NFL Media Match: Ines Sainz Meet Chico Escuela
We’ve all heard the phrase “history tends to repeat itself”. Now thanks to the Ines Sainz controversy, the sporting world is experiencing today, what it went through many years ago with a former Dominican baseball player turned correspondent. His name, was Chico Escuela.
For those too young to remember, Chico Escuela was an all-star second baseman with the New York Mets. When his playing days ended, Chico traded in his Louisville slugger for a hand-held microphone.
Like TV Azteca reporter Sainz, Chico, both on and off the field, never attempted to play down his sexuality. He often paraded around the stadium wearing only his patented, plumb hugging, polyester pants.
Chico was proud of his svelte-like, athletic form, admitting he dressed to be attractive. He was well aware of the ramifications his attire would generate both in and out of the locker room. Yet despite his wardrobe choices, Chico had a hard time dealing with the never ending cat calls and sexual innuendo, some of which were even uttered by women.
But the similarities don’t stop there between these two kindred souls. Like Ms. Sainz, Chico also dabbled in the world of beauty pageants. In the spring of 1969, he was crowned “King of Balls”, a Dominican run spectacle honoring that country’s top baseball prospect.
While writing this story I tried to contact Mr. Escuela for his thoughts on the current Ines Sainz turmoil, but unfortunately, Chico was unavailable for comment. He was busy preparing for an upcoming speaking engagement at the annual “Hail Mary To Baseball” dinner at the St. Mickey’s Knights of Columbus in New York.
So how will this sexually-charge drama play out? Well, that’s still to be determined. But one thing is certain, I’m sure Ms. Sainz hopes that one day she’ll share another bond with Chico and be able to utter those immortal words “Football, been berry, berry good to me.”
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?