that’s important. Keep in mind his lawyer delivered the statement.

    I’m not saying what he did was OK at all, or that he is being as forthright as possible… simply that he probably is treading carefully. Remember how Denny Neagle’s contract got voided?

  20. Daaaaan on July 1st, 2005 5:11 pm

    ESPN was saying the fine was $50k

  21. jc on July 1st, 2005 5:16 pm

    Is it me are do you think the athletes are getting tired of being cracked on by these idiots on sportscenter and fox sports channels.What ever happened to reporting the game instead of atlking about the size of kevin menches head are calling jim everett chrissy.Some of these annoucers like stewart scott and some of these others should take a lesson from the Swami and just annouce the game and not make fun a nd rip on players .I think it is bad journalism and are society should be embarrsed by all this junk happening.Maybe we could just do the hi lights instead of hearing about rayray and shariquas momma and all the other crap.I personnally watch sportscenter nightly with the mute button on because im tired of it .OK now that ive said this im sure someone will rip my spelling grammer are whatever but does anyone else think athletes might be sick of this crap?

  22. Matt Williams on July 1st, 2005 5:17 pm

    Actually, I’m guessing it’s more fear of a civil suit that’s driving Rogers to speak through the attourney.

    There’s so much evidence of exactly what happened that in a criminal trial his only real defense would be trying to convince a judge it was somewhat justified. Admitting what he did was wrong isn’t going to hurt his defense and might make the judge more sympathetic. Plus what he’s probably facing there is a lot of community service and maybe a fine or anger management classes.

    In a civil case admitting he was out of line on film would pretty much destroy any defense he had, and that could potentially cost him a tremendous amount of money.

  23. Ralph Malph on July 1st, 2005 5:32 pm

    If he could admit he was wrong, serve his suspension, and “be done with it”, he probably would. The problem is that by admitting he was wrong he will ensure that he is not done with it, since he would then be ensuring a likely jail sentence and a civil suit.

  24. ray on July 1st, 2005 5:48 pm

    I know people are thinking this is good for the M’s in that he won’t pitch but I’m sure he will appeal so he’ll be able to pitch against the M’s — such is the luck of the M’s. Also, I think the whole Rangers team needs to go through Anger Management. The second time in as many years. What will happen next year?

  25. Jeremy on July 1st, 2005 6:10 pm

    OFF-TOPIC: Spiezio activated from DL, Lopez sent down to Tacoma.

  26. Jim Thomsen on July 1st, 2005 6:17 pm

    How weird is this? Rogers has been in the major leagues for more than 15 years, and has generally gotten along and been more successful than not. He’s never been a media favorite, but until this season, as far as I can tell from online searching, he’s regularly given comments to members of the press after and between his starts.

    Now he’s 40 — an age at which he’s certainly seen just about everything there is to see from the media — and having one of his best seasons ever statistically. But he is falling apart personally. There is MUCH more to this story. Is he getting divorced or something? Goomah putting the screws to him? I hope somebody is able to find out … not so much to publicize his personal misfortunes but to get the guy the help he so clearly needs.

  27. Marty Lighthizer on July 1st, 2005 6:35 pm

    Anger Management for all Rangers? Do that, and they’d probably wind up with as few homeruns as the M’s. Better to put the M’s on some kind of Anger Enhancement program…

  28. David J Corcoran on July 1st, 2005 9:13 pm

    50 grand is the fine.

  29. Rusty on July 1st, 2005 10:26 pm


    (Sorry… I went to the game and just got back.)

    Yes, I can admit that it’s wrong for Rogers to assault the cameramen. And I did state that my comparison to the Diana papparazi borders on the absurd. However, it does show that when it comes to cameras following around famous people that there is a broad swath of gray area. You’re right, athletes are famous people and are dutibound to deal with the media in whatever way they choose. If they choose to break the law via assault then they pay the price by way of criminal charges and/or civil suits. It’s the same price that I pay if I eventually snap and beat the hell out of my annoying neighbor after years of putting up with his crap.

    I spoke my opinion as maybe something different than what’s being written. As for hacks, I believe they do influence the debate that’s going on. A cameraman is assaulted and Miller is calling for Rogers’ head, and almost simultaneously he is calling on Barry Bonds to retire, for what logical reason beyond that Bonds is gnarly with the media, I can’t really figure out. Meanwhile Miller doesn’t have a very critical eye in regards to his own writings and its effects, much less a broader eye for the role of media in society and its responsibilities.

    I just find it interesting. I have found that I have to look beyond what is being reported and even what I am seeing with my own eyes in order to find a good path to walk down.