After watching last night's Super Bowl halftime show, I'm genuinely curious as to why (apart from the millions of dollars they get from touring) the members of The Rolling Stones still want to work with Mick Jagger. Sure, even at his best the man never had what one would call a "pleasant" singing voice, but what he did have was a great "rock voice." And that voice was a perfect match for the band's sound. But those days are long gone. Simply put, Mick can't sing anymore. At all. In last night's performance there was no real tone to his voice. Gone was the sexually-charged growl of the 60's, 70's, and 80's. In its place was an unrecognizable series of atonal grunts. It was awful. (As bad as it was, however, Jagger's voice sounded far better than Jessica Simpson's did in that Pizza Hut commercial; and Simpson even had the advantage of being pre-recorded. And post-produced.) The real shame of all this is that, musically speaking, The Rolling Stones sound as good as ever. Guitarists Keith Richards and Ron Wood and drummer Charlie Watts can play their instruments every bit as well as they could at their peak. Perhaps better. But it's all being wasted behind a front man who has no instrument left. I realize the money is still good, and that's probably the only justification they need for soldiering on. And they're hardly alone in that attitude. Just look at Harrison Ford and Robert DeNiro. Those guys can still act with the best of them -- when they want to -- but right now they'd rather pick up big paychecks for awful movies. The sad thing is, none of these guys should need the money! In my opinion, former Stones' bassist Bill Wyman had the right idea. Once it became apparent that the band was a mere shadow of its former self, he ditched the rock life and went into the restaurant business. He's still musically active, too, but these days he focuses his energy on jazz and blues ensembles, not bloated arena rock. You know, it's pretty sad when a guy who owns a diner called "Sticky Fingers" is the last bastion of musical integrity.

In March, while testifying under oath before a congressional committee, baseball player Rafael Palmeiro denied having ever used steroids.

Appearing with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and other baseball stars before a congressional committee on March 17, Palmeiro made an opening statement in which he said: "Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never."

This morning, Major League Baseball suspended Palmeiro for 10 games for violating of the league's new steroid use policy. The Baltimore Orioles slugger, who recently became only the 4th player in Major League history to record both 3000 career hits and 500 career home runs, remained defiant. Sort of:

"I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period," he said. [Emphasis added] "Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned substance into my body, the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to be suspended under the terms of the program." [...] Palmeiro said the arbitrator "did not find that I used a banned substance intentionally — in fact, he said he found my testimony to be compelling," but still ruled that he needed to serve the suspension. Palmeiro wouldn't go into the specifics but left the impression that the banned substance was contained in a supplement that was not prescribed.

As a seemingly ordinary player who has posted some extraordinary numbers over his career, Palmeiro has for many fans been the poster child for baseball's juiced ball era of the last 15 years. Prior to his reaching 3000 hits, there was even some speculation that he might become the first 500 home run player not to be elected to the Hall of Fame. Ongoing rumors of steroid use turned into outright accusations after Jose Canseco named Palmeiro as a steroid user in his bestselling book "Juiced." [USA Today] Palmeiro suspended for steroids policy violation

I like to consider myself a devoted baseball fan, but with a season and postseason that runs continuously for 7 full months, I tend to drift away from the sport for extended periods during the summer. Even during those times of distraction, however, I've always made a point to read Peter Gammons weekly column on ESPN.com. Gammons is far and away the best of baseball's current mainstream pundits (amateur statistician turned Red Sox consultant Bill James is the easy choice for best non-mainstream pundit). Anyone who watches "Baseball Tonight" knows just how deeply he understands the game and, like Chris Mortensen with the NFL, he has a remarkable gift for digging up information about pending personnel moves. Best of all, Gammons' musings have always been available free of charge on the ESPN website (and thanks to RSS I always knew when a new column was posted). And so it truly broke my heart to find the following the message from ESPN following the first two paragraphs of Gammons' July 8th column:

ESPN had moved Gammons' columns into The Insider, the network's premium, fee-based website. This means that if I want to continue reading the columns, I'll have to pay $7 per month or $40 per year (which according to the sales pitch on the site is "under 20 cents a day!"). If I do fork over the cash, I'll also get a subscription to "ESPN: The Magazine" as part of the deal (hence the $40 price tag). Problem is, I don't want "ESPN: The Magazine." I received a one year gift subscription in the late 1990's, and it was absolute drivel. To use entertainment industry magazines as a yardstick, if "The Sporting News" is "Variety" and "Sports Illustrated" is "The Hollywood Reporter," "ESPN: The Magazine" is "Us Weekly." It shuns real sports headlines in favor of gossip and ego-stroking puff pieces about the "human" side of today's athletic superstars. I do wonder what effect ESPN's decision will have on Gammons. Thanks to frequent appearances on "Baseball Tonight," he'll likely remain important in baseball journalism circles, but I fear his influence as a leading pundit for the sport may be somewhat diminished. With his columns only available to premium subscribers, there's little doubt his readership will decrease tremendously. And if fewer people read his words, those words will carry a lot less weight. This isn't the first time ESPN has pulled a move like this. Another excellent baseball writer, Rob Neyer, was just starting to build a sizable reputation when ESPN slapped the "premium" tag on his column and moved it to The Insider vault. And while Neyer is still writing great stuff, fewer people are reading him. In effect, he's been rendered irrelevant because his writing isn't accessible to most baseball fans. Perhaps the most infuriating part of ESPN's decision to begin charging for Gammons' material is the timing. The change came, quite literally, in the middle of the baseball season. If the network had made the move during spring training, my reaction wouldn't have been so violently negative. While I would have been saddened by the decision, I would have understood ESPN's right to derive some revenue out of its involvement with a talent like Gammons. But by making this move just before the All Star Game and trade deadline (with no prior notice to readers, mind you), ESPN is simply hoping readers like me are already so hooked on Gammons' column that we impulsively hand over $40 -- under 20 cents a day! -- solely to avoid encountering information withdrawal. And so it is with great sadness that I say: Farewell, Mr. Gammons. Your point of view will be missed.