Special Comment: Fool-adelphia

Yesterday it was announced that Michael Vick will not be charged or implicated in any way with the shooting outside his birthday party in Virginia Beach, Virginia back on 25 June. To many this is a finding that they will cast aside with a shrug of their shoulders and either turn the page or flip the channel, never to think about it again. However, in the past 6 months, which has been dominated by the discretions of such athletes as Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger, Dez Bryant, and most recently, JaMarcus "Sizz-urp" Russell, Vick's mere presence in the periphery of the shooting just casts another light on the attitude and utter ignorance exemplified by today's athletes.

Back in April we presented you with a hard-hitting, two-part installment of the RSS Roundtable (I and II) which focused on athlete conduct and the ever diminishing prominence of athletes as role-models. This story has more to do with the role-model aspect but the fact that as visible as these people are - nightly topics on SportsCenter, the rise of social media, in the sports pages or all over the internet - one would think they would be little more conscious about what they are doing in their lives. The TMZ-nature of today's press would lead one to think more deliberately and clearly before they were to go out somewhere late at night or who you hang out with... or who walks in the door at your party. It seems that, even after a nearly 2 year sentence in federal prison, Michael Vick has not learned this lesson.

He alreay is on thin ice with Don Goodell in regards to conduct and for him to put himself in a position to be involved in anything that would come under scrutiny of the NFL offices is dumbfounding. Why was he hanging around people with guns? Why was a co-defendant in his own trial there? Why did Vick put himself in a position for something like this to happen? To me it is just amazing that Vick would even do this. Vick even gave conflicting reports about the timeline of that evening. It casts doubt on the sincerity with which he has spoke with to elementary students and others while on his reclamation project since being released from prison. The Eagles are paying him millions of dollars to play backup QB for them and were one of the few teams to offer him a chance back in the league when many wouldn't. For him to do this not only makes him look foolish but the Eagles organization as well.

Vick stated that if he didn't get caught, he would have kept up his dog fighting ways. One would think that would mean that you don't associate yourself with the same types of people who led you into this realm and possibly encouraged it. To find that the co-defendant was in attendance at his birthday party shows, to me at least, that Vick has not had the necessary "Eureka!" moment to truly turn things around. He may be clear legal wise, but I wouldn't be too sure if Goodell felt the same way and the Eagles may not either.

Step into the commissioner's shoes, or even Vick's probation officer. Vick's co-defendant (btw Vick can't associate with his co-defendants) was shot at a nightclub that hosted Vick's 30th birthday party and Vick gave conflicting reports about the timeline of the evening's events. Granted, Vick has been cleared of any involvement in the actual shooting and it appears that the two didn't "interact" during the party. But think, does that sound like an enviornment Vick should be surrounded by considering his past?

What do the next 6 months of 2010 have in store in regards to athletes in sports? I'm not sure, but don't get too comfortable. I have a feeling the precipitous fall of character in sports has begun and it only has one way to go - Down!

RSS Roundtable: Tiger, Big Ben, and Morality in Sports - Part II

It's time for Part II of our RSS Roundtable. Where our 3 main contributors come together to talk about the biggest issues in the world of sports. Today, we continue our conversation about the importance of character in sports shifting our attention to athletes as role models in society, Big Ben, Dez Bryant, and much more. Here's Part II

We've talked about these different morality and character standards with athletes and role models. So, then does it depend on sport, position, and other factors what we expect of our athletes and their character?

It'd be great and easy to say yeah, everyone should adhere to the same standards of excellence on and off the field. But the truth is that's only for fantasy land. Everything these days is situational.

It's fantasy that we should expect our athletes to be role models for the countless people that look up to them?

I don't agree with the whole role model athlete concept all together. It doesn't matter the sport, it is ludicrous.

Yohey, you looked up to athletes just like everyone else. You're telling me you wouldn't be disappointed if Bernie Kosar was taking 20 year old girls into bathroom bars? Granted he sounds drunk announcing Browns preseason games, but still...

Honestly, no. Because I don't have unrealistic expectations of other people. Aren't they human just like us?

How is it unrealistic to not expect your favorite athlete to NOT sleep around with 15 women or have 7 kids in 5 states?? They are human and deserve second chances, but they also need accountability to their fans, teams, sponsors, and the leagues they represent.

Sponsors yes. Sport yes. But fans? I'm not so sure. I'm sure Wilt Chamberlain was an idol of many kids, but we don't hear about him being shamed because of his records. How about people who have actually accomplished something that has meaning in the world to be role models?

It's fantasy to expect every athlete to follow the same guidelines. A star QB is going to face different responsibilities as the face of a franchise than the 4th string center on the Phoenix Coyotes. The same is true with the discipline each athlete faces. It's much easier to cut someone who's barely on the roster after a DUI than cut a $100 million franchise QB. Not to be preachy, but the problem is with society in general that we exalt these guys like we do. Kids should have parents or other people in their lives worthy of being role models. The days of your favorite athlete being a "role model" are long gone.

But we're the ones fooling ourselves if we think people don't look up to athletes as role models. The truth is that athletes are respected no matter how many hundreds of them are charged or arrested.

We should admire these athletes for their incredible talent and hard work, but realize their faults as well. But, as we heard with Tiger, there's becoming a sense of entitlement with athletes these days that they deserve all the spoils that come with being rich and famous. Just because we admire their ability and skill, that doesn't mean athletes should get a free pass to do whatever they want.

Along the same topic, Oklahoma St. WR Dez Bryant is reportedly being taken off of some team's draft boards because of - you guessed it - character issues. Thoughts?

His issues got him suspended for the season and cost his team, of course that will give some teams concerns.

A guy with bad character can ruin a team, put an entire franchise at risk, cough... Milton Bradley... cough. A team that screws up a draft pick doesn't get a mulligan, so I can understand not wanting to take the risk.

I think Bryant's gotten a bad rap. He made one mistake and has been placed with an X that you wonder if he'll ever be able to shake the character risk label. And, it's not like he's committed/accused of a crime or done something terrible like others we've talked about.

Agreed. Bryant has overcome a lot to get where he has, if anything it's Deion's fault!

If he produces, the issue is gone. That's the view that free agency has instilled, people no longer root for players or care about them - they root for a uniform.

So then why is the bad character tag a factor when talking about Dez Bryant when he hasn't even done anything? It seems a GIANT case of hypocrisy when compared to Woods and Roethlisberger.

The bad character tag is paramount in team sports because you have to trust your teammates.

To me they're separate issues. Scouts and GMs are trying to project Bryant's behavior at the next level, which is next to impossible. Meanwhile, we know the sins of Tiger, Big Ben and the like. I agree with Yohey that guys won't look at Big Ben the same anymore until he wins their trust back on and off the field - don't forget the concussion story last year.

For whatever reason, especially the NFL, character has become paramount to team success. Look at the Saints who have almost gone exclusively with good character guys and won a title. So in the end, we're saying that character and morality does mean something at least in team sports.

You can thank Lawrence Phillips and Ryan Leaf for that.

Of course it means something, it means something in all sports. Tiger was a role model for millions and represented million dollar corporations. Big Ben and other NFLers represent organizations and cities. Is it too much to ask for these guys to set a good example? No, but apparently the burden is too great for some.

And Tiger Woods is the most recognized athlete in the world... shouldn't character count for him too regardless of if he has any teammates?

Yes. We always remember the on-field first, but at some point we remember the man too. For instance, how long until you think of Ty Cobb as the racist fan-beater and stop remembering him as the greatest baseball player of the early 20th century? While we ultimately will remember Tiger first as the greatest golfer ever, eventually this messy chapter will play a big role in his legacy.

So in the end, should we view athletes as role models and expect good character in the post-Tiger world?

No. The age of innocence is gone in this 24/7 news and information world. There are no celebrity role models anymore. Back in the day, when we didn't know everything and there was separation between fans and players we could... not anymore. In the Twitter age, we know better.

We shouldn't view athletes as role models in the first place. If you base your drive and determination on a false image you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

To take a positive spin - it should raise the profile of the real good guys in sports like Kurt Warner just to name one. But I think there will always be seeds of doubt as to who these athletes really are.

I think if we can't expect our favorite athletes to be role models, then sports loses a lot of what makes it so great. If we watch sports and can't invest ourselves with the athletes themselves, then we're just watching some sort of fake sitcom.

I disagree. I invest myself with the team if anything. We root for the uniform and colors in the free agency age, not the persons.

I think that's a step too far as well. Sports has changed with the times. Just because guys are cheats or drunks off the field doesn't change the game itself. If Babe Ruth played today, TMZ or ESPN would follow him around 24/7 to find out all the dirt in his personal life. Instead, he played in a simpler time where athletes personal lives weren't under the microscope. But, nothing on the field has changed since them, it's just that athletes have a different place in our society and popular culture.

Is that the sports world we're in now? Where we can only trust the uniform and protect the shield?

Yep, and to think otherwise is naive.

Call me old fashioned (and probably naive), but for me there still has to be at least some mystique with athletes and a responsibility to be role models and recognize their position in society. I want my kid growing up wearing his favorite player's jersey without fear that he might be dealing drugs, having affairs, getting arrested, or whatever. I want my kid to think the guy he roots for on Sundays is one worth rooting for on and off the field.

Sure there'll be guys that come along and inspire us, but I think we'll have to stay detached from athletes in the post-Tiger world. Ironic, but that's the price we pay for more access to our athletes. We'll always be a forgiving society, but the time of placing athletes on pedestals as great human beings is over.

Athletes are now recognized as role models for what they do off the field (Drew Brees and his work in New Orleans as an example). That is how the role model concept should be built upon, but we have to keep in mind that they will make mistakes too.

Maybe we're in an age where real role models like Tony Dungy will have to really earn their place in society as crossover role models for things outside of their athletic fields.

Exactly. It won't be automatically bestowed on someone just because they throw touchdowns or hit long drives anymore. We have to be realistic that atheltes aren't mythical figures anymore - they are real people with real faults just like in real life. Some athletes are exceptional role models and some are really creeps. It's just that now we have the ability to distinguish the two like never before. In the end, maybe that's a good thing that has come out of the new age.

RSS Roundtable: Tiger, Big Ben, and Morality in Sports Part I

With all of the news surrounding Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger, we thought it would be a perfect time to get back to the roundtable to hit the hard issues and talk about the character issue of sports. How do recent events with Tiger's return and another Big Ben accusation make us view morality and character in sports? Is the coverage and attitudes towards these athletes appropriate? Should we expect our athletes to be role models? Only RSS tells you like it really is. Here's Part 1 of 2...

What did you make of the Masters? Should the character of Tiger and Phil enter into the story?

Y2: Of course it should. While the history books won't show how many times Tiger cursed on the course or how often Phil helped an old lady cross the street, in the present character matters - especially for Tiger, who presented himself as a brand and was proven to not live up to that crafted image. He said he was going to be a new person on the course and ended up to be the same surly Tiger after finishing 4th.

Y1: If you missed the character issue (not presenting Phil vs Tiger as good vs evil) then you were watching something else or wanted to see something else. Tiger's character is the biggest sports story of the year and to be unwilling to make that part of the story in contrast to the guy who won being met by his cancer stricken wife is being blind to what is going on.

BY: Should it? No. Did it? Yes. Tiger said he'd try to cut back on his on-course swearing, but isn't that part of Tiger when he's playing? His raw enthusiasm and drive is incomparable. Besides, everyone knows about the character issues going into the tournament. It does seem a bit odd how Amy shows up at the point in time when Phil won; maybe the Masters wants to show their winner is a wholesome family man?

Y2: It seemed rushed together. Like the Masters people realized, oh crap, Phil's sick wife is here and he's gonna win, let's trot her out and make a Kodak moment.

Y1: Maybe it was a little put together as some have suggested, but it was a real scene, heck they showed a tear running down Phil's face. We don't see that kind of moment in sports often. But, to completely ignore that part of the story (which I highlighted in a column earlier this week) is ludicrous.

Y2: I don't doubt the feelings were real, but the Masters and CBS were all too eager to hitch their wagon to it.

BY: Exactly. They were pushing it hard.

Y2: It wasn't a story in the buildup, until Phil was going to beat Tiger. If Tiger wins, the story is the redemption of Tiger.

Do you guys agree with Mike Wilbon's sentiment that it was "lazy" and "lame" and poor journalism to draw the contrast between Tiger and Phil and the morality issue?

Because something is obviously a story doesn't mean it's lazy. Even if it was contrived by the Masters it's true. But it does show the fickle nature of the media.

Lazy more than lame. You could do that in any sport really. There would be no contrasting if Phil finished 50th and Tiger 4th. Only by Phil winning was it good for golf, or a victory for women everywhere as Rick Reilly moronically stated.

I think to call it lazy is misguided at best and utterly stupid and ignorant at its worst. Journalists are supposed to report stories - Tiger's fall from grace has been on par with steroids as the biggest sports story of the decade. To not enter that into the equation during his comeback tournament and focus exclusively on his on-course performance amidst the scenes that unfolded would be insanity.

All week we heard nothing about Tiger's misdeeds though. Nothing about the trauma he put his family through, the disappointment he caused his millions of fans and kids who saw him as a role model. The story was all the warm receptions before Phil won. Then, when a perceived good guy wins, Tiger gets thrown right back under the bus.

You know why we heard nothing about his misdeeds? Because CBS are the little nerds of sports television who are too scared to tell the real story.

What was lazy was pretending Tiger was coming back from some mysterious adversity instead of his own transgressions.

I think the TV coverage was more the suffocating control that Augusta has over what is covered or not at Augusta. But, let's not kid ourselves - the network's and sports media's bread is buttered with Tiger Woods. They've always been his biggest cheerleaders.

Why shouldn't the networks be his biggest cheerleaders? He's increased PGA ratings on his own and brought more noterity and money to the tour than anyone ever. If there was no Tiger the PGA would be neck and neck with MLS and poker.

So going forward, should Tiger's morality and character remain in the spotlight, or should it be cast aside now that he's back to playing tournament golf?

It shouldn't but will. Only when he starts winning again will people forget about what he did to Elin.

But in the TMZ/National Enquirer world I don't know if it will ever go away. Even this week a huge story was his behavior on the course. There were videos of him swearing all over the blogosphere - you never would have seen that before the scandal dropped.

I do think the Tiger story will have legs unlike any other sports scandal seen before because the celeb media has caught onto it. He'll certainly be placed under a bigger microscope than before... and let's face it, he got a pass for his poor on-course behavior because of his performance, and people still considered him a role model because of his image. Now that his facade has been broken, he's open for more scrutiny in every aspect of his life.

Let's shift to Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes - should character issues take on a different form in a team sport?

No. And this is where Goodell deserves some credit, because football players no longer get a pass for being knuckleheads because they play a violent game.

It depends on who the player is. I think we clearly saw a difference and procedure and punishment depending who you were on the Steelers. Roethlisberger is still on the team and the Super Bowl MVP is gone for a 5th Round pick.

Agreed Yohey. Because Big Ben is a franchise QB, he's going to get a lot more chances and a longer leash than Holmes, no matter how many MVP's he's won. It shows an incredible double standard, but that's the reality of the situation... in spite of the absolutely terrible light that the new reports put him in.

But, it's not like this was Santonio Holmes' first run-in either. It's also hard to say which offense was worse or who "deserves" more punishment and accountability. They both screwed up.

It is fascinating though to hear how those character issues "affect the locker room" and that Big Ben might lose his leadership mantle, placed his career in jeopardy, etc.... when the same media does its best to remove any relation between Tiger's character and on-course performance.

Those are two completely different areas with Ben and Tiger. In football you need the other players to trust you. If they don't than the team won't perform as good as it could and you won't win. However, Tiger only has to worry about himself on the course. You don't need to be concerned with the conduct of others in golf, just yourself.

In all honesty though, golf needs Tiger a lot more than the NFL needs Big Ben. If Big Ben continues to act like a spoiled frat boy instead of the face of one of the league's premier franchises, he'll be dumped because nobody in the NFL is above the shield. Meanwhile, Tiger has to be protected to some degree because if the country turns its back on Tiger, it turns its back on the sport of golf at the same time.

I think that's it. Since Big Ben is the face of a team, franchise, and city that identifies with him, character becomes a much bigger issue in a team sport than in an individual sport. Tiger has no home fan base to answer to.

As with everything else, winning cures all. If the Steelers win then character issues go out the door, but if they start losing you'll see the Big Ben leadership questions start to rise again.

Coming up in Part II we'll take a look at some more tough questions regarding character in sports as we shift to focus more on Ben Roethlisberger, Santonio Holmes, Dez Bryant and many more hard-hitting topics. Bye for now...