What Was the Point?

This post exists because no one has provided the answers. Otherwise, I couldn’t care less about the ‘event’.

Because The Golfer’s statement seems to be more important than a man intentionally flying his plane into an Austin, Texas office building, let the following words provide some much-needed perspective that none of the broadcasting networks or cable news channels that showed it will give you.

Almost five years ago to the day, a slightly similar event took place, but without the posturing boycott from a writer’s association or as many channels breaking from programming to show the statement. You can’t find the video anywhere online today, but the transcript should jog the memory of how an athlete’s transgressions (alleged or proven) can become two days of media fodder despite all the other matters that can use the attention.

To summarize, Barry Bonds said let’s move on, don’t ask me about anyone else and many in the media have lied about their personal affairs.

Though moderated, it was a majestic press conference and none ever since have captured the antagonism and emotion that his provided. While it was also unintentionally funny, it did serve a purpose: Bonds, whose surly demeanor and the PED allegations overshadowed his on-field greatness, needed to defend himself against people who continued to make statements against his name. For that moment, Bonds set out to address people who spent years vilifying or defending him. After all, whether you like him or not, the truth is that he allowed his image to be crafted by the media based on his own fallacies.

He had enough.

Photo credit to The New York Times via Reuters

Today’s statement was a bit different.

Now, a point was made on Twitter by Chi-Chi Anunkor (one of the hosts of "Sports at the Half "on WHCR here in NYC) that too many people are beating the drum of “throwing stones at a glass house”. She’s certainly right in that it’s not the point of this latest media event, but can anyone with a straight and objective point of view tell me what it was?

Probably not.

When The Golfer’s team announced that a statement would be made, the entire sports world just ran with its proverbial cameras, recorders, laptops and cell phones without asking what purpose does this serve. Yes, he falls under the adage of “anything he does is newsworthy”, but that’s phenomenally subjective and whether ‘legitimate’ media peers agree or not, it’s a poor justification to report on something. With so many outlets deciding to have a NFL-like pre- & post-game analysis on the statement, it’s not a shock that no one would dare question the need for blanket coverage.

Yet, again, the fundamental question has to be asked: what was the point?

What purpose did making the statement serve for him beyond the need to control the message?

What was the public supposed to ascertain from this? Ours is a fickle – or at least an opinion-diverse – one. Some don’t give a hoot as long as he hits the course soon. Many love to throw shade on any rich or wealthy public figure, especially those who make a living playing a sport. Many still believe that he let them down because he “wasn’t like the others” as his carefully-controlled image presented. With these varying perspectives, were millions of us supposed to get angrier or to feel empathy?

Can ANYONE explain this?

The cynical ones might say that this was done to get us talking about him again, yet that can’t be it. To borrow the phrase from Chris Jericho, he is best in the world at what he does. That sheer excellence is enough for people to take notice of him, even if it’s as benign as sneezing into a Kleenex. He is the most important figure to a sporting organization since Wayne Gretzky was traded to the Los Angeles Kings (despite the greatness of Michael Jordan, the NBA wasn’t hurt for stars as much as we’re told to believe). To think that he needed to speak this morning in order to make sure we watch him hit the links soon is absurd.

This morning’s statement, no matter how prepared it was or genuine it apparently doesn’t change anything he does on the course when he returns. It’s a great joke for another day or two as it has been since Wednesday when it was announced. However, not one person has been able to answer the fundamental question:

What was the point?

Say What?!?!: Points well taken here by Yahoo!'s Dan Wetzel.

Video Credit to jarroddrover123

Understand?

There seems to be hope that some folks get it.

Recently on this space, you were given a list of things to love about sports despite the ever-flowing wine of hate we seem to quench our thirst with.

While it's pretty much impossible to expect the big boys to have found that same list, what isn't impossible is to believe that they're listening to the message.

Diehards, moderates, casuals and non-fans are tired of sports being platforms for snide comments, unwarranted attacks and utter stupidity.

Maybe Jeff Pearlman, mostly known for his book about one Barry Lamar Bonds, gets it.

Maybe The Oklahoman's scribe, Darnell Mayberry, wants to highlight the ignorance of many so-called fans so that they'd get it.

Maybe with the revelation of the main writer's identity, The Big Lead will become more than Snark Central for many insiders and admirers who think they get it.

Maybe we can sit back and enjoy Selection Sunday (and Monday for the ladies), the Rockets' amazing 21-game win streak and baseball teams that won't spark fights during spring training.

Maybe.

Rage

Since I was a kid – okay, so it wasn’t terribly long ago – there was one person on television that I had strong, but unshared admiration for. It wasn’t so much that I understood the topics or knew where the story began, but I was drawn to the style that he spoke to the audience. Without openly flaunting his knowledge or tossing sound bites to move stories along, his newscasts presented the differing sides of conflicts while introducing unfamiliar issues to a mass audience.

At ten years old, I may have learned as much about the world from Peter Jennings as from any teacher or textbook at I.S. 131 in The Bronx.

Over the past week, I’ve been reading a book about him that was published last fall called Peter Jennings: A Reporter’s Life. More of an anthology of reflections about the late anchorman than a biography crafted during his career, the book chronicles his career from aspiring to follow his father’s footsteps as Canada’s most beloved newsman in the fifties and sixties to an icon in his own right. You could look to his experience in the Middle East or his news specials featuring children to see that Jennings’ mission was to present as many sides to a story as possible, even if it challenges our sensibilitues and experiences. Yet, in an interview sourced in the book shows, he showed great concerns about the direction of the media industry:

“Maybe it started with the Robert Bork nomination to the Supreme Court. Maybe it was the 1988 political campaign using the image of Willie Horton, or the Clarence Thomas hearings, Whitewater, the Clinton sex scandal, the Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election. Whatever it may have been, the public dialogue today is often rude and vulgar to the point where I begin to think it’s shameful. It is true that we have been through ugly cycles before. But today I think that it is made much worse by the constant need for the drama of conflict that many broadcasters seem to demand. Our national conversation is very often a shouting match – and too much of it is infected with venom.

“I am not naive and I do not imagine a world in which we all get along. And I do not think we need to single out the right or the left, the talk radio ranters or the angry columnists. To some extent we are all culpable – including the staid center,
which if only by its silence is not without responsibility… Our modern communications system and other technologies have increased the volume of public argument to an unholy racket. Our national conversation sometimes feels
impoverished as a result… Civility doesn’t just promote decency; it also leads
to a fairer exchange of ideas and a greater chance of finding workable solutions
to the kinds of problems we face.”

While it would be strange to think that the words from one of the most revered journalists of all time would apply to the sports arena, they struck a chord in relation to the national and local conversations that take place daily. After reading it over and over again, so many questions regarding the sports media industry came to mind. I wondered where the rage came from in sports media. I wondered when did someone’s performance on the field lead to diatribes about his personal life. I wondered when did reporting the goings-on with sports become an athletic-themed version of the Geraldo At Large or the Rush Limbaugh Show.

Much of the venom that Jennings described comes from economics. There is no doubt that the growing divide between multimillion dollar professional athletes and fans has played a significant role. The idea that someone can make more money in a day as an elite athlete than a teacher does in a year keeps the distance fairly lengthy. Yet, when the folks that travel the globe to cover what’s essentially someone’s typical day at work, something more is added to the fray.

Whether we care to admit it or not, most – if not, all – of us wanted to be athletes, playing at the highest level possible. We wanted the adulation, the last name and our favorite numbers on the back of some jersey and the contract offers to go along with the joys of winning and the pains of losing. Some of us may have played at some point, but we’re holding cameras and voice recorders to those who are playing now as a way of life. We learn about the lives of these players and some of us develop relationships with them based on personal interaction and an understood professional agreement between media and subject. As we learn about these players, we begin to find those quarks, those words, those looks that remind us that they are emotional beings as well as physical marvels. It disappoints many in the business, especially those of us who have never played beyond junior high school.

It disappoints because the men and women who look to be above the flaws of flesh and blood are still just flesh and blood. The disappointment turns into judgments on his or her character. The judgments can become a nasty discourse where Terrell Owens, despite his gross shortcomings, can be mocked for anything genuine that he does, such as his emotional postgame comments about Tony Romo. The judgments against the surly persona of Barry Bonds become a near-decade of vitriol coming from coast-to-coast. The judgments become manifestos of the usual “he’s not worth that much money” line of at least half of the players in the NBA.

The judgments make stars out of some columnists like Jason Whitlock, Skip Bayless and Mike Lupica.

Unlike many of the political jousts that Jennings and many past and present journalists have narrated, these subjects aren’t directly responsible for money towards stem-cell research or alleviating homelessness in America’s cities. As much as we love and consume sports, at times, we protest too much. Sure, the media is responsible for much of the tenor towards the players and the business of sport. Yet, it is also responsible for not doing enough to remind fans that there has to be a separation between the job and the person. For as much as athletes do contribute to society in terms of entertainment and community outreach, their job functions do not reflect the human condition as much as those you’ll see on the evening news.

Before playing Game 7 of the 2005 NBA Finals, Rasheed Wallace, the forward/center for the Detroit Pistons who is known for an irascible demeanor on the court, was asked about the pressure of this winner-take-all game against the San Antonio Spurs. Maybe the media at the stadium clamored for him to say something that would invite a fine from the league or bulletin board material for the Spurs. Yet, in the spirit of the day, he said;

“Pressure? This isn't pressure and this is not pain. Afghanistan, Iraq and that other place, Croatia and Bosnia - now, that is pressure. This ain't nothing but a little hoops.”

It was hard to debate the next day on the local sports shows.

Forward (V)

Forgive my tone, but dammit, baseball! You can’t go away, can you?
I discussed with SPJ the other day; baseball is the lone sport where in its offseason, you constantly hear from and see everyone else but the athletes themselves. Whether is the hot stove moments after the final out of a team’s season, the winter meetings (one year, there was a sponsorship and logo for meetings, people!) or Valentine’s Day, baseball doesn’t give you the chance to miss it. Instead, media and league executives are always discussing a pressing issue or speculating trades or foaming at the mouth for another Red Sox/Yankees series (sorry). Outside of the NFL playoffs, the game’s politics overshadow all other non-football sports events. This isn’t always a good thing, but since performance-enhancers seem to come up more in conversation than I’d like, I might as well get this out of the way.

Baseball: Now what? Barry Bonds has been indicted; the Mitchell Report revealed a few names and two fatal drunk-driving accidents have hit the heart of the sport. Roger Clemens is going on a campaign to defend himself against a former trainer who provided his ex-client’s name to the said report. Scott Boras eclipsed the World Series and the Yankees were a public relations nightmare. The Red Sox are champions again while the Pirates are the minor-league organization of the year… I mean… nevermind. For a sport that seems to captivate the attention of a nation, it sure knows how to do it for the wrong reasons.

George Mitchell’s investigation gave the sport and fans the proverbial lump of coal for Christmas. Not that there were any punishments doled out or any legal precedents set against the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), but there was the tossing of players’ names like horseshoes. Though Mitchell and his committee made recommendations and Congress has decided to follow up with a hearing next week, baseball itself will have to act in order to move forward as it has desired to do for some time.

Now what?

Are more revelations going to come to light about PED use? Absolutely. Some of the named players have already come clean for reasons we may not know. Maybe they were afraid of the scrutiny that will follow them if they did not say “yes, I did”. Maybe they have an ace up their sleeves for more damaging evidence against players who could have done them wrong in the past. Maybe some folks may have a big ax to grind. Or just maybe, as the case was for one of the named former players, being named lifted a burden off of his shoulders.

Are league executives and owners going to add weight to these accusations? The players will be scapegoats and their images will be tarnished, whether guilty or innocent. However, the most responsible parties in this fiasco have been and continue to be the folks in suits and not uniforms. Commissioner Bud Selig touts increase in attendance gates every season in the post-strike era and that he should. There have been so many long-overdue additions that have made baseball intriguing to the masses (the wild card, interleague, international talents). Yet, the majority of teams play in games that mean little because they have no prospects of the playoffs. Owners need to make some sort of money and executives need to save their jobs because of a hot bat or two late in the season. Some of these folks had turned a blind eye because for a time at least, they were putting a few butts in the seats and giving some sort of hope in the future (as either a centerpiece or trading piece). This may cast some of the most respected figures in the game into the same light as those who have less-than-sterling backgrounds, but if this is done to the players, it should be done to those who decide their future in the game.

The true next step in this saga will be for more executives to come forward without a publicist-issued statement. The only executive of record to have admitted any sort of knowledge was San Diego Padres general manager Kevin Towers, who suspected that former NL MVP Ken Caminiti had been using steroids. Less than three years ago, Towers said that because of the financial windfall for the franchise - which included a World Series appearance in 1998 and the city’s approval of building PETCO Park – he kept quiet, knowing that the well would run dry. This admission only came after Caminiti died of a drug overdose-induced heart attack in The Bronx.

There’s got to be more than this.

Before revealing the report, Mitchell opened his press conference by discussing the potential impact of PED use on the young. The fears have been thrusted in front of the public for years now, but it took the death of a former player and the fall of records for baseball to address this issue. All the grandstanding Congressional hearings and hind-saving has yet to make the necessary headway. Either way, there’s unfortunately no end in sight. For baseball’s sake, you hope the old adage doesn’t come alive; it takes something to happen for people to learn.

Say What?!?!: Equal opportuntity stupidity. Only in America.

Truth

News organizations that are supposed to report the news before editorializing - not saying that opinions are not to be shared - have made a mockery of not only the record-breaking home run from Barry Bonds, but of the front page. Historically, media begs for the buck, and it is hard to not try to sensationalize to sell a few papers or push for ratings. However, to point to this singular achievement as the greatest crime in sports is a bit much. How about barring non-whites to play for decades as a good start or game-fixing or better yet, public funding of stadiums that are underutilized? Maybe, just maybe Barry Bonds' record-breaking moment isn't the 9/11 of sports.

Bonds was not the first to be linked to performance-enhancers and most certainly won't be the last. However, what has only been mumbled by some and amplified by few is that owners and executives looked away from players who had been using. While saying that taking these enhancers is cheating is debateable - because it's easy for those of us who couldn't get beyond our own neighborhood little leagues to question those few who made these games a livelihood - one absolute truth is that the economic state of the game allowed for these 'travesties'.

This is a sport - God love the game, bury the business - that built itself upn the reserve clause that bounded a player's services to a team essentially for the duration of their careers unless a trade was agreed upon between owners. This is a sport that needed Branch Rickey to point out the economic windfall of integration and that in itself took twelve years to be fully accepted. This is a sport that didn't have a real playoff system until a strike knocked out the World Series and disillusioned many fans until the 1998 home run chase from Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. This is a sport that has managed to survive for decades with at least half of the teams out of contention for any form of the postseason by the end of April. Worst of all, this is a sport that believes that there is a problem with teams such as the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Angels and Dodgers opening their wallets to any player available while the Pirates, A's, Twins, Devil Rays, Marlins and until recently, the Brewers continue to cry about being unable to compete and unwilling to spend a little to make greater dividends in the long run - and feeding off of the revenue-sharing (read: welfare) of the spending teams while they're at it.

What does the economic structure of baseball have to do with a few syringes? Everything.

Owners, especially those who operated teams that had little to no chances to play in October, needed a reason to bring fans to the seats other than grooming their own players in the farm or making wise trades and free agent signings. Is there any way to explain how several teams had gone over a decade without playing meaningful games in August and September? Is there a way to explain how a team can win two championships and have firesales shortly after bringing home titles (Florida)? And has anyone decided to tell Billy Beane that Moneyball has lost its steam? You rarely hear of contending teams having players who have this controversy because winning has brought fans to the seats. Winning = more $, right? There is a cicrus-like admiration for the home run and since the days of one Babe Ruth all the way to today, it has been the game's most used marketing tool. Commercials aren't adorned with Edgar Renteria, Kevin Youklis and Russell Martin, but with Ryan Howard, David Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez. The next time someone nominates Todd Helton for MVP will be the first.

If the business of the game can somehow be corrected - ideally, this would include new ownership in many locales - then the dependence on the longball can be mitigated, hence the dependence on bulging arms will be cut down significantly. Then again, how many of us actually use our complete physical and mental being to make a living? There will be some degree of use by players, but to believe that this is the biggest problem facing the sport is very short-sighted. Use of enhancers is the symptom to a larger problem that has continued to be ignored because there are still a few cheapskates willing to pull down the sport as a whole.

By the way, there's some pretty good baseball going on if you care to look around. Believe me, you'll like it.

Say What?!?!: It is August, which means that football season is around the bend from The Big House to the New Big Sombrero. If you need a primer on why this season is going to be one of the all-time best, take a look at the offseason movement after the Colts won Super Bowl XLI.

From the Locker Room to the Board Room: This is a new tidbit I hope to add to every post. The business student/future ad man in me finds what goes on within league offices and team operations fascinating and hopefully, you will in some way as well. Here is your first dose.