Let us take away from the usual talk about Iowa State football and concentrate on this whole Marv Albert thing.

My first question is simply, Marv Albert?

How could such a predominate sports commentary figure like Marv Albert be into biting backs?

Now, I know what everyone is saying. What a freak, dog, loser and psycho.

But then ask yourself if he is truly that different than you.

I’m not talking about what you would tell your family or your closest friends if they asked you what you thought of the whole incident. I’m asking you to search into the depths of the darkest area of your mind and ask yourself if you have any animal characteristics that are stapled to your sexuality.

I’m not saying that it was right for Marv to munch on that woman’s back, but it was only wrong because she claims that she did not consent to the act.

But what if she had consented and came out in public with the sexual habits of Albert? Would everyone still be freaking out?

I have a hard time condemning Marv Albert because he’s a tiger in bed.

I mean, the girl had been having sexual affairs with him for 10 years, and this is the first time that this sort of thing has ever happened? I doubt it. I smell some gold-digging going on.

And why was Marv fired?

I really don’t understand this whole moral clause in his contract. For those of you who are unaware of what a moral clause is, it’s a clause that states if Albert were to make or commit any acts that could be considered immoral, then his contract will be immediately terminated.

Is getting a little carried away in the sack immoral? I think many of you out there know how easy it is to get a little too rough while gettin’ it on.

I don’t think what he did was as much immoral as it was socially unacceptable.

So how do you define immoral? Because there isn’t a whole lot in this world that is immoral to me.

Of course, I’m not down with child molestation or raping donkeys, but we do live in a pretty liberal society.

And because of that, it is damn near impossible to determine what is immoral.

If Albert were to dress in a Easter bunny suit and give the world the bird while singing the national anthem in the middle of church, I wouldn’t say that he was immoral. Very strange, but not immoral.

But we’ll go along with the system and say that Albert is guilty of assault and battery. If the woman did not consent, then he was wrong (even though I still have reservations about that).

My point is that even if NBC considers his actions immoral, I don’t care. I want to see and hear Marv Albert covering the greatest sports events in America.

The court has punished him for his actions.

Why can’t that be enough?

Why does Albert have to be condemned by a company that he helped build with his colorful analysis of numerous sporting events?

Where is the loyalty for Albert when the case, although it is legally closed, holds many question marks?

To Albert, I say hold your head forever up. I’m behind ya even though you bit that girl.

We’ll talk later.

---

Chad Calek is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Persia.