Conference 7.286::sports_91

    SI follows it up this week with articles about a Prop 48 athlete
    (hoops player at Memphis State), the support (or lack thereof) for
    athletes in general and black athletes in particular at the University
    of Southern California, the integration of the Southeastern Conference
    and a follow-up article about the 1968 protestors and where they are
    now.  Both issues of SI are well worth getting.
    
    In 1968 I was 13 years old and didn't want to see things like this at
    the Olympics because I didn't want to see anything detract from the
    competition.  As I got older, I changed my mind and saw this as
    something relatively mild that the world overreacted to (especially
    when compared to the 1980 and 1984 boycotts and even more especially
    when compared to what happened in Munich in 1972) and came to admire
    Carlos and Smith for their courage in doing what they did and how they
    faced the aftermath.
    
    I was once of the opinion that South Africa should be banned from the
    Olympics since it would cause too many other countries to not
    participate and again, lessen the quality of the competition.  I am now
    of the opinion that the Olympics should be open to all countries and
    if someone wants to stay home, let them.  I come to this realization
    partly because of what happened to Zola Budd and mostly because black
    athletes from South Africa were also banned from the Olympics, so the
    ban hurt those it was intended to help.
    
    I don't mean to start a South Africa rathole and I'm sorry if I did.
    
    John 

Purely from a photographic point of view, I thought the best picture
in the whole issue was the picture that headed the article on the 
now integrated SEC.

Those red stars and bars flags were one of the most spectacular renditions
of red I've ever seen in a photo.

Haven't read the articles yet, just perused the issue briefly before going
to work out....


'Saw (whose consuming passion of a hobby is photography)

    	If you win, you win!  Doesn't matter what color or sex you are!  It
    says in the good book..."All men are created equal!"...so be it!

    	For those who choose to dwell on what didn't happen or did happen
    because of a color...well, they are the ones who should leave and go
    live somewhere else. We don't need their bullcrap wasting space!


    B.A._from_the_south!

    re .2
    
    I missed that part of the article. As another amature photographer, I
    think we need to talk Saw .....
    
    BTW, on the back of the SI issue is a Nike ad with Jerry Rice. 
    
    Talk about good photography.
    
    Not only that, it is the most powerful ad, IMO that Nike has ever
    produced. I bought an extra copy so that I could cut out the ad and put
    it on my wall.
    
    I thought it was awesome.
    
    Doc

    FYI ...
    
    Something I never knew about the Smith/Carlos controversy :
    
    Peter Norman of Australia won the silver medal in the 200m, nipping
    Carlos at the tape. Before the awards ceremony, he overhead the protest
    preparations that the other two were making. Smith asked him if he
    wanted to join in. Norman said yes, so Carlos gave hima large protest
    button (a Olympic human rights button ?), that Norman wore on his
    sweatsuit during the awards ceromony (if you look closely at the pics,
    it can be seen - I assume it showed it quite well on TV). This got him a 
    severe reprimand from the Aussie sports authorties. Quite a gesture on 
    his part I felt.
    

    Doc -
    
    My view of the incident would be the same if Smith and Carlos were
    white, red, yellow, pink, or green.  I've always felt (and have
    expressed it in here) that the Olympics have been ruined by politics.
    Smith and Carlos act was purely political, and IMO selfish.  I don't
    think it did anything for the 'cause'.  It had a direct effect on the
    72 Olympics, as Matthews and Collett were banished for 'lounging'
    around during the medal ceremony after going 1-2 in the 400M.  This of
    course meant the US couldn't field the 4x400 relay, so Evans didn't get
    a chance to compete.
    
    Matthes and Collett would not have been chucked if not for Carlos and
    Smith.   
    
    Doc, they had the personal right to do what they wanted.  However, IMO,
    if they felt that the US was so damn bad to them, they should have
    qualified for the Olympics (which they did), and then REFUSED to go. 
    Would have made their point - but others could have competed in their
    stead.
    
    They weren't strongly committed enough to risk sacrificing the chance
    to wear the medal and pull their stunt.
    
    For a good book on it, read Vince Matthews "My Race Be Won".
    
    I guess it would have meant more in the Hoop teams did it, or the
    boxers, or some pros in a sport making money where it would really be
    noticed.   The only folks who care about track and field are the few
    fans that follow it (most are fellow runners).
    
    Athletes in T&F had no facilities, no sponsership, no lure of big bucks
    in 68.  
    
    So in short, I thought it was a selfish, useless gesture, that made a
    great photo, some good copy, but was misdirected.
    
    JD

    JD, many of the athletes did want to boycott, but from what I gather,
    they wanted it to be a case when all boycotted, or none did. Some did
    not (read the article for more). Combine that with some really
    partonizing (to put it mildly) remarks by Avery Brundage, and it was
    felt that protest at the games was a better way to go.
    
    And I find it laughable to blam (tm) Smith and Carlos for Matthews and
    Collett. 
    
    Whatever happened to personal responsibilty ?
    
    Finally, I understand your point about politics, but lets be real JD.
    The olympics have ALWAYS been about politics, and will continue to be
    as long as anthems are played, banners are raised, and athletes compete
    for nations.
    
    Not to reflect on you, but the same people who condemn Smith and Carlos
    were the first ones to use Jesse Owens as a political symbol in 1936,
    or were the biggest flag wavers in 1984.
    
    The self-promotion this county did 1984, wasn't *that* as political as
    anything else ?
    
    Politics vis a vis the Olympics has always been a subjective matter.
    
    Doc
    
    p.s. You need to reduce the dosage on the cyncism pills JD ... :-)

    Doc -
    
    I enjoyed Jesse Owens as an athlete.  Remarkable performance.  The heck
    with the other stuff.  If fact, Jesse had a small part to play in 1968.
    The USOC sent Jesse to talk to the black athletes.  In Matthews book,
    he says most of the athletes felt Jesse was an 'Uncle Tom' and didn't
    want to listen to him.  THey wanted someone like Ed Brook (then Senator
    of Mass.) to talk to them.
    
    Avery Brundage was the worst thing that ever happened to the Olympics,
    especially here in the states.
    
    It is not laughable to blam Smith and Carlos for Matthes and Collett.
    The Olympics Committee was extremely touchy about protests in 72 -
    especially because of what happened  in 68, and because the Germans wer
    very touchy about it (given that the last Olympics in Germany were in
    36 - nuff said).
    
    The USOC was very touchy on the subject also, because of 68.  Matthews
    and Collett would not have been chucked if Smith and Carlos had not set
    a precedence...
    
    And BTW, I read most of the articles n the last two SI's - but it
    didn't tell me anythng I didn't know already.  ANyone who has followed
    T&F knows about the lives of Carlos, Smith, Beamon, etc...
    
    JD
    
    

    AH, but JD compared to youse, I'm a mere pup ... and I'm not a really
    big T&F man (lat deficiency ;-), although I met a few as a youngster in
    CA., so the articles did a very nice job of filling in some blanks for 
    me, and others (judging by Kev's note in the T&F file).
    
    Re Owens
    
    Owens put on a incredible performance, then got treated like crap when
    he returned. Hence, the athletes felt that he would understand. I've
    always had the impression that Owens did understand, but still was
    loyal to the Olympic movement ....
    

    In 1968 I was between my sophmore and junior years of high school.  I
    remember wishing that the athletes had stuck to the games, and left
    politics out of *something*.  For a little historical background, this
    was the same summer as the Democratic National Convention in Chicago
    that resulted in the arrest of the Chicago 7, college campuses were
    having regular demonstrations against the VietNam War, the United
    States was polarized along both color and "US __ Love It Or Leave It"
    lines.  It was the first we were hearing of the SDS.  That summer, and
    it's aftermath, changed the political landscape in the United States
    forever.  And I'm not sure the change was for the better.
    
    1968 was the first summer Olympics that I paid any attention to.  I
    wanted to be proud of the accomplishments of my countrymen.  Instead, I
    got informed that I was part of an oppressive establishment that was
    doing something wrong.  The problem was that *I* didn't know what the
    protesting athletes expected to have change as a result of their
    salute, nor what *I* could do about any of it.  Taking to the streets
    never did seem like a reasonable answer even then.  I'm not sure that I
    know those answers even today.  The best that I can do is treat
    everyone according to their ability, talent, and drive, and not let
    race or religion or national origin be a factor.
    
    So, for how it felt to me.  It was uncomfortable.  It was a little
    scary.  It took a moment of what should have been warm fuzzy feelings
    and made it prickly.
    
    Thank goodness we didn't know then how much worse it would get.
    
    A&W

    Dear Dr. Pup,	;^)
    
    The SI articles, for me, were a FANtastic dose of memory lane.  In '68,
    I was a senior in HS, co-captain of the track team, had a few school
    records, a couple of championship titles, a shoebox filled with medals 
    and literally LIVED T&F.  As well as this esteemed body of
    datisticians(tm) [MrT excepted ;*)] can quote performances today, I
    could do that with T&F stuff.
    
    From the athletic perspective:
    
    The names in the article, Smith, Evans, Carlos, et al, plus guys like
    Randy Matson(s. put), Skeets, Ryan, Prefontaine, Shorter, Oerter,
    Seagren and a host of others were as close to me as my family (btw -
    all track runners 'cept Mom, she was the nurse).
    
    The article didn't fill in any perfomance blanks for me although my
    memory was refreshed.  Remember, ~'68 most T&F was still English
    with yards and feet and stuff.  Metric (which I STILL have a hard time
    putting into perspective if >cm's) was really only international meet
    stuff.  It felt great to read again about their english-distance times.
    IMO, '66-'70 was the Golden Years of US T&F.  
    
    from the socialogical perspective
    
    The series brought to light that there really is more than one side to
    a story and I was glad to read about how the actual "Do'ers" felt and
    believed. It did change my impression of the activists (as PEOPLE & not
    just "athletes").  Don't read into that last word as negative or quasy
    racial slur either (as was shown in the article's samples of the hate
    mail), I try to maintain a balance between on-field performance stuff
    and the do'er of the stuff with a_emphasis on the former.
    
    I think I know (or knew) what most of the '68 team did after they came
    back and the series was a good refresher.
    
    Anyway, glad you started this note.
    
    Kev
    
    ps- I have a supply of puppy sized Milk Bones in my office if ya get 
    hungry - stop by!
    
    ;^)
    

    Gee thanks Kev ...
    
    And you can't fool me with this HS talk - I have it on good authority
    that you were the veteran *coach* of the track team in '68 ! :-)
    
    I got the impression that you was more of contemporary of Matthias (at
    best) or Thorpe (at worse) than Ryan ! :-) :-) :-)
    
    Doc
    
    p.s. Remember, Beamon jumped 7.80 meters - I don't wanna hear this 29
    2-1/2 crap ! :-)

    I read the SI article.  I usually won't read that piece a crap rag
    but when one's stuck on a_airplane for 9 hourse sometimes one must
    lower his/her standards.  Here are my impressions:
    
    * What the hell does the Carlos/Smith black power salute and the
      Olympics have to do with the position of blacks in American sports?
    
      Nothing.  They were protesting racism in society in general.  This
      being so, their use of a public platform provided them by sports
      to make a political statement speaks well for their treatment by
      sport and the same goes for all the other thousands of black athletes
      who've made the same use of sport since.
      
      As usual, sports reporters are woefully mixed-up and over their haids
      when dabbling in a subject more complex than a boxscore.
    
    * Where are the numbers showing blacks suffering discrimation in sports?
      Blacks are massively overrepresented in terms of raw proportion for a
      group that at the last census made up only 12% of the population if you
      go by player representation.
    
      Coaches?  First, where players cycle in and out of rosters fairly
      rapidly, coaching positions tend to have long training lead times built
      into them.  And, taking basketball, haid coaches show overrepresentation
      of blacks, and the level of disproportion would go up even more if 
      assistants are counted.  I'd be surprised if baseball didn't show some
      smaller degree of disproprtionate and favorable representation at the
      manager and coach levels. 
    
    * What's the beef?  White people don't complain about being massivley
      underrepresented in the player ranks.  No affirmative action is called
      for there to artifically "balance" the percentages.  It seems to me
      judging from the pandering and condescending tone of SI's poor quality
      piece that just such a draconian solution is being called for at the
      coaching level.
    
    MrT
     

    I took a history class in college that included American social
    history.  The professor's contention was that sports have *always* been
    one of the few routes of upward mobility for discriminated-against
    minority groups.  He used the specific example of boxing, as that has
    been an organized sport the longest.  The original groups for which 
    boxing can be used as an indicator of increasing social acceptance are
    the Italians of the 1890's, followed closely by the Irish.  (I wish the
    Bible of Boxing were still with us, he would have the data I lack :-( )
    The next group to be included in the fight scene were Negroes, in the
    1950's.  More recently, we have started to see the inclusion of
    Hispanics - like in the last 10 years.  I see a similar pattern in
    baseball.
    
    One of the consequences of the thesis is that the "breaking out"
    minority group will be wildly over-represented in sports during the
    period that they are building social acceptance and moving into the
    middle classes.  As a group, the sacrifice and physical pounding which
    is a consequence of professional sports success becomes a reasonable
    risk/reward to break out of poverty.  When the group reaches
    comfortable middle-classness, the risk/reward ratio is too high for the
    group overall and participation numbers begin to reflect the group's
    overall population percentage.  However, the dominant members of a
    society are only willing to *watch* the discriminated against group
    when they are close to gaining respectability in the society at large.
    
    I'm beginning to wonder if what we are seeing with the
    over-representation of blacks in our athletics is that this particular
    group is having a harder time "breaking through" to a non-discriminated
    against status than groups which preceded them.  I'll be interested to
    see when we get Hispanic and Asian players in our sports in large
    numbers, as I believe these are the next groups to be the ones at the
    "bottom of the heap" in the social game of King of the Hill which gets
    played out over and over again.
    
    A&W

    Hey Pup...
    
    Naw, I wuzzn't the *coach* at that time, you must be confusing me with
    lLe!
    
    Why it was just a few moments ago I wuz remembering a conversation I
    had with Phillipedes.. "Now remember, stay within yourself, don't over
    extend...."
    
    and the rest, as they say - is history!
    
    BTW - I bought (just 4U) a bag of "Puppy Chow" and brought it in to
    MRO4 - C'mon down!!!!
    
    ;^)
    
    Kev 
    

Did anyone catch ESPN's special last night "Outside the Lines: Potraits in
Black and White"? I missed but I read a columun in the worcester paper that
says The Celtics followed by the Red Soxs were viewed as the most racist
organizations in all of sports...My my my, what a surprise.....

it's got to be Michael Smith's fault. I mean it can't be those three piece
suits with the fur arm hangeroners at the garden now can it????


mike

    oh, that was lasted night wasn't it... will they be repeating it?
    

    What I found the most interesting were the comments from the black
    students who 'because they're in college, had to be there because of
    sports.' 
    
    
    ESPN is running it again at 1 p.m. today.

    Grrrrrr.... is anyone taping it?
    

	Walt, those "Behind The Lines" specials are repeated frequently.  I 
will not even attempt to defend the Sox, but the Celtics developed a large 
white, rich following because they had two legitimate white superstars.  Is 
this the organization's fault?  When Red ran the show he helped his black 
players after retirement with front office jobs either in the organization 
or in the league.  And if Bill Russell thought Red or the organization was 
racist, you know he would've said something by now.  ESPN is basically a 
New York based station (Connecticut is right next door) and they would much 
rather talk about the racist Celtics than discuss Crown Heights.

				/Don
 

>ESPN is basically a 
>New York based station (Connecticut is right next door) and they would much 
>rather talk about the racist Celtics than discuss Crown Heights.

I disagree Slasher.

I don't get a NY slant from ESPN.  Living where I live I have the
luxury(?) of seeing stations from both markets.  I've always found ESPN
to be pretty objective.


I agree with you about the Celtics not being racist.  I couldn't have
said it any better.   I cannot explain the Red Sox however....


'Saw 

    CT is also part of New England, which would make it more NE biased,
    but I don't know about NY...
    
    

     I think the problem is here is separating perception from fact.
    The fact is that Celts were one of the first teams to integrate,
    were maybe the first (?) to put five black players on the floor 
    at the same time and built their dynasty around a black player,
    Bill Russell. The perception is that this is the team of Larry 
    Bird, the quintessential white ballplayer, a team that put five 
    white players on the floor at the same time (in the 80's !) and 
    they come from a city known for its racial divisiveness therefore 
    they must be racist. Spike Lee bashing them at every turn doesn't
    help either. Of course Spike *is* a Knicks fan.

     As for the Red Sox, I love `em but I will not defend `em. Being
    a black Red Sox fan is like being married to a woman who cheats
    on you. 
   
    BTW - Only part of Connecticut qualifies as New England. The other
          part is a suburb of New York and is more like New Jersey.
    

>     I think the problem is here is separating perception from fact.
>    The fact is that Celts were one of the first teams to integrate,
>    were maybe the first (?) to put five black players on the floor 
>    at the same time and built their dynasty around a black player,
>    Bill Russell. The perception is that this is the team of Larry 
>    Bird, the quintessential white ballplayer, a team that put five 
>    white players on the floor at the same time (in the 80's !) and 
>    they come from a city known for its racial divisiveness therefore 
>    they must be racist. Spike Lee bashing them at every turn doesn't
>    help either. Of course Spike *is* a Knicks fan.

Extremely well put, Tommy.


   
>    BTW - Only part of Connecticut qualifies as New England. The other
>          part is a suburb of New York and is more like New Jersey.


Agreed.  The "gold coast" area, say from Bridgeport down I95 is VERY
Noo Yawkish in their ways.

You get some good things from New York a little farther up (for example
the New Haven night life) but below Bridgeport, we're talking 
"a Noo Yawk 'burb".


'Saw
    

                
    I'll defend what the post-Tom Yawkey Red Sox have done in the area of
    minority relations and hiring.  First of all, by common agreement of
    sportswriters and others in the know who I have heard speak on this
    subject, the Red Sox do more in the minority community than the other 
    three Boston sports teams combined (and this is does not even include 
    other major charitable activities such as with the Jimmy Fund, which is
    a massive undertaking for the Sox).  They run a large inner-city sports
    recreation program in Mattapan and Roxbury that has been privately 
    funded by the estate of Jean Yawkey for years.  Without fanfare, during 
    road trips in the summer, they open up Fenway Park for the kids to play 
    in (what I wouldn't have given as a kid for the opportunity to do this!). 
    Secondly, they have elevated the issue of baseball front-office
    minority hiring in the past ten years per the ex-commissioner's direction,
    and have one of the highest such hiring percentages in baseball (in
    stark contrast to Marge Schott's pathetic and most likely
    discriminatory 1-for-48 record).
    
    The Red Sox' racist past under Tom Yawkey is well-documented.  However,
    why are none of the facts concerning the recent history of the Red Sox,
    under the management of decent (if incompetent) personnel-- including
    the most highly-placed executive female minority in baseball-- ever
    presented in these stirring documentaries?  Is it just easier to take
    something controversial, however dated, and use it to point fingers?
    I think so...
    
    glenn
    

the poll was supposedly taken of 700 sports' fans across the country.

 Glenn great job defending the Soxs but as Tommy said it's all perception
 and for a major league team to have one or two black ball players is unusual.
 AS Don I think tried to say is the Celtics team may not be the problem but
 it's fans are. And said fans of the Celtics for the most part are also Soxs'
 fans. So why are we viewed as bigots by the rest of the country?

 mike

    
> Glenn great job defending the Soxs but as Tommy said it's all perception
> and for a major league team to have one or two black ball players is unusual.
    
    Well, after the departure of Ellis Burks, by my count they now have
    nine black or Hispanic players, which is above the MLB average, and 
    they're still going to stink...
    
    glenn
    

    re: CT
    
    Fairfield County is definitely a NY suburb more than anything else.
    Rest of CT better fits in with New England.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    Calderon I believe is from Puerto Rico, FWIW.
    
    Again, it's perception.  Why did the Sox need to bring in Reardon when
    they had Lee Smith?  Is Quintana that much better than Vaughn?  How do
    you know, he was in a real serious accident and no one's seen him play.
    No one went down to even check on him for the longest time.  Burks was 
    the only black on the opening day roster last year.
    
    I've listened to talk shows and heard them suggest lineup such as
    putting Rivera, Pena, Vaughn and Burks all in a row because they're
    minorities and might play better if they bond together.  Why would that
    be the case?  The fact that they have little/no team speed also
    doesn't help the perception either.  If they had a Brady Anderson or
    Brett Butler, I'm sure it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
    
    

    I thought Mo was sent down early and Bruno started.  Maybe that was 91.
    

    
    > I thought Mo was sent down early and Bruno started.  Maybe that was 91.
    
    At first base?  Bruno has played very little first base.  Burks,
    Vaughn, and Tony Pena were all in the starting lineup at the beginning
    of last season...
    
    glenn
    

    
    > From what I could tell, the report said they were perceived as being
    > racist, not racist...  last night's Sports Final didn't convince me
    > of anything different...
    
    Yes, the ESPN report itself concluded that the teams were perceived as
    racist (that's evident), but the poll they used did not ask about
    generic fan perceptions.  Their question was very direct: which sports 
    teams use race in their personnel decisions?
    
    I also saw the Sports Final and the ESPN special, and the difference is
    that the Sports Final gave direct conflicting evidence to the
    "perception", while ESPN pretty much laid the image out and let it sit
    there, unchallenged.  M.L. Carr was openly critical on this point, at
    one point joking that he'd conduct his own poll on the public's 
    perception of ESPN (which, btw, has zero black executives).
    
    Sports Final was very even-handed in its discussion of both the city of
    Boston and its sports teams, I thought.  Just about every single thing 
    I mentioned about the Red Sox a couple of replies ago was verified in 
    the program, with sources such as Larry Whiteside, Dan Shaughnessy 
    and Peter Gammons confirming that the Red Sox have made much progress in 
    the community and with their front-office hiring (Whiteside threw out 
    the number of 10-15 black employees, which represents a leadership role 
    in baseball circles).
    
    glenn
    

    I saw it as a counter point, not really as balanced.  Balanced to me
    would have included someone from ESPN and not just someone who worked
    for the Celtics.  Yes, ML had some good points, and I didn't see the
    ESPN special, but there are still some questions and things that don't
    always add up.  And as was said in here or in the Celts notesfile,
    if it Bob wanted to have the best show ever, why not have Orr, Williams
    and Russell?  Why did they have to get phone calls to acknowledge him
    as almost an afterthought.  No knock on Bird, I know he's more
    accessible than Bill, but can people say he's the best Celtic ever?
    That's up for discussion...
    
    For example, what is Bart Kofoed on the roster and would the Celts be 
    able to use John Bagley with Sherman Douglas having problems?  Why do 
    they need to put Rick Fox at PG if Kofoed was sitting there?  Or is he 
    a shooting guard?
    
    Why did they draft Jon Barry?
    
    Why don't you see more blacks at Celtic games?  Red Sox games?  They
    aren't being played at Foxboro, or Auburn Hills or Inglewood.  It's
    only $7 to sit in the bleachers...
    
    Why did they have to give Jim Rice attention the same day as Bob
    Stanley?  Why didn't he want his own day?
    
    How does Lou Gorman justify $3million/year that Ivan Calderon gets,
    but make Ellis Burks take a contract with lots of incentives to get
    him to stay?  Calderon was hurt most of last year too...
    
    How many minority ushers work at places at the Garden, or Fenway? 
    Maybe there's a balance there, but to here "well, they're up to 20..."
    or something like that without saying what positions they hold doesn't
    really sound like a convincing argument. I see blacks mostly as
    bleacher security.  Not selling beer or hotdogs or programs.  Why not say 
    "making strides like the RedSox asst. GM..." if she's still there. 
    Just saying stats like from things that happened 25-30 years ago
    doesn't change my opinion about the happenings and perceptions of the
    team recently.
    
    Then give ML time to respond, or Lou Gorman and give them a chance to
    ask questions:
    
    What do we have to do to change the perception?  (Pointing out coaches
    like Russell and Jones, or signing Dawson helps there).
    
    How can we appeal to a larger, more diverse audience?  Do we get a guy
    like Al Bumbry and give him more exposure?  Do we have to bend over
    backwards and try to find a guy like Joe Morgan or Ken Singleton to do
    announcing for us?
    
    I don't think the Celtics organization is racist.  I think they
    sometimes pander to the town and their customers though because they
    want fannies in the seats, and if concessions are can be made to do
    that and have a quality team, they'll do it.  The Red Sox are just out
    for money and don't really care about who their fans are, IMHO.
    

I though Calderon was traded to the Sox, not signed as a free agent.

The Crazy Met

    Oh, yeah, you're right, TCM.  Point still stands, though.  Calderon was
    in a different bargaining position (he probably already has a contract
    which the Sox could only lengthen if they wanted to).
    
    Sox resigned Hatcher, yet released Brunansky despite the fact that
    Bruno was their best offensive performer last season.

    Yup, they traded for him.
    
    Since when is an arm injury to an OF not considered important?  Unless
    he's slotted at DH...  Again, that might all be true, but we're talking
    about perception.  Some might point to just Burks and Winningham, when
    they've got rid of Reed, Bruno, Boggs, Plantier, Gardiner and Wedge too...
    Anyone can read anything they want into anything.  Doesn't mean it's
    always accurate.  The image is harder to remove than it is to gain.
    
    They also conceded it's harder to convince a black player to play here
    because of the area than it would be in other major cities...
    

    >> If you asked Roger Clemens (rotator cuff surgery) and Larry Bird 
    >> (retired due to back problems) who would have a better chance of 
    >> coming back from injury, Burks or Calderon, what do you think they 
    >> would say?
    
       Something like, "How the hell do I know ? I ain't a damn doctor."
    

    
    > How many minority ushers work at places at the Garden, or Fenway? 
    > Maybe there's a balance there, but to here "well, they're up to 20..."
    > or something like that without saying what positions they hold doesn't
    > really sound like a convincing argument. I see blacks mostly as
    > bleacher security.  Not selling beer or hotdogs or programs.  Why not say 
    > "making strides like the RedSox asst. GM..." if she's still there. 
    
    The positions that I was referring to are front office positions. 
    Obviously I don't know the exact positions, titles, pay, etc., but MLB
    under its minority hiring program monitors the progress of this front 
    office hiring, and they're not talking about ticket takers and ushers. 
    Regardless, when a black beat reporter like Larry Whiteside, who has 
    access to the team and sees what's going on, says that the Red Sox have 
    made real progress in this area and that the team is a good one to work
    for, I think that's significant.  It's certainly more compelling than 
    cold employment statistics.
    
    I don't understand the point about Calderon.  I haven't agreed with
    hardly a single baseball decision that has been made by the Red Sox 
    this winter, but how is replacing Burks with a player who's both 
    Latin and black (with a reserved, private personality to boot) catering 
    to the white fans?  I sit out in the centerfield bleachers, and over the
    years Ellis Burks has been one of the most popular players on the team
    with that crowd.  If Burks revives his career the Sox are going to take 
    a good beating for it, just as they will for letting young, talented
    white players like Eric Wedge and Phil Plantier go.  Neither move made 
    any sense.  I think all these guys have grounds for an age discrimination 
    suit...
    
    glenn
     

    It's like listening to Lou Gorman.  If he says, "We'll be better, we've
    improved our club... we've added some people", with a perception of a bad 
    track record, it's harder to believe he's done anything.  If he says
    "Dawson plays good defense and will add power, Bankhead will sure up
    the relief corps..." you can at least know where he stands and
    determine in your own mind if you think it's good enough.  I think they
    did themselves a disfavor by not pointing out more specifics with the
    BoSox or to not have anyone their from their organization.
    
    All I'm saying is you can twist stats anyway you want.  One could argue
    that with Dawson and Calderon on the team, they cut the percentages by
    getting rid of Burks and Winningham.  Accurate?  I suppose.  Relevant?
    I doubt it.
    

    Didn't sawy there were racist or where the worst.  I thought the
    problem was perception.  Things like Bird vs. Russell don't help
    the issue.  Same with Kofoed.  Doesn't mean it's a race thing,
    but if someone's got a mind set, stuff like that doesn't help it.
    
    Personally, I'm not a Celtic fan because I was born in Detroit, liked
    Walt Frazier, and then Dr. J.  Celtics were their main competition.
    Just like I don't root for the Sox, Yankees, or Vikings.
    
    You're right, cost probably prohibits a lot of people from going to
    see the C's (including me...)
    

    
   >> So what do we do?  Start instituting quotas and such?
    
      I think a little sensitivity would be sufficient.

    	The last line about "worst in race relations" wasn't meant for
    you Walt but was addressing the ESPN statement.  The real tough
    call is Koefod, it's possible he's there to appease the crowd and
    it's possible he's there because he works cheap.
    
    				/Don

    
    If the Celtics selected their 12th man (Kofoed) because he's white, then
    that's racist, plain and simple.  I don't see any reason to beat around
    the bush and claim that the problem is one of "perception".  If you're 
    decent and honest and upright in your relations and the result is that 
    you only have a perception problem, in my opinion that's somebody else's 
    problem, not yours.  Assuming for a minute that Bart Kofoed is a Celtic
    based entirely on his abilities, then telling him to go home because he 
    works against the perception you're trying to create is wrong (which I
    believe was Mac's point, in so many words).  So we're back to the 
    starting point: forget perception, what is the truth?  Are the Celtics
    racist in their personnel decisions, or aren't they?
    
    I honestly don't believe that it's the job of the Celtics and Red Sox
    to sell themselves on their record of race relations.  *If* they're
    doing what's right (another assumption), it's not their place to stand
    up and congratulate themselves for it and publicize that fact in order 
    to fight false perceptions.  That's for someone else to say, like ESPN,
    which basically said nothing one way or the other...
    
    glenn
    

    >> If the Celtics selected their 12th man (Kofoed) because he's white, 
    >> then that's racist, plain and simple.  
    
       All things being equal I think a lot if not most sports
      organizations will choose the white player over the black
      one. It's not necessarily racist, it's business. It's not
      mere happenstance that Larry was deified in Boston and Rus-
      sell wasn't. Gerry Cooney can get $14 million to fight Larry 
      Holmes, Sylvester Stallone can make millions off of Rocky
      films that are further from reality than 'Son Of Flubber and
      and Vlade Divac is the fourth highest paid player in the league. 
      It's business. That's just the way it is. Some things will never
      change. 
      

    Tommy,
    
    You telling me that "son of Flubber" isn't real?????
    
    Aw c'mon man, don't joke around like that OK?
    
    I remain,
    as a ex-track guy, fond of races!
    Kev
    

>      mere happenstance that Larry was deified in Boston and Rus-
>      sell wasn't. Gerry Cooney can get $14 million to fight Larry 


How much of the Bird/Russell thing could be due to them playing in
different eras.  One played in an era where the press was a bit more
"gentlemanly", and one played in an era where the press knows if the 
pimple on your ass has a head on it or not....

Could Bird have been deified without the help of today's "hype-crazy"
press?


I'm not disagreeing, but it might be an apples-oragnes thing.....


'Saw

    
    I think it's just a matter of in one era and out da other, sortsa
    like JD agreeing with Mac on a issue!
    

                                    
    >  All things being equal I think a lot if not most sports
    >  organizations will choose the white player over the black
    >  one. It's not necessarily racist, it's business. It's not
    
    Well, in the case of a roster selection in a team sport, I'd have to
    disagree and say that it's both racist and, if proved, against the law.  
    I don't think this is quite the same thing as the question of what 
    people will pay to see in the movie and TV business.  The box-office 
    appeal of bench players is limited, at best.  I don't think you could 
    point to Bart Kofoed and say that his existence is justified by some 
    strict business requirement to have a white 12th man in Boston (not
    saying that you've said this, Tommy, just logically extending the 
    entertainment argument to sports).  That's wrong.
    
    glenn
    

    
     Glenn - bottom line - do you think it happens or not ?

    
    > Glenn - bottom line - do you think it happens or not ?
    
    Yes, I think it happens, and it's wrong.  I just don't like the 
    veiled innuendo and the cloaked accusals of the type that ESPN aired.  
    You can't ever confirm or dispute a feeling, or a perception.  Lay the
    record out and make a conclusion.  Present the facts.  Make a case.
    
    Specifically, I don't have any opinion one way or another what the
    Celtics are up to, because I don't follow them closely, but based on
    general media reporting and the public reaction I don't think the Red 
    Sox are ever going to outrun their history.  No, I don't think that's
    completely fair, because as I've said, I think they've worked pretty
    hard to overcome it.
    
    glenn
    
                

    What is Kofoed's position?  Point Guard or shooting guard?  If point
    guard, he should have been able to step in and contribute when Douglas
    was out.  Did he?  I don't remember him doing it.  All I remember is
    they put Rick Fox there to try and make it better.  If he's a shooting
    guard, with Douglas out, you've got who?  Brown, Lewis (swingman) and
    Kofoed.  Fox can play swingman.  Wouldn't he get a couple of minutes?
    Battle,Webb,X, Chief,McHale, and Alaa Kleine all play up front. 
    Wouldn't it make sense for Bart to get a sudden injury and they sign
    a PG?  Something doesn't add up... I don't know, maybe he is just
    cheap.

    Douglas will be suited up for tonight's game.  It wasn't like he went
    on the IR or something.  He was going to come back and soon.  There was
    no way the Celts were going to drop someone just to give Bagley a 10
    day contract.

    Could have.  Brian Williams and Willie Burton have had boughts with
    depression and have been put on IR so they could get help.  It didn't
    have to happen in this case, but there is precedent.
    
    Drop no, put them on IR, maybe...  and that's not a race issue, just
    an NBA practice.  How do you think Webb and Battle started on the IR?
    They got a mysterious flu?  Tendonitis? They've done it before when
    they've brought in the likes of AJ Wynder and Charles Smith.

    Apparently the Celts felt the issue would be resolved quickly (which it
    was), therefore no roster moves.  I don't think they purposely
    compromised their roster for some white guy down at the end of the
    bench.

>    I don't think they purposely
>    compromised their roster for some white guy down at the end of the
>    bench.

 See the case of celtics basketball fans: Tim Hardeway vs. Michael Smith
 for reference....

 MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!!!!!!!!

    The C's signed Bagley...