Getting Hammered

I’ve always made it a point not to take political advice from celebrities, be it of the Hollywood kind or those on the field of sports.  There’s just something wrong about making personal political choices based on what Tom Cruise or LeBron James has to say.  I guess I’ve always been a marketer’s nightmare in that regard.  But when a sports icon and hero, no less, says that those who disagree with President Obama are comparable to the KKK, I take offense and I’m not even a Republican.

Aaron was interviewed for the 40^th anniversary of his record setting 715^th homerun when he decided to compare the political climate 40 years ago and what he dealt with to today’s political climate and how it’s impacted the President.  Somehow he’s decided that the reason the President is failing – with 51% disapproving of his job performance according to Gallup – is because of rampant racism especially from Republicans.

"Sure, this country has a black president but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he's treated. - Hank Aaron

Aaron continued: “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.”

So it's not the President's fault it's everyone who doesn't agree with the President who's at fault for his falling numbers?  That's like saying a hitter batting a buck fifty isn't at fault for stinking it up, it's the fans who are complaining about it.  Last time I checked we lived in a Democracy where we didn't have to agree with everything our leaders say.  Nor should anyone be branded a racist for not agreeing with him.  But that seems to be the way it is today.  Attack those who disagree with the president as being racist bumpkin boobs - because their arguments are as thin as their bloodline.

I revere what Hank Aaron accomplished and earned in the game.  Hell I applaud him when he''s referred to as the true home run king and not Barry Bonds.  If Bonds were white would my decision be based on the assumption that I hated white people?  I'm not trying to beat up on Aaron but I'm sick of hearing this type of stupidity and the media not calling people out on it.  If you're in the spotlight and you make a statement like that, be prepared to defend it.

We're now six years into the Obama Presidency and  people are still accused of racism when they disagree with him.  Even Hillary Clinton during her primary run against him was accused of such.  Crying racism every time someone disagrees with the president does nothing but give cover to those who are truly racist.  For example, former KKK member and former Democratic Senator from the state of West Virginia, Robert Byrd.  Oh but I suppose he found religion and poof, away went those racist beliefs.

I would never deny or denigrate anything Hank Aaron experienced during his life.  I'm well aware that people can be immeasurably good and evil to one another with the latter making their shallow choice based on skin color or the sexual orientation or the religion of their target.  But to paint people with a broad brush as being racist simply because they disagree with the person, delegitimizes not just the true racists but makes the accuser nothing more than a pawn. 

Sandycare

Trust me.  I'm a lawyer.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or on Thorazine for the past few weeks, you’re probably aware of how the President’s health care plan, the Affordable Care Act a.k.a Obamacare, has been the finest roll out of a government program since the Kim family started rolling out grey one piece jumpsuits to the masses in North Korea. 

One of his many mantras over the course of his campaign, the President kept repeating the line “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”  He said it so often and focused on it with such dramatic attention that it had to be true, right?  Well, with the verbal deftness of a typical ambulance chasing lawyer, the President was proved to have lied or should I use Washingtonian speak and say he misled or was just being vague? 

Unfortunately we’re lied to everyday by so many people that we’re becoming practically numb and accustomed to it.  Granted what the President did to sell his health care plan ranks among the more ballsy of lies we’ve been told and its ramifications are just now beginning to unravel as is arguably his Presidency now hovering in the George W. Bush poll territory.

But I wonder if the virus that causes “misleading” or “obfuscation” has infected none other than Sandy Alderson, General Manager of the New York Mets?  There was a time where I was completely and totally on board with Alderson’s plan which was to rely more on home grown talent versus the actions of his predecessor which relied on buying talent. I still think that’s how you build self-sustaining, long term winning franchise, through developing your own players.  It’s just this doublespeak that’s starting to sound like outright lies that’s bothering me.

I’ve also finally have come to the conclusion that Sandy Alderson is just a transitional figure – moving this team from the days of spending money and getting little on the return for an owner that was almost financially destroyed by his relationship with a Ponzi scheme artist, Bernard Madoff.  Now it seems the pendulum may have swung too far in the opposite direction where every decision is dissected to the nth degree; paralysis by analysis followed by an unwillingness to make improvements that don't require a trip to the flea market. 

In one breath we’re told that with money from albatross contracts coming off the books (Santana, Bay) there will be far more financial flexibility to bring in better talent.  Hints at signing players to $100 million dollar contracts are floated out to the masses by saying the team has “interest” in players like Shin Shoo Choo or Jacoby Ellsbury, both who will command contract’s somewhere in that range. 

We were told that the team would be interested in acquiring perhaps at least two if not three outfielders, either through free agency or trades or a mix of both.  We were told that the shackles were coming off after a long exodus in baseball purgatory.  So what do we get this week from the annual Winter Meetings held in Orlando?  We’re suddenly told there will be no $100 million dollar signings.  Probably one outfielder will be acquired, at best, and it won’t be the aforementioned Choo, Ellsbury or ex-Yankee Curtis Granderson. 

Look, I’m not pining for the Mets to suddenly offer a hundred million to Joe Schmo just for the sake of it.  In fact, I think this is one of the weakest free agent crops in quite some time.  That said, you don’t send mixed messages to the fan base especially when it comes off as being a lie…err I mean disingenuous, I mean misleading.  Cut the crap.  Either you’re willing to spend the money or you’re not. And seriously, enough with the money (lack of) jokes already. If perception truly is reality, you're doing a great job of making the Mets look broke...of course unless they practically are then you're just lying...I mean misleading.  There I go again, thinking I'm being lied to.  Silly me.

At this point, who the hell knows.  Like the old saying goes, shit or get off the pot.  Stop acting like a politician trying to please everyone because the truth isn’t what you (or the Wilpons) would like people to hear. In the end, you’ll end up looking like a slimy fool with something to hide Mr. President, err I mean Mr. Alderson.

Do the fans the honor of being honest with them.  We can handle it. 

The Curious Case Of PED's

With the revelations of the Biogenesis investigation by MLB coming to the forefront this week, just about every sportswriter has put in his or her two cents regarding this story and how performance enhancing drugs plays into professional sports in general.  Even broadcasters are getting into the mix now.  The other night during the Mets/Rockies game, Gary Cohen and Keith Hernandez touched on the issue in a way that really hasn’t been by most sportswriters.  It doesn’t come as a shock to me since SNY’s Emmy winning team of Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling are arguably one of the finer broadcasting teams in professional sports today. 

Gary, playing devil’s advocate, described how both sides see the issue of PED’s.  One side taking the majority stance that there’s no place for PED’s in Major League Baseball. The prevalent idea is that if players are found to have used them, heavy consequences should follow, with the ultimate penalty being banishment.  The other side, which I found interesting in how Gary described it, was how some take a more “Libertarian” approach regarding PED’s, stating that if a player is willing to risk his health then it’s on the player.  There was a brief pause when Keith Hernandez, in a rare moment seemed totally engaged in the conversation, chimed in and said as I paraphrase, “You can’t say it’s a matter of being Libertarian if what you’re doing affects others negatively”.

After listening to Hernandez huff and haw all season long when the team would head into extra innings or deal with an unfortunate rain delay, it was nice to see Keith the curmudgeon not chomping on the bit to tell everyone to get off his lawn.  It was a brief moment but one that made me smile and I’m a Libertarian.  The funny thing about Libertarians is that we usually get attacked from all ends of the political spectrum for being what others claim to think we all are. 

I’m not saying Gary Cohen was attacking Libertarians so much as he was simply trying to state a point, albeit a bit awkwardly. Not all Libertarians are cut from the same cloth.  Most teeter on the political spectrum depending on the issue – but in the end we all share the same edicts of individual liberty and freedom but, with respect to the law. Libertarians are not Anarchists.  Therein lays the difference between those who say PED’s should be allowed in professional sports and those who disagree, and no it’s not because of arbitrary drug laws.  It’s about fairness.  It’s about the law.  Sometimes laws are in place that we all don’t agree with but, that’s life in a democracy. 

The idea of simply taking a drug that could, with the emphasis on could, make you better at what you do for a living is a tempting idea in spite of being morally suspect not to mention with the potential of being physically damaging.  In professional sports, especially Major League Baseball, it’s a misnomer to think that sticking a needle in one’s ass will turn a Felix Millan into a Ted Williams. With stringent drug testing now in place, including testing for Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Major League Baseball is now one of the better examples of a professional sport trying to keep itself as clean and legitimate as possible.  How can the quest for legitimacy be a bad thing is beyond me?

When it comes to the use of PED’s in professional sports, many Libertarians, some of which I have a great deal of respect for, have said that PED’s, like other illegal drugs, shouldn’t be banned from professional sports no more than cocaine should be illegal for you or I. Nick Gillespie, the editor-in-chief of Reason magazine and Reason.com, seems to think most sports writers are hyper moralistic on the issue of PED’s as he stated in a recent article regarding Ryan Braun.  I have a feeling that he’s not much of a sports fan especially based on how he views the majority of sports writers. Not well if you read his article.

But with all due respect to Nick Gillespie or even the great Greg Gutfeld, whom I’m told was very disappointed to find out that purple unicorn’s weren’t allowed at Churchill Downs; PED’s affect not just the players that take them.  They also take away jobs from those trying to do it clean.  Take this which was tweeted by former major league pitcher Dan Meyer:

"Hey Antonio Bastardo, remember when we competed for a job in 2011.  Thx alot. #ahole"

 

Bastardo was one of the 13 players suspended by MLB in lieu of the Biogenesis investigation.  So, does this mean Dan Meyer should just shut the hell up, have a Coke and a smile? Should he just tip his cap to Bastardo (yes, that’s really his last name) shake hands and let bygones be bygones?  I’d be just as pissed as Meyer if I were in his shoes. I understand, but not totally agree with the logic that if PED’s and drugs in general weren’t illegal, the stigma which draws people to them in the first place would decline. 

Sure in an academic hypothetical arena that may be possible but do I really want my daughter to be able to one day to walk into a 7-11 to buy a Slurpee and have an HGH power bar sitting next to the Twizzlers?  While we’re at it, put the cocaine pixy sticks next to the Sweet Tarts.  Sorry but the old curmudgeon in me says no to such a grand experiment.  I guess I’m not a real Libertarian huh?

The blasé attitude some have regarding allowing PED’s into professional sports stems from the idea that they believe that fans don’t really care how the players do the sometimes incredible feats that they do.  I disagree.  In a perfect world, I don’t even want to have this discussion with my daughter but when and if I do, I want to tell her that her favorite player(s) did it clean.  Let there be a level playing field and then let individual talent take over.  I look at it this way, would you be fine with allowing kids to take their iPads with them while taking their SAT exams?  Fair or unfair; you decide.

People often forget during this whole controversy with these players being caught taking PED’s, that PED’s are illegal unless prescribed by a physician for an actual medical condition, you know like dwarfism.  The last time I checked Eddie Gadell hasn’t suited up in a few years and if he did I have a feeling Brian Cashman would’ve tendered him a contract by now.

Now get off my lawn!