How much does the (alleged) bad behavior of athletes matter to you?
The news that Ravens beat writer Jamison Hensley broke yesterday, that the team was evaluating whether or not they'd be interested in Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall, got me thinking about something I've wanted to ask die-hard fans for awhile:
At what point do you care about an athlete's off-the-field behavior?
Obviously, we all care at some point, no matter how talented said athlete is. Unless your priorities are completely out of whack, you're not going to support someone who beats their spouse or attempts to murder people in the offseason. But sports allegiances often force us into that weird gray area where, even though we might not want said professional athlete dating our sister or babysitting our kids, we're still OK with rooting for them as long as they suit up for the home team and get the job done.
I've been a Lakers fan all my life, a fact that many of my friends feel is my greatest flaw as an individual. Magic Johnson was my guy growing up, the first professional athlete who filled me with awe and wonder, and because I grew up in Western Montana where the closest city with a professional franchise was a 9-hour drive to Seattle, the Lakers became my team.
This of course meant, many years later, being put in the uncomfortable position of rooting on Kobe Bryant while he was scheduled to go on trial for sexual assault.
Now, whatever you think about Kobe Bryant -- that he's a ball hog (debatable), that he ran Shaq out of town (false), that he once quit on his team when they were whining he shot too much (true, but I'm not sure I blame him), that he's a phony (I'll concede this one) -- he wasn't convicted of rape. Just like Ray Lewis wasn't convicted of murder, and Brandon Marshall hasn't been convicted of assaulting his girlfriend. (He goes on trial this summer.) But something happened in each case that makes everyone a little uncomfortable, and individually, we all have to decide at what point we're no longer OK with rooting on someone who acted outside society's standards and laws.
I'm curious, though: Where is the line for you?
I'm not sure there is a definitive line for me. Maybe all we have to go on is the classic comment by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart about pornography: "I know it when I see it." A person's ability to catch a football or throw a baseball has absolutely no connection to whether or not they're a decent human being, but we do tend to convince ourselves that our franchise "won't tolerate certain behavior" and that it holds itself to a higher standard that other teams.
I think it's rare that you meet someone who simply doesn't care at all. The only thing they want is for their team to score more runs or points than the opposing team, and if they have to do it by fielding a team of criminals and jerks, so be it. Most of us care, at least a little bit. We want to feel some connection to the people out there on the field or the court, some commonality. We'll forgive a lot, but not everything. At some point, bad behavior makes it impossible to enjoy the entertainment that person provides.
This approach isn't even limited to sports. For example, I love Ryan Adams, the musician. I think "Come Pick Me Up" is one of the best break-up songs ever written, and "Jacksonville Skyline" is one of the most poetic and honest pieces of music ever penned about growing up in a small town. But I also understand that Ryan Adams is kind of a flake. He spent the first half of his career snorting insane amounts of drugs and calling up rock critics to curse them out over bad reviews. Before he got sober, he would mumble his way through shows some nights, not giving a damn if anyone cared that he was phoning in a bad performance. It isn't necessarily criminal behavior, and I could still enjoy his older stuff without getting caught up with what's going on with him in the present, but for so many people, his bad behavior -- which included flipping out a person who heckled him at a concert when he refused to play Bryan Adams' "Summer of '69" -- makes it impossible to enjoy his art.
The easy answers, and ones that I think are a bit of a cop out from a fan's perspective when it comes to sports, are:
1. Everyone innocent until proven guilty!
2. Doesn't he deserve a second chance?
I never heard non-Laker fans apply these two standards to Kobe Bryant, mostly because Kobe Bryant just doesn't seem like a very likeable person, and even though I believe he's still the best basketball player on the planet, his entire personality seems a little contrived. (His Hannibal Lecter Face in Game 1 of the NBA Finals was one of the most ridiculously forced acts I've ever seen a professional athlete engage in and I wondered how long he spent practicing it in the rear view mirror of his Ferrari on his way to Staples Center.) But fans of whatever team decides to take a chance on Plaxico Burress will trot out these two aphorisms as justification for why it's OK to cheer for Burress. And some Ravens fans will do the same if, on the off chance, the team trades for Marshall.
That doesn't make you a bad person. I'm the one, after all, who continued to pull for Kobe Bryant and rationalize it 30 different ways in my mind. But where the line is (Leonard Little? Mike Vick? Pete Rose?), I'm not sure.
Comments
First of all, "innocent until proven guilty " is true only in court. I have 2 sports heros. Brooks and Johnny U. Their off-field lives were clean as far as I know. Equally importantly, on the field they were team guys first and foremost. Like it or not these guys are role models. Our small children emulate these guys. Lets sacrifice the W-L record for good character. Then we have a W-W record.
Posted by: SHERMAN KAHAN | June 19, 2009 4:37 PM
I hate to say it, but I have stopped watching the NBA specifically for the "thug life" mentality displayed and though I am loathe to give up on a sport I have spent a great deal of my life watching and following, the NFL is coming perilously close to being turned off. Baseball is definitely king in my house. because of this one issue.
Posted by: will a | June 19, 2009 7:17 PM
Very interestioning topic. Athlete payouts to avoid trouble may be wrong, but it only becomes so, when the person takes the money. However, if they choose to do the honorable thing and let the courts decide, the athlete's money can go a long way in reducing their punishment. Consequently, the victim is left out in the cold. So, I'd take the money.
And then there is the second chance argument. Athletes are no different than the common person.Everyone deserves a second chance. However, there is no entitlement. A person's profession and specifically potential employer has the right to decide it is not in the company's best interest to hire someone: regardless of their skillset. Would you hire Bernie Madoff to manage your money after he did his time? I wouldn't. Second chance does not mean they have to get it in their chosen field. Michael Vick's current employer hired Michael because he felt he would be a good construction worker. The company has received no bad publicity. Would an NFL team be so lucky? I don't think so. The owner may have his main business adversely affected if Vick were to play and, in this economy, nobody wants to give the public another reason for a decrease in sales.
Posted by: Pelham | June 20, 2009 11:54 AM
I disagree on the Ray Lewis analogy. If you want to say obstruction of justice, ok but the murder charge was over the top. Ray didn't confess to the police while giving up his boy either. I agree, we all have to draw our own line.
Posted by: Davd J. | June 20, 2009 1:41 PM
These are all good questions and while most of us can sit back outside looking in. I tend to resolve the my question by asking myself, what would I do?. My opinion is guys like Leonard Little and Donte Stallworth should have Never seen the light of day outside a jail cell let alone play in the NFL again. Mike Vick!?? Well he could went to another country and fought dogs. Though I'm oppose to animal cruelty and think he should go see counceling before coming back in. Plexico was just plain stupid. Pete Rose should be let in the Hall of Fame. Dont even talk about integrity when one:players are using streriods; Two: anonymous testing is resulting in names being leaked to the public; Three: MLB clearly profited from the players using stredriods and sold us( the fans) on BS that these Players were saving Baseball with the HR chases of the late 90's. Thers is plently on blame to go around. There is a line where I think is unacceptible to even play again. But where is it? I really dont have a clear cut answer because there so many shades of gray in what is bad behavior. I love Roger Goddell for doing what he is doing for Football. I know I have a standard of living by my own creed and morals. I keep in mind that some these issues I have not been expose to. It is clear that somethings should not be so easly looked at as black and white. For example Marshall and his inpending court date inloving assult of his girl-friend..Any inncodent involving a Woman should not be judged so quickly unless there is loss of life. That all I got.
Posted by: Jerome Cone | June 21, 2009 11:28 AM
When I peruse the sites like ESPN.com which always carries stories of athlete's misdeeds, everybody cries for 'second chances' for these guys. In reality, by the time most NBA and NFL players make the headliners as pro players they have have had 4-6 strikes and fifth chances to be law-abiding citizens. I have NO tolerance for drunken fights at strip clubs at 2 am or carrying guns to bars. Little gangsta's-to-be-athletes need to see that the Burrisses, Ray Lewis' and Pacman's do not play. Of course Lewis has be crowned as a hero by the NFL for a decade now (sorry, i don't buy that he is or was a 'great guy'..he was a criminal all though high school and college AND...the NFL loved him from the start to finish and therefore breeds more violent misogynous boys like him. Go Jim Palmer, Johnnie U, Cal, Brooks and well... most MLB players, who, for some reason don't seem to do that stuff. College football and basketball DO indeed help breed and feed the violent cocky athlete.
Posted by: Cal5 | June 21, 2009 3:55 PM
kudos for being able to work RyRy into a sports article.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 23, 2009 11:58 AM
I see nothing wrong with having repeat offenders in pro sports. They are not stealing from their investors like Bernie Madoff, they are making bad decisions totally unrelated to their job. BUT how many times will it take for us to see an athlete who can barely speak good English say that they ARE a college graduate of some major university and not see anything wrong. Many players are just people who were so good at a sport that they were carried through the system. Until they commit the offense that puts them away (Rae Carruth) let them play. I don't blame the offenders for a system that embraces them. I want to see the best players in the WORLD. The rap sheet on them will come into play later in life. Do you think Ricky Williams will become a head coach in the NFL?
Posted by: JBLapree | June 23, 2009 12:23 PM