Bleacher Report - Articles by Tom Kerestes

Best of the Best: The 10 Most Famous Jersey Numbers in Sports

Tom Kerestes — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:27:14 -0400

In almost every sporting match-up, the competitors are separated by the different uniforms they wear, and each player is separated by a number on the back of that uniform. As some teams choose to put names on the back of their jerseys, and other teams choose to keep them blank, it are these numbers on the players’ backs that we, as sports fans, are forced to use to identify our favorites. With only a finite number of useable numbers to be worn by athletes, there are clearly many instances over the course of sports history where multiple stars have donned the same number. And whether we like it or not, we are forced to mentally choose which of our favorite, or most memorable, players we are going to associate with any given number. The following looks to stake the claim for the absolute top, most notorious numbers in sports uniforms history, and the one specific super-star who truly represents each of them.

Begin Slideshow

On Second Thought, Something Special In This Year's Tournament

Tom Kerestes — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:04:16 -0400

Once again, March has come and gone—as well as a little bit of April—and we find ourselves finished with yet another NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.

The 2009 Tournament certainly had its standard share of excitement: Villanova’s thrilling last-second drive to beat Pittsburgh and advance to the Final Four; Arizona being this year’s annual number twelve seed to make it to the Sweet Sixteen; or Michigan State’s stunning beat-down of the Tournament’s number one over all seed, Louisville.

Just to name a few.

But there seems to be a general consensus that the Tournament this year lacked a little bit of the shock and awe excitement that has given these three weeks in March the reputation as the greatest time of the year in sports. So as I find myself standing back and reflecting on this Tournament, I can’t help but notice that the most glaring thing standing out to me, the one takeaway from this Tournament that I may never forget, has to do with that exact lack of excitement.

More specifically, it has to do with the University of North Carolina’s absolute dominance.

Before the season began, there was hardly a doubt amongst college basketball analysts as to who would win this year. And it wasn’t even a matter of where they would get lucky or what breaks they would need to come out on top. It was a foregone conclusion.

UNC was going to be the beast of Men’s College Basketball.

And sometime in early April, they will be cutting down the nets.

And they did. Last night.

So yes, all the analysts were correct. But UNC’s road to this point was no walk in the park. Plenty of times throughout the season they showed signs of weakness—signs no one had expected to see. And while they still managed to win the talented Atlantic Coast Conference’s regular season crown, they needed a few key victories near the end to do so.

And then they stumbled against a surging Florida State team in the ACC Tournament. Oh yeah, and their star point guard, Ty Lawson, was still banged up and uncertain how healthy he would be for the NCAA Tournament.

The bottom line is that there were plenty of reasons to doubt that the pre-season Tar Heels team, which was initially expected to blow all of their opponents out of the water this season, would show up for the Big Dance.

Boy, did they prove those doubters wrong—including yours truly.

The 2009 UNC team, lead by Tyler Hansbrough and an ensemble of teammates who all decided to put the NBA off for another year to come back and realize their dream of an NCAA Championship, may not be brought up in discussions of the best ever college basketball teams.

But they certainly deserve to be included in any discussion involving the best NCAA Tournament Team performances of all-time.

The first thing that stood out thinking back on UNC’s performance in this tournament was how there never seemed to be a moment when their chances of winning were in question—especially not down the stretch, or in the second half. After looking over their margins of victory, I noticed a very impressive feat—they won every game by double-digits.

The 2009 UNC team won each of their games by margins of: 43, 14, 21, 12, 14, and 17. That’s an average margin of victory of 20.17 points. Since 1980, there have only ever been three other teams to accomplish that feat en route to a National Championship.

2009 – UNC (#1) – 43, 14, 21, 12, 14, 17 = Average of 20.17pts

2001 – Duke (#1) – 43, 13, 13, 10, 11, 10 = Average of 16.67pts

2000 – MSU (#1) – 27, 12, 17, 11, 12, 13 = Average of 15.33pts

1981 – IU (#3) – 35, 15, 32, 18, 13 = Average of 22.60pts

These are some of the greatest NCAA Tournament performances of all time, and based on the numbers, this 2009 UNC team sure looks like they should be sitting right near the top.

But to take this even further, and get an idea of how strong these performances truly are, let’s look at the Tournament performances of a few of the other past NCAA Champions of whom are widely regarded as some of the greatest College Basketball teams of all time (again, as of 1980):

2009 – UNC (#1) – 43, 14, 21, 12, 14, 17 = Average of 20.17pts

1996 – Kentucky (#1) – 38, 24, 31, 20, 7, 9 = Average of 21.5pts

1992 – Duke (#1) – 26, 13, 12, 1, 3, 20 = Average of 12.5pts

1990 – UNLV (#1) – 30, 11, 2, 30, 11, 30 = Average of 19.0pts

1982 – UNC (#1) – 2, 5, 10, 5, 1 = Average of 4.60pts

No matter how you look at it, the 2009 UNC team’s performance is incredibly impressive.

Of course, when you look at a team like the 1996 Kentucky Wildcats, you can see they were extremely dominant in the early rounds, as would be expected. But they had tighter games down the stretch.

The 1992 Duke team was great and blew out Michigan’s infamous Fab 5 in the Championship game by twenty points. But they still needed an even more famous last-second shot by Christian Laettner to escape Kentucky by a one point margin.

In 1990, teams were legitimately scared of the UNLV Runnin’ Rebels. They were clearly a force and had guys on their team that looked like they could have already spent five years in the NBA before putting on a college jersey. But even they couldn’t complete the double-digit victory margin in every game. Furthermore, their two point victory came against a twelve seeded Ball State team.

And the 1982 UNC team, loaded with James Worthy, Sam Perkins, and some guy named Michael Jordan barely even cracked double-digits in all of their five victories.

Ultimately, there is no argument that these teams are considered the greatest of All-time. And they should be.

But that makes a performance like we just witnessed from UNC in this year’s Tournament all that more impressive. Perhaps, if Indiana University had played in an era where there were sixty-four teams as opposed to forty-eight, they would have added on another lopsided victory.

But the fact remains that UNC’s performance this year is nothing to brush aside with the rest of the seemingly non-eventful 2009 Tournament. We got to see something truly special, which we can always remember.

Perhaps it wasn’t quite as boring of a tournament as many of us initially thought.

I'm Sorry: A Template for All Future MLB Player Apologies

Tom Kerestes — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:37:17 -0500

I have had enough of hearing about who used steroids in the MLB. While this article does not help my cause (perhaps I owe an apology), there is something that I am even more tired of and want to address: players' apologies that get them in more trouble.

Alex Rodriquez recently went public with his usage of Boli in a speech and then Q&A session at a formal press conference. I'm sure his goal was to put his steroids' discussion to rest.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case—mainly because of all of the holes that were in his speech.

Well, I have a solution. All English-speaking players can use it. A Spanish version should be coming shortly. It simply requires filling in a few blanks, and any Major League Baseball player is ready to apologize.

So, without further delay, I give you my "Sorry for Steroids Template."

First of all, I want to say thank you to all of the members of the media for being here today, and all Major League Baseball fans watching on TV or listening on the radio, for giving me a chance to speak here today.

I would also like to thank my wife, (ENTER NAME), my family, my friends, and all of my teammates and members of the (ENTER TEAM) organization who are here today and have supported me through all of this.

I have come here today to speak with you all and come clean about a regretful decision that I made earlier in my baseball career.

Since I began playing baseball when I was (ENTER AGE) years old, I have worked extremely hard to reach my goal of making the big leagues. I was fortunate enough to have this hard work and dedication help me achieve my goal of becoming a professional baseball player, when I joined the (ENTER TEAM) organization in (ENTER YEAR).

After accomplishing that goal, I moved on to new goals—mainly becoming one of the best players in baseball and helping my team win. As many of my (ENTER TEAM) teammates can testify, I have always had an extremely hard work ethic, and most decisions, that I have made, have been to help me reach that goal.

In (ENTER YEAR), I began to feel as if the challenge to be the best was becoming more and more difficult. So, regretfully, I looked for any boost that I could find.

After speaking with my (ENTER RELATIONSHIP), (ENTER NAME), he told me that he knew a guy in (ENTER LOCATION) where he could get a supply of (ENTER DRUG), which was supposed to help provide an energy boost.

We decided to give (ENTER DRUG) a try, as I thought an additional boost during my workouts would be helpful in keeping pace with the rest of the league.

In no way, am I suggesting what the habits of other major league baseball players have been. I am simply stating my thoughts that this energy boost could be helpful in making me the best, as was my goal.

I, of course, now regret that decision, and would like to apologize to everyone who has supported me over the years for my actions. It was stupid of me to think that a boost like that was necessary, and more importantly, I should have realized the shadow that it could cast over my (ENTER TEAM) teammates and the rest of Major League Baseball.

To all of you, I am sorry.

I can’t say with any certainty how much (ENTER DRUG) helped my performance. I think when you look at the years (ENTER YEARS) when I was using (ENTER DRUG), versus (ENTER YEARS) when I was not, you see no clear difference.

I know that I did feel more energy during my workouts during that time, but I also feel increased energy now when I drink something as simple and acceptable as (ENTER ENERGY DRINK).

I was never truly aware of what lines I was crossing by taking (ENTER DRUG). Clearly I never asked any of my (ENTER TEAM) trainers about (ENTER DRUG) because it did not seem to be something that should be discussed in the clubhouse. And more clearly, this should have been an obvious sign to me to not use it.

Again, for that—I am deeply sorry. At this point, all I can do, and all I ask of you, is to look forward.

It was the sole results of my own stupidity that led to such a poor decision. I can say that I haven’t used (ENTER DRUG) or any other performance-enhancing drug since (ENTER YEAR).

My workout regimen and work ethic remain just as hard as they have always been. I have no doubt that my hard work, alone, will be enough to help me continue my goal of being the best baseball player that I can, and more importantly, it will help me and my (ENTER TEAM) teammates have a special season.

I am not allowed to say that I would agree to more regular drug testing, as that is a decision for the MLB Union to make. However, I can say that, if they were to agree to it, that decision would have my full support.

Lastly, I just want to address the fans directly—I am sorry.

I want to set the record straight, as a role model to every kid who has the same goals that I had when I was (ENTER AGE). It is wrong to use performance-enhancing drugs.

Everything you want to accomplish can be achieved with hard work and dedication to practice every day. Always remember that. That is what got me into the major leagues, and that is what is going to help me and the (ENTER TEAM) win in 2009.

Thank you.

Top 10 Current Fallacies In Sports

Tom Kerestes — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:54:40 -0500

Sports. We all love them. We love to watch them. We love to play them. And most importantly, we love to debate them. Did he get that shot off before the buzzer? Was his foot out-of-bounds when he came down with the ball? Was he out at the plate? But sometimes, the debates expand beyond specific plays in a game. Many of today’s most current issues are the hottest topics of household sports conversations, and with this list, these debates are put to an end.

Begin Slideshow

"Committed" to a Problem: How To Fix College Football Recruiting

Tom Kerestes — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:18:21 -0500

On Jan. 8, the Florida Gators defeated the Oklahoma Sooners 24-14, putting an end to the college football season.

Or did it?

As all die-hard CFB fans will tell you, the National Championship game marks the end of the season that is played on the field. But it also marks the commencement of a whole other season which takes place in high schools and family rooms—the recruiting season.

While recruiting takes place all year long, it is when there are no more games on Saturdays that fans have to get their fix by devoting all their attention to it. They scour message boards of all their favorite teams trying to find the latest rumors or commitments, waiting until the first Wednesda of February, when recruits can make it official by signing on the dotted line.

While it is the perfect medicine to fill that void, there is a major issue with it that needs to be addressed.

Let us start by getting some quick help from the Webster Diction.

Definition of committed: Bound or obligated, as under a pledge to a particular cause, action, or attitude. Opposite of uncommitted.

I think they are forgetting to teach this in high school.

It was recently reported on ESPN that one of the top recruits in the nation, running back Bryce Brown, had reaffirmed his commitment to the University of Miami, but also stated that the Oregon Ducks are on top, stating “Oregon is still my leader.”

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not think it is possible to be “committed” to one school and have another school be your leader. This does not read to me as being the “opposite of uncommitted,” as Webster defined it earlier.

But, of course, Bryce is not alone. Many recruits, perhaps even more than usual this season, have verbally pledged to one school, only to change their minds and commit to some other school—sometimes even more than once.

And I don’t blame them.

These are usually 17-year-old kids. They are not even finished with high school yet. Some of these kids commit to schools during their junior years. Think about how good you would have been at making life-changing commitments when you were 16, and then sticking to them.

I know I had a hard enough time staying committed to who I was going to ask to the Junior Prom.

When recruits go on any of their five official college visits, as allowed by the NCAA, the schools roll out the red carpets for them. They get wined (not literally, right?) and dined. They get to meet with other players and head coaches, some of whom are the most popular faces in sports. It is a weekend-long sales pitch, and schools have gotten pretty good at doing it right.

How often do you hear about a recruit returning from an official visit saying that it was not good? Almost never. How could it be, with the treatment they are given? Of course, it is going to be a challenge for a teenager to pick a school and stick with it. Especially considering even after they do, the royalty treatment from other schools does not stop until National Signing Day.

So what can the NCAA do to fix this problem? I think it’s a lot simpler than they think.

Sure, many coaches are calling for an early signing period. This way, the kids who committed early and want to put an official end to the recruitment process can sign a letter of intent with their school of choice earlier than the first Wednesday in February.

But there are many pros and cons to this idea.

It definitely helps the recruit and school feel more at ease with an early commitment, and requires less work to maintain that commitment. But as my favorite on-screen cheerleader, Darcy Sears, makes it clear in Varsity Blues, “things change.”

From the school’s side of things, the later signing date allows schools the opportunity to learn as much as possible about the recruit from an academic standpoint, seeing how their grades are for the fall semester.

From the recruit’s side, there is concern that a prospect might sign a letter early without taking a visit, setting up a scenario where a mind change is no longer just a reputation issue, but rather a legal issue.

The argument continues on from both sides, and it is because of this that the NCAA is nowhere close to getting the early signing period instituted.

My suggestion is much simpler.

The NCAA should just stop recruits and schools from using the word, or any form of the word, “committed.” The fact is that when a recruit says that he is “committed” to a particular school, he really means that the school is his current leader. As has been discussed, that can change.

And there really is nothing wrong with that changing.

It is ridiculous when posters on message boards talk about how a particular recruit has de-committed from their school, and as a result, they “don’t want a player with that kind of character issues anyway.”

A teenager changing his mind about where he wants to spend the next four years of his life, away from home often for the first time ever, is not a character flaw—and I blame the NCAA for making it seem that way.

How about recruits just start stating who their favorite school is instead? If that changes after each visit, then so be it.

At least then the second season in CFB will still exist for die-hard fans. They will still be able to track how their favorite school is doing with recruits, and they will still be as excited as always to stay up-to-date on the latest rumors.

Recruits can still play the recruitment game and leave all sorts of excitement for which hat they are going to put on their heads on National Signing Day.

But at least this way, the unnecessary extra pressures will not be placed on these teenagers to stick to what they said initially, or else feel the wrath of message boards.

Ultimately, that is what is most important, because without these teenagers, college football’s off-the-field season would not exist.

And then how would the die-hard fans get their fix?

Champions League Final: Penalty Kicks Show All That's Wrong with Sports

Tom Kerestes — Thu, 22 May 2008 04:53:26 -0400

Wednesday’s Champions League Final pitted two English teams—Manchester United and Chelsea—against each other for the first time in the 53-year history of the tournament.

It was a fierce battle, as both teams missed opportunities to put the game out of reach during regulation, and ultimately the game was forced into overtime with the scores knotted up at one.

After neither team was able to net a goal during the two overtime periods, the match moved into penalty kicks to determine the winner.

And it was at that point that a beautiful sporting event was ruined yet again by a terrible overtime system.

Now don’t get me wrong—the penalty kicks proved to be very exciting.

Cristiano Ronaldo, arguably the greatest soccer (or football, depending on where you are) player in the world currently, missed the third kick for United, opening the door for Chelsea.

And then, when you thought Chelsea had it wrapped up, Captain John Terry slipped on the team’s fifth shot for the win, sailing the ball far right of the post.

United went on to win when keeper Edwin Van der Sar made a diving save to his right, and the celebrations began.

But lost in the celebration was how United managed to win the historic matchup, by beating Chelsea in a challenge that is entirely different than the game that had taken place over the initial 90 minutes of regulation, and extra 30 minutes of overtime.

And herein lies the problem that many of our college and professional sports are facing today—overtime rules.

For starters, let’s take a look at some of the main sports and see how their respective overtimes are currently formatted:

Hockey

The NHL currently uses a combination of points, extra time, and a shootout. When regulation ends, each team is awarded one point in the standings.

They then play a five-minute extra period, four on four plus goalies, in sudden-death format.

If the game remains tied after the five minute extra period, they move on to three penalty shots each, which then becomes one for one sudden-death penalty shots thereafter to determine the winner, if necessary.

Football

The NFL currently uses the simple sudden-death overtime period. If the score is tied after all four quarters of regulation, there is a 15-minute overtime period, in which the first team to score wins.

Possessions for both teams are not guaranteed. If the score remains tied after the 15-minute period, a regular season game ends in a tie, whereas a playoff game continues having extra periods until someone scores and a winner is determined.

College football uses an entirely different format.

If regulation ends in a tie, the teams each get one possession, starting from their own 25-yard line. From there, the game action takes place like that of a normal game, in that a team can get first downs, and can score a touchdown or choose to kick a field goal at any time.

Any sort of turnover ends that team’s possession, and the other team restarts the attempt to score from the 25-yard line.

After each team gets a possession, if there is still a tied scored, the teams switch sides of the field and first possession, and repeat.

After three of these cycles, if necessary, teams are forced to go for a two point conversion after scoring a touch down, as opposed to kicking an extra point.

Within each cycle, both teams are guaranteed one possession, and this continues until a cycle ends without a tie. At that point, the team with more points wins.

Baseball

In the MLB, when there is a tied score after the culmination of nine innings of play, the game moves onto extra innings, one inning at a time.

In this format, each team gets an opportunity to bat, with the home team maintaining the right to bat second each inning.

Additional innings will continue to be added on until either three outs are recorded with the home team batting and the visiting team having a lead, or until the home team acquires a lead while batting, at which point there is a winner.

Basketball

Both the NBA and NCAA basketball are the same on their overtime rules. When regulation ends, there is a five-minute extra period to determine the winner.

If the score remains tied after the five-minute extra period, additional five-minute periods continue to be added until one ends with a winner.

So what should be done?

There you have the current formats of overtime for some of the major sports that are followed in the United States. Some of the methods are great as-is, and do not need to be refined.

Meanwhile, others desperately need to be revamped so we can avoid travesties like yesterday’s Champions League Finals.

Starting with what needs fixing, I'd move right away into a problem that encompasses the overtime systems for soccer and hockey.

In sports like those, where scoring does not happen as often as basketball, I can appreciate a sudden death overtime period.

It’s great to see teams playing with such concentration as to know that any mistake they make can result in an immediate and sudden ending to the game, and perhaps their season.

With that thought, hockey initially gets it right.

On the other hand, I would like to see that method used more frequently in soccer—as they call it the “golden goal” method—as opposed to the “silver goal” method that was demonstrated in yesterday’s game.

To watch top-level athletes perform with the sense of urgency that a sudden-death format encourages is to witness those athletes perform at their highest levels. That is always my ultimate goal with sports.

But the real issue that I have with both sports’ overtime methods is what happens after the extra periods are finished without a winner.

Moving to a penalty kick or shot format to determine a winner ultimately takes a step away from the great action. Action that usually has led to such an exciting game throughout regulation and extra periods.

Of course, an argument can be made that the penalty shots are a part of the game, but they are without a doubt not a focus of the game, and therefore I do not believe they should be the deciding factor in who wins.

The Champion League Final yesterday proved that decisive penalty kicks can be very exciting to watch, but I would much rather see two highly-talented teams continue doing what they have been doing all game long to determine the champion.

Imagine a scenario in which a baseball game winner was determined by a home run derby? Or even worse, imagine a basketball game being determined by a dunk contest?

I’m sure it would be exciting, but events like that should be left for the All-Star Game “extra” activities, just like penalty shots perhaps should, and they should be left out of the decision making for who moves onto the next round or hoists the championship trophy.

My proposition for soccer and hockey would be for them to maintain one simple extra period, adding additional periods if necessary, in the standard sudden- death format—play as if a win or loss can be determined at any second, and we’re bound to see the best our athletes have to offer.

Determining a proper overtime format for football is not so easy.

Both the NFL and NCAA are close to getting it right in their current formats, but both has issues that must be fixed.

Starting with the NFL, I like that they play the game as it’s supposed to be played, continually adding on extra periods if needed, until there is a winner (in the playoffs).

However, a major issue that plagues the NFL is that so often, games can be determined before the clock even starts, when both teams meet in the middle of the field for the coin toss.

The fact that a team can win the toss, elect to receive the ball, drive to somewhere around the 35-yard line, and then kick a long field goal for the win—all without the other team ever touching the ball—is disgraceful.

One way or another, each team absolutely has to have the opportunity to get a possession.

College football, on the other hand, correctly ensures that each team gets a possession in their current format. And in fact, I have always appreciated watching a college football overtime game, and think that they are very close in getting it correct.

Unfortunately, I still find a flaw. Football is known as a game with three parts: offense, defense, and special teams.

Further, special teams are comprised of different parts, being kickoffs, punts, and field goals (consider extra points in the same category as field goals for this discussion).

In the current overtime method for college football, the kickoffs and punting portion of the game are completely eliminated.

This creates a situation similar to that of soccer and hockey, in that the game is played during regulation with all parts of the game involved, then suddenly in overtime only portions of the traditional game play are used.

Granted, college football is not as off as soccer and hockey in that the main aspects of the game—offense, defense, and field goals—are still concerned. Nevertheless, they should enforce the usage of all aspects of the game to determine a winner.

I think a solution to football overtime formats, in both the NFL and college, could be two five-minute periods, in which both periods happen regardless of score.

In my suggested format, both the first and second periods would begin with a kickoff, with the team who receives alternating between the two periods. This would more than likely allow each team a challenging but reasonable five minutes to drive the length of a field in an attempt to score a touchdown or field goal.

However, since all five minutes would be used regardless of turnovers or scores, it would force both teams to play a full game, involving all three key components to playing football.

The fact that there would be a guaranteed two periods would ensure that both teams get an equal opportunity at possession. With that, we would see an exciting continuation of the full game being played, and from there we would have the true winner.

And finally, that brings me back to both basketball and baseball. To be perfectly honest, for their given games, I feel that this is where the lone positives shine on our professional sports overtime methods.

I like how basketball has a simple five minute continuation of game play in both the NBA and NCAA. The last five minutes of regulation in a competitive basketball game are always the most exciting and challenging, from a coaching perspective, portions of the game.

The same can be said for both the top and bottom of the ninth inning in a close baseball game.

Waiting on each pitch, wondering if it will be a ball or strike, or whether or not the sacrifice fly will be deep enough to score the winning run on third, is one of the ultimate rushes while watching sports.

So is holding your breath when that last-second three-pointer is heaved at the basket with a team down by two points.

With each sports’ current overtime method, we continue the most exciting portions of the game until necessary to determine an ultimate victor. We continue some of the best moments possible while watching sports—and that is what I like to witness as a spectator.

In the end, we all love to watch sports, and we all love when sports competition is played at is best and truest forms. Under all of our sports current overtime methods, it is not evident to me that we have fully achieved this goal.

I think it is imperative that these issues are fixed, so that we are not left hoping a championship matchup never extends beyond regulation.

Steroid Use and the Media: Barry Bonds, Marion Jones...Now Eight Belles?

Tom Kerestes — Wed, 07 May 2008 07:30:18 -0400

This past weekend at Churchill Downs the Kentucky Derby put on one of the most memorable races in recent horse racing history.

The bright side of it was the beautifully run race by Big Brown, the favorite at five-to-two odds coming out of the 20th post.

While not in the lead, he was near the front of the pack as they rounded the final turn. Down the final stretch he showed why he was the favorite as he galloped to a convincing victory.

And of course, the bad part of it was the exciting, yet devastating, story of Eight Belles.

Eight Belles was the three-year-old filly who was scratched from the Kentucky Oaks race on Friday to “play with the boys” in the Derby on Saturday. She was the first filly to run with the boys in nine years—and she did just that, finishing behind Big Brown in second place.

Tragically, the celebration was short-lived as she snapped both her front ankles in the cool down after the race. Doctors made the devastating decision to euthanize her moments later on the track.

Yet as I was working out this morning and watching SportsCenter, I saw a headline scroll across the bottom, reading (to paraphrase): “Trainer Larry Jones wants Kentucky Derby runner-up Eight Belles fully tested in autopsy to prove she was not on performance-enhancing drugs.”

Really?

So it’s not enough that we can’t let Barry Bonds' record breaking 756th home run baseball go to Cooperstown without an asterisk.

And it’s not enough that Marion Jones’ teammates on the 2000 Olympic 4x100m relay team can’t keep their gold medals.

And it’s also not enough that we are destroying Roger Clemens’ reputation, both on and off the field, to try to prove that he used steroids.

But now we have to go after a horse that isn’t even alive anymore?

In all honesty, I get the point—using performance enhancing drugs is cheating. I completely agree, and feel that those who violate this rule should be punished.

But, there has to be a better way to figure this out and clean up the sports world without turning it into a witch hunt. Can’t it be accomplished more quietly by the sports regulators behind the scenes so it’s not the first story we hear about everyday?

Four days since Kentucky Derby weekend culminated there should be stories all over the sports media regarding two major things from that race.

First, the media coverage should be giving Eight Belles the respect she deserves.

We should be hearing about what a great race she ran—about how a real underdog took on some of the sport’s fastest and strongest, and nearly pulled it off. And maybe we should even be hearing about how her jockey, Gabriel Saez, perhaps rode her too hard and should have pulled up prior to the finish of the race.

And then we should be hearing about how amazing Big Brown looked in his race. They should be talking about how he looked stronger and faster than all the other horses out there, and proved it as they came down the stretch.

Stories should be popping up regarding, arguably, the most legitimate contender we now have to win the triple-crown for the first time since Affirmed did it in 1978.

And while I know that will be a hot topic of discussion as we approach the May 17th Preakness, we should hear about it now as well. And not just because Big Brown won the Kentucky Derby like other horses every year, but because of how dominant he looked in doing so.

But instead, we revert back to the media’s favorite subject—performance enhancing drugs. We seem to do this so often when major events in sports history are taking place.

In the end, I know I want to see the sports world cleaned up so that I can have confidence that the records and accomplishments that I witness are real and deserved.

But I also know that in the meantime I don’t want to miss out on a decade of enjoying those stories as the witch hunts take place.