Skip to content

Kate Upton says Yankees banned her from wearing Tigers gear in support of boyfriend Justin Verlander

Aug 11, 2014, 9:35 AM EST

justin verlander kate upton getty

Last week Sports Illustrated model Kate Upton was at Yankee Stadium to watch her boyfriend Justin Verlander‘s team. She sat in the front row behind the Tigers’ dugout and at one point Verlander tossed her a baseball. It was all very cute.

However, it turns out Upton wanted to wear a Tigers hat in support of Verlander but the Yankees banned her from doing so while sitting in the “Legends” section.

Or at least that’s what Upton told Michael Strahan during an appearance on “Live With Kelly and Michael”:

They specifically told me, the Yankees told me, they’re like, “You’re not allowed to wear a Tigers’ hat. You’re not allowed to wear any Tigers’ gear.”

And so instead Upton–who actually grew up a Yankees fan–didn’t wear any team-related garb at all.

When faced with a similar situation Upton took a much different approach than noted Orioles fan Elaine Benes at Yankee Stadium in a “Seinfeld” episode 22 years ago.

As always, everything has already been covered by “Seinfeld.”

177 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. missthemexpos - Aug 11, 2014 at 9:39 AM

    In protest she should not have worn any clothing at all.

    • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      Shut up.

      • johnnysoda - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

        When I saw that missthemexpos had posted that comment, I went to a bookie and bet $100,000 that historiophiliac would respond with some indignant comment. I will now collect the princely sum of $101,000.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:06 AM

        I’d appreciate it if you would return the consideration and not leave comments about me on my posts.

      • timmmah10 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM

        awww, the ladies are in a cat fight…

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM

        I know you think you’re clever with that, but it’s not. It’s not even really insulting. You should stick to baseball talk. But your need to prove you’re one of the dudes is duly noted. Feel better?

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM

        Come ‘on….we lead very, very small and shallow lives….can’t we at least dream? :)

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

        Dude, there’s a world of difference between thinking she’s pretty and that she should randomly strip for your pleasure. I think maybe you might get the small shallow lives you deserve if the latter is your thinking.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

        Fair enough – though I still think you are taking the comment too seriously. ;)

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM

        That’s because you’re a guy and don’t have to read this kind of crap all the time. Can’t we just talk about Yankee fascism? That’s the real story here. #imwithkate #rocktheoed

      • stlouis1baseball - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:49 AM

        Come on Philiac. That comment was funny! Lighten up! It’s a Monday. Monday’s suck.
        You are only going to make your Monday worse!

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM

        It wasn’t funny. It was rude and sexist. And it’s so obnoxious that I’m the one who gets crap in this conversation. You all are the ones making my Monday morning blog time by acting like piggies. I know you aren’t big on the sensitivity, so you aren’t going to get it. But I don’t want to have to listen to the sexist crap. One day, y’all may learn to just keep it to yourselves, and then none of our Mondays will suck.

      • girardisbraces - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM

        Sorry, I’m all for the joke. If she poses for a magazine almost naked, she’s fair game, and thus your feminist crap needs to be directed at your own gender if you’re really that concerned.

        /rant off

      • nvl004 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:59 AM

        i am more upset about the unoriginality (pretty sure that’s not a real word lol) of the comment than it being sexist.

      • asimonetti88 - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:03 AM

        Stating that she’s attractive is sexist now?

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM

        No, demanding that she strip for you is. Duh.

      • glennsyank13 - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

        historiophiliac was asked to take off her sense of humor cap years ago

      • nvl004 - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:18 AM

        Saying a women is attractive isn’t sexist. But i could see why suggesting a woman should attend a baseball game naked could come off sexist to some people.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:22 AM

        Upton is a caricature of women but she doesn’t represent all women with that obviously overly drawn figure of hers.

      • Stiller43 - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM

        holy hell, lighten up. It’s a joke. Sure, he may actually want to see her naked (as most if not all straight men would), but he clearly isnt actually suggesting she sit at the game naked. Just as youre tired of “rude” and “sexist” comments, we’re all tired of people who can’t take an obvious joke.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:07 PM

        The solution for you is to stop making sexist comments and “jokes.” Then you won’t have to hear from me. Also, you can shove your insinuation that I’m the unreasonable one. If she was your daughter, how funny would you find that comment?

      • Stiller43 - Aug 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM

        I think her dad is well aware Kate is a BEAUTIFUL girl many men (and women) find sexually attractive. He would probably take it much better than you are…since I’m assuming he has a sense or humor and can recognize a joke when he hears/reads one.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM

        I bet her dad isn’t a jackass who says she should strip naked in front of thousands of people so random dudes can get their jollies. It’s still not funny. Move along.

      • Stiller43 - Aug 21, 2014 at 3:23 PM

        You’re right, he likely wouldn’t say that about his own daughter – but he would very likely say it about another woman who is of course someone else’s daughter – and yes, he’d say it as a joke (perhaps “joke” isn’t the right word as it’s not a “a guy walks into a bar” kinda thing, rather an “it’s not serious, so calm down” kinda thing)

      • historiophiliac - Aug 21, 2014 at 3:46 PM

        Let it go. You are being a jerk. Have a bad day.

      • Stiller43 - Aug 29, 2014 at 10:49 AM

        haha yes i’m the one who should let it go. Look at the popular opinion – EVERYONE thinks you’re the one who should let it go. it wasn’t serious. have a terrible day, yourself.

      • nvl004 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM

        There is also the issue of peanut shells at baseball stadium if she were to indeed attend naked.

        Too far?

      • asimonetti88 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM

        Yes, clearly he is demanding she strip and not just making a joke. You must be a riot at parties.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM

        I wouldn’t be at a party with any of you fools.

      • Paper Lions - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:12 PM

        I am not taking any sides here, but when Kate Upton makes a great living showing off her body, the suggestion that she should do so here isn’t exactly far from her job description. I suppose one could be insulted by the expectation that she should work for free, or one could be insulted by the fact that Kate Upton’s job even exists. There are many things to which people could take exception here depending on their perspective.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:25 PM

        Again, nothing wrong with finding her attractive. Saying she should strip at your pleasure is different. In fact, she has specifically said that she would not pose for Playboy precisely because of all the crap. She gives y’all plenty to look at as it is. None of which means that the SI swimsuit edition isn’t BS anyway. But, just because she has posed in a bikini in certain forums does not mean she should have to pose for random dudes at all times. There’s nothing funny about that. She gets to decide time and place (and how much you have to pay, suckers). It’s totally hilarious getting to joke about y’alls priviledge though. A real laugh-a-lympics.

      • Paper Lions - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:49 PM

        I agree about the stripping part…or the “obligatory here for your entertainment” attitude is sad…but then I think the obsession with famous people is odd. I can’t think of any famous person I would ever bother if I saw them out in public….but then, I am weird.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:51 PM

        I love dudes. I can’t imagine demanding any of them strip for me. Also, you *are* weird.

        BTW, one of the annoying things about my experience in New England is that I was accused of not being a feminist. How’s that for funny?

      • Paper Lions - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM

        Well, it’s a sliding scale. What passes for feminism in OK is probably pretty conservative here.

        BTW, I went to a CT Tigers game Saturday to see the Cardinals short-season A-ball affiliate play them. Purely by coincidence it was a promotional night and I got a “Tater bobblehead”. The team used to be the Norwich Navi*gators* (thus Tater the Gator was the mascot) They brought him out of retirement recently. Lil’ Tater is all decked out in Tigers’ gear (unlike Upton) with an Old English C rather than the D. There a picture of him on this page: http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140612&content_id=79442022&vkey=news_t571&fext=.jsp&sid=t571

      • slappymcknucklepunch - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:20 PM

        Historio; how is this for a deal?

        We will try not to comment on a models who wear bibkinis for a living,if you try not to comment on”handsome”men all the time?

        I mean “handsome” I have to hear that crap everywhere I go…..Jk.

      • thehakko936 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM

        “which is why teams often “give” celebrities tickets.”

        Why is she considered a “celebrity”? Oh yeah, she poses in very little clothing and makes gobs of money doing it because men, and some women, ogle her for their pleasure. She knows this and laughs all the way to bank. She is encouraging, condoning, and profiting from this “sexist” behavior. Are you angry at her?

        A man wanting to see more is “sexist”. How about a lesbian that wants to see her without clothes? Is that sexist as well or is it just when men want to?

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:44 PM

        Feel free to yell at all the lesbians on here demanding she take her clothes off. /eye roll

      • louderthanwords1 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:24 PM

        historiophiliac – You do realize her job is posing in a bikini or less than a bikini do you not? She posed “topless” with a hand bra just recently. She is selling sex daily so comparing her to another persons random daughter isn’t fair.

        As for missthemexpos comment nowhere does it say Upton should strip for their pleasure. It was a joking response to what everyone should agree is a joke of a problem. Your reading into it and taking what you want from it. If you want to rail against sexist comments that’s great but wait til there’s one to rail against.

      • chinahand11 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:42 PM

        No, YOU shut up. Historio is in a bad mood and only makes these comments because in real life she is fat and ugly. There. I said it. Also she is jealous of celebrities. Go out on a corner and scream about how unfair life is, Histor. First tell us what a rough life you have had, etc. C’mon, we’re waiting. It won’t make you feel better but you’ll show everyone what a keyboard bee-otch and tough girl you are.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        Thank you for doing the obvious and calling me an insulting name for women. So witty and original.

        Y’all are just proving how women have to put up with crap men never have to. Go pout.

      • floreskins - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM

        historiphiliac–Even Susan B. Anthony would have found that joke was funny. Lighten up on the ultra-sensitive feminist rhetoric. I’m still hung over from yesterday.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM

        So, you visit mediums to talk to Susan B. Anthony??? Fascinating. I’m inclined to call BS there, but feel free to tell us all about it — instead of how you just made that up.

      • girardisbraces - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:45 PM

        Again – you’d rather rail against “sexist” jokes and the men allegedly making them, rather than take up the issue with women like Kate Upton who allow themselves to be objectified.

        But that’s the feminist mantra. It’s all the man’s fault. Women can’t be held accountable. I’m sure just off camera there’s a man holding a gun forcing her to pose seductively.

        Jesus, get a grip.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:49 PM

        That’s awesome. Why am I supposed to tell her not to do something she chooses to do? That’s the point of feminism. We get to make choices for ourselves. FYI, if you didn’t buy it, she wouldn’t get paid to take bikini pics, so if you think what she does is wrong, don’t buy it.

      • girardisbraces - Aug 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM

        “Why am I supposed to tell her not to do something she chooses to do?”

        Yep, if it offends you that jokes would be made as a result. The nature of her job lends itself to being sexualized and objectified.

        “That’s the point of feminism. We get to make choices for ourselves.”

        Quite a conundrum, if you ask me. If the choices you make put yourselves in a position to be ogled by members of the opposite sex, how can you espouse the choice?

        I think you need to learn to take yourself – and life – a little less seriously. (and FYI – *I* don’t buy “it”, therefore I don’t pay her to take those pics.)

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM

        Dude, my objection is not with what she does. It’s with you guys not knowing how not to be jerks about it. The problem isn’t her. It’s you all. I’m sorry that scantily clad women offend you. They don’t offend me. There’s no conundrum. The matter is very clear. Some of the other guys on here get it. It’s unfortunate you don’t.

      • girardisbraces - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM

        I like Kate Upton. I think she’s extremely attractive. Her scantily-clad form doesn’t offend me at all. But that’s the problem, isn’t it?

        Oh no, the issue is that YOU CAN’T TAKE A F^&*ING JOKE. You and my wife ought to meet and start a support group.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:26 PM

        Haahahaahahahaha!!!!

        I guess we know why you’re not getting any. My regards to your wife.

      • chinahand11 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:55 PM

        Nobody is pouting in this message board, Histor, everyone is laughing. At you. Histor got up in a bad mood and started waving her feminist flag around on the baseball message board. Yes, we are chuckling at you. Snickering, even. A few guffaws at some of your inane comments. But you’re getting what you crave – attention.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM

        Uh huh, sure.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:29 PM

        Wow. The original “joke” was tacky, banal and crass. The follow-up comments are just downright embarrassing. Haha, she’s a swimsuit model; that means because she wears very little clothing in safe and controlled settings she should wear no clothing in a public atmosphere with tens of thousands of other human beings. How dare anybody point out that making jokes about her surrendering her autonomy for our pleasure isn’t funny, it’s demeaning?

      • tved12 - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM

        Now I remember by HBT comments suck. Literally, a post that has nothing to do with baseball has 41 responses.

        Every time I read these forums it’s like each commenter just want to prove that they’re smarter than the other commenters. Great, you’re the smartest person on a baseball forum. Each and every one of you. Feel better now? Great, let’s start talking baseball.

      • floreskins - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        Kevin S. what type of “jokes” do you find funny just out of curiosity? I’m sure NPR is filled with real knee-slappers that aren’t tacky, crass and banal.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM

        Jokes that don’t involve telling a woman to be naked among tens of thousands of people simply because she’s a hot model. But I guess anything less demeaning is a bit much for the mouth-breathing crowd.

      • floreskins - Aug 11, 2014 at 2:08 PM

        Understood, Kevin S. Your sense of humor is just so sophisticated, it can’t be possibly deem something so tawdry and vile as amusing. *lifts nose to the sky*…

      • Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2014 at 2:21 PM

        No, I don’t find degrading a woman to be amusing. Sue me.

      • doctorofsmuganomics - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM

        Well, this went well.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM

        Did you just wake up?

      • doctorofsmuganomics - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

        Rainstorm knocked power out for awhile, didn’t have the ability to comment until now.

        Although you handled things quite nicely

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM

        That’s disappointingly un-smuganomic. ;)

      • doctorofsmuganomics - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM

        I have mondays off.

        such a rough life I lead

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:46 PM

        Muuuch better.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM

        If a joke is not one you would want said to your wife, mother or daughter, then you should not tell it. Period. If someone said that about my wife or daughter I would be furious. Its flat out not funny.

        As for the Historio slander, I’ve seen her, she is neither fat nor ugly, and she has a pretty damn accomplished life. Like many of the regular commentators on HBT. Which is why I read. People who have to resort to personal insults have already lost the argument.

      • tfbuckfutter - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM

        So….ah….

        They release those Biogenesis names yet?

      • asimonetti88 - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:00 PM

        Geez… it gets said a lot, but some people really just aren’t happy unless there’s something they can be offended by. This is a perfect example. Lighten up, a guy wants to see a girl he finds attractive naked.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM

        She’s not an object. She’s a person. Stop treating her like a mindless body for you to ogle. Your rude behavior is not a joke. It’s offensive to treat her as a thing that exists for your enjoyment. What he said was demeaning. Have a nice day.

      • roundballsquarebox24 - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:22 PM

        Maybe it wasn’t that bad of a joke. They were talking about it on “Intentional Talk” on MLB Network today and Matt Vasgersian made the same joke, perhaps a bit less bluntly. He said “Well, if I were to tell Kate Upton to not wear something, it wouldn’t be a logo!”

      • whereisdavyjoneslocker - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:23 PM

        Has it ever occurred to you, historiophiliac, that you’re as sexist as anyone on here?

        For example, I cannot stand people who lament stereotyping of women, Jewish people, LGBT, people of color, etc., but think it’s ok to engage in stereotyping/demeaning men.

        In particular, I absolutely HATE the use of the word ‘dude.’ It’s as loaded with meaning, and as degrading/disrespectful as calling a woman a ‘chick’.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:35 PM

        zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 6:31 PM

        1) Opposing bigotry is not itself bigoted. Opposing sexist remarks is not itself sexist.
        2) When has Historio ever degraded men?
        3) Dude is degrading? Since when? I’m not a huge fan of the term either but it does not have some sort of loaded history and the overwhelming majority of the people who use the term are male.

      • whereisdavyjoneslocker - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:38 PM

        Reflex, let me tell you a few things I’ve learned about women:

        1. Women aren’t big on sensitivity.

        2. Women need to learn to just keep their opinions to themselves.

        3. Men have to put up with crap women never have to.

        4. Most women on this site are jerks.

        Now, I don’t actually believe any of those things. I just took some of historiophiliac’s remarks above and flipped the gender. Are you really sure she’s not degrading men? You’re right that opposing bigotry is not itself bigoted. But doing so with stereotypes and crass over-generalizations is.

        As to ‘dude,’ that word emerged specifically to be a derisive term that commented on a man’s lack of masculinity (and over-attention to fashion trends). A dude was a phony, a poseur, not a real man. The closest modern equivalent would be ‘hipster’.

        http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/10/21/dude/

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 8:05 PM

        I’m sorry, but I am going to need citations for these quotes you claim Historio has said. It seems to me to be things that you have chosen to read into her actual statements.

        Also, thanks for the history lesson on ‘Dude’, however I’m fairly certain nobody is using it in a derogatory fashion these days, which is a point the article you linked to makes. I’m fine with joining your crusade against it, however, and I’m certain Historio would also have no objections to eliminating it from her vocabulary should other males feel it is derogatory as well.

      • whereisdavyjoneslocker - Aug 11, 2014 at 8:22 PM

        Uh, all of these quotes are IN THIS THREAD. For example:

        “You all are the ones making my Monday morning blog time by acting like piggies. I know you aren’t big on the sensitivity.”

        And the fact that, for some people, the term ‘dude’ is now positive doesn’t change the fact that it is rooted in gendered stereotypes. Just like saying something is a ‘gyp’ is rooted in racial/cultural stereotypes.

        Oh, and by the way, ‘piggies’ is even worse. There’s no excuse for use of that kind of slur.

        As to your prediction about historiophiliac, I think you’re incorrect.

      • unclemosesgreen - Aug 11, 2014 at 8:42 PM

        Don’t let the Bro-Magnons bring you down. ;-)

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00 PM

        Thanks, Mo.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:37 PM

        You do realize that she was referring to men in this thread speaking and joking in a sexist manner, right? She is well within her rights to call sexism, sexism. She did not say all men, or that all men are insensitive. She was talking about people *in this thread* responding to the joke and people’s objections to the joke. Which is absolutely a fair thing to do given that their behavior is on the record, right here.

        As for ‘dudes’, go for it. I keep telling you that if you have a problem with it, make a case for it and it will be considered. You can ‘predict’ all you want about Historio, but you don’t know her and I’d put money that she’s intellectually consistent, unlike you who seems to be desperately trying to manufacture a counter controversy that I think most men would laugh you out of the room for.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:13 PM

        1) I did not say all men weren’t sensitive. I was speaking very specifically to the Woodpecker there. If you want to take ownership of that as well, knock yourself out. I think Kevin and Reflex clearly demonstrated they are sensitive men. You should read more carefully.
        2) I never said men should keep their opinions to themselves. I said they should save their sexist comments. Sexist comments (insulting or demeaning women) and opinions are not the same thing. Again, you should think about what you read.
        3) Women *do* have to put up with crap that men never have to. If you do not know that, you are oblivious to the history of sexism and discrimination in our country. If you cannot recognize that, there simply is no way to have an informed adult conversation with you. You do not grasp the very obvious. Take some sociology classes or something.
        4) A number of the men on here were acting jerky today — and that often happens on the internet and on sports blogs specifically. Again, to not be aware of that is to either be too ignorant to have an informed discussion with or too irrational/biased to bother.

        As to your “dude” objection, the word has not had an insulting meaning since surfers and stoners appropriated it years ago. It is not an insult to call Jeff Bridges’ character The Dude — in fact, it’s an honor. You should join the 21st century instead of a 1950’s Mickey Mouse show featuring Spin and Marty on the dude ranch. Heck, join the late 20th century even. “Dude” is not belittling in the common usage today (and never was a derogatory insult against all men generally, making it a sexist term). I will, however, refrain from calling you that since it upsets your spindles…if I can remember who you are later.

      • spacenettle - Aug 12, 2014 at 1:23 AM

        In case anyone is actually interested in understanding historio’s point of view rather than just reacting or name-calling, this might help:

        http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/

      • Reflex - Aug 12, 2014 at 3:00 AM

        That is amazing and I am saving that link to explain to others who just don’t seem to get it.

      • bigmeechy74 - Aug 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM

        If you are honestly being serious in all these comments, then you are probably the most insufferable human being on earth

      • historiophiliac - Aug 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM

        I cannot tell you how happy it makes me that *you* think so.

    • skids003 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM

      She gets to wear whatever she wants.

      • jaydoubleyou22 - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM

        Historiophiliac, First, I’m not sure you understand the definition of sexist. Wanting to see Kate Upton naked and making a joke (or even serious comment) along those lines is not sexist. It is human.

        Second, if objectifying women is sexist, then Kate Upton is quite possibly the biggest misogynist on the planet.

        Third, I don’t define myself as a masculinist (in fact, it’s not even a word) but curiously you define yourself as a feminist. Championing the cause of your gender is by definition sexist. That is, unless you would have been equally offended at the suggestion that a man should show up to a baseball game naked. Somehow I doubt you would have blown up this thread with the same level of vitriol.

        That is all.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:53 PM

        Oooo! The old “Its bigoted to speak out against bigotry” argument! Logical fallacy win!

        No, it is NOT sexist to be a feminist. In fact it is the exact opposite of sexist. Feminism is not about suppressing men. The fact that you think it is means you know nothing about it at all.

      • asimonetti88 - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:41 PM

        Well, it depends on what form of feminism you’re talking about. There are some feminists that seek to “suppress” men in the form of an “ends justifying the means” argument… not in a malicious way (outside a few crazy people, which happens all the time)… basically saying that with the system inherently stacked against women, there needs to be a certain level of suppression to help even the playing field.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 6:33 PM

        Do some feminists really say that? Or do men attempting to create a strawman about what feminism represents say that about feminist positions?

        Also, yes, I am certain extremists exist. But we aren’t talking about that here, and I guarantee you that the number of extreme feminists is outweighed by misogynist males by at least 10,000:1 so it may not be a profitable road to go down…

      • jaydoubleyou22 - Aug 11, 2014 at 6:43 PM

        Reflex, first of all, my argument was not that “it’s bigoted to speak out against bigotry.” The argument was quite simply “it’s not OK to fight sexism with more sexism.” Try wrapping your brain around it sometime.

        I don’t view the world through a gender lens. I don’t define–or divide–the world based on gender. There was no need for the thought police to swoop in and start a public discourse on sexism because of a joke about Kate Upton.

        Beyond all of that, if you can’t see that advocating for your gender over the opposite gender is sexist, then you are part of the problem. If you are a man and you vote for a politician simply because he is a man running against a woman then you are sexist. If you are a woman and you vote for a politician simply because she is a woman then you are not a feminist, you are a sexist.

        If you troll a blog because some guy makes a joke about wanting to see Kate Upton naked, (1) you have no sense of humor, and (2) you may or may not be sexist, depending on how you would react if the opposite gender were at issue. It’s a guess, but I doubt the troll in question would react so strongly if somebody made a joke about wanting to see Justin Verlander naked.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:27 PM

        Some points –

        – Who was fighting ‘sexism with sexism’?
        – How would you feel if someone made that ‘joke’ about your daughter or wife?
        – Why is that reaction different for Ms Upton, who is also someone’s daughter and likely one day someone’s wife?
        – Would you say that about your Boss’ daughter? Your best friend’s? Your pastor’s? Why not?
        – In this discussion thread, who is advocating for putting men down as a method of elevating women?
        – What, specifically, makes this joke ‘funny’ rather than ‘insulting’?
        – Who is advocating voting for a woman over a man simply because of gender in this thread? If nobody, why are you bringing it up and how is it not a strawman argument?
        – Your point about JV is a good one. Nobody makes that statement about JV. They do not make that statement because it is not a societal norm to treat a male as a object to freely project sexual desires upon.

        You may find more about Historio’s views if you just asked her, rather than projecting your assumptions upon her about how you feel she is biased in her views. But that would require conversation rather than assumptions and insults, and that is obviously more difficult for some to engage in.

      • jaydoubleyou22 - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:42 PM

        Reflex — you have a source on that 10,000 to 1 statistic or are you just stereotyping?

        Don’t ever change.

      • whereisdavyjoneslocker - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:56 PM

        Reflex, you clearly don’t understand humor–and its mechanics–very well.

        The joke works–at least to some extent–because it proposes a radical over-response to the situation. You want me to remove my hat? Fine, I’ll remove everything! Monty Python, SNL, etc. have gotten a lot of mileage out of this basic construction. (see, for example, Monty Python’s ‘restaurant’ sketch). On that level, you could indeed make the joke about Justin Verlander, and it would still work ok.

        The joke works particularly well with Kate Upton–not because she’s attractive, per se, or because she’s a woman–but because stripping down is something of her stock in trade. It would work just as well with Kim Kardashian, or Bettie Page, or Miley Cyrus, or Madonna, but not so much with, say, Julia Roberts, or Michelle Obama, or Tina Fey. Similarly, the joke would work VERY well with certain men. For example, it would definitely be funny if the subject was one of the guys in the movie “The Full Monty” or Ewan McGregor or Ron Jeremy.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 8:16 PM

        If you believe that the joke was made because of the reasons you stated then you are willfully ignorant. Nobody would make that joke about anyone below average appearance wise in the context of how this one was made. It was made explicitly because we live in a society where objectification of women is acceptable to the vast majority.

      • whereisdavyjoneslocker - Aug 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM

        Look, you asked about the humor of the joke. I attempted to explain it to you, in detail, and with examples. I’m only going to say three things:

        1. Neither you nor I can say what was in the original poster’s head when he made the joke. It’s doubtful that even the original poster did an analysis of the mechanics of the joke.

        2. I say again, the joke is not rooted in sexism or objectification of women. It is rooted in (a) a humorous imagined overreaction, and (b) the vague plausibility of the proposition. It would be JUST AS FUNNY with men whose stock in trade was displaying their nude/semi-nude bodies. I am not wrong here just because you say ‘nuh-uh’.

        3. The joke could and would work with someone of below-average attractiveness (indeed, the aforementioned “The Full Monty” is basically just this exact joke, writ large, with men of average attractiveness). The joke would also work–though would be a bit mean–with someone for whom public nudity would be especially shocking and/or unappealing. I’m thinking Kathy Bates here, for example, or Abe Vigoda.

      • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:40 PM

        You manufactured an explanation that you feel validates your position that Historio is unbalanced on the issue. However being able to rationalize something after the fact in no way changes the original intent. Nobody made this joke with your reasons. You are correct that they *could* have if they had chosen to, although they would likely have padded it with more material in order to make clear the direction they chose, however that is NOT what they did, nor what people responded to. Post-hoc rationalization does not in any way change initial intent or reaction. Nice try though.

        You may be choosing to take it this way (personally I doubt it), but it was not intended this way and you are being intellectually dishonest in pretending it was.

    • tribester - Aug 11, 2014 at 6:11 PM

      Not cool, dude. Not cool at all.

  2. Fat Al - Aug 11, 2014 at 9:41 AM

    She could have, say, bought her own ticket…

    • jwbiii - Aug 11, 2014 at 9:58 AM

      Upton made $82m in the last year. Why would you assume that she didn’t buy her own ticket?

      • Fat Al - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:04 AM

        Because that’s the only reason she was talking to the Yankees. There were lots of people in the Stadium in Detroit colors. They bought their tickets. She (or her people) asked for comped seats behind the Tigers dugout, and the Yankees people told her no Tigers gear. Not saying the Yanks aren’t stupid, but hard to listen to whining from rich celebs who aren’t even paying their own way.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

        And even if she didn’t, the Yanks certainly benefited from the positive publicity for the Upton-Verlander thing — which is why teams often “give” celebrities tickets. It’s a trade.

      • Old Gator - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

        It’s totally routine to comp good seats for the entourage of the visiting team. “Her people” probably meant whomever in the Detroit administration routinely handles comp seat requests for the Tiggers. For whatever temporary advantage the Borg dimwits might think they gained by banning that dreaded out-of-town boosterism from the ambit of the centerfield camera, they more than lost it when Upton went on national TV a day or two later and made them look like a bunch of petty sphincters.

      • pappageorgio - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM

        Those seats right behind the dugout are not the normal family section seats. They very well may have been comp’d but wouldn’t probably have been the run of the mill ticket she would have gotten from the tigers road manager. She probably got them from the Yankees.

        That being said……in many stadiums there are places where you are only allowed to display the home teams gear. Most of the time it’s the dugout box right behind the plate (i.e. the place that gets the most camera time). This is the first time I’ve heard that related to behind the visitor’s dugout……so she probably got them from the Yankees.

      • mogogo1 - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM

        Definition of a win-win. She gets really good seats for free and the Yankees get a celebrity right where the cameras can find her. And, naturally, the cameras are also a perk for her. Better shots of her without the Tigers cap, any way.

        Can’t remember who it was but some older celebrity gave an interview a while back talking about how it was almost impossible to spend money when they’d been at their peak. So many people were fighting to give them things they didn’t even need to carry money with them.

      • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:55 PM

        LOL- that’s an internet myth. Upton’s net worth is south of $15M.

      • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:57 PM

        http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/kate-upton-net-worth/

    • indaburg - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM

      There was a story last year about the Arizona Diamondbacks asking Dodgers fans to change out of their gear in premium seats that could be seen prominently on tv. Do the Yanks have a similar policy and could that be the reason why the said no Tigers gear?

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:49 AM

        She was sitting over the visitors’ dugout. Come on. I’ve worn Detroit gear in Arlington where the cameras could see me before. In fact, I was on the jumbotron in it. That’s a dumb rule. If anything, it encourages out-of-market fans to visit your park and spend money there.

      • indaburg - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:54 AM

        I disagree with the policy–people should be able wear whatever team gear they want–but I’m wondering if that’s the reason.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM

        Down with Yankee tyranny!!!!! Booooo!!!!

        /throws peanuts

        (BTW, did you see on the news about the girl pitching for the Philly team in the Little League WS?)

      • indaburg - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:09 AM

        I hear she throws a 70 mph fastball. Nice.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:05 PM

        A 3-hitter! Now, I’m kinda torn who I want to win.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00 AM

        Dbag management didn’t just ask; they lost their shirts. Seriously. Had everyone change from blue to red gear by the end of the 2nd inning.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:31 PM

        70mph fastball. It’s 46ft from the mound to the plate in little league–that means the kids batting against her have the same amount of time to react as a major leaguer does against a 91.3mph fastball. Pretty amazing for 12 year old kids.

      • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM

        There is absolutely no Yankee policy against wearing opposing team gear in the stadium, including the Legends Suite seats. I promise you. The only way this actually happened is if these seats are team controlled and they comped her one.

        And if she paid for the ticket, she got it on the secondary market, since these seats are NEVER available on a single game basis from the box office. Thus, they wouldn’t even have had advance notice she was coming.

      • indaburg - Aug 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM

        I’m sure she was comped a seat. There is no way Justin Verlander didn’t leave his girlfriend a ticket for the game. I just didn’t know what the Yankees’ preference was in the premium seats since I couldn’t recall seeing an opposing team’s cap or jersey in the premium seats. I know the Yankees allow gear in other seats in their stadium–I’ve worn my Rays gear to Yankees Stadium. Upper deck with the proletariats, of course.

        Perhaps next time they comp a seat, a confidentiality agreement is in order when they request that someone not wear an opposing team’s gear.

    • largebill - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:10 PM

      Last thing she (or almost any celebrity) would do is buy their own ticket.

  3. sdelmonte - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM

    On the one hand, it seems a really dumb thing to do to a celebrity. OTOH, there have plenty of stories over the years about strange policies in Yankee Stadium.

    • blacksables - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:06 AM

      So celebrities should get special privileges just because they’re celebrities, while normal people aren’t allowed the same rights?

      • timmmah10 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM

        In this case, it seems the normal people would have the right to wear what they want but the comped celebs are not. Chalk up a W for the little guy!

      • sdelmonte - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM

        I think normal people in out of town gear aren’t usually told to remove their caps. So in a sense, since everyone in the “Legends” seats has $$$, it’s the reverse of the usual in life.

        But what I am saying is just that it’s a bad PR move to embarrass someone like to go public about it.

      • Old Gator - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM

        “Normal people” int he Legends seats. Heh. Score another genius point.

      • blacksables - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:54 AM

        People have used that one before. You even have to plagiarize your insults. You’re a sad, sad, old man.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:01 AM

        Why wouldn’t a normal person be able to wear anything they want behind the visitor’s dugout? If anything, allowing Kate Upton to wear a Tigers hat would bash that door down and allow everybody to wear anything they want.

      • Old Gator - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:49 AM

        You’re sounding more and more like your old hero Sewerbear these days, Blackie. And your rhetorical gambits are as lame and obvious as his/hers or whatever it was. All that’s missing is the gutter vulgarity, but I don’t doubt that’ll be along soon enough.

      • blacksables - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:55 AM

        Yup. Right after you threaten physical violence again. Clock’s ticking.

      • groupofsevenrules - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        You know, Blacksables, I’m confident that I’m not the only one who’s gotten sick and tired of your bottomless dishonesty. I’ve been reading this blog for years and I can confidently say that Gator, while he can be merciless in pointing out the idiocy of commentators like you, has never “threatened physical violence” against anyone. I also have seen you make this sickeningly empty accusation before, be challenged by Gator to come up with a single concrete example of such a threat, and not only fail to do so but usually duck off into some irrelevant, if equally lame, verbal gambit to avoid admitting how utterly full of s**t you are. And you’re not fooling anyone, either. By all means go on making a fool of yourself in all sorts of entertaining ways, but all you do with this particular fake accusation at Gator is reaffirm your standing as one of, if not the most, vapid and dishonest correspondents to this blog.

    • bfunk1978 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM

      Not just Yankee stadium, either.

      http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/13/d-backs-owner-makes-dodgers-fans-change-clothes/

      • Old Gator - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM

        Definitely not. Remember the way the Seattle Seahwaks closed out ticket sales outside of town to make sure that only local boosters of the team got to fill the seats for the playoffs this past winter? Pettiness is no special provenance of the Borg.

      • uwsptke - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:22 PM

        They limited the sales to the Pacific Northwest I believe, to keep San Fran fans from making the trek north. I don’t really see a problem with that, however. They were going to fill the seats regardless, so why not take extra steps to ensure your homefield advantage is as strong as possible? Even Harbaugh had no problem with that.

        Now, on the otherhand you have teams who have a hard time selling out regular season games who will often handcuff a regular season game against well-traveling opponents (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Dallas, etc) and make them purchase a ticket to a preseason game. That’s a little dirty.

      • groupofsevenrules - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:55 PM

        Simply because “taking steps” to pack the house was a mean spirited thing to do and it even made them look scared – not that they needed to be given how good their team was in the first place. Harbough didn’t need to object because he was going to the game anyway.The fans who got shut out by the Seahawks’ display of lousy sportsmanship, as well as those of us who observed it from a disinterested distance, had every reason to feel offended by their littleness or, in the cases of those fans who couldn’t attend because of it, deprived.

      • blacksables - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:17 PM

        You really don’t understand the concept of ‘home field advantage’, do you?

      • Old Gator - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:47 PM

        I suspect he understands it quite a bit better than you understand the concept of “good sportsmanship.” But then, a pathological liar like you would have problems conceptualizing anything that smacked of fairness or equitability.

        You’ll notice that I didn’t put this in the form of a rhetorical question the way you did. There was no point wasting a question mark where an answer was already implicit, especially when a mere period would do the job.

    • jeffchadwick - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

      The most disappointing part of this story is that Upton – a Michigan native – was somehow a Yankees fan before she started dating Verlander.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:50 AM

        She was born in MI but raised in Florida…and there are lots of Yankees fans in FL.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:17 AM

        I believe she was born in the same area in Michigan where Jeter played high school ball so that may play into it a little too.

      • daveitsgood - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM

        What makes it even weirder is that her two brothers play for Atlanta.

      • Paper Lions - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:18 PM

        I guess. Probably just a front runner, just like fellow Michigan native Derek Jeter, who grew up a Yankee fan.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:34 PM

        Grew up in Michigan, but was born and spent his summers in Jersey. Try again.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:57 PM

        Grew up in Michigan, but was born and spent his summers in Jersey. Try again.

        Not the greatest source but wiki says born in St. Joe, MI and raised in Melbourne, FL.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:59 PM

        just noticed you were talking about Jeter lol

    • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM

      I’m sure there are plenty of stories about “strange policies” at Yankee Stadium that are very popular in the fly over states. I can tell you that as someone who has been to both Yankees Stadiums numerous times, as well as 20 other MLB parks, there is nothing different about going to a game there than anywhere else.

  4. stex52 - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:03 AM

    It might have been entertaining if she had chosen to wear her Detroit garb anyway. The Yankees could have decided whether they wanted to escort her out of the stadium. She could have decided if she wanted to have the kind of publicity that would have generated.

    That might have made for a kind of interesting story. Otherwise, meh.

    • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:54 PM

      It would have been interesting, I suppose, if she wasn’t lying and the Yankees actually had a rule banning fans from wearing opposing team gear, which they don’t.

  5. drewzducks - Aug 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM

    She may not have been wearing Tiger gear but she seemed to look just fine in her Cougar gear.

    • nvl004 - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:03 AM

      Cougar?? Isn’t she like 22 years old?

      • genericcommenter - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:07 PM

        If she did porn, she would be asked to do cougar and teen scenes at the same time.

    • mornelithe - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

      Yeah Upton’s actually younger than Verlander, by 9 years :)

    • bigmeechy74 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:19 PM

      that doesn’t make sense

  6. jerze2387 - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

    This would have never happened if George were still alive……

  7. miguelcairo - Aug 11, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    I’ll take Emma Watson over Upton any day.

    • bigmeechy74 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:18 PM

      Agreed. I prefer girls that are in shape over fat chicks too

      • genericcommenter - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM

        Too bad neither prefer you.

    • bfunk1978 - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:34 PM

      We’re talking about an upper echelon of hot that just doesn’t get chosen one over another. It chooses you. Or in your case and mine, it chooses someone else. lol

  8. greymares - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM

    On another note the Yankees also said she can’t have facial hair..

  9. janessa31888 - Aug 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM

    Seems the thumb harpy is a male, judging by all the thumbs down ‘philiac gets. Good grief, guys. It was even worse over a ProBasketBallTalk when Becky Hammon was hired by the Spurs. The filthy minds over there were making bets as to which player would be the first to have sex with her. I won’t be visiting that page again.

    • Reflex - Aug 11, 2014 at 6:25 PM

      There are a lot of males threatened by the idea of a woman sticking up for women and demanding to be treated respectfully.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 12, 2014 at 9:10 AM

        A lot of men and women don’t like people looking for trouble where none is to be found either.

      • Reflex - Aug 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

        No doubt, although that is not what has occurred here of course. Which is what Janessa as referring to.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 12, 2014 at 2:29 PM

        It’s exactly what occurred here. The original statement was a light hearted stab at some humor about a model that many people find attractive. There was no “demand” that she strip for anyone or do something degrading. Histo immediately shot back with a “shut up”. She could have given it the ole thumbs down herself but instead she fueled the flames, and given her history, the vulchers attacked.

      • Reflex - Aug 12, 2014 at 2:33 PM

        Given your own history your rather creative interpretation of events is not unexpected.

      • grumpyoleman - Aug 12, 2014 at 2:48 PM

        back at ya

  10. DonRSD - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    Kate has a great upper body, but that flat booty is MEH.

    • genericcommenter - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM

      Yeah, but have you seen her elbows?

  11. genericcommenter - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM

    I would have let her borrow my wife’s small Yankees shirt.

  12. randygnyc - Aug 11, 2014 at 1:41 PM

    Jim leyland, who currently works for the tigers, wasnt even wearing a tigers cap. On the Yankee broadcast they spoke about how leyland was sitting in a season ticket holders seat and leyland was wearing a Yogi museum hat. Kate was in good company

  13. chadjones27 - Aug 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM

    Isn’t this policy in many stadiums (for certain seats)? Not saying it’s a good policy. Just that it’s not that uncommon.

  14. realgone2 - Aug 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM

    How dare someone joke that a girl who gets paid millions to wear next to nothing or nothing at all………..should wear nothing at all. A lot of these comments here are what give conservatives their ammo.

    • historiophiliac - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:16 PM

      You must be the rear bringing up the rear.

  15. mybrunoblog - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:01 PM

    Why are people so worked up about this. If you accept a free $1200 ticket, there are strings attached. Want to wear your Tigers hat? Buy a ticket.

  16. katra2logic - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:21 PM

    Big city, small minds….

    • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:51 PM

      I would say you are the one with the small mind, since you took what she said as the absolute truth without knowing whether it is or not. I have sat in the Legends Suite seats, and believe me there is no ban on wearing opposing team gear.

  17. kalinedrive - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

    No matter how you get the ticket and no matter where your seat is, you should be allowed to wear a baseball cap or any other licensed MLB apparel at a baseball game. Every game I have ever seen anywhere has fans from both teams represented, and often other teams that aren’t even involved on the field. Who cares if someone sees an away team logo in the stands, whether it’s behind home plate or behind the batters when they are stepping in the box or behind the dugouts? Regulating this is preposterous. What do they do with people’s stuff if they show up with an unauthorized hat or jersey?

    • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

      And at Yankee stadium, you are. She’s lying.

  18. Steven Keys - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM

    Guess you sure showed them, huh, Kate, (“didn’t wear any team”). Ugh. Next time, Ms. Upton, assuming your recollection is accurate, question authority, stir the pot, make a statement, boost your celebrity, go feline (wear Tigers) and go to bat for your boy (Justin), or…bite your tongue.

    As for the Yankees ball club, real empires have no fear, Misters Steinbrenner.

  19. lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:48 PM

    I can’t say for certain that she is lying, but having sat in the Legends Suite seats multiple times, and given the fact that I watch almost every Yankee game on YES, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is NO policy forbidding the wearing of opposing team merchandise at Yankee Stadium.

    Not sure what her motivation would be to lie beyond flak she might have taken from Detroit fans about not having any Tiger gear. But I can only reiterate that unless they singled her out, she’s lying.

    • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 4:49 PM

      And I love all of the knee jerk Yankee haters on here commenting as though what she said is the God’s honest truth. Boy, it doesn’t take much to set off Pavlov’s dogs, does it?

    • allmyexsliveintexas - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:13 PM

      Gee, the world’s most famous supermodel… All those TV cameras… Hard to believe they would single her out.

      And your comment about sitting in the Legends section and being free to wear any logo – I assume all of your seats were comp’ed by the Yankees? You must be real famous.

      • lukedunphysscienceproject - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:39 PM

        Yes, because in New York there are hardly any celebrities around. She’s easily the most famous person to go to a Yankees game ever in history. LOL. And of course, teams always choose the most famous people to pick on and not allow to do what normal fans can. That’s how that works.

        As to your second point, it’s almost too stupid to even be understood by normal humans. I didn’t say I was free to wear other logos when others weren’t- I just meant that I have sat there enough (on my own dime) to know the rules, and there is no rule regarding team colors.

        If you actually understood how the world works, you would understand that if the Yankees were going to come down on anyone, it would be a normal fan and not a world famous super model.

  20. ptbakery - Aug 11, 2014 at 7:16 PM

    I never knew Borat could score such good seats!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (5434)
  2. Y. Tomas (4419)
  3. H. Ramirez (4254)
  4. J. Lester (3180)
  5. C. Headley (2360)
  1. M. Kemp (2307)
  2. J. Upton (2258)
  3. J. Bruce (2177)
  4. Y. Cespedes (2097)
  5. A. LaRoche (2029)