NFL needs a common sense injection

Wade Wilson, Cowboys quarterbacks coach will have five weeks off.

It was announced today that Dallas Cowboys quarterbacks coach Wade Wilson will be suspended for 5 games and fined $100,000 for possessing a banned substance.

In the wake of New England safety Rodney Harrisson admitting to using human growth hormone, it was discovered Wilson, who is a diabetic, had also acquired banned substances to help him deal with his diabetes.

So, taking a hard-line stance against banned substances, commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL took action against Wilson as harshly as they could.

Did this strike anyone else as being incredibly off base? It's such an odd story. Why would the NFL penalize a coach for taking medicine that helps him deal with something as serious as diabetes? He's a coach, after all, and isn't playing or testing his physical mettle. HGH is a physical aid, not mental, and he was obviously taking it for a serious medical condition. He even admitted that he took it and made no excuses. He obviously wasn't trying to hide anything and was taking care of himself.

"If I was trying to hide something I wouldn’t have put it on a credit card. I had no idea this was illegal or against league policy."

It's a move that lacks common sense and represents the overzealous nature that Goddell has displayed thus far in his tenure as commissioner.

Normally I have no qualms in damning rule breakers to the consequences of their actions, but I make exception in this siutaiton. The NFL obviously has a lot of image and behavior problems, but punishing a diabetic 48-year-old quarterbacks coach isn't the way to clean it up.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Consider the "news' in "online news" lightly

Judge, jury, executioner.

As Barry Bonds finally reached his ultimate goal (no, not a World Series title, dummy) it was time for all the sports information disseminators to finally put into action the dreaded endpoint to the saga of Bonds and his home run chase.

As the disseminators of sports information, these outlets have choices to make concerning how to present the information at hand. Do you take the role of objective third-party observer? Do you try to provide more perspective to your readers? Or do you make up their minds for them, approaching subjects as if you are the end-all-be-all of information?

Three out of the four main online sports information sites decided to choose the third option. CBS Sportsline, SI and Yahoo all decided to haul out the asterisk as the story. No dust had settled, the story was not presented for what it was. They skipped the information-providing step completely by jumping straight to question-of-validity mode. Is this wrong? It depends on your goal as an information provider.

Interestingly enough, ESPN is the fence sitter on this one. They provided the story straight up. Instead of asterisking it up like the other three, they decided to present the story as it happened: a baseball player broke a baseball record. One of the biggest head scratchers of the evening was how Yahoo treated it. You'll notice the link I provided earlier had no asterisk on it. The version earlier in the night was the exact same as the one you see from that image link except there was a big fat asterisk next to the "756". Having been a decision they likely discussed for some time before Bonds broke the record, it's really striking that they would decide to pull the asterisk after a short time. Cold feet?

Ultimately, the court of public opinion will decide the perception of Barry Bonds. Let the public think what they will, but don't get preachy with your news. Put it out there for people to know, provide some perspective and let them decide for themselves. Most people already believe Bonds' record is tainted, they don't need any help along the way.


Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

The greatest solo sporting event on Earth

Let's hope the UCI can start cracking down on doping, then maybe people will start to care again.

In 1903 the Parisian equivalent to Sports Illustrated, L'Auto (now known as L'Equipe), founded the greatest bicycle race on the face of the Earth and named it the Tour de France. The Tour was conjured up to increase newspaper circulation, which it dramatically did, but through the years has grown into what can be seen as the greatest individual sporting event on Earth.

Sure the Olympics can provide some outstanding individual efforts in track and field, swimming, and other such sports. Marathoners and triathletes have all of our respect with their strength, endurance, and willingness to compete in what seems to be more self-torture than sport. The cyclists that compete in the Tour de France have them all beat, hands down.

In a race that spans a little over three weeks, 2,000+ miles, and with a measly two rest days, it is hard to argue that any event can hold a candle to what these guys put themselves through in pursuit of the coveted maillot jaune or, yellow jersey. Just take a look at this and tell me that even completing the race is an easy feat. It isn't. That's right, these guys ride bikes at speeds reaching 60 mph (downhill, of course) across most of France, parts of Belgium, through the French Alps, and through the Pyrenees Mountains. For those who are not familiar with France's mountain ranges, the peaks of the Alps are right up there with the Rockies while the Pyrenees are not far behind. Every year several cyclists who specialize in flat land cycling (sprinting) drop out when the mountain stages begin while during the race the Voiture balai, or broom wagon, collects riders who can not finish or are too far behind.

Everyone who has even overheard a conversation or news piece about cycling will tell you that they don't care because most of the riders, in their opinion, are using performance-enhancing drugs. The types of drugs used in cycling tell you just how rigorous the sport is as most offenders are found to have taken EPO and/or given themselves blood transfusions to increase the amount of oxygen in the blood. Every sport has cheaters and dopers, very few sports have athletes who store up their own oxygen-rich blood with the intent of replacing their oxygen-depleted blood overnight. Hopefully, these practices are coming to an end as the UCI (cycling's governing body) has drafted tough, mandatory contracts for riders to adhere to. This year is already looking ten times better than last year.

Assuming cycling can put its recent sordid past behind it and pedal into greener fields, the Tour de France will remain as one of the top sporting events in the world. It is already the penultimate test of human endurance and the pinnacle of what a solo athlete can achieve in the world of sports today.

Kenneth
E-mail us

Kenneth is a guest contributor to laissez-faire ball.

Everyone will love A-Rod in 2012

Start getting ready to love some A-Rod.

As Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez hastily makes his way toward the 500 home run milestone and catches another all-time great in homers, it made me think. Why does the general public have a distaste for Alex Rodriguez?

He's pretty arrogant. But, he has earned the right to be. He's that damn good. Besides, what team in baseball doesn't have a handful or arrogant players? It's baseball after all, the arrogant player's sport.

He makes more money than any other player in Major League Baseball, but who cares? It's not like he's hurting the Yankees' salary cap situation since one doesn't exist. Are people subconsciously jealous?

He doesn't exactly seem very approachable, but then again, not seeming approachable doesn't necessarily make you an unpopular guy.

Honestly though, for the fans in the general public who dislike A-Rod, I think it mostly boils down to the amount of money he makes and his unwavering success; people are jealous by nature. But honestly, who cares right now? At this point in his career, he isn't approaching any milestones anyone else hasn't already reached several times. Hell, this season alone, he is one of five players who will likely achieve some significant home run milestones, so isn't like his story seems like anything special. With Sammy Sosa breaking 600, Frank Thomas breaking 500, Ken Griffey Jr. possibly making a run at 600 and Barry Bonds inching his way toward the all-time mark, A-Rod's 500 is seen as just another step for him, like it's something that has always been expected of him.

What the general public fails to foresee is the eventual love and admiration for A-Rod that is coming in about five to six years. With the everlasting hatred being directed at Barry Bonds, baseball-loving America will be looking for someone to right their record books. If someone can come along and unseat Bonds, no matter who it may be, America will embrace that person to no end. Enter a 37-year old Alex Rodriguez.

With more home runs at his age than any other player in history (Jimmie Foxx is second with 464 at age 31), he's on an unbelievable pace. Hell, he's had more home runs at his age than anyone in history ever year since he was 25 years old. His pace far outreaches Griffey, who had 460 at age 31. At his current pace, A-Rod should finish this season with 524 home runs.

Considering he finishes this season at his current pace of 58, he will have averaged 44.5 home runs over his past five seasons, an accurate enough sample for his career. Let's do a little career analysis on what we can look to expect from A-Rod as compared to some of the all-time great home-run hitters. We'll exclude Barry Bonds as his data would skew the results of this for some pretty obvious reasons.

Hank Aaron

Peaked at 37 years old with 47 home runs

Had an incredibly level career, fluctuations in home run totals never deviated very far from the mean

Didn't start missing any games to speak of until he was 37 years old

Played until age 42

Babe Ruth

Peaked at 32 years old with 60 home runs

Averaged about a 10 percent decline in home runs after 32 (not including final season in which he only played 28 games)

Only significant injury was a nasty case of gonorrhea at 30 years old that only let him play in 98 games that year

Played until age 40

Willie Mays

Peaked at 34 years old with 52 home runs

Took a pretty big hit after his peak with an 33-percent decrease in home runs after the 1965 season (percentage decline excludes his final three season in which he combined to play 154 games)

Didn't miss significant time until he was 38 years old, a season in which he played 117 games

Played until age 42

What does this tell us definitively? Absolutely nothing. A-Rod could very well pull a Griffey and start breaking down physically at 32, which is A-Rod's next birthday. But, Griffey had some injury issues even before breaking down for three seasons. In 1994 and 95, he combined for 183 games, part of which were missed with a hand injury. After becoming a full-time player in 1996, the fewest games A-Rod has played has been 129 in 1999 when he suffered a minor knee injury. He still finished that season with 42 homers. Excluding that, he has been almost injury free, and for the sake of this argument and the hope of baseball fans everywhere, let's assume that he doesn't just wilt like Griffey did for 3 1/2 years.

So, let's assume the following things about A-Rod in accordance with the information we have about him, Aaron, Ruth and Mays.

A-Rod will average 45 home runs in 2008 (32 years old) and 2009 (33 years old)

A-Rod will finish the 2007 season with his current pace of 58 home runs

A-Rod will peak in single-season home run total when he is 34 (an average age of the three players) with 60 home runs in 2010

His home run totals for each subsequent season will decrease by 10 percent (a reasonable estimate mostly based upon the logical decline of Ruth)

He won't miss significant time to injury

He will play until age 41 (average of the three)

When he is 40 and 41, he will play half a season due to his inherent oldness

If so, we can expect his home run totals to look like this:

2007: 58 HR (524 total)

2008: 40 HR (564 total)

2009: 50 HR (614 total)

2010: 60 HR (674 total)

2011: 54 HR (728 total)

2012: 47 HR (775 total)
And that's the record...assuming Bonds calls it quits at the end of this season, which he will.

Just for the sake of fun, let's see how many A-Rod should end up with:

2013: 44 (822 total)

2014: 39 (861 total)

2015: 18 (879 total)

2016: 16 (895 total)

Obviously this extrapolated data will not necessarily pan out this way, but it's interesting to look at where A-Rod should end up in the not so distant future anyway. Barring some catastrophic injury, he'll pass Bonds' record without a doubt. He may not get there as fast as this data suggests, but he will get there, and you will love him if for no other reason than the fact that he has a normal-sized head and a lack of the word "steroids" ever entering the same breath as "A-Rod."

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Stick to the field with your sports criticism

There's an epidemic going around. It spreads in newspapers, gyms, slow-pitch softball games, churches and pretty much anywhere that sports are discussed and debated. It's called I'd Never Do That syndrome.

In the sports world, there is always debate. It's inevitable that people want to offer what they feel that professional athletes should do with their lives. Second guessing in-game decisions as well as off-field decisions are the easiest arguments to make.

On-field issues are easy to discuss and criticize for several different reasons. We have the benefit of gruelingly reviewing plays through instant replay and discussion, which gives us some kind of perceived omniscience about the game that is almost always skewed and incomplete. Some who played the sport (no matter how briefly) feel they have some kind of extra knowledge that some egghead who just watches that particular sport doesn't have. Never mind that they probably played for two years in the long, long ago; they know the sport because they played it.

But, despite the annoying proportions that in-field criticism reaches, it isn't that bad. After all, that's many people's reason for following sports: to live the sports dream by proxy. No, the most egregious sports opinions are the ones that have to do with issues surrounding sports that don't involve in-game analysis. That's where INDTs strikes truest.

Everyone has heard it before. "Look at Barry Bonds, what a cheater. I never would have taken steroids. That just isn't right." Another classic: "How could he abandon his teammates for a few extra million dollars? I would have taken the pay cut." And finally, my favorite: "How could that guy go out partying like that? He makes millions, he could buy the party and bring it to his place. I'd never have gotten caught doing something stupid like that if I made his kind of money."

Just stop it. As I addressed in my article about LeBron James' Darfur situation, unless you have the money and face the situations these athletes deal with, you have no basis for saying how you would react.

Some people may possess the fortitude to say "no" to using steroids and making millions of dollars in salary and endorsements that come from it, but its moot. Until that situation is staring you in the face, you have no right to pass judgement on a pro athlete who decided he would use a substance that wasn't illegal to earn himself more money than you'll ever know. Players who allegedly used steroids like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Jason Giambi are rich men, and many of their kind are unapologetic about their pasts. They saw a pile of money waiting for them and sacrificed some of their long-term health and dignity for a lot more money. But, inevitably, some yahoo next to you at a bar will still be spouting on about how "they should give the money back, they cheated." Well, I hate to argue with you (seriously you're probably an idiot), but it isn't cheating because Major League Baseball screwed up and didn't make it illegal until the integrity of the sport was already compromised. So, any player out there that used performance-enhancing drugs before MLB outlawed them had the choice to take their health into their own hands as well as all the money they'd be making, or keep plugging along with their natural talent alone. On a personal note, I don't want Barry Bonds to break Hank Aaron's home run record. It's not because he played in a tainted era or used steroids. I just can't stand the guy. He's an insufferable jerk. That's far more of an offense than doing something that was within the rules at the time.

Salary issues are also a favorite point of contention. In December of 2005, Johnny Damon signed to the Yankees as a free agent for a few million more than the Red Sox had offered him. Red Sox fans were outraged. How could Damon just throw the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry to the side and sign with the enemy like that over a measly few million dollars? It should have been obvious. Your goofy rivalry doesn't mean a damn thing to him. You'd probably have taken the money too, hypocrite. He wanted more money and a new situation, and he took it. You thought he owed you some kind of break in playing for Boston when all he really owed you was to play the best he could while he was there. If anything, they should have been angry at ownership for not stepping up and paying Damon. Stop giving the team your money if you're that mad.

The most fun point of criticism involves off-field mischief players get into. I usually like to restrict my criticism to "What a dumbass" and try to leave it at that. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone remark about how they can't believe a player would continue to go out to clubs when trouble usually finds them. Well, guess what? They have tons of money and like to have fun, it's really not a novel concept. It doesn't make their activities smart, but it's not like it doesn't make any sense. As a general rule, people like to have fun. If they have the means to do it, they're likely going to have fun and bring all their friends along for the ride. So, get off your high horse and put a lid on it, you have no idea what their temptations are like unless you are put in their situation.

The bottom line is this: just because you follow sports and watch them religiously doesn't give you some kind of expert license to know what it's like to be faced with a pile of money and an endless amount of decisions concerning it. Stick to criticizing the on-field moves, it's a lot more fun to act like an expert that way.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Giambi's Gettin' Yanked by the Monopoly Man

Maybe its naïve, but I actually have a lot of respect for Jason Giambi. I have been a quiet supporter of his ever since his decision to stop blaming his declining performance on a host of mysterious ailments, like intestinal parasites, and admit (well sort’ve) that performance enhancing drugs had contributed to his success at the plate. He’s not offering to give back his American League MVP award or anything, but I do believe the man really has acknowledged that what he did was wrong. Many will argue, however, that his apology is moot, because he has never specifically admitted to using any controlled substances, only apologized “for doing that stuff,” allowing us to use our imagination as to what “stuff” is. Now, thanks to Bud Selig, and with a little help from the New York Yankees and Congress, a man who has chosen to step out of the shadows (a literary reference), faces contract termination and suspension for things he may have done before steroid use was ever even punishable in Major League Baseball (remember it was not until 2003 that players could be suspended for steroids use, and that was only if there was a criminal conviction).

Please don’t misunderstand my sympathy however, I am not calling Jason Giambi a saint, but I do believe that the competitive fabric of the sport is not the issue here. The Yankees are bad this year, and they’ve probably realized by now that the last season in the house that Ruth built will probably be enough to draw the crowds this summer. Hell, I’m going to New York this weekend for that very reason. Anyway, if you’re the Yankees, there is no need to have Giambi’s $20.4 million salary (making him only the third highest paid Yankee) weighing you down in a rebuilding year. But the Yankees are the ones who said they would pay him that money, and much to the dismay of the Oakland A’s fan base, Giambi agreed to take it from them. Well apparently the Yankees are now aghast at the fact that their slugger may have taken steroids while he was hitting all of those homeruns, and have decided that they don’t want to pay him anymore. Suddenly, the commissioner, has ordered Giambi to speak with former Senator George Mitchell, the man Bud Selig appointed to lead Major League Baseball’s investigation into steroid use.

For me, this is the biggest rub. There are those players out there who have benefited from the use of performance enhancing drugs (if we were being honest with ourselves, probably a lot of them) who have not publicly apologized and therefore will never be fined or suspended. The truth is, you have to fail a test to get suspended, and I can’t imagine how even that would void your contract. But a voided contract is exactly what the New York Yankees want, which is why they are compelling Giambi to fully cooperate with Mitchell’s investigation.

Now you may be thinking, even though this may be an interesting moral discussion, what does this really have to do with free market sports? The real dollars and cents lies in the motivation for this entire witch hunt. The Yankees are merely taking advantage of a relatively unique situation, and acting in their own best financial interests. But why is the league so concerned with Giambi’s past discretions, which they will never be able to prove. The facts show that they are very concerned. ESPN news estimates that the Mitchell investigation is costing the league $2 million a month, and that individual teams are spending between $70 and $100 thousand a month on legal representation for themselves and their players. Keep in mind that after all of this money has been spent, George Mitchell has yet to interview a single player in 15 months. To make matters worse, the league’s public perception isn’t exactly improved by the humiliation of one of its stars.

So why go through all of this trouble? The answer is simple; the American electorate is very concerned with steroid use in Major League Baseball. So concerned, that we hold hearings in the Senate. Hearings that have no judicial basis, just hearings that give baseball’s superstars the opportunity to ruin their hall of fame hopes, or perjure themselves under oath. The truth is, Major League Baseball has to look like they are doing something, or something very valuable can be taken away from them. Remember, that the only two entities in the United States are granted monopoly rights that go beyond simple patent protection, Major League Baseball and the United States Postal Service. In the minds of our elected officials, that justifies their interest in the competitive fabric of the league, and they may have a point. It should be no surprise to anyone reading this blog that monopoly protection in any situation, even the Post Office, is not in the interests of free markets. We really don’t know what would be in the best economic interests of the league, because when we legally protect an enterprise with monopoly status, we are taking economics out of the equation. Unfortunately for Jason Giambi, his foot injury came at the wrong time, and the likely verdict will be paying the cost of landing on boardwalk after Bud Selig and the Yankees have already built a hotel there.

Travis
E-mail us