Sports, the Better Debate

(I haven't written in over three weeks because my schedule is a little thrown off right now. Plus, I'm talking about politics. This could get ugly.)

Monday night (in the United States, at least), three big programs were on last night: Monday Night Football between the Detroit Lions and the Chicago Bears, Game 7 of the National League Championship Series between the San Francisco Giants and the St. Louis Cardinals, and the third and final Presidential debate between U.S. President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Regardless of where you were at any time between 8:00 PM and about 12:00 PM EST, your TV may have been on with one of these three programs.

As a lot of you might know, tens of millions of people have been watching these debates. This time wasn't any different, but it wasn't any better either.

"Report: Nielsen says an average of 59.2 million viewers watched the 3rd debate, down from 67.2 mil for 1st and 65.6 mil for 2nd."

The third presidential debate was going against one of the highest-watched NLCS playoff games and Monday Night Football, which had ratings of 2.4 and 4.5, respectively. Combined, that alone amounts to about 15+ million viewers that had not cared about the debate at the time. Then again, people think that if you've heard something once, you'll hear it about 15 more times.

What I'm trying to get to here is that during this election year in the United States, big things that bring America together didn't falter. I think we can all remember that after 9/11 came and passed, baseball and football got a lot of love and patriotism, especially the Yankees since they were in the World Series that year. From what I've seen, when the U.S. is in peril, people will come together and find piece of mind through sports and leisure. C'mon, what is the best way to relieve stress? Music and physical activity!

Here's another point. Now, don't read this out of context. Like I said above, when a man (or in some cases, a woman) is elected to a government position, you don't exactly know what they'll do or how they will execute something until they actually get that seat. When you watch a sporting event, you'll see something more decisive and proven as the teams will duke it out until the end of the game. That's just my philosophy on that anyway. Plus, when something comes down to leadership of the country in a democracy, it's left to the We the people, and there are times when not everybody knows the facts and will just vote for someone to make a personal statement or just to say that they voted. When it comes to something like sports, in this case football, you will have We the people rooting for something they are more familiar with and don't watch it just for the sake of watching it. Believe me, I think more people know how the game of football works than most current events involving the economy and foreign policy. Most people will find this statement sad, but I'm not shocked that it's true among some demographics. Sometimes we have to wonder what our purpose is in life, and sometimes when things get overly complicated, we tend to turn our minds off to big matters like politics and more leisurely matters like sports.

For one thing, they do say that the two worst things you can talk about to people is religion and politics. Why? You can alienate people. At least when you talk about sports and you have a Yankees fan poking at a Phillies fan, you can at least agree or something like the fact that you guys most likely hate the Mets too.

On a night like tonight, we don't have to worry about politics. For me, I've got Hurricane Sandy knocking at my front door. However, I'm guaranteed some football and Game 4 of the World Series. When I'm on Twitter, I'm more than happy to debate about sports because sports is so vast and we're all entitled to some sort of opinion. In politics, on the other hand, you see other people or other people see you as being right, wrong, or misinformed.

This is why, if I ever get into journalism, I would rather do sports than politics. I'd rather be appreciated for sports analysis instead of political opinion.

--AZ

The MLB Postseason Slant for 2012 - Halloween Havoc

I'm reppin' the WCW just because I'm unoriginal.

I guess WWE owns this logo now. Thanks, you guys.

Sweet baby Jesus. Did ANY of you guys bother watching baseball despite the fact that there is so much more going on with the NFL and NHL? I salute you! You have obviously watched a ridiculously close AL West race, a crazy-amazing NL Wild Card chase, and a hullabaloo of players striving for the top titles in MLB. Yesterday we saw Miguel Cabrera become the first man in 35 years to with the Triple Crown (AVG, HR, RBI) in the American League and watched the Oakland Athletics beat the odds and win the AL West despite having a pretty darned low payroll. Oh, we've had fireworks indeed. After numerous changing of the guards in the leagues (as well as some dismissals of managers), we're back in postseason in good 'ole October fashion. The question is, are we ready?

2012 MLB Postseason

You can actually tell this season that the first half might have been slow for a lot of these teams this year. The second half had a lot of twists and turns, and for the first time in a while, we have two teams in a division that has lost more than 100 games. Have fun in the AL West, Astros! Ha. Anyway, let's take a look at the now ten teams that are fighting for a spot for glory. I didn't forget about the individual winners, you sillies. I'll make my predictions there too.

National League Contenders

Washington Nationals (98-64) - Being a person with a team in the NL East, writing this team's name was incredibly weird to write. Why? In the past six seasons before, they never really had a legitimate chance due to every team that isn't the [Miami] Marlins. Now, with a strong starting rotation (where's Stephen?) and some flashy bats from ROY candidate Bryce Harper, Ian Desmond, Roger Bernadina, and many more, this now healthy squad is looking to make leaps and bounds in their first postseason since their rebirth as the Nationals. And, like I've been saying for quite a while, old Expos fans are still crying.

Cincinnati Reds (97-65) - I have legitimately never doubted Dusty Baker's squad since 2010. I'm serious. These guys look good all around the field. Their pitching staff is as dangerous as ever, and we've got great utility and situation hitting coming from all ends of the park (Joey Votto, yes. Brandon Phillips, yes.) What's amazing is is the fact that their staff has stayed healthy for the most part this season. Hopefully that's no reason for them to burn out in the first round.

San Francisco Giants (94-68) - These guys made me extremely nervous in the first half. They just didn't look like they were going to get anywhere with the injuries and other issues plaguing the team. Buster Posey picked up where he left off before last year's disaster and is putting up MVP-like numbers, and the fielding has been crisp and precise enough to keep opposing hitters at bay. Oh, and that Matt Cain guy? He's a threat. I'd like to see him pitch a lot in October.

[Wild Card] Atlanta Braves (94-68) - Quite poetic, if you ask me. They make the Wild Card in Bobby Cox's last season as manager and they're back in a Wild Card spot in Chipper Jones' last season in the hot corner. The question is, will it be different? The offense and the pitching work in great harmony game in and game out, so even though they don't look like they're the strongest team on paper, don't let that fool you. They could give plenty of beatings this month if they advance out of the Wild Card round.

[Wild Card 2] St. Louis Cardinals (88-74) - Oooohhhh it's the comeback kids! After their underdog World Series title win, they're back here with pretty much the same squad in looks (no Pujols to be seen here) and in feel. Only difference is, the management is slightly different, and the fact that they're back again even under new management is impressive enough. Guys like Matt Holliday and Kyle Lohse are having impressive seasons and look to lead these guys to a repeat. Let's just hope the guys above them don't prevent that from happening.

American League Contenders

New York Yankees (95-67) - Again. Anti-Yankees fans, they're never going away. There's Jeter, there's Cano, there's Swisher, there's Sabathia. C'mon, it's getting kind of hard to write about these guys because what they're doing is effective and that's why they can keep coming back. Even with Mariano-saurus out of the equation this year, they haven't collapsed. This is just more for anti-Yankee fans to hate this team even more.

Detroit Tigers (88-74) - Man, I don't know about these guys. They'll probably surprise me, but their squads need to play more in sync with each other. Prince Fielder has had a major resurgence and Miggy Cabrera has solidified himself as the monster of this team, and Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer have been workhorses for the team. I'm serious. They need to surprise me and make it to the next round unscathed for me to take their Central win seriously.

Oakland Athletics (94-68) - Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill did not get these guys here. Money didn't get them here, either. I know, that's cliche of me to say, but that's what makes this so impressive. Most of the men on this team aren't big-named players and even some of them were dumped by bigger teams because they weren't given the proper chance. Frankly, I'd love to see these guys shut some people up. They could do it too. Their pitching is great (Keep getting better, Brandon!) and their hitting is literally hitting the peak of their stride. I like their chances.

[Wild Card] Baltimore Orioles (93-69) - You can rub your eyes all you want. These guys are in postseason for the first time in what seems like literally forever. Forever as in about 15 years when Hall of Famer Cal Ripken Jr. still played for the team and a bunch of losing seasons dwelling in the basement with the Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays. Their bullpen is effective and their clutch hitting is pretty stellar. I'd wanna see this team do incredibly well even though there may be some jitters that will come with the territory.

[Wild Card 2] Texas Rangers (93-69) - Well, even if the Second Wild Card didn't exist, there'd still be a one-game playoff for these guys. After their "collapse," for the lack of a better term, these guys shouldn't be counted out even though the A's had caught up to them. Their overall staff if still relatively strong and has a lot of playoff experience compared to a lot of the other teams in the playoffs this year (no, really, they do). Lack of sync between squad may be an issue, and if it's gonna come down to a one-game playoff, they need to work as a team. What's gonna work? Teeeeamwork.

_____________________________

Individual Winners

NL MVP - Buster Posey (San Francisco Giants) - If you're looking for a good comeback story, look no further. After suffering a massive broken ankle last year, he's been the most effective player in the National League all year. A constant threat in front of the plate and behind the plate, he's a shoo-in for this year's honor.
Next best possible candidate: Andrew McCutchen (Pittsburgh Pirates)

NL Cy Young - R.A. Dickey (New York Mets) - This guy has been absolutely impressive this year. As the lone knuckleballer in the major leagues, he's been doing what men of his craft do best: screwing up every swing possible. He made a lot of the Mets games fun to watch this year, and even though there were a lot of ups and downs in the team this year, he's a good candidate for the award this year.
Next best possible candidate: Gio Gonzalez (Washington Nationals)

NL Rookie of the Year - Bryce Harper (Washington Nationals) - This was a tough prediction. Although he has the temper of a teenager and--wait, he still kind of is a teenager, isn't he? Never mind. He's got a spark and a knack for playing good ball, and he's proved all of that in his rookie season. Grant it, I love Wade Miley too, but they rarely ever give a non-pitching award to a pitcher unless if they're Justin Verlander or something.
Next best possible candidate: Todd Frazier (Cincinnati Reds)

AL MVP - Robinson Cano (New York Yankees) - Yes, children, I'm picking a dark horse to win this. He's having arguably the best season of his career and not giving him any sort of mention would be kind of awkward on other people's parts. Sure, you've got Miguel Cabrera winning the triple crown, but you've got Cano who has also been a stellar infielder making great plays along with his excellent hitting feats. Postseason could actually help his cause too. Who knows?
Next best possible candidate: Mike Trout (Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim) [Yeah I went there.]

AL Cy Young - Fernando Rodney (Tampa Bay Rays) - I know I'm not going to get away with just saying he has a 0.60 ERA and is one of the most effective closers in the game today. But really, he hasn't been the strongest-looking of pitchers, which makes this prediction a strange one for most people. He has the power of Aroldis Chapman (an NL CY candidate) but the age and record of a pitcher on the downturn of his career. Weird, right? Not really. This could be the sign of good things to come for him, this being the first step.
Next best possible candidate: Justin Verlander (Detroit Tigers) [Sue me.]

AL Rookie of the Year - Mike Trout (Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim) - One word: DUHHHHHH. I really don't think I need to explain the inhuman season this boy (YES, a boy, he's younger than me, for Pete's sake) has had for this team. He's garnished more talk about the accomplishments he's made more than most of the other players in the running for any other award presented this year. Could he be MVP? I don't necessarily know if he should be put in the same conversation yet, but he's definitely the man with the plan this year.
Next best possible candidate: In paraphrasing Bryce Harper, this is a clown statement, bro.

__________________________________

That about does it for me. It felt weird not trying to avoid bias since the Phillies aren't in the playoffs this year. In any case, this should be an interesting October, and I'm looking forward to watching everything unfold beginning tomorrow.

See you at the end, baseball fans.

--AZ

Red Whines: Too Many Lockouts

Made in MS Paint. Based on "Too Many Babas."

At midnight Sunday morning, the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement expired, and the third NHL lockout in 20 years began. Many of the fans, as well as the players, had fears that this was going to happen. There was so much fear in this, they worked on starting negotiations earlier than originally planned. In fact, they started talks since around the time of the Stanley Cup Finals. They had more than two whole months to figure out what to do, and with all of the issues of some of the owners not showing up for talks and some of the players being split on what is being requested and asked for, we've pretty much seen the beginning of North American hockey's version of World War 3.

Right now, Gary Bettman is hockey's most hated man. After being named commissioner in 1993, he's been a part of all three of these lockouts, and fans are blaming him for these labor stoppages. He's mainly being blamed for not being able to control both parties; in turn, he doesn't care about what the fans think, because he allegedly states that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion." Cool by me, I guess.

Even former hockey players are baffled by the fact that the players and owners knew how complicated the negotiations were going to be and didn't think of starting CBA and labor talks even earlier than July. Former player and current commentator Jeremy Roenick (@Jeremy_Roenick) even said this on Twitter:

"Its a sad day for hockey fans. I just wonder why they didn't start negotiating a year ago. What a way to destroy a leagues momentum!"

He is absolutely right. The NHL just started getting their whole fanbase back, and what happens? The same thing that lost them in the first place. At this rate, the most faithful of NHL players are going to say to heck with it, play in Europe and Russia, and never think of coming back. It just really looks ugly for North American hockey.

With those statements aside, I have to get this off my chest.

This could have been avoided.

Another lockout like this just goes to show how badly things have to change between the front office, the owners, and the players. There's obviously a poor relationship throughout the league and there's barely any supervision or strictly enforced rules around the league. Heck, don't we all remember what the NHL was like before the canceled 2004-2005 season? There were salaries and taxes that matched and looked like the disgusting-looking contracts some overpaid baseball players make today. The inmates were running the asylum, so to speak. The bleeding was stopped with the CBA that was ratified in the summer of 2005, but not everything was settled in that CBA. Issues that still persisted was free agency, contract amounts and extension policies, and the shares between the players and the owners. With all of the bickering going on, it's like democrats against republicans times two because there are far lefts and far rights in both groups. The players and the owners themselves need to get something agreed on before they can actually negotiate a new Agreement. This league is arguably the least disorganized and united league in the world. Let's not joke around--it's true.

You almost wonder what the heck they were doing in the months prior to negotiations. What, were they just picking their noses and/or sitting on their hands the whole time watching Teen Mom? There were some groups that agreed on some beliefs that should be incorporated into the renewed CBA, but did they really talk to their respective teams about it to warm them up to what could happen? Uhh...no. There's no such thing as talking to your employees (the athletes on your owned team) to the owners, and there's obviously no such thing as the players and coaches meeting with the front office to check the "stocks and bonds" as it were. There's so much separation in the league that it looks like the parents versus the kids. At this rate, it's going to take several weeks before a real deal is made.

For the time being, people, just buy NHL '13. I really don't think there is going to be a season this year because the players and owners have been stuck at square one since July. If they haven't budged in two months, this is going to be a long lockout.

They stink.

--AZ

Reffin' Ain't Easy

I can't tell you how many tweets I'm still seeing on how "terrible" the officiating was last weekend during Week 1 of the NFL season. With the Packers playing the Bears tonight, it could only be invigorated. For those who are completely out of the loop, the NFL referees are actually victims of a lockout right now, and the NFL currently has what I like to call "rent-a-refs" in their place until at least Week 5 of the season.

What worries me is that stuff like this is going to go on through Week 5. Why? People feel like these "replacements" are not qualified for this job. Even the players may agree with this statement. Just watching some of the games last week gave me a scratched up scalp wondering why there were so many lousy and missed calls. Guys like Aaron Rodgers are even saying that the games were frustrating to play because even some of the obvious calls were missed. This call below was one of the ones that have been heavily disputed on by analysts and citizen journalists alike. This was originally a holding call but was overturned, resulting in a Green Bay punt return touchdown.

Credit to NFL and FOX Sports

Another issue is that people are just going to get angrier and angrier. If these "rent-a-refs" don't clean up their act this upcoming weekend, the credibility of the league could be slightly lower than usual after the following games. Sure, Roger Goodell is praising the referees, but at the same time, he's not shelling out $16 million for these replacements. This is the major issue that I wanted to get to in this post. This whole lockout could ultimately lead to a changing of the guard. Yes, it's rather plausible. I could pull out two real-world examples and what I said could actually make sense. These examples were "strikes," per se, but these arguments are for the same reason: money and working conditions.

A lot of you may already be familiar with the ongoing strike with the teachers in Chicago. A lot of the teachers have salaries spiking over $70k a year. They want more and they are being refused more. Because of their refusal, they are on strike, keeping 700,000 children out of school for the time being. If these teachers don't come back, these kids will be in school for a rather long time. If the NFL is not on track with these replacement refs and a deal isn't made in time, the season could definitely in a bind, and the players could be suffering a lockout of their own.

However, this could get a little more extreme. Here's my other example:

Back in 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) went on strike requesting better pay, better working conditions, and alterations in working hours. In their absence, replacements were hired to continue the air traffic control in the United States (because truthfully, these guys are extremely important and must be around for pilots and planes). Then because of this crazy strike, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have this anymore and whipped out a...

...and wound up firing all of the workers on strike and just hired the replacements and other qualified workers. Also, these fired patrons were banned from coming back (this was later lifted and some workers came back five years later). Sick, right?

This could be a large application as to what could happen in the NFL. If a truce isn't made or a deal isn't reached, these veteran referees could ultimately be given the pink slip and told to try again later. These replacements could actually be given the job, and after a few years, the other refs could have a chance to come back and redeem themselves, despite the possibility of competing for a smaller salary than they once had. This could be pretty extreme, but it's possible, and dumber things are currently happening in the world of sports. (More on that in the end.)

__________________________

There's the saying that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but in a case like this, the recession is tough, and sometimes the referees may actually make a little bit too much money even though the game is placed in their hands to some extent. Don't let the other stuff that they do outside of football fool you, there's that one muscly ref (the name escapes me at the moment) who actually does law in the offseason and works out afterward. They may take up additional hobbies that keep them occupied during the offseason and might not necessarily do it for money. However, there are other guys out there that would kill to do their jobs in the time being and be paid for significantly less than what the actual guys are being offered.

Technically, the referees only work six full months out of the year and make a pretty hefty sum in about 25 weeks time. This is why it's a massive problem for the big guys in the NFL front office aren't the biggest fans in pumping up their salary. They're not in constant strenuous activity as the football players themselves, and there really isn't a time limit on how long they can stay in the business. From the way things are looking, the front office either wants some change or they want to make a statement in keeping the referees in place. It's looking rather ugly from this end, seeing that there is no mention of a deal being made anywhere.

In my opinion, there has to be some middle ground made, as well as some sort of policy for these guys when it comes to compensation.  Don't get me wrong, I'd kill for a $200,000 salary for working only six months, but any more than that to me would be highway robbery. I don't exactly know what these guys want out of life, but salary shouldn't be fought over. That's just me.

Football fans, start praying for some right calls and no more lockouts.

--AZ

Speaking of lockouts...there's another disgusting-looking one that could possibly happen this Sunday.

Check back around then for the latest installment: TOO MANY LOCKOUTS! WHEEEEE!

No Mercy

You had to see the photo coming after the title. Yes, Sensei?

WELCOME BACK, FOOTBALL!

Alright, I know this is late, but I had to figure out a way to explain my cause and such. This particular kind of topic is something along the lines of taboo or absolutely unnecessary nonsense. Honestly, the beliefs on this vary from sport to sport, but you have to admit--there had to have been at least one time where you had thought about it.

Okay. Look at this score.

I bet you're probably looking at this and saying: "Wow. That's a shame. It must have been painful to watch."

Then, you see this score.

And the first thing that goes through your head is...

Right? In my opinion, that just looks worse than any of the U.S. Men's Olympic Basketball scores from a couple of weeks ago. It also reminds me of a joke my Dad used to say that went along the lines of: "You won the game? What, the other team didn't show up?" The coach from Savannah State was quoted as saying that the game could have been much worse. Sir, I don't think that could have gotten any worse than it did. It was like watching the [insert legendary NFL team here] decimate the neighborhood peewee football team.

In particular levels of the sport, they have what is known to be the "Mercy Rule" in order to prevent absolute blowouts and embarrassment of the losing team. If you had watched the Little League World Series between Japan and Tennessee, you saw it go into effect after ten runs against Tennessee. I remember playing softball and being on either end of the Mercy Rule at times, and I think it enforced sportsmanship among the players and coaches. In retrospect, I wish they did that for my basketball team from ten years ago; a girl on the other team who was the best player heckled me and she deserved a roundhouse kick to her snaggle-tooth. See? It's not fun getting your brains bashed in by another team, especially when there's an obvious mismatch.

I know the NCAA has enough on their hands, especially when it comes to requests for college agency, scholarships, boosters, and Penn State, but I would think that this is something to look into. A lot of coaches may make something like a blowout an acceptable learning experience for the team, but there are just some times where you just want the bleeding to stop and prevent any further frustration and possible injury from trying too hard. In a sport like football, it can be incredibly detrimental for athletes to overexert themselves especially when the future efforts are futile to the overall momentum and score of the game. Of course, people are going to disagree with me strictly on the fact that it's just football and they signed up to keep pushing on and the mercy rule is for babies. Um, think of the babies. If your friend or child or sibling were out there getting pummeled and is not doing any positive push against it, then you'd kind of grow some pity for them.

From the college football games I have watched in the past, I've noticed that it is not uncommon to see a team beat their opponent by at least 30-40 points. In all seriousness, if it's a team I'm not really invested in, I just turn it off after a while because it's just not exciting to me anymore. When the lead is over a certain amount, I honestly think the game should stop or that the opposing team getting beaten badly is able to start at a certain yard line as a perk or an added bonus to keep the game closer.

Let's try straightening this out. Let's suggest this for NCAA Football and make a sort of "Mercy Rule:"

The NCAAF Mercy Rule goes into effect if:

1. If, at any point, a team is facing a deficit of 30 points or more, a touchback places them at the 40-yard line.

2. If a team is facing a deficit of over 56 points by halftime or over 40 points by the end of the third quarter, the game ends. This is assuming that the losing team has scored under 20 points in their offensive drives.

I think it would add a bit more of fluidity to the aspect of college football, and it would prevent these massive blowouts from occurring way too frequently through the years.

In conclusion, the whole idea of "no mercy" makes sense when you're playing a strong rival; however, it isn't fair to some unranked teams that just want to make a good showing and are prevented from doing so. Enforcing some sort of rule to stop merciless beating in sports may be a good idea. When it comes to something such as baseball or hockey, it's difficult to do that because of their easier shifts in momentum. While baseball isn't timed in a sense, hockey is much more fast-paced and can definitely change on a dime within seconds. There is much more time to regain strength in sports such as those. Since there is designated possession periods in football, sometimes it can be too much and the other team may never seem to have a chance.

I'm a peace-loving fellow that happens to love sports. Let's make peace among teams that can easily be brutalized. Does that sound good to you?

--AZ

Red Whines: It's Not About the Bike Anymore

Funny enough, I think he wrote a book with almost the same exact title several years ago...

Over the course of several years, biking legend Lance Armstrong has fought through many hardships in life. Famously, he had overcome cancer and began his Livestrong movement to raise money for cancer research following his bout with the illness.  Following his cancer battle, he had competed in numerous events and won many international biking titles, including seven consecutive Tour de France titles. Some people could say he is the most influential athlete in the world...until the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency comes along.

You may be familiar with this Agency. These are the guys that administer a drug test whenever there's an international event just to make sure that you don't decide to take a banned substance during that time period. Numerous athletes and cyclists during the 2000's had allegedly (keep this word in mind) stated that Armstrong had doped on several occasions. Many of the blood and urine samples that Armstrong had apparently given to officials were stored and later tested for additional performance-enhancing drugs. Finally, Armstrong was charged with drug trafficking (what?) and doping during 2009 and 2010. Because there has been so much of a fight between the USADA and Lance Armstrong, suspensions were handed down, banning Armstrong from competition in cycling and triathlons.

Following the numerous throwing out of lawsuits filed by Armstrong over the past year, he had decided to end his fight against the USADA while maintaining innocence on Thursday.
Their response:
Lance Armstrong will been banned from cycling for life. Also, his seven Tour de France titles will be stripped from him.

Although the USADA would have to state their case to the International Cycling Union (UCI) on Friday, this sentence is the most unprecedented sentencing in cycling history. 

Commence worldwide uproar.

It's understandable that there are allegations behind Lance Armstrong and how he was in such great physical form when he was. For example, it's incredible how he managed to win a Tour de France title in 1999 when he was declared in remission just a year prior to that. Sure, he was one of the best cyclists in the country before his cancer diagnosis after the 1996 Atlanta Games, but I guess there are just some Negative Nancy's out there that believe that his comeback was practically superhuman.

The USADA's response to Armstrong's ending of his court battle was treacherous. In Lance's case, he didn't stop fighting because he knew he was guilty and didn't want to fight a losing battle; he stopped fighting because it was incredibly one-sided (from what I've read) and nobody is willing to accept his claims or the lawsuits that he had filed in the past year.

From ESPN.com:
"USADA reacted quickly and treated Armstrong's decision as an admission of guilt, hanging the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation's support for cancer research." 

My thoughts exactly. It's truly as if they had eliminated the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing and just added a "guilty until proven innocent, and you're not allowed to defend your case" because of the turmoil that he, his family, and everyone else around him was going through.

From the same article:
"Foundation chairman Jeffery C. Garvey issued a statement, saying, 'Faced with a biased process whose outcome seems predetermined, Lance chose to put his family and his foundation first. The leadership of the Lance Armstrong Foundation remain incredibly proud of our founder's achievements, both on and off the bike.'"

Of course, there are other people that state otherwise...

From CyclingNews.com: 
Kathy LeMond (wife of Greg LeMond, Tour winner 1986, 1989, 1990): "Finally."

Oh, and that's not cold of you to say. You were obviously there when he did something.

Apparently, the USADA had other evidence against Armstrong that would certainly bury him, but because of his decline to fight any longer, this evidence may not see the light of day until, of course, when the man dies or something like that. When you think about it, it's like the USADA was like, "OOH! OOH! Look at what we found," and they didn't want any outside rebuttal in fear that their evidence might be tarnished. However, if they do want to state their case with the UCI, some of this will have to be released.

There are probably people out there that would say that an innocent man would fight this case against the USADA to the grave. However, what Lance did might have been the right thing. In one case, arguing about false allegations would be interesting psychology in making an accused person seem more guilty. Bickering about something in such detail could actually cause more allegations to be made toward one's performance-enhancing measures. If he talks any more, things he would say could be greatly taken out of context and could still be used against him.

Secondly, this whole case could go over the course of several months to possibly a few years because not only would he be in the spotlight, but there could also be a chance that other cyclists and athletes could be thrown into the mix to either testify or be accused themselves. Because our court system likes to take forever with even the biggest of federal and international cases, he wouldn't want to put his family and friends through more painstaking turmoil.

Thirdly, he could possibly be accused for medical practices that were strictly used for cancer treatment over 15 years ago. Think about it: they're considering him guilty due to illegal doping by way of blood transfusion. The first thing that comes to mind is that even though he's in remission, some of the treatment he received is wrecking his body in the fitness aspect and he actually needs some of the treatment to remain healthy. I may not be a doctor, but why haven't the USADA talked to Armstrong's specialists?

From what I have seen, it seems like self-defense and any other form of fighting against a juggernaut of an agency takes away freedom. Lance fought the law, but I don't think the law will win the way they want to. This truly isn't about the bike anymore. It's about his family and his dignity.

--AZ

(Referenced articles from: 1, 2)

Athletes Can Write Too. Apparently.

I picked this topic up about a day ago. A lot of you might have heard that U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo has just recently released a book about her life, struggles, career, and some of the dirt she has had to put up with in the world of sports. Yesterday, it was announced that U.S. striker Alex Morgan just got a book deal, not to write a story about herself, but a three-book series directed to teenage girls about friendship, values, and soccer.

Gee, they all write now, don't they? That's not necessarily a bad thing.

________________________________________________

Excuse me while I step into my childhood for a minute.

Books are cool things. I often hated to read them, but when it became absolutely necessary to do so in high school, I had to start finding things I liked in order to peak my interest in reading. Three guesses and the first two don't count on what kinds of books I like to read. The answers are sports and the media, in case if you were stumped.

The first book of the sports-genre I read and liked. Supposedly there could be a movie about this in the near future.

It's a usual thing for big-name celebrities and athletes to write about their lives (sometimes with the help of another author). Heck, they might even write more than one book during their time. You expect a lot of retired people to do this, especially if it was public knowledge that there were problems (i.e. drugs, alcohol, abuse) during one's career. Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton and Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick are examples of some of the athletes going that route. Some may even write about the hardships they have overcome to get to where they wanted to be. Recently, retired pitcher Jim Abbott released a book called Imperfect: An Improbable Life talking about his disability--he was basically born with only one full hand--and how he beat the odds by making it to the majors and eventually throwing a no-hitter in 1993 against the Cleveland Indians. In my opinion, books like that will sell very easily. In a case such as Michael Vick's, the controversy surrounding him was huge. After the dog-fighting ring and his court case and his sentencing, he just pulled a 180 and came back to football. PETA still might not like him, but he's regrown his fan base and has gained respect from people due to his turnaround. In Jim Abbott's case, he's giving the chance for young people to take a look inside of them and see themselves as something special instead of something imperfect. [Side Note: I've found out that many schools around the country have his book on their summer reading list this year.] In reality, Abbott himself is a motivational speaker, and his book is a way to reach the other people that might not have heard him talk before.

You see, those uses of [auto]biographies are efficient and excellent tools of sending out a message to readers. There are other ones that are quite questionable and not so cool when it comes to sending a message. Most may have the values thrown in there, but there may also be a monkey wrench slathered in controversy thrown in there too.

There have been books released over the past ten years that included the athlete's problems and automatically pointed fingers and going "this is why I'm like this" or "I was never at fault." It's almost as if athletes are writing the books as the be-all-end-all "stop picking on me because you know the truth now" deal. I'm serious. It feels like it's the "ultimate response" to the media since the athlete's book leaves little room for interpretation. Here's looking at you again, Jose Canseco. Ooh! Here's another example:

O.J. Simpson's book...You HAD to see this one coming.

I'm not knocking the whole idea of athletes writing a book about their lives, but it should be done responsibly; it shouldn't be done to make a statement about something or to end your side of the argument with a "SO THERE!" of sorts. I'm not the biggest fan of athletes that know they'll make money out of dirt they've experienced because people will want to read the truth about controversies that they've experienced. It's a dirty marketing tactic that works because the media will pick it up and will lead to more money on that athlete's end. That's almost like saying I'm going to write a book on how I allegedly saw some hockey players pushing pills at a bar one night and expect to get exposure out of it. [Note: This was an example. This never happened.] These guys who release dirt like this give the other athletes a bad name that with good intentions of releasing a good autobiography.

Are you guys fans of these books? Do you even read at all? I'm curious.
Comment and continue the talk. I've said my piece..what are your thoughts?

--AZ