Standards stop short of shoe companies

I'm reluctant to turn "Lil" Mark Walker Jr. into a crusade. I'm far from all-knowing. There is a one-in-a-billion chance that he'll become the Tiger Woods of basketball. There's an even better chance that he'll survive his premature hype as the future of basketball.

Part of me wants to stand down and just accept the fact that Lil Mark is no different than a child actor, a cute little story.

But this story isn't all that cute. That's why LaShawn Walker, Lil Mark's mama, and Reebok, Lil Mark's employer, have grown so silent. LaShawn Walker and Reebok were raised well -- when they don't have anything good to say, they choose to say nothing at all.

My Star colleague Blair Kerkhoff attempted for more than a week to get LaShawn's and Reebok's side of the story as it pertains to 3-year-old Lil Mark's endorsement deal.

LaShawn, who spent weeks courting the media, wouldn't return Kerkhoff's phone messages. Reebok, which just three weeks ago proudly trumpeted its relationship with Lil Mark, told Kerkhoff it had no further comment on the Lil Mark campaign.

Quiet time

Why the silence? If there wasn't something fundamentally wrong with a powerful shoe company promoting a 3-year-old boy as the "future of basketball," why turn silent when a reporter has a few questions?

The truth shall set you free.

The truth is, Reebok should be embarrassed. The sneaker companies have gone too far in their bids to land the next Tiger or LeBron. There's no question that Mark Sr. and LaShawn are culpable in Lil Mark's exploitation.

They've conducted the 90-minute training sessions. LaShawn contacted the media and the shoe companies. Reebok didn't go looking for Lil Mark; LaShawn went looking for Reebok, or Nike, or anyone willing to believe her boy was the next Michael Jordan.

But the shoe companies should have some standards. And if the shoe companies can't discipline themselves, then maybe we -- consumers -- should intervene. Nike, Reebok and all the rest are after our dollars. They believe the way to get those dollars is to make their shoes marketable to the inner-city, hip-hop, predominantly black community.

Laying it out

That's not speculation. It's been documented in numerous magazine articles. It's what Reebok told me in 1998 when I did an in-depth profile of Tupac Shakur-wannabe Allen Iverson, who at that time had just inked a huge contract with Reebok.

That's why one of Lil Mark's first publicity stops was on BET's "106 and Park."

If you can get poor inner-city minorities to buy overpriced gym shoes, suburban kids will follow their lead.

The shoe companies need to be stopped. They hoodwink and bamboozle the poor, selling them shoes they can't afford by using multimillionaire pitchmen who pretend to be ghetto-authentic.

The shoe companies are a corruptive, destructive force in college athletics. They finance the Myron Piggies of the recruiting world and take no responsibility for the widespread cheating their dollars drive.

And while they're doing all of this, we suck up their overpriced shoes as though Allen Iverson's latest brand was as necessary as water.

I hope the Lil Mark campaign backfires. I hope intelligent people are turned off by the idea that Reebok would shamelessly promote a three-year-old as the future of basketball, proudly stating that Lil Mark is destined for the big leagues.

Reebok knows exactly which community -- poor, less educated and inner city -- its targeting with this campaign. Reebok doesn't care how many 90-minute "practice" sessions it sparks in the 'hood.

We should care.

Because while the shoe companies are quick to drop $90 million in the lap of LeBron James to victimize poor folks, they do little to nothing to inspire poor kids who have more brains than brawn.

Guess I won't be buying any more Reeboks.

Jason Whitlock is a sports columnist for The Kansas City Star.