“If an alternative process is established, we’re going to be guided by the court’s procedures, subject to of course, our ultimate right to approve any owner submitted to us.”

– MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig – July 12, 2010

As this reporter documented here in May 2010, the still impending sale of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Texas Rangers has suffered no shortage of legal and financial machinations and maneuvers, including political manipulation, for many, many months. Yet, it has been nearly a year and a half since Texas Rangers owner, Tom Hicks, defaulted on a $525 million loan in March 2009, eventually ending up in bankruptcy.

Unfortunately to date, the sale of the Rangers still awaits finalization and most importantly, the investment group to be awarded the final sale of the club has yet to be determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and ultimately to be approved by MLB and its respective owners.

But Mr. Selig’s above referenced recent quote indicates that despite the length of time and resources expended by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake for the Rangers’ numerous creditors, Bud Selig will fight all obstacles in securing the group he sees fit to own and run the Texas Rangers; namely the Greenberg-Ryan Group. It is comprised of Pittsburgh sports attorney, Chuck Greenberg and present Texas Rangers president and minor league team owner, Nolan Ryan and their entity, Rangers Baseball Express, LLC.

It unfortunately takes far more than a good score keeper to not only understand but to keep track of all of the twists and turns in this case, Texas Rangers Baseball Partners, 1043400, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, (Fort Worth), even since May 2010.

The upshot is that there will be an auction in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on August 4, 2010. However, prior to that date on July 22, 2010, the Rangers shall emerge from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection, initiated on May 24, 2010. At that hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge D. Michael Lynn will hold the Ranger’s reorganization confirmation hearing.

Additionally, Judge Lynn will hear complaints on July 20, 2010, regarding new auction rules for the August 4^th date. It concerns creditors’ issues primarily due to MLB’s acceptance of the lowest of the three bids previously offered for the Rangers, and its clear preference to award the club to Greenberg-Ryan.

The two previous higher bids were from former sports agent, Dennis Gilbert in collaboration with Dallas businessman, Jeff Beck and the other came from Houston businessman, Jim Crane.

Crane, whose bid was the highest, backed through lender, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., previously filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court stating that MLB deliberately blocked his negotiations with the Texas Rangers. In fact, Selig wrote an April 30, 2010 letter to J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. in response to that motion, reiterating his “best interests of baseball” motives, in his attempt to diffuse the matter; albeit unsuccessfully.

And since creditors are owed approximately $576 million on first and second-lien debt, that includes interest, by Tom Hicks’ HSG Sports Group, LLC, they want every opportunity to be given the best chance to recoup their losses.

However, an 11^th hour wrinkle has also emerged, which perhaps may be the best resolution of all; according to various financial experts, legal representatives, sports industry analysts and many involved with some business facet of MLB.

And that magic bullet would be none other than Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban. Cuban made a bid for the Chicago Cubs three years ago, when it was up for sale by the Tribune Co. At that time speculation surfaced that Cuban’s brash outspokenness and aggressive management style would clash with that of MLB’s.

It seems pretty ironic now, given that a former MLB owner, one George M. Steinbrenner, who was eulogized this past week, was but praised for having some of those very same qualities, which Cuban seems to also behold.

Mark Cuban’s recent interest in the past couple of weeks in the Texas Rangers is especially intriguing in that he may have interest in placing his own bid before the August 3, 2010 deadline for acceptance of bids for the August 4^th auction.

Or, Cuban may ask to become just one of the investors of a group, by supplementing the capital of one of the other investment group’s bid, since the new auction guidelines require that to qualify a bid must now clear the Greenberg-Ryan bid by $20 million.

Cuban recently stated, “With some of the court rulings, it’s changed the economics of everything…I wanted to make sure that I was at the table, just in case.…I’m hoping I’m more of a backstop than anything else.”

It would be hard to believe that Mark Cuban would want to be anyone’s backstop, no more so than would George Steinbrenner.

But one thing is more certain in this whole messy scenario as concerns the sale of the Texas Rangers and that is that there will be no lack of drama and last minute antics by all parties involved; especially given Cuban’s entry into the fray and just under the wire.

And if U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lynn still has anything to say about it he said plenty when asked on July 12, 2010 about Bud Selig’s public remarks about his preference for the Greenberg-Ryan bid, “I don’t believe MLB can frustrate this process any longer.” Hopefully Judge Lynn is right, this time.

Once again, stay tuned…

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

Back in 1989, it was but a no-brainer for George W. Bush to inject himself into the proposed purchase of the then flailing Major League Baseball (MLB) Texas Rangers. His goals in mind were to propel himself into the governor’s mansion in Austin, TX and eventually to the presidency of the United States, while even making a little bit of cash along the way. And he succeeded on all fronts.

And just a dozen years after the sale of the Rangers by Bush and his investors in 1998, the Texas Rangers organization is again immersed in financial wheeling and dealing, with an upside down ledger. For its expected imminent sale by owner, Thomas O. Hicks, has been met by a major snag from both his creditors and Major League Baseball (MLB), which has injected itself into the middle, with its purported takeover of the Rangers in the very near future.

Should MLB proceed to seize the club, it could be facing an involuntary bankruptcy by creditors, and tied up in court indefinitely while owners of MLB’s 29 other clubs incur the cost of operations of the Rangers. But that prospect does not seem to deter MLB commissioner, Bud Allen Selig, as he believes that MLB’s taking control of the Rangers will offset any bankruptcy proceedings; but another gamble.

But in order to fully appreciate the present predicament of a franchise that has mightily underachieved since arriving in Texas in 1972, from Washington as the Senators, and reaching the post-season only 3 times since, it is worth retracing some highlights of how the Rangers wound up in such a mess.

George W. Bush, with the help of then-commissioner of MLB, Peter Ueberroth, gathered a group of wealthy Texas investors who had political and business connections to his father, then-president of the U.S., George H.W. Bush. In 1989, George W. Bush initially invested his $106,302.00 for a 1.8% stake in the club and later took out a $500,000.00 loan to up his ante to a total of $606,302.00, increasing his interest to 11.8% in the Rangers. While the club eventually sold in 1998 for $250 million, Bush and his investors’ purchase price was a cool $25 million.

In short order, plans for a new stadium were under way, financed completely by Arlington taxpayers, including a surcharge on game tickets and state tax exemptions, totaling over $200 million. And all profits went directly back to the owners. Of note, however, this model of commandeering stadium construction on the backs of taxpayers has been replicated over and over again both before and since, throughout cities across the U.S., with no greater beneficiary of such corporate profiteering than the New York Yankees.

By the time the Rangers Ballpark in Arlington was opened in 1994, George W. Bush was nearly governor of Texas, as he put his assets into a blind trust, with his interest in the Rangers being the exception.

The upshot being that for his original $606,302.00 investment, George W. Bush got a 25-fold return on his original investment, clearing a $15 million profit. And such got him the capital and gravitas he curried for his run to the White House.

Enter billionaire, Tom Hicks, co-founder and CEO of Hicks, Muse, Tate & First, Inc. from 1989 to 2004, a nationally prominent private equity firm specializing in leveraged acquisitions, including multi-media broadcast entities, banks and real estate. And it was the Hicks Sports Group, LLC of HMTF that purchased the Texas Rangers Baseball Club in 1998 for that $250 million.

Hicks also purchased the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Dallas Stars Hockey Club in 1996, which went on to win a Stanley Cup Championship in 1999. Since then Hicks has been noted for his controversial purchase of a 50% interest in the Liverpool Football Club, an English Premiership League team known as “Britain’s Most Successful Football Club”, purchased in 2007 and much to the dismay of British fans.

Similarly to the Rangers, Hick’s is selling his interest in these other franchises as well. He wants double the price he paid for the Liverpool club and is currently working with NHL commissioner, Gary Bettman, on the sale of the Stars.

But the sale of the Rangers has proven to be far dicier. Bud Selig and MLB have far more to worry about, however, than Tom Hicks at this point, as MLB is now the intermediary in the ongoing negotiations with prospective buyers of as well as the Texas Rangers’ creditors. But a $525 million loan default, threats of court decisions from potential litigation, bankruptcy and the future fiscal health of the team that includes keeping it afloat, will rest with MLB.

What’s next? MLB taking over the Los Angeles Dodgers, while its owners, Frank and Jamie McCourt duke out their divorce decree?

Yet, MLB makes no apology for its policy of sequestering its own books from both the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the public-at-large. For MLB to hold itself in higher regard than Tom Hicks, an evident capitalist who pushed the envelope only as far as his creditors would allow, and at the time with the blessings of MLB, is but the height of arrogance.

However, MLB has invoked its “not in the best interests of baseball” rule, by virtue of the commissioner’s charter, as reason to interfere with the proposed sale of the Texas Rangers. And in that effort, it is willing to accept the least lucrative bid made for the club’s purchase. MLB is determined to guarantee that the Greenberg-Ryan Investment Group which includes Rangers’ president, Nolan Ryan, will ultimately become the eventual owner, in spite of two legitimate and higher bids that were made.

But the “not in the best interests of baseball” rule is a reach at best, given the challenges that MLB will embark upon such as with Monarch Alternative Capital, which has a 57% interest in the Rangers’ debt along with 40 other creditors’ liens against the Rangers, that includes the CIT Group, Inc. They want to make good on the sale of the team in order to recoup their losses and have no fear of tying up the sale in court no matter how long it takes.

And it is there that the rub begins for Bud Selig, who himself appropriated more than $25 million in MLB loans to the Rangers in 2009, $16 million of which went to salaries alone, to keep the Rangers going until June 2010. And since 2009, MLB has embedded itself in Rangers’ management decisions. For example, 1^st-round 2009 draft pick, starting pitcher Matt Purke, declined the Rangers’ market value offer and opted to attend Texas Christian University instead, as it was reported that MLB would not permit the Rangers to tender an offer to him for more than the minimum ‘slot system’ specifies, in order to sign him.

If there is no resolution by creditors or a closing date set for the sale of the team soon, this June too could put salaries and bonuses for MLB draftees as well as projected trades for the July 31^st trade deadline in jeopardy, as well as put the future of the Texas Rangers franchise in peril for years to come.

MLB and Bud Selig calling all of the shots by fiat presents a clear conflict of interest in terms of the free marketplace. And clearly this is but a bailout by MLB with ramifications similar to those of the U.S. federal government in bailing out financial institutions, car manufacturers and insurance companies. Not only does the government incur a financial stake in these companies but is but purchasing the right to dictate corporate policy. And MLB is no different in that regard in this case.

Yet, on its face, the intricacies are more far reaching than MLB’s takeover of the then Montreal Expos in 2004, now the Washington Nationals. In this matter, after the layers are peeled back, we can see that the “not in the best interests of baseball” rule does not necessarily include taking on Wall Street brokerages, the multi-national banking industry and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, all the while showing favoritism towards a specific group that wishes to purchase the team.

Volumes have thus far been written over the past year concerning an over-leveraged Tom Hicks. Yet, the same can be said of the entire U.S. economy and its players from Wall Street to Capitol Hill. While that is no excuse for alleged corporate malfeasance, with respect to MLB, cooler heads should prevail. And sometimes that should actually mean that the integrity of the game stands for something other than its bottom line.

In light of the Rangers’ 87-75 2009 win-loss record, far better than in years past, it would be a shame for the hopes and talents of some of its young players to be squandered by reckless decisions on behalf of Bud Selig and MLB. And hopefully, the remaining MLB owners will weigh in and fall on the side of common sense. Stay tuned.

Copyright ©2010 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

"Considering the fact that so many state governments – probably between 40 and 50 – don't consider it immoral, I don't think that anyone should. It may be a little immoral because in reality it is a tax on the poor; the lotteries. But having said that, it's now a matter of national policy. Gambling is good."

No, that high profile quote is not attributable to a member of the U.S. Congress, a state governor nor other public official or public figure. Most people had no clue who said it until it was published on December 11, 2009 in a Sports Illustrated interview that writer, Ian Thomsen, had with National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner, David Stern. In it, Stern reveals that his stance on legalized sports betting has softened.

But having been the NBA's face for the past 25 years, Stern has no less been a shrewd businessman. Moreover, as a studied attorney, he knows the meaning of precedent and its value in proving one's case.

As such, the prevailing precedent Stern created was his steadfast endorsement of the prohibition of legalized sports betting. And therefore, as he has now seemingly opened Pandora's Box, if but a crack, his juxtaposition may not be greeted with such warm and fuzzy feelings by the commissioners of the other professional sports leagues as well as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

For it was but a few short months ago, in July 2009, when the NBA joined suit with the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NCAA in successfully defeating the state of Delaware in its attempt to legalize single game sports betting in its state.

The case in Delaware was based upon the legal theory that the 1992 federal law, known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was not applicable to it. In three court hearings, the last before the full 12-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, found that Delaware was not entitled to offer sports betting a la Las Vegas style sportsbooks sports betting.

So, Delaware had to settle for NFL only 3-game parlay style betting, which links together two or more individual wagers, but is dependent on all of those wagers winning together, in order for the gambler to profit. In addition, all sports bets must be waged solely at Delaware's race tracks, Dover Downs and Delaware Park. Aside from a hit that the NFL took, however, the other leagues prevailed in winning their case.

In brief, states that offered lottery style or legalized sports betting from 1976-1990 were exempt from the PASPA, and it provided a 1-year grace period for states, who had allowed sports betting over the previous 10-year period, to create legislation permitting sports wagering. Delaware, Oregon, Montana and Nevada had such exemptions. But Delaware did not act within that 1-year period, thus creating its present dilemma.

Since Delaware offered a 3-game parley lottery on NFL games in 1976, it was offered no more than that which it had previously enjoyed.

The leagues, including the NBA, however, played no small role, along with several members of the U.S. Congress, in winning the case. They all appealed to U.S. Attorney General, Eric holder, in their opposition to grandfathering in any sports wagering of any kind. And in the end, Delaware came up short, where its last act would only be to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It does not have any such plans at this time.

Back in 2007, Commissioner Stern agreed to hold the NBA's 2007 All Star Game in Las Vegas, NV, which remains the only state in the Union which allows single bets to be taken at sportsbooks for every league in professional and college sports and for every team. The only exceptions are the NBA's Sacramento Kings and the Boston Celtics along with the teams they are playing against on any given day. And such limitations are only with respect to specific casino properties.

The reason for that is that the Palms Hotel and Casino is owned by Joe and Gavin Maloof, who also own the Kings and previously owned the WNBA's Sacramento Monarchs. The other exception is Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., which owns a minority interest in the Boston Celtics. As Harrah's own numerous Las Vegas casino hotels, no sports bets may be taken at those Harrah casinos which have sports books, on Celtics games or their respective opponents, as mandated by the NBA. Prior to 2008, the Palms Casino was not permitted to have sports betting on any NBA teams, but the NBA Board of Governors ruled to allow the Palms to join the rest of the Strip properties, doing so in October 2008.

And during 2007, David Stern had talks with Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar Goodman, regarding the mayor's interest in acquiring an NBA franchise for his city. But the future looked bleak at that time. Now, the NBA's Summer League is a fixture there as well as a training ground for USA Basketball and the U.S. Olympic team. And by 2008, Stern had decided to allow the NBA owners to decide whether there will be a future for an NBA club in Las Vegas.

Fast forward to 2009 and Stern now says, "Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation destination resort and they have sports gambling." He apparently has come a long way from the 2007 All Star Game when he was adamant about blocking any potential ownership opportunities for his league in Las Vegas. Apparently, the Maloof brothers have done a nice job convincing him otherwise.

The Tim Donaghy referee scandal, also in 2007, put a crimp in Stern's possible growing interest in a potential marriage with games of chance. At that time, Stern ordered the drafting of new policies with respect to NBA referees' off-season limit on gambling at legalized casinos. It is now permissible. However, sports betting is off-limits any time of the year. Ironically, Tim Donaghy's alleged gambling addiction started in legal gambling casinos, now endorsed for NBA referees by David Stern himself.

However, NBA referees are now more closely scrutinized and monitored in their off-court and off-season behaviors, requiring more invasive background and credit checks, while under the employ of the NBA.

And now it makes even more sense as to why Stern would insist that Tim Donaghy was a "rogue" or lone referee with regard to passing on inside information to illegal bookmakers and organized crime syndicates. Yet, both the FBI and the NBA's own internal investigation found that any of Donaghy's malfeasances did not alter game outcomes. Still, Donaghy was convicted and served 15 months prison time, including a fine of $500,000.00 and $30,000.00 in required restitution to the NBA.

Assuming that Stern had a grand scheme all along to eventually cash in his chips for a piece of the gambling revenue empire for the NBA, Donaghy merely mucked up the works temporarily, as Stern necessarily went into high gear damage control or virtual denial.

It was by mere coincidence, however, that the FBI even stumbled upon Donaghy, and obviously not through the lax mechanisms in place in Stern's house, which was neither equipped nor anxious to reveal any corruption in his ranks. An investigation by the federal government into the Gambino Crime Family is what prompted the FBI's findings; and was flawlessly staged as a complete surprise and seemingly unfathomable to the NBA's Stern.

And although David Stern might be out of step with the other professional leagues' commissioners, as concerns legalized sports betting, with the exception of his joining them in the Delaware lawsuit, he is right in line with multi-national corporations, global investors, foreign governments, U.S. state governments and gamblers of all kinds in the U.S. and throughout the world.

If anything, one must agree that David Stern is a master at playing both sides of the fence and therefore may not be as inconsistent as many have criticized him for being since the Sports Illustrated article broke.
Hypocrite or merely an evolved businessman wanting to cash in his chips, so to speak?

It is estimated that in the U.S. alone, nationalized legal sports betting income taxes and sin taxes could generate over $40 billion over 10 years. And that does not include the take that the NBA would stand to gain from ancillary revenue streams.

With the United Kingdom, Australia, other European entities as well as China in the sports betting business, many in the U.S. Congress, for example, believe legalized sports betting and online gaming would but eliminate illegal off-shore gambling and would be a win-win both for the government and private enterprise, while removing the organized crime quotient.

But whether such comes to pass in the near future, remains to be seen, although cash-strapped states remain hopeful. Yet, in this economy it is anyone's bet. Yes "gambling is good." But is it not ultimately about greed?

And the NBA's appearance of duplicity will continue to have its critics:

"Apparently, the NBA is not as a concerned about the integrity of the league when their teams' owners' money is at stake." – Delaware House Majority Leader Peter C. Schwartzkopf (7/28/09)

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

At a time when rumor and innuendo in sports journalism has arguably never been more pervasive, one would hope that the current active senior statesmen of their craft would still have an interest in maintaining their once high standards.

As prominent newspapers in cities large and small are folding, to wit, Denver's Rocky Mountain News and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, sports coverage is being depleted. In addition, many regional newspapers are sharing content and sending fewer personnel to cover Major League Baseball games this season. In Los Angeles for instance, only two newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Daily News of Los Angeles are covering the Dodgers; down from 12 a decade ago.

The New York Times is cutting back on MLB road trips for the NY Yankees and the NY Mets, in the publishing capitol of the world. The Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun are sharing stories for coverage of the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals.

Over all, the number of baseball writers in the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) is down 65 writers from 2008 and its total is now 725, including non-active members. That does not include those sportswriters who are not members of the BBWAA.

The argument will wane as to whether this is all relative specifically to the economy, exacerbated by the expanse of the internet. Perhaps newspaper proprietors, generally corporate holding companies that preside over numerous assets and businesses, are using the economy as an excuse to downsize.

Whichever it is, however, when a journalist perhaps sees the writing on the proverbial wall, does he or she then deliberately bend the rules to remain relevant? Such apparently appears to be the case as evidenced in a July 27, 2009 NY Daily News column written by highly regarded sportswriter Bill Madden. The piece was titled, "MLB Commissioner Bud Selig Mulling Pardon For Hit King Pete Rose." The NY Daily News still enjoys the fifth largest newspaper circulation in the U.S. and remains an exclusive property of publisher Robert Zuckerman.

In Madden's column, published the day after the 2009 Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony, he "broke" the story that MLB Commissioner, Bud Selig, "is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose's lifetime suspension from baseball."

The source of his information? Madden goes on to say, "The tipoff that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball's all-time hit king was Hank Aaron's seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters ... on Saturday."

Aaron also spoke publicly regarding his stance on steroid users. But what Madden honed in on was when Aaron spoke about Pete Rose. Aaron said, "I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there." That quote was apparently enough for Madden to frame a complete story and to put the whole broadcast media and press corps in a tizzy.

Here is his own logic: "It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others ... It was also learned that in a meeting of the Hall of Fame's Board of Directors, two of Rose's former teammates on the Board, Vice Chairman Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson, also expressed their hope that Selig would see fit to reinstate Rose."

Madden goes on to say, "Another Hall of Famer familiar with the situation" also joined the chorus for Pete's admission back into baseball, which potentially could allow his admission into the Hall. And Madden added, "According to another source, the behind-the-scenes lobbying process began five years ago, but stalled because Selig was still not satisfied that Rose was 'reconfiguring' his life."

This prompts the question: was that Madden's version of a journalist's "who, what, when. where, why, and how?" Not to those journalists who take such questions seriously.

Madden apparently had doubts himself when on the following day, July 28, 2009, he wrote a NY Daily News column titled, "MLB Commissioner Bud Selig Will Not Ease Up on Pete Rose." Since Madden's first article's title was fancied to purport fact, it came as a surprise that the very next day he would write a column almost as if someone other than himself had written the supposed news the day before.

However, prior to his near "retraction" article on July 28th, Madden's name bounced across America from television and radio networks to new media outlets online to other newspaper dailies, and Madden was promoted as the guy who got the "scoop." Pretty clever, eh?

As momentum built, before sunset on July 27, 2009, it was a "fact" that Selig was entertaining reinstatement for Rose. And everyone knew that Bill Madden got the exclusive.

The only problem? No one had told Bud Selig about his supposed intention. And for a guy covering NY sports for 30 years, Madden erased any doubt that he was not now well known. Unfortunately, no so for his best work, but for arguably committing a neat publicity stunt of sorts.

Given the climate of broadcast and newspaper outlets offing their talent near retirement age, it makes sense in some circles that Madden would want to gain instant and unabated relevance. And few ever read or heard about Madden's follow-up column the next day on July 28th which he began with, "Despite growing sentiment from a number of influential Hall of Famer's — most notably Hank Aaron — that 20 years has been a sufficient sentence for Pete Rose for betting on baseball, Bud Selig insists nothing has changed from his stand point."

But most curious is Madden's conclusion in the first paragraph as he denotes, "And I'm coming to the belief that he's going to remain so as long as Selig is commissioner." He goes on to state, "The image Selig has been carefully crafting for himself over the past two years is that of no-tolerance ... So how would it look now if he pardoned someone who broke baseball's cardinal rule?"

You have to love this guy. A day later he draws a conclusion as if the original article never existed, but based upon his own reporting and history with Bud Selig on the Pete Rose saga. So the only conclusion we can conclude is that Bill Madden knew better, but needs to be part of the national spotlight, whether his reportage is accurate or not or even belies what he really knows.

The underlying point of citing Bill Madden here is that it sets a bad precedent not only for sport journalists but the state of journalism generally. For if a guy, supposedly well regarded and one of the most powerful sports writers in New York City, has to stoop to such rubbish to bring unearned attention to himself, then what kind of example does it set? It goes against the Journalist's Creed, which is incumbent for the survival of the Fourth Estate.

And you will be interested to know that Bill Madden is one of three finalists for the J.G. Taylor Spink Award to be voted upon this November and to be awarded at the 2010 Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. The award is the highest one bestowed by the BBWAA to its membership. However, winners are not "inducted" into the Hall of Fame but rather "enshrined" by way of a permanent exhibit within the Hall's library. And Spink Award recipients also enjoy lifetime membership on the Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee that elects those players who are past their 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, as well as non-player candidates.

So why Madden's self-scribed hype? To keep his job? To get another job? To win the Spink Award? Or to do it because he can get away with it given his good reputation? Whatever the reason, he certainly was not thinking of his journalist brethren and those who strive to report the facts and for whom it still matters. It would be refreshing to hold on to that last bastion of good journalism, given the times in which we live.

It was 30 years ago when baseball legend, Willie Mays, was banned from Major League Baseball (MLB). Four years later, NY Yankee great, Mickey Mantle, met with the same fate as did Willie. And what was their supposed fall from grace? They each became promotional spokesmen for two Atlantic City casino hotels.

Willie Mays had a deal with the Park Place Casino – now Bally's Park Place – and Mantle contracted with Del Webb's Claridge Casino Hotel. The roles both played were as pitchmen for the resorts as they appeared in television and print ads for the respective properties.

At the time, it was MLB Commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, who made both then Hall of Famers "permanently ineligible" to participate in any capacity with MLB. In 1985, after Kuhn's retirement, then newly appointed Commissioner Peter Ueberroth exonerated both Mays and Mantle, thereby lifting their banishment. Ueberroth proclaimed, "A lot of people will misinterpret my position as being soft on gambling. My stance is as strong as any Commissioner's going back to Judge Landis. But there's a need for new rules."

And the argument could be made back then that both Mays and Mantle were not front-men for gambling, but rather were promoting entertainment interests of hotel resorts.

Fast forward to sometime around 2006 when MLB supposedly relaxed its rule on permitting direct relationships with gambling casino interests and its MLB teams. However, most such deals blossomed for this year's 2009 baseball season that includes large casino hotel properties as well as many lucrative agreements with Indian reservation hotel casinos.

Sponsorships and the financing of such throughout professional sports as well as amateur athletics are drying up by virtue of the worst recession in 70 years. Added to that is the negative public perception that corporations receiving federal tax bailout dollars should not be dabbling in multi-million dollar contracts for advertising at sports venues nor buying skyboxes and over-priced season tickets at stadiums.

However, there now appears to be a new revenue stream, largely untapped, yet quickly assembled by many MLB teams and with Commissioner Bud Selig's blessings. But in order to fully appreciate the precariousness of such contracts that MLB has already approved, it is helpful to revisit MLB Rule 21:

(a)Any player or person connected with a club….or who being solicited by any person, shall fail to inform his Major League President and the Commissioner
(d)Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared "permanently ineligible."

And now the question must be asked. How does MLB oversee such sponsorships between MLB teams and those casino operations which allow legal sports betting on their premises, such as Harrah's Entertainment, which has become a major sponsor for the NY Mets' new Citi Field, most prominent in its outfield stands?

Harrah's is now a Signature Partner of the Mets and has a 12,000 square foot 900 seat capacity full-service restaurant called the Caesar Club. Harrah's hopes to recreate the atmosphere it provides at its Caesar's Atlantic City property. Harrah's will also benefit from naming and branding rights and orchestrate theme nights for baseball fans throughout the season.

It is important to note that Harrah's casino hotel properties that it owns in Las Vegas, such as Caesar's Palace, the Flamingo Hotel and Casino, Bally's and its Rio Hotel and Casino which is host to the World Series of Poker, among others, all have sports books where sports betting on all professional and amateur sports is legal. And such includes sports betting on MLB.

At the new Yankee Stadium, the Mohegan Sun Hotel & Casino also has a presence in its center field stands. Its Mohegan Sports Bar is a 4,900 square foot full-service restaurant with major signage and a naming rights deal with the Yankees. In addition, Seminole Hard Rock Entertainment will own and operate the NYY Steak restaurant as well as the stadium's new Hard Rock Café. The Seminole Nation is the primary proprietor of all Hard Rock Café and hotel casino properties worldwide, with the exception of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casinos in both Las Vegas and London.

The casino sponsorships for both the Yankees and the Mets are quite lucrative and in the millions of dollars, although MLB clubs do not necessarily accurately disclose the amount of their sponsorships, nor are they required to do so. But the NY teams are hardly in the minority when it comes to lining up for casino riches in the form of sponsorships. The Milwaukee Brewers inked a deal over the winter with the Potawatomi Bingo Casino of the Potawatomi Tribe.

The Brewer's deal with the Potawatomi Tribe is just second to its deal with Miller-Coors Beer. And in MLB's logic according to MLB's Chief Operating Officer, Bob DuPuy, "There is no sports book associated with Potawatomi and casino gambling is now part of the entertainment landscape in 40-plus states and a number of clubs have had advertising and sponsorship relationships with local casinos."

Perhaps DuPuy does not realize that Harrah's is in the sports betting industry?

In Detroit there appears to be a long-standing conflict of interest with respect to the ownership of the Detroit Tigers as well as the Motor City Casino, purchased by Ilitch Holdings, Inc. in 2005, which purportedly owns both entities simultaneously.

Michael Ilitch and his wife, Marion Ilitch, are listed as the Tigers' owner and the Motor City Casino owner, respectively. The question arose when it was revealed that Marion Ilitch is Vice Chairman of Ilitch Holdings, Inc. which also owns the Detroit Tigers. But Ilitch friend and Commissioner Bud Selig overlooked the proprietary conflict and asked his staff to stand-down.

There is indeed no shortage of casino sponsorships throughout the major and minor leagues of baseball. The Atlanta Braves, the Arizona Diamondbacks, the Los Angeles Angels, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Florida Marlins and the Chicago Cubs all have contractual sponsorships with Indian casinos, gambling interests or state lotteries.

So what impact does this state of affairs have on the "best interests of baseball?" One could say that it was precipitated by Commissioner Ueberroth's comments"…there's a need for new rules." Or did Bud Selig's multi-billion dollar empire become too greedy for MLB's own good by accepting a strong presence of gambling partnerships throughout the leagues? Has the appetite for big bucks clouded Selig's judgment and has he crossed the line?

For MLB must be careful not to step on that 3rd rail; that which endangers its integrity. After all, MLB itself has already gambled on fan loyalty after nearly 20 years of the Steroid Era, also on Selig's watch.

And finally, if the apparent overlap between gambling interests and MLB is not clear to the MLB Commissioner, then why is he so clear on keeping Pete Rose "permanently ineligible" and forever denying his chance of realizing his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame?

Copyright ©2009 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

As previously chronicled in this series of reports subtitled, MLB Goes to Harlem Seeking Welfare, on the public financing of the new Yankee Stadium in Bronx, NY, a borough of New York City, the issues it encompasses and the various impending outcomes may have a broad impact for cities across the United States.

Moreover, public-private partnerships have become intentionally blurred when it comes to taxpayers ultimately funding of Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA) and other professional sports' stadiums and venues.

Balance sheets, land assessments, funding arrangements via questionable ethical relationships if not borderline illegal ones between public officials and corporate entities are now being revealed as more than troublesome with respect to the new Yankee Stadium. And it may eventually take an act of the U.S. Congress to unravel that which appears to be an egregious violation of the public trust on behalf of NYC and the New York Yankees.

As last reported here in July 2008 in NYC, Yankees Redefine Crookery in Part 2, the NY Yankees a/k/a/ Yankees Global Enterprises LLC, had requested that an additional $366 million in tax-free bonds be appropriated, to the already ballooning $1.3 billion cost of the new Yankee Stadium tallied thus far, and financed primarily through such funding instruments.

But in order for any new approval for any such new appropriations, the process must be cleared again by a host of multiple New York City, New York state and federal agencies. However, unanticipated by the NY Yankees is that not only could such a request be denied but that they have opened up a proverbial Pandora's box of quagmires now being given scrutiny with a fine tooth comb by both the State of NY and a powerful Congressional committee.

On July 4, 2008, during the NY Yankees game at Yankee Stadium versus the Boston Red Sox and broadcast on the YES cable network , the NY Yankees own broadcast outlet, play-by-play announcer, Michael Kay, was speaking about how the current stadium would be replaced starting with the 2009 season. And he stated at the top of the 2nd inning that "And across the street they're building a new ball park which the Steinbrenner family is paying for."

Perhaps Kay should go to Capitol Hill and testify under oath and relay such news to those investigating the suspicious circumstances under which the NY Yankees obtained all of their dough. He may get a chance in September 2008 when additional hearings will be held by the House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform's Sub-Committee on Domestic Policy. After all, Kay would be in good company along with notable others associated with MLB who have been less than forthright before Congress.

But sadly, most New Yorkers either already believe that which Kay and others have reiterated or have no idea about anything going on in Yankee Land. Yet, such may set important precedents for future building projects and land takings both in NYC and other municipalities.

But far more importantly, and at a time when NYC and NY state are both eliminating important public services due to budget shortfalls, it is incumbent for taxpayers to know far more comprehensively, than that which the local tabloids have recently and but occasionally provide, about this complex web of wheeling and dealing.

For the new Yankee Stadium is no longer a house that Ruth built but one that New Yorkers citywide and statewide will be paying for and for generations to come. And in that regard a brief context of the back-story is in order and to understand in the interest of public policy.

Prior to the NY Yankees' initial approvals required from public agencies, the last of which were not completed until 2006, the Yankees put into motion key lobbyist law firms and former public officials who had prior governing positions from City Hall to the Internal Revenue Service to the U.S. Department of Treasury. And it was through such seemingly conflicts of interests that have driven the realized stadium.

Initially, the NY Yankees had to clear a hurdle by the IRS, which many now consider questionable, for the $941 million gain in triple tax-exempt bonds with a favorable low interest rate. Such will save the Yankees close to $150 million in saved interest alone.

Bond buyers get a considerably less lower set interest rate of return, when exempt from federal, state and city income taxes and therefore the NY Yankees benefit from an interest rate approximately 25% lower than taxable bonds.

Bruce Serchuk, a partner at the law firm, Nixon Peabody LLP, was retained by both the NYC Industrial Development Agency, and the NY Yankees to lobby the IRS. Serchuk was a former lawyer in the Office of the Chief Counsel at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and in the Office of Taxation Policy at the Department of the Treasury. He was instrumental in providing NYC lawyers help with submitting the request that allowed such payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOTs).

In June 2006 the IRS granted that request to NYC in a private letter ruling. In spite of regulations that changed that very year which further restricted publicly financed stadiums using tax-exempt bonds, it got the attention of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Sub-committee on Domestic Policy and precipitated a March 2007 hearing.

Yet, instead of putting a cap on spending by the NY Yankees and NYC's Industrial Development Agency (IDA), an arm of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, which operates at the Mayor's behest, NYC was granted another $190 million in tax-exempt financing for the new stadium's 3 parking garages.

But in order to get this increased financing, the garages were termed by NYC officials as "Civic Facility Projects." Additionally, the IDA created a specious not-for-profit organization, referred to as the Bronx Community Initiative Development Corporation as a "special purpose LLC" that was needed as a bridge to complete the garage financing.

Tishman Speyer Properties, now a global multi-national conglomerate, was hired by the NY Yankees for the construct of the new stadium. Anthony Mannarino, who now is in charge of Tishman's stadium development, was previously the Executive Vice President of the NYC Economic Development Corporation from 1990-1994 and its acting President in 1994.

None other than former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and one of his former NYC Police Commissioners, Howard Safir, are both listed in court documents as security consultants for the new stadium project as Giuliani Security & Safety Partners, a division of Giuliani Partners, LLC and Safir-Rosetti Security, respectively.

There are far too many lobbying interests and reciprocal relationships to detail in this one report, but suffice it to say that the NY Yankees and NYC officials have easily spent upwards of $500,000.00 of taxpayer dollars in lobbying costs for their back-scratching stadium behemoth.

Most of the lobbying expenses were accorded in a final deal which Mayor Giuliani had ratified prior to his departure from City Hall in 2001. It allocated $25 million over a 5 year period from 2002-2007 to be used by the NY Yankees in any way they saw fit for the planning stages of the new stadium on the taxpayer's dime. And unfortunately far more than new stadium expenses were charged to the taxpayers, which had nothing whatsoever to do with stadium planning. But the NY Yankee organization could not help itself and applied for every last dime of that $25 million.

The puppet master of the whole deal is former NYC Deputy Mayor of Economic Development, Planning and Administration, Randy Levine, from 1997-2000, and now President of the NY Yankees. Prior to Levine's leaving his office in 2000, he was given the primary responsibility to craft a financing structure document for Mayor Giuliani and the new Yankee Stadium.

And prior to becoming Deputy Mayor, Randy Levine was a chief labor negotiator for MLB Commissioner Bud Selig. To make matters worse, Levine was granted a waiver from the NYC Conflict of Interest Board which oversees NYC's Conflict of Interest Law. And as a direct result of that waiver, throughout Randy Levine's term as NYC Deputy Mayor, he maintained a consulting contract with MLB.

In September 2008 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Sub-Committee on Domestic Policy whose Chairman is Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will concentrate on those federal agencies formerly involved in the previous financing approvals and the newly requested $366 million in additional funding requested by NYC and the NY Yankees in June 2008.

Those agencies include the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the IRS, and the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior along with the NY Yankees, the NYC Department of Finance, and the NYC Economic Development Corporation. Those involved agencies have all been required to submit specific documentation to Congressman Kucinich's committee by August 6, 2008 in preparation for the atest hearing which took place on September 18, 2008 on Capitol Hill.

The issue that will continue to be explored will be the conflicting land value assessments which were supplied and used as a basis for the original $941 million tax-free bonds. It has come to the attention not only of Rep. Kucinich but New York State Assemblyman, Richard Brodsky, that the unjustified land assessment valuations may be the smoking gun in the now $1.3 billion house of cards which may bloat to upwards of $2 billion before all is said and done.

The NY Yankees claim that the land upon which the new stadium sits is worth $275.00 per square foot, more than most lots on waterfront property on Manhattan Island, the heart of NYC. The NYC Department of Finance claims that the land is worth $204 million versus NYC's commissioned independent assessors who value it at $21 million. And land just across the street from the new Yankee Stadium, according to the NYC Department of Finance's latest assessments and the latest average market value of such land in that area of the Bronx, is but $36 per square foot.

According to NY State Assemblyman, Richard Brodsky, who heads the NY State Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions and who is also holding hearings on this issue on the state level has said that, "This issue goes to the heart of whether it is a public project or a private project…There is substantial discrepancy on a whole host of levels that we are going to proceed to investigate thoroughly and fairly, but we are going to get to the truth."

And as the ongoing story of this slippery slope of either trickery or merely free market big business, depending on one's point of view, this journalist will pick up the case in September 2008 and report back in Part 4 of this series.

And just in case you were wondering, "Everything is politics."—Thomas Mann (1950)

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: Dgrassi@cox.net

Complicit in Drug Culture

Major League Baseball (MLB) and drugs. The two have been linked for decades and their relationship has never waned. The drug ingredients are different, the players acquiring them have changed and the performance benefits have been enhanced.

But MLB has not learned much in the past couple of decades when it comes to the integrity of the game, in obeying
the law and in protecting the best interests of its athletes, its most precious commodity.

In 1985, Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney, J. Alan Johnson, implicated 19 MLB players for possession of and use of cocaine. Then-MLB Commissioner, Peter Ueberroth, imposed penalties on 11 of the 19, while none were criminally prosecuted. Similar to the BALCO case and to the recent Mitchell Report, the depth of the problem among athletes using cocaine or illegal drugs made for sensational headlines.

But the way in which the drug culture was arguably enabled by MLB and its subsequent punishments were laughable and was perhaps the precursor to the abuse of steroids and HGH in the 1990's and into the 21st century.
Although it was documented at the time that at least 40% of MLB players were recreationally using cocaine in the '80's, only a handful were punished. But such star players such as Keith Hernandez, Dave Parker, and Lonnie Smith were punished not by the federal government but by MLB. They were required to perform 100 hours of community service and to avail themselves to drug testing. Four other players were suspended for 60 days. Since the drug dealers were nabbed by the feds, MLB was off the hook and essentially did what it felt was appropriate for the "good of the game."

Fast-forward to 2003 when grand jury testimony was taken in the federal BALCO investigation involving MLB's Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Olympic medalist Marion Jones and NFL star Bill Romanowski, to name but a few of the few implicated. Again, only a handful of athletes from the entire professional athletic world were threatened and eventually given immunity, in order to take down BALCO President, Vic Conte, personal trainer, Greg Anderson and the illicit sale, distribution and administration of illegal performance enhancing substances.

Marion Jones will serve 6 months in prison neither for buying and illegally using controlled substances nor for her check fraud to the tune of $200,000.00, but for lying under oath to a federal grand jury about the use of drugs. Ditto for Barry Bonds. His scheduled perjury trial is to be held in April 2008.

The latest fiasco with "personal trainer," Brian McNamee, former NY Mets clubhouse employee, Kirk Radomski and MLB stars Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte following former Senator George Mitchell's report on behalf of MLB, is but another failed attempt at exposing the so-called truth. But truth has been absent from baseball for a very long time. Moreover, implicating only 30 active players for a grand total of 89 for using performance enhancing drugs over the past decade is not only laughable but terribly sad. Given the resources and legal expenses tallied around $20‒30 million and paid to George Mitchell's law firm by MLB, the Mitchell Report's omissions should raise as many eyebrows as its contents.

But more importantly is the absence of a cry for accountability from MLB by the federal government in essentially allowing it to be in the drug business. For its owners and its teams' staff members not to admit any wrong doing is beyond arrogance. A lack of efforts to look into those areas in which there was first-hand knowledge of possible illicit drug use or non-credentialed employees working in the area of strength training was but blind neglect.

To wit, according to the Mitchell Report, San Francisco Giants General Manager, Brian Sabean, was alerted by the Giants' staff athletic trainer, Stan Conte, that a player had asked him about whether he should buy steroids from Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, as far back as 2002. Additionally, the Giants' longtime equipment manager, Mike Murphy, found syringes in the locker of catcher Benito Santiago.

Conte said he reported both incidents to Sabean immediately. Sabean told Conte that if he had a problem with Bonds' trainer he should handle it himself. But it was obvious to Conte that it was not his place to confront Barry Bonds. And apparently no one else in the Giants organization felt it was their place either, as per their MLB obligation to report illicit drug use.

Brian Sabean stated in the Mitchell Report that he "was unaware of the obligation to report drug use to the Commissioner's Office." Former Mets General Manager, Steve Phillips, and Kirk Radomski's employer, also plead ignorance on reporting illicit drug use to the Commissioner's Office. Ironically now, Phillips is paid by ESPN to analyze and to inform the public about MLB's policies.

Greg Anderson was given full accessibility to the Giants' clubhouse. Stan Conte did not believe it was proper let alone legal. But in order to placate Bonds, the Giants also accorded him two additional trainers, Harvey Shields and Greg Oliver. All three traveled with the team. In fact, Oliver and Shields were added to the Giants' payroll to account for their presence in the clubhouse, whereby they could advise other players as well.

Peter Magowan, CEO and Managing Partner of the S.F. Giants asked Sabean whether the Giants "had a problem" with regard to steroids after reading the news concerning the BALCO case and Greg Anderson, according to the Mitchell Report. But Sabean told Mitchell he did not recall that conversation.

The issue was not only that of illicit drugs permeating the Giants' locker room but the issue of personal trainers, such as Greg Anderson giving out advice about steroids. None of Bonds' trainers were certified to give out that advice nor licensed to either dispense of or speak about drug administration. Their certifications and schooling as personal trainers is also in question.

The lack of background checks on supposed strength coaches and personal trainers was rampant in MLB until 2004 when MLB limited access to clubhouses by personal trainers and ancillary clubhouse personnel not on the payroll. Due to the BALCO case, MLB did it more for security reasons, as the vetting of a trainer's certification and background still has many lapses, to say the least.

In 2004, Sandy Krum, former assistant athletic trainer for the Chicago Cubs, was terminated, he believes, for informing Cubs' General Manager Jim Hendry that head athletic trainer, Dave Groeschner, was operating without an Illinois state required license. Unlike a personal trainer, an athletic trainer works under the auspices of a medical doctor and 43 states require such a license. Additionally, athletic trainers are not authorized in Illinois or NY to give injections to players. Coincidentally, Groeschner followed Cubs Manager Dusty Baker from San Francisco. In 2005, the Cubs fired Groeschner. Dusty is now with the Cincinnati Reds.

We have heard ad naseum about the McNamee-Clemens soap opera which will be played out before the Congressional House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 13, 2008. But little light has been shed upon the underlying facts about how McNamee helped weave his own web, in which the Toronto Blue Jays and the NY Yankees play no small part.

McNamee earned an undergraduate degree from St. John's University in NY where he played on the baseball team as a catcher but did not have enough talent for MLB. He then followed his father's lead and joined the NYPD in 1990. He was an officer for three years, serving two years undercover and then quit the force. He was suspended for 30 days at the end of his service for allowing a prisoner to escape from custody, but said he took the fall for someone else.

Former St. John's school mate, Tim McCleary, was the assistant General Manager of the Yankees in 1993 and hired McNamee as the bullpen catcher, where he stayed until 1995. McNamee then decided to get into personal training. In 1998, McCleary was hired by Toronto, and he then hired McNamee as a strength coach and where he met Roger Clemens. He also befriended Jose Canseco who at the time was also a Blue Jay.

After Clemens was traded to NY in 1999, McNamee joined him in 2000 when the Yankees put him on the payroll as a strength coach as well until 2001, when allegations immerged of rape and illegally giving the involved woman GHB ‒the date-rape drug‒ a nearly fatal dose. Charges were not filed as the woman did not want to pursue them supposedly because she was having an affair with one of the Yankees' married players. But McNamee was spotted having sex with a nearly comatose woman in one of the team's hotel pools on the night of a Devil Rays game in St. Petersburg in October of 2001. His account to police was filled with inconsistencies, including denying he was the man in the pool when spotted by security and another Yankee staffer. Again, McNamee was the victim.

GHB is illegally used by athletes to recover from strenuous workouts and was also part of McNamee's medicine cabinet. Even so, Clemens gave McNamee the benefit of the doubt about the alleged rape. The Yankees, however, let McNamee go before the 2002 season without disclosing the reason. But Clemens hired him as his personal trainer and employed him through June 2007. Andy Pettitte also paid McNamee for his training services during that time.

McNamee's credentials were never checked by either the Toronto Blue Jays or the NY Yankees. During their employ of his services he was never a certified strength coach. He may have been a personal trainer, but certification is not legally required to be a personal trainer, although such certification only requires an exam and no course work or field training.

McNamee's credentials are dubious at best, not to mention his phony PhD that he acquired in 2000 from an implicated internet diploma mill known as Columbus University, supposedly located in Louisiana, and since sold off to another entity in another state due to its being nailed by authorities.

McNamee was advertising himself on the internet as Dr. McNamee, PhD in order to market his In-Vite nutritional supplements and his strength training services. He was also getting involved in other enterprises which Clemens was helping to bankroll to help out his career. Although McNamee made claims he was certified, he was not certified as a strength coach until nearly 2006.

According to Dr. Jeff Falkel, Chairman of the Executive Council Certification Commission of the National Strength and Conditioning Association, (NSCA) recently on Will Carroll's BaseballProspectus.com radio show, stated that McNamee did not even take his Certified Strength Conditioning Specialist exam until October 2005.

And unbelievably, MLB does not require certifications of its personal trainers or strength coaches but does require its staff athletic trainers be licensed only as required by law. The NFL, NBA, NHL and NCAA are also lax about certifications other than athletic trainers who work with medical physicians. They still do not require that their strength trainers be credentialed by the NSCA.

What we can conclude from this unveiling of the lack of professionalism and clubhouse culture throughout MLB is that without the cooperation of all of its participants, from the executive level on down to the groundskeepers, it cannot be trusted to police itself, based upon its putrid record thus far. And the business decisions made on the executive level from Commissioner to owner to GM to player to staff employees has been dismal and in disrepair.

Ultimately, greed has been the prevailing culprit, influencing both owners and players alike. But to single out a few super stars will never cure baseball or professional sports of its ills. It is shortsighted by MLB and not surprisingly so by our U.S. Congress. While there is no ready solution, using some common sense might be a good start.

Copyright ©2008 Diane M. Grassi

Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

As Barry Bonds comes ever closer to breaking the National Pastime's hallowed home run record, currently held by Hank Aaron at 755, the controversy regarding illicit performance enhancing drug use, which may forever taint Bond's entire career, does accomplish taking the focus off of Major League Baseball (MLB) and its own shortcomings.

The scrutiny which has been paid, in only just the past two years, over drug use among MLB players, while having been a black eye for MLB, is also convenient as Commissioner Bud Selig need not address myriad other issues which also play their part in preserving the integrity of the game.

For example, MLB has done little exploration into the variations in equipment over just the past 10 years or so and more specifically the wooden bat itself. A number of questions come to mind. Is it just coincidence that Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001 after he switched his bat's wood from that of ash to a hand-lathed maple? Is the accelerated breakage of bats over the past 5 plus years due to an acutely thinning bat handle with a larger barrel and lighter weight or is it the non-discriminate MLB approval process of the making and even storage of bats that makes them more vulnerable?

Is it a coincidence that prior to 2003, MLB welcomed smaller bat makers as suppliers to MLB players but suddenly instituted an exorbitant certification fee with nearly impossible to acquire insurance liability policies for smaller operations, costing thousands upon thousands of dollars? And is it not worth taking a look at why there is such a difference in the quality of bats Hillerich & Bradsby Co., the manufacturer of Louisville Sluggers, provides only specific big leaguers, but does not do so for others? In fact, the company proudly admits it.

Preserving the sanctity of the game is multi-faceted. Although technology and safety standards over time have essentially been a beneficial reward for players, it is hard to measure the consistency of the game of MLB if issues such as bat manufacture and its own baseball operations are done on a selective and arbitrary basis. And when it ultimately impacts the way the game is played and its future records, it should be routinely examined.

Hillerich & Bradsby, although deemed the official bat of MLB, is not the exclusive supplier of bats for its players. However, it is still the number one provider to MLB with about a 60% share of its bats supply and curries favor and power, due to its longevity and stature in the history of the game, not to mention the power which is bestowed upon it by MLB, which few other manufacturers enjoy.

In 2002, there were 48 MLB bat manufacturers, and surprisingly little thought was put into the verification process in order to become a bat maker supplier of MLB bats other than for the supplier to provide a sample bat made out of a single piece of wood. But in 2003, MLB went to the other extreme. In a form letter sent to all bat makers in December 2002, MLB stated it would start requiring that they carry $10 million worth of liability insurance, and indemnify MLB, its shareholders, directors, officers, employees and agents attached to various product liability issues.

In addition, the certification fee was increased to $10,000.00 per year, necessary to provide bat makers with the privilege of selling their bats to MLB players. Since that time, although the liability coverage has been reduced to $5 million per year, it still remains prohibitively expensive for boutique manufacturers, or most other domestic suppliers other than Hillerich and Bradsby, to do business with MLB.

MLB also requires that the insurance carrier providing coverage to bat makers must have a "best rating of A-8 or better." Carolina Clubs, a MLB certified bat maker from Florida, was nearly denied doing business with MLB, as to find a guaranteed insurance carrier of any kind in the hurricane-ridden state of Florida in the post-Katrina era is nearly impossible. However, virtually overnight in 2003, bat suppliers were whittled down to a mere 14 for that season. In 2007, there are supposedly 20-25 suppliers, although MLB makes it difficult to even corroborate such information.

According to the head of MLB Baseball Operations at the time in 2003, Sandy Alderson, "The administrative fee was originally intended to help us defray the costs of inspecting bats, approving bats and for all administrative work and testing." MLB needed $140,000.00 to approve the bats of 14 companies?

In 1862, MLB first restricted the diameter of the barrel, requiring it not exceed 2.5 inches. It was increased in 1895 to 2.75 inches in diameter, as it remains today. 1868 saw the limit put on a length of 42 inches, as it also remains today. No weight requirements, either minimum or maximum have ever been required. With those parameters, combined with improvements in technology and players' bat speeds, it could be argued that it is a far different game than even Babe Ruth played. For example, the Babe used a 42-ounce bat as opposed to the average weight of 32 ounces used by today's MLB players.

Ash bats were exclusively used for decades, after hickory was phased out, until 1997 when Sam Holman of Ottawa, Canada and his Sam Bat caught the attention of then Blue Jays star player, Joe Carter. He then supposedly talked up Holman's bats which eventually in 1999 found their way into the hands of Barry Bonds. Bonds went on a tear hitting 374 of his total home runs with the sugar maple bats from Sam Holman and broke Mark McGuire's 1998 home run season record of 70 by besting him with his 73 in 2001.

Holman's bats have been used by over 500 MLB players and he is expected to furnish Bonds with the bat used for his number 756. Given the proximity of Holman to some of the best maple tree forests in North America in Ottawa, Holman's business has thrived over the past ten years, although he is selling his business in order to retire. Ash trees also hail from a northern climate, and are harvested primarily from the New York-Pennsylvania area.

The arguments over the consistency and flight of the ball with either wood are never-ending, but there are distinct differences between the two woods. Ash supposedly has more flex, but is not as heavy a wood as maple, producing a bit less flight of the ball upon impact. Additionally, ash bats have less longevity than maple bats and break more frequently and are more apt to shatter, flake and splinter upon breaking.

Sugar or rock maple, considered the finest maple for bats, are more expensive, and range in price from $70.00 -$130.00 while ash bats range between $50.00 and $75.00, yet need to be replaced more frequently than maple. Most players using maple claim that the ball travels farther off of the barrel's "sweet spot" as opposed to ash. But because the wood itself is a heavier grade, the barrels are made slightly narrower than the ash bats in order to accommodate a lighter weight comparable to ash. And when maple bats do eventually break, they do so in large pieces as opposed to splinters.

The lack of restrictions on weight or the lack of prescribed storage care of bats by MLB, could have a profound impact on whether or not a bat breaks or explodes upon impact. Such endangers its players and spectators. Players go through an average of 60-70 bats a season. But the moisture content of the wood upon manufacture as well as in storage, whether the bat is hand-lathed or completely machine made, as well as the bat's weight and handle diameter, could all alter the bat's ultimate performance and longevity. Seattle Mariner, Ichiro Suzuki, for example, has his own humidor for his entire bat supply.

And why should a bat maker, such as Sam Holman, who produces several thousand bats each season to MLB as opposed to Hillerich and Bradsby's 750,000, foot a bill of $65,000.00 per year for liability insurance? The supposed interest in increasing liability insurance fees by MLB for bat makers is an easy way for MLB not to address the incessant breakage of its bats. Perhaps it is the quality of MLB bat inspectors, or a lack of a minimum quality standard of wood or the non-requirement of prescribed weight ratio of bat barrels to handles. But instead of MLB looking for a better standardization process for its bats, it would rather thrust the responsibility onto the bat makers, and thereby still leaving players and spectators at risk.

Also of note, according to Hillerich and Bradsby's Chuck Schupp, head of its professional division, "We have a priority list of players. A lot of it is based on a personal relationship. If someone is loyal to us, we'll take care of them." And although players are not required to sign exclusivity contracts with bat makers, as individual teams assume all costs for players' bats, Schupp says there is a "Louisville Slugger 'A' list." It includes Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado and Ken Griffey, Jr., among select others.

If star players are treated preferably by Schupp for their Louisville Slugger bats, does that mean that average or up and coming players are at a distinct disadvantage while not getting the best product from the same manufacturer? Should not MLB perhaps look into that?

And finally, unless MLB and its Commissioner is willing to look at all matters of inequity in its sport, whether it be an issue between players, between equipment manufacturers and its players, between baseball operations and its suppliers or a lack of standardization when it comes to equipment, MLB should not be permitted to point the finger exclusively at the use of performance enhancing drugs as the sole threat to the sanctity of the game. For that is far from the only difference-maker in varying performance results in the game of MLB today.

And if MLB wants to be taken seriously in preserving the integrity of the game, it must do a far better job of it rather than its present lethargic effort. For certainly, they are not fooling the fans and the fans and the players deserve better.

Copyright © 2007 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

"We talkin' about practice! Not a game. We talkin' about practice, man. We ain't talking about the game. But we talkin' about practice!" No, we are not talking about the infamous press conference in May of 2002 and Allen Iverson's response to questions as to why he missed practices with his Philadelphia 76ers teammates. Yet, in hindsight and compared to the esteemed wisdom of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA) and their recent revelation, Iverson's response seems quite apropos.

In a world where political correctness has run amok in every facet of U.S. society, why should the NCAA be any different than any other bureaucratic organization or private corporation? In fact, the NCAA in its efforts to try to separate itself from the image of it being an elitist governing body and only about the scholastic educations of our collegiate athletes, it once again fails us. While trying to convince educators and the public-at-large that it is all about the institution of education, as it prevails by operating similarly to a revenue generating entity, it continues to stumble upon its own misguided principles.

Title IX was enacted into law in 1972 in order to promote sports scholarships and equity for female student athletes seeking a secondary education. NCAA division schools received revenue to support various women's team and sports commensurate to the men's athletic programs. Yet, in its latest attempt to show how it is conscious of gender-equity in Title IX compliance, the CWA has hijacked Title IX and has misappropriated its original intent.

In fact, the CWA needed the past two years to study the latest twist on gender equity or gender-bias, depending upon from which vantage point it is seen, on the issue of the use of male varsity athletes as volunteer practice players primarily for Division I women's basketball teams. The CWA recommended on December 13, 2006 to ban the use of non-scholarship eligible enrolled male varsity athletes from participating from any practices or training within women's intercollegiate athletics programs at Division I or Division II NCAA colleges or universities. Division III already adheres to such a regulation.

Although not yet a mandate, the CWA believes that, "The use of male practice players violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX and that any inclusion of male practice players results in diminished participation opportunities for female student athletes, contrary to the NCAA's principles of gender equity, non-discrimination, competitive equity and student athlete well-being."

But contrary to what the CWA believes, most Division I and successful women's basketball coaches of both genders, coaches of soccer and volleyball teams as well as the Women's Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA) believe that such a requirement would interfere with the development of female athletes and would provide a diminished return to their star athletes, should they be forced to eliminate the male practice players. Fortunately, NCAA committees, conferences and schools will be able to make proposals on the subject during the next year. A vote on the issue by the NCAA would not take place until at least January 2008.

But players such as Erlana Larkins and Ivory Latta, both All-Americans and stars of the elite women's basketball program at the University of North Carolina, relish the time they have playing against the guys. Their practices are intense and the height and strength of the men enhance their training drills, thus rewarding them in actual games. "Love 'em," says Latta. "That's how they make us better. They give us attitude. They give us the killer instinct." And Larkin agrees. "I don't see us getting any better with girls practicing against us and practicing against our teammates."

Likewise, Duke Basketball coach, Gail Goestenkors, endorses the practice of the men players and questions how they would get enough women players to challenge the height and jump capabilities of the very tallest and most accomplished female basketball players. And it is in that regard that the CWA overlooked the subtle accomplishments in women's sports since 1972. There are remaining gripes about shortages and inequities in the number of female coaches and the inability of women's sports, other than women's basketball, still receiving little attention or enough scholarships. Yet, when it comes to basketball, it has led the way in women's collegiate athletics. And so, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Steeped in its own myopia, CWA committee members such as Patrick Nero, Commissioner of the America East Conference laments, "How are they to get better if they're sitting in practice? It's one thing to not be playing in a game because they haven't reached that level yet, but for them to sit through an entire practice while men run up and down with their teammates, we just think it's really against the spirit of Title IX."

But to assume that because two or three male practice players equates no practice time for bench or second team players is misguided and gives little credit to the individual coaches who stand to lose games unless they practice all of their players. Just because the starters are practicing with men, does not mean that the bench players are not practicing with them at all. For the most part, they are actually practicing against the starters who are only made better by practicing at a higher level.

Also not given credence is the problem of the number of scholarships offered to female athletes. Not every school has the resources. According to Goestenkors, she only has 11 or 12 players on scholarship. "Now I have to have 15 on scholarships just so I can [have enough] to practice." And who can argue with Tennessee coach, Pat Summitt, who has won more games than any other coach in the history of women's basketball. She weighed in last week and said, "I think it would be detrimental to women's basketball. If you look at what has happened, the parity in the game, the fact that we have male practice players, they challenge us. It's not like they take away opportunities. On the contrary, they provide opportunities for our teams to work on specific game preparation."

And also probably unknown to most people, according to Coach Summitt, when she coached the U.S. Olympic Women's Basketball team as far back as 1984 she recalls, "We played against one female team in the exhibition games. The rest of the time, we played against males. The guys made us better."

Russ Rose, women's volleyball coach at Penn State University notes, "I feel comfortable that every player in my gym has the opportunity to make progress because they are allowed to come in and get individual instruction anytime they want. I think it would do more damage to my second team to have the first team beat the heck out of them every day. Now, the second team has a chance to beat the first team on a daily basis, and some of those second team kids get a chance to elevate their play. You need your starting team on one side and a formidable opponent on the other."

And Stanford University women's volleyball coach, John Dunning, although he does not use male practice players says, "Good coaching is learning how to balance: to create in players a sense of self-esteem balanced with pushing them to get better. If you can create a setting in practice that's harder than games by having better people on the other side of the netas long as that's managed properlythen that certainly make sense."

While the NCAA remains dismayed about the lack of women's coaching opportunities, it props up its ill-serving methodology on gender equity through statistics which do not paint the entire picture. For example, in 1972 more than 90% of women's teams were coached by women. In 2006 this number has fallen dramatically to 42.4%. In 1972 more than 90% of women's athletic programs were administered by female athletic directors. In 2006 92% of Division I Athletic Directors are male and 8% are female. Yet, since 1972, the quality of the play of female athletes and the strength of individual programs has improved significantly.

The silver lining, which the NCAA and CWA need to take a serious look at, is the actual realized accomplishment of the women athletes in these programs, who exemplify the true meaning of the student athlete. With the exception of the WNBA, which after 10 years is running on fumes going into 2007, there are no professional athletic opportunities for women athletes. For those who are lucky enough to reach the Olympics in individual sports such as track and field or swimming, it is a long, long road, and they rarely ever reach the compensation or notoriety of their male counterparts.

College is the time for female athletes to shine, be it from the expertise of a male coach, female coach, or male practice players. And with the advent of the NCAA Final Four Basketball Championship, by way of the success of the men's tournament, the women's NCAA Final Four focuses more attention on women's sports than any other event with the exception of the Olympics. By extension, a positive and supportive environment for the future of all girls across the U.S. from all walks of life is finally emerging. And those girls in search of all kinds of future endeavors are no longer pure fantasy but translate into real possibilities.

And for those of you too young to remember or not born yet, there was a time when a male coach would never want to be associated with coaching women. They would not take those coaching jobs because they thought it was a step down, that women were not worth the effort and looked upon it as a humiliation. And there certainly was a time when you would never get an undergraduate male athlete willing to volunteer his free time to play basketball with a girl. In fact these guys are not just practice players but have become the designated cheerleaders for the women. They then encourage their male friends to go to games and support women's sports at their schools. So, there are hidden trade offs too.

Women's sports will continue to thrive because of the attention paid and insight given by men in collaboration with women. Gender equity will not evolve without the support of men. Its intent was not to bar men. Its intent was to help women succeed. And unless the NCAA realizes that, Title IX will not fulfill its intended purpose.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

"I'm surprised at the number of elite athletes from around the world who are in the NBA as of 2006." National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner David Stern made this comment when asked about the future of the NBA. For the 2006-2007 NBA season, approximately 100 of the NBA's 450 players will be from countries outside of the United States. But David Stern's surprise is rather disingenuous, as he readily admits the NBA's commitments to investing in Europe, South America, Africa and China, to name a few, over the past decade.

"The China market is our most important and largest market outside the United States. China is clearly priority No. 1," Stern said, as he was interviewed from Guangzhou, China in early August 2006, where the U.S. National Basketball Team was playing in exhibition games prior to the World Championships in Japan. He went on to say that the NBA's business holdings in China are growing by 30% each year.

Stern hopes to double the NBA's staff from 50 to 100 at its three China offices in time for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. Stern has structured a marketing engine in China, ready to sell more NBA merchandise and apparel, expanding its online presence, offering live streaming of NBA games online and hopes to double its broadcasts of NBA games to 50 in the next few years. Stern has set his sights on the NBA playing regular season games in China as well.

Although NBA.com/China was launched by the NBA in November 2002 and has had limited TV broadcasts since 1991, it currently has programming on 24 television outlets including on national TV station China Central Television, which broadcasts NBA games for free. NBA merchandise is sold in over 20,000 retail outlets throughout China and in 2005-2006 the NBA signed on with five new Chinese marketing partners. Recruitment of new talent cannot be overlooked either, with the NBA's appetite to diversify its player personnel. But one can only wonder how much benefit NBA players will realize from such investments.

But this is only part of the story, as there are many problems which still remain such as the rampant counterfeiting of NBA merchandise in China, which exists in every sector of marketed goods there, costing U.S. firms billions of dollars in lost revenues each year. In addition, censorship of broadcasts and limited internet access by the Chinese people is controlled by the Communist Chinese Party. China's persistent human rights and labor abuses are never discussed in a perfect NBA world either and why should they be? After all, the U.S. government pays but lip service to a trade partner and major creditor in China, which the U.S. economy is virtually dependent upon.

Prior to Stern's recent visit to China, back in the U.S. in June 2006, United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Chairman, Peter Ueberroth, signed a bilateral agreement with the China Olympic Committee. Titled the Memorandum of Intentions for Sport Exchanges Between the Chinese Olympic Committee and the United States Olympic Committee, it is designed to promote friendship and understanding between the two nations.
According to Ueberroth, "We clearly need to reach out to every nation, no exception, and envelop friendship through sport," supposedly to give other countries a different perception of Americans.

But the agreement in friendship goes far beyond a mere symbolic gesture, just two years before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It will provide the Chinese with the U.S. sharing of its expertise in coaching, its sports facilities, inroads in science and medicine, management and marketing, among other things. It is arguable about how much the U.S will gain from China's implied reciprocity.

What is clear, is that China looks at sports far differently than the U.S. does. Sports are not just games or a business or sheer entertainment for the Chinese. Elite athletes in China are trained to project national ambition. China's main intent is not to develop NBA stars but for their athletes to be representative of the nation and that international competition is far more important than lending a few players to the NBA. But yet the Chinese are also smart in business and will suffer allowing a little entertainment for its people, on its own terms of course, while at the same time benefiting from millions of dollars in American business ventures.

And while the Chinese have different cultural objectives than the western world, other countries are about the individual. The NBA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, (NCAA) in addition to Major League Baseball (MLB) and the National Football League, (NFL) are about packaging those individuals in order to market the whole of their sports. And as all of the aforementioned are businesses, they look at the bottom line, even at the sake of opportunities for American athletes.

While the NBA has been successful in creating a myth that European players have better fundamental skills than American players, yet are inferior overall to the American NBA player, it all comes down to economics. Since the U.S. uses the NCAA primarily as its developmental league, and Europeans can sign professional contracts at age 16, the NBA signs European players and waits now until they are 19 years of age and drafts them directly into the NBA. But the NBA does not get the full scope of the player's skills, as they remain secluded in another country during development. The NBA however takes a gamble and figures that buying out a less than lucrative contract for a potential superstar is a better bet than having patience with an American who may have had a marginal NCAA career and may demand an overpriced contract.

Meanwhile, NCAA Basketball is rabidly recruiting those foreign players who do not sign professional contracts abroad, or those who may have fraudulently made their way into the American collegiate system, which has been fully documented. It includes players from as far away as Australia, as in Andrew Bogut, the first overall NBA draft pick of 2005. Players are also brought in from Argentina, Brazil, Africa, all of Europe, Russia and the West Indies, among others. However, the signing of such foreign students means less opportunity for American students, and some of whom who just wish to finance an education while at the same time doing so by playing basketball.

Yet, the majority of Europeans playing college basketball are not NBA material. And instead of playing in their home countries for a minimal salary they instead get the good fortune of a free college education. According to Andrew Bogut, "Once you're here, you're kind of taken care of. A job isn't necessary if you're on a full scholarship." "With a free education, three meals a day and a nice dormitory, rather than complain about college cafeteria food, they think its Morton's Steakhouse," says Fran Fraschilla, former St. John's University and University of New Mexico basketball coach, speaking of the foreign student athletes.

Think its only basketball where Americans are losing ground? Aquatic athletes are coming to U.S. college campuses in droves. Since the modern Olympic Games, the U.S. has dominated in international aquatic competition. Australia has recently closed the gap. And the women's German swim team no longer dominates as it once did with the use of anabolic steroids, which existed in the pre-testing era when there was an East German team. China's use of steroids was also deterred upon testing positive in past Olympics with several of its women swimmers.

But now athletes are welcomed with opened arms to experience the best training in the world, only to go home and compete against the U.S. on the world's stage. Countries such as Germany, Malaysia, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Hungary, Kazakstan and of course China, among many other countries, send their athletes to enroll in U.S. schools with the best swimming and diving programs. Such schools offer excellent academics as well including the University of California at Los Angeles, (UCLA) the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Southern California, the University of Minnesota, the University of Florida and the University of Arizona.

And we cannot forget about the recent flood of professional tennis players and professional golfers making homes in the U.S. while seeking out U.S. trainers and coaches in order to increase their winning potential on the world circuits. Primarily among them are Russian women tennis players and Korean women golfers.

And while individual professional athletes are received differently than professional teams or college athletes in the U.S., the sports industry including the USOC wishes to change its image from that of competitor to that of being inclusive and politically correct. Should that come at the expense of funding Americans preparing for the Olympics or deprives American students from college educations all in the name of globalism, so be it. Yet, it will eventually defeat the U.S. athlete and impact morale and America's sense of competition.

And finally, the idea that white American players are not equipped to play in the NBA but white European players are, including those who are not professionals and go through the same NCAA experience, is but a fallacy and has been perpetuated for far too long. The few exceptions to this myth are the newly drafted Adam Morrison and J.J. Reddick, and past players John Stockton, Christian Laettner, and Chris Mullin along with the great Larry Bird. It is simply wrong. Were Europeans the best players, it might be more acceptable.

But the increase of insourcing foreign players in the U.S. will become the new norm and the best athletes now, who are predominantly African Americans, will be sacrificed. As aptly put by Kenny Smith, former NBA world champion and now TNT studio analyst for NBA games, "Something deeper and more complex than "poor fundamentals" is at play here and young NBA players had better check it out."

The USOC, the NBA, the NCAA, MLB, including the NFL, simply cannot continue to dilute the American pool of athletes while at the same time expect Americans to dominate in their respective sports. Such hypocrisy is no better exhibited than by the NBA and the USOC, fearful that America no longer dominates basketball internationally as it once did, while the NBA in 2006 devotes 25% of its spots to foreign players.

It remains unfair and unrealistic for those Americans who aspire in the future to become college, Olympic or professional athletes and eventual champions. For without America's resources and its full support they will simply lose.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

On May 28, 2006 Barry Bonds succeeded in hitting his 715th home run to pass Babe Ruth's homerun record and now second to Hank Aaron's Major League Baseball (MLB) all-time home run record of 755, it is representative in a number of ways of the present state of MLB. Specifically, the state of the game's future in the African-American community comes to mind. And it might be an appropriate time to reexamine the decline of participation of the black athlete in baseball, which is a far more multi-faceted problem than commonly expressed.

While there is a dearth of interest among young boys and teenagers in the black community participating in organized baseball, the reasons most often provided are shortsighted and often too easy to come by. Without an honest discourse between the leaders of the black communities throughout the United States, as well as some candor coming from the offices of MLB, what seems an insurmountable problem to attract blacks to baseball, will forever remain.

And although it is simply too easy to blame any one entity for all of the fall-off of black players in baseball, the primary beneficiary, of ignoring players from the U.S. including white players, remains MLB. And it must be held accountable, regardless of myriad cultural reasons attributed to children's lack of interest in baseball, predominantly in the inner city neighborhoods, for its lack of investment in them.

On February 28, 2006, MLB opened its first Urban Youth Academy in the U.S. At a cost of $3 million which took three years to complete, with the idea shopped around for six, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig clucked, "This is the first of what I hope is a series of academies all over America." The facility is located at the campus of Compton Community College on 10 acres of land in Compton, CA, south of Los Angeles. It includes two regulation size baseball diamonds, a youth field and one for girl's softball and a 12,000 square foot clubhouse with locker room, weight room and other training facilities. It is expected to be a prototype for other U.S. facilities, through the Urban Youth Initiative, which will serve not only as a catalyst for reviving baseball but a place for inner-city youth to enjoy each summer and after school.

Starting in June 2006, 125 children each day are expected to participate and to be given instruction by professional level coaches on playing the game. The monetary investment however was not solely supplied by MLB. $70,000.00 was collectively donated by Enos Cabell, Jr. and Tim Purpura, GM of the Houston Astros for batting cages and $500,000.00 was donated by L.A.'s Anaheim Angels. Access to classrooms and computers are being made available by Compton Community College. Compton was picked primarily as so many African-Americans from MLB's past arose from Compton, but also because the college donated a number of its facilities. It takes on average three years to build a Major League stadium. It is stunning how long it took to put in four ball fields and a clubhouse with so little financial investment from MLB and whose idea largely came to the Commissioner's Office as a grass roots effort.

In 1989, former Major League player, John Young, developed a program called RBI or Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities in South Central Los Angeles for children ages 12-18. In 1991, MLB got involved and assumed its administration. MLB then teamed with the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association from 1993-1996 in providing grants to various cities demonstrating financial need. After five years, Young went national and by 1997 RBI collaborated with various chapters of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. However, MLB and its individual teams have only provided $15 million for RBI since 1991.

The RBI program now includes both boys and girls and its objective is to also include nurturing children's interest in school along with baseball as the main component. It claims that it has helped more than 150,000 children in more than 200 cities worldwide play baseball. And its Quick SMART! Program addresses the issues of alcohol, tobacco and other harmful drugs with city youth. Says Roberto Clemente, Jr., who founded the RBI program in Pittsburgh, "RBI keeps kids out of trouble and off the streets, while at the same time teaching them to stay in school. The educational components help them realize their potential and worth in receiving college scholarships based not only on athletics, but academics." But one can question the program's expansion worldwide before the job is done in the U.S.

"Campos Las Palmas has set the standard for what a baseball academy should be and we're extremely proud of the work done here, not only on the field, but in the community as well." No, this is not another baseball academy planned for the U.S. but a quote from Frank McCourt, owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, upon his visit to the Dodger's Dominican Republic baseball complex, in celebrating its 20th year anniversary, earlier in 2006. And while no one can find fault with the individual efforts of the RBI program nor with the idea of Urban Youth Academies in the U.S., it is necessary to contrast those programs with over the $60 million dollars each year which MLB and its individual teams pour into Latin American countries for player development.

Most MLB teams have more than one such facility in Latin America with the most located in the Dominican Republic, followed by Venezuela. When Camp Las Palmas opened in the 1987 season, it was the first facility of its kind and became the universal prototype for all MLB teams in Latin America. It sits on 75 acres of land, equipped with two full and two half baseball fields, a dining room, kitchen, recreation room and two two-story dormitories accommodating 100 players. In addition, it provides lessons in adapting to American culture, classes in English, and nutritional counseling.

Players stay up to 30 days at a time and can be signed at age 16 unlike players in the U.S. where players must at least complete high school or be 18 years of age. If they are enrolled in college, U.S. players must wait until the age of 21 to be signed. But then they go into the draft, which clubs claim deters them from investing in any development of U.S. players, as another club could end up as the beneficiary of such efforts. Also, Latin America does not face competition from the sports of basketball and football as baseball does in the U.S., therefore giving MLB many more prospects to choose from.

It is crucial to understand that offshoring of Latin American baseball players is arguably directly proportional to the loss of African Americans being developed in MLB. Black players were at their peak of their composition in MLB in the late '70's and early '80's or roughly 27% of all players. Today that total hovers around 10%. However, it is the combination of other factors which make the Latin American factor even more decimating to the black athlete's chances of ever making it to the Major Leagues.

Ideologies include the increased incarceration of young black males, the lack of positive role models and the lack of two parent families as contributing factors. They, however, cannot necessarily be declared the primary determinants of the lack of blacks' participation in baseball. It is argued that expense is a factor, as it supposedly takes $100,000.00 to build a baseball field and that even if there are baseball fields available, maintenance costs are necessary too. But urban and rural African-Americans played baseball on sandlots and played street stickball for generations, long before pristine $100,000.00 fields were considered a prerequisite to playing baseball.

Others argue that the National Basketball Association (NBA) has done a far better job at marketing to black youth, who rarely ever go to MLB games. And making the National Football League (NFL) is far more attractive than an arduous and lengthy learning process on the way to earning a MLB contract. Both the NBA and the NFL although now require at least a year of college play, are a fast track on the way to fast bucks for those lucky enough to make it. Still, the family fabric not only in the inner city, but more pronounced there, has destroyed the learning curve necessary to build a baseball following. Baseball requires a father or father figure such as a youth leader or mentor to have an impact upon, what used to be considered the National Pastime, the inner-city child. And if they are not hooked by age 13 or 14, it's hard to get them interested later.

Requisite hand-eye coordination skills do not come to children naturally and must be learned, unlike the immediate impact of shooting a basketball or running with a football. It takes patience and fortitude for those skills that must be nurtured. Historically, such nurturers were fathers. But also absent today is the presence of present MLB players who do not involve themselves with the community like Hall of Famers, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson and Reggie Jackson did. The black MLB player today must step up even more so, especially because of the lack of male role models in the black community.

The dissolution of the once three-sport player has also added to the demise of baseball in the inner city. Many public schools only field a football team or basketball team and have dropped baseball altogether. Intramural programs, the victim of budget cuts, only heightens the chances that black youth will be absorbed into gangs, due to lack of organized programs for them.

And for college baseball players, scouting is limited and even more so for the black baseball athlete who rarely competes in baseball in college due to the small scholarships awarded for baseball. Even Howard University has dropped its baseball program, which one would think is a no-brainer for the development of African American baseball players, given its vast appreciation of black history. The National Collegiate Athletic Association only allows for 11.7 baseball scholarships at any given time for a team of 30 players on a roster. Full scholarships are rare. Football, however, is allowed up to 85 scholarships and basketball gets 13 for a roster half the size of baseball's. Both programs are provided far more full scholarships.

Frank Robinson, now 70, and presently the Manager of the Washington Nationals after holding several positions within MLB, became part of the first generation of great black players who followed Jackie Robinson's breaking the color barrier in 1947. And Frank Robinson holds today's players accountable. "People don't see minorities attached to the community or going home and giving something back. Now the stars and the top players, they hide. They don't go into the community. They don't go back into the inner city or where their roots were. Baseball is now third, maybe fourth in the [inner-city] household."

Yet, the baseball draft instilled in 1965, with stricter age limits, combined with MLB's vastly increased development in Latin America over the past 20 years, remain the biggest impediments, along with the lack of MLB's moral will, in increasing the African-American presence in MLB. Much like the ill-fated acceptance of the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs by U.S. multi-national corporations, MLB has enjoyed the same misguided regime, regardless if it ultimately hurts the American athlete.

Commissioner Selig stated after the 2005 season that gate receipts, merchandising revenue, team revenue- sharing and acquired broadcast rights revenue were at all-time highs in MLB. He likes the public to know that, given his abysmal management in other areas such allowing steroids in baseball over the years, the 1994 strike, the handling of the sale of the Montreal Expos, including his lack of involvement with the black community. However, while baseball enjoys such "good times," like its multi-national counterparts, MLB does not reinvest in the U.S.

Much like cheap labor overseas appears to be a required component of U.S. industry, similarly the benefits of signing and investing in baseball players has been relegated to Latin American players and more recently in Asia, where the rules of the U.S. do not apply. So instead, MLB has found new ways to circumvent its problems by merely skipping over U.S. players. And while the African-American community has seen the starkest decline in participation, the white community is also losing ground to foreign players. More than 40% of major and minor league players are born outside of the U.S., with nearly 30% comprising the major leagues. It is predicted that by 2007 over 50% of all major and minor league players will be Latin Americans.

Prior to 1965, teams could contract with any high school graduate that scouts identified. Since it was believed that this advantaged only the wealthier teams, MLB imposed the draft. U.S. citizens could no longer be signed immediately, starting the cycle of lack of development investment by particular clubs. Along with supposedly eliminating the exploitation of underage players, the age restrictions followed. However, a player can be signed to a MLB contract at age 16 in Latin America with the clubs spending several years developing those players far earlier. By the time a U.S. player reaches 18 or 21 if they are in college, they are years behind Latin American players. Secondly, the contracts offered the Latin American undeveloped players are far less than those offered drafted U.S. prospects. And prior to 1984 there was no age limit on signing Latin American players who were signed as young as 12 or 14.

Since developing players is a big expense, MLB simply went after the "cheap and unregulated labor." Sound familiar? And for foreign and U.S. players of similar talent levels the expected recompense for U.S. players is much lower given the lack of property rights in developing him and what is expected to be a shorter career. If it is a choice between two players of equal talent in the U.S. or Latin America, the MLB club invariably chooses the foreign or Latin American player.

While white players who are affluent or have a family willing to invest resources to have their sons join available teams outside the inner city, the road still remains a gamble due to the outright scouting delays of Americans, given the preference of the cheaper talent. Unless a draft choice is truly bankable, the chances of that prospect succeeding are contingent upon his former training either from college or paid for opportunities from family. And U.S. baseball players do not have the benefit of competing at academies like those in Latin America, often run like baseball boarding schools with seemingly unlimited budgets.

In conclusion, much like the U.S. watches its industries and institutions being sold bit by bit to foreign entities, it will take the will of the community, not just the black community or the white community, but the American community, to fight for our young people and to show them that America is worth fighting for. We can no longer afford to isolate ourselves from each other regardless of our color or ethnicity. For this fight is far more than the one between basketball and baseball. It is symbolic of the erosion of that which once identified America and was a staple of the family and by extension our neighborhoods. And contrary to popular belief, the hijacking of America's National Pastime is not unimportant, but is indicative of a dangerous trend in the U.S. And we owe it to ourselves as Americans to not only save our children in the process but in turn to save our country.

Copyright 2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

How often does it happen that a present Major League Baseball All-Star player gets treated with so little respect that he is told after his trade to another team that he will have to give up his starting position or else? After all, baseball has come a long way since free agency, forming its players' association, gaining arbitration for its players, and providing them access to high-powered agents nearly guaranteeing them a shot at multi-million dollar contracts.

But this latest faux pas on the part of Major League Baseball ownership concerns 2nd baseman Alfonso Soriano, formerly of the Texas Rangers and the New York Yankees, who has spent the entirety of his major league career playing 2nd base. He has been known, however, for his offense over the past five years which included his first three years, 2001- 2003, with the New York Yankees and his last two years, 2004 and 2005, with the Texas Rangers.

Yet, before all of the so-called expert pundits and baseballs' fans have at it with their generalizations about the latest supposed "spoiled professional athlete who should grow up," it would be wise to examine exactly which athlete they are attacking and the circumstances involved. Unfortunately, it is athletes such as the NFL's Terrell Owens who have now given all professional athletes a bad name.

The dilemma which has become the talk of the day and should play itself out by week's end, or around March 24, 2006, involves the controversial trade of Soriano from the Texas Rangers to the Washington Nationals on December 7, 2005, which became official on December 13, 2005. The Washington Nationals' General Manager, Jim Bowden, was looking to get some pop in the Nats' lineup and offered to trade outfielder, Brad Wilkerson, outfielder Termel Sledge and minor league pitching prospect, Armando Galarraga to the Rangers.

Prior to the trade, in all fairness to Bowden, he claims that before the Nationals signed off on the deal, he requested the Rangers' permission to speak to Soriano first, to specifically ask him if he would agree to change his 2nd base position to leftfield. The Rangers said no, supposedly pending players' physicals, and precisely because they knew of Soriano's history of not wanting to change positions in the past and did not want to kill the deal. According to Bowden, "We took it [to mean that] if we talked to the player [the Rangers felt] that the player would say no [to changing positions] and the deal would be killed." Soriano was never consulted about being traded either for that matter.

When Soriano originally signed his first Major League Baseball contract, with the New York Yankees in 2001, he was a shortstop, which he considered his natural position. Obviously, with shortstop, Derek Jeter, at that position, the Yankees were forced to find another position for him as he showed so much promise with his bat. When he filled in briefly at shortstop for a few weeks during Spring Training in the 2001 season when Jeter was nursing an injury, he proved to the Yankees that they had to have him in the lineup everyday. And when Jeter returned that spring, Soriano was moved to left field, albeit for a total of only five games. Soriano was expected to start the season there, but when 2nd baseman, Chuck Knoblauch, developed a mental block with the inability to throw to 1st base, the Yankees switched the two players' positions. Since that time, Soriano has never played any other position but 2nd base and has never played a regular season major league game in the outfield.

But upon arriving in Texas in 2004, when Soriano was traded by the Yankees for Alex Rodriguez, Rangers' manager, Buck Showalter, had another rising star in Michael Young, also a 2nd baseman, who needed to be added to the lineup. Unlike Bowden's approach, however, Showalter felt out the situation with Soriano changing positions. "We just talked about trying to make some plans and asked him how he felt about it. It wasn't something we were trying to cram down his throat." And Michael Young helped resolve the situation by volunteering to move to shortstop, as Soriano was adamant about not moving from 2nd base.

Given Soriano's known history of relishing his position at 2nd base in spite of steeped criticism of his defense, it makes Jim Bowden's deal for him seem ill fated from the onset, as it was well known throughout MLB of Soriano's reticence to change positions. And in the case of Soriano, Yogi Berra's philosophy could not hold more true as "Baseball is 90% mental, the other 50% is physical." Given Soriano's being so upset with the situation is enough to distract his offense, let alone learning a whole knew position as the season progresses.

But one would think that given his stellar offensive skills and his good attitude would have earned him some brownie points to not have been put in this position in the first place. A four-time All-Star from 2002-2005 and the MVP of the 2004 All-Star Game, Soriano has earned his notoriety and the $10 million he will earn this year, due to his record-high arbitration case. Although considered a defensive liability, Soriano's offensive stats are more than impressive. They include his breakout season in 2002 when he had 209 hits, 128 runs scored, 39 home runs, 102 RBI, 41 stolen bases, 51 doubles, a .332 batting average and 198 hits. In 2003, Soriano followed up with very comparable stats with a .338 batting average, 35 stolen bases, 38 home runs, 114 runs scored, 198 hits and 91 RBI.

In 2004 when he was with his new team, the Rangers, his offense dipped slightly but he finished with a respectable .324 batting average with 91 RBI and 170 hits. And in 2005, his batting average dropped off markedly to .268 but he still scored 102 runs, had 171 hits, 43 doubles, 36 home runs, 30 stolen bases and 104 RBI. Only time will tell how the grand expanse of RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. and adjusting to the National League will impact his offensive skills.

Following the no-show of Soriano for the Nationals' Spring Training game against the Los Angeles Dodgers on March 20th, when he was written in the lineup by manager, Frank Robinson, to play leftfield, he will have another opportunity to redeem himself by showing up for the March 22nd game which the Nationals have against the St. Louis Cardinals in another pre-season matchup. It has been promised that the lineup card will remain the same according to Robinson.

Should Soriano maintain his refusal to play leftfield and thus refuse to play, according to Bowden, the Nationals will petition MLB's Commissioner's Office to place Soriano on the rarely used "disqualified list." This additionally presents Commissioner Selig with a new twist to the problem, in that MLB officially still owns the Nationals, as Selig has failed as of yet to get a deal done for new ownership. Becoming "disqualified" translates into Soriano losing his salary for 2006, losing any credit for 2006 service time and his chance to become a free agent at the end of the season would also be lost as he would remain the property of the Nationals.

Since Soriano chose to participate in the March 2006 World Baseball Classic (WBC) for the Dominican Republic team, should he decide to play leftfield, he now has less than two weeks in which to learn a non-infield position he has never officially played. Bowden claims that during Soriano's time away during the WBC he tried to work a deal to trade Soriano if the right offer came along. "We obviously will field offers, but we're not going to give the player away, Bowden said on March 20th. "If we can make a deal that makes sense, we would have. At this point we have not been given a trade proposal that makes any sense for the Nationals, he said.

Besides putting his manager, Frank Robinson, in an uncomfortable position, and giving Soriano an ultimatum of playing leftfield after the trade was completed, leaves the actions of Bowden questionable. Combined with the fact that the Nationals already had an All-Star 2nd baseman in Jose Vidro, and Bowden's admission that he had heard of Soriano's prior insistence on playing 2nd base prior to the deal with the Rangers, could put his own job in jeopardy when new ownership is finally decided. After all, the deal for Soriano was misguided at best and Bowden's theory that he alone could convince Soriano to change positions was foolhardy. It begs the question, excuses aside, which Soriano himself asked of Bowden, "Why didn't you try to talk to me before you made the trade?"

It's that time of the year again. The 2005 National Football League season has come to an end with the Pittsburgh Steelers capturing the Super Bowl title, the Major League Baseball Spring Training season is just readying to begin, the National Basketball Association is in a holding pattern for most fans until its playoffs, the NASCAR season is just getting started with the Daytona 500 and the National Hockey League is on hiatus due to the 2006 Winter Olympics. And with the NCAA's March Madness still weeks away, what is a sports fan to do?

We force ourselves to tune in to the NBC television broadcast network in order to try to catch some of the real competition on tap in the XX Olympic Winter Games. Sports fans are not averse to watching Winter Olympics coverage, but trying to figure out NBC's television schedule has become a sport of Olympic proportions unto itself.

The supposed television Winter Olympics schedule is available in local newspapers, in various sports magazines and all over the internet. But the schedule times are useless in pinpointing when any particular sport is broadcasted. And depending on what time zone one lives in, it is virtually impossible not to hear the results on television, radio, or view online prior to seeing the broadcast as NBC has its coverage tape delayed in five different U.S. time zones.

The excuse to not broadcast real time coverage during these Olympic Games is viable this year in that Italy is six hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Standard Time. But on weekends it is feasible for live coverage at least on the east coast. It is worth noting that almost 40 years ago, U.S. television viewers were able to enjoy primarily live coverage of the 1968 Winter Olympics from Grenoble, France and later with the 1972 Olympic Summer Games from Munich, Germany, via television satellite. But what was the excuse in not broadcasting the 1996 Summer Olympics live when they were in Atlanta, GA and then when the 2002 Winter Olympics were in Salt Lake City, UT? Both were instead tape delayed, again in five different time zones.

The reason for NBC's incoherent TV scheduling is because of its monopolized ability to edit and package the coverage any which way it wishes in order to appease sponsors while placing advertising spots wherever and whenever it chooses. Unfortunately, for the viewer, it denies the spontaneity of competition as well as deprives viewers from selectively choosing which sports they wish to watch.

NBC has bragged about providing 416 hours of broadcast coverage on NBC including its three cable television stations. But as through the first week of competition, viewers have been treated to little more than glorified highlights between 8:00 PM – 11:30 PM in whichever time zone one happens to be. During that time period, bits and pieces of coverage from any one of 15 sport disciplines are shown, with scant coverage of any athletes other than American Olympians or only winners of an event should they not be American.

We lose the continuity of viewing any one event such as alpine skiing, speed skating, ski jumping or even bobsledding for that matter. Essentially, races necessitate competitors being seen in sequence or at least the contenders, rather than a cut and paste version of them. And while figure skating viewing requires less of a need for the immediacy of viewing other competitors in the event, one would be hard pressed as to when to plan on tuning in. Although more time is devoted to the figure skating events than most others, its coverage is peppered with teasers and unexpected commercial breaks in the action, making it sometimes painful to get through, even for its avid fans.

Since television coverage of the Olympics is all about ratings, as is all television fare, NBC for years now has shot itself in the proverbial foot when whining that not enough of the American public is tuning in to Olympics coverage, no longer just applicable to the Winter Olympics, either. While the Summer Olympics attracts more viewers, its coverage too is close to beyond the pale.

What NBC has tried to do over the years is to please all demographics as well as its sponsors while losing sight of the intrinsic value of the actual event. But as viewership continues to erode for Olympics coverage, the NBC network is largely responsible. In its zeal to compel the American viewer to tune in, it has overproduced its coverage, thus turning off the very audience it is trying to attract and retain.

The Olympics tells its own story and most sports fans do not have the patience to sit through over three hours of teaser-filled coverage. Now we all know the reason it is done this way. The hope is that viewers will sit through enough coverage in order to be exposed to advertisers as well as to garner more consistent ratings. But in fact, NBC is accomplishing the opposite result, forcing many to either record the coverage and thus eliminate the ads, or tuning out completely.

So what you say? Who cares? Well, chances are if you are reading this, you are a sports fan. Although we all have our favorite sport, we crave watching competition, with few exceptions. For example, the idea of watching curling is comparable to watching paint dry and how it is considered an athletic event is beyond this writer's comprehension.

But for now, we are stuck with what we have. When the numbers are crunched this time 'round for NBC, perhaps they will get the message that the sports fan drives the numbers and more and more of us are getting fed up. Maybe they need to go back to the drawing board and revisit the Jim McKay book on covering worldwide sporting events. It worked for ABC broadcasting way back when, when the athletes were the story, not the network; sadly a crucial element which NBC seems to have forgotten.

Big media and corporate sponsorship of sporting events in the United States have become as big a story these days as the sports and athletes they themselves sponsor, with nary an opportunity missed by advertisers and networks alike to promote themselves. Whether it is the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the National Collegiate Athletics Association, or the United States Olympics teams, the broadcasting rights and contracts and their respective advertising dollars rule. But unfortunately, how individual sports and their respective athletes are treated by such entities varies, and especially if the athlete is on the U.S. Winter Olympics team.

There are a bevy of ironies which most sports fans are aware of when it comes to "non-professional" athletes and teams. For starters, the Winter Olympics is not given the gravitas that the Summer Olympic Games enjoy every four years. In fact, most American spectator-sports fans are hardly cognizant that the 2006 Winter Olympics' Opening Ceremonies are set for February 10, 2006 in Torino, Italy, a mere five days following the NFL's Super Bowl XL.

These days the Super Bowl trumps all other sports for television viewership in the U.S., although not historically. And we cannot blame the failure of promoting the Winter Olympics and its respective sports on the success of the NFL. However, we can be critical of the non-existent coverage, for example, of World Cup skiing since the 2002 Winter Olympics, and arguably the most broadly appealing event of the Winter Games, as a truly competitive sport, maybe with the exception of ice hockey. After all, people in the U.S. do ski. And even though figure skating is a big draw, we all know that it is more a presentation that an athletic competition. And how many of us go on curling vacations?

Years ago, the World Championships for skiing were featured on broadcast television, namely on ABC Sports. Nowadays, sports fans are lucky if they happen to catch it on the obscure cable television network, Outdoor Life, which on occasion and inconsistently provides taped coverage of the U.S. Ski Team, usually a week to ten days even after the event has taken place. What a great way to promote interest!

Then, we have the hypocrisy of the U.S. Olympic Ski Team and the United States Olympics Committee which wants to have it both ways. They need the television coverage and sponsors and expect their athletes to tow the party line in being "part of the team." However, virtually almost all the Olympic athletes compete as individuals.

There is also the rub that the American people do not have the appetite for winter sports. But with little exposure but every four years but for two weeks of coverage, you cannot blame the fans. On top of that the USOC expects the U.S. Olympic team to display exceptional behavior above and beyond those in the professional sports community, since its athletes represent the U.S. on the world's stage. Others argue that an Olympian should not be treated any differently than say U.S. tennis champion, Andy Roddick, who competes for the World Tennis Association or even golfer, Tiger Woods, when competing in Professional Golfers Association events.

That brings us to the latest media frenzy regarding 2005 World Cup Skiing Champion, Bode Miller. For those of us who have more than a five-minute memory, you may recall that Miller won two silver medals during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT. In fact, television ratings and American awareness of the Winter Olympics are said to have surpassed expectations in 2002, because the Games were held just months after the September 11, 2001 attack on the U.S., and the Olympics offered an opportunity for Americans to "heal." Therefore, those who normally would not watch the Winter Olympics did and Bode Miller was one of the feel-good stories of the Games.

Bode Miller was not expected to medal in 2002 and walked off with the silver in both the alpine combined and giant slalom races. He nearly fell down during the course of one of his races but still managed to finish second. Miller was hardly a lost story of the 2002 Winter Games. But for those potential new fans which could have come aboard since or those of us who would have liked to follow Miller's career since, we have been locked out.

In 2005, Miller spent 250 days on the road competing nearly six months predominantly in Europe, where he is far better known. He became the first American skier in 22 years to win the overall World Cup Skiing Championship title. He competed in all four alpine skiing disciplines on the slopes which includes the downhill, the slalom, the giant slalom, the Super-G and the combined, which is one downhill run followed by two slalom runs. If you tried really hard you perhaps heard about it by seeing it on the internet or deeply buried in your favorite sports section.

But on January 8, 2006, infotainment television show, "60-Minutes," once heralded as the best news magazine program on television, featured an interview piece with Bode Miller by Bob Simon. Unfortunately, "60 Minutes" chose to go the way of most tabloids these days by emphasizing Miller's controversial remarks concerning tying one on after ski races and then having to pay the price the next day, in addition to his criticism about the drug testing system for World Cup athletes by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. It presented a rather skewed look at Miller, but according to the sports media has now put the Winter Olympics back on the map and that now Americans will finally start caring about winter sports. Hopefully, most sports fans find that rather insulting, along with the piece by "60 Minutes," which has become so desperate for TV ratings these days they have stooped to the level of tabloid journalism.

The broadcast networks and the USOC underestimate the sophistication of the American viewing public. We are fed a daily diet of indiscretions and inappropriate behavior including felonies committed by both professional and college athletes. Most fans do not like it, but accept it and even give athletes the benefit of the doubt, while others sadly have just become numb to such activities. But now we have a World Champion athlete, given nearly no positive coverage for four years, and he mentions that he goes out and downs a few cool ones after his ski races and we are supposed to be shocked and outraged. Yet, we are also expected to care deeply because he is on the U.S. Winter Olympics team headed for Torino and must hold him to a higher standard.

Confused yet? The truth is, Bode Miller, not unlike a lot of athletes, does not conform to some of what his coaches say and even chooses to travel apart from the team. He trains on his own as well and since he entered the World Cup circuit in 2001 has never been one to keep his yap shut. So what's this all about anyway? Sounds like the quickest way to stir up interest for the Winter Olympics is to create controversy. In fact, it's a lot cheaper for the USOC. and Winter Olympics broadcast host, NBC, to fuel such stories. Instead of raising awareness of lesser known athletes deserving of attention, make sure to get them in the news every four years, any way you can, even it is at the expense of their achievements.

"Given my travel schedule and steroids and everything else, I've been sidetracked." This was a quote from Major League Baseball's Commissioner, Bud Selig, as given to the Washington Times on November 18, 2005. He was referring to the ongoing interview process of potential ownership for the Washington Nationals baseball team which was re-located to Washington, D.C. from Montreal, Canada, just prior to the 2005 season and now makes RFK Memorial Stadium its temporary home. But Mr. Selig's quote only references part of the ongoing troubles of a ball club in total limbo, forcing it into a state of unpreparedness for the 2006 MLB season. Not unlike the on-again off-again dash to finalize an agreement with the city of Washington, D.C. in December of 2004, the end of 2005 looms as a potential death knell to getting a stadium built, a lease agreement finalized and the installation of an owner or ownership group in the near future. In order for a General Manager, field manager and coaches to be named, the future owner must be chosen and ratified by 29 MLB owners. As long as MLB continues to haggle over the 2004 agreement with the city of Washington, D.C., which was rushed and was arguably a poorly drafted document according to D.C. City Council members and community activists, the Washington Nationals have less and less opportunities to sign free agents and attract management personnel. The agreement made between the city of Washington, D.C. and MLB last December was dependent upon the city to build a stadium for the Nationals by 2008. In order to do so, the city must raise the capital through the sale of bonds to publicly finance the $535 million price tag. However, the cost of the stadium has risen due to unanticipated construction and raw material expenditures and now the key features which the original plans called for such as an underground parking garage, escalators and elevators, improved roads outside the stadium and expanded Metro train platforms, jeopardize the success of not only the stadium but the gentrified area surrounding it. The aides of Mayor Anthony Williams, who negotiated the stadium agreement with MLB, estimated that the stadium of 41,000 seats would cost $395 million. However, no money was allocated for infrastructure such as the roads and Metro platforms as they assumed that the federal government or Metro itself would pick up the tab. Additionally, Natwar M. Gandhi, the city's CFO, raised the estimated cost since the water for the stadium was not included in the original agreement. The architects chosen for the stadium's design also escalated the original cost of $244 million to $337 million as land costs could now be as high as $98 million, but not certain. The ceiling now for the stadium, based upon whose calculator you believe but supposedly set by the City Council, now stands at $535 million. With a final stadium architectural plan still yet to be approved, the mayor believes that either MLB, the federal government, private developers or even the new owner should pick up the tab on the ancillary costs not accounted for in the $535 million bargain. Should MLB, private developers or the federal government not chip in, then the taxpayers of Washington, D.C. will be left holding the bill for the balance, which was what started all of the arguments a year ago. Therefore, millions of dollars earmarked for other projects for the city of Washington, D.C., such as improvements in homeland security first-responders, would be sacrificed. But it gets better. Have your eyes glazed over yet trying to comprehend the numbers? Well, here are some more. Also holding this whole thing up is a $6 million lease agreement which the city says that MLB is responsible for but is being contested by MLB. And the stadium's financing is contingent upon the lease agreement as bond raters will not provide grade ratings until the agreement has been executed. The complete financing plan must be in place prior to Christmas 2005 in order to begin the process of selling bon