COSELLOUT: Still Tellin’ It Like It Is

"Tremendous"… "fighting a perfect fight"… "turned back the clock"… these were some of the movie-review superlatives coming out of announcer Emanuel Steward’s mouth as Oscar De La Hoya beat Steve Forbes in a unanimous one-sided decision. But Steward was more HBO promoter than legendary trainer in his commentary. Read Full Article at SPORTS ON MY MIND.

Last night Bob Costas held a Town Hall meeting on Sports Media on HBO. Five separate segments included sports radio, sports blogging, tv coverage, athletes and media, and race in sports. Here are some initial thoughts: Click to SPORTS ON MY MIND

It was a “split decision” which always equals some controversy. Bernard Hopkins scored the only knockdown in the first round just 70 seconds into the fight. After the fight Hopkins claims that he took Joe Calzaghe “to school”. But forget all that. Bernard Hopkins deserved to lose this fight against Joe Calzaghe. Why?: Because Hopkins’ greatest strengths are also clearly his greatest weaknesses… Read More at Sports On My Mind

The young stud vs. the living hall-of-famer: It is an integral part of boxing history in which the torch is passed on record. In an unfortunate match-up against his childhood idol Rocky Marciano officially ended the legendary career of Joe Louis. More than a decade later a young Cassius Clay (aka Muhammad Ali) would get his first big name on his resume by taunting, sticking, moving and running circles around an almost 50 year old Archie Moore (YouTube). The laws of karma would assert itself 18 years later as a young Larry Holmes jabbed a lifeless Ali into submission. Just eight years later Holmes would come out of retirement to get knocked out for the only time in his career by a young lion named Mike Tyson. Will this be this script play out as Chris Paul and Jason Kidd take center stage in the Hornets and Mavericks first round series? …Don’t bank on it. Full Post  at SPORTS ON MY MIND

Candace Parker is the truth:  She can score, rebound, dribble, pass with ease, play all five positions, and was dunking by age 14. When not kicking men’s butts in pick-up games, you might find Parker cheerleading;  doing fashionable photo shoots, or acing tests while earning the University Division Academic All-American of the Year in women’s basketball for 2008.

Candace Parker is a leader: She is the only two time award winner of the USA Today High School Player of the Year. In March 2004 she won the Slam Dunk contest of the McDonald’s High School All-American Game beating out five male competitors including future 2005 NBA Slam Dunk contestant JR Smith and champion Josh Smith. She was the first woman to dunk in an NCAA tournament game and the first woman to dunk twice in a college game. Not surprisingly, last Wednesday she became the first pick in the WNBA draft…

Candace Parker is a winner: She led her team to back-to-back state titles in high school. Last week she led the Tennessee Volunteers to their 2nd consecutive NCAA Women’s basketball championship. This summer she will look to add to her trophy case by participating as an Olympic team member and then as player of the Los Angeles Sparks…

Candace Parker is a warrior: The summer after her junior year in high school, she tore her ACL in her left knee. Year-long recovery process? Naaah. She returned in December of her senior year and lead her school to its second consecutive state title… Last week’s college championship came one week after she scored 16 consecutive points for her team before dislocating her shoulder. When this happened to NBA Superstar Dwayne Wade last year he had to be carted off in a wheel chair. Parker? She shook it off, had the shoulder popped back in its place, got it wrapped up, came back in the game, and helped lead her team into the Final Four.

After her tailor-made-for-media Final Four appearance, Sports Illustrated took magazine liberties and issued two separate covers of that weekend’s Final Four – one with North Carolina’s Tyler Hansbrough and one with… UCLA’s Kevin Love. These were curious choices as both Hansbrough and Love already received an SI cover within the previous month. Love’s previous cover was part of a 6-ISSUE "March Madness" special that finally gave the Tennessee Volunteers some basketball "cover love" — men’s player Chris Lofton…

After all of the injuries, all the gutsy performances, all the individual accolades, and all the team championships, there is only one thing that Candace Parker can’t do… land on the cover of a Sports Illustrated regular issue. And for at least one time, Parker is just like any other woman…In his blog former SI editor Roy Johnson adds some marketing reality: "For Candace the pivotal question isn’t whether she’s good enough, but this: Will her sweetness (or hotness) be enough?" Johnson was referring to Parker’s ability to elevate the WNBA, but may as well have been discussing SI’s cover. While in a perfect sporting world Ms. Parker’s "sweetness" or "hotness" should make no more marketing difference than it would for Larry Bird coming out of Indiana State in 1979, she also seems to have that department covered. Parker’s cover absence raises a question that has been asked many times:

What exactly does a woman have to do to land a regular issue of Sports Illustrated[1]?

The answer: "Wear a bikini"… So far in 2008, only one woman has made the SI cover: Swimsuit model Marisa Miller. What about 2007? Yup, just one woman again. Her name?: "Beyonce". 2006? Well, one winter Olympics issue had 6 athletes with three of them being women. In the year’s other multi-female issue there were 8 half-naked supermodels. So who was the last female athlete to grace an SI cover by herself? That would be softball player Jennie Finch in 2005. Finch sported a miniskirt as the title read: "SI Throws a Party: Jennie Finch Will be There" From the article, it is unclear whether Finch remembered to bring her own beer. One would have to go back nearly three full years, 10 bikinis, and one miniskirt before finding a female all by herself on the cover who was recognized for her athletic achievements (Danica Patrick in June 2005).

SPORT ILLUSTRATED COVERS WITH WOMEN SINCE 2005

So how did we get here? During the 1950’s, the decade of Sports Illustrated’s inception and hardly a period of progressive feminism, it was quite common to have about an average of five issues per year where a female athlete graced its cover. By the 1990’s that figure had been reduced to about 2 or 3 per year. In The Franchise: A History of Sports Illustrated Magazine, Michael McCambridge writes in 1998:

"The magazine might have deflected some of these complaints [about the Swimsuit Issue] if it had done a better job covering women in sports. But it became a truism that the only time a woman was on the cover was when she was, in the words of one staffer, ‘a victim or a babe or both’. Monica Seles made the cover alone after she was stabbed in a tournament in Germany, but not after any of her 8 grand slam women’s titles. (She shared a cover… in 1990) Nancy Kerrigan graced the cover after being clubbed, but not after winning the U.S. Figure Skating championships…. Vader’s column put the blame on the entrenched sexism she’d encountered in the building".

With few exceptions, that alleged “entrenched sexism” has led to a one solo cover quota for most female athletes and a two-cover cap for legendary athletes. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova won 18 Grand Slam titles, nine Wimbledon Finals, but garnered two solo SI covers. Steffi Graf broke big ground by landing three cover shots. Since 1990, the Williams sisters (Venus & Serena) COMBINED have not received as many covers (3) as Ted Williams — who managed to land on 5 covers (4 solo) after the age of 70.  In contrast, at least five swimsuit models have graced the cover three times. The record for most SI covers by any woman is five — held by supermodel Elle MacPherson.

Considering such history, can it get worse? Yes, it can. Since 2000, SI responded to previous criticism by scaling back to about an average of one solo female athlete cover per year – their worst of any previous decade. And while the female athletes face cover extinction, the swimsuit issue continues to be SI’s greatest moneymaker. And here goes the logic: half-naked women and soft-porn can be used as a cash cow, but none of those profits can ever be used to help promote the achievements and popularity of female athletes who prefer to wear clothing over shedding it. 

This year marks the 35th anniversary of Billie Jean King’s landmark "Battle of the Sexes" victory over Bobby Riggs.  Her victory marked the symbolic complement to the 1972 Title IX legislation that reguired equal  funding for women in high school or college athletics. Together they signaled a new era that demanded that women’s sports be taken seriously.And in large part –  -it has — except by Sports Illustrated itself. Through the 2008 lens of SI, it seems that King may have only won the battle, while Riggs may have won the war. In 1973, SI had five women on their cover including an expose cover story on how "Women are Getting a Raw Deal". Twenty five years later, that raw deal continues as SI refuses to give proper recognition to the likes of Candace Parker, Diana Tarausi, Pat Summit, the Williams sisters, Lorena Ochoa (emerging golf dominance may rival Tiger’s) and many others. If the last couple of years are any indication, they may have less of a chance in landing a future SI cover than one day running for President of the United States of America.

[1] The question does not include less circulated "commemorative issues" or "small insert photographs" that amount to tokenism at best.

Last night was a great night for real boxing fans who got a four-fight package instead of one megafight and little else.  The night also featured "the return of the body shot" as it became the greatest weapon in three of the four fights. Here are some thoughts as in-depth round-by-round boxing analysis will be left to others.

HBO vs. Showtime:  Why can’t HBO and Showtime work out these scheduling differences? HBO had the welterweights battle it out while Showtime had the light heavyweights. Sure, some of us had to tape the action on one DVR while watching another channel, but boxing loses when this happens… The casual sports fan will not do this…

Miguel Cotto vs. Alfonso Gomez:  There is one type of fight that I find unwatchable — if not stomach-turning: The mismatch. Gomez of "The Contender" fame, who has no shortage of heart, pride, and guts, simply should not have been allowed to occupy the same ring as someone as skilled as Miguel Cotto. The fight was stopped after five rounds, could have definitely been stopped after 4, but really should have been stopped before round 1. When the Yankees play their triple-A team, it is merely a preseason exhibition. In boxing it is for the championship. When a fight is competitive it is a sport first that just so happens to be violent. When it is not, it becomes brutality for its own sake. The last time I felt myself wincing like this was when Floyd Mayweather destroyed Arturro Gatti as Gatti kept returning each round to be dominated without any chance of winning. Now this does not mean that referees should have quick triggers in general, but only when it is abundantly clear that the lesser fighter is completely out of their league. For historical reference see Larry Holmes-Randall Tex Cobb.

Antonio Margarito vs. Kermit Cintron:  Margarito’s 6 round destruction of Kermit Cintron on HBO’s undercard of the Cotto fight is a perfect example of dominance of fighters who DO belong in the ring together. Cintron whose only other career loss is to Margarito was game, fought back, and has considerable punching power. Margarito — who clearly has Cintron’s number — has set himself up for a July 26 match against Cotto in what promises to be an exciting slugfest amongst two warriors. Expect the more skilled Cotto to be victorious, but never count out Margarito who will press the action and bring out the best in Cotto. 

Antonio Tarver vs. Clinton Woods:  Over at Showtime, Tarver’s unanimous decision over the game Clinton Woods was a typical Tarver victory. Not incredibly exciting, but enough spurts where he would steadily show his superior boxing skill. At 39, Tarver can still fight. Expect to see him matched up with the "undefeated" Chad Dawson.

Glen Johnson vs. Chad Dawson: While short on name-recognition, the Tarver-Woods undercard fight at Showtime was the most intriguing fight from the start. Boxing has a great tradition of matching-up the young talented undefeated, yet untested fighter (Dawson) with the older, battle-worn, and cagey veteran. Unlike most of these match-ups, Johnson is not washed up. (He has beaten Roy Jones, Tarver, and Clinton Woods since 2004)  No fighter has more heart and will than Johnson.  In a close action-packed fight the decision predictably went to Dawson in unanimous scorecards of 116 - 112. Here is what Johnson had to say:

"I cannot believe at my age, at 39, they would rip me off like this for a… talented young guy that has the world in his hands in the future. I’m on my last leg working for my future, trying to pay my bills just like [Dawson]… but I work hard and I win the fight and I deserve it. I don’t understand where people find it in their hearts to do what they did to me time and time again… America needs to protest what’s going on in boxing. If this is what it has to be for people to be successful — it’s not about boxing and using your skills and winning the fight. It’s about politics and who you know…"

Quantity vs. Quality?: Personally, I had Glen Johnson a 115-113 winner (splitting the first 6 rounds and winning the last 4). In addition to boxing "politics" that always favor the younger fighter with the future, the fight brings up the age-old boxing "quantity vs. quality" scoring controversy: Do you give points to the guys who land more light shots and pitter-patter  (Dawson) or the guy with the more significant blows. For his part, Dawson deserves credit for weathering through his first-ever storm and remaining on his feet. Had it gone 15 rounds like the old days, there would be no judging contyroversy. It was Johnson who pressed the fight, consistently landed the harder blows, and hurt/backed Dawson up on many occasions including a 10th round right which wobbled Chad. After the 6th round Dawson wanted no part of Johnson’s pressure and began to box and use his quickness try to win the rest of the fight on points. The judges rewarded him for this.  In contrast, Johnson — who absorbed many blows as usual — never appeared hurt at any time. Johnson continues:

"and I tell Showtime that if I win the fight, I give him [Dawson] a rematch like THAT because I’m afraid of nobody. I fight every man in the world and I never duck or hide from anyone… I fought my heart out and they still have the heart to rip me off. He [Chad Dawson] should protest it"

Dawson would not protest it – and judging from his post-fight interview — will not give Johnson any rematch. Dawson wants absolutely no part of that — and might be the best indication of who Dawson believes won the fight. He will likely go on to fight Tarver next.

Hopkins-Calzaghe:  All this light-heavyweight action is merely a precursor for next week’s main event: Bernard Hopkins vs. Joe Calzaghe. In an absolute treat, this fight of two continental boxing legends will not be on Pay-Per-View, but on HBO. There will be no prediction on this one. Calzaghe is a brilliant undefeated fighter who I believe would have been competitive with Roy Jones had they fought eight years ago. On the flip side, it is important to adhere to a boxing rule: NEVER BET AGAINST B-HOP. He was supposed to lose against Tito. He was supposed to lose after moving up in weight to face Tarver. Lesson learned. Two great fighters and I’ve got no clue who will win… and that is why it should be a great fight… tune in next week…

In 1979 the NBA Finals were still being aired on tape delay. Now think about that while we congratulate Candace Parker, Pat Summitt, and the entire Tennessee Volunteer squad on their 64-48 victory over the Stanford Cardinals on a night where the biggest winner may have been the future of women’s basketball. The build-up to the game had all of the necessary ingredients for the game’s growth.  It had "history" as women’s college basketball’s marquee school and legendary Tennessee coach Pat Summitt was going for an 8th national title. It had "star quality" in the silky smooth Candace Parker who can shoot, rebound, pass, steal, block, D-up and dunk.  It had "pride and guts" as two games earlier Parker dislocated her shoulder in ugly fashion, shook it off, and came back a few minutes later in the same game. It also had a superstar nemisis in Candace Wiggins who has been lighting up the tournament with sublime shooting performances that had her topping 40 on multiple occasions. Candace vs. Candice didn’t just offer high skill, but high passion and enthusiasm for the game that could make Dick Vitale cry and Tim Duncan smile.  The game itself did not live up to its promise as Wiggins and Stanford did not look like the same team that they were during the tournament. Tennessee’s quick hands on defense had a little something to do with that.

But the games slide into the WNBA draft today where Parker, LSU’s inside force Sylvia Fowles, and Wiggins are projected to be the drafts first three picks. They continue a trend of rising skill level in professional women’s basketball that has seen the likes of Diana Taurasi and Simone Augustus dominate. Today’s top draftees and the women’s game will also capitalize on the 2008 Summer Olympics which will blend young stars with established vets.

About the WNBA’s future, former Laker great Michael Cooper had this to say: "This draft has a lot of the future of the WNBA in it. They’re going to be the torch-bearers of where this league goes in the next 10 years."  Cooper is also the coach of the Los Angeles Sparks who have that first pick in the draft. Can "Candace vs. Candice", the Olympics, and a new young talent pool propel the WNBA to new heights? Can men with old notions about women’s basketball realize that the quality of the game has steadily improved while they weren’t looking. Can the 2008 NCAA Women’s Finals have a similar impact (relatively speaking!) as Magic over Bird in 1979?  While it all remains to be seen, there is no doubting that the future of women’s basketball is right now.

First things first: Congratulations to my man Patrick for bringing the sweat,blood, and guts EVERY night. The story of "the Ewing Era" is one of almost unparalled consistent greatness. Some have said that the Buffalo Bills four straight Super Bowls is one of sports greatest records. But just how great was the under-appreciated Ewing. How about the Knicks ADVANCED in the playoffs 9 out of 10 years during the 1990’s. Only a handful of greats can claim such consistent dominance over a decade (Russell, Magic, Bird, MJ, etc.). For reference purposes, Kevin Garnett has made it past the first round only once in his career. But Ewing would get no Ray Allens and Paul Pierce’s to save him… or a Pippen… or even a Rodman…  …or McHale/Parish’s… or Worthy/Kareem… or a Stockton or a Kevin Johnson… like his other fellow championshipless colleagues received. Of course, history does not reward consistent greatness like it does championships. But the 2nd story of Ewing’s career was bad management. I could go on, but we’ll talk more Patrick in another column.

Congrats to Hakeem, Patrick’s only center superior in his era and the center with the best footwork and mobility of all-time. Congrats to Pat Riley who besides being a great coach is an authority on centers who played with Wilt Chamberlain and then coached Kareem, Ewing, Alonzo Mourning, and Shaquille O’neal. And a huge congratulations to the long overdue justice that has been eluding Adrian Dantley for so many years. Now if we can only get Hall of Fame voters educated on the truth that was Bernard King! But that too is for another column…

Last year’’s induction highlighted a broken NBA HOF system that does not value the actual people who play the game. Dantley’s absense was so glaring because not one single player made the cut — but 5 coaches and even a referee got inducted. It prompted this much needed criticism from John Hollinger who advocated a separate Hall of Fame that actually focused on players…and the NBA.

But look at the voting patterns in recent years — it’s not the Basketball Hall of Fame, folks, it’s the College Basketball Coaches Hall of Fame Plus a Few Other Guys. Over the past 10 years, the institution has inducted 25 coaches and nine contributors … but only 20 players. Wait, it gets worse. Of those 25 coaches, do you know how many got in for succeeding in the NBA — the game’s highest level? FOUR!!! Are you kidding me?This is like going to Cooperstown and seeing miles of plaques dedicated to the best AAA managers. …they’ve inducted only 14 NBA players in that decade … and 20 college coaches. .

..I’ve argued this for a long time, but it’s long overdue for the league to set up its own Hall of Fame and ditch any link to Springfield. Better yet, the collegians have helped out by taking the first step. In October, doors will open at the College Basketball Hall of Fame in Kansas City, Missouri… ultimately, it seems like separation is the only way to resolve this thing. Springfield’s selections have become so absurd that they’re hardly worth taking seriously anymore (seriously … Mirko Novosel?), …But perhaps the best argument deals with history. In the big picture, I’ve long felt that the NBA cared less about its historical legacy than any other sport, and it’s high time they took better control of it. This would be one giant step in that direction.

Yesterday Jack McCallum of Sports Illustrated summed it up quite succinctly when he said: "No visitor goes up to the Hall of Fame to see a coach." Considering the love for coaches and college ones in particular, it is hard to disagree with Hollinger’s promotion of a new HOF.  But until that happens, 2008 was to be a banner year for "the NBA player" that no fair and right-minded HOF voter or media member could ignore. With centers Hakeem and Patrick taking center stage in their first year of eligibility, perhaps, for just one year and one year only, some NBA historical order could be restored! Unfortunately, here was the article that the Associated Press disseminated throughout the country that is found at ESPN. 

SAN ANTONIO – ESPN college basketball analyst Dick Vitale, a man who had limited success as a coach but brought the game of basketball to millions of TV watchers, was selected to the game’s Hall of Fame on Monday alongside Pat Riley, one of the most successful NBA coaches of all time. Overcome with emotion, Vitale broke into tears during the announcement in San Antonio, site of the NCAA Men’s Final Four. "I can’t run, can’t jump, can’t shoot, but just have had a tremendous — I’d like to think — passion about the game," said Vitale, who had a short stint as an NBA coach in the late 1970s but made his name as a college basketball analyst.

Others in the Class of 2008 were Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing, two greats who battled on the court for years; player Adrian Dantley; coach Cathy Rush; and William Davidson, owner of the Detroit Pistons since 1974.

Over the decades, Vitale created his own lexicon with phrases such as "Get a T-O, baby," "You’re a P-T-Per," and "Awesome, baby." Monday, he said he "cried like a baby" upon learning of his selection and thanked Hall of Fame coach Bob Knight — now a fellow ESPN analyst — for spearheading a letter-writing campaign on his behalf. "When I saw those letters, whether I’d ever gotten in the Hall of Fame or not, that was going to be my hall of fame," said the 68-year-old who was forced off-air for two months after throat surgery.

No matter how strong their credentials, each member of the Class of 2008 seemed a bit star-struck. Riley, the third-winningest NBA coach ever, called his election "unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable." Riley won four NBA titles with the Los Angeles Lakers, then grabbed another one two years ago with Miami. He also has one championship as an assistant and another as a player. "Last night I lost my 64th game of the regular season," he said, referring to the Heat’s current struggles. "And the next day I’m in the Hall of Fame. I think there’s an integrity in the Hall of Fame that far surpasses whatever your record is, if you have a body of work." The new class, which Riley joked will be the best-promoted ever because of Vitale’s inclusion, will be inducted Sept. 5 in Springfield, Mass., home of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.

Olajuwon and Ewing both played in three Final Fours, with Ewing’s Georgetown team beating Olajuwon’s Houston squad for the 1984 national championship. "We both are warriors. We both want to excel. We both wanted to dominate, and when you play against the best you want to perform at your best" Ewing said. "So we both definitely looked at each other as the best. "Olajuwon got his revenge as a pro, leading the Houston Rockets to the first of two straight titles with a seven-game victory over Ewing’s New York Knicks in the 1994 NBA Finals — a team coached by Riley. "Growing up in Nigeria I didn’t really understand the magnitude of what it means to be a hall of famer," said Olajuwon, a 12-time All-Star. "I still cannot believe that I’m in the same company with all these great legends." Ewing, the Knicks’ all-time leader in points, rebounds, blocked shots, and steals, among other categories, remembered field trips to the Hall of Fame as a child and said he never imagined being a part of it. "And now I am," he said.

ARTICLE RECAP: 1) College basketball announcer (and ESPN employee) headlines the story. 2) Vitale also receives more print space than Olajuwon and Ewing COMBINED. 3) Pat Riley gets second billing before we get to those big guys. 4) Oh yeah, the article goes on to write a sentence or two on Adrian Dantley… and a couple of other inductees. 5) As Vitale might yell, "Are you kiddin’ me?"

How can this possibly happen? How can a man who admits that he "can’t run, can’t jump, can’t shoot" become the main story over two of the best big men ever that COULD run and jump and shoot? How could a man who coached the Detroit Pistons to 30 victories (Vitale) reduce another man who contended for a championsip with the Pistons to a footnote(Dantley)? How can ANY writer at Associated Press, ESPN, or any other place not get the priorities of this story correct? Why did an ESPN caption on the bottom of outside the lines read "Vitale and 7 others elected into the Hall of Fame"?

Finally, if Vitale’s headlining were some isolated incident, then we could chalk it up to ESPN shamelessly boosting one of its own. However, the AP author is not from ESPN and neither are many of the Hall of Fame voters. As Hollinger points out, this problem has been going on for a long long time. And it is time that a REAL conversation about this question:

"Why do so many Hall of Fame voters and sports writers undervalue the achievements of young black men who shoot a basketball over old white men who often teach, referee, and announce the shooting of that ball?"

Is it the Hall of Fame voters? Is it media members who disproportionately give accolades to coaches and others? Is it most fans who — consciously or subconsciously — would rather identify with Vitale’s "can’t run, can’t jump, can’t shoot" story and a media that know this fact providing customer service? Whatever the case, we simply need to stop making excuses and have an honest dialogue. Not just the usual no-nuance "is it racist" question? A discussion with more depth is needed. It’s time to talk… or else…

 “The DunMurphy Trade”: In 2006 free-agent Al Harrington did not come free. It cost Indiana their 2007 #1 draft pick which the Atlanta Hawks used on Acie Law (next pick: Thaddeus Young). Months later the Pacers would ship Harrington and Stephen Jackson to the Golden State Warriors for Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy (+ Ike Diogu). While this year’s improved play by Dunleavy has been a pleasant surprise,  the “DunMurphy trade” still highlights a year-long stretch from January 2006 to January 2007 where Indiana would turn Artest, S. Jackson, Acie Law or Thaddeus Young, and a 1^st round draft pick into DunMurphy, Ike Diogu, and Shawne Williams. The trade would propel Golden State back to respectability and Indiana into mediocrity.s

Teams vs. Rosters: In 2008, the Knicks may have the worse “team”, but the Indiana Pacers have the worse “roster”. Bad teams are judged by today’s wins, bad rosters are judged by tomorrow’s potential. The worst type of roster is one that is just bad enough to consistently miss the playoffs, and just good enough not to secure top 5 draft pick for the next few years. The Pacer’s trade assets are limited to an all-star caliber player with a hefty contract and gimpy knee (Jermaine O’neal) and one promising young player (Danny Granger).  The rest are solid veterans with long-term bloated contracts who have hit their ceiling (see “DunMurphy” and Jamal Tinsley). Should Oneal’s knee mimic the decline of Allan Houston, the Pacers would have a GM nightmare not seen since the… 2003 Knicks – easily the worst inherited roster this century and perhaps NBA history.

Pacers 2003 vs. Pacers 2008: The only thing that the Knicks and Pacer rosters had in common in December 2003 was Harrington. Unfortunately, the Knicks had Othella. While Isiah’s only real trade chip was Kurt Thomas, Indiana’s roster was built for championship contention – which is exactly what they did for one season. With Jermaine O’Neal, Ron Artest, Al Harrington, Jeff Foster, and Jamal Tinsley all age 26 or younger, the future would be bright for many years to come. Apologists will point to “the Palace Brawl” or off-court incidents for the Pacer’s demise, but those facts are not the main reason that the Pacers received 10 cents on the dollar for Artest, Harrington, and Stephen Jackson. It was bad management. The worst executive job during the last four years in the NBA has been by the Indiana Pacers – by far.  

Knicks 2003 vs. Knicks 2008: Despite the media windstorm and windbags, Walsh just left a hopeless situation for greener pastures. In 2003, Isiah had to bake a cake with no flour, eggs, or sugar.  In 2008 Walsh has to merely exchange some ingredients to start winning and start receiving undue praise. Big difference. Isiah’s greatest failures were chemistry (see Zach Randolph trade) and coaching (see this season). Unlike 2003, the Knicks actually have assets. That includes young, solid, but misused role players with tiny contracts (David Lee, Nate Robinson, and Renaldo Balkman); misused talent that could attain higher value with better coaching/utilization (Curry/Crawford); expiring contracts (Stephon Marbury/Malik Rose); and most importantly, the Knicks are looking at a top 5 pick in the 2008 draft. Translation: Walsh and the Knicks have talent, options, and a future.

Walsh vs. Bird:  Scoop Jackson recently wrote about “Isiah Thomas vs. Larry Bird Double Standard” and how the media should hold Bird should be “in the same boat”. While one could argue that Bird deserves his very own ship for turning “wine into water”, a bigger question remains: as Pacer President and CEO since 2003 just how much did Donnie Walsh  help steer that vessel. Walsh recently indicated that he lacked full control in recent years, and reporter Stephen A. Smith also suggested that Bird was the primary decision maker. For his part, Bird recently stated: “Now it’s one voice; it’s mine”. And IndyStar writer Bob Kravitz who recently wrote: “after The Brawl, Walsh stepped back up as a major front-office presence. For the next few years, Walsh was primarily responsible for trades”.  Does that include the Artest and “DunMurphy” trades? Perhaps the public will never know.

“The GM’s I talk to regularly around the league …for the last five years have told me that Donnie Walsh is just over-rated in large part because he has such great relationships with the national writers. He’s very good at buddying up to the media. He has had final say on all the moves that have made the Indiana Pacers such a mess over the last five years… At age 67 he is getting 5 million a year to rebuild the New York Knicks. This is just insanity-squared to me.”

– “It isn’t the players themselves, but the mix of players”

– “There are always guys that leave teams that aren’t very good and then go to good teams and boom they look great. And everyone says ‘how could you let that guy go?’”

– "I’m not the great new hope"…  "I’m just a guy who’s going to come in and try to create a team. And it’s not going to happen overnight, so I don’t want any illusions."

A couple of weeks ago Sports Illustrated opened its vault and we have already expressed our profound excitement. In the months to come we will be cataloguing their articles according to special categories as part of an SI Vault Series. Given the current climate on the subject, performance enhancing drugs (PEDS) seemed like a wonderful place to start. As accountability is being requested from players to managers to owners, there is one contingent that has answered to no one: The MEDIA. It is important for the public to know the same question asked of everyone else: "what did they know"? Given SI’s historical reputation America’s #1 magazine, it goes without saying that if Sports Illustrated printed it, then the rest of the sports media knew about it. …This post is not complete and will act as a living document to be updated with other related SI articles that have been missed. Its purpose is to make it easier for sports fans, readers, critics, bloggers, researchers, and writers to find SI’s central articles in one place. Should you have any suggestions and additions to make this catalogue stronger, your input is welcomed.

Part 1 -SI’s Coverage 1969-1991: A: "The Awakening"; B. Early Discoveries; C. "Football Gets Exposed"

To our knowledge Bil Gilbert’s extensive three part series in 1969 is SI’s first substantial foray into the subject of PEDS with it’s second part on baseball a must-read for historical context. The next 15 years marked many steroid/PED discoveries in sports like Olympics track & field, cycling, and body-building, but wouldn’t receive major attention or cover treatement (see Brian Bosworth) until the NCAA and NFL football became exposed in the latter 1980s. In the 1998, the Olympics took center stage as Ben Johnson was "busted" on SI’s cover. One year later SI printed another article that contained allegations against Carl Lewis and Florence Griffith-Joyner but few heard of the story. In 1991, former NFL star Lyle Alzado personally blamed his impending death on steroid abuse, but doctors could not corroborate such a claim. However, this SI cover story set a tone of "steroids scare" that would make it almost impossible to have reasonable discussions on the health risks of Steroids/PEDs for another 20 years.

1969: "THE AWAKENING"

Continue Reading »