Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Sprewell to get screwed over

I was just saying to the other TSmoke editors last week how quiet it’s been on the Latrell Sprewell front recently. Much like Straw, Tyson, or Ron Mexico, you just don’t expect Sprewell to get through a season without some bizarre episode catching the headlines. So I was quite relieved to turn on my computer earlier this week and read that Spree was slapped with a $200 million palimony suit.

The suit, brought by Sprewell’s estranged partner Candace Cabbil, alleges that Sprewell “broke their long-term cohabitation deal and roughed her up” last month in their New York mansion. And I’m sure “roughed her up” is just legaleese for “choked the living hell out of her.”

The lawsuit goes on to say that when Sprewell was traded from the New York Knicks to the Minnesota Timberwolves in July 2003, the couple agreed that Cabbil and the five children (one of whom Latrell fathered with another woman) would remain in New York. But instead of returning to his family in the off-season, Spree chose to live on a yacht he had purchased in Wisconsin. The relationship finally broke down on Sept. 8 when Spree returned home to New York and announced that the couple needed “to end this fake” relationship.

Spree, only five kids? You should be embarrassed at the effort. And what the hell is a “long-term co-habitation deal?” Is that like hood lingo for the same arrangement that Andrei Kirilenko has with his wife? It’s ghetto rules yo. When you bring home the benjamins, you can sleep with all the hoodrats you want, so long as the cheques keep going through to the baby’s momma. But when the cash stops flowing the only briefs of hers you’ll be seeing will be of the legal variety.


Anonymous said...

I see you got talent in writing articles. Waiting for more posts
[url=]zaklady bukmacherskie[/url]

Anonymous said...

During the markup to Quarter Fixedness 2267, the jaws proposing online gambling usual, opponent Spencer Bachus repeatedly referred to an article in the Orlando Patrol as heralding the incipient dangers of Internet gaming. Bachus said the paper bemoaned the lure Internet cafes posed to children, and argued this meant accepting online casinos means subjecting kids to risk.

Bachus repeated the citation a include of times during the process of the deliberation nigh the Quarter Pecuniary Services Panel, as if he had discovered a hard pip of fact gaming proponents could not refute nor digest. But the Alabama Republican had either accidentally or consciously muddied the splash with misleading information.