Your tax dollars at work

Let's be like Fergie Jenkins and use made-up numbers to figure out how big of a waste this will be, shall we?

Ok, so let's assume that any congressional activity, simply by virtue of being a congressional activity, is roughly twice as time-consuming and costly as necessary. Then, because it's a matter interesting to the public (not be confused with "in the interests of the public, by the way), let's multiply the inefficiency by a factor of 1.5. The opportunity to moralize and grandstand in press clippings is good for a factor of 2.5. Lastly, it involves a famous person, so we have to double it again. Do the math, and we're looking at a marginal public good at a cost overrun with a factor of 30 (in contrast to my blogging, which only has a factor of infinity).

"The Oversight and Government Reform Committee always takes seriously suggestions that a witness misled the committee while testifying under oath," Rep. Edolphus Towns, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a statement. "Investigators will begin a review of this matter and, upon learning the results, I will determine appropriate next steps."

Oh, goodie! I hope those include a drawn-out, over-reported perjury trial. Either way, I find the chairmanship of Edolphus Towns remarkably appropriate in this case since Edolphus Towns does indeed sound like the name of a colonial-era Puritan judge presiding over witch hunts.

Meanwhile, the unsung heroes of academia continue to address the real issues.

Read more...

Reaction in the blogosphere to reaction to reaction in the blogosphere... about Sammy Sosa

People react. My reaction.

Bleed Cubbie Blue: We now know, presuming the report on Sosa is true, that the joy [of the 1998 home run race] was indeed stolen from us. The numbers put up were put up by cartoon figures, not baseball players as we had known them for decades earlier. I know, I know, amphetamines in the 50s and 60s, other PEDs, other ways of cheating, ad nauseum . . . we were sold a bill of goods. They all swore up and down that they were honest -- "Flintstone vitamins," Sammy told us with a straight face. Now we know that face was lying to us, presuming the report is true.

Speak for yourself, homie. I still feel perfectly joyful about the homerun race because--sorry to burst your bubble--pretty much every pro athlete you watch is, on some level, cartoonish. And here's another eye opener--you probably haven't lived a single day on this planet in which someone, somewhere hasn't lied to your face about something. People lie. I lie. You lie. We all scream for lie lie. Get over it. Whenever I read / hear stuff like this, I wonder--How much of the 'roid (out)rage has to do with fairness to the other players, the record books, etcetera, and how much has to do with the critic's own feelings of lost connection? "Sammy, I thought we were best buds! I thought we shared all our secrets! But you lied to me! I don't know if I'll ever be able to love again *tear*."

Bugs & Cranks: It's expected because Sosa's career progression and statistics smack of performance enhancing drugs; there's such a dramatic spike in his power later in his career it almost moronic no one though to question Sosa at the time. Sosa's halfhearted denials and severe drop in performance after baseball began drug testing only amplified the expectation that his superstar turn was aided by the juice.

Hmm, that's an amusing take on things. You'd be right if you consider age 29 to be "later in his career." Then again, you'd also be a fool. One need only click through a few of Slammity Sam's highest comps on BR (Killebrew, Stargell, McCovey) to notice that peaking during the 29 to 32 range (or later) is perfectly normal. Maybe the leap was more dramatic, but again, unless you're Fergie Jenkins, you have no idea how much of this improvement may or may not have been due to PED use. Attribution to a smoking gun, e.g. steroids, is super easy when you have post facto knowledge that, yes, this factor was in play. And we should all have such selective memory. People did question his production at the time, especially following the McGwire andro controversy (See: Flinstone vitamins).

And lastly, the only useful sentiment on this topic:

Deadspin: The real outrage here, as it was with A-Rod, is not who's on the list but who's doing the leaking, a story that for obvious reasons The New York Times will not be writing. You'll remember that those tests results were supposed to be confidential--a perfectly reasonable expectation of any employee who submits to a drug test--yet now they're trickling into public view, merely because somebody wants to remind you to care deeply about steroids in baseball again.

Whoever's leaking these names is a manipulative coward, as are the people who were involved in deceiving the player's union. Rot in hell, a-holes.

Read more...

Fergie Jenkins should be one of Obama's economic advisers

"I don't think they [proven users of performance enhancing drugs] belong in the Hall of Fame," Jenkins said. "The drugs probably enhanced their performances about 20-30 percent. Sammy was in his 30s when he was apparently using and it gave him an edge in homers and RBIs."

Rule #1: Any numerical estimate is valid when the baseline is pulled from your ass.
Rule #2: When no one has the right answer, there's no such thing as a wrong one.
Rule #3: As long as you're popular, people will believe you.

Read more...

At the what?

Ripken, who the report said has known Rodriguez for 16 years, said in a speech at the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County's Men's Night Out that he thought the problem of steroids in baseball was improving, and "the willingness to suspend Manny Ramirez" is proof.

More proof that retired ballplayers will speak anywhere, to anyone, about anything, as long as they get paid.

Read more...

The daunting task of raising a child in these warped times

I'm glad to see that some parents get it.

The Gullos can still share some fun moments when Joe plays his video game, but they had stopped going to Seattle Mariners games before moving from Seattle to Oregon last August. Gullo says that as much as it pains him, he is pulling away from baseball.

"Frankly, I am reluctant as a parent to really push baseball as a passion right now," he says, "because I don't know what's going to come out next, or how this is all going to shake out, or who else is going to be named."

Parents everywhere should learn from--and applaud--what Mr. Gullo is doing for his son. Unfortunately, the parents of our generation never knew about the steroid use taking place around the majors when we were tykes oiling up our new Jose Canseco-signed baseball glove. I don't blame them for their ignorance, but I hope to learn from it.

We may be hopelessly entrapped for life by our interest in baseball and the moral dilemma it presents to us, but our own children need not be. I, myself, am not a father yet, but should I become one someday, I hope to shelter little Vinnie Rasheed from the ills of the sport I cherish. Sure, I'll let him stay in the room with me while I take in a Cubs or Sox game on a weekend afternoon, but never without tethering his forehead to a Kindle filled with nature books and 1950s children's adventure novels first.

I am, myself, the product of this type of attentive parenting, and I thank God every day that I am.

Though my own parents were victimized by the duplicitous ways of 1980s and '90s baseball stars, I have to give them credit for having the wisdom and discipline to shelter me from the evils of their generation. You see, my mother adored the Rolling Stones as a youth, but she realized early in my life that her love of the band and her denunciation of their insidious messages of promiscuity and drug abuse might engender a sense of moral ambiguity in my frail young mind.

Of course, mom couldn't just stop loving the band, so she continued to listen to their records while she raised me, but she was careful. Mom would always tweak the speaker balance just enough that the lyrics were unintelligible. And just to be safe, she changed the name on the LP covers to things like "Johnny and the Tumbleweeds" and "Mr. Joe's Dolphin Show." If my ears made out a bad word that I didn't recognize, mom always did the right thing and lied about it.

Thanks to mom's diligent parenting, I refuse, to this day, to listen to music by anyone accused of taking illicit drugs, having sex out of wedlock, or speaking to Jews. I have also never seen a naked female body, hash pipe, Quentin Tarantino movie, or homeless person. And most importantly, I have little to nothing in common with my mom or with my peers, all of whom are depraved idol-worshipers.

I know it can't be easy for parents like Mr. Gullo trying to protect their children from the shame game they were raised on, but I applaud him for doing his best. I hope I can do the same someday. Unfortunately, the attachment is strong, and the allure is always there.

It's as Johnny and the Tumbleweeds said, "Love--it's a pitch."

Read more...

So A-Rod Took Steroids....Who Cares!

Let's be honest with ourselves. When Sports Illustrated "broke" the Alex Rodriguez story over the weekend, were you surprised by the findings? Were you shocked that the guy who has been anointed as the heir to Barry Bonds "dirty" Home Run King title was caught juicing? Were you bewildered, as I was, when some jackass reporter asked President Obama his opinion about this fracas when Obama was "attempting" (and I use this word very loosely) to explain his economic stimulus plan?

Baseball is argued to be a sport about professionalism, dignity, and honor. So when baseball's most talented player tests positive for Performance Enhancing Drugs, many expect the story to send shock-waves across the planes of the sports world. And boy has it. Turn on the television and you will undoubtedly find this breaking news steroid "scandal" from ESPN all the way to the Food Network. But I am asking, what is the big deal. So, Alex Rodriguez took PED's. Why is everyone so shocked and appalled? I am asking all of you to come off your high and mighty throne and listen to some common sense for once.

Why do performance enhancing drugs have this stigma? Saintly critics commonly state that it corrupts the sanctity of a sport that is above all others (theoretically). When a star football tests positive, it is expected. But when a star baseball player does similarly, we need to string him up by his toes and hurl tomatoes. People, it's either one way or no way! PED's like Human Growth Hormone and EPO have long been used to maximize and elongate the quality of life of cancer patients , arthritic joints, and general surgical procedures. It is a new way of life. But by placing these unfounded stigmas upon drugs in general, we are basically hindering and slowing a scientific movement.

Why do individuals believe that professional sports will not be the same if performance enhancing drugs were legalized? In fact, I would argue it would be better than ever. If steroids were legal, it would legitimately level the playing field (which is the primary argument of denouncer's), it would increase the available research and then in turn would keep all players healthier not just for their playing careers, but into retirement. This would be especially important for football players who need to walk with a cane in their early forties.  I don't want to get into the economic benefit legalization would provide, less medicare costs, etc, but if legalization actually occurred, it would be a profound scientific movement for all walks of life. 

So Alex Rodriguez took steroids. Big Deal! Some people want to say that he cheated the sport and it's fans, but I say he was just ahead of the curve. Performance enhancing drugs will be legalized in sports at some point partly because testing in itself will always be two steps behind. Drug testing will never be able to catch up with the numerous drug cocktails that are constructed monthly. For those that want to preserve "legendary" records (which is humorous on another level), then level the playing field and allow everyone to use if they choose. Is there any difference between a "clean" pitcher and hitter squaring off and a "dirty" pitcher and hitter doing the same? Absolutely not! It is a new age people. This isn't the roaring twenties despite what some believe. It is time to roll with the tide and get aboard, or you might be looking at becoming an old, crotchety man who yearns for the good ole' times....just like the select few who believe football should still be played with leather helmets. 

Read more...

Blatant violation of copyright law (I believe)

In the wake of A-Rod's public stoning, Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus--and not the dude I went to high school with (a clarification / running joke specificially directed to Paul)--wrote a fantastic commentary today called "Stupid Media Tricks."

Because I believe the article is only available to subscribers--which, if you aren't already, you really should pay the $4/month to subscribe since it's well worth it--I wanted to copy and paste a few snippets because the article has some fantastic observations.

For instance, there's this great bit of sarcasm:

This is a big story, in the sense that it involves a famous person, a bad act, and America's true favorite pastime of tearing down people of achievement. It allows the media to rend their garments over baseball's lack of purity on the issue of PEDs, substances which only began to affect the sport in the mid-1990s, which made a mockery of the record book all by themselves, and the rampant use of which makes baseball unique in American sports.

[...]

Some people continue to be surprised that highly competitive young men fighting for fame, honor, and a cut of $6 billion would do everything they could to beat the guy next to them, which is a pretty good way to make the Olympic team in Naive.

On the baseball media:

Take your pick: they missed the story, or they were too chicken-shit to report it. In either case, the piling-on now is disgusting. [...] I propose that for as long as a clearly qualified Hall of Famer remains on the ballot solely because of steroid allegations—or for that matter, proven use—there should be no J.G. Taylor Spink Award given out to writers. If we're going to allow failures during the "Steroid Era" to affect eligibility for honors, let's make sure we catch everyone who acted shamefully.

On the testing process:

The players agreed to be tested in 2003 on the condition that the testing be anonymous and no individual results would be tabulated. [...] For reasons that the MLBPA and the testers have yet to explain, the samples were labeled in a manner that allowed the results to be traced to individuals.

In summary:

In 2002, the players agreed to anonymous testing in an effort to eradicate a problem, part of a process that created the first CBA arrived at without a work stoppage in decades. This should have been an absolute good. Instead, because of a failure of the MLBPA to tend to details, an out-of-control investigation and prosecution led by an IRS agent, and the government's inability to protect the sanctity of information, 104 players will have their promised anonymity taken away with nothing given in return.
[...]

Even cheaters have rights to see their agreements honored, and these 104 men have been violated by their representatives and their government, complicit with a media that repeatedly asks the easy questions and takes on the soft targets while avoiding the real work of uncovering not just names, but truth. The story is bigger than Alex Rodriguez. It's more interesting than Alex Rodriguez. It has more depth and more nuance than the failure of one man to play by the rules.

Tell that story, in a measured voice that embraces complexity, and I'll listen. Until then, it's all just screaming.

If you can read the entire thing, please do. It's ex-cell-ent.

Read more...

It's official: All MLB players from 1998-2007 banned from HOF

Well, that's it. A-Rod did steroids, and baseball is seriously f***ed. Should we institute a blanket banning of all the potential steroid users?

Honestly, I was a little surprised at first that A-Rod is guilty of steroid use. I always defended A-Rod as an upstanding guy and a baseball purist. Yet obviously, he's a competitor that made the same mistake as his peers, and he unfortunately and predictably bought into the pressure to perform at a beyond-human level. If A-Rod is guilty, I would not be surprised to find out that every single star of the Steroid Era had used steroids.

So what happens next? I think the baseball community really needs to use this moment to evaluate how it views the Steroid Era. Sure, we all know about the Barry Bonds saga, but that guy potentially perjured himself. He doesn't deserve to be inducted if he's guilty of a serious crime. However, I'd hate to see the same jerk-offs who are keeping Big Mac out of the HOF -- without credible evidence, mind you -- continually block A-Rod when he's ultimately eligible.

Which brings up another point...

Did A-Rod keep his name clean by admiting he did steroids? Sure, he kinda had to admit it after his name came out. Yet unlike some of the other steroid stars, he never lied about it. If we find out that McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens were all in fact proven users, then clearly they lied and don't deserve the honor of induction to the Hall. A-Rod's case is a little different, and I don't know how the baseball community will handle it come his HOF eligibility. My guess is that A-Rod put himself on the right side of a blurry gray line that separates the tarnished from the untarnished.

I still love A-Rod, even though he used the term "loosey-goosey" in his interview with Peter Gammons. I refuse to crucify him -- or any MLB star -- for taking steroids. He's still a HOFer and one of the best infielders of all time.

Read more...

Erin Brockovich II: Revenge of the Lifer

Rick Reilly has a notion:

I think minor league players like [Mitch] Jones should file a class action, restraint of trade lawsuit against Major League Baseball because they sat stewing in the minors while big leaguers were allowed to cheat.

On top of the small problem that this suggestion is completely insane, I have to quickly take exception with the two players he highlights in the column to make his point.

Mitch Jones, as Reilly points out, hit 39 HR in AA in 2004. Of course, that was a career year, and even then, his .880 OPS isn't eye-popping for a guy who plays 1B and corner outfield in a Yankees organization that employs an All-Star team.

Shawn Garrett did have a fine 2004 season playing in both AA and AAA, where he put up that .371 average Reilly cites (mind you, that was in 116 ABs in the notoriously cozy-ballparked Pacific Coast League). Other than that season, he never had an OPS over .805 higher than A ball, and again--that's not so spectacular when you play 1B and corner outfield.

That is to say, nothing on paper suggests that either of these guys would have scored huge MLB paydays. Maybe they did deserve more of a shot, but that's a far, far cry from saying they can claim other guys' juicing as the primary reason for their lack of opportunity.

Then Reilly goes here:

Stanford labor law professor emeritus William Gould IV says the idea "is very interesting" but that they'd need to prove three things to win:

1) A correlation between steroid use and better performance. (Please.)

What's hilarious is--as many of you may well know--the first web page that comes up on a Google search for "steroids+baseball" is this site that makes a pretty convincing case that the effect of steroids on performance is vastly overblown, if not illusory.

2) That baseball turned a blind eye to steroid use... [a bunch of stuff from the Mitchell Report]

Pretty fair claim.

3) "Nonstatutory labor exemption considerations," Gould IV says. That's just so complicated it makes our head ache, but a good shark would gobble it right up.

Mike, I'll let you handle that, but... I'm thinking that it's at least not something Reilly should gloss over. I don't know or care to know much about such things, but I do know that pro sports leagues have a lot of funky rules and structures that make them way different in terms of labor laws than pretty much any other industry.

If I felt like being obnoxious, I could make this post longer and slip in a bunch of stupid jokes, but I promised myself 20 minutes max on this one. I'm currently at 23. If I were one of those guys that defuses bombs instead of a blogger, I'd be dead.

Read more...

Clemens Testimony Transcript

Clemens: Did Not!

McNamee: Did to!

Clemens: Did Not!

McNamee: Did to!

Clemens: Did Not!

McNamee: Did to!

Clemens: Did not did not!

McNamee: Did to did to!

Clemens: Did not did not times a hundred!

McNamee: Did to times a million!

Clemens: Did not times infiniti!

McNamee: Did to times double infiniti!

Clemens: There's no such thing as double infiniti!

McNamee: Moooooooom!!! Roger says there's no such thing as double infiniti!

Random Member of Congress: Aren't we fighting a war somewhere?

Read more...

SI Tells Numerous Players, "You cheated, and you're barely important enough to mention."

I'm perplexed by this graphic that currently resides on the front page of SI.com. Click it for a larger version.

Why are some names highlighted and some not? Is it just to show active players? If so, that doesn't work out because Rick Ankiel, Paul Lo Duca, and Derrick Turnbow among others are all active to some extent.

Is it just for memorable players? Can't be that either. Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco are unhighlighted and they were pretty good in their day. Several other All-Stars have their names unlit.

The only thing I can think of is that at some point, all the highlighted players either played for the Red Sox or Yankees (other than Bonds and Tejada). To the rest of you, congratulations, you've been labeled as "cheaters," and SI.com has seen fit to out you on their front page, but you're not important enough to be pointed out specifically.

Read more...

Proof that Nobody Should be Worried About Athletes Using PEDs

Why? Because steroids and HGH obviously don't work.

"Former No. 1 NFL draft pick Tim Couch had doping regimens that called for anabolic steroids and human growth hormone, according to documents obtained by Yahoo.com."

Read more...

Raw (Zone) is Still War (Zone)

Tonight, I watched my first WWE Raw Zone in years -- in fact, the last time I watched it, it was still WWF Raw. Here are some various musings based on tonight's show:

1.) The RKO is a Stone Cold Stunner without the kick in the gut:






2.) Jeff Hardy still kicks ass. Usually high-flying wrestlers break something or wear out all their cartilage after one or two years in the WWE. Not Jeff Hardy. The dude still put in the most acrobatic performance of the night. And he knocked the shit out of some big Samoan guy's ass with a "steel" chair.

3.) In a "sport" with virtually no enforced rules, it still bothers me that a guy can lose a match for being out of the ring for more than 10 seconds. I mean, a third-party wrestler (who's not even involved in the match) can come into a match, knock a guy out with a chair, and the match proceeds as if it was all legal. Yet, if I guy gets knocked out outside of the ring and doesn't get back in time, he loses. Bogus.

4.) Jerry Lawler is probably on steroids too. Have you seen him lately? Even the announcers are taking steroids. Why aren't people calling out Vince McMahon instead of Bud Selig? How many wrestlers are going to die young before somebody puts the squeeze on this guy and his business? Why not call these guys up to Capitol Hill?

5.) King Booker is the second worst black character wrestler of all time. I was going to say that the Godfather was the worst. Then I considered Papa Shango. Then, a Wikipedia search revealed that both characters were the same guy, Charles Wright. They all suck. The WWE turns these guys into clowns. I mean, it might sound a little racist, but why not make a black wrestler totally hip-hop? If the WWE can create white trash characters (like the guys pictured to the left, the current tag team champs), why can't they come up with a couple of hardcore gangstas?

6.) I have no idea why anyone would watch this garbage. "There is not a single good character in pro wrestling these days. " I admit, this notion probably fits into Vinnie's argument that every year people say, "The cast of SNL is one of the worst ever". Then, ten years down the road, people get all nostalgic for the Jim Breuers and the Horatio Sanzes that they loved so much. But seriously, there's probably not going to be another Rocky Maivia.

7.) Candice is from Milwaukee?! Man, finding a chick like that in Milwaukee happens like once every decade!

Read more...

Make Believe: A-Rod passes Bonds in 2015

As both Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez are each four HR from career milestones, I've been thinking a little bit about the potential for A-Rod to hold the all-time HR record a scant decade from now. Thus, I spent a little time today on Baseball Reference and in my own imagination envisioning how it might happen. And frankly, if God loves baseball, it will.

Let's start with the current situation: A-Rod has 496 career HRs and 1437 RBIs. He's 31 years old. He can do it. Here's how:

Scenario #1: A-Rod keeps up his current pace for another 8 years. If so, he'll be sitting on 800 HRs and 2400 RBIs, both the best of all time. Maybe he can; maybe he can't. Jimmy Foxx is the second youngest player to reach 500 HRs, but he finished with only 534 career HRs as he slid off very quickly (possibly due to a drinking problem according to some 'expert' on Wikipedia). In the early 90's, you probably could have envisioned Frank Thomas breaking Aaron's mark... and then all the injuries came (or whatever caused him to fall off). But there are plenty of greats and not-so-greats that kept up their hitting stats through their 30's: Hammerin' Hank himself, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Tony Gwynn and the likes of Craig Biggio, Harold Baines, Brian Downing, Edgar Martinez, Paul Molitor, Andres Galarraga, Reggie Jackson. Sure, not each of these guys was hitting 42 HRs and 120 RBIs per year, but they still show that ballplayers can still swing the stick by the time they hit 40 years of age.

Scenario #2: A-Rod matches Barry's totals, 1997-2007 (age 31-current), over the next ten years of his career. If so, A-Rod will be even farther ahead: 823 HRs (though less RBIs, only 2226). And that's after I've erased Bonds' 73 HRs for 2001, a year in which the 'cream' may or may not have accounted for all 73 HRs so we'll erase them all just to be sure.

Scenario #3: Nobody pays A-Rod the $80 million/year he'll want for the rest of his career, and he retires at age 33. Sha, right.

Sure, Barry Bonds may not retire for another two years, but even the most well oiled and marginally productive machines eventually are considered 'not worth it' by their clubs. And all careers must come to end (except Ricky Henderson's). Still, I can't see Barry Bonds hitting many more than 800 HRs in his career.

The future's never certain, but I for one will be ignoring Barry Bonds this month and will keep my eyes on A-Rod's "Chasing Barry" saga.

Read more...

A letter to Mr. Bonds.

Dear Barry,

I am writing to you on behalf of baseball fans everywhere. I know that it is awfully pretentious of me to assume the voice of some billion people worldwide, but someone needs to clear something up. Tuesday night I saw you play at Miller Park where you were, of course, booed by 30,000+ people that were there in hopes of seeing you hit a home run, so they could watch in awe...and then boo you some more. I half-heartedly joined in the boo parade (although I much more adamantly booed Craig Counsell's spot in the starting lineup). Since I kinda booed you, I thought I should explain myself, and in the process explain everyone else.

See, it's really not about you, personally. People aren't booing Barry Bonds; they're booing steroids. I'm betting that if you asked baseball fans straight up, "Are you really booing Bonds personally, or are you booing the steroids era?" you could get a lot of them to admit that it's the steroids themselves that piss them off, not an individual user of those drugs. And no, you're not singled out because it's so obvious you used steroids or because you're an asshole (if those were the only qualifications, we'd be all over Roger Clemens); you're singled out because you're going to break the most precious record in sports with the help of artificial performance enhancers. Steroids are interchangeable with the broad concept of cheating, which we like to pretend that we care about. Of course, any time we do anything competitive ourselves, we're more than likely to cheat. Who hasn't snuck a couple $500 bills from the Monopoly bank when our little brother wasn't paying attention? So yeah, we're hypocrites when we complain about cheaters, but we aren't about to etch our names into the MLB record books. You are. So the closer you get to that magical number, the harder we boo.

Now here's the tricky part. We don't really even care about the home run record. At least, we shouldn't. If any city has a right to be truly pissed at you for breaking the record, it's Milwaukee, where Hank Aaron is probably the biggest sports name in our city's history. But when you hit 755 and 756 sometime in July, will Aaron's name be at all tarnished? Have you lessened Babe Ruth's greatness by passing him up? Of course not. The game today is not the game it was then; the pitching mound is lower, the training is better, the body armor is fucking ridiculous, to name a few changes...so to compare any numbers, you need to add an asterisk.

So here's why we're really pissed off about the whole steroids thing. Because you, and the rest of baseball, tricked us. Now, I'm speaking for the general population here, and not for die-hard baseball fans, but after the 94 strike, we were fed up with baseball. The egos and the money and the bullshit was too much for many of us to handle, and we left baseball. Then in 1998 Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire had their unforgettable race to 61 and we were won back. The commercials were only half telling the truth when they said that chicks dig the long ball, because chicks, men, children and beast all want to see home runs, and all of a sudden everyone was hitting them. So we came back, and baseball regained its rightful spot as America's Pastime.

Then the steroid reports broke open and all the home runs that we had been drooling over were suddenly illegitimate, at least partially. Now we're faced with one mindfuck of a dilemma. We still love the home runs, and Sosa/McGwire or not, we've been reminded that we really do love baseball...but we hate that we were tricked into coming back. We feel duped, and we are really pissed off at steroids for duping us.

We're not about to stop watching baseball, and we sure as hell are not about to stop cheering home runs. So our only alternative is to insist that Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron are still the home run champs. Then we find a few scapegoats and boo them and yell the cleverest of chants like "Steeeeeeer-oids, Steeeeeeer-oids." And I'm afraid you're going to have to take the heaviest dose because of the whole 755 business. But just remember that we're not booing you. We're booing our own contradictory nature.

Read more...

Bud Selig does not work for ESPN

It's official. Every time Barry Bonds hits a home run, it automatically wins the #1 spot on ESPN's Top Ten Plays.

"No doubt about it...Of course it's going to be number one. And when he hits number 736, it will be number one too."

Great.

Read more...

There's No Santa Claus

And in other earth shattering news, pro wrestlers use steroids.

Read more...