Earlier today, Michael Vick filed his plea deal in federal court, pleading guilty to conspiracy charges related to a dogfighting ring which he funded and participated in. Every news outlet, opinion columnist, and legal analyst has weighed in on the case over the past few weeks. Depending on who you listen to, either Vick should be indefinitely suspended from the NFL by Roger Goodell, or he should be allowed to return to the playing field; he should either be released by Arthur Blank and the Falcons, or retained pending further review; killing dogs is either a heinous and inexcusable offense, or PETA is taking it too far and they were "just dogs"; the NFL Players' Association has either failed Vick by not supporting him, or protected itself and its credibility by staying away; we have either done Vick a disservice by "rushing to judgment," or we were justified in our condemnation and outrage by the extent of the evidence which has been revealed.
So to review, the debate has raged on regarding Roger Goodell, Arthur Blank, PETA and dogs, the NFLPA, and us. Notice a name missing from that list? How about Michael Vick? We've discussed animal rights, human rights, race in America generally and in the South specifically. We've discussed poverty and affluence, culture and subculture, North and Dirty South. What we haven't talked about is Vick.
I'll be blunt: at the end of the day, I don't really care too much about what the people on that list have or haven't done in regards to Vick's court case. What I am interested in is Michael Vick.
I want to bring up a point that has been shown by psychologists over and over again: people who abuse animals tend to exhibit other violent tendencies and "anti-social" characteristics. Very often, the way we treat animals very closely reflects the way we treat other people. Look at Michael Vick over the past 10 years since he showed up on the scene at Virginia Tech, and you'll see that he's been showing signs of this for a long time. From the two men arrested for distributing marijuana out of Vick's truck, to the stolen watch at Hartsfield International Airport with Quanis Phillips and Todd Harris (whose names you may recognize from Vick's current predicament), to the out of court settlement for the Ron Mexico/genital herpes ordeal, Michael Vick has been on this path with these same men for a long time.
This is nothing new. The signs have been there. Now we need to ask the question: is Michael Vick the college football hero who took VT to the national championship game, or the QB who threw up his middle fingers at fans during an NFL game? Is he the face of a franchise worth his $130 million dollar contract, or the guy who got caught with a hidden compartment in his water bottle that smelled like weed? Is he the most exciting player in football, or the ring leader of a dogfighting "business venture"?
Here's my take: At the end of the day, Michael Vick is, simply put, a bad dude who happens to be tremendously good at a game we love to watch. Maybe he's a "victim of circumstance." Maybe he grew up in a bad neighborhood and was surrounded by all the wrong people. Maybe if he was still stuck in that neighborhood, like so many of those in Newport News still are, years after their favorite son signed a $130 million NFL contract, I'd have a bit more pity for his current situation. Then again, if he was still stuck in that neighborhood we wouldn't even be having this conversation, would we?
But none of that, unfortunate or otherwise, makes him any less culpable for his actions. None of it changes who Michael Vick is. Neither does his remarkable talent. At the end of the day, Michael Vick was the top draft pick in the National Football League and was given the chance to "get out" of the bad environment. Hell, with all the money he was making, he could have (perhaps should have) chosen to put some effort into trying to improve the neighborhood he grew up in. But, at the end of the day, he chose to continue along the path that has led him to where he is today, and there's no one to blame for that except Vick, himself.
I recall a recent interview with Vick that ended with him saying, "It doesn't matter, cause at the end of the day, everyone loves Mike Vick, man." If no one else wants to say it, I will: At the end of the day, Mike, no we don't.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
At what cost?
I want to make a brief return to the issue of doping and post a link to a really interesting article I just read. It's very easy for all of us to joke about the size of Barry Bond's head, and I've heard plenty of people propose that we simply allow performance enhancing substances in sports. The common refrain that I hear is, "If everyone's doing it, why not just make it legal. Plus, that way we'll get the very best performance possible, and that's what we really want, isn't it?"
Personally, I think that response is shortsighted and misses the point entirely. As much as I love the ethic behind "fair competition," I am forced to admit that the real reason for banning these substances isn't for the sake of fair play, but because of the health risks involved.
http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/13149.0.html
This article is an interview with Joe Papp, who is a former pro cyclist who has admitted to using corticosteroids (asthma inhalers, typically) as well as EPO at different stages of his professional career. He openly discusses some of the medical effects of his use and the injuries that resulted.
Doping in any form, whether steroids, growth hormones, blood doping or any other practice pose very serious risks to the athletes who subject themselves to them. As Joe points out at the end of the article, the risks seem worth it when there's a cash payout at the end of the day. We need to clean up professional atheltics, not just for the sake of the sports, but for the sake of the athletes.
Personally, I think that response is shortsighted and misses the point entirely. As much as I love the ethic behind "fair competition," I am forced to admit that the real reason for banning these substances isn't for the sake of fair play, but because of the health risks involved.
http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/13149.0.html
This article is an interview with Joe Papp, who is a former pro cyclist who has admitted to using corticosteroids (asthma inhalers, typically) as well as EPO at different stages of his professional career. He openly discusses some of the medical effects of his use and the injuries that resulted.
Doping in any form, whether steroids, growth hormones, blood doping or any other practice pose very serious risks to the athletes who subject themselves to them. As Joe points out at the end of the article, the risks seem worth it when there's a cash payout at the end of the day. We need to clean up professional atheltics, not just for the sake of the sports, but for the sake of the athletes.
O, what a night
In case you're under a rock, my beloved Orioles lost to the Texas Rangers yesterday by a score of 30-3. Yes, 30-3. There's really nothing to do here but laugh...and look at some really funny statistics from last night's game. Some of my favorites:
- 30 runs is the most scored by a single team in a game since 1897...that's 110 years.
- In their previous two games, the Rangers struck out 30 times combined.
- The Rangers had scored only 29 runs in their previous 9 games.
- In his last 17 starts, Erik Bedard has given up a total of 31 runs.
- The Rangers scored all their run in 4 innings (the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 9th), meaning they were held scoreless in more innings than they scored in.
- Every Texas Ranger scored in the game, with 8 scoring at least twice.
- 7 of the 9 Texas starters drove in at least 2 runs.
- Michael Young, the Rangers' third batter (and presumably best hitter) was the man left out, scoring only one run and driving in none.
- The Rangers hit breakdown: 21 singles, 6 HR (including 2 grand slams and 3-3 run homers), and 2 doubles.
- Wes Littleton pitched the final three innings, after coming into the game with a 14-3 lead, and earned a save. (I think we need to revisit that rule)
- The Baltimore Ravens haven't given up 30 points in a game since Week 12 of the 2005 season...a span of 20 regular season games and one playoff game.
- All 30 runs were earned, and the Orioles committed only 1 error in the game.
- Paul Shuey gave up 7 hits, 3 walks, and 9 runs in two innings of work...and the first 5 outs he recorded were by strikeouts. Which means that, other than the final out of the night made by Corey Patterson at the warning track, every single ball that the Rangers put in play off Shuey resulted in a hit...no balls were caught, no one grounded out, and no runners were forced out or otherwise thrown out.
- Two Rangers had 7 RBI and two had 4. The last time a team had four players with four RBI was May 17, 1979.
- The Orioles' bullpen ERA increased by over half a point last night.
- In the 2006 NFL season, teams scored fewer than 30 points in 64.5% of games.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
A Balance of Probability
As a cyclist, I've been wanting to write about the issue of doping culture in modern professional sports. I have to admit that the topic that has proven difficult for me to broach for a variety of reasons. Primary among them is that, as a cyclist, my writing tends to become defensive rather than constructive. I would prefer that this not be the case. I would love to discuss the issues surrounding doping in order to address and correct the underlying challenges, rather than simply condemning those guilty. This conversation shouldn't be about finding out who has done what, but rather, how do we prevent it in the future.
In future blogs, I want to touch on what I feel sets cycling apart from other sports in regard to the handling of performance enhancing substances, and how I would propose addressing some of the shortcomings if I were ever to find myself in a position where my opinion on such things mattered. For now though, in light of the record setting performance of Mr. Barry Lamar Bonds, I want to ask a different question.
When did we allow our sports and our athletes meet only the standards of our judicial system? When did "innocent until proven guilty" and all the weighty semantics that come with it, jump off of the Constitution and into the professional sports arena? What happened to the higher standard our athletes are supposed to live up to?
If my memory serves me correctly, the very same day I was introduced to organized sports, oh, say, 20 years ago, I was also taught the principles of teamwork and fair play. These two pillars of sport are really just the foundation of what I was taught about sports growing up. I seem to remember the virtues of hard work and dedication, and the notion that you were rewarded for your effort on the field both in games and in practice. I was also lucky enough to grow up watching Call Ripken Jr. roam the infield at Memorial Stadium and Camden Yards, and even more fortunate to have the chance to witness his induction into the Hall of Fame last week. Guys like that show you what it means to respect the game, respect the fans, and take pride in what you do.
So consider me jaded when I consider what has become of sports seemingly overnight. It's certainly possible that this summer has been the worst of all time in regard to scandals and disappointments from the athletes in our favorite sports. These are guys who, like it or not, used to be held to a higher standard. They were people we looked up to, not for the money they made playing a game, but for their ability to play it, and the respect they had for those who played it with them, and before them.
Now that I've waxed rather poetic, let me get back to the meat of this discussion and return to my original question. I want to address a somewhat simple notion: the burden of proof. Let's look at the wording of the World Anti-Doping Administration's code which all sports, er, most sports -American professional leagues excluded- follow.
Okay. Let's start with this: Barry Bonds has not (officially) committed a doping violation in so far as he has never tested positive for steroids. However, what I want to point to here is that, in sports, unlike in criminal court, the standard of proof lies between probability and reasonable doubt. In other words, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" in sports, because, hey it's sports and we expect more from athletes. As fans we expect and deserve clean sports, fair play, and athletes who respect the game and it's history enough to compete on talent, hard work, and determination. Mostly, we ask that, within the context of the game, you do your part to uphold the credibility and integrity of the game. In short, keep your ass out of trouble.
Essentially, sports are based on this very premise. Consider that the night Bonds broke the record, Roger Clemens was thrown out of a game for hitting a batter. Thrown out because the umpire felt he threw at Alex Rios intentionally. No proof needed, just the balance of probability. Think about it, players are thrown out of games all the time based on a balance of probability.
Look at the Tim Donaghy situation in the NBA. We all want to know how Donaghy got away with potentially fixing games over the past 10 years. How could we not have figured out that he was making calls that affected the outcomes of games?
He got away with it because the act of officiating is a series of judgment calls, based upon a necessarily limited understanding of a situation. It's essentially a situation where, through training, referees are trained to make determinations that fall beyond a balance of probability but are unavoidably short of being beyond reasonable doubt.
The system works as long as we can trust that out athletes and officials are playing fairly and respecting the rules of the game to the extent possible. When this trust is violated, we have to question the credibility of our games. Tim Donaghy made us question the credibility of the NBA. Barry Bonds has caused us to question the credibility of the sport of baseball and the sinlge most hallowed record in professional sports.
In my opinion, Barry Bonds is a disgrace. He has torn down the pillars of fair play that sports are founded on. As a fan I'm disappointed. But I don't blame Barry. I blame baseball.
I blame baseball for lowering their standards, for sweeping the evidence of cheating under the rug for the past 15 years in order to provide a greater spectacle. After all, that's what this has become, isn't it? Major professional sports in America are no longer anything greater than a mere spectacle. Something to watch, but not something to aspire to. We no longer expect a higher standard of integrity and respect from our athletes; we simply ask for the best show money and chemistry can buy.
As a final note, I want to say that I applaud Roger Goodell for the work he's doing in the NFL. His handling of players and their off-the-field indiscretions sends a clear message: "clean up your act--we expect more from you."
Barry Bonds is major league baseball's all-time home run king. No asterisk and no erasing can change that fact, because our expectations have changed, and the rules have been interpreted to match. But in my opinion, Barry Bonds should not be playing major league baseball. I think the grand jury testimony and personal accounts of the BALCO employees has pushed his case beyond a balance of probability. We know he did it, knowingly or otherwise, and if we truly wanted a clean sport that would be enough. In other sports and other countries around the world it is. Just not in baseball. Not anymore.
In future blogs, I want to touch on what I feel sets cycling apart from other sports in regard to the handling of performance enhancing substances, and how I would propose addressing some of the shortcomings if I were ever to find myself in a position where my opinion on such things mattered. For now though, in light of the record setting performance of Mr. Barry Lamar Bonds, I want to ask a different question.
When did we allow our sports and our athletes meet only the standards of our judicial system? When did "innocent until proven guilty" and all the weighty semantics that come with it, jump off of the Constitution and into the professional sports arena? What happened to the higher standard our athletes are supposed to live up to?
If my memory serves me correctly, the very same day I was introduced to organized sports, oh, say, 20 years ago, I was also taught the principles of teamwork and fair play. These two pillars of sport are really just the foundation of what I was taught about sports growing up. I seem to remember the virtues of hard work and dedication, and the notion that you were rewarded for your effort on the field both in games and in practice. I was also lucky enough to grow up watching Call Ripken Jr. roam the infield at Memorial Stadium and Camden Yards, and even more fortunate to have the chance to witness his induction into the Hall of Fame last week. Guys like that show you what it means to respect the game, respect the fans, and take pride in what you do.
So consider me jaded when I consider what has become of sports seemingly overnight. It's certainly possible that this summer has been the worst of all time in regard to scandals and disappointments from the athletes in our favorite sports. These are guys who, like it or not, used to be held to a higher standard. They were people we looked up to, not for the money they made playing a game, but for their ability to play it, and the respect they had for those who played it with them, and before them.
Now that I've waxed rather poetic, let me get back to the meat of this discussion and return to my original question. I want to address a somewhat simple notion: the burden of proof. Let's look at the wording of the World Anti-Doping Administration's code which all sports, er, most sports -American professional leagues excluded- follow.
"The standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the of other Athlete or other Person alleged to have commited and anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall the by a balance of probablity." (World Anti-Doping Code, Section 3.1)
Okay. Let's start with this: Barry Bonds has not (officially) committed a doping violation in so far as he has never tested positive for steroids. However, what I want to point to here is that, in sports, unlike in criminal court, the standard of proof lies between probability and reasonable doubt. In other words, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" in sports, because, hey it's sports and we expect more from athletes. As fans we expect and deserve clean sports, fair play, and athletes who respect the game and it's history enough to compete on talent, hard work, and determination. Mostly, we ask that, within the context of the game, you do your part to uphold the credibility and integrity of the game. In short, keep your ass out of trouble.
Essentially, sports are based on this very premise. Consider that the night Bonds broke the record, Roger Clemens was thrown out of a game for hitting a batter. Thrown out because the umpire felt he threw at Alex Rios intentionally. No proof needed, just the balance of probability. Think about it, players are thrown out of games all the time based on a balance of probability.
Look at the Tim Donaghy situation in the NBA. We all want to know how Donaghy got away with potentially fixing games over the past 10 years. How could we not have figured out that he was making calls that affected the outcomes of games?
He got away with it because the act of officiating is a series of judgment calls, based upon a necessarily limited understanding of a situation. It's essentially a situation where, through training, referees are trained to make determinations that fall beyond a balance of probability but are unavoidably short of being beyond reasonable doubt.
The system works as long as we can trust that out athletes and officials are playing fairly and respecting the rules of the game to the extent possible. When this trust is violated, we have to question the credibility of our games. Tim Donaghy made us question the credibility of the NBA. Barry Bonds has caused us to question the credibility of the sport of baseball and the sinlge most hallowed record in professional sports.
In my opinion, Barry Bonds is a disgrace. He has torn down the pillars of fair play that sports are founded on. As a fan I'm disappointed. But I don't blame Barry. I blame baseball.
I blame baseball for lowering their standards, for sweeping the evidence of cheating under the rug for the past 15 years in order to provide a greater spectacle. After all, that's what this has become, isn't it? Major professional sports in America are no longer anything greater than a mere spectacle. Something to watch, but not something to aspire to. We no longer expect a higher standard of integrity and respect from our athletes; we simply ask for the best show money and chemistry can buy.
As a final note, I want to say that I applaud Roger Goodell for the work he's doing in the NFL. His handling of players and their off-the-field indiscretions sends a clear message: "clean up your act--we expect more from you."
Barry Bonds is major league baseball's all-time home run king. No asterisk and no erasing can change that fact, because our expectations have changed, and the rules have been interpreted to match. But in my opinion, Barry Bonds should not be playing major league baseball. I think the grand jury testimony and personal accounts of the BALCO employees has pushed his case beyond a balance of probability. We know he did it, knowingly or otherwise, and if we truly wanted a clean sport that would be enough. In other sports and other countries around the world it is. Just not in baseball. Not anymore.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
What's 164 Marathons?
Just read an article on ESPN.com about three guys who just recently ran across the Sahara Desert. Yup across the Sahara.
They did it to raise awareness of the impoverished African nations and, I suppose, for the personal challenge.
Some stats:
4300+ miles
111 days
1411 gallons of Gatorade
25 pairs of running shoes
1 totally annihilated body
The documentary should be released this fall, and I'm personally psyched to see it. This is just an incredible feat, and hopefully brings some attention to the needs of the region. Check out the tags on Del.icio.us to find out more about these guys.
They did it to raise awareness of the impoverished African nations and, I suppose, for the personal challenge.
Some stats:
4300+ miles
111 days
1411 gallons of Gatorade
25 pairs of running shoes
1 totally annihilated body
The documentary should be released this fall, and I'm personally psyched to see it. This is just an incredible feat, and hopefully brings some attention to the needs of the region. Check out the tags on Del.icio.us to find out more about these guys.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
DNA - Doping News from Alemania
Jan Ullrich's DNA samples have shown that his blood was in fact in the bags confiscated as part of the Operacion Puerto "sting" prior to last year's TdF. This is the first hard evidence against any of the riders accused as part of the raid, and certainly, I think, makes a case for DNA testing as a means for policing riders. Check out the article on www.velonews.com and feel free to weigh in.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Is Less Red Really Green?
WalMart has received a great deal of positive press and support recently having announced plans to improve the energy efficiency of their retail locations and reducing their carbon footprint through improved fuel efficiency in their shipping fleet. Everyone seems pretty pumped to have WalMart onboard in the emerging Green economy. Everyone, that is, except Stacy Mitchell.
Check out this article posted on Grist for Stacy's view. Really an interesting point. Are WalMart and other Big-box retailers responsible for carbon emissions caused by consumers having to drive further to get to their stores? Even if they're not responsible for the emission, can their business model ever been applauded for "green" thinking, when the big picture still puts them in the red? Afterall, is a desire to cut costs of energy and fuel really a green notion, or is it just another way for WalMart to cut costs and continue to grow? Check out the del.icio.us links on US Driving, Big-Box Retail, WalMart and Stacy Mitchel for more information from both sides about WalMart Sustainability and US fuel consumption.
Check out this article posted on Grist for Stacy's view. Really an interesting point. Are WalMart and other Big-box retailers responsible for carbon emissions caused by consumers having to drive further to get to their stores? Even if they're not responsible for the emission, can their business model ever been applauded for "green" thinking, when the big picture still puts them in the red? Afterall, is a desire to cut costs of energy and fuel really a green notion, or is it just another way for WalMart to cut costs and continue to grow? Check out the del.icio.us links on US Driving, Big-Box Retail, WalMart and Stacy Mitchel for more information from both sides about WalMart Sustainability and US fuel consumption.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Just call him Twinkle Toes
Shaq is at it again. The guy who is, in my opinion, probably the most amiable sports personalities in history, has given himself a new nickname and moved past my boy, Reggie Miller, for 12th all-time in scoring.
After a backward somersault he called himself "The Big Baryshnikov"
Add it to the list: Shaq Diesel, Big Daddy, MDE (Most Dominant Ever), Doctor Shaq, Superman, LCL (Last Center Left), and my personal favorite, The Big Aristotle.
After a backward somersault he called himself "The Big Baryshnikov"
Add it to the list: Shaq Diesel, Big Daddy, MDE (Most Dominant Ever), Doctor Shaq, Superman, LCL (Last Center Left), and my personal favorite, The Big Aristotle.
Phelps continues the assault
One of the things I really hope to accomplish here is to share some of my excitement for several sports that I believe don't get the credit that they deserve from the general population. Of course, if you know me, you'll know that I'm referring to cycling, triathlon, and (as with this post) swimming.
In case you missed it--and most people probably did--Michael Phelps broke yet another World Record yesterday at the FINA World Championships in Melbourne, Australia. He won the 200 Free in a time of 1:43.86, making him the first person ever to swim the event in under 1:44, a pretty remarkable barrier.
What makes this worth mentioning is that Phelps is once again targeting Mark Spitz's all-time record of 7 gold medals for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. If you recall, at the 2004 Games, Phelps' lost his bid for the record by finishing third in what has been called the "Race of The Century" between Ian Thorpe, Pieter van den Hoogenband, and Phelps. This race was a "rematch" of that event, without Thorpe who has retired (at 24 it must be nice). This puts Phelps in position to claim 8 golds at the World Championships. (He's already won one gold as a member of the 4x100 Free Relay).
His remaining events are the 100 and 200 Fly, 200 and 400 IM, 4x200 Free Relay, and 4x100 Medley Relay. Keep posted on FINA's website
In case you missed it--and most people probably did--Michael Phelps broke yet another World Record yesterday at the FINA World Championships in Melbourne, Australia. He won the 200 Free in a time of 1:43.86, making him the first person ever to swim the event in under 1:44, a pretty remarkable barrier.
What makes this worth mentioning is that Phelps is once again targeting Mark Spitz's all-time record of 7 gold medals for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. If you recall, at the 2004 Games, Phelps' lost his bid for the record by finishing third in what has been called the "Race of The Century" between Ian Thorpe, Pieter van den Hoogenband, and Phelps. This race was a "rematch" of that event, without Thorpe who has retired (at 24 it must be nice). This puts Phelps in position to claim 8 golds at the World Championships. (He's already won one gold as a member of the 4x100 Free Relay).
His remaining events are the 100 and 200 Fly, 200 and 400 IM, 4x200 Free Relay, and 4x100 Medley Relay. Keep posted on FINA's website
The Bark is Back
New look. New format. New concept.
Here's the idea. I'm going to try to use Life in the Doghouse to bring together stories, ideas, sports, sub-cultures, and people that I find interesting. Posts will typically be shorter than in the past, and more link-heavy. It's a melting pot for my life...the things that intrigue me and get me out of bed in the morning.
If you check out the bottom right corner in the Del.icio.us section of my page, you'll find a series of keyword tags. Clicking on a tag will take you to my Del.icio.us page, and will show you the links that I've marked with a certain keyword. The links might take you to other entries from the Doghouse, to other blogs, to news articles, or anywhere else that I manage to find out in the wide webbed world.
At the end of my blogs, the "Labels" section will tell you what I've tagged this blog as. If you wont more info, click on the corresponding MMmMmm Good tags and see where they take you
Here's the idea. I'm going to try to use Life in the Doghouse to bring together stories, ideas, sports, sub-cultures, and people that I find interesting. Posts will typically be shorter than in the past, and more link-heavy. It's a melting pot for my life...the things that intrigue me and get me out of bed in the morning.
If you check out the bottom right corner in the Del.icio.us section of my page, you'll find a series of keyword tags. Clicking on a tag will take you to my Del.icio.us page, and will show you the links that I've marked with a certain keyword. The links might take you to other entries from the Doghouse, to other blogs, to news articles, or anywhere else that I manage to find out in the wide webbed world.
At the end of my blogs, the "Labels" section will tell you what I've tagged this blog as. If you wont more info, click on the corresponding MMmMmm Good tags and see where they take you
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Nau is the time
It's finally here. I don't know if anyone even reads this anymore, but if you do, go check it out.
www.nau.com
If you don't know what it is, just read my last entry.
www.nau.com
If you don't know what it is, just read my last entry.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Soon, Sooner, NAU
"TEACHER SEEKS PUPIL
Must have an earnest desire to save the world."
-Ishmael
-Ishmael
It seems like a lofty goal: save the world. Yet, every now and then, someone sets out to do just that. I wanted to write about a new company that I'm personally really excited about. They're called Nau (pronounced like "now") and they're based in Portland, OR.
If you haven't heard of them already, you certainly will in the very near future. Their first clothing line is set for release sometime in late January (any day now). For a sneak peak check out this link with images posted from their initial spring offering:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nau_photos/
I'd imagine that by now you're really confused--I start by writing about trying to save the world, and then I tell you about a brand spanking new performance apparel company--so where's the connection?
You're answer: NAU is a company that eats, sleeps, breathes, and basically lives sustainability and social awareness/responsibility. The company is built from the ground up around the ideal of sustainable business development. From the products, to the stores, to the way products are shipped, the bottom line is "minimum impact". It's not just one of many corporate values, thrown together on a sheet of paper with the title "This is how we make money"--"Sustainability" is the title of the page.
Want more? How about 5% of every purchase is donated to a customer specified non-profit organization doing environmental or humanitarian work. So you buy a product, you pick a non-profit (from a list of a dozen or so that Nau partner's with) and they make the donation. You choose what causes your purchases support. You help decide how to save the world.
Not bad huh? But that's enough of an introduction, now let's dig a little deeper into who this company is.
NAU was originally formulated under the acronym UTW for Under The Wire (or as some close to the company supposedly called it "Unfuck The World"). The two in charge of creating the concept were Eric Reynolds, a long time outdoor industry guru and one of the original founders of Marmot, and Chris Van Dyke, who was the brain behind the development of Nike's All Conditions Gear line.
Add to that dynamic duo Ian Yolles (from Nike and Patagonia) Mark Galbraith (lead designer), Jill Zilligen (who ran the One Percent for the Planet non-profit at Patagonia), and a hand full of other folks from Patagonia, Adidas Group, The North Face, and The Limited, and what you have is a group of people who not only know what they're doing, but have a pretty strong belief that there's a better way than the current model for achieving success.
Just how much do they believe in what they're doing? Well if it's any indication, the top managers have taken average paycuts of 40-70% to join up with Nau. If that's not putting your money where your sustainable ass is, I don't know what else to tell you.
The long and the short of it is that this company wants no less than to change the landscape of the outdoor industry and beyond, on their way to changing the world.
Out of 40ish fabrics being used in their initial spring offering, only 2 previously existed. The remaining 38 or so fabrics were specifically designed and developed for their use according to their guidelines and restricted substance list. Oh, and it's not about licensing rights or patented technologies. They're more than willing to share their ideas and manufacturing practices with anyone who asks. After all, you can't change the world if you limit the change to your company. In fact, they've reportedly already started idea sharing with several other companies who are interested in what they're doing, and their first product line isn't even out yet.
I haven't even started to talk about the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification that their headquarters and retail locations will have. They're partnering to make their "webfront" retail stores as green as possible based on the demands of the location.
The list goes on, and there has already been a slew of positive chatter about this company, some of which is posted on their website and the rest of which is fairly easy to find with my good friend Google. Check them out and decide for yourself at www.nau.com
I, for one, can't wait to see what kind of impact they can have on the market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)