April 2005 Issue :

	Short Takes
	Hearings on Doping in Sport Are Not New on Capitol Hill
	April Fools' Story Snags Boston Globe Reporter
	World-Class Sauna Competitors & Uncovering the Mysteries of Rock, Paper, Scissors
	NFL Films Music Release
	What's New in Sports Films?
	Whither Michigan Hockey?
	Interviews
	Steve Kettmann, ghostwriter of "Juiced," discusses doping, Bud Selig and working with Jose Canseco.
	Author Jean Hastings Ardell talks about her new book, "Breaking Into Baseball: Women and the National Pastime."
	Publish or Perish
	Recent research on putting for dough, Olympic mascots, American football in Europe and child labor law applied to Freddy Adu.
	Mascot
	Meet "Rocky the Rock Wallaby," mascot of the Arafura Games since 1991.

Déjà vu all over again . . . Does this quote sound familiar? "We meet this morning to hear the testimony on the proper and improper use of drugs in athletic competition and the related issue of the adequacy of current efforts to curb the improper use of drugs by athletes. We are particularly interested in these concerns as they pertain to college, high school and amateur athletes, although, to be totally consistent, I think it is proper to pursue the use or abuse, as it may exist or not exist, in the professional ranks as well." So said Senator Birch Bayh, of Indiana, at the opening of Senate hearings held by the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. The date of the hearings was . . . June 18, 1973.

Add hearings . . . Among the athletes who testified was sprinter Eddie Hart, who told the committee, "The reason for athletes using the drugs was simply because their competitors were using the drug, and in order to obtain an equal advantage, they would take the drug themselves." Sound familiar?

Last hearings . . . Speaking of familiar sounding, this exchange was between Senator Bayh and Dr. Carl S. Blyth of the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports.

Dr. Blyth - I think the State and local medical societies have to take a firmer view against the unauthorized use of drugs. I think that they have to have some guts about it and stop it where they find it. I will give you one example…

Senator Bayh - Why should that take guts?

Dr. Blyth - Courage then.

Senator Bayh - Why should that take anything more than a normal amount of determination to stop this kind of thing?

Dr. Blyth - Too frequently we turn our back to it I guess.

Senator Bayh - Because by gosh, if there is any area in which there is a groundswell of public opinion, it is with regard to stopping drug traffic, drug abuse, drug misuse. If there is anyplace we ought to be able to command enough energy to get the job done, it ought to be the area of athletics, which is supposed to — and I think basically does — epitomizes the finest in competition and good health and living practices. Do we have a problem there of some people who are timid in enforcing the prohibition of drug abuse in this area?

Dr. Blyth - Well, the implication in these kinds of hearings is that there is a problem. I am not convinced that the problem is as serious as we have been led to believe in the newspapers.

Fool me once . . . Some twenty years ago, author George Plimpton fooled many sports experts with his brilliant Sports Illustrated profile of Sidd Finch, a make-believe New York Mets phenom, published on April Fools' Day. Not everyone learned from that lesson. This year, competitive cycling magazine VeloNews published an April Fools' story stating that International Cycling Union President Hein Verbruggen was resigning and that World Anti-Doping Agency head Dick Pound was going to replace him. Four days later, the Boston Globe's Olympic beat-writer John Powers bit on the story and reported that Pound was "likely to be named president [of the UCI] as of the end of June." The following day, the Globe, citing a "reporting error," published a correction.

Add fool me . . . The VeloNews byline credited the article to one "Philippe Farceur."

Sweatin' it out . . . We're not sure which of these two sporting competitions excited us more: the 6th annual World Sauna Championships, held in, naturally, Heinola, Finland, or the International Rock Paper Scissors Championships, held in Toronto. Each of these competitions has its unique rules and traditions. Indeed, despite the laid-back reputation of sauna users, the rules are strict. According to the website, "Before going to the sauna the competitors will have to wash up in the facilities provided by the organizers. The competitor must wear a normal swimsuit. In men's swimsuit the length of the trouser leg must be under 200 millimeters (measured from the middle seam of the trousers). The width of the women's swimsuits sleeves must be under 50 millimeters and there can be no collars in the swimsuits. . . . The competitors will have to sit in the sauna with buttocks and thighs on the seat. Posture must be erect; forearms must stay on the knees and arms have to be in an upright position. Touching skin with hand is forbidden. Disturbing the other competitors in the sauna in any way is strictly forbidden." And you thought the PGA were sticklers.

Add sweatin' . . . The RPS, meanwhile, is steeped in tradition. The organization's website, reports that the World RPS Society traces its roots to the Paper Scissors Stone Club, founded in London in 1842. An article in Think Three Magazine , "the leading periodical resource on RPS strategy, culture and style since it began publishing in the early 1920's," states that the organization has been unable to discover RPS' origins. That has led to problems. The issue of "which culture actually 'invented' the game has been considered by many to be the underlying cause for several of today's most heated national rivalries on the World RPS Pro circuit." We're pretty sure this isn't an April Fools article.

Department of Bad Timing . . . For its 2005 Major League Soccer preview issue, Soccer America magazine ran a split cover featuring two prominent forwards: D.C. United's Freddy Adu and the Los Angeles Galaxy's Carlos Ruiz. Unfortunately, the Galaxy traded Ruiz to FC Dallas before the season started.

Mowing them down . . . Lawn mower and engine manufacturer Briggs & Stratton is sponsoring a program called "Diamonds in the Rough." For the second consecutive year, the company is soliciting 150-word essays from children ages 7 to 12 about their local ball fields. The company's website says winners are eligible for "$5,000 worth of refurbishment to their local ball field" in the following cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tampa and Washington D.C.

Add mowing . . . One grand prize winner will be "awarded $20,000 to refurbish their baseball field, as well as a clinic from Major League Baseball Hall of Famers, Lou Brock and Carlton Fisk." That would be the Lou Brock who played much of his career as a St. Louis Cardinal on an artificial surface.

The long wait is over . . .The NFL recently released "Autumn Thunder: 40 Years of NFL Films Music," a 10-CD package that features a whopping 182 tunes. With such song titles as "Forearm Shiver," "Gut Pride," and "Headcracker Suite," it's obvious that "Autumn Thunder" isn't for the faint of heart. As Tom Hedden, the NFL Films' director of music, put it, "Whether it's one of Sam Spence's classic folk-song inspired tracks from the late 1960s or one of Dave Robidoux's massive heart-pounders from the late '90s, this music is designed to grab football fans by the subconscious and drag them right into the middle of the play!"

And, action . . . In January, acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns returned to PBS with "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson," a two-part documentary about the former heavyweight champ. The film confirmed the obvious: the "jockumentary" is in vogue. Last year, HBO released "Hitler's Pawn," about Jewish high-jumper Gretel Bergmann's unsuccessful struggle to make Germany's Olympic team in 1936. This year, two acclaimed sports docs have been released — "Watermarks," directed by Yaron Zilberman, about Jewish women athletes in Austria during the 1930s, and "Dust to Glory," directed by Dana Brown, about the Baja 1000 off-road race — with a third, "A League of Ordinary Gentlemen," about pro bowlers, due out in May.

Add action . . . Two sports-themed docs were among the entries at the recent 2005 Sundance Film Festival in Utah. "Murderball," directed by Henry-Alex Rubin and Dana Adam Shapiro, is about "quadriplegics who play full-contact rugby in 'Mad Max'-style wheelchairs — overcoming unimaginable obstacles to compete in the Paralympic Games in Athens, Greece." The film won Sundance's American Documentary Audience Award. Also premiering at Sundance was "Ring of Fire: The Emile Griffith Story," directed by Dan Klores and Ron Berger, a "story of violence, love, sex, politics and media centered around the life of Griffith, a six-time world welterweight champion." (The film will air on the USA Network in April.) Finally, according to Variety (September 16), SpikeTV network is now producing sports docs, including "Hardwood Dreams 2," which revisits players from Los Angeles' Morningside High — the focus of a 1994 documentary entitled "Hardwood Dreams," — ten years later, and "Viva Baseball," also directed by Klores, about Latino ballplayers.

Last action . . . Of course, documentaries rarely do well at the box-office. The top-grossing sports movie of 2004? "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," with $114 million.

Ice freeze . . . What's happening in Michigan? The Tigers have languished below .500 for more than a decade, the Lions have not made the playoffs since 1999 and the NBA champion Detroit Pistons played host to the "Malice at the Palace" brawl with the Indiana Pacers. Now, the fortunes of Michigan's college hockey teams, which have always ranked among the top in the nation, appear to be in decline. For the second consecutive season, no university from Michigan qualified for the men's NCAA Frozen Four. Previously, at least one Michigan team made it to the Frozen Four from 1991-1999, then from 2001-2003. The last time Michigan teams had a two-year absence from the Frozen Four was in 1982 and 1983.

STEVE KETTMANN

It's been called the "Ball Four" of the 21st Century. The controversial book "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits and How Baseball Got Big" (Regan Books), has been on every major best-seller list since its publication in February, in part because ballplayer-turned-author Jose Canseco, like "Ball Four's" Jim Bouton, a former pitcher, has dared to expose baseball's "dark side."
		This book may be purchased from Amazon.com

Indeed, Canseco's allegations about performance-enhancing drugs so roiled the sport that Congress called special hearings to investigate Major League Baseball's drug policy.

What few people know is that journalist Steve Kettmann is the ghostwriter of "Juiced." Kettmann was a staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle from 1990-1998, covering the Oakland A's as the paper's beat-writer from 1994-1998. His tenure coincided with Canseco for one year, 1997, during Canseco's second stint with the A's. Since leaving the newspaper, Kettmann had written extensively about steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs for such publications as the New York Times, the New Republic, and Wired.com. For Juiced, Kettmann interviewed Canseco over a period of several months, often meeting with the slugger at his San Fernando Valley home.

SportsLetter: How well did you know Jose Canseco when he played with the A's in 1997?

Steve Kettmann: A good friend of mine on the A's beat was a guy named Pedro Gomez, who at the time was covering the team for the Sacramento Bee and is now an on-air reporter for ESPN. Pedro had gone to high school with Jose in Miami, at Coral Park High, and so they knew each other. There were times in 1997 when Pedro and I would run into Jose on the road, and we would hang out and talk a bit. It was a little different than the whole routine of being a reporter and asking a ballplayer a question.

SL: What was your opinion of Canseco then?

SK: As a reporter, I remember being struck that Jose was a more interesting quote than most anyone I talked to. A much, much more interesting quote than Mark McGwire, for example, because he understood what a reporter wanted. timing was interesting because, previously with the A's, Jose had been the best player in baseball. By 1997, he wasn't anywhere near that. This was nothing like his 40-40 year [when Canseco had 40 home runs and 40 stolen bases]. He still cared as much about winning and losing, but he was aware that he was getting along in his career.

SL: When you were covering baseball then, did you suspect that many of the players were taking performance-enhancing drugs?

SK: When I started in 1994, I don't think steroids were on my radar at all. What I remember is one spring training, when Jason Giambi and Mark McGwire were both on the team and were very good friends, Giambi came to camp way thicker than the year before. It was like he had another layer on him. And, in front of us all at Papago Park [the A's facility in Arizona], McGwire joked about Giambi's "spare tire." At the time, every sportswriter — and even those of us who've reported on this issue a lot — went through the experience of having trouble putting it all altogether. There is just a part of you that always had trouble believing it.

One thing about baseball is that, even people who've never covered baseball think they're experts. I think it relates to a lot of us growing up with the sport. I played Little League for many years. I went to A's and Giants games with my brothers. You feel like you know the game. And the game that I knew had nothing to do with steroids. So, it always seemed like a foreign element — like, what does not belong in this picture. You mentally want to edit it out of the picture, even if you know it's there.

SK: The mentality [on a newspaper beat] is that your bosses don't want you to burn bridges. They want you, as a beat writer, to be the one that's around, to have access, to get answers to questions. They don't want you pushing the envelope on reporting. In no way is that an excuse. When I look back, I'm critical of myself — that I should have raised these questions more. I should have asked more and written more about it — and others should have as well. We should have definitely raised the question more. So, any criticism I make of anyone else has to start with criticism with myself.

For example, in 1997, I asked Jason Giambi directly about having used "andro" and what it was like taking it. He talked to me a little bit about it. He said it wasn't any big deal — he'd used it some and then he stopped. But I should have asked Giambi if he had used steroids. I should have said, "Have you experimented with anabolic steroids, Jason." He would have been mad. He might have refused to talk to me after that. He might have told other players not to talk to me. But I feel I should have done that.

I also remember during my first two weeks with the A's, I was talking with Mark McGwire. He looked me up and down and then urged me to try the MET-RX stuff he had in his locker. He meant it in a friendly way. The point is, if I had expressed more interest and looked into it and talked to him about it, I could have established a dialogue with him about supplements. I think there's a mind-set in sports-writing where people think if they've studied up on a player's on-base percentage and know who was the rookie of year in 1972, that they know a lot. Most good baseball reporters — including the ones whom I consider the best two, Roger Angell of the New Yorker and Buster Olney, now with ESPN The Magazine — talk about how much they don't know. If you remember how much you don't know and ask questions, then you would probably have asked questions about steroids and other performance enhancing drugs.

SL: In writing the book, you spent a lot of time with Jose: did you ever feel that he was doing it for the money or that he had an axe to grind?

SK: I have not seen any detailed information on Canseco's finances. But I never got a sense of him being in financial need. He lives in this mansion in Encino, where he just did all this work on the house, with a big waterfall and pool. He's living a very comfortable life and driving very nice cars. I also know, from other sources, that he's made some good investments over the years. Now, did he have an axe to grind? Canseco feels that he was made an example of by baseball to send a message to other players about steroids. He felt that he had been treated unfairly by people in baseball and that they had some things to answer for. A lot of people dispute his allegations as paranoid and delusional. But based on how defensive baseball has been on the steroid issue in the last few months, I don't think Canseco's position should be dismissed out of hand.

SL: Canseco has contradicted himself on a couple of points since the publication of the book - one point being his retreat from stating that steroids, if taken under a doctor's care, are okay to take. Has that hurt his credibility?

SK: My impression on that is that Canseco's position has evolved. I haven't spoken to him in a while — he's doing a reality TV show for VH-1. He and I had many conversations on this theme — about how, in the future, as we learn more about steroids, a large number of people who are in their 40s, 50s, and 60s will be using them in ways to be more youthful or have more physical vitality. On that narrow point, I think that his thinking hasn't changed very much.

Now, did his awareness of the dangers of steroids increase because of the experience of seeing parents of kids testifying about that? I think absolutely, and I think that's a very good thing. It's important to remember that Juiced starts with a warning about how teenagers should not use steroids, and that it's more dangerous than ever at that point in kids' lives. As far as Jose saying now that steroids are a mistake — I think that, in the future, he will walk a very narrow line in educating people about steroids, both in terms of their dangers and potential benefits.

SL: What part(s) of the book do you feel the media has ignored or overlooked?

SK: I was surprised that people mocked Canseco for expressing his feelings about what it's like growing up in the United States as a Latino. He felt that he was confronted with racism when he was a minor leaguer, and his sense of racism existing in U.S. culture and baseball shaped his sense of what he could accomplish in baseball. Some critics dismissed that out of hand, basing it on the fact that there had been other Latins in the game before him, but that doesn't take into consideration how much things have changed from when Jose was in high school to now.

In general, it was clear that as the book was being widely read, a lot of people were becoming a lot more aware about steroids. That was what I expected. But I thought that there would be a few people who would be interested in exploring some of the other things in the book. For example, Canseco told a number of stories about umpires, alleging that Roger Clemens used to get umpires starting times at exclusive golf courses as a way to curry favor with them. Other than maybe one reference, I saw very little written about that.

On another note, ballplayers have said to me and other reporters that the steroid element of the book wasn't much of a surprise. Everyone knew about that. There was some surprise at Canseco violating "the code" of the locker-room. Many players wish he had not been so frank in talking about the sex lives of ballplayers.

SL: The book caused Congress to hold hearings about Major League Baseball's drug policy: Did you feel that it was appropriate for Congress to hold the hearings?

SK: I can't speak to what factors led Congress to hold the hearings, but I think having some mechanism for greater accountability in baseball is probably a good thing. The mere fact that when Major League Baseball officials showed up and presented a policy on steroids that was at odds with what they had publicized before, that showed the hearings were useful. They first said that anyone caught using steroids would be suspended. All of a sudden, they were saying that the player would be suspended or face a fine. That showed a lot of people that baseball officials were used to being able to give an explanation without having to nail down their position.

SL: Do you feel that Major League Baseball would have started to get its house in order without Congress' prodding?

SK: MLB did start to get its house in order, but let's remember that it all started with Sen. John McCain and his efforts. Clearly, pressure from Washington is one of the major forces leading baseball to take stronger actions on steroids.

SL: Why do you think Major League Baseball was so slow to address the problem of steroids?

SK: I think it basically boils down to there being no commissioner. There was once a commissioner — Faye Vincent was the last commissioner. Bud Selig was an owner. He was put into power as a representative of the owners. He certainly isn't capable of much leadership.

SL: What did you think of Bud Selig's reaction to the allegations of widespread steroid use in Major League Baseball?

SK: I think Bud Selig has been less than truthful in talking about what he knew about steroids and when he knew it, and I think it's disappointing. I think that Bud Selig has been dealing from a position of strength — overall, baseball is doing great right now — but he's acting like he's dealing from a position of weakness.

I've kind of enjoyed the Selig style in some ways. He's friendly and he obviously loves baseball. But in thinking about the controversy enveloping baseball over the last few months, it's hard to imagine the NFL having its top official not stand front and center and be accountable. It seems as if Selig has only spoken on this in small sessions with reporters of his choosing or after he had been dragged kicking and screaming to the subject.

SL: Do you feel baseball's "dream season" of 1998 was a factor in Major League Baseball not dealing with the problem?

SK: To me, all conversation about steroids in baseball — and what anyone should have done about it — comes back to 1998. That is the key year. There obviously were steroids in baseball before then. But it was in 1998 when the character of the game was shaped by the steroid revolution in a way that was hard to ignore.

In a sense, steroid use brought about a revival of baseball, especially after so many people tuned out baseball after 1994 [when the World Series wasn't contested]. People have trotted out numbers to show that attendance didn't go up that much in '98 and that the summer of '98 didn't really help baseball at all. I just laugh at that. You couldn't get on a subway or talk to anyone without hearing everyone talking about it. Maybe it didn't translate directly into ticket sales, but as far as re-establishing a deep connection with baseball, the summer of '98 was very powerful.

Now, I'm not critical of anyone in baseball for what they did prior to '98. In some quarters it was seen as maybe not a bad thing to have the game more exciting - because of more home runs because of more muscle. When a thorough history is written of this whole period, I think most people will find that to be a pardonable response. But I think subsequent to that, there's been a real failure in being intellectually honest about the effects of steroids on baseball, positive and negative.

SL: How do you think baseball historians will look back on the "steroid era"? Should we throw out the records for this era?

SK: I think that the records should not be thrown out, and I don't think that asterisks should come into play. Baseball has had different eras. At one point in the 1960s, they lowered the mound.

In general, the reason why it's important right now for people like Bud Selig and others to delve into questions about the legacy of these recent years is precisely so that baseball historians can look back and say that this topic has been given an honest hearing. There shouldn't be this feeling of baseball having these dark secrets that they're desperately trying to hide. I don't see this as some kind of scandal. Performance-enhancing drugs have been a part of sport for a long time - and I think they always will be.

I believe that, far from hurting baseball, the controversy over steroids has helped the game. I compare it to when George Steinbrenner was making his name by firing managers and being on the back page of tabloids in New York all the time. A lot of people thought that was bad for the game. In fact, it got people more interested in baseball. It was part of raising baseball to a new level where people were really fascinated by it.

With steroids, if you're a real fan of a team or a real fan in general, I kind of doubt that your opinion about baseball will be wildly affected by hearing that large numbers of players were using steroids.

SL: Despite all of the problems, ticket sales are up and interest in baseball is strong: why do you believe this has happened?

SK: Under Bud Selig's leadership baseball did some things that were good for the game. I think the wild card really helped in markets where previously fans might have started checking out in July and August. It really helps people stay interested. I think the inter-league games have created match-ups that generate excitement. And, having written a book on the Red Sox and Yankees, the last two post-seasons have been all-time greats.

SL: What about Mark McGwire — is his reputation irreparably damaged?

SK: No, it's not. All Mark McGwire has to do is to speak out on steroids in a way that people find credible. If McGwire were to go on TV and say that at some point in his career he experimented with steroids and now regrets it, I think that a large number of fans would rally to his side. Look at Jason Giambi. He never really apologized for steroids, but he almost did and saw a lot of good will from fans. I think the threshold is very, very low. I think fans would be willing to take even a limited mea culpa as a sign of courage. If McGwire is never heard from again, then he has buried himself. Jose Canseco's book didn't do it; McGwire did it to himself.

SL: How about some of the other players mentioned in the book: how will history judge them?

SK: I think history will judge them harshly. I'm inclined to think that, sooner or later, the truth will come out, with the full legal consequences.

Another sportswriter, Howard Bryant, has a book coming out this summer called "Juicing the Game." I think that book will contribute to an understanding of the kinds of struggles that were going on behind the scenes related to steroids.

SL: Is Major League Baseball's current drug policy tough enough? What more can Major League Baseball do?

SK: To me, the main issue is human growth hormone, which is at least as important as steroids. The whole "juiced" thing that Canseco talks about is really HGH together with steroids. At best, baseball is talking about that they can develop a [urine] test to detect HGH by next year sometime. Right now, there's only a blood test for HGH, and it's unlikely that baseball players will ever agree to a blood test.

SL: What does the future look like for performance enhancing supplements?

SK: I think that, within five or ten years, we'll see more and more of gene therapy and designer steroids. They're constantly developing new designer steroids. I have no doubt that some of the highest-paid players in baseball right now are using designer steroids because they have tons of money and can pay for this cutting-edge, high-grade stuff.

SL: "Juiced" made number-one on the New York Times best-seller list, and yet your name isn't on the cover of the book. How does that feel, as a writer, to be deprived of that public credit?

SK: A lot of books are published every year that have ghostwriters who go uncredited. From the very first days of the project, it was my understanding that it would be that way. And I was completely fine with that.

From Newark Eagles co-owner Effa Manley and Brooklyn Dodgers super-fan Hilda Chester to minor league umpire Pam Postema and minor league pitcher Ila Borders, women have carved out a small but not insignificant niche within professional baseball. In her new book "Breaking Into Baseball: Women and the National Pastime" (Southern Illinois University Press), Southern California-based journalist Jean Hastings Ardell explores the many roles women have had in baseball, including as journalists, front-office executives, and fans.
		This book may be purchased from Amazon.com

— David Davis

SportsLetter: Did you play baseball growing up?

Jean Ardell: The only baseball I played was pickup baseball at the 78th Street Park in Jackson Heights in New York City — and that was totally unsupervised. I never played organized baseball as a child because Little League didn't permit girls to play until 1974, so I was ahead of my time. My great lament is that I didn't know that Bernice Gera, the umpire, lived in Jackson Heights. We never met although the bus I rode to school probably went right by her house.

SL: What position did you play?

JA: Second base. I believed that I would take Billy Martin's place at second base for the Yankees. My father never said, 'You're crazy, girls don't play baseball.'

SL: Was that a good thing that your father never discouraged you about that?

JA: Yes and no. I think it was good that he didn't discourage me. However, there's a reality check. If I had shown some talent, it would have been a good and kind thing to work with me and explain the real world, that if I was going to do this what I would face. I know Ila Borders quite well — she's gone farther than any woman ever did as a ballplayer. That's what her dad did with her — he always gave her the reality check.

SL: You write that your father was a huge baseball fan: how did his love of baseball influence you?

JA: He was a New York Giants fan, and just to annoy him I had to choose another team. I knew I could never pull off the Dodgers — he would never go to Brooklyn — so I rooted for the Yankees. During the 1950s, they were hot and could do no wrong. My father used to lecture me about the true meaning of being a fan, and not being a fair-weather fan. I parted company with the Yankees not because they started to lose, but because I moved to the other coast. They were so far away, so I've been with the Angels since the 1970s.

I learned about heartbreak through the Angels. As I sit here I have the two tickets that I bought for the World Series in 1986 [when the Angels were one out away from advancing to the Series before losing to the Boston Red Sox]. We were there the night before disaster struck, and as soon as they went back to Boston I knew they were in trouble. I never turned the tickets in.

SL: How would you describe your experience as a sportswriter?

JA: I was never a sportswriter. After realizing that I wasn't going to take Billy Martin's place at second base, I began to show some talent in writing in high school. One day, I came down and said to my father: "I've decided what I want to do. I want to be a sportswriter like Red Smith at the Herald Tribune." My father, who was a mild-mannered man from the mid-West, put down his glass of milk and said: 'No woman in this house is going into the locker-room.'

I was floored, and I didn't fight him on it. I studied journalism in college, then went on and did other stuff before eventually returning to write about baseball in the 1990s. I maybe could have been one of the early female sportswriters if I had fought for it.

SL: How difficult has it been for women to make it in the press box?

JA: Again, there's still the issue of the clubhouse. It's gotten a whole lot better, but every once in a while you get some really bad behavior by players — and that's not going to change.

SL: Why did you decide to write this book?

JA: I wasn't planning on doing a book. I was a free-lancer and loved the assignments I was getting. In February of 1992, I was sitting around thinking, "Gee, I think I'll do something about women in baseball." I thought I'd have to write fiction. I thought it would be a short book — a year of research and a year of writing, and I'd be done. It didn't work out that way. The 1990s wound up to be a very exciting decade for women in baseball. Ila Borders got a college scholarship, the Silver Bullets were playing, and A League of Their Own was a top-grossing film that sparked a lot of interest in women's baseball. So, I was lucky the book took a long time to develop because I think it's a richer book.

After I was working on it for a while and had an agent, baseball went on strike. So, we decided to hold off until a better time. When I got back into it, I was really taken with the subject. My book is not just a history of women that have been involved in baseball. It is a way of looking at how American women have fared over the last 150 years in our country - the barriers that were put up and what they did about that - through the prism of the game. Baseball has been used for so many other social causes; it's also a great way to understand about women.

SL: How would you describe the relationship between women and baseball?

JA: It's close. Women adore the game. That being said, there are still barriers there, and baseball has to know that. It's changing, but it's changing slowly. I really struggled with the tone of the book. I didn't want it to be a diatribe about all the bad things that have happened to the women who tried to play or tried to get involved. I wanted it to be more of a celebration of how they fought through that even though it wasn't pretty sometimes.

SL: You cover every angle of women in baseball, including owners, players and umpires: what surprised you most in your research?

JA: When I started out, I thought I wouldn't have much of a story to tell. That's why I thought I would have to write fiction. I had always seen myself as part of a small minority in my feelings for the game. What amazed me was how many women felt the same way. There's a huge number of them out there, and they didn't have a book to point to. I wanted to get on record what women had done in baseball, and I wanted to tell a narrative story more than just a history.

SL: The All-American Girls Baseball League and, more recently, the Silver Bullets, were short-lived efforts to jump start women's professional ball. Do you feel they got a fair shake? Why hasn't the concept of women playing baseball caught on?

JA: The All-American Girls League was an anomaly in our history. It happened during wartime, when many of the Major League ballplayers were overseas. The women were only invited to play because so many male players were gone. We're not in that boat today.

I think the Silver Bullets were a mistake. I don't think it makes any sense for women's teams to take on men's teams. There are people who will argue that women are just beginning to find their true strength, that they've been culturally trained to not be strong. Even so, if you stack up the world's women against the world's men, the men are going to be bigger and stronger overall.

No question, there are women out there that could physically compete against men. But if they're that strong and that talented, they're not going to play baseball. There's no glory in it, there's no money in it. Where are they going to go?

SL: Perhaps the most famous female player in recent years was Ila Borders. Do you feel she had a legitimate chance to succeed?

JA: First, it took a Mike Veeck to sign her. Your orthodox, traditional baseball man is not going to sign a woman. There's this thing about the way things are done in baseball — it's written in capital letters — and signing a woman is not one of them. So you need to find somebody who's an unorthodox figure. And, as the money gets bigger, it becomes harder and harder to find someone like that.

Getting back to Ila, I saw what she went through. I visited her when she was playing for the Duluth Dukes. I wound up driving her to Wisconsin when she was let go, and we talked a lot. She had her chance. It's hard to say if she was given a legitimate shot at making it because she was so emotionally beaten down by the barriers that were there. A lot of it was from other women — the players' wives and girl friends were always suspicious of her. It was a groupie thing — any woman that's around their player is going to be suspect. Also, when she was younger, the mothers of her opponents hated the idea of her striking out their sons. You know, they talk a lot about Little League fathers. Well, Little League mothers are just as bad.

A lot of the ballplayers — and especially those on her team — saw that she understood the game like few people do, and they respected her for that. She also knew how to keep her mouth shut about the stuff that went on off the field, and so they respected that.

SL: What is she's doing now?

JA: She's keeping a very low profile. She's been hired as a fire-fighter in Southern California. She's in her rookie year, and she's going through a lot of the same stuff that you do when you're a rookie in baseball.

SL: Do you think women will play in the Majors anytime soon?

JA: No, I don't. I think the odds are stacked against them. I think the women that are that talented go toward sports that are more hospitable to women, where they can get a college scholarship and get into the Olympics.

SL: Like softball?

JA: Most little girls are going to take the easier path, and I don't fault them for that. A talented girl who plays softball will get heavily recruited by colleges and, if she's lucky, get a full scholarship. The women that I've talked to that have played both sports say that they're not the same. Usually, you have an affinity for one or the other. Ila Borders turned to baseball in part because she caught a dream — she said, 'I want to do this.' But also, she didn't like throwing underhand. She grew up watching her dad play baseball, and it didn't seem natural to throw underhand.

SL: Many observers seem to feel that, if a woman does make it to the Majors, it will be as an umpire. Do you agree?

JA: I think they have a better chance of getting there as umpires than they do as ballplayers. The sad thing is, there are women out there who share Ila's dream. I would like to see them have a chance to go as far as their talent will take them. Really, the last barriers that organized baseball has are toward women and gay men. And I think that's wrong.

SL: You write about Bernice Gera and Pam Postema, two women who umped professionally in the Minor Leagues. Why didn't either make it to the Majors?

JA: They both encountered tremendous sexism. If you read Postema's book, it's on every page. It was just ridiculous the stuff that went on. At one point, someone said, 'How can we have a woman umpire with all the bad language?' That's so ridiculous. I mean, if you know Pam Postema, you know she gives as good as she got. I talked with her at length on the phone. What shocked me was how agreeable and amiable she was. She has a great sense of humor, and I didn't see that in any of the articles I read about her. If [baseball commissioner] Bart Giammati had lived, I think we would have seen Postema in the Major Leagues. He saw the bigger picture.

Gera fought the court case that made the difference, but she really only called one game. It was unfortunate — really regrettable — that she walked off the way she did. Gera was only something like 5-foot-3; she did not have the physical presence that an umpire requires.

SL: There is one active female official in the NBA; what is the situation today with female umpires?

JA: Last season there were two women in the minor league system: Shanna Kook, who came out of the Toronto pipeline, and Ria Cortesio. Cortesio is further along - she's made it to the Southern League in Double AA. She's had some very good mentoring and coaching along the way. The fans are not the problem. I think most young boys and young men are growing up or have grown up sharing the field of competition with women, whether in sports or in school. So, we'll see if that translates into real change.

SL: Women have been owners and executives, but none has run an organization. Do you think that will change?

JA: I do. For one thing, if the stats-oriented way of building a team prevails or at least finds a place in organized baseball - as it was depicted in the book "Moneyball" - then you can't argue that because a woman didn't play competitive baseball all the way through the big leagues she doesn't know anything about the game. Anybody can run the stats through the computer. The other argument is that, because women have played competitive sports in increasing numbers over the last 35 years, they do have an understanding of what it takes to make it. Beyond that, if you accept that women are relationally-oriented more so than men, a female G.M. may have some insight into a player's makeup that might escape a guy that's just looking at him as a ballplayer.

SL: Kim Ng, the Dodgers assistant G.M., was recently profiled in Los Angeles Magazine: do you think she will become baseball's first general manager?

JA: She very well could be because she has the skills. There's a lot of people that would bet on her because she's willing to put in the hours that she's got to do to make it work. And, she thinks outside the box. Dan Evans hired her as an intern while she was still in college in Chicago, and he was blown away by her. He said she didn't just ask 'the why,' she asked about the why behind the why. That shows a good mind.

I didn't speak to Kim Ng for the book. She was not available to me, and I think I understand why. If you're trying to be the first woman ever at something, the last thing you want to do is to be singled out and quoted in a book.

SL: In the book, you write about Dorothy Seymour and her uncredited efforts in researching and writing material for her husband Harold Seymour's award-winning baseball books. How did that happen?

JA: What Harold Seymour did was outrageous and flat-out wrong morally. It was so bad what he did, and what was so ironic is that he had real issues with anybody that didn't attribute his work properly in their writing.

Dorothy Seymour was very much a woman of her times. She was married when she was very young, and her husband was very autocratic. That was pretty common in those days, and that's what women coped with. What's remarkable is that, even today, she is very forgiving of him. She didn't hold a grudge about it. She did write her book, but she wrote it with such grace.

Publish or Perish

Recent research on putting for dough, Olympic mascots, American football in Europe and child labor law applied to Freddy Adu.

Drive for Show and Putt for Dough? Donald L. Alexander and William Kern. Journal of Sports Economics 6 (1) 2005.

"In recent years, golf analysts have claimed that driving distance has become the preeminent skill in professional golf." Research of PGA Tour earnings between 1992 and 2001 indicated that there was a "small increase in the marginal value of driving distance," but that "putting ability is still by far the single most important determinant of earnings."

'Cute, Lovable, Characters': The Place and Significance of Mascots in the Olympic Movement. Tara Magdalinski. Olympika. Vol. XIII 2004

It is "naïve to regard mascots as simply an endearing symbol designed to promote the ideals of the Olympic movement and secure community support for the Games. Their strategic role as marketing agents is certainly apparent, though what may be less evident to mainstream audiences are their ideological and political functions … Mascots are polysemic texts, upon which a series of meanings can be inscribed."

Thrown for a Loss? (American) Football and the European Sports Space. Maarten van Bottenburg. American Behavioral Scientist. 46 (11) 2003.

American football is culturally insignificant in Europe "despite the receptiveness of Europeans to American popular culture in general." American football entered the European "sport space" after 1980, at a time when that space had been occupied by other sports, including sports of American origin such as volleyball, basketball and baseball. The NFL's efforts to launch football as a spectator sport in Europe will fail unless it is "accompanied by the building of a basic foundation at a grassroots level."

Raising a Red Card: Why Freddy Adu Should Not Be Allowed to Play Professional Soccer. Jenna Merten. Marquette Sports Law Review. 15 (1) 2004.

Freddy Adu is the "youngest professional athlete in 100 years of American team sports." Adu's employment in a physically demanding and psychologically stressful environment is a form of "child abuse" and "amounts to a child labor violation." Adu "may have a better situation than other child laborers," but he should be prevented from playing professional soccer until he is eighteen years old.

In keeping with the spirit of Rock, Paper, Scissors, we invite you to meet "Rocky the Rock Wallaby." Rocky has served as mascot of the Arafura Games since 1991. He's known as one of the best cut men in the business.