No Surprise

My man Mike Bianchi whipped up a steamin' bowl full of righteous indignation this morning with his column from the LPGA's Ginn Open here in Orlando.

Mike asked Annika Sorenstam for her opinion of the Don Imus v. Rutgers women's basketball fiasco, and the exchange went a little something like this, according to Mike:

"Annika, some derogatory comments were made about the Rutgers women's basketball team the other day; obviously, you've heard about them..."

Before I can finish, Annika stops me cold with her response.

"No, I haven't."

You haven't?

"No," she says, shaking her head.

Uncomfortable pause.

All I can think of to say at this point is, "Never mind."

All she can think of to say is, "Sorry."

Yeah, I'm sorry, too.

Mike goes on to term Imus's comments as "one of the most infamous cases of verbal sexism ever uttered against female athletes." His argument, well-stated in the column, is that while Imus's phrase has justifiably outraged many for its racism, the sexism is "much more offensive." Interesting point, one that I'd be willing to discuss.

But not here.

No, my attention was grabbed by the fact that Mike found it "shocking and disappointing" that Annika Sorenstam apparently knew nothing about the Imus story. He also points out that Nancy Lopez, who is attempting a mini-comeback this week at the Ginn Open, apparently knew little about the story as well.

You can be disappointed. That's fair. But don't be shocked.

Before I go any further: there's a better-than-average chance that Sorenstam knew EXACTLY what Mike was asking about, and intentionally played dumb to keep her name out of any story connected to Imus. In fact, without being there in person, I would almost bet on it. Sorenstam, like her friend Tiger Woods, is famously protective of her image, and has rarely uttered anything even remotely controversial in public. Lopez, on the other hand, was most likely honestly flummoxed. That's just my vibe, anyway.

Which brings me to the point: why should we expect professional athletes to follow stories like Imus as closely as we civilians do? It's an easy assumption, but a risky one. We, the media, and we, the sports fans, live this stuff every day. We read the sports section first; we browse internet sites during the day; we flip over to one of the myriad 24-hour sports channels in between bites of ice cream at night. It's part of our routine, either because it's our job (media) or it helps us take a break from our job (everyone else).

Pro athletes? Not the same world. Not even close. Celebrities at the Sorenstam or Lopez level simply do not live the same way we do. Think about it: regardless of their chosen sport, the athlete's livelihood depends upon their physical ability to perform at the highest level. That involves hitting millions of golf balls, or taking hundreds of free throws, or lifting tons of weight. Being at the top of their game mentally isn't enough; a lawyer can get away with that, even if he weighs three bills and does nothing more physically demanding than walk the dog. A professional athlete has to be exceptional both mentally and physically. That means practice, and that means time.

Throw in the travel demands of a player like Sorenstam, who jets from home to tournament to business meeting to Sweden and back on a monthly basis, and you can understand why she has no time or interest in watching ESPNews. It's just not part of her reality. Tough to understand at our level, but I've seen it everywhere. Remember, I was working for the Orlando Magic when Shaquille O'Neal returned from a trip to Greece and was asked about visiting the Parthenon: "I can't really remember the names of the clubs we went to."

The flip side, of course, is the fawning attention we devote to athletes like Grant Hill, those who display at least a passing interest in current events, or fundamental knowledge of a world beyond their sport. Truth be told, Hill is the exception, not the rule. That's just how pro sports work. I'm not sure I can totally excuse it, but I can understand it. Reading an article about Don Imus does absolutely nothing for Annika Sorenstam's golf game, and without her game, she's not, well, Annika Sorenstam.

Now, the bigger question from Mike's column -- where was the female Al Sharpton? Who speaks on this issue as it pertains to women, as opposed to African-Americans? That's a valid query, and I have no ready answer. However, it's naive to assume that she will come from professional sports.

Charles Barkley once said, famously, "I am not a role model." He was half-right. He can be a role model, and so can Annika, if the goal is to become a Hall of Fame basketball player or golfer. If the goal is to become a well-rounded, sensitive citizen, there are other options. My first place to look would not be the sports pages. For what it's worth, I'd like to think that in my house, my kids should start with me.