If you didn't know, Barry Bonds went under the knife again on Wednesday - the third time in a year - to have a bacterial infection cleaned.  This means his recovery is halted at least until after the All-Star Game in July.

Well the Arizona Republic did a little checkup of their own, looking into the background of Bond's surgeon, Arthur Ting.   Here's some of what they found:

The complaint also accused Ting of several other violations, including prescribing "dangerous drugs and controlled substances to friends and acquaintances, particularly athletes, for whom he kept no medical records or for whom the medical records were fictitious, inadequate or inaccurate."

Ting signed an agreement with the board on Jan. 4, 2004, saying that "to avoid a costly administrative hearing," he admitted he "was negligent in his supervision of subordinates," but he denied all other allegations in the complaint.

Bonds can continue to rant and rave about the press, and a lot of times he is indeed on point.  But one thing he can't deny is that he is at fault for a lot of the allegations and criticism that comes his way. 

Sure, this doesn't mean he certainly roided.  But just like Marion Jones, there's simply too many coincidences that connect to him for the steroid allegations to be just a baseless rumor.

Two Game 6's last night, and Saturday we'll have two Game 7's.

You got to love the playoffs.

Despite Paul Pierce being ejected late in the fourth quarter, the Boston Celtics beat the Indiana Pacers on the road in Overtime.

The Pacers closed the game playing terrible, missing shot after shot.  I forgot exactly the stat Inside the NBA showed on the game, but it was something like, 5-28 from the 5:00 mark of the 4th Quarter through overtime.  Regardless, this was Indiana's chance to clinch at home, and they completely blew it.

Charles Barkley had a problem with the officials ejecting Pierce out of the game.  If you didn't see it, Jamal Tinsley had reached around Paul Pierce and hit him in the face (And what the hell was that bandage doing on Pierce's face during the press conference?).  Pierce reacted by throwing an elbow, and Tinsley fell on the floor.  I say it like that because it looked as if Tinsley flopped a bit.  Barkley argued that the refs shouldn't have thrown Pierce out because it could have blown the game for the Pacers.

I disagree with Barkley for two reasons.  First, Pierce wasn't given a flagrant intentional foul (yes you can call that).  This was his second tech of the night, which meant he should have watched himself after the first one.  Second, Barkley had a good point about emotions and knee-jerk reactions, but we aren't questioning if he meant to do it.  The fact is, he did it, and the officials have an obligation to step in and make the call.  You can make an argument that Tinsley flopped, but how hard he hit Tinsley with the elbow makes no difference.  Pierce had no business throwing the elbow to begin with.

Whether he meant to do it or not is irrelevant.  If officials have to discern whether a player meant to make a violation, then they'd rarely call anything.  I'm sure Tinsley will say he didn't mean to hit Pierce in the face, but Pierce reacted anyway.  And if the officials didn't step in there and make a decision, Tinsley might have gotten up and retaliated, and then you have a problem.

I also don't like the growing assumption that officials are supposed to make calls for 3 3/4 quarters and then are supposed to swallow their whistles for the last minutes of the game.  First of all, I haven't seen that rule in any handbook.  I know an official can't catch everything that goes on, but if you're an official, and you see a violation, you call it.  I can probably see letting some go in a blowout, so you can simply get the game over with.  But when you're in a tight game and an official swallows the whistle, you place the team that's in the lead at a disadvantage because you're allowing possible turnovers for reaching in, or pushing, or contact while in the air, as well as other violations. 

There's a reason why there is a six-foul rule, free throw shooting, and the like; to deter players from committing those kinds of acts, particularly when trying to gain an advantage on the opposing team.  And I see where Charles and Kenny are coming from, because they're players and they've been fouled out, and have been called for techs at the end of the game, and the like.  But the rules are there for a reason, and no team is entitled to a comeback or a lead by changing those rules in the middle of the game.

Want an example?  Take Houston's win over Dallas game.

There were several occasions tonight where the officials could and possibly should have called intentional or flagrant fouls.  Josh Howard nailed Yao Ming in the third quarter and sent him flying, and had his teammates not been in front of him (and a bit of clumsy feet by Yao, which had McGrady laughing) Yao would have probably gotten into an altercation with Howard.

Later on, Bob Sura (or SARA, as Magic calls him) decided to get back at Howard for it.  He grabbed Howard while he was driving to the lane and threw him down.  That was an obvious intentional foul, yet the refs simply called it a personal.  A scuffle ensued until the refs calmed it down.

Considering the emotion of the prior games along with Van Gundy's complaint about a Yao Ming conspiracy and the subsequent $100,000 fine, I was almost sure that it would escalate into a fight around the end of this game.  Lucky for the officials, it didn't, because they would have had no one but themselves to blame. 

And they didn't escape criticism by either team, as I wouldn't be surprised if Avery Johnson, Jerry Stackhouse (Tarheel!), and Van Gundy again got fined tomorrow afternoon.  Thus, officials simply need to call their game and when they see the guys getting to physical and emotions are getting high, make a stand to stop it before it gets out of hand.  In Game 7, I guarantee you someone will throw hands if officials allow the same things they did in last night's game.

There has been a bit of a spat about the recent jokes First Lady Laura Bush made at a correspondents dinner over the weekend.  Of course, she never said anything vulgar, but whenever you say anything that's considered out of the ordinary you're going to get criticized by someone, particularly by people who want to look at the presidency like royalty.

This incident also brings up a larger topic within the conservative sphere.  With the release of South Park Conservatives by Brian Anderson, it looks as if a new conservative movement is possibly emerging that is shedding away the stiff, preppie choir boy image and are acting and looking like everyone else.  A lot of the political correctness in all aspects is being rejected, and it runs counter to the traditional values of American conservatism, particularly religious influence.

That's where Malkin comes in, as she takes on the belief of South Park conservatives in her latest column:

Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."  

First, you have to look at the setting where Bush was speaking.  The speech was meant to be lighthearted; it wasn't a state dinner.  Second, Malkin took Feulner's comments out of context.   In the speech, in which a transcript is online, Feulner was discussing political debate between the left and the right in which he argued turns people away from politics.  It's quite ironic, because Feulner could have been talking about her.  Just look at some of the titles of her columns:

- Pandering to the Crackpot Left

- Moonbats on Parade

- The U.N.'s Rape of the Innocents

- The ACLU vs. America

- Hysterical Women for Kerry

And those are only the titles, mind you.

And that's not to say I agree with Feulner's message and necessarily believe we should tone down the rhetoric, but let's be realistic here.  Malkin's one of the most polarizing columnists in America; in fact, probably second only to Ann Coulter.

As for her comments about conservatives and Hollywood, she says:

Rich is wrong about most things, but he's painfully on target in noting the incongruous pandering now taking place by some in the cool-kids clique on the Right. Conservatives criticize Hollywood relentlessly, but as Rich notes, "the embarrassing reality is that they want to be hip, too."

and:

Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a "South Park"/"Desperate Housewives" conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.

These passages underscore an impending conflict as younger conservatives today get older.  As Anderson states in his book, social conservatism is being rejected by today's younger conservatives.  There's no ideal look or style for conservatism, or I doubt Ted Nugent or Gene Simmons could ever be considered one.

Hollywood, for the most part, has never been rejected by conservatives.  After all, we watch their television and their movies.  Just like we anyone else, we appreciate the things we like and criticize the things we don't like.  Not everyone falls into the "cultural war" that Malkin and other social conservatives are trying to depict it as.  I don't have to hate everything about them because I disagree with their views and some of their actions.  As "Meet the Fockers" showed, Barbara Streisand can be entertaining.  That doesn't mean I want her preaching to me about politics. 

It's fine for Malkin to be a G-rated conservative, but to take potshots at other conservatives for their ideas and tastes comes off as a bit "unconservative".  Conservatism is also about individuality and liberty.  As long as people are living productive lives and aren't hurting anyone in the process, I don't see the problem with them actually enjoying entertainment.

If I could put in one word, it would be "Amazing".

When I first heard about ABC doing the story (through Drudge), Fox tried to beat them to it and say they were trying to damage the show during sweeps with false allegations and rumormongering.  Now, if Fox comes out tomorrow and holds that same stance, they risk making themselves look even sillier than they do now.

I know bloggers constantly blast the exempt media (I'm going to start using Morrissey's term instead of "mainstream") for weak reporting, and rightfully so.  But this wasn't one of those times.  ABC's story was airtight.  I don't know how any person - even if you aren't objective - could actually look at that story and not believe Paula had a relationship with Corey Clark.

Let's review the facts for a second:

- Corey Clark had a cough syrup bottle filled in PAULA'S NAME.

- Phone records showed DOZENS of calls made by Paula's phone number to Clark's home, his momma's cell phone, his father's cell phone, and his grandfather's home.

- Clark's friends met Paula at a club.

- Clark's mother actually talked to Paula on the phone.

- Clark had no money, something that his friends backed up, yet he was able to get a new wardrobe, a fresh hair cut, fresh braids, and a new cell phone.

- Clark could describe the interior of the house in detail:  the jacuzzi, the dogs, where the guest room was, what was in her bedroom, etc.

- Voice messages.  Nuff said.

- The song choice that would win Randy Jackson over.  (And can I clown Randy for a second?  DAWG, lissen up.  300 llb men shouldn't wear leather pants and a red blouse.  And I know it was the 80's, but what was with the hair?  You looked like Jermaine Jackson's image in a funhouse mirror.)

- One of the former contestants had heard the same thing in a rumor soon after she left the show.

Gilbert Arenas is the new Heartbreak Kid.

If you didn't watch the Bulls/Wizards game, you missed a classic ending.

More later.  Time to watch Fallen Idol.

---

UPDATE:  I finished watching the end of the Spurs/Nuggets game, and God knows everything else.  It's late, so I got a lot of blogging to do between now and tomorrow afternoon.

First things first; let's talk about that incredible Wizards win over the Bulls tonight.  In retrospect, it was sloppy - the Wizards blew a 22 point lead, and a 12 point one in the final two minutes for the Bulls to tie the game with 5.4 seconds left - but an incredible shot by Gilbert Arenas had Washington pulling out the win on the road.

Poor free throw shooting by Antwan Jamison (a Tarheel no less!) almost blew the game.  Jamison missed four straight at the line, and the final two could have possibly put the game away with 25 seconds left in the game.  Larry Hughes could have done the same later on by making it a two possession game with ll seconds left, but went 1-1 for a three point lead.  A cheap foul placed Bulls guard Kurt Hinrich at the line, and he missed both fts, but a scramble for the rebound resulted to a Heinrich pass on the wing to relatively unknown Bulls backup Jannero Pargo, who sank the trey and tied it up.

NBA's timeout rule gave the Wizards the ball at halfcourt with 5.5 seconds left.  Arenas got the ball at the top of the circle.  It almost seemed as if he wasn't going to be too late, but he drove inside off the elbow and hit the jumper; nothing but net.  Arenas was almost Jordan-esque with that shot as he really made it seem easy.

In the late game, the Spurs finished off the Nuggets to take a break before they move on to the second round to face the Sonics.

I've always liked the Spurs ever since they drafted Tim "Groundhog Day" Duncan (the Inside the NBA guys call him that because he plays the same way every day).  The reason why is real simple; they are the personification of what a team is supposed to be.  You never hear any drama coming from that Spurs locker room.  All of those guys are like family to each other.  And when they get on the court, they all know their roles and they execute them to a tee. 

Rarely do you hear about the Spurs blowing a lead.  If you beat them, it was because you played a hell of a game.  Kenny Smith was the truth when he talked about the Spurs being like the volume dial on the radio.  Most of the time, they'll always be a 7.  They can go up to 10 if need be, but they'll never go below a 6, which means every team that faces them must consistently play at a 7 level or up to have a chance to beat them.  

You find very few teams in the league consistent enough to play them at that level for a seven game series, particularly in the last three seasons.  That's what happened to Denver; they have the talent, but they simply don't have the team chemistry and the consistency that brings.  Besides Larry Brown, Greg Popovich is probably the best coach in the league, and he understands how to get maximum results from his players when he needs it.  George Karl is a great coach too, but he just came on board in midseason, and needs time to mold this team into true contenders.  But Denver only won Game 1 because Duncan was coming off of an injury.  Seattle won't have that luxury in the next round.

So with the remaining Round One series, we have some great ones with Indiana/Boston, with the Pacers leading 3-2, Bulls/Wizards, with the Wizards leading 3-2, and Dallas/Houston, with the Mavs leading 3-2.  Which ones will go seven games?  I see Dallas/Houston going that route, and maybe the Bulls/Wizards as well. Indiana I think will close out the series tonight.  Hopefully I will be able to watch the Pacers/Celtics game and Mavs/Rockets game to see if I'm right.

Well, what will it be?

I got the playoffs, with San Antonio trying to finish off Denver (and likely will) along with the very good Bulls/Wizards matchup, where the Wizards are up by 12 as we speak (check the scoreboard, people...I didn't put it up there for nothing.)

UPDATE:  The Malkin post will be on the site tomorrow afternoon.  For those that might have seen this link through a search engine, I'll place the link for that post later.

My post is here.

Before I start, let me start off with this disclaimer:  I am a sports official.  I'm not an NBA official, but I would like to be someday.

Now that we got that out of the way, Houston Rockets Head Coach Jeff Van Gundy was fined $100,000 yesterday for his comments to the media. Gundy said an official called him up and said the officials calling the series were looking at Yao Ming a little closer on his fouls after Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban complained about moving screens:

Just wanted to make a note about the very interesting debate that's going on at In The Agora discussing judicial activism both current and historical.  I am not a law school student, but I love discussing legal opinions and interpretations, and this one is red hot.

At the heart of this stems Eric Seymour's post arguing that the Democrats are filibustering Bush's nominees because the judiciary is the last branch of government that the left still controls.  In it he states most left-winged judges "push their agenda through the courts based largely on personal philosophy (covered by Constitutional fig leaves)".  I agreed with that statement, but his fellow Agora contributor Ed Brayton didn't, and it became a point/counterpoint argument that has included an anomyous poster and has gotten heated at times.  Regardless, it's still good reading.

Probably the best post was Ed Brayton's discussion of the immunities and privileges clause of the 14th Amendment, in which he provides solid proof that the 14th Amendment was designed to force the states to uphold the Bill of Rights.  He also slams the Slaughterhouse opinion as judicial activism, and chides conservatives for supporting that opinion even today.  The central question is how far does the clause go in incoporating the Bill of Rights as well as natural rights into the 14th Amendment?

Also, we're trying to find information into Janice Rogers Brown's stance on this clause.  Brayton originally said Brown felt the 14th Amendment didn't incorporate any rights upon the states, but after I found a Washington Post op-ed berating Brown for supporting the Lochner decision, it seems she possibly changed her mind about it considering Lochner is considered the widest interpretation of the immunities and clause argument to date.  If you have any insight into this, feel free to leave a comment or scroll down and click "contact me" on the sidebar.

I've finally received Men In Black (which means I am now reading two books, because I still haven't finished reading South Park Conservatives), and just finished "Radicals In Robes", the first chapter.  I'll be looking out for Levin's opinion on the 14th Amendment as well as how it pertains to judicial interpretation today.

Yesterday the Reverend Pat Robertson was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulis, and when asked about the current animosity of the federal judiciary by conservatives, he said this:

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

This has led to some strong criticism, as the "Moderate" Voice responds:

This kind of verbal stops political debate — cold. So Robertson now says our judges are in some ways worse than terrorists. Why? Because they don't rule the way HE wants. And Republicans (rightfully) complained about some of the verbal excesses of Michael Moore?

If you've seen me respond to some of his comments on Booker Rising, you know I don't think much of Gandleman to begin with, nor of most of the bloggers that call themselves "moderates" (I'd rather call them fenceriders or lukewarmers).  I have a hard time taking people seriously who's solution to everything is the middle of the road, or whatever sounds like a good idea at the time.

But what's wrong with Robertson's comments?  Absolutely nothing.  While the terrorist reference is admittedly over-the-top, the fact remains that Robertson isn't saying anything that hasn't been said since the founding of this country:

Thomas Jefferson:

The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.

James Madison:

I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.

George Mason:

"When we consider the nature of these (Federal) courts, we must conclude that their effect and operation will be utterly to destroy the State governments; for they will be the judges how far their laws will operate .... The principle itself goes to the destruction of the legislation of the States, whether or not it was intended .... I think it will destroy the State governments .... Ther are many gentlemen in the United States who think it right that we should have one great, national, consolidated government, and that it was better to bring it about slowly and imperceptibly rather than all at once .... To those who think that one national consolidated government is best for America, this extensive judicial authority will be agreeable."

Abraham Lincoln:

"The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Alexander Hamilton:

For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and judicial powers.

So Robertson's comments aren't new, at least to people with a modicum of American history.  Sure, Robertson is looking out for his own viewpoint of constitutional interpretation in relation to Christianity.  But that doesn't mean you ignore the central premise of his argument, which is that we live under a judiciary run amok, that has given themselves powers that weren't handed to them by the Constitutional Convention or any constitutional amendment.  And this was predicted by several of the framers as well as early public figures and former presidents.

If that's something that the fenceriders can't handle, then that's fine by me.  America will be a better place without ticks clinging on to men and women of principle.

(Photo:  Yahoo's The Contender Page)

Alfonso Manfredo won last week's fight over an overmatched Ahmed Khaddour.  Alfonso was much more bruised this time than he was in his first fight with Peter, but won by a unaminous decision.  Back at the training house the boys talked about how dangerous Alfonso was, but they gave him kudos for being all heart.

There were four boxers left to go in the quarterfinals, and they once again tried to pre-pick fights, which has failed, what, three times already?  At the heart of the matter was Anthony, who had a torn hamstring (most thought it was just pulled, but a doctor announced it being torn later on).  They decided Joey would face Peter this week and Jesse would face Anthony next week.  However, none of them trusted Anthony to keep his word to fight Jesse if he won the mission this week due to the Brent Cooper incident a few episodes back.

They didn't realize Joey was scheming as well.  Anthony was injured, and would be a much better matchup for him than the other three fighters.  The object of the game is to win, and the best way to win is to choose your opponents carefully when given the chance.  However, Joey screwed up by telling Jesse his plan.  Jesse felt Joey was trying to get an easy fight.  However, wasn't Jesse more than willing to get that same injured fighter?  Jesse realized that Joey couldn't win the mission this week, or Joey would choose Anthony to fight this week.

Later, Stallone gave Alfonso the IV pendant, which is given to each semifinalist.  Jackie, who is a long-time boxing publicist and manager, allowed Alfonso to take someone with him for the reward.  Since Sergio took Alfonso with him last week for his reward, Alfonso would pay back the favor.  They accompanied Jackie on a clothes shopping spree on Rodeo Drive.  Blah.  Seems to me they're starting to run out of rewards choices, as they've already done one before.  I felt it was a waste of money anyways.  Had it be me, I'd have probably asked her could the money we were going to spend home.  I could have paid bills with it.

It was challenge time, this week they had a speedbag race...sorta.  The guys had to lay on the ground facing away from the speedbags which were probably, say, 100 yards away.  In front of each speedbag was a sign with a specific color and number.  Sugar Ray would either tell them a number or a color, and they had to get up and run to it and grab the speedbag.

There were only five guys that were in this challenge, since Anthony was injured and forfeited.  The first part of the competition had the five guys simply trying to run and grab a speedbag.  There were four speedbags, so the odd man out had to challenge another guy in a speedbag race.  The loser of that race was eliminated.

Sergio lost the first race and challenged Alfonso, who was eliminated first.  Sergio lost the group race again, and challenged Peter.  Peter misunderstood Sugar Ray's command, which gave Sergio the easy victory.  Sergio lost the group race AGAIN, challenged Joey, but was eliminated.  That meant Joey and Jesse remained, and they went two out of three.  Jesse won the first race, Joey won the second, but Jesse pulled out the third to win the mission and became the matchmaker.

When they got back to the gym, Jesse decided the fight.  He said he would have fought next, but he had a hamstring pull.  Thus, he picked Joey and Peter to fight.

So it was Peter Manfredo Jr. vs. Joey Gilbert.  Once again experience was a factor, as Peter had lost only one in 23 fights (Alfonso was his first loss).  Joey had only fought nine fights.  The one thing Joey had going for him was his strength and heart.  Joey understood what he was getting into, as Peter would no doubt be the toughest fight he has had up to date.  He also rationalized that Jesse's choice might be a blessing in disguise, as fighting Peter would make him tougher.  Peter simply saw this as another fight, and the win a few weeks back over Miguel allowed him to regain his confidence.

In the first round, Peter simply had the sharper punches and was able to make things happen by using his jab and unloading some good counterpunches.  Joey came in very flustered.  His punches were very wide, he wasn't guarding very well, and he left himself open to some strong shots by Peter.  Joey's probably the best athlete in the competition, and he has a long reach, so he should have tried to use the jab to pin Peter on the ropes.  The crowd grimmaced with almost every shot Peter threw, and he hurt Joey with a few of them.  Peter won the round easily.

Before the second round, Joey told his corner Peter broke one of his ribs.  Ouch.  I'm not sure, but once he stood up you could see a part of his rib cage poking out.  I don't know if that was the one that was broke or if that was just cartilage, because Joey's a pretty slim guy.  However, you could tell it was bothering him, as Peter pretty much did anything he wanted in there.  Joey really didn't put up any resistance on defense nor did he do any kind of damage on offense.  He was never in danger of being knocked out, but it was a lopsided round. 
Now here's the problem with edited rounds:  Tommy said he felt Joey won Round two, but there was nothing in the edited footage that would have pointed to that.  As long as Tommy's been in the boxing business I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.  At the very least, it was probably closer than the footage suggests.

In round three, Peter comes out with some pretty good shots.  He looks a little more careful now.  And then something went off in Joey's head.  He caught Peter with a good shot right on the ear, and then he goes after him.  Finally he's using his athletic abilities to rough Peter up and comes back with punch after punch, hurting Peter with every shot.  It should be noted that Peter did a fairly decent job of guarding under the circumstances, but Joey definitely won round three.

Round four saw much of the same.  Peter simply couldn't go toe-to-toe with Joey.  Peter should also be criticized with worrying too much about head shots, which is normal in boxing, and not going to the body.  He might have been surprised if he got him with some really good hooks to the body.  But Joey continues to lunge at Peter, and although Peter displays some knowledge of defense, there's only so much you can do when facing shots like that.  Joey wins that round.

Round five started exactly like you thought it would: both guys coming out and throwing everything they had at each other.  Peter is an excellent counterpuncher.  He knows when his opponent is vulnerable from the missed shot and he takes advantage.  He hit Joey with some great shots, reminiscent of the first round.  But Joey wisely uses his strength advantage to pin Peter against the ropes and tries to unload on him.  You would have thought his corner would have told him to move around more and stop getting caught on the ropes against a stronger opponent.

And that's when it happened; an accidental headbutt gives Joey a huge cut over his eye.  Many thought it was a punch, but that was WAY too deep to be from one or even a coupleof punches.  The blood flowed quickly, and soon the ref called the cutman over to check it out.  There was no way the fight could continue, so under California rules if the fight is stopped by a cut it goes to the scorecards.

In a split decision, Peter won.  I kind of question that, as I thought it should have been a draw, and if you place Tommy's view into it, Joey won the fight.  But I wasn't angered by the decision for a couple of reasons:  1.)  Joey fought weak in the first and second round.  2,)  There was no way Joey was going to fight again anyway.  He had a busted rib and a deep cut over his eye.  There had already been too many replacements on the show at that point anyway.

For all of the talk about Joey being a manipulator and an opportunist, the fact remains that he had the two best fights on the show; both showing how much heart he has.  In this fight, he had a broken rib.  In his earlier fight, he had an injured leg, and he had opponents both times that were more experienced than him.  Kudos to Stallone and the gang, because they really had an asset in Joey Gilbert.

Afterwards, Joey could hardly see, and he was in a lot of pain from the beating he took by Peter.  They called the EMT's to take him to the nearest hospital.  They were going to place him on a gurney, but he wanted to walk out on his own, which he did with his dad.

Next week is Anthony vs. Jesse.  Anthony has the only knockout of the show, and both are injured.  Will we see another short fight?  Possibly.  See ya next week.