When I was a little kid I always hated long road trips (which was pretty much the only way my family ever traveled, BTW). I usually started off strong, but after a couple of hours I would get antsy. Every few minutes I felt compelled to ask my parents if "we were there yet." Needless to say, the answer was always the same. I especially remember the anticipation when we'd come close to reaching our destination - minutes seemed like hours, feet seemed like miles. But eventually we'd make it and it would all be worth it.
Tonight I feel like I'm 4 years old again.
Except that the boring car ride has been replaced by the interminable, excruciating democratic primary race. And tonight I'm finally seeing roadsigns suggesting we're near our destination. Which means that the next few days and weeks will be all the more painful.
Hillary got crushed in North Carolina and she's clinging to a minuscule lead in Indiana. It looks like she's finally running out of options. As the pundits like to say, there is no clear path to the nomination for her.
In fact, Tim Russert just called the race for Obama. So maybe it really will be over tomorrow.
But I doubt it. If I learned anything as a four-year-old it's that road trips don't end that quickly or easily. Even after the driving is finished, there's always something else to be done - gas to purchase, keys to pick up, directions to lose, groceries to buy. Something.
And technically speaking, Hillary still has cards to play. She has the so-called nuclear option, where she would use her influence over the Democratic Bylaws Committee to convince them to actually seat the Florida & Michigan delegates as per the original vote tally. It's a pretty crazy plan, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and nobody campaigned in Florida, but she could do it.
And today her campaign asserted that the magic number to clinch the nomination is about 200 delegates higher than the figure (2,025) that everyone else has been using because it doesn't account for Florida & Michigan's delegates.
So we'll have to see where that goes.
As far as I'm concerned, until she withdraws from the race officially I'm assuming she's in. And as long as she's in, she can win.
In other words, we just got off the freeway but the hotel is still nowhere in sight.
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. Apologies for the long gap between posts. Truth be told, I nearly gave up on the project for a variety of reasons. Fortunately Dr. Beeper clued me in to the error of my ways....
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Rough Patch
The economy seems to be deteriorating by the hour. New headlines come in daily that not only reinforce how bad things are but suggest that the worst is yet to come. It's like nothing I've ever seen.
To be fair, I've never followed the economic news as closely as I do these days so I don't have many other points of comparison. But I honestly don't think it would matter. If anything it would probably just remind me how much more severe this downturn is than everything since the Great Depression.
Check out this gem from Thursday's Wall Street Journal. The paper surveyed 46 economists about the overall health of the economy, and 3 out of 4 respondents said that we're already in a recession.
Not only is that a bad sign for the future, it's also a somewhat astonishing result considering that technically we're NOT in a recession. A recession has a very specific definition - 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth yet. Q4 was positive (+.6%) and the majority of economists surveyed Thursday think both Q1 and Q2 will be mildly positive, too (+.2% and .1%, respectively).
In other words, they think we're still six months away from starting our first negative quarter, which means were still a full year away from actually being in a recession.
So why did so many of them say we're already in a recession when they know technically it's not true?
Because we are.
There are many reasons, but the biggest is the decline in consumer spending in the United States. Roughly 70% of US GDP comes from consumer spending - clothing, groceries, consumer electronics, furniture, appliances, etc. And for the past decade most of those purchases have been funded by easy credit: mortgages, home equity loans, and credit cards.
Those days are gone. Simply put, too many Americans are tapped out now - they can't borrow even if they want to. Thus, they can only buy what they can afford from their paychecks. That will significantly drive down retail sales, which will drive down share prices, which will lead to layoffs. And the cycle will continue, as fewer Americans have jobs and spending continues to fall.
The severity of the downturn remains to be seen, but there is not a lot of reason for optimism. $4.00/gallon gas certainly doesn't help.
We're in a rough patch now; here's to hoping we weather it well.
To be fair, I've never followed the economic news as closely as I do these days so I don't have many other points of comparison. But I honestly don't think it would matter. If anything it would probably just remind me how much more severe this downturn is than everything since the Great Depression.
Check out this gem from Thursday's Wall Street Journal. The paper surveyed 46 economists about the overall health of the economy, and 3 out of 4 respondents said that we're already in a recession.
Not only is that a bad sign for the future, it's also a somewhat astonishing result considering that technically we're NOT in a recession. A recession has a very specific definition - 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth yet. Q4 was positive (+.6%) and the majority of economists surveyed Thursday think both Q1 and Q2 will be mildly positive, too (+.2% and .1%, respectively).
In other words, they think we're still six months away from starting our first negative quarter, which means were still a full year away from actually being in a recession.
So why did so many of them say we're already in a recession when they know technically it's not true?
Because we are.
There are many reasons, but the biggest is the decline in consumer spending in the United States. Roughly 70% of US GDP comes from consumer spending - clothing, groceries, consumer electronics, furniture, appliances, etc. And for the past decade most of those purchases have been funded by easy credit: mortgages, home equity loans, and credit cards.
Those days are gone. Simply put, too many Americans are tapped out now - they can't borrow even if they want to. Thus, they can only buy what they can afford from their paychecks. That will significantly drive down retail sales, which will drive down share prices, which will lead to layoffs. And the cycle will continue, as fewer Americans have jobs and spending continues to fall.
The severity of the downturn remains to be seen, but there is not a lot of reason for optimism. $4.00/gallon gas certainly doesn't help.
We're in a rough patch now; here's to hoping we weather it well.
Monday, March 31, 2008
News You Can Use
Dr. Beeper loves to give me a hard time about my enthusiasm for the Wall Street Journal. He calls me a Murdoch-lover, or some such nonsense.
The insult is so far from the truth it doesn't even bother me. But what does bother me is that at a practical level I am, in fact, supporting the man who created Fox News. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Unfortunately, there really isn't a comparable source for the daily economic & financial news that the Journal provides, with the possible exception of the Financial Times. I need to check that out.
Regardless, my larger point is that the world of finance has gotten so absurdly complex that only dedicated newspapers like WSJ or FT can hope to cover it adequately. And that's bad for everyone.
People throughout the country can relate to the economy's problems in personal terms - foreclosures are at an all time high, gas is nearly $4.00/gallon, unemployment is rising, the dollar is falling, and it goes on from there.
But can they relate to the problems on Wall Street?
How many people truly understand the inner workings of the so-called "credit crisis" that has been unfolding for the past six months? Who knows the difference between a CDS and a CDO? How about an ABS and an SIV? And why did Bear Stearns collapse, anyway?
Normally when an industry falls on hard times, it only affects the people who work in that industry. There might some related inconveniences (e.g., when airlines go bust travelers have to find new carriers) but the fallout is limited.
But the financial industry is different. When it stumbles like it has been lately, the entire banking system comes under stress. That's why the federal government stepped in to rescue Bear Stearns -- they honestly didn't know what would have happened if it had gone under. The worst-case-scenario was too severe and too plausible: a complete collapse of the capital markets.
Should we all be losing sleep over the situation on Wall Street? Maybe. The recent measures put in place by the Federal Reserve are helpful, but there are still severe problems that need to be worked out.
I recommend you all start paying closer attention, and find yourself a good source for financial news.
The insult is so far from the truth it doesn't even bother me. But what does bother me is that at a practical level I am, in fact, supporting the man who created Fox News. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Unfortunately, there really isn't a comparable source for the daily economic & financial news that the Journal provides, with the possible exception of the Financial Times. I need to check that out.
Regardless, my larger point is that the world of finance has gotten so absurdly complex that only dedicated newspapers like WSJ or FT can hope to cover it adequately. And that's bad for everyone.
People throughout the country can relate to the economy's problems in personal terms - foreclosures are at an all time high, gas is nearly $4.00/gallon, unemployment is rising, the dollar is falling, and it goes on from there.
But can they relate to the problems on Wall Street?
How many people truly understand the inner workings of the so-called "credit crisis" that has been unfolding for the past six months? Who knows the difference between a CDS and a CDO? How about an ABS and an SIV? And why did Bear Stearns collapse, anyway?
Normally when an industry falls on hard times, it only affects the people who work in that industry. There might some related inconveniences (e.g., when airlines go bust travelers have to find new carriers) but the fallout is limited.
But the financial industry is different. When it stumbles like it has been lately, the entire banking system comes under stress. That's why the federal government stepped in to rescue Bear Stearns -- they honestly didn't know what would have happened if it had gone under. The worst-case-scenario was too severe and too plausible: a complete collapse of the capital markets.
Should we all be losing sleep over the situation on Wall Street? Maybe. The recent measures put in place by the Federal Reserve are helpful, but there are still severe problems that need to be worked out.
I recommend you all start paying closer attention, and find yourself a good source for financial news.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Ramble On...
It's almost the end of March, so I've had nearly three months to reflect on my no-sports experiment. When I first started the project, I was at a loss. I even wrote an entire post about my anxiety over finding things to keep my interest. Sports had always occupied such a large portion of my web surfing and TV watching time that I had no real idea how to occupy myself when faced with a blank browser window or the TV remote control.
Gradually I figured it out. Now the pattern is unmistakable.
The two subjects that have replaced sports in my life are politics, particularly the presidential race, and the economy. Both topics are covered in detail and quite well on the Internet, so that's what I read 90% of the time that I'm online. TV is a slightly different creature. In my opinion, only politics is covered well on TV. And that would be a stretch, were it not for the 4 shows I regularly watch.
My #1 source for news is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I'm a big fan. His strong personality can be a little much at times, but otherwise I think it's a first rate news show. And of course there's The Daily Show & The Colbert Report. And last but not least, Real Time. I've always liked Bill Maher, but I've been enjoying more than usual lately.
Anyway, what's remarkable is that both topics are in the midst of riveting, historic eras. The housing/credit crisis has been unfolding as if in slow motion for months and still nobody knows where the bottom is or what exactly it will look like (the options seem to range from bad to worse). Meanwhile, the Democrats are tearing themselves apart to win the nomination while John McCain bumbles his way toward the White House.
Which brings me to my next point. Why is the Democratic primary race still going on? What am I missing? Mathematically Hillary cannot catch Obama in any of three categories: pledged delegates, popular vote, and total states won. What is the point? It's over. It's time for the superdelegates to step forward and call it for Obama.
I saw two different news items on The Huffington Post today that really got me thinking. First, and don't laugh, I saw the latest YouTube offering from Obama Girl. It was the first time I'd seen any of her work, and man, what a winner. Just great. Totally funny and right on point. But what struck me even more is that people are so psyched about Barack Obama that they'll actually write songs about him. It's an amazing phenomenon. The guy just has it. Charisma doesn't do justice to his gift. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but it's powerful. I think trust is a big part of the equation, but it's more than that I'm sure.
The second thing I saw was also on Huffington. The gist of the story is that the the prolonged democratic fight is clearly harming the Democrats and helping McCain. As obvious as that may sound, now that it's in the news it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
At what point will Hillary concede? I suppose she's hoping there's still a chance Obama will implode, somehow rendering him unelectable thus convincing the superdelegates to support her. One never knows what the future holds, but at this point that sure looks unlikely. If the Reverend Wright experience is any indication, it's going to take something pretty extreme to trip up Obama. He took a potentially crippling negative and turned it into huge opportunity. And the nation noticed. He didn't duck the issue. He didn't try to oversimplify it. He talked about it openly and intelligently.
Let's end this debate already so we can figure out how to beat McCain. Hillary can be the VP if she wants. Just get out of the way already.
Cheers,
Chris
Gradually I figured it out. Now the pattern is unmistakable.
The two subjects that have replaced sports in my life are politics, particularly the presidential race, and the economy. Both topics are covered in detail and quite well on the Internet, so that's what I read 90% of the time that I'm online. TV is a slightly different creature. In my opinion, only politics is covered well on TV. And that would be a stretch, were it not for the 4 shows I regularly watch.
My #1 source for news is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I'm a big fan. His strong personality can be a little much at times, but otherwise I think it's a first rate news show. And of course there's The Daily Show & The Colbert Report. And last but not least, Real Time. I've always liked Bill Maher, but I've been enjoying more than usual lately.
Anyway, what's remarkable is that both topics are in the midst of riveting, historic eras. The housing/credit crisis has been unfolding as if in slow motion for months and still nobody knows where the bottom is or what exactly it will look like (the options seem to range from bad to worse). Meanwhile, the Democrats are tearing themselves apart to win the nomination while John McCain bumbles his way toward the White House.
Which brings me to my next point. Why is the Democratic primary race still going on? What am I missing? Mathematically Hillary cannot catch Obama in any of three categories: pledged delegates, popular vote, and total states won. What is the point? It's over. It's time for the superdelegates to step forward and call it for Obama.
I saw two different news items on The Huffington Post today that really got me thinking. First, and don't laugh, I saw the latest YouTube offering from Obama Girl. It was the first time I'd seen any of her work, and man, what a winner. Just great. Totally funny and right on point. But what struck me even more is that people are so psyched about Barack Obama that they'll actually write songs about him. It's an amazing phenomenon. The guy just has it. Charisma doesn't do justice to his gift. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but it's powerful. I think trust is a big part of the equation, but it's more than that I'm sure.
The second thing I saw was also on Huffington. The gist of the story is that the the prolonged democratic fight is clearly harming the Democrats and helping McCain. As obvious as that may sound, now that it's in the news it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
At what point will Hillary concede? I suppose she's hoping there's still a chance Obama will implode, somehow rendering him unelectable thus convincing the superdelegates to support her. One never knows what the future holds, but at this point that sure looks unlikely. If the Reverend Wright experience is any indication, it's going to take something pretty extreme to trip up Obama. He took a potentially crippling negative and turned it into huge opportunity. And the nation noticed. He didn't duck the issue. He didn't try to oversimplify it. He talked about it openly and intelligently.
Let's end this debate already so we can figure out how to beat McCain. Hillary can be the VP if she wants. Just get out of the way already.
Cheers,
Chris
Sunday, March 23, 2008
My Inner Sportsfan Won
I caved.
Not only because my willpower deserted me, but also because I realized that it's nearly impossible to ignore the men's NCAA basketball tournament. It was tough enough to avoid the Super Bowl, but that game takes place on a single afternoon. The Tournament lasts for 3 weeks and is the most widely talked-about sporting event of the year.
It's huge news at my office. The firm actually streams CBS over our network throughout the Tournament so we can watch games from our desks. And this year my department started its own NCAA pool that was free to enter. So I pretty much had to enter. My boss is a huge Duke fan and we talk college basketball all the time. It would have been way too hard to explain why I didn't enter, and frankly it didn't make any sense to me either.
So I entered the pool (and another one with my friends). More significantly, I kept one eye on the games much of the day on Thursday.
And once I'd broken the proverbial seal, I really couldn't see the logic in not watching any more. I suppose I might have fought the urge a little harder if I were at home, but I spent the weekend with my in-laws. And as expected, my father-in-law and I watched parts of games all weekend. I watched the first half of the Oregon game, all of the UCLA game, and the end of the Georgetown & Tennesse games.
It wasn't much compared to every other year of my life, but it wasn't zero, either. And I'm glad. The Tournament really is the best sporting event of the year.
So we'll have to see what happens next. My intention is to resume my no-sports experiment when the Tournament ends and then reassess in September. Till then I intend to revel in my hiatus.
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. If anyone besides DrBeeper reads this site, they should check out this link (DrB put it in the comments section of my last post.) It's pretty interesting. It's an academic paper arguing that teams in red jerseys win more.
Not only because my willpower deserted me, but also because I realized that it's nearly impossible to ignore the men's NCAA basketball tournament. It was tough enough to avoid the Super Bowl, but that game takes place on a single afternoon. The Tournament lasts for 3 weeks and is the most widely talked-about sporting event of the year.
It's huge news at my office. The firm actually streams CBS over our network throughout the Tournament so we can watch games from our desks. And this year my department started its own NCAA pool that was free to enter. So I pretty much had to enter. My boss is a huge Duke fan and we talk college basketball all the time. It would have been way too hard to explain why I didn't enter, and frankly it didn't make any sense to me either.
So I entered the pool (and another one with my friends). More significantly, I kept one eye on the games much of the day on Thursday.
And once I'd broken the proverbial seal, I really couldn't see the logic in not watching any more. I suppose I might have fought the urge a little harder if I were at home, but I spent the weekend with my in-laws. And as expected, my father-in-law and I watched parts of games all weekend. I watched the first half of the Oregon game, all of the UCLA game, and the end of the Georgetown & Tennesse games.
It wasn't much compared to every other year of my life, but it wasn't zero, either. And I'm glad. The Tournament really is the best sporting event of the year.
So we'll have to see what happens next. My intention is to resume my no-sports experiment when the Tournament ends and then reassess in September. Till then I intend to revel in my hiatus.
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. If anyone besides DrBeeper reads this site, they should check out this link (DrB put it in the comments section of my last post.) It's pretty interesting. It's an academic paper arguing that teams in red jerseys win more.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Beware the Ides of March
I'm pleased to report that I've survived over two full months as a reformed non-sportsfan. And as I've mentioned ad nauseum in previous posts, it hasn't been nearly as painful as I expected. Missing the Super Bowl still sticks in my craw a little (okay, a lot) but otherwise it's been a relatively seamless transition.
Till now. It's March. And even though my beloved Cal Bears have nearly finished yet another dreadful season I'm still eagerly anticipating the upcoming NCAA Tournament. In a couple of weeks the field will be set and the pooling will begin.
What to do, what to do?
Though it may not be obvious, I possess the soul of a perfectionist. I don't know why - no one in my family has ever exhibited perfectionist tendencies. But I've been this way my whole life. As a small child it was particularly acute. It took me forever to get my school work finished because every number and letter had to be perfectly formed. I couldn't function without an eraser nearby. About the only explanation I've ever been able to come up with is that perfectionism is a fundamental trait of my astrological sign, Virgo. Maybe that stuff is really true.
The point is that the perfectionist in me wants to finish what I started. No cheating. No lapses. Just a full year without sports. Simple. Clean. Unambiguous.
But my inner sportsfan couldn't care less about perfection. He's just bouncing off the walls waiting for the Tournament to start.
The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is by far my favorite postseason event in all of sports, and I believe it always will be. It's special for several reasons. First and foremost, no other major sporting event reliably produces the quantity of upsets and surprises that the Tournament delivers. David slays Goliath every year. Multiple times. Two years ago tiny George Mason made the Final Four. There is no equivalent accomplishment in any other major college or professional sport; only the NCAA Tournament is sufficiently egalitarian to allow the little guys to compete with the heavyweights. It's actually become a cliche - sports pundits and journalists regularly ask who will wear this year's glass slipper.
Second, almost everyone I know, even if they haven't watched a single minute of college basketball all year, takes a few minutes out of their busy lives to fill out a bracket and join the same pool that we've all been in for over ten years now. It's great fun. Bragging rights are on the line, and everyone is out to prove they know what's really happening in college basketball. So far it's never been me; I suppose one of these years I'm bound to win the grand prize....
And on a related note, being in a pool makes everything a little more intense. Few experiences in sports are more nerve wracking than watching your Final Four pick struggle in the first round of the Tournament. (Unfortunately for me, losing a Final Four pick on Day #1 has become an annual event but it never gets any easier to stomach.) Conversely, nothing is more satisfying than correctly predicting a major upset - especially if it's under the experts' radar.
So I'm torn. I have to say that I'm leaning strongly at this point toward joining a pool and also letting myself watch a few games. But the perfectionist in me hasn't given up. It's a classic Freudian battle - my id wants to watch the games but my superego is trying to keep me disciplined.
We'll see what happens....
Till now. It's March. And even though my beloved Cal Bears have nearly finished yet another dreadful season I'm still eagerly anticipating the upcoming NCAA Tournament. In a couple of weeks the field will be set and the pooling will begin.
What to do, what to do?
Though it may not be obvious, I possess the soul of a perfectionist. I don't know why - no one in my family has ever exhibited perfectionist tendencies. But I've been this way my whole life. As a small child it was particularly acute. It took me forever to get my school work finished because every number and letter had to be perfectly formed. I couldn't function without an eraser nearby. About the only explanation I've ever been able to come up with is that perfectionism is a fundamental trait of my astrological sign, Virgo. Maybe that stuff is really true.
The point is that the perfectionist in me wants to finish what I started. No cheating. No lapses. Just a full year without sports. Simple. Clean. Unambiguous.
But my inner sportsfan couldn't care less about perfection. He's just bouncing off the walls waiting for the Tournament to start.
The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is by far my favorite postseason event in all of sports, and I believe it always will be. It's special for several reasons. First and foremost, no other major sporting event reliably produces the quantity of upsets and surprises that the Tournament delivers. David slays Goliath every year. Multiple times. Two years ago tiny George Mason made the Final Four. There is no equivalent accomplishment in any other major college or professional sport; only the NCAA Tournament is sufficiently egalitarian to allow the little guys to compete with the heavyweights. It's actually become a cliche - sports pundits and journalists regularly ask who will wear this year's glass slipper.
Second, almost everyone I know, even if they haven't watched a single minute of college basketball all year, takes a few minutes out of their busy lives to fill out a bracket and join the same pool that we've all been in for over ten years now. It's great fun. Bragging rights are on the line, and everyone is out to prove they know what's really happening in college basketball. So far it's never been me; I suppose one of these years I'm bound to win the grand prize....
And on a related note, being in a pool makes everything a little more intense. Few experiences in sports are more nerve wracking than watching your Final Four pick struggle in the first round of the Tournament. (Unfortunately for me, losing a Final Four pick on Day #1 has become an annual event but it never gets any easier to stomach.) Conversely, nothing is more satisfying than correctly predicting a major upset - especially if it's under the experts' radar.
So I'm torn. I have to say that I'm leaning strongly at this point toward joining a pool and also letting myself watch a few games. But the perfectionist in me hasn't given up. It's a classic Freudian battle - my id wants to watch the games but my superego is trying to keep me disciplined.
We'll see what happens....
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Is Arlen Specter a Steelers Fan?
Today I heard that Roger Clemens denied using steroids while under oath (in front of the Congress no less) and is now potentially guilty of perjury on top of everything else. That's old news compared to what I read tonight on the Huffington Post. Apparently Arlen Specter (R-PA) wants the NFL to come down harder on Bill Bellicheck for the Spygate incident. Maybe he's right.
When the Mitchell Report first came out I thought the whole thing was a waste of time. I figured the United States Congress should have bigger fish to fry than steroid use in baseball, especially with a disastrous war going on. And on some level I still feel that way.
But after thinking a bit more about it, I'm not so sure additional government oversight in pro sports would be a bad thing. Sports is big business, and the professional leagues effectively have a monopoly on the product they sell. Tom Brady won't be playing in the Arena League anytime soon. LeBron ain't going to the CBA to earn his paycheck. And the Rocket - he'll be in the Majors till his 'roids run out. Just kidding.
In sports, stars sell. Create more stars, sell more product. Simple. In other words, what is the incentive for any of these leagues to police themselves rigorously? If steroids fueled Mark McGuire's 70 home run year, so be it. The fans ate it up. And even Barry's controversial & cantankerous chase to break Aaron's record was great drama that brought all eyes to MLB for a year.
So maybe it's good Mitchell stepped in. If he hadn't launched his investigation, Roger Clemens would still be completely under the radar. And given the hell that Barry had to put up with to get his record, it seems like the Rocket should have to squirm in his seat a little also.
But I digress. This isn't about Barry & Roger. It's about preserving the integrity of sports. Mind you, I don't personally object to the use of performance enhancing drugs among professional athletes. It's their body and their choice. But either way, it should be discussed and ruled on in a neutral setting and then the enforced rigorously. If it's illegal, crack down hard on those who break the rules. If it's legalized, drop the whole debate and move on.
And I'm thinking that Specter, not my favorite senator, is right to have concerns about Spygate. Again, at first I dismissed the whole thing as harmless shenanigans. But upon further consideration (18-1), I'm thinking it probably gave the Pats an unfair advantage. An advantage they used to capture the best single season performance in league history - except for that last game of course. The drama of an undefeated team entering the Super Bowl was unprecedented - it was the most widely viewed Super Bowl ever. Why would the NFL want to step up and punish Bellicheck and the Pats for their transgressions? It would be bad for business.
And I haven't even commented on the absurd revelation last year that an NBA referee - in the Finals! - was guilty of having ties to the mafia and appears to have altered the outcome of some playoff games.
I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist by nature but there is ample reason for concern at this point. In the last year all three pro sports leagues have endured major scandals that cut right to the integrity of the games. That's pretty bad.
Perhaps it's time for some bona fide regulation to get things under control.
Cheers,
Chris
When the Mitchell Report first came out I thought the whole thing was a waste of time. I figured the United States Congress should have bigger fish to fry than steroid use in baseball, especially with a disastrous war going on. And on some level I still feel that way.
But after thinking a bit more about it, I'm not so sure additional government oversight in pro sports would be a bad thing. Sports is big business, and the professional leagues effectively have a monopoly on the product they sell. Tom Brady won't be playing in the Arena League anytime soon. LeBron ain't going to the CBA to earn his paycheck. And the Rocket - he'll be in the Majors till his 'roids run out. Just kidding.
In sports, stars sell. Create more stars, sell more product. Simple. In other words, what is the incentive for any of these leagues to police themselves rigorously? If steroids fueled Mark McGuire's 70 home run year, so be it. The fans ate it up. And even Barry's controversial & cantankerous chase to break Aaron's record was great drama that brought all eyes to MLB for a year.
So maybe it's good Mitchell stepped in. If he hadn't launched his investigation, Roger Clemens would still be completely under the radar. And given the hell that Barry had to put up with to get his record, it seems like the Rocket should have to squirm in his seat a little also.
But I digress. This isn't about Barry & Roger. It's about preserving the integrity of sports. Mind you, I don't personally object to the use of performance enhancing drugs among professional athletes. It's their body and their choice. But either way, it should be discussed and ruled on in a neutral setting and then the enforced rigorously. If it's illegal, crack down hard on those who break the rules. If it's legalized, drop the whole debate and move on.
And I'm thinking that Specter, not my favorite senator, is right to have concerns about Spygate. Again, at first I dismissed the whole thing as harmless shenanigans. But upon further consideration (18-1), I'm thinking it probably gave the Pats an unfair advantage. An advantage they used to capture the best single season performance in league history - except for that last game of course. The drama of an undefeated team entering the Super Bowl was unprecedented - it was the most widely viewed Super Bowl ever. Why would the NFL want to step up and punish Bellicheck and the Pats for their transgressions? It would be bad for business.
And I haven't even commented on the absurd revelation last year that an NBA referee - in the Finals! - was guilty of having ties to the mafia and appears to have altered the outcome of some playoff games.
I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist by nature but there is ample reason for concern at this point. In the last year all three pro sports leagues have endured major scandals that cut right to the integrity of the games. That's pretty bad.
Perhaps it's time for some bona fide regulation to get things under control.
Cheers,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)