Read Ian's Featured Columns
A Woman's Place Could Soon Be in the NBA
Stern Open to Legalized Betting
Bannister and Peers: Heroes Made by Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Lights, Camera, Cosell
Stern Open to Legalized Betting
Bannister and Peers: Heroes Made by Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Lights, Camera, Cosell
A Woman's Place Could Soon Be in the NBA
There was much scoffing when this came out in 2009, but I believe more strongly than ever that we’ll see a woman playing in the NBA. Concerns over player health (specifically brain injuries) are likely to result in rules changes meant to reduce collisions; the NBA figures to increasingly emphasize skills at the expense of physical strength. The more that people speak of this possibility, the more likely that a female prodigy will grow up dreaming of the NBA – which will be crucial to making that dream come true.
December 04, 2009
Sports Illustrated: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2009/12/04/countdown
This will be the sports equivalent of putting a man on the moon ... and I'm not the only believer.
David Stern thinks it will happen. On Tuesday in the conference room outside his NBA office in Manhattan, I asked the commissioner whether we'll see a woman playing in his league someday.
"Sure," he said matter-of-factly. "I think that's well within the range of probability."
He went on to explain his reasoning as well as jokingly ask that I seek out other opinions, so that he wouldn't appear to be pushing this most progressive and liberating pursuit down the throats of his players, coaches and executives. But he knows, I know and now you know there is a good chance it's going to happen, simply because the most important man in basketball has hereby declared it could and should happen.
The context is important, because this was not some kind of pet project that he leaked to me. Last month an SI editor asked me to come up with several thoughts on professional basketball for the next decade, and one of my predictions was that a woman will be playing in the NBA. Then I decided to ask Stern about it. Last week I requested a meeting with Stern and I made sure to mention that I would be asking him about the possibility of a woman playing in his league, because I didn't want to catch him off guard. You'll be able to see that he had thought about this, and that he fully realized the impact of what he was saying.
How else was he going to answer such a question? If he'd said no - that there will be no women playing in the NBA - then he might have been viewed as criticizing or diminishing the talent of his own WNBA. Therefore, some will respond to Stern's declaration by accusing him of cynically trying to prop up the women's league.
My own impression is that Stern was not seeking to take on the goal of signing a woman to play in the NBA. But now that he has answered the question, I am certain he will embrace the mission.
Stern's entire career demonstrates that his perspective and ambitions eclipse the needs of the WNBA. If a woman were to play in his league - and play well - it would have the liberating impact of Jackie Robinson's 1947 breakthrough of baseball's color barrier, but on a much greater scale. This would make news around the world. Thanks to Stern's stubborn success in feeding NBA video to every continent, women almost everywhere would have access to and be personally inspired by the pictures of a woman playing in the league of Michael Jordan and LeBron James. It would be an athletic achievement without precedent.
I asked if we might see a woman playing NBA basketball within a decade.
"I think we might," said Stern. "I don't want to get into all kinds of arguments with players and coaches about the likelihood. But I really think it's a good possibility."
It would be a huge story. "It would be a ridiculous story,'' agreed Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers, meaning that the level of interest would be preposterous. "It would be great for everyone ... if it can happen. The key is whether the person is playing, or is she just on the team? The story will die down if she's just on the team and not playing a lot. But if she is playing and helping the team improve and win, then it really is a huge story."
The ultimate goal of developing a woman player is an unexpected but natural progression for Stern, who has used social initiatives such as Basketball Without Borders - in which NBA players run clinics and camps around the world - to help grow his business internationally. The success of a woman player would introduce the NBA to enormous audiences who wouldn't otherwise have been interested.
"The public would be excited about it," said New Jersey Nets general manager and interim coach Kiki Vandeweghe. "Whether you're in China or Europe or Africa, basketball is a common language and it breaks barriers. It's a language that's spoken all over the world, and this is another barrier that it would bring down. It's exciting, and it's a logical next step."
The pursuit of "the first woman" will also create new respect for the WNBA. From now on every great player in that league will be viewed from a new perspective. Is she good enough to play with the men? What does she need to improve in order to make that leap?
Some NBA owners will be interested in hiring the first woman player, even if it's only to sell tickets. "That would work if you had the right woman, and particularly if she were a player who played," said Nets president Rod Thorn. "Initially it would be, 'Wow, I've got to see this, I never thought this would happen so I've got to see it ...' If she were a solid player and a contributor, then definitely it would help."
Women's basketball continues to improve tremendously. When I asked Dallas Mavericks All-Star Dirk Nowitzki whether a woman could play in the NBA, he asked me if I was serious. I don't think he meant disrespect; it was just that he had never considered the possibility. "Skills-wise, yeah," he said, meaning they could shoot and handle the ball at an NBA level. "But physical-wise, it's tough. Even all the little guys are pretty strong in this league and pretty athletic."
Many in the league will doubt whether a woman can match the speed and strength of the world's best male players. "I don't think it’s going to be physically possible," said a league GM who asked to remain anonymous. "I think they have the necessary skill sets: If you give me the best of the best in the WNBA and put them on the (free throw) line with the best of the NBA, I think you'll see they shoot the ball as well as men.
"But think about the overall speed, athleticism and strength (in the NBA). They can't take the pounding, the wear and tear, the quickness, the strength. It's not possible for them right now. Why does (women's coach) Pat Summit at Tennessee have boy managers? It's because she wanted her team to play against the boy managers (in practice) because they're better than the girls on her bench. Many programs across the country have done that.
"I love the discussion, it's great for basketball and it doesn't hurt the NBA one bit. Would someone do it for PR? Maybe. But it's not going to happen. They can't play."
Stern acknowledged the skepticism while tempering it. "If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like.
"An issue that I have is when you look at tennis, and this is the argument against me," continued Stern. "As great as the women are, and actually in some cases I think their serves are served at a higher speed than men on the tour, like Serena's (Williams) first serve -you still get the sense that they wouldn't do well on the men's side of the tour.
"But in basketball, where it's a five-person game and you have zones and you can do a variety of other things - a fast person with a good shot that can play on the team? I think we could see it in the next decade or so ... I'll leave it to the real experts to talk about the muscle factor. But there's going to be a very strong woman who has all the moves, who's going to want to play, and she's going to be good."
Thorn emphasized that the terms of the debate will continue to change because women players keep improving. "I'm a fan of the WNBA - I go to games, I watch games - and the athletic ability of women basketball players has made such a jump up in the last five or six years it's unbelievable," said Thorn. "I don't think it's a complete leap of faith to say somewhere down the road someplace there may be somebody that's good enough to play.''
Who is to say that the women's equivalent of LeBron James won't show up as a freshman at Tennessee or Connecticut four or five years from now? By launching the discussion now, Stern has abruptly created an environment in which pro and con will hash it out, and in that way the league will prepare itself eventually for the day when a woman shows up for the opening of NBA summer league in Las Vegas.
NBA rules changes have opened the door. This discussion would not have been possible a decade ago, when the NBA enabled a more physical style of play on the perimeter 15 feet beyond the basket. "With the hand check, the strong defenders could just stop you," said Thorn, 68. "K.C. Jones - I remember him my first year in the league - he would put his hand on your waist and just move you wherever he wanted to move you. Now if you tried that, you'd have three fouls before you'd get started and you'd be on the bench."
Now when you see smaller NBA guards running free on the three-point line, think about whether an athletic woman could do the same things. "That was designed to create opportunities for skilled players," said Stern of the abolition of hand-checking. "So the question becomes: When the woman comes with the high skill set, will she be able to play? And I think the answer is yes, I think so."
The model may be WNBA MVP Diana Taurasi, the 6-foot swingman who led the Phoenix Mercury to the league championship. She can shoot, handle the ball, she's strong and - as important as anything - she is aggressive. In order to overcome the physical deficiencies, the first woman in the NBA would be a terrific shooter and ballhandler with the vision to make plays for others, and she would have to be fearless and confident and outrageously athletic, by WNBA standards.
"But you don't know" said Vandeweghe. “We have a lot of guys in our league who are specialty players - they come in and can just flat shoot it. Who's to say that somebody from the WNBA couldn't do the same thing?"
Much as Branch Rickey carefully chose Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier based on his skills as well as his temperament, so is Stern likely to urge his teams to be patient in making sure the first woman is equipped to succeed. Maybe she'll be the next generation of Los Angeles Sparks star Candace Parker, or Tamika Catchings of the Indiana Fever.
"I wouldn't say it's implausible because I think people have been saying that about different groups of people forever and they've been proven wrong," said New York Knicks president Donnie Walsh. "I'm sure there'll be a girl who'll be on this level, and if there is, she'll probably play in the NBA.
"I look at the WNBA games and I'm amazed at how good these girls are," continued Walsh, 68. "I told Larry Brown once, 'I think they're better than you and I were in college.' He got mad at me, but I was serious. I said, 'Larry, they're just like we were. They play under the rim, they're not jumpers, they can't dunk and all that. But they know how to play and they can drive, they can shoot. They're good.'"
The first woman will be greeted with newfound respect. Ann Meyers Drysdale, now GM of the WNBA champion Mercury, remains the only woman to sign an NBA contract. She had been a three-time All-America guard at UCLA before signing in 1979 with the Indiana Pacers, who released her before that season.
"I had been liked by the media at that time," said the 5-9 Meyers, but that changed when she joined the Pacers. "I recall at the press conference that I was attacked pretty good by the media. You know: what are you doing, you're taking some guy's job, you can't compete, you're too slow, you're going to get hurt, you're too small, da-ta-da. But somebody gives you an opportunity, you're supposed to say no?"
It will be different this time because of players like Meyers Drysdale and Nancy Lieberman, who will coach the new NBA D-League franchise in Dallas after a playing career that included games in the men's minor-league USBL as well as on the summer league teams of the Los Angeles Lakers and Utah Jazz. The escalation of women's basketball over the last decade has made Taurasi and Parker stars in their own right, to the point that you now see LeBron James and Kobe Bryant attending U.S. women's games at the Olympics.
But it's important that the NBA get this right the first time. "If she was truly a full-time player rather than a modern-day Eddie Gaedel," said Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of the dwarf who played major league baseball in a 1951 publicity stunt, "it would be enormous."
Would the other players respect her?
"If she could play," answered Cuban. "If it was a marketing ploy, they would resent her taking a job."
That's why, in order for this to have universal meaning, I'm convinced Stern and the NBA will wait for the right player to come along. If she really is the LeBron James of women's basketball, then she'll be welcomed by the stars throughout the NBA, and in turn the best players on her NBA team will have no choice but to respect her.
If anyone is going to be nervous, it will be the opponents playing against her. "That's right, the guys trying to guard her won't want to get beat," said Dallas Mavericks assistant coach Dwane Casey. "I see the women's game coming closer and closer to the men's game. You see NBA coaches who are now coaching in the WNBA and you see them using a lot of the same principles - offensive schemes, pick and roll, defensive sets. The physical part will be the worst for a woman, and it will be on defense more than anything else.
"But technically, all of the things they need are already there," said Casey, 52. "Before I leave this earth I'll see it - or at least I'll be close to seeing it."
December 04, 2009
Sports Illustrated: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2009/12/04/countdown
This will be the sports equivalent of putting a man on the moon ... and I'm not the only believer.
David Stern thinks it will happen. On Tuesday in the conference room outside his NBA office in Manhattan, I asked the commissioner whether we'll see a woman playing in his league someday.
"Sure," he said matter-of-factly. "I think that's well within the range of probability."
He went on to explain his reasoning as well as jokingly ask that I seek out other opinions, so that he wouldn't appear to be pushing this most progressive and liberating pursuit down the throats of his players, coaches and executives. But he knows, I know and now you know there is a good chance it's going to happen, simply because the most important man in basketball has hereby declared it could and should happen.
The context is important, because this was not some kind of pet project that he leaked to me. Last month an SI editor asked me to come up with several thoughts on professional basketball for the next decade, and one of my predictions was that a woman will be playing in the NBA. Then I decided to ask Stern about it. Last week I requested a meeting with Stern and I made sure to mention that I would be asking him about the possibility of a woman playing in his league, because I didn't want to catch him off guard. You'll be able to see that he had thought about this, and that he fully realized the impact of what he was saying.
How else was he going to answer such a question? If he'd said no - that there will be no women playing in the NBA - then he might have been viewed as criticizing or diminishing the talent of his own WNBA. Therefore, some will respond to Stern's declaration by accusing him of cynically trying to prop up the women's league.
My own impression is that Stern was not seeking to take on the goal of signing a woman to play in the NBA. But now that he has answered the question, I am certain he will embrace the mission.
Stern's entire career demonstrates that his perspective and ambitions eclipse the needs of the WNBA. If a woman were to play in his league - and play well - it would have the liberating impact of Jackie Robinson's 1947 breakthrough of baseball's color barrier, but on a much greater scale. This would make news around the world. Thanks to Stern's stubborn success in feeding NBA video to every continent, women almost everywhere would have access to and be personally inspired by the pictures of a woman playing in the league of Michael Jordan and LeBron James. It would be an athletic achievement without precedent.
I asked if we might see a woman playing NBA basketball within a decade.
"I think we might," said Stern. "I don't want to get into all kinds of arguments with players and coaches about the likelihood. But I really think it's a good possibility."
It would be a huge story. "It would be a ridiculous story,'' agreed Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers, meaning that the level of interest would be preposterous. "It would be great for everyone ... if it can happen. The key is whether the person is playing, or is she just on the team? The story will die down if she's just on the team and not playing a lot. But if she is playing and helping the team improve and win, then it really is a huge story."
The ultimate goal of developing a woman player is an unexpected but natural progression for Stern, who has used social initiatives such as Basketball Without Borders - in which NBA players run clinics and camps around the world - to help grow his business internationally. The success of a woman player would introduce the NBA to enormous audiences who wouldn't otherwise have been interested.
"The public would be excited about it," said New Jersey Nets general manager and interim coach Kiki Vandeweghe. "Whether you're in China or Europe or Africa, basketball is a common language and it breaks barriers. It's a language that's spoken all over the world, and this is another barrier that it would bring down. It's exciting, and it's a logical next step."
The pursuit of "the first woman" will also create new respect for the WNBA. From now on every great player in that league will be viewed from a new perspective. Is she good enough to play with the men? What does she need to improve in order to make that leap?
Some NBA owners will be interested in hiring the first woman player, even if it's only to sell tickets. "That would work if you had the right woman, and particularly if she were a player who played," said Nets president Rod Thorn. "Initially it would be, 'Wow, I've got to see this, I never thought this would happen so I've got to see it ...' If she were a solid player and a contributor, then definitely it would help."
Women's basketball continues to improve tremendously. When I asked Dallas Mavericks All-Star Dirk Nowitzki whether a woman could play in the NBA, he asked me if I was serious. I don't think he meant disrespect; it was just that he had never considered the possibility. "Skills-wise, yeah," he said, meaning they could shoot and handle the ball at an NBA level. "But physical-wise, it's tough. Even all the little guys are pretty strong in this league and pretty athletic."
Many in the league will doubt whether a woman can match the speed and strength of the world's best male players. "I don't think it’s going to be physically possible," said a league GM who asked to remain anonymous. "I think they have the necessary skill sets: If you give me the best of the best in the WNBA and put them on the (free throw) line with the best of the NBA, I think you'll see they shoot the ball as well as men.
"But think about the overall speed, athleticism and strength (in the NBA). They can't take the pounding, the wear and tear, the quickness, the strength. It's not possible for them right now. Why does (women's coach) Pat Summit at Tennessee have boy managers? It's because she wanted her team to play against the boy managers (in practice) because they're better than the girls on her bench. Many programs across the country have done that.
"I love the discussion, it's great for basketball and it doesn't hurt the NBA one bit. Would someone do it for PR? Maybe. But it's not going to happen. They can't play."
Stern acknowledged the skepticism while tempering it. "If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like.
"An issue that I have is when you look at tennis, and this is the argument against me," continued Stern. "As great as the women are, and actually in some cases I think their serves are served at a higher speed than men on the tour, like Serena's (Williams) first serve -you still get the sense that they wouldn't do well on the men's side of the tour.
"But in basketball, where it's a five-person game and you have zones and you can do a variety of other things - a fast person with a good shot that can play on the team? I think we could see it in the next decade or so ... I'll leave it to the real experts to talk about the muscle factor. But there's going to be a very strong woman who has all the moves, who's going to want to play, and she's going to be good."
Thorn emphasized that the terms of the debate will continue to change because women players keep improving. "I'm a fan of the WNBA - I go to games, I watch games - and the athletic ability of women basketball players has made such a jump up in the last five or six years it's unbelievable," said Thorn. "I don't think it's a complete leap of faith to say somewhere down the road someplace there may be somebody that's good enough to play.''
Who is to say that the women's equivalent of LeBron James won't show up as a freshman at Tennessee or Connecticut four or five years from now? By launching the discussion now, Stern has abruptly created an environment in which pro and con will hash it out, and in that way the league will prepare itself eventually for the day when a woman shows up for the opening of NBA summer league in Las Vegas.
NBA rules changes have opened the door. This discussion would not have been possible a decade ago, when the NBA enabled a more physical style of play on the perimeter 15 feet beyond the basket. "With the hand check, the strong defenders could just stop you," said Thorn, 68. "K.C. Jones - I remember him my first year in the league - he would put his hand on your waist and just move you wherever he wanted to move you. Now if you tried that, you'd have three fouls before you'd get started and you'd be on the bench."
Now when you see smaller NBA guards running free on the three-point line, think about whether an athletic woman could do the same things. "That was designed to create opportunities for skilled players," said Stern of the abolition of hand-checking. "So the question becomes: When the woman comes with the high skill set, will she be able to play? And I think the answer is yes, I think so."
The model may be WNBA MVP Diana Taurasi, the 6-foot swingman who led the Phoenix Mercury to the league championship. She can shoot, handle the ball, she's strong and - as important as anything - she is aggressive. In order to overcome the physical deficiencies, the first woman in the NBA would be a terrific shooter and ballhandler with the vision to make plays for others, and she would have to be fearless and confident and outrageously athletic, by WNBA standards.
"But you don't know" said Vandeweghe. “We have a lot of guys in our league who are specialty players - they come in and can just flat shoot it. Who's to say that somebody from the WNBA couldn't do the same thing?"
Much as Branch Rickey carefully chose Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier based on his skills as well as his temperament, so is Stern likely to urge his teams to be patient in making sure the first woman is equipped to succeed. Maybe she'll be the next generation of Los Angeles Sparks star Candace Parker, or Tamika Catchings of the Indiana Fever.
"I wouldn't say it's implausible because I think people have been saying that about different groups of people forever and they've been proven wrong," said New York Knicks president Donnie Walsh. "I'm sure there'll be a girl who'll be on this level, and if there is, she'll probably play in the NBA.
"I look at the WNBA games and I'm amazed at how good these girls are," continued Walsh, 68. "I told Larry Brown once, 'I think they're better than you and I were in college.' He got mad at me, but I was serious. I said, 'Larry, they're just like we were. They play under the rim, they're not jumpers, they can't dunk and all that. But they know how to play and they can drive, they can shoot. They're good.'"
The first woman will be greeted with newfound respect. Ann Meyers Drysdale, now GM of the WNBA champion Mercury, remains the only woman to sign an NBA contract. She had been a three-time All-America guard at UCLA before signing in 1979 with the Indiana Pacers, who released her before that season.
"I had been liked by the media at that time," said the 5-9 Meyers, but that changed when she joined the Pacers. "I recall at the press conference that I was attacked pretty good by the media. You know: what are you doing, you're taking some guy's job, you can't compete, you're too slow, you're going to get hurt, you're too small, da-ta-da. But somebody gives you an opportunity, you're supposed to say no?"
It will be different this time because of players like Meyers Drysdale and Nancy Lieberman, who will coach the new NBA D-League franchise in Dallas after a playing career that included games in the men's minor-league USBL as well as on the summer league teams of the Los Angeles Lakers and Utah Jazz. The escalation of women's basketball over the last decade has made Taurasi and Parker stars in their own right, to the point that you now see LeBron James and Kobe Bryant attending U.S. women's games at the Olympics.
But it's important that the NBA get this right the first time. "If she was truly a full-time player rather than a modern-day Eddie Gaedel," said Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of the dwarf who played major league baseball in a 1951 publicity stunt, "it would be enormous."
Would the other players respect her?
"If she could play," answered Cuban. "If it was a marketing ploy, they would resent her taking a job."
That's why, in order for this to have universal meaning, I'm convinced Stern and the NBA will wait for the right player to come along. If she really is the LeBron James of women's basketball, then she'll be welcomed by the stars throughout the NBA, and in turn the best players on her NBA team will have no choice but to respect her.
If anyone is going to be nervous, it will be the opponents playing against her. "That's right, the guys trying to guard her won't want to get beat," said Dallas Mavericks assistant coach Dwane Casey. "I see the women's game coming closer and closer to the men's game. You see NBA coaches who are now coaching in the WNBA and you see them using a lot of the same principles - offensive schemes, pick and roll, defensive sets. The physical part will be the worst for a woman, and it will be on defense more than anything else.
"But technically, all of the things they need are already there," said Casey, 52. "Before I leave this earth I'll see it - or at least I'll be close to seeing it."
Stern Open to Legalized Betting
With this story, the NBA’s David Stern became the first American sports commissioner to embrace the idea of legalized sports betting.
December 11, 2009
Sports Illustrated: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2009/12/11/weekly-countdown
As part of SI.com's all-decade project highlighting the best and worst of sports in the 2000s, I asked commissioner David Stern to examine the last 10 years while also envisioning what the future may hold.
Will sports betting be legalized? From my point of view, that is the big question created by the Tim Donaghy scandal, and with this groundbreaking interview, Stern moved closer than any major commissioner in modern times to an acceptance of legalized betting on his games.
Stern made no commitment to legalized gambling on NBA games in our wide-ranging conversation last week at league headquarters in New York. He did, however, open a dialogue that could ultimately lead to a new relationship between the NBA and legalized sports betting. It's important to grasp the context as detailed below, but for the first time he referred to nationally legalized gambling on the NBA as a "possibility" that "may be a huge opportunity."
By federal law, betting on professional basketball and other American sporting events is legal mainly in Nevada (limited sports betting has also operated in Oregon, Delaware and Montana). Even in Nevada, Stern has objected to legalized wagering on NBA games. The Maloof family, owners of the Sacramento Kings, agreed for years to prohibit legal bets on NBA games at their Las Vegas casino, the Palms.
But the NBA has already begun to soften its stance. Its 2007 All-Star weekend was held in Las Vegas, advancing speculation that a franchise may someday move to a gambling capital that previously had been viewed as taboo by pro sports leagues. And last year, the NBA allowed the Palms to post odds on all NBA games except those involving the Kings.
My take, as written several times over the years, is that legalized betting on professional sports in the U.S. is inevitable for two reasons: (1) If sports wagering becomes a legal and taxable form of revenue, then governments will actively police sports betting in order to protect that revenue base, as well as to safe-guard the leagues that create the windfall of new taxes; and (2) Betting on games will create more fan interest and, ultimately, bring in more money to the NBA and other leagues.
I started the conversation with Stern by asking whether his league and others need to develop a comprehensive new approach to their relationship with sports betting. That approach has changed very little in the nine decades since the infamous "Black Sox" gamblers conspired to fix the 1919 World Series.
Stern agreed, in general, with that point of view. He responded by noting that other leagues around the world were addressing betting scandals similar to the NBA's.
"We used [the Donaghy revelations] as an opportunity to get better, to coordinate with law enforcement and go through a variety of processes that I don't necessarily want to detail publicly, but you are on ready alert," he said. "And we're mindful of what can happen, because we're more-than-interested bystanders in the European football scandal. Two-hundred [soccer] games are being looked at by law enforcement across the continent. It's fascinating to see what's happening. And we're mindful of the cricket [2007 World Cup match-fixing] issues, of the football referees in Germany - there's a lot going on."
Then he made a new point. "The betting issues are actually going to become more intense as states in the U.S. and governments in the world decide that the answers to all of their monetary shortfalls are the tax that is gambling."
The obvious question then is, now that governments have legalized gambling, should sports leagues follow suit and enable betting on their games? While Stern didn't provide a definitive answer, he furthered the debate simply by dealing with the subject of sports betting in an open way.
The most stunning revelation of the Donaghy scandal has been the public's ambivalence. The fans don't appear to care that a referee was betting on (and very likely fixing) NBA games. A gambling scandal involving a referee was supposed to be the doomsday scenario for any sports league, but NBA ratings have gone up in the two full seasons since Tim Donaghy became a household name.
The common thread that ties Donaghy to other betting scandals around the world has been the role played by syndicates that bet illegally. These underground gambling rings - like the mob-associated group that co-opted Donaghy - would have a harder time operating in the U.S. if betting on sports becomes legal. As it stands now, sports betting is an illegal, multibillion-dollar enterprise that goes largely undetected by law enforcement outside Nevada. If we all accept that gambling on sports is a fact of life that can't be ignored or wished away, then the question becomes whether it is better to legalize it and actively police it, or leave it underground where it remains murkier and harder to detect.
Of course, I'm abridging this argument, because gambling syndicates would remain in operation offshore and could still try to fix outcomes against the spread. But that doesn't change the fact that billions of dollars wagered within the U.S. go unregulated and untaxed. It is a mob-driven industry, and ultimately the mob was able to co-opt Donaghy.
I asked Stern if it is in the best interests of his league to seek legalization of sports betting. He sighed with his head down, as if to emphasize the gravity of what he was going to say.
"It has been a matter of league policy to answer that question, 'No,'" he said. "But I think that that league policy was formulated at a time when gambling was far less widespread - even legally."
He went on to provide a brief lesson in history involving J. Walter Kennedy, the NBA commissioner from 1963-75. "Walter Kennedy testified in Congress many years ago, probably over 40, that gambling - any gambling, not just sports - should not be allowed in Atlantic City, that gambling shouldn't be expanded," said Stern, who was a lawyer for the NBA at that time. "I remember it because I wrote a statement. It was the U.S. association of attorneys general, the U.S. attorneys association, the association of chiefs of police, the clergy of all denominations - all lined up to say that expanding [was wrong] ... and I don't think lotteries were legal back then.
"So that was the sin. And that's the way sports grew up in their opposition."
What has changed, Stern acknowledged, is that the NBA can no longer oppose gambling on moral grounds.
"Considering the fact that so many state governments - probably between 40 and 50 - don't consider it immoral, I don't think that anyone [else] should," Stern went on. "It may be a little immoral, because it really is a tax on the poor, the lotteries. But having said that, it's now a matter of national policy: Gambling is good.
"So we have morphed considerably in our corporate view where we say, Look, Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation and destination resort, and they have sports gambling and, in fact, there's a federal statute that gives them a monopoly of types [on sports betting]. And we actually supported that statute back in '92."
Stern has long maintained that he doesn't want the NBA to turn into a point-spread league, and he talked about how NBA games create little of the sports-betting handle in Vegas, and that the majority of NBA fans have scant interest in the spread. I responded by noting that the NBA has created a variety of constituencies, including fans who wear NBA clothing, who play NBA video games and who view Kobe Bryant and LeBron James as Hollywood-level stars, which is not to forget the fans from any number of countries who follow the NBA patriotically via Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker or Yao Ming.
Why not make room under the big tent for the minority of fans who like to bet on NBA games?
"OK, but then you're arguing there may be good and sufficient business reasons to do that," Stern said. "And I'm going to leave the slate clean for my successor."
He smiled and added, "But it's fair enough that we have moved to a point where that leap is a possibility, although that's not our current position."
There you have it. That is a breakthrough. You don't hear baseball commissioner Bud Selig - and you surely don't hear NFL commissioner Roger Goodell - saying that legalized betting on their games is a "possibility." Sports betting is their third rail, and they've long maintained the anachronistic appearance of having nothing to do with it. (Even though illegal sports betting has helped turn the NFL into the No. 1 sport in America.)
As Stern acknowledged, gambling has gone mainstream since the scandal of 1919. The gambling industry will continue to grow as more and more casinos are built throughout the nation, such as the casino now being planned by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert for downtown Cleveland nearby Quicken Loans Arena.
Without committing himself in any way, Stern acknowledged that sports betting could create a new stream of revenue for the NBA - not unlike the interest that March Madness betting pools have created for the NCAA tournament.
"You're right about the threat that we perceive, and we stay on it," said Stern of the menace of illegal gambling rings. "I think the threat is the same legal and illegal - the threat is there.
"Gambling, however it may have moved closer to the line [of becoming acceptable], is still viewed on the threat side," he said. "Although we understand fully why, buried within that threat there may be a huge opportunity as well."
December 11, 2009
Sports Illustrated: https://www.si.com/more-sports/2009/12/11/weekly-countdown
As part of SI.com's all-decade project highlighting the best and worst of sports in the 2000s, I asked commissioner David Stern to examine the last 10 years while also envisioning what the future may hold.
Will sports betting be legalized? From my point of view, that is the big question created by the Tim Donaghy scandal, and with this groundbreaking interview, Stern moved closer than any major commissioner in modern times to an acceptance of legalized betting on his games.
Stern made no commitment to legalized gambling on NBA games in our wide-ranging conversation last week at league headquarters in New York. He did, however, open a dialogue that could ultimately lead to a new relationship between the NBA and legalized sports betting. It's important to grasp the context as detailed below, but for the first time he referred to nationally legalized gambling on the NBA as a "possibility" that "may be a huge opportunity."
By federal law, betting on professional basketball and other American sporting events is legal mainly in Nevada (limited sports betting has also operated in Oregon, Delaware and Montana). Even in Nevada, Stern has objected to legalized wagering on NBA games. The Maloof family, owners of the Sacramento Kings, agreed for years to prohibit legal bets on NBA games at their Las Vegas casino, the Palms.
But the NBA has already begun to soften its stance. Its 2007 All-Star weekend was held in Las Vegas, advancing speculation that a franchise may someday move to a gambling capital that previously had been viewed as taboo by pro sports leagues. And last year, the NBA allowed the Palms to post odds on all NBA games except those involving the Kings.
My take, as written several times over the years, is that legalized betting on professional sports in the U.S. is inevitable for two reasons: (1) If sports wagering becomes a legal and taxable form of revenue, then governments will actively police sports betting in order to protect that revenue base, as well as to safe-guard the leagues that create the windfall of new taxes; and (2) Betting on games will create more fan interest and, ultimately, bring in more money to the NBA and other leagues.
I started the conversation with Stern by asking whether his league and others need to develop a comprehensive new approach to their relationship with sports betting. That approach has changed very little in the nine decades since the infamous "Black Sox" gamblers conspired to fix the 1919 World Series.
Stern agreed, in general, with that point of view. He responded by noting that other leagues around the world were addressing betting scandals similar to the NBA's.
"We used [the Donaghy revelations] as an opportunity to get better, to coordinate with law enforcement and go through a variety of processes that I don't necessarily want to detail publicly, but you are on ready alert," he said. "And we're mindful of what can happen, because we're more-than-interested bystanders in the European football scandal. Two-hundred [soccer] games are being looked at by law enforcement across the continent. It's fascinating to see what's happening. And we're mindful of the cricket [2007 World Cup match-fixing] issues, of the football referees in Germany - there's a lot going on."
Then he made a new point. "The betting issues are actually going to become more intense as states in the U.S. and governments in the world decide that the answers to all of their monetary shortfalls are the tax that is gambling."
The obvious question then is, now that governments have legalized gambling, should sports leagues follow suit and enable betting on their games? While Stern didn't provide a definitive answer, he furthered the debate simply by dealing with the subject of sports betting in an open way.
The most stunning revelation of the Donaghy scandal has been the public's ambivalence. The fans don't appear to care that a referee was betting on (and very likely fixing) NBA games. A gambling scandal involving a referee was supposed to be the doomsday scenario for any sports league, but NBA ratings have gone up in the two full seasons since Tim Donaghy became a household name.
The common thread that ties Donaghy to other betting scandals around the world has been the role played by syndicates that bet illegally. These underground gambling rings - like the mob-associated group that co-opted Donaghy - would have a harder time operating in the U.S. if betting on sports becomes legal. As it stands now, sports betting is an illegal, multibillion-dollar enterprise that goes largely undetected by law enforcement outside Nevada. If we all accept that gambling on sports is a fact of life that can't be ignored or wished away, then the question becomes whether it is better to legalize it and actively police it, or leave it underground where it remains murkier and harder to detect.
Of course, I'm abridging this argument, because gambling syndicates would remain in operation offshore and could still try to fix outcomes against the spread. But that doesn't change the fact that billions of dollars wagered within the U.S. go unregulated and untaxed. It is a mob-driven industry, and ultimately the mob was able to co-opt Donaghy.
I asked Stern if it is in the best interests of his league to seek legalization of sports betting. He sighed with his head down, as if to emphasize the gravity of what he was going to say.
"It has been a matter of league policy to answer that question, 'No,'" he said. "But I think that that league policy was formulated at a time when gambling was far less widespread - even legally."
He went on to provide a brief lesson in history involving J. Walter Kennedy, the NBA commissioner from 1963-75. "Walter Kennedy testified in Congress many years ago, probably over 40, that gambling - any gambling, not just sports - should not be allowed in Atlantic City, that gambling shouldn't be expanded," said Stern, who was a lawyer for the NBA at that time. "I remember it because I wrote a statement. It was the U.S. association of attorneys general, the U.S. attorneys association, the association of chiefs of police, the clergy of all denominations - all lined up to say that expanding [was wrong] ... and I don't think lotteries were legal back then.
"So that was the sin. And that's the way sports grew up in their opposition."
What has changed, Stern acknowledged, is that the NBA can no longer oppose gambling on moral grounds.
"Considering the fact that so many state governments - probably between 40 and 50 - don't consider it immoral, I don't think that anyone [else] should," Stern went on. "It may be a little immoral, because it really is a tax on the poor, the lotteries. But having said that, it's now a matter of national policy: Gambling is good.
"So we have morphed considerably in our corporate view where we say, Look, Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation and destination resort, and they have sports gambling and, in fact, there's a federal statute that gives them a monopoly of types [on sports betting]. And we actually supported that statute back in '92."
Stern has long maintained that he doesn't want the NBA to turn into a point-spread league, and he talked about how NBA games create little of the sports-betting handle in Vegas, and that the majority of NBA fans have scant interest in the spread. I responded by noting that the NBA has created a variety of constituencies, including fans who wear NBA clothing, who play NBA video games and who view Kobe Bryant and LeBron James as Hollywood-level stars, which is not to forget the fans from any number of countries who follow the NBA patriotically via Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker or Yao Ming.
Why not make room under the big tent for the minority of fans who like to bet on NBA games?
"OK, but then you're arguing there may be good and sufficient business reasons to do that," Stern said. "And I'm going to leave the slate clean for my successor."
He smiled and added, "But it's fair enough that we have moved to a point where that leap is a possibility, although that's not our current position."
There you have it. That is a breakthrough. You don't hear baseball commissioner Bud Selig - and you surely don't hear NFL commissioner Roger Goodell - saying that legalized betting on their games is a "possibility." Sports betting is their third rail, and they've long maintained the anachronistic appearance of having nothing to do with it. (Even though illegal sports betting has helped turn the NFL into the No. 1 sport in America.)
As Stern acknowledged, gambling has gone mainstream since the scandal of 1919. The gambling industry will continue to grow as more and more casinos are built throughout the nation, such as the casino now being planned by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert for downtown Cleveland nearby Quicken Loans Arena.
Without committing himself in any way, Stern acknowledged that sports betting could create a new stream of revenue for the NBA - not unlike the interest that March Madness betting pools have created for the NCAA tournament.
"You're right about the threat that we perceive, and we stay on it," said Stern of the menace of illegal gambling rings. "I think the threat is the same legal and illegal - the threat is there.
"Gambling, however it may have moved closer to the line [of becoming acceptable], is still viewed on the threat side," he said. "Although we understand fully why, buried within that threat there may be a huge opportunity as well."
Bannister and Peers: Heroes Made by Dreaming the Impossible Dream
This was an academic conference run by athletes who knew what they were talking about. I’ve never experienced anything like it in sports.
May 7, 1994
International Herald Tribune: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/sports/07iht-mile_0.html
LONDON— The smartest people do this. They try to tell you what is impossible. Then they go on and on explaining why, like politicians on the eve of a tax increase.
In this case, it has to do with the lung membrane. "There are only two sources of energy," said Peter Snell on the way to explaining - on the 40th anniversary of Roger Bannister's four-minute mile, ironically - why it would be impossible to run the mile any faster than the fastest man today.
This is getting away from the lung membrane, or perhaps it isn't, but when Bannister was a child, the four-minute mile was supposed to be an impossibility. Sir Roger is 65 now, and the world record of Noureddine Morceli is 15 seconds faster than the impossible time of 3:59.4 he ran on May 6, 1954. Morceli and 13 preceding world-record holders gathered here on Friday to celebrate.
"I'd like to pay tribute to the anonymous person who said the four-minute mile was impossible," said Herb Elliott of Australia, who ran the mile in 3:54.5 in 1958. "Do you know who it was who said the four-minute mile was impossible, Roger?"
Sir Roger did not know.
"If it weren't for him, we all wouldn't be here," Elliott said at a press conference.
At this point, seven of them began debating the difference between what is impossible and what is not. Six of them should have known better. Morceli predicted he would cut two or three seconds from his record of 3:44.39, and agreeing with him was Arne Anderson, the 76-year- old Swede, who ran 4:01.6 in 1944. Bannister, who retired from running to become a neurologist, set the bar at 3:30 and doubted whether anyone would better that. Jim Ryun doubted he would live to see the man who did it.
Snell's theory of the lung membrane had to do with the limits of oxygen. The lung membrane can only deliver so much of it to the muscles, and he said the interface has already been maximized by athletes born and trained at high altitudes. Snell is the 55-year-old New Zealander whose time of 3:54.1 was a world record in 1964, and of Morceli he said: "I think I've seen the fastest mile ever."
THERE ALSO WAS discussion of the potential genetic variations offered by the China and India, as well as the necessity of a global environment free of war, and as these athletes, these jocks, went back and forth, I began to wonder whether there was more intelligence at this one table than in all of the football locker rooms of America. And then Elliott said this.
"I think I'm the only dreamer. I think we're only on the verge of understanding the interface between the mind and the spirit and the body. I think a quantum leap is there to be made someplace."
I had been thinking of the American football coaches, the coaches in every team sport, who direct their players to avoid mistakes. There is so much negativism in sports. So many coaches create "systems," judging athletes by the most rudimentary statistics. Ultimately, a coach reveals only that which he doesn't understand. The great teams, the great performers, are propelled by a genius that no one can predict. The losers tend to think there's a recipe, and they stumble around the kitchen, refusing the spices. They never understand the faith of a winner who never can say how he's going to win exactly.
"I'm thinking about my coach," said Ryun, the 47-year-old Kansan. "After my fourth high school race, we were riding home and my coach - after I had run the blazing time of 4:21 - took me to the back of the bus and proceeded to tell me that he thought I could be the first high school boy to run the mile in under four minutes."
What was unthinkable, impossible, was actually within his reach. By the time he was 19, Ryun had set the world record in 3:51.3. In the following year, 1967, he was improving it by 0.2 seconds on a slow cinder track in a performance that will always stand out, according to Bannister, no matter how many times the record is broken.
The barrier of four minutes was dismantled by a medical student. Often Bannister could only spend a half-hour each day in training, which today would inspire a lack of confidence. But he spent that time preparing only what the mile required of him. He was among the first to institute interval training, and he had the confidence in himself that the future doctor would demand of his patients. The self-doubts, the second-guessing of experts that quells so many athletes today, played little role in his development.
YET HE IS NOW as unwarily guilty of establishing barriers as the naysayers who unwarily made him famous. No one was predicting the changes in training and the rivalry with John Landy of Australia that drove Bannister. Based on his understanding, on what he has come to believe, anything faster than 3:30 is unattainable. The lesson of his own run 40 years ago is that he should know better.
"There are all sorts of alternative medicines becoming available, and medical treatments for illnesses based upon the communication between the mind and the body in some way," Elliott said. "I think there is some real power there that we haven't touched yet. Through medical stimulus, I think we'll understand that link.
"We don't understand it at all. A top golfer develops the yips with no physical reason for it, and yet there's no psychiatrist on earth who can help that poor bastard make a putt. There's a huge amount of discovery to be done there. You see somebody having an epileptic stroke in which he exhibits enormous strength, a power one might call superhuman. Where does that strength come from? Can we tap into it?"
He was coached in Australia by Percy Cerutty, who preached yoga as a means for overcoming the weaknesses of body. It was common to call Cerutty crazy. But his method produced Elliott, who was undefeated in the 1500 meters and the mile, who won the Olympic 1500-meters gold medal in 1960 by 2.8 seconds, and who might be the greatest miler of them all.
Considering that we learned of our own evolution only 135 years ago, isn't it likely that we have a lot more still to understand? Jim Ryun, against his own better judgment, became the first high school boy to run the mile under four minutes, after Roger Bannister had run through a wall. The biggest fools create tomorrow's heroes.
May 7, 1994
International Herald Tribune: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/sports/07iht-mile_0.html
LONDON— The smartest people do this. They try to tell you what is impossible. Then they go on and on explaining why, like politicians on the eve of a tax increase.
In this case, it has to do with the lung membrane. "There are only two sources of energy," said Peter Snell on the way to explaining - on the 40th anniversary of Roger Bannister's four-minute mile, ironically - why it would be impossible to run the mile any faster than the fastest man today.
This is getting away from the lung membrane, or perhaps it isn't, but when Bannister was a child, the four-minute mile was supposed to be an impossibility. Sir Roger is 65 now, and the world record of Noureddine Morceli is 15 seconds faster than the impossible time of 3:59.4 he ran on May 6, 1954. Morceli and 13 preceding world-record holders gathered here on Friday to celebrate.
"I'd like to pay tribute to the anonymous person who said the four-minute mile was impossible," said Herb Elliott of Australia, who ran the mile in 3:54.5 in 1958. "Do you know who it was who said the four-minute mile was impossible, Roger?"
Sir Roger did not know.
"If it weren't for him, we all wouldn't be here," Elliott said at a press conference.
At this point, seven of them began debating the difference between what is impossible and what is not. Six of them should have known better. Morceli predicted he would cut two or three seconds from his record of 3:44.39, and agreeing with him was Arne Anderson, the 76-year- old Swede, who ran 4:01.6 in 1944. Bannister, who retired from running to become a neurologist, set the bar at 3:30 and doubted whether anyone would better that. Jim Ryun doubted he would live to see the man who did it.
Snell's theory of the lung membrane had to do with the limits of oxygen. The lung membrane can only deliver so much of it to the muscles, and he said the interface has already been maximized by athletes born and trained at high altitudes. Snell is the 55-year-old New Zealander whose time of 3:54.1 was a world record in 1964, and of Morceli he said: "I think I've seen the fastest mile ever."
THERE ALSO WAS discussion of the potential genetic variations offered by the China and India, as well as the necessity of a global environment free of war, and as these athletes, these jocks, went back and forth, I began to wonder whether there was more intelligence at this one table than in all of the football locker rooms of America. And then Elliott said this.
"I think I'm the only dreamer. I think we're only on the verge of understanding the interface between the mind and the spirit and the body. I think a quantum leap is there to be made someplace."
I had been thinking of the American football coaches, the coaches in every team sport, who direct their players to avoid mistakes. There is so much negativism in sports. So many coaches create "systems," judging athletes by the most rudimentary statistics. Ultimately, a coach reveals only that which he doesn't understand. The great teams, the great performers, are propelled by a genius that no one can predict. The losers tend to think there's a recipe, and they stumble around the kitchen, refusing the spices. They never understand the faith of a winner who never can say how he's going to win exactly.
"I'm thinking about my coach," said Ryun, the 47-year-old Kansan. "After my fourth high school race, we were riding home and my coach - after I had run the blazing time of 4:21 - took me to the back of the bus and proceeded to tell me that he thought I could be the first high school boy to run the mile in under four minutes."
What was unthinkable, impossible, was actually within his reach. By the time he was 19, Ryun had set the world record in 3:51.3. In the following year, 1967, he was improving it by 0.2 seconds on a slow cinder track in a performance that will always stand out, according to Bannister, no matter how many times the record is broken.
The barrier of four minutes was dismantled by a medical student. Often Bannister could only spend a half-hour each day in training, which today would inspire a lack of confidence. But he spent that time preparing only what the mile required of him. He was among the first to institute interval training, and he had the confidence in himself that the future doctor would demand of his patients. The self-doubts, the second-guessing of experts that quells so many athletes today, played little role in his development.
YET HE IS NOW as unwarily guilty of establishing barriers as the naysayers who unwarily made him famous. No one was predicting the changes in training and the rivalry with John Landy of Australia that drove Bannister. Based on his understanding, on what he has come to believe, anything faster than 3:30 is unattainable. The lesson of his own run 40 years ago is that he should know better.
"There are all sorts of alternative medicines becoming available, and medical treatments for illnesses based upon the communication between the mind and the body in some way," Elliott said. "I think there is some real power there that we haven't touched yet. Through medical stimulus, I think we'll understand that link.
"We don't understand it at all. A top golfer develops the yips with no physical reason for it, and yet there's no psychiatrist on earth who can help that poor bastard make a putt. There's a huge amount of discovery to be done there. You see somebody having an epileptic stroke in which he exhibits enormous strength, a power one might call superhuman. Where does that strength come from? Can we tap into it?"
He was coached in Australia by Percy Cerutty, who preached yoga as a means for overcoming the weaknesses of body. It was common to call Cerutty crazy. But his method produced Elliott, who was undefeated in the 1500 meters and the mile, who won the Olympic 1500-meters gold medal in 1960 by 2.8 seconds, and who might be the greatest miler of them all.
Considering that we learned of our own evolution only 135 years ago, isn't it likely that we have a lot more still to understand? Jim Ryun, against his own better judgment, became the first high school boy to run the mile under four minutes, after Roger Bannister had run through a wall. The biggest fools create tomorrow's heroes.
Lights, Camera, Cosell
I was a 21-year-old intern at The Boston Globe when I offered to write a pregame feature at Fenway Park on ABC announcer Howard Cosell. "You can try, but he’s never going to talk to you," an editor warned me: Cosell, the biggest star in sports TV, was known to despise sports writers. But I knew that his daughter, Hilary Cosell, had earned a Masters in journalism at Northwestern University. On the infield near the Red Sox dugout I introduced myself as a junior at Northwestern working for the summer at The Globe, and Cosell spent the next 15 minutes trying to convince me to seek a different career.
Aug 17, 1982
The Boston Globe
The camera focused on Cal Ripken Jr. outside the Orioles' dugout. Howard Cosell sat to his right and asked the questions. Ken Singleton was next in line.
"Look at that," someone said to him. "Ripken doesn't even look at him. He just looks at the camera."
"They tell you to look at the camera," Singleton said. "You're talking to America."
"Would you rather look at Howard or the camera?"
"The camera. It's easier."
It was a warm summer night. A Monday Night Baseball night. Howard stood up. A big, balding man in a blue jacket and white pants walked over by him.
A reporter introduced himself to Howard.
"Why do you work so hard?" he asked Howard.
"I still have a mission," Howard said. "To be honest and truthful. In other words, to be a real journalist."
An ABC gofer straight out of college ran over to Howard.
"Mr. Cosell, somebody called over and asked if this would be a good title for your SportsBeat show," he said. He showed him the title. It read, "Willie Stargell - The Challenge."
"What? What is this?" Howard said. "Oh no, no, this is a terrible title. This isn't about sports. This is about life. This is about Martin Luther King. This is about racial prejudice. Who is this person who called you? What department does she work for?"
The gofer ran back to the phone to relay the message. Howard looked up at the reporter and pointed into the Red Sox dugout, where someone was interviewing Ralph Houk.
"See that interview?" he said. "The outcome of that interview is going to affect the PLO question in Beirut," he said, laughing.
"But you yourself just finished interviewing Ken Singleton," the reporter told him.
"Yes, but I don't take it seriously," he said. "I don't care if Ralph Houk calls for a hit and run in the third inning. I don't adore the game."
Years ago, when NBC did Monday Night Baseball, Tony Kubek told Howard that hitting a baseball was the hardest job in sports. Howard told Kubek that a race car driver's job was harder. You can die driving a race car. That's life.
"Why do you want to be a sports writer?" he asked the reporter. "Nobody cares about sports writers. Who are they? They aren't important. Papers are dying all over the country." He pointed at a writer wearing blue jeans. "Is that any reason to walk around like a pig? Like a despoiled pig?"
Howard looked at the balding man standing next to him.
"Where are the sports writers on the great issues of our time?" The balding man shrugged. "Why aren't we reading about Rozelle being called in to testify about a retroactive law repugnant to the sport? Why aren't we reading columns about that?"
The reporter asked Howard why he had chosen sports.
"I didn't ask to be a sports journalist, young man. That was fate," he said. "I never planned to be a superstar. I'd rather be a private person."
The game would start in two hours, an hour later than normal. Whenever Howard comes to town, the game starts an hour later. Howard had a few more minutes before he had to get ready for the ABC telecast. At least 10 people were standing around him.
"Don't you worry about your presence creating news when you're here to cover it?" the reporter asked him.
"I don't even think about that," Howard said. "People are always after me because I tell the truth. I can't listen to that." He walked a few feet away to talk to Orioles pitcher Jim Palmer. The balding man stayed with the reporter.
"You know, what he was telling you is true," the man said. "He says what he thinks and people are always threatening him. That's why he hires me. I'm a bodyguard. I go with him everywhere. That's why I carry a gun." He pointed to a black case sticking out under his blue jacket. "Right here."
The reporter wanted to go over and ask Howard what kind of a life that was, but Howard was busy talking to the baseball player.
Aug 17, 1982
The Boston Globe
The camera focused on Cal Ripken Jr. outside the Orioles' dugout. Howard Cosell sat to his right and asked the questions. Ken Singleton was next in line.
"Look at that," someone said to him. "Ripken doesn't even look at him. He just looks at the camera."
"They tell you to look at the camera," Singleton said. "You're talking to America."
"Would you rather look at Howard or the camera?"
"The camera. It's easier."
It was a warm summer night. A Monday Night Baseball night. Howard stood up. A big, balding man in a blue jacket and white pants walked over by him.
A reporter introduced himself to Howard.
"Why do you work so hard?" he asked Howard.
"I still have a mission," Howard said. "To be honest and truthful. In other words, to be a real journalist."
An ABC gofer straight out of college ran over to Howard.
"Mr. Cosell, somebody called over and asked if this would be a good title for your SportsBeat show," he said. He showed him the title. It read, "Willie Stargell - The Challenge."
"What? What is this?" Howard said. "Oh no, no, this is a terrible title. This isn't about sports. This is about life. This is about Martin Luther King. This is about racial prejudice. Who is this person who called you? What department does she work for?"
The gofer ran back to the phone to relay the message. Howard looked up at the reporter and pointed into the Red Sox dugout, where someone was interviewing Ralph Houk.
"See that interview?" he said. "The outcome of that interview is going to affect the PLO question in Beirut," he said, laughing.
"But you yourself just finished interviewing Ken Singleton," the reporter told him.
"Yes, but I don't take it seriously," he said. "I don't care if Ralph Houk calls for a hit and run in the third inning. I don't adore the game."
Years ago, when NBC did Monday Night Baseball, Tony Kubek told Howard that hitting a baseball was the hardest job in sports. Howard told Kubek that a race car driver's job was harder. You can die driving a race car. That's life.
"Why do you want to be a sports writer?" he asked the reporter. "Nobody cares about sports writers. Who are they? They aren't important. Papers are dying all over the country." He pointed at a writer wearing blue jeans. "Is that any reason to walk around like a pig? Like a despoiled pig?"
Howard looked at the balding man standing next to him.
"Where are the sports writers on the great issues of our time?" The balding man shrugged. "Why aren't we reading about Rozelle being called in to testify about a retroactive law repugnant to the sport? Why aren't we reading columns about that?"
The reporter asked Howard why he had chosen sports.
"I didn't ask to be a sports journalist, young man. That was fate," he said. "I never planned to be a superstar. I'd rather be a private person."
The game would start in two hours, an hour later than normal. Whenever Howard comes to town, the game starts an hour later. Howard had a few more minutes before he had to get ready for the ABC telecast. At least 10 people were standing around him.
"Don't you worry about your presence creating news when you're here to cover it?" the reporter asked him.
"I don't even think about that," Howard said. "People are always after me because I tell the truth. I can't listen to that." He walked a few feet away to talk to Orioles pitcher Jim Palmer. The balding man stayed with the reporter.
"You know, what he was telling you is true," the man said. "He says what he thinks and people are always threatening him. That's why he hires me. I'm a bodyguard. I go with him everywhere. That's why I carry a gun." He pointed to a black case sticking out under his blue jacket. "Right here."
The reporter wanted to go over and ask Howard what kind of a life that was, but Howard was busy talking to the baseball player.
Best of Ian's Work
Click the links below to read the rest of Ian's work, which spans over three decades.