Now in her fourth season with Raptors NBA TV, Norma Wick hosts roundtable discussion show, “Full Court Press” and a weekly basketball wrap-up titled “Floor Level”. You can always find Norma reporting on the sidelines of an NBA court near you.

by Norma Wick
--raptors.commentator
November 28, 2004

(MIAMI) -- The “Friday Night Fight” between the Pacers and Pistons in Detroit has launched a firestorm in the court of public opinion. It’s put professional sports, but more particularly, “modern athletes” on trial.

There is no shortage of prior mistakes, missteps, misdemeanors (even alleged felonies) to support the charge that professional athletes can be guilty of base, ignorant, or even criminal behavior. But I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, why should they be held to a higher standard than the rest of us? Why should they be better than the society they came from?

I know why David Stern holds players to a higher standard. As the Commissioner of an exclusive association, he has the right to determine the code of conduct for its members who are indeed, well paid and well treated. I respect that he came down hard on the participants in the melee because it shows that accountability is more than just lip speak in the NBA.

Jermaine O'Neal is out serving a lengthy suspension. (NBAE/Getty Images)

As they say in the courts, “provocation is not a defence” even in the face of grossly inappropriate behavior by dense fans with liquid courage, or none at all. Bad behavior should be punished, but that still doesn’t explain to me why athletes are judged more harshly for their mistakes. If society wants better role models – it ought to do a better job of creating them. It ought to set a better example.

Instead of judging athletes we ought to put society itself on the stand and examine it.

Exhibit A: Judging from the complaints, one of the main reasons that athletes are held to a higher standard is because they make a lot of money.

Apparently, society puts a price tag on human values. The more money we make, the more civil, decent, moral we should be. Of course! If somebody made you rich, you’d be a better person. You’d have a better work ethic, become more educated (by osmosis, of course), never complain, never argue, never feel insecure, never succumb to temptation, never say or do anything unkind, never show your anger. In fact, you’d never have a bad day again because hey, you’d be rich! (Oh, and if you parked the ’86 Toyota Corolla for a new Benz, you’d be a better driver too.)

Exhibit B: Athletes are also held to a higher standard because they’re in the public eye.

Funny, since most of these athletes were invisible to society until they cashed a big cheque. Apparently we live in a society that thinks money = standing = responsibility. That may seem a little out of order, but according to their critics, it’s the athletes who have their priorities screwed up, especially because they’re so “privileged”.

I always thought a life of privilege started long before the cheques rolled in. It began with a childhood free of poverty, abuse or neglect – a chance to determine one’s destiny.

A lot of these athletes were given once chance. Play basketball or succumb to the streets. They live in a society that will spend billions of dollars to free the people of Iraq, but considerably less to free its own citizens from the bondages of poverty, illiteracy and despair. Now that these athletes have money they’re supposed to embrace a value system, a culture, that they were never part of growing up.

I’m not saying poor people don’t have values. Despite their many disadvantages, there are legions of loving, honest, smart human beings living below the poverty line. We just don’t value them, or even see them, until they have money. Then we erase their past and hold them to a higher standard.

Ron Artest has lost his cool in the past. (NBAE/Getty Images)

No wonder that they say there’s no dignity in being poor anymore. Society says the difference between grace and disgrace, visible and invisible, worthy and unworthy, is a bigger bank account.

Exhibit C: society says athletes should have control over their emotions and their responses in provocative situations because they’re role models.

I don’t think you should ever try to harm another person, physically or emotionally, but it’s just a little weird when the request for decorum comes from a violent society. A society at war. A society that retails violence for casual viewing pleasure.

Like most people, I cringed at the scene at the Palace. I had a similar reaction when I read a quote from Pacers center Scot Pollard, who worried that it might take some time for his candidate of choice, Bush, to be declared the official winner in the November election.

“I didn’t want another drawn-out thing, “ Pollard told the Indianapolis Star, “because if we’re going to go around and blow up people and tell them democracy is the greatest, we ought to be able to set an example and go out and get it done right.”

That’s right, you can “blow people up” in the name of freedom, fairness and justice for all, but don’t even think of going to look for the guy who throws a drink at you if he’s across that magic line. Like a border, you know? It’s interesting that Artest’s rush into the stands was harder to defend in most people’s eyes because he wasn’t going there “to defend himself – he did it to avenge himself.” But then, that’s the kind of thing the United Nations frowns on too.

In summation, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m not asking for an acquittal. When it comes to lapses in decency, common sense and moral responsibilities are some athletes guilty as charged? Yes and they should be held accountable. But in an enlightened society – everyone is accountable, all the time. I just ask that before we pass too harsh a judgment, look at the evidence and then look carefully in the mirror.

After all, we reap what we sow.