11 comments Jay Mariotti Reacts to Tom Brady's Reaction to His Upheld Four Game Suspension in Typical Jay Mariotti Fashion, With Terrible Sportswriting

I've probably mentioned on various social media platforms (fine, only Twitter) that I'm tired of the story about the Patriots deflating footballs. I won't call it DeflateGate, even though that's much easier to type than typing "the Patriots deflating footballs." I believe Brady probably knew something about it and I believe the NFL has really screwed the whole investigation up. Even though I'm an A-Rod apologist, I don't condone cheating, but from everything I've read I'm not entirely sure how much cheating deflating the football really ends up being. I'm not sure the NFL knows either. So in a judgment-free zone on whether Brady is guilty, innocent, or framed, I prefer to focus on the terrible sportswriting that comes from reactions to the four game suspension Brady received for deflating the footballs. Jay Mariotti wrote back-to-back columns eviscerating Brady and Jay is at his red-faced, terrible writing best (worst) in them.

I'll start with his July 28 column where he compares Tom Brady to Richard Nixon.

Well, so much for the 2024 presidential bid. Unless you are Nixonian in your political bent,

Unless you love corruption, you should hate Tom Brady. Why? He's no G.I. Joe, because he's not an American hero.

you’ll understand why Tom Brady has lost all credibility not only as an American hero but as someone who deserves not even a saliva spit of support in the Deflategate scandal.

I literally have never thought of Tom Brady as an American hero.

It’s one thing to argue that Brady, in the AFC championship game, performed better with footballs that were properly inflated in the second half than with purposely underdeflated balls in the first half.

By "one thing" Jay means, "This could go to the effect the underinflated balls had on the game and therefore could potentially go to the merit and severity of a punishment." It's still cheating if a team doesn't gain an advantage, but it doesn't seem the Patriots gained an advantage in this specific situation.

it means “The Man Every Other Male Aspires To Be” and “The Greatest Quarterback Of All Time” has committed these sins:

1. He knowingly participated in a scam with team equipment managers to deflate footballs, which gave him a competitive advantage while violating league rules. That makes him a cheater.

2. He denied participating in the scam. That makes him a liar.

3. He had an associate destroy the smoking phone and, by extension, the probable incriminating evidence on that phone, meaning he refused to cooperate. That makes him a cover-up artist.

4. On the way to his associate's house in order to make sure his associate was there, he texted this person. This means he was texting and driving.

5. Brady was clocked by at least one police radar as going 5 miles over the speed limit while on his way to the associate's house. This makes him a speeder and law breaker.

6. He tried to steer out of the way of a squirrel on his way to the associate's house, but ran over the squirrel instead. This means Brady was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

7. After walking back in his house, he threw his recyclable water bottle into a regular trash can. This is just him flagrantly showing the city's recycling rules do not apply to him. What other rules does Tom Brady think don't apply to him? No need to answer that question, because it's obvious now.

Is it possible four games aren’t enough, then, that Brady should have been banned for the entire season?

At the very least, he should be decapitated. At the most, one of his children should be sold into slavery. So any punishment in between seems appropriate, though a real American hero would just go ahead and sell his child into slavery now instead of waiting for this punishment to be handed down.

Given New England’s status as a dynasty, with four Super Bowl titles in the 21st century, Brady’s continuing defiance is raising the same doubts about the Patriots that the Steroids Era did about Major League Baseball.

Yes Jay, these two events are completely similar. Tom Brady deflated footballs in one playoff game by a certain amount of PSI and this is similar to what happened over a 6-8 year span where multiple baseball players used PED's to gain an edge over a multiple game span and destroy current records in the MLB record book. One is the same as the other.

I'm surprised Jay didn't hit us with a "In the Steroid Era, the players got pumped up to gain an edge, while Brady deflated in order to gain his edge."

How much of their success is real,

79.6541%.

how much is deceitful?

20.3459%. 

“He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone,” Goodell said in his appeals decision. “During the four months that the cellphone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device.”

The world may never know what pet names he and Gisele have for each other. For this, someone must pay, and that person is Tom Brady.

But for once, in a tenure tarnished by his irresponsible handling of the Ray Rice case and an erratic record of off-field punishments in general, Goodell seems to be spot-on.

If anyone was ever wondering who that person is that feels Goodell was "spot-on" with his handling of the situation where Brady allegedly deflated footballs, then you can rest easy knowing that person is Jay Mariotti. No one should be shocked by this. Jay would side with Westboro Baptist Church if it helped him write a column that bashes an athlete or coach.

He could have waffled and given weight to his all-but-dead friendship with Kraft, who defended Goodell publicly and in ownership circles as he was attacked amid the Rice fallout. But this time, he stood firm in front of the league’s so-called shield and avoided all wishy-washiness. 

There is a clear difference in standing firm for solid factual and evidentiary reasons and standing firm because the decision has been made and that's the decision. I don't think Goodell should have necessarily waffled, but not changing his mind doesn't mean his decision was correct in the very first place.

Harmful as the Rice, Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson abuse cases have been to the league’s image and reputation, maintaining the game’s competitive integrity is vitally important, too, particularly when it involves the league’s most visible and acclaimed player.

The game's integrity is very important, but I would argue that making sure the athletes involved with the sport don't abuse children or women is more important to ensuring fans aren't alienated than ensuring a football is at the proper PSI level would be.

What we have now is Brady, in frantic image-restoration mode, legally challenging the ruling and seeking an injunction allowing him to play.

Remember back when Jay Mariotti started at Sports Talk Florida and the "Examiner," back when he talked about how the legal system is corrupt (against rich white men!) and he understands this because of all he had gone through? Welp, now he's describing Brady exercising his legal rights as his being in "frantic image-restoration mode." As expected, when Jay talked about how he understood the American legal system and how it swallowed people up, he only meant he understood this from his perspective. Everyone else deserves whatever they get. The legal system is against Jay Mariotti, while everyone else is getting treated fairly.

If Brady was smart, he’d accept his four games and go away. It’s hard to believe even the most venomous Goodell critic would side with Brady now. He will argue the Wells report is flawed and the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Um, why would an innocent man destroy a phone that could help him if wronged?

What a bad counterargument to the idea the ball-deflation rules were unfairly applied. Brady destroying his phone is circumstantial evidence that can go to support the belief he was attempting to destroy evidence, but the destruction of the phone isn't a counterargument to the Wells report being flawed or whether the ball-deflation rules were fairly applied or not. Again, for someone who claims to understand the legal system, Jay is very clueless about how the veracity of legal challenges can be determined. If the ball-deflation rules weren't unfairly applied, then this could mean Brady will win his legal case. Just like if evidence is mishandled in a criminal case, it doesn't matter if the suspect acted very suspiciously to where it seemed like he was covering up a crime. I can't let Jay take me down this rabbit hole. He's ignorant, we know that.

“Especially in light of the new evidence introduced at the hearing — evidence demonstrating that he arranged for the destruction of potentially relevant evidence that had been specifically requested by the investigators — my findings and conclusions have not changed in a matter that would benefit Mr. Brady,” Goodell said.

Team Brady’s response? “Neither Tom nor the Patriots did anything wrong,” agent Don Yee said. “And the NFL has no evidence that anything inappropriate occurred. The appeal process was a sham.”

For the record, there was no denial that the smoking phone was destroyed.

For the record, Brady admits the phone was destroyed. Why did he do this? Who the fuck knows? I can take a guess, but it's just a guess. Regardless, I just enjoy reading Jay's terrible writing about this topic. Considering I find ball deflation to be boring, I need to get my enjoyment on this topic where it can be found.

Now for the July 29 article that Jay compares Brady to Lance Armstrong, Pete Rose, and Tiger Woods. Yeah, Tiger Woods. Tiger cheated on his spouse, which apparently is now the same thing as using PED's and betting on baseball.

Tom Brady is 37 years old. He looks 27 years old. And now, he’s acting 17 years old,

Real strong hot take to start the column off. If only Brady's son were 7 years old then Jay could have thrown that in there too.

using his Facebook account — gee, what’s his relationship status? —

This isn't really funny or clever. Brady is married, Jay. He's married to a supermodel. That's his status.

If he was a mature, reasonable person, he’d call a news conference, invite the world, look every reporter in the eye, stare every camera in the lens and say, for posterity, “I’ll take your questions for the next two hours.”

I always love the sportswriter challenge to determine true honesty which can only be determined by that athlete calling a press conference and answering the media's questions. Because answering questions from sportswriters is always the best way to determine honesty. Sportswriters like Jay have such a high opinion of themselves that they believe they should be the final arbiter on whether an athlete is lying or not. Sure, if Tom Brady called a press conference then it would give Jay something more interesting to write about, but mostly it's Jay's ego which causes him to believe he's not merely a member of the press, but the person who should stand in final judgment regarding Brady's honesty.

You know, if Jay Mariotti were a reasonable, mature person then he would call a press conference and talk about exactly what happened on that day when he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Jay would NEVER do that, because he considers it a private affair. I mean, Jay Mariotti had a chance to clear his name and totally chose not to do that. He pled no-contest, but he wants Tom Brady to stand up and defend himself in a press conference where he can take questions for two hours. Few things anger me more than the hypocrisy of the media. Jay doesn't believe he has an obligation to explain himself, but of course when it's not Jay in the firing line then only a mature, reasonable person would call a press conference to explain himself.

Instead, Brady logged onto Facebook, where he doesn’t have to answer questions but can continue to twist his obvious wrongdoing into an increasingly absurd drama that is becoming a national headache.

I will agree with the "national headache" part. 

“To suggest that I destroyed a phone to avoid giving the NFL information it requested is completely wrong,” he wrote. “There is no ‘smoking gun’ and this controversy is manufactured to distract from the fact they have zero evidence of wrongdoing.”

Zero evidence? The NFL has 11 underinflated footballs from the first half of January’s AFC championship game.

I think the issue is that Brady and the Patriots are not convinced these footballs were underinflated. That's the source of their disagreement, that the Patriots and Brady dispute the notion these balls weren't inflated properly. 

The NFL knows that both equipment managers were fired by the New England Patriots. And when the NFL asked Brady to provide a cellphone that might help prove his innocence, he chose to get rid of the phone just before his meeting with investigator Ted Wells.

I'm not defending Brady, but his statement is that he was under the impression that the investigators didn't need his phone. Also, Brady wasn't going to just let them search his phone. By the way, this is a stance I guess the majority of Americans would take if their employer (or another entity that isn't a law enforcement entity) requested their cell phone. I don't give my cell phone number out to but a select few at my work, so I certainly am not going to allow my employer or anyone else search my cell phone. Destroying the phone does seem a bit extreme without having some more context. 

Now, we’ve lost respect for him as a human being.

This statement coming from Jay Mariotti is hilarious. I haven't lost respect for Tom Brady as a human being, even if is totally guilty. It's sports, guys. Let's keep a little perspective. Brady didn't kill anyone or commit a violent crime against humanity. 

Would he please accept his four-game suspension like a man rather than pouting like Bart Simpson?

Even a decade ago this reference wouldn't be relevant. Bill Simmons is embarrassed for Jay Mariotti that he used such a dated pop culture reference. 

“I also disagree with yesterdays [sic] narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells’ investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.”

That's Brady's story. It could all be lies. Plus, it's a smart move as a member of the union to not a set a precedent for your phone to be searched. 

Hey, while he’s sitting in September, at least Tom can bank his check from Apple for the iPhone 6 plug. 

Yes, because Apple needs Tom Brady to name drop the iPhone in order to sell the product. 

As for the broken Samsung phone, we’ll just assume the dog ate it.

Again, there is no need to assume anything because Brady admits he destroyed the phone. This is the second time that Jay has indicated Brady is hiding the phone or not admitting what he did with his cell phone. One very clear thing that has occurred through this entire mad legal battle between the NFL and Brady, and that clear thing is that Brady destroyed his cell phone. 

There may be no smoking gun, but there is a smoking cellphone, wherever it went.

Maybe Jay should go check landfills or check at the bottom of rivers, as if Brady's phone is a murder weapon and not a cell phone that got destroyed in order to cover up evidence of DEFLATED FUCKING FOOTBALLS. 

And I can’t wait for a judge, assuming Brady’s legal challenge actually advanced that far, to subpoena Samsung for his cellphone records. Does Brady really want to go there? Doesn’t he realize how the lies are piling up and digging him a deeper grave?

Why does this matter so much to Jay? If the records are subpoenaed and Brady is seen as a liar, then it only strengthens Jay's assertion that Brady is a deceitful little shit and the commissioner should throw the book at him. Why worry about Brady lying if you think he'll be caught? 

The operative word is entitlement. Every time a cheating athlete is caught red-handed — for performance-enhancing drugs, for gambling, for bimbo sex, for corked bats, for lubed baseballs and, now, for doctored footballs — he feels enabled to deny the charge rather then fess up. 

I don't mean to dismiss the importance of footballs that are inflated slightly below the limit allowed, but to compare it to using PED's, gambling, and cheating on your wife is a little bit of an overreaction from Jay. 

While Brady’s sin doesn’t rise to the same level, he joins Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Pete Rose and all the baseball juicers on Rebuttal Row. Ultimately, all were proven wrong and forced to acknowledge guilt. Brady will have to do the same, but not anytime soon.

I don't even know what to write in response to this. I think the absurdity of comparing these players to Tom Brady is fairly apparent. There really aren't levels of cheating, and I have no idea how Tiger cheating on his wife relates to cheating in sports, but it seems extreme to compare Brady deflating footballs in one playoff game to Lance Armstrong cheating through multiple Tour de France victories, Rose gambling on baseball, and every MLB player who has ever used PED's. It seems like a rather broad comparison as well. 

By that, Kraft was acknowledging that he’d agreed to accept the NFL’s penalty for the Patriots — a $1 million fine and forfeiture of two draft picks — during the May league meetings in San Francisco. In other words, he thought he was playing a wink-wink game with Goodell: The Patriots would take the hit if Brady’s ban eventually was reduced or eliminated. Shame on Kraft for thinking a commissioner should work in such a wishy-washy manner.

The terms of punishment for a cheating scandal should not be negotiable.

Despite the fact the NFL reportedly did try to negotiate with Brady to decrease his punishment if he just admitted to wrongdoing.

Again, I find it interesting that Jay doesn't think terms of punishment for cheating in sports shouldn't be negotiable, but he was glad to plead no-contest to stalking and assaulting his girlfriend in order to avoid jail time and/or a trial. Apparently Jay feels that deflating footballs is a much more serious offense than allegedly abusing your girlfriend, to where deflating footballs should have no negotiable punishment, but allegedly abusing your girlfriend can be pled out to no-contest because it's not quite a serious enough accusation for the punishment to be non-negotiable.

The New England sleaze is a reminder of how fortunate we are, in the Bay Area, to enjoy two championship teams that aren’t scandalized.

I'm sure Jay wrote this with a straight face while ignoring the column he wrote about Barry Bonds, who played in the Bay Area, and was part of a scandal Jay discussed a few paragraphs ago. He wrote here about Bonds. I'm sure Jay doesn't remember this though. He would NEVER knowingly contradict himself or be a hypocrite.

He is firing a missile at the commissioner in a declaration of war, and that the owner who helped Goodell get his job — one that pays him as much as $44 million annually — now can be considered a mortal enemy. In the end, the powerful owners run this league, and while Kraft and Brady won’t win in court, Kraft can exact his revenge by trying to rub Goodell out of office.

And that's the right Kraft has as one of Goodell's 32 bosses. Goodell serves at the pleasure of the owners. 

Kraft sounds silly in claiming ESPN is in cahoots with the NFL to get the Patriots, ignoring that the media behemoth has been one of Goodell’s biggest critics in his mishandling of the Ray Rice case and other issues. “The decision by commissioner Goodell was released … under an erroneous headline that read, ‘Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.’ This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs,” 

Not exactly, Kraft was merely claiming that ESPN uses headlines designed to get readers/viewers and that's not a false statement. ESPN does do this, as does many other sports sites or networks.

And yes, the idea ESPN would be in bed with the NFL sounds crazy as long as you ignore the specific instances where ESPN has protected NFL interests by suspending Bill Simmons after he criticized Roger Goodell, canceled "Playmakers" because the NFL didn't like it, and got their contribution to the PBS documentary on concussions removed. Oh, and ESPN has the rights to certain NFL games. You know, other than their financial interest in supporting the NFL and the previous attempts to protect the league, ESPN has no history of being in cahoots with the league.

Training camps have started, gentlemen. The football season is here. Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone. Innocent men don’t destroy their cellphones.

I have destroyed a cell phone before. My cell phone display cracked when I stepped on it one time and rather than have a cracked cell phone hanging around I smashed it with a hammer (for fun) and threw it out. I had no special numbers on there, I just didn't want anyone to get my personal information when I threw it out. Maybe innocent men don't destroy their cellphones, but most innocent/guilty men aren't Tom Brady and have the phone number of many celebrities, athletes, models, and family members on their phone. I think someone would want to steal Brady's phone when/if it got thrown away in order to have these numbers. 

I need two aspirin.

So Jay's terrible writing gives him a headache too. At least we have that in common. 

3 comments Jay Mariotti Certainly Isn't Going to Allow Bill Simmons to Leave ESPN Without Taking the Opportunity to Take a Crap All Over Him

The "new" Jay Mariotti certainly acts exactly like the "old" Jay Mariotti acted. I figured he wouldn't allow Bill Simmons to leave ESPN without taking a shit on Simmons. It's just the way that Mariotti is. The professional courtesy of not taking a crap on someone who he used to work with is not something that Jay is interested in. It's not hard to see how I feel about Bill Simmons. Check out my vast archives (seriously, it's way too long...eight years of writing here certainly accumulates a lot of posts) to see how I feel about Bill. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but the enemy of enemy is certainly an asshole who is dumping on the enemy of my enemy for lacking the same journalistic skills that my enemy lacks. So Jay wants the fanboy phase of journalism to end. I'm not a big fan of fanboy journalism either, but I'm really, really not a fan of the bullshit antagonistic journalism that Jay Mariotti does. How about both forms of writing are done away with?

The Internet has perpetrated too much disarray in the world, giving semi-lives to people with no lives and adding too many reckless, unqualified voices to the daily churn.

Says the guy who does Internet writing and just left a job (got fired? failed miserably?) where all he did was write on the Internet. OF COURSE now that Jay is no longer writing solely on the Internet where he had no print presence he takes a shit on those who solely write on the Internet. Jay hates what he can't do or has been rejected from.

Also, who the fuck is Jay Mariotti to decide which voices are reckless and unqualified? Is he suggesting that sports sites do background checks on the people they hire, just to make sure they haven't pleaded "no contest" to a crime? Probably a good idea. Wouldn't want reckless people like that around the news room.

(I'll go ahead and put the "a lot of cursing" tag on this post)

A new century gave rise to sports websites that had to compete against legitimate journalists who actually broke news responsibly,

When the hell has Jay Mariotti ever broken news? He may have done this two decades ago, but he's a talentless asshole who simply writes reactionary pieces at this point in his career. The only news Jay Mariotti breaks is news like "This is my introductory column for a new site and here is why my old site sucks and everyone at it are assholes who don't understand real journalism and how many chances am I going to get to prove I don't suck?"

interviewed subjects, understood libel/slander law and carried the profession with savvy. 

I agree. The "Examiner" never should have hired you. This, we can agree upon. You have no savvy. You have no talent and the opinion you have of yourself is held by exactly 0 other people.

So, to have any chance, many of these new sites went low-brow and hired fans with no training in anything but how to wear a personally customized jersey to an arena, drink three beers and cheer maniacally for one’s team. 

The idea that Jay Mariotti accuses any site of going "low-brow" in hiring writers is just hilarious. The only places that have hired him are places who are so desperate for pageviews that they make a deal with him, but eventually regret it. Going low-brow should simply be called "Hiring Jay Mariotti" just like "Jumping the Shark" is synonymous with a show no longer being any good. AOL, Sports Talk Florida and now the "Examiner" have hired Jay Mariotti and two of the three seemed to regret the decision. Lacking pageviews? Need your site's name in the news? Hire Jay Mariotti. You will hate yourself in the morning though.

ESPN.com, then a digital embryo in a growing corporate empire, lured the eyeballs of sports fans by hiring one. Simmons had some talent, spoke the fan language and understood the fan perspective, so the hire was a good one … as a blogging niche. 

And when Jay is able to differentiate between the bullshit he writes about teams, which he calls journalism simply because he has some access, and a blogger like Simmons (who supposedly never really wanted access though he eventually got some) then he should just inform everyone. An article about how Michael Phelps is a loser for smoking pot or any of the other opinion-only pieces that Jay has written are basically just him blogging with a corporation behind him. His Sports Talk Florida site was as much of a blog as anything Bill Simmons wrote for ESPN.

So when Jay figures out why he is able to be so high and mighty about a blogging niche, I'd love to know, because I'm really confused.

Sports fanboys began to read the fanboy sportswriter. Traffic grew. Advertisers bought in. Simmons wrote two masturbatory books, both best-sellers.

While true, there is a lot of jealously in Jay's words. Remember the time Jay left the "Chicago Sun-Times" because writing on the Internet is where the future of journalism was? Seven years and two failed writing ventures later and Jay is back with print media, his lack of humility is still intact, while his sense of irony is still desperately broken beyond repair.

Bill's books are masturbatory (maybe THAT is why Bill got so many letters from readers discussing masturbation?), but they were both best-sellers and Bill has consistently sold books and managed to advance his own little empire. Bill Simmons is who Jay Mariotti wants to be.

Jay wanted to write on the Internet with AOL. He failed.

Jay wanted to write AND have his face on ESPN so he can be taken seriously. He failed. 

Jay wanted a multimedia empire with Sports Talk Florida. He failed.

Bill Simmons had/has the site that Jay desperately wanted to build. Jay wanted to be the editor-in-chief and get the validation as a real writer and editor that he so desperately craves. That was his goal with the Sports Talk Florida site. Bill did it without the training Jay thought he should have and he did it while making a ton of money in the process. This is Jay's jealousy talking. Jay, are you a little jel?

Suddenly, it didn’t matter if he never broke news and never quoted anyone but himself and his cousin. 

What's the deal with Jay and his need for quotes? Any person hired as a beat writer or a press pass can get quotes. This doesn't mean this person is a respected journalist.

ESPN created the original fanboy sportswriter, spawning a generation of fanboy sportswriters who also don’t know how to break news responsibly, interview subjects and cover sports properly. 

Again, when Jay Mariotti starts breaking news then I would like to be present for this. I can't recall a single story that Jay has ever broken, unless he wants to count the news that he is a coward and will hide when confronted by an MLB manager as breaking news, but that's just something most people expected of Jay anyway. It wasn't exactly news.

Friday, ESPN uncreated Simmons, choosing not to renew his contract.

At long last, an embarrassing business might have a chance again. 

Bill Simmons is responsible for a lot of things I don't like about sports journalism, but he isn't the person keeping the business of sports journalism in the doldrums. If anyone contributed significantly to this then it was Jay Mariotti with his hateful, reactionary screeds posing as columns and refusal to treat co-workers, athletes or the public's sense of decency with any sense of respect.

The network has only itself to blame, enabling Simmons and turning him loose to the point he was uncontrollable.

I don't know, it seems like Simmons was controlled fairly well by ESPN through the various suspensions and reprimands they imposed on him. He's an opinionated guy who makes an easy target for some within his own organization.

There is a difference between covering sports with fierce independence — my philosophy — and being a megalomaniacal jackass like Simmons, who never took a law class and, thus, didn’t understand why the company suspended him for referring to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as “a liar.”

Jay Mariotti keeps talking about how other writers "haven't ever taken a law class" like this is supposed to be a huge differentiating factor between him and others. Jay Mariotti may have had court-mandated counseling or taken a law class, but this doesn't make him Justice Scalia by any measure. If Jay HAD taken a law class and understood the law then he would understand Bill Simmons calling Goodell "a liar" probably wouldn't meet the level required by law as libel (as a statement made on a broadcast would qualify as being). Whatever though, Jay thinks because he took one law class that he's now qualified to write legal briefs and fancies himself a sort of journalistic Matlock.

Goodell may have lied about what he knew in the Ray Rice case, but Simmons did not have incontrovertible proof, which means the league could have sued the network for megamillions — and may have done so if ESPN wasn’t a broadcasting bedfellow.

If Jay Mariotti had taken more than one law class then he would know that the statement being made by Bill could be seen as an opinion and not a statement of fact (as Bill could easily claim his calling Goodell "a liar" was an opinion). The fact the comment is an opinion can be a defense to libel, and there is a higher threshold for a public figure to prove libel due to the public figure having to prove actual damages. There is a reason President Obama doesn't sue any member of Congress or random person who accuses him of lying and that's because it's a high threshold to meet and not worth his time. The same would go for Roger Goodell. I'm sure Jay knows this since he's taken a single law class and all.

I feel like I'm correct about this libel issue and if there are real attorneys out there who have taken more than one year of law school or a single law class and I am wrong, please do correct me. 

Simmons also was unequipped to be editor-in-chief of Grantland.com — 

I disagree entirely. I have my issues with Bill Simmons, but he's put a really good team around him at Grantland. I don't like every member of the team, but the site is informative even if it's not a huge financial success. Considering Bill had no past experience as an editor-in-chief, he's done a pretty good job at making Grantland what he wants it to be. His writing still sucks of course. Don't get me wrong.

Anyone else would have been fired after the Goodell and transgender mistakes. Simmons kept his job both times only because ESPN president John Skipper doesn’t acknowledge his own errors until he must.

At ESPN, other people who work there have said dumber things on air then to call Roger Goodell "a liar." The transgender thing was a big mistake and representative of Bill's lack of experience as editor-in-chief. That should not have happened. Still, I can't help but think Jay is jealous of Bill and that's why he's writing all of this.

Simmons destroyed the commissioner because he didn’t immediately announce a suspension in the Tom Brady deflated-balls scandal, and while it’s fair to wonder why Goodell is waiting, his weekend pause doesn’t warrant a nuclear explosion.

So Jay thinks Goodell deserved criticism, but not harsh criticism. Because Roger Goodell has dealt with so many issues over the past year in such a way that no harsh criticism of him should be allowed. I'm sure Jay is the guy who thinks he can do criticism without a nuclear explosion. Because Jay has proven he can criticize without his criticism taking on a life of it's own.

I’ve had my squabbles with corporate management. But my complaints were legitimate — 

Everyone thinks their squabbles are legitimate because everyone thinks they are right in these squabbles. No sane person has an issue with management and admits they are wrong the whole time. So yes, I'm sure Jay thinks his complains were legitimate.

a Chicago radio station demanded I sign a sheet of paper that I wouldn’t criticize the Bulls or White Sox, which would have painted me into an ethical corner had I agreed. When I refused, I was fired the day after Christmas. 

Haha! So replace "Chicago radio station" with "ESPN" and replace "criticize the Bulls or White Sox" with "Roger Goodell" and Jay was in the same situation that Bill Simmons was in. Of course he doesn't see it that way, because Jay's complaints are so legit.

My bosses at the Chicago Sun-Times had business ties with certain sports owners in town, and when they asked me to soften my opinions about those owners, I said no.

This is almost the exact same situation that Bill Simmons was in when he was asked by ESPN to soften his opinion on the NFL and Roger Goodell.

By calling him a liar, and then challenging the network to reprimand him after doing so, Simmons no longer was fighting a free-speech war. He was leaving himself vulnerable to a mountainous lawsuit. 

Oh man, but he was not. Again, I recognize Jay has taken a solitary law class, but Roger Goodell was not going to sue ESPN and Bill Simmons for his comments. He has enough PR issues without suing a popular writer for libel. It would be the equivalent of PR suicide to take a public, heavy-handed approach in reaction to what people were saying about him. It wasn't happening, despite Jay's vast legal knowledge saying it would.

Before he works again, the fanboy needs to take a law class or two. The Internet has enabled recklessness by idiot entrepreneurs — such as the assclown at Gawker Media — who think they can publish lies about anyone because it’s difficult for a public figure to win a libel suit against a web publication.

So Jay, with your vast law experience, has a public figure won a libel suit against Gawker media who has published lies? Has it happened?

The Bleacher Report entrepreneurs, too, are sports fans, making them fanboys much like … Bill Simmons. 

Well obviously Bill Simmons is responsible for the success of Bleacher Report and Deadspin. Naturally. Bill has influenced writers, but he's also responsible for some good writing that is being overlooked by Jay in his attempts to crap on every co-worker he's ever worked with. I should feel lucky that Jay isn't still taking a shit on Roger Ebert's grave.

One of America’s best sportswriters, Bob Kravitz, broke the Deflategate story in his new position at an Indianapolis TV station/website. After the Ted Wells report was issued, Kravitz wrote of unprofessionalism he encountered in the New England media the last few months: “The people who disappointed me most were the folks at The [Boston] Globe’s website, Boston.com. They are renowned pom-pom wearers, so it wasn’t a surrpise. But I was struck at the enthusiasm they displayed while carrying the Patriots’ water. It shocked me that a great newspaper like the Boston Globe would employ such rank amateurs and cheerleaders. Sad.” 

Where did Simmons grow up? Boston. 

From who did younger Boston.com sportswriters learn? Simmons.

Aaron Hernandez was just convicted of murder and may have committed more than one murder, all while playing for the New England Patriots. Tom Brady was revealed to have doctored footballs by deflating them while a member of the New England Patriots. Bill Belichick and the Patriot organization were shown to have been spying on opposing teams several years ago in order to gain an upperhand.

Where did Simmons grow up? Boston. (Except for when he moved to Connecticut of course) What is his favorite NFL team? The New England Patriots. This is not a coincidence either. Bill set up an atmosphere where Aaron Hernandez could commit murder and cheating was acceptable within the Patriots organization.

From whom did Brady, Belichick and Hernandez read glowing words about the organization and it's greatness which caused such hubris? In Bill Simmons' columns.

ESPN also killed sportswriting when it gave a major platform to a statistics geek, Nate Silver, failing to realize that sport is best covered via the exploration of human emotion, not the joyless crunching of numbers.

It's not like Jay is capable of crapping on just one person in a column. He loves to spread his jealously and anger at being rejected by ESPN on every employee within the organization. It's still hilarious to me that Jay holds himself up as this journalistic ideal that every other journalist must meet by getting quotes, taking one law class and exploring human emotion, as if knowing how to say these things means Jay is actually good at doing them.

In the process, the network chased off Rick Reilly, only the greatest sportswriter of his generation and someone who broke news responsibly, covered games and press conferences on site, interviewed subjects, understood libel law and carried the profession with savvy.

Jay is very, very, very concerned about sportswriters knowing libel law. And if making sure while ON-AIR he gets credit for something and plagiarizing his own columns counts as savvy, then Rick Reilly was full of it. Of course, he was also full of something else. 

Next, ESPN is trying an African-American site with an editor, Jason Whitlock, who isn’t liked by many African-American writers

As has been noted repeatedly by Deadspin, but I'm sure Jay would like to gloss over this little fact. 

I appreciated my eight years at ESPN; the TV show was fun, and when I was on, the ratings were much higher and the banter much livelier.

"EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN THE PAST WHEN I WAS AROUND! SINCE I'VE BEEN GONE NOTHING IS THE SAME!"

Of course everything was better when Jay Mariotti was around. I wouldn't expect him to believe anything different. Most people believe their time at an organization was the golden era of that organization simply because that's how their own ego tends to view things in a more self-centric way.

It’s a political loony bin where Skipper, like Goodell, can’t maintain consistency in issuing disciplinary punishments. Seems he finally got one right Friday. 

Watch out Jay! I know you know with your vast amount of law classes you have taken that you had better be careful calling Roger Goodell not consistent in his punishment. You wouldn't want to be fired in order to avoid a lawsuit.

And, no, I would not hire Bill Simmons at this news organization if he applied. Our standards are too high. 

I don't like Bill Simmons' writing, but if the "Examiner" was given the option of hiring Simmons, but dumping Mariotti, I think I know which direction they would go in. It's funny that Jay thinks the "Examiner's" standards are too high when his presence at the paper proves this statement as absolutely false. 

0 comments Jay Mariotti's Hypocrisy About the American Court System Is On Display for All to See When He's Bashing Barry Bonds

Jay Mariotti is no stranger to court cases and defending his name against people who make claims against him. When Jay re-introduced himself for the first time on the Sports Talk Florida site, he wrote the following about the woman who accused him of assault and the court system that he thinks chewed him up unfairly: 

While the Internet paves new avenues of media creativity, it also enables the irresponsibility of hacks. I know this too well, having come off a legal case filled with countless lies and accompanied by lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage.

I’m confident we would have won at trial. But realizing the L.A. justice system is bureaucratic at best and insidious at worst, I had no interest in spending a half-million dollars on legal fees, exposing my daughters and family to what clearly was one-sided media coverage

Wrote Rieder: “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.”

You can say I’m uniquely qualified now to comment on athletes in legal messes. I’ve been among those who’ve offered quick-trigger opinions about athletes in trouble, and after seeing how the system works, I’ll know in the future to investigate all angles.
 
Perspective, it’s called.

Jay (of all people, which is what I wrote at the time) lectures his readers about nuance, subtleties and the one-sided coverage of the news media in his original re-introduction with Sports Talk Florida. He writes about how the media jumps to conclusions without all the facts, doesn't care for shades of gray, and prefer straight narratives with good and bad guys. He has "perspective" now that he has been chewed up by the legal system. I didn't buy it at the time and for good reason.

Then in Jay's next re-introduction with the "San Francisco Examiner," after his media mogul gig at Sports Talk Florida failed, he doubled down on his disdain for the legal system. He wrote the following:

The media should be firm but fair, edgy but accurate. I realize this more than ever now, having experienced my own news-cycle storm that made me understand why people in sports — and everywhere, really — dislike and distrust the media. To recap, I was accused of domestic violence offenses I did not commit by a plaintiff who tried, without success, to win a financial reward in a civil suit. Not only did that suit fail quickly, the original case was dismissed and expunged ("Not guilty," read the court documents), which means there was no conviction. Expungements, as The New York Times recently noted, are issued rarely and with considerable diligence.

Know this: Just because someone is accused doesn't mean he is guilty, and just because one pleads no contest doesn't mean he is acknowledging guilt.

I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media, sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors, predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to represent me. I wrote about it three and a half years ago in my e-book, The System, and I've learned a mean lesson about watching my associations.

In my case, only one media outlet has bothered to try to complete the story and publish news of the expungement. And that happened only when I had the document sent to a confused San Francisco Chronicle reporter earlier this month — he said he was having trouble finding it — and demanded that he publish it, as did my attorney. That didn't stop the Chronicle's tweeting editor-in-chief, who should know better, from mischaracterizing a quote of mine from her own paper and calling me a name that does not legally apply. Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.

I apologize for the wall of text, but it's important to know these are Jay's positions when going through the column he has posted about Barry Bonds. See, these really aren't Jay's positions overall, but Jay's positions regarding HIMSELF. HE was chewed up by a corrupt court system. HE was the victim of an over-zealous prosecutor. HE was a victim of the traffic-obsessed media and HE knows that just because someone is accused that doesn't mean the person is guilty. This rule only pertains to himself though. HE knows that an expunged record gets a lot less media coverage than the original accusations.

As it pertains to others who are accused, chewed up by the system and are a victim of the traffic-obsessed media? Fuck 'em. Jay doesn't care. When it's Jay's head on the chopping block the whole system is doing him wrong and the media is ravenous for a good story. When it's Jay's chance to become a part of the ravenous media who is traffic-obsessed and unable to understand any type of nuance, well, he is eager to join the media in working with the corrupt court system. Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice was overturned and all that perspective Jay had has gone out the window because he smells chum in the water. Everyone in the media is out to get Jay. He's quick to cry about this, but when he has a chance to work in the media and go after someone, Jay is just another media scum who doesn't truly have the perspective he now claims to have.

I believe Barry Bonds used steroids and all of that. I'm not really looking to defend Bonds' good/bad name. I find it hilarious at what Jay writes when he laughs off one of the federal judges believing the legal system was out to get Bonds, mostly because Jay has written several times about how the legal system was out to get him personally. As always, there are different rules for Jay Mariotti and everyone else. He's always the victim, and quick to laugh at those who claim to also be a victim or may be a victim of the legal system themselves.

So now we can expect the Incredible Shrinking Barry Bonds to hit up his Instagram feed — if you need a good laugh, check it out — and take a retaliatory selfie. Maybe he thumbs his nose.

This is as opposed to Jay Mariotti trashing the court system, his alleged victim and everyone else in a column...which he has done twice.

And also, plenty of athletes shrink down some after they retire. It's not terribly unusual. Most get fat if they don't shrink down. 

Maybe he signals that we should shove it where the syringe doesn’t stain. Maybe he resends his self-portrait bearing the inscription, “99 PROBLEMS BUT A PITCH AIN’T ONE.”

Just remember that Jay has perspective now...or he claims to have perspective. Remember that Jay claims to be able to differentiate between accusations and what a person may have really done. Perhaps Bonds is guilty of using steroids (which he probably is), but Jay now claims to have the ability to understand that it doesn't mean Bonds is guilty of obstruction of justice as well...or he claims to have this ability now, but doesn't seem in a hurry to use this ability.

Because today, technically, Bonds can tell the world that his record is clean, that he never has been convicted for an offense related to performance-enhancing drugs. Thanks to a hometown ruling seemingly hatched in a booth down the street at Dottie’s True Blue Cafe, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bonds’ felony conviction for obstruction of justice,

It's a "hometown ruling"! Now the corrupt court system is ruling in favor of the wealthy when in Jay's situation the corrupt court system was trying to tear him down because he's wealthy. The courts wouldn't rule for Bonds if he wasn't just so damn well-liked. Barry Bonds is so engaging and kind to everyone that the court probably factored that in, while Jay Mariotti being surly and confrontational is why the LA courts were so biased against him.

with 10 of 11 judges concluding that his long-winded answer during a 2003 grand jury proceeding wasn’t material to the government’s probe into steroids.

Jay Mariotti in his introductory column for the "Examiner":

Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.

Perhaps the law classes that Jay suggests others take based on his experiences within the legal system could help him as well. Jay could learn that 10 of 11 judges probably don't care about Barry Bonds and only concerned themselves with the rule of law before them. But I'm sure Jay thinks this ruling is another example of "the system" letting famous people off easy, except for Jay of course. "The system" persecutes Jay. He's such a victim.

Which means Bonds can launch what surely will be a loud, aggressive campaign for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

He's not getting in any time soon, so I'm not sure why this is a concern or even relevant to whether the non-legal expert Jay Mariotti is correct in questioning and being snarky about the legal opinion of 10 federal judges or not. How dare the judges validate Barry Bonds and his Hall of Fame credentials by ruling that his felony conviction would be overturned! I want to know what happened to Jay's "Accused doesn't mean guilty" line of thought? This line of thought disappears when Jay isn't the one accused but not really guilty.

Which means the Giants, who have worked cautiously in bringing Bonds back into the organization, now can make him an ambassador or a roving minor-league coach or — if their hitting problems persist — a batting instructor without having to address criticism about a felony conviction.

You mean sort of like how Sports Talk Florida or the "San Francisco Examiner" can hire Jay Mariotti as a columnist or multi-media mogul without him having to address criticism about his no-contest plea? Or is this totally different because (a) it deals with the victimized Jay Mariotti and (b) Jay has given his biased side of the story while calling the entire system corrupt?

Which means Bonds’ legions of Bay Area fans, who wore blinders about BALCO and the Steroids Era while the bloated Barry was passing the honorable Henry Aaron as the sport’s all-time home run leader, now can hoist him as the Power King without legalities usurping their joy.

No, because he still clearly used PED's. He just didn't obstruct justice. Did Jay even read the ruling? Also, it's just grand to read about Jay's new perspective on the legal system and how the media is so quick to make a rush to judgment. It's grand to read about because Jay completely ignores this perspective when discussing Barry Bonds. Jay has no idea if the ruling was correct or not, instead he's just worried this will validate Bonds in some way and indicate that Bonds didn't use steroids. I can't see how Jay is "investigating this story from all angles" as he promised to do just a few years ago after his tangle with the legal system. No time for that when there is chum in the water and Jay can become the person he has railed against.

Let him bask. In my mind, as a longtime member of the voting group known as the Baseball Writers Association of America, nothing changed Wednesday.

Doesn't Jay hate when sportswriters are "uncomfortable in murky terrain" and prefer straightforward narratives with good guys and bad guys"? I think it's hilarious that Jay is becoming guilty of the very things he supposedly was going to rail against, though it shouldn't shock me. Most of Jay's anger towards others in the news media (like ESPN, big media entities) results from his not being allowed to be a part of that news media any longer. If given the chance, Jay would gladly take a job with the huge news entities with corporate interests, but while he's not given the chance, he'll rail against them until the time comes to be a hypocrite.

Bonds still is a bum who symbolizes an era we’re trying to purge from our collective consciousness — a treacherous period of cheating and lying that irreparably damaged the public’s trust in sports — and anyone who thinks he suddenly belongs in Cooperstown is a bigger dope than the dopers themselves.

SO FUCKING NUANCED! The amount of nuance I'm reading about right now is literally choking me and pulling my hair (allegedly) until I plead "no-contest" to the nuance just taking my mind over to where all I can see is nuance. But hey, Jay understands why so many dislike the media. Thank God for nuance such as this.

“I think at the end of the day, America knows the truth and who the real home run record holder is, who did it the right way, and it’s obviously not Barry Bonds,” said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, who told The Associated Press the decision was “almost meaningless for the real issue, which is whether he used performance-enhancing drugs to cheat the fans of baseball.”

He's right. It's meaningless, but Jay just had to show off the "new Jay Mariotti" and display the thorough knowledge of the legal system he learned about (and wrote a book about!) while defending himself against false accusations. Jay has learned the system chews him up and spits him out, but treats everyone else fairly. Jay also learned, using his knowledge of "the system," that a court ruling Bonds did not obstruct justice means the court has ruled Barry Bonds did not use PED's and should get a red carpet invitation to join the Hall of Fame. Obviously.

This isn’t a time to celebrate as much as a reason to wonder how the justice system works and how many taxpayer dollars are wasted in flip-flop cases.

If in making this statement Jay means that the taxpayer dollars were wasted in prosecuting Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, then he is absolutely correct. If Jay means the taxpayer dollars were wasted because 10 of 11 federal judges agreed on a ruling that Jay doesn't agree with, then Jay needs go take his anger out on someone he can batter or assault. Maybe try to make it a person of the male gender this time though.

Clearly, Bonds gave a rambling, evasive answer when asked if his trainer, Greg Anderson, ever gave him steroids, human growth hormone or “anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?”

I wonder if this would qualify as "lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage" if it were written about Jay Mariotti? My best guess is that it would be. Of course, Jay pled no contest to save a few dollars and because he wanted the world to know he was innocent of the charges, so there is no public court testimony for Jay to sound rambling and evasive when answering questions.

I have no idea if Jay was innocent or not, but his whole "I went with a no-contest plea to save money and to keep my good name" excuse has always sounded like bullshit to me. So you plead no-contest and basically admit you aren't going to defend yourself against the charges and this is supposed to save face for Jay? Whatever, not my deal. What is my deal is that Jay didn't get any testimony on record where he could ramble or be evasive (probably by design) and now the "new" Jay Mariotti is up to his old tricks of doing the same things he accuses the media doing to him.

Bonds: “I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but ... we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want — don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?” 

Prosecutor: “And, again, I guess we’ve covered this, but did [Anderson] ever give you anything that he told you had to be taken with a needle or syringe?”

Bonds: “Greg wouldn’t do that. He knows I’m against that stuff. So, he would never come up to me — he would never jeopardize our friendship like that.”

Exactly. Everyone knows that Barry Bonds isn't injecting anything to his body. He prefers creams and other more non-invasive methods of using steroids.

Prosecutor: “OK. So, just so I’m clear, the answer is no to that, he never gave you anything like that?”

Bonds: “Right.”

Now Bonds has resorted to just naming general directions? "Right," "Left," "Straight"...at what point do these evasive answers become obstruction of justice? Jay Mariotti, Esq. knows that answers and the corrupt legal system again screwed up by not acknowledging Jay's reality as the reality that is the rule of law.

Shrewd and calculating, Bonds waited out the pitcher. He didn’t swing and took his bases on balls. Now, years later, he somehow gets a complete pass,

This is an excellent example of Jay "not pushing a straightforward narrative" to find "heroes and villains." Jay was quick to point out how an expungement is issued rarely and with considerable diligence. Apparently a federal court overturning the decision of a lower court in a 10-1 ruling happens often and with zero diligence or regard for the facts of the case. Federal courts sometimes overrule a lower court's ruling by a 10-1 margin rather than confirm or remand the case just because the Magic 8-Ball says to do so.

I still chuckle at the "perspective" that Jay claims to have now. He's the worst.

Judge Alex Kozinski writing, “Making everyone who participates in our justice system a potential criminal defendant for conduct that is nothing more than the ordinary tug and pull of litigation risks chilling zealous advocacy. It also gives prosecutors the immense and unreviewable power to reward friends and punish enemies by prosecuting the latter and giving the former a pass.”

So Kozinski is suggesting Bonds has been wronged by a corrupt prosecutor. What a world, huh?

Apparently Jay wrote this sentence with no sense of irony regarding what Jay has written before. Here is what Jay wrote prior on Sports Talk Florida:

I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media, sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors, predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to represent me.

Yeah Jay, suggesting that you were wronged by a corrupt, headline-seeking prosecutor is RIDICULOUS though isn't it? Bonds didn't even say he was wronged, but a federal court judge mentioned in his opinion he was concerned by unnamed, possibly not existing and definitely not existing in this case, prosecutors maybe having unreviewable power. Jay, using the same legal knowledge that allowed him to write a book about "the system," takes this to mean the Judge Kozinski is calling THIS prosecutor as corrupt. In reality (which is a place where Jay does not live), the only one complaining about a corrupt and power-hungry prosecutor is Jay Mariotti.

I side with the lone dissenting judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, who wrote: “I cry foul.”

The smell is foul, too. 

Maybe you should take a shower and wash the stink of your own bullshit and hypocrisy off of you then. Nice "perspective" you have now, Jay. Jay wants to have it both ways. He wants to write about the corrupt legal system and the headline-thirsty media, all while taking part in being headline-thirsty himself. He wants to claim he's a "new" Jay Mariotti while also claiming he isn't going to change. Jay wants to claim a special knowledge of the legal system all while clearly having no idea what a legal ruling entails and means. He's a fake and a hypocrite as always. 

5 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Hasn't Thought Of: Ball Shrinking Edition

It's that time again. I have a bunch of links that I have bookmarked which don't deserve a full post, but would have a place on this blog. The links tend to pile up in my bookmarks and I just never get around to posting them. Instead of doing a short post, like a normal person would, I tend to throw them all together into one long post. I'm annoying that way. As usual, these are links from a variety of topics, so buckle up for the random change from one topic to another. I'll start with reactions to the Patriots deflating footballs, and yes, I refuse to call it Deflategate, and yes, I'm tired of talking about this subject. It makes for great hysterical sportswriting though.

My personal opinion is that Tom Brady knew what was going on, but it wasn't some vast conspiracy that requires a long suspension and public flogging. Bill Simmons' opinion on the subject can always push me over the edge to requesting the death penalty for Brady and the Patriots, simply because he has that effect on me, but I think I can stay non-emotional as long as I'm not listening to his nasally voice give his opinion. I'm tired of the subject, quite honestly.

1. You won't believe this, but "Mr. Non-Judgmental, Wait for the Facts, I Got Done Wrong by the Criminal Justice System" Jay Mariotti calls for the Patriots to vacate wins.

Lance Armstrong deliberately broke the rules and was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories. A generation of prominent baseball juicers knowingly broke the rules and have been rejected for Hall of Fame induction. You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail." That's hilarious. I love it when Jay makes jokes like this. You cheat on Wall Street, you MAY go to jail, but most likely you will be reprimanded and then allowed to make a ton of money again very soon. 

You cheat in politics, you're run out of office. 

I'm starting to wonder if Jay is joking or not. If you cheat in politics, you get elected. Isn't that the deal?

Precedent demands, then, that the New England Patriots — whose dynasty now has been tarnished by two scandals involving a deliberate and slimy circumvention of NFL rules — should return the Vince Lombardi Trophy won in February. Their fourth Super Bowl title must be vacated at once, glaringly evident as it is that star quarterback Tom Brady was a direct participant in a football-deflation scam and paid a co-conspirator to do his dirty deeds — all to gain an illegal competitive advantage — then lied and tried to cover up his role when league investigators interviewed him. 

I'm not sure Jay knows understands the concept of "precedent" or not. I don't know if precedent counts in this situation since every example Jay just provided all were examples outside of football and the NFL. Precedent would be comparing a punishment for Brady to a punishment the NFL has handed out for a similar situation or an applicable situation. Jay does not provide a similar situation in the NFL, only situations not handled by the NFL. Wasn't it Jay a few months ago who suggested that all journalists take law classes so they know the law? Jay really should be the one attending these classes.

When the league announces penalties for Deflategate in coming days, Commissioner Roger Goodell must protect the sport's integrity and issue a robust punishment that sticks for the ages.

FOR THE AGES!

Perhaps change the NFL logo to an outline of Tom Brady's body with an "I cheated" sign hanging over his neck? That'll learn him.

Super Bowl XLIX — Championship vacated. 

Come on Jay, you had to have spent five minutes coming up with a catchier line than that! It's not nearly hysterical enough.

Or, Super Bowl LIE. 

There we go. You know what, since we want this to stick FOR THE AGES, just change Super Bowl XLIX to Super Bowl LIE from now until Roger Goodell runs the NFL into the ground (circa 2028 at this rate).

And much as it stunned the American public to discover that the once-beloved Armstrong masterminded a massive doping program,

There is a difference in considering Armstrong innocent until shown to be guilty and being stunned. I'm not sure anyone was stunned when Armstrong finally admitted all he had done in order to gain the upper hand. All that was left was for him to just admit he cheated.

He has the supermodel wife, the family, the good looks, the image as The Guy Every Other Guy Wants To Be. The other night, I looked up from my ringside seat at the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight (also a sham, it turns out)

Do you like how Jay slipped having ring side seats to the fight in this column?

If you still believe that deflating a football below the league minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch) is an overblown story, consider that Brady benefited from violating the rules just as Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and the other cheats did.

Like George Brett did with putting too much pine tar on the bat, like Whitey Ford did by scuffing the baseball, like Gaylord Perry did by throwing a spitball...should I continue to talk about cheats who didn't get kicked out of the Hall of Fame or have their legacy tarnished by minor cheating in other sports?

The difference: Whereas the juicers inflated their bodies for an edge, Brady shrunk the football so it would feel better in his hand.

I'm going to try and ignore the "shrunken balls so they fit better in his hand" joke for now. It's hard (boom!), but I'll try to do it. Maybe I'll write in to a Bill Simmons mailbag and talk about it. He seems to enjoy it when his readers talk about jerking off. 

Referee Walt Anderson checked the balls before the game and determined that all but two were properly inflated. But when Anderson and his crew left their locker room to take the field, Anderson angrily wondered why the same game balls couldn't be located, according to Wells' report. That's because McNally — again, the attendant for the officials' locker room — had removed the balls from that room and taken them to a bathroom, where he "locked the door and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds." The timeline was based in part on a security camera in a Gillette Stadium hallway that captured McNally slipping into the bathroom with his needle and game balls. Could McNally do his handy work in 100 seconds? 

Yes, could McNally do his handy work on balls in 100 seconds? Rick Pitino says that wouldn't be a problem at all.

Absolutely. He was an expert ball-shrinker, after all.

(Bengoodfella sits in stunned silence at how much Jay is setting him up for juvenile jokes, but also throwing him off the trail of the hysterical journalism)

Perhaps, McNally just put the balls in cold water. Though I don't think it works exactly that way, does it George Constanza?

A text exchange at the time between McNally and Jastremski indicated Brady was aware of their hanky-panky. It also was apparent McNally isn't a big fan of Brady, which is odd, given Brady's godlike status within the Patriots' realm. 

Brady knew, so why vacate all of the team's wins? A-Rod didn't have all of his records vacated, neither did any of the other baseball juicers. Lance Armstrong still has the money from his Tour de France wins and sponsorships. Want precedent? There is precedent to not force the Patriots to vacate their wins.

What's bothersome is that Goodell is leaving the matter to Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations. "As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, [Vincent] and his team will consider what steps to take in light of this report," Goodell said in a statement.

He does this because Goodell is a weenie who wants to see public reaction before deciding on a punishment. He doesn't care to actually hand down punishment based on the violation committed, he only cares about what the public thinks the punishment should be, except when he shows a blatant disregard for public opinion that doesn't fit his agenda.

The only way to accomplish that is by throwing down the hammer. First Spygate, now Deflategate. First Belichick, now Brady.

Vacate. 

It's a little hysterical to make the Patriots vacate their Super Bowl victory. There is no evidence the Patriots won the Super Bowl while using deflated footballs, so I think the punishment should be kept separate from the Super Bowl victory. Plus, the Patriots deflated footballs. It helped Brady or he wouldn't do it, but I feel there is a more appropriate and less hysterical punishment.

2. Nancy Armour thinks the Patriots deflating footballs puts the integrity of the NFL at risk. That's hilarious isn't it? How can something the NFL started losing a while ago, all of a sudden be at risk of being lost? The NFL's integrity problem started long before Tom Brady hired some dude to deflate footballs.

Four-time Super Bowl champion. Three-time Super Bowl MVP. Two-time NFL MVP. Without question, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.

A liar and a cheat, too.

BAM! Call the fire department, Tom Brady just got roasted.

Tom Brady, the NFL's Golden Boy and Madison Avenue's perfect pitchman, has proved to be little better than Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and everyone else who broke the rules in search of an edge.

It seems this comparison to PED use isn't going to go away. These three guys used Performance Enhancing Drugs, while Brady used Performance Enhancing Balls (PEB's). I don't like cheating or a team trying to gain an edge, but if the whole "using PED's is the same thing as deflating footballs and the punishment for the team should be vacating of titles" attitude prevails then any NFL team that has ever had a guy suspended for PED use would have to vacate their Super Bowl title (had they won one). Should MLB teams vacate their World Series titles if it turns out they had a PED user? After all, PED use is the exact same thing as PEB use.

The two New England Patriots employees who let the air out of the footballs did so with Brady's knowledge and, more likely, at his behest.

Or, in the simplest of terms, he cheated.

(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls and falls down backwards into his flowered upholstered chair)

But it's not a matter of liking, it's a matter of trusting.

And if you buy the stories told by McNally, Jastremski and Brady, let me know, I've got a bridge I've been trying to unload.

You have a bridge you are trying to unload? Bridges are generally built by and are the property of federal, state and local governments, paid for by taxpayers. So if you have stolen a bridge and are trying to re-sell it on the free market then you are a thief and probably should be in jail. I'll just say that I wouldn't go around bragging about the bridge you stole. How dare you comment on Tom Brady deflating footballs when you are stealing money from taxpayers! Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?

But that's missing the point. By tampering with the footballs – or having someone do it for him – Brady tampered with the integrity of the game.

This is the NFL, and if everybody isn't playing by the same rules, there's little point in playing at all.

Next we know, every team will be deflating footballs and the NFL will be helpless to stop this from happening. Eventually, the league will be forced to fold as football, Roger Goodell will be forced to become a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, NFL players will have to use their college degree and concussions will be dramatically decreased. No one wants this to happen and it will all be Tom Brady's fault.

Think about it. If Brady, or his minions,

Exclusive video of Brady's minions.

are playing fast and loose with the rules in their game, how is anyone supposed to believe the same thing isn't going on everywhere else? It's a question of credibility, and by sacrificing his, Brady put the entire NFL's at risk.

How are we supposed to believe it's not happening everywhere else? We don't, but Brady got caught, so that seems to be some indication that if other teams are cheating they will either (a) stop deflating footballs or (b) get caught.

But knowing he was willing to break the rules puts him in a different, far less-flattering light, and diminishes all that he's accomplished.

It diminishes "all" that Brady has accomplished. Come on, you know that's not true. Brady probably cheated, but it doesn't diminish everything he has accomplished because there's no proof he had been deflating footballs for longer than the 2015 season.

3. Skip Bayless thinks those who paid to watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight didn't get screwed because Pacquiao was hurt. Of course Skip thinks this. Skip hates the public, which is why he subjects them to his ridiculous hot takes on "First Take."

You thought from the start your man Floyd Mayweather dominated Saturday night's fight.

Not my man.

I thought my pick, Manny Pacquiao, ultimately won seven of the 12 rounds.

Heart over head? From the bottom of mine, I do not believe so. I scored the fight round by round on Twitter and had Pacquiao winning seven rounds to Mayweather's five --115-113, PacMan.

So far, Skip in his career at ESPN against reason, obvious fact, and reality. Now, he is arguing against math and the observation of those who are paid to judge a boxing match. OF COURSE Skip had Pacquiao winning seven rounds. Reality hasn't quite set in for Skip that his fighter lost and no amount of opinion, fact or reality will obscure what Skip wants to believe. Look no further than Skip's takes on LeBron James throughout the years for proof of this.

Yet now, Manny Pacquiao is being as unfairly vilified as any superstar athlete I can remember. Instead of being lauded and applauded for his courage, he's being sued by irate fans convinced he duped them into shelling out a hundred bucks for a letdown of a showdown.

I'm not mad about it, but it's a pretty bitch move for one fighter to be injured and then no one who paid $100 to see that fighter fight is aware of the injury. It's almost like the opposite of using PEB's. It's an injury which affects one party's ability to perform to his/her normal standard. Pacquiao had an injury which affected his ability to competitively fight Mayweather. I don't think he should be sued or anything like that, but it's just a reinforced lesson that paying money to watch boxing can be a shaky move for a variety of reasons.

If Pacquiao had taken an obvious dive in Round 1, no doubt he would deserve this class-action wrath.

Pacquiao even told reporters from his country, the Philippines, that Mayweather knew his shoulder was hurt and kept pulling on his arm!

As usual, Skip seems to miss the point. The point isn't that Pacquiao cheated or did something wrong, but the need to go through with the event and make sure he got the money provided to him for fighting took precedent over a fair, competitive fight. That's the perception and that's why some are angry. It's the idea that the consumer was duped and the fight was this unstoppable force that had to happen no matter what in order for each fighter to get their payday. The payday came before a competitive bout, that's the perception.

So what would you have done if you had been in Pacquiao's shoes about three weeks ago? He had campaigned for this fight for five years -- partly for the potential payday, but more so because he believed he could beat the man who calls himself TBE (The Best Ever) and who had accused Pacquiao of PED use and posted a racist rant about him.

It's impossible to say what I would have done, but if I believed I could beat Mayweather and finally got the opportunity to prove it, then I would be very, very sure I was in peak physical condition so that I could prove it. That's what I think I would do. If I campaigned for the fight and knew I wanted to prove I could beat Mayweather, I would ensure I was in the best condition to do so.

But according to a source in the Pacquiao camp, he injured his shoulder while sparring about two and a half weeks before the fight. A cortisone shot eased some of the inflammation and pain, but it appeared surgery ultimately would be required. So why not just let a surgeon show the media an MRI of the torn rotator cuff and ask for a postponement?

Skip's defense is ego and money, which aren't exactly the best defense for why Pacquiao fought injured. I get it and I wouldn't sue him, but these aren't good reasons to fight injured. It feels like those who paid got screwed just a little bit.

Because Pacquiao feared he would give Mayweather one last excuse -- that Mayweather would simply say no way he could wait an entire year and turn 39 before fighting Pacquiao. Postponing would be risking Mayweather would fight the final fight on his contract this September and retire undefeated.

I understand this. I'm talking perception here, not WHY Pacquiao did what he did. "I wanted to fight him because I was afraid he wouldn't fight me" is a logical reason to fight injured, but the idea of a boxing match taking place simply so it could take place is the problem with this reason in terms of perception.

Did Pacquiao risk perjury and suspension by instructing his representative to not disclose the shoulder injury on the Nevada State Athletic Commission form at Friday's weigh-in? Maybe. But my source says that was nothing but a blunder. 

Just a blunder! That's all. I wonder if Skip would give the same amount of leeway to an athlete that he didn't like if a similar situation were to occur? I shouldn't have to ask the question because I know the answer.

For me, the biggest shock of the night was the way the three American judges judged the Filipino boxer. They treated Pacquiao as if he were an unknown underdog whose best (if not only) chance to win rounds was by knockdown or by drawing blood or by at least turning Mayweather into a punching bag.

I should've known: If Mayweather-Pacquiao was devoid of knockdowns and didn't end in a knockout, Pacquiao had no chance. If his fate in a 12-round fight fell to the judges, home-ring advantage would prevail.

I like how Skip is changing the subject from something that Pacquiao may have done that was a bit shady on to potential shading dealings by the judges. I'll stay on-point. If Pacquiao was 100% healthy could he have knocked Mayweather down or turned him into a punching bag? The answer to this question won't ever be known (until the inevitable rematch), but part of the reason Pacquiao is being sued is because the chances of his knocking Mayweather down or beating him bloody were diminished by his injury.

I predicted a seventh-round Pacquiao knockout in part because a month ago sources in Pacquiao's camp said Pacquiao was convinced he could take out the 38-year-old Mayweather "early" with his quickness and power. So of course I was stunned and disappointed when Pacquiao came out tentatively in Round 1. I did not know about the shoulder.

Skip admits Pacquiao's shoulder had an impact on the outcome of the fight, yet he can't figure out why there are those upset with the non-disclosure of the shoulder injury. Skip Bayless will play deaf, dumb and blind until the very bitter end.

Twice before the fight we had Roy on First Take. Both times he refused to make a pick because he was commentating on the pay-per-view telecast. But both times it became clear he's a Floyd fan and thought Floyd would win pretty easily. So his tone during the fight was "told you so," which surely influenced the perception of millions of casual fans or even nonfans who had been intrigued enough to pay a hundred bucks.

So logically, the outcome of the fight was all Roy Jones, Jr.'s fault. Obviously this makes sense.

I got lost in trying objectively to view the competition from round to round.

Because Skip Bayless is the king of objectivity and had picked a Pacquiao victory (mostly because Stephen A. Smith predicted a Mayweather victory, due to being so far up Mayweather's ass that he can taste what Floyd had for dinner last night), he wants his readers to believe he is being objective. The next day Skip Bayless is objective on anything will be the first day this has ever occurred.

Exactly. What Mayweather did best was act like he was winning easily. He shook his head "no" after Pacquiao flurries. He preened and posed and no doubt out-styled little Manny. He blinded judges and Floyd fans with his reputation.

But he did not win.

Except, you know, he did win.

Now the poor man is being sued as he has surgery. Only in America.

Skip Bayless admitting the bum shoulder affected Pacquiao's ability to win the fight, while also not understanding why those who paid to see the fight are angry, is absolutely vintage Skip Bayless. Reality has no recourse when Skip has reached the conclusion he wants to reach.

But I will. This time I'd pay double to see it. Pacquiao deserves a rematch. And he will win. Again.

I think Skip doesn't like Mayweather or picks against Mayweather partly because he feels threatened by someone else who does things solely for the sake of attention. Skip doesn't want the competition. 

4. I've been holding this article from Terence Moore about the Braves being good for the inevitable losing streak(s), just so I could point out how ridiculous his crowing was. After the Braves started 3-0, Terence was all "LOOK! The hustle and grit worked out. These Braves are good." He was wrong of course.

The first Major League team to 3-0 this season wasn't the Dodgers, with their massive payroll and overwhelming talent. 

It was the Braves. You know, the rebuilding Braves. We're talking about the Braves with so many new players after nine trades and seven free-agent signings before Spring Training that super closer Craig Kimbrel had T-shirts designed for everybody that said, "Hello my name is (fill in the blank)."

Yep, when a team trades all of their best players for prospects then that team is rebuilding. I love how Terence took a 3-0 and start proudly starts jumping to conclusions that, even though there are 159 games to be played, this Braves team is better than I think. I think they won't win 70 games, so he's possibly partly right, but that doesn't mean he's entirely right.

The early success of this makeover is just a fluke.
Or is it?

It is. A month after this article was posted the Braves were 14-14 with 16 of these games at home at suddenly spacious looking Turner Field. So yeah, it was a fluke.

Yes, Kimbrel is gone with his otherworldly numbers during his four years as baseball's best closer, but his replacement is Jason Grilli, a former All-Star closer with the Pirates. The rest of the bullpen includes Jim Johnson, a former All-Star closer with the Orioles.

I'm a "former" a lot of things and it doesn't mean I could do those things again. There's a reason Grilli and Johnson don't have "current" in front of "All-Star" and that's because they can't pitch at that level anymore.

The Braves are faster, too. Among their slew of trades, they acquired the speedy Eric Young Jr., who is their first true leadoff hitter since Michael Bourn left as a free agent after the 2012 season.

Does Terence get paid by Eric Young Jr. to call him a "true leadoff hitter"? If not, he should. Young was slashing .167/.236/.288 a month after this column was posted. If that's a "true" leadoff hitter then I'll take the "fake" leadoff hitter everyday of the week.

Then there are newcomers such as Nick Markakis, Jonny Gomes and A.J. Pierzynski providing leadership in a clubhouse where there hasn't been any since the retirement of Jones after the 2012 season.

Leadership is great, but as the legendary Jeff Francouer would have said, "If leadership counted, then it would be on the scoreboard."

In response, Braves officials keep doing the right thing by acknowledging the public outcry each time they unload a popular player, and then they do what they have to do, which is they keep purging.

Purging, not rebuilding! That's the party line. Sure, the Braves got rid of all their "name" players, but they aren't rebuilding, just restructuring the team from a team that could compete for the NL East to a team that can't compete for the NL East. That's definitely NOT rebuilding.

(By the way, I'm down with the plan. Just call it what it is and don't act otherwise. That's all I want.)

What comes to mind is that old line from Branch Rickey, when he traded a stunned Ralph Kiner and his prolific bat during the early 1950s from the Pirates to the Cubs: "We can finish last without you."

So the Braves are going to finish last, after Terence previously said the Braves wouldn't finish last. A hallmark of a Terence Moore column is where he submarines his own argument. It's always fun to read him ruin his own point.

This isn't to say the Braves were awful before their makeover. They were just destined to remain what they were in recent years: Slightly better than mediocre, stale, another team destined to add to Atlanta's string of playoff losses in the NL Division Series or NL Wild Card Game.

79 wins in 2014, 96 wins in 2013, 94 wins in 2012, 89 wins in 2011, 91 wins in 2010, 86 wins in 2009. I wouldn't call that mediocre and to think the 2015 version of the team is an improvement because the team just won't make the playoffs is a fallacy. Remember, Terence isn't supposed to be arguing the rebuild was the right move, his argument is the 2015 Braves team are better than we think. This is not true. There are two separate issues that Terence is attempting to confuse with each other.

Looks like the future for the Braves is now.

No, it is not. It is in the future...maybe. Acting otherwise is only fooling yourself, Terence.

5. Jon Heyman thinks that Josh Hamilton owes the Angels and Arte Moreno an apology. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't approve of Hamilton's comments about the Angels at times, but an apology? I'm torn, but Jon is not.

Hamilton possesses that irresistible exacta of ability and personality that's hard to beat. Maybe too irresistible.

You can't trust an addict and Hamilton admits that is what he is. So the "maybe too irresistible" goes to this.

Hamilton is an extremely affable, talented guy, and it's hard not to root for him. It is also difficult to criticize him, as not too many have lived in those shoes. But if no one else will say anything, at some point you'd like to see Hamilton say something. "I'm sorry," would be a start.

Yeah, maybe. For me the whole "I'm sorry" thing should be reserved for those that Hamilton personally hurt and not meant for a millionaire baseball owner who knew about Hamilton's background when he signed him. I don't know, it feels like "I'm sorry" should be reserved for those who aren't multi-millionaire owners. 

Somehow, the Angels, Rangers, Hamilton's agent Michael Moye and the union made it work. It works to the point where everyone's happy, even if Hamilton's the one smiling brightest.

Which is all great. Yet, the fallout doesn't seem quite fair.

I didn't realize that life was fair.

As Hamilton himself said at his press conference, Moreno knew what he was getting into. And he certainly could have come up with much more delicate phrases following the surprise arbitrator ruling that commissioner Rob Manfred couldn't suspend Hamilton for his self-reported relapse.

At that moment, the very rich guy looked a little too interested in saving a few bucks.

But I can't really blame him. Not too much, anyway.

And I understand why Hamilton isn't saying "I'm sorry," because he feels like Moreno didn't take the time to understand his condition and that he will always have an addiction issue. It would be hard to say, "I'm sorry" to a person who has lost your respect through acting like he cares more about his bottom line than you as a person. That's why I think "I'm sorry" to Moreno isn't required, because Moreno won't apologize to Hamilton for coming off as cold. 

In his Texas press conference, Hamilton never once took responsibility for causing the Angels a lot of heartache. Instead, what he said was Moreno should have known better. 

I found that to be an asshole thing to say and this comment comes off as very "gotcha" when it's probably not meant to. 

Moreno questioned Hamilton's "accountability" after the arbitrator ruling. So perhaps Hamilton wasn't in a charitable mood. But maybe Hamilton's lack of accountability is fair game at this point.

No one likes having their accountability being questioned. This is a situation where both parties should move on. I get why Hamilton didn't apologize and I get why Moreno was irritated. If Moreno can't apologize in some fashion then I understand why Hamilton wouldn't apologize either.

6. Bill Madden, as always, wants Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. He knows he wouldn't be elected, but still wants him on the ballot.

Even before new commissioner Rob Manfred is able to sit down for a face-to-face with Pete Rose, baseball’s banned all-time hit king is back among us, albeit slightly from afar, in a Fox TV Sports studio in Los Angeles.

But the very fact Manfred is even granting Rose an audience — something his two predecessors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig absolutely would not — tells me the Commish is at least cognizant of this long overlooked fact: Rose is the only player in the history of baseball who has never been eligible for the Hall of Fame — and it wasn’t Bart Giamatti, the commissioner who consigned him to baseball’s permanent ineligible list in August of 1989, who determined that. It was the Hall of Fame board of directors which, a few weeks after Rose was banned, determined that the permanent ineligible list applied to the Hall of Fame as well, and informed the Baseball Writers Association that he could not be placed on its ballot.

You'll never guess why Bill Madden thinks Pete Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Because of steroids of course.

This was a decision that would’ve probably been accepted as right and just, given Rose’s offense of breaking baseball’s cardinal rule on gambling, until the steroid cheats came along and did as much as Rose to impugn the integrity of the game by making a mockery of the record books.

I consistently fail to understand the "These PED users are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so why isn't Pete Rose?" argument. I don't see the parallel, partly because Rose accepted the lifetime ban, which isn't something PED users have done.

And while, as Manfred again pointed out Thursday in a meeting with APSE Sports Editors, “the rules on gambling have been in place literally for decades,” and that “they have been clear and spell out specific penalties; the reason those rules exist is because gambling is corrosive in a number of ways, including raising the specter of not doing everything they can to win,” it is worth noting in retrospect that Giamatti didn’t close the door entirely for Rose to eventually get reinstated.

In the fourth point of Giamatti’s resolution on Rose, he said: “Mr. Rose may, under Major League Rule 15 (c) apply for reinstatement. This ruling prohibits any such application for a period of at least one year.”

Yep. MLB has chosen not to reinstate him, as is their right.

Then, later on in the press conference, when asked if it would help Rose toward reinstatement if he sought rehabilitation for what many believed was a compulsive gambling habit, Giamatti replied: “The burden is entirely on Mr. Rose. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Mr. Rose, it seems to me, to re-configure his life in ways I would assume he would prefer. But a person who wishes to establish the kind of record that would sustain an application would want to take whatever steps would seem appropriate to that person to be persuasive.”

And of course, because Rose has done these things then Bill Madden thinks Rose deserves another shot to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Well, not exactly.

The problem for Rose was he did none of that. Instead he continued to deny that he had bet on baseball for another 14 years, all the while being seen publicly in gambling casinos and spending much of his life in Las Vegas, until he finally came clean in January of 2004 with the release of his book, “My Prison Behind Bars.”

(Deep sigh)

So why would baseball reinstate Rose when he accepted the lifetime ban and has not done, as outlined by the commissioner at the time, the steps to show rehabilitation? Because of PED users of course. All of a sudden it's not about Rose, but about what others have done that shows Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Rose is scum, but he's scum like others on the Hall of Fame ballot.

Interestingly, the idea there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame, so this being a reason the PED scum should be allowed in isn't seen as a persuasive argument for inclusion of these PED users into the Hall of Fame. Interesting how Rose should be rewarded for the actions of others who are scum like him, but there is a firm line drawn where PED users don't get the necessary votes for induction despite the actions of others currently in Hall of Fame that were also considered cheating.

it seems to me there ought to be some way to remove him from the stigma of the permanent ineligible list and put him on a “restricted list” that would still prevent him from working in baseball but allow him to make promotional appearances at ballparks, serve as a sort of good-will ambassador for the Reds, or even do (anti-gambling?) public service commercials for baseball.

Rose wants to know how much that would pay.

Then it would be up to the Hall of Fame to decide if he could take his place on a ballot, like the steroid cheats. For the record, even Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible for years for the Hall of Fame and got two votes in the first election in 1936 and another two in 1946.

Hey Bill, those votes occurred nearly 70-80 years ago. Let's focus on today.

For that, he at least deserves a vote — instead of remaining the only player in the history of the game who never got one.

I'm fine with Rose being reinstated, but he DESERVES absolutely nothing for actions he took that brought the lifetime ban upon him.

7. Bob Klapisch can't figure out if A-Rod is still cheating or not. On April 18, he wrote this article which hinted around the possibility of A-Rod still using PED's. Here are some of his comments:

Good luck to anyone trying to figure why Alex Rodriguez has become the Yankees’ best hitter, despite all the factors that should’ve been working against him. That includes his age, the yearlong drug suspension, two surgically repaired hips and going cold turkey on PEDs. We think.

Let’s address this last point first. I have to assume Rodriguez is playing clean in 2015;

Except, he doesn't dismiss the idea A-Rod is using steroids. Of course. 

So how’s he doing it? Here are a few wild guesses:

• The time off actually restored Rodriguez’s fast-twitch muscles.

This theory runs counter to conventional sports theory, which says an athlete’s reaction-time deteriorates with time, especially after 35.   

• Better, more invisible PEDs.

We’d be remiss to completely ignore this possibility, even if we don’t buy it. Still, Rodriguez managed to beat the system in all the years he immersed himself in Biogenesis’ drugs. He was never caught, not even once.

Whatever happened to assuming A-Rod was not using steroids? Klapisch assumes A-Rod is clean, then lists one of the reasons behind A-Rod's hot hitting as being that A-Rod is back using PED's. Sounds like assuming A-Rod is clean isn't something that's being done.

A cynic would reflexively ask: Who’s to say A-Rod hasn’t found a more sophisticated supplier than Tony Bosch?

To this, we shake our head and say no. So does MLB, which has greater enforcement powers than ever before. Not only is A-Rod subject to increased random testing, as is anyone who violated baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement, but testers are now empowered to come to Rodriguez’s home at any hour.

But after A-Rod kept hitting well, this sort of slight cynicism was fixed and now Bob Klapisch knows that A-Rod is not cheating. Sure, Bob beat around the bush at PED use with the idea A-Rod would definitely get caught, but now he knows for sure A-Rod isn't cheating. He's convinced!

Sure, there are plenty of folks who still don’t trust Rodriguez and think his pursuit of 700-plus HRs is a scam. But it felt like everyone in the ballpark had long since forgiven A-Rod and were willing to ride shotgun into the record books.

Sportswriters like Klapisch realize they are behind the curve in the whole "forgiving A-Rod" category, so they are quickly trying to make up for this.

Again, you might not believe any of it. Rodriguez has apologized a million times since spring training and you might think he’s not humble, just hardened and maybe smarter about a PED supplier this time around. 

But as I’ve said before, I believe A-Rod is clean. 

Yes, but then you listed "Better, more invisible PEDs" as a reason he could be hitting the baseball well. So, you believed, but didn't really believe.

The Yankees’ slugger knows he’s being watched, monitored, shadowed. A drug-tester from MLB was dispatched to Fenway on Sunday night and he was there for only one reason, to hunt down Rodriguez. The tester, a grim-looking man who spoke to no one, practically followed A-Rod to the bathroom for a urine sample. Rodriguez didn’t mind the surveillance; he knows it’s his penance for past sins.

Can you feel the narrative around A-Rod turning around? It's amazing what hitting a baseball does for the perception of A-Rod and how it helps him to be a more believable character that a sportswriter can cheer for. Success cures all.

So the night ended with a lingering question: How can Rodriguez hit a ball that far approaching age 40? Why is his bat-speed better now than in 2013, when it should be the other way around? I’m casting a vote for A-Rod’s better angels – that it’s not PEDs, but his surgically repaired hips now healthy enough to generate torque.

That is until Bob Klapisch decides that A-Rod is really powered by PED's again. I'm sure he'll write another "I don't think A-Rod is doing PED's" column where he again dismisses the idea A-Rod is doing PED's while continuing to bring the subject up.

8. Baseball is dying a terrible dying death. Nick Cafardo says so.

Baseball is trying to attract kids to the game, somehow, some way. But it’s been an uphill battle. If it continues, 20 or 30 years from now there won’t be much of a baseball viewership.

Baseball is dying a terrible, horrible death. Perhaps it's my peer group, but nearly everyone I know likes and watches baseball. Perhaps my peer group doesn't reflect reality. That's entirely possible.

The Red Sox probably are less susceptible to this than teams in other parts of the country where baseball isn’t as popular.

Well, obviously. The Red Sox are the team that's the least susceptible to this problem because they have the most informed and dedicated fans that would never turn their back on the team. Red Sox fans GET baseball, so even if MLB consists only of the Red Sox A-team facing the Red Sox B-team for 162 games there will always be professional baseball due to the unwavering fan support of the community in Boston that can't be found anywhere else in the world in any other sport.

It’s a simple game that has been muddled by the trends of recent years. Kids, particularly in the inner city, aren’t playing baseball with the frequency of the past, and the interest level in watching baseball isn’t there either, as the kids interviewed for the Globe story pointed out.

But the Globe interviewed kids who aren't from Boston, right? After all, the Red Sox are always going to be popular in Boston so good luck finding any kids who aren't Red Sox fans.

The human stories of players and their histories have gone the way of their WARs and WORPs, and I’m not sure kids see that as fun.

The idea that WAR and other advanced metrics chase fans away from the game is a fallacy. A total fallacy. If anything, it chases the generation away that baseball wants to be chased away (i.e. older fans of the game), while bringing in new fans who are passionate about the sport of baseball and enjoy using different metrics to watch the game. Using advanced statistics is another way of enjoying the game, not a reason why the game is dying.

In our day, we loved baseball cards and all we cared about was batting average, home runs, and RBIs. It was simple. It was easy to be a fan.

It's still incredibly simple like that. Nothing has changed.

Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays used to step into the box and swing at the first good pitch he saw. Now, batters are encouraged to look at more than four pitches per at-bat.

As a result, we’re seeing more called third strikes. At-bats take forever, attention is lost, and the outcome isn’t as good as it used to be.

In 2010, there were 28 players with 85-plus RBIs, 85-plus runs, and 20-plus home runs. In 2011, there 20. In 2012, there were 24. In 2013, there were 14. Last season, there were 11.

Reader Matt emailed me this article and included this little tidbit of research that he had done:

I looked it up and in 1963 there were 12 of these players in the Major Leagues. Plus, Hank Aaron drew over 1,100 unintentional walks in his career. Cafardo probably thinks that on every one of them Aaron spit in his hands, glared at the pitcher, and called him a pussy for not challenging him.

Oh, so "back in the day" there weren't so many of these players who hit home runs, drove in runs and scored runs was there? Interesting what research does to disprove conventional, unintelligent thought. Thanks to Matt for this research. It's one year, but it proves that Cafardo is reminiscing about a time that necessarily didn't occur. The past was always much better in retrospect wasn't it? 

Oh, and home runs and RBI's were up during the Steroid Era, which is an era baseball writers like Nick Cafardo see as a black mark on the history of the sport. Yet, fan interest was high. Can't have it any way you want it. Want a clean game, there has to be some sort of sacrifice. 

Why aren’t hitters swinging at those pitches more often? It just prolongs the at-bat, and thus fans lose interest.

Now, the more pitches seen per at-bat is considered a good thing, wears down the pitcher, but so do doubles in the gap.

The personalities have changed, too. Players are making so much money that instead of a game, it has become a business to them.

(Nick Cafardo shakes his fist at a cloud and yells at children for being on his lawn)

David Ortiz is fun, but then he gets criticized if he pimps a home run.

(Nick Cafardo gets in his 1988 Buick, turns on the radio and listens to only the older Rolling Stones albums)

A pitchers’ duel is fun to watch, but how many last a full nine innings? You see good seven-inning battles and then, of course, managers go to their relievers. 

"Not enough runs are scored in baseball these days!"

"Why aren't there more pitcher's duels that last nine innings?"

Can't have it both ways. Want runs? Great, that means there will be fewer nine inning pitching duels.

With all the advancements in understanding the human body and the claim that strength and conditioning coaches do baseball-specific work with their players, why are there so many oblique, hamstring, quadriceps, and shoulder injuries? Is it time to return to the days when players didn’t overtrain and really stuck to baseball-related exercises?

Yes, MLB and their teams should mandate how often players can work out. Just like in the old days when every player was durable for the entire season, except for some pitchers who ended up with "dead arm" that couldn't be sufficiently explained.

Players of yesteryear had to work other jobs and as a result got stronger. Aaron delivered ice. Bob Feller worked on a farm. Over time, their tendons got stronger.

"Baseball players should not work out as much as they do in the offseason or overtrain!"

"Baseball players need to do more work in the offseason by lifting heavy objects or working on a farm in order to get stronger!"

So yes, while the game has to be marketed better to kids, the kids need to see the game we saw as kids. 

Well that game isn't coming back and "the kids" are stuck with the game today. The same game where enjoyment can come from the use of advanced statistics and not despite the use of these statistics.

9. Rick Telander is afraid American colleges are attempting to exploit African teens by giving them an opportunity to go to school and participate in athletics.

The Anteaters player’s name is Mamadou Ndiaye, and he stands 7-6, weighs 300 pounds and has an 8-3 wingspan. That means if you turned him sideways, his arms would cover an entire doorway.

Ndiaye came to the United States speaking no English and was found to have a tumor on his pituitary gland, a problem solved by surgery. He had guardians in Huntington Beach, California, moved through high school, and now he has played in the Big Dance.

So after Ndiaye was dragged to America, a tumor was found and corrected, he graduated high school and now he's getting a college education? When will this exploitation end?

Basketball, dominated by African-Americans at the highest levels, is starting to skip the American part and go straight to Africa for talent that might lead the way.

It’s not a completely new template — Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigeria) and Dikembe Mutombo (Zaire) have certainly left their marks on the NBA — but with this new trend comes a sense of the dirty but time-honored exploitation of a continent so rich in natural resources but so lacking in fundamental order and control.

"Sure, other Africans have come to the United States to play basketball, gotten an education and succeeded, but this is a 'new' trend and it's called 'exploitation' now. Okay, it's not a 'new' trend, but for the sake of this article can't we just pretend it's new so I can try and get my point across?"

You can blame the NBA and its entrance rules for some of this. But the NCAA, which allows freshmen to play and tacitly encourages fake education, plays a bigger role. Coach Cal says it again and again: I’m just playing by the rules they gave me. And, like a riverboat gambler with loaded dice, he’s right. So the hunt for the edge never ends.

It always comes back to John Calipari in some way doesn't it?

In 2010, five Kentucky players were taken in the first round of the NBA draft, something that had never happened before.  This season, Calipari has nine McDonald’s All-Americans.

And here is the damning number about this startling trend. You ready for the truth about the exploitation? Of these 14 players being discussed that played for Calipari, 0 of them are native Africans that were ripped from their homeland to play for the Evil Calipari.

So what has this got to do with Africans?

Good point. Nothing.

Well, the talent in that incredibly diverse continent is bubbling, even if it is raw, largely uncoached and far afield from the cradle-to-adulthood training that most elite American players undergo. But it’s there, and it’s noticed.

So the problem is that United States colleges are recruiting international athletes to come play at their school and get an education? I guess I fail to see the issue here. Nearly every school has an international student program where, and hold on to your hat for the exploitation to begin, they take international students and bring them to the United States to go to school. Sometimes they play sports. I know, it's horrifying.

Shortly after this, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine entitled ‘‘American Hustle: How Elite Youth Basketball Exploits African Athletes.’’ In it, I read about schools like Our Savior that have dominant teams due to relying on dubious African ‘‘scouts’’ who send them players such as Diallo, a 6-9, 225-pound power forward who is a five-star college recruit.

There is money for the scouts, in round-about ways, and for the rare players who make it to the NBA. But many African teen players are brought over and suffer indignities of alienation and poverty and things like sleeping on the floor in a gym for half a year, the report said.

Wait, so high schools are exploiting these African basketball players, which means colleges are also exploiting them simply by recruiting them and offering them a scholarship and housing? Interesting way to look at it, Rick.

‘‘It’s like an auction,’’ a high school insider told the author, Alexandra Starr. ‘‘Each kid is an item to sell.’’

There, watching, with many others, was John Calipari.

Watching, licking his lips, just waiting to send another African basketball player that has never actually played at his Kentucky basketball program to the NBA. One would think if Rick is going to mention Calipari then he would also mention how Calipari has never had a player originally from Africa play for him while at the University of Kentucky. That would display honestly, which isn't something Rick cares to display.

10. Andrew Harrison used the "n-word" and now Jay Mariotti wants everyone to stop using this word. It's Jay Mariotti, social advocate.

If we truly are interested in eliminating racism in this country, uniting as one, then all usage of the N-word must stop. Now. Forever. 

For those who don't stop using this word, Jay will come over and yank your hair, then deny it while complaining the legal system is against rich, white men.

Why? Maybe because a 20-year-old named Andrew Harrison hears the N-word echo through popular culture and finds himself muttering it, under his breath after a difficult loss, when a reporter asks a Kentucky teammate about Wisconsin star Frank Kaminsky, who happens to be white.

Not because it's offensive word, but eliminate the word because others will repeat it.

“F--- that n-----,” Harrison said, mouth covered yet in front of a microphone, which picked up the racial slur and sent it careening across social media and into the mainstream. 

CAREENING across social media, CAROMING into the Internet and then SLIDING into Jay's ears where he knew he had to stop this bullshit immediately. If anyone can reach across the racial divide, it's Jay Mariotti.

Either we’re all serious about ending this social sickness or we should stop talking about it and let it be. What was Ferguson about? What were the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts about? What was “Selma” about, the lessons and the movie?

It wasn't entirely about the "n-word." It is about race relations and perceived racism, which will be present no matter whether a racial slur is spoken or not.

Kaminsky himself should have known better earlier in the NCAA Tournament, when he and his teammates were asked how they would want an opponent to describe them. “Resilient,” said one. “Disciplined,” said another. “Unselfish,” said another. “Tough,” said another.

“White guys,” said Kaminsky, a character. 

Oh my, Frank. By acknowledging that you are white, you are setting race relations back decades. DO NOT acknowledge you are white. No one would know if you didn't constantly bring it up.

We’re not supposed to be seeing color. We’re supposed to be seeing humankind. Why is USA Today counting the number of black and white starters? 

"Let's be colorblind," says Jay Mariotti.

ESPN originally announced it was launching a black sportswriting site, which made me wonder why the network also wasn’t starting an Asian-related sportswriting site and a Latino-related sportswriting site and so forth. Why narrow the audiences? Why separate us instead of using sports media as a way to bond and connect us?

Because ESPN wanted a site that appealed to and for black sportswriting that everyone could read. The same reason ESPN has a site called "ESPNW." It's not an exclusive site, but a site featuring content from a specific sub-group of people who love athletics.

Why does Barkley, a man crusading against racism, use the N-word? 

I simply find it funny that Jay Mariotti, whose writing career is most known for being hateful, wants to start crusading against hate and bring people together. He probably means everyone else should come together so they can all be in the same room while he fires hateful shots and criticisms from a totally separate room.