Sports Sense Has Moved to SportsSense.net

You can now find Sports Sense here. Thanks, David

In Praise of Danica Patrick

Its still almost two months before the season starts for one of my favorite sports - Indy Car racing. Like a lot of sports these days Indy Car faces a major challenge because of the economy. Despite the likely tough times ahead, its biggest star - Danica Patrick - seems to be shining brighter than ever.

Thanks to a nearly naked appearance in a Super Bowl commercial for her sponsor Go Daddy, and another barely dressed spread in Sports Illustrated’s just issued top-selling swimsuit edition, Danica Patrick’s 15 minutes of fame have now extended to four years. Clearly the fascination is not over with a cute little woman who will shamelessly flaunt her assets and then duke it out with the guys at 230 miles per hour. I’m not hating, and neither is Indy Car.

Ever since almost winning the Indianapolis 500 in 2005, Danica has had people talking about her and looking at her. And even though she has only won one race since then, she’s led in a number of others and is a threat to win week in and week out.

I’m an Indy Car purist who still remembers the good old days when Mario Andretti and AJ Foyt were the dominant drivers. Collectively those two men won nearly 120 Indy Car races - more than anyone in history. They were big-time winners who between them also won a lot of other renowned races, including the Daytona 500, the 24 hours of Le Mans, the Grand Prix of Monoco and I could go on and on.

But now I find myself appreciating Danica Patrick for reasons other than winning. I like that she isn’t trying to fool anyone. She obviously knows that until she wins more races her biggest assets remain her tight body and cute face. And she is marketing those assets all the way to the bank. That’s honesty. That’s America. And what’s wrong with that?

As a result, Danica is one of the few sports stars who can be identified by just one name, just like her predecessors, AJ and Mario. And even though she’s driven just a single victory lap, Danica is a legitimate challenger in the only major sport in America where women compete as equals against men. And that's quite an accomplishment. Even if she has to take off most of her clothes to make the point.

Let's Not Forget It's Just a Game

After a couple of weeks of debating the athletic value of steroids and marijuana, I was reminded last night that in the end, sports are just games. And games are supposed to be fun.

What did it for me was another edition of the NBA Slam Dunk contest. Actually it was another edition of the irrepressible Dwight Howard. The defending slam dunk champion, is all youthful exuberance, winning personality, and from every appearance an absolutely decent young man. Each time I see him speak and watch him play, he is eloquent about his respect for the game and his enjoyment of it.

Howard is one superstar who seems to really understand his role as both athlete and entertainer. He also appears to understand sportsmanship and that he is truly blessed to be so well-compensated for playing a game. Sure he is human and may have some missteps along the way that will disappoint some of us. But so far so good.

My appreciation of Howard's sportsmanship was cemented when near the end of the slam dunk contest he graciously agreed to help his final round opponent - Nate Robinson - all 5'9" tall execute a creative over the top dunk. The 6'11" Howard stood near the basket and allowed Robinson to jump completely over the top of him and dunk the basketball into the hoop. Robinson's sensational dunk won over the audience of voting judges at home allowing the little man to take home the trophy.

To me the real winner was the happy sportsman Dwight Howard who seemed just as pleased for Nate Robinson as he would have been for himself. He joyfully helped remind us that he was playing a game and was having fun doing it.

Suspension for A-Rod? - Don't Even Try

We have now entered into the theater of the absurd. MLB commissioner Bud Selig tells USA Today that he is considering a suspension of Alex Rodriguez. It doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

Okay, I get it. An unnamed someone with unknown motives leaks A-Rod's 2003 steroid test results to a national magazine, which of course publishes the story. The test results by legal agreement were supposed to be anonymous and stay that way. No one was to be punished regardless of the results. Six years after the testing, and a day after the leak A-Rod is forced into an admission of sorts on ESPN. Now he faces possible suspension. Are you kidding me? Apparently the commissioner is feeling the heat of public pressure and says he may suspend Rodriguez. Based on what? What legal standing does the commissioner have? Further there are 103 other unknown names listed as testing positive. Do they now face suspension? Not for one minute has the commissioner seriously thought this through.

This is exactly why the steroids witch-hunt accomplishes nothing. Even if you believe A-Rod didn't tell the complete truth about his steroids use in the ESPN confession, he nonetheless took a step most players would never consider taking. Now should A-Rod get suspended despite all the assurances the 2003 steroids tests promised, you can be virtually assured that no one else under suspicion will say a word and will never admit to anything. Why should they?

Why Only A-Rod?

Let me get back to a question I asked the other day about the latest steroids scandal: Why Alex Rodriguez? Why only him? What was the motive for releasing his name and his alone when there are 103 other players who also allegedly failed the test for steroids. Why weren't other names leaked? Something is clearly wrong here. As a former journalist and current journalism instructor, I'm hard-pressed to criticize Selena Roberts and Sports Illustrated for reporting this juicy exclusive leak. This is what reporters do - report. But I have to wonder does Ms. Roberts know some of the other names? And if not, did she question why leakers only gave her the name of a single, albeit superstar, player? Keep in mind there were three other sources who corroborated the exclusive leak. Did Sports Illustrated even consider the implicit unfairness of it's explosive tip? Did the magazine care about the ramifications?

For now, and I say this carefully, because I absolutely don't know for sure, it appears that Alex Rodriguez' name was probably leaked by someone connected to the Federal prosecution of the BALCO case. Only Sports Illustrated knows exactly where this leak came from. And the magazine is not obligated to reveal it's sources. But we should ask: what's really going on in this now years old investigation that would cause someone to leak the name of Alex Rodriguez? Did the government try to pressure A-Rod into revealing what he knows about steroids and then toss his reputation to the wind when he didn't cooperate? Are pressure tactics being applied to other players on the list? Yes, I'm speculating, but the motives behind A-Rod's outing need to be discussed and examined.

The egregious way in which the Feds have pursued the BALCO case and Barry Bonds in particular has clearly sullied its investigation of steroids in sports. The Feds have recklessly pursued players like Bonds in its quest for headlines, when if they really cared should be going after the creators and distributors of these illegal performance enhancing drugs. The way I see it, traffickers are getting a relative pass and high profile athletes are getting embarrassed and in some cases prosecuted. Again, I am absolutely not excusing the actions of drug cheating athletes, but if we only look at Alex Rodriguez and his forced admission of steroid use and his now tarnished reputation, we are probably missing the big picture - and the real story.

A-Rod Comes Clean - Who are we to judge?

I’m glad Alex Rodriguez has now come clean about steroid use while with the Texas Rangers. Unlike many athletes, the ever image conscious, Alex Rodriguez is often thoughtful, poised, well-spoken and generally well-mannered. That A-Rod came out in the confessional-style interview with Peter Gammons on ESPN. It was a measured and impressive performance, the kind that any crisis expert would praise. But I’m nonetheless uneasy about A-Rod’s “confession” and its implications. First, we don’t know if what he said in the ESPN interview is the complete truth. It’s probable that the unadulterated version of A-Rod’s steroid use is far more than we need to know and far more than A-Rod’s now tarnished image can stand. The true Truth we may never know.

I suppose he felt he had to confess. He is baseball’s highest paid and highest profile player, now permanently tarnished, with years left before retirement, which would have meant years of speculation and suspicion. Perhaps he considered just how poorly stonewalling and lying has played out for Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. I’m sure he also thought about the relatively positive receptions that teammates Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte got with their semi-confessions. So he likely made a calculated choice to tell the truth knowing he had nothing to lose and a patched-up reputation to regain. This is a process that will surely be repeated. Eventually the other names on that list will be leaked too. And they will have to decide whether to confirm or deny.

I’ve been thinking hard about what’s really making me feel uneasy, and I believe what’s troubling me is the judge and jury roles that some in the media, some inside baseball and many fans are now taking up. For instance, the owner of the Texas Rangers Tom Hicks says he feels a “strong sense of personal betrayal” by Rodriguez. Are you kidding me? Hicks is the same guy who proudly overpaid for A-Rod and then reaped all of the benefits of employing baseball’s best shortstop. Hicks is being a hypocrite. A lot of folks are being hypocritical.

While it seems clear that A-Rod’s “confession” was a carefully crafted PR ploy designed to limit the damage and elicit sympathy from shocked fans and future Hall of Fame voters what should we expect? We are part of the problem. We have chosen to idolize Alex Rodriguez and other players and we are willing to spend lots of money to buy tickets, souvenirs and other memorabilia. Thus whether we want to admit it or not our involvement as fans makes us indirectly complicit in the steroid mess. So in the end who are we to judge?

Et Tu A-Rod?

Baseball's latest steroid revelation now fingering the Yankee's Alex Rodriguez leaves me with a lot of questions. Such as: Why only A-Rod? Who else is on the list of 104 players who allegedly tested positive for steroids in 2003? Who leaked the details of the test results to Sports Illustrated and why? Why weren't the test results destroyed when ballplayers were promised absolute anonymity? Are the Feds to blame? They are ones who seized urine samples and documents in 2004 from the testing labs in pursuit of the BALCO case. When does the steroid witch-hunt end?

I could go on. There are dozens of unanswered questions. And I'm sure we'll never get a straight answer to any of them. The point is there is no way to know for sure about anyone or anything regarding steroid use in major league baseball. Its all speculation and innuendo. All we do know is that players used steroids. We don't know how many used and we don't know when they used. That's all we know - that's all we're likely to know.

Here's one question that baseball historians will surely be uncomfortable with and likely dismiss without much consideration - But I ask it to make a point that I hope will cause you to pause and think: Why are we so sure that former single season home run champion Roger Maris never used steroids when in fact steroids were indeed available in 1961? Why are we so sure that Maris never used steroids when in fact he only hit 275 career home runs and only hit more than 30 home runs 3 times in his career (all in a statistically unusual three-year period including the record setting season in which he hit 61)? Baseball dealt with Maris' statistical aberration by granting him an asterisk for the home run record, and never voting him into the Hall of Fame.

I bring up Maris as red-flag waving example of how unproven speculation can lead to innuendo and character assassination. That's what's going on now. A-Rod has had quite a few huge statistical seasons and remains the odds on favorite to eventually eclipse Barry Bonds all-time home-run record. But until yesterday very few people publicly speculated that A-Rod was a steroid user. Most believed that he was the savior in waiting who would one day erase the "stain" of Bonds. Now based on unnamed sources and test results that we will likely never have confirmation about, A-Rod takes a very public fall. But what have we gained? What do we really know? Nothing.

We'll never know for sure about Roger Maris and others from his era because there was no testing back then. And there was also no suspicion. But we'll also never know when baseball's so-called steroid era really began. Did it begin when the first group of players began hitting more than 50 home runs on a regular basis? Did it begin when an increasing number of pitchers began throwing more than 98 miles per hour? Did it begin at some point after the development and approval of the first steroid drugs in the 1950s?

I'm not defending the use of steroids or other performance enhancing drugs in any way. But this witch-hunt has gone on for far too long. Not one thing has truly been accomplished. Only fingers have been pointed. And only at a select few individuals. There is a level of hypocrisy about this that is shameful. I say let's grant all the players past and present blanket amnesty for indiscretions involving performance enhancing drugs up to today, and move forward from here. Without amnesty everyone loses, Baseball most of all.

Michael Phelps Inhales - So What

I'm sure you've seen the picture by now. Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps taking a huge hit from a marijuana filled bong at a party with other like-minded young people. Obviously eight gold medals and worldwide acclaim do not guarantee wisdom and common sense. But does Phelps' marijuana misstep deserve widespread condemnation? Is this really a legitimate fall from grace? I don't think so. Maybe that's just me.

When I was much younger I too took a few massive hits from some ingeniously designed bongs. But then again I wasn't famous and I didn't have to bear the enormous weight of expectations of millions of hypocritical fans. Yes, technically what Phelps was doing was illegal. And yes, it wasn't the best way to promote his status as America's Top Role Model. Still it seems too many of us would rather castigate people like Michael Phelps than do our own part to insure that our own vulnerable kids don't take the wrong path. We'd rather blame schools, TV shows, movies, and celebrities for the problems our kids face.

Years ago NBA superstar and now chastened drunk, Charles Barkley, obviously ahead of his time declared "I am not a role model."
Barkley made that statement in a controversial Nike commercial. Back then he was roundly criticized for daring to utter that athletes and other famous people should not serve as primary life examples for impressionable youngsters. Suggesting instead that parents and family reassume that responsibility.

We love to bring down the famous. And yes many of the famous often make it very easy. But I ask you to look at the infamous Phelps picture again. What do you really see? I simply see a famous kid making a public mistake. The same mistake many of our own kids make. No more, no less.