Josh vs. MMA Judging

The sport of Mixed Martial Arts is an ever evolving platform for the ultimate test of hand-to-hand combat in the sporting world. There can be no denying that the sport is enjoying more popularity now than it ever has in the past. Each show seems to sell out faster than the last and in a new record time. Fans line up by the thousands to purchase tickets for live events and it has gotten to the point where we, as viewers, can now watch every single fight on the card if we have the problem outlets. MMA is definitely at an all time high and growing.

While the sport is evolving, however, there is an aspect of this sport that seems to constantly come under question; the judging. While judging in all sports finds itself the center of controversy, it seems to be more pronounced in MMA. Without question, the in touch MMA fan can usually find a tweet per show from Dana saying something to the effect of “that was bullshit [insert name here] was robbed.” Yes, Dana’s mantra is “don’t leave it in the hands of the judges,” but as I have come to realize, this is more the case because he hates the current judging system.

If one were to examine an MMA forum board after an event, they will undoubtedly encounter a thread with “what did you think of the….decision?” These threads are often the most fun to read (and aggravating to participate in) because there’s no general consensus on how fights should be scored. The Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts was supposed to be a clear-cut template by which judges were to refer prior to scoring the bouts. That being said, the interpretations by the various different judges have led to a litany of discussions about refinement of the rules. California has decided to incorporate the half-point scoring system into amateur bouts in 2011. With any hope, this will be a growing trend.

Many people have different problems with the judging criteria. The judges are required to score fights based on the following: Clean strikes, effective grappling, octagon control, and effective aggressiveness. These all seem like relatively simple criteria, but the problem is rooted in the wording. Clean striking if often difficult to examine due to the shape and angles of the octagon. Some states have recently begun using monitors so that the judges can have a clearer look of the action inside the cage from different angles. Clean striking is also a subjective term. More often than not, judges will use visual aids to determine who got the better of the exchanges during a round. For instance, if one fighter is completely busted up in the face while the other fighter looks like he stepped out of the shower or has minor swelling, the judges will usually award the round accordingly. However, in closely contested rounds where the striking appeared even, even the appearance of blood can sway the round away from a fighter.

This leads to the question of efficient striking vs. effective striking. Does a fighter who throws 25 jabs in a round landed 23 of them deserve the round over a fighter who threw 10 jabs, landing 7, and 3 uppercuts, dropping his opponent once and wobbling him a second time? How does one score that round? The higher volume of strikes was thrown by the efficient striker, but the greater damage was done by the effective striker. Both gameplans have their merits. Georges St. Pierre all but jabbed his was to a unanimous victory over Josh Koscheck at UFC 124. There was absolutely no question as to who the winner of this fight was by the end of the fight. Koscheck had a broken orbital bone and his eye was swollen shut while GSP looked like he had just entered the cage. In this particular instance, the jab routine was an effective gameplan. Conversely, Martin Kampmann’s fight with Diego Sanchez saw Kampmann putting on a striking clinic against Diego. Sanchez was dropped early and often from a battery of technical striking and range showed by Kampmann. By the end of the fight, Kampmann had outlanded Diego 97-45. Diego managed to steal a round with a rather uneventful take-down. Which, by the way, Diego was 1-15 on his takedown attempts during that fight, so if you were judging the fight properly, Kampmann clearly won on clean strikes and effective grappling.

There is another tricky term; effective grappling. If Diego Sanchez was 1-15 in his take-down attempts, shouldn’t Kampmann’s ability to keep the fight where he wanted it for the majority of the fight constitute “effective grappling.” I’m no math major, but landing 7% of your take-downs isn’t exactly an overwhelming majority. Yet, I would be willing to bet that, even though Kampmann popped right back up, the lone take-down, in the entire fight, during the third round, was enough to give Diego that round. The resulting decision saw all three judges scoring the contest 29-28 for Sanchez. Once again, this fight was met with much controversy.

There are fights, however, that generally blow your mind. Those fights where one judge seems to be the outlier and you wonder, what fight did they watch? Phan-Garcia from The Ultimate Fighter 12 Season Finale comes to my mind for these fights. Adalaide Byrd and Tony Weeks scored the fight 29-28 for Garcia, while Kamijo gave the nod to Phan 30-27. At a first glance you might think that Kamijo was watching a completely different fight than the other two judges and gave an incorrect score…you’d be wrong. It was the OTHER two judges watching a different fight than Kamijo and BOTH gave an incorrect score. Nevada State Athletic Commission’s executive director, Keith Kizer, personally attended the event and scored the fight 30-27 for Phan. The worst part about this entire situation is that Kamijo was the newcomer. Byrd and Weeks are longtime officials with the NSAC. How did the newcomer score the fight just like the rest of the world and the athletic director and the two longtime officials score it incorrectly? What exactly were they watching? The world may never know, but Kizer said he planned to re-watch the contested bout, and if necessary, sit down with Weeks and Byrd. No further developments surfaced.

Simply put, there’s a clear case for the need to revamp the judging system within MMA. It’s hard to imagine another sport dealing with these sorts of issues at the officiating level. Can you imagine if Ed Hochuli and Jerome Boger scored an NFL game 29-28 Packers, while Jeff Triplette scored the game 30-27 in favor of the Vikings? Oh wouldn’t that make NFL games so much more exciting? It would definitely add a little flavor to those conference rivalries. There’s many suggestions on how to revamp the scoring system within MMA and I’m not here to advocate any of them in particular, but rather to say simply and matter-of-factly, it needs to happen…soon.

Josh vs. The CSAC

As controversial and opinionated as Chael Sonnen is, the man got hosed by the California State Athletic Commission. George Dodd and the CSAC issued a ruling against Sonnen Wednesday, May 18^th that the his license is suspended until May 18th, 2012. The future seemed grim for Sonnen until the CSAC, caused by their own ineptitude, realized they had applied the wrong ruling to Sonnen's case. Because his license was never revoked in the first place, only suspended, he is free to reapply for a fighter's license on June 30^th, 2011.

Sonnen elevated testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio after his fight with Anderson Silva on August 7^th, 2010. He served a 6 month suspension and paid a $2,500 fine. The issue with the CSAC is that Sonnen’s suspension was reduced because he was taking testosterone as part of an “approved use exemption” and that Nevada was aware of this. NSAC director Keith Kizer denied approving or knowing about Sonnen’s treatments. This ultimately led California to “indefinitely” suspend Sonnen.

Why is this bullshit? Because Sonnen has basically already served a year’s suspension and paid his fine. He’s 9 months removed from his last fight and the CSAC is saying that he is “indefinitely” suspended. While he’s free to apply for a new license on June 30^th, if the commission denies him this license he cannot reapply for another year. At 34 years of age, this effectively all but retires Sonnen from the sport. Due to his recent legal troubles Sonnen’s primary source of income is the UFC. The CSAC has decided to “indefinitely” take that away from him because they felt that “he was less than truthful” at his last appeal.

“Less than truthful,” let’s examine that statement Mr. Dodd. How truthful have Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa been? They haven’t been very truthful. How truthful has Lance Armstrong been about his usage? Hell, people are still coming forward saying they saw him use steroids. Mr. Dodd, regardless of what you or the CSAC believe, Sonnen does not NEED to admit to anything, he only needs to pay his fine and serve his suspension. An individual can be convicted of a criminal offense, never admit to it, and still serve his sentence and continue on with his life.

You’ve chosen to hold Sonnen’s career hostage until you’re satisfied. Josh Barnett has tested positive twice for steroids and yet, he continues to find work. Your ruling on Sonnen all but ensures that other State Athletic Commissions would uphold his suspension and deny him a license. Barnett simply has to pass a drug test and he will be issued a license. While I’m aware that Barnett has yet to be licensed by the CSAC, it has not impeded him from finding work.

Antonio Margarito and his trainer put plaster of Paris in his gloves and was only suspended a year by the CSAC. This is far more egregious than being “less than truthful.” In addition to this, it was found that Margarito’s wraps in other fights contained the same stains as those left after his Mosley fight. Where was Margarito’s “indefinite suspension?” It’s clear that the CSAC has some unresolved issues with Chael Sonnen that are clearly not related to these testosterone ratios. Perhaps the CSAC felt that the court’s punishment wasn’t good enough and added their own, I don’t know. What I do know is that the CSAC’s not consistent with their punishments. If the CSAC wants to send a message, up Sonnen’s suspension to a full year and increase his fine to something similar to that of Thiago Silva. Hermes Franca and Sean Sherk both received one year suspensions for failing drug tests. To this day Sherk has not admitted to his positive test. He denies any wrong-doing, but he’s been allowed to fight and was not issued an “indefinite suspension.”

The CSAC refused to hear Matt Lindland’s statements about having conversations with Kizer. Kizer said “he didn’t recall” having conversations with Lindland about Sonnen’s treatments and that he “think[s] [he’d] remember that.” Because of Kizer’s insistence that Lindland was lying, despite the fact that Dr. Czarnecki insisted that nobody outside of, UFC physician, Jeff Davidson had told Sonnen or his team that he needed to take special measures for this legitimate treatment. The CSAC has conveniently ignored any and all evidence that would shed light on the fact that this was a mistake and won’t happen again. Instead they’ve strapped on their jackboots and have decided to do to Sonnen what they have failed to do to any other fighter that has committed more serious offenses.

The CSAC is in the wrong here and they’re being unreasonable with their punishment. This is the first blemish on Sonnen’s fight career and they’re acting like he was a repeat offender. In 37 professional fights all over the globe, Sonnen has committed one offense and the CSAC has chosen to hold his career hostage. This is a gross miscarriage of justice and something the CSAC ought to be ashamed of and rectify. Sonnen deserves to make a living regardless of what the CSAC thinks the criminal court system should have done. Sonnen’s legal troubles are of no consequence to the CSAC and they have been dealt with in the proper setting and venue. Additional punishment from the CSAC is unwarranted and ought to be met with swift and appropriate action. Let Sonnen fight, California. The fans want him back, the sport needs him back, and he deserves to come back. Pick a punishment and stick with it. Denying him a license for another year is unprecedented and ridiculously inconsistent. The CSAC should be ashamed.

Josh vs. The BCS Part 1

Overview of the Problem

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a 501(c)(3) system used in NCAA college football as a means to determine their national champion. The BCS is comprised of the Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and BCS National Championship Game. The system is not without controversy; however, while many feel that the system does not actually determine a “true” national champion, this will not be the focus of this memorandum. It must be mentioned that many people do not feel that the system works because of how the system is currently abusing taxpayers’ trust with its exorbitant and egregious misusage of funds. The BCS is grossly misusing taxpayers’ dollars and violating its status as a non-profit organization which is supposed based on charitable contributions. The BCS needs to have its non-profit status revoked or there needs to be a massive overhaul in the oversight of expenditures being written off as tax-exempt.

Problem Statement

It is the belief of these authors that the Bowl Championship Series has violated the requisites for a non-profit organization in such a manner that it no longer deserves this status. The BCS has violated its fiduciary duty and misappropriated a large sum of funds that came from honest and hard-working taxpayers and spent funds on items that have no business being recompensed by those taxpayers. According to Davidson (2011), the Fiesta attempted to “reimburse $46,539 in improper campaign contributions” (p. 1). Additionally, Staples (2011), states that Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker had a “$1,241.75 excursion in September to a gentleman’s club called Bourbon Street with a bowl employee and a consultant” (p. 1). These items are but a few of the frivolous expenditures that were reimbursed as a result of their non-profit status. Despite the fact that, as a non-profit organization, these bowls are required to submit federal documentation regarding their expenditures and reimbursements, these organizations are allowed to submit fairly ambiguous reports which allow them to disguise their hidden spending without fear of reprisal. According to Wetzel, Peter, & Passan (2010), an expense report filed to the IRS from the Sugar Bowl in 2005, ’06 and ’07 included the following: “$455,781 on ‘special appropriations’ in 2006, $201,226 on ‘gifts and bonuses in 2007, and $260,062 on ‘other expenses’ in 2007” (p. 28). These vague descriptions of expenditures have not been called into question until the recent internal investigation conducted by the Fiesta Bowl in 2011 alleging impropriety. These expenditures were written off as tax-exempt due to the current 501(c)(3) status enjoyed by the bowls currently aligned as BCS designates.

Issues

The issues addressed in this memorandum with regard to non-profit tax exemption and the misuses thereof are: misuse of taxpayer revenue, lack of in-depth federal oversight during expense reporting process, and the economic impact vis-à-vis bowl reimbursements and charitable donations in the name of a non-profit organization.

Misuse of taxpayers’ revenue: The Fiesta Bowl is presently under investigation for their gross misuse of funding for a non-profit organization. After the Arizona Republic blew the lid on the misappropriation of funds carelessly spent on personal agendas rather than for the interest of the bowl’s goals and objectives, an internal investigation into the expenditures of the Fiesta Bowl was conducted in March of 2011. The results were a 276 page public report detailing every expenditure made by the Fiesta Bowl and its executives. According to Cain (1999), “when applying the UBTI (unrelated business taxable income) to any potential non-profit direct marketing activity, the non-profit marketer and/or tax advisor must keep in mind the tax-exempt organization’s goals regarding the activity” (p. 328). The excuse provided by John Junker with regard to his gentleman’s club expenditures was outlined in Murphy and McKnight (2011), when he said “We are in the business where big strong athletes are known to attend these types of establishments. It was important for us to visit and we certainly conducted business” (p. 1). Surely a visit to a strip qualifies as an unrelated business taxable income, right? Wrong, these expenses were reimbursed, in full, to the CEO.

Lack of in-depth oversight federal oversight: When submitting their reports to IRS these bowls currently enjoy a rigor-free, superficial, expense reporting process. Bowls are capable of filing these expenditures under pseudonym categories which may or may not even exist. According to Wetzel et al (2010), “the Sugar Bowl has an actual ‘committee on golf’ and a ‘special committee on ladies’ entertainment’—which may or may not have anything to do with all those liaisons” (p. 28). None of these committees designated by the bowls have been questioned until the recent investigation of the Fiesta Bowl. These committees are assumed to be bowl related and have not, until now, received scrutiny regardless of how ambiguous the filed report may have seemed. The college bowl system, on the whole, enjoys the luxury of vague reporting techniques to disguise their expenses to the federal government. These expenses are unacceptable from any taxpayers’ standpoint and in-depth oversight could prevent such erroneous spending.

Economic impact vis-à-vis bowl reimbursements and charitable contributions: Because the major bowls enjoy state and federal subsidies there is an undoubted economic impact that takes place. Derrick Fox, the CEO of the Alamo Bowl testified before congress about the nature of the bowl’s current non-profit status. According to Wetzel et al (2010), Fox testified that “up to one-quarter of the proceeds from the games are dedicated to the community” (p. 26). Furthermore, Wetzel et al (2010) state that the “Sugar Bowl, for instance, received $3 million in direct funding from the Louisiana state government, according to its 2008 tax filing” and that the bowl:

gave nothing. Not a buck to the Hurricane Katrina reconstruction effort. Not a dime to a New Orleans after-school program. Not a penny to Habitat for Humanity. The Sugar Bowl, one of the richest bowls in existence, didn’t give back 25 percent of its proceeds to the community. It hogged everything, including the $3 million in taxpayers’ money (p. 27).

The bowl received its funding from the citizens of Louisiana yet did not give one cent back to those citizens. A city facing severe economic crisis funded a bowl to the tune of $3 million dollars and that bowl did nothing to improve the current situation.

Solutions

Addressing these concerns is actually rather rudimentary. The federal government and state governments, as the financiers for these bowls, need to conduct two audits of these bowls. One of them prior to the distribution of funds is requiring the bowls to detail how they intend to spend the money along with the previous year’s expenses. Then, a secondary audit which closely analyzes every penny spent as a “bowl expense.” No longer can these financiers accept expense report statements title “other expenses” and such. These bowl executives need to account for exactly where this money is being spent and how it is being spent. Additionally, testifying before congress that these bowls are charitable when they are, in fact, not donating what they claim to be donating. According to Wetzel et all (2010), “of the 23 tax-exempt bowls the total payout to charities: a combined $3.2 million dollars” (p. 29). The state of Louisiana donated $200,000 less than the combined payout of 23 tax-exempt bowls. This is simply unacceptable. If these bowls are testifying before Congress that they are, indeed, charitable groups, then Congress ought to have the luxury of holding them accountable for these statements. Bowls receiving public funding ought to be required to give back to the public. Their donations need to be documented and included in their expense reports to the IRS. Bowls that fail to comply with this should have their non-profit status revoked.

Conclusion

In sum, federal regulatory procedures need to be increased and implemented into non-profit organization law to ensure that this type of fleecing cannot continue. While not-for-profit organizations undoubtedly are not “non-profit” in the traditional sense of the term, these profits need to be closely micro-managed and evaluated to ensure that the public is not funding visits to strip clubs and golf resorts. A federal or Congressional oversight committee that closely monitors the expenditures of these bowls addresses two of our three concerns. Lastly, the implementation of charitable donations and reimbursements for expenses needs to be stressed. One cannot perjure themselves before Congress by saying they are a charitable organization when they have given back only $200,000 more as an entire entity than one of their bowls received in general public funding.

An Open Letter From Wile E. Coyote to ACME Products

To: ACME Products

From: Wile E. Coyote

Re: Product Line

Date: 4-20-2011

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a loyal user of ACME products for about as long as I can remember, but it is time for me to express my utter disgust with your product. For far too long your company, which has had no problem taking my fucking money mind you, has shipped me substandard products that have failed me countless times. I have had it. Your shitty products have cost me my main goal in life; capture that fucking bird and eat him, one too many times. Need examples? I'd be happy to provide them for you.

Let's start with those fucking death-traps you refer to as "rocket powered skates." Do they work? All except for the brakes! The braking systems of those things fail to kick in every time. Do you know what happens as a result of this? I shoot right past that god-damned bird and, inevitably, fly off a fucking cliff, plummeting to my doom. You'd think after years of market research you could have addressed this glitch. It is, after all, DEADLY!!!!! Do you think Ford continued to sell Explorers with Bridgestone tires on them after they fucking blew up and killed people? No! They immediately did a recall to get those dangerous pieces of shit off the road.

This isn't even the half of it, however. How about your god damned "Batman outfit?" Yeah, you remember that one; the one where the fucking WINGS FALL OFF!? Please explain to me how this is supposed to aid me hunting when it's basic purpose, FLYING, is faulty? While I'll admit that the outfit itself is a rather stupid idea for hunting roadrunner, I still expect this product to work.

Oh, now to the "dehydrating boulder." This motherfucker's a real gem. Low and behold, you've made a product that actually works. There's just one problem; it doesn't do anything except crush ME! The son of a bitch only actually expands and crushes something when it's me. Good lord, can you make one fucking product that works on the roadrunner? Lord knows it's not the "earthquake pills."

Don't even get me started on your TNT and rockets. Those things explode on me if I look at them wrong. I don't think I've ever blown up anything besides my own ass using your dynamite. Not one fucking stick of dynamite has ever detonated when that damn bird is around, but let me walk over for one second to examine the situation and check the fusing and connections and BOOM!!!!! I'm farting bomb fragments out my ass for the next six weeks.

Due to your ineptitude and unwillingness to recall and correct the problems with your products, I have retained the services of a lawyer. Enclosed you will find every receipt and shipping order from my purchases of your dog-shit excuse of brand. Additionally, I've also included hospital bills and medical expenses that have resulted from your negligence. I have decided to take my business elsewhere and sincerely hope that one of your faulty products causes an rather timely demise to your manufacturing plant. But just in case, I've placed every last remaining ACME product I've purchased into a box that should find its way into your office in about ten minutes.

In sum: Fuck you....and yours.

Wile E. Coyote.

An Open Letter to John Steigerwald

To Whom It May Concern:

John Steigerwald, a Observer-Reporter.com journalist, recently wrote an article about the tragic incident at Dodger Stadium where Bryan Stow was unmercifully beaten by several men at a game. The results of this beating have left Stow in a coma with portions of his skull missing. Steigerwald, with all the class and dignity a human being could muster, has decided to place the onus of the beating on Stow himself. In Steigerwald's Sunday "contribution," and I use that term VERY loosely, to Observer-Reporter.com, he opined the the following:

"It's probably safe to say that the two "Dodgers" were high on something or things, but somewhere in their sick, juvenile minds, they probably also thought they were doing their duty as Dodger fans.

They were protecting Dodger turf.

Just before he was beaten to within an inch of his life, Stow texted some friends and said that he was "scared inside the stadium."

Maybe someone can ask Snow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years.

Remember when it was the kids who were wearing the team jerseys to games? It was a common sight to see an adult male coming through the turnstile dressed as a regular human being with a kid dressed in a "real" jersey holding his hand.

Cute.

Are the 42-year-olds who find it necessary to wear their replica jerseys to a road game, those kids who are now fathers who haven't grown up?

Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team? It was cute when a 10-year-old kid got that feeling by showing up at Three Rivers Stadium in a Pirates jersey, but when did little boys stop growing out of that?

Here's tip for you if you actually think that wearing your team's jersey makes you a part of the team:

It doesn't."

You have got to be kidding me? Aside from the fact that you misspelled Stow’s name, you have, somehow, decided that Bryan was responsible for the actions that befell him. Here is a man who has dedicated his life to saving other individuals, but you’re blaming him for wearing a Giants jersey to a Dodger game simply because of his age? Ageism aside, Stow is in no way, shape, or form responsible for the brutal assault he endured at the hands of some savages simply because he chose to support his team.

I find it absurd, John that, in this economy, you find yourself receiving a paycheck for disseminating this sort of bile. Bryan Stow is a hard working citizen who decided to attend a baseball game as a form of leisure. I am sure that several things crossed his mind as he adorned his Giants jersey before the game. Being beaten within an inch of his life was, probably, not one of them.

John, I hate to break it to you, but people shouldn’t have to worry about fear of reprisal for wearing the opposing team’s jersey to an away game. That’s not how a civil society operates. Human beings are complex creature and one of the complexities that makes us unique is our ability to reason and process situations.

Deontology, something with which I’m sure you’re unfamiliar, is a branch of ethics dealing with moral obligation and duty. You know those basic tenants most journalists subscribe to? Those other citizens at Dodger stadium have a moral duty to conduct themselves with a modicum of dignity and civility toward their fellow man. I hate (actually I don’t, I relish it) to tell you this, but wearing an opposing team’s jersey does not infringe upon the basic human rights that are afforded us. The savage beating that Stow received, however, most certainly violated his basic human rights.

You seemed to have glossed over these facts with the sort of bravado that allowed Don Imus to refer to the valiant women of Rutgers University as “nappy headed ho’s.” Never in the history of our society has it been acceptable to beat and maim human beings for what they wear. If this had been a gay man, in a straight community, that was wearing a gay pride shirt and had been beaten for doing so, would you be so quick to blame the victim for his assault?

Call it what you want to call it, but these sorts of actions border on the “hate crime” territory. While I realize that sporting affiliation is not a protected category under the current statute, being savagely beaten for the open support of something ought to be sufficient enough to qualify as hatred. Someone that would intentionally harm another human being because of their intense dislike for something they support is, in fact, hatred.

I’m going to bring your attention to a similar case. Brian Thomas, a Longhorns fan, was nearly castrated at a bar in Norman, Oklahoma for wearing a Texas shirt in “Sooner territory.” Do you know what an attorney had to say about the very same ignorant argument you’re making? Here, I’ll tell you.

"I've actually heard callers on talk radio say that this guy deserved what he got for wearing a Texas T-shirt into a bar in the middle of Sooner country," said Irven Box, an attorney in this city 20 miles from Oklahoma's campus in Norman.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296466,00.html#ixzz1JLbonv8T

There’s an implied ignorance with this line of thinking. Many Sooners fans I know, as well as Dodger fans, found these actions grotesque and unwarranted. People do not “deserve” to be beaten and mauled because they support their team. It doesn’t matter how old they are.

Bryan Stow has two children. They may never have their dad back in the capacity they knew him before this assault. That does not seem to matter to you. All you’ve chosen to focus on is that he wore the “wrong jersey” at the “wrong game.” I sincerely hope that this man’s family insists upon you saying this garbage in person with your supervisor present.

I cannot fathom how you find work, John Steigerwald. While I respect the freedom of the press, I think it’s a bit absurd that any self-respecting journalistic outlet would employ an insensitive half-wit such as yourself. Please do the journalistic world a favor and quit publishing this garbage.

Sincerely,

Josh Webb.

An Open Letter To ESPN, SportsNation, & Michelle Beadle

Dear ESPN, SportsNation, & Michelle Beadle:

Today I found myself involved in a war of words on Twitter. The topic at hand; my utter frustration with ESPN anchor, Michelle Beadle regarding her tweets/comments about Michael Vick. Beadle has made it perfectly clear that, under no circumstances, will she ever find herself rooting for Vick again because of his involvement in the dog-fighting ring. As an owner of three cats I can appreciate someone's genuine abhorrence for this type of behavior. My problem is not with her hatred for these types of activities but, rather, the inconsistency with which she applies this hatred.

I made the following comment on Twitter pertaining to the aforementioned paragraph:

I really wish that @ESPN_Michelle spent as much time complaining about Stallworth, who killed a MAN and is still playing, as she does Vick.

This comment was circulated around Twitter and I eventually found myself replying to an assortment of responses regarding the comment. Some were positive while other were negative. Not that I am shocked by this in the slightest, however.

For those who are unaware of what my comment meant, I shall explain. Donte Stallworth drove drunk one night, hit a man, and killed him. As his punishment, Stallworth was convicted of DUI Manslaughter and sentenced to 30 days in jail, 2 years of house arrest, 1,000 hours of community service, and 8 years probation. Michael Vick, on the other hand, was convicted of running a dog-fighting ring, hanging, drowning, and electrocuting dogs, and received 23 months in federal prison.

I'm not here to debate the sentencing of either individual. My malcontent lies with the on-air and twitter comments of Michelle Beadle. She has consistently found a way to remind the general public of what Vick did in the past. Despite the fact that Vick has, otherwise, turned his life around and become a reformed citizen, Beadle continuously displays her dislike for Vick every time his name is mentioned.

In response to my tweet, Beadle replied with the following gem:

ESPN_Michelle

Lemme know when Donte is a relevant topic today! Vick is everywhere...this is how tv works

I guess that Donte needs to be front-page and center for people to be reminded that he killed a man. He's allowed to play in the league, attention free of his crimes, as long as he's not one of the best players on the field. Beadle will post pictures of the mangled dogs from Vick's estate to remind people of what he did, but she will make no mention of the man that Stallworth ran down while drunk.

Ben Roethlisberger is presently the starting quarterback for the 10-3 Pittsburgh Steelers. He's leading the pack for one of the premier teams in the NFL, yet his multiple rape accusations are barely mentioned 1/8th as much as Vick's dog-fighting history.

Beadle apparently believes that if you're not front and center in the sports world, then your actions don't deserved to mentioned in the same breath as famous athletes. After trying to point this out to her over and over, I was finally blocked. I guess she was unable to handle someone, intelligently, pointing out to her that her agenda-based reporting was getting real old. From what I understand, she blocked the majority of people who disagreed with her stance on Stallworth being mentioned or Vick being able to own a dog.

Here are a couple of DM's that Michelle Beadle sent to people during the course of yesterday's campaign against her.

"I am an animal lover. Dogs tend to be better people than a lot of folks."

"Ha! Lemme know how you and your 132 followers do! Meanwhile I can send you the 1000's of emails and messages I have in support."

Congratulations ESPN, you've hired an anchor who tells people via the internet that she believes that animals are better people than a lot of people out there, and whose best response in an intelligent debate is "I have more followers than you." If this is the kind of intelligence you're hiring I, for one, do not feel bad about limiting the amount of ESPN programming I will be watching in the future.

Perhaps it would be wise to encourage your employees to not own a Twitter account if they cannot handle the criticism that they're going to receive for the open comments they make on the internet. More to the point, what is the point of sending secret messages to people who disagree with you, Michelle, if you're just going to block them? Do you realize how childish that is? It's like the petulant teenager that has to have the last word over the phone, so he says something snarky and hangs up.

Michelle Beadle is what is wrong with sports journalism today. She offers too much of her opinion on subjects and not enough objective bias. Regarding America's opinion regarding Michael Vick should be able to own another dog, Beadle said she was "embarrassed."

Michelle, we don't need you to be embarrassed for us. The majority of us are grown adults who have made mistakes in life and recognize the value of being forgiven, as well as, forgiving others. It is our right to say that we think Vick should be given a second chance at animal ownership. More importantly, Michelle, your political-based agenda has forgotten something in all of this; it is Vick's children that wish to own a dog. What would you have his children do, live their entire childhood without the ability to own a dog because of his crimes? I wasn't aware that we, as Americans, were still in the business of punishing our children for the sins of the father.

I am not the only one who feels this way. The CEO of the Humane Society believes that Vick should be able to own another dog in the future. He does not believe that he should own one until his probation is complete, but even he believes that Vick should be afforded another chance at owning a pet. Here is a link of his statement regarding Vick and future pet ownership:

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/12/michael-vick-pet.html

I'm led to believe that the CEO of the Humane Society is in a better position to make an assertion as to Vick's ability to care for a pet than an anchor for SportsNation. If the CEO of the Humane Society and 70% of America believe that Vick should be afforded another opportunity then who are you, Michelle Beadle, to feel "embarrassed?"

The only embarrassing thing I can find in this entire situation is the number of Twitter users that you blocked because they disagreed with your opinion. You mentioned that you couldn't handle the "disrespectful" users; well please, Michelle, point out once instance my disrespect for you prior to you blocking me. If you wish to take my comment of "the people who agree with me are Ph.D.'s, J.D.'s and other academics. You know, people who can think for themselves," as disrespectful, then I suggest you find a new line of work. My comments were leaps and bounds more respectful and logically structured than others I saw directed at you yesterday.

Maybe it was my comment that you were using Strawman arguments that upset you. Having taken law classes, I am sure you know what a Strawman argument entails. I'll remind you, in case. That's when you take the weakest point of an individual's argument and use it as the crux of your argument. Pointing out that I had fewer followers than you and, therefore, not as many people could POSSIBLY agree with me as your "1000's of followers" is a Strawman argument.

You mention that Stallworth is not relevant and should not, therefore, be discussed. I wasn't aware that an individual's current relevancy dictated how sports media should paint them. Before Vick even had his break-out season, you have been cutting him down and reminding individuals of what he did repeatedly. You've not shared this same enthusiasm for Stallworth's reinstatement, Big Ben's leadership of a 1st place team, or a litany of other athlete-related instances. Why aren't you constantly posting pictures of Tiger's mistresses on Twitter? Where's the pictures of Mario Reyes' family?

America has spoken, Michelle Beadle, they want you to stop your verbal tirades and Twitter campaigns against Vick. If you have thousands of emails of people agreeing with you regarding this subject, that is the forum you should use to address this topic. You should not be using ESPN as a platform to push your political agenda regarding animal rights. We, as viewers, tune in to ESPN to get sporting news. If I wanted to hear a political campaign against Michael Vick, I would attend a PETA rally.

I will never tune in to SportsNation or, for that matter, any show that Michelle Beadle is a part of, again. I encourage ESPN to put an end to the seeming endless tirades of, one, Michelle Beadle against Michael Vick. If they need further evidence that America is tired of her political/personal stance on this issue, they need only ask her to submit her Twitter user name and password to the company. Since she uses ESPN in her username, it is property of the company.

People are tired of it, ESPN, and I encourage you to do something about it. Since I am sure this letter will fall on deaf ears, I am going to circulate it via the internet and let it takes its natural course. I have always been proud of the fact that I could count on ESPN to provide agenda-free sports reporting. That seems to have fallen by the wayside lately. Just because you're the "worldwide leader in sports," does not mean you need to give your employees a platform for them to disseminate personal and political laundry. Michelle Beadle ought to be ashamed of herself for her comments and her petulant responses via Twitter to your loyal viewers. Allow this to continue, ESPN, and I'm sure that you'll find people will stop tuning in all together. Then again, maybe the cancellation of SportsNation which would, thusly, eliminate Beadle's ability to spew her unreasoning discontent toward Vick might not be such a bad idea after all.

Sincerely,

Josh AKA @ASinForHer

Josh vs. The Boston Red Sox

Within the past two day, the Boston Red Sox traded for Adrian Gonzalez and acquired Carl Crawford via free agency. Now, this might not seem like a big deal outside of acquiring two the biggest names available in free agency this off-season, but something very weird did, indeed, take place. The Red Sox, for all of the money they actually have to spend, are notoriously frugal. They, instead, opt to acquire one big name and develop the rest of their talent within their farm system.

There's nothing wrong with this, of course. They have won two World Series titles in the past 6 years using this strategy. It has, however, caused some unrest among fans who know that the money is there, but that it's not being spent. What's the point in having one of the largest payrolls in Major League Baseball if you're not going to utilize the money available? All of this changed during this off-season.

Crawford and Gonzalez will have the distinction of becoming the first two Red Sox players in history to earn more than $20 million dollars annually. Additionally, the Red Sox are known for avoiding long-term deals and, instead, opting to stay around the 5 year mark. I can't recall off the top of my head when, if ever, the Red Sox have offered two 7 year contracts in the same off-season. Nevermind the fact that these were two 7 year deals worth more than $140 million a piece.

Someone in the Red Sox front office hit a wall. They decided it was time to spend. Maybe they figured it was time to assemble an all-star line-up like their arch-rivals the Yankees do. I'm sure that more will come out about their reasons as the off-season progresses. The biggest thing that I can stress about their recent acquisitions is that it doesn't matter why they did it; they had to do it.

Even with the 2 World Series titles in the past decade, Red Sox fans still feel/felt like second-class citizens to Yankees. The Yankees front office has never had a problem issuing blank checks to prized free agents. They do it to beat the Red Sox and to make themselves the odds-on favorites to win the World Series every year. They do it because their fans demand nothing but the best. As a matter of fact, they do it because they, themselves, demand nothing but excellence.

Traditionally, the worst part of our season was watching our beloved Red Sox fall short of, yet another, World Series. I am not going list off the numerous ways that the Red Sox have managed to blow opportunities. In part because there's too many to list, but mostly because a winning tradition has been established in Boston. The Red Sox first World Series title in 86 years came the only way that it could have come; down 0-3 to the Yankees in the ALCS with Rivera warming up to close out the series. They subsequently swept the Cardinals in the World Series and gave us fans what we were dying for; a championship.

A mere three years later the Red Sox, once again, secured another championship. This time the Colorado Rockies fell victim to the Boys from Beantown. The Red Sox faced a 3-1 deficit against the Cleveland Indians in the ALCS before rattling off 3 straight wins to win the AL pennant. Once again the Red Sox faced adversity and prevailed. Fans had seen their beloved team appear to be down and out two different times in the ALCS and, both times, the Sox triumphed. This was a different machine than fans were used to seeing.

In retrospect, this may have been the worst things the Red Sox could have done. We, as fans, have now become spoiled. We were used to success. We believed that we should win and we KNEW that we could. We had stared down our demons and came out the other side laughing. We were no longer the red-headed stepchild of the AL East.

Then something happened that changed the landscape of being a Red Sox fan. Actually, the worst thing started happening; the Yankees began winning again. The Red Sox failed to acquire Teixeira or Sabathia and they couldn't keep Jason Bay. Red Sox fans began to start to wonder if we were going to start spending the money to beat the Yankees or if we would just have to rest on the laurels of the past while New York resumed their winning ways. Things were not sitting well in Red Sox nation. Injuries and lack of production resulted in a less than stellar 2009 season. It was clear that new talent needed to be added, but would Henry and Epstein go out and spend the money?

The answer to this question came rather quickly. They went out and acquired two All-Star position players and spared no expense doing so. Third place in the AL East was no longer an acceptable result. Seeing the Yankees spend top dollar to acquire the biggest names in baseball while their fans watched aging talent decline, high-paid talent fail to deliver, and acquired talent leave for greener pastures would no longer suffice.

It was time to add the talent that fans were attending sold-out game after sold-out game to see win. It was time to add the talent that would allow them to escape the shadow of their rival. The Yankees are seeking championship number 28 and Boston is seeking number 8. Only two of those titles have come since 1918. The Red Sox needed to answer the bell and they did.

Why? Because winning was the worst and best thing that they could have done as an organization. Once the Red Sox tasted victory they realized that defeat would be met with disdain. Simply competing would no longer do; they have to win. The biggest problem with being a marquee franchise that finally starts winning is that you're expected to keep winning. Boston fans have become spoiled in this regard. 3 Super Bowl championships from the Patriots, an NBA Championship and another appearance from the Celtics, and two World Series Championships from the Red Sox.

The winning way has been established in Boston and the time to spend finally came.