Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kobe Bryant Isn't Up To Speed On Jeremy Lin, 'Linning'

Fire Brian Burwell

Okay, so I'm not really surprised that Brian Burwell's most recent column is bad. But I am surprised that it's this bad. So bad, in fact, as to deserve the Fire Joe Morgan treatment. But since those guys are all in purgatory (we miss you Ken Tremendous! dak! Junior!), and since reading this made my mind reel and a "Fuck the Heck?!?" had escaped my lips before I knew what had hit me, and since I'm home alone watching Home Alone on Christmas Eve, I decided to try to parse this sucker.

This column should have been titled "Why I Hate Sports, St. Louis, and My Job". Instead, it's called "Looking Back: The Decade in Sports":

Looking back on the decade in sports, it's time to admit that we lost something precious during this decade.

I think I know what's coming next.

We lost the veil of believability. 

I definitely know what's coming next.

Say hello to the Steroid Era.

Brian Burwell was not born yesterday. However he seems to have been born on March 17, 2005, the day the Congressional hearings into steroid use in baseball commenced. The rest of the known world knew well before the dawn of the decade -- at least since Steve Wilstein's piece on McGwire's use of andro on August 21, 1998 -- that players were ingesting more than hot dogs before games. Many other sports had already had their steroid controversies, so the "veil of believability" only existed for the willfully blind.

Really, what Burwell should be writing is "Say goodbye to the Steriod Era," since it is pretty evident at this point that baseball was cleaner in the Naughties than in any previous decade in the sport's history. At least in the second half of the decade. Burwell should be celebrating the cleaning up of the sport, and the subsequent gain of the "veil of believability". But he's too bitter for that. 

For all the tremendous moments that I can cling to (and I have them among my most memorable moments of the first 10 years of the 21st century), the ones that will never leave me are those events that lifted the veil of believability off so many great sporting events. 

Nevermind for now that the parenthetical doesn't make sense (he remembers the memorable moments? Moments that are tremendous are also memorable?), Burwell has now set himself up to recount the most memorable sporting moments of the 2000s that are now forever tainted by steroids:

BALCO.

Not a sporting event. Not even an event, really. More like a "thing" or an "entity" or a "company". Which was opened in 1984, and operated throughout the 1980s and 1990s as well as part of this decade.

“I am not here to talk about the past.” 
“He must have misremembered.”

Also not a sporting event. And not uncommon when it comes to Congressional testimony. Remember Alberto Gonzales? At least Gonzales was (not) testifying about things that happened this decade. McGwire wasn't. But it still makes very good sense to not open your mouth in front of Congress, lest you perjure yourself (a la Palmeiro, Clemens, Sosa) or admit to crimes you haven't yet been accused of. It makes for a bad soundbyte, but it's also the only prudent course of action when you get subpoenaed by a Congress that is operating on the fringes of its authority.

From Barry Bonds to Mark McGwire to Roger Clemens, from Marion Jones to Tim Montgomery and all the others who found themselves caught in the swirl of embarrassment over performance-enhancing drug revelations, we sort of stumbled through the decade of the 2000's no longer sure what to believe whenever we saw what appeared to be a record-breaking or potentially great athletic event.

This is simply not true. How about Michael Phelps? 14 Olympic gold medals, 37 world records, and tested before and after every competition. Lance Armstrong? 6 of his 7 consecutive Tour de France wins came this decade, and he may be the most drug-tested athlete of all time. Roger Federer? 15 Grand Slam titles this decade, never once linked to PEDs. Tiger Woods? Extra-curricular activities aside, no link to steroids but 12 Grand Slam wins and $1bn earned. Kobe Bryant? 4 NBA titles this decade. Peyton Manning? One of the greatest decades of performance by any player in team sports history, and he's been tested the whole time (ditto Brady/Belichek). How about Albert Pujols, fer chrissake? He's won 3 MVPs, all after drug testing came into the league, and Brian Burwell gets to watch him every single day. How about the freak-of-nature Tim Lincecum, who has made SanFran forget about Barry Bonds sooner than we'd thought possible?

Meanwhile, the worst of the steroids use in sports was during previous decades. But Burwell clearly prefers to talk about the more recent past.  

What I remember the most about sitting in the press box during baseball games or at the Olympics was observing everything with a cautionary warning label:

Let's wait until after the drug test to give it credence.

Okay. Fair enough. So why aren't you talking about Phelps, Woods, Armstrong, Pujols, Manning, Bryant, Federer, and the all the other athletes who have had amazing (tremendous and memorable, even) moments this decade who were all tested and none found wanting? Hell, Phelps took Performance Retarding Drugs (PRDs) and still won every damn event he entered. That's impressive.

Scandals pocked this decade in sports at almost every turn. And now the decade is ending with this perfect symbol of what we can look forward to in the future:

Harvey Levin, the creator of the scandal-driven tabloid website and TV show TMZ, is planning to launch a new website in 2010: 

TMZSports.com.

Yikes!

Yikes! 

It would sure be terrible if athletes were subject to scrutiny into their personal lives, like who they're banging or what they're ingesting. Because the traditional MSM would never give up their dignity by stooping to that level. 

Oh. Wait.

So that's where we're headed, and if I were a professional athlete, I might want to add a new item to my New Year's resolution checklist. Tiger Woods was the first – but certainly not the last – celebrity athlete to have his private life outed and turned into a TMZ and tabloid goldmine.

TMZSports.com is so powerful and pervasive that it was able to break the news of Tiger Woods' many affairs before it even existed

The funniest part, of course, is that Burwell is speculating into the lives and achievements of every single athlete in the world, presuming them guilty until they can prove their innocence, and then complaining that some "tabloid" might speculate about athlete's personal lives. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. But hold on... it looks like Burwell might finally be getting to his point:

But it wasn't all bad. I was able to find more than a few good and believable moments from the decade that appear to be free of any artificial crud. They're not all good memories, but at least they're things I could believe in.

I'm not sure what "more than a few" means in Burwell-world, but he came up with four. Four "tremendous and memorable moments" in ten years of sporting events. Don't try too hard, Brian.

1. PUJOLS HOMER IN MINUTE MAID PARK:

This was a really good one. One of my favorites. Probably not #1, if only because it didn't win a series (like A.D.A.M.'s freezing of Beltran did, or Jimmy Ballgame's smash-and-grab in the 2004 NLCS) or a Series, but still it was a wonderful moment. Watch Burwell ruin it forever:

It was a cool Monday night in Minute Maid Park in Game 5 of the 2005 NL championship series, and the retractable roof of the ballpark was sealed shut as the Houston Astros held a 3-1 series lead over the Cardinals.

Ladies and gentlemen, the winner of the 2009 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. While not technically fiction, it is clearly to be read as drama, so I think it's deserving of the award. 

It felt like the Cards' season was on the brink, trialing 4-2 in the ninth inning as Albert Pujols came to the plate.

The Cards' season was on the brink, feelings or no. They were trailing by two runs with two outs in the 9th in an elimination game, facing Lights-Out Lidge. It doesn't get any more on the brink than that.

What I remember was how noisy the ballpark was seconds before IT happened. It rumbled like the noise from a jet engine, as the hometown crowd knew they were on their way to the World Series if their all-star closer Brad Lidge could get Pujols out.

See that? See how he distinguished between "IT" and "It". "IT" with a capital-I capital-T refers to Pujols' home run; "It" with just a capital-I refers to the ballpark, which somehow rumbled despite possessing no agency. That's why he gets paid to write and we mere mortals don't. He could have said "they" since the noise came from the people inside the ballpark rather than the ballpark itself.

But then Pujols hit the ball. Oh how he hit the ball. It thundered off his bat, rocketed 450 feet away into center field and smashed off the glass window wall.

Seriously, is this open mic night? What the hell is he writing?

And just like that, the Cards had a 5-4 lead, Minute Maid became quiet as a tomb, and one of the most dramatic moments I've ever witnessed occurred.

Sort of anticlimactic, but at least he's done with the flowery look-at-me stuff. But what's interesting is why this moment is so memorable: he didn't want it to happen, and got pissed off when it did!

What I remember most about the moment was the reaction in the press box, where so many writers were busy writing deadline stories that basically put to bed the Cardinals season. The moment the ball cracked off Pujols' bat, you hear about 100 sports writers curse in unison.
We were all angry that our stories had just been rendered useless.

Way to endear yourself to the StL faithful, Brian! First you discount the entire decade, except for four tremendous and memorable moments that you could "believe in". Then you wish that one of them -- one of the most beloved occurrences of ALL OF HISTORY in the Lou -- hadn't happened at all! Are you freaking trying to get fired?

But in the next breath, we all repeated the same vulgar word with a different inflection. We suddenly realized what we had just witnessed, and the same curse word came out again and this time it was with awe.

And then we rewrote our columns to start with "It was a cool and tremendous and memorable night in Houston..." and we all got fired for writing like 12 year olds. 

2. RAMS WIN SUPER BOWL: 

Wait a second. Okay, Super Bowl XXXIV was technically in the Naughts, but it represented the championship of the 1999 season. Whatever, it's Christmas, I'm feeling charitable. 

I was not working for the Post-Dispatch during the Rams run to their Super Bowl XXXIV victory in the Georgia Dome. But I was there covering the game for HBO's Inside the NFL show, and I was in the endzone tunnel moments before the Rams players were about to race out on the field. Most people will remember The Tackle or the Kurt Warner-to-Isaac Bruce touchdown pass as the most memorable moment of the game.

Yep. Because they are. Easily. The Tackle is one of the most memorable moments of any Super Bowl game, in any decade, period. Great moment. Glad you brought it up.

But for me, it was standing behind those players, particularly linebacker London Fletcher, who bounced around in that tunnel like a boxer about to walk out into the arena for a heavyweight championship fight.

Okay... you're losing me. Watching London Fletcher not playing in the game is more memorable than watching Mike Jones secure the victory that Warner, Bruce, and Faulk had earned? Whatever. I mean, everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

As he bounced around, Fletcher began singing the lyrics to the Phil Collins song “In the Air Tonight”: 

“Can you feel it coming in the air tonight, OH Lord... I've been waiting for this moment.... all my life.... Ohhhh Lord.”

WTF?

It was one of those poignant behind-the-scenes moment that you hoped would lead to a Rams victory.

WTF?? I mean, I guess so. There's a singular/plural problem in there, and the sentiment is trite, and I don't see how Brian Burwell witnessing London Fletcher sing Phil Collins songs could help lead to a Rams Super Bowl victory, but I guess we -- St. Louis sports fans -- could always hope for that. 

What a shame to have that moment wasted on a loss.

WTFF????!!!!! This entry is titled "Rams Win Super Bowl". Then you mentioned how certain plays that led to the Rams winning said Super Bowl were not, in fact, as memorable as watching London Fletcher sing Phil Collins songs. THEN you said the Rams lost?!? You want to strip away the only Super Bowl victory in the Rams tenure in St. Louis (which may soon be coming to a close)?

The Rams, of course, would lose Super Bowl XXXVI, which is a completely different (but still memorable, if not tremendous) sporting event that occurred two years later (just switch one of those Roman numerals). No word on if London Fletcher danced and sang Phil Collins songs before that one. Probably not, since they lost.

By the way, both of those Rams teams featured Leonard Little, a player who inarguably did something worse than ingest PEDs. Funny how Burwell leaves that one out.

3.THE FALL OF THE “GREATEST SHOW” EMPIRE:

This is a tremendous and memorable moment? All the Rams fans I know have been trying to forget about for years, even going to such lengths as to stop attending Rams games.

There was no singular defining moment to cling to.

Ah, I see. One of Burwell's four tremendous and memorable moment is not a moment at all. Three out of four might not be bad, if Burwell didn't have a whole decade's worth of other actual moments to pick from.

It all just seemed to blend together into one massively toxic mess, unraveling slowly one crazy event at a time. Egos and bad decisions, injuries and old age, bad drafts and turbulent soap operas all turned the fall of the Greatest Show on Turf into an episode of equal, but entirely different entertainment value to the rise of the Show. 

Wrong. The decline of the Show is/was not equal-but-different in entertainment value to the Show itself. Which is why no one is going to watch it. And why it is not called the Greatest Show on Turf anymore.

4. HOOP DREAMS:

Following Illinois to the Final Four in 2005 and the Missouri team to the Elite Eight in 2009 was plenty of fun, not only because of the exciting style of play both teams exhibited, but also because the players and coaches were such good people. Bruce Weber's Illini were not a surprise, but they did everything they were supposed to do and a whole lot more. We discovered very early that despite Dee Brown getting all the headlines that Deron Williams was the heart and soul of this team and a future NBA star. In 2009, it was Mizzou's turn and the Tigers were the biggest surprise of the season, bouncing back from a decisive loss in the Braggin' Rights Game to win a Big 12 tournament title, win a school record 31 games and reach the Elite Eight.

The Illini's run was fun to watch, even though they lost. And the Tigers' run was also fun to watch, even though they lost too. Come to think of it, all four of Burwell's preferred moments ended with the Good Guys losing (except for Super Bowl XXXIV, which Burwell inexplicably thinks they lost). There were other good runs too, like SIU's Sweet 16 appearances in 2002 and 2007 (without the first of which Weber is not even the coach of U of I). I could quibble -- Deron Williams was not some no-name: he was a second-team All-American that year, and was first-team All-Big Ten -- but overall I'm fine with picking those runs as tremendous and memorable moments.

But that's all? Equally impressive was the resurgence of the Missouri and Illinois football programs. As was the death, burial, and resurrection of Rick Ankiel. And Kid Reyes' Game 1 show. And any number of Jimmy Ballgame's moments, esp. the aforementioned smash-and-grab in the 2004 playoffs. And Rolen's home run off of Clemens in Game 7. And A.D.A.M. going all Mo in the 2006 playoffs. And the 2006 playoffs! And the way the Cards united themselves and the city after the deaths of Buck and Kile in 2002. And the death, burial, and resurrection of the Blues. And Marshall Faulk. And the death, burial, and resurrection of Kurt Warner. And the Al MacInnis/Chris Pronger tandem. And local-boy-made-good Tyler Hansbrough, one of the most decorated college players of all time (and perhaps the last of a dying breed: the four-year college superstar). And Matt Holliday taking one off his gonads. And Torry Holt being the most underrated player in the NFL for the whole damn decade. And Albert freaking Pujols, winner of 3 MVPs, two NL championships, and a World Series. And Chris freaking Carpenter, who came out of nowhere to dominate baseball in between having his arm rebuilt. And So Taguchi, crushing one off of Kyle Farnsworth and another off of Billy Wagner. And the agony of Endy freaking Chavez robbing Scott Rolen followed by the ecstasy of Molina hitting one that Chavez couldn't reach. And ten more years of Cubs' futility. And Chris Duncan humping everything in sight (at least as memorable as London Fletcher singing Phil Collins). And Geiger. And getting 10 more opening-day appearances by Stan Musial at Busch Stadium. And getting a new Busch Stadium. 

AND THE 2006 WORLD SERIES!!!!!

Of course, those are just ones you'd have to choose from if you limited yourself to StL events, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some. 

Instead, Brian Burwell picked as his most memorable moments four instances of failure (really three, but he thinks all four were failures). He clearly hates St. Louis. And given that he spent most of his column decrying how terrible sports are, and not being able to conjure up four memorable moments in a very memorable decade (remember, one of his four isn't a moment, another is a player singing Phil Collins, and a third he was pissed off about because he had to rewrite part of his column), he clearly hates sports too. Finally, given his absolutely atrocious prose, Burwell clearly hates writing the most of all. 

Fortunately there is a very simple solution: Fire Brian Burwell. Fire him now.

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, everybody. The greatest holiday movie of all time -- Die Hard -- is on now, so I've gotta jet. 

Comment 102 comments  |  18 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I think the post is valid

It’s certainly worth more than a simple comment among the thousand or so on any given day, and is much more complicated & lengthy to be relegated to such a level. As he stated above, the post is reminescent of the fine FJM articles many of us long for and, while the OP lacks the humor that was pervasive throughout that site’s writing, the energy of their work is clearly present here.

My real issue (and it may be VEP’s as well) is that kindred has devoted so much time and effort into crafting such a response to a writer who doesn’t deserve our attention. This is akin to raising your blood pressure over a comment from a Cub-fan troll or paying any bother to an article by Jeff Gordon. We all know that Burwell has a decidedly negative view on almost everything he writes about and that he starts frothing at the mouth when he simply sees certain advertising for McDonalds. I do not know with any certainty if he benefits from any sort of national notoriety, but I doubt he would be worthy of any retort from Mr. Tremendous & Co. if they still persisted today.

Don’t let the permanent dissatisfaction of Brian Burwell color your day on such a fine and important evening. Don’t let his sour attitude bring you down. Merry Christmas to everyone!

I was reading about how countless species are being pushed toward extinction by man's destruction of forests. Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. - Calvin, Scientific Progress Goes "Boink", Watterson

by Solanus on Dec 24, 2009 11:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn't have a problem with the post

I loved it. I was responding to the title.

by vivaelpujols on Dec 25, 2009 12:29 AM EST up reply actions   4 recs

rec!

seriously, this 3 comment subthread is great

"Come test me every day if you want," says Pujols, "Everything I ever made in this game I would give back to the Cardinals if I got caught."

by StLHugo on Dec 29, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I wish the STL P-D had archives

because Burwell is a ridiculous hypocrite. He should have been fired over the Limbaugh quote given the libel suit he opened the paper up to.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Dec 24, 2009 11:56 PM EST reply actions   2 recs

+1

i remember coming home from school that weekend for whatever reason and cracking up at what i read. i honestly thought burwell was going to be fired that following monday and still can’t believe he wasn’t. but i guess this is the post-dispatch…

follow me on twitter @nickg105

by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 25, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions  

burwell quoted limbaugh on something he didn't say in one article

and got crap for it. then after the pd issued an apology and said they were investigating the matter, he wrote it again and basically said he didn’t care if he didn’t say it because he was sure he had said things like it.

follow me on twitter @nickg105

by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 26, 2009 7:16 PM EST up reply actions  

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/E196145D80764B2F86257648000EF26B?OpenDocument

?

you can search

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Dec 27, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions  

That's not the post I was looking for

I don’t think that Burwell has been around at the P-D for that long but a) they’re archives are limited so you can’t always track the BS that Strauss writes and b) I wish I could read some pre-2005 pieces praising steroid users from our fine journalists. Nothing warms the cockles of my circuitry quite like steroid hypocrisy.

Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation

by azruavatar on Dec 28, 2009 8:09 AM EST up reply actions  

i never thought i'd see the day

but i’m gonna say it. bernie is the second best writer for the p-d

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Dec 28, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

i can only speak for their sports writers

but I would say Bernie is third behind DG and Hummel.

"Come test me every day if you want," says Pujols, "Everything I ever made in this game I would give back to the Cardinals if I got caught."

by StLHugo on Dec 29, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

I wish the Commish would step in

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 29, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

hummel

is he the old guy? most of that stuff is usually just ireelevant sentimental trash

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Dec 29, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah he is

it is now, I really look at him now as an emeritis status, he doesn’t cover the beat and very rarely writes anything hard hitting.

"Come test me every day if you want," says Pujols, "Everything I ever made in this game I would give back to the Cardinals if I got caught."

by StLHugo on Dec 30, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Burwell's Unicorn is Dead...

…someone bury it, its beginning to stink!

:=8P

Big McLargehuge!
:=8O

by The MooCow on Dec 25, 2009 12:01 AM EST reply actions  

Entertaining read!

I can’t stand Burwell’s articles or his shitty analogies. Whenever I spot one, I can just picture him at his computer: It rumbled..It rumbled liiiiike. Hmm. Rumbles..rumbles..what rumbles?
20 minutes later: Aha, a jet engine rumbles!!!! ::dim lightbulb::

by mattyp on Dec 25, 2009 1:20 AM EST reply actions  

One thing I should've said...

… I’m okay with self-righteousness as long as it’s done properly. For example, despite many disagreements Christopher Hitchens has been one of my favorite writers ever since I read his take on Churchill in the April, 2002 issue of The Atlantic. He works hard, knows his subject matter (most of the time), and is passionate about his work.

What really pisses me off about Burwell is that his self-righteousness is combined with extreme laziness and sloppiness. He clearly doesn’t care at all, and I feel that people like him — who have some of the best jobs in the world, let’s face it — really should care. That’s why I respect Bernie even though I often disagree with him; he clearly cares about his subject and his craft. Burwell doesn’t.

So please fire him. Not only would the reading public be better off, Buwell might be as well, considering how little regard he has for his town, beat, or craft. For fuck’s sake, the contributors here do a much better job than Burwell does, more often than he does, and they do it for free.

Can you imagine how much better the world would be if LB were given Burwell’s column? I’d weep with joy.

by kindred on Dec 25, 2009 11:06 PM EST reply actions   3 recs

Agreed on Hitchens

And I disagree with the sonofabitch frequently (and I’m fairly liberal politically), but that’s part of the reason I read his columns — he’s well read, well informed and provides good arguments to back up his suppositions even if he thinks he’s right all of the time.

Burwell is a stringer who’s been given a column, just like a lot of other sportswriters out there. He doesn’t understand HOW to write a column or get us to care about what he writes, which is the whole point of having a column in the first place. Great columnists are able to get that buy in from a reader — great stringers are able to concisely summarize an event or series of events in a small space so the reader gets the factual information on the story objectively. You can’t be a great stringer and a great columnist in my opinion…..so why do editors give these guys columns?

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 28, 2009 10:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Hitchens on a sports blog! I love it!

I’d venture to say that’s quite a rarity, and evidence of the unique acumen of Cardinal fans. Bravo kindred and fourstick. I’d also venture to say that Burwell couldn’t make his way through a Hitchens column to save his life. Taking down Burwell is time well spent: a move to improve the literacy of readers, and get us back to the days of quality writing—the likes of Horrigan, Broeg, Hummel, LB, etc.
St. Louis isn’t known for suffering ingnorance. At least it didn’t use to be.
The most painful thing in all of this IS, however, the notion that a clown like Burwell is even mentioned in any conversation with the likes of Hitchens, Hummel, Horrigan, etc.

watching from Belgium

by waffle on Dec 29, 2009 7:44 AM EST up reply actions  

Have you heard Burwell's radio show?

That man puts even less effort into his radio show, I struggle to decide who I would rather listen to if I had to Burwell or Slaten. At least Slaten seems to care even if he is a sleeze.

"Come test me every day if you want," says Pujols, "Everything I ever made in this game I would give back to the Cardinals if I got caught."

by StLHugo on Dec 29, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions  

it's even in his intro

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 29, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

No I haven't...

… I don’t live in StL anymore, and if I’m going to browse internet radio stations I won’t pick a show that I know I’ll hate.

by kindred on Dec 29, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions  

I haven't in years

I used to try to listen when he was paired up with Cusamano. Just because I like Cusamano, especially when he talks college basketball. When he was paired up with Burwell, though, it was tough. The sanctimonious, smarmy attitude combined with poorly formed opinions was too much to bear. Fortunately they broke that pairing up fairly quickly.

If I were to rank my least favorite sports personalities Burwell would have to be tops, followed by Hadley and his homerism, and then Slaten and his shock jock schtick.

by Merry CRasmus on Dec 30, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow... there were many other things

in the decade that were better.

No mention of the 06 WS win? No mention of the good years w/ Vermeil & Martz (before the Rams began their downslide)? No mention of drafting Steven Jackson, who’s the current savior for the Rams? No mention of Pujols (aside from the 05 NLCS HR)? NONE OF THAT!?

That’s just bad. I read some stuff on the P-D site on occasion, and I don’t really like Brian Burwell, but that is just ridiculous.

I hope to be a journalist someday, and if I get to be a columnist at some point, I will pledge right now that I will never be as bad as Burwell. I will look at some good things that happened over the last 10 years, instead of just the bad. Heck, hire me right now and I’d be better than Burwell ever will be.

Best moment I've ever seen at a Cards game in person
Follow me on Twitter: @zoomzoomj88
Looking forward to Cardinals baseball in 2010!

by zoomzoomj88 on Dec 26, 2009 1:01 PM EST reply actions  

well of course you'd be better right now

because I’m sure if you turned in an assignment to your college (or high school, I dunno) english teacher that was as unfocused, meandering, and needlessly verbose as one of Burwell’s articles, he or she would eviscerate it, and rightfully so. I mean, “the retractable roof on the stadium was sealed shut”…does that matter at all? Why the fuck are you telling us that? In fact, this article perfectly encapsulates his style: Hey, I’ll tell you about the decade’s best sports moments in STL. Oh, but hey, how about all those steroids. What’s the deal with those!?! Besides, there really are no moments in this article. Oh, except these ones. But they’re not really moments, ya know. More like things and stuff. Here, I’ll kinda tell you about them, and whether they occurred under a sealed roof or not.

by mattyp on Dec 26, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions  

high school

but yeah, any one of us would be better than Burwell.

Best moment I've ever seen at a Cards game in person
Follow me on Twitter: @zoomzoomj88
Looking forward to Cardinals baseball in 2010!

by zoomzoomj88 on Dec 26, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions  

or VEB

except we say it with gifs

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 27, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions  

holy shit.

william,
you’re my hero.
love,
nicholas

Why don't we get glausy eyed and put back some franklin's....

by punksoulbrutha on Dec 26, 2009 10:37 PM EST reply actions  

Agreed, Agreed, Agreed

I have long thought that the P-D writers were lacking. Burwell often takes the easy way out and has disjointed arguments with nothing to say.

In fact, the paper is now more like a pamphlet, so why don’t they just go to an all online version and save some money by getting rid of him.

I have discovered in twenty years of moving around a ball park, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. ~Bill Veeck

by bukowski on Dec 27, 2009 9:13 AM EST reply actions  

Imagine Bukowski thinking other writers are lacking...

(Except for Fante, of course.)

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Dec 28, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't Try.

:)

I have discovered in twenty years of moving around a ball park, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. ~Bill Veeck

by bukowski on Dec 29, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Burwell's radio show is even worse than his writing

It’s the perfect combination of arrogance and stupidity. You can almost see him sitting in the studio, grinning and trying to come up with brilliant insights. Unfortunately, all I hear are trite, sloppily-composed truisms.

by Ray Lankford on Dec 27, 2009 4:16 PM EST reply actions  

I think I find his incessant race baiting to be the most tedious. I wonder what percentage of his writing dwells on racial topcis - most of it sophomoric.

An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.

HL Mencken

by akaitori on Dec 27, 2009 9:00 PM EST reply actions  

from wikipedia (Ram's super bowl win):
Mike Bush, after seconds of St. Louis celebrating, said this:
“St. Louis, the Gateway to the West, is now the gateway to the BEST… football team in the world!”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Dec 28, 2009 5:29 AM EST reply actions  

Re: the Rams "win"

I am going to venture inside the mind of Burwell (perhaps a scary endeavor) regarding his statement on Rams Super Bowl XXXIV: “What a shame to have that moment wasted on a loss.”

One can only surmise that he intended to say: “What a shame it would have been if that moment had been wasted on a loss.”

Apparently it is not enough that Burwell’s writing is negative, cliched, and lazily researched; it is also devoid of an ability to use the English language properly.

Perhaps that is the domain of editors, but in this instance I put the onus on both parties.

by Fred Head on Dec 28, 2009 3:22 PM EST reply actions  

A very charitable interpretation...

… that had not occurred to me. It is possible that he meant that it would have been a shame if it was wasted in a loss (which is still a really dumb and meaningless thing to say). Of course, what he actually said was not that at all.

Your last sentence is definitely true: it’s very clear that no editor even glanced at this piece before it went out. There are a few typos (that I didn’t even mention) like “trialing” instead of “trailing” that would never have cleared a copy-editor. Presumably a sports editor would’ve asked for clarification on the Rams part. Instead, the piece has sat untouched on the web site since Wed. No correction, no retraction.

by kindred on Dec 28, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Of course

decreased readership → decreased funding → decreased readership

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Dec 31, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Very enjoyable, kindred.

I feel like the eventual website that is started as an offshoot of this Fanpost could be called, “Fire Everybody But Goold,” and the site would parse Burwell, Bernie, and Straussicorn.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Dec 28, 2009 4:11 PM EST reply actions  

I agree with most of what you have here

but some of the “clean” athletes you mention are perhaps not the best choices to prove your point.

Michael Phelps wore swimsuits that have been called “technological doping” and since deemed illegal. Was it underhanded of him to use something within the rules at the time? No. But it bears mention.

Lance Armstrong has been linked to positive drug tests. There were questions as to the propriety of the lab that took the samples, which has kept it from ever leading to a penalty, but the questions exist.

Tiger Woods has very recently and very publicly been linked to a Canadian doctor who is known to provide HGH to patients. In light of his radically improved physique, this has called his methods into question as well.
.

by Zack Morris on Dec 28, 2009 6:18 PM EST reply actions  

I hate this line of reasoning

So what you’re saying is that although none of these athletes have been found guilty of anything, they have to prove their innocence or live in the shadow of a cloud of doubt until they do so?

If a cop pulled you over and wrote you a ticket for speeding when you weren’t speeding, and you had to then prove that you weren’t speeding to get out of the ticket, instead of having the cop provide proof that you were speeding, would that be fair? If you didn’t cheat on a test, but a professor said you did and you had to prove your innocence instead of the professor having to prove your guilt, would that be fair to you?

Assumption of guilt by association is the worst thing that’s happened in the last decade. Our country was founded on the principle of innocence until proven guilty and that is a steadfast rule in our court system. It should apply to the public opinion at large too.

FWIW, Woods saw the doctor in question exactly twice, both in the past 2 years (and long after he “bulked up”), on the record, because the doctor in question was a good practitioner of a red cell therapy for healing inflammation in joints after surgery. I see no reason to link Woods to a doctor who has been accused, but not proven, or providing illegal PED’s for use by athletes that he has treated. In this case, you’re implementing guilt by association and then extending it to a secondary level to accuse Woods.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 29, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

Our country was founded on the principle of innocence until proven guilty and that is a steadfast rule in our court system. It should apply to the public opinion at large too.

I disagree. I don’t see why it should.

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Dec 29, 2009 7:03 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Explain

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 29, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions  

I'll explain

I am not a court of law or a government entity. My opinion is not governed by any Amendment of the Bill of Rights except the First, which allows me to think and say whatever I wish. If I want to say [insert athlete] is obviously a doper based solely on circumstantial evidence and wild speculation, I can.

by Zack Morris on Dec 29, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

while of course you can

it doesn’t mean you should. Of course this is just more than backing up Kindred’s original premise(in my opinion):
Why try to do things the right way when being toolish is so widely accepted?

Lighten up, Francis - Sergeant Hulka

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Dec 29, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Sort of.

You could be sued for it.

Now with extra feisty!

by spants on Dec 29, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

fat chance

you pretty much have to be able to prove intent to defame to get someone on libel charges

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Dec 29, 2009 11:45 PM EST up reply actions  

You could be sued.

Not necessarily successfully, but lawyers cost money.

Now with extra feisty!

by spants on Dec 30, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions  

this is true

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jan 2, 2010 10:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure you can

The question is whether you should. A responsible person wouldn’t do this, because it’s not productive and doesn’t do any good. When in doubt, do no harm — that’s kinda the motto I live by.

Also, free speech only goes so far. You can’t make baseless accusations about someone that you claim are factual and then publish it. That’s defamation and the individual reserves the right to sue you for libel. The problem in these instances is that the people involved don’t want to have to prove a negative in a court case, because the negative publicity isn’t worth the potential damages involved against the defamer. My point is that they shouldn’t have to prove the the accusations are not factual, the defamer must prove that they ARE factual and not baseless. In the court system they do, in the court of public opinion they do not, and they know it. This has been going on with tabloid magazines forever — celebrities just generally don’t want the hassle of suing them because the suits will probably do more damage than the actual article itself.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 29, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

For the record

the “baseless accusations” you claim I made are represented here:

but some of the "clean" athletes you mention are perhaps not the best choices to prove your point.


it bears mention.


the questions exist.


this has called his methods into question as well.

So for all of you 1st Amendment scholars talking about suing people or doing harm, perhaps you should just pump the brakes for a minute.

by Zack Morris on Dec 29, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

So you use vague language

to basically accuse three guys of cheating, but phrase it in such a way that you’re not REALLY fingering them for doing anything wrong, just pointing out what they might have done without establishing factual evidence to back up any of your “assumptions”.

Legally you are in the clear. Ethically you’re a schmuck.

This is probably worse than actually accusing them of anything. You’re just starting baseless rumors for no reason whatsoever other than to draw attention to yourself or to defame others. I say again — it’s pointless and it doesn’t have any inherent social value, so what’s the point? To bring other people down?

Would you want people spreading elicit rumors about you that were completely untrue?

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 29, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

While I agree that it's ethically dubious

if Zack Morris has sources for his information and can provide them for our perusal, would it not be relevant to be aware of this information?

And if it’s not provided to you by someone else, how do you ever get it?

Slander and libel are horrible things, but without public accusations how could we prosecute any wrongdoers?

by arch support on Dec 29, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree

But where is this provided in his posts? He provides tainted evidence, a secondary charge unrelated to treatment, and swimsuits that everyone else was wearing. It’s essentially a drive by shooting, made worse by “wait, I’m not the villain here” comeuppance.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 30, 2009 8:39 AM EST up reply actions  

What are you talking about?

You’re looking for a different villain than me. My posts are there; the point was only that the named guys “are perhaps not the best choices to prove your point,” as I said. I presented the doubtful nature of accusations that they have seen and spread no “completely untrue rumors.” Go argue with someone else about this and call them an “ethical schmuck.” I really don’t care.

by Zack Morris on Dec 29, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Then who would be a good choice?

You didn’t mention Federer, so I guess he’s ok? How about Jeter? Phil Mickelson? Shawn Johnson?

My point is that you can play “what if” with any of those athletes without any semblance of proof, which is exactly what you’re doing with Phelps, Woods, and Armstrong. They are no more guilty of anything that anyone else mentioned above, yet because of loose associations, tainted evidence, and a swimsuit you can label them “cheaters”? Then you play the “I’m not the villain, I’m just bringing this stuff up” card. Well, bringing it up is villainous, because you have no proof of anything and are essentially just spouting off.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 30, 2009 8:43 AM EST up reply actions  

Everyone knows Federer = God.

That’s all I got. Just thought it needed to be said.

by arch support on Dec 30, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Skepticism is good.

In addition to a person’s right to have opinions that are unsubstantiated, isn’t it good to have some level of skepticism?

Afterall, I’m pretty sure we all believe at this point that Mark McGwire took some type of PED beyond andro and that Barry Bonds took PEDs knowingly, and yet Barry Bonds has no failed drug tests and the hardest evidence against Mark McGwire is a tell-all book written by a disgraced baseball player who was obviously only publishing a book as a money grab.

Besides, the court system is set up in such a way because the belief is that it’s better to let guilty people go free than to have the government imprisoning people wrongly. It’s a protection against government corruption/persecution, not a protection against people thinking badly about you.

by mtalken on Jan 4, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

I feel that "innocent until proven guilty" is a fair tenet for criminal law

but I don’t really see why that level of burden of proof should need to be proferred before we can suggest that a professional athlete “may” have done something. There are reasons why the burden of proof should be on the prosecution in criminal proceedings, but I don’t especially see that there is a strong argument behind it being on “public opinion at large”. If someone offers the opinion that Mark McGwire probably used performance-enhancing drugs during his career, that does not send him to jail or cause him to have a criminal record.

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Dec 31, 2009 6:33 AM EST up reply actions  

True

But what good does it do? How is it productive? It isn’t.

I’ll say it again: If someone was spreading false lies and rumors about you to everyone you know, shouldn’t the burden of proof be on them? Why should you have to prove that you didn’t do something that you didn’t do? Point of fact, how do you even do this?

I don’t see how any of this is respectful or productive, so why is it condoned? Because, for some reason in this day and age, we get a sick thrill out of watching the famous fall on their faces so that we can feel better about ourselves, like we’ve brought them down to our level.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 31, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions   2 recs

NO NO NO!!!

I understand your point. I really do. If someone spreads lies about another person, that’s a terrible thing to do and ideally it’d be great to be able to do more about it.

But….

legally it’s nearly impossible because of the libel/slander laws in America, where you have to prove INTENT. People can say whatever they want, even if it hurts someone else, so long as it’s not proveable that they INTENDED to hurt the person AND knew what they were saying is false.

And FAR more importantly….

The reason why putting the onus on the accuser is really really bad is because it would destroy any journalist’s ability to use unnamed sources, and while unnamed sources can be questionable at times, think of how many major scandals came to light because of someone who knew they could NOT, under ANY circumstances, speak on the record.

Furthermore, think of what the implications would be for someone who makes an actual REAL accusation against someone else in other situations. If you say I could get in trouble for accusing Michael Phelps of taking steroids, then what about when a girl is raped, makes an accusation, but then the defendant is found not guilty. I’m far from a legal expert, but my guess is you’d be opening the door for defamation suits against victims of violent and sexual crimes.

The burden of proof cannot be put on an accuser. What has to happen is what has always happened—people need to consider the source of the accusation and make a decision whether they intend to believe it or not. I choose to believe things close friends tell me. I choose to believe things I see published with evidence to back it up. I choose not to believe unmoderated comments on newspaper websites. I choose not to believe people who obviously have no hard evidence to back up their argument. I choose not to believe the National Enquirer.

by mtalken on Jan 4, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Points taken.
The reason why putting the onus on the accuser is really really bad is because it would destroy any journalist’s ability to use unnamed sources, and while unnamed sources can be questionable at times, think of how many major scandals came to light because of someone who knew they could NOT, under ANY circumstances, speak on the record.

Are you telling me Brian Burwell or the OP of this thread has an “unnamed source” that has proof of McGwire using steroids or Tiger using HGH or Lance blood doping? I highly doubt that they do. Also, if they have a source, that means that they have proof and that the source itself can back up what is printed with evidence. This is how investigative journalism works — you have to have evidence of your accusations to print the story. It’s called journalistic integrity, and it’s really gone by the wayside since our national and local press has decided that making money is more important than reporting news.

what about when a girl is raped, makes an accusation, but then the defendant is found not guilty. I’m far from a legal expert, but my guess is you’d be opening the door for defamation suits against victims of violent and sexual crimes.

First of all, most states now have a “rape shield” which protects the accuser from having her name given out. Second, if she accuses the defendant of rape and she really was raped, he’s not going to have much of a leg to stand on if the accusation is true — I don’t think we have a bunch of serial rapists running around getting off the hook all the time, generally they get away with it because the accuser doesn’t want to come forward because of the societal impact, hence, the rape shield laws that have been put into place. Third, I don’t think any accused rapist is going to make a defamation suit against a subject after being found not guilty, unless that person was lying through their teeth in the first place.

The burden of proof cannot be put on an accuser.

Then who should it be put on? If you’re making an accusation in public, you should have evidence to back it up, even if that evidence is coming from an “unnamed source”. Everything the original poster said would be thrown out of a court as hearsay, simply because there’s no proof that any of those things actually happened or that the fairness of competition was put into doubt. As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t have proof then you shouldn’t make accusations, and those that make accusations should be held responsible for providing evidence that the accused did in fact do what they did. I don’t understand why this is such a hard thing to grasp.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Jan 5, 2010 10:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Actually, I didn't say that they have to prove anything.

I simply said that maybe they weren’t the best choices by the original poster to disprove this paragraph:

From Barry Bonds to Mark McGwire to Roger Clemens, from Marion Jones to Tim Montgomery and all the others who found themselves caught in the swirl of embarrassment over performance-enhancing drug revelations, we sort of stumbled through the decade of the 2000’s no longer sure what to believe whenever we saw what appeared to be a record-breaking or potentially great athletic event.

You stated this:

Assumption of guilt by association is the worst thing that’s happened in the last decade.

which I think proves my point and Burwell’s to a certain extent. People don’t know what to believe. For a long time, A-Rod was called the new clean hope to break the HR record. Then came his revelations of positive drug tests.

Read my post again. I didn’t say anyone has to prove anything. However, to hold these guys up as proof that the 2000’s were not filled with athletic performances that carried some doubt with them is perhaps somewhat dubious.

by Zack Morris on Dec 29, 2009 11:05 AM EST up reply actions  

We could do this with every athletic performance, from any decade, ever.

But yet we really didn’t do that until the last 8-10 years.

Seriously, Ben Johnson got caught using HGH clear back in 1988, yet we didn’t pontificate on whether Carl Lewis’ and Michael Johnson’s performances in the sprints were legit because one guy got caught. Now though? Usain Bolt has to deal with this EVERY TIME he sets a new record. It’s ludicrous.

Read my post again. I didn’t say anyone has to prove anything. However, to hold these guys up as proof that the 2000’s were not filled with athletic performances that carried some doubt with them is perhaps somewhat dubious.

You can play devil’s advocate with every athletic performance that’s ever been accomplished if you want to. The point is that it’s not productive. You could claim that Roger Bannister doped his blood to break the 4 minute mark in the mile, that Jesse Owens took amphetamines to improve his performance, put that shit in a newspaper column, and now the onus is one these two dead guys to prove that they were clean. Don’t you understand how ridiculous that is? It doesn’t advance debate, it’s shameless exploitation for the benefit of the writer so he can get his name splattered across ESPN for making baseless accusations and placing the burden of proof on the athlete. The burden of proof should lie with the person making the accusation, not the other way around, yet that’s what we’ve devolved to in the search for salacious material.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 29, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

????

I don’t think you’re arguing with me anymore. My only post was that this paragraph:

From Barry Bonds to Mark McGwire to Roger Clemens, from Marion Jones to Tim Montgomery and all the others who found themselves caught in the swirl of embarrassment over performance-enhancing drug revelations, we sort of stumbled through the decade of the 2000’s no longer sure what to believe whenever we saw what appeared to be a record-breaking or potentially great athletic event.

was perhaps best disproven by some other means than a few of the athletes mentioned there. All the rest of the reducto ad absurdum arguments you are making don’t really apply. It was a pretty specific statement.

by Zack Morris on Dec 29, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions  

And.....I dislike your logic

which has everything to do with the comment above being related to your post.

You linked three people that were mentioned with really poor evidence of them possibly, maybe, might-have-been cheating stories. My point is that you can do that with anyone, so who is kindred supposed to cite that is above any and all credibility issues? There really isn’t anybody in this day and age when you can accuse anyone of anything and everyone immediately becomes suspicious of them, especially those who dislike them for being in the spotlight in the first place.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 29, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

personally I find it very difficult to accept that Lance Armstrong has not used PEDs for most of his career

but, as has been the case for years in sprinting and some other power/endurance events, I suspect a vast proportion of his rivals have done exactly the same. It isn’t something that causes me to lose a great deal of sleep, to be honest.

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Dec 29, 2009 7:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Preppy:

I think the Michael Phelps “technological doping” comparison is completely unfair. To compare that to knowingly cheating, like Olympic sprinters, or knowingly using PEDs illegally like Clemens and Bonds, is absurd. Phelps’s Olympic gold medals record was absolutely thrilling and a joy to watch. He won gold medals against other swimmers with access to the same suits, and many of those competitors were wearing the same type of suits, as well. I don’t think the suit in any way tarnishes his gold medal record. Comparing this situation to steroid use is apples to firetrucks.

As for Tiger Woods, the NY Times printed one of the most newsless stories of the year on his doctor that was full of speculation and innuendo. As fourstick points out, there is absolutely no evidence that Woods received anything other than a completely legitimate red blood cell treatment for his injured knee from this doctor.

As for Armstrong, the fact that scores of legitimate tests have never once come back positive on Armstrong further tarnishes the already tainted nature of the positive tests associated with Armstrong. You can paint his with the guilty brush if you please, but you have to answer the question of: if Armstrong consistently doped, why has there not been a single, untainted drug test of Armstrong’s that has come back positive? Armstrong’s case is probably the least pure, if we are casting aspertions, but it is not even close to A-Rod or Clemens in its evidence of guilt.

The point that kindred is making is a completely legitimate one. The PED revelations in baseball and track & field have done nothing to taint other amazing accomplishments this decade by singular athletes such as Michael Phelps, Roger Federer, and Tiger Woods. Kindred includes Lance Armstrong, whom you believe to be less than a shining example of “clean” athletic accomplishment, which is fine, but it seems to me to nitpicking. The overall criticism is that there was plenty to celebrate this decade in the world of sport, so why not do so in a column meant to do just that?

P.S. Kelly Kapowski should have been mine!

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Dec 29, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

what about swimsuit-gate?

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 29, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Zack...

… while I see your point, I think my examples are fine. As I said, Armstrong has been tested perhaps more than any other athlete in history. Short of one tainted sample, he’s been clean. And cycling has one of the quickest trigger-fingers when it comes to suspending/banning racers who have tested positive, so the fact that they didn’t punish Armstrong is good enough for me.

as for Phelps, he won before using that suit, he won after using that suit, and he beat other people wearing the same suit. the suit is a non-issue for me. if you want to discount some of the records b/c of the suit, that’s fine. but Phelps’ performance relative to his peers remains unblemished in my mind.

there has been nothing linking Tiger to PEDs, or Federer, Manning, Lincecum, Kobe, or Pujols (the other guys i mentioned), and i’m sure you could come up with your own list. the point was that Burwell was not forced to focus his whole piece on steroids. there have been plenty of moments this decade that have no taint of PEDs surrounding them. he could have talked about those, but he didn’t because he’s a self-righteous prick. he confirms that fact by willfully ignoring all of the great moments uncorrupted by PEDs (except for four, which he deals with so clumsily that he wish he hadn’t bothered at all) in favor of casting aspersions on every achievement by every athlete in every sport over this entire decade.

the main point is that he’s a dick. you are free to quibble with my examples if you, but as long as you agree with the main point then we have no disagreement.

by kindred on Dec 29, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions  

That's fair.

I hate these stories too. I thought your post was right on. I was merely suggesting that it’s easier to win from a fortress than from a glass house, by which I mean that the stories I cited about your example guys might weaken your point. It was really more of an “arugment style” point than any sort of discussion of PED users. I have no idea why the poster above wants to stick me with a point of view I don’t hold and then excoriate me for it.

by Zack Morris on Dec 29, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Wait, what?

You’re missing the whole point here. There are no fortresses, because people can do exactly what you did to any one of those athletes by playing “7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon” with their athletic trainers, or making completely false claims and people will believe them with or without proof. That’s my point. If you play the game that you did above, essentially lending believability to rumors and false claims, then you can just change the name of the athlete in question in any of those statements and people will believe it to be true. Every athlete at this point is a glass house, and lending credence to stupid rumors like those you listed doesn’t help the matter — that’s my point.

You can throw the most innocent of athletes (say, Shawn Johnson, Olympic Gold Medalist in Gymnastics), make one ridiculous claim about them, and then everyone is looking into their past and making accusations. Nobody would have jumped on Tiger about this doctor had he already not been in free fall because of his philandering, which, while horrible, has nothing to do with using PED’s.

Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.

by fourstick on Dec 30, 2009 8:51 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

hey oh

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=5493731

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Dec 28, 2009 9:16 PM EST reply actions  

wrong thread!

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Dec 28, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions  

there's never a wrong thread for that

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 28, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions  

oh Boogñeiro. I'll miss that shiz.

The best part is Boog is already deep into the dugout while the Deputy is barely into his first lemur-face.

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 28, 2009 10:38 PM EST up reply actions  

not as much as pineiro will when a gimpy-kneed reyes or alex cora is letting grounders roll all over citi field behind him.

My daddy told me, lookin' back, The best friend you'll have is a railroad track So when I was 13 said, I'm rollin' my own, And I'm leavin' Missouri and I'm never comin' home . . . Now I woke me up with a cardinal bird, And when I wanna talk, He hangs on every word. . . And I'm lost at the bottom of the world. - Tom Waits

by tom s. on Dec 28, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

gimpy knees aren't all that exciting for a SS?

Lighten up, Francis - Sergeant Hulka

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Dec 29, 2009 12:28 AM EST up reply actions  

not when you have the most exciting back, calf, and hammy in the world

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Dec 29, 2009 10:00 AM EST up reply actions  

*stand up*

clap clap clap

"Chuck Norris CAN divide by zero"

by elirock83 on Dec 30, 2009 2:18 PM EST reply actions  

you've struck gold

with the passing of fjm, i keep expecting proto-fjm sites to pop up. i think an stl specific version would be terrific. lord knows there’s plenty of material.

"on gameday it says duke loves to face the four seamer and hates to face the four seamer" -VolsnCards5

"perhaps it's a computer joke about the duality of man." -tom s.

by Tudor's Electric Fan on Jan 2, 2010 12:30 PM EST reply actions  

yes please

Every morning I wake up & smoke a dart. Then I eat five strips of bacon, & for lunch I eat a bacon sandwich. And for a midday snack? Bacon! A whole damn plate! And I usually drink my dinner. And I'm still here! Sometimes I wonder if God forgot about me.

by gdm426 on Jan 2, 2010 4:28 PM EST reply actions  

i mean, i was gonna wait for someone else to do it, but

his name is Bryan Burwell. it just seems sloppy when you’re criticizing someone’s writing to misspell their name

Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.

by prophetjohn on Jan 2, 2010 10:11 PM EST reply actions  

Laynce wants a word with you!

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Jan 3, 2010 1:28 AM EST up reply actions  

and a rec on a good Dr with questionable morals

Every morning I wake up & smoke a dart. Then I eat five strips of bacon, & for lunch I eat a bacon sandwich. And for a midday snack? Bacon! A whole damn plate! And I usually drink my dinner. And I'm still here! Sometimes I wonder if God forgot about me.

by gdm426 on Jan 3, 2010 1:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Jesus Christ, you're right!

well, oh well. I’ll blame it on Macaulay Culkin and the fact that I don’t have an editor.

there’s a bunch of other sloppiness in there too. meh.

by kindred on Jan 3, 2010 3:06 AM EST up reply actions  

burwell or gordo

if you could only fire one, which would it be. bernie and gould are safe for now but gordo and burwell are both stinkers.

when does RB Fallstrom get inducted to the hall of fame?

by hongniao on Jan 5, 2010 5:10 AM EST reply actions  

Burwell.

Now with extra feisty!

by spants on Jan 5, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
Dsc01844_small
Cardinals take the Governor's Joplin Challenge, will help build 35 homes for torando victims
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Corner Outfielders

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols