BuffettNews.com

Tequila Revenge wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

Tequila Revenge wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

rednekkPH wrote: No offense, but that logic is quite faulty. Nearly everyone who throws their leg over a motorcycle has a career/job to think about - and most have a hell of alot more to lose by being seriously injured. Let's face it, if Ben's career ended yesterday, he's not exactly going to become destitute...that's not the case with most riders out there.

I feel bad for anybody that goes down hard on a bike - it's a reality I deal with on a daily basis - but Ben doesn't peg my sympathy meter as much as the normal Joes I read about in the paper.

After "laying it down" in a slick of coolant when I was 27, I just missed being run over by a freeway full of cars. Soon after that piece of fun, I "retired" from
regular street riding, because I was starting fully appreciate my HEALTHY LIFE more than I did as a speeding young gun.

It's all a matter of risk assessment. We all have our own priorities, and must make our decisions accordingly. That said, crashing sux...glad you made it to through.

"risk assessment?" For someone like Ben, it's simply a very, very selfish act. He certainly needs some dumb ass vaccine.

What's selfish about it? His decision is no different than that of anyone who rides. In fact, I would say that it's more selfish for your average Joe Steelworker to ride, as his family depends on each and every paycheck for their survival. Lets face it, Ben throws a ball. He plays a game - nothing more. He's made enough to support 100 families, so he can do whatever he pleases, and owes no apologizies to anybody.

You're absolutely right. And I bet Paul Tagliabu, The NFL, Pittsburgh Steelers , Bill Cower, Ben's team mates, The owners of the franchise, all Ben's corporate sponsors, and the Steeler Fans all share your feelings.

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Selfish? Hmmm...stupid maybe, but I would not say selfish. His right to have a thrill should not be dictated by what fans or the media think.

He's only 24. He's an 'invinceble' 24-yr old seeking a thrill on a fast motorbike. Like lots of other 24 yr olds out there....no?

What about his 47 (or however many players there are on a football team) teammates? Shouldn't he think about them? You can make an argument he's the most valuable player on the team. Sure, he's the one taking the risk but he's jeopardizing his team's chance for success. If he was a golfer or a tennis player I could see your point, but football is a team game, not an individual sport.

rednekkPH wrote:

Tequila Revenge wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

Tequila Revenge wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote: After "laying it down" in a slick of coolant when I was 27, I just missed being run over by a freeway full of cars. Soon after that piece of fun, I "retired" from
regular street riding, because I was starting fully appreciate my HEALTHY LIFE more than I did as a speeding young gun.

It's all a matter of risk assessment. We all have our own priorities, and must make our decisions accordingly. That said, crashing sux...glad you made it to through.

"risk assessment?" For someone like Ben, it's simply a very, very selfish act. He certainly needs some dumb ass vaccine.

What's selfish about it? His decision is no different than that of anyone who rides. In fact, I would say that it's more selfish for your average Joe Steelworker to ride, as his family depends on each and every paycheck for their survival. Lets face it, Ben throws a ball. He plays a game - nothing more. He's made enough to support 100 families, so he can do whatever he pleases, and owes no apologizies to anybody.

You're absolutely right. And I bet Paul Tagliabu, The NFL, Pittsburgh Steelers , Bill Cower, Ben's team mates, The owners of the franchise, all Ben's corporate sponsors, and the Steeler Fans all share your feelings.

I dont give a rat's ass who shares my feelings. He's an employee - no different than any other. And his responsibility to his employer is no more than any of us have. In fact, I'd argue that his job is less important than most.

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Selfish? Hmmm...stupid maybe, but I would not say selfish. His right to have a thrill should not be dictated by what fans or the media think.

He's only 24. He's an 'invinceble' 24-yr old seeking a thrill on a fast motorbike. Like lots of other 24 yr olds out there....no?

What about his 47 (or however many players there are on a football team) teammates? Shouldn't he think about them? You can make an argument he's the most valuable player on the team. Sure, he's the one taking the risk but he's jeopardizing his team's chance for success. If he was a golfer or a tennis player I could see your point, but football is a team game, not an individual sport.

So, does that mean that the CEO of XYZ Corporation shouldn't take part in risky activities? How about the most highly skilled craftsman at a certain contracting company?

Tequila Revenge wrote:I wish I could be the fly on the wall when Cower has a little heart to heart with Ben Wonder if the hospital has enough towles to dry the spitt of Ben's face after Bill's done "sharing" with him..

MelliJellyBean wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Roethlisberger should be ready for '06 season

Well, that's certainly good to hear. Glad the news about his knees was untrue. Now the "I-told-you-so" brigade can sit back and enjoy a nice big cup of STFU.

anyone else find it funny that there are really no details on what happened, just that there was an injury accident?

what details do you need to know that haven't already been mentioned? Are you talking specifics no the accident itself? or the injuries sustained? This article is only an update on his injuries, obviously.

the cause of the accident. so yes, specifics

Roethlisberger was involved in a motorcycle accident near the intersection of 10th street in downtown Pittsburgh in which he was not wearing his helmet. Roethlisberger was travelling east on Second Avenue when he hit a Chrysler New Yorker, driven by Martha Fleishman, 62, who is registered as living in both Pennsylvania and Maine. Fleishman was making a left-hand turn onto the South Tenth Street Bridge[1] when the accident occurred. According to an eyewitness, Roethlisberger went over the handle bars of his 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa[2] and hit his head on the windshield of a car. The eyewitness reports that Roethlisberger tried to get up, but was bleeding from the head.[3] Reports from the scene and news media indicated that the accident was serious but "not life- or career-threatening."[4] After the accident, Ernie Roman (shift commander for the Allegheny County emergency service) described Roethlisberger as "alert and conscious".[4] He was transported to Mercy Hospital and was described as being in "serious but stable" condition in the operating room.[4]



I mean it's a regular accident (involving someone famous) - it's not like a million members of the media witnessed the event. That's about as much detail as you're going to get.

LIPH wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Selfish? Hmmm...stupid maybe, but I would not say selfish. His right to have a thrill should not be dictated by what fans or the media think.

He's only 24. He's an 'invinceble' 24-yr old seeking a thrill on a fast motorbike. Like lots of other 24 yr olds out there....no?

What about his 47 (or however many players there are on a football team) teammates? Shouldn't he think about them? You can make an argument he's the most valuable player on the team. Sure, he's the one taking the risk but he's jeopardizing his team's chance for success. If he was a golfer or a tennis player I could see your point, but football is a team game, not an individual sport.

So, does that mean that the CEO of XYZ Corporation shouldn't take part in risky activities? How about the most highly skilled craftsman at a certain contracting company?

I wouldn't be surprised if some corporations have clauses in CEO's contracts prohibiting certain "risky" activities. And I know professional athletes have clauses like that in their contracts, and have had them since the 1960's when Jim Lonborg (a pitcher for the Red Sox) blew out his knee skiiing in the off season. The Yankees voided Aaron Boone's contract after he injured his knee playing basketball.

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Selfish? Hmmm...stupid maybe, but I would not say selfish. His right to have a thrill should not be dictated by what fans or the media think.

He's only 24. He's an 'invinceble' 24-yr old seeking a thrill on a fast motorbike. Like lots of other 24 yr olds out there....no?

What about his 47 (or however many players there are on a football team) teammates? Shouldn't he think about them? You can make an argument he's the most valuable player on the team. Sure, he's the one taking the risk but he's jeopardizing his team's chance for success. If he was a golfer or a tennis player I could see your point, but football is a team game, not an individual sport.

So, does that mean that the CEO of XYZ Corporation shouldn't take part in risky activities? How about the most highly skilled craftsman at a certain contracting company?

I wouldn't be surprised if some corporations have clauses in CEO's contracts prohibiting certain "risky" activities. And I know professional athletes have clauses like that in their contracts, and have had them since the 1960's when Jim Lonborg (a pitcher for the Red Sox) blew out his knee skiiing in the off season. The Yankees voided Aaron Boone's contract after he injured his knee playing basketball.

If it's in his contract, and he violated that contract then he should face the consequences of such. But I don't buy this "he had a responsibility to his coach/teamates" line.

MelliJellyBean wrote:

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Selfish? Hmmm...stupid maybe, but I would not say selfish. His right to have a thrill should not be dictated by what fans or the media think.

He's only 24. He's an 'invinceble' 24-yr old seeking a thrill on a fast motorbike. Like lots of other 24 yr olds out there....no?

What about his 47 (or however many players there are on a football team) teammates? Shouldn't he think about them? You can make an argument he's the most valuable player on the team. Sure, he's the one taking the risk but he's jeopardizing his team's chance for success. If he was a golfer or a tennis player I could see your point, but football is a team game, not an individual sport.

Ok, 47 teammates, 20-some co-workers, 8 people in your family ....they are all considered teammates of some sort that count on you for something.

So this means you can't do anything that would be a risk to your life, because you'd be letting everyone down if you accidentally...died.

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Selfish? Hmmm...stupid maybe, but I would not say selfish. His right to have a thrill should not be dictated by what fans or the media think.

He's only 24. He's an 'invinceble' 24-yr old seeking a thrill on a fast motorbike. Like lots of other 24 yr olds out there....no?

What about his 47 (or however many players there are on a football team) teammates? Shouldn't he think about them? You can make an argument he's the most valuable player on the team. Sure, he's the one taking the risk but he's jeopardizing his team's chance for success. If he was a golfer or a tennis player I could see your point, but football is a team game, not an individual sport.

Ok, 47 teammates, 20-some co-workers, 8 people in your family ....they are all considered teammates of some sort that count on you for something.

So this means you can't do anything that would be a risk to your life, because you'd be letting everyone down if you accidentally...died.

I'm not indispensable to the law firm where I work, they could replace me tomorrow. I think my family would be upset if I died, but nobody depends on me for financial support.

I also don't have an employment contract. Roethlisberger does, and like I said earlier, the standard NFL contract has a clause prohibiting players from doing anything, other than playing football, that could result in physical injury. An activity that could lead to physical injury is open to interpretation, but the team could argue that riding a motorcycle that's marketed as the fastest street bike, without a helmet, falls under that clause.

LIPH wrote: An activity that could lead to physical injury is open to interpretation, but the team could argue that riding a motorcycle that's marketed as the fastest street bike, without a helmet, falls under that clause.

MelliJellyBean wrote:Then they should've done something about it last year when they learned about it. It's not like it was a big secret.

LIPH wrote:

MelliJellyBean wrote:Then they should've done something about it last year when they learned about it. It's not like it was a big secret.

Unfortunately, teams usually look the other way until a player gets injured. Maybe some owner or general manager should have the stones to make an example of someone before they have an accident and get injured.

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote: An activity that could lead to physical injury is open to interpretation, but the team could argue that riding a motorcycle that's marketed as the fastest street bike, without a helmet, falls under that clause.

That's a pretty broad spectrum. There are very few activities out there that could never result in injury.

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote: An activity that could lead to physical injury is open to interpretation, but the team could argue that riding a motorcycle that's marketed as the fastest street bike, without a helmet, falls under that clause.

That's a pretty broad spectrum. There are very few activities out there that could never result in injury.

rednekkPH wrote:That's a pretty broad spectrum. There are very few activities out there that could never result in injury.

RinglingRingling wrote:name five.