Vick, Ankiel, Donaghy, Imus, Bonds, Whitlock, Perverts

Yes...I'm going to attempt to weave all of these into this blog. Come along for the ride.

In my minimal and unsuccessful blogging experience, there are two types of blogs (no, not ones with naked women versus ones without naked women ... perverts). The two types are blogs that initially jump into your mind and fingers and you simply cannot wait to pound them into the blank canvas that is blogspot and blogs that "marinate" and fester and keep you awake at night until you figure out how to do them justice. This blog is decidedly the latter. It has truthfully been months in the making. And I hope I adequately convey the thoughts that have ruined many a night's sleep.

Before I dive into the meat of this story, let me get one thing straight so there's no confusion.

I hate Jason Whitlock.

He has always raised my ire with his early predisposition for reverse racism which has now transformed into frequent columns and positions causing many in the black community to call him an "Uncle Tom." This may be unfair, I admit, but it seems to me that Jason Whitlock lives to draw criticism and media coverage whether that be his unceremonious departure from ESPN or his "anti-Rutgers" position in the whole Don Imus situation. Okay, now that is out of the way, let me also get one thing straight so there's no confusion.

I agree with Jason Whitlock on one crucial issue: sports are nothing more than entertainment and the difference between the various acronyms (NFL, MLB, NBA, etc) and the WWE is drawing ever closer.

This was a statement Whitlock made some time back on the "Sports Reporters" and was essentially the beginning of the end of the relationship between ESPN and Whitlock. The show was discussing Barry Bonds and steroids at the time (as they have for the better part of a decade it seems) and Mike Lupica was advocating pseudo-McCarthyism/21st Century Salem Witch Trials to go after those doping and using steroids in sports. His righteous indignation was oozing from beneath his top-of-the-line Men's Wearhouse finery and it was obvious he was secure in assuming everyone was with him on this issue. To Lupica, sports are an institution, an untarnished eutopia of all that is good and pure, a daily or weekly struggle of two forces of good nature, hard work and preparation in a Darwinian struggle for our respect and admiration.

Suddenly, Lupica's momentum was brought to a screeching halt as Whitlock declared that to him, sports are nothing more than entertainment. The looks on Mitch Albom and Lupica's faces were genuine, abject horror. I looked on, screaming at the long-time object of my loathing that he was an idiot. To you, Mr. Whitlock, on this issue, I owe you an apology.

See, to many, especially sports writers, sports hover somewhere between human and heaven, theoretically never to actually collide with either. The truth is, sports are nothing more than a microcosm of society in the same way that TV dramas and movies reflect the times and the issues facing their viewers. They are not above real life, they are life. Both the entertainment and sports industries manufacture heroes. They merchandise the hell out of them. But does anyone actually believe that Martin Sheen is the President of the United States? No. No matter how much they wish he were.

And likewise, nobody should look at Charles Barkley and see a hero...a hard-working, tough nosed basketball player who overcame his physical limitations to be one of the best rebounders in the history of the NBA. That's his SPORTS persona. He is not a real life hero: he told you as much. Once that jersey is sweatily and safely hanging in the locker after a game, he ceases to be Sir Charles. He is just Chuck. Just Charles.

So then...why do the Lupicas of the world insist that sports are some bastion for the holier than thou? The answer always is: because once, the game was great. Once, players played for the love of the game, not the money. Once, players like Gehrig and Robinson and Ali and Thorpe roamed the fields, courts and rings of sport. THEY were heroes. Sports and its participants were people to be revered. Players like Joe DiMaggio even fought in World War II!

Well guess what? So did over 16 million other Americans. They too, were heroes...even if they never donned the pinstripes. Sports were a microcosm of society. Was Jackie Robinson a hero for "breaking the color barrier?" Absolutely. But so were Rosa Parks. And Martin Luther King, Jr. And I don't remember them ever touting their Wonderlic score or vertical leap. Robinson's accomplishments, while historic, were not unique. There were color barriers breaking all over the United States.

But guess what. For every DiMaggio, there was a Ty Cobb. For every Robinson, there was a Jim Brown who, while touting improvements in race relations, was repeatedly assaulting wives and girlfriends. But were there more heroes in DiMaggio's baseball than in Canseco's baseball? Sure. But were there more houses left unlocked in the 40s and 50s? Were there fewer gun and drug-related crimes? Was America unequivocally a better place to live than it is today? Absolutely. Sports are a microcosm of society.

Are you with me so far? Regardless, I have the power to keep writing. Okay, even if you agree with this premise, that sports aren't and never have been some above-reproach panacea for the world's ills and those that play sports are simply humans, what is left? Entertainment. I firmly believe it is this longing for a simpler. better time that is at the root of our desires to place sports and athletes on a pedestal. That, along with the fact that the highlight of too many men's lives are their high school exploits and therefore they are left to live vicariously through the professional combatants in their respective sports.

But the historical perspective is the primary of the two. It is almost as if the sports intelligentsia feel as if they owe a debt to those that have come before. The real heroes. They owe a debt to protect their "game" ... protect their place in its pantheon of greats. This is at the core of record and drug controversies. While many people would argue that you cannot compare eras in the various sports, what are records except a medium to compare eras? Wilt Chamberlain holds MOST NBA scoring records. And yet there are few who would argue that Wilt is the best player, and CERTAINLY not the best scorer, in the history of the NBA. If records are so important, then shouldn't he be the best player? Nope. So if those records aren't used to select the best player, what are they designed to do?

This brings us to Barry Bonds. And Lance Armstrong. And others. Did Barry Bonds use steroids? You better freaking believe it. But did Palmeiro? Yep. McGwire? Uh huh. Did Bonds hit more home runs than those guys? Sure did. Is Bonds a better home run hitter than Ruth? Who knows. Different eras, bodies and bats. But Ruth was the best in his era. Bonds is the best in his. But Bonds extra home runs aren't the deciding factor in who is a better player. So what is the freaking fuss? Likewise with Lance Armstrong. If we have learned anything from cycling since his retirement, it's that freaking EVERYONE in that "sport" is using something. Allegations of doping by Armstrong shouldn't diminish his amazing accomplishments in the least bit.

Am I advocating using steroids? Absolutely not. Should they be tested for? Undoubtedly. We do not want our games to turn into the all-drug Olympics. But we're never going to be able to test for everything. Someone is going to be on something. But are we going to put an asterisk beside every game, every record? Of course not. That's ridiculous. The fundamental question is, does it matter? The answer is no. Sports are entertainment. Rick Ankiel's return to the Major Leagues as an outfielder, after completely losing his freaking mind and doing his best "Wild Thing" impersonation...that's a fantastic story. One of the best in a long time. Does anyone think, "this is a great story, but if he's drinking coffee for extra energy, it all goes for naught." Sports are the first reality show. Unscripted drama. Entertainment.

This brings us to Donaghy. Why are officials banned from playing blackjack? Why this outrage against an official when players in the NBA are routinely involved in shootings, drug crimes, strangulations, etc.? Because officials in a blackjack pit or Donaghy involved with bookies trashes the concept that this is UNSCRIPTED drama. "Fans" of the NBA want to suspend disbelief that everything in sports is completely on the up-and-up. Common, Las Vegas gamblers don't want to think they could be parlaying their $5 on a pre-determined outcome. It destroys the image. Don't believe me? Why then has the Rick Tocchet and Janet Gretzky gambling cesspool not captured and sickened America? Because nobody cares about the NHL. It doesn't even have an image to protect.

This brings the discussion to Vick. Why is he being vilified? Sure, he committed a felony. But so have a lot of others. That's not at the core. Fundamentally, the people that run the NBA, the NFL, MLB, etc. understand that they are in a business. The entertainment business. And what happens when Tom Cruise goes completely insane? His movie box office receipts suffer. So why did Pacman Jones get suspended before he was convicted? Why was Michael Vick asked not to report to training camp? Because they were bad for business. Pacman is just an idiot...a felonious idiot who stands for everything the NFL tries NOT to portray.

But Vick. Vick's reprehensible actions touched the emotions of every pet-owner in America, not to mention angered a loony, but loud, activist group. Did you EVER hear the NFL stand-up for him? Even before the facts were known? How many sports figures and celebrities have drug out their trials, received ridiculous verdicts, etc. Did you notice Vick was hung out to dry and agreed to jailtime almost instantly? He committed the ultimate sin of committing a crime that could not be washed away by an insincere trip to an alcohol recovery facility. He was bad for business. People might stop buying the merchandise, going to the box office, I mean ticket office.

You don't believe me? You think this is cynical, borderline conspiracy theory? I assure you, my coffee isn't padlocked in my padlocked fridge...although perhaps it should be. Let me give you a prime example. Barry Bonds. We've discussed his "atrocities" and he is being crucified...rightly or wrongly. Explain Jason Giambi's situation to me. His steroid use was leaked in the SAME grand jury testimony as Bonds. Surely he is receiving the same treatment, right? I mean, he was MVP during his reign of needles. That should be revoked, right? Hardly. He, in fact, received the Comeback Player of the Year given out by, you guessed it, Major League Baseball. Why? Because he was contrite. Because he was a "feel-good" story. Bonds on the other hand, viciously attacked the pristine record books. Bonds is an asshole. Bonds refused to apologize. He is crucified, while Giambi is lauded. The difference? Image. Entertainment.

Does this only apply to pro sports? Absolutely not. How many college players have been arrested and yet upon their return to the team, they are cheered by the alumni faithful? At my the object of my own Saturday afternoon reverence, we have carried many a criminal on our figurative shoulders while Maurice Clarrett is one of the words you'll be fined for saying out loud. Why? Not because of his crimes. Not because of the shame he brought to the University. But because he only brought ONE national championship to the school. Cris Carter was kicked out of school, but because he put in several good years, he is now a iconic figure.

But the fundamental question is, does this matter? It does and it doesn't. It doesn't matter because sports are what they are. And we love them for it. We love cheering our team. We love revering our "heroes" and crucifying our villains. We love the drama on Saturdays, or Sundays or any other day of the week. We love to be entertained. But we need to see it for what it is and not place undue appreciation and reverence upon our sports or its participants. It DOES matter because rules are rules and crimes are crimes and EVERYONE needs to be treated the same. That is fairness. That is justice. Am I saying Bonds' record shouldn't be stricken? Not necessarily. But then Giambi's MVP must be revoked (he can keep the comeback player of the year..who cares).

Even in reality shows, there are rules that must be obeyed for them to retain credibility. And lord knows we can't get enough of those. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to split screen Top Chef and the Yankees.