We've been hearing and saying it for years. It's been on the radio, television, in print and argued in bars and living rooms across North America. Why doesn't just one athlete come out and admit they used steroids. The reasoning is that people will understand, forgive the person and move on. It's understood that some would not be forgiving but by and large people just want to hear an admission.
Well, we finally got one. Jason Giambi came clean on his steroid use in a straight forward and nearly honest manner, not the comical "I'm sorry" interview given a few years back where he never actually said what he was apologizing for. He then went on to say it was time baseball cleaned itself up. And then....nothing. Nothing has happened. No glowing articles, praise for above and below, cheers from the average fan and high-fives from sports reporters. Worse, I'm not hearing any outrage either.
What the hell is this? Barry Bonds has admitted nothing and has had nothing proven against him(despite my beliefs he did cheat, I have no proof) yet he is still vilified. Sammy Sosa is closing in on 600 home runs and yet flies under the radar, Roger Clemens is preparing to return to the bigs in his mid-forties and no one is raising an eye-brow and now Gimboid admits what we all suspected and gets off free and clear.
I won't say this is racial because of the lack of press surrounding Sammy Sosa and his tainted numbers. Instead this smacks of bitterness. Fans and media don't want Giambi to go down in flames, they don't want to string up Sosa anymore, they want Bonds and only Bonds. He's the biggest target in pro- sports right now because of the record he is closing in on, yet the second highest paid baseball player on the planet just admitted he's been shooting up all these years. Can people please pull their heads out of their asses on this one?
For crying out loud, there was more press about Giambi's failed amphetamines test then his mea culpa about steroids. The New York Yankees are considering trying to revoke his contract based on his admission but that in itself is apolitical move to try and separate themselves from the former AL MVP they've paid tens of millions of dollars to. This story deserves more than a passing reference on a sports ticker or the opening monologue on a sports radio show, yet that is all it is getting.
This lip service to the story everyone has wanted for the better part of this decade in baseball is a travesty. We all wanted to hear about this, we all wanted one of the big names to come forward, admit their crimes and call for their fellow players to fix the problem. Worse yet, there has been no word from the MLB Players Association, they don't even want to hear about this.
I wrote earlier that everyone from the owners to the fans had a hand in the steroid scandal. It was a bitter and angry entry, and this latest outrage merely confirms my most cynical beliefs.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Crime and Punishment, David Stern Style
Let's get one thing clear, the San Antonio Spurs didn't win the series against the Phoenix Suns, David Stern gave it to them. This is not going to be some cry-fest from a bitter fan so don't worry. Today I'm using my soap box to shed light on the way David Stern has run the NBA and why teams like the Spurs get all the breaks(admit it folks, they do). The roots of all traces back years, long before Ron Artest went into the crowd and Carmelo Anthonys slap and run, and it all leads back to David Stern.
In the mid to late 90s basketball was at it's peak. Jordan and the Bulls were winning, Shaq was about to land in Los Angeles and a young Allen Iverson began his career with the 76ers. Of all that the latter would have the biggest impact on the NBAs giant marketing system, and Stern wouldn't miss that train.
Iverson brought a measure of street presence to the game. With his corn-row haircut, tattoos, hip-hop image and in your face attitude Iverson was the poster child for street ball in the NBA. This of course prompted a change in the way basketball was marketed. Commercials and in-game breaks became infused with rap music, entire clothing lines were created in the so-called "ghetto" image. Sneakers were modeled after the way rap stars wore them, as were ball caps, wrist and head bands.
Thing is, none of this was done to market the game or the merchandise to inner city youths. It was done to sell merchandise to the biggest target demographic in America, middle to upper class suburban white males age 16-35(the same type of people Ron Artest punched out at The Palace). David Stern couldn't care less about selling to African-American or Hispanic groups, he just needed their image to sell product to wealthy white kids who wanted to act like pimps and hustlers on the weekends.
And so it went, the NBA packaging a specific image to sell sneakers and jerseys. It was underhanded, but it made tens of millions for owners. Of course, this couldn't last forever. So it was on November 19 2004 during a game between the Pacers and the Pistons when an on-court altercation escaleted into a fight between players and fans. No sooner had the Pacers Ron Artest punched out a fan in the seats believing the man to be responsible for throwing beer on him then David Stern had a press conferance to announce he was going to start cleaning up the NBA. Suddenly there was s dress code, rules governing, of all things, the position of wrist bands. Rap music became associated with "thug life", a scary word to the soccer moms Stern had been fleecing for years to make little Johnny popular at school with his $200 Air Jordans and Kobe Bryant Jersey.
Of course, this was not the only thing that changed in the NBA. The on-court product had to be altered as well. No more could these bad-boys, who just months earlier been the face of the NBA, be allowed to sully the games image. No, Iverson and others with ink and "urban" haircuts could no longer be allowed to lead the NBA. It was time for a new image to be brought forth.
And so it goes with the Spurs. They, like the Dallas Mavericks, represent what Stern wants the NBA to look like now. Good clean cut players who don't argue, play as a team, are a collection of players from around the globe and most importantly play by the rules. Things is, as anyone whos been defended by Bruce Bowen will tell you, the latter simply isn't true. Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitski, Ginobli, Parker all commit fouls, they just don't get called on them as often as others.
Sure this comes off a whining, but look at just the last four games between San Antonio and Phoenix. In consecutive games Bruce Bowen tried to injure a Suns star player, be it a kick to Amare Stoudemires ankle while he was in mid-air or driving his knee into Steve Nashs groin a few nights later, yet all he drew was a flagrant foul on the Nash incident. The NBA did not even review the kick on Stoudemire despite video of the incident being widely circulated thanks to YouTube. A few nights later Bowen would grab Steve Nashs arm as he went for a lay up in clear view of every official on the court and get nothing.
Kurt Thomas, on the other hand, was given one foul after another while defending Tim Duncan. He would be given four in less then twenty minutes in game 6 to force him onto the bench early. In nearly twice as much floor time Bowen received only two while guarding Nash.
The penultimate example of just how skewed the league has become is of course how the Robert Horry foul was handled. Late in game four, with the Suns well ahead, Horry drove Steve Nash into the scorers table with a body check that would make Scott Stevens proud. The deliberate attempt to hurt the two-time MVP was not allowed to pass, with Stoudemire and Boris Diaw leaving the bench to come to the aid of the man who had brought them to that point of the season. Both were stopped by coaching staff before they could become involved, but they were both suspended one game. Horry received two, but what the hell did it matter? A marginal player had just taken the Suns most potent offensive weapon and a key role player out of the picture for a pivotal game five. Naturally though, this wasn't the only thing that went wrong.
As video has shown, Tim Duncan also left the bench when Jones accidentally undercut Elson after a dunk(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHyuPorlLiQ). He walked past the three point line talking and gesturing. Some would argue that he wasn't getting involved in any altercation. Maybe, but it sure as hell looked like he was getting ready to start one.
The most damning evidence of the Leagues bias comes directly from Stu Jackson. In a statement following the announcement of Diaw and Stoudemires suspension Jackson said "This isnt a fair decision, but it is the correct one." Just what in the hell is THAT supposed to mean?
Simple really, this is the decision that best works for the NBAs image. Duncan is, after all, a good boy who never causes trouble. The Spurs are the poster child team, international stars playing a team game, no off-court troubles to embarrass the League, no arm covering tattoos or rap albums(Tony Parkers doesn't count, most Americans don't speak French).
Some would say this is counter-productive to the NBA, since San Antonio doesn't get high ratings. Maybe, but so what? Most Finals in any sport tend to be regional audiences and all the League needs is one name player to get national attention. Even an event like the Superbowl takes second fiddle to the commercials and half-time show. Stern knows the League can't lose money regardless of whose playing in the Finals, it's already made millions from the previous rounds. What Stern cares about right now is pushing forth the image that the NBA has been cleaned up, that only the good, proper teams win and that teams with "inner-city" influence won't get anywhere. After all, you can't get guilt-trip parents into buying expensive clothes and shoes if the nightly news is calling basketball players thugs now can you?
In the mid to late 90s basketball was at it's peak. Jordan and the Bulls were winning, Shaq was about to land in Los Angeles and a young Allen Iverson began his career with the 76ers. Of all that the latter would have the biggest impact on the NBAs giant marketing system, and Stern wouldn't miss that train.
Iverson brought a measure of street presence to the game. With his corn-row haircut, tattoos, hip-hop image and in your face attitude Iverson was the poster child for street ball in the NBA. This of course prompted a change in the way basketball was marketed. Commercials and in-game breaks became infused with rap music, entire clothing lines were created in the so-called "ghetto" image. Sneakers were modeled after the way rap stars wore them, as were ball caps, wrist and head bands.
Thing is, none of this was done to market the game or the merchandise to inner city youths. It was done to sell merchandise to the biggest target demographic in America, middle to upper class suburban white males age 16-35(the same type of people Ron Artest punched out at The Palace). David Stern couldn't care less about selling to African-American or Hispanic groups, he just needed their image to sell product to wealthy white kids who wanted to act like pimps and hustlers on the weekends.
And so it went, the NBA packaging a specific image to sell sneakers and jerseys. It was underhanded, but it made tens of millions for owners. Of course, this couldn't last forever. So it was on November 19 2004 during a game between the Pacers and the Pistons when an on-court altercation escaleted into a fight between players and fans. No sooner had the Pacers Ron Artest punched out a fan in the seats believing the man to be responsible for throwing beer on him then David Stern had a press conferance to announce he was going to start cleaning up the NBA. Suddenly there was s dress code, rules governing, of all things, the position of wrist bands. Rap music became associated with "thug life", a scary word to the soccer moms Stern had been fleecing for years to make little Johnny popular at school with his $200 Air Jordans and Kobe Bryant Jersey.
Of course, this was not the only thing that changed in the NBA. The on-court product had to be altered as well. No more could these bad-boys, who just months earlier been the face of the NBA, be allowed to sully the games image. No, Iverson and others with ink and "urban" haircuts could no longer be allowed to lead the NBA. It was time for a new image to be brought forth.
And so it goes with the Spurs. They, like the Dallas Mavericks, represent what Stern wants the NBA to look like now. Good clean cut players who don't argue, play as a team, are a collection of players from around the globe and most importantly play by the rules. Things is, as anyone whos been defended by Bruce Bowen will tell you, the latter simply isn't true. Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitski, Ginobli, Parker all commit fouls, they just don't get called on them as often as others.
Sure this comes off a whining, but look at just the last four games between San Antonio and Phoenix. In consecutive games Bruce Bowen tried to injure a Suns star player, be it a kick to Amare Stoudemires ankle while he was in mid-air or driving his knee into Steve Nashs groin a few nights later, yet all he drew was a flagrant foul on the Nash incident. The NBA did not even review the kick on Stoudemire despite video of the incident being widely circulated thanks to YouTube. A few nights later Bowen would grab Steve Nashs arm as he went for a lay up in clear view of every official on the court and get nothing.
Kurt Thomas, on the other hand, was given one foul after another while defending Tim Duncan. He would be given four in less then twenty minutes in game 6 to force him onto the bench early. In nearly twice as much floor time Bowen received only two while guarding Nash.
The penultimate example of just how skewed the league has become is of course how the Robert Horry foul was handled. Late in game four, with the Suns well ahead, Horry drove Steve Nash into the scorers table with a body check that would make Scott Stevens proud. The deliberate attempt to hurt the two-time MVP was not allowed to pass, with Stoudemire and Boris Diaw leaving the bench to come to the aid of the man who had brought them to that point of the season. Both were stopped by coaching staff before they could become involved, but they were both suspended one game. Horry received two, but what the hell did it matter? A marginal player had just taken the Suns most potent offensive weapon and a key role player out of the picture for a pivotal game five. Naturally though, this wasn't the only thing that went wrong.
As video has shown, Tim Duncan also left the bench when Jones accidentally undercut Elson after a dunk(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHyuPorlLiQ). He walked past the three point line talking and gesturing. Some would argue that he wasn't getting involved in any altercation. Maybe, but it sure as hell looked like he was getting ready to start one.
The most damning evidence of the Leagues bias comes directly from Stu Jackson. In a statement following the announcement of Diaw and Stoudemires suspension Jackson said "This isnt a fair decision, but it is the correct one." Just what in the hell is THAT supposed to mean?
Simple really, this is the decision that best works for the NBAs image. Duncan is, after all, a good boy who never causes trouble. The Spurs are the poster child team, international stars playing a team game, no off-court troubles to embarrass the League, no arm covering tattoos or rap albums(Tony Parkers doesn't count, most Americans don't speak French).
Some would say this is counter-productive to the NBA, since San Antonio doesn't get high ratings. Maybe, but so what? Most Finals in any sport tend to be regional audiences and all the League needs is one name player to get national attention. Even an event like the Superbowl takes second fiddle to the commercials and half-time show. Stern knows the League can't lose money regardless of whose playing in the Finals, it's already made millions from the previous rounds. What Stern cares about right now is pushing forth the image that the NBA has been cleaned up, that only the good, proper teams win and that teams with "inner-city" influence won't get anywhere. After all, you can't get guilt-trip parents into buying expensive clothes and shoes if the nightly news is calling basketball players thugs now can you?
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Boxings Last Round
Last Saturday tens of thousands of people slapped down 60 dollars to watch Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather Jr fight it out in what was supposed to be the bought to save boxing. While the match raked in roughly 120 million dollars, it did nothing to help the struggling sport. The fight itself was dull and predictable, with Mayweather playing hit and run while De La Hoya struggled to land the knockout punch early then tried to avoid getting KO'd himself in later rounds. While boxings most vocal supporters have been singing the praises of this fight, most people have merely shrugged their shoulders. Frankly, they should.
Look, I like boxing, I watched it often while growing up. I watched Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis in their primes. I could sit back and look at Bernard Hopkins fights for hours, marveling at how he studied an opponents style during a fight then dissected him in later rounds. Or smirk as Lennox Lewis delivered yet another beating to a loudmouthed youngster who had never faced off with a pure pugilist. For all this, however, I can't watch boxing anymore. There are more weight classes and organizations then I can count, and fewer and fewer title defenses. In fact, the more belts a fighter obtains, the less you see him in the ring. No one really studies boxing anymore outside of the hardcore fans because bosing gives people no reason to, which is why so many found last weekends fight so dull.
Mayweather is a masterful defensive fighter, able to block punches, deliver blows then back away before his opponent can even think of counter-punching. Thing is, it's dull as hell to watch. Mayweather relies on hit and run tactic, delivering punches my pregnant sister would shrug off and relying on the scorecard to hand him wins. Those who tout the "sweet science" prop this up as proof of how technically sound boxers are. I'm not taking anything away from Mayweathers skills, but let's face it nobody outside of the hardcore boxing circles could watch that fight and be entertained.
This is all further compounded by boxings own corruptness. The scoring in title fights is shady to down right greasy. With Mayweathers split decision win(it should have been unanimous) a re-match is already being whispered about. But would half as many people actually pay to see that fight again? Hell no. No matter how loud commentators like TSNs Russ Anber shout, boxing is falling to the way side.
Of course the truest measure of just how far boxing has fallen was shown just after the fight ended when HBO boxing commentator Jim Lampley took the time to deliver yet another rant against UFC and other mixed martial arts. On top of that, Mayweather had some harsh words for MMA, saying people went there when they failed at boxing. Andrew Siciliano of FSR has repeatedly trashed UFC, acting like it's some sort of flash in the pan, flavor of the week type of combative sport. Don't these people wish.
In reality UFC is destroying boxing. Last year Dana Whites promotions took in over 200 million in PPV profits, breaking the old record set by boxing. Boxing has had two failed attempts at reality shows with both De La Hoya and good old Sly Stallone each trying their hands at getting boxing back into the lime light. Both shows were utter failures while UFCs Ultimate Fighter series is in it's 5th successful season. The last three main events in UFC PPVs have ended in upsets. The fights themselves are fast, furious and unpredictable and people can't get enough. Sitting in a bar watching Ortiz/Shamrock 2 I saw fans young and old, men and women watching, cheering and talking about UFC. Boxing was only brought up to be laughed at.
MMA is doing what boxing seemingly isn't willing to do, give the fans what they want. Fans today don't want long, technical bouts, they want fast paced, exiting, unpredictable slug-fests. They want the fight itself to be more entertaining then the weigh-in or the pre-fight press conference. And most importantly, they want a reason to tune in again. UFC and other MMA promotions give them that, boxing does not.
Pugilist aficionados of course lament that MMA is not a true craft, that there in nothing sound about it, it's just a televised bar brawl. It may have been true a decade ago, but no longer. UFC has taken mixed martial arts to the forefront by giving the fans legit bouts, with discernible weight classes, charismatic fighters and the feeling that they care what the fans think. Watch a UFC fight, if it starts to slow down, the refs will tell the fighters to get moving. If it turns into a mat fight with nothing but slow grappling, the fighters will be brought to their feet and start again. People keep coming back to UFC because it is entertaining, anyone can tune in and fully understand what is going on. Only a handful of those watching could truly appreciate how sublime Floyd Mayweathers skills are, and they will be the only ones paying if there is a re-match.
Look, I like boxing, I watched it often while growing up. I watched Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis in their primes. I could sit back and look at Bernard Hopkins fights for hours, marveling at how he studied an opponents style during a fight then dissected him in later rounds. Or smirk as Lennox Lewis delivered yet another beating to a loudmouthed youngster who had never faced off with a pure pugilist. For all this, however, I can't watch boxing anymore. There are more weight classes and organizations then I can count, and fewer and fewer title defenses. In fact, the more belts a fighter obtains, the less you see him in the ring. No one really studies boxing anymore outside of the hardcore fans because bosing gives people no reason to, which is why so many found last weekends fight so dull.
Mayweather is a masterful defensive fighter, able to block punches, deliver blows then back away before his opponent can even think of counter-punching. Thing is, it's dull as hell to watch. Mayweather relies on hit and run tactic, delivering punches my pregnant sister would shrug off and relying on the scorecard to hand him wins. Those who tout the "sweet science" prop this up as proof of how technically sound boxers are. I'm not taking anything away from Mayweathers skills, but let's face it nobody outside of the hardcore boxing circles could watch that fight and be entertained.
This is all further compounded by boxings own corruptness. The scoring in title fights is shady to down right greasy. With Mayweathers split decision win(it should have been unanimous) a re-match is already being whispered about. But would half as many people actually pay to see that fight again? Hell no. No matter how loud commentators like TSNs Russ Anber shout, boxing is falling to the way side.
Of course the truest measure of just how far boxing has fallen was shown just after the fight ended when HBO boxing commentator Jim Lampley took the time to deliver yet another rant against UFC and other mixed martial arts. On top of that, Mayweather had some harsh words for MMA, saying people went there when they failed at boxing. Andrew Siciliano of FSR has repeatedly trashed UFC, acting like it's some sort of flash in the pan, flavor of the week type of combative sport. Don't these people wish.
In reality UFC is destroying boxing. Last year Dana Whites promotions took in over 200 million in PPV profits, breaking the old record set by boxing. Boxing has had two failed attempts at reality shows with both De La Hoya and good old Sly Stallone each trying their hands at getting boxing back into the lime light. Both shows were utter failures while UFCs Ultimate Fighter series is in it's 5th successful season. The last three main events in UFC PPVs have ended in upsets. The fights themselves are fast, furious and unpredictable and people can't get enough. Sitting in a bar watching Ortiz/Shamrock 2 I saw fans young and old, men and women watching, cheering and talking about UFC. Boxing was only brought up to be laughed at.
MMA is doing what boxing seemingly isn't willing to do, give the fans what they want. Fans today don't want long, technical bouts, they want fast paced, exiting, unpredictable slug-fests. They want the fight itself to be more entertaining then the weigh-in or the pre-fight press conference. And most importantly, they want a reason to tune in again. UFC and other MMA promotions give them that, boxing does not.
Pugilist aficionados of course lament that MMA is not a true craft, that there in nothing sound about it, it's just a televised bar brawl. It may have been true a decade ago, but no longer. UFC has taken mixed martial arts to the forefront by giving the fans legit bouts, with discernible weight classes, charismatic fighters and the feeling that they care what the fans think. Watch a UFC fight, if it starts to slow down, the refs will tell the fighters to get moving. If it turns into a mat fight with nothing but slow grappling, the fighters will be brought to their feet and start again. People keep coming back to UFC because it is entertaining, anyone can tune in and fully understand what is going on. Only a handful of those watching could truly appreciate how sublime Floyd Mayweathers skills are, and they will be the only ones paying if there is a re-match.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Cowards With Keyboards
It's tempting to write about Kobe Bryant this week. Another .500 season, another first round exit, the plea for aid now that he finally realizes he can't win on his own, but that's to easy. Besides, the fun will be later this summer when the Lakers try to foist Luke Walton and Kwame Brown off to the Timberwolves or the Pacers and get soundly rejected.
Instead, this week I 'll be writing about, well, writers. Specifically sports writers. They are an interesting breed, their livelihood wholly dependent on a team or teams that over half the time they are criticizing. If fact sports media spends most of its time being negative. It gets ratings on TV and radio and sells copy for print media. Nothing sells like controversy, and earlier this week Toronto Sun columnist Steve Simmons generated enough for a whole summer.
Simmons wrote an article for the Tuesday edition claiming that Toronto Maple Leafs Captain Mats Sundin may require major hip surgery that would effectively end his career. The article was predicated on information Simmons claims to have received from two people within the medical community who are "in the know", whatever the hell that means. He never spoke to Sundin, his agent, Leafs General Manager John Ferguson or apparently anyone else within the team that he will admit to.
Following the publication, GM John Ferguson strongly denied that Sundin required the surgery Simmons alluded to while Sundins agent J.P. Barry also denied that Sundin would be going under the knife for any major operation. In an interview on Hockey Central at Noon on Sportsnet, Barry admitted that Sundin would be seeing a specialist, but the only surgery would be elective and minor. Not good enough for Simmons it seems.
Two days later Simmons had another article on the subject, but this time he made it personal. Instead of backing up his allegations, Simmons instead called both Ferguson and Barry liars. Claiming to know more than a players agent and the General Manager of a professional sports team concerning the health of its top star, Simmons took aim and opened fire on both men. Ferguson made it clear that any reports on surgery were premature, something Simmons sees as being akin to admitting that Sundin will be on the table this summer. Interestingly enough, Ferguson wasn't even in the country at the time of the second article, he is currently in Russia doing some pro and amateur scouting during the IIHF World Championship. Way to show your brass there Stevie boy.
During the interview on Sportsnet, Barry details how he spoke to Sundin(currently vacationing in Europe) about the article and the surgery allegations and how upset Mats was regarding it. Simmons also calls this into question. Simmons claims that two of Sundins closest friends could not reach the star by phone while Barry claims to have spoken to him, he calls a highly respected agent and former member of the NHLPA Associate Counsel a liar, yet Simmons never mentions who these two friends are, or when these calls took place. Nothing personal Steve, but Micheal Moore thinks your fact checking may be suspect.
Of course, Steve claims that there is a story here and that the leak itself is proof. Oh really? Is this the same kind of irrefutable insider information that lead Simmons and the entire Toronto media to believe Bryan McCabe was leaving the team for the New York Islanders last summer(he re-signed with the team, explaining the delay in progress was due to his wife being gravely ill following the birth of the couples first child earlier that year).
Thing is, this sort of nonsense is commonplace, especially amongst reporters who almost never have to meet the targets of their keystrokes face to face. Am I calling Simmons a liar, or accusing him of making the whole thing up? No, but it is painfully obvious he is over-blowing the story like so many other writers before him.
In the spring of 2004 not one single Chowder head in Boston could have imagined what their beloved Red Sox were going to accomplish that year, especially after reports surfaced early in the year that star player Manny Ramirez was demanding a trade, fireballer Pedro Martinez was fueding with everyone in sight and Manager Terry Francona had lost the locker room even before the season had started. Thing was, none of it was true.
During an interview on the Jim Rome show, Curt Schilling, Bostons major off-season acquisition, was asked about the stories flying around regarding the Sox. Point blank Rome asked if Curt felt that the media ever just made things up. Jim hadn't even finished asking when Curt jumped in with an emphatic "Yes! Absolutely!" He went on to deny that any of the stories were true. That fall the Red Sox won their first World Series since 1918 in one of the most impressive team efforts ever seen in baseball. Martinez would leave the team, but over money, nothing more.
How many times have you seen a headline in a New York sports section with some sort of controversy surrounding the Yankees? As early as last weekend "insiders" were telling the media that if the Red Sox swept the Yankees at home that weekend, Manager Joe Torre would be fired. Only a few years ago stories popped up claiming Alex Rodriguez frequented swingers clubs. There was nothing to the stories, and no evidence to back them up, but they were printed anyway.
Worst part of this problem is that the reporters themselves rarely, if ever get called into question, and they damn well know it. They should be ashamed of the disservice they are doing to their profession, but I've never seen one of these guys ever apologize or admit to wild speculation. It almost seems like they take their own word as gospel, a crime against journalism in my small opinion.
Look, I understand that media is a cut throat business but that does not excuse a person from creating a story when one does not exist. The worst part is they make it so easy. A journalists sources do not give out information for free you know, they are expecting compensation, namely money or other considerations. So what if they feed a guy five bogus stories, if he gives the journalist one legit scoop the reporter will keep coming back for fear of losing another major story. Reporters are both victim and villain in these cases, making wild accusations based on uncorroborated information. The really sad part of this is it sells, a lot.
By the way, if anyone is going to try and point out any irony in this article, jut remember I never claim to be a journalist, just an idiot with a blog.
Instead, this week I 'll be writing about, well, writers. Specifically sports writers. They are an interesting breed, their livelihood wholly dependent on a team or teams that over half the time they are criticizing. If fact sports media spends most of its time being negative. It gets ratings on TV and radio and sells copy for print media. Nothing sells like controversy, and earlier this week Toronto Sun columnist Steve Simmons generated enough for a whole summer.
Simmons wrote an article for the Tuesday edition claiming that Toronto Maple Leafs Captain Mats Sundin may require major hip surgery that would effectively end his career. The article was predicated on information Simmons claims to have received from two people within the medical community who are "in the know", whatever the hell that means. He never spoke to Sundin, his agent, Leafs General Manager John Ferguson or apparently anyone else within the team that he will admit to.
Following the publication, GM John Ferguson strongly denied that Sundin required the surgery Simmons alluded to while Sundins agent J.P. Barry also denied that Sundin would be going under the knife for any major operation. In an interview on Hockey Central at Noon on Sportsnet, Barry admitted that Sundin would be seeing a specialist, but the only surgery would be elective and minor. Not good enough for Simmons it seems.
Two days later Simmons had another article on the subject, but this time he made it personal. Instead of backing up his allegations, Simmons instead called both Ferguson and Barry liars. Claiming to know more than a players agent and the General Manager of a professional sports team concerning the health of its top star, Simmons took aim and opened fire on both men. Ferguson made it clear that any reports on surgery were premature, something Simmons sees as being akin to admitting that Sundin will be on the table this summer. Interestingly enough, Ferguson wasn't even in the country at the time of the second article, he is currently in Russia doing some pro and amateur scouting during the IIHF World Championship. Way to show your brass there Stevie boy.
During the interview on Sportsnet, Barry details how he spoke to Sundin(currently vacationing in Europe) about the article and the surgery allegations and how upset Mats was regarding it. Simmons also calls this into question. Simmons claims that two of Sundins closest friends could not reach the star by phone while Barry claims to have spoken to him, he calls a highly respected agent and former member of the NHLPA Associate Counsel a liar, yet Simmons never mentions who these two friends are, or when these calls took place. Nothing personal Steve, but Micheal Moore thinks your fact checking may be suspect.
Of course, Steve claims that there is a story here and that the leak itself is proof. Oh really? Is this the same kind of irrefutable insider information that lead Simmons and the entire Toronto media to believe Bryan McCabe was leaving the team for the New York Islanders last summer(he re-signed with the team, explaining the delay in progress was due to his wife being gravely ill following the birth of the couples first child earlier that year).
Thing is, this sort of nonsense is commonplace, especially amongst reporters who almost never have to meet the targets of their keystrokes face to face. Am I calling Simmons a liar, or accusing him of making the whole thing up? No, but it is painfully obvious he is over-blowing the story like so many other writers before him.
In the spring of 2004 not one single Chowder head in Boston could have imagined what their beloved Red Sox were going to accomplish that year, especially after reports surfaced early in the year that star player Manny Ramirez was demanding a trade, fireballer Pedro Martinez was fueding with everyone in sight and Manager Terry Francona had lost the locker room even before the season had started. Thing was, none of it was true.
During an interview on the Jim Rome show, Curt Schilling, Bostons major off-season acquisition, was asked about the stories flying around regarding the Sox. Point blank Rome asked if Curt felt that the media ever just made things up. Jim hadn't even finished asking when Curt jumped in with an emphatic "Yes! Absolutely!" He went on to deny that any of the stories were true. That fall the Red Sox won their first World Series since 1918 in one of the most impressive team efforts ever seen in baseball. Martinez would leave the team, but over money, nothing more.
How many times have you seen a headline in a New York sports section with some sort of controversy surrounding the Yankees? As early as last weekend "insiders" were telling the media that if the Red Sox swept the Yankees at home that weekend, Manager Joe Torre would be fired. Only a few years ago stories popped up claiming Alex Rodriguez frequented swingers clubs. There was nothing to the stories, and no evidence to back them up, but they were printed anyway.
Worst part of this problem is that the reporters themselves rarely, if ever get called into question, and they damn well know it. They should be ashamed of the disservice they are doing to their profession, but I've never seen one of these guys ever apologize or admit to wild speculation. It almost seems like they take their own word as gospel, a crime against journalism in my small opinion.
Look, I understand that media is a cut throat business but that does not excuse a person from creating a story when one does not exist. The worst part is they make it so easy. A journalists sources do not give out information for free you know, they are expecting compensation, namely money or other considerations. So what if they feed a guy five bogus stories, if he gives the journalist one legit scoop the reporter will keep coming back for fear of losing another major story. Reporters are both victim and villain in these cases, making wild accusations based on uncorroborated information. The really sad part of this is it sells, a lot.
By the way, if anyone is going to try and point out any irony in this article, jut remember I never claim to be a journalist, just an idiot with a blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
