Open up the ESPN.com MLB front page right now and you'll see that pretty much the entire site is dedicated to the topic of steriods, from the main feature to a lot of the sidebar links. Nowhere in there is any link to the breaking story that for four years Roberto Alomar - a recently-retired 17-year veteran and probable Hall of Famer - may have insisted on having unprotected sex with his girlfriend despite showing AIDS-like symptoms and refusing to get tested.
0 recs | 64 comments
Huh.
section331 - February 11, 2009
I thought...
they had it up there earlier today?
Ah well, Sporting News Today and Fanhouse both had it earlier this morning. Better reads anyways.
Doug-e-Fresh - February 11, 2009
Nice try Jeff. I prefer to read real sports sites.
Sec 108 - February 11, 2009
Actually, it's worth reading the complaint to find out that Jeff's assertion is not true in a critical respect....
…the complaint merely alleges that Alomar was reluctant to be tested for AIDS despite displaying symptoms consistent with AIDS. When he finally got tested, according to the complaint, he ceased insisting on/having any unprotected sex with his girlfriend.
Either way, the complaint is a load of legal horseshit (there are major assumption of risk issues here) and I think it’s just a fucking shame that Alomar’s personal life has to be made public like this. Is he gay? Bisexual? HIV positive? I don’t care, and it’s not my business. This whole situation just makes me feel like a creepy voyeur.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
I edited my sentence to better reflect the complaint
Jeff Sullivan - February 11, 2009
but steroids are the worst thing to happen to humanity since Gengis Khan decided to go walkabout
pdb - February 11, 2009
Deadspin
mentions something about him saying he was raped by two mexican men when he was 17 playing semi-pro ball or something.
hcoguy - February 11, 2009
Must resist...
Must resist urge to photoshop…
Vatinius - February 11, 2009
Please do.
pdb - February 11, 2009
Ooh, I bet that umpire he spit on is heading to the clinic.
waldo rojas - February 11, 2009
I was going to say
At least our society has progressed to the point that everyone is aware that John Hirschbeck has nothing to worry about.
katal - February 11, 2009
I'm not sure I understand this lawsuit...
Alomar wasn’t raping his girlfriend. He refused to get tested or wear a jimmy hat, the combination of which makes him look like an arrogant prick. But it’s the gf’s responsibility to say “no test, no hat, no sex”
sammy - February 11, 2009
jimmy hat?
Q-tip? Is that you?
pdb - February 11, 2009
it was a brown wallet... it had props numbers... gotta get it man
sammy - February 11, 2009
good god I love that song
pdb - February 11, 2009
There's no way to go too much further without getting in to pretty dangerous territory...
…but that depends entirely on what constitutes “insistence on unprotected sex.” And most places, having unprotected sex when you are HIV+ or have been negligent in determining your status is a crime.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
Interesting.
I understand neglecting to tell someone when you know you are HIV+, but I didn’t realize you could go to jail for being ignorant of having the bug.
sammy - February 11, 2009
The key thing is negligence.
If he was exhibiting symptoms, it’s possible he was in violation of the law.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
Just like with every other law
ignorance is no excuse.
pdb - February 11, 2009
Not in this case. Infecting someone with HIV when you are asymptomatic is not illegal.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
Interesting.
pdb - February 11, 2009
That would be impossible to prosecute.
HIV can take up to six months to show up on tests, and until it progresses (which can take years) it’s impossible to say when someone was infected.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
If it was any other case, then I might agree.
But, as acblue has stated, HIV symptoms are damn hard to test, and for the most part they don’t show up until after the fact. If Robbie Alomar thought he was clean, and needed to get his rocks off then and there, then I can’t really blame him (though I probably would’ve done the test anyway just to make sure, but you know, he’s human and all that jazz).
That said, my sympathies to Robbie if he really does have HIV.
Benne - February 11, 2009
Not in America, and not at issue here.
If Alomar had known (or had constructive knowledge) of his HIV+ status and failed to inform his girlfriend, then he could be subject to criminal and civil charges. But mere reluctance to get an AIDS test? Nah, unless one could actually PROVE that the reason Alomar didn’t want to get one is because he knew it would provide concrete evidence of that which he already suspected (i.e. that he had AIDS). Practically speaking that’s a near-impossible task to prove, basically you’re gonna have to chuck a Hail Mary and hope you can get to a sympathetic jury before the case gets tossed from court after discovery.
Anyway it’s all moot, since that’s not the complaint being alleged here. She didn’t get HIV from Alomar, even despite his refusal to wear a jimmy hat. Near as I can tell without reading the complaint in full, her primary claim (at least the only one with any chance of success) would have to be IIED. Merely proving reckless behavior on Alomar’s part does nothing for her case unless she can also prove some sort of real harm as a result, hence her claim of “ZOMG AIDS PHOBIA!” which is the most utterly bullshit piece of shit argument I have ever seen. But it fits in with the idea of intentional infliction of emotional distress, where the harm is purely psychological.
Either way, it seems like little more than a shakedown suit.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
The thing is,
even if she had contracted HIV from Alomar, if Alomar was truly ignorant that he had AIDS, isn’t the onus on the girlfriend to refuse to have unprotected sex with a man that she suspects has the bug? If I pick up a sickly looking hooker with sores on her mouth and proceed to have unprotected sex with her, that’s my own damn fault if I get HIV afterwards.
sammy - February 11, 2009
You can't say this without having intimate knowledge of the relationship dynamics and the incidents in question themselves.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
Yes you can.
The case is made in the complaint. If rape (or a level of coercion tantamount to rape) is not alleged in the original complaint, you can’t just introduce it willy-nilly during the trial process. You would have to either amend or withdraw and re-file the complaint altogether.
In a legal sense, the facts alleged in the complaint are all that exist. If there is something “more” (outside of the likely “well I was living the easy life with a nice house and a car and good clothes so I felt I had to do what he wanted!” line), then it damn well better be alleged, even in sketchy form, in the complaint. Otherwise it won’t be allowed in as a basis for final adjudication.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
I'm not arguing based on legality and I can't really say anything else without violating the TOS so STC.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
Yes it is.
As I said in my first post in this thread, there are major assumption-of-risk issues here with regard to her case. At no point is the girlfriend alleging that Alomar raped her (god forbid), merely that he was reluctant to get tested and he wanted unprotected sex. Given her apparent suspicions, Alomar’s attorneys can and should argue that she clearly assumed the risk of any possible infection, a risk which in fact was not realized anyway.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
From a legal standpoint you are correct.
From a moral standpoint you are not.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
I'm not so sure about that, really.
Let’s face it: the reason she continued to have unprotected sex with Alomar, despite any fears, was almost certainly because she was on the gravy train and didn’t want to get off. She liked her good life and didn’t want to risk it. She weighed the factors and made her own risk calculation, and I see nothing immoral about saying “it was your choice now live with it.”
Again, if Alomar had definitively known he was HIV+ and concealed it from her, if she had no idea whatsoever that she was at risk…then you would have a serious moral case. But I would say that this is precisely the sort of situation where the girlfriend has NO moral case whatsoever, indeed is behaving rather shamefully and opportunistically here. She rolled the dice and took her chances because she loved her money and sweet life. She won that roll of the dice, lucky for her. And now she’s suing because of lingering phobias about a choice she conciously (and perhaps cynically) made? She hasn’t even demonstrated any serious harm here, much less made a moral or legal case, IMO.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
.
Holy fucking shit you cannot be serious.
Subthread closed.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
I won't pursue it beyond this last post, but see nothing unreasonable about the logic in the quoted portion of my post
I am perhaps being relentlessly logical, but the law calls for nothing less when we’re forced to balance — and remember, it’s almost always a BALANCING act — the rights and grievances of two sides in a civil case. The argument I made is quite serious, and quite uncontroversial as well: you read about cases just like the scenario I laid out in your first-year torts casebook on the section about Assumption of Risk. Understand acblue, this is a legal concept and not just my personal philosophizing.
Additionally, the reason it’s a legal concept is because there is an underlying moral rationale to it, however harsh it may initially appear: Western legal, ethical, and philosophical systems revolve in large part around concepts of personal responsibility. That’s why the biggest losers in torts cases are people who endanger innocent unwitting bystanders or children or invalids: people who can’t make any reasonable choices about their own safety are the ones who need the most legal defense.
In this case, courts have looked upon cases like Alomar’s girlfriend and used exactly the calculus I just did: “What is that you say, Ms. Alomar? You suspected he was HIV+? You asked him to get tested? You were afraid for your health? And yet you continued to have unprotected sex? Why did you not refuse, Ms. Alomar? Leave the relationship? Because you enjoyed your comfort? In that case, the court has no choice but to find that you were aware of and consciously assumed the risk of infection.”
This case won’t ever make it to such a stage – it was designed to be settled out of court — but you should understand that this is exactly the line of reasoning any sensible judge would follow, and with good reason. Once you strip away the taboo issues of sex, disease, and male-female relationships, you are left with an archetypical “bungee-jumping” case: plaintiff chooses to engage in a risky activity knowing there is a chance of a disastrous outcome, and assumes the risk.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
.
There is no defense for this statement. None.
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
I apologize for the brusqueness of the way I stated it.
I was reaching a conclusion based on what I’d read of the civil complaint and the news coverage of the story. I’m sure it seems far more harsh and dismissive than I meant it to, and it is conclusory in any respect.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
You're assuming a lot,
But I agree with the overall moral judgement in this respect: It is the girlfriend’s responsibility to not have unprotected sex with chauvinistic pigs. Roberto Alomar saying “but I don’t want to wear a condom” should lead directly to the girlfriend saying “then no sex till you’re tested, dumbass”. When the girlfriend responded the way she did (“Ok, fine, I guess I’ll just hope that’s just a cold sore”), that was the moment she took moral responsibility for any potential negative risks resulting from the intercourse.
acblue,
You keep alluding to some huge underlying elephant in the room that you don’t want to discuss… I gotta admit, I’m not sure what you’re alluding to, but I’d be interested in hearing you out.
sammy - February 11, 2009
Women are treated like shit in society and routinely abused horribly?
Aaron Campeau - February 11, 2009
ok,
but there’s no claim of abuse here. If there was, we’re obviously talking about a very different case. There was no coercion so far as I can see
sammy - February 11, 2009
If abuse or coercion had been a factor here, no lawyer on the planet would have left it out of the complaint.
Look, she’s already suing the guy and filing a public document, she might as well go whole hog and lay it all out if it’s there. It’s not like there are any bridges left to burn at this point.
esoteric - February 11, 2009
I don't think this is going to go anywhere good
Graham MacAree - February 11, 2009
So we are in agreement.
I am glad.
sammy - February 11, 2009
A little song for Mr. Alomar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9cATXBa0Po&feature=related
robstoneii - February 11, 2009
If this were about A-Rod
The press would have a field day with the idea that Alex is daring to have sex out of wedlock.
As it is, it’s just Ex Big Leaguer Did Something Kind Of Dickish.
katal - February 11, 2009
I wish Jeff Clement would give me HIV
Graham MacAree - February 11, 2009
You two would be forever linked.
Fin - February 11, 2009
If you gave Clement HIV you would get to keep your hetrocard.
Robert - February 11, 2009
Intercourse with Clement is not cause to lose one's mancard.
He is simply too dreamy.
thewyrm - February 11, 2009
Felix > Clement.
Sorry guys.
Fin - February 11, 2009
HIV doesn't travel in only one direction.
Sec 108 - February 11, 2009
Of course it does, it's magnetic.
That’s why my titanium necklace comes in so handy.
Matthew - February 11, 2009
So Pedroia has HIV?
Sec 108 - February 11, 2009
There's probably a pedophilia joke involving his brother in here somewhere.....
Goose - February 11, 2009
I don't kow why I bought one
But everyone on my baseball team seems to have one, so I bought one too
does this make me a fashion whore?
mariners124m - February 11, 2009
Among other types of whoring, yes.
Yes it does.
Matthew - February 11, 2009
I wasn't aware of this.
Robert - February 11, 2009
I don't.
Kirsten Schlewitz - February 11, 2009
Not even super sexy HIV?
ningwers - February 11, 2009
This comment is terrible.
JI - February 11, 2009
As said earlier
no wonder his performance fell of a cliff after 2001.
JI - February 11, 2009
You know, this was my very first thought upon reading the article.
I feel bad saying it, because HIV/AIDS is hardly a laughing matter, but (assuming he does have it) it does somewhat explain why his career went off the rails so fast.
Benne - February 11, 2009
First HOFer with HIV?
and will the HIV source be revealed to be needles… of the steroid injecting kind? In fact, how do we know this isn’t just another steroid story waiting to blow up in our faces?
johnbai - February 11, 2009
That's a path I'd rather not go down.
Benne - February 11, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.