Kelvin Sampson: A cheater trying to prosper

I have not paid much attention to Kelvin Sampson, though he is hard to ignore these days. Notice I did not call him Coach Kelvin Sampson. It's certainly not a title he reveres, except for the sake of his own glory.

His fellow coaches called him "unethical," after Sampson recruited Eric Gordon, who had already verbally committed to Illinois. Apparently its not kosher to go after verbally committed athletes or to not inform the other coaches of his recruitment efforts for an already committed player. He went against industry standards and that has led many coaches to call him "unethical." I really don't know one way or another. But I do know that it hints at disdain he has for institutions, traditions, peers, etc.

A three year NCAA investigation concluded that while coaching at Oklahoma University, Sampson and his staff made 550 illegal calls to 17 recruits. Sampson called his actions "embarrassing."

Indiana University believes in second chances, and hired Sampson for five years at up to $2.5 million. Maybe more appropriately IU was willing to reward a shady character, as long as he put up the W's. The formula worked with Bob Knight.

Sampson's character and the university's carelessness is coming full circle. Five major violation allegations have been levied against Samspon by the NCAA, including giving false or misleading information to investigators.

The investigation has found that Sampson made ten conference calls to recruits, despite sanctions prohibiting it. Among other violations, IU assistant, Rob Senderoff also made 35 illegal phone calls to recruits from his home.

Senderoff who undoubtedly does not make six figures or has a high profile to sustain him, did the honorable thing and resigned.

Or was it damage control? Ironically in today's see no evil age, prolific persons like Sampson will get second chance after second chance if he only bypasses accountability for his actions and puts the food on the table (wins).

Sampson denies any impropriety like the psychopath that he is. Sampson can and likely will forfeit the money owed to him if a violation is confirmed by the NCAA.

Assuming the empirical evidence is correct, Sampson has no ground to stand on. Phone records and the testimony of recruits and assistants will likely fly in his face. But psychopaths and egotists, like Sampson refuse to pay the piper.

Sampson lies so much that he has no concept of how grating his lies are to even the casual observer.

On the wake of a win over Perdue, the bigger looming issue is whether Sampson will keep his job.

Sampson's response in a post game press conference reporters asking about investigation issues was insulting to everyone with a keen eye on the situation, let alone the casual observer. "I haven't thought about it. My focus has been on the team. I really haven't thought about me whatsoever," Sampson replied.

Sampson's reputation and livelihood is on the line and he has not given it a thought? Does he even realize that the odds of such a thing are astronomical. Let alone the fact that it is a catch-22 to say such a statement. As to not think about such issues, would show his lack of appreciation for the gravity of the situation.

Of course, Sampson does know the gravity of the situation as attested to by the IU athletic director, Rick Greenspan who confirmed that he had a 90-minute meeting with Sampson.

There are legal considerations and due process. We can respect that to a point. But assuming the allegations hold any water, if Sampson is allowed to keep his job it'd spit in the face of the sports and education communities.

Corruption In College Coaching

Jim Calhoun's greedy remarks are indicative of a warped system

Kelvin Sampson: A cheater trying to prosper

Scurrilous Trojans: Mike Garrett and Tim Floyd allowed OJ Mayo to cheat

Borseth: Pathetic on many levels

Jemele Hill on Barry Bonds; 'Just looking out for her own'?

ESPN presumably knew when they hired Jemele Hill that she would be a black woman writing about the degradation of black athletes in sports. I believe we're mostly beyond that in sports, and consequently I read such articles with more scrutiny.

I was amazed at the several fallacious race and non-race based statements and conclusions in her writings about Barry Bonds on her ESPN Page Two columns. Some of her opinions with my responses are listed below.

• Jemele Hill is quick to dismiss who she calls the "apologists," who she says are tough on Bonds but not critical enough on the likes of Rick Ankiel and Andy Pettite. But she is one of Bonds greatest apologists.

Hill argues that Bonds was not the Kingpin of the Balco scandal and that the investigation and indictment of Bonds was unnecessary and even a waste of taxpayer money. According to Hill, Bonds is just the prostitute to the pimp, the crackhead to the drug dealer, and the wayward child to the enabling parent.

Wow! I submit to you that anyone that buys that wants a world of self-made victims who richly enjoy the spoils of their bad deeds and later on face no accountability for their dishonesty.

Nonetheless her line of thinking goes along with what the government and its umbrella agencies try to do, in going for the source of the problem instead of the the end users. The Balco case is not different, at least it was not originally. The government only went after Bonds after he allegedly committed perjury in court, despite assurances he would not be prosecuted if he was truthful.

Miss Hill wants us to overlook a figure (Bonds) that has had a huge corrosive impact on society and who has completely desecrated the game we love, while laughing all the way to the bank to the tune of many millions. Besides the millions in contracts and endorsements you can go to the store at Barry Bonds website and you'll have a hard time finding a signed item that sells for under $500.

ESPN is actually paying Ms. Hill to antagonize our government for pursuing this guy who cares nothing about anyone or anything while taking away glorious records and making millions upon millions. Bonds is not merely a crackhead to the drug dealer. He is a public figure and is accountable for his impact on the public and in this case against the public. Moreover he has spit upon generations of baseball players and fans.

• Jemele Hill writes, "I've been as tough on Bonds as anyone."

That is just a HUGE LIE. Listed are some of Ms. Hill's stances on Bonds issues. Some of my responses to the points follow the dashes.

1. Bonds "deserves" to be in the Hall of Fame, even though you believe he did steroids.
   
2. Any talk of putting asterisks is "just flat out silly."
   
3. The decision to indict Bonds on obstruction of justice and perjury "isn't right, fair, or just," in addition to her calling it a "terrible injustice."
   
4. Bonds has broke time honored records, but his biggest crime is against his own legacy and conscious. -Not against the millions who have honored and revered the game of baseball for over a century?
   
5. Bonds never got caught "red-handed," - Even though we all know he ("unknowingly") used clear steroid cream. (Not to mention the confiscated samples that have come to light since Ms. Hill wrote that.)
   
6. The Hall of Fame should not accept Bonds record-breaking 756 home run ball.
   
7. She proclaimed Bonds as the "Home Run King" and nearly gloated about Bonds All-Star appearance in the face of the government being unable to indict Bonds (before the indictment).
   
8. Claimed that a nobody like Rick Ankiel deserves the same exact scrutiny that Bonds gets and therefore, implying that Bonds worst critics are driven by racial politics.

Nope, last time I checked those opinions are not that of a Bonds critic, let alone someone "as tough on Bonds as anyone." And those were just the bullet point defenses of Ms. Hill. In the interest of time and readability I didn't elaborate on her more drawn out defenses on Bonds behalf.

• Jemele Hill writes, "Now that golden boy Ankiel has been caught, something tells me people will be much more eager to talk sensibly about performance-enhancing drugs. They certainly weren't willing to talk about it when Bonds' king-sized head was on the chopping block."

Golden boy? This isn't boxing and white people are not rallying around Rick Ankiel like he's the great white hope. Secondly, Ankiel, Glaus, Tejada, Palmiero or anyone else that she wants to throw out there has little bearing on the Bonds dynamic (aside from their collective/cultural impact). In addition to possible perjury, he cheated while arrogantly proclaiming his readiness to assume the mantle of the game's greatest player of all-time (A stance he later softened on as he tried to reinvent himself as more humanistic and sensitive).

The implication is that Bonds has been targeted more because he is black. He has not been. One mitigating factor that did invite more scrutiny than he otherwise would have received would be his outright disdain towards many in the media, his peers and the general public. Truth be told, Hank Aaron faced the a fading yet still racist segment of the population that looked to discredit him. But now Aaron is revered for his character and skill. We admire him and see Bonds actions for what they are; black on black and white crime. Or in other words, race is inconsequential to the debate.

The public and media aren't giving Ankiel a "pass" because he's white. We're giving him a pass (not really) for the same reason we're giving a pass to Rondell White a pass. Because their impact on the problem is what accountants would call immaterial. Take those two away and the same exact problems and issues would exist. Take away Bonds and the dynamic would be radically different.

• Jemele Hill writes, "A double standard the size of Bonds' head is being exercised with Ankiel, whose involvement with a human growth hormone scandal is being rationalized by some fans and members of the media."

Some fans. Do we really need to confuse the issue with what some fans are saying. I could go on message boards and find every type of opinion imaginable, so I don't care what some fans are saying. I also have no idea what members of the media she is referring to, but I believe the media has given us clear information regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations, and the rest of us fans can make proper value judgments.

As far as the alleged double standard goes, I don't know if she means a double standard as far as steroid users compared to HGH users or if she is going back to the alleged black and white double standard.

Mark McGwire, a white man was suspected of using HGH the year in which he broke the single season home run record. Depending on who you ask, human growth hormones either directly increase strength, or indirectly increase strength by allowing for quicker recovery times. Though illegal (if not prescribed), HGH was not a banned substance (unlike other anabolic substances) until the 2005 season.

If McGwire is guilty of HGH use, is what he did worse than what Bonds did? I would say that McGwire cheated. But I can see the gray area and even the rationale of why others may downplay his actions. I can say that he acted unethically and broke the law of the land, if the suspicions are true. Its just not enough at this point to say that what he has done is comparable to what Bonds did.

I will not say a double standard exists regarding the treatment of Bonds and McGwire (nor should Ms. Hill) when the situations surrounding Bonds and McGwire clearly are different.

McGwire was illusive in not answering any questions regarding his possible HGH use on Capital Hill in an open hearing. He exercised his 5th Amendment right to not incriminate himself. But he has otherwise paid the biggest possible price possible in the court of public opinion. He then left the public spotlight. He has not threatened to boycott the Hall of Fame if he is voted in either.

Conversely Bonds, who has stayed in the spotlight, was offered full indemnification (promised not to be prosecuted) if he only told the truth regarding his alleged steroid use in a closed trial. Jason Giambi, a white man understood the scope of the situation and faced the music. Bonds ever wanton to preserve himself as the greatest player of all time, seemingly committed perjury, while once again showing us that he believes he is above everything.

Three players on the 2007 Hall of Fame ballot had traditional 2007 credentials; Tony Gwynn (a black man) Cal Ripken Jr (a white man), and Mark McGwire. The first two got easily got in. Many may still affectionately call McGwire, Big Mac, but the media is clearly biding time to see if he cheated or not as he only garnered 23.5 percent of 75 percent required to be voted into the Hall of Fame . Chances are that even if McGwire is never officially condemned for steroid or HGH use, it'll be the Veteran's Committee that puts him in the Hall of Fame.

Even before the perjury indictment, a debate raged about whether Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame if he were never proven to have knowingly taken steroids. Prevailing opinion seemed to allow him entrance (maybe not on the first ballot) based on his Hall Of Fame credentials prior to 1998, when he allegedly started using steroids.

That debate has not seemed to take place in the case of Roger Clemens, a white man, who also had Hall of Fame credentials before his alleged HGH use starting in 1998. Yet Clemens won four of his seven Cy Young awards before 1998 to Bonds three of his seven MVP awards before 1998.

There is no racial double standard. Pete Rose, is legitimately baseball's all-time hits leader. Yet if Major League Baseball were to allow him on the Hall Of Fame ballot, he would quite possibly (I would argue 'likely') not get voted in. Yet if he were a black man, we could be sure the likes of Jemele Hill would be throwing out the race card. Because if she can throw it out in the case of Barry Bonds, absent any actual proof or even solid appearance of impropriety, then that default mode has been established for her to use on the many plausible but not likely assertions at her disposal.

• Jemele Hill writes, "The government has spent some $6 million to catch a baseball player (Bonds) who mostly committed a crime against himself and his legacy."

All of that extra tax revenue the juicers brought should easily cover that tab. Spending $6 million to set an example for our nation's youth is an honorable endeavor. Arguing about spending $6 million to fix a national problem of this magnitude is trite. Not to mention increased media tax dollars cover the tab many times over.

As for Bonds legacy; its clear he just showed his selfish stripes before he seemingly committed perjury. Bonds once told a teammate that he could not give him batting tips, because one day he might be on another team one day and use his tips against him.

Bonds legacy started at Arizona State when he was so hated, that his own team voted off their most talented player (Bonds), the spoiled son of a major leaguer. His legacy will be that of a player that did not win championship in a team game because he was never a team player. Fair to say? Fair enough. There were undoubtedly Bonds teammates that likely took consolation in losing the 2002 World Series that Bonds would not have glory added to him and went ring-less. He can have all the gold necklaces around his neck he wants, but he is not getting the jewelry that counts, a departing Jeff Kent probably gloated in his mind, though he would never admit so.

I was at Game 1 of that World Series. I saw Bonds playing about 20 to 25 feet more shallow than what I thought he should be at. With his ego, he likely believed he could cover the space. I said to myself if he continues to play that shallow he'll get burned. It took the better part of six games, but then it happened. Troy Glaus hit a fly ball to left field that would have been caught by most left fielders playing in normal position. Barry Bonds gave it a good run, and helplessly raised his mit as the ball sailed over his head and the game winning runs crossed the plate.

It wasn't a sharp liner to left, it wasn't a fly to gap. It was a catch able ball hit to left field, short of the warning track by the Angels most powerful hitter. It was never even reported that Bonds was simply playing too shallow. But how fitting that Bonds did not even lose his ring to the apathy of his teammates he seethed at, but by his own deficiencies.

Conclusion

Long before Bonds seemingly committed perjury for lying about using steroids, everyone outside of San Francisco (and the black community) believed Bonds was cheating. We had to shake our heads when Bonds would miss the ball by a quarter of an inch on ball in on his hands (or off the end of the bat) and that can of corn still went over the wall by fifteen feet. We had to watch as he stood in the box an extra couple seconds to admire his shots. We watched as he stomped home plate and pointed to the Heavens as if his shots were divinely sanctioned. And when milestones were reached we witnessed the joyless reactions of his very own teammates over and over again.

Baseball is a unique sport. A sport in which the nuances of the hit and run, the squeeze play, sacrifice fly, move the man over, lefty vs lefty match-ups, bust him inside to get the outside corner, let's play two, father and son go to the ballgame and have a dog, and so forth has long been cherished traditions of baseball fans.

But chicks dig the long ball and so does the slam-dunk crowd. The sensationalism of juicing brought in record revenues, but this was not anything pure baseball fans ever overlooked (as opposed to the idea that it is merely a racial issue).

Many of us were talking sensibly about the unfair edges many baseball players were taking. We know why media members and especially MLB looked the other way from Bonds. The almighty dollar was in play. I would say that Bud Selig should be fired for his omissions in dealing with cheating. But I will not justify letting Bonds off the hook based on whether another player or executive gets his or not.

Bonds may have not been the "kingpin" of steroid era. But he is the crown jewel, and the Revolution has begun. Off with his Giant-sized head, the crowd is demanding (metaphorically speaking).

I will not apologize that Bonds through his actions became the poster boy for cheating. I condemn all cheaters, but the most prolific, most despicable, most obvious cheaters are naturally going to get more attention. Bonds put his own king-sized head on the chopping block Jemele Hill. But she stuck her hand in there and tried to stop the blade.

Suck It Up Santa!

Due to the material that is possibly not suitable for readers under 18, ShotsHeard pro-actively took this blog entry down.

ShotsHeard received no complaints. Simply, we want everybody that loves sports to be able to enjoy this site and read about sports without a strong fear of being offended.

ShotsHeard will make some risque references from time to time, but would like to at least keep it within the realm of something parents would feel comfortable with allowing their teenagers to read.

The original 'Suck It Up Santa' blog entry is available on request, by e-mailing TheShotsHeard@aol.com. You must state that you are over 18 or have your legal guardian's permission to receive a copy.

Just make some stuff up, the peons won't know

I was just shaking my head when I read the Yahoo headline/sub-header for Dan Wetzel's column 'Perfectly Miserable - A dull game, a dead crowd and a grind-it-out victory. Pats coach Bill Belichick wouldn't have had it any other way.'

STOP IT!

We all get the fact that a team going for a never before accomplished 16-0 record is going to be in our face week after week; but can we at least keep it real.

The Pats won a 20-10 grind it out game against a very weak NY Jets team. Ironic that Belichick wouldn't want it any other way in lieu of these facts, heading into the contest:

• Tom Brady came into the game with 45 TDs thrown and was on pace to surpass Peyton Manning's 2004 single season TD record of 49. Brady average 315 yds/gm, 3.4 TDs/gm, a 70.2 comp. %, 5 INTs, 4 fumbles all for a 123.5 rating.
• Randy Moss had 82 receptions, 1264 yards (97.2 yds/gm), and 19 TDs.
  
• The average score of their wins was 38.7 to 17.1, a 20.6 point differential.
• Laurence Maroney was the 40th ranked rb in Yahoo fantasy leagues. In ten games, he averaged 52.7 yds/gm while scoring 2 TD's. He carried the ball 12.6 times a game, netting 4.2 yds/carry.

Ok, I think can safely say that the Pats would love to play every week in nice weather, allowing Brady and Moss turn up the pressure on defenses and jump out to an insurmountable lead.

These two will end up in the top five in MVP voting. Maroney will simply be known as the soft underbelly; when experts argue why future powerhouses would beat the 07 Patriots. He is even more of a liability than the Pats aged linebacker core of Seau 38, Bruschi 34 and Vrabel 32.

It's obvious that the fabled Belichick would not prefer to play in Ice Bowl II anytime soon. The 07 Pats deserve to be in the debate for greatest team ever, but the Purple People Eaters and the Steel Curtain; teams that truly preferred and performed at maximum output in cold miserable games are turning over in their graves right now.

Yea we know how much the Pats love to "grind it out". I bet they are just wishing they can see an Adrian Peterson vs Laurence Maroney match-up in the Super Bowl. Afterall, even if 'All Day' Peterson is better, the Pats have that superior rush defense...Oh wait they don't! The Vikings D gives up 3 yds/run to the Pats mortal 4.3 yds/run.

Is this all getting too real for you?

Ok, you can go back and suck on Belichick's teet with Wetzel as he writes, "Here's the thing about Belichick, the stuff that gets lost in all the hoopla around his hoodies, his handshakes and his histrionics: As much as he looks like a guy who's having no fun."

Alliterate away and after all an attitude awaits alluminously. Oh sorry, I thought we were playing the mindless alliteration game. I know before that we were playing 'Here comes the airplane.'

It's like they say in Young Guns 2, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is there's only expletive for dinner. The good news is there's plenty of it.

Thanks to Wetzel, I now know that the ideal game strategy is a blood and guts grind it out game in the snow. Nevermind Brady going 14-27 with 0 TDs 1 INT and 5.2 yds/attempt and Moss going for 79 yards and no TDs. As long as they can only get 26 carries for 104 yards out of Maroney, it's all gravy.

I mean it was good enough to beat the 3-11 Jets by ten points. There has not been a stronger strategy since France built a fortress on the French/German border to keep Hitler out.

Excuse me, I have to go look up histrionics in the dictionary now.

Fit Santana for his pinstripes if the new Sox stay in the drawer

As the Minnesota Twins push for the best deal for Johan Santana. The two teams in the running are the Red Sox and Yankees.

The Yankees current offer seems better than the Red Sox offer. The Yankees have upped their ante to include the heralded top-prospect Phil Hughes (SP) with Melky Cabrera (CF), and a "2nd tier prospect"; although the speculation is they will break down and give up a top-tier prospect like pitcher Ian Kennedy instead. The Red Sox on the other hand are willing to give up outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury or starting pitcher John Lester; but not both in the same deal.

Do the Red Sox really want Santana? Let's assume for the sake of argument that they do, and that they aren't simply trying to make the Yankees pay more for Santana. Then what is going through their mind that they think Ellsbury and Lester are so special as to compromise getting their chances of getting Santana?

Assuming the good ole adage that good pitching beats good hitting holds true, as it almost always does then getting Santana would put the Red Sox miles ahead of those dreaded Bombers. Just imagine Santana and Beckett; arguably the two best pitchers in baseball when they are on, come playoff time. Oh not to mention they would be backed by ManRam and Big Papi. Don't forget that Papelbon can shut the door on opponents as well as any closer in baseball.

That said, the hold-up is the Sox don't want to include Lester and Ellsbury in the same trade? That would be like the Angels in the early 90's turning down a trade for Roger Clemens because they could not part with Jim Abbot and Gary Disarcina in the same trade. That's right an elite ace for two young serviceable players with bright outlooks that still pale in comparison to the Hall of Famer at hand.

Early reports were that Ellsbury and Lester were "untouchable." That's rich. I would expect Mr. Epstein to do his best Chip Douglas (Cable Guy) impression for Bill Smith (Twins GM) anytime.

"I'm just jerking your chain; Wake up little Snoozy, smell the smelling salt!" Jim Carrey in 'Cable Guy'

Lester has for career numbers: a 4.57 ERA, 1.57 WHIP, and .278 BAA. Those numbers won't even get him drafted in most 200 player fantasy baseball leagues. If I were Bill Smith (Twins GM),

Ellsbury on the other hand is just a glorified cog. Or in other words he was in the right exciting place at the right time is all. He's a Bill Mueller, Kevin Millar, Mark Bellhorn or Todd Walker; only younger and a hot prospect. Jacoby is 6'1" 185. It's no wonder he hasn't hit for more than 7 home runs in college, the minors, or majors.

Red Sox nation is just sloppily high on Ellsbury because he hit .353 in his 116 at-bats. But it's one thing for the fans to overstate their fan ship for Ellsbury, it's another thing for Epstein (Red Sox GM) to pretend he's the next Tony Gwynn though.

Holding onto Ellsbury and Lester because they've had recent high-profile success on their World Series run reminds me of the time I didn't want to sell my $5 Beckett-priced 1992 Fleer Rookie Sensation Darren Lewis card because I thought he might actually be worth a lot more in the long run. Unlike that card, Ellsbury and Lester may end up having some long time worth. But let's just say that offering Santana for them is the equivalent of throwing a Jackson at the card owner.

Santana is realistically going to have his contract extended for between $20 million to $30 million per season to waive his no-trade clause in his contract. At $30 million, that's $1 million a start. It is debatable whether he or any pitcher is worth that, but obviously the Red Sox are past that fact if they are continuing to indulge in trade talks.

If I were the Red Sox, I would say OK you want Lester and Ellsbury. Who else do you need to make this happen? Because quite frankly Ellsbury and Lester do not even match-up to Hughes and Cabrera.

But hey, I don't even like the piss-ant empire that is Red Sox nation. So feel free Mr. Epstein to pretend that two mediocre players are more important to hold onto while your nemesis gets Santana. That would be a nice four point turnaround as they say in basketball.

Spoonfeeding the reformed Sean Taylor turnaround dribble

In the wake of Sean Taylor's murder, we constantly heard from the media that Sean Taylor was turning his life around, by "all accounts" even. Somehow the fact that all his people; teammates, former teammates, friends and family had only positive things to say about him was proof of this.

My thought to all this was: I'm not buying it. Nobody wants to talk bad about a contemporary or loved one that was just murdered. It's like telling a girl she's fat in her dress to the tenth degree.

The media told us Mr. Williams was spending a lot of quality time with his girlfriend and 18 month old baby. Whoopdy-do. You don't have to be the greatest guy in the world, or even of good character to spend time with your family. It is well he was doing those things, but that is only one part of the story. I have met countless gangsters and/or thugs whom you could have said this about. Family relations DO NOT erase the subculture or even overground cultures they are engaged in.

Was Mr Williams really doing that 180 degree turn? The only answer at this point is, perhaps.

Was he making a great turnaround? Was Mr. Williams founding charity organizations with his millions? Was he going back to college to make something more of himself after he was out of the NFL? I don't know and I'm not going to even google it because I know that the media would have told us so many of times already in their zest to sell his turnaround. Alas, the the highest way they could glorify him was to say he was spending time with his girlfriend and baby.

It's not that I was thinking Mr. Williams had or had not made positive strides to improve himself. But I was not giving into the fallacy of logic that he had some quality family relationships and therefore everything else must be dandy.

Skepticism is important. I was not going to overlook the high rate of felons that have came from the University of Miami and the NFL. I was and am willing to withhold judgment about the circumstances around his murder in lieu of a little thing called proof of wrongdoing.

My skepticism has already been validated by the recent announcement that four suspects were arrested in the Williams murder case. Their ages: 17, 18, 19 and 20. That somehow does not match up with the "demons in his past" argument that has been the popular explanation for his murder. Sure sounds like the 24 year-old had very likely found new people to get in trouble with. Maybe or maybe not; but my best guess is yes!

We can eulogize Mr. Williams good points, but until he is exonerated of any wrongdoing we can stop glorifying him as making such a great turnaround.

By the way, there will be no disclaimer that Sean Williams did not deserve to die. I will not cave to the idiots that think just because you cast any negative light on Sean Williams that you have to prove you are not implying he deserved to die. It's worse than pointing out that you have the freedom of speech when you are in the middle of casting a controversial opinion (By the way I won't remind you of my freedom speech rights either).

The bottom line is we will find out much more about Williams as time goes on. In the interim we can use the Williams murder to discuss how to improve ourselves as a society. But I will not pretend the world has lost a great man, when I just don't know or am not even inclined to believe so.

Murder is a gross thing, no matter who's involved; if we want to seriously talk about how this can be prevented then ok. But spare me the Taylor was this grand guy talk. It makes a mockery of those that do all the right things without this world's glorification.

Mostly brilliant, slightly shortsighted: Introduction to 'The Shots Heard Around The World' sports blog

Hello and welcome to my sports blog. Those that come across this blog, I suggest that you add it to your favorites links. I will be opining logically in a way that politically correct radio show hosts dare not. I will keep a cool candor that shock jocks seeking ratings and consequently dollars would deny is possible.

Mostly Brilliant, Slightly Shortsighted refers to my general opinion about my writing abilities. I have to admit that I plagiarized the phrase. I plagiarized it from one of my more artistic alter-egos. But do not insinuate that I am bi-polar; for it is not so. I will simply not be your one-dimensional comic book character. Expect to see a range of personality from me.

Quite honestly, blogs generally bore me. Facts are scant, opinions detached from reality, the writing amateurish, and the integrity of the authors' viewpoints often questionable. Nonetheless, we do see all types of atrocities committed by all types within the sports realm, to say nothing of the wonderful accomplishments. Therefore, I do think the world desires witty, intelligent banter from individuals who put a premium on telling the truth in a world that has a tendency to defer from it. Enter myself, make room Dan Patrick, please. Don't worry I'm not taking any of your money. Yet.

I will be objective as circumstances dictate, but the very nature of sports reporting and/or commenting requires a level of subjectivity; to say nothing of how overstating things occurs when rooting for or against someone or something occurs. Fortunately, I believe I have a better ability to seperate my emotions from opinions then most. I believe that comes from my early love for analysis of systems and things and then later on my retuning to that love through the study of the science of critical thinking. Sure I will use satire and hyperbole as inspiration hits; but one thing you can count on is that I won't be transparently ignorant under the pretense that I have an important moral point that only serves to soothe my depleted sense of conscious or otherwise biases.

I would point out my level of training. After graduating in business, I took a couple journalism classes and did an internship. This has helped my writing immensely, though I won't describe the differences here.

In short, thank you for reading and let's watch the moons change paths.