*A record is a record .

Have you ever sat down at a computer
in a library, and the keyboard is missing
a key? It could be the “I,” maybe the
“C,” but it always seems to be one that
you need most. Well, the same keyboard
culprits that turn your last-minute
paper into the latest case of Murphy’s
Law need to strike the offices of sports
record writers – and fast.

The asterisk is the key to how
this era of professional sports will be
remembered down the road, and its
usage must vanish from consideration
in the record books.

Ever since Barry Bonds re-set Mark
McGwire’s short-lived single season
homerun record in 2001, controversy
has surrounded Bonds regarding his
inflated power numbers.

Many people griped that his record
should be accompanied by an asterisk,
even though allegations of his steroid
use have not yet been substantiated
enough to ever suspend the slugger.
The court of public opinion should
have no bearing on how Matt Doyon
VI interprets the legacy of former
players.

Controversy over asterisks is not a
new phenomenon, though. Some people
believed that Roger Maris’ then-record
61 jacks in 1961 should be followed
by one because the American League
extended its regular season from 154
games to 162 that year. Through 154
games in 1961, Maris was one homer
short of tying Babe Ruth’s 34-year-old
record and needed the lengthened
season to set the new mark. Is there an
asterisk in the record books? Thankfully
not.

Just this past baseball season, Bonds
re-wrote Henry Aaron’s career homerun
record mark and is currently perched
at 762. Again, asterisk advocates made
their presence known. Fashion designer
and entrepreneur Marc Ecko bought
Bonds’ record-setting 756th home
run and conducted an online vote to
determine the fate of the ball. The
winning option stipulated the ball be
sent to Cooperstown, the site of Major
League

Baseball’s Hall of Fame, branded with
an asterisk. For now, Bonds’ display
might be tarnished, but let’s hope the
record books aren’t. Don’t qualify the
record with exceptions. Either let it
stand or take it away.

The most disturbing request for an
asterisk came this week, though, from
the Don Shula camp in Miami while
commenting on the New England
Patriots’ potential to go 16-0. Shula,
head coach of the only undefeated
team in NFL history – the 1972 Miami
Dolphins – says that Spygate “has
diminished what they’ve accomplished.”
He thinks an asterisk should clarify that
the Patriots were fined and forfeited a
first-round draft pick after their Week
1 incident against the Jets. All the Pats
have done since then without video aid
is go 8-0 and separate themselves from
the rest of the league. So, if they do go
19-0 (including the playoffs), one win
will have a small cloud above it, and that
was against a vastly inferior team.

And yes, this is the same Don Shula
who reunites with some of his old Dolphins
squad each season to arrogantly
raise their champagne and toast when
the last team falls from the ranks of the
unbeaten. For the first time, possibly,
Shula is legitimately concerned that
another franchise could get through
an entire season with an unblemished
record. That’s enough to make anybody
try to differentiate himself from the
newcomers, saying that somehow
they’re not as good or that they didn’t
do it the “right way.”

Maybe Bill Belichick should contend
there should be an asterisk after Miami’s
1972 season. After all, there were only
14 regular-season games at the time, so
the Dolphins only went 17-0 overall.
Ironically, this is happening the same
season that Miami has a chance to
become the first team to achieve a
winless season since it was expanded
to 16 games in 1978.

Every team has different issues to
deal with every year. The record books
cannot become so circumstantial. The
modern NBA dynasty is the San Antonio
Spurs, and they’ve won four recent
titles with help from international
players, such as Tony Parker and Manu
Ginobili. The Boston Celtics won 11
championships in 13 seasons without
the benefit of international stars. Should
the Spurs’ championships include
asterisks because they have a wider pool
of players from which to choose?

Absolutely not.

By the same token, the NBA was a
much smaller league in the 1960s and
had less parody. Should Boston’s titles
be qualified because of that? Again, no.
And I doubt Red Auerbach is rolling
over in his grave thinking about it.
Sports change over time and take different
paths. A record is a record and
should be respected without a little ink
star degrading it, opening the door for
generations of mudslinging.