Time to re-examine how we view athletes

The recent news involving Chicago Blackhawks’ star forward Patrick Kane is shocking, but not the least surprising. It merely adds to a long list of athletes who have gone “knuckle-head” to make a fool of themselves.

For those of you who do not follow professional sports and are not aware of the incident, here it is in a nutshell: the 20-year-old forward (left) was returning home with his cousin from a party at 4:00 a.m. this past Sunday on a taxicab. According to reports, the cab fare was $13.80USD. Kane paid the driver $15.00 (some reports said $20.00), and the cab driver could only return $1.00 (or $6.00) in change, claiming that he did not have 20 cents on hand. Kane then was alleged to punch the cab driver in the face, and proceeded to take away the entire taxi fare. Kane and his cousin are now charged for felony robbery and misdemeanour. Kane has entered a “not guilty” plead as of today.

While more recent reports, including one that cites the cab driver’s lawyer, are trying to downplay the incident, and trying to make it sound like it was merely a “minor dispute” that occurred over the fares from the ride, it is indelible that an altercation DID happen and Kane had used excessive force during the incident. The case, in my opinion, would be settled before even going to the court, and charges may be dropped outright, but that does not change the fact that Kane most likely has done something extremely stupid.

Which takes me to my point: how many times have we heard the terms “star athletes” and “crime” linked in a news report? From O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, to Kobe Bryant’s rape accusation, to Michael Vick’s dog-fighting ring, to Michael Phelps’ “bong” incident, to Plaxico Burress’ gun charges, to Kane’s altercation… (I can go on and on) And these are only incidents outside of the playing field/court! Why are we still, as a society, worshipping athletes and other celebrities, and worse yet, teaching our future generation to do the same?

Don’t get me wrong – there are tonnes of athletes and celebrities that are solid citizens, and good role models. Tony Dungy, the retired Indianapolis Colts coach, is an upright man who has set many great examples to others; Jim Abbott, the former California Angels/New York Yankee pitcher, remains an inspiration to people with a physical disability; Warrick Dunn’s story of forgiveness to the murderer of his mother brings tears to fans and non-fans of the Tampa Bay Bucs… I can continue to name these names, but that is not my point.

Fact is, athletes and celebrities are HUMANS, who have their victories and demons. While we should celebrate their victories and cheer for their achievements, we need to keep things in proper prospective. People, in general, should not be worshiped as idols.

When I was a little boy, I read about George Washington to learn of the value of honesty; I read the story of Helen Keller to learn about the value of perseverance; I read the story of Thomas Edison to learn about the importance of an inquiring mind and work ethic… I was never taught to make these much more worthy people my idols (and worse yet, gods). It’s time we return to that when it comes to our celebrities.

The Great Debate on Markus Naslund

Report out of New York suggests that long-time Vancouver Canuck captain Markus Naslund is set to retire after another disappointing campaign with the New York Rangers. Naslund is 35 years old.

And immediately, be great debate begins again here in Vancouver: should Naslund’s number be retired? If #19 will be retired, Naslund will join Stan Smyl and Trevor Linden as the third Canuck player to have his jersey hung in the rafters.

If we are to look at the stats, Naslund seems to be a prime candidate to have his jersey retired. After all, he is the all-time leader in career points (756) and goals (346), and is third in career assists (410, 5 behind all-time leader Linden). Naslund’s offensive prowess speaks volume, and is, without a doubt, one of the greatest offensive players the Canucks have ever had.

However, to have a player’s number retired goes beyond the stats. Naslund has often been criticized for the fact that he has never taken the Canucks deep into the playoffs. His later years in a Canucks uniform lead some people to question his commitment to the game. Most importantly, people suggest that Naslund was never the “leader” that captivates and inspires a team’s motivation to go above and beyond what it has talent-wise.

While I do not necessarily agree with the above criticisms on Naslund, especially when it comes to the question of leadership, I must say that I am one of those who don’t think Naslund’s number should be retired. And here’s why:

To retire a player’s number means that, that particular number will never be worn by another player playing for the team. To me, the simplest qualifier for this very special treatment is that the player has done something that would not be repeated by another player. Looking back at Stan Smyl’s career and Trevor Linden’s career, I think I am fairly confident in saying that it would be extremely unlikely to have another player repeat what they have contributed to the team on and off the ice. Naslund’s greatest “mark” with the Canucks is his very strong offensive stats; they would not be repeated or surpassed easily by another player, but I will not say that I don’t expect those records to be broken.

Don’t get me wrong – Naslund has been an exceptional player for the Canucks. He has conducted himself humbly and admirably through his 12 seasons in Vancouver. I don’t, for a second, feel that his humility and quiet demeanor should prevent him from receiving the proper recognition to the contributions he has made for the team. However, having a number retired, to me, is very much like being inducted into the hall-of-fame (only at a local level instead of a league or sport level) – if you have to argue and present your points to convince others of a candidate’s legitimacy, then that player, however wonderful a player or person he is, is not quite hall-of-famer (or, in this case, a jersey-retiring player). I would not have a problem seeing Naslund’s number retired, but if it were up to me to decide, I would not retire #19… that’s all.

I personally felt a little saddened that, when Markus Naslund played his last game as a Canuck on the same night that Trevor Linden played his last, there was no recognition for what Naslund has done. But, true to his humble form, Naslund just stood there quietly, and gave Linden the recognition he rightfully deserved. Give Naslund the recognition and honour that he deserves – I just don’t think retiring his jersey is the more suitable recognition.

Allen Iverson: Answer or Fraud?

Jason Whitlock, a writer who I respect quite a bit, recently wrote an article for Fox Sports titled “No Question, Iverson was Never the Answer.” In the article, Whitlock criticized Detroit Pistons’ guard Allen Iverson (#3 in the picture; he was a Denver Nugget at the time) for quitting on the team, and suggested that winning was never something that was important to him (for the full article, please click on the following link).

Whitlock: No Question, Iverson was Never the Answer

Jason Whitlock has written many articles that are stimulating to the mind. While I do not always agree with what he says nor where he stands, I think his criticism on the problems of African Americans unwittingly trying to live up to the “hood image” is bang on. The Iverson article has some similar notions in it as well, but I would respectfully disagree with Whitlock’s take that winning was never important for Iverson.

Standing at 6’0” and 165 pounds, Iverson never had the chance to be the next Michael Jordan, as Whitlock has pointed out. We all know that Iverson shoots the ball an awful lot, and does not take practice very seriously. I would even go as far as agreeing with Whitlock that Iverson is a soloist who “played both backcourt positions at the same time, leaving his teammates plenty of opportunity to stand around and watch.” I also agree that Iverson does not make his team-mates around him better… BUT…

A player who does not value winning would not throw around his miniature body (relatively speaking, in NBA terms) like Iverson does (as seen in the picture on the left where he drove in for a lay-up against the now defunct Seattle Super Sonics). Watching Iverson over the years, you cannot convince me that he would endure the physical punishment he has received just for the money or for the “street cred.” While I agree that Iverson’s concept about the team is not the “correct” one, I would argue that it is more of a case of a misplaced sense of leadership than one that stems from selfishness.

Similar to Kobe Bryant in his earlier days, Iverson found himself to be the best player on the team. He might have felt that he dribbling all the balls, taking all the shots, and taking all the hits IS the best formula for winning. Kobe did that, but eventually grew out of it. Iverson, sadly, never did, and now, his career is winding down.

Call me naïve, but I do have this sense of empathy for athletes who grew up in a disadvantaged environment and were not taught properly the concept of distributed leadership and team. Iverson was a victim of that; it does not give him an excuse for never growing out of that, but to say he does not want to win, in my opinion anyway, is too harsh a criticism.

He is, to me, an answer… not always the right answer and the best answer, but nonetheless, an answer.

In Need of a Team, Not a Messiah Figure

The Vancouver Canucks lost an awful, humiliating game last night to the lowly Nashville Predators to extend their pitiful home losing streaks to 8 games. What was so difficult to watch last night was that the Canucks gave up a 3-1 second period lead to surrender 4 unanswered goals (one into an empty net) to choke away what should have been an easy home win (Nashville had only scored 2 or more goals 9 times).

Mats Sundin looked awful. As seen in the report below, he cut several of his shifts short while his linemates were still going. He continued to take lazy penalties. Most importantly, he continues to be a non-factor one month after he signed with the Vancouver Canucks to play less than half a season for 5 million dollars.

http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.WBhockeyblog20090129083353/WBStory/WBhockeyblog

I have never liked the idea of signing Sundin; but because I did not pile on previously, I would not be one saying “I told you so” right now. Still, the concept of bringing in a veteran star as the “messiah” of the hockey club has failed before (hello, Mark Messier!), and is seemingly going to fail again this time around (the Canucks had 1 win since Sundin joined them). It is time management begin to understand the method of doing things just does NOT work, no matter what professional sports you are talking about.

Hockey and football are arguably the most team-oriented sport that relies so heavily on a mutual commitment and ownership of responsibility. With the current parity in both the NHL and the NFL, a “star” can only do you so much. The Dallas Cowboys have a star-studded lineup, and they did not even make the playoffs. The Arizona Cardinals were deemed the “worst-ever playoff team,” and they will be competing for football’s supremacy this Sunday. The difference? A team whose players are committed to one another, are accountable to one another, and would go to war for the sake of the person sitting next to you in the locker room.

I have been a Vancouver Canuck fan for over 20 years, so I gather I can say I know the history of this team quite a bit. Look back at arguably the best-ever Canucks team, the 1994 team that was one goal away from winning the Stanley Cup. Sure, Pavel Bure was a prominent player on that team, but the true heart of that team lied in the likes of Trevor Linden, Kirk McLean, Greg Adams, Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Martin Gelinas, Murray Craven, Sergio Momesso, Jyrki Lumme, Gerald Diduck, Dana Murzyn, Bret Hedican… the star player was the game-breaker who can come through for you every now and then, but you need to have a team who will stand up for one another, who would lay their bodies down to make it work.

The current version of the Vancouver Canucks had that same aura before the Sundin signing: Roberto Luongo was the backbone of the team, but he just quietly goes about his business, and so did the rest of the team. Ever since the Sundin signing, it is as if the team adapted the notion that their saviour has arrived, and no one needs to be committed anymore… When a player who has not played for eight months chose to not even skate during the all-star break, the vibe rubs on in the wrong way in the locker room.

Sorry to say this, but I think this season will go down as a bust...