Mitch Album bashes Athletics again

What did he say?

Go to espn.go.com/page2/tvlistings/sportsreporters.html

For the sport reporters parting shots.

He first says Bob Hayes is better known then Tim M. (maybe). Then he attacks Track & Field blaming Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, MO Greene for its loss in popularity. He talks about drug use and the mistrustfulness of the sport, takening a shot at Marion Hones Because her Ex-husband was caught using steriods.

The main point the ignorant Album should be aware of is that the number of steriod tests the NBA, MBL, NHL, and NFL do totaly in one year does not equal what Track & Field does in one day. He should not be able to criticize our sport for trying to be clean when his do not care or attempt to be clean.

The unfamilarity of Tim M. the world champion silver medalist is his and the press fault for the lack of coverage they provide on Track & Field. (How many home runs is the record now 70 or 80 million, if you count the number of times ESPN shows it.)

What a dick.

Well, I'm going to defend Mitch Albom (it's "Albom" not "Album") here because I think he is 100% right.

He is asking a valid question. Why is it that Americans don't know what the WR in the 100 meters is anymore and why can't we even name the world record holder? This question is posed to people who are not rabid track and field fans like you and me.

He answers his own question and says this - it is because of Ben Johnson's steroid use, Carl Lewis's aloofness, and Maurice Greene's arrogance. If you look at it point by point, he has a point. Ben Johnson did a ton to discredit track and field. Car Lewis wasn't a great ambassador of the sport. Not every one is good in front of a camera, so I don't necessarily fault him, but Carl was best when performing and not speaking. I know that I for one could get along just fine without Mo Greene's strutting and trash talking.

As far as Albom's comment about Marion Jones goes, I think that was just for laughs. They try to be comedians on The Sports Reporters, and it is good that Albom still has his day job.

Overall though, he has a great point. Track and Field needs to look at itself and ask itself why it is in the position it is in. Why is it that the world's fastest man doesn't have the same luster it once did?

It is a shame that The Sports Reporters lost Dick Schapp, because he was top notch, but Mitch Albom is one of the best sports writers in the country, and while he can certainly be wrong on ocassion, I think he is dead on here.

Well put, Stepay..

Thanks brother.

stepay, i think your points are well thought out, but i do tend to disagree with you anyway. I feel that mitch is failing to see the big picture about track and field in this country. yeah, he's right about mogreen being a prick, he's right about carl being a stiff, and he's dead-on about drug-use being an unappealing aspect of the sport. however, what he fails to recognize is that these are all problems with football, baseball, and basketball as well-maybe even more so. let's face it. Randy Moss is an asshole of unknown dimensionality, Bonds is about as personable as a saltine, and every week you hear about someone in the nfl getting jacked with a steroid suspension. therefore, by my logic, if the sports share the same problems, something other than their flaws must be accounting for the vast difference in their popluarity. the real reason is out there.

Album seems to have made one good point, and one bad one. The good one is that few know about the people setting records in track and field, and fewer care outside of a game of Trivial Pursuit. This is a problem our sport will hopefully overcome some day, but it IS a problem now.

The bad point is about all those other sprinters giving track a bad name. They might have, if any body particularly cared. But just as many people are walking around talking about why they don't like Maurice Green (just to pick a name) as are going around talking about that new world record in the 100m. Diddly.

In the US you must put Track and Field in the context of the Olympics.

In Track and Field in the Olympics the signature event is the men's 100 meter dash, particularly in the US.

Let's look at the last few Olympiads.

Mo Greene - comes off as an arrogant jerk to many people.

Donovan Bailey - not American. Doesn't count.

Linford Christie - not American. Doesn't count.

Carl Lewis - American but not well liked by any means.

Allan Wells - Who? Besides we didn't even compete.

Hasely Crawford - not American. Doesn't count.

Valeri Borzov - aha! a commie! Oddly most Americans would probably recognize the name at least.

Jimmy Hines - did a disappearing act.

Bob Hayes - HOFer in two sports.

The last 100 meter runner to really enter the American public's conscience in a positive light was Bob Hayes. That's close to 40 years ago.

My feeling is that if Carl Lewis had Edwin Moses' respect that the sport as a whole would be much more popular in this country.

Mcpuddlemaker,

Ok. Fair enough. For some reason though, I think most people (myself included actually) think that the steriod use in track and field helps those athletes more than the steroid use in other sports helps them.

Here's why - In baseball, regardless of how strong you might be as a result of steroid use, you still have to have the ability to hit the baseball in the first place, and I think that a lot of people put more stock in that ability as a skill than the ability it takes to run. When drugs are used in running events, it is seen as the only reason that person runs that fast.

Also, while Randy Moss is a prick, it seems more acceptable within the football mentality, baseball less so, because I think that Bonds gets more flack about his attitude than Randy Moss does, but for some reason, in track and field it isn't as acceptable. I think it's because when the sport is being presented to the masses, those masses just aren't impressed with Mo Greene strutting around like he's the baddest MoFo on the planet. The masses think, "man, you just ran fast, so what? Try doing that with a linebacker trying to tackle you." The masses believe that all most football players have to do is go run a few 100 Meter races before they would be challenging Mo Greene. I've heard people say as much. "Rocket Ishmail could beat him." I've heard that tons of times.

Mitch Albom just made some observations and then made a very pointed statement - track and field needs to look at itself and decide why things are they way they are - seems fair to me.

* Maybe we blame other sports when we shouldn't.

* Maybe track and field doesn't do enough PR

* Maybe Carl Lewis needed a PR coach

* Maybe people were turned off by Carl because he is effeminate

I don't have the answers, but it seems that if we want Track and Field to have a bigger national or international scope, then something needs to change. I don't know what that is, and I don't think Albom knows what that is, but it is a fair question to ask.

You said - "The bad point is about all those other sprinters giving track a bad name. They might have, if any body particularly cared. But just as many people are walking around talking about why they don't like Maurice Green (just to pick a name) as are going around talking about that new world record in the 100m. Diddly."

Valid point. I'll agree with that.

Americans don't know either track world records or the athletes who hold them because networks, like ESPN, don't give them any coverage. Montgomery's world record was the #10 play of the week, behind how many home runs and diving catches?

Bob Hayes still had his noteriety, because he ran during a time when there was sgnificantly more track & field coverage in the United States. Partly because of the USA/Soviet competition, partly because Americans were so much more competetive during that time. In 1964, Americans won the 100, 200, 400, 5000, 10000m, 110mH, 400mH and the 4x100m and the 4x400m relay. Today, the networks just don't cover it.

He then accuses track and field of being swamped with "dollars, drugs and disputes." Tim Montgomery earned a total of $250,000 the day he broke the WR for 100m, where Tiger Woods just pocketed another $1.5 million at a golf tournament. Which was the greater athletic feat?

On drugs, we come to the words of athletics great, Sebastian Coe, who said if you don't want to have a drug-image for track and field that's easy, "just don't test." Track and field is one the most rigourously tested sports in the world, whereas Major League Baseball, the NHL and Majore League Soccer all tout "drug-free" images, simply because they don't test. Ken Caminiti, openly admitted that he was on steroids during his 1996 MVP season, and estimatd that more than half of all ballplayers were on the juice. Who has the bigger problem? Track and field does something about it.

I saw that Sports Reporters and I think it's interesting how Album is criticizing Track and Field for the fact most people don't care about its records anymore, despite the fact that he is employed by a network that shows track meets in the middle of the night. Don't get me wrong, I love ESPN and watching Sportscenter is one of my favorite things to do and I will at least give them credit for at least televising the meets, but it's not helping spread awareness of our sport to the casual fan. Just my two cents on the issue.

I agree with everything you've said.

Still though, the onus is on Track and Field. We can't raise our sport up simply by saying that what those baseball players are doing is way worse than what Track and Field is doing. It doesn't really matter what the reality is. It only matters what public perception is - that is what Albom's comment was all about. Public perception can be different from what reality is, but somehow, we need to change public perception - how we go about that, I don't know.

Believe me I find it difficult to see why ESPN put TM's run as #10 on the weekly list behind the tons of home runs we see every day and some diving catches that while spectacular, are commonplace. What drives that? Does ESPN drive what the viewers want to see, or do the viewers drive what ESPN puts on the air?

ICXCer - Albom gets pocket change from ESPN. His main gig of course is writing for the Detroit News and then his syndicated pieces and ocassional sports books - the ESPN gig keeps his visibility going. He also wrote "Tuesdays with Morrie" if you remember that little TV movie starring the late Jack Lemon and Hank Azaria.

Again, I don't think Albom was being that critical. He was just being a realist. Why don't we know what the 100M record is? Why don't we know who the record holder is? He's just saying to track and field - look at yourselves and try to find the answer. Since track and field isn't where it was and not where a lot of us would like it to be, then for the most part, he has to be right.

Stepay- Your remarks on this topic have been some of the most clear headed ones I've seen on a chat line such as this. Yes the onus is on the leadership of American Track and Field. The publicity and marketing of track and field is at an all-time low and going further down the tubes as we speak. The people that want to pat themselves on the back about the great attendance at the recent meets at Stanford only make the problem worse. Craig Masback was thought to be a real shot in the arm when he came on board. But he has had his chance. Time to move on.Time to find someone with a vision and a mind to bring track and field back up to a respectable level. I'd be happy to see it equal the level of bass fishing in the minds of most Americans.

i think you made a great counterpoint to my mogreen being a prick argument; i've often heard my non-running friends utter simialar sentiment about track & field performances not being special. (i.e. 8'1/4'', great! but can he tomahawk a basketball at the same time?) maybe the majority of this country just needs more stimuli to get excited...perhaps our lazy country can't even get their mind around a 3:43 mile-so they just ignore it. In their defense, however, sometimes i catch myself watching a world-class meet on television and thinking that a 13:15 5K pace looks easy. to nonrunners, such a phenomenon equates to boredom. to us, the efficiency and deceptive ease is beauty.

but what about the drug thing? i agree that people might perceive steroids as more conducive to a great performance in track than in a team sport, but do YOU really think this is the case? i could offer a million arguments as to why this argument makes no sense, but i don't have the time. if bonds were on roids (and i'm not saying that he is) is his single season homerun record any less cheap than montgomery's 100m wr (assuming that he was on roids when he did that as well)? i can't see how.

Thanks brother. I'd say you have some excellent clear-headed points too. What we need to do is get those PR guys from the WWE and NASCAR - NASCAR was nothing in the 70s when I was a kid compared to what it is now.

I think one of the best points that has been made on this issue was on another thread a little while ago when someone said how the "average person" who is a non-track athlete/runner can go out in their driveway and shoot a basketball or go out in the backyard and play catch with a football, therefore they can relate better to those activities.

Another point that my sports psychology professor has brought up in class is that we tend to be a extrinsically motivated society when it comes to sports and as a result the glamour sports get more attention because look how nice and fancy the Stanley Cup or the Super Trophy are. Whereas a sport like track, at least I believe so, required more intrinsic motivation because you're not going to get all the attention, fame and money that the pros in the 4 (NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB) major sports get.

I know I'm getting off the original subject now, so I'll quit while I'm ahead...