If You Are Afraid Of Change - Don't Vote For Ron Paul

COMMENTARY - What is it we Americans see in the Presidential Candidates that leads us to believe either party - the Republicans or Democrats - will steer us out of the wilderness of debt that has been thrust upon us? If you look at the chart below you'll see that it hasn't made a difference which party is in office, the debt just keeps climbing. Even in the economic boom times of the mid to late 90s and the early 00's - when we had budget surpluses - we were unable to pay down the debt. Both parties say they will work to lower the debt, blaming the other side for our fiscal and foreign problems, but the reality is, neither side follows through on the campaign promises. And that's all they are, promises - empty promises.


Date      Party       OutstandingDebt
2010       Dem       13.5 Trillion
2009       Dem       11.9 Trillion
2008       Rep        10.0 Trillion
2007       Rep          9.0 Trillion
2006       Rep          8.5 Trillion
2005       Rep          7.9 Trillion
2004       Rep          7.3 Trillion
2003       Rep          6.7 Trillion
2002       Rep          6.2 Trillion
2001       Rep          5.8 Trillion
2000       Dem         5.6 Trillion
1999       Dem         5.6 Trillion
1998       Dem         5.5 Trillion
1997       Dem         5.4 Trillion
1996       Dem         5.2 Trillion
1995       Dem         4.9 Trillion
1994       Dem         4.6 Trillion
1993       Dem         4.4 Trillion
1992       Rep          4.0 Trillion
1991       Rep          3.6 Trillion
1990       Rep          3.2 Trillion
1989       Rep          2.8 Trillion
1988       Rep          2.6 Trillion
1987       Rep          2.3 Trillion
1986       Rep          2.1 Trillion
1985       Rep          1.8 Trillion
1984       Rep          1.5 Trillion
1983       Rep          1.3 Trillion
1982       Rep          1.1 Trillion
1981       Rep          997 Billion
1980      Dem          907 Billion

So why do we, as voters, continue to go with the same old, party-line thinkers? Do you, as a voter, honestly believe that Mitt Romney will suddenly do something different than whats been done in the past? How about Newt Gringrich? After all the years that ol' Newt has been around politics, what makes you believe he will somehow change what's going on in Washington? Really? You believe the mojo these guys are spewing?

Or do you just cross your fingers and hope? Or have you been snookered? Or worse yet, given up?

There is only one man running that has a completely different view of what's needed to return this country to the great and prosperous place it once was. Ron Paul. And how crazy are his ideas? Why don't you ask the men who drew up the Constitution, as this is his guideline to return sanity to America. If you are tired of protracted wars abroad that never seem to be won, wars that guzzle lives and money like a soulless black hole, then why are you voting for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum? Again...Why would you do that? Ron Paul is the only candidate that will bring our troops home and then use those troops to protect and lock down our borders - and it won't cost taxpayers to do this.

Tired of spending billions defending Europe, Japan, Israel and countless other countries? Even while many of these countries hate us? Isn't it about time for each of them to reach into their own pockets to pay for their own defense? Spend their own money building a military instead of living under the umbrella of our protection? Then why are you voting for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum? Again... Why in the world would you do that? Ron Paul is the only candidate that will change all that. Dr. Paul will bring home the troops and shut down bases all over the world, saving money and forcing countries who have been using us, while laughing at us behind our backs, to spend their own money to stay safe. He will save us billions of dollars while still defending our country should it ever be attacked. And if that should happen, he will go about it the right way - getting a Declaration of War from Congress - then go in and finish it quickly, bringing the troops home, not letting them linger in a far away place for years and years. Am I wrong in assuming that this is what you want?

Do you want to see the economy get better? With less government? Do you want freedom from Washington telling us what to do and how to do it? Do you want to see our debt begin to be paid down? Then why are you voting for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum? None of them is going to do it! Look at the chart! Its not going to happen with any of them! When you look at these candidates, what is it that they say to you that makes a difference? Its time to smarten up - Ron Paul is the only one with a plan to save us one trillion dollars the first year and balance the budget in three! Are you telling me you are against this? Really?!

What are you, the American voter, afraid of? Are you afraid of peace? Are you afraid of having more money in your pocket? Are you afraid of becoming a strong and prosperous country that once again leads the worlds economy? Are you afraid of taking back our great country? Are you afraid of telling the political whores in D.C. that enough is enough? Are you afraid to say to them that We The People tell them what to do and not the other way around? Are you afraid of Term Limits? Are you afraid of returning our monetary system to the Gold Standard so the money you make has real value - here and worldwide? If you are afraid of these things, then by all means, vote for Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. Any one of them can keep this country going just the way it is - Swirling right down the drain. But if you crave change, if you want liberty, if you need to see the US of A on top again, there is only one man to vote for... Ron Paul.

For change.  For America

The Pompous One Endorses Mitt Romney

So The Donald endorses Mitt Romney and... We care why?
The fanfare and circus like atmosphere with which the endorsement was given - and covered by the media -should show every regular Joe, every American working class stiff, just where we stand with the media and politicians alike. Both of these entities heartily believe that this affirmation by Trump will make a difference to the American voter - obviously, or they wouldn't have covered it, right? But, really? I, mean... really? This is such a complete disconnect with reality as to border on fantasy.

This type of endorsement - one offered by a self important and egotistical millionaire - is right up there in the pantheon of the Hollywood celebrity crowd - movie stars and moguls alike - who believe that we poor, uneducated, feeble minded, stupid, stupid people, need to be led by the hand to the promised land, like a child lost in a mystical forest, by the virtue of the grand guiding light that is their wisdom... after all, they are big shot millionaires and actors for crying out loud and that should carry weight! They have a Twitter account, talk with Oprah and Kings alike and belong to a church that was started by a science fiction writer. I mean, my God, these are very important people, and if you don't believe me, all you have to do is ask - they will be happy to show you the latest article about themselves in "The National Enquirer."

And the media is just as bad. Hour after hour of intensely debated theories of who Donald Trump would throw his weight behind. Would it be Gingrich or Romney? And when the question was answered, the new question became - How will this change the outlook for the elections? Now it starts again,each response dissected ad-nauseum with the grand arrogance of peons whose only reason for living is to appear on television once every four years, doling out the minutiae of an over exposed election process, day-after-day, night-after agonizing-night. These commentators - who are the proverbial moths to the flame - appear to be angry, frustrated, pompous donkey butts who were bullied in school yards many years ago and whose only desire is to prove to everyone who used to laugh at them that they are smart and important.

But they aren't. We The People are.

So, where does that leave us? Right back where we started, doing our own homework. Please, don't listen to the pompous real estate barons or make-up wearing adult children whose only real discernible talent is that they make a living "pretending" better than most five year olds. Do your due diligence. Vote for the candidate that you want to back and who will back you - not just the one who you think can win. You will be happier with yourself when you step out of the voting booth.

Trust me.

Once Upon A Time There Was A Psychopath

The Crime Scene Investigator, one of three on the site, was securing the area with bright yellow police tape. The dead-man, his face and neck slashed and cut beyond recognition, had been neatly laid out on his back on the bloodied floor of the dilapidated warehouse.  The dead man was dressed in an Armani suit, feet placed together, arms outstretched as if awaiting his savior, completely soaked in near black, coagulated blood. 

An older Detective, haggard and bent, walked in from the open doors of the truck docks, looking at the body with a practiced eye as he advanced to the crime scene.

The CSI man saw him and waved, "So, what's this... like, twenty-two straight years?" He looked down at the grisly scene before him. "Year after year some poor schmuck gets sliced and diced by a madman and laid out like Jesus on the cross. Christ O' Mighty!"

The detective walked up to the tape, "Twenty-three," he said as he shook his gray haired head. "I was a rookie when this began," he rubbed the back of his neck, fatigue setting in, "and still not a freaking clue as to who this maniac is," he grumbled. "Just once you'd think he would make a freakin' mistake."

Suddenly the CSI man stopped, bent down and with a tweezers pulled from his shirt pocket, picked up a cigarette butt from the floor. "Hmm...may have something here." He walked to the detective and showed him the filter-less butt. "This may be our first break," he said excitedly as he held it up for the detective. "After all this time! If it was in his mouth..." He paused for effect, "then we have DNA, baby!"

The detective squinted from under his hat as he looked and replied. "Not many people smoking filter-less cigarettes anymore," as he took the butt from the CSI guy and dropped it into a plastic bag, sealing and initialing it as he spoke. "I'm gonna' take this to the lab right away," he said absently as he looked through the clear plastic at the crumpled cigarette. "Maybe you're right.  Maybe we finally get a break from it," and he turned on his heel, making his way to the door.

Once outside he opened the baggie and nonchalantly threw the butt on the ground as he continued to walk in the fading sunlight. "Now I'm going to have to change brands," he grumbled to himself as he pulled a pack of Chesterfields from his coat pocket and deftly took one from the deck, held it out in front if him and put a match to it till there was smoke curling off the glowing red cherry. Then, still walking, he let it burn down without putting it to his mouth. With about an inch of the cigarette left, he stubbed it out on the brick wall of the building he was walking by. "I'm getting sloppy in my old age," he thought as he placed the butt into a second plastic bag produced from his pocket, then sealed and signed.

He grinned as he put the bag back into his coat. "DNA my ass."

NFL Pro Bowl - Put it to Bed

After spoon feeding the raging masses of ravenous NFL fans a weekly menu of tender, high-end Fillet Mignon, the chefs at the offices of America's most popular sport, wander the kitchen, picking up every bit of thick, greasy, cold and oily leftover gristle they can lay their hands on, and toss it on a plate in a heaping mound of audaciousness. Walking over to the chalkboard, they write "Pro Bowl" as the "Special of the Day," and then with a sprig of parsley to spruce up the plate, they serve up that sludge to desperate fans in need of one more meal, one more fix and then the chefs smile like piranha swimming in a tank full of gutted swimmers - waiting for the money to roll in.

Why doesn't the NFL just pull the plug on this inane mess of a football game? Do we really need to see the stars of the game we love, moving at half speed, playing not to get hurt? A ridiculous offensive waterfall of points unfettered by a hint of defensive effort? This may work for the NBA All-Star Game, but not for NFL football. This "game" is so far removed from what we see on a weekly basis - heck, lets include the pre-season when at the very least, effort is shown - as to be an embarrassment.

Does anyone really believe players such as the Chicago Bears Matt Forte - he of the newly healed bad wheel - is going to risk injury when he has a new GM to contend with and no contract offer on the table? I applaud those players that want to be at the game to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but the product put in front of the fans is just plain wrong.

In the days of yore, when players weren't making so much money in one season that the average working Joe or Jolene could retire, athletes came to the game and played hard. The money that was paid to the winners was significant enough to induce effort in those playing the game. They needed the extra dough and it showed on the field. Now? The money is used to tip the concierge at the five-star hotel where they are staying.

The NFL should take those players voted to the Pro Bowl and have a glitzy, sparkly, shiny, black-tie gala affair in Hawaii, two weeks after the Super Bowl, with bright lights and a red carpet. Make it a weekend gig with a Saturday skills challenge and then a Sunday evening awards banquet with television cameras, top notch Master of Ceremonies - Mike & Mike are you listening? - and introduce each player or a group of players by position, with a highlight clip of the season just played. Heck, maybe even a table full of tuxedo-ed football analysts to rain praise on the best the game has to offer. And the fans? One more weekend to watch the players they love, party with friends and revel in the NFL's gaudy display of affection for its gladiators.

Its time to put this meaningless sham of a game to bed, and as Dandy Don Meredith used to sing - "turn out the lights, the party's over."

Is a Gingrich / Paul Republican Ticket in the Offing?

Commentary - How would a Republican ticket of Gingrich and Paul suit you?

It has become apparent to anyone watching the South Carolina and Florida debates, that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul appear to have a familiar and respectful rapport on stage, which at times seems downright chummy, including this snippet from the transcripts of the January 23rd Florida debates in Tampa -

WILLIAMS (moderator): Would you support a Newt Gingrich as nominee of the GOP?

PAUL: Well, he keeps hinting about attacking the Fed, and he talks about gold. Now if I could just change him on foreign policy, we might be able to talk business...(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, are you willing to adjust to pick up an endorsement from Texas?

GINGRICH: And Congressman Paul is right. There`s an area - I think what he has said about the Federal Reserve and what he has said about the importance of monetary policy, the proposal I've issued for a gold commission, which hearkens back to something that he and Jesse Helms helped develop, on which he served on in 1981, and the fact that we have people of the caliber of Lew Lehrman and Jim Grant, who have agreed they would chair such a commission, I think they're areas we can work on.
There are places we disagree very deeply. Iran is a good example. But there are places -- you know, you build a coalition by trying to find ways you can work together, and frankly we could work together a lot more than either one of us could work with Barack Obama.

And this back and forth about NASA exploration of the moon - from the January 26th Florida debate -

BLITZER (moderator): Congressman Paul, Texas, the space program very important there as well. Where do you stand on this?

PAUL: Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there... (APPLAUSE) But I went - I went into the Air Force in 1962 and studied aerospace medicine. Actually had a daydream about maybe becoming the first physician to go into space. That - that didn't occur, but I see space - the amount of money we spend on space, the only part that I would vote for is for national defense purposes. Not to explore the moon and go to Mars. I think that's fantastic. That's - I love those ideas.

But I also don't like the idea of building government business partnerships. If we had a healthy economy and had more Bill Gateses and more Warren Buffetts, the money would be there. It should be privatized, and the people who work in the industry, if you had that, there would be jobs in aerospace. And I just think that we don't need a bigger, a newer program, when you think of the people - I mean, health care or something else deserves a lot more priority than going to the moon. So, I would be very reluctant, but space technology should be followed up to some degree for national defense purposes, but not just for the fun of it and, you know, for - you know, for scientific...

BLITZ ER: We're going to leave this subject, but before we do, I want Speaker Gingrich to clarify what you said yesterday in that major speech you delivered on space. You said that you would support a lunar colony or a lunar base, and that if 13,000 Americans were living there, they would be able to apply for U.S. statehood from the moon...

GINGRICH: ...I actually agree with Dr. Paul. The program I envision would probably end up being 90 percent private sector, but it would be based on a desire to change the government rules and change the government regulations, to get NASA out of the business of trying to run rockets, and to create a system where it's easy for private sector people to be engaged. I want to see us move from one launch occasionally to six or seven launches a day because so many private enterprises walk up and say, we're prepared to go do it.

But I'll tell you, I do not want to be the country that having gotten to the moon first, turned around and said, it doesn't really matter, let the Chinese dominate space, what do we care? I think that is a path of national decline, and I am for America being a great country, not a country in decline.

Even when they disagree, they agree -

PAUL: I want to make a quick comment, because Newt's mentioned this quite a few times about balancing the budget for four times. I went back and looked at the record. The budget was - the national debt during those four years actually went up about a trillion dollars. What he's talking about is, he doesn't count the money he takes out of Social Security. So, Reagan nor you had a truly balanced budget because the national debt goes up, and that's what we pay the interest on. So I think you've stretched that a little bit more than you should have.

BLITZ ER: You want to respond to Congressman Paul?

GINGRICH: No, I would just say - I would just say, under the system that was used, we were $405 billion" (inaudible)… (BOOING) I agree with Ron - but let me finish. I actually agree with you, and I propose that we take Social Security off budget so no president can ever again get threaten, as Obama did in August, that he would not send the check out, and you could set Social Security back up as a free-standing trust fund. It does have enough money and you could in fact pay the checks without regard to politics in Washington.

On stage, Gingrich and Paul seem to be watching out for one another, at least as much as one can do during the donnybrooks that the debates have become. So where would this leave the American voter, should these two entities join forces?

For Dr Paul, it would mean a chance to see his platform move into the mainstream where many believe it belongs and, quite possibly, as Vice President, having the power to bring some of those ideas to fruition, like Ending the Federal Reserve and putting us back on the gold standard, lowering the tax rates, term limits, balancing the budget while, in general, helping to reduce big government.

For Newt Gingrich, it would mean not only gaining the valuable delegates from Ron Pauls ardent supporters, but also the organizational skills and fervor those supporters bring to the table. Of course, as a nice perk to go along with those boosters, Gingrich would have a running mate that has shown in many polls , to be a man who could win against President Obama, securing many unhappy Democratic voters who might otherwise had voted to retain the President if Dr Paul were out of the election. If Ron Paul continues to make headway with voters, gaining a bucket full of delegates along the way, the next few months leading up to the Republican convention could be a lot of fun to watch!

Some answers from the transcripts were edited for space concerns

Is Ron Paul Comfortable In The Public Eye?

Monday night after watching the South Carolina Republican debates, it occurred to me that if Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich - both polished and dapper public speakers - had Ron Paul's platform , they would be so far ahead of the other candidates that they'd be lapping the field. A polished demeanor in a candidate is a good thing.

I like Dr. Paul and his platform. I am going to vote for Dr. Paul - but the bottom line is that he just doesn't appear comfortable on the dais, and I believe this is hurting him. He's obviously passionate about his beliefs, this is easy to see, but he stumbles and rambles, jumping from idea to idea without completing a thought, and Monday night it occurred to me that if a voter were listening to him for the first time, unaware of Paul's views, that voter might not be able to fully grasp what the Texas Congressman was attempting to convey - at the very least, his beliefs might sound somewhat convoluted.

When I watch Ron Paul speak, I am befuddled by his inability to follow the simple rules of public speaking that are taught in high school. Stop, think, construct the thought and then slowly and coherently make your statement. Don't fidget, keep eye contact with your audience and use quiet, thoughtful pauses instead of "Ums" and "Uhs." As my Son - one of Dr. Paul's most ardent supporters - asked of no one in particular, "Doesn't he have a speaking coach?"

Every voter should be doing his homework and finding out what each candidate stands for and believes in, but many don't. Every debate is an opportunity for the candidates to corral the undecided voter, a chance to educate the uneducated voter - but to maximize that opportunity, Ron Paul needs to come off as coherent, concise, calm and knowledgeable. Instead, to my eyes, he comes off as flighty, rushed and anxious - unable to be the Head Engineer on his own train of thought. It shouldn't matter, but it does. We should be voting for the beliefs, ideas and convictions each candidate brings to the table, not for how he looks or acts or speaks - but good or bad, this plays into the process.

When Ron Paul is in a one on one interview, he is a more thoughtful and confident person. When speaking to his backers, he is in his element and is obviously comfortable and loose, but he needs to find a way to bring these traits to the table when speaking in a public forum or debate. In the end it could end up dooming his chances of winning the nomination.

I certainly hope not.

Ron Paul - Is His Middle Name Dangerous?

After the polls closed on the New Hampshire Primary with Ron Paul coming in a strong second, the Texas Congressman, smiling under the bright lights of the media, stood at the podium of his campaign headquarters in front of a mass of chanting supporters and responded to being labeled "dangerous" by Rick Santorum and others. He said, "I have to chuckle when they describe us as being dangerous. That's one thing they are telling the truth [about]. Because we are dangerous to the status quo in this country..." while a loud and raucous audience clapped, chanted and hollered.

What is it that makes Ron Paul so "dangerous" to a field of Republican hopefuls and re-treads? Is it because he is garnering more airtime as the race continues - bringing his platform to voters who, in the past, may not have heard him speak - a platform which includes a promise to cut the budget by a trillion dollars in his first year and balance the budget in three? Is it because he will bring our troops home from all over the world, allowing other countries to live their lives as they see fit, without interference from the U.S? Or are they afraid that Ron Paul is waking up Americans with common sense and a simple truth?

Why not Ron Paul as president? Why not this gentleman from Texas? He stands for everything that America strives to be and what Americans want from this great country - Liberty. If he was 6'4" and wore a cowboy hat, he would be the quintessential American Cowboy - Quiet, humble, honest and loyal with a fierce sense of right and wrong. A man of peace, who doesn't look for a fight, but who, when the fight comes his way, meets it head on, with honor - just as he did when called to duty during the Vietnam war - asking no quarter nor hiding behind his wife and two children. When all other Candidates are telling you what you want to hear, Ron Paul looks you in the eye and tells you what he believes in - take it or leave it. Very simple stuff here.

Many are put off by Dr. Paul's foreign policy, labeling him an Isolationist. But the truth of the matter is that he is not an Isolationist, but a non-interventionist. He believes that each country has the right to live the way they desire. To defend themselves in whatever fashion they choose. Have whatever political system they decide upon - without everyone and their brother putting their nose in. But, should there ever come a time when our country needs to defend itself, he believes you follow the Constitution, have Congress sign a Declaration of War and then go in, finish it quickly and get out.

Ron Paul is a man of ideas, but these aren't new ideas. These are the same beliefs that our Forefathers had when they first set down to draft the Constitution. He is the only candidate that will stand up for the American people and end the madness in Washington. Term limits, End the Fed, get rid of the IRS, Capitol Gains and Death Taxes (the more money in your pocket, the more you have to spend and the better the economy).

So, is Ron Paul Dangerous? Only if you work for the IRS, the Fed, the Senate or the House. No more free rides in Washington.

The bottom line is this - Ron Paul is a statesman in a room full of politicians. Do your due diligence when deciding who to vote for. Vote for the candidate that stands for what you believe in, and who, in turn, will stand beside you to fight for that belief. Win, lose or draw, you will know you have done the right thing.

Michele Wie

Thursday, January 11, 2007, 12:38 PM

This much I can tell you.  No one, and I mean NO ONE, hates losing to a female, more than me.  Of course I hate losing period, but I certainly have no problem competing against women.  And therein lies the question.  Why do men hate having to go up against the women?  Are we THAT insecure?  It's not like being a female is contagious.  Its not going to rub off.  We're not suddenly going to have the urge to watch the Lifetime Channel or have pillow fights in our Jockeys while eating Dove Ice Cream.

This talented young woman only wants to compete against the very best the world has to offer, and we look down on her for that?  Is that what this country has come to?

The PGA tour is NOT a men's tour.  I don't know how that statement gets bandied about.  It is the PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS ASSOCIATION.  Period.  Any and all comers may play on Sunday as long as you qualify on Friday.  The LPGA, on the other hand, is for women only.  It's really quite simple.
Michele Wie is testing the waters right now. She really doesn't have the time to put in as much practice as most golfers in her situation would.  She attends classes and will move on to college soon.  She practices when she can and she plays when she can and if a tournament that doesn't normally pull in a great crowd can increase its bottom line by offering her an exemption, I say, go ahead and do it.  Feel free.  Knock your socks off.

Sooner or later, she will make a cut.  And later, maybe when shes in her mid 20's, she is going to become a force no matter where she plays.  Will there ever be a time that she will be in contention to win a PGA event.  Yeah.  I believe so.  And so what?  Does it denigrate the game to have a woman who is good?  No.  At least it shouldn't.

And for those that don't like that she may end up beating the men?  All I can tell you is this....play better golf.  Get better.  Beat her if you can.  It's quite simple really.

And if you can't.  Maybe you should start a mens only tour so that the ladies can't make you feel bad about yourself.

Bears To The Super Bowl!

Wednesday, January 3, 2007, 10:20 PM

Lord All Mighty!

Everyone needs to lighten up a bit about the Bears. I'm so tired of the Chicago media, national media and bloggers alike, shrieking like little girls who've had a frog thrown at them. OH MY!!! Grossman is horrible, terrible...ahhhhhhhh!!!! The defense is falling apart! Injuries, missed tackles, no pass rush...ahhhhhhhhh!!!
Lovie Smith doesn't adjust! 300+ yards let up per game for the last few games, the Saints, the Eagles...ahhhhhhhh!!!!

All the media needs is a pair of ruby slippers and a little black dog to compliment the drama queen image.

All this over a team that posted the second best record in the NFL. All this over a team that was far and away the best team in the NFC. All this over a team that won home field advantage throughout the playoffs. All this over a team with a quarterback that won offensive player of the month for September, offensive player of the week just two weeks ago, brought his team from behind against Minnesota and the Giants and has more (7) 100+ ratings games than ANY other quarterback in the league (yes, and more -40 ratings games). All this over a team that beat just about all the teams it was supposed to, while losing to the highly touted, Brady led New England Patriots by just four points in what could be a preview of the Super Bowl, while winning back to back road games against the Jets and the Giants. All this over a defense that had been one of the best in the league until recent injuries to Tillman, Johnson, Vasher, Harris and the troubles of Tank, while losing defensive leader Mike Brown early. All this over a team that really hasn't had much to play for the last couple of weeks, with the Coach pulling players to keep them rested.

Come the playoffs, the defense will have most of their starters back in the fold, rested, fit as can be expected this late in the season and ready to beat on whoever shows up in the lake front wind blown, frozen natural grass stadium that is Soldier Field in January.

They will have one of the best running duo's in the NFL, rested from splitting time at the position, waiting to unload on unsuspecting teams (Thomas Sanders and Cedric Benson account for better than 1850 yards on the ground).

On special teams they have quite possibly the most exciting returner in the NFL in Devon Hester who set an NFL record with six returns for touchdowns this year while tying the NFL record for the longest return with a 108 yarder earlier this year (tied with fellow teamate Nathan Vasher). They also have the top rated kicker in Robbie Gould.

So, what are we complaining about? It would seem that the complaints are about, well... I guess - How they win? Is that what this is all about? HOW THEY WIN??? You must be kidding me. The way to tell a good team from the rest of the pack is that they win the games they are supposed to, and then they win the games that seem lost. This is the Chicago Bears.

As far as Grossman is concerned, he will be fine. This is a quarterback who has more confidence than he has a right to, and is blessed because of that attitude and a howitzer for an arm. Let him play, let him throw, let him fire all of his guns. And if it goes bad? Well, you still have Griese in the background, waiting to earn his five million a year.

Prediction? Bears in the Super Bowl, handling the NFC with ease, but probably losing against either Baltimore or San Diego, although beating either of those teams is certainly not improbable.

All year, week after week, we have listened to the so-called experts express their opinions on who were the best teams in the NFC. Week after week the Bears kept winning, but were tossed to the side while we heard that the newest, best team was... Dallas, yes! Dallas was now the team to be afraid of! No, wait, the Eagles! Yes! The Eagles... No..uh..wait... the Saints! We are sure its the Saints! And game after game, week after week, the Bears did what all these other teams couldn't. They just won. With offense. With defense. With special teams. With coaching. With play calling. With grit. With sweat. With attitude.

So to all the "experts", I say, pull your skirts down off of your faces and quit running around in little circles, the Bears will be fine.

Just watch and see.

Paul Dana RIP

Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 6:57 AM

I wrote this opinion piece the week after Dale Earnhardt Sr. Died In 2001. It was never published. Although Paul Dana was not Dale Earnhardt, in talent or in stature with-in his sport, the emotions that any death in auto racing and the reactions it brings forth from uninformed mainstream sports journalists remain the same.  I just recently used two paragraphs from this piece in a blog here, just a few weeks ago. These were my thoughts then... and they are my thoughts now.

(2001) My name is Michael Loos and I am starting my third season on the air with host Dane Neal and engineer/sidekick Skip Kubicki on the weekly auto racing radio show - "Gasoline Alley - The Fastest Show In Radio" - 5:00 PM Tuesdays kicking off March 6th on WJJG 1530 AM here in Chicago. I am the son of a former local stock car racer and the nephew of many more. I've had the good fortune of being an amateur drag racer (Top Ten in points at the old Oswego Dragway) while even my Mother competed in what were then termed "Powder Puff Races," or women's races.

I have been utterly appalled by the many journalists who have shown such an outpouring of contempt for a sport that most of you have shown you know nothing about. Over and over again I have been inundated with the most foul and uninformed opinions by so many in the sports media who feel justified in spewing sensationalistic, inane, knee-jerk drivel as long as they preface everything with - "I don't profess to understand the fascination with auto racing," or "Although I don't know much about the sport..."

First thing Monday morning I had the unpleasant circumstance of hearing one of the hosts of the morning show at "The Score" [Chicago Radio Station WSCR] expressing the opinion that the accident involving Tony Stewart is "...exactly what NASCAR wants!" Apparently, to the ignorant, fans want to see accidents, mayhem, and even blood. The afternoon team of Dan Jiggetts and Doug Buffone [Both former Chicago Bears], although evenhanded and casual in their discussion, came to this conclusion; Buffone: "They should have airbags!" Jiggetts: "They do!" In case you didn't know, they don't. You wouldn't know this if you listened to this show.

Sun-Times sports columnist John Jackson informed us last week that, "the race is always won by the fastest car..." and "as we all know, a driver has less to do with a victory than a jockey on a horse." To make such an obviously uninformed remark only makes Jackson look foolish and unprofessional. What the casual fan needs is real, factual and on-the-square information.

Inevitably, when someone outside the mainstream of the sport interviews a racing driver, the questions asked are pure fluff. ("What happens if you have to go to the bathroom?" Which is followed by a giggle, something akin to a two-year-old who just heard the word "poop.") The person who knows nothing about auto racing doesn't learn anything of value while the real fan turns it off because it doesn't enhance his knowledge of the sport.

I can tell you this. The love of motor sports is innate. It is born the first time you feel the deep rumble in your chest from the thundering cacophony that explodes from red-hot exhaust headers, the sweet aroma of un-spent gasoline, the merciless assault on your deafened ears as the engines rpm climb. To the driver it's the most powerful drug known, a palpable, seductive temptress that beckons with the anticipation of mainlining speed for real. There is not an experience on earth that I have tried that gives such a pure, clean rush of adrenaline. To be in control of a finely tuned race car, to know that only your hand-eye co-ordination, mental focus, agility and sheer force-of-will, are what enable you to defeat your competitor, is a potent and robust emotion. And those that drive accept the risks. From the amateur drag racer to the guy who drives the bullrings to the very finest the sport has produced, they all know that when you step into the car, whether you are travelling at 70 mph or 200, you are taking your life into your own hands and placing yours in the hands of others. They're not daredevils, they don't race to "tempt death," they are skilled athletes who realize and accept the consequences of their actions.

For the fan it is an extravaganza of the senses. The sound and sights, people and noise. Infield bar-b-Que's (racing fans invented tailgating,) team flags waving in the wind, the climbing excitement, race strategy to discuss and headsets that allow you to hear in-race team to driver communications all make for an exhilarating outing.

This sport is not football, where huge men work year-round to build themselves into walking steamrollers so that they may legally commit mayhem and violence upon other men on every play, from the first to the last. It's not hockey, where savage bloodbaths, outside the realm of the game itself, take place regularly in front of screaming chanting fans and media alike, who tell us that it is intrinsic to the sport. The point of auto racing is simple, pure. Get to the finish line first.

The next time you feel the need to thump your chests for the good of the common man, to shut down a sport you may not know much about, it might be better to turn your scorn to the next NFL / MLB / NBA role model that is brought up on charges of: A) Murder B) Sexual Assault C) Drug use D) All of the above A great driver died Sunday, and by all accounts and more importantly, a good man. Say a prayer for him, his family and his competitors.

Ernest Hemmingway once wrote; "There are only three true sports, Bullfighting, Mountain Climbing and Auto Racing, the rest are merely games."

Sincerely, Michael Loos

Say A Prayer For The Drivers At Daytona

Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 2:29 PM

The "Big One" is coming, no doubt about it.

Anyone who believes this race is going wire-to-wire, clean and fast, has a screw loose. Could it? Sure. Will it? This race runs wreck free with as much of a chance as of me saying "NO" to my Granddaughters. With Tony Stewart as the acting mouthpiece of the drivers on the Nextel Cup circuit, it has reached a point where NASCAR must, for once in its recent life, forget about money and sponsors and television and make an aggressive move for the safety of the drivers at hand - and I'm not talking about having referees in the corners (will they have on zebra stripes?)

Stewart is troubled by the seeming rise in bump drafting and the boldness of those doing it. There have been others who have spoke out against the restrictor plate races at both Daytona and Talladega, Ricky Rudd and Mark Martin come to mind, not necessarily bump drafting, but the closeness of the cars in general, where every nuance of the cars instability is magnified ten-fold.

Restrictor plates were put on the cars to hold down speeds at the two tracks where the mph were rising into the 210 range, the close racing a by-product of that rule. With television ratings rising, sponsorship exploding, attendance through the roof (although attendance was always outstanding,) NASCAR decided they would leave well enough alone. NASCAR takes a gamble with every restrictor plate race - the problem is that NASCAR gambles with other peoples lives.

And those that drive accept the risks. From the amateur drag racer to the guy who drives the bullrings to the very finest the sport has produced, they all know that when you step into the car, whether you are travelling at 70 mph or 200, you are taking your life into your own hands. They're not daredevils, they don't race to "tempt death," they are skilled athletes who realize and accept the consequences of their actions - but the other side of that particular coin is that they don't come to Daytona and Talladega to gamble their lives on a roll-the-dice, especially when the dice keep coming up Snake-Eyes.

NASCAR has pushed the envelope as far as it can go. It's time to take the restrictor plates off, give the drivers the horsepower to get away from each other, put the emphasis back on the drivers and crews and not on the "deals" made up on the spotters stand. It's time for drivers to know what its like to pull out of line and PASS without help. Its time for drivers to have to LIFT when going into a corner. It's time for drivers to know what its like to SLINGSHOT again.

Racing is a wonderful, intricate dance of man and machine, at Daytona and Talladega it has been reduced to the unpredictability of the next country line dance. We know whats going to happen, it's just a matter of when. If NASCAR wants to hold down speeds then stand up the windshields and put flat, 6" x 6" side mirrors on the cars to gain more wind resistance, take away spoiler height, let more air under the cars from the front. Even though the cars will be faster, and maybe in some ways less stable, the cars will be running in much smaller packs - three, four, five car groups is much safer than 43 car groups with everyone running inches apart, right foot on the floor and the left foot tapping the brake to slow down slightly - all for three, solid hours!  Trust me when I tell you that there are more than a few drivers who would pass up the restrictor plate races if they could. They know the "Big One" is a stone cold fact.

Maybe somewhere, sometime, a major sponsor will step forward and tell NASCAR that they will not be bringing a car to those races until things change. Take it out of the drivers hands, for the driver knows there is someone else ready to take their place, should they take a stand against the restrictor plate races.

I can tell you this. For the drivers and fans the love of motor sports is innate. It is born the first time you feel the deep rumble in your chest from the thundering cacophony that explodes from red-hot exhaust headers, the sweet aroma of un-spent gasoline, the merciless assault on your deafened ears as the engines rpm climb. To the driver it's the most powerful drug known, a palpable, seductive temptress that beckons with the anticipation of mainlining speed for real. There is not an experience on earth that gives such a pure, clean rush of adrenaline. To be in control of a finely tuned race car, to know that only your hand-eye co-ordination, mental focus, agility and sheer force-of-will, are what enable you to defeat your competitor, is a potent and robust emotion.

Ernest Hemmingway once wrote; "There are only three true sports, Bullfighting, Mountain Climbing and Auto Racing, the rest are merely games." NASCAR - Take the restrictor plates off, make some meaningful changes and let them race, safely.

Feel free to copy and send this to: FanFeedback@nascar.com AND OR mhelton@race.NASCAR.com (I believe, but am not certain that this is Mike Heltons email address at the Daytona NASCAR offices)

Revamp Baseball Hall Of Fame Voting

Sunday, February 12, 2006, 2:16 AM

It's time to make a change in the Baseball Hall Of Fame voting. To keep the integrity of the Hall intact, baseball needs to start weeding out voters who show us, the fans, that they haven't a big, fat, clue as to what they're doing.

It's important to remember that sportswriters are, in many circumstances, journalism students who were sent to the sports department by their editors, please don't for a moment believe that these people are in any way, shape or form, more adept than we are at deciding who is a Hall Of Famer and who isn't!

For many years, these sportswriters were the only people to see all the ball players during the course of a year. Up until television, many people didn't see a ballgame, not being close enough to a city with a team, thus relying on radio broadcasts and newsprint descriptions. Even with the advent of television, you still had to be within the signal range to watch a local game. During these years, sportswriters were the only people who had a chance to travel and see all the players during their careers. But times change. With the advancement of cable and satellite t.v., everyone who wants to watch any game in either league can do so without much fanfare.

I don't have a problem with sportswriters per say, its just the idiots, morons and self important know-it-alls that I would like to see thrown out of the vote. Here's what I propose. If a sportswriter should cast a vote for any player who receives less than the 5% needed to stay on the ballot the following year, he should lose his voting privileges for another 10 years, as he has proven that after 10 years of watching baseball games he is just too stupid to live. At the very least, his editor could just move him over to the "Lawn & Garden" section of the newspaper, which would be better than watching said sportswriter cast another Hall Of Fame vote for the likes of Terry Steinbach, Terry Pendleton, Danny Tartabull, Lenny Dykstra or Chet Lemon.

Also, if a writer does not vote for a player receiving 95% and above of the votes, he again should lose his voting privileges for 10 years. Do we, the fan, really want a sportswriter deciding who should go into the hall if he didn't know that Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver and Johnny Bench were Hall Of Fame ballplayers?

Good Riddance Barry Bonds

Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 6:51 PM

I'm so tired. The Barry Bonds' of the world just don't have a clue. Never will. Barry, I don't dislike you because you may or may not pass a white player in career home runs. I don't dislike you because you did steroids. I don't dislike you because your black. I don't dislike you because of your immense God given talents, even without steroids. I dislike you because you're a miserable human being.

Barry, if you want our respect you have to earn it. Why do you believe that hitting a ball with a stick should garner you any more personal respect than a guy who hits .220? Respect comes when you respect us, the Fans. We pay, oh how we pay. We pay through the nose to watch you play the game. And what do we ask in return? A wave of the hand. An autograph for our children. A little Integrity, a dash of humility. And yet you act as though we are a pain in the ass, as though the wave, autograph, integrity and humility are a burden beyond belief.

You seem angry that we feel your records are tarnished, even though you DID take the steroids. Do I believe you didn't know? No one can look in the mirror daily, see the changes in so short a time and not know. You just didn't ask. It's called "plausible deniability." But with you it's neither plausible nor deniable.

The problem is not whether steroids should be allowed, the problem is that they are illegal. Period. You can drag that argument through an acre of gray area and it's always going to come out of the wash in black and white. What you were using was illegal. Nothing changes that. Own up to it, be a man, be somebody.

Mark McGuire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmero and a host of others are weak and selfish human beings. Not one of them had the integrity, the dignity nor the courage to stand up and admit to us, the fan, what we already knew, you were all cheaters. But what makes Bonds stand out from the crowd is his utter outrage that we just won't let it lie. How dare we question him! Don't we know who he is? Again, yes, we do know who he is. He's a miserable human being.

My Nephew plays in a band. I once told him, "You know when you're in trouble when you stand on the stage and stop thinking 'This is soooo cool!' and start thinking 'I"M so cool!" That attitude gets you in trouble every time. Bonds has never thought anything but, "I'M so cool!" And when the rest of us don't respond in kind, his arrogance shows up, his pompousness forges forward and his ugliness shows through.

No Barry, I could forgive it all if you just once showed some repentance, some spark of humility, a scintilla of dignity. But you can't can you. And why?

Because you're a miserable human being.

Chicago Bears... Still No Respect

Sunday, January 21, 2007, 5:31 PM

And so, as the Chicago Bears firm up their hotel and flight reservations to Miami and Super Bowl 41, what does one still hear?

The Saints got robbed!  The refs were horrible!

As it has been all year, the Chicago Bears went out on the field and did the one thing that they do better than all the other teams in the NFC, they win ball games.  Its simple really.  You don't have to look good doing it, or blow opponents out of the water, or get tons of sacks or dominate or any of the above.  The only per-requisite to winning football games is that you must have more points on the board at the end.

Was Grossman great?  No.  Was he great when he needed to be?  Oh yeah.  And that's all that counts, now isn't it.

Did the Saints get close during the end of the half and the third quarter?  Yep.  But you have to play all four quarters.  That's kinda' the point.

The Bears played disciplined football today.  They rushed their lanes, keeping Brees on lock down.  When they ran stunts they left the middle open and Brees ran away.  The Saints resorted to keeping two guys in just to block the defensive end on Brees' blind side.
The defensive ends looped constantly, taking away the roll out and not allowing the running game to cut back to the outside.  The Bears tackles pushed up front, taking away the middle, shutting down the run between the tackles.
The Bears strip the ball better than any team in the league.  And it showed.

Pass rush?  Brees was sacked, what, 18 times all season? 

But I'm sure that the "experts", both here and on television (where is seemed the Saints were picked at a rate of about 10-1) will find still more fault for a team that has done what so many others couldn't this year.

They just won ball games.

Sounds simple, doesn't it?  The Eagles, Cowboys, Seahawks, Saints and the rest of the supposed cream of the NFC should give it a try.

"If you want to crown their ass, crown em!"

 One to go.  One more to go.

Jones, Landis and Bonds - Stealers Of Dreams

Saturday, October 6, 2007, 11:28 AM

We hear of steroids on a regular basis, whether it's in baseball, football, cycling, or now at the forefront, track. We hear that athletes "unknowingly" took them, rubbed them on their bodies, injected themselves, and then went out and set records the likes of which we have never seen before.

And we wonder... at what cost?

At what cost to the bodies of those that took them? At what cost to the integrity of the sports that
produced these athletes? At what cost to the sanctity of the record books? At what cost to the loyalty of the fans who supported them?

But there is a Lone Thought that is hunkered down on a stool in a smokey, darkened corner of my mind, sipping Tullamore Dew and whispering of what could have been, should have been. And as he sits and drinks, his whispering becomes angry, frustrated and defeated, and quickly you can feel his pain, his despair.

What is this Lone Thought? It is about all the athletes that have had their moments in the sunshine stolen. All those clean athletes who strived to be the best that nature would allow. Those athletes who worked and sweated and strained to take their bodies and minds to the edge of performance, and who, in the end, left the field of battle defeated.

And now this Lone Thought weeps. Weeps at the remembrance of the staccato flash of cameras as they washed over the gleaming, smiling faces of the Marion Jones', Floyd Landis' and Barry Bonds of the athletic world.

For this Lone Thought will never know the ecstasy of that moment in time when the eyes of your countrymen, your fans, and the world are on you and you alone. He will never know the joy of standing atop the podium, hands held high in victory, tears streaming down his face, basking in the glow of millions.  Never know that mythic moment when posed at the plate, watching the ball screaming over the wall, flashbulbs lighting up the night as the fans go insane.

What a rotten shame. When all is said and done, when the Gold Medals go back, when the Tour de' France trophy goes back and those that finished second receive their just dues, the one thing those runner-ups can never have is that moment in the sun. That flush of victory. The rush of pride that comes from riding down the Champs Elysees, arms raised in triumph as the crowd goes wild, the tingling that runs down your spine as 50,000 fans scream your name as you break the tape, or the adulation of fans and teammates alike as you cross home plate, a returning warrior.


So often our attention is turned towards those that do the dirty deed and once again we will talk of the problems steroids present in sports. We will tsk, tsk, tsk at their shame. But, maybe what we need to do is to realize the personal carnage these cheaters leave behind. The lifetimes of dreams - broken, battered, and lost - and the anguish of what could have been for those who finished second and had their lives altered forever after.

We can give them the Gold Medals and Trophies and honors they deserved, but can we give them back the elation of winning? No, those memories and emotions are forever locked away in the minds of those that put greed and winning above everything, including sportsmanship and more importantly, honor.

Shame on you Marion Jones. Shame on you Floyd Landis.  Shame on you Barry Bonds. You are cheaters and liars.

And at your worst, above all else, you are the stealer of dreams.

NASCAR Promotes Cheating

Thursday, February 16, 2006, 12:13 AM

If I thought for a second that Chad Knaus was the only NASCAR crew chief cheating, I would be first in line screaming "Get rid of him!" But everyone cheats in NASCAR. It's a way of life. It's what they do. Except they call it "playing in the grey area," or "we read the rule a little differently." As it is, if I were Hendricks, I would fire Knaus solely on the principle that he gets caught much too often. He's not bright enough to be a crew chief.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, in 2004 there were 73 instances of fines being dished out totalling nearly $400,000, though some of those were acts of aggression during or after races - and that's just Nextel Cup, that doesn't include the Busch Series or Craftsman Trucks. It's not unusual at Daytona or Talladega to have as many as 10 teams fined for infractions, though many are small and insignificant. The problem is, this isn't Saturday night at the local bullring, this is big dollar... no, make that HUGE dollar - racing. If you're partial to keeping your job, you better start winning, or, at the very least, you better run up front for some premium camera time to keep your sponsors fat, rich and happy.

To do this, teams resort to "Secret Squirrel" stuff. When the crew chief of team "A" screams to NASCAR that team "B" is using an illegal knuten valve, you can rest assured that while NASCAR is checking team "B's" car, team "A" is already back in the garage trying to figure out a way to use the same cheat without getting caught. The best part though, is that at the end of the season, all the fines levied are then cut up between the top 25 teams!  So, it would seem to me that NASCAR is promoting cheating!   Lets face it. The teams lower than 25th are either not cheating or not doing it well enough to go faster.

So, let me get this straight, if you cheat you go faster, if you go faster you accumulate more points, if you accumulate more points you finish in the top 25, and if you finish in the top 25 you receive a piece of the fine that you paid out because you were cheating to go faster! According to that same Wall Street Journal article the fines are paid back on a pro-rated basis according to points. In 2004, Nextel Cup Champion Kurt Busch's team received $84,000 for its cut of the fine fund - of course they only paid out $21,000 in fines. So for their cheating efforts they ended up $63,000 to the good and scored a Championship. Not bad, not bad at all.

NASCAR is the only major sport that doesn't turn over their fine pool to a charity of some sort. Guess they don't make enough money as it is. Of course, on the other hand, if they are going to give it to the teams, how about giving it to the teams that need it? Say...the bottom 20 teams. So, as I said, all things considered, it looks like NASCAR not only approves of cheating, but finances it.

NASCAR...you gotta' love it.

Thank You Hall Of Fame Voters

Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 1:39 PM

Thank you HOF voters for keeping Mark McGwire out of the Hall Of Fame. I have long been an opponent of sportswriters as the keeper of the flame when it came to who should and shouldn't move into baseballs hallowed halls. Too many times I have seen a voter cast his ballot with the name of someone like Chet Lemon, and I would wonder, 'who are these people?'

But this time round' you did me proud. Maybe we should leave the voting to you, those of you who may, on this one subject, know a little more than we do. Maybe you have heard the whispers of who was using and who wasn't. Maybe now we need you more than ever to help the deserving enter the Hall Of Fame, while keeping the Mark McGwires of the world in a dark, cold place where they can't return from, even with an apology.

For those of you who compare the steroid users of this era to the likes of Ty Cobb (killed a man) or others in the HOF who were dastardly people off the field, let me say that there really isn't a comparison to be made. Unless Cobb murdered the pitcher on the mound in the middle of a two-out rally, then what he did away from the game means nothing. But the steroid users and fellows like Pete Rose, did something ON the field that took away from the integrity of the sport. Rose bet on the game while gambling, this in and of itself means he left himself open to changing the course of a game with his habit. This is unacceptable. Steroid users did the same thing. Their acts changed the course of the game forever. Records that we have long looked at with awe, fell by the wayside. Records that were put up by men who were playing their hardest with the talent God gave them, gone. All gone.

One point of view I never see is this. What about those players who weren't on steroids? How are they supposed to feel when it comes time to be judged? HOF voters look at how players stacked up against the rest of the field during that particular era. How much better were the candidates than everyone else? In this instance, isn't that unfair? If you were a guy who hit .290 with 180 hits, 30 homers and 95 RBI a year and didn't touch the juice.... are you going to like that you are not going to get your just desserts because the voters are comparing you to steroid pumped behemoths?

And how about the money that these steroid users took from those other ballplayers? How do the non-users feel when they know, if the users weren't cheating, that the non-users might have been paid the top dollar? Might have had the recognition due them?

Now, those same steroid users have cast a dark, black cloud over all of baseball. Now, because of them, their greed and their utter disregard for the game and the fans, they have cast doubt on other ballplayers, many of whom may never have touched the "clear and the cream" in their lives. Ballplayers who did the work, made the most of the talent they had, now are suspect because of the McGwires of the world.

Ever wonder what it must be like to place fourth in the 100 meter freestyle at the Olympics and then, months later, find out that the top three medal winners have had their medals pulled because of steroid use? (Don't know that that ever happened, its just an analogy). And there you stand, in your living room, or at some office, receiving the award that you should have won all along? Does it feel the same? Do your eyes well up and your voice crack? Does it feel the same as standing on the podium in front of thousands, watched by millions more, while your National Anthem rings out over the land. I doubt it. No... those other people, no matter that they gave the medals back, no, they will still be the ones to hold those memories. To feel the magic moment. A moment worked towards for years. No...they stole it from you. That must be how some ballplayers feel. They had their "moments" stolen by greedy, juiced asses.
I don't feel sympathy for any of these guys. They chose to do what they did. They took the risk of cancer at an early age, muscle and joint trouble. But don't for a second think that they only did it to themselves. Mark McGwire and many others took something away from us - the fan - and from those that play the game the right way, no matter what comes. They took away the innocent love of the sport, the innocence of a generation. There are ballplayers out there who will never feel the adoration and attention, if only for a moment in time, that these cheaters did, no, all they will feel is the glaring eye of the media and fans who wonder... is he on the "juice"? Is he a cheater?

Mark McGwire and the rest of the steroid guys did this, and it hurts. And I hope that the sportswriters remember this. The Hurt. And vote as they see fit. In the future, if a guy doesn't make the hall, I will always think...maybe the writers knew...maybe they heard the whispers.

And those that they vote for, I will think, maybe, just maybe, he was one of the good ones.

Thanks McGwire, you worthless excuse for a sportsman. You and your ilk did this. Caused this. Brought this on. I hope your money keeps you warm while the rest of us debate and fight about this era, for many years to come.

I hope your happy. Although, I've got a hunch, you couldn't care less.

Bobby Hamilton Remembered

Thursday, January 11, 2007, 1:55 PM

I first met Bobby Hamilton when I interviewed him for the radio show I was doing at the time, "Gasoline Alley", out of Chicago on WJJG 1530 AM. Don't read more into that than it was, I was working full time in construction and through a stroke of luck ended up on-air for four years doing a two hour broadcast every week. No money involved, I just loved the sport.

We had gone down to Chicagoland Speedway for the inaugural run of the then Tropicana 400, on the first day of practice, in the garage area, in 90+ degree heat. We talked (Host Dane Neal and Engineer Skip Kubicki) to a great many drivers, as always, and had split up to get drinks, take a break and regroup for the next practice session.

I happened to see Bobby Hamilton sitting outside his trailer, under a canopy, sipping a soda all by himself. I wandered over and and asked if it was okay to ask him a few questions, I always asked first, some of the drivers never get a break from the fans or media, and he smiled big and said "Sure." 

He offered me a seat on a tire, which I took and then, shaking my head with mild embarrassment, I said, "Bobby, I'm sorry to have to ask you this, I know you've talked about it a millions times, but..."   He finished my sentence for me, "...What do I think of the new track here in Chicago?" He grinned ear to ear.

"Yeah, that's what the fans want to know."

"No problem," he replied, taking a long pull on his soda and setting it down next to him. He went on to talk about the track, its surface, the long constantly bending back straightaway and a few other things.

Soon a small crowd of reporters started milling around, over my shoulder, pushing their tape recorders and mics in between us. After a few questions that were asked by mainstream sports reporters who had been pushed there by their editors, I got up, letting the rest of them in and stepped to the side, still under the canopy in the shade, and leaned up against the trailer. Soon the rest of the reporters had left, leaving him sitting there, alone again. He looked up at me and again, with a small grin, white teeth flashing, said "Thanks a lot!"

"No problem," I replied, and then in a low conspiratorial tone I whispered,  "Just so you know, I'm not, you know, like a full time radio guy or anything. I just do this as a lark."

"What do you do for a living?"

"Construction. My Dad used to race the bullrings here in Chicago when I was a kid, loved the sport all my life. I just do this for fun."

He visually relaxed then. "Want a soda pop?"

I was surprised but thankful, "Sure, thanks." And with that he went inside and brought out two Pepsi's, and we sat and sipped and talked for a few more minutes, about his life as a driver, his Son as a driver, how hard it was to be a mentor and a Dad in this sport, all off-the-cuff.   And then the next wave of reporters came by.

I stood up then and told him "Good luck with the next group."

He laughed out loud. and shook my hand.  "Have a good one," he said.

Please don't get me wrong. I didn't "know" Bobby Hamilton, but for just a few minutes, at a track in Chicago on a searing hot day, he offered me a soda and talked with me as though we were sitting in the backyard of his home on a lazy summer afternoon.

We would have him on the show again, the following year, laughing as he told us that he wished he could "get his hands on the guy who made that movie and burn every single copy of the tape!" This was in reference to "Days of Thunder", a horrible movie, in which Bobby had been the real driver of the Cole Trickle car that was filmed in the race sequences.

I haven't been involved with the radio show for sometime now. I don't miss it much, a lot of work for no money, but I still love the sport. So when I heard Bobby Hamilton had passed away, I gazed out my window at home here in the western burbs of Chicago, at the cold, bleak day, the leafless trees bending in the wind, clouds the color of gunmetal racing across the sky, and I thought back to that warm, sunny afternoon at the track.

No, I didn't "know" Bobby Hamilton, but I thought it was nice of him to bring me inside the walls that the drivers build up between themselves and the media, if only for a few minutes.

For that I say, Thank you Bobby.

Godspeed.

Did Bonds Do Steroids? Judge For Yourself

Friday, January 12, 2007, 2:22 PM

We often go back and forth on the issue of whether or not Barry Bonds did or didn't use steroids, but what if this was a court of law?  Without positive test results on the defendants, would we be able to gain a conviction on circumstantial evidence? 

 Well, if I was a prosecutor I might approach the problem like this.

Sudden weight gain 

When Bonds came into the league his weight was listed at 185.  Now he is listed at 228.  In 1997 Bonds was listed at 206 lbs with 8% body fat, in 2002 he was listed at 228 and 6.2% body fat. His biggest jump, from what I can find on the Internet is 18 lbs of muscle in one off-season, a huge jump for an athlete already in prime condition.  And, oh yes, at the age of 34 he grew one inch in height.  What does this all mean? 

Think of the finely tuned athlete as a cars engine.  An elite athlete's body is kept at its peak over a long period of time. Years.  Working out year round, keeping fit and tuned.  A couch potato who is 50 lbs overweight could lose 75 lbs and drop his body fat drastically and it would be expected.  But an athlete who is in his prime, with a body that is already at the edge of performance, who suddenly gains 18 lbs and loses more body fat?  In one off-season? 

Think of the car engine again. 

Your going as fast as the car will go, lets say, 150 mph.  If you keep your foot on the floor, the car might gain another mile an hour after a period of time, and maybe another mile an hour after a while longer.  But because this motor is tuned to the maximum, you are going as fast as it can go and the speed advances will be incrementally slower.  Now, take that same motor, running at its peak and throw the switch to the nitrous oxide.  BANG.  In moments you are running past 175 mph.  The motor is on its own kind of steroids.  Does this sound familiar?

Statistics 
Through 2000, Bonds' Slugging Percentage was .569 while the league average was .404 - a difference of roughly 40%.  For the next four seasons Bonds' Slugging Percentage was .805 while the league average was .425.  The difference between Bonds' and the league average is now an astonishing 90%!  And during this time the league average slugging percentage rose only 5.0% while Bonds' rose 41%

Through 2000 Bonds' OBP (on base percentage) was .409 while the league average was .330 a disparity of 24%.  The next four seasons?  Bonds at .558 while the league average went to .334.  The difference between Bonds and the league jumped to 67%.  Bonds' OBP went up more than 35% in this time period while the leagues average went up only 1.5%!

Batting average.  Bonds' lifetime batting average up until 2000 had been .288.  The average for the next four years?  A whopping .350!  A gain of 22.%.  The league average, on the other hand, went from .262 to .263.  A negligible gain.  You could argue that Bonds' average went up because he was hitting the ball harder than ever before - those balls that in years past were gathered up in the hole or between first and second were now getting through due to the speed of the ball coming off the bat.

Guilt by association

Greg Anderson - Bonds' Personal Trainer

When Anderson's apartment was raided, investigators found steroids, growth hormones and $60,000 in cash.  Though Anderson claimed he never gave Bonds any steroids, investigators found calendars detailing the doping schedule for Bonds.  Papers found at the apartment detailed payments from Bonds for an assortment of steroids and growth hormones, including Depotestosterone, Clomiphene pills and the "Cream and the Clear".  A calendar for 2002 (February) showed the schedule for the cream and the clear plus the growth hormone Clomid. 

Victor Conte - Owner of BALCO
Investigators found evidence in BALCO's trash, of Bonds' blood being tested for steroids.

Witness Evidence

Kimberly Bell, Bonds' girlfriend at the time, told the grand jury that Bonds had admitted to her in 2000 the he was using steroids, according to him it was only to help him recover from injuries. Sprinter Tim Montgomery, in 2003, told a grand jury that Victor Conte told Montgomery he was giving Winstrol (steroid) to Bonds.

Recently Greg Anderson has refused to testify in grand jury trials and has been sent to federal prison twice for contempt.  In my book, not testifying, can sometimes be construed as testifying.

Science
According to an article in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine (1995) Harvard psychiatrist Harrison Pope, a mental health expert with regards to the effects of steroid abuse, has come up with a mathematical formula to help decide whether or not a person may be using steroids.  The "Fat-Free Mass Index" predicts steroid use by using computations via the subject's height, weight and percentage of body fat, or the lean muscle mass, among other inputs.  The average 30- year old male scores 20.  Pope uses former Mr. America Steve Reeves as his pre-steroid era muscle man - Reeves scored a 25.  A score of 25 or higher may indicate steroid use.  At 228 and 6.2% body fat, along with other computations, Bonds scores 28.

I didn't know I was taking steroids!

How does a man who has spent his whole life working out, making his body the best it can be, working with professional trainers, nutritionists and other health experts, not question one specific point.  If he was using the cream and clear, and he didn't know it, why didn't he question the trainer's decision to have him work out longer hours, more often?

This next part is overly simplified, so that it may be more easily understood.  You see, steroids in and of themselves don't make you bigger.  You can't take them orally, by injection or in cream form and then sit on the couch and watch yourself grow.  You must workout.  A normal workout, as most people know, involve on and off days.  As an example, Mondays may be strength, lifting weights, building muscle.  Tuesdays aerobics and conditioning. Wednesdays back to strength.  Thursdays aerobics and conditioning.  Fridays strength... and so on.

It's done this way because it takes time for muscles to repair and recover from the workout, each recovery improving your muscle condition, making them larger, stronger.  Lifting weights on a specific muscle set everyday of the week won't do you much good.  Your muscles don't have time to recuperate, thus the schedule of one day weights, one day conditioning and so on.  You can lift weights everyday, it's just that you shouldn't work the same muscle groups consecutively.  You could work as back and arms on Monday, legs and abs on Tuesday, as an example.  This way each muscle group would have a days rest to recuperate.

Now imagine that your trainer says, "Here, rub this on you every day."  And then begins a regimen of lifting weights, not only every day, but quite possibly after just a few hours!  Wouldn't you question this?  Wouldn't you be afraid of getting injured?  Why would you follow blindly?  Wouldn't you think... is he giving me steroids???

But this is what steroids do.  They allow you to work out at a ferocious pace.  Think of it like this.  If you went to the gym right now and started working out three times a week, what would your body look like in, say, eight weeks?  That's 24 workouts.  You might see some decent improvements.  Abs, biceps and such.

Now imagine you could work out three times a day!  A weeks worth of results in one day!  Seven weeks worth of results in one week.  Now how would you look in eight weeks?  Or after an off season?

Well, lets put it to the jury,

Readers, Vote away.

Guilty or not guilty?