Wild do the right thing

There are many different ways to communicate.

In the following case, actions speak louder than words.

This week, the Minnesota Wild announced they would offer a seriously injured player a contract, even though, technically, they are not required to do so to retain his playing rights.

The player is Kurtis Foster, a young defenseman who suffered a badly broken leg in a controversial icing-play incident.

Wire stories reported that Wild GM Doug Risebrough had already decided on a course of action.

One story, from TSN.com, reports that the Wild are not sure if Foster will be able to play in the NHL again, because of the seriousness of the injury.

"I don't have to qualify him [to retain his rights], but I will," Risebrough told the (Minneapolis) Star-Tribune. "It's a bad message not to do that. He's a good player. He needs a motivation [to rehab], and he doesn't need that stress in his life."

The Wild will offer Foster a one-year, $1.025 million contract before the June 25 deadline, which insurance would not have covered according to Wild assistant general manager Tom Lynn.

The professional sports world often reflects a kind of ego-driven and self-centered attitude, an environment which can be very cold and all about “business”.

In this instance, it seems clear that the Wild recognize that one of their own was hurt while in the line of duty, and they aren’t prepared to let him worry about his immediate future.

They have sent a message and they have done the right—and honorable—thing.

A damaging double-standard

"Rocker rats out Texas
John Rocker claims he flunked a drug test ordered by Major League Baseball in 2000 and that he, Alex Rodriguez and other Texas Rangers were advised on how to effectively use steroids"

It’s revealing how the above media headline blares "Rocker rats out Texas"….

As we have mentioned often in this space, many in the media hate it when athletes "say nothing". Yet, when an athlete does step "outside the box" and say something outside the realm of the bland or ordinary, he or she is often condemned by those same media folks.

In this circumstance, we have a former high-profile major-leaguer stating that, basically, clubs knew about steroid use years ago. This is no real shock to anyone, of course.

Can we really believe that baseball commissioner Bud Selig was totally unaware of baseball’s bulked up athletes hitting balls farther than ever before, and home runs in greater numbers than ever before?

But the point here is this: athletes are glorified by the same media who had to know that many of these sporting heroes of the last 20 years have had big-time, shall we say, "help", from performance-enhancing supplements.

In the same breath, reporters and writers criticize athletes for lying through their teeth about steroid usage. (Many of us have witnessed the recent Clemens fiasco before Congress—his was simply a different approach than Mark McGuire’s "I’m not here to talk about the past" denials when the former slugger had his turn a couple of years ago.)

Yet, the media also hammer an athlete like Rocker for being a squealer, or a "rat".

If somebody doesn’t step forward and speak about what actually occurred, whether it be Jose Canseco or John Rocker or anyone else, how will people ever really know what has gone on in club houses?

Is the media philosophy actually supportive of the "old boys network" approach, where everyone covers up the truth and covers up for each other?

That’s how we ended up with baseball in the mess it is in, the world of sprinting with no credibility, the Tour de France in shambles, pro football with weekly drug suspensions announced, without fanfare.

In the above circumstances, everyone shut their eyes – and mouths-- and stood together in a big lie.

Unless, as in the case of a "star" such as Andy Petite, you face legal scrutiny and have to speak with the police or Congress. Then you may feel it is necessary to speak up and speak the truth, and the media will not give you a difficult time.

But if you’re just a mediocre ex-player, or "disgraced" ex-players such as Canseco or Rocker, you’re a "snitch" if you speak out about what you did or saw.

Quite the double-standard, at best.

Tilghman story an opportunity to educate, rather than punish

The comment by Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman that led to her two-week suspension was clearly an attempt, under the bright lights of live television, to make a witty remark.

That her reference to Tiger Woods and "lynching" brought reaction was not a surprise.

Her friendship with Tiger Woods, at whom the jesting comment was directed, helped alleviate what could have been an even more severe network—and public—reaction.

Woods said, essentially, that he was friends with Tilghman; that she was not trying to be hurtful and that we all make comments that we wish we had not made.

Interestingly, former NFL great Jim Brown, a person of color who has a long history working with troubled inner-city youths, commented publicly that he would have liked to have seen Tiger take a stronger public stand.

This is not the first time Brown has called upon Woods to do more in this area.

But surely everyone, including Brown, Woods and many of the rest of us, have indeed, as Tiger mentioned, made comments we wish we could take back, upon reflection.

The reference to “lynching”, an explosive word to be sure, was obviously unfortunate and in poor taste given the context in which it was used.

But the real opportunity here, it would seem, is to use this inadvertent error by Tilghman to educate people, young and old, about why the word can be offensive to the African-American community, and to thoughtful people everywhere.

This is an ideal opportunity, not to make an example of Tilghman, but to bring forward the terrible events that led to this word becoming an understandably sensitive subject. This can be done in schools and through the media at large.

If we only penalize and judge, and never instruct, how will young people, for example, ever really learn about history and social injustice, whether it be the treatment of minorities in the U.S. or how Jews and others were treated by the Nazi regime in the Second World War?

When a public figure clearly, and intentionally, makes hurtful and thoughtless comments, that is one thing.

In this instance, it is an opportunity not for punishment, but for discussion, education, and for creating genuine awareness and learning.

Loyalty for athletes, but not their coaches?

College football coaches—and pro, for that matter—in the United States are known for preaching constantly about teamwork and loyalty.

They do this with goods reason. Football is obviously a demanding sport, physically and psychologically, and there are obvious benefits to working together as a tight-knit group to achieve difficult goals against top competition.

Ironically, however, many of these same individuals simply do not practice what they preach.

Every December, we see a number of high-profile College football coaches leaving their team before the current NCAA season is even finished to accept a coaching position elsewhere.

Two recent examples of how individuals put themselves ahead of their athletes and their schools and programs come from Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez.

Petrino left his job as head Coach of the NFL Atlanta Falcons literally less than 24 hours after coaching the team on Monday Night football to take a job with the University of Arkansas.

Clearly, while he was supposedly preparing his struggling pro team to play a league game, he was also negotiating with officials at Arkansas.

That is a no-no.

In a similar vein, Rodriguez was recruited by the University of Michigan in the weeks before his Western Virginia team played in an important Bowl game. He has since been sued by the University of West Virginia, according to various published reports, and has expressed disappointment that he would be treated in that manner.

It is impossible to believe how these individuals can preach loyalty when they are prepared to leave a team in the midst of a season for a "better opportunity" elsewhere.

Rodriguez, ironically, did not even coach Michigan in their upset Bowl victory over Florida. Just as interestingly, his former West Virginia team, also an underdog, played inspired football in beating their Bowl opponent Oklahoma with an Assistant Coach running the show.

It’s easy to understand that coaches want job security. But when you already have that, and you leave the players, especially at the college level, that you yourself recruited and convinced to come to your school, it is very hard to understand.

A year ago it was Nick Saban insisting he was not leaving the Miami Dolphins for the University of Alabama, only to wisk off to a press conference to announce that he was indeed taking the Alabama job.

If you are a young student athlete thinking about going to University in the U.S. to play football, based on a particular coach, you may be well advised to ensure you are going to that University for a number of good reasons, not simply because of the "Coach".

Otherwise, you may hear a lot of words and a lot of promises, and end up feeling as though you were left at the altar.

It's all about... me.

In an English Premiership soccer tilt this past December, powerhouse Manchester United was in full control of a game against a lesser opponent.

With a 3-0 lead, emerging star Carlo Tevez had scored twice already in the contest.

Fairly late in the contest, United was awarded a penalty kick. Cristiano Ronaldo prepared to handle the shot, as he is the player designated by Coach Sir Alex Ferguson to take such opportunities.

When Tevez quietly approached Ronaldo, the team’s “superstar”, to ask if he could take the kick to complete his “hat trick”, Ronaldo reportedly said “no”.

Ego and self-interest have always been a huge part of sport. In fact, many would argue that those are “qualities” that top athletes need, along with self-confidence, to ensure their success at the highest levels.

But Ronaldo’s response was a flawed one, nonetheless.

It is understandable that a proud athlete like Ronaldo would want to take that kick, as that is one of his designated jobs with United.

Perhaps he said “no” to his own teammate, Tevez, and later regretted it, though this is unlikely given Ronaldo’s history.

It could also happen that a player would let Tevez, or any other teammate, take his place in such a situation, and do the “right” thing publicly, but privately be unhappy about it.

This response would be quite human.

But the true leader, the real “team player”, would take it upon himself to give the opportunity to a teammate. He wouldn’t wait to be asked.

It could be argued that Tevez was being selfish, too, by even making that request; that he was putting his own personal glory ahead of his team.

But an athlete with class would not even have to be asked. He would have gone over to Tevez and insisted his young teammate take the shot.

That it didn’t happen is not a surprise. Just disappointing, and yet another poor example for young athletes around the globe.