Letters to the Editor
Topper
Published Letters: 95 Editor's Choice: 17
-
Cheating
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems to me the main difference between whites and blacks in this poll is that the former believe that Bonds made a conscious decision to take steroids, and the latter don't (maybe he was tricked). There don't really seem to be a whole lot of respondents who both believe Bonds knowingly took steroids AND who don't hold it against him. It looks like about 16% of whites and 19% of blacks fit into this category (assuming there are very few who are the other way around). Once the doubt over his guilt is gone, blacks are just as likely to hold that guilt against him.
I.e., it's not so much about the particular case of Barry Bonds, but rather the willingness of whites to proclaim a black man guilty, and the willingness of blacks to defend that man from the court of white public opinion. (And like some of your other commenters, I would be interested to see whether the poll differentiated between the level of fan interest in the matter and the opinion of Bonds' guilt.)
-
Bad Title
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The title of my letter "cheating" was a mistake, so just ignore that.
Just another note--like another letter writer noted, the vast majority of big sluggers (Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro) were juiced, and so steroids are in fact a reflection of the times. But they are (IMO) a cynical reflection of the times.
-
Barry Bonds is different
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The difference between Barry Bonds and accumulated dross like Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire and Giambi is that Bonds was already by far the best player of his generation and a first-ballot hall of famer. Nobody cares about Sosa because we can write him off completely as a poor man's Darryl Strawberry (albeit one who struck gold). And McGwire was a cartoon. But Bonds is an important guy--on a par with Mays, Aaron, Musial, and Williams--and as such fans like me would like to maintain the proper perspective. Steroids just throws a huge monkey-wrench into all that, because regardless of steroids Bonds had a chance at 755. And in the wake of Sosa and McGwire and Palmeiro, *that* would have been quite a story.
-
Opportunity costs
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know about other sports, but Clemens can get away with it because he's a pitcher and because he's a known quantity. Pitching is different because there are no opportunity costs involved. Either the option is better than Clemens or it isn't. At best you'll have a hell of a bullpen, and at worst you'll have wasted $20 million bucks. But Clemens isn't likely to hurt you very much over your existing #5 guy. And if he's still strong come October, well that's what Steinbrenner is betting on.
But if a star hitter is at the point when too much experience is a liability, he's probably not (in four months) going to be that much more productive than a free-agent alternative. Plus of course the signing team is guaranteeing itself exactly the same problem next year...
-
Bonds vs. Clemens
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How would treatment of and feelings about Roger Clemens be different if he were black? I think it would look a lot more like Bonds' treatment, even without a smoking gun like Bonds' leaked testimony.
The difference is not so much race as career milestones and level of implication. Bonds is going after the career home run record; Clemens isn't after anything but a paycheck and a chance to play in another World Series. And while even Bonds admits that he took steroids (albeit "unknowingly"), Clemens' implication is still a rumor (the Grimsley document).
To put it in perspective, Clemens won seven games last year. Another seven games this year, and he'll still be eighth all time. Another seven games next year, and he'll have passed the mighty "Pud" Galvin for fifth place, still 150 or so away from Cy Young's record. And he's also 900 strikeouts behind Nolan Ryan for that record, too, a record he'll reach sometime in 2016.
-
Champions with hearts
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shouldn't there be some skill set that corresponds to "give me the ball and I will impose my Nietzschean Will on the enemy?" Meaning, is it perhaps possible that Nowitzki's failure is less the result of moral weakness and more a consequence of needing a more flexible skill set for the playoffs?
I guess this is why the NBA doesn't appeal to me. The playoffs last for six weeks and all we learn is who has the most "heart." Every night, SportsCenter spends a long, looong time discussing "which team wants it more," and which player's legacy can't be complete until he has a "ring," at which point we learn that he's a "true champion" with "heart" who "wanted it more."
Wouldn't it just be easier to just send everyone to a psychologist for the answer and be done with it?
-
If the best part of the NBA Playoffs
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is its resemblance to pro wrestling, then why not just write about pro wrestling? Or UFC? Or even hockey? (Are their playoffs still going on?)
In any case, I don't understand the "let 'em play" philosophy. If the current rules are so restrictive that proper enforcement results in "70 or 80 fouls a game," then why not just change the rules? "Henceforth all fouls will be defensive, can occur only in the act of shooting, and must be witnessed by at least three officials and the official timekeeper."
-
Give the guy a break
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If a competitive advantage can't be shown, is it just discrimination not to let Pistorius compete?
Yes, assuming there is in fact some "athletic" participation on his part. I think it's reasonable to place restrictions on the prosthetic legs, but as long as he's the one providing the locomotion I see no problem with it in principle. It's like that golfer a while back (Casey somebody) who got to participate in PGA events while riding a golf cart. If not being able to walk was a competitive advantage, it didn't do a whole lot for him.
What to do at that seemingly inevitable point in history when technology -- not potentially damaging drugs, but good-old-fashioned engineering and ingenuity -- definitely makes it possible for athletes to run faster, jump higher and be stronger.
Haven't we already passed that point?