 | ||
 | ||
                        |
|
 |
|
A fine California whine
- - - - - - - - - - - - Attitude The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think, say, or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company, a church, a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past. We cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10 percent what happens to me and 90 percent how I react to it. And so it is with you. We are in charge of our attitudes. -- Source Unknown There is nothing more inspiring than the stories of courageous individuals who have achieved their goals by overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Best-selling author Elie Weisel survived the living hell of the Nazi death camps and went on to win the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. Two-time cancer survivor Sean Swarner, once given just two weeks to live, became the first cancer survivor to climb Mt. Everest on May 16, 2002. Hall of Fame baseball player Jackie Robinson dealt with overwhelming racial bias and a season of death threats while becoming the first African American to play Major League baseball in 1947. These and other similar stories point to the highest potential of the human spirit. Rightly so, they command our respect and admiration. Conversely, there is nothing more distasteful than the whining of pathetic losers who refuse to take responsibility but, rather, blame others for their failures. Although examples of this phenomenon abound, I have rarely seen a better example than the NBA's Sacramento Kings during their recent Western Conference Finals series against the two-time defending champion Los Angeles Lakers. During this hotly contested series, in which the Lakers ultimately prevailed, officiating became a paramount issue. This occurred not because of any lack of skill or qualifications on the part of the officials; they are the finest in the world. Nor did this result from an increase in the number of "tough calls" the referees had to make; there are always difficult judgments to make in an NBA game. Sadly, officiating became the principle element in the series because of the lack of team character personified by the Kings. Time after time, Kings players such as Chris Webber and Vlade Divac gyrated wildly and barked at the officials after each call that went the other way. The most stunning example came toward the end of game seven when Divac rolled back and forth on the court with his hands over his face at being disqualified after picking up his sixth foul. The Kings' incessant complaining exposed their team personality as an egocentric, immature group of pathetic whiners. Now, as big of a fan as I am, I wouldn't consider any of this worth mentioning if my erstwhile hero, Ralph Nader, of all people, hadn't started sipping from the goblet of this particular Northern California whinery. On June 4, 2002, Nader penned a letter to NBA Commissioner David Stern calling for a review of the officiating in the pivotal sixth game of the series, thereby filling the one gaping hole in his resume. Now complete, the highlights of Ralph Nader's career as a consumer advocate include the following: automobile safety, anti-trust law enforcement, campaign finance reform, corporate welfare, protecting individual privacy, workers' rights, reforms within the legal profession, rights of airline passengers, food safety, high costs of health care, unsafe drugs and medical devices, tax justice, hazardous chemicals and basketball officiating. Oh, and by the way, the guy received 2,882,955 votes in the 2000 presidential election. Nader justifies his discomfiting focus on an inconsequential basketball game by employing the "crisis of trust in America" angle. The Enron scandal made us wonder if we could trust corporations; pedophilia in the Catholic Church eroded our trust in religious figures; reports of inadequate intelligence have left us wondering if we can trust our government to protect us from terrorists; and now we can't even trust the officials at our athletic events to provide a level playing field. Luckily, Nader is on the scene, at least with respect to the last, and obviously most important, issue in the list. One of the appeals of athletic competition is that it's so human. Basketball referees are human and, therefore, they make mistakes. It's also human to perceive the calls going against you as unfair. But that's the point at which one chooses what kind of human to be. Those who realize that the calls even out and that it's wise to focus on doing your best, realize a higher human potential than do those who whine and play the victim. As far as Nader is concerned, could it be that his sudden passion for NBA basketball lies in his childhood loyalty to East Coast sports teams, such as the New York Yankees? Certainly it couldn't be a grab for publicity in anticipation of another run for the presidency in 2004. Ralph Nader's letter to David Stern June 4, 2002 Commissioner David J. Stern Dear Mr. Stern, At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances. That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings. Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6....When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games. This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials. Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for the USA Today, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars. Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically? In a February interview with David DuPree of USA Today, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ...It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory. It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter. You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed – whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs. We look forward to your considered response. Sincerely, Ralph Nader Shawn McCarthy Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
|
