OT: Spineless media shills circle wagons around Merriman

[PonyExpress]

To no one's surprise, the termites have emerged from the woodwork in defense of celebrated doper Shawne Merriman and his eligibility for post-season honors. These loathesome hacks, masquerading as members of the 3rd estate (a ramshackle whorehouse), are standing up for the "moral principle" that allows Merriman to reap the benefits of his ill-gotten gains. Just like the baseball scribes who covered up for the home-run charade and now argue for the right of those phonies to desecrate the Hall of Fame (no doubt for nice under the table cash payments from the bloated millionaires), their NFL equivalents came out in unison today against Jason Taylor's justified criticism of his chief competitor for DPY. Once upon a time, Taylor would have been applauded for standing up against the moral rot in his sport. Today, the journalists whose job it is to shine a spotlight on corruption and expose it to the public are complicit in not only covering up but openly defending the criminals. A truly disgusting sports stain on this holiday season. Here are just a few notable culprits: Don Banks http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/12/29/nfc.mess/2.html, Len Pasquarelli http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2713810, Adam Schein http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6314452.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Champ Bailey: "I hate to throw him further under the bus than he already is," Bailey said. "But fact is he used a performance enhancing drug, whether he knew it or not. I don't like anybody getting anything special when they get caught cheating. It kind of ruins the integrity of the game. Yes he did his time, but it is still the same season. It's kind of hard. I love the guy to death; the way he plays, his attitude. But he took a performance-enhancing drug. It's hard to get away from that."

Right on.
The sports journalists are hiding behind rules technicalities to justify their amoral vote for Merriman. If I want phoney drug abetted accomplishments, I'll watch MLB. Then again, maybe I won't.

 

[unoriginal]

A truly disgusting sports stain on this holiday season. Here are just a few notable culprits: Don Banks http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/12/29/nfc.mess/2.html, Len Pasquarelli http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2713810, Adam Schein http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6314452.

Gee, all writers I normally have so much respect and admiration for. Lenny is a HoF voter too, which is nice.

 

[SpiritOf76]

To no one's surprise, the termites have emerged from the woodwork in defense of celebrated doper Shawne Merriman and his eligibility for post-season honors. These loathesome hacks, masquerading as members of the 3rd estate (a ramshackle whorehouse), are standing up for the "moral principle" that allows Merriman to reap the benefits of his ill-gotten gains. Just like the baseball scribes who covered up for the home-run charade and now argue for the right of those phonies to desecrate the Hall of Fame (no doubt for nice under the table cash payments from the bloated millionaires), their NFL equivalents came out in unison today against Jason Taylor's justified criticism of his chief competitor for DPY. Once upon a time, Taylor would have been applauded for standing up against the moral rot in his sport. Today, the journalists whose job it is to shine a spotlight on corruption and expose it to the public are complicit in not only covering up but openly defending the criminals. A truly disgusting sports stain on this holiday season. Here are just a few notable culprits: Don Banks http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/12/29/nfc.mess/2.html, Len Pasquarelli http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2713810, Adam Schein http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6314452.

Do you write copy for coldhardfootballfacts.com?

You forgot to say "The jig is up for these gridiron pundit imposters hiding behind the bulwark of their employers good name. Pigskin Detention for them."

 

[rabthepat]

To no one's surprise, the termites have emerged from the woodwork in defense of celebrated doper Shawne Merriman and his eligibility for post-season honors. These loathesome hacks, masquerading as members of the 3rd estate (a ramshackle whorehouse), are standing up for the "moral principle" that allows Merriman to reap the benefits of his ill-gotten gains. Just like the baseball scribes who covered up for the home-run charade and now argue for the right of those phonies to desecrate the Hall of Fame (no doubt for nice under the table cash payments from the bloated millionaires), their NFL equivalents came out in unison today against Jason Taylor's justified criticism of his chief competitor for DPY. Once upon a time, Taylor would have been applauded for standing up against the moral rot in his sport. Today, the journalists whose job it is to shine a spotlight on corruption and expose it to the public are complicit in not only covering up but openly defending the criminals. A truly disgusting sports stain on this holiday season. Here are just a few notable culprits: Don Banks http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/don_banks/12/29/nfc.mess/2.html, Len Pasquarelli http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2713810, Adam Schein http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6314452.

I agree with you 100%. The NFL just wants to sweep these problems under the rug. Merriman also isn't man enough to admit what he did. He always has these lame ass answers. He is like a politician.

 

[primetime]

Pasquarelli is one of the worst football columnists out there. Every column has an agenda which usually traces back to one of Len's buddies. He wrote an article on Will Peterson trying to get back in the league... why? Because Peterson's agent is his buddy. The Taylor-Merriman thing is some massive conspiracy because Merriman fired Taylor's agent before the draft. Yeah, I'm sure that has everything to do with it.

 

[patsacolachick]

Seriously, do these guys think fans are stupid? The guy cheated, had a lame lame lame excuse where he was going to file a lawsuit against the tainted supplement producer, yeah how far did he go with that? And why did the media jerks not follow up on that???? And now they are all saying well he paid his dues, he should get defensive player of the year, what a joke. Part of his dues should be not being eligible for ANY reward for this, and barring that NO ONE should be able to pimp him for this award!

 

[Pat_Nasty]

As a some-time journalist myself, I'm as critical as anybody on this board of so-called reporters who trade their journalistic integrity for gaining good standing with the team(s) they cover, and the greater access to players and information they receive in return.

This is not one of those cases, and I'm surprised by the people who've commented on it with so much disdain for these "media shills/jerks" in question. Did you not really read what they wrote? Or is it that you object in principle to any statement that admits of the existence of gray areas in complex issues, and doesn't come down with the righteous fury of an Old Testament God?

Is Len Pasquarelli trying to help the league sweep this issue under the rug by saying of Taylor's comments:

That's a noble and well-intentioned assessment from Taylor, one of the NFL's true gentlemen. The problem is, there are no criteria that stipulate against voting for players who have been suspended

?

Len P is not arguing that players caught using steroids should be eligible for post-season awards -- he's basically supporting Taylor's assessment in principle -- he's just noting that, under the current rules, they are eligible. He's basically saying "don't blame the pro-bowl voters, blame the league."

Next up is Don Banks, who basically says the same thing: "it's valid to question whether it sends the wrong message...[but] I don't think you can penalize him until the rules say he's ineligible for such an honor." Again, he's basically saying he might support changing the rules to keep future steroid policy violators out of the pro-bowl, but that it's too late to keep Merriman out.

The fact is, these guys are right. They voted for the appropriate players, given the spare guidelines they were provided, and admit that there's a moral issue involved that bares further examination.

Of the three, only Schein takes a position that Merriman should be eligible for the pro bowl, arguing that if the NFL is going to let someone play, they should be able to make the pro bowl. Personally, I disagree with that statement, but I understand his line of thinking. I don't read Schein much so I don't know his track record -- is there any reason to assume that his pro-Merriman stance is influenced by complicity with the league PR machine, aside from the fact that he happens to agree with them?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I think it's nasty that the shills hide behind the amoral 'there's no rule against it' excuse. It's not like the league is forcing them to make excuses for the cheater. They CHOOSE to defend him and make excuses for their support.

 

[PonyExpress]

As a some-time journalist myself, I'm as critical as anybody on this board of so-called reporters who trade their journalistic integrity for gaining good standing with the team(s) they cover, and the greater access to players and information they receive in return.

This is not one of those cases, and I'm surprised by the people who've commented on it with so much disdain for these "media shills/jerks" in question. Did you not really read what they wrote? Or is it that you object in principle to any statement that admits of the existence of gray areas in complex issues, and doesn't come down with the righteous fury of an Old Testament God?

Is Len Pasquarelli trying to help the league sweep this issue under the rug by saying of Taylor's comments:

?

Len P is not arguing that players caught using steroids should be eligible for post-season awards -- he's basically supporting Taylor's assessment in principle -- he's just noting that, under the current rules, they are eligible. He's basically saying "don't blame the pro-bowl voters, blame the league."

Next up is Don Banks, who basically says the same thing: "it's valid to question whether it sends the wrong message...[but] I don't think you can penalize him until the rules say he's ineligible for such an honor." Again, he's basically saying he might support changing the rules to keep future steroid policy violators out of the pro-bowl, but that it's too late to keep Merriman out.

The fact is, these guys are right. They voted for the appropriate players, given the spare guidelines they were provided, and admit that there's a moral issue involved that bares further examination.

Of the three, only Schein takes a position that Merriman should be eligible for the pro bowl, arguing that if the NFL is going to let someone play, they should be able to make the pro bowl. Personally, I disagree with that statement, but I understand his line of thinking. I don't read Schein much so I don't know his track record -- is there any reason to assume that his pro-Merriman stance is influenced by complicity with the league PR machine, aside from the fact that he happens to agree with them?

I appreciate your attempt to find nuance in this issue. However, these guys are journalists, not lawyers hired by the nfl, or citizens forced to abide by corrupt laws. If the NFL has a faulty policy it is the job of these journalists to expose it and prompt outrage from the public that will force change. The excuse, "don't blame us, we're just going by the letter of the law" is the classic defense of a conspirator. The idea that Banks would wash his hands of the policy, then promote Merriman as his DPY, smacks of deep cynicism that has no place in sports.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

I think it's nasty that the shills hide behind the amoral 'there's no rule against it' excuse. It's not like the league is forcing them to make excuses for the cheater. They CHOOSE to defend him and make excuses for their support.

They didn't choose to defend him. In fact, they didn't defend him, period.

You can't just read something someone wrote and automatically reduce it in your head to the kind of binary black/white, "for or against" kind of logic that you're comfortable with.

 

[BradyisGod]

As a some-time journalist myself, I'm as critical as anybody on this board of so-called reporters who trade their journalistic integrity for gaining good standing with the team(s) they cover, and the greater access to players and information they receive in return.

This is not one of those cases, and I'm surprised by the people who've commented on it with so much disdain for these "media shills/jerks" in question. Did you not really read what they wrote? Or is it that you object in principle to any statement that admits of the existence of gray areas in complex issues, and doesn't come down with the righteous fury of an Old Testament God?

Is Len Pasquarelli trying to help the league sweep this issue under the rug by saying of Taylor's comments:

?

Len P is not arguing that players caught using steroids should be eligible for post-season awards -- he's basically supporting Taylor's assessment in principle -- he's just noting that, under the current rules, they are eligible. He's basically saying "don't blame the pro-bowl voters, blame the league."

Next up is Don Banks, who basically says the same thing: "it's valid to question whether it sends the wrong message...[but] I don't think you can penalize him until the rules say he's ineligible for such an honor." Again, he's basically saying he might support changing the rules to keep future steroid policy violators out of the pro-bowl, but that it's too late to keep Merriman out.

The fact is, these guys are right. They voted for the appropriate players, given the spare guidelines they were provided, and admit that there's a moral issue involved that bares further examination.

Of the three, only Schein takes a position that Merriman should be eligible for the pro bowl, arguing that if the NFL is going to let someone play, they should be able to make the pro bowl. Personally, I disagree with that statement, but I understand his line of thinking. I don't read Schein much so I don't know his track record -- is there any reason to assume that his pro-Merriman stance is influenced by complicity with the league PR machine, aside from the fact that he happens to agree with them?

While you are correct in your assessment of what these writers are saying, I couldn't disagree more with the principle. "Don't blame the voters, blame the league" is classic "throw the stick in the other direction" defense.

There is a difference between being ALLOWED to do something, and being COMPELLED. These writers are walking a fine line almost saying, well the league allows us to vote for him, so we have to.

No, Len/Don/Adam, you are ALLOWED to vote for Shawne Merriman. No one is saying you have to. It is up to YOU to determine what to include in that thought process. I would think you should look at the body of work as a whole, on the field and off. Was Shawne very valuable sitting on the bench for 4 weeks, when Jason Taylor was racking up sacks?

Regardless of the rules, the power still lies with the VOTERS, not those who develop the parameters.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

They didn't choose to defend him. In fact, they didn't defend him, period.

You can't just read something someone wrote and automatically reduce it in your head to the kind of binary black/white, "for or against" kind of logic that you're comfortable with.

Let me be even more explicit, they rationalized, in the most perjoritive sense of the term, their vote for or support for his award, which he 'earned' by cheating.
Black & white enough for you?
I condemn thier actions just as much as the offender's.
The term for folks who assist substance abusers is 'enabler'.