Disclaimer: Personal opinion is not always fact, but it's a blog, so deal with it.
It would seem in the day and age of younger, smarter legal teams, an advanced justice system, and a fairer environment for defendants than in years past, that it would be easier to sift right from wrong. From partial to impartial.
From guilty, to not guilty.
However for everyone who is not living in a cave, 10 feet underground, in a remote area of southern Sri Lanka, we realize that is just not the case. The highest dollar amount without going over, as Bob Barker says, is almost always the winner.
We see this evident in major cases just as we do in smaller ones, although not as much. If you've ever been involved in such a case, then assuredly you have your own feelings on this matter. But that's another subject for another time.
Specifically touching on the recent news of "star" R Kelly's acquittal on all charges, 14 of them to be exact (21 before the case was reduced to soliciting a minor for pornography rather than intercourse), one has to wonder just how much of an impact these factors had.
One also has to wonder, where the hell were R Kelly's lawyers in the Michael Vick case? Now, I'm not about to compare peeing on underage girls to electrocuting dogs and pretend one is much more terrible than the other, all I'm saying is when it came down to it, would you rather have Kelly's staff, who is evidently comprised of wizard's and sorcerers, or would you rather have Billy Martin, one of the leaders in Michael Vick camp?
Martin, who also represented Jayson Williams in another famous athlete trial, seemed to do just fine there. Although a retrial is pending.
This kind of discussion doesn't have much to do with sports, but as a middle class citizen, I would have to wonder what would happen to me (guilty or not guilty), and I didn't have the cash to pony up for the big guns. Sigh, back to baseball.
In other news...
Double standards irritate me just as much as the next guy, but eventually it has to stop, otherwise we might end up like those robots in the sci-fi movies that try to answer an illogical question and their heads explode. That's right, robots....
What I mean is, when talking about the NBA playoffs, thus far the media has been about as fickle as it normally is. And that's pretty fickle.
Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said it best after losing decisive game 5 when a reporter had asked him if the Spurs required "changing" to compete in the West.... Winners don't have to change.
If the Spurs had won the series, they are the true dynasty, Pop is a master of command and reliance, Tim Duncan is the greatest playoff MVP, etc.
But since the Spurs lost, they are suddenly too old to compete, too slow to keep up with Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, ok well maybe not Steve Nash.
It's the same old story again. If the Lakers manage to pull out Game 6, and then 7, Phil Jackson is the most dominant NBA coach of all time, Kobe Bryant proved he can win without Shaq (hasn't he already?), and Mitch Kupchak looks even more like an absolute god for the Pau Gasol deal.
However, if the Celtics win, Doc Rivers is pure genius, he overcame adversity with the death of his father and the team rode his spirit all the way to greatness, Ray Allen is the greatest chef on Hell's Kitchen ever..... oh wait nevermind.
Unfortunately, while any one of these stories could be true, we only hear one side as fans when all is said and done. And the rest is left for someone else's pen. Maybe that's just the award winners get.