Perjury

I have a question...

When Roger Clemens pitched to Barry Bonds, who had the unfair advantage?

Let me start by saying that I would never want my kids to do steroids. It's clear they are dangerous to one's long-term health. And no matter what side of the steroid debate you fall on, most are now illegal substances, and I would never want my children, or anyone else, for that matter, to be involved with anything illegal.

But I would gather that most, as am I, are tired of hearing about steroids in baseball, and that today's announcement that Roger Clemens will be charged with perjury for statements he made to congress regarding his involvement with steroids, was met with a great big ole yawn.

But here's what bothers me, and what most people now overlook as they become self-righteous everytime they hear about another user: Why is Barry Bonds, or Roger Clemens, or A-Rod, or any player who used considered such a big cheater? The problem I bring up is this: Major League Baseball had no rules in place banning the use of steroids prior to 2004. I know that most of the substances in question were already deemed illegal by that time. But baseball had no testing policy in place until then, and thus no discipline in place to deal with it if someone was caught using. And there were two primary reasons why: The Players Association (the most powerful labor union on the planet) wouldn't allow for it prior to then and the Major League Baseball brass loved, reveled in, and cashed in on the offense that steroid use had created in their sport. It wasn't until Congress got involved that Baseball even considered creating a testing and discipline policy.

What's the point? The point is that steroid use specifically, and drug use in general, has been ignored in baseball for decades. And one could make a case that steroid use was even encouraged -- certainly not discouraged -- as it's results became evident to all those who watched the game, and to those who ran it. Let's not forget, for what we know now, steroid use and it's positive results on the field for those who used it singlehandedly saved baseball in the summer of 1998. This is not my opinion: Sosa and McGwire have been given credit for saving baseball ever since, having redeemed even the most chided fans from the strike of 1994 and receiving honors from the President of the United States and the Commissioner of Baseball himself for doing so.

But drug use has been rampant in the game for years. Jim Bouton's Ball Four, the famous behind-the-scenes, tell-all baseball book of the early 1970's details the ready availability of "greenies" and other amphetimines in most clubhouses as far back as the early 1960's, and the use of said drugs was totally ignored by any authorities. I've heard Pete Rose make a great statement in several interviews in regards to his own banishment from baseball for gambling. He claimed that had he been a drug user, baseball would have paid for his rehab and he'd still be managing the Cincinnati Reds. He's probably right.

So before I give you the crux of my gripe, let me say that I'm not arguing the morality of the issue. I'm in no position to judge anyone's moral decision to break the rules or jeopardize their own health. I'm arguing the reality of the situation as it stood at the time. Given that baseball had no discipline in place to dissuade the use of peformance-enhancing drugs at the time, and moreover, that some of the PED's that are illegal now were not even illegal then, it is safe to assume that all players had equal access, opportunity and lack of fear of reprisal for using from baseball authorities.

So, my question is this: With the playing field being even for everyone, if one guy chose to use and another did not, why is it considered that the user had an "unfair" advantage? If everyone had the same opportunity to use, why are the ones who simply chose to considered "cheaters?" And that's not even taking into account that the reality is that most players probably chose to use at the time, most of whom we just don't know about.

Let me ask it another way by use of an analogy. Given that everyone has equal opportunity to strength-train in the gym without any fear of repercussion, if one player chooses to work out more than the next guy, does that mean he somehow has an "unfair" adavantage?

Remember, essentially, the use of PED's was simply not illegal according to Major League Baseball at the time. And some of the drugs being used -- specifically, McGwire's favorite, Andro -- was not illegal at all, despite the fact that some other pro sports organizations, most notably the NFL, had banned its use by that time.

The bottom line is that no player can be labeled a cheater if he is simply playing within the parameters in which he's allowed. It's oversimplifying to say, but the reason pitcher's don't doctor baseball's much anymore is because it isn't allowed and its policed. If it wasn't policed, even if it still wasn't "technically" allowed, most pitchers would still be doing it today. Worse, when a pitcher is caught today doctoring a ball, or a hitter is caught with a corked bat, most people laugh it off. Rarely is there some giant uproar about the guy being a "cheater" and having an "unfair" adavantage. I can't remember the last time Congress got involved over a corked bat.

And that raises even a dumber assertion by fans today regarding the use of steroids. There are many who claim that the likes of Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, and other sluggers of yesteryear did it "the right way." That is to say, drug free. Please. Ignoring for the moment that the Ty Cobbs, Babe Ruths and Mickey Mantles of their era were raging alcoholics, womanizers, tobacco users, and sometimes, crooks, the hitters of long ago didn't use PED's because they couldn't. They weren't available then. Now, I'm not claiming that Hank Aaron or Frank Robinson would have used if they had the chance. What I'm saying is that it is a moot point because they couldn't have used PED's if they'd wanted to. The truth is that there is loads of evidence now that many players did indeed use the drugs available to them in their day (the aforementioned "greenies" and the like,) and trying to lay some overall moral superiority over eras of long ago to now demonize the contemporaries of today is both misinformed and foolish. Hank Aaron is a great guy by all accounts. I have no beef with him. And given the opportunity, he may have chosen the high road. We also know he was a highly competitive individual, driven to be the best. But this much is sure: he was not a steroid user, because he never had the choice to be.

McGwire was a great guy. Remember? The whole country loved him. Did anybody believe then, and does anybody really believe now that he used Andro to "cheat" or gain an "unfair" advantage? That that alone was his motivation for using? Rather, McGwire did what he did then because he believed it was what he should do to stay at the top of his game. It is not unreasonable to think, as baseball, and indeed the whole country, climbed aboard his shoulders, that he might have even felt some sort of obligation to stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, and that juicing helped him do just that. I'm speculating, of course, but attempting to speculate some justification for McGwire's behavior now is no more far-fetched than trying to heap some assumed moral superiority on the players of decades past.

The real problem, as I see it, is that we really don't know who used in those days and who didn't, aside from those few who have admitted to it since. The sad truth is that with each new pad of evidence, more and more names are uncovered, leading to the assumption that far more players did it than will ever actually be revealed. I've heard numbers in various interviews upwards of 75%. We may never know for sure, but what poor schlep who used PED's but only managed to hit three home runs in some season is ever going to admit to as much? We assume that it was only the guys who overachieved who juiced, and that's just unrealistic.

Taking us all the way back to my original question. If some juiced-up pitcher faced some juiced-up hitter, who was the "cheater" and who had the "unfair" advantage? Are we to believe that all of Clemens's strikeouts came against guys who weren't juiced, or that all of Bonds's home runs came against pitchers who were on the level? Of course not. And if you assume that either was juiced most of the time, if you can't prove their opponent wasn't, then you can't nullify any accomplishments they reached. Even though the playing field of Maris and Aaron was vastly uneven and different to that of McGwire and Bonds, it's altogether possible that the playing field of the 90"s and early 2000's was far more level than we want to admit. An asterisk on any record now is pointless. Which brings me to my final subject:

Ken Griffey, Jr.

It's common knowledge now among baseball fans that there's absolutely no evidence suggesting that Junior ever took PED's. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, given Junior's injury history over the last decade. If there's any player ever, now or in the past, who can be accused of "doing it the right way," it's Griffey. And is there anybody who doesn't believe that in the absence of a long list of horrific injuries, we'd be talking about Junior as the home run hitter of all time right now, maybe even the best all-around player ever?

With all the negative publicity MLB has received over the past few years, Bud Selig should have his head examined for not having climbed onto Griffey's shoulders years ago with any attempt possible to capitalize on Griffey's positive energy and clean image. If I were in charge, Griffey's face would have been on every piece of promotion Major League Baseball could produce. He should have been the face of the game. The fact that he wasn't says more about Selig's continued ignorance than any injury Junior ever suffered. That Griffey wasn't honored at this year's All-Star game with some honorary captaincy, or at the very least an on-field introduction was an injustice worse than any perpetrated by Bonds or McGwire.

The fact that the likes of Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and A-Rod had to juice up to do what Griffey did naturally speaks volumes about Junior's talent.

Now there's a guy who had an "unfair" adavantage.

Jackie vs. Sheryl

Another reaction to an article I read a few years ago. I have a lot of issues with many so called "opinion' writers these days.

I just read what might possibly be the most inane article I’ve ever read.

In a world where seemingly nothing is taboo anymore (unless you’re into political correctness,) our society has been inundated with homosexuality lately.

Oh, I don’t mean it’s any more prevalent today than it was 20, 30 or even 50 years ago, although that may well be the case. What I mean is that today’s society has made it an open issue, unlike the days of yore, and the media in particular is glorifying the gay lifestyle in some form or another all the way from the neighbor in your favorite sitcom to Barney Frank on Capitol Hill.

And so, along comes Sheryl Swoopes – she of the WNBA superstardom – “coming out of the closet” last week and announcing that she is indeed a lesbian.

Now, aside from the shock, (an informal poll of friends and family asking whether or not they were surprised at said announcement elicited a great big ole “Well, duh!”) one can only be left to ponder, “What’s next?” Most assuredly, there will one day – probably in the not-so-distant-future – come a male athlete in a pro sport who will also make such an announcement while he is still playing the game. Many a male athlete has revealed his sexual preferences after having left the game for some reason or another. But none have as of yet done so while still employed.

Which brings me to the article I read this afternoon. It was posted on the Fox Sports website and written by a guy named Ian O’Connor. I’ve never heard of him, although he is credited as an author of various books. He might be a nice guy, I don’t know.

But he’s an idiot.

Now, before you call me a gay-basher, or hater, or phobe, or whatever else the vernacular calls for today, let me just say that I don’t think he’s an idiot for writing an article that is favorable to gays, which this article is. Nor do I think he’s an idiot for promoting gay-tolerance, which it does. Nor do I think he’s an idiot because, based on his article, his views on the gay lifestyle and my own views on the same differ quite drastically.

No, he’s an idiot because of a certain comparison he makes to help establish his point. Here is what he writes: “The more major sports leagues educate their players on this issue, the more likely it is that a gay athlete will emerge from the closet as eagerly as Jackie Robinson pushed through the Dodgers' clubhouse door. It will be a great day in sports, in all of America, when that male pioneer steps forward the way Robinson did more than 58 years ago, the way Swoopes did last week…”

Did I hear that right? This guy actually compared Sheryl Swoopes telling the world she’s gay to Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball. Actually paired the two events as though they will one day have the same impact on society.

This guy thinks that some guy telling somebody else, even if it is during a news conference, that he likes guys instead of girls is on par with one of the most society-changing events certainly in the past century, and maybe for hundreds of years. That what Jackie Robinson did to break the bonds of racism in this country is akin to the decision on who Ms. Swoopes will actually go to bed with this evening.

Absurd, ludicrous, shocking, moronic, and anything else you want to add.

Let’s clarify a few things first, to give Jackie Robinson his due and save him from the terrible injustice Mr. O’Connor is attempting to heap upon him.

Jackie Robinson was never in a closet about anything. He did not “push through” anything. He was always there, out in the open, proudly black and talented for all the world to see. He wasn’t hiding anything. We were hiding him. It was us who didn’t want him to play. Finally, somebody wised up and Mr. Robinson walked through the door that was opened to him. None of it was his fault.

And suffice it to say that Mr. Robinson did not “eagerly” do anything. Oh, he was bold, and as brave an individual as anyone who ever lived. But had you asked Jackie in those days did he want to be spat upon, insulted, threatened and harmed just so he could swing a bat with a bunch of white guys, he’d have likely said no. Instead, Mr. Robinson was willing to step forward and carry a torch because he knew the significance it would hold. Sure, he wanted to be a big leaguer like every other male at that time, but let’s not forgot that he was already an established Negro league star, making a relatively good living for a black man in those days, playing around guys he knew would never want to harm him. No, Mr. Robinson wasn’t eager, but he was bound by a sense of duty and a cloak of bravery few of us will ever know.

To compare racism in this country to gay-tolerance is like comparing the New Orleans flood to a leaky faucet. They both involve water, but that’s about it. It is a slap in the face to the likes of Mr. Robinson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks. Even Sheryl Swoopes should be offended.

This could digress into a long diatribe about the gay lifestyle, and is it a choice or is one born that way, and so forth. But I don’t want to go there. Suffice it to say that Jackie Robinson didn’t CHOOSE to be black. He was BORN that way, and he couldn’t HIDE it and LIVE A LIE even if he’d wanted to. All Sheryl Swoopes did was tell everybody she gets along better with girls. She coulda been born that way, or she might just have trouble dating men. While that might sound calloused, the truth is that there is no scientific, religious or otherwise practical evidence on which one of those scenarios is the case. But Jackie Robinson was black, and this much is for sure: There wasn’t a darn thing he could do about it.

I think there is something to be said for the fact that there is indeed still such an intolerance for homosexuality in our society. Despite the media’s attempts to portray it otherwise, the gay lifestyle is very dark, brooding and racked with pain and suffering. If it weren’t, there would be no reason to hide it. Then again, maybe if so many homosexuals didn’t hide it so much, while most people may still not accept it, at least they might understand it better. Nevertheless, it is something that, like it or not, is still not normal in our society for a variety of reasons. We can be as tolerant as we want. If the hedonism of the late 70’s, 80’s and 90’s didn’t change society’s view, it ain’t gonna happen now anytime soon. In today’s no-holds-barred world, if a guy wants to sleep with another guy and then doesn’t have the guts to tell other people about it, that’s his problem. I’ve got no problem if people know I actually make love to my wife every now and then.

Which is to say that I don’t care if people are gay or not, in a casual sense, even though my religious beliefs dictate otherwise. As it is, I have no authority to tell people how they can or can’t live their lives. But I hope I have the sense God at least gave a duck. Somewhere along the line, Mr O’Connor apparently went nuts and thought that somebody’s sexual choice actually holds the same importance as equality among the races. That racial hatred and bigotry is no worse and no more significant than “Your bathhouse or mine?”
I can at least spot an idiot when I read one.

Coach Dungy

I wrote this back in 2007 just after the Colts beat the Chicago bears in the Super Bowl. So it's a little dated. Sue me.

At what point does a seemingly perfectly sane, professional newspaper writer become an idiot?

At issue is an article which appeared in Monday’s edition of the Indianapolis Star written by the Chicago Sun Times Rick Telander. In it, Mr. Telander, quite unashamedly, writes that Tony Dungy, the most recent victorious Super Bowl coach, should quiet his public speech about his Christian faith and that Dungy would be “better off sticking to X’s and O’s.”

Of course, Mr. Telander prefaces his comments by claiming that he, like most others, thinks Dungy is a great guy, even going so far as to say that he thinks Dungy’s “calm, considerate approach” to coaching is a “refreshing departure” from most other coaches approach to the relatively violent game of football.

So I ask; what’s the problem?

Well, Mr. Telander goes on to write: “...there is a part of Dungy's philosophy that troubles me -- and, I believe, many others -- and that is his insistence upon making proper coaching not just a matter of good heart but of religious zeal, even dogma.”

I don’t know what dogma means, and he didn’t say.

Basically, Mr. Telander is bothered by the fact that Dungy insists on giving credit for his prosperous coaching to God. Somehow, Mr. Telander reasons, Dungy is wrong for giving glory to God for the things he does. A football coach, he implies, should leave religion out of the game.

Unfortunately, Mr. Telander is an idiot. Not because he’s not a Christian -- which he clearly is not by Biblical standards – and not because he has totally misinterpreted Dungy’s comments – which he clearly has. No, Mr. Telander is an idiot because he has completely and unequivocally missed the point of his very own opinion.

Mr. Telander suggests that Dungy should stick to the basics of coaching, the “X’s and O’s” as he puts it, and leave religion out of it. Yet, what he fails to admit to is that despite Dungy’s insistence on giving God the glory for his abilities, he still coached his team to the World Championship, which clearly means he’s a great coach. In other words, either God really was responsible for the Colts’ Super Bowl title, or Dungy is better at the “X’s and O’s” than anyone else right now, and his faith doesn’t seem to be distracting him much.

Either way, Mr. Telander is rendered an idiot. Because if one reads his article, one is left to assume that Mr. Telander is making one of two assertions: that God is clearly not involved in football, and thus should be left unmentioned, or that Dungy is somehow less of a football coach because of his emphasis on his faith. Neither is true based on the resulting circumstances making his entire opinion just plain dumb, if not totally irrelevant.

Which is indicative of the problem with many “opinion” writers today. More often than not, many opinion columnists today bash out some story on a keyboard with no basis in fact, and hide behind the mantra that “well, that is my opinion.” Any credible opinion columnist, say, like, the legendary Chicago writer Mike Royko, may state opinions, but does so with some basis of fact. And if they don’t, the piece is usually so tongue-in-cheek that no reasonable reader could assume they’re being serious.

If I were to say it is my opinion that black people are more stupid than white people, not only would I be shot dead before I could reach my car, but most people would justifiably want to know on what data I based that opinion. If I had some solid stats stating it was true, or could quote some viable sources who stated the same, I may still be hated, but at least I’d be right. But given that there is no evidence whatsoever proving knowledge superiority of one race over another, I could never make such an insipid statement and expect anyone to take me seriously.

Take Mr. Telander’s article for example. First, he claims that Dungy said God was responsible for the Colts’ victory. In truth, Dungy has never said anything of the sort, at least not that I’ve seen publicly. In fact, none of the quotes Mr. Telander attributes to Dungy in his article makes such a claim. Dungy does indeed thank God for the opportunity to coach in the Super Bowl, and is proud to show that a man of Christian faith can be successful in the notorious world of secular sports. But he makes no claim that God favored the Colts over the Bears, or that God allowed his team to win and for some reason caused the Bears to lose. How absurd!

Secondly, Mr. Telander makes an assertion that Dungy is being intolerant to others by so publicly confessing his faith. While it is likely true that not every Colts player is a born-again Christian, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that some players feel left out or ostracized by Dungy and his beliefs. Every public interview of any Colts player has shown that player heaping nothing but praise on Dungy, his abilities and his style. None – and I would challenge anyone to find one – has shown a player voice his discontent with Dungy and his faith. What possible basis does Mr. Telander have to make such a claim? If he has some inside or private information, then it is incumbent upon him as a journalist to state as much. At least it would give his claim some modicum of credibility.

Next he makes what is possibly his most moronic statement of the entire column. After listing several Dungy quotes about his faith, Mr. Telander writes, “Now substitute the words "Allah," "Muslim" or "Koran" in appropriate spots and see if your view changes.”

Well, duh!

Of course it changes. One hates to burst Mr. Telander’s bubble, and it may not even be politically correct to say so, but most American’s view of the Muslim faith right now is not all that favorable, if for no other reason than for a little incident a few years back now known affectionately as “9/11.”

Few want to admit it, but right now in the majority American conscience, Islamic beliefs represent violence and death, and Christian beliefs represent peace and serenity. And little has happened over the past few years to dispel those beliefs. Mr. Telander may want to be politically correct and write some deep, philosophical piece about intolerance, but in truth most people don’t want tolerance, they want peace and tranquility. Dungy represents both.

Furthermore, it wasn’t as if Dungy called reporters and said, “Let me tell you about my faith.” He simply coached his team to a Super Bowl title. Is it his fault that cameras keep getting shoved in his face? Who says he shouldn’t be allowed to speak his mind when others impose on his time?

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of responses to Mr. Telander’s article posted on the Indy Star website are very unfavorable to his position. In fact, the only one supporting Mr. Telander in the first 20 responses I read began like this, and I quote, spelling intact: “Excellent article that took a great deal of courage to right.”

Go figure.

Indeed, the first 40 responses only contain two which support Mr. Telander’s views. Read through the next 40, and one finds only five more. Of those seven supportive responses, they pretty much follow the same, “I’m tired of those Christians being so darned vocal,” mantra. Of course, I’m paraphrasing and summarizing those responses, but it’s safe to say none of those seven responses were from Christians, which is to say they weren’t so much interested in supporting Mr. Telander’s point (whatever it was) but that they just liked someone else being negative toward Christians and their views.

Granted, when one weeds out the responses from those who just think Mr. Telander is a sore loser, most of those left against Mr. Telander are Christians, as far as one can gather. But the overriding view – and again, I’m paraphrasing and summarizing here – is that they can’t figure out why Mr. Telander is being so intolerant of Christians in an article in which he is accusing a Christian man of the same, with no basis, no less. Justifiably, most of the Christians who responded felt attacked and can’t figure out why anyone would belittle a man such as Dungy who has made so many feel so good of late, regardless of their faith.

It is true that one has to wonder what Mr. Telander’s real point was. Was it a rile against intolerance, or just an attack against Christianity. It is hard to understand how someone who is writing under the very banner of free speech can seem to be perpetrating the idea that someone else shouldn’t be allowed to speak it.

Finally – and I question whether we even need to go here -- but I must ask; Is it any coincidence that Mr. Telander writes for a Chicago paper? One has to wonder, as many of the responders on the Star website have, would Mr. Telander have even written an article like this had the Bears been victorious? Would he have had the same courage if he had to write these comments about Lovie Smith instead of Tony Dungy?

One can only hope.

For Love of the Game

Watching Kevin Costner's movie For Love of the Game, a baseball movie, of course, after having just watched my Reds get drubbed by the Cardinals. Baseball. There's a thousand lines from a thousand movies I could quote that would, in some way, describe how I feel about the game. And yet none would come quite close enough to really getting it right. Costner's pretty good at it, even if he's a little cheesy sometimes. But he's led two of the great baseball movies of all times (if you're a baseball fan, you'll know which ones -- if you're not, I'm not telling you cause you won't care anyway) so he must have some handle on it.

Baseball truly is America's pastime, and despite the surge of popularity over the years of other sports, continues to reach new attendance heights year after year. And whatever popularity it has lost over the years is professional baseball's own fault. You gotta save two weeks salary to buy a pack of baseball cards anymore, and you have to have a second mortgage on your home if you want to buy any piece of MLB merchandise. But, as long as I don't eat at the stadium, I can still take my family to a Reds game in Cincinnati, four tickets, gas and parking for less than $100.

Of course, most people around here like to go to Indianapolis Indians game, and while I admit Victory Field is an awesome minor league park, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would want to watch the Triple A Pirates. I don't even want to watch the Pirates major league club, let alone their minor league scrubs. But I digress.

Still, I can watch a major league baseball game in Cincinnati for just a few bucks more than it costs to watch the Indians play here, and get a nice view of the river to boot. Plus, I took my mom once to a game there, and she said, quote, "Look at that bilge there going up the river." She meant "barge" presumably. So, there's that.

Steroids. That's a topic for another post to come soon. But let's just say that the whole steroid flap proves little else than the hypocrasy of the baseball brass, and worse, the baseball fan. Baseball didn't care until it got caught, and neither did the fan. Now the fan wants to act self-righteous, and the bosses want us to believe they tried to clean up the game all along. Pitiful.

What's your favorite line? Here's a few of mine. I'll let you figure out the movie.

"Dad? Wanna have a catch?"
"There's no crying in baseball!"
"You play baseball like a GIRL!"
"Throw him the heater, Ricky!"
"It's supposed to be hard. The hard is what makes it great."
"I'm done. For love of the game."

In the end, watching or listening to the Cincinnati Reds has been the backdrop for most of my life. And the soundtrack of most of the time I've spent with my wife and family over the years involves the sounds of the game. But I just can't think of anything better in the whole world than sitting in a seat, with some peanuts, and my family on each side of me. Somebody on the Reds hits one deep, and we all high-five each other as the fireworks go off overhead. "This one belongs to the Reds." All while the fireworks and the moon twinkles off the ripples of the Ohio river.

Oh yeah, and a "bilge" is floating by.