Recording the same as Roids?

If you steal the $100 bills from the banker tray in Monopoly, you are a cheater.
If you looked off someone else’s test in the 3rd grade because you forgot the Capitol of Delaware, you are a cheater.
If you looked up codes online so you could be awesome at Mario Cart, then I’m sorry my friend, you are a cheater.

Such a title has been given to Bill Belichick, head coach of the New England Patriots. The NFL has branded Belichick a “cheater” after his repeated offense of the NFL’s rule on coaches being prohibited from videotaping the opposition’s sideline signals in an effort to decipher them. While this isn’t the first time he and his coaching staff have been caught doing this, it is widely said that the practice of videotaping a team’s signals is used “…throughout the league,” said Jack Del Rio, coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars in a USA Today related article.

The media has pummeled Belichick, questioned the validity of his Super Bowl titles, and have even called for the Patriots to forfeit their Week 1 victory against the Jets. No media figure has let Belichick have it more than Dan Le Batard of the Miami Herald, who compared the unethical actions of Belichick to that of one of the most hated sports figures of our time: Barry Bonds. For those of you who are more well versed on who cheated on who in the latest installment of “The Hills” than the biggest news story of the summer, I’ll help you out a little. Barry Bonds is the left-fielder of the San Francisco Giants who has had a very public explosion in muscle mass and coincidentally, home-run totals in the past seven years. This explosion has propelled him to become the all-time leader in home runs. Bonds has been accused of using steroids more times than President Bush has been accused of being incompetent, and his former personal trainer is in prison right now on a steroid- related offense. Needless to say, something is very suspect about the whole situation.
In his article, (found here at http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/columnists/dan_le_batard//story/235834.html). Le Batard calls out Belichick saying that his actions were, “…worse morally [than Bonds] because he ought to know better as the authority figure, and because he was specifically told that videotaping was prohibited and he flatly ignored that warning.” He then goes onto explain that, while stealing the opposition’s signals is “part of the game”, he makes the comparison of how steroids were once “part of the game” in baseball because they weren’t illegal and a whole lot of players were doing them. This proves Le Batrd’s point in that just because something is “part of the game” doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do.
All of his points I agreed with up to this point. However, the point that Mr. Le Batard tried to make next is where we differed on opinion What Le Batard claims next is where I feel he went too far on his comparisons between Bonds and Belichick. I first agreed with his point that “…you still have to execute. Randy Moss and Tom Brady still have to complete the pass even if they know what’s coming.” However, I didn’t agree with his “equal” comparison that, “ … Bonds still has to hit the 95- mph fastball…” I feel that the difference between the two is greater than Le Batard portrayed it as. He was basically saying that knowing the defense’s play was just as bad as taking steroids. That is why I agree with Jason Taylor, defensive lineman for the Miami Dolphins, when he said, “Stealing signs is not the same as changing hormone levels in your body in a game that is built on speed, power, and quickness.” Simply put, Belichick still has to call the right play for the situation. The line still has to block. The play still has to be executed. While the Pats did cheat, the signs didn’t make them stronger or faster. It only made them a little smarter. Le Batard went too far in this claim, and this is where we differed.
In my journalistic viewpoint, I feel that Mr. Le Batard went a little too far in his comparisons as well as his judgment of Belichick’s character. While he did try and show both sides of the argument with the interview with Jason Taylor, I think he was too “black and white” about the whole ordeal. Basically, the thesis of his piece was “CHEATING IS CHEATING. THAT’S IT!” Well, while you are entitled to your opinion, and this is a column, it seems as though your opinion was a bit overbearing and aggressive. One type of cheating (Bonds) had a direct impact on the game. The only thing that Belichick could have done is call is a play and hope for the best. While the signals affected his play calling, the players still have to execute the play. Furthermore, I also don’t feel this column was journalistically fair because it brought personal issues into a sports piece. As he was trying to turn the reader against Belichick, instead of the readers deciding for themselves, he brings in the fact that Belichick cheated on his wife, as well as the game of football. He said, “Will you call the alleged marriage-wrecking Belichick, who has a lot of dishonesty recorded in both his professional and personal life, a liar and cheater and fraud with the same intensity that you do Bonds?”
As a person who is an avid reader of sports publications, as well as someone looking for journalistic merit in a piece, I feel that this was a low blow and uncalled for. If I could change anything in this piece, it would definitely be the overbearing comparisons, as well as slights on Belichick’s personal life. I don’t care about his marriage, because I only care about what he does on game day. If I wanted to see someone slighted on their profession based on his or her personal relationships and behavior, I would pick up the newest issue of US Weekly or People.
Surely Lindsey Lohan is doing something stupid…