Sports Illustrated tackles Cancer! Bigotry! and Sosa?

msherwin · Post by **msherwin** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 12:44 pm

Sports Illustrated has found a way to attack Sammy Sosa. Rick Reilly, (just trying to be a good guy mind you) set up an interview with Sosa to talk about Steroids in baseball. Of course that was the last thing Reilly planned to do. What he really did, (the great journalist that ole Rick Reilly is) is quite shocking. What he really did was schedule a drug test for Sosa. Since we all know how much we appreciate members of the media schedulinging drug tests for us, Reilly assumed Sosa would naturaly go down and take it. Uh no. Sosa called him a motherfucker and left. After Sosa stormed out and Reilly gone done ejaculating to thought of dragging another althletes good name through the sewer, CNNSI asked for readers thoughts on the interview.

Here's the link for the artcile. Below is my take.

The article on Sosa is typical Reilly and typical Sports Illustrated. The magazine should be renamed "Character Assassination Illustrated" Sammy Sosa is one of the best guys and best things to come along for baseball in the past twenty years and Reilly couldn't resist an attempt to make him look bad and then play innocent. Maybe someone should set up an interview with Reilly and pop a surprise I.Q. test on him.
SI has taken great joy in disrupting locker rooms for the Buffalo Bills (Flutie vs. Johnson), they took a few sarcastic comments from the Broncos and posted a cover story stating "We (The Broncos) Give Up" not to mention other great feats in journalism on Barry Bonds vs. Jeff Kent and the accomplish nothing but piss minorities off piece on John Rocker.
The best part is SI sitting back and playing innocent bystander, "we are just printing what they say" or their famous "unnamed sources". After watching Jim Miller from the Chicago Bears get suspended two years ago for steroid by-products, I'm sure athletes are just chomping at the bit to get tested for drugs by a bunch of strangers. Especially when they aren’t required to like in baseball (for Steroids).

Watching and reading guys like Reilly and other SI personalities like Leigh Montville whine and moan about sports and athletes begs the question-Why do these guys even write about sports?- It sounds to me like these quit enjoying them years ago.

When Reilly isn't trying to smear a major athlete he will write some insanely dumb column about a 6-year girl being the best athlete he has ever seen or some mother of a dead kid being the most courageous person he knows. He will follow those up with some rambling article about eating cheese fries and beer on his birthday, and my personal favorite, his riveting piece of chewing tobacco. Thanks for the warning Rick, hopefully Rick will let America's youth know the dangers of Crack and unprotected sex since we would never know about the dangers of society with out all knowing Rick Reilly.

Still, picking Sammy Sosa as a target takes the cake. Reilly says that if he's not on roids then why not take the test? Reilly then states he doesn't think Sosa is on anything. If he doesn't think Sosa is on steroids then why ask him to take the test? The answer to that is "I'm Rick Reilly and I hate sports. If I smear Sammy Sosa, I can ruin the dreams of little kids all over the world who idolize him."

Reilly isn't fit to take out Sosa's garbage. Since most of the people who write for SI are bitter and hate sports like Reilly, at the end of the year SI should staple all the years issues together and title it "The Complete Idiots Guide to Journalism" My bet is SI would find a way to put Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan on the cover as well.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 2:14 pm

I'll disagree, for the block.

1. He didn't "schedule an appointment" for him. He gave him the number and address of a place where he could have a blood/urine sample sent.

2. This was in response to Sammy stating publicly, "I wanna be first in line to get tested." Oh yeah? Then get tested and show us you're not nuking. Show us that the reason you've gained 70 pounds in the last (x) years is that the "dentist fixed your tooth so you can eat better now" (which he also indicated.)

3. When confronted with the name/address of the testing facility, Sosa replied (among other obnoxious things), "Are you trying to get me in trouble?" How would testing get you in trouble if you weren't worried about the test?

4. Baseball can suck me. We need more people like Reilly who don't just go around jock-sniffing and sucking up to these crybaby drug-addict losers.

5. Tiger Woods is God.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 3:16 pm

Ben wrote:4. Baseball can suck me. We need more people like Reilly who don't just go around jock-sniffing and sucking up to these crybaby drug-addict losers.

That's ALL that Sports Illustrated does, though. They also, in addition to the sniping mentioned above, turned the White Sox against Frank Thomas and the city of New Orleans against Ricky Williams.

As a fan of the Saints, Flyers and Blue Jays I can state that I hope that nobody from that rag EVER speaks to any of the players I follow. Admittedly, there hasn't been much danger of that as of late as all three franchises are about as backwards as can be, but I do know that if either team gets good a reporter for SI will be mucking about the shadows in an attempt to get the players screaming at one another for their own personal amusement.

However: nice way to show people you're not on the juice, Sammy, by FREAKING OUT in inexplicable Roid Rage. Sosa and Kyle Turley need to star in the next Final Fight game.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Tue Jul 02, 2002 4:32 pm

I am all for SI tweaking whoever they want, as much as possible. I'm going to subscribe now, just because of this conversation. Even though:

1) I listen to sports radio all day, and so have no need for a magazine.

2) In general, I have come to really hate sports (except for golf and NASCAR, and NASCAR is moving down the list pretty fast).

Why, you ask, does a guy who hates sports listen to sports radio all day?

Well, because, everything else is worse.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 12:27 pm

I thought you listened to whatshisface, Neil Rodgers all day or something.

Why is NASCAR moving down your list? Only one guy wins all the races, just like Tiger Woods. Or is Jeff Gordon letting other guys win for a change? I can't recall.

I have Robby Gordon, though, in my Death Pool. I really, really need him to go face first into a wall. Especially since Reagan, Arafat, Yeltsin and Bin Laden have all apparently found the constitution of Rasputin as of late. I mean, wtf, right?

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:48 pm

I thought you listened to whatshisface, Neil Rodgers all day or something.

Well, okay, you got me. When I'm in my CAR, I listen to sports radio, because that's all that's on. When I'm on the COMPUTER, I listen to Neil or Phil, who are as much better than any other radio people in history as sex with three girls at once is better than sucking wilted, soggy, rotted lettuce through a curly straw.

But that's neither here nor there.

Why is NASCAR moving down your list?

The TV broadcasts are unwatchable. They are actually emphasizing the parts of the sport which most people ridicule it for. The announcers are like: "Hoooo, doggies! We got more paint-swappin' action for ya today than mud on a pig!! If my sister was here rat now, A'd kiss 'er on the lips, and slip 'er some tongue! YeEEEeeEEEHAW!!" Jesus.

Only one guy wins all the races, just like Tiger Woods.

Actually, Tiger Woods is a golfer.
[/url]

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:51 pm

Oh, and the NASCAR rules officials change the rules nearly every week, reacting to whatever happened the previous week. Sometimes they actually change rules in the middle of a race, just to make it more "exciting" for the fans.

It's rapidly becoming professional wrestling.

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:12 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I have Robby Gordon, though, in my Death Pool. I really, really need him to go face first into a wall. Especially since Reagan, Arafat, Yeltsin and Bin Laden have all apparently found the constitution of Rasputin as of late. I mean, wtf, right?

Well you're screwed with Bin Laden. Generallissimo Bush needs that guy alive to continue his rights crackdown and cash drain. Probably got him stashed in the same safe cave with Don Chaney ...er Dick Chenery...(Speaking of which, how about the pitiful Knicks? I suppose their draft was better than when they picked Fredic Weis who wanted to play in the NBA as much as Janet Weis, apparently)

Eric

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Jul 04, 2002 11:02 am

I think the Knicks just didn't want to "build" or anything. They traded McDyess (sp?) for that pick they sent to Denver, right? I haven't given that a whole ton of thought or anything, but I guess it makes sense because:

1) Foreign players don't "know" that they aren't supposed to like playing for the Nuggets inherently. There's a very good chance that they could come here and see the good parts of the city and the state rather than have the opinion that Van Exel, McDyess and everyone else who has ever come here had, which is to call their agent and say YO YOU GOTS TO GET ME OUTTA HERE!! (Don't get me wrong, I like the 76ers and have no opinion on the Nuggets, I just think it's kind of high comedy that the place is where everyone wants to go in hockey but a place guys can't escape fast enough, Snake Plisken-style, in hoops.)

2) NYC Basketball Fan will go berzerk if the Knicks aren't competitive right away. They would burn that city to the ground if they had taken another player besides whatshisface, the guy the Heat got.

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:54 am

Yeah, actually it was probably a good move by the Knicks. Draft choices are always intriguing, but realistically, how many turn into all stars which McDyess was/is?

But the Knicks real problem is, for example, paying Alan Houston $100 million which I can't figure out. And everybody's problem is Shaq. Shoot, it is a big world out there, isn't there some big guy someplace can match up with him?

Recent history suggests basketball titles, although they require some team effort, also, usually require a dominating player, which given there's only five men on the floor at a time figures. The Knicks have no such thing and can't afford anyone. I'm not sure Ewing was ever a dominating player. When he had his shot against Olajuwan and the Rockets he came up short. If Jordan had been playing for the Knicks rather than Ewing I'm betting the Knicks would've won.

Eric