Brooke Hundley: Steve Phillips isn’t a Sex Addict, He’s Just Got a Massive Ego
ESPN, Frauds February 9th. 2010, 11:55am
Steve Phillips, the ESPN baseball analyst who recently spent 45 days in sex rehab, was on the Today Show yesterday. His appearance (for whatever reason, NBC removed the video from its site) prompted – one can assume – an outpouring of support for Brooke Hundley, the former ESPN production assistant who he slept with at least twice last summer.
(Their romance sent her over the edge; the gory details are summarized here.) On her facebook page, Hundley – who for doppleganger week has posted a photo of Lacey Chabert – thanked all her supporters and then scoffed at the idea that Phillips is a sex addict. “Steve’s not a sex addict the only thing he’s ever been addicted to is feeding his own ego.”
Here’s a screengrab of her thoughts, courtesy of a reader who is friends with Hundley:
93 Responses to “Brooke Hundley: Steve Phillips isn’t a Sex Addict, He’s Just Got a Massive Ego”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:57 AM
I nearly pissed myself laughing.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:57 AM
I’m sure everyone here will treat that bit of self-reflection very respectfully.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:57 AM
I will find this Brooke Hundley and slap her until she goes unconscious. Unforgivable.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Did she change her Facebook photo to another chick? Cause um that chick in the photo is much skinnier than the Brooke Hundley that likes Darth Vadar
February 9th, 2010 at 11:59 AM
for all of you who beat off to lacey chabert in the past- well you can go kill yourselves now
February 9th, 2010 at 12:00 PM
I have to defend my girl’s honor. Sure, she might now be relegated to Hallmark Movie status, but this just blows my mind. Her doppleganger photo should be Breckin Meyer.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:00 PM
surprised mr phillips didnt arrange for this crazy bitch to be facedown in a muddy ditch somewhere.
i like how she has all these supporters like she isnt the one that did anything wrong.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:01 PM
I figured it out. She actually means Colonel Chabert, as portrayed by Gerard Depardeu. Makes total sense now.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Every story has two sides. And one of those sides is “B**** be crazy!”
February 9th, 2010 at 12:02 PM
pki – she could’ve done the patented “Fat chick that does the emo shot with the camera in the air looking down on her as she does the kissy face, sucking in her cheeks” photo.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Awesome haha.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Vader Fist Pump – Yeah!!!
/Tampa Bo’d
February 9th, 2010 at 12:03 PM
yeah they are all going to support her. she is a shitty person in this whole thing too. she knew he was married and was still willfully his cumbag.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:04 PM
What a great friend. Thanks for helping to humanize Hundley, dear reader.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:04 PM
While the Charbet thing is laughable meng, she is spot on about Phillips. It’s like the coaches that get busted for dui’s and or Eustachy’d and then come out and say “I’m an alcoholic”. Sex addict is the new alcoholic. If these guys were alcoholic’s they would not be able to function on the job much less college coaching job. If Tiger and Steve were such addicts they would not have achieved the positions they were in.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Lacey Chabert is officially on suicide/bulimia watch.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:05 PM
I like how this dumb broad is painting herself as a victim here. IF YOU KEPT YOUR FUCKING LEGS CLOSED, THIS WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:05 PM
i hope she finds this site
February 9th, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Why on earth do these ugly fat chicks think they have any resemblence to smoking hot chicks? Did she not read any of the comments posted on this site? My personal favorite is still “Hungry Hungry Hundley.”
February 9th, 2010 at 12:07 PM
maybe if we put up Star Wars links she’ll show up.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Steve Phillips should’ve known better…whale hunting was banned years ago.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:07 PM
So to carry over from a previous post, if two hot chicks promised to kiss topless, would you watch a Phillips-Hundley sex tape?
February 9th, 2010 at 12:07 PM
if only those anti whalers would have stopped him
February 9th, 2010 at 12:07 PM
And on this note, I’m off to Subway. Oven Roasted Chicken breast footlong with all the fixuns for five bucks. Yeah, lawya.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:08 PM
you just opened the flood gates
February 9th, 2010 at 12:08 PM
TBL: Where our right to know supersedes your right to exist.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:08 PM
So now, if I ever, ever get the shot to bang Lacey Chabert, or any Lacey Chabert look alike that I want to bang because she looks like Lacey Chabert, I will most certainly have problems keeping it up because I will see this fat whore’s face in the back of my head.
/Pulls out legal pad
//Writes “Brooke Hundley”
February 9th, 2010 at 12:09 PM
funny story- the “dude” that coop kissed was actually hundley
February 9th, 2010 at 12:10 PM
I’d rather kiss coop.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:10 PM
it would be funny if this friend posts the link to this thread and captures the reaction of all those pigs
February 9th, 2010 at 12:10 PM
I propose a Google Bomb. Everyone here just type “Brooke Hundley looks nothing like Lacey Chabert” into Google and try to get the thing to the top of the list.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Real quick. If you guys want a great laugh, here’s the post when TBL got his hands on the photos.
http://thebiglead.com/?p=25315
LOLz
February 9th, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Angela doesn’t fucking get the issue.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:12 PM
And this post isn’t creepy at all.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Done. Whatever I can do to help the cause.
OK, lunch time for real.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:17 PM
I would also have accepted, “Yes, but only if it’s Phillips and Todd Hundley” or “No. I’d gouge out my eyes during the sex tape and couldn’t see the girls anyway.”
February 9th, 2010 at 12:18 PM
What makes someone a sex addict anyway? It seems like the definition is pretty vague.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Impressive redaction job, I must say.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Where I hear someone say they are a Sex Addict, I just think..”Oh, you just got caught cheating, okay.” That Definition hasn’t failed me yet
February 9th, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Tebow might change his pro-life stance after seeing Brooke.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:22 PM
No joke. That’s above and beyond what most would do. TBL covers his bases, that’s for sure.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:23 PM
As bad as that Lacey Chabert Round-up pic was yesterday, it in no way compares to the horror that is that little toad
I also want to thank the anonymous reader for sending this to TBL. I’m sure Brooke is feeling much better now, since her private Facebook page will be read by thousands of people on multiple websites.
She must be at that new “reality world” strange place where she got famous for something 10-20 years ago would be something you wouldn’t want to leave your house for due to embarrassment (ie Ashley DuPre), who now somewhat is enjoying the notoriety and can’t stop talking about/taking advantage of it.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:23 PM
A bit too far, and not funny enough IMO.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:24 PM
In all seriousness, I think it’s defined by a desire to have sex that can’t be controlled. Not necessarily that you’re horny all the time; just that when you are, you need to do it and won’t stop until you find someone to do it with.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:25 PM
I am not sure anything is private on Facebook, but if she has that setting on her page than I do think this is a little shady of TBL. Maybe it’s the gray area ethically, but I’m not sure I would have posted it. Judgement call I think.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:29 PM
this won’t be completely until Rex’s friend shows up with the predictable, ‘humanized.’
just curious, when was she humanized first – when she stalked the guy’s wife and kids, when the guy’s wife called the cops on her, when photographers stalked her, or when she went on Good Morning America?
i’ll hang up now.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:33 PM
You make good points, TBL. However, if the page is “private” on Facebook (again, not sure if anything is private there) it does bring up the question of should this run or not? Did you pause when sent this and think about not posting it? I’m curious (for real) to know how you judge stuff like this. I think your site is big enough to set the bar, so to speak, for what should and should not be posted in today’s blogosphere.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Private and Internet don’t co-exist.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:35 PM
TBL also posted a link to Sarah Palin’s private emails which were hacked and posted by Gawker during the Presidential campaign. I’m sure he sees no ethical problem here either.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:36 PM
interesting. it seems a few people in these comments have questioned this posting.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:38 PM
He has some problem, Brooke, he banged you more than once.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:38 PM
just curious, when was she humanized first – when she stalked the guy’s wife and kids, when the guy’s wife called the cops on her, when photographers stalked her, or when she went on Good Morning America?
TBL: those were interviews she agreed to, a 911 call that is, by law, available to the public. A little different than taking someone’s FB account and posting parts of it online.
Like I said in my last comment, maybe, in some perverse way, she LIKES the continued attention. My point is if she doesn’t, doing what you did is kinda lame.
/just one guy’s opinion
February 9th, 2010 at 12:41 PM
fair enough, JPQ. to each his own. completely see where you’re coming from.
palin’s hacked email story, all with links to the hacked email:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842097,00.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/09/palins_personal_email_hacked.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/palins-e-mail-account-hacked/
February 9th, 2010 at 12:43 PM
TBL: those were interviews she agreed to, a 911 call that is, by law, available to the public. A little different than taking someone’s FB account and posting parts of it online.
I concur
/one more guy’s opinion
February 9th, 2010 at 12:43 PM
fuck an ethic, i want that smut
February 9th, 2010 at 12:45 PM
if it was illegal to post private facebook stuff Lamebook would’ve been shut down by now.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:46 PM
fair enough, JPQ. to each his own. completely see where you’re coming from.
TBL: appreciate your reading my comment and not going crazy. Seriously. One of the things I like about the site. You do listen and accept comments/criticism like that (most of the time-ha)
Remember, I’m coming at this from a point of view (“old school”) where I couldn’t imagine people like her, after having done something like this in the first place, WANTING to do interviews to talk about it. People like Jersey Shore being made national fools out of, and then reveling and capitalizing in their stupidity.
/it is a world of which I am not familiar, and don’t want to be a part of -lol
February 9th, 2010 at 12:47 PM
You’re using the “everybody else was doing it” defense? I tried that in 3rd grade when a group of us knocked down a 2nd grader’s snow fort. Didn’t keep me from getting grounded.
/Seriously, you’re better than this.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:48 PM
She’s right in that Phillips is an egomaniac and a douche.
But she’s not above reproach.
And if the question was “who are the persons you’d most and least like near your penis?” the answers are Lacey and Hundley.
As for privacy…seems like that wasn’t her concerned if she is friending everyone who asks? Or was this a good friend of hers screwing her over? If so, she’s a poor judge of character!
February 9th, 2010 at 12:49 PM
jpq – i always listen to rationalized comments, as well as criticism via email. i get plenty of it.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:50 PM
interesting observation.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:50 PM
is this a lamebook.com entry?
February 9th, 2010 at 12:51 PM
TBL:
Did you see my post? I would be interested in hearing what your thought process was in deciding to post this and how you go about deciding? Also, do you see your blog as big enough that it does/should influence what is posted by smaller blogs?
February 9th, 2010 at 12:52 PM
…stay off facebook. simple as that.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:53 PM
trey is facebook friends with brooke hundley.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Groin – No. I was showing that it is/was a legit news story.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Here’s a screengrab of her thoughts, courtesy of a reader who is friends with Hundley:
always knew celebs read the site
February 9th, 2010 at 12:55 PM
trey isn’t a celeb.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:56 PM
If I mailed her a copy of her photo with Vader, do you think she’d sign it?
February 9th, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Gotg
No real hesitation in posting because he was on the Today Show yesterday and this is her reaction to his national TV appearance. If I couldn’t have redacted the other people and their faces, I wouldn’t have posted. (TBD did that, shows how little i know about computers.)
I don’t think what is posted here should impact what other blogs do and vice versa. To each their own. There’s stuff I’ll shy away from and vice versa. Your site, you do as you please and brace for the consequences, should there be any.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:57 PM
@GOTG: yeah, she might even leave greasy finger prints on it, too, just cuz ur kewl.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Thanks for the response, TBL.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:01 PM
If I mailed her a copy of her photo with Vader, do you think she’d sign it?
She’d probably spray some of her bacon perfume on it for you.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:05 PM
At that point, the e-mails were circulated by dozens of other media outlets. It’s freedom of information at that point.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:07 PM
As for privacy…
…stay off facebook. simple as that.
That’s the point, isn’t it? Social networking sites aren’t like e-mail or text messages (i.e. direct conversations). It’s why I have a bigger problem with the Palin e-mail hacking by Gawker. There’s an expectation of privacy with your e-mail account — it’s your choice as to what you put out there and who gets to read it.
Social networking sites seem like they give you that same concept but it’s like shouting in the middle of a crowd. Can you say it’s private if you chose the crowd around you?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Very true. NY Times and Time.com had it, so plenty of people (millions) had already seen it and even more had heard about it on tv.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:10 PM
The legit news story was the crime that was committed to obtain the emails. Posting a link to view the illegally obtained emails would be analogous to posting the EA video even though you didn’t do the taping.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. You run a damn good sports blog and nearly all of what you put out there is good stuff. It’s these isolated posts that just get under my skin.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Groin – NPR, Time and the NYT linked to the emails, I believe.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Ba-da-bing.
They’re both invasion of privacy but I disagree they’re analagous. Internet privacy is much different than privacy in one’s own room.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:20 PM
unless you explicitly say “this is private, please keep it that way” i don’t think you can assume anything is safe on facebook. that goes for any form of electronic communication. if it’s that private, don’t post it, or say it face to face or over the phone, verbally.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Groin – NPR, Time and the NYT linked to the emails, I believe.
They did, but they were HACKED emails, taken to build a FOA request against her. I’m not in any way a supporter of her politics (and no, I wouldn’t vote for her), but I’m amazed how this little “fact” got in the way of the juicy story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703304.html
February 9th, 2010 at 1:20 PM
OK, TBL, you didn’t run a link to the EA video although I can only assume you had the opportunity. Why did you choose to link to the emails but not the video? The issue at hand is the same. Information was illegally obtained and made available to media outlets.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Que?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Legal and tasteful are two lines that very seldom intersect.
/Back to ripping Mo Williams
February 9th, 2010 at 1:24 PM
* FOA = FOI (Freedom of Information)
Mike: Agree. It wasn’t “FOI”, it was “fuck it, everybody else is doing it, why not me?”
February 9th, 2010 at 1:25 PM
For the record, TBL, I’m not trying to play gotcha and I’m not sitting here pissed off or anything. This topic is of particular interest to me and I thank you for your input.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Gave a crib sheet on how to find it.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Legal and tasteful are two lines that very seldom intersect.
I don’t know. Larry Flynt’s been making a living off of that line for years. And those girls are legal and I’m sure they’re tasteful.
Oh wait…I confused tasty with tasteful. Never mind.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:33 PM
I like how she is talking shit about someone that she had an affair with. She sounds like a victim of a crime instead of a willing participant in an affair.
She is just trying to prolong her 15 minutes and because playboy, maxim, hustler, etc. are not going to come calling (the best she can do would be a BBW site) this is her only avenue to stay in the limelight.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:34 PM
limelight=spotlight. Alcohol has rotted what is left of my brain.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:37 PM
I’m not trying to speak for TBL, but…
The Palin e-mails were created, sent and stolen on the Internet. The EA video was taken by intruding upon the seclusion of her personal environment then uploaded and sent on the Internet. Privacy invasion? Yes. But you’ve got to consider their sourcing, AND, quite frankly, the content. Nudity > Basic government biz
February 9th, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Privacy invasion? Yes. But you’ve got to consider their sourcing, AND, quite frankly, the content. Nudity > Basic government biz
To me, you just described selective enforcement, applying rules of law arbitrarily to suit your point of view. You can’t have it both ways. It either is or it isn’t in both cases (and I got on TBL for the EA stuff also, so at least I’m either consistently right or consistently wrong-lol)
February 9th, 2010 at 1:53 PM
I understand what you’re saying and I think it’s privacy invasion both ways. But the Internet is a completely different beast that is yet to be mastered by our system of laws. Palin’s e-mails were sent from a private account on a very public Website (Yahoo). Hackers can get into that shit much easier than they can a .gov or private e-mail. EA was filmed in a personal environment and the information was then posted to the Internet (probably after the guy /yelnik’d himself a few times) for distribution. Voyeurism > Electronic Communication.