nice to see someone recognize my sports pet peeve - the ol' "if we had done x, we'd be in a better position now" argument. usually framed in terms of if something had only gone right at the beginning of the game/series, it would be a different story now. i find myself annoyed with my bulls-fan brethren who are convinced that if only the bulls hadn't folded like a lawn chair in game three, they'd be up 3-2 in the series right now.

au contraire, mon freres.

just as you noted, when one thing happens (even a seemingly insignificant thing) the entire complexion of the game changes. if the bulls had won game 3, do you think detroit may have played differently in game 4? and don't you think the outcome of that game, which would have been different if it was 2-1 going in instead of 3-0, would have had a significant impact on the way things went in game 5?

likewise, just because the suns were without some good offensive players and lost by just three has no bearing on whether they would have won if bell and stoudamire played. thank you for pointing this out.

as one poster has already alluded to, this is not entirely dissimilar to the racial attitudes toward oj's acquittal. as i recall, a disproportionate number of blacks rejoiced in the streets while a disproportionate number of whites were completely dismayed over the exact same occurrence.

it is my estimate that the aforementioned rejoicing blacks were not doing so because they thought oj himself was actually innocent, but rather that they were happy at finally getting some retribution against the racist lapd and the disproportionate number of blacks who are wrongly convicted for crimes they did not commit. the defense team very wisely put racism on trial, and they won. it was a huge victory for the black community.

the bonds issue is slightly different because race hasn't openly been put on trial by anyone in this instance. it, as king notes, is right there in the background, as it always is ... but it certainly isn't at the forefront. i'd be very interested to see what the poll numbers would be if mark mcgwire was the man closing in on aaron's record.

but the bonds study, imho, still speaks to the larger phenomenon of many minorities "looking out for one another." governor bill richardson was one of the last to publicly decry alberto gonzales for his apparent misdeeds, and he openly admitted that he did so because gonzales is a fellow hispanic. whether this type of solidarity is good or bad for race relations is an interesting issue - on the one hand, many minority groups feel that they need all the help they can get, and it's still them against "the man." on the other hand, such blatant racial bias clearly breeds contempt from whites, who would be fired and run up the flagpole for doing the exact same thing. although one could argue that the exact same thing was done by whites for the past 200 years in this country.

not an easy topic, with no easy answers, and even fewer easy solutions.

I personally think that people are caring less and less the more and more people get implicated. When it was a few marquee stars being trotted out before Congress, it truly was a national story. But with each subsequent indictment, and as more information comes out that these superhulks were not the exception but rather the rule, it's not only fatigue that sets in ... it's bewilderment. So basically just about every major league ballplayer in the 80s and 90s was using some kind of performance enhancing substance (be it steroids, nutritional supplements, speed, etc.) ... just what are we supposed to do with that information?

Are we supposed to go back and pretend those 20+ years never happened? Are we supposed to turn our back on the game? Are we supposed to look forward to an era where the line between legal and illegal performance enhancers is a complete gray blur? (Creatine - OK; Andro - not OK; Ripped fuel - OK; HGH - not OK; ultrasound treatment - OK; bionic implants - ????)

As far as I'm concerned, any professional ballplayer not taking some kind of PED during the 90s was foolish. They weren't banned by the leage, and everyone else was doing it. You suffered a clear competitive disadvantage - which is why I maintain that the Cubbies were all clean during that age and that's why they never won a World Series.