default-cbs-image

Marlins Man is a highly leisured spectator-sports enthusiast who is no stranger to premium seating. Zack Hample is a ballhawk who's retrieved thousands of major-league baseballs over the years. They are presently at odds regarding Hample's attendance at the recent Braves-Marlins game put on for service members at Fort Bragg. Needless to say, this clash of pantheon-dwellers merits the FAQ treatment. So for the uninitiated, here's what's going with Marlins Man vs. Zack Hample ...

So what's all this about?

So MLB constructed a ballpark at Fort Bragg that would seat 12,500, and, in MLB's words, the "vast majority" of tickets to the July 3 game between the Marlins and Braves would go to service members and their families. In fact, tickets to the game were not allowed to be sold or transferred. If you had ticket and couldn't attend, you were to turn your ticket over to organizers for redistribution. Here's this from the Fayetteville Observer:

Giving the tickets away, whether or not money changes hands, could lead to some spectators being removed from the ballpark and "repercussions" for the service member who originally owned the tickets, said Eric Hill, the recreation division chief for Fort Bragg's Directorate of Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation.

As well, tickets were distributed via lottery, and a Department of Defense ID was required to enter said lottery.

What does this have to do with Zack Hample?

Somehow, he made it into the game ...

Which should not have happened.

How did the 82nd Airborne feel about Hample's attendance at the Fort Bragg game?

They were, let us say, less than pleased ...

Basically, Hample's taking up an in-demand seat that would've very likely gone to a member of the military -- i.e., someone for whom the game was being played in the first place.

How did Hample get into the game?

Here's what Hample himself says ...

But then there's this bit of countervailing evidence ...

So is Hample sorry for all of this?

By the sounds of things, yes ...

And then there's this ...

OK. So what does this have to do with Marlins Man?

Marlins Man is from a military family and is very supportive of charitable causes supporting service members. He's also, of course, someone who very conspicuously attends very conspicuous sporting events, so going to to this game would seem to be of interest to him. So here's Marlins Man's version of why he wasn't there and why Hample's presence at the game wasn't cool with him ...

The story doesn't end there, does it?

No, it does not. Marlins Man also claimed Hample's version of events -- i.e., how Hample came to possess a ticket -- was untrue ...

Does Marlins Man have proof of these claims?

Well, judge for yourself. On Twitter, Marlins Man announced that he was giving Hample a window of time to retract his initial claims, after which point Marlins Man would produce evidence of Hample's dishonesty. That window passed, and Marlins Man posted these screenshots to his account ...

marlins-man-hample-im-070616.jpg

In Hample's statement, he said he learned that purchasing a ticket outside the sanctioned channels was forbidden, so he ceased his efforts to do that. The above, though, implies that Hample at one point had an agreement to pay for a ticket.

What was Hample's response?

This ...

Basically, he claims the above IM convo, dated June 22, was before he knew about the ticket policies. We're at the "dueling claims of fact" stage of things.

Did the plot further thicken?

Yes! First, there's the matter of those DM's that Marlins Man procured ...

We have a possible mole in the Hample camp! Or a hacking scandal! Or something else!

Now for a couple of more pieces from the blast field ...

Speaking of that purported conversation between the two combatants, here's what Marlins Man said about it ...

So in summary, Marlins Man says Hample paid to attend and went despite knowing he wasn't supposed to be there. Hample, meantime, says he didn't pay to attend in the end and was unaware he wasn't supposed to be in the ballpark.

And finally ...

Is all of this somewhat ridiculous?

Mmm hmm.