All That and a Bag of Mail

It’s Friday, time for the mailbag. 

Our beaver pelt traders of the week are Marcia Clark and Chris Darden. I’ve been watching the People vs. O.J. Simpson and the most consistent emotion I have is how unfairly maligned Clark and Darden were. To me, they’re the real heroes of this entire case.  

Here is yesterday’s Outkick the Show discussion of the Hulk Hogan trial, the Erin Andrews trial, and the FX show and O.J’s case with Sports Law professor Michael McCann.

And here is last night’s post-Republican Debates show for those of you who need more Friday entertainment options to help the workday pass:

As soon as the mailbag publishes I’m headed to the SEC basketball tourney. Today’s gambling picks are as follows: GW-St.Joe’s over 145, Davidson-Saint Bonaventure over 161.5, Florida-Texas A&M over 137.5, Alabama-Kentucky over 135.5.

I absolutely love all of these overs. 

Get rich, kids. 

On to the mailbag. 

Gregory writes:

“Even without the FX show, I’ve loved taking part in “If OJ happened today” discussions the past few years. The Bronco chase would have been the universe’s biggest Twitter meltdown, etc.

But it was while listening to one of your “Who would be the modern equivalent of an OJ?” discussions on “Outkick the Show” that this modern twist on the OJ trial popped into my head and threw me for a loop.

If OJ happened today … under the right set of OJ carelessness, the police very likely could have pinpointed his movements on the night of the murder via tracing the GPS positioning of his phone.

The Dream Team masterfully explained away every piece of 1994 evidence. But do you have any theories on how the f*ck they could have explained away a phone’s GPS trail from Bundy to Brentwood?

I’ll hang up and listen.”

Cell phones would have made everything much easier when it comes to tracking movement, but so would text messages. As angry as OJ would have been at Nicole, don’t you think his text messages would be incredibly damning to him? He might have even threatened to murder her via text. You would have been even more easily able to see his motive to murder Nicole. Here’s the problem though, was lack of evidence really the prosecution’s problem?

The prosecution put OJ and his blood at the crime scene, his shoeprint there, his fingerprints there, and they put the blood of his victim’s back at his house after the murder. The prosecution put O.J. at the murder scene at the time of the murder and traced his movements back to his house after the murder. I mean, O.J. was dead to rights guilty. The vast, vast majority of people convicted of murder in this country have infinitely less evidence against them. The reason he wasn’t found guilty was because a jury of mostly black men and women wasn’t willing to convict him because they believed the Los Angeles police department was racist.

So if they believed that then, what difference would more evidence make? 

Here’s a question I have for y’all: would black people on a jury in 2016 still believe O.J. was innocent or have race relations changed at all in Los Angeles and our country?

I actually think this case would be even more explosive today. Because the racial politics would be impossible to escape, everyone would see them on Facebook and Twitter and the media wouldn’t just be covering the case, they’d be covering the story of how people are responding to the case.

One of the black jurors on the trial gave a black power fist raise after OJ was found innocent. In the jury box! Can you imagine what would happen on social media with that verdict today? It would have been even more explosive than the reaction to the verdict back in 1995. 

One of the great flaws of the modern media has been allowing the idea that black people can’t be racist to take root in our culture. Black racism is never covered as a legitimate story. Compare the coverage of the crazy black guy who murdered the white people on live television with the coverage of the crazy white guy who killed the black people in the church. There’s no comparison to the amount of coverage. The simple fact of the matter is that people of all races can be racist towards people of other races. And the OJ trial proves that pretty clearly. 

But 99% of the media’s coverage of racism is white on black racism, it’s never examined in any other direction. That’s one reason nothing ever changes in this country, because a large segment of white america — and asian America and hispanic America — is tired of the same story on constant repeat. Equal situations aren’t treated equally. 

One of the most fascinating questions that we’ve discussed on Outkick is who would be the modern day O.J.? That is, which prominent former black athlete could be charged with double murder and elicit the same sort of reaction today? Here are my top three names. 

1. Charles Barkley

2. The Rock

3. Michael Strahan

All three of these guys are former athletes — I’m counting The Rock as a former athlete because he isn’t primarily a WWE wrestler any longer — with a substantial media career that’s at least as popular as their playing career was. 

I’m open to your ideas as well, but when you think about the prominence of O.J.’s career post-football, it’s hard to find athletes who are every bit as famous after their careers end as they were while they were playing.

As for some white O.J.’s, I’d go with these three guys:

1. Tim Tebow

2. Peyton Manning

3. Jon Gruden

Richard writes:

“I enjoyed and learned a lot from your legal analysis of the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker trial, but you didn’t mention the most hilarious angle of this case. Hogan testified that his wrestling character’s penis is larger than his is in real life. No, seriously, that really happened. Here’s a video embedded in case you haven’t seen it.

I, and all other wrestling fans, would give anything to watch WWE Chairman and Hulk Hogan character creator Vince McMahon have to address this claim under oath in a courtroom or deposition.

But, more seriously, why could this possibly that relevant to this case?

And, secondly, is there any legal precedent recognizing a character having larger genitalia than the actor portraying that character?

Your story may have focused on First Amendment ramifications, but we all know these are the questions you got your law degree to answer.”

My immediate thought is the Dirk Diggler character in “Boogie Nights” is a perfect example of a character having larger genitalia than the actor portraying that character. Clearly Mark Wahlberg’s dick isn’t as big as Dirk Diggler’s, but the entire premise of the movie makes no sense if Diggler’s penis is a pedestrian six incher. So that’s a perfect analogy of what Hogan is trying to say here. 

Terry Bollea believes that Hulk Hogan’s penis size is important to Hulk Hogan’s overall character. That is, Hulk Hogan can’t be Hulk Hogan unless he has a big dick. In Bollea’s mind, Hogan’s dick is the fulfillment of his character’s larger than life persona. And you know what, I kind of believe that. Remember last year when LeBron’s dick got accidentally flashed on ABC and it was depressingly average? For some reason I expected LeBron to have an Inspector Gadget dick, like he could throw his dick out like a lasso and grab things with it. He’s a freakazoid human being so I just assumed he’d have a freakazoid dick too. I was disappointed that he didn’t. The same would be true with Hulk Hogan too.

Moreover, Terry Bollea is arguing that he isn’t Hulk Hogan inside his own home, that he’s playing the role of Hulk Hogan as a career. Does it make me insane that I totally understand and get what Terry Bollea is saying here? He’s not Hulk Hogan, he’s playing the character of Hulk Hogan and so what he says in character as Hulk Hogan is different than what he would say when he isn’t Hogan.

So Bollea’s given up a large degree of privacy for Hulk Hogan, but he hasn’t given up that same privacy for himself. You need a good lawyer to make this distinction clear, but I buy it.   

Jake writes:

“Hey Clay enjoy your work. I’ve been thinking about this for the past couple months. Is the Black Lives matter supporter the same person as the typical Trump supporter that you see on TV, but born in different colors of skin? I feel like if the same person was born in the opposite skin they would take the opposite point of view. They blame their current status in life on other people that has nothing to do with their life. I’m not talking about every BLM or Trump supporter but when I hear each of them speak I just feel like they are the same person.”

Well said. 

What unites both of these groups is a belief rooted in deep-seated anger that outside forces beyond their control are keeping them from being as successful as they would otherwise be. With Trump supporters it’s illegal immigrants and trade deals and dishonest leaders. With Black Lives Matter supporters it’s racism and racist police and a generally racist country.

I think you’re right, if you swapped races here, black lives matter protesters would be Trump supporters and Trump supporters would be black lives matter activists.

Which also explains why these two groups hate each other so much too, right? Because deep down they’re motivated by the same emotions, they are the same people. 

B. writes:

“I attended an SEC school and was a senior at the time of this dilemma.

There was a very popular bar in this particular town and it was a normal Saturday night – which meant it was a packed house. So, we’re on the back patio enjoying a few cold ones and of course there is a relatively long wait for the bathroom outside. The women’s bathroom outside was a single toilet and sink. But, like girls do, of course they would pile in there in groups at a time and handle their business – nothing out of the ordinary.

Except, in this instance, a group of girls (5 or 6) I knew fairly well were in the bathroom which was approximately 5′ x 5′ – and I’m being very generous. When all of a sudden, while they are shuffling around for the toilet, one of the girls jumps up on the sink unannounced and takes the nastiest diarrhea shit known to man. At that time, the rest of the girls burst out of the bathroom – eyes watering, coughing and in general disbelief.

The entire back patio which once smelled of stale beer and cigarette smoke, now smells like a hazmat situation. I mean, this chick cleared the patio out. The bar put an ‘Out of Order’ sign on the restroom and I’m assuming called a disaster recovery team in the next day. The girl was naturally dubbed the ‘sink shitter’.

Fast forward a couple of months, and an acquaintance of mine is dating this girl. My group of friends and I went back and forth over whether we should tell him about the story or just let it play out since“ we thought everyone knew. Apparently not everyone knew, or even worse, he knew and didn’t care. So one particular night, at the same bar, I had a little liquid courage in me and decided I should break the news to him to see his reaction. He was shocked. So, my question is, what would’ve been the move here if you were dating the sink shitter? Do you break it off immediately after confirming the validity of the story, do you confront her? What’s your play? Am I an asshole for telling him? I feel like I would want someone to tell me.” 

Okay, let’s put yourself in the girl’s perspective. 

She is in the bathroom, probably really drunk, when she suddenly realizes that she is about to shit herself. What are her options? She can:

1. Shit herself. 

(This, quite clearly, is not a good option. Shitting yourself is ALWAYS the worst option.)

2. She can physically remove the girl who is currently going to the bathroom — we have to assume the toilet was occupied — and fling her aside before using the toilet herself. 

This gets her to the toilet, but requires an assault on another girl, who may well have been pooping herself.

3. She can sprint outside and poop somewhere in the parking lot where, with the modern day prevalence of camera phones, she could be recorded for all to see. 

This video hits the Internet and she’s a public pooper for the rest of her life. 

4. She can use the sink. 

Given these four options, I actually think she made the right decision. 

So if I were dating this girl, I would continue to date her. 

I think she made the right call in the midst of a poop emergency. That’s wife material, tbh. 

Adam writes:

“Texas has now banned daily fantasy.

I want to highlight this point in the article and the State AG’s opinion:

“Unlike some other states, Texas law requires only “partial chance” for an activity to be considered gambling, according to Paxton’s non-binding opinion. State law does not require that chance predominate.”  

I apologize for the language, but I am super pissed off by this. How the fuck are online stock trading or even stock traders allowed to operate in the state of Texas. I am pretty damn sure that there is “partial chance” on all of those. What about options trading. This is BULLSHIT.

Damn Texas Morality Control is going to ruin this damn state.”

How about this: the Dallas Cowboys have scratch off lottery ticket promotions ON THEIR OWN NFL WEBSITE — this is literally the dumbest possible form of gambling and it takes advantage of the dumbest people in our country — but you can’t play daily fantasy or legally bet on their football games.

Here’s the simple truth of the matter, our nation’s gambling laws are totally broken. And, you’re right, the language cited by the Texas AG would certainly implicate many aspects of modern day stock investing that we consider totally legal. 

It’s just a joke.

The best gamblers make money gambling. There’s substantial skill involved in gambling, it’s not all chance. The same is true of daily fantasy 

Darden writes:

“As I lie here in a hospital bed recovering from a motorcycle crash (sorry mom) I am reevaluating my life and asking the tough questions that really matter to a college male. For instance,  WHY THE HELL IS SPORTS GAMBLING FROWNED UPON, BUT NOBODY BATS AN EYE AT DAY TRADING?!?

Oftentimes I’ll bet on moving money lines for obscure European basketball games where people don’t pay as much attention and try to get the positive odds on each team. Other days I’ll take more serious picks that you post or come up with my own.

However, somewhere along the lines some ass hat lost a bad bet and ever since our society has frowned upon this noble past time. Would you please provide me with your strongest defense for the legitimacy and obvious credibility of sports gambling? I mean hypothetically, is it not the same as investing? You could put money in heavy favorites (similar to a “solid” stock over time) and reinvest that money into more dangerous picks. I mean shit, people are willing to pay $12 for a two hour movie but I’d be far more entertained paying $20 for a three team parlay unfolding over an entire afternoon. IT MAKES NO SENSE.”

Both of these emails arrived the same day.

I think that most Outkick readers — and many sports fans — are all coming to the same conclusion that you guys have reached. It’s impossible to justify our country’s position on sports gambling whether you’re liberal, conservative or a radical moderate. 

Here’s what we need — a federal law legalizing sports gambling that allows states to either permit or not permit sports gambling like they do with the lottery now.

It’s beyond absurd that the government is focused on stopping sports gambling and daily fantasy. 

…

Hope y’all have great weekends and if you’re going to be at the SEC basketball tournament today, come say hi.