Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Soccer is better than…

I was indoctrinated into the world of soccer last year after moving to a new house and receiving a new cable package. Before last year I thought soccer ranked somewhere below gymnastics and figure skating on my ranking of sports. My wife turned on the soccer channel to have something on the TV that my daughter would not necessarily watch or wouldn’t mind her watching.

The match featured Manchester United and somehow, someway I was suddenly hooked on soccer…or at least Manchester United soccer. There is still a dramatic difference between European and American soccer leagues. The MSL teams seem to move in slow motion and look like grade school teams at times compared to the faster paced and more refined English teams. It’s no wonder that an elder Beckham can come here and still show up most of the players.

So did soccer shoot its way to the top of my list? Hell no! I admit it is fun to watch Manchester United games and I admit that United are the Yankees of the English leagues in that they will spend an obsessive amount of money on players and not blink an eye. But soccer still cannot compare to the NFL, MLB and College Basketball. I would say that it is my top 5 right now rivaling the NHL.

Soccer cannot compete with the major professional leagues in the US, meaning the NFL, MLB and NBA. Most soccer teams are lucky to score two goals in a game, so over 90 minutes there can be a lot of action but not always a lot of thrills as compared to football or baseball. That is why I can normally only watch Manchester United games since I have an interest in the outcome unlike a NFL or MLB game which I can turn on and watch regardless of the teams playing.

Yet there is one aspect of the European soccer leagues that I wish American leagues have and that is relegation. For those of you new to soccer, that means if you team finishes at the bottom of your league, you get sent down a level. For the Premier League, the bottom three teams move down a level to the League Championship while three teams from the lower league move up to the Premier League.

Apply this to, say the NFL, and Miami, St. Louis and Atlanta would be out while three new teams would be in. Personally I think it would give meaning to the season ending games and would keep teams from “tanking” in order to get a better draft pick. Of course this could never work in American sports league because no owner would ever agree to that and the way the leagues are structured totally prevent this from occurring.

In baseball, all of the minor league teams have associations with Major League teams and they would have a much harder time if they were all on their own. It could make things more interesting but you could have many teams going under. There are no minor leagues in football and basketball the way there is in baseball, so there are no teams to take the place of a relegated team.

People have speculated for several years about whether a crappy team is tanking or at least not trying to win as hard in order to move up in the draft. Some studies have shown that there seems to be at least a small correlation between teams at the bottom of a league finishing poorer than statistics say they should have. The Miami Dolphins did suck last year, but I bet there would have been a little more emphasis to win if the team and the owners knew they would not be in the NFL for the 2008 season if they finished where they did.

Since relegation cannot and will not happen in the foreseeable future in US sports, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some variation making owners more responsible for the performance of their teams and giving the league the right to take over a team if the performance fell below a specified level over a given length of time. I know…dream on.

So…there are still several sports that are better than soccer, but soccer does do a few things right that in my opinion would make some of our sports here in the US a little more exciting. We reward teams for doing badly for the sake of parity. Is parity a good thing for sports? Well that will have to wait for another day.


Good luck to Manchester United tomorrow versus Chelsea in the Champions League Final in Moscow. Go Red Devils!

Labels: , ,

Monday, May 19, 2008

John Saunders Has Lost His Brain

Now for the latest ESPN idiocy (seems to be a common theme):

Astros/Cubs on Monday Night Baseball. Gary Thorne, Orel Hershiser, and Steve Phillips are the announcers. Top of the 4th, Geovany Soto hits an inside-the-park home run (not an easy thing to do for a catcher). Replay clearly shows the ball hit the wall in a spot that should have been an automatic home run. Not a big deal--same result, and Thorne et al. note this.

Here's where it gets stupid: Phillips compares that ball to the ball Carlos Delgado hit on Sunday night in the Mets/Yankees game that appeared to hit the foul pole (it was originally ruled a homer, then overturned and ruled a foul ball. You can see the video here, and also see that the ump has admitted his mistake).

The announcers then throw it to John Saunders in the ESPN studio, who shows the Delgado ball and makes the argument that the ball missed the foul pole entirely. Even if this was true, the ball hit the wall first, clearly on the fair side of the line!

So, what Saunders is saying is that if a ball hits the top of the outfield wall and then bounces into foul territory, it's a foul ball. Perhaps this is a new rule! I have some other new rules: 1) If a foul ball hits the top of the wall and bounces into fair territory, it's a fair ball. 2)If a ball hits second base, it's an automatic triple. 3)If you make a shot from behind the potato salad, you get 3 bonus runs.

Labels: , ,

The Quick Blueprint for Fixing the Pacers

According to Mike Wells of the Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly, sorry I mean Star, he has the blueprint for helping make Larry Bird’s three-step plan come to fruition. The Pacers are in a world of hurt right now. They have a decent, but not team-changing first-round pick at number 11 meaning they could get a good player, but probably not a right-now impact player. They are over the salary cap as usual. They have too many high-priced, high-injury players on their roster that they would love to trade but will most likely find few takers. To top it off, their players are developing a rap sheet to start rivaling the Bengals and Cowboys.

Let’s take a look at what Mike has on tap to fix the Pacers…

As ball bounces, so go the Pacers

Bird's plan to fix team launches Tuesday with the NBA draft lottery

Larry Bird has a three-step process to improve the Indiana Pacers.

Well, at least it is not a 12-step program.

How soon the Pacers take advantage of the first step, the draft, will be determined as early as Tuesday when they find out if luck is on their side during the NBA's draft lottery. Bird, in his first offseason with sole control of basketball decisions, said the Pacers plan to use the draft, free agency and trades to try to end their two-year hiatus from the playoffs.

You know, like every other freaking team in the NBA. I see nothing revelation revealing here so far. Nothing to see here people…keep reading…

The Pacers can speed up the process if the ping-pong balls bounce their way in the lottery, which Bird and new general manager David Morway will attend.

I miss the days of the NBA lottery when they put the envelopes with the team placards in a hopper and David Stern pulled the “blank” envelopes out one by one. You know the
one…the “fixed” draft lottery in 1985 when the Knicks got the first pick and the Pacers got “hosed”. Who wants to leave something this important to chance and some ping pong balls?

The Pacers are slotted to pick 11th. They have about a 1 percent chance of winning one of the top three picks in the June 26 draft. There is also a small chance they could fall to No. 12, 13 or 14.

There is also a 1 percent chance they can make the playoffs next year. But, there is a 99 percent chance a Pacers player will be arrested by the time the playoffs roll around next year. Bets anyone?

The Pacers won't be big spenders on the free agent market because they are over the salary cap. Pulling off a trade won't be easy, either, because they don't have an enticing roster.

Too bad Isaiah Thomas isn’t with the Knicks anymore. He was probably the one person Larry could talk into taking the dead weight off the Pacers’ roster. The Pacers need a team like the Tennessee Titans. The Titans keep signing the Colts’ free agents that are mediocre at best. Makes me laugh every time I see them sign another Colts reject.

The Pacers' situation isn't ideal, but it isn't unique.

Playoff teams Atlanta, Utah and New Orleans were in a similar situation after the 2004-05 season. Each rebuilt through the draft, free agency or trades.

The Hawks and Hornets spent a long time outside the playoffs and had plenty of drafts, free agents and trades in order to get to where they are now. It was not just the past three seasons. Utah struggled after John Stockton retired and Karl Malone left and bottomed out in 2004-05 season.

As the Pacers try to retool, here are three blueprints to follow:

New Orleans

In 2004-05: 18-64.

Now? Contending for spot in Western Conference finals.

How: The Hornets' future changed when they drafted franchise player Chris Paul No. 4 overall in the 2005 draft. The Hornets, who had the fourth lowest payroll in the league at $32.1 million at the end of the 2005-06 season, gave Paul a perimeter threat when they offered former Pacer Peja Stojakovic a five-year, $64-million deal minutes after the start of free agency in 2006. They agreed to a trade with Chicago four days later that brought Paul's alley-oop partner Tyson Chandler to New Orleans. Fifth-year forward David West improved his scoring average each season and made first All-Star appearance this season. The Hornets finished with the second-best record in the Western Conference and are a win from playing in the conference finals.


The Hornets have turned themselves into quite a powerhouse and have the players that can keep them at the top for a while. The Hornets were able to draft a MVP worthy player in Chris Paul with the #4 pick in 2005 and surround him with the right kind of players to make a formidable team. They had salary cap room and trade-able players. Kudos to the Hornets front office.

Atlanta

In 2004-05: 13-69.

Now: Reached playoffs for first time since 1999.

How: Like New Orleans, Atlanta used the draft and two key trades to rebuild. The Hawks whiffed by passing on Paul and Deron Williams, but their plethora of lottery picks -- Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Al Horford -- finally paid off this season. The biggest move came when they acquired Joe Johnson in a sign-and-trade deal with Phoenix in August 2005. Johnson has been an All-Star each of the past two seasons. They shored up their point guard spot when they traded for veteran Mike Bibby in February. The result was the Hawks pushing the Boston Celtics, who had the best regular season record, to seven games in the first round and establishing themselves as a young team on the rise.

Yes, the Hawks have improved and yes, they made the playoffs, but they finished with a below .500 record at 37-45 and only made the playoffs because they are in the Eastern Conference. The eighth-seeded Denver Nuggets in the Western Conference were 50-31 for crying out loud. They may have finished better than the Pacers, but it is not like they are necessarily going to light up the East next year.

Utah

In 2004-05: 26-56.

Now? Reached second round of Western Conference playoffs.

How: All-Star Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur arrived in 2004-05 as free agents and still are there. So is Andrei Kirilenko, so the Jazz didn't need as much revamping as fine-tuning. The biggest difference is at point guard, an area the Jazz had sorely lacked in since future Hall of Famer John Stockton retired in 2003. Utah fixed that problem when it picked Deron Williams at No. 3 in 2005. The Jazz have made the playoffs in each of the past two seasons, including getting to the Western Conference finals last season.

The Jazz only had one losing season this decade and that was in 2004-05. They found the piece they needed in Williams to help turn the team around and have had a winning record since.

What all three of these teams had in common that the Pacers currently don’t? The fact that all three had a top 4 pick in 2005! What pick do the Pacers currently have? The 11th with a 1 percent chance of making that a top 3 pick.

The Hawks have had five first round picks in the last four years with an average pick of 5.4. Actually, the average pick is 4 if you base it on picks not including those as part of trades. Personally I think you should be better than Hawks have been with where the Hawks have drafted.

The Jazz last four drafts average first round draft pick is 14 while the Hornets average first round draft pick is 11.75. Basically middle of the road and benefited from the top 4 picks in 2005.

The Pacers have had only three first round picks in past four years since last year’s first round pick went to Atlanta at #11. The Pacers average first round draft pick average for the last four years is 21.

So Mike, your blueprints for retooling mainly hedge on the need to have a top 4 pick in the draft along with free agent signings (the Pacers are over the salary cap) and trades (of which no one wants the players we need to trade). While your blueprint may be the right path for the Pacers, they are 0 for 3 on your blueprint.

I have a blueprint for becoming a millionaire which is buy a lottery ticket (so about the same chance as winning as the Pacers getting a top 3 pick), schmoozing with Bill Gates (need to figure a way around the restraining order) and robbing a bank (notice my picture is not available, don’t want to be traced). I am 1 for 3 on my blueprint, but those damn ping pong balls are just conspiring against me in the lottery.

So I figure I have a much chance of becoming a millionaire as the Pacers do off turning their team around right now.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, May 18, 2008

I Have Seen the 7th Layer of Hell...

...and it's Chris Berman interviewing Joe Morgan on Baseball Tonight.

God, stop playing skee-ball on the boardwalk and call Berman home already. Or at least call him away from the ESPN studios.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Costas "Then": Why Journalists Aren't Much Better Than Bloggers

I'm a little behind on this one, but hell, we just got started on this whole enterprise.

Bob Costas, on his HBO program "Costas Now," aired a live, town hall-type program show on April 29. The theme of this show was "the State of Sports Media." There were several topics explored, including racial coverage in sports media, talk radio, and new media.

I want to address the conversation about blogs. (The link doesn't show the real video from the program, but the audio is intact.)

The panel discussion about new media included Will Leitch of Deadspin.com, Buzz Bissinger (the author of Friday Night Lights and other bestsellers), and Braylon Edwards of the Cleveland Browns. In the exchange, Bissinger basically went off on Leitch and other bloggers, saying that blogs have no standards (journalistic or writing in general) and that blogs are responsible for "dumbing down society." In short, Bissinger looked like an idiot, Leitch came off rather well, and Edwards looked like he was thinking, "why the fuck am I here?"

There were some valid (and some not so valid) points raised by Costas and Bissinger on the program concerning bloggers and their ilk. I want to address the issue of journalistic integrity.

(Let me note here that for this exercise, we at LomHenn.com are NOT bloggers. Not really. Yes, we're writing a blog on the Internet, so I get it that we are bloggers. But we're not out covering stories and doing "citizen journalism." We may get to that someday, but not now. My point is that I'm not taking Bissinger's point personally--it has nothing to do with us.)

Bissinger made the point that bloggers have no "journalistic integrity." Others have made this same point, including Michael Wilbon of ESPN and the Washington Post, who did so during the same episode of "Costas Now." What they mean is that unlike newspapers and broadcast journalists, there are no "checks and balances" for bloggers. Newspaper writers have to deal with editors; broadcast journalists have producers. Bloggers have...well, no one. In print and broadcast sports, someone else has to okay the story. What Bissinger and others have said is that the lack of accountability in the blogosphere takes away the credibility of blogs. Also, bloggers are less likely to have any formal journalistic training, so bloggers will be less likely to have any journalistic integrity (in regards to fairness, ethics, using sources, etc.).

Here's the problem: the sports media--both newspapers and television--no longer use good journalistic principles themselves. Think about all of the stories you read or see on TV that have "an unnamed source" as the primary (or only) source for the story. It wasn't very long ago that as a reporter, your story wouldn't sniff the newspaper or the broadcast without two sources--and at least one of those a named source. Now, we get unnamed sources for damn near every sports story, no matter how unimportant or trivial the story.

Using unnamed sources means there is no accountability for the source. Sure, the reporter knows who the source is, and presumably the editor/producer does, too. But if the story ends up to be false, like this one, your organization looks dumb.

Also, another basic tenet of journalism is to represent all sides of a story. We've already covered a story where the number one sports columnist for a large newspaper failed to do that.

With the use of unnamed sources and failure to do accurate reporting, the traditional sports media have been "dumbing down" (as Bissinger might say) their journalistic standards to the point that there really is no difference between the media and bloggers. I understand that traditional sports media still have better access and more organization, but they keep breaking their own rules.

Instead of making elitist statements about bloggers, perhaps traditional sports media should go back to practicing good journalism--or, at least, acceptable journalism. Then they wouldn't need to tell us the difference between themselves and bloggers--a difference that is getting smaller all the time.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Boo-yah!

Our continuing saga of bad writing on bad sports writing bring us to Lee Russakoff and his blog article on how booing is bad for sports.

I Thought I Was Your Boo

OK, I’m from Philadelphia so this is a bit (completely) sacrilegious, but I’m going to say it anyway: We fans need to stop booing our own players.

But it is evidently OK to boo the opposing players.

Before you jump all over the comments section with “I pay my hard-earned money to go and do whatever I want” messages, hear me out.

You can boo whomever you want, you have that right. I am not trying to deny you that. Here’s the problem, though: booing your team is not only counterproductive to winning but it also is likely driving a wedge between home fans and players.

I'm sure when a professional athlete hears the fans boo, he is thinking, "even though I just dropped a pass for the fifth time this game, screw those assholes for booing me. I'm leaving this hellhole as soon as my contract is done."

Take Carlos Delgado.

Interesting choice. Mr. Delgado turns 36 this year and currently has a hip injury that is affecting his numbers this year. While 36 is not ancient for a ballplayer, it generally is around the time many players start experiencing a downturn in their numbers. Why not pick on Eric Gagne or Jason Isringhausen? Oh, that's right. They don't play for a New York team. At least he's not picking on A-Rod.

Carlos came to New York with a lot of fanfare but has never been the “Del-Gooooot-It” guy he was expected to be with the Mets. And Mets fans let him hear about it with the old Queens cheer.

Carlos is currently batting .216/.308/.362 for '08. Definitely not great numbers and probably worthy of a few boos, especially in New York. After hitting .265/.361/.548 with 38 HRs in 2006 and .258/.333/.448 with 24 HRs in 2007 for the Mets, this is a bad start for him. However, he started 2007 with a BA below .200 for April and was able to turn in a respectable average for the year.

The result: Delgado continues to struggle.

Delgado continues to struggle - with a hip injury. Not because he gets booed because he is injured. Have you ever tried to hit a baseball with a hip injury? Well neither have I. Yet, it can't be the most pleasurable task to do day in and day out and will cause you to adjust you swing/stance/mindset/etc.

On the rare occasions he makes contact with the ball, he has a combative relationship with the fans—to the point where he refused to take a curtain call at Shea last week after belting two home runs in one game.

What a fuckhead! I'm sure the fact that he hit his second home run meant his slump was over and his stats would start heading into Ruthian territory. A struggling, injured veteran that refused to come back out and take a bow for the fans. How dare that piece of shit player. Trade him to the Blue Jays for David Eckstein. Now there's a player with grit that will inspire the fans and other players. He would come out a take a bow even if he was in a full body cast.

How is that good for anyone?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe he felt like his hip was going to explode and he wanted to rest it before going back out into the field. Maybe he hates New York as he was traded to the Mets and did not sign there as a free agent. Maybe he just wants to win and doesn't care what the fans, or you, think.

I get why you boo. It’s frustrating to watch Carlos pop out for three straight years, or to see Rex Grossman get pwned over and over again, or to sit through Andre Iguodala’s 5-for-765 from the field against the Pistons.

Or Ben Utecht fumble for umpteenth time or Pacers players and their semi-annual strip club/gun-totting/drug-busting headlines or I could go on and on, but you get the point. And for the love of God, how can a fucking sports journalist not use the fucking spellcheck that comes in everything! I may write like shit, but by golly my shit will be spellchecked.

Booing is a cathartic exercise and a guttural reaction. We expected a hit/first down/dunk and got a strike out/loss of 13 yards/turnover instead. We’re disappointed. So we boo.

Most fans do not boo the occasional miss/strike out/double-play/loss of yardage/turnover. We may groan or shout about the unpleasantness of the outcome, but we generally do not automatically boo a bad play. (Although, Philadelphia fans are in a league of their own.) I do not sit in the stands and judge very play by cheering or booing the outcome. You string together a long series of crappy play, then the boos may be justified.

I won't boo Albert Pujols if he goes 0-6 in a game with 6 K's. I may ask what the fuck was he thinking, but no boos would escape me. Now I would probably boo him if he has 6 K's while he swings at 18 straight balls that are a foot outside the plate. What Mr. Russakoff fails to understand at this point is there typically is a level of bad play required to start generating the boo birds. Peyton Manning throwing a pass right at the opposing player does not illicit a dome full of boos. Now if Peyton Manning turns into Ryan Leaf next year, we have reached a level of bad that will start fans booing.

But as sports fans, can’t we rise above those visceral emotions? Can’t we say to ourselves: Wait, if I boo Donovan McNabb for that shorthop pass, it isn’t going to help him concentrate more on the next pass, it’s just going to make him less likely to show the city any love once he becomes a free agent or celebrates a championship (as if championships happen in Philadelphia).

Most players, in my opinion, would obviously prefer to hear fans cheering and praising their skills versus boos and jeers. I agree to a certain extent that booing could be a bit more counter-productive for a players ego to turn his game around. However, I also believe that a professional player has enough resolve to ignore the boos and jeers and right his ship.

I know I’m asking a lot. I know asking sports fans to stop and think is like asking Skip Bayless to stop and think. Throw beer into the mix, and the plea is almost hopeless.

Almost.

Are you almost done yet?!?

We’re all in this together. When we go to our stadiums, our interests are more aligned than at any other time outside a national tragedy. There are no Democrats and Republicans. No blacks, whites, Asians, or Hispanics. No Scarlett Johanssonites and Megan Foxofiles. We are all one. That is something special. That collective will, if harnessed, can make a difference.

True, sports are one area where fans of a team can get together regardless of political alignment, race, religion, or porn preference and cheer for their team. We high-five, slap, hug and jump as one big, happy family. Unless the fucker next to you is cheering for the other team. Then all bets are off.

And what the heck do Scarlett Johansson and Megan Fox have to do with this topic?

We can boo the other team. And we can boo our manager for making idiotic decisions. We can even boo our players if they make mental mistakes or show a lack of hustle/toughness.

NOW WAIT JUST A DING-DONG MINUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck the heck?!? (My apologies to Fire Joe Morgan for borrowing this phrase, but it is just the perfect phrase sometimes.) Lee...first you are telling us we should not boo are own team as it is bad for the team and bad for the players' morale. Now it is OK to boo them for certain transgressions? Let's hear the rest before we finish judging Mr. Russakoff.

But let’s stop booing our players for failing athletically…not because it’s immoral or it hurts the players’ feelings, but because it only gets us farther from our goal.
All any fan really wants is to be celebrating a championship with his/her players in the streets. Booing our own team makes that less likely. And if it ever happens, less honest.


But Lee, how can you draw the line between a mental mistake/lack of hustle and failing athletically, really? My dead grandmother may move better in the pocket than David Carr, but what is the call when he gets sacked for the 12th time in a game? Did he not hustle? Was he expecting his receiver to be open and waited to long for the play to develop? Is he just a shitty quarterback? If so, is he shitty because he is mentally weak or because he is athletically-challenged? Personally, I think he is just shitty and I would feel justified for booing him after his 12th sack. I probably would have started booing around number 5 or 6.

So Lee, go back to your mother's basement like the rest of us bloggers and stop worrying about fans booing the players and focus your bad writing on something else.

Oh by the way, regarding your article, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Labels: , , ,

Monday, May 12, 2008

Bob Kravitz is supposedly a journalist

The idea behind the creation of this blog was to go after poor sports journalism. Although that may not be exclusively what this blog is about, it's a good place to start.

(btw, apologies to the good people at FireJoeMorgan, who have been doing this masterfully for a long time.)

So...

Bob Kravitz is supposedly a journalist

At least, he pretends to be:

Maybe Fisher needs a collection agency

These companies owe Sarah Fisher a significant amount of money.

Hmmm. I wonder how he knows this.

I hope you'll write down the names or commit them to memory:

I don't have to write them down or remember them; you're going to do that for me.

The first is Gravity Entertainment of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The second is ResQ, a sports-drink company whose Web site features Fisher extolling its product and its commitment to racing.

See? Told you.

I'm willing to give both companies the benefit of the doubt regarding their inexplicable failures to make good on contractual promises to Fisher's team.

Okay, I'm no expert, but the second part of the sentence ("their inexplicable failures to make good...") seems to indicate Kravitz is not willing to give the companies the "benefit of the doubt."

Maybe the check got lost in the mail -- although the money was supposed to be wired, which might explain the disconnect. Maybe the dog ate the check. Maybe it's all an innocent mistake, and the companies will make good and allow Fisher to not only make this week's payroll -- three days and counting -- but continue her quest to make a seventh Indianapolis 500.

I love how Bobby--can I call you Bobby? Yes, yes I can--starts off with the "check" idea, then admits that the money was supposed to be wired, then goes back to the check idea. It's as if he's ignoring his own writing, which may explain some things.

Look, maybe it is all "an innocent mistake." Or, maybe Glondor the Horrific broke into both offices and stole all of their check-making/wiring supplies.

But just in case, if anyone wants to issue them a gentle reminder, put a bug in their ear, feel free to do so. Tell them, "Um, until you hold up your end of the bargain with Sarah Fisher, it's going to be awfully difficult for you to do business with jammed phone lines.''

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems Bobby has just told his readers to call and bitch at these companies. Remember that.

She's not the only driver out there who has been chasing sponsorship money for years. It's a tough sell, especially in this struggling economy. This is life on the other side of the Danica Divide, although Fisher was having trouble raising money well before Patrick exploded onto the IndyCar scene.

Huh?? Again, Bobby is ignoring his own writing, nanoseconds after he's written it. What does the "Danica Divide" have to do with this? Oh, yeah--nothing--Bobby says so himself in the next sentence! Then why the fuck did you write that in the first place? Ever heard of editing?

A look into Bobby Kravitz's mind as he wrote this article:

Sarah Fisher. Yeah, she's a girl. Danica's a girl, too. So I'll mention Danica here...(pause)...what does Danica have to do with this story? Oh, that's right--nothing. I'll keep writing.

It's just that Fisher and her husband, Andy O'Gara, have risked almost everything to form a racing company and compete in this year's Indianapolis 500. They were counting on Gravity Entertainment and ResQ to hold up their end. Those companies were, after all, front and center at a recent introductory news conference at Fisher's shop in Indianapolis.

Now that the bill is due, they're nowhere to be found.

Can you find them? I bet you could, Bobby, if you tried...there's this really cool thing called the world-wide-web-Net.

Maybe a couple of hundred phone calls and faxes will tweak their memory. "They keep saying they're going to wire it tomorrow, soon, today, tomorrow -- it's a 'check is in the mail' kind of thing,'' she said, standing in her garage as rain washed out qualifying. "They're still saying they're going to pay us, but at this point, it's hard for me to believe it anymore.''

Bobby, why haven't you called them to get their side of this? Don't get me wrong--I like Sarah Fisher, and I've always been a fan of hers. There's no reason to believe that she would lie about this. However--and this is why I'm writing this article--a journalist knows you cannot just take for granted one person's side of a story. Never. Never-ever.

As a journalist, you listen to what Sarah says, then call the companies to get their sides of the story. Perhaps they'll deny it. Perhaps they'll confirm it (not likely). Perhaps they'll refuse to talk to you (likely). However, it's your job to try and get their side of it.

Bobby never mentions having called them or contacted them for comment. Yet, he wants all 4 of his readers (and all 7 of his listeners, for he's a talk radio host, too!) to call and flood the phone lines of these two companies, but he can't call them himself, even though it's his job!!!!

This is completely idiotic and irresponsible journalism (for lack of a better word). It's pretty clear to me that Bobby is doing this just for attention and not for any real concern. To incite (or attempt to incite) an audience to disrupt companies without first getting their sides of the story is completely inexcusable.

There is also another point here. Would Kravitz (I don't want to call him Bobby anymore) be writing this article if the driver in question was a man? Because Sarah has been "victimized," noble Bob Kravitz has to stand up for her. Would Enrique Bernoldi get the same article?

(I also understand that Fisher was/is a very popular driver, so that's also a reason for Kravitz to jump on this. But I think there's at least an underlying tone of sexism here, too.)

On the track this month, she has been limited by all the bad weather, a tough break for a new team that hasn't really worked together. But her early practice speeds have been solid, and she has no doubt she will qualify for the field next weekend. "Our focus will be on race trim completely now,'' she said.

That is, when her focus isn't on the bottom line.

And that's where you come in. If you get a moment, maybe two, ask Gravity Entertainment what the deal is. Ask ResQ why it hasn't come across with the money it promised.

I'm sure they'll appreciate the friendly reminders.

Perhaps we should all call Bobby Kravitz and ask him why he sucks at journalism, his chosen profession? I'm sure he'll appreciate that friendly reminder.

Labels: , , ,