delta80eight

There has been a lot of speculation in the past week over the correct (or incorrect) status of LaDainian Tomlinson on the Chargers' injury report before the AFC Championship game. Now, with news surfacing that Tom Brady has suffered an apparent high-ankle injury, the question over whether or not the NFL should mandate stricter enforcement governing injury reports has surfaced.

In this writer's humble opinion, an injury report naturally lends itself to inaccuracy. Reports come out days before the actual game is played, and some injuries may only take a few days to heal. The very natural of the injury report "rating system" is completely ambiguous. A "Probable" rating declares that a player has a 75% chance of playing. This measure also gives the player a 25% chance of not playing. The same ratios stand true, albeit vice versa, for a "Doubtful" status. To the betters in Vegas, 1 in 4 ain't half bad.

In all reality, every player should be handed a "Questionable" status-- 50-50 playing or not playing. Really, that's all it is. A player is either playing or not playing. Perhaps LT should have been given a 51.5% rating: he played, but only for two carries.

In ESPN's debate over the injurious injury reports, good ole Skip Bayless brought up the point that Vegas betters could possibly purchase the correct information regarding the health status of NFL players. Way to go Skip, advocate for gambling on football and give incentive for NFL officials to get involved. I would imagine a conspiracy involving NFL executives leaking injury information to Vegas bookies could only benefit one man-- Tim Donaghy. He'd pray that the attention would be removed from him.

How about this as a solution? If injury reports in the NFL are really such a hot issue, why don't the bookies place bets on the accuracy of those reports?

Gimme $250,000 that Brady plays the whole game even if he's in a wheelchair.

Perhaps the biggest and most dangerous problem wrapped up in the rampant steroid use in Major League Baseball is the perception of those players abusing the illicit substances in the eyes of our children. Young children look up to professional athletes as if they were gods. These athletes serve as role models, whether their actions are commendable or not. The sanctity of sports and fair competition stands at odds with the steroid era, not to mention the safety and well being of those who may be tempted to use such drugs. Given the success of notable players like Mark McGuire, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds associated with steroid use, what young athlete seeking to get ahead in his/her sport wouldn't be tempted to try steroids?

Well folks, I believe the answer is out there, we just need a suitable "poster child" of the steroid era: Jason Giambi. I sense a PSA going something like this:

Kids, steroids may help you get ahead in sports. They can help you crush homeruns hundreds of miles, throw a baseball close to 100mph, and continue playing even when you should have been sent to a geriatric ward a decade ago. But look at the users of steroids. Enter Jason Giambi. "Hi kids, I'm Jason Giambi, and I admit that I once used steroids to gain an unfair advantage in my professional baseball career. I became a monster at the plate, but I'm also a greasy, unkempt, flared-nostril, hygiene-deficient monster." So remember, kids, steroids are just plain bad.

Rants & Raves blog number 1. delta hates you all.