0 comments Skip Bayless Should Be Suspended If Bill Simmons Got Suspended...But Of Course He Won't Be

I wrote this post a few weeks back about Bill Simmons and his attempt to get suspended by inserting himself into the conversation about Roger Goodell. As everyone probably knows already, he called Goodell a "liar" and opened up both barrels on Goodell (in my opinion) partially to gain attention. It worked and Simmons was suspended for three weeks by ESPN. Bill Simmons, as anyone who reads this blog regularly or semi-regularly knows, annoys the shit out of me. He's so full of himself and I think he displays immature qualities when staring at the prospect of being wrong. It's well-documented he doesn't like to be edited, in his columns when something is wrong he says "we" are wrong due to the fact he can't face the prospect of being wrong, and he enjoys the idea of being the ESPN rebel while staying safely in the cocoon of ESPN when taking risks. It's not a knock against him, just my point of view. It's easy to say you like to take risks when you have the golden parachute of ESPN backing your risks. Still, he has vision and is probably the type of employee ESPN wants, even if Bill doesn't always claim ESPN is the type of employer he wants.

This post isn't really about Bill Simmons though. It's about Skip Bayless. While being about Skip Bayless, it's also about Bill Simmons and his being suspended for spouting his opinion in a loud fashion. While Bill Simmons annoys the shit out of me, I think Skip Bayless is dangerous. His opinions aren't dangerous necessarily on their own, but the type of discourse and reasoning Skip Bayless tends to use in voicing his opinions is dangerous. The protection Skip receives from ESPN is dangerous. He favors attention over anything else and he has the backing of ESPN through all of this. The problem with getting attention is the process through which Bayless gains attention. He lies on air and an environment is created where he and Stephen A. Smith are encouraged to toe the line of decency and common sense, then receive a pat on the back if they accidentally step over it once in a while.

The reason Skip Bayless is dangerous is that he has ESPN's backing when he makes bold statements that gain negative attention, while Bill Simmons and others (it's just not about Bill, but Scott Van Pelt, Dana Jacobson, Rob Parker, Lou Holtz, and Jemele Hill as well) are suspended/fired when they go even slightly over the line of what is considered decency. They made dumb comments, but they paid a price for it. Skip Bayless makes dumb comments, but he only seems to be furthered encouraged by ESPN and never has been suspended for lying on the air or any of his other nonsensical comments. It gives the appearance ESPN supports his position. While ESPN is glad to punish others for stepping over the line of decency, they not only refuse to suspend Bayless for any comments/lies he's stated during his career at ESPN, but as you can see in that Richard Deitsch interview, he is encouraged to be controversial. The story during Bill Simmons' suspension was that others in the ESPN organization felt there were different rules for Bill than others. This may be true, but there are different rules for Skip Bayless as well. The rules of journalistic integrity are thrown out the window when Skip begins speaking. Such is the price of "Embrace Debate."

So the shit that Skip stepped in this time is that he said the rape charges against Kobe Bryant gave him "sizzle." At the moment I write this, Skip has not been suspended and no public admonishment has been reported on. Essentially, Skip is saying that being accused of rape gave Kobe street cred and helped him out in terms of marketing. Not only is this an unfathomably stupid thing to say, but it's also insulting to the public and slightly racist as well. Skip seems to have such little respect for those people who purchase products endorsed by Kobe that he thinks they will be more encouraged to purchase those products if Kobe has been accused of rape. As if Kobe needed some gang-type initiation of committing a violent crime in order to be considered cool enough to sell sneakers to teenagers. And yes, the slightly racist part comes in because the NBA has predominantly black players that undoubtedly appeal to black teenagers (and other races obviously, I'm not stereotyping, simply acknowledging black teenagers buy more athletic shoes sold by basketball players than by baseball players or football players) who want to purchase the shoes their favorite player may wear. So to indicate Kobe has "sizzle" is to indicate these teenagers purchasing the shoes think "Oh rape is great and now I will buy Kobe's shoes, because to be accepted into the culture I am in, one has to have a violent crime they are accused of and he has met this criteria."

I don't think Skip's comment was overtly racist and this isn't the main point of what I'm writing. I am simply pointing out Skip knows what he was saying and Skip knows who buys athletic shoes that Kobe Bryant would sell. It's insulting to that population to indicate they are depraved enough as to want to purchase Kobe's shoes only after he has street cred with a rape accusation on his record. But see, this is all part of his act. Skip plays the role of provocateur for ESPN and they support him in this role. In fact, ESPN goes out of it's way to defend Bayless when he is playing this role, while they rolled over as quickly as possible when Bill Simmons dared to call Roger Goodell a liar. It seems offending people who buy athletic shoes is fine, but offending Roger Goodell is over the line. I'll give it to Skip, he knows how to play the game.

It's ridiculous to say the rape accusation against Kobe gave him "sizzle." If Skip had a daughter or son, I doubt he would be saying that his son being accused of rape would give him "sizzle" among his friends. Just like I doubt he would high-five the guy his daughter accuses of raping her, while acknowledging rape is a serious crime, but also acknowledging this could totally help him with his street cred and give him an edge. That's the issue at hand. To indicate any rape accusation brought against an athlete in any way is a positive or could be perceived as a positive is worse than calling someone a liar in my opinion. Again, that's where Skip Bayless is dangerous and Bill Simmons is just annoying. Skip is inserting positive attributes about a rape accusation into the public's eye and there are no repercussions for doing so. This isn't a "What about the kids?" situation. This is a "What about decency, respect for victims of rape, and respect for people who purchase athletic shoes or any other product endorsed by Kobe Bryant?"

Here is the statement ESPN put out when suspending Bill Simmons: 

“Every employee must be accountable to ESPN and those engaged in our editorial operations must also operate within ESPN’s journalistic standards. We have worked hard to ensure that our recent NFL coverage has met that criteria. Bill Simmons did not meet those obligations in a recent podcast, and as a result we have suspended him for three weeks.”

But every employee isn't accountable to ESPN. Bill Simmons wasn't being accountable because he said something ESPN didn't like. Skip Bayless has been accountable to ESPN's journalistic standards because he was hired to say rape gave an athlete "sizzle." This is what ESPN wants him to do and they encourage him to do this. So in a way, I guess Skip is being accountable to ESPN. He's accountable in making sure he draws ratings and gets ESPN publicity for the things he says on "First Take." I just have a different version of what "accountable" means. ESPN's journalistic standards seem to have some give to them as it pertains to what Skip Bayless says and what others at ESPN may say. Just because Skip Bayless has been hired to say crazy shit and he follows through doesn't make it all right. If Bill Simmons says Kobe Bryant got "sizzle" from a rape accusation, can you imagine a scenario where he isn't suspended? I can't.

Skip doesn't do anything at ESPN but editorialize. He is the poster child for editorializing at ESPN. He very rarely tries to deal in facts, but prefers to deal in hot sports takes yelled as loudly as possible into the face of his debate sparring partner and the viewer at home's ears. So I would think he would be required to operate within ESPN's journalistic standards. Apparently "First Take" has lower standards than other arms of the ESPN operation. Lies, trolling, and demeaning victims of violent crimes by awarding positive attributes on the perpetrator of the crime (or even accused perpetrator) are considered to be within ESPN's journalistic standards. Maybe Skip didn't undermine any of ESPN's reporting on Kobe Bryant and that's why he's not been suspended. Perhaps ESPN thinks 10 years have gone by and it's fine to speculate on the street cred Kobe has received from the rape accusations against him. That's how it seems to me.

From the ombudsman's September 25 column on Simmons being suspended.

A case could be made that Simmons, who had done excellent work taking Goodell and the NFL to task up to this point, undermined ESPN’s solid journalistic efforts on the Rice story with some Grantland grandstanding. I don’t think that was his intent; Simmons tends to follow his passions as if they were truths, especially in podcasts, where he seems to act as if he is alone with a friend at the bar. 

I think the exact same could be said for Skip Bayless and comments he makes on "First Take." Bayless takes his passions (or trolling attempts as I think of them) and grandstands them into truths, and not only truths, but truths about Skip Bayless as he inserts himself into the story. It's Skip being alone with a friend at the bar.

But Skipper certainly thought it was, and that insubordination was one of the main two reasons for the severity of the suspension. Particularly on podcasts, Skipper said, Simmons has a tendency to slip back into his “bad boy, let’s-go-to-Vegas” persona.

It's easy to see what is really important here. Simmons challenged ESPN to suspend him, almost daring them to do so. That's part of the reason a suspension resulted. He was being insubordinate and ESPN can't have employees being insubordinate like this. Fortunately for Skip Bayless, in stating that a rape accusation gave Kobe "sizzle" he wasn't only not being insubordinate, he was doing exactly what ESPN has hired him to do and they support him with almost zero public questions about his act and it's impact on the viewer. Who cares? Ratings are king. Skip didn't challenge ESPN, he only challenged the idea of journalistic decency, and that doesn't matter because ESPN hired him to piss on the grave of journalistic decency in the first place. That's what makes Skip dangerous in my opinion. He's got the full backing of ESPN to keep his act going.

Simmons, Skipper believes, is transitioning into an important influence and mentor at Grantland and needs to leave his well-worn punkishness behind. 

Skip Bayless is 62 years old by the way. It's okay for his punkishness to be front and center even though he gets an "AARP" magazine in the mail.

The more important reason for the suspension, Skipper said, had to do with fairness and the difference between commentary and reporting...Skipper said Simmons had to advance the story, bring some evidence, before he could make flat-out charges against anyone. 

I'm guessing that evidence of this "sizzle" Skip Bayless spoke of was not required. After all, Skip is just shooting the shit on the air. No need to take him so seriously. He didn't challenge ESPN to do something about his comments and got his name out there on the Internet and blogs. He's done his job. No evidence is required and it's perfectly fine for a 62-year old man to believe a rape accusation can help an NBA star sell products.

But the big issues here are some of the same discussed in recent Ombudsman columns. Is anybody watching the baby? Who reviews content, such as podcasts, before posting? Do the people who review Simmons’ work report to him? Producers and editors are supposed to vet content before it hits the fans, even if the content is generated by a franchise player. 

And what makes Bayless so dangerous is that he isn't recording a podcast or writing a column that can be edited. He's just speaking, debating in a furious fashion on the air, so there is an air of "whatever happens, happens" about "First Take" that lends itself to idiotic comments. The ombudsman thinks ESPN should vet content before it hits the fans, but there's no way to vet what Skip Bayless says. Therefore his license for stupidity won't be revoked and he can tread in waters that others aren't allowed to tread in. Journalistic integrity is important, unless ESPN has hired you specifically to work against that purpose for the sake of ratings.

Sometimes that means keeping the reins on network superstars, challenging them, holding them to the highest of standards. 

Or this problem can simply be avoided by holding these network superstars to no standards. In the video, you can see Skip Bayless saying what happened in Colorado gave Kobe "sizzle" and he pauses repeatedly on his way to saying this. Why? I think because he knows it's wrong, he knows it is inappropriate, and he knows he's basically saying, "Hey rape is a tough crime, but boy look at all the athletic apparel you can sell with a rape accusation on your resume! You can only be tough and worthy in the eyes of people who buy sneakers if you have been accused of a violent crime."

Skip knows what he is saying isn't right and he knows it sounds terrible. Yet, he kept going because he also knew there would be no repercussion for finishing that sentence. Probably because while Skip Bayless thinks what happened in Colorado gave Kobe "sizzle," ESPN thinks comments like this that should offend the public give Skip his "sizzle."

This isn't the first time Skip has tried to argue that Kobe's rape accusation helped him with endorsements. He wrote a column essentially saying this in 2004 (I think that was the year). 

And pre-Eagle, it appeared to irritate Kobe that he was viewed as so suburban by so many urban NBA fans. As too upper-middle-class privileged to be street cool. As lacking the edge the shoe companies want from their primary pitchman.

Sluggish sales prompted a split between Kobe and adidas. Shortly before Eagle, Kobe signed with Nike for about $45 million over five years. That's a pittance next to the $90 million over seven years that Nike gave LeBron James, a kid who hadn't played anything but high-school ball. 

A Los Angeles Times story examined the question of Kobe's "street credibility." Several marketing experts were quoted as saying Kobe hadn't proven to have sneaker-selling power. 

David Carter of Sports Business Corporation in Los Angeles said: "You've heard a lot being made about street credibility the last month or so. I think both those guys (Kobe and LeBron) have street credibility. It's just that their streets are in different neighborhoods." 

Nevermind that another expert basically said, "Well, Kobe has street cred, but just in a different way." Skip rejects this conclusion.

Now that the rape case has been dismissed, you could argue that Kobe has at least added enough controversial aura to sell the products that anti-hero-worshipping kids buy -- sneakers, especially. Yet Bob Williams, CEO of Burns Entertainment and Sports Marketing, argues otherwise.

"Kobe Bryant is not from the street," Williams said Friday, "and people on the street know that. He hasn't ever appealed to that group. Just being controversial in and of itself isn't enough to give him a significant increase in being able to sell shoes." 

Because we all know kids who buy sneakers want to know how many rape accusations a player has before purchasing those sneakers.

Skip Bayless and his act are dangerous in my opinion. What makes them dangerous is he has the full backing of ESPN and ESPN executives will even go out of their way to defend him from the idea he is a huge troll who is there to gain attention. While Bill Simmons is expected to provide a litany of proof that Roger Goodell is a liar, Skip Bayless is using rape as a tool to help increase Kobe Bryant's marketing prospects and no one at ESPN has blinked an eye. Skip should be suspended, though he will not be. Skip is too smart for that. He knows better than to bite the hand that feeds him. He will keep doing what brings in the ratings and being the circus clown ESPN has hired him to be. What makes Skip Bayless and his act dangerous is that Bill Simmons bit the hand that feeds him in making comments about Roger Goodell being a liar, but Skip Bayless was perfectly meeting the journalistic standards ESPN has for HIM by stating a rape accusation was a marketing opportunity for Kobe Bryant.

Therein lies the problem. ESPN claims to have journalistic and editorial standards, but only for those employees of ESPN who they feel like should be held to these standards. Skip Bayless, a man who was quoted in "Those Guys Have All the Fun" as saying, "No one at ESPN has ever told me 'no'" isn't being held to any standard, other than to bring in eyeballs to the network. That's an issue for a network who wants to preach about journalistic standards when one of their writers refers to cheering for the Celtics as being the same thing as cheering for Hitler, an employee calling Roger Goodell a liar, or an employee harshly criticizing Bud Selig on a radio show. Just like a child who has never been told "no," Skip Bayless knows he can get away with anything...and Skip Bayless is a child, so he will continue to be the pimple on the journalism side of ESPN's ass.

See, ESPN separates the "entertainment" and "journalism" side of the company from each other. Bill Simmons is "journalism," so he is held to a higher standard than Skip Bayless, who is part of the "entertainment" side of ESPN. ESPN is fine with their in-house circus clown using rape as a marketing opportunity because it's all in the act of a good debate. That's what is dangerous about Skip Bayless. He is a corporate-backed idiot who hasn't been told "no." Bill Simmons can't get away with giving his strong (and out of line) opinion on Roger Goodell without the great pimp hand of ESPN smacking him back, while they push Skip Bayless further up on the pedestal to preach his message to the masses. On the other hand, perhaps Skip has a point. You know, Major League Baseball is looking for a new "face of the sport." Maybe Mike Trout should look into raping someone in order to help the sport get the "sizzle" it needs to compete for attention and sell more merchandise.

8 comments Bill Simmons Was Right, But Knew He Would Get Suspended

As was possibly his plan all along, Bill Simmons got suspended by ESPN for his comments on Roger Goodell being liar and then daring ESPN to suspend him. As mandated by Internet law, I'm sure everyone has heard about this and gotten to hear 1,000 opinions on this issue. Bill Simmons takes a piss and the world waits for him to flush. More on Bill and the overall Sith-lord in a Communist nation vibe that ESPN gives out around that situation in a minute.

I want to focus first on the ESPN ombudsman and his work of late. The ESPN ombudsman does not post often. Sometimes he will post fairly quickly one after the other. He has posted on the following dates (and of course he posts about Simmons as soon as I finish typing this):

October 15, 2013

October 24, 2013- in a post that came quickly after the other one and was more complimentary towards ESPN (hint, this is a semi-trend) saying:

The ESPN female audience has risen to about 45 percent, according to last year’s figures, and the network has been making an effort to showcase female talent. The promotion of Doris Burke this month to studio analyst on “NBA Countdown” was a dramatic example.
 
But ESPN also has to do a better job of identifying those “good ol’ boy” comments and turning them into teachable moments for the guys who haven’t quite gotten their heads out of their lockers. 

The entire article wasn't entirely complimentary, but considering David Pollack had essentially made comments which moved humanity back 75 years, and ESPN's earned reputation for a boy's club, along with their history of treating women poorly...I'd say it was pretty complimentary. Lipsyte could easily have gone on for 5,000 words about this just being another example of sexism ingrained in the ESPN culture, but that's for someone else to do I guess.

November 22, 2013

December 18, 2013

December 31, 2013- in a post about religious tolerance and advocacy that more or less just covered the topic.

January 17, 2014

January 27, 2014- On the Dr. V story, where he was critical of Grantland's handling of the Dr. V story.

March 18, 2014

April 3, 2014- Simply reaction from readers and no real "ombudsman" activities to be read.

April 28, 2014

May 30, 2014

July 9, 2014

July 30, 2014

September 9, 2014

September 23, 2014- This is the latest column. Notice this column comes a mere two weeks (two WHOLE weeks!) after the last ombudsman post. You may be familiar with the previous ombudsman post because that was the one where the ombudsman discussed punishments at ESPN and how they are handled. It also has the choice quote from an ESPN executive where he says,

“We don’t treat everyone the same but we treat everyone fairly.”

It's also the post where ESPN was essentially admitting to keeping punishments and information from the ombudsman because it's not the public's right to know. Sure, maybe. What's the point of having an ombudsman if you aren't going to let him report to the public regarding organizational decisions in order to back up the appearance of transparency you want to give with actual actions that support this transparency?

So it was surprising that the ombudsman posted again so quickly. Then I read what he wrote.

The network’s heavyweights -- Keith Olbermann, Jason Whitlock and Bill Simmons, among others -- delivered their own verbal punches; investigative reporter Don Van Natta Jr. has been driving the national media’s newsgathering; Bob Ley anchored smart and thoughtful discussions; and a roster of stars, including Jane McManus, Dan Le Batard, Hannah Storm, Andrew Brandt, Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen, offered information and insight.
 
I’d like to say I wasn’t the least bit surprised … but I was.
 
This was ESPN’s finest hour during my tenure as Ombudsman,

This was a fairly complimentary post towards ESPN and I can imagine some ESPN executive shooting Robert Lipsyte an email suggesting he write about ESPN's great victory as soon as possible. That's how I explain the short two week wait between posts. ESPN had something great they wanted to have Lipsyte comment on, so he did. I wouldn't suggest Lipsyte is a lapdog or lackey for ESPN, but it struck me as funny that he followed up one post with another so quickly when that's not how he usually writes. Topics have been well past their sell-by date when a discussion of that topic has appeared in the ombudsman's page prior, so it doesn't strike me as a coincidence ESPN's great victory which just happens to coincide with a new ombudsman post. ESPN's battle with the Ravens over the Don Van Natta Jr report got a quick, starry-eyed review on the ombudsman's page like it was almost a part of the plan to protect "the brand."

In a world where the ombudsman doesn't write much, one post where ESPN admits they won't be transparent with him, followed by another shockingly short wait for another post where ESPN looks good, leads me to believe ESPN is up to their usual shenanigans in an effort to help "the brand."

Speaking of the brand and those who hurt it and also help it. Bill Simmons got suspended for three weeks for something. Maybe for his comments about Roger Goodell, though I doubt it, and maybe for challenging his bosses to suspend him, which I don't doubt at all. Here is my archive of Bill Simmons posts. It's a lot. I have a lot of issues with his writing. I put this out there as my resume of being a Simmons-hater. He annoys me because he has a great amount of talent, but his writing is full of "we's" and crappy theories that he has put about 10 seconds of effort into concocting. His columns are essentially material that takes up the time until his next mailbag, which features questions about his columns.

In this situation, Simmons is absolutely right. He was correct to call out Roger Goodell like he did for being a liar. But he wasn't even close to being the first person or the first person at ESPN or the 10th person at ESPN to call out Roger Goodell for being fishy and not entirely forthright about the Ray Rice video. It's popular to call Roger Goodell out for lying. So much so, there seems to be a bit of a backlash against those calling Goodell out for lying. Of course, it would be nice if something would be done about it to prove the statement that Goodell is a liar as true or false, but I'm sure Peter King is hard at work waiting for someone to dig that information up. After all, that's why there is an "independent" investigation.

So in typical Simmons fashion, he becomes the lead guy for "Goodell must go" when he didn't say it first and he didn't say it most eloquently, he just did it with the most flair and uproar. Bill found a way to get himself some attention for his view by challenging his bosses to fire him for holding the same opinion other ESPN employees have voiced. That's the annoying part about Simmons. He's always said the same thing (or similar things) that other people have said, while trying to put his stamp on it and have the focus on him. Examples are all contained in his writing. His ideas have to be the best and most original idea, so he will tweak a reader's idea in a mailbag to make it his own, then drive the idea into the ground. So Bill's thought wasn't original, he just used an airplane flying a banner over the Super Bowl to announce his feelings while everyone else simply put out a press release. Bill knows his power. Don't think he doesn't. You simply can't call out your employer like Simmons did. I guess it serves some purpose.

Bill Simmons was right and perfectly within his rights to give his opinion on Roger Goodell. Even if it was a very expressive opinion for certain alternative purposes he may have had, he was right. Bill Simmons should not have been suspended for his comments, but he was going to get suspended for his comments. "We" simply can't call out our employer like that and expect no blowback for the comments. For someone who is (throws up in a bucket) smart, forward thinking, and understands what his reader wants to read/hear/see, Bill doesn't have a very good eye for business at times. Either that, or more likely, he knew what would happen by daring ESPN to suspend him. ESPN isn't going to mind their employees commenting on Roger Goodell and the NFL. That's something the network has to allow or else they appear to be beholden to an NFL that the public already believes they are beholden to. ESPN is also going to take any chance they can get to punish employees who go beyond criticizing Roger Goodell and the NFL. Bill did that. He was hostile in his comments and challenged ESPN. That'll do it. He gave ESPN a chance to be outraged and they took that chance.

Where ESPN really messed up is in how they punished Bill. Suspending him for three weeks isn't the right type of punishment for a guy like Bill Simmons. It brings me back to the comments to the ombudsman in the September 9 post about how everyone is treated fairly, but not everyone is treated the same. Anyone who has ever managed employees knows it's important to understand what that employee values and reward/punish them appropriately based on that. Suspending Bill Simmons for three weeks is only going to feed the fire. He said on his podcast "I'm going public" if ESPN contacts him about his comments on the podcast. He wants the drama, he wants the notoriety in this situation to position himself as the strong anti-establishment, anti-Goodell guy at ESPN. The same things that frustrate me about Simmons' writing stand in opposition to his strengths. He half-asses his writing and I know this is true because he has interesting podcasts and he is the brain behind Grantland. He's a very smart guy who is always trying to stay two steps ahead of everyone else. His columns represent the lazy side of him where he doesn't care to be two steps ahead because he's bored with writing columns already. I think Bill wants to badly position himself as the rebel, rather than the corporate millionaire that he really has become. Just take a look at the "Rolling Stone" profile of him. He talks about smoking pot and embraces his issues with ESPN. It's all part of the plan to paint himself as a rebel who works within the system, rather than being the person who has willingly chose to be a part of the system because it provides him with what really motivates him, which is power, money and influence.

Bill likes power and influence and not the "I'm going to take over the world" power, but the "I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it" power. The "don't edit my column" type of power. That's what he wants. He wants money, influence and power. ESPN has money and offered him the opportunity for power and influence by allowing him to start the successful (from all appearances) Grantland site. As much as he protests, Bill's first choice is not to leave ESPN, because they are paying him well, he gets his opinions out to the masses and they have multiple platforms where he can voice this opinion. He's also aware he doesn't want to be seen as a corporate stooge. A Chris Berman or Skip Bayless who is tied so tightly to ESPN you can't imagine him outside of ESPN. Hence, we get these temper tantrums from time-to-time where Bill needs to remind the public that he is a rebel and doesn't like being held down by the same corporate partner whose resources he has willing and eagerly chosen to use to enhance his bank account and celebrity. This isn't a criticism. Bill is smart. He knows what he's doing. ESPN suspends him and they look like they are going hard on one of their best known employees and Bill looks like he is raging against the machine again. Bill will passively-aggressively make comments about ESPN down the road to let everyone know how unhappy he was, but he hasn't been so unhappy as to make a move yet. He has money, influence and power. A three week suspension will only enhance his influence by painting him as a martyr for the anti-Goodell crusade among fans of his and non-fans of his.

So short story long, ESPN shouldn't have suspended Bill because that buys into what he wants them to do. Of course the alternative is probably not attractive because it risks alienating Bill and ending this symbiotic relationship where each party accomplishes what they need to accomplish without looking like they are soft on their best employees (ESPN) or bow down to corporate interests (Bill). The real way to punish Bill, assuming ESPN really wanted to punish him rather than just piss him off and dare him to think leaving for a week or two, would be to threaten to remove some of his power. Grantland is a good site. I go there to read articles and there are many good articles. It is a product of Bill's mind and foresight. But like any good editor-in-chief he is replaceable with the right guy. Everyone is replaceable, including Bill. I will admit I don't know how Grantland works contractually. I think ESPN could get rid of Bill as editor-in-chief. It's an ESPN property, so I am working with partial information knowing only that.

If ESPN really wanted to punish Bill, they would tell him, "Look, you have done a great job with Grantland, but we can't have you challenging us to suspend you while bashing the NFL commissioner on this site. If you can't stop doing things like this and threatening the brand of the Grantland property then we may have to remove you as editor-in-chief. So for a few weeks, take a step back and think about what you want. If you want to be editor-in-chief, then stop challenging us to suspend you, and hurting a growing branch of ESPN. You can still write, still do the NBA pregame show, and podcasts, but Grantland won't have you as editor-in-chief and you won't be doing any of that other stuff on Grantland."

After a while, an idea like Grantland, much like the "30 for 30" documentaries and ESPN as a whole, become bigger than the creator and take on a life of their own. Grantland won't necessarily require Bill Simmons to succeed in the future.

Yes, having this type of conversation with Bill probably isn't the best business decision, but if the purpose is to punish Bill Simmons, threatening to takeaway Grantland permanently, not for three weeks, is the route they would want to go. Maybe they did that. I don't know. I just know Bill Simmons isn't Stephen A. Smith who requires face time on the television or radio screaming at you to soothe his ego and feel accomplished. Bill just exists with his influence brought by "30 for 30," Grantland, podcasts and appearances on the ABC NBA pregame show. Take away something from him, then he's probably pissed off and he's also been punished. One read of the "Rolling Stone" confirms that Bill is constantly moving and constantly trying to think of new ideas. Take away one of those ideas that he's made real, that's a real punishment. Bill thrives on his ideas and his ownership of those ideas. It's what makes him great at what he does...not including writing. He's still not good at that, which is why there are 180 posts tagged here with his name on them.

Bill exists outside of ESPN. He has purposely tied himself to working for ESPN, but isn't considered as much of an ESPN property to the general public like other ESPN employees (Chris Mortensen, Stephen A. Smith, Chris Berman, Bob Ley, Skip Bayless, etc). This is intentional. Don't get me wrong, Bill works for ESPN, but he's made sure he is "Bill Simmons noted sports/entertainment talking head and editor-in-chief of Grantland" and not "Bill Simmons of ESPN." Bill has his own web site, but he needs the resources of ESPN to make this work for him. Bill could start his own Grantland if he left ESPN, but I believe it would be hard to draw the talent he is currently drawing at this new site away from ESPN. Bill has accumulated some really good writers (and annoying writers, don't get me wrong) at Grantland. Zach Lowe being of one of those writers. So Bill could venture out on his own or hook up with another sports web site to open a different form of Grantland there (I can see Bleacher Report making a play for him and considering how much he's bashed them, it would be a bit of hypocrisy on Bill's part), but he's still going to be competing with ESPN at that point. He can succeed without ESPN because he's not as tied to them as other employees, but I question whether he can pull in the talent at another site that he's pulled in at ESPN without the backing of ESPN. So while Bill exists outside of ESPN, I don't know if he wants to actually exist outside ESPN. Again, the platform ESPN provides for his ideas across all of their mediums is something he simply can't get anywhere else. ESPN can outbid other networks for talent and offer them a chance to get more face time on many more platforms than other sports networks.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think ESPN should be as draconian as to threaten to take away Grantland from Bill. That's a tough move that I don't believe his behavior in this situation merits. I'm on Bill's side here. His writing stinks, but his value to ESPN is unquestioned. Suspending him for three weeks is a pretty tough move as well, but not a move I think that really hurts Bill. It's a move that accomplishes what Bill wanted to accomplish and isn't the best way to punish Bill if ESPN really was looking to punish him rather than just put him in time out. ESPN does need to be careful in fucking with their well-known and well-liked employees like Bill Simmons. While I have stated Bill could have trouble leaving ESPN and succeeding elsewhere due to the power, influence and money ESPN offers, if any ESPN employee has the brains to succeed and go up against ESPN then it would be Bill Simmons' name on that shortlist. If we are being honest, Bill has never gone against the grain really. He started working for ESPN in the late 90's and every new idea he has brought forth has had the backing of ESPN and always allowed him the soft pillow of ESPN to fall back on. So again, while he paints himself as the rebel with crazy, new ideas he wants to bring forth, he prefers to bring these crazy, new ideas forth with the corporate backing and fail-safe that ESPN provides. Bill has the intelligence to go out on his own, I don't know if he has the daring.

What's annoying is this suspension isn't about Bill Simmons and what he said on his podcast. It's about ESPN's ego. They simply don't want him questioning their ability to suspend one of their personalities. That's it. Bill Simmons deserved to get suspended while also not entirely deserving to get suspended. ESPN basically suspended Bill because he told them to. He said nothing that other ESPN commentators haven't said and ESPN hasn't exactly stuck with the NFL on the topic of the Ray Rice video. For me, this is the height of Bill and ESPN's hubris. Bill made himself a martyr at the altar of hot takes on Roger Goodell and ESPN suspended him because he dared them to do so. Bill's actions will look good compared to the "Don't say anything negative about Goodell" attitude that ESPN is projecting in this situation, even though that's not what the suspension is about. The suspension is about ESPN wanting to treat every employee fairly, but not the same. They can't have Bill Simmons bashing the commissioner and then daring ESPN to suspend him while threatening to "go public."

But here's the thing, this was a non-story if ESPN just doesn't respond by suspending Bill. At ESPN it is fine to use the n-word on the air three times, it's fine to accuse women of provocating their own beating and it isn't the first time Smith has done that, and it's fine to lie to viewers. All of those incidents resulted in a grand total of a two week suspension. Just don't challenge ESPN's ability to suspend you for making the same comments others at the network have made, but simply in a stronger fashion. It's annoying, because Bill is getting what he wanted. He's getting the attention he clearly wanted and is seen as the clubhouse leader when it comes to calling for Roger Goodell's head. ESPN could have quashed this all by just allowing the news cycle to run it's course. Granted, they would have some people upset internally and egos would be hurt, but ESPN hasn't worried about internal strife previously when one of their employees makes controversial statements. Why start now?

This suspension is about ESPN wanting to be a Sith-lord who chokes an underling for a mistake, because they can and don't want their authority to do so questioned. "Look at how decisive and strong we can be! Don't fuck with us, because we have standards that we pay attention to every once in a while when it is convenient to do so! Our standards involve reporting on the showering habits of athletes and allowing Gregg Easterbrook to mislead readers every week on ESPN.com, but it's not our standard to allow justified criticism of Roger Goodell in a strong fashion, then challenging us to take action against you for making such a strong, justified statement."

It's another example of ESPN treating their employees "fairly" but showing contempt for the intelligence of their viewers. Trolls, women-haters and race-baiters get an opportunity to voice their opinion as much as they want while throwing around opinions that may or may not be factually based. But ESPN takes it seriously when there is justified criticism of the NFL commissioner for potentially lying about whether he saw the Ray Rice video prior to suspending Rice. ESPN has to protect their ability to suspend an employee so they can further protect a non-employee, but important ESPN stakeholder, who at the very least is guilty of completely misunderstanding the impact domestic violence can have on society and those who are victims of domestic violence. ESPN employs women, but desperately wants to protect Roger Goodell's right to lie about a domestic violence incident and what he knew about the incident when suspending a player. That's how it looks to some people, though that's not the entire truth.

Regardless of whether ESPN knows it or not, which they probably do, they have started a war with Bill Simmons. He's a child. He's a child in the right in this situation, but he's a child nonetheless. Just read his podcast comment about potentially getting suspended by ESPN,

"I really hope somebody calls me or emails me and says I'm in trouble for anything I say about Roger Goodell, because if one person says that to me, I'm going public," Simmons said. "You leave me alone. The commissioner is a liar and I get to talk about that on my podcast."

Those words, especially the last sentence sounds like that of a teenager who is rebelling against their parents. It's very childish.

It's HIS podcast and he can talk about WHATEVER HE WANTS! Leave Bill ALONE! He'll tell everyone how mean you are if you try to do anything to him.

It's very childish sounding.

So the war has started/continued and the only question that remains is whether Bill will continue to passively-aggressively bash ESPN when given the chance all while being protected by the umbrella of money, influence and power it has provided him or he will honestly look to get out and find his own way in the sports world? Is this another temper tantrum to remind everyone that Bill is nobody's bitch, all while Bill takes zero steps to ensure he is not under the thumb of ESPN anymore? Or is this a breaking point where Bill has finally challenged ESPN to suspend him for saying comments he believes (rightfully) he is within his rights to say?

Frankly, this is probably an example of Bill acting like a teenager. He's testing the limits of his parents while also choosing to live in their home due to the safety of the situation. I would be convinced otherwise if Bill had ever previously turned his anger towards ESPN into anything other than a way to get more autonomy with the security of ESPN behind him. Perhaps the fact he is very much right in this situation can push him to eventually make a change, but his three week suspension isn't enough to make him change his behavior and serve as a real punishment where he would lose something he values. If ESPN wanted to change Bill's behavior then they would have actually tried to punish Bill through the loss of something he values and if Bill really didn't like ESPN messing with his podcast then he will take this chance to start making a move. At this point, it feels more like a stalemate and a half-assed, symbiotic Cold War right now. ESPN wants to "punish" Bill, but doesn't really want to piss him off, and Bill wants to rail against ESPN overseeing his work, but doesn't really want to leave. 

This is how far we have come from the Ray Rice video. It started with Ray Rice seen dragging his fiance off an elevator and now a sports network has suspended one of their most popular employees for commenting the NFL commissioner may or may not have lied about seeing a video tape inside the elevator where Rice actually knocked his fiance out. Ray Rice got Bill Simmons suspended. Rice is out for the year, the Baltimore Ravens' franchise is being called liars by ESPN, ESPN is questioning the Ravens honesty, the Ravens are questioning ESPN's reporting and ESPN is suspending employees for questioning Roger Goodell's honesty and then challenging ESPN to do something about these comments. Meanwhile, Roger Goodell is still NFL commissioner awaiting an "independent" investigation on what he knew and when. People all around the situation fall and have their integrity questioned, but Goodell still stands. He's letting everyone else fight it out while he has disappeared. Seems like Goodell has won to me.

I pushed TMQ to my next post for this weekend, so check back. So two TMQ's in a short time span (probably). Who says "no" to that?

3 comments ESPN's Ombudsman Pokes His Head Out of The Ground to Remind The World He Exists

ESPN has an Ombudsman. Actually, they have had a series of Ombudsmen for quite a few years now. It's hard to really know about the Ombudsman since ESPN has the Ombudsman only post something once or twice a month. The current ESPN Ombudsman is Robert Lipsyte. I'm sure he's a nice guy. He posted his first column on June 28, 2013 and has written a grand total of 20 columns since then. He's written four columns since April 28, 2014. I don't know what to expect from the ESPN Ombudsman, but I expect more than this. Since ESPN is a 24 hour sports network I figure the Ombudsman could have more to discuss than writing a column twice in a month. Maybe I should give him credit for doing three chats over the last year too. I'm sure that took a toll and was a heavy workload. I still feel like ESPN has an Ombudsman only to claim they do care about their image and want to be held accountable. Perhaps I'm jaded, but it seems like the hiring of an Ombudsman is an obligatory measure by ESPN. They care! Look at the Ombudsman they hired!

So Robert Lipsyte has written about ESPN embracing debate and where this embrace of debate goes wrong. While I don't necessarily expect Lipsyte to lay into ESPN on a weekly basis, it would be nice if he didn't pretend Stephen A. Smith's comments about the Ray Rice situation were out of the ordinary for Smith and out of the ordinary for the inflammatory comments that are encouraged on "First Take." I would appreciate it more if the ESPN Ombudsman would treat "First Take" and other "embrace debate" shows for what they are, which is two ill-informed talking heads yelling opinions at each other in an effort to troll viewers into paying attention. But, that's not going to happen, so Lipsyte acts like "First Take" went a little wrong while embracing debate. He will ignore that the show is a breeding ground for outrageous comments, racism, and statements being made purely for shock value.

I don't believe the Ombudsman is properly doing his job if he doesn't acknowledge that "First Take" has been a breeding ground for outrageous behavior that at times has created an environment for ugly comments. Also, in this column the Ombudsman not once mentions that ESPN should have initially had female point of view on the Ray Rice suspension represented on "First Take." Apparently it didn't merit a mention that when discussing the issue of a female being abused by her fiance it might be good to get a woman's point of view on "First Take" prior to Stephen A. Smith's comments. 

As covered in this space before, ESPN has championed an “embrace debate” mantra for a number of its programs, including the popular morning show on ESPN2 called “First Take.” 

I would argue it's popular only in that people hate-watch it. That's good enough for ESPN though.

This has at times served the network well, growing audience and offering sometimes thought-provoking, entertaining television.

The emphasis here being on "entertaining" television, much in the same way "The Jerry Springer Show" was entertaining television. At very few points have I ever heard anything approaching thought-provoking when Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless have been at the table yelling at each other regarding a sports topic.

Of course, that also means ESPN has to live with -- or at least take more responsibility -- when that particular septic tank overflows. 

By stating "take more responsibility" I have no idea what the Ombudsman means. Does "taking more responsibility" mean punishing those who appear on the show for acting in the manner that the environment ESPN has created? Or does "taking more responsibility" mean recognizing "First Take" is a breeding ground for comments like Smith to use the n-word, Rob Parker to accuse Robert Griffin of not being black enough or for Skip Bayless to blatantly lie about his sports past while on the air, and then remove the show from the air? I would argue the latter. I have an issue with what Smith said, but "First Take's" environment breeds idiotic comments like this. It's not expected, but bold comments like the ones Smith made about provocation and the abuse of women aren't exactly shied away from either on "First Take."

The latest example came on Friday, when the Ombudsman mailbag justifiably exploded after ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith seemed to cast blame on victims of domestic violence in his “First Take” commentary about the NFL’s punishment of the Baltimore Ravens’ Ray Rice.

He didn't "seem to" cast blame on victims. He DID cast blame on victims and it's well-documented at other sites on the Interwebs that this isn't the first time Smith has made comments such as this. When being an Ombudsman and claiming to be a neutral observer I think it would be important to take the time to do research to see if Smith's comments are a one-time thing or he has a history of such comments. A simple search of the Internet can find that Smith has made comments similar to these he made regarding the Rice incident about another situation involving Chad Johnson (and Floyd Mayweather). Apparently that's too much work for ESPN's Ombudsman to put in to research this and ask the question of whether Smith really feels the way he expressed on "First Take" about provocation.

Smith repeatedly said that he thought the NFL’s punishment of Rice was too light, but created a storm of criticism when he added, “Let’s make sure we don’t do anything to provoke wrong actions. If we come after somebody has put their hands on you, it doesn’t negate the fact that they already put their hands on you. So let’s try to make sure that we can do our part in making sure that that doesn’t happen.” 

I like how the Ombudsman adds that Smith thought the NFL's punishment of Rice was too light and "repeatedly" stated this. As if these words override the other words Smith later used about the victim provoking his/her attacker. I don't expect much from an ESPN Ombudsman. Just a simple analysis of a situation, a look into the history of that situation with the parties involved and that Ombudsman's take on the situation and how it was handled by ESPN. The fact Lipsyte glosses over "First Take" as a breeding ground for idiocy and Smith's history of similar comments makes me believe Lipsyte didn't do his job fully in this situation.

The attention shifted from Rice and the role of the NFL in the off-field transgressions of its players to Smith and ESPN when Michelle Beadle, co-host of the network’s “SportsNation” show, quickly posted a series of tweets challenging Smith’s remarks.

Here is another related issue I have with the Ombudsman's analysis in this column. He acts like attention being shifted from the sports story the ESPN talking head is commenting on to that ESPN talking head him/herself is a new thing. As if the "embrace debate" mantra isn't entirely built around shifting attention from the story being reported on to the reporter doing the reporting/opining. ESPN has a roster full of analysts that have hot sports takes (Merril Hoge, Ron Jaworski, etc.) who can then have their hot sports take discussed on "First Take" and other ESPN shows. It's all part of ESPN's echo chamber.

So I find it interesting that Robert Lipsyte writes about the attention shifting to Smith and Beadle as if this is out of the ordinary for ESPN overall, when in fact the reason the attention shifted in this situation is unusual. Usually, the ESPN echo chamber is shifting attention internally to things Skip Bayless has said on "First Take" or a remark that was made by an ESPN analyst. In this situation, the attention shifted externally to comments made by ESPN employees. I really wish Lipsyte had mentioned this attention shift isn't rare, but the attention shift coming externally to affect ESPN internally is rare. Again, that would require some sense of awareness about the role ESPN plays in the sports world, which apparently even the most neutral observers who are employed by ESPN simply don't have.

My point is this. The situation around Smith's comments is being treated by Lipsyte as a situation where Smith doesn't have a history of similar comments, Smith doesn't appear on a "debate" show where crazy and controversial comments are encouraged, and the attention shifting from the story to the hot sports take the ESPN employee has is an abnormal set of circumstances. That's simply not the case. ESPN just didn't like the attention shift this time, but they love to shift attention away from a story to their employees' take on that story. Lipsyte has talked about the comments Smith made on "First Take," but refuses to discuss at any length the underlying issues that create an environment where Smith can make these comments freely.

Her first tweet that Friday afternoon, was: “So I was just forced to watch this morning's First Take. A) I'll never feel clean again B) I'm now aware that I can provoke my own beating.” 

That became a media story because of ESPN’s stance against its personnel engaging in internecine sniping.

I find this to be a very tone-deaf statement. No, this became a media story because Michelle Beadle is a prominent female sports journalist who spoke out against the statements that Stephen A. Smith made. It was a bigger media story because it was ESPN on ESPN crime, but Beadle's tweets were a reflection of a point of view "First Take" didn't give a shit about representing in their eagerness to "embrace debate." That point of view was that of a female sports journalist. Again, at no point during this article does Lipsyte mention that ESPN could have been well-served to go to their roster of female sports journalists to get a female take on the Ray Rice suspension during "First Take." Isn't this the job of the Ombudsman? To help determine how ESPN can better fairly serve their viewers? Apparently embracing debate is the goal, just as long as that debate doesn't come from a female.

But really, how could ESPN have seen that a female perspective in this situation would have been helpful to the viewer? What point of view could a female provide that Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless can't provide? It's not like ESPN is a massive organization with the opportunity to "embrace debate" on a larger scale with espnW writers and other male ESPN employees rather than have two middle-aged men yell at each other on camera about Ray Rice's suspension.

Stars such as Bill Simmons have been disciplined in the past for criticizing colleagues.

It appears those blinders Lipsyte is wearing fit well. What show was Simmons suspended for criticizing again? Oh yeah! "First Take." Interesting how the Ombudsman, a man who is supposed to be a neutral commenter and observer, leaves out the little tidbit that "First Take" has taken criticism from ESPN employees in the past. Why would the history of "First Take" and ESPN employees being critical of the show in the past have anything to do with Stephen A. Smith's comments and how the environment around "First Take" played a role in his comments? It would be nice if ESPN would hire an Ombudsman that looks beneath the surface on issues as opposed to simply commenting on ESPN and whatever issue is on his brain at that time in a manner that scratches the surface of the issue.

The Ombudsman mailbag was firmly behind Beadle as a champion of victims’ rights, and indications are that ESPN will not take action against her. I think Beadle’s tweets were appropriate, even if she did violate ESPN’s social media policies.

I do think Michelle Beadle needs a stern talking to for violating ESPN's social media policies. Not criticizing ESPN means not criticizing ESPN, even if someone at ESPN stays something incomprehensibly stupid. Women have no place debating domestic violence or criticizing someone else's debate points regarding domestic violence. Beadle needs to know her place and her place isn't on "First Take" debating Ray Rice's suspension. Her debate points will NOT be embraced.

ESPN initially issued a remarkably noncommittal statement, noting that “Stephen's comments last Friday do not reflect our company's point of view.” The network showed more teeth Tuesday, announcing that Smith will not appear on “First Take” or ESPN Radio for the next week. He will return to ESPN next Wednesday. 

But this won't take care of part of the problem. Part of the problem is "First Take." It breeds shit like this. It breeds and encourages through the "embrace debate" philosophy one of the ESPN talking heads saying some stupid shit on the air. Get to that. Point this out. This is something the Ombudsman is failing miserably to do. The "embrace debate" mantra went wrong, but is this "embrace debate" mantra part of the problem? There is a history that shows this could very well be the case.

Smith’s attempts to clarify his remarks on Twitter later on Friday -- and then to apologize Monday in a taped statement before “First Take” -- did not satisfy his critics. Said Smith, “I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career. I ventured beyond the scope of our discussion by alluding to a woman’s role in such heinous matters, going so far as to use the word ‘provoke’ in my diatribe. My words came across that it is somehow a woman’s fault. This was not my intent. It was not what I was trying to say.” 

This is the point where a different Ombudsman might point out that if Stephen A. Smith wasn't trying to say it was a woman's fault, then his history of comments like this one says something completely different. Failing to do an examination of Smith's history of comments on provocation in this Ombudsman piece is an egregious error in my opinion. It frames this as a solitary issue and not one event out of three that could lead a person to believe Stephen A. Smith didn't just slip up once.

"Stephen has called what took place 'the most egregious mistake' of his career," said ESPN president John Skipper in a memo to staff. "I believe his apology was sincere and that he and we have learned from what we've collectively experienced. I'm confident we will all move forward with a greater sense of enlightenment and perspective as the lasting impact of these last few days." 

Well, until the next hot sports take gets out of hand on "First Take" and another of the panelists is forced to apologize for something he didn't mean to say. Though as we learned regarding Skip Bayless outright lying about his basketball career, as long as someone isn't offended, then there are no repercussions for bad behavior on the show. "Embrace debate" may become "Embrace fiction" at times, but it's all for entertainment's sake.

I think Smith’s problems have always been more mechanical than moral. His mouth runs faster than his mind,

Apparently his fingers move faster than his mind on Twitter too. Let's keep making excuses and not get to the underlying issue here and why "First Take" exists, which is to take advantage of the fact Smith's mouth moves faster than his brain. 

His cadences can mesmerize, whether he’s convoluting an already complicated trade or, as he did in 2012 talking about a football player head-butting his then-wife: “There are plenty of instances where provocation comes into consideration, instigation comes into consideration, and I will be on the record right here on national television and say that I am sick and tired of men constantly being vilified and accused of things and we stop there. I'm saying, ‘Can we go a step further?’ Since we want to dig all deeper into Chad Johnson, can we dig in deep to her?’” 

Oh good, we are going to talk about this! The Ombudsman will discuss how Smith's apology rings false because he has been down this road before regarding women being physically assaulted by their husband. Right? Isn't a long discussion on how Smith has a pattern of such comments relevant?

Smith clearly has been down this low road before.

I'm just kidding with you guys. This is the only other comment Lipsyte makes regarding Smith's prior comments about violence against women. Smith has been down this low road before ON "FIRST TAKE," but how in the hell could that be relevant to a discussion about comments Smith made about violence against women on "First Take"? It's certainly not troubling and doesn't indicate anything negative about "First Take." Inconceivable.

I think he was doing what he is paid to do -- pontification on the fly aimed to attract an audience and provoke it into coming back. 

Oh, well it's all good then. As long as it's in the name of trying to attract an audience and provoking them into coming back. The fact Lipsyte just matter of factly states this, without actually wondering if this is the right way to achieve these goals, tells me most of what I need to know about his role as the Ombudsman. He's not interested in actually creating change or calling attention from within the ESPN organization. He wants to discuss topics every other week or so (you know, if he has time), not delve too deeply, treat every incident as an isolated one, and not bother with actual criticism of ESPN for the programming that encourages bad behavior.

In harness with Skip Bayless, he has made “First Take” an extremely popular show. But that again left the network to clean up a mess of his making.

Well, the popularity is a great excuse for creating such a mess. It's all worth it.

And it should not be lost that ESPN actually had several very good responses to the Rice situation. On Thursday night, on his ESPN2 show, Keith Olbermann had harsh words for the light punishment, and on Monday’s night’s show even harsher words for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

But Olbermann didn't have harsh words for Stephen A. Smith, ESPN or "First Take." That's the Ombudsman's job. That is the topic at hand. No one cares in the Ombudsman's space if Keith Olbermann had harsh words for Roger Goodell and the light punishment when discussing Stephen A. Smith's comments about provocation and women. What forum were the women of ESPN given to present their point of view on Rice's suspension? These comments were buried on espnW.

On espnW.com, there were two excellent columns, one by Jane McManus and the other by Mina Kimes. 

So in summary, men like Keith Olbermann, Skip Bayless, and Stephen A. Smith got television spots to discuss Rice's suspension (though Cari Champion did get the honor of "moderating"), while the female ESPN employees got to write columns about the situation. I guess it was too much to ask that McManus or Kimes could be on-camera discussing the suspension during "First Take." That wouldn't be enough "embracing debate" for ESPN. Again, this is a very basic and logical criticism the Ombudsman fails to make. Why didn't ESPN at any point have a female point of view on the Ray Rice suspension on "First Take" alongside the take of Smith and Bayless? It was a suspension derided for how the NFL was treating women, what better than the point of view of a woman on this topic? Why were Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith responsible for representing the male and female point of view on Rice's two-game suspension, which eventually led to Smith's comments about provocation?

And this topic led to some unexpected twists in the Ombudsman mailbag. One reader called out a recent column by Bill Simmons. In a typically breezy Grantland story on sports movies as romantic comedies, Simmons described the Susan Sarandon character in “Bull Durham,” who takes on as lover and project a fresh new minor league player each season, as a “tramp.” 

Anyone who has read "The Book of Basketball" knows that Bill comes off as a misogynist, so this comment in his column isn't entirely out of character for him. Bill likes to portray women as nagging hags who get in the way of a man's success and constantly try to drag him down. It's nothing new.

Wrote Dan Lee of Pickerington, Ohio, “Would Simmons refer similarly to a male who has had a number of girlfriends? Is Derek Jeter a tramp? He has had a number of high-profile romantic interests. Does Simmons hold it against him? The column appears to have been published on the same day that Stephen A. Smith made his much-publicized comments regarding the responsibility of women to make sure they don't provoke their boyfriends into beating them unconscious. Is this how women are viewed at ESPN?”

Boy, wouldn't this be a great topic for the Ombudsman to cover? How does ESPN seem to view women, from an outsider's point of view? But that's a topic the ESPN Ombudsman finds too lengthy or difficult to tackle, despite the fact it's a relevant discussion that has been covered in several books and the question should be asked yet again after Smith's comments about women and provocation. Mike Freeman's book about ESPN brought these questions to light, yet 13 years later some of the questions posed in that book still remain. It sounds like something the Ombudsman might tackle when the chance is given. Apparently not.

Some would say that criticism is a stretch, that it pokes too far into the Jock Culture boys club that marks much of ESPN coverage and commentary. Others would say it’s time for ESPN to address what seems to be an underlying attitude toward women as not quite the audience it needs. What’s the right answer?

Don't expect Robert Lipsyte to look into the right answer or take his job as Ombudsman seriously enough to determine if the criticism is a stretch. He wants YOU to give HIM the answer. Then he can briefly discuss your emails a month from now and his job will be complete. 

If you have specific comments and questions, let’s hear them. We will be revisiting that topic, among others, in far greater detail in upcoming columns. 

I hope so, because a more serious conversation about "First Take" and attitudes towards women at ESPN (whether they be good or bad) was sorely missed in this Ombudsman column. I guess as soon as the ESPN readers do the research for Lipsyte he'll take the time to consider the issue. It's out of line, I guess, to consider "First Take" as a breeding ground for comments such as Stephen A. Smith's comments regarding provocation.

Then Lipsyte writes a little more and mentions Jason Whitlock's so-called "Black Grantland" that is becoming the Dr. Dre's "Detox" of ESPN. I keep hearing about how it will happen, but there's no release date yet, which makes me wonder if it will ever happen.

10 comments A Look Back at LeBron James in High School

This isn't bad journalism really, but I thought it was a pretty fun read and a great example of how much the NBA can change in 10 years. This article is also a good example of those who leech themselves to young high school stars in the hopes for a payday down the line. Somehow I stumbled upon an ESPN the Magazine "Next" issue with a column about then high school junior LeBron James. It was written by Tom Friend and it partially shows the dark side of high school celebrity and has a few Antoine Walker mentions, which is just fantastic. Friend spends some time with LeBron and I get the feeling pretty much everyone was using "Bron Bron" back in the day for their own purposes.

There's this boy/man/narcissist out there, impersonating an NBA player, except he's 17 and still subject to a Catholic high school dress code. He lives in a two-bedroom Akron apartment, with an Ann Iverson clone

At the time "Ann Iverson clone" was code for "over-exuberant parent who the television cameras constantly show as she cheers for her golden ticket to keep performing well on the court."

Got like 50 pictures of MJ on my wall -- that's all you need to know about me," the phenom says. "Got Iverson, McGrady, Magic and Kobe on there, too. And myself. I'm on my wall

Clearly LeBron's ego was in full force at a very young age.

He goes out in public reluctantly, with a Celtics cap tugged low over his eyes

So LeBron is a big fan of Michael Jordan who plays for the Bulls, Allen Iverson who played for the 76ers, Tracy McGrady who played for the Magic and Magic/Kobe who played for the Lakers. Yet, he goes out in public wearing a Celtics cap? I don't think I'll ever understand this.

He's got a two-way pager on one hip and two cell phones on the other -

A pager! Welcome to 2002, everyone!

because he never knows when Antoine Walker might call

What's funny about this is now NBA players don't keep a cell phone on their hip because they are AFRAID Antoine Walker might call.

"Yo Bron, can I get some money? I'll hit you right back as soon as I get paid. Just a few bucks for the next week."

"Shoot, we were at Applebee's one day

And Antoine Walker was your server? He gave you your food (half-eaten by Antoine of course) and then did a shimmy back to the kitchen?

and Antoine Walker did call," says a buddy named Frankie Jr. "And he put him on hold. How can you put Antoine Walker on hold?"

In 2014, it's quite easy and probably preferable to put Antoine Walker on hold.

His home games are on pay-per-view for $7.95 a pop in 14 Ohio counties, and a Dec. 12 matchup with national power Oak Hill was scooped up by ESPN2. "I hope Kobe watches," the kid says. He wanted Dickie V to do the broadcast -- because it's not like he'll be playing on Big Monday next season -- but there are more important things to worry about.

I vividly remember this game and I also vividly remember watching this game on mute because Dick Vitale was calling the game.

He needs to pick a sneaker company, insure his body for at least 5 mil and cross his fingers that the judge goes easy on his surrogate father. 

I know how it can be to have to pick a sneaker company while hoping the judge goes easy on my surrogate father. It's like, "Should I do sneaker research in the court room or would that hurt my body I just insured for $5 million?"

Not since Lew Alcindor has a high school senior been hoisted this high over the bean stalk, and there's an entire basketball public tripping all over itself in anticipation. Michael calls him "Young Buck." Shaq is proud to say, "I'm in his Rolodex."

Years later when the Cavs are desperately attempting to appease LeBron and keep him in Cleveland they gave him a late-career, typically overweight Shaq as a present. Even then, Shaq was probably glad to be in LeBron's Rolodex...since I'm sure LeBron has a Rolodex. LeBron probably thinks a Rolodex is a knock-off of a Rolex.

"I mean, it took Kobe three years," says Dru Joyce II, the God-fearing St. Vincent-St. Mary's mentor who makes James do 10 push-ups every time he curses. "But everyone expects Bron to go right into the NBA and dominate. And I'm concerned about the kid."

Yeah, nobody makes LeBron do push-ups these days. He hires people to do push-ups for him.

Not so concerned that he objects to moving most of LeBron's home games to a college fieldhouse. Not so concerned that he won't accept the free adidas shoes and uniforms that Sonny Vaccaro sends in bulk. Not so concerned that he won't let LeBron James wear monogrammed "LJ 23" adidas tees, sweats and sneakers.

Ah yes, the dark side of these helpful high school coaches. They are helpful and want to make sure a star high athlete stays grounded but only when it doesn't benefit them. Joyce just wants LeBron to be a good person and be surrounded by as little hyp---wait, are those the free sneakers from Adidas? Joyce ordered the whites ones with the blue stripes and these are blue with white stripes. Send that shit back!

(Joyce does 10 push-ups on LeBron's orders)

The kid has charisma -- "Charisma? He's a damn fool," says his mother, laughing -- but he's also oblivious to the flaws of his inner circle. An ex-con is handling his business affairs. Another ex-con wants to tell him he's his biological father. Even his own mother, Gloria, has been seen trading adidas gear to gain entry to local bingo games

And I wondered why "The Decision" seemed to be handled so poorly. It's hard to remember now, but man, LeBron's mom seemed to really bask in the celebrity of her son didn't she? I mean, giving up free Adidas gear to gain entry to bingo games?

It is no surprise that he already refers to himself in the third person -- "LeBron stays humble by just being LeBron," he says -- or that he shouts "King James!" or "You sorry!" after he's dunked on you

Don't dunk on LeBron though, Nike will straight take that tape away so it can't be shown.

It is no surprise that his surrogate dad wants him to play for the Knicks -- "Mecca, Mecca," the man says; or that the NBA is already thinking about putting him on the 2004 Olympic team

The same team that became such an embarrassment it changed how USA Basketball went about choosing the players on each team and forced them to call in Coach K to win a gold for them in the next two Olympics. I have no doubt USA Basketball reminded him that he could subtlety use these Olympic basketball players to recruit players to Duke.

"Hey look, it's a picture of Coach K celebrating a gold medal with 12 really good NBA players that I look up to. I can't believe that just happened to be on the wall during my recruiting visit beside the picture of Coach K with Jay-Z and his two gold medals. What a coincidence!"

He doesn't post up yet

This didn't really change until LeBron joined the Heat and realized, "Oh shit, I am stronger and more powerful than the guy guarding me. Perhaps I should get closer to the basket?"

Scouts like that he's a people person, and predict he'll make a better teammate than Kobe

That's like being a faster sprinter than Rebel Wilson.

They say he'll be a distributor as a rookie, a go-to guy by Year 2 and on a Wheaties box by Year 3.

Move all of those projections up one year and that's about right.

He shops at the NBA Store, just gave up soda for spring water,

You mean Vitaminwater? Because according to that article, LeBron had been drinking that stuff since high school.

The real LeBron James gets inundated with free sneakers, so he gives them away for nothing in the school cafeteria, shouting out trivia questions like, "Who did we beat in the state playoffs last year?" 

Or, "How many bingo cards will this pair of shoes get my mom at this week's big bingo tournament?"

The real LeBron James once got reprimanded by his coach for wearing his shorts too low, so he pulled them up like Urkel for a week.

This was adorable when LeBron was in high school, but antics like this in the NBA gave morons like Skip Bayless a chance to knock LeBron for all of his perceived shortcomings.

The real LeBron James tells his posse they can live with him for his entire NBA career -- or at least until he gets married

LeBron didn't get married until this past Fall, so I'm sure his posse got a good decade of free rent in before LeBron didn't kick them out of the house.

"Yep, he gets called Dumbo, Airplane, anything you can come up with," says friend and teammate Sian Cotton. "We treat him like anyone else. Of course, he says he's gonna get all of us cars after the NBA draft. Tells us whatever kind of truck we want we can get."

Yeah, these teammates who want to live off LeBron found out they may get a truck from LeBron, but he can't live their lives for them otherwise.

The best estimate -- or at least what the St. V's program says -- is that he's 6'8", 240. But like most everything else with LeBron James, it's an absolute guess. The general public has been hearing about him for 2 years, ever since he was the nation's No. 1 prep as a sophomore, but his evolution can be broken down into two stages: pre-6'6" and post-6'6".\

LeBron's "evolution" can be better defined as "When LeBron's family and friends realized they can make money off James because he's so tall and good at basketball." Bottom feeders unite!

He had little stability in his early years, because of a father who never checked in and a mother who scoured the want ads. "When I was 5, some financial things happened, and I moved seven times in a year," LeBron says. "We moved from apartment to apartment, sometimes living with friends

I'm guessing "financial things happened" means LeBron and his mom were poor. But don't worry, we will learn about Gloria James' work ethic in a minute. She was up to do any job, just as long as she didn't have to wake up early in the morning. Not that LeBron was her meal ticket or anything. Not at all.

Her name is Gloria Marie James, and she's a testy, diminutive woman with a serious set of lungs: "I'm loud, can't help it." She got pregnant at 16, and it's been just her and her "Bron Bron" ever since. She says the father was a casual sex partner named Anthony McClelland, who by now is well-known within the state and county penal systems. He's been convicted of arson and theft, to name just two of his many transgressions, and he certainly wasn't the one to help Glo out of her monetary hardships.

It's almost like she should have chosen a better casual sex partner. I'm going to tell my kids that all the time. When choosing a casual sex partner, make sure this person won't be in jail and has money so he/she can help you out financially. It's the smart thing to do. Just don't go choosing a casual sex partner lightly, always ask for criminal records and the latest bank statements before agreeing to any casual sex contract.

Glo's always been late to bed, late to rise -- "I ain't into mornings"

Now I can see where LeBron got his work ethic from. I can't help but wonder if the "financial things" were in any way related to Glo's late to bed and late to rise lifestyle she kept?

According to Akron court records, she's been cited over the years for playing music too loudly, criminal trespassing, contempt of court and disorderly conduct. It's something she plays down -- "There wasn't any drugs involved" -- 

Oh, well then carry on. Nothing to see here.

I'm going to use this reasoning from now on when I didn't do something I was supposed to do to see how far it takes me.

(My boss) "Why did you not show up for work during the month of September?"

(Me) "Well, first off, I don't do mornings anymore. It's just a personal decision I've made."

(My boss) "You didn't show up during the afternoons either. Explain that to me."

(Me) "There wasn't any drugs involved."

(My boss) "That's good to hear. Speaking of hearing good things, do you want a raise?"

but it was never trivial to her son. Out of shame, he stopped going to elementary school, instead spending his days walking back and forth between his apartment and the corner store. "In fourth grade, I missed 82 days of school," LeBron says. "Out of 160."

For fear of judging another person's parenting style, I'll just say I bet Gloria doesn't want LeBron to remember this as he hands out nice shit to her now. LeBron doesn't have a very good relationship with his father and his mother should feel lucky that LeBron likes her. I mean, she didn't exactly give him such a stable environment. This article is almost reading like a cautionary tale more than it reads like the introduction from ESPN to the LeBron James success story.

When his coach, Frankie Walker, noticed LeBron didn't return to school after fourth-grade Christmas break, he quizzed some of the other parents and learned that Glo was looking to find LeBron a more stable home. After consulting with his family -- wife Pam and kids Chanelle, Frankie Jr. and Tanesha -- Walker volunteered to take the boy in.

It takes a village, right? I think this phrase is most commonly used by people who want others to take care of their child for them.

"I don't want to give the impression that Glo just dropped LeBron off on our doorstep," Pam says. "It was important to him and to her that they maintain their relationship. So, wherever she was staying, he went with her on the weekend."

Oh, well I don't feel like Gloria just dropped LeBron off at all. When she wasn't busy not taking drugs, sleeping in a little bit and being unable to hold down a steady job she took care of her child. It's a good thing LeBron could play basketball, that's what I think.

From reading this article, I wouldn't think this letter would get written twelve years later.

With Glo, LeBron would go to bed after Jay Leno; with the Walkers, he had bathrooms to clean and couldn't talk back. He didn't miss one day of school in fifth grade, and at the end of the year he took home the school's attendance award. "Best award ever," he says.

Doesn't this read like the cautionary tale of a successful high school athlete who had a shaky upbringing and then wasn't able to make it in the NBA due to having the wrong support system around him? LeBron had all the traditional red flags.

No father in his life (check)

Mother is shaky presence in his life. (check)

A ton of hype around his high school exploits. (check)

"Friends" who surround him and could very well only be looking to ride his fame. (check)

Coaches who care about him, but get their part too. (check)

Yet, 12 years later LeBron wasn't a cautionary tale about what happens when a high school athlete is hyped too much and the bottom feeders close in...not at all.

the Walkers wouldn't hear of it. They had this ritual of baking LeBron a German chocolate cake on his birthday, and hosting him every Christmas Eve. And rather than lose him, Pam and one of her friends found Gloria a permanent apartment.

And after dominating a series of tournaments, he found himself rated a top-five national prospect.

He also had a certain gleam now, because he and Glo had their own place. Pam Walker still drove him to school every morning, but after practice he wanted the gang over to his house now.

Because I'm jaded, I even think the Walkers may have wanted to hitch their wagon to a star...at least just a little bit.

Then, the summer before 10th grade, lightning struck. "I remember sleeping over at his place," Sian says. "We woke up, got some cereal, and I'm like, 'You grew two inches last night!' I swear, he grew two inches overnight! By the end of the summer, the dude was six-six something."
Six-six three-quarters inches. Exactly.

Glo was in the money now! Her Bron Bron done become a commodity!

The first sign of chaos was when he showed up at St. V's driving a Navigator. Those weren't his wheels -- they belonged to an ex-con -- and that's when the negativity kicked in

I mean, now LeBron is driving a car given to him by an ex-con. Again, doesn't this scream "cautionary tale" to you? These hangers-on and people who do favors for LeBron before he was huge (on the premise he would get huge) could easily have dragged him down. It's also disturbing how grown adults attach themselves to these young kids in an effort to make some money or get a favor done (okay, to get money) down the road. 

It was hyperbole, of course, but the talk had enough merit that shoe companies, investment firms and even Shaq needed someone to call as a go-between.

The ex-con, he was that guy. His name is Eddie Jackson, and he'd been one of Glo's boyfriends from the formative years. When he actually resurfaced is up for debate, but the LeBron regulars don't recall seeing him at any AAU games before the eighth grade

I'm going to need flow chart at some point. So Eddie Jackson was one of Glo's boyfriends, while LeBron's dad was a casual sex partner. Now using a Venn diagram did they ever overlap at any point to where Glo outsourced her sexual needs to LeBron's dad while dating Eddie Jackson for her emotional needs (i.e. cash money)?

Oh, and it doesn't take long for the hangers-on to show up, does it?

They never saw Glo, either -- "LeBron would look up in the crowd for her," Frankie Sr. says -- but from eighth grade on, Eddie and Glo never missed a free throw.

"What, I knew he was gonna be an NBA prospect in the eighth grade?" Eddie says. "Come on. That's hideous."

Exactly. Why show interest in LeBron if you don't know he will be an NBA prospect? It's hideous to know LeBron is an NBA prospect in the 8th grade and attend his games to support him. What's the point of being at the game if there isn't anything in it for you?

And if Eddie hadn't already done 27 months for drug trafficking in the early '90s, his presence might have been more palatable.

So Eddie would have been there earlier to bottom-feed and take advantage of LeBron, but he was just in jail? There was drugs involved too, so I'm sure Gloria did the best she could to keep Eddie away from LeBron. 

But he showed up at the Walkers' one Christmas Eve to give LeBron a PlayStation 2, and as the teen grew past 6'6", the gifts grew too. Last year's whopper was a '95 Ford Explorer.

Or not.

"Absolutely, I gave him the car," says Eddie, now a concert promoter and a drug-and-alcohol prevention counselor. "When you got a kid that's a 3.0 student and dominating the country in basketball, you get him whatever the hell he wants."

It seems Eddie stayed away from drugs and alcohol, at least until February 2014, but made up for his lack of being arrested by getting involved with a mortgage scam. But there wasn't no drugs involved, so I'm sure Gloria had no issue with Eddie showering LeBron with gifts.

This was the world LeBron had to somehow make sense of, and he began to confide more in Eddie than in folks like the Walkers. He asked Eddie to join Gloria as his financial adviser, and began calling Eddie Dad

LeBron turned out to be a success, but this still has all the makings of a disaster doesn't it?

But the battle for custody of LeBron's size-15 feet was only just beginning. Nike's George Raveling will be glad to know that James wears Air Force Ones in practice and once switched from adidas to Nike at halftime of a bad shooting night

Hey, Air Force Ones. Remember Nelly?

When a reporter asked Glo if LeBron would consider skipping his senior year, she chirped, "Who wouldn't?" By now she had become the town's unofficial loose cannon. She'd attend games in a "LeBron's Mom" jersey, shouting, "Yeah, baby, we going to the bank,"

This is LeBron's mom. How in the hell he turned out to be the kind of person he is I won't understand. It's always inspiring to hear about a parent using their child as a future personal ATM and attempting to bask in the spotlight of that child's talent.

and rushing the court whenever an opponent low-bridged her son. 

Gotta protect that investment. All that nice shit Glo wants isn't going to pay for itself and getting a job that involves waking up early if LeBron don't make the NBA isn't an option either.

With the fire marshal worrying about SRO crowds, most of LeBron's games were moved to the U. of Akron's 6,000-seat JAR Arena last season. The town just couldn't get enough of his 37-inch vertical and his topspin passes, and the kid was turned into a cash cow. The school has reportedly earned $200,000 to $300,000 by playing the larger venue, more than enough to buy a new sound system for its matchbox gym. "Who paid for that sound system?" Glo growls. "Bron did. And do you know they want him to pay almost $40 a year to park at school? Let me get out of this school before I get nasty."

$40 a year to park at the school? Some things just aren't fair at all. If high school athletes can't preferential treatment while getting placed in the spotlight to where that athlete will eventually make millions then that's not a world I care to be a part of.

It was inevitable, but Glo says LeBron's biological dad wants back in. Problem is, McClelland has been found guilty of theft five times and just got arrested for theft again on Nov. 12. LeBron is vetoing any meetings. "I keep that somewhere far, far away," he says.

Shit, he can't get back in now. Glo has spent a lot of time protecting her investment and then LeBron's dad wants to come back in and exercise his parental rights? No way. If you can't take the time to use Le---to raise LeBro---to hand LeBron off to another family then you don't deserve to be a part of his life.

LeBron's dad still isn't in his life by the way. 

Though the Big Fella gave him a thumbs up, he was nowhere near as intrigued as the Cavs' Lucas, who had worked out Kobe in high school and had long itched to see LeBron. "I kept hearing he was better than Kobe," Lucas says. "So I went to see him play at an AAU tournament and stayed 11 hours. Stayed 11 hours looking for a weakness

Then the Cavs fired John Lucas as the head coach before he could ever coach LeBron.

Last spring, Lucas invited James to an informal Cavs workout, then watched him dunk on Jumaine Jones and jam backward over Chris Mihm

Dunking on Jumaine Jones and Chris Mihm. Welcome to the club on that one.

But it was the kid's point guard skills that floored the coach, so much so that Lucas has no regrets about the two-game suspension and the $150,000 fine he received for bringing LeBron in

Guy pays $150,000 fine for bringing James in to practice with his team, then the Cavs fire him before he can actually coach LeBron. Also, it isn't hard to see why the Cavaliers fans were so pissed that LeBron took his talents to South Beach once he became a free agent. He was a homegrown star and the Cavs had invested in him pretty early in his high school career.

And then, thankfully, came a dose of reality. At a summer AAU game in Chicago, LeBron was undercut on a dunk and broke his left wrist. Pros like Darius Miles and Quentin Richardson were in the stands, but left as soon as they saw the kid weeping in Glo's arms. "I was like, 'Why me?' " James says. "I hear 'broken,' and I'm thinking I'm out a year, two years."

Clearly, that 3.2 GPA LeBron was sporting in high school didn't include a class on anatomy or any basic medical education. Such as, it doesn't take two years to recover from a broken bone.

At the time, Eddie was facing prison again (his sentencing for mortgage fraud was scheduled for Dec.11), and LeBron started re-evaluating. It wasn't his fault everybody around him had their calculators out. He nearly broke his neck when he tore down a rickety rim in Stow, Ohio, a month ago, but when the Stow athletic director wouldn't let Eddie have the rim as a momento, Jackson yelped, "We'll sue you then!"

That's just Dad, always looking out for his Bron Bron.

Glo chimed, "Sue, baby, sue! It'll be a sweeeeet Christmas." 

This is a very heartwarming story to hear.

So the AD said, "I'll give it to you for six autographed basketballs," at which point Glo told him, "You probably want six [favors] instead."

And quite frankly, the only one who gets favors is Glo and Eddie. How is Glo going to get into those bingo games if Bron Bron spends all his time autographing shit for other people?

"People ask me if it's a hard decision going to the NBA, but I've made harder decisions," he says. "Decisions about smoking or going to school, or stealing from a store or not stealing. Those are harder decisions. Yeah, I smoked weed. When it's around family, around friends, of course you want to try it. I tried it a couple of times. But when you get on the court and your wind ain't there, that's when you've got to just stop doing it.

Again, very heartwarming to hear it's around family. Let me think about which family member was using these drugs.

(Puts on sarcasm hat) It couldn't be Eddie because he's a drug and alcohol counselor now and would never use drugs. It couldn't be the Walkers because they were kind enough to take him in. It couldn't be LeBron's dad because he has no relationship with his dad. And we all know from the "Mommie Dearest" stories and the fact Glo ain't been arrested on no drug thing that she would NEVER use drugs. Besides, she's so level-headed any drug use on her part seems impossible.

It's a side of Bron Bron nobody has really seen since … before he was 6'6". Maybe he's finally growing up, maybe not. But when asked by friends what he wants for his 18th birthday later this month, LeBron James doesn't flinch.

He wants German chocolate cake. At the Walkers'.

But he better not think about signing anything. The only ones who can use LeBron are close family. Close real family.

This article appears in the Dec. 23 issue of ESPN The Magazine. You can watch LeBron in action Thursday Dec. 12 on ESPN2 -- followed by NEXT -- at 9 p.m. ET.

After publishing a column that partially shows how people around him are taking advantage of LeBron and exploiting him for their own financial gain, ESPN decides they wanted in on the action and will exploit LeBron for their own financial gain. You have to love ESPN that way.