| Published When We Feel Like It |
Vol.
15, No.4
|
|
Chivas USA, an off-shoot of the famed Guadalajara-based Mexican League team, will make its Major League Soccer debut next year, as MLS expands to twelve teams. Chivas owner Jorge Vergara is seen as progressive: he runs his health-supplements company, Omnilife, with stringent environmental policies and supports education reform in Mexico. "In Latin American countries we have wasted women in the workforce because of our macho education," Vergara told Sports Illustrated's Grant Wuhl earlier this year. "They have all these qualities that men don't. They're more administrative, more focused, more responsible. When you are around so much feminine energy, you get more creative." What's more, Vergara recently announced plans to start a women's professional soccer league in Mexico in 2006. Add Vergara . . . That has not stopped Chivas USA from introducing "ChivaGirls," a "female ambassador program" of "bilingual Latina women to serve as community ambassadors" for the team. According to the team's website, ChivaGirls must "possess good public speaking skills, physical conditioning and have experience in dance, choreography and runway. Candidates must be between 21 and 28 years old, weigh between 110 and 135 pounds, and be 5'4" or taller in height." Apparently, these are the "qualities" that Vergara spoke so eloquently about. The martial sport of pankration continues to misstate its Olympic status (see SportsLetter, September 2001). On the Team USA Federation of Pankration Athlima website, President John Townsley claimed, "Pankration will make its debut at Olympia on August 17, 2004. We are using the site of the ancient Games just a few hundred feet from the place from the Olympic Flame is lighted every four years, at the place where in 648 B.C., ancient pankration athletes fought for the Olive Wreath, glory and the title Olympian . . . we are the only new sport to be allowed a demonstration in 2004. We will still have to cross every T, dot every I, jump through every hoop and cut through fire to become a Medal Sport in future Olympic Games, but the ground work is now in place." In truth, the IOC recognized no demonstration sports at the Athens Olympic Games. Move over Vince McMahan . . . "Bodyslamming for God" just might be the newest trend in professional wrestling. Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Bo Emerson reports that the Georgia-based Ultimate Christian Wrestling organization stages regular wrestling cards to "get people inside the gospel tent." UCW founder Rob Fields, a high-school English teacher who doubles as "Rob Adonis" in the ring, bans blood, profanity, rude gestures, and bikini-clad ring girls during these matches. "It's live and loud and in your face, but it's something you can bring your mom to," Fields says about the matches that "alternate with testimony, gospel and prayer." Add wrestling . . . Another Christian wrestling organization is the Rockwall, Texas-based Christian Wrestling Federation. According to its website, its mission is "to be a Christian outreach ministry that shares the love of Jesus Christ, through wrestling events around the world." The CWF also offers instructional classes for aspiring professional wrestlers. "We will teach you everything from mat wrestling to high flying moves and how to work the mic . . . All trainees must attend and participate in Bible Studies, ring practice (twice a week) and event setup."
Baby Face . . . Former boxing champ Jimmy "Baby Face" McLarnin recently passed away at the age of 96. Obituaries about "Baby Face" extolled his punching power. Boxing historian Bert Sugar suggested that the term "best pound for pound" fighter started with McLarnin, not "Sugar" Ray Robinson. But, both The New York Times (November 10, 2004) and the Los Angeles Times (November 27, 2004) made the same mistake in their obituaries of McLarnin, published more than two weeks apart. In the New York Times, Jack Cavanaugh wrote that "Despite an outstanding record that included victories over Fidel LaBarba, Jackie Fields, Billy Petrolle (the Fargo Express), Pancho Villa, Al Singer, Louis Kaplan and Sammy Mandell, McLarnin did not get a shot at the welterweight title until May 29, 1933, in his 71st professional fight." Los Angeles Times boxing writer Steve Springer noted, "Today, if a fighter has a spectacular record after 15 or 20 fights, he begins demanding a title fight. In McLarnin's day, however, with only one title in each weight division and far fewer weight categories, a fighter could spend his career waiting for a precious title shot. McLarnin nearly did, fighting 70 bouts before getting his opportunity against [Young] Corbett." Actually, McLarnin's first title shot came well before his 71st professional bout. In 1928, five years before McLarnin knocked out Corbett in one round to win the welterweight title in 1933, he unsuccessfully challenged Sammy Mandell for the lightweight title. "Nat Fleischer's All-Time Ring Book" (1941) shows the 1928 title bout as McLarnin's 39th fight. The website www.boxrec.com indicates that it was his 43rd. McLarnin lost his first title bout, though he defeated Mandell in two non-title rematches. Add Baby Face . . . Both Fleischer's book and boxrec.com agree that McLarnin did not have 71 or more pro fights. Fleischer's number is 60; the website says 68. Last add Baby Face . . . The oldest living boxing champ in the world is Germany's Max Schmeling, who will turn 100 next year. SportsLetter noted in its last issue that the 20-plus doping incidents reported in conjunction with the Athens Olympic Games represented only a small percentage of all recent doping violations in international sport. In fact, during the twelve-month period between the September 3, 2003 raid on BALCO's offices and the close of the Olympic Games on August 29, 2004, more than 250 athletes were reported to have tested positive, were arrested by civil authorities for possession of performance enhancing drugs or in some other way ran afoul of doping controls. The list of athletes includes world and Olympic champions as well as sub-elite athletes. There are teenagers, masters competitors, and athletes from every region of the world. The penalties imposed ranged from public warnings to lifetime bans. Several athletes were punished for using recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, but the overwhelming majority of incidents involved performance enhancing drugs. For more detail on the criteria used to compile the list see the small print following the table.
Small print: This list reflects published news stories and
reports issued by sports organizations in the year following the
BALCO raid. If SportsLetter did not find information on the nature
of an athlete's violation, we left the box blank. In some cases,
the tests and infractions may have taken place prior to September
2003, but the first reports appeared after that date.
Also included are a handful of cases in which a violation
was reported well before September 2003, but was not definitively
resolved until after the BALCO story broke (e.g. the cross country
skiers Johann
Muehlegg
and Olga Danilova, who were stripped of their 2002 Olympic medals). If SportsLetter was aware of a case in which
an athlete was reported in violation during the twelve-month period,
but later was exonerated, the name does not appear on the list. Also, excluded are names of people who tested positive during the
period, but were not reported until after the Athens Olympic Games
(e.g. Tyler Hamilton). Several
entries above refer to "un-named athletes."
We have tried not to double-count athletes whose names were
not included in initial reports of a positive test, but were later
revealed. We have tended to use the drug and violation terminology
used by the reporting news article or sports agency. Finally, it should be noted that some of the
cases cited here are under appeal.
If you have corrections to the list or have questions about
it, please contact SportsLetter. Geoffrey
Ward Several techniques characterize Ken Burns' idiosyncratic filmmaking style: the super-slow-moving panning shots over black-and-white photographs, the judicious choice of music, and the savvy "talking heads" who steal the show (like Negro League star Buck O’Neil in "Baseball"). Another constant in Burns’ work, from "The Civil War" to "Jazz," are the writers whose intelligent words bring still images to life. Historian Geoffrey Ward has been one of Burns’ go-to writers since 1984, when he consulted on the film "The Shakers: Hands to Work and Hearts to God." His numerous writing credits for Florentine Films — the name of Burns’ production company — include "The Civil War" (1990), for which he won an Emmy; "Baseball" (1994), and another Emmy; and "Jazz" (2000). Born in Ohio, Ward graduated from Oberlin College before becoming the senior picture editor at the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He then co-founded and edited Audience Magazine before serving as the editor of American Heritage Magazine from 1977 to 1982. He turned to writing books in the 1980s. He is the author of "A First-Class Temperament: The Emergence of Franklin Roosevelt," nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, and has co-written several books with Ken and/or Ric Burns, including "The Civil War: An Illustrated History" and "Baseball: An Illustrated History." His latest project with Burns is "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson." The two-part documentary, which airs on PBS stations on January 17-18, 2005, examines the turbulent life and times of boxing’s first African-American heavyweight champ. Ward has also completed a full-length biography of Johnson, what his publisher (Knopf) describes as "the first full-scale biography of Johnson in more than 20 years." In the Washington Post, reviewer Bruce Schoenfeld writes that Ward "has drawn a portrait of a fascinating figure, whose oversized personality fills every page." Hard at work on his next project with Burns — what he describes as "the last episode of a series about World War II," to be called "The War" — Ward, 64, spoke with SportsLetter via telephone from his home in New York City. Geoffrey Ward: After I left American Heritage, Ken needed someone to look at the rough cut of his film on the Shakers. I went up and did that, and he asked if I had ever thought of writing a film. After that, I wrote "Huey Long" for him - and it was great fun. That was 21-22 years ago. SL: What’s the difference between writing books and writing for documentary films? GW: Film is a narrative medium, and so are books. But they’re very different forms of narrative story-telling. With books, you can put in everything you run across in your research. With film, you have to learn to be very spare. SL: Was the Jack Johnson project your idea or Ken Burns’? GW: It was neither of ours. Dave Schaye, who worked with Ken on "Baseball," came to him a long time ago - I think it was over 10 years ago — with the idea. We did some other things in the interim, but it was an idea we always kept on the back-burner because of Dave’s enthusiasm for the project. SL: When did you start researching and writing for this project? GW: I wrote the script two-plus years ago. As soon as I finished, I started in on the book. I got real interested in this guy and just read through mountains of material. SL: You co-wrote books based on "The Civil War" and "Baseball" shows with Ken Burns. How come you didn’t co-write this book with him? GW: The books we’ve done together have always been illustrated histories. Initially, with Jack Johnson, we thought of doing an illustrated history, but this guy is so interesting that we felt he deserved the full treatment. And Knopf agreed. SL: Was it difficult to find photos of Jack Johnson? GW: No, we found plenty because during his prime he was the most famous black man on earth. Everything he did was covered thoroughly and was captured on film. I just wish we could have used more photographs in the book. SL: What’s it like to work with Ken Burns? GW: It’s a pleasure because I’m a big believer in public history. Today, so many people get their information from television. These documentaries — this body of work — give ordinary people access to a reliable source of history. SL: How long does the process take? GW: Basically, I take a couple of months to write the script. We do the interviews separately and fold them into the script. Meanwhile, the staff starts searching for images. Usually, they try to find images to match the words, although very occasionally we will change something to match an image they’ve found. The average documentary takes 2 ½ years to make, with the editing and the score. SL: With the Jack Johnson project, how did you find primary research material about his life? GW: Over the course of his life, he wrote four autobiographies. I was just the second historian to have access to the one that was published in France, in magazine and in book form. I also got very lucky. Through Tim Rives, an archivist at the National Archives office in Kansas City, I was able to read through material Johnson wrote in his own hand while he was a prisoner at Leavenworth. All of that material is in the book because it is so clearly his voice. He wrote about everything in his life up to when he won the title. Then I think he got bored with the project. But in that material is where I found what I believe is the real key to his character. He wanted people to know that he was, first and foremost, "a pure-blooded American" whose ancestors were born here. And, that’s how he acted all his life — he saw no reason to accept any limitations on himself. Everyone knows about the book Johnson did in 1927, "In the Ring and Out," written with a hack ghost-writer. That’s the one that gets cited all the time — and it’s probably the least reliable. SL: Were there parts of his life that were difficult to research? GW: I wish I could have found out more about the women who married him and the women who traveled with him. About all we know about them is that they married him; their fame was that they were his companions. SL In your research, did you watch any of the previous documentaries produced about Johnson? GW: I didn’t look at them. I had seen them years ago, except for the one that Miles Davis wrote the music for. I don’t like to look at films about the subject we’re working on because every film requires narrative choices. There are an infinite number of stories to tell. So, I don’t like to see them before we create our own film. I looked at endless footage of Johnson in action hundreds of times. What’s great about the magic of digitalization is that now we can view the fight footage much better than previously. Before, we had to take people’s word that Johnson talked to opponents while they were fighting. Now, in the film on PBS, you can see him doing that. It’s magnificent. SL: Do films of all his fights exist? GW: There’s footage of all of the big fights once he became champ — Burns, Jeffries, Willard. Unfortunately, there’s no footage of him when he fought other black fighters, like Sam Langford. That’s a shame. SL: Was there anyone that you interviewed who personally knew Johnson or had seen him fight? GW: No. We didn’t find anyone who had seen him fight. SL: You write that he was the most celebrated and reviled African-American of his age: why did he so upset white America? GW: I think it’s largely because of his sex life. He not only consorted with lots of women, but he was with numerous white women. He married three of them and traveled with half a dozen others. At that time, that was enough to get you hanged. There was a crazy courage to the life he led. Of course, he was just acting the way that other heavyweight champions and athletes acted — it was just that he was black. John L. Sullivan was surrounded by women, he traveled with women who weren’t his wife, he drank too much and beat up women. [Jack] Dempsey married a prostitute. Babe Ruth worked his way through whore-houses. But they were white, and no journalist would write about their behavior. SL: You point out that many blacks viewed Johnson unfavorably. Why? G: I think for a number of reasons. Most of the objections were that his behavior would rub off on them and they would be hated and vilified because of it. He wasn’t interested in being a representative hero-role model because he didn’t see himself as a part of any group. He was Jack Johnson. SL: Johnson broke through the "color line" in that, previously, no white heavyweight champ would fight black opponents. Was John L. Sullivan the Cap Anson of boxing? GW: That’s a good parallel — or else Cap Anson was the John L. Sullivan of baseball. In sports, all the doors were closing for blacks at the same time. Sullivan was the first to make it a matter of racial principle, but really he was afraid to be beaten by a black boxer like Peter Jackson. He and his successors, including Jim Corbett, who fought Jackson before he became champion, managed to duck black contenders for 22 years. SL: What was Jack London’s role in Johnson’s career? Was he the "worst" of the white commentators against Johnson? GW: No. London wasn’t near the worst. The standard view was much worse: cartoonists who drew Johnson depicted him as an ape. London was a socialist, but he was very much of his times. The actual tone of his writing is less blatantly, hopelessly racist than others. It’s just that he was a better writer. SL: Pundits have called the two Louis-Schmeling fights the most significant heavyweight fights of the century: How does that match-up compare with Johnson versus Jim Jeffries? GW: Everything’s always the greatest and the biggest in sports — and especially in boxing. I never make claims — there are lots of fights of the century, including the "Thrilla in Manila" and Ali-Foreman in Zaire — but up to its time, Johnson-Jeffries was the most important fight there had ever been. There were something like 300 reporters in Reno, and the wire accounts of the fight went all over the world. As for Louis-Schmeling, the first fight was not that big a deal even though the result shook up boxing because it was an upset. The second one, of course, was more than just a fight, and it ranks among the biggest sports events of all-time. SL: Your description of Johnson before the fight — and, in contrast, Jeffries’ dour demeanor — reminded me of the descriptions of Ali before he fought Sonny Liston and George Foreman. GW: You bet, including Ali, when he’s sparring, doing a running commentary. That’s what Johnson would do: ‘Here Johnson throws a left, then comes the right.’ Ali came to that separately, but when he learned of Johnson, he became this huge figure in his mind. He once told a reporter, ‘You think I’m bad? Well, Jack Johnson was the baddest cat of them all.’ Ali went to see the play "The Great White Hope," with James Earl Jones as Jack Johnson, on Broadway, and he was just bowled over. He said something like, ‘If you took the women out of this play and replaced it with religion, that’s my story.’ It’s interesting because most people don’t know that this was the second Broadway play based on Johnson’s life. Back in 1926, in a play called "Black Boy," Paul Robeson played the character that was based on Johnson. SL: In 1913, Johnson was brought down by federal authorities via the Mann Act: Was he guilty by the letter of the law or was the entire case trumped up? GW: It depends on how you define "immoral conduct," but even his worst enemies never accused him of pimping. They didn’t have any evidence for that, and that’s essentially what he was put away for. It didn’t matter what he said, the Justice Department had him set up. They put him away because of racism, not justice. When he was in prison, he tried to win parole. After a hearing, the Leavenworth Parole board recommended that he should be paroled. But the Justice Department invented stuff to deny him parole. They just made up stuff. SL: Ken Burns has begun an effort to win a presidential pardon for Johnson’s conviction — what’s the status of that? GW: With Senator John McCain, the Senate resolution has passed. It now goes to the House. With this administration, I don’t know about its chances. A posthumous presidential pardon has only been awarded once before. SL: While Johnson was in exile, he fought and lost the title to Jess Willard. You believe that the fight was on the level and not fixed — why? GW: All anyone remembers from that fight is the famous still photograph of him lying on the ground shielding his face. It was an image that hung in white bars across America for years. That’s because the films of the fight were not allowed to be shown. The interstate shipment of films was illegal — a law prompted entirely by Johnson because no one wanted to see a black man beat up a white man. But that image is just one frame of a long sequence. In the film of the fight, you can see that he didn’t want to go down — he was clutching at Willard and trying to stay up. When he got up, he didn’t know where he was. So I think that’s pretty good evidence that he was beaten up by a younger man who was much larger than he was. SL: How would you rate Johnson as a boxer? Was he a great fighter or was he overrated? GW: He was a great fighter. The proof of that comes from [Ring Magazine editor] Nat Fleischer, who saw every heavyweight champ in action from Jim Corbett to Muhammad Ali. To Fleischer, Jack Johnson was the greatest he ever saw. He was smaller than today’s athletes — Willard was too big for him, and I don’t know whether he could have handled someone as large as Lennox Lewis. But he was so skilled as a boxer — he was a master at defense who could adjust to any style — and he was a master of psychology. As Stanley Crouch put it, "He made his opponent a participant in his own ass-whipping." SL: How would you compare him to, say, Joe Louis and Mike Tyson? GW: Comparing fighters from different eras is impossible to do because the style of boxing has changed so much over the years. Because Johnson fought just after the bare-knuckles era, there was a lot of wrestling around in the ring that the referees didn’t break up. Johnson had a weapon for that: he had a wonderful uppercut that he could throw with no room at all — what we call today "hitting on the break." He certainly would have beaten Tyson. What he knew best in the ring was how to find the psychological chink on the other guy’s armor. He knew what to say to the other guys to drive them nuts. Plus, Tyson is not very large physically. Johnson thought he could beat Joe Louis in part because he knew what Louis did wrong in the ring. After Louis would throw his left jab, he tended to drop his arm coming back, allowing a fast opponent to come over the top with his right hand and hit him in the jaw. In the first Louis-Schmeling fight, Johnson predicted that Schmeling would win and made a lot of money betting against Louis. Johnson hated Jack Blackburn, Louis’ trainer. They had a long-standing grudge. In 1930, Johnson tried to become Louis’ trainer. He was looking for a meal ticket. They turned him away and insulted him. They told Louis to act as much as possible unlike Jack Johnson, to become the anti-Jack Johnson. So Johnson went around denigrating Louis, and in so doing lost a lot of his black following. SL: Do you consider Johnson a civil rights advocate? GW: No. He was a civil rights symbol against his will. He saw boxing for what it was: two guys fighting each other in the ring. The rest of the world saw it as blacks and whites fighting each other. He saw that as stupid. But he was a great seller of seats. He knew that fight fans who could afford to buy tickets were almost all white, and they wanted to see whites beating up blacks. SL: How should we remember Johnson? GW: To me, it’s not a boxing legacy. What saves him from his flaws is his unbelievable courage and audacity. I’m convinced that he was the most audacious American who ever lived. At his fights, there were thousands of white people on hand shouting crap at him and praying that he would lose. He went ahead and fought the best and walked out with his head held high. You’ve got to admire that spirit.
Amy Love Amy Love began her career in women’s sports at early age. When she was nine, she was banned from playing soccer on a local all-star team because she was a girl. Her family decided to sue the team, and the case was settled in Love’s favor. After graduating from Texas Tech University (and gaining a MBA from Harvard University), Love worked for, among others, Haagen-Dazs, Booz Allen & Hamilton, and Navigation Technologies. In 1997, she started Real Sports, a bi-monthly magazine devoted to women’s sports. Since 1997, numerous competitors in the field — including Sports Illustrated Women and Conde Nast Sports for Women — have folded, but Love soldiers on. Real Sports now exists as a subscription-only, monthly e-zine, with an annual print edition entitled "Most Important Moments in Sports" Love, 38, recently became CEO of Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives, a Palo Alto-based networking and educational organization. We spoke by telephone as she prepared to leave for a conference in France. — David Davis SportsLetter: Growing up, what sports did you play? Amy Love: I played soccer, baseball and basketball. Our family moved around a lot because my father worked for Coca-Cola. SL: How did your involvement in the lawsuit come about? AL: This was back in 1974, when I was nine, and we had just moved back from Brazil to Danville, California. I had signed up for the Little League baseball team and had played on the team with no problems. Then I signed up for the all-star soccer team and made the team. I was the only girl on the team. But when the roster was posted, my name was circled and next to it was the word 'Unacceptable.' We were told that the all-star team was reserved for boys, and that if I was on the team, the team would have to forfeit all its games. When my parents sat me down and explained what was happening, it became this defining, poignant moment. I asked them, `What does the fact that I’m a girl have to do with my ability to play sports?’ And they realized that they didn’t have an answer to that. After all, my brother had the opportunity to play whatever sport he wanted. My parents hired lawyers from the Equal Rights Advocates law center and filed a class action lawsuit on my behalf in federal court — Love v. Steele (California Youth Soccer Association). We got an injunction that allowed me to play while the lawsuit was proceeding. It was settled in our favor mid-way through the trial, and 12 other girls throughout the state were allowed to play. SL: What was it like to go through that experience at an early age? AL: It wasn’t easy. We held a big press conference and then had to deal with the media, from Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News to The Star tabloid. Some of the media was negative. One headline said, ‘Amy Love Ruins Soccer.’ My family was under a lot of public scrutiny. We got death threats. At the time, it was made very clear that the lawsuit was about more than Amy Love. We wanted to do what was right for girls so that if they have the skills, they should be able to play at the highest level. That was a fundamental and important direction we took. SL: How do you view the lawsuit today? AL: I’m very proud when I see the success of the women’s national [soccer] team and hear that many of the women played on boys teams when they were younger. We set the bar to allow really talented female soccer players to play with the best possible players. At the same time, in 1999, the exact same city, Danville, California, voted to disband the girls all-star team because parents didn’t feel girls should be so competitive. Two weeks later, the team was reinstated, but it shows that any time you try to provide opportunity for social change, it takes time. It seems as if progress forward is always followed by retreat. Look at what happened after the1996 Olympics, which held huge promise and expectations for women’s sports. Since 1997, seven women’s sports leagues have folded. SL: When did you decide to start a women’s sports magazine? AL: I first looked into starting a magazine in 1993. I’m a Texas Tech grad, and in the early 1990s Texas Tech had Sheryl Swoops breaking every imaginable basketball record and leading the team to the NCAA title. But there was no media coverage about her. She was virtually ignored. So I wrote a business plan for a magazine, but I felt it wasn’t the right time. I wrote another business plan in 1995, right before the 1996 Olympics. I put it on hold again because it was announced that Sports Illustrated Women and Conde Nast Sports for Women would begin publishing. SL: What was your reaction to those magazines? AL: I thought the timing was right. In 1996, with the Atlanta Olympics and the success of the national soccer team, women’s sports were seen as having huge promise. There was stated corporate and advertising interest to support women’s sports. But, clearly, they were not what the marketplace wanted or desired. SL: Why didn’t those magazines succeed? AL: I can’t speak for the competition. You can look at the editorial copy and images and draw your own inferences. The first cover of Sports Illustrated Women showed Sheryl Swoops pregnant, holding the basketball like a waitress. The headlines were: "The Coach Is a Sexual Predator," "Why I Fell for Grant Hill," "Tonya and Nancy." SL: What did you like about them? What did you dislike about them? AL: I liked that both SI and Conde Nast were willing to take a risk. They were willing to put their money into play — I’ve read that Conde Nast invested something like $70 million and SI about $30 million. They were helping to create a category, and there is nothing better than competition. I disliked their unwillingness to stay the course long-term. That type of investment requires time and long-term commitment. You have to be willing to balance the short-term financial realities with the long-term financial opportunity. The NBA and Sports Illustrated had decades to make it; the WNBA and SI Women have not been afforded the same luxury. SL: What was your approach for Real Sports? AL: We have had a different approach. Our very first cover showed Tennessee’s Michelle Snow dunking a basketball. That’s who we are. Our niche is the real representation of today’s female athlete. We don’t print posed shots because we want to reflect athletes as who they are when they are performing. We are a sports magazine, not a women’s magazine. Our audience are fans of women’s sports - and the fans are men and women. SL: When did you change to an online format? AL: We migrated to a monthly e-zine about a year ago, after the WUSA folded. That left one women’s professional sports league - the WNBA - so we made the shift because there is not a critical mass of women’s professional team sports to cover. SL: Why did you change to an online format? AL: There isn’t a broad enough audience to support a print magazine for women’s sports. There lacks sufficient advertising support. As a result, we thought the most cost-effective way to keep the brand visible for hard-core fans of women’s sports was online. I’m proud of the fact that we have remained consistent and pure with our editorial approach. Even with all the changes in women’s sports since 1996, we continue to provide information to fans of women’s sports. It’s important that we continue our mission because you can’t pick up a newspaper or watch the evening sports news and find much coverage of women’s sports. SL: How much content do you publish online? AL: We run monthly updates from our contributors, with a heavy emphasis on basketball and soccer. Team sports are our core. We also have an annual printed edition. It’s a pretty nice value. SL: Do you think the U.S. will ever support a print magazine devoted to women’s sports? AL: I hope so. It’s why we’re still in the game. I believe the pendulum swings in the marketplace, and it’s my expectation that Real Sports will eventually re-launch into a national print magazine. That is why we kept the brand going online. SL: With its recent 30th anniversary, Title IX was in the news. Have high school and college sports programs fulfilled their potential for women? AL: Some yes, some no. The majority of programs are not in compliance with Title IX in part because there is still a lot of misunderstanding about what the legislation seeks to do. That the commission report had two strong dissenting opinions reflects that there’s still a lot of work ahead to level the playing field. SL: What more needs to be done? AL: The issue we need to focus on is the issue of compliance. Some schools are following through with the expectations and requirements of the law. Many others are not. That imbalance is creating an un-level playing field among the schools. SL: Val Ackerman is leaving the WNBA: How did she do on the job? AL: I think Val did a tremendous job in a very public and scrutinized position. She had to carry the weight of ensuring that a professional women’s sports league survive and thrive. I applaud her for her vision and commitment. SL: What’s your assessment about the WNBA to date? AL: I think the league is learning who its fan base is and who it needs to target to expand that base. I think the league is learning how to carry its message to corporations. Is there room for continued growth? Absolutely. SL: Would you call it successful? AL: I think it’s successful in that it’s a viable professional women’s sports league. Certainly, there is room for improvement — for instance, the league needs to decide what are the right cities and locations to place teams. Long-term, the league needs to develop an eco-system that will entice corporate sponsorships and expand the fan base. They need to work to bring the players to life and to build a stronger connection with fans. That will translate into broader media coverage. SL: The women’s professional soccer league folded last year: after all the momentum from the Olympic Games and the World Cups, what went wrong? AL: I applaud John Hendricks and his investment team for their risk to launch the league. Time continues to be women’s sports’ worst enemy. It takes time to build awareness and interest and to get into the public psyche. You can’t expect miracles to occur, let alone awareness and interest, in just three years. SL: Do you think the league can be revived? AL: I’m cautiously optimistic and would love to see it revived. SL: What has to change? AL: Whoever takes over needs to line up the right corporate financial runway to develop the league. They must line up the right sponsors, advertisers, and media partners. SL: During the Olympic Games, there was much controversy over the number of women athletes posing in the nude or semi-clothed, in calendars and magazines. Is this is a good or a bad trend? AL: I think women who have worked all of their lives as athletes realize that they have a small window to be on stage, to break through the clutter and gain attention. Some women have chosen that as their avenue — and that speaks volumes about the pressures to break through. SL: You publish an annual edition with the "most important story" of the year: What is the most important story of 2004? AL: Nice try, but I can’t let you know that. You have to subscribe. Ring out the Old Year with Ausca, the mascot of the Commonwealth Youth Games, held November 29-December 4, 2004 in Bendigo, Australia. Ausca, we’re told, is a sugar glider and is not to be confused with a koala.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AAFLA © 2004 Reproduction of SportsLetter is encouraged with credit to the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
