Guilty or innocent? That's just one question surrounding Braun

^

What are we supposed to make of the Ryan Braun doping incident?

The give-a-dude-the-benefit-of-doubt and innocent-until-proven-guilty sides of me are happy that, if he really was innocent, he was exonerated.

The born cynic in me -- the one who is still mad at himself for letting down his guard and getting duped by Sammy Flintstone Vitamins and Mark McLiar -- can't help but shake the feeling that Braun got away with the juicing equivalent of manslaughter.

Mostly, I have questions ...

Given that some BBWAA voters didn't cast Hall of Fame ballots for Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez on the mere suspicion of steroid use, will Braun be denied baseball's ultimate honor no matter how great his final numbers are?

Did an innocent Braun have to argue something that made him sound guilty -- a chain-of-custody screwup involving his urine sample -- because it really is impossible to prove one's innocence when one has been charged with doping?

Will his success at beating the charge embolden other ballplayers to try to cheat?

If Braun was guilty, why has he passed every other drug test he was given, including a follow-up test shortly after the one in question detected elevated levels of testosterone?

As with most issues, there are serious shades of gray. Opinions, however, are mostly black and white. Those who want to think Braun is guilty won't change their minds. Nor will those who want to think he's innocent.

Brewers fans will stick with him no matter what, the same way Giants and Cardinals fans who were deceived by Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire still cheer their heroes.

Braun has always seemed to be a decent guy. I want to believe him. It's not easy.

^

Loyalty: Dead end for Weber & other coaches

^

If college basketball success is measured by national championships, Illinois hasn't had a successful coach in the modern era. If, however, success is measured by Final Four appearances, Bruce Weber and Lou Henson have been the only successful coaches in the last six decades.

What else -- besides first names that, in good times, elicited "oooooo" sounds from fans -- do Henson and Weber have in common?

Ugly endings.

Despite a thrilling ride to the Final Four in '89, two other appearances in the tournament's second weekend and a dozen NCAA bids overall, Henson was run out of Urbana-Champaign by a pitchfork-and-torch-wielding mob that deemed him inadequate in his last few seasons.

Weber took the Illini to the 2005 NCAA title game and led them to six tourney bids in his first eight years. But Season No. 9 has been horrific and new AD Mike Thomas is ready to clean house -- much to the delight of a salivating, angry fanbase.

Contrast the departure of Henson and imminent departure of Weber to those of the two other Illinois coaches of the last 35 years: Lon Kruger and Bill Self.

Kruger hung around for only four years, leading the Illini to the second round of the NCAA tourney in three of those seasons, before bolting for the NBA's Atlanta Hawks.

Self stayed in Urbana-Champaign for just three seasons -- taking the Illini to the Elite Eight, Sweet Sixteen and second round -- before leaving for the college hoops nirvana of Lawrence, Kansas.

Self, who had said he envisioned a long career at Illinois, was ripped for being disloyal after he left. To this day, even though he recruited the outstanding players who helped Weber reach the '05 title game, S-E-L-F is a four-letter word in Illini Land.

Kruger was neither as popular nor quite as successful as Self, but he, too, was blasted for turning his back on the program.

Which brings us to the subject of loyalty.

Illinois fans are ticked off that Kruger and, especially, Self were disloyal. These same fans have had absolutely no problem being disloyal to Henson and Weber. Nor would those fans have worried about being disloyal to Kruger and Self had either of those men encountered a rough stretch.

I'm not saying this only happens in Urbana-Champaign. It happens everywhere, including my alma mater. I know Marquette fans whose blood still boils at the mere mention of Tom Crean, who left for Indiana four years ago. (My blood doesn't boil. I appreciated Crean for rebuilding the program but never thought he was a great coach, and I prefer his replacement, Buzz Williams.)

Point is: Fans are loyal only to the extent that their coach wins. Period.

Is that fair? Come on ... what is fair? It simply is.

Obviously, if Weber really could have had the Oklahoma job last year as had been rumored, he should have taken it.

To hell with loyalty.

It's far better to do what Self and Kruger did and beat the pitchforks and torches out of town, because loyalty is never a two-way street.

Today's High 5: Back to witness Linsanity

^

5. SUNNING IS MORE FUN THAN BLOGGING

OK, I now can fess up: I hadn't been posting because Roberta and I were in Cancun, where we met our kids (who had flown down from Chicago). I don't like to advertise vacations before I'm taking them or while I'm on them -- better to keep would-be house-robbers in the dark!

Weather-wise, our trip was spectacular: low 80s and sunny every day. And it was so much fun to spend a week with Katie and Ben, whom we hadn't seen since October. Hopefully, it won't be so long next time.

We mostly enjoyed the weather, the beach, the pool and each other, but we did spend one day exploring the ruins of Chichen Itza and swimming in a "cenote" (kind of a watering hole/cave combination. Lots of good food and plenty of games of Scrabble, Boggle, cribbage, Catchphrase and Who-What-Where, too.

If I said posting at The Baldest Truth was what I missed most while I was gone, I'd be fibbing. When we picked our puppy Simcha up from the sitter last night, she acted as if we'd been gone a year. It's always great to be loved so unconditionally!

4. NEW KNICK SURE HAS KNACK

How 'bout that kid who is lifting the Knicks to greatness?

Of course, I'm talking about former Marquette star Steve Novak!

Like everybody else, I've been floored by all that Jeremy Lin has accomplished in his short stint as an NBA starter. I keep waiting for him to hit a wall; instead, he keeps knocking every wall down.

He certainly is the best sports story so far in 2012, and he already is on the short list of legitimate NBA MVP candidates.

Pretty amazing for a twice-cut kid from Harvard who couldn't get on the court for the Knicks until half the team was injured.

Whether in sports or in real life, sometimes all a person needs is opportunity.

3. MARCH TOWARD MARCH

My favorite thing about the opening of spring training is that it means one of my favorite sports months is only days away.

March Madness ... spring training ... NBA and NHL entering the stretch run ... and no NFL draft. What's not to love?

2. TEBOW OR NOT TEBOW?

Because both are young athletes with extremely strong religious beliefs who have energized downtrodden teams, Lin quite often has been compared to Tim Tebow.

How unfair.

To Lin.

Lin hasn't been awful for the first 90 percent of every game he has played. Game in and game out, opening tip to final horn, Lin has been the catalyst for a Knicks team that had been completely rudderless.

Contrast that to Tebow, who benefited from a fine Broncos defense that kept games close while he made mistake after mistake. Trying to protect late leads, opposing coaches then changed what they were doing and practically gave Tebow engraved invitations to rally the Broncos. To his credit, he accepted those invitations and succeeded.

As winter fades to spring and the Knicks try to make this season a special one, it will be interesting to see how opposing coaches adjust to Lin. It will be even more interesting to see how the Knicks adjust when Carmelo Anthony -- who is used to having the ball in his hands about 99.9 percent of the time -- returns to the lineup.

Tebow failed miserably the last few weeks of the season and the Broncos only backed into the playoffs because their division rivals were even worse.

How will Lin do in April and May? That's the question I want to see answered.

1. WHY SHOULD KATE UPTON HAVE ALL THE FUN?

That right ... if you look at that picture of me and Roberta carefully, you'll see that we obviously were airbrushed.

And just when you thought we couldn't possibly get any sexier!

^

New Cubbie coach shows chivalry isn't dead

^

The Cubs' new pitching coach is former Brewers right-hander Chris Bosio. He's come a long way in just a few years. In 2007, he was the pitching coach at Division III Lawrence University, where my daughter just so happened to be a student trainer assigned to the baseball team.

What did Katie think of Bosio?

"He NEVER let the boys swear around me ... that's pretty much my only memory of him. Oh, and the fact that he chewed approximately a bucket of seeds per practice. Two per game."

Sounds eminently qualified to me!

---

Regular readers will note that this is my first post of the week, and it might or might not be my last post for another week.

No real reason for the break. Just chillaxin' instead of bloggin'.

And you know what? The pay's exactly the same!

Be back eventually. I know you'll barely be able to stand each passing minute.

^

Patriots goat Welker: The agony of the irony

^

A month into the 1994 baseball season, I covered a no-hitter pitched by Twins enigma Scott Erickson. What made the feat especially amazing was that he had allowed the most hits in the major leagues the year before.

The most hittable pitcher in baseball throwing a no-hitter. It isn't easy to beat that for irony.

Well, Sunday night in a memorable Super Bowl, Wes Welker out-ironied Erickson.

From 2007-11, the Patriots' star receiver caught 554 passes, by far the most of any NFL player. In the season just concluded, he led the league with 122 catches -- 22 more than anybody else.

And yet there he was Sunday, with about 4 minutes to play, dropping a Tom Brady pass that hit him in the hands. NBC announcer Cris Collinsworth, a former All-Pro receiver, was stunned: "Welker makes that catch 100 times out of 100."

The catch would have given the Patriots a first down inside the Giants' 20-yard line. The Patriots already led by 2 points, so if they had proceeded to go in for a TD, it would have sealed the deal. Even if the Pats would have settled for a field goal, the Giants were down to one time out, there would have been precious little time left and a victory would have been difficult even for comeback king Eli Manning.

But Welker dropped the ball, the Patriots had to punt, and Manning, with plenty of time on the clock and needing only a field goal to take the lead, methodically marched the Giants to the winning score.

There were many things that did the Patriots in, including uncharacteristic penalties, an inability to run the ball and Brady being mortal.

Still, had the NFL's premier pass-catcher caught an eminently catchable pass, the Patriots almost surely would have won their fourth title.

Take that, Scott Erickson!

^

It won't be a Giant upset

^

The Giants appear to be better at just about every position -- even QB, given the way Eli Manning and Tom Brady have been playing lately. That leads many TV yakkers and other "experts" who should know better to wonder why the Patriots actually are favored.

Being favored has fairly little to do with which team the oddsmakers believe will win a game. Oddsmakers try to pick a number that will lead to the same number of bets on each team, plain and simple. If the Giants win, only a fool would call it an upset.

Now that I've wasted time, I guess I actually have to come up with a prediction.

I really, really, really hate picking against Brady and Bill Belichick. But I really, really think the Giants are a good team that is peaking at exactly the right time. The New Jerseyites' defense rates a huge edge over its Massachusetts counterpart, and defense still counts for something.

Giants 23, Patriots 20.

And they won't even need a guy to catch a pass with his helmet this time.

^

It's Simcha's Birthday!

^

Happy 1st birthday to the most beautiful pup in the world!

Occasionally, we do wonder if coming to North Carolina was the right thing to do. If we hadn't journeyed here, however, we never would have found our best friend.






Our lives are better because Simmie is all ours!






We're looking forward to spending many, many, MANY more happy birthdays with our Simcha!
^

It's only a 40-yard dash to Orange Julius

^

National Signing Day ... ugh.

If I wanted to watch a bunch of teenage boys trying on college team caps, I'd hang out at Lids in the mall.

^

Unlike Tiger, Nadal had legit excuse

^

No coffee for Rafael Nadal or Tiger Woods.

Coffee is for closers!

At least my nephew Rafa had an excuse. The best tennis player on the planet, Novak Djokovic, was running him ragged in a 6-hour marathon that featured hundreds of amazing shots by both players. There was no shame at all in losing one of the best grand slam finals ever.

Tiger? The guy who built a reputation as the best closer since Michael Jordan gagged away the final round in Abu Dhabi and lost to some dude named Robert Rock. And I don't think it was because Rock is the best golfer on the planet.

Every time Eldrick has a good round or two, ESPNers and other fawning media types can't wait to declare, "Tiger's back!" By Tiger's own definition, however, the only tournaments that really matter are the majors ... so we shouldn't believe he's back until he wins one of those.

Given that he hasn't won a full-field tournament of any kind since well before Djokovic became the best tennis player on the planet, we might be waiting quite a while.

^

Today's High 5: GOP Debate Edition

^

5. I wouldn't vote for Rick Santorum because he and I have significant ideological differences. Still, I find it repulsive and despicable (two words favored by Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) that a legitimate candidate who appeals to millions of voters and has strong convictions cannot compete because he lacks a gazillion-dollar "war chest."

For what it's worth (not much), I thought Santorum "won" Thursday's debate -- the last GOP debate for a while, thank Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Joseph Smith and Richard Dawkins -- in part because he stood above the petty silliness of the Dueling Liars. His attempt to calm the rhetoric between Mitt and Newt and concentrate on issues was practically heroic (albeit failed).

Unfortunately for Santorum, he has absolutely no chance to emerge as the GOP nominee. Unlike his main rivals, he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he doesn't have a Vegas Sugar Daddy pouring funds into his attack-ad account.

Instead of making our elections more "of the people," the Supreme Court made them even more about who has the most corporate financial backing.

Until a constitutional amendment that repeals the Citizens United decision and crafts fair campaign finance rules is enacted, things will only get worse and worse for regular folks who want to serve their country.

4. Romney claims that he doesn't make his own investments and that he has no input in the brutally negative ads his Super PACs have been running.

I'm pretty sure he'd be a lousy president, but I'm confident he'd be one heck of an Ostrich in Chief.

3. Ron Paul makes a lot of sense when he talks about the need to stop America's ruinous nation-building policies and to significantly reduce the national deficit.

However, he couldn't sound more out of touch every time he makes a reference to the way things were done in the olden days.

He needs to stop suggesting that we ignore the plight of poor people and let churches take care of them "like they used to." He needs to stop pretending that seniors "did just fine" before Medicare was enacted nearly 50 years ago; a huge percentage of them lived in abject poverty, unable to afford even basic care. He needs to realize that every time he starts a point by saying, "Back in 1962 ... " he reminds everybody how old he is.

Paul is a smart man and I'm guessing he was a fine doctor. But no matter how often he longs for simpler times, today's doctors aren't going to start making house calls again and they aren't going to accept chickens as payment.

We have a health-care crisis now, and longing for the good ol' days of leeches and castor oil won't solve anything.

2. Oh, Stephen Colbert ... please come back!

1. The Great Debater -- a.k.a. The Newtster -- is a myth.

Turning legitimate questions about his character into blame-the-media diatribes is not debating. It is bloviating. Such a tactic might be able to incite a frothing-at-the-mouth, intellectually suspect audience of tea partiers, but it hasn't worked when the crowds have been more civil and more diverse. And it certainly won't work in the general election, should Gingrich get that far.

He tried it again Thursday, but Wolf Blitzer, bless his heart, wouldn't let him. Gingrich was forced to deal with a difficult question, and he got his clock cleaned by Romney.

Romney easily out-pointed Gingrich in the two most recent debates, helping explain his renewed rise in the polls. And with Blitzer giving them more opportunities to talk Thursday, Santorum and Paul were more appealing and respectable than Newt.

Gingrich believes he could out-debate Barack Obama, but I doubt there's any way Newt would be viewed as anything but a bully and a blowhard by the independents who will decide the election.

Fortunately for the GOP, it's doubtful Newt will get that far. Republican leaders are coming out strong against him, and the public finds him mostly repugnant. His "likability" numbers are so low they'd lose a limbo contest to Muggsy Bogues.

This will be the ninth presidential election since I turned voting age, and I'm struggling to remember if there has been a more loathsome and revolting candidate for either party's nomination than Newt Gingrich.

Help me out here ... did Charles Manson, David Duke, Bobby Knight or Rosie O'Donnell ever run for president?

^