Important tales from the past can set up the future

We’re standing in the atrium of the arena yesterday afternoon waiting for the Canada Basketball shindig to start and I’m looking around and seeing Greg Francis and Shawn Swords and Peter Guarasci and Rowan Barrett and Steve Konchalski and Joe Raso and I’m sure others I’ve forgotten so I’m sorry about that.

We’ve got Jay Triano and Steve Nash about to take the podium and all I can think of is ‘when did they turn the clocks back 12 or 14 years?’

And you know what?

I’m glad they did.

The continuum of basketball, men’s basketball in particular, kind of took a hit in the mid-2000s, guys floated in and out of the program at the upper level, there didn’t seem to be a consistency of eras that I think is necessary to keep things going in the right direction.

And, please, that is not a knock on Leo or what he did in those years, he got the senior team to one worlds, came within a game or two of grander success and did what he could with what he had.

But there was a disconnect between the group that was more successful than any since the 1980s and the kids who are coming up through the system now and that connection is vital.

I know when Jay and Steve sat down with that group last night – with the others there to lend credence to what they said about what have to be known as the good old days – they would have recounted what it meant to be successful on an international stage, what it meant to individuals, what it meant to basketball fans in the country, what it mean to the growth of the game all over.

And I hope the young kids listened and were imbued with some sense of pride and desire when it comes to representing Canada.

Basketball, more than any other sport for young kids in our country, is far too dominated by visions of grandeur to the south.

Some think – wrongly – that it’s more important to be thought highly of by Americans than it is to play for Canada; that for some reason the validation from the United States trumps the feeling one would get from putting on a Canada uniform and making a name for yourself with your people.

Guys like Triano and Nash and Barrett and Francis and Guarasci and Swords and Konchalski and Raso know that; I trust their message will be heard.

-

Bruce!

Tonight!

Yes, it should be good, glad Super Son will see and hear him for the first time – albeit from the upper reaches of the dome – and talk about your fortuitous timing.

Arrived back from London to a pile of New Yorkers to go through as part of the usual evening routine and this somewhat excellent profile was in one of them.

You should read it.

And then you should listen to this.

-

Lance Armstrong is giving up his fight against doping allegations and will be stripped of seven Tour de France titles?

Yawn.

Look, I don’t know whether Lance Armstrong cheated or didn’t cheat – barring any incontrovertible evidence of his own to the contrary, the current case against him would suggest that he did – but now that he’s apparently going to go away and not deal with it anymore is welcome.

Good.

It’s been, to me, a boring tale of he-said, she-said since the saga began, we have what should have been one of the great heroes of sports torn down and now going away because the spectre of drugs and performance-enhancing substances has driven him away.

It goes – once again – to our propensity to be let down by those we admire most, to have people we put on a pedestal tumble greatly because of something of their own doing.

Too bad but not unusual, is it? We’ve had other sporting icons prove to be quite flawed in the final analysis.

Armstrong should have been lauded for all that he did, for his fight against cancer, for the money he raised to fight that disease; he has done some tremendous things.

Now?

Now he will be remembered as a drug cheat in most circles – rightly or wrongly – because a man who spent years trying to protect his legacy and prove his innocence has given up that fight.

That’s kind of telling, isn’t it?

Oh, and I can’t ever forgive him for dumping Sheryl Crow so there’s that, too.

-

Hang on.

Rogers might buy The Score?

Don’t they own everything already?

I can’t keep this stuff straight and all I know is that, somehow, it’s going to cost me more money on my cable bill.

-

Mail?

May have some time pre-show this afternoon to knock some off and a bit of time tomorrow before a possible trip to the Bills game – and no one’s caught me up on the gridiron yet, by the way people – so …

Click. Write. Send.

-

I don’t know how many of you are familiar with this screaming talking head known as Skip Bayless, who makes his living being somewhat of a buffoon on some Inane ESPN morning chat show but he represents all that is wrong with the sports media today.

He did what people of his ilk do, said something outrageous in hopes of garnering fame and ratings when he slagged Derek Jeter the other day.

As we’ve said often before, there are a lot of problems with some segments of the sports media today, there are people who never go anywhere, never speak to anyone, people who don’t do hard work who pass themselves off as experts when in fact they are entertainers first and foremost, often with the primary goal of fame rather than imparting information in context and with a reasoned bent.

Bayless, who I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to, comes across – and should be considered – a bit of a blowhard who makes a passable living making bold and outrageous statements on a morning chat show.

Everything – from hello to goodbye and every word in between – should be summarily ignored as the rantings of a caricature of all that is wrong with broadcast media today.

-

 

 

Comments

[AT]

personally I never heard of skip bayless until this week when I saw the clips of the rookies trying to dunk over his cut out. But you can't blame him for his fame, it is the media networks that give him a voice. It is absolutely brutal that he can speculate on ESPN about something or someone that he has no factual basis for.

[Heath]

Damien Cox did the same speculation thing with Bautista a few years back. He dropped a few rungs with me when he did.

[Vincent Lam]

Hey Doug. Is there a reason for Leo Rautin's son, Andy, not being on that list of 27? Is he not considered a part of the future of Canada Basketball?

Blogger's note: Presume he's got stuff going on with his career he can't get out of; will check further on the weekend

[Vincent Lam]

I noticed Anthony Bennett is not on that list either. He's one of the top ranked high school players of 2012.

Blogger's note: And is otherwise occupied this weekend

[David in Oakville]

Morning Doug,

I share your sentiments about Lance Armstrong with one proviso.. the USDA did not award Lance the seven Tour titles so why should they have the ability to take them away. And if we are going to say Lance does not deserve the title of winner of the Tour 1999 - 2005 well who gets it then? Jan Ullrich finished runner up three times to Lance. Jan is also an admitted user of PEDs and winner of the 96 tour and gold & silver medals in Sydney. How do you classify the runner up as winner and non cheat if he, like Lance, passed all drug tests? Here is the shame in all of this.. by not contesting and by never coming forward, Armstrong does nothing to clean up the sport he dominated. I think, PEDs or not, Lance is perhaps the greatest tour rider of all time... but he is likely not the all american hero he is portrayed as.
+
It's funny you should mention Bayless because I was working on a mailbag question for you based on his comments. I would remind you that one of your colleagues (not Grace Kelley or the grumpy PG) not so long ago mused on his blog about Jose Bautista's remarkable career turnaround and the possibility of PED use. He did so, as did Bayless, with nary an ounce of proof nor an iota of analysis, all under the guise of "given the recent history of the sport and homerun leaders, you gotta ask the question, right?". Seems blowhards and lazy journalists come in all nationalities.

[DannyFromFreddy]

Unfortunately, it's not just in sports that the media is guilty of this. The stakes are much higher when this happens (as it is more often than not) in the new media.

[Tiger]

Neat that Cooper got our favorite beat reporter's mug next to Jay's.

How come this rag doesn't have you dress up your minirecorder with a logo to compete with those tv and radio guys?

Blogger's note: 'Cause I'd resist. Rather be discreet

[sam]

Skip Bayless is a good basketball name - A cross between Jerryd and Rafer Alston. He probably wouldn't pass though......

[Sharkey]

Re Skip Bayless: his job is to say outlandish things and give ESPN attention. And he does a good job of that. If we ignore him he'll go away.

Also, enjoy the show tonight -- I know I will! It's number 10 for me. Super Son is going to be converted to a Bruce-ie by the end, just like I was back on the Tom Joad tour. Seriously people, if you've never seen Bruce live go do yourself a favour and get a ticket to his Hamilton show in October, you won't regret it.

[Tabber]

The problem I have with the USADA in Armstrong's case is the way the accusations are phrased - fully consistent and such wording. Sounds like they don't have actual proof, and of course we know that it is impossible to prove a negative, so Armstrong has no way - beyond the 100s of tests which don't seem to hold water to these folks - to prove his innocence. I have no dog in the fight, but it just seems that if an organization wants to keep on going after someone with allegations, there's really no way short of throwing money at lawyers to the same extent as the publicly funded organizations to fight the allegations, and who can compete with the funds available to these organizations in the name of cleaning up sport? Can we be sure that someone with a grudge against Armstrong for his victories hasn't managed to finally find a way to get back at Armstrong? No, because, again, one can't prove a negative. It's like the old canard of "have you stopped beating your wife?" - "I never started" - "Just yes or no, sir".

[doug]

lots to discuss today...as for Lance I am with you, dry up and blow away, and the USDA obviously does have a strong case and verifiable proof or Lance wouldn't give up the fight, ..above poster is missing the point about Bayless and why I am starting to loath ESPN, Bayless is a ESPN employee with a show on ESPN, he reports something as news (I use the word reports and news very lightly) on his show, you go to ESPN's site and they give it further validity by making a big deal out of it, then other media outlets are compelled to cover it as well, so Skip Bayless can't be ignored or he won't go away it's impossible....it's what ESPN has become the TMZ of the sports world, they do the same with their most valuable commodity NCAA, they won't do any investigative journalism on them or at best try to sweep anything negative under the rug,why cheapen their own big money maker....ESPN was allowed to get far to powerful and I only use them to see scores or watch live sports they are in no way a news agency.....I read about how Bruce does Jungleland, pretty cool and the perfect scenario...and looks good on Basketball Canada for getting it right and correcting a wrong....cheers

[Andy]

Regarding Lance this is non-news, to people following the case it was well known he wasn't going to fight. The only news is USADA pushing to have his titles stripped. Lance can't to go to court. He has not fought anyone or threatened legal action since Marion Jones and those Baseball players went through the perjury charges.

Either he goes to court and gets perjury charges if he lies and says he didn't cheat or he looks like a stooge like McGuire did and says he is not there to talk about the past or misremembered what happened. His only and highly calculated move was to do nothing.

[Rob.V]

Barring any incontrovertible evidence of his own to the contrary, the current case against him would suggest that he did.
-
I haven't followed this, what evidence is there that he did cheat.

Blogger's note: Testimony of others, previous samples re-tested

[nasko]

Regarding Lance Armstrong, I know for a fact that he greatly helped (through his book) one 4-time cancer survival. In her own words "he is a great inspiration to so many of us"
Just for that I support him. Secondly, for all I have read the American Doping Agency has no real hard proof of their allegation, it is mostly based on Floyd Landis' words and other witnesses (he said, she said). If all his doping test were negative, and as far as I know they are, I think he is still the rightful winner of The Tour and above all else a great inspiration for cancer victims.

Cheers

[Mike kovacs]

Remember an old frozen 'B' sample was tested a few yrs ago and was positive. The technology was not available before. However due to legal technicalities the result was ruled inadmissable.

[Steve]

"Remember an old frozen 'B' sample was tested a few yrs ago and was positive. The technology was not available before. However due to legal technicalities the result was ruled inadmissable."

The most troubling aspect of this, as usual, is that those checking for drug use are so far behind those using drugs that it becomes pointless.

At this stage it means that Armstrong *might* get an asterisk next to his name in the history books, and even then that's only if the UCI agree (I really doubt it's within USADA's authority at all). As an added bonus maybe they pass it down and some poor sap who finished well down the rankings but wasn't on the juice gets a belated tour win that will never be taken seriously. As an added bonus USADA further highlight their inability to catch drug cheats in anything like a timely manner and the cycling fan is left with his suspicion that anyone who places in the top ten of the tour is probably on the juice confirmed.

Armstrong has managed to create an image of himself in the public eye as more than just a sportsman, which is why this will tarnish his legacy as much as Tiger's sex scandals will tarnish his - not at all.

Blogger's note: His name is not likely to be in the history books, which is a byproduct of having results vacated years later. There is no question he has done great and amazing things raising funds and awareness; and in the biggest fight of his cycling life, he abdicated for no apparent reason when it was hardly expected. Too bad but it will be part of his sporting legacy, which is quite removed from the other good things he's done

[m]

Who is that other self righteous, condescending moron that I see him with on those little "discussion" videos on espn?

Blogger's note: Could be one of many, lots float through that seat

[nasko]

Doug, one other thing re Armstrong. As far as I know, USADA cannot take the titles from the Tour, only The International Cycling Federation can, and they have not indicated that they will at any point. So, for what it is worth, I think USADA is just wasting money and funds fighting a fight they will not win. My 2c.
Cheers

[sam]

As has been mentioned Lance Armstrong has done a lot of good for a lot of people. Somewhere along the way he must have rubbed a few people the wrong way. Former teammates have turned against him claiming they have seen evidence of his drug usage.
What separates him from other high profile athletes in similar circumstances, is that he has contributed in a very public way and continues to do so. Whether through his high profile relationships - or his charitable work - or the inspiration he has given the many cancer patients over the years. As a public figure it's hard to dislike him. Unlike a Bonds, Clemens etc...
I certainly hope he continues on with his charitable endeavors -

[Steve]

"Blogger's note: His name is not likely to be in the history books, which is a byproduct of having results vacated years later."

He'll be there, and that is in fact my point. You can substitute in a different winner, shove an asterisk next to his name and explain that the guy who did win was on the juice, but who is in the photo wearing the yellow jersey in Paris next to it?

[m]

I went back and checked, it's Stephen Smith who I also find repulsive.