Remember When ...?

Anyone else here recall a time when ESPN didn't need a legal analyst?

It wasn't really that long ago; used to be I could tune into the Worldwide Leader and get all the scores, highlights and analysis I needed. Sure, there were tales of athletes getting arrested or finding themselves knee-deep in scandal, but aside from the news itself and the sport in question's analyst weighing in with a field-related opinion, that was it.

Not anymore.

I don't know when the legal analyst first appeared on ESPN's airwaves. The first time I saw one was during the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, and the trend seems to have snowballed since then. These days, the legal analysts get almost as much airtime as all the other analysts, what with all the athletes (and in some instances, coaches) getting into trouble with the law.

Pacman makes it rain in a Vegas strip club. There's Roger Cossack.

Michael Vick made some dogs tear each other to bits? Say hi to Lester Munson.

O.J. went all psycho on some guy who stole his memorabilia (who would want that stuff, anyway?)? There's that Cossack guy again!

And let's not forget Thursday night; when news broke that the federal government would indict Barry Bonds on perjury and obstruction of justice charges for his testimony in the BALCO steroids case, SportsCenter's Jay Harris and Cris McKendry spoke with not one ... not two ... but 'THREE people with the title "ESPN Legal Analyst."

There was Cossack, there was Munson. And then some other guy who's name escapes me at this point.

I could understand having one legal analyst on-hand for when athletes get in trouble with the law. Hell, I can even get by with two being on the corporate payroll. But the Walt Disney Corp. pays three guys to be ESPN's legal gurus? Is this so commonplace these days the Worldwide Leader has to go through legal analysts the way Britney Spears goes through Social Services workers?

Or the way Phil Jackson goes through gay jokes when talking about his team?

I won't hold the legal analysts' presence against ESPN; it's clearly a sign of the way the sports culture has changed. When the athletes we watch and write about aren't performing on the field anymore, it seems as if they're being handcuffed, lined up and made to stand and turn to the right (No, your other right) in front of a camera. Our favorite althetes hit 450-foot home runs, throw game-winning touchdowns and throw down monster dunks -- but they also make it rain in strip clubs, shoot firearms at the dead of night and take illegal performance-enhancers.

So when they stand before a judge with some high-priced attorney at their side, we have a right to know what they're dealing with. Because chances are, the vast majority of us will never find ourselves in that position.

It's just a shame, because I remember when ESPN had no need for the legal analyst. Just proof that not all evolution is necessarily good.