Calling Out Scott Burnside’s Petty Vendetta Against Mario Lemieux

I started this blog primarily for two reasons; I love sports and I love to write. I’ve wanted to be a sportswriter for as long as I can remember. The reality is that this blog; a true labor of love for me; is about as close as I will ever get.

I would like to believe that’s why most sports writers ended up in their chosen profession.

Covering sports every day is not a bad way to make a living. That goes especially for columnists who have nearly free reign to write whatever they want under the guise of “opinion.” I’ll readily concede two points on this issue; first my blog is entirely “opinion” and I tend to read columnists first and beat writers a distant second.

In short, I would be a complete hypocrite if I criticized someone for having strong opinions, even if they are in opposition to mine.

I can live with the idea that not every columnist is going to see the world as I do, especially when it comes to Pittsburgh sports. I pride myself in having as objective a view as possible about my home town teams. That means I’m about 10% as objective as a neutral outsider party doing the same analysis. I can be logical and pragmatic to a point; but its always overridden by my fierce emotional attachment to our teams.

In short, I really do understand that for much of the sports world, the sun does not rise and set over the Three Rivers.

Which brings us to Mr. Scott Burnside of ESPN.com fame (or infamy).

Mr. Burnside clearly does not like Mario Lemieux; which is his prerogative. There are a few people in this world I do not like and I don’t feel obliged to justify my reasons. The difference is that I do not use an international sports forum, or even this blog, to denigrate their character. Scott Burnside has now done so on three separate occasions to Lemieux. As far as I can tell, he’s doing so because Lemieux committed the heinous crime of refusing him an interview at the 2009 Stanley Cup finals.

To be clear, I have no issue with Burnside criticizing Lemieux or anybody else for their job performance or their opinions. That’s his job. I take severe issue when those criticisms become personal in nature and go clearly and obviously beyond the issue at hand.

To me there is a covenant of responsibility that any “journalist” has with their readers and those they cover; a covenant that grows in scope and magnitude with the size of their audience. The media has tremendous power to influence or even create public opinion. Given that, somebody fortunate enough to have an audience on the most widely viewed sports forum on earth; has a tremendous obligation to use that power responsibly.

Sadly, Scott Burnside has lost sight of this. He sacrificed his ethics, his objectivity, and his credibility over a petty grudge. So I’m calling him out on it plain and simple. His “columns” about Lemieux qualify as nothing more than petty, vindictive trash and are beneath the standards of “journalism.” He’s using the ENTERTAINMENT and Sports Network to carry on his one man vendetta against Lemieux.

I’m not going to turn this column in to a one man defense of Le Magnifique. Mario nether wants nor needs me to defend him. Like most Penguin fans, I have a very high opinion of the man for what he’s done for the Penguins and Pittsburgh, on and off the ice. I also think a man whose foundation annually donates millions of dollars to cancer related causes is probably a half way decent fellow.

That said, whether Mario is a saint or a sinner is irrelevant here.

We know beyond a doubt that Mario is a private person. We also know that he has tried very hard to make the Penguins of today the story; and not their legendary owner. There are many owners in sports; Jerry Jones and Dan Synder come to mind, who would be well served to learn that lesson. And it goes without saying that none are as accomplished as Lemieux in their chosen sport.

Apparently in Scott Burnside’s eyes, that’s a serious offense.

When I read Burnside’s first scathing condemnation of Lemieux in 2008, (attached below this paragraph), I was truly shocked. I thought I was reading about Ted Bundy…or at least Terrell Owens. To wit, a few quotes:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=3413241

Yet there is one hockey great who will remain strangely, inexplicably mute through these Stanley Cup finals. When requests are made to talk to Lemieux, either in a one-on-one setting or in a group format with reporters covering the finals, word politely comes back through the team that the man who is the Penguins' part-owner doesn't want to take the spotlight away from his young team.

What a load of hooey. This has nothing to do with taking any spotlight away from his players. No, this is more about Lemieux's detachment from the game or, at least, detachment from having to share his thoughts and feelings about the game. It is both convenient and predictable for Lemieux to hide in the background at a time when the game most needs its relevant stars in place, because it's always been about convenience for Lemieux. The only reason Lemieux isn't making himself available during these finals is because there's nothing in it for him.

Beyond the fact that I don’t know what “hooey” is, this seems awfully contemptuous for a man’s whose primary motive is maintaining his privacy. And how exactly does the omnipotent Burnside have such clarity of vision on Lemieux’s motives? The answer is he does not; but then why let facts ruin a perfectly good character demolition?

If Burnside had left it at that, I would over time have taken the forgive but not forget mentality. Alas he was not capable of burying the hatchet. After the NY Islanders spent a Friday night making a mockery of the NHL last month; Burnside was moved. Not to criticize the Islanders for their cowardly, premeditated actions or the NHL for their impotent response mind you. No, Burnside was moved to shred Lemieux for speaking out against it. More quotes from that story (which I’ve included below):

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=6120121

But this wasn't a call to action; it came off as a petulant child stomping his feet.

It's more than a little rich that Lemieux is threatening to walk away from the game now that he's got a shiny new arena and presumably all the millions he was owed all those years back when he hated the game but saved the team in Pittsburgh nonetheless.

Please take a good look at the title; “Only Failure Here is Lemieux’s Message.” Really? That’s the only failure in this travesty? Not trying to end Eric Tangradi’s career for example? Feel free to read the article and/or these quotes and tell me I’m over the top. And “Petulant child stomping his feet…” if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black.

Instead of discussing the relevant issue of a game that was an affront to every respectful principle of sport; Burnside writes an article filleting one of the games all time greats for speaking out against it. Somehow I don’t think he would have reacted that way if Steve Yzerman had those same comments. After all, Stevie Y is always available for an interview.

So a few weeks later, Trevor Gillies returns from a nine game suspension and immediately proves Lemieux 100% correct. In his first game back, Gillies takes a vicious run and gets a 5 minute penalty and game misconduct for attempt to injure. Apparently a nine game suspension for a blatant attempt to maim and injure is not quite the deterrent that Colin Campbell presumed. Who knew?

So what does my buddy Burnside do? He writes an article admitting that Mario was correct and still manages to throw in quite a few cheap shots.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/5263/trevor-gillies-punishment-coming-too-late

Somewhere Mario Lemieux is wagging his finger at those of us who criticized him and saying, "Look, you eggheads, was I right or was I right?" We hate that, by the way.

In the aftermath, Lemieux insisted the NHL had failed, and then destroyed his own message by threatening to leave the game. Haven't seen a "For sale" sign up in front of Consol Energy Center, so I can only assume Lemieux has reconsidered.

“We hate that by the way” hardly smacks of objectivity. That said, here is the key point that is nearly lost in Burnside’s vendetta.

But in the wake of Gillies' performance Wednesday, it's hard not to agree with Lemieux's assessment of how the NHL responded to the situation. That is to say, they failed to send an adequate message.

Gee, where have I heard that before?

So you see, even in admitting that Mario was correct, Burnside still can’t put aside his petty grudge. Is not granting enough interviews really a crime worthy of constant public denigration of an all time great player and decent human? Is it so severe as to take precedence over an event that set hockey back 25 years?

The answer of course is clearly and obviously no. And keep in mind, this is not Dave Molinari dealing with Tom Barrasso’s daily mood swing in the Penguin’s locker room. That I can somewhat understand though certainly not endorse.

Burnside to me has lost all of his credibility because he lost site of his most critical responsibility as a journalist. His personal attacks in a public forum do not even feign objectivity. That deserves far more condemnation then he’s given Mario Lemieux.