That pretty much says it. Post done.
I guess I should elaborate. Let me start by saying I don't blame A-Rod for testing positive for steroids - a very large percentage of baseball players were, so why make him the lead witch in the hunt (that goes for Barry Bonds as well). However, nobody else said they didn't take steroids because they felt unmatched by any of the other players. When the report came out, he didn't admit to it, but instead told reporters they would have to speak to the union. After conferring with his legal team, PR team, and Madonna, he decided to have a "come to Jesus" moment where he feels so bad about what he did and what kids think of him. He wants to spread the word about how bad steroids are and regain our respect! He's such an ingenuine schmuck. After the affair with Madonna, "A-Fruad" story in Joe Torre's book, and now the steroid report, it is not a good year to be him. By the way, finding out yet another former Ranger was on steroids pretty much answers the question of whether or not Pudge was.
So where do we go from here? I like the idea of releasing all 104 people who tested positive in 2003 so the focus isn't solely on A-Rod, but they can't do that. Two wrongs don't make a right. Now that he's made his half-assed, scripted apology, it's time to move on. There were a lot of players in that era on steroids. We can't punish them now because there weren't rules back then. If you are a baseball reporter and you don't want to send Bonds or A-Rod to the hall of fame, then don't send anyone from this era. I hate that Jose Canseco, once again, looks like the most honest, truthful person in all of this. We need to move on from the steroids talk, though.
The other scandal right now is Michael Phelps marijuana use. I want to give credit to Mike right now who said last summer we needed to give him a free pass for whatever stupid thing he gets in trouble for this year. I can understand Kellogg's decision to pull their endorsement. If the story received too much press, that was the only option they had. However, the whole story wreaks of racism and sports bias.
Recently, Super Bowl MVP Santonio Holmes was invited to do the "I'm going to Disney World" commercial and was the guest of honor at their parade. Holmes was also cited for possession of marijuana 3 months ago. He has also been arrested several times for disorderly conduct and domestic violence. If Kellogg's felt they had to pull their endorsement due to their youth appeal, Disney CERTAINLY should have withheld theirs. It isn't unprecedented either - remember Disney used Trent Dilfer as the face of the Raven's Super Bowl win instead of Ray Lewis due to his legal disputes.
I believe Phelps and Holmes were treated differently by the companies and the media because we "expect" that black athletes and football players use marijuana because that is the "culture" that they come from. However, a white swimmer should "be a better role model". The whole story has strong undertones of prejudicial beliefs. To not hold Holmes to the same standards that we hold Phelps is saying that we don't expect as much out of him due to the color of his skin or the sport he plays. Someone like James Harrison, Ben Roethlisberger, or Hines Ward should have been used for their commercial, not Holmes.
27 comments:
Well the commercial does include both Holmes and Roethlisberger, so it's not just Santonio. And while I understand your point and it makes sense, I do disagree a little. In my opinion, one company should not influence the other. Yes you can look into potential prejudices, or you could look at it in other ways:
1) The scrutiny that football players gets for wrongdoings is far less than they typical athlete in any other sport. Roger Clemens is testifying before Congress, for Christ's sake.
2) Kelloggs and Disney's images, while similar in goals, aren't intertwined. One business decision by one company should not influence/affect another. Companies need to look out for their interests. Kelloggs didn't like Phelps' actions. Disney could live with Holmes'. Perhaps I'm just being naive, but maybe that's the end of the story. Two separate companies making two separate, and different, business decisions.
As far as A-Rod...
-Totally ingenuine appology...but I'm glad he came clean. Does he get into the Hall now? I think so when it's all said and done.
-I too am curious to see the list, but nothing should have been leaked in the first place, so let it be. I'm much rather have confidentiality rights upheld than see those names.
I think Adam makes a good point.
"To not hold Holmes to the same standards that we hold Phelps is saying that we don't expect as much out of him due to the color of his skin or the sport he plays."
Adam is not saying that Disney should pull an endorsment because Kellog's did, he is saying that Disney didn't feel like it had to because Santonio Holmes is a black football player rather than a white swimmer. (At least that's how I read it...)
I think if Holmes was with Kellogg's, his deal would have been pulled.
I also think if Phelps was with Disney, he would still have a deal.
If you also don't think that Disney put in Ben Roethlisberger into that commercial for a reason, then I think you're mistaken. You don't think Disney execs wanted to have someone to pair with Holmes to avoid any scrutiny? "Disney put a pot head in its commercial." Now its, "Disney put the star QB and Superbowl MVP in its commercial."
I don't know, I guess I hate to think that racial prejudices still exist and have any affect on how companies do business these days, although I'm sure in some cases it does (unfortunately).
I think Ben Roethisburger was added because Holmes doesn't have enough starpower/name recognition, not because they were trying to avoid scrutiny.
But who knows?
I don't like it either, but racial preferences do still exist, and can determine how some companies do business.
If Trent Dilfer can be in a Super Bowl ad, than Santonio Holmes could have definitely done it alone.
Do you think their were racial preferences with Kelloggs and Disney?
Not overt racism, but yes, I do think that race was one of the factors that influenced the decision.
As Adam said, Disney holds Holmes to a lower standard. There is a case to be made that the standards are different because the nature/culture of the two sports is different, and I agree that it is also a factor, but I think race is a factor as well.
I should have been a little more clear about this - I don't think it's as much racism on the company's behalf, but society's and the media. The media made a HUGE deal over Phelps - Kelloggs made the decision that the risk and effort that it would take to answer parents as to why they kept him as their spokesperson didn't outweigh the benefit of his endorsement. Basically, he is an ad - the "face" of Kellogg's cereal. That image has been tarnished, so it isn't worth as much right now.
Holmes, on the other hand, is a "safe" image right now because very few people remember his drug penalty or domestic disputes. (In the interest of full disclosure, I had forgotten about it while we were watching the award presentation until a friend reminded me). Their inclusion of Ward and Roethlisberger was intended to add more star power, not to offset a "bad image" from Holmes. And to answer Mike's argument about Trent Dilfer, if you don't use Ray Lewis, the next best option is the QB, even if he doesn't have much star power. Could you name anyone else from that team they could have used to be the face of their team?
I am actually sick of the A-Rod steroids discussion - I almost turned off M&M this morning. Right before I did, though, they said they have been talking about it so much because they needed a story to replace it and they finally had that story. The breaking news, of course, was that Favre was retiring... again. I love it - one tired semi-sports story replaced by another tired one.
Could I name anyone else!?! Tony Siragusa? Jamaal Lewis or Priest Holmes?!? How about newly inducted Hall of Famer Rod Woodson???? Future Hall of Famer Jonathan Ogden (who does shit tons of commercials in the MD area, even after his retirement)? All were held in higher regard than Dilfer. You think you'd want to see Dilfer over any of those guys? This is one case where the QB carried ZERO star power, which is why they dumped his ass the next year.
After some research, there have been plenty of duos to do the "I'm going to Disney World" spot (Dominic Rhodes and Tony Dungy in 2007? What???), including some Rice and Young. The more I think about it, Disney was probably just trying to get the winning QB-WR combo in on their shot, and nothing more.
Okay Kev, you say that Disney holds Holmes to a lesser standard. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Holmes isn't the star that Phelps is. White, black, asian- it doesn't matter. If Phelps was black, he'd still be on top of the world- an American swimmer who won 8 golds in 8 events and kept Americans glued to the television set, and then his subsequent high profile minor "fall from grace". But I think Kellogg's reaction would have been the same. And Disney isn't holding Holmes to a lower standard- he just isn't as high profile, and that has nothing to do with race. Holmes gets forgotten amongst the Vicks and Pac-Mans of the world.
Point taken - Goose or Jamal Lewis had more star power. I don't believe Priest Holmes was Priest Holmes at that point. However, keep in mind that you are a football fan living in Baltimore. Trent Dilfer made sense at the time because most casual viewers would be able to recognize him as the winning QB.
It's not just the ad, he was the one invited to DW and was grand marshall in the parade.
I SERIOUSLY disagree that Kelloggs would have dumped Holmes and Disney would have kept Phelps. If we're talking about "kid brands", Disney is much more of a kid brand icon and wouldn't have stuck with a risk like Phelps.
"Holmes gets forgotten amongst the Vicks and Pac-Mans of the world." - this supports my argument that we have lower standards for football players. If you're not killing dogs or shooting up strip clubs, it isn't a big deal.
I just think the parallel is interesting - we have a white swimmer smoking pot, there's a huge uproar, and a kid's cereal company drops his endorsement. On the other hand, a black football player with a history of pot use and domestic violence is allowed to advertise for a kid's entertainment company and nobody cares.
I am not saying it's unfair to Phelps so much as it shows we don't have high expectations for either black athletes or football players. My guess, however, is if Peyton was caught smoking pot, Gatorade may not put his face in commercials for a little while. That being said, I think they would handle Tiger the same way.
Well me living in Baltimore right now is irrelevant to the Super Bowl Ravens. I had been living in Michigan for 4 years when they won, and the Ravens also moved to MD after I had already left, so I’m not sure what you mean by that. That team was just known for their defense, which had numerous high-profile guys not in trouble with the law, that seemed to make logical sense. Difler was made fun of constantly…remember when the offense didn’t score a touchdown during the whole month of October? I agree with you about Holmes though. He wasn’t THE Priest Holmes until Kansas City.
I still don’t understand how race is involved. Do we have higher and lower standards for our higher-profile and lower-profile athletes? Yes, so in that respect, I agree with you. It makes sense why we do, however, based on the status of an athlete and their exposure to the public, and their subsequent sponsorship deals. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, but I understand it.
But Disney going with Holmes isn’t shocking to me. As I stated before, with Big Ben in the commercial it takes some of the focus away from Holmes. By not being alone, we can view the duo as the QB-WR that won the Super Bowl, which in my opinion, is a calculated move on Disney’s part on some level. Also, Holmes is 3 months removed from his pot-smoking incident. He’s done the public apology and served his suspension. In a forgiving society, if an athlete professes his guilt and apologizes, we tend to move on.
Phelps is fresh off his photo though. In three months after he’s served his suspension, done a few good deeds, and apologized over and over, he’ll be in the same spot as Santonio…a bad boy turned good, and America will embrace him. If we could pretend the Olympics were in a few months, and if we could pretend Phelps won another 8 gold medals, I don’t think Disney would be too hesitant to have Phelps screaming “I’m going to Disney World!” as he exits the pool.
But where’s the race card? Different statuses in athletes, yes. Also different points in each individuals cases (Holmes incident 3 months ago, Phelps two weeks ago). But to me, race is irrelevant. Matt Jones of the Jaguars got busted for drugs and served the same suspension Holmes did, got the same coverage, and apologized…and he’s white! If you want to say the standards are lower for NFL players compared to other major sports, I am fine with that. But to say that the standards, in these instances, are higher-lower between white and black athlete, I just can’t see it.
My point was Rod Woodson and Jonathan Ogden may be widely known by football fans in general and have a lot of recognition in the Baltimore area, but the Disney commercial/endorsement isn't targeted towards intense football fans, they are targeted toward families and the general population. The QB of the winning team, no matter how good he is, makes a great image for the face of the Super Bowl winning team to the common fan.
The aspect where race comes into play is that nobody in the media questioned whether Holmes was an appropriate icon for Disney to use. He has a history of trouble, including recent drug charges. When he was caught, he was served with a suspension and the story was, at most, the top sports news for a day. Phelps gets caught and it's been an ongoing story for over a week. What's going to happen to his endorsements? Will he race in 2012? Are the SC police going to press charges?
You are right - Matt Jones faced an equal amount of scrutiny and an equal suspension. So perhaps it is just different treatment based on the sport or star power of the athlete.
But we agree we're talking about two different athletes- one that is an icon of American sports, and the other the 2nd wide receiver for an NFL team. That's the big difference to me right there, and why the questions about Phelps still continue.
And I'm sure there are plenty that question the use of Holmes in the Super Bowl ad. When I first saw it I did! The story isn't fresh anymore. He's done his time, paid his fine, and that's that. And soon Phelps will too. Similar stories, different times though.
I think I finally getcha about the Dilfer =). I still would have put Goose in it though =). F the common man.
"The aspect where race comes into play is that nobody in the media questioned whether Holmes was an appropriate icon for Disney to use."
And this is a reasonable question! But the question should be why do NFL players seem to get the "free pass" compared to other athletes...not just with drugs, but with most things, like steroids. The major question doesn't seem to boil down to race, though, but rather the league as a whole.
Being the marketing guy, do you think it has something to do with the way the NFL showcases their players? We hardly get to know them as individuals...they wear helmets so we don't see their faces and they are prohibited from doing anything individualistic. Perhaps because we don't see the human element of a football player we are less inclined to make an uproar over their transgressions.
Unless, of course, they're Michael Vick.
Phelps had a prior DUI, and that didn't stop Kellogs from sponsoring him in the first place, so I agree with you that timing is a big part of this as well.
But to say that only because Phelps is a bigger name that he is held to a higher standard isn't always the case. Often, the bigger names are held to a LOWER standard. For example, celebrities are notorious for getting only probation and a fine, whereas an everyday joe-shmoe would get a prison sentence.
That being said, I do think that Phelp's big name is one reason why he is held to higher standard than Holmes. But I also think there are other (perhaps smaller) reasons as well, one of them being that society in general seems to be more accepting of a pot-smoking black athlete than a pot-smoking white athlete.
And just to make the issue even more convoluted, what if instead of Sanonio Holmes, say hypothetically that Peyton Manning was busted for marijuana.
I think the reaction would be just as strong to Peyton as it is to Phelps. I don't think Peyton would get a "free pass" because he is an NFL player.
But even when you say that celebrities/athletes are held to a lower standard, you are making the point that it's a status issue, not race. Because they are rich and famous, they get away with more...but it's still not a race issue!
And perhaps there are other reasons, you're right. You could watch MTV and see smoking and the such promoted in video and song with most rappers. It's hard to argue that it seems to be more of a part of black culture than white.
But in athletics, I don't see the differential treatment...I can't think of one example (maybe you could help) of athletes of equal status (like Holmes and Jones) where the public reaction was different, where standards seemed to be lower for one than the other.
I definitely stand to be proven wrong on that.
Peyton is high profile! It has nothing to do with race! Of course he wouldn't get a free pass!
The Peyton example was about NFL culture, not about race.
You asked:
"But the question should be why do NFL players seem to get the "free pass" compared to other athletes"
My only point was that not all NFL players would get a free pass.
As for examples of racial discrimination, I can't think of any off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to do any research. (Who is the white analog to Josh Howard's comments about loving pot? Or Randy Moss saying that he smokes from time to time?)
...And anything I pointed to anyway would not be decisive. I'm not saying that Holmes was treated one way because he is black and Phelps is treated another way because he is white.
All I'm saying is that race can be a factor in the way we look at athletes, both in admiring them and punishing them. And since this whole thing is about perception, (and assumptions about society's perception) I think race still plays a role.
But agree with me that the Phelps/Holmes incident had more to do with status and less to do with race!!! If you give me that I will be happy.
Sure, I can grant you that. I was never trying to say that race was the primary factor, only that it existed as a factor.
Although I have to admit, it was REALLY tempting to make up some arbitrary motivational percentages, just to deny you any satisfaction.
Honestly, that's the sort of thing I was expecting from you =).
Fuck off Billy, you're commenting on the wrong post.
....and also a robot.
....And your advertising copy is terrible. "Might be benign!?" Or it might be illegal and dangerous! IF it's safe and legal, then why would anyone care if it was detectable!
...and chewing tobacco is not benign. It causes cancer.
Fuck off Billy.
Post a Comment