Bert from Washington, DC writes, "Evander Holyfield is set to return to the ring on August 19th after a 21-month layoff. What is the former heavyweight champion's motivation for doing this?"
You have to understand: this is boxing. The word "retirement" is used about as often as the word "punch," or the phrase, "Don King screwed me." So, it's no surprise that Holyfield is coming out of retirement, again, to face journeyman Jeremy Bates in a scheduled 10-round bout. Obviously, Holyfield is motivated to win this fight, because, should he lose, he would face the ignominy of being labeled a "journeyman" himself.
Bates, who last fought in April, sports a record of 21-11-1, with 18 knockouts. Throw in his age, 32, and guess what you've got: not much of a fighter, but a potentially lucrative set of lottery numbers. All you need now is a Powerball number. My advice: use Holyfield's age, 43, or the number of children he has sired, 10.
It wasn't that long ago that Holyfield was fighting in Las Vegas, often for eight-digit paydays in front of thousands of fans and millions watching on pay-per-view. On August 19th, he'll be in Dallas for a heretofore untelevised bout for a five-digit payday, and that's counting the decimals. Once a main-eventer, Holyfield will now be on the undercard of a local cockfighting match, but he has been promised a chicken dinner by the event's promoter. No belt is on the line in the Bates/Holyfield contest, but the match will carry a "Loser Must Leave Boxing For Good" tag, with the victor getting a shot at the winner of the Ed "Too Tall" Jones-Marc Gastineau clash at the North Dakota State Fair in September.
In Holyfield's defense, he has been hindered in his most recent fights by bad shoulders, most likely caused by punching and missing other fighters. Thanks to some intense training, including water aerobics with a Houston senior group, Holyfield is ready for a successful return to the ring. Holyfield is confident that he can beat Bates, and has publicly taunted the Ashland, Kentucky native, claiming that he can beat him "with just one ear." Bates, for his part, is training like never before, trying to erase the memory of six of his 11 losses. He doesn't remember the other five losses.
Holyfield (38-8-2 with 25 knockouts) is 2-5-1 in his last eight fights, and has lost three in a row. The phrase "quit while you're ahead" is not in his vocabulary. Nor is the phrase "quit while you were 2-5-1 in your last eight bouts." Possibly, Holyfield's failure on Dancing With The Stars contributed to his desire to return to the ring. After all, he didn't take a single punch on that show, although his dance partner, Edyta Sliwinska, wanted to slug him several times for his lack of footwork.
Holyfield's last fight, a unanimous decision loss to Larry Donald in November of 2004 in New York, resulted in his suspension by the New York State Athletic Commission for "poor performance." Holyfield protested the suspension, and it was changed from a "medical" suspension to an "administrative" one. In layman's terms, the commission said, "Evander, you can fight, but not here. Another beating like that, and we'll have to charge your opponent with assault."
Holyfield says he wants to be heavyweight champion of the world. It's an admirable, yet lofty goal, and one that is reachable if all the chips fall his way. However, at such as advanced age, the chips aren't likely to fall, nor are any of his opponents. Win or lose, Holyfield should retire for good before he's retired for good by someone else. Holyfield definitely has the heart and chin of a champion, but he needs to hang up the gloves for good. No man who's had his ear bitten off by Mike Tyson has anything left to prove.
Orville from Dayton, OH asks, "A major doping scandal has rocked the 2006 Tour de France. Is the presence of banned drugs in cycling as widespread as that in baseball, and will this hurt the spectacle and grandeur of cycling's greatest event, as well as other sports?"
Not surprisingly, Barry Bonds' name turned up in the drug report that led to the dismissal of several Tour favorites, including Germany's Jan Ullrich, Italy's Ivan Basso, and American hopeful Paul Reubens. Drug scandals have haunted the Tour in the last few years, and urine tests are becoming an integral part of the race. In fact, race organizers have decided to award the yellow jersey, normally worn by the overall race leader, to the cyclist who successfully passes the most urine tests.
The French certainly aren't concerned with personal cleanliness, but when it comes to drug cleanliness in their beloved Tour de France, they don't mess around. Are the French behind the investigation in this latest drug scandal? Maybe, maybe not. The probe took place in Spain, but the French newspaper L'Equipe probably had something to do with it, and probably ratted out several cyclists.
After all, L'Equipe publishes an article every six months or so accusing seven-time Tour winner Lance Armstrong of performance-enhancing drug use during his reign. As usual, Armstrong denies the charges and the allegations fade when no proof is presented.
The French are obviously upset that an American has dominated their national treasure for seven years, and will do anything to tarnish Armstrong's image as a clean cyclist. And the French have a right to be upset. I think all of America would be equally upset if a team of Frenchmen won the Super Bowl seven-straight years. That will never happen, but if it did, I know one thing: the French would wear white.
This cycling scandal proves that the drug problem in the sport is as notorious as baseball's problem with banned substances. The only difference is that cycling's icon, Armstrong, has escaped relatively unscathed, while baseball's current icon, Bonds, is considered anything but clean. Maybe Armstrong is simply a better liar. Or maybe he's clean of drugs, like he says. If Bonds was a cyclist, he would have a peloton of suspicion hot on his tail. And his support vehicle wouldn't be carrying his cycling team officials — it would be carrying his team of lawyers. And there's no way Bonds would even fit into a cyclist jersey.
What does all this say about drugs in the sports? Well, the drugs are there, and both baseball and cycling seem intent on finding them. But cycling's governing body is a bit more swift in taking action since several top riders were banned just days before the start. In baseball, it seems, a player's name can appear on a drug report and nothing is done, even when a highly-credible source like Jose Canseco implicates said player. In a related story, Jose Canseco was seen pedaling furiously through France offering cyclists free injections and autographed photos for ten francs.
Can the popularity of the Tour de France survive despite this drug scandal, and others that are sure to follow? Of course it can. Have drugs spoiled the popularity of baseball? Not at all. Sports fans have a short attention span. Is anyone booing Bonds now? Maybe fans are watching to see him fail in his attempt to catch Henry Aaron's home run record. The point is, they are watching. And the Tour de France's drug scandal won't hurt its popularity at all. Thousands of fans will still line the stage route, no matter the cyclists that have been suspended or those under suspicion.
Cyclists could be carrying drugs across the Alps for delivery to some drug lord and fans will still come out to see. Drugs or no drugs, fans want to see athletic performance. And, as a result of Armstrong's performance in the Tour, a surge of American fans are watching, even though Armstrong is not racing. Do you want to pique Americans' interest in the race even more? Then start televising the administration of drug tests. And have the athletes take a polygraph test before they receive their drug test results. If an athlete fails a drug test, a gong would be the perfect indicator. That's high drama. I know it doesn't beat the excitement of televised blackjack, but what does?
The suspicion of performance-enhancing drugs, if not the drugs themselves, will always be a part of athletics. No sport will be totally clean. Just wait, somewhere down the line, drugs will turn up in the bloodstream of an Olympic curler, or a world-class table tennis player, or Tiger Woods' caddie. Do athletes need drugs to be successful? No. Do athletes need drugs to think they'll be successful. Many do. Will any amount of drug activity keep fans from watching a sport? I think it's been proven that fans will watch, no matter what.
Get Your Questions Answered!
Do you have a question or comment? Need a babysitter? Do you need a good defense lawyer recommended? Need those nude photos of your lady friend authenticated? Then send the pictures along with your question, your name, and hometown to jeffreyboswell@sports-central.org. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, July 21st.
