Poor Chuck... like Nelly said, if the head right he come back every night!!!
At least he was honest and polite with the cop, and didn't pull a Mel Gibson.
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/01/01/charles-barkley-dui-update-oral-sex-and-its-got-to-be-your-bu/
--------
I still remember getting the Contra Costa Times' "Golden Pen Award" for my letter to the editor bashing the mainstream media for cutting away from the 1996 Olympics' opening ceremonies to interview Chuck about the Dream Team's prospects... God Bless Charles Barkley - without him, I would not only be short a Golden Pen but would be, at any given moment, hard up for a joke about spitting, gambling, head, a DUI and an ass tattoo. Anyone care to comment on which is the biggest contributor to the perceived value of sports in our society - the NBA, the NFL, or the MLB?
Also, isn't Sir Charles married with a daughter - WTF? Chuck's "honest" reasons for his behavior got me thinking... although society's collective consciousness probably associates Democrats with marital infidelity (think Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards) the Republicans have a storied (and arguably more diverse) record of bad behavior when it comes to relationships (which, I should note, extends beyond soliciting sex in public bathrooms and texting congressional pages):
http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/B001O9BXXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234040877&sr=1-1
Here's another thing to consider: Is it conceivable that what we associate with improper conduct has more to do with media coverage and recency of transgression than it does with actual behavior (let alone intentions)? Is getting "caught" really the gold standard for measuring who is a fuck-up and who is not? Should it be? If traditional media companies become even more desperate for profits and new media companies become even more aggressive about capturing short attention spans then we're all doomed: there will be no private life in America and there will no such thing as "behind closed doors"; our frog of a society will become a caricature of itself before anyone even notices the water is boiling (God forbid it already is). Is anyone else pissed off that economic recovery and healthcare reform have more to do with who is a tax cheat and less to do with who is best suited to solve our problems? HECKUVA JOB BROWNIE!!!
PS: For the record: Sir Charles used to be (or consider himself, if you like) a "conservative" but recently (2006) changed his mind as demonstrated by his objective (i.e. not racially-motivated) support of Barack Obama in the last election. He has stated that he intends to run for governor of Alabama as an Independent in 2014 (once he establishes residency) though I do wonder whether his antics (gambling, DUI) would be more closely associated with Republicans, Democrats, or just overlooked...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Barkley
--------
Haha, seriously I don't care if A-Fraud makes a deal with the Devil, just as long as he kicks Bonds off all the record books!
So does Marc Ecko still have the Bonds record HR ball? In his online poll, they voted to give it to Cooperstown with an asterisk on it. I'd love to see that in the Hall!
Baseball's just a joke anyway.
For Chuck, I just think he looks silly because he is always dissing the younger players like AI and Bron for doing their childish stuff, and now he's a middle-aged father acting like an idiot. But seriously, that chick must have had some mad skills to make him do all this. Maybe she was even better than Spitzer's escort!
-------
Well, at least Pay-Rod was a man about it and didn't deny the roids allegations. Though he kept his secret for 4+ years. What I find worse is how he could want to bang old-ass Madonna!!!
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-rodriguez-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns
The roids situation is funny. I know the sports reporters say that guys like Clemens, Bonds, and Rod think they're the best (well, they are) and try to get every edge possible to stay the best. They can't accept not being dominant. But those guys would be awesome players with or without juice. The stuff just keeps them in the game longer, and able to lift more weights per week. But that affects stats/records more than W-L for their teams. A 40-year-old Bonds isn't going to help any team get to the promised land. He just sells tickets and makes the SC Top Plays from time to time. So if you can't stop them from cheating, or can't make them admit it, just take away their stats (or downgrade them with a *). Then they have nothing to cheat for. If they want to abandon their families well into middle age, to hang around 2 or 3 more seasons to get 20 HR or 12 wins a year, just to set records, that is just gay.
So we know Bonds and Rod are a pitcher's nightmare regardless of what they're taking. It's not like roids are making them great. And frankly, I doubt there are many players in the pros who are such marginal talents that roids is the only thing keeping them in the big league. Maybe I'm wrong, what do you think? Sucky players will still suck with roids. Roids helps moderate or great players play a little better, but won't really help them win championships or perform in clutch moments. Again, maybe I'm wrong but I hope not.
--------
The way I figure is that roids takes the physicality out of the equation. You can be extremely talented and coordinated but not have the genetic composition of usain bolt. Roids takes care of that pretty nicely.
I think I remember the glarg monster mentioning a while back that the people who have the most to gain from roids is not a hitter/fielder but a pitcher. Throw more innings, recover faster and throw more games a week, longer effective career. I think that pitchers are the least likely to be able to play into old age in general right?
---------
Yeah good points. I mean roids helps no doubt, but I am not sure how much of a boost it gives you, say vs. a really good trainer or sports diet. Well it surely is a psychological boost, esp. for wife beating!
As you said, maybe fastball pitchers have the most to gain. Roids might build and help muscle heal, but it doesn't really affect connective tissue because that stuff has few cells and doesn't repair well. So if a guy like Rocket bulks up and can keep throwing 90 into his 40s, I wonder if his joints take such a beating that they're not supposed to, he'll actually wear out sooner? Obviously it wasn't the case with Rocket, but I guess the analogy is like putting nitrous in a Yaris. Though I guess their expert trainers give them all sorts of supplements and exercises to protect their joints too?
-------
I think there's a big problem with getting into the personal lives of athletes to determine who is "cheating" and who is not... Think about it - what is the MLB/NFL/NBA going to do once gene therapies and DNA modification are no longer the province of science fiction? Are you going to have two leagues, one for the "John the Savage" types (a la Brave New World) and another for the modified players? Where will the line be drawn? By whom? Testing for steroids (and even other drugs) is (in my humble opinion) an invasion of privacy and deeply flawed; if a player has a moral objection do they have any recourse other than peeing in the cup? Each of the respective professional leagues is a market monopoly with absolutely no check on its power and thus in a position to dictate behavior regardless of whether the mandates themselves are well-reasoned or even fair.
Also, why does it matter whether A-Rod (or anyone else) uses steroids (or anything else)? A person's body is his/her own business and (in our society, anyway) the measure of what you're free to do is whether your actions cause harm to others or not. While there may be some indirect harm to family, fans, etc. as a result of getting caught making the case that harm is caused by their actions alone is inordinately more difficult. It's worth keeping in mind that, if the leagues didn't have substance abuse policies, there would be nothing to get "caught" about - and of all the discussion I've ever heard about why drugs should be illegal I've yet to hear a single one which reasons steroids are a societal harm due to their second order effects (i.e. what their manufacture, trade, and use ultimately do to a population). Hell, in theory steroids could be made safe and beneficial to society if there was a will to make them so. I realize most people would argue that steroids are banned because they make competition "unfair", but hey - so is having 4x the budget of a competitor!!! I mean, come on - it's professional sports - it's naive to assume that it's fair at any level (and perhaps even more naive to think of it as anything more than a business).
Also, with respect to the point about performance, I think you're right - roids are not going to make you great. The saying "talent is common - discipline is rare" definitely applies to sports as weekend courts are filled with folks who probably could have made it had the stars aligned in their favor. I'd even go so far as to say that the real dividing line between good and great players has everything to do with focus, awareness, and mental fitness as it does physical prowess... and roids probably aren't gonna help you with that.
In short, I don't think it's funny - I think it's tragic that anyone who is larger than life (like A-Rod, Bonds, etc.) would feel the need to have to use steroids; I also think that it's even more tragic that we (the public) would tolerate witch-hunts and media circuses of the highest order which center upon absurd black and white divisions of right & wrong. Your $50 ticket to a game entitles you to watch, not to play King Of All Sports. I mean, WTF - Congress - get back to work!
PS: Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!?!
PSS: Madonna is still hot.
--------
Well I get what you're saying, but some basic rules have to be enforced. Employers have the right to drug test for illicit substances in your pee, because maybe drug users aren't the most reliable workers they want around. Plus you can get around drug tests, as many pro athletes have (or tried too... Wizzinator!). Call it an invasion of privacy, call it good business. And let's remember that "privacy" is not a god-given right like liberty. It is not written anywhere in our Constitution (at least before 1900). It is an interpreted right by the Supreme Court. Anyway, privacy is a sham if you consider what companies and the government already know about us, especially in the wired age (voting, shopping habits, TV ratings, credit scores... they can basically predict our behavior already). I would prefer to err on the side of privacy than not (warrantless wiretaps, etc.), but we can't be so naive to think that actions such as using illegal drugs are totally of the private domain and don't affect others.
Roids might seem innocuous, but they do cause behavioral and hormonal problems that can result in violence or illness for the user, which costs the user, the employer, and society (not to mention the moral message we are sending to condone chemical assistance to overcome physical limitations). I agree that it's impossible to have a law you can't enforce, so with corrupt MLB maybe it's easier to just open the floodgates on roids and scrap the record books. Maybe you can argue that tobacco is worse, yet still legal. And of course some roids are legal, or legal with a prescription. Contraband roids (like back-alley abortions) are also not regulated and inspected for safety. My company makes therapeutic HGH, and in 2006 one plant worker was skimming some of the rejected material and selling it to his relative who worked at a gym. They made tens of thousands, but he was eventually caught of course. If that stuff was contaminated or at the wrong dosage, it could have really messed up an ignorant user. Well, maybe that fits into your argument to legalize the stuff and make things more transparent!
I wouldn't say that pro sports organizations have absolute power. They have a ton of power, but there are also the players' unions, of which MLB's is the strongest. They have fought testing from the get-go, and only now agreed to minimal testing. A-Rod's positive test was supposed to be "confidential" to the public, as MLB was just "testing its testing" at the time. To me, I have no problem with WWE using roids, or other jobs where supernatural looks and strength might be needed as part of entertainment (not competition). As you said, the fairness argument might be a joke when NYY's payroll is over 3X OAK's, but at least we have to have some sort of preponderance of fair play, otherwise what's the point of sport? The public has to have some sort of trust in the integrity of the competition, or they won't spend their money (not to mention all the sports betting!). It does set an impossibly high bar for impressionable, obsessive youth to measure up to, if they aspire to be physically great in their careers (check out "The man whose arms exploded": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj3De6s3ZjQ). US soldiers are even using roids, meth, and other drugs in battle, to be stronger and more alert. If it keeps them alive I'm all for it, but if it affects their judgment, it might do more harm than good. If there was a roid that made women's boobs bigger and their butts rounder, I'd support that too.
Oh yeah, and as my coworker said about the recent CA Prop. to give more money to children's hospitals.... F DA CHILDREN!!
Oh, forgot to mention C - you are right, of course the media are going bonkers over nothing. That is what they do. It is sad as you said, but I wouldn't say tragic. No one is dying at least. I don't feel bad for A-Rod or others; after all, they're still rich.
--------
Dude it's not just about the records, it's about the lifestyle. About being "the guy," a pro baller. No one wants to give that up.
Take the example closer to home. Just imagine if the media, your friends, your family, all started telling you it was time to hang up your spurs. No more ragging on pro sports, no more hatorade, no more puns out of pro's names. Would you just pack it in?
Hell no! Bring on the juice! HATER LIFESTYLE BABY!! HATE HATE HATE!!!
-------
Well that is kind of a poor analogy but I'll indulge you. First of all, Rod, Bonds, and others started to juice long before they were washed up (ARod still hasn't even begun to decline). In fact they juiced near the peak of their careers. So I doubt it was out of fear of the fall. I guess they really loved being the man and wanted to stay that way, especially with hacks like Sosa and McGwire on their tails (and getting plenty of media attention). Even Brady Anderson hit 50 HR. They're celebrity whores I guess.
But no one forced them to quit once they couldn't perform at peak level. Because of their big names, Rocket or Bonds could play for most teams into their 40s without roids, even if they kind of suck and were injured half the season. They still can make money and lift their team's prestige. So I don't think it's a valid excuse to say that they clung to the juice as the only way to stay in the game. They would still collect big paychecks and make the highlight reels now and then. They just couldn't stand not being the best. And frankly, I don't know who would have the moxie to tell big egos and supercompetitors like Rocket or Bonds that they should hang it up, to their face. Probably people were begging them to keep playing. If you think you can still play, and no one is stopping you from playing, then who cares what other people say?
Lifestyle? I think they can still live pretty well being a "washed up" baller. Maybe they won't get the curtain calls and the media attention, but they'll still get a lot of love at the clubs with the hoochies. They'll still do the commercials, autographs, and maybe make guest appearances on TV or at ceremonies. If that wasn't enough, and the juice could give them more, well then they made their choice.
So that is a flimsy claim to say that the haters and doubters compelled people like Bonds to juice and prove them wrong.
-------
Heh thx for the reply Chopes. I agree with what you're saying about roids and safety. The only exception I can think of are strong roided-up football players may be more likely to injure each other, so in that case it's a safety problem (and a profits problem). Or even in baseball, faster hurlers can bean batters harder and break their wrists (it has happened plenty). Or bulked up guys colliding will cause more injuries, which loses money for everyone.
The ARod report reminds me of the Nixon tapes - why the F didn't they destroy them when they had the chance!?!
Heh, yeah it is sad how some students resort to "performance enhancement". Plenty of pay websites offer pre-written essays or even answers on the GMAT (http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/mba/2008/09/05/gmat-scandal-expands-to-6000-students.html). Students are taking meth (or tons of Red Bull) to stay up later and study. The problem is much worse in East Asia. Here, usually the rich just buy their way to academic performance by loading up on tutors/test prep/internships for their kids, and the poor don't even get their GED, partly due to socioeconomic pressures. I guess it boils down to competition: it's out of control in developed nations. So many people want what so few can have. The irony of the American Dream is it's just a dream to many Americans, yet we somehow believe that it's "available" to all. We all can't be middle class (or rich); the Earth couldn't take it. We don't know how to share... it's just mine, mine, mine and F the rest of y'all. We are taught to admire the people at the top, the "winners", and the other losers are inconsequential. But in some cases, success is just a nice way of sugar-coating greed.
No comments:
Post a Comment