Prime Time Sports Review for Wednesday, November 7, 2012

By Ami Angelwings

4pm hour – Listener calls with Bob McCown

  • Callers are about the Blue Jays, whether Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods is the best golfer, whether Peyton Manning should be MVP, Vince Carter
  • One caller thinks that Dave Perkins should be on the hiring committee for the new manager

5pm hour – Bob McCown hosting, Stephen Brunt co-hosting

First segment: Talk segment

  • Bob and Brunt talk about the US election
  • Bob talks about Molson-Coors saying publicly that they will be seeking compensation from the NHL for lost beer sales due to the lockout
  • Bob and Brunt discuss Eugene Melnyk escaping a fine from the NHL for comments he made on PTS

Second segment: Interview with Rob Becker, lawyer, PTS legal analyst

  • Becker discusses Penn State’s cover up of their sex abuse scandal, and whether their lawyer is culpable or honestly didn’t know what was going on
  • Becker talks about Roger Clemen’s assertion that because he was found not guilty of purjury, that the BBWAA must treat him as innocent of steroid use in hall of fame voting
  • Becker says that simply because he was found not guilty under a criminal law standard doesn’t mean that regular people can’t decide for themselves on the evidence whether he did or not
  • Brunt and Becker proceed to get into a really heated argument about steroid use and whether you can judge from evidence if players have used
  • Bob asks them if Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, Becker and Brunt both say no

Third segment: Interview with Jon Paul Morosi, FOX Sports baseball writer

  • Morosi talks about baseball free agency, believes the Jays should get Anibal Sanchez

6pm hour – Bob McCown hosting, Stephen Brunt co-hosting

First segment: Interview with John Shannon, Sportsnet hockey analyst

  • Shannon is at the secret location where the NHL and NHLPA are having discussions, can’t reveal where they are
  • Shannon still thinks it’s a possibility that there could be a deal and the season will be saved

Second segment: Interview with Ken King, Calgary Flames CEO and President

  • King talks about the lockout’s effect on the other properties the Flames operates including the Stampeders
  • King says that while other teams have benefited, he obviously wants the lockout to be over

Third segment: Interview with Paul Jones and Eric Smith, Toronto Raptors radio commentary team

  • Jones and Smith talk about the upcoming game with the Mavericks, and the injuries to key Mavericks players
  • Smith thinks that having Jose Calderon as the starting point guard instead of Kyle Lowry will help Bargnani’s game
  • Bob and Brunt bring up the recent story that Vince Carter wanted to stay in Toronto
  • Bob wonders that if this is true, why didn’t Vince speak out about this before when the fans in Toronto thought he didn’t want to stay, Smith says it might not be his personality to protest


Wow.  That Becker/Brunt argument was passionate and I think Brunt was a bit mean to Becker.  Not like he called him names, but he was incredibly dismissive of his arguments.  Becker did bring up that “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is only a criminal standard, but he should have brought up that he “preponderance of evidence” standard is used in many aspects of life too, such as civil courts and university tribunals.  That would make a stronger case for him to say that baseball writers could judge whether a player did steroids by a preponderance of evidence, which is what Becker was saying to articulate, but didn’t get out.  It didn’t help that Brunt wouldn’t let him finish his sentences.  What is with people doing that on PTS lately?

On this issue, I don’t agree with Brunt, at least not with the argument he’s trying to make, which is that you can’t make your own decisions about a collection of evidence. Of course you can, we do this all the time in society.  Lots of people have made their decisions about OJ Simpson, and Casey Anthony.  We do it in real life.  If we know that somebody’s a thief, we might not want to associate with them even if they’ve never been caught.  And we might not want to nominate or vote for them in say, a community award, if we believe they’ve done bad things.  Nobody’s saying the baseball writers should punch Clemens in the face, but they don’t have to vote for him either.

What’s the point of sending Shannon to find the secret location of the meetings if he’s not allowed to report where it is?  I hope this is like the “unnamed sources” thing where you’ve agreed to be told the location in exchange for not revealing it, and not Shannon’s NHL secret handshake thing.  I’d be annoyed if Shannon wasn’t naming the location because of his loyalty to the NHL.  With other reporters, I wouldn’t necessarily assume that, with Shannon and how much he still seems tied to the NHL and loyal to Bettman, I’m not sure.

Everybody on PTS seems so agitated lately, even Brunt.  Maybe it’s the lack of sunlight with the time switch.

Photo available here

About the Author
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Darren Johnston
November 8, 2012 6:50 pm

Nice review, I felt the same way about the Becker/Brunt argument. He just seemed and acted like he was in a public school outdoor argument with a 5 year old. Now today he seemed like he was in a much better mood, maybe he got some last night at home, LOL.

November 8, 2012 6:56 pm

Brunt is so overrated as a radio personality. He just sounds good compared to Cox and Shannon.

Darren Johnston
November 8, 2012 7:03 pm
Reply to  Ryan

Besides Arthur I would say he is in a class by himself as far as co-hosts go in Toronto.

November 8, 2012 9:18 pm

Spot on, Ami. I guess because I’m usually in agreement with Brunt, I don’t see how condescending and, like you said, dismissive he can be at times. Well, maybe I do, but like I said, I’m usually in agreement with him. This time I wasn’t, and I was surprised to hear him try to make a similarly intelligent person sound bad on the air. Well, I know Brunt had a late night before, so maybe he was just hungover and grumpy. Cox and Shannon don’t deserve the same slack because they’re almost always dicks.

mike in boston
mike in boston
November 9, 2012 2:07 pm

That Becker/Brunt argument was passionate and I think Brunt was a bit mean to Becker.

just listened to the Becker interview.

maybe it’s because i work in an industry where we argue and discuss for a living, but i found the back and forth between Brunt and Becker to be totally fine. Both sides raised good arguments, both sides were called out on obviously wishy-washy answers, and a good debate ensued.

Another Steve
Another Steve
November 9, 2012 10:46 pm
Reply to  mike in boston

I just listened to it as well, and rather agree with Mike on this.

November 10, 2012 5:04 pm
Reply to  mike in boston

I didn’t have a problem with the arguing, I mean, technically I debate and discuss quite a lot on my job too, part of my job description is about persuading and making arguments. It’s that Brunt wasn’t letting him talk at points, and was kind of dismissive.

Stephane Dubord
November 13, 2012 1:32 pm

(Sorry for posting this earlier in the wrong thread)
When I listened to the podcast after reading this review, I thought I had downloaded the wrong one. In this one, it was Becker who got agitated with Brunt first, and Brunt merely stated his position (quite logical to me). Even once Becker opened the Pandora’s Box of personal character, Brunt stayed quite measured. Becker was the one who was stammering, high-pitched and emotional (screaming “IT IS!” when Brunt made his point). Brunt just stated his argument without getting personal. Maybe reading the review prior to listening to the podcast had me expecting a real blow-up with a ‘nasty’ Brunt, but I found absolutely ZERO wrong with how Brunt made his point, quite factual and staying true with the position he has stated repeatedly (and for which he turned in his voter card for the BBHOF). He didn’t accuse Becker of anything personal (too close to players, not being knowledgeable enough, etc.) and contrary to what is said in this review, he let Becker finish his thoughts. He just happened to reply with an argument that blew Becker’s point of view out of the water. Proving someone wrong shouldn’t be construed as being ‘dismissive’. It’s simply winning a debate. I think what the review shows is how a person’s own beliefs can cloud their judgement on how they perceive the argument taking place.
Personally, I don’t agree with Brunt on voting for Clemens. But that shouldn’t cloud the way I perceive the debate that took place. And it shouldn’t slant the review either.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x