" /> The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated: May 2007 Archives

« January 2007 | Main

May 28, 2007

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Michael Jordan was once asked to speak out against the reactionary senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, and provide an endorsement for Helms’ rival in the race, a civil rights leader named Harvey Gantt. He responded, “Republicans buy sneakers too.” That glib response was similar to his ostrich-head-in-the-sand response to Nike’s Asian sweatshop scandal. And he remained close-mouthed on the issue of gun control when his father was tragically shot.

LeBron James, often seen as Jordan’s successor in terms of basketball skills and marketability, was put in a similar position recently when asked to sign an open letter to the Chinese government – the same Chinese government who’s funding and supporting the Sudanese genocide by purchasing two-thirds of the oil produced in the region and selling weapons to the janjaweed. Those suffering in the horrific and ongoing situation in Darfur found no sympathizer in James though. King James refused to sign the letter, providing the lame excuse that he needed to look into the matter further before signing his name to anything. Of course, as a sporting legend and one in the making, Jordan and James have no responsibility to speak out on issues of a political or social nature. It’s not in their job description.

But those who are in a position to influence situations and events to provide a better life for others should do so. Jordan never embraced that idea. He never shied away from being a public figure – his image was everywhere, not just in the US, but in the world – but he did shy away from anything remotely contentious, preferring to concentrate on the bottom dollar, and all those above it sitting in his bank account. Now James is beginning to follow in those Air-y footsteps – and in this case, that’s not a compliment.

At the other end of the spectrum is Greg Oden, putative future number one NBA draft pick, currently finishing up a stellar season at Ohio State University is a basketball legend in the making. But more than that, he has already shown signs of being a thoughtful young man who sees the world in terms of something larger than himself. Having just recently seen An Inconvenient Truth, Oden ran into a student on the Ohio State University campus who was working to raise environmental awareness. He promptly stopped to chat and donated $20 in aid of the cause.

A few years ago, on the eve of the Iraq war, Steve Nash made his feelings on the subject known in the form of a t-shirt. He was roundly criticized by fellow athletes and journalists. Yet several years later, it appears that a thoughtful athlete did have something of value to contribute to a politically charged subject.

Nash and Oden are examples of athletes who have a sense of their position in the world. They understand that through circumstances not of their choosing, they have a powerful pulpit from which to speak. They can use that space and time in any way they wish – to hock products in exchange for even more money or to help those less fortunate or to speak out on socio-political issues. Musicians do it all the time – admittedly to mixed reviews – but they never fear the importance of exercising their First Amendment rights.

In a commercial that sparked widespread debate at the time, Charles Barkley famously said, “I am not a role model… Parents should be role models.” He makes a fair point. Basketball stars get paid to play basketball, not to provide the nation with a moral compass, nor to cure the world of its social ills.

No, our sporting heroes do not have to do anything beyond showing up for work on the basketball court and the occasional practice. Whether or not they want to license their image for use in marketing various products is entirely their business. But if they truly want to live up to the title of “sporting hero”, it’s the Nashes and Odens of the world who are leading the way.

May 16, 2007

David Stern, Strict Constructionist

In what was probably the most highly anticipated and now definitely, closely watched playoff series in the NBA postseason, the Suns and the Spurs continued to try to settle the great basketball debate: Does Offense or Defense win playoff games? Now, while it’s acknowledged that teams that play tough defense are often unfairly accused of dirty play (see: NY Knicks during the Pat Riley years), the San Antonio Spurs have crossed a line. The fouls are no longer clean, hard fouls; they are unjustifiably vicious. Yet Bruce Bowen’s knee to Nash’s groin in Game 3 went practically unpunished. Bizarrely, that action didn’t draw a flagrant foul when it occurred; Bowen received a meaningless reprimand following the end of the game. This came on the heels of Bowen’s kick to Stoudemire’s heel in Game 2 that drew some much-publicized criticism from Stoudemire, a sentiment echoed by many in the NBA community. Perhaps emboldened by the lack of action taken against his teammate, Robert Horry joined the San Antonio Fight Club (Tony Parker also drew blood from Nash’s face in Game 1, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that was an accident). Horry committed a rough foul out of frustration – a hip-check into the boards in a sport that doesn’t actually have a provision for hip checks.

Following the end of Game 4, three players were suspended: Horry for two games, Stoudemire and Suns teammate Boris Diaw for one each. David Stern’s decision (on PTI, his “I’m the Decider” speech leaves no doubt as to who made the determination) has been maligned by many a pundit who assert that the suspensions have missed the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter. The rules governing suspensions and such situations were designed to prevent bench-clearing brawls which the league finds embarrassing. Again, NHL hockey this is not. But by suspending Stoudemire and Diaw, Stern punished people for a reflex action. Such is the human spirit, and such is the fraternity that is an NBA team, that when a teammate is assailed in an egregious manner, the reaction is generally to stand up for yourself and your brother. Since neither Stoudemire nor Diaw threw a punch nor escalated the altercation in any manner, neither should have received a punishment as harsh as the one meted out by the league. A fine would have been sufficient. The rules should evolve and be interpreted to best serve the league – just as the US Constitution allows room for interpretation through the Supreme Court and evolution through the provision for Amendments. The league and the game were not served by the Suns’ suspensions.

Everyone understands that David Stern wants to reign in the “violence” in the league and clean up its supposedly thug-like image. But suspending the Suns leading scorer for walking towards a teammate who’d been battered by an opposing player? It’s false bravado on the part of a commissioner who is afraid to look like he’s playing favorites. That he’s put the Suns at a huge disadvantage must have occurred to him, yet he continues to claim the decision is fair. Fair would be actually investigating the numerous claims against Bowen whose play – even if it is just tough defense – could prove to be injurious to an opposing player. Why should Bowen be allowed to clip at Achilles tendons and knee people in the groin, but Stoudemire get fined and suspended for taking a walk?

Postscript
During halftime of tonight’s Cleveland-New Jersey game, Charles Barkley claimed Nash may have exaggerated the injury by throwing his arms over his head after flying into the boards and onto the floor. This is a classic case of throwing stones at the victim while the bully walks away laughing. Note to Sir Charles: Steve Nash, more so than anyone in this series, has exuded sportsmanlike conduct and has taken many a beating from the Spurs in this series. In game 1, Nash stopped to ask Tony Parker if he was ok while Parker lay on the floor having opened up a gaping wound over Nash’s nose. He never publicly complained about getting kneed by Bowen either. If anyone’s behavior needs to be scrutinized for being questionable, it’s not Steve Nash.

May 09, 2007

Nash’s Nose, Brady’s Hair

Entirely too many words are given over to debating the superficial in sports (and subjects beyond), but in this eventful week for issues tangentially related to sports stars, Steve Nash’s nose and Brady Quinn’s haircut seemed to warrant at least a minor note. (For those looking for a reprieve from the infamous Yankee-cap seen atop a Patriot QB’s head, you’ll find it here – that is not the Brady referenced in this edition of this column.)

Brady Quinn, former Notre Dame QB and a Cleveland Browns’ draft pick, was publicly chastised by fellow former ND QB Joe Theismann who was critical of Quinn’s hair and general appearance on draft day. Following the usual media circus that surrounds such insignificant comments, Kornheiser and Wilbon of PTI discussed the issue and fallout (Quinn showed up at Browns’ mini-camp with a haircut) on their show. Both agreed that Quinn did the right thing in getting his haircut and that acknowledging Theismann’s many successful years in the league was in keeping with the proper deferential attitude young NFL players should show the old guard. Here’s the problem with that: it’s Quinn’s hair. Even if Theismann had offered a critique of Quinn’s football skills (he offered no criticism at all on that front), Quinn does not owe Theismann anything. He can take or leave his ramblings as he will – after all, Theismann may be a College Football Hall of Famer and a television analyst, but that does not make him the authority on everything. If Quinn wants to sport a longer hairstyle, or a punk rock-inspired multi-colored mohawk, he has every right to. And he has every right to do so without Theismann judging him and without the sporting media bowing to the latter’s purported “wisdom”.

Steve Nash, on the other hand, had a problem with his nose – it wouldn’t stop bleeding. Following an accidental collision with Spurs’ Tony Parker (which floored Parker and resulted in a large bump on his forehead) Nash received a gash to the nose. Twenty bandages later and the Suns’ trainer was powerless to stop the scarlet stream from flowing forth. In the waning seconds of a close game, Nash’s nose would not stop bleeding and with the Suns’ trainer seemingly utterly helpless, applying band-aid after band-aid in a vain attempt to staunch the bleeding, the referees enforced the rule disallowing any player from returning to the court with a bleeding, open wound. The Spurs wound up winning the game as the Suns fell apart without their fearless leader and repeat MVPer. The explanation provided later that the position of gash made it difficult to treat is unacceptable. The media has largely been silent when it comes to assigning blame for this one, but this is an easy one. As a trainer for an NBA team, it is expected that these docs are some of the most qualified in the country when it comes to treating sporting injuries. A bloody nose is a fairly common sporting injury. Yet viewers at home watched as tiny band-aid after tiny band-aid was applied to the large wound, as if the trainer was hoping his First Aid treatment would be all that was required. Why a large gauze/Ace bandage wasn’t just wrapped around his head – after all, there were only a few seconds left in the game – is uncertain. Why they couldn’t attempt a temporary stitch-job on the bench is also unclear. But as the Suns fell apart on the floor as Nash restlessly tried to check himself back in, there’s one person should be blamed – one person whose ineptitude cost them game 1 and home court advantage.