Blake Murphy Sports Writing

Title: Some Necessary Venting
Date: April 16, 2007
Original Source: The On Deck Circle
Synopsis: Just a few random rambling paragraphs about some different issues that weren’t long enough for a post of their own.

Ok, so it’s been a while since I got something down on paper because of end-of-year assignments and exams. I just finished writing Developmental Economics, and it went well and I’m feeling good so instead of studying for the three exams I have in the next three days, I’m throwing down a blog to share my opinion on some recent events in the sports world. I’d also like to say that I have a week off between exams Friday-Wednesday, so you can expect a few articles from me including: Me vs. Pennycook debating Oden/Durant, a review of the Raptors season, a Raptors playoff outlook, NBA awards, and possibly my long awaited NHL article. Before I get into anything, I have to say that what happened this morning at Virginia Tech is a terrible tragedy, and my regards to the family and friends of any students or faculty involved. There’s no place for that in this world, and it’s an awful thing to hear about.

Don Imus and Billy Packer
Anyone who says Don Imus shouldn’t have been fired is either a racist, a misogynist, or an idiot. The same goes for Billy Packer a few months ago. For those not in the know, Packer used the term “fag out” and Imus referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hoes.” There are a lot of excuses floating around for both of these guys, trying to justify what they said and the context it was used in, but they’re all invalid and shallow. I’ll focus more on Imus, because Packer wasn’t reprimanded, and what he said IS actually an English term for backing out or being too tired to do something. All I’ll say about Packer is that he is in the U.S., there is a different dialect here and a much younger audience for basketball than you may be accustomed to; ignorance to the culture you’re announcing in is not an excuse for making homophobic statements on the air….your job is the spoken word, learn how to use it.

Now with regards to Imus, what an IDIOT. Who says that? It’s racist, it’s sexist, and it was completely uncalled for and unprovoked. To refer to anyone as a “nappy headed hoe” is offensive enough, but to generalize for an entire team like that is ridiculous. Now, I use the word hoe a lot, like the rappers say, I use it in an affectionate way. I’m kidding, but the word is out there referring to women and that’s a reality, albeit a sad one. The word probably isn’t going anywhere, but that’s aside the point. This is an old white man who was around when segregation was cool. The guy is over 100 years old, and while I don’t mean for this to be a chirp show for Don Imus, CBS should have realized he was a big liability just because he’s so old school. As a sports broadcaster, you have to be aware of the culture of sports and what’s going on around you, and Imus is extremely guilty of being ignorant in this regard. I’m not a big fan of women’s basketball, but they’ve been working their asses off over the last decade or two to achieve legitimacy (in all sports, not just ball), and they’ve accomplished a lot in that time. While obviously not respected and viewed on the same level as men’s sports right now, it’s to the point where women’s sports are reported on ESPN.com main page, which is a big enough sign for me. On top of that, black athletes have been searching for that same sort of legitimacy. More on this in a later article with regards to baseball, but black athletes are still largely disrespected and marginalized (or, in the NBA’s case, villainized, if that’s a word). So with one quick quip, Imus managed to degrade two factions trying to come up in sports. You can’t be that culturally insensitive, racist, and sexist without getting some backlash. The most offensive part of this whole scenario is that CBS had to wait until advertisers threatened to pull their ads if Imus wasn’t removed. Unfortunately, Imus will catch on somewhere else, furthering the precedent that if you’re old and respected, and don’t pick on the popular majority, your job is safe.

Pacman Jones and Chris Henry
Unbelievable, again. How do you justify suspending Adam “Pacman” Jones for the season without a conviction? Are you kidding me? I’m not going to write much on this because I’ve talked it to death with people already, but there are a number of offenders much worse than Jones around the NFL, who make the game look a lot worse. Pacman smoked some pot, made it rain on dem hoes, and is generally an ignorant guy. But what can you expect when the majority of the talent pool you’re drawing from is people who have never had any money, and you throw millions at them right away? I know if I had Pacman money right now, I definitely wouldn’t be in school, and I’d definitely be making it rain left and right. Pacman doesn’t even have a conviction, and is out for the year…so he’s suspended basically for being immature, being unlucky, and because Goodell wants to set an example.

And then Chris Henry gets 8 games. While I’m not supporting this suspension either, you’d have to think logic dictates Henry gets a larger suspension than Jones if you’re trying to set an example for the players. Henry was a member of the most notorious criminal group since La Cosa Nostra, the Cincinatti Bengals. On top of several unsportsmanlike penalties over the years, Henry has been convicted multiple times of driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. He’s also been convicted of providing alcohol to minors, and the traditional multiple gun charges for any NFL player. So on rap sheet alone, Henry is a much bigger problem than Jones. Ok, you want to go on alleged crimes and potential convictions? Well, Jones is looking at misdemeanor battery, while Henry has a pending sexual assault charge that has been waiting for a few years to be processed for whatever reason.

I’m not advocating either of these suspensions; when there are several websites dedicated to the illegal exploits of your players, the league very clearly has an image and behavior problem. I just don’t understand how making an example out of these two sets an example at all, Goodell is just picking on two unlucky guys who had their most recent cases close to the time that Roger decided to throw the hammer down. There are worse things than strippers and weed man. How about Joey Porter beating up players? Or the head stomping we witnessed two seasons ago on the field? Or how about the OBVIOUS steroid problem the NFL has that nobody talks about, but threatens a lot more lives than Henry and Jones.

These guys clearly have problems that need to be worked out. I’m just not sure giving them free time is the way to do it. Jones is going back to West Virginia to graduate…with millions in his pocket. This is a better idea than having him with the team for 8 months? Really? How about the NFL looks into a rehabilitation program for its criminal offenders instead of throwing them aside like outcasts? I gotta say Roger, bad start to your tenure in my opinion.

Drug Testing in MMA
On a similar note, I wanted to express my displeasure with anti-doping rules in sports. Performance enhancers should obviously be outlawed, but what about recreational drugs? I really disagree with the recent decision of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, that changed the outcome of the Pride USA show’s fight of the night (Diaz d. Gomi by TKO), suspending mixed martial arts fighter Nick Diaz for 6 months for having THC (marijuana’s active ingredient) in his system. The argument is that marijuana makes you numb to pain in a fighting situation, which is an advantage, but I really have to question the validity of this. An extensive search, and I couldn’t find any conclusive study results that this is the case. I also couldn’t find any conclusive studies showing the performance benefits of marijuana at all. If anything, it could be a detriment to performance: it is bad for your respiratory system in the same way that smoking anything is, and it can make you lazy and disinterested, which could obviously hurt you in a fight situation. I really don’t think changing the decision from a (decisive) Diaz victory to a no-contest is warranted from marijuana smoking. Granted, I haven’t put in the necessary research to make this overarching statement, but I also haven’t see evidence to the contrary. I would agree with it if the logic were to protect the health of the fighters (for example, Melvin Guillard tested positive for cocaine, a dangerous and addictive drug), but this was clearly a performance-related argument and not in search of the best interest of the fighters.

It’s also bull that athletic commissions only test some fighters, at random, to save money. I know these commissions don’t experience a lot of profit and are public sector organizations, but there is no logic in the selection system, and it could mean a lot of guys get away with performance enhancing drug use on luck alone. Testing for this stuff benefits everyone and ensures a level playing field, and can also help to identify other problems with fighters (see: Guillard). I just really hate inconsistency in sports and in life in general, and I don’t think it’s fair that MMA drug testing is approached in this manner.

That’s all I’ve got time for today, back to the grind of exams for me now, but expect a lot more late this week and early next week. I apologize if these points are somewhat underdeveloped or under-researched. I would have loved to delve into each of them a lot deeper, and maybe I will (especially the last item) but I wanted to discuss them while they were still fresh in the media and fresh in my mind. Good luck on exams to anyone who has them right now, and if not screw you, you lucky bastards.

Please enjoy this picture of Tommy Maddox holding the XFL Championship trophy as a token of my regret for the lack of writing lately. Made me laugh.