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.
Monday, July 31, 2006
We missed the bus...
With all the talk about Floyd Landis (much of which has been incredibly poorly distilled through the various media outlets attempting to cover the story) I think we as a sports/cycling community missed an opportunity to discuss what I think will prove to be a more difficult issue in the long run regarding the treatment of doping in the realm of professional athletics. For those tired of hearing me rant about cycling, I assure you that, while cycling provides the story for this entry, any sports fan will be able to relate to the subject matter.
What we all missed was that, while Floyd was being drawn and quartered (an aptly old-school punishment for a Mennonite) the "Astana 5" were all cleared of any and all allegations against them.
The quick back story: on the day prior to the start of the Tour de France, a list of 28 riders suspected of doping was released by the Spanish press. 9 of these riders were scheduled to start Le Tour the next day, 5 from the Astana-Wurth team. All 9 riders were pulled from their team lineups, per the Code of Ethics. Since this left the Astana squad with only 4 riders, 2 shy of the minimum 6, the team was disqualified and not able to start the race, including pre-race favorite Alexandre Vinokourov, who was not one of the riders in question.
The "Acquital" of the 5 riders involved opens two important questions related to doping in sports: first, where do we draw the line between "innocent until proven guilty" and
"reasonable suspicion" in the sports arena? (in other words, was the UCI right in eliminating the squad on the suspicion of guilt?) and second, now that the Astana team has the legal opportunity to sue for damages related to missing the Tour de France, should they?
My personal response to each of these questions runs directly counter to the collective American consensus, as I generally understand it. Both answers also relate to the general concept of what is "good for the sport."
To the first I say that the UCI was absolutely correct in their response to the allegations. Cycling is a sport that has been fighting the doping scandal since long before Barry Bonds first used the Cream and the Clear, and Jose Canseco became "famous" in tabloid tell-all circles. The Operacion Puerto investigation that the suspensions stemmed from promised to uncover the largest, and hopefully last, major doping ring in the sport. The UCI did what they had to do, for the good of the Tour and for the good of the sport. But to do that, they had to ask themselves what was worse, the possibility of suspending an innocent rider from the biggest race of the year, or allowing a guilty rider to race, and answer the questions later.
In suspending these riders, the UCI made a clear and powerful statement: "DO NOT associate with dopers." Whether actually guilty, or only guilty by association, these riders were "involved" in a scandal that threatened to rock the foundation of the sport. Cycling could no longer bear the weight of the cloud of suspicion (which had apparently itself taken performance enhancers).
To the second question-should the Astana team sue the UCI and the Tour?-I again say, in the best interest of the sport, no. If Astana sues the UCI, they would almost certainly win (at least by the standards of US courts). But what damage does one team's victory have on the sport? The UCI finds itself in a position where it can no longer afford to suspend riders on suspicion alone, no matter how strong the evidence. Next time, when a rider is truly guilty and isn't suspended, the UCI, cycling, and sports fans all lose. I don't envy the Astana riders for what they were put through, but I would beg them, for the sake of the sport, don't sue.
I'd love responses to this post and your thoughts on the questions posted here. I think it provides an interesting opportunity for dialogue both topically related to sports and doping, but also philosophically, in questioning how to govern in consideration of the "greater good" versus "individual liberties." I look forward to your responses.
What we all missed was that, while Floyd was being drawn and quartered (an aptly old-school punishment for a Mennonite) the "Astana 5" were all cleared of any and all allegations against them.
The quick back story: on the day prior to the start of the Tour de France, a list of 28 riders suspected of doping was released by the Spanish press. 9 of these riders were scheduled to start Le Tour the next day, 5 from the Astana-Wurth team. All 9 riders were pulled from their team lineups, per the Code of Ethics. Since this left the Astana squad with only 4 riders, 2 shy of the minimum 6, the team was disqualified and not able to start the race, including pre-race favorite Alexandre Vinokourov, who was not one of the riders in question.
The "Acquital" of the 5 riders involved opens two important questions related to doping in sports: first, where do we draw the line between "innocent until proven guilty" and
"reasonable suspicion" in the sports arena? (in other words, was the UCI right in eliminating the squad on the suspicion of guilt?) and second, now that the Astana team has the legal opportunity to sue for damages related to missing the Tour de France, should they?
My personal response to each of these questions runs directly counter to the collective American consensus, as I generally understand it. Both answers also relate to the general concept of what is "good for the sport."
To the first I say that the UCI was absolutely correct in their response to the allegations. Cycling is a sport that has been fighting the doping scandal since long before Barry Bonds first used the Cream and the Clear, and Jose Canseco became "famous" in tabloid tell-all circles. The Operacion Puerto investigation that the suspensions stemmed from promised to uncover the largest, and hopefully last, major doping ring in the sport. The UCI did what they had to do, for the good of the Tour and for the good of the sport. But to do that, they had to ask themselves what was worse, the possibility of suspending an innocent rider from the biggest race of the year, or allowing a guilty rider to race, and answer the questions later.
In suspending these riders, the UCI made a clear and powerful statement: "DO NOT associate with dopers." Whether actually guilty, or only guilty by association, these riders were "involved" in a scandal that threatened to rock the foundation of the sport. Cycling could no longer bear the weight of the cloud of suspicion (which had apparently itself taken performance enhancers).
To the second question-should the Astana team sue the UCI and the Tour?-I again say, in the best interest of the sport, no. If Astana sues the UCI, they would almost certainly win (at least by the standards of US courts). But what damage does one team's victory have on the sport? The UCI finds itself in a position where it can no longer afford to suspend riders on suspicion alone, no matter how strong the evidence. Next time, when a rider is truly guilty and isn't suspended, the UCI, cycling, and sports fans all lose. I don't envy the Astana riders for what they were put through, but I would beg them, for the sake of the sport, don't sue.
I'd love responses to this post and your thoughts on the questions posted here. I think it provides an interesting opportunity for dialogue both topically related to sports and doping, but also philosophically, in questioning how to govern in consideration of the "greater good" versus "individual liberties." I look forward to your responses.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Foot in mouth?...not quite
Is now the appropriate time for me to put my foot in my mouth, retract my previous post, and ride off into the night with my tail between my legs? In light of recent news that Floyd Landis has tested positive "for testosterone," the knee jerk reaction here is, yes. In a sport overwhelmed by doping scandal, we have reached the point where suspicion is sufficient to condemn.
So I'm not doing it. I'm backing Floyd. All the way. I'm saying it here in my blog, with four of you as my witness. Vive Le Floyd.
How? Why? W.T.F?
Good questions. We'll get to the answer, but first let's explain the case against Floyd (to the best of my knowledge at this point). Let's start with a myth: Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Fact: The evidence against Floyd is an "unusual" ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E ratio), both naturally produced by the body. The average T/E ratio for males is about 1:1, though a ratio of 2 or 3:1 is well within normal limits. To say that Floyd tested positive for testosterone is a complete fallacy. In fact, the actual levels of testosterone and epitestosterone in Floyd's sample were LOW compared to "normal" results. What triggered that positive was the ratio.
So what's the ratio that triggers an "Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF - in the parlance of Anti-Doping culture)? Well, until 2005, a 6:1 ratio was the trigger point for a positive result. This ratio was often challenged while it stood, and often athletes won arbitration cases over the 6:1 detection limit. One Swedish study I found tested nearly 9000 individuals. Of these, 28 (about 0.3%) triggered positive results at a 6:1 detection level. However, after further work the team "concluded that among the above 28 cases, only one can be regarded as a clear case of testosterone doping. Although the vast majority of Swedish athletes have urinary T/E ratios below six, there is a subfraction with a constant higher ratio, possibly due to genetic factors."
So what happened in 2005? Well clearly, WADA did the only thing they could do in light of such evidence that the test really doesn't work all that well...they lowered the ratio. Now, the trigger point for an AAF is a 4:1 ratio. You thought we created false negatives before, wait till you see what we do now!! Of course, WADA and sports' respective governing bodies have claimed that lowering the ratio limit has allowed them to catch more cheaters. Guess what, guys? You catch more good guys too. That's what lowering the limit does.
So we trigger a positive result, tipping the scales at just over the 4:1 limit...what now? Well, we do more testing, of course. Or we don't. Seriously. We either perform Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry (IRMS) which kinda sorta helps a little in maybe showing if the testosterone came from the body or not... or we don't. You may ask, "Well, how do you decide whether or not to do the test?" Simple really, if we're capable of doing the test, we do it. If we're not capable of doing the test, we don't. Admittedly, it's not very scientific, but it sure does make life easier.
I'll stop the explanation there, because I don't know whether IRMS was performed, nor do I know what it revealed assuming it was performed. So I'll stop.
So what now? Well, first Floyd gets his 'B' sample tested by an independent lab to either confirm or disprove the results of the original test. If the 'B' sample comes up positive, which is likely since it came from the same cup of piss, then Floyd is suspended and he gets to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS, or TAS if you're French, and I sincerely hope you're not). At this point, based on the history of appeals related to this test, he has very very good chance of his appeal being granted and the sport of cycling issuing a collective, "my bad."
So, there's my defense. We'll see how it holds up. The good news is I'm not alone. It seems that in a cycling community that lately has jumped on every accused, suspected, or rumored doper, there is a surprising amount of support for Floyd. Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the TIAA-CREF Us Pro team, on Velonews.com:
I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.
From Dirk Demol, director of Team Discovery:
I cannot truly believe that Landis positive. I never imagined anything behind his exploit (to Morzine). As an ex-pro, I know you can have a good day after a bad day and the legs can come back and succeed again. Be careful. The counter-analysis is not yet positive and we shouldn't draw too fast of a conclusion.
Of course, suspicion, surprise, frustration, and doubt rule the day. We live in a guilty until proven innocent era in sporting history, where the shadow of doubt is strong than the light of truth. But we do make mistakes. Just days ago, 5 riders from the Astana-Wurth squad who were disqualified from the Tour de France in the midst of the Operacion Puerta doping scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing. They'll never get their race back, and that's a damn shame, but a necessary product of the sporting environment in which we currently find ourselves. I don't blame the UCI for their suspensions, and even in hindsight, I support that decision. It was done for the good of the race, and for the good of the sport. But we do make mistakes. And only time will tell if Floyd is innocent or guilty. But until I have proof of guilt, I'm standing by his innocence.
So I'm not doing it. I'm backing Floyd. All the way. I'm saying it here in my blog, with four of you as my witness. Vive Le Floyd.
How? Why? W.T.F?
Good questions. We'll get to the answer, but first let's explain the case against Floyd (to the best of my knowledge at this point). Let's start with a myth: Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Fact: The evidence against Floyd is an "unusual" ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E ratio), both naturally produced by the body. The average T/E ratio for males is about 1:1, though a ratio of 2 or 3:1 is well within normal limits. To say that Floyd tested positive for testosterone is a complete fallacy. In fact, the actual levels of testosterone and epitestosterone in Floyd's sample were LOW compared to "normal" results. What triggered that positive was the ratio.
So what's the ratio that triggers an "Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF - in the parlance of Anti-Doping culture)? Well, until 2005, a 6:1 ratio was the trigger point for a positive result. This ratio was often challenged while it stood, and often athletes won arbitration cases over the 6:1 detection limit. One Swedish study I found tested nearly 9000 individuals. Of these, 28 (about 0.3%) triggered positive results at a 6:1 detection level. However, after further work the team "concluded that among the above 28 cases, only one can be regarded as a clear case of testosterone doping. Although the vast majority of Swedish athletes have urinary T/E ratios below six, there is a subfraction with a constant higher ratio, possibly due to genetic factors."
So what happened in 2005? Well clearly, WADA did the only thing they could do in light of such evidence that the test really doesn't work all that well...they lowered the ratio. Now, the trigger point for an AAF is a 4:1 ratio. You thought we created false negatives before, wait till you see what we do now!! Of course, WADA and sports' respective governing bodies have claimed that lowering the ratio limit has allowed them to catch more cheaters. Guess what, guys? You catch more good guys too. That's what lowering the limit does.
So we trigger a positive result, tipping the scales at just over the 4:1 limit...what now? Well, we do more testing, of course. Or we don't. Seriously. We either perform Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry (IRMS) which kinda sorta helps a little in maybe showing if the testosterone came from the body or not... or we don't. You may ask, "Well, how do you decide whether or not to do the test?" Simple really, if we're capable of doing the test, we do it. If we're not capable of doing the test, we don't. Admittedly, it's not very scientific, but it sure does make life easier.
I'll stop the explanation there, because I don't know whether IRMS was performed, nor do I know what it revealed assuming it was performed. So I'll stop.
So what now? Well, first Floyd gets his 'B' sample tested by an independent lab to either confirm or disprove the results of the original test. If the 'B' sample comes up positive, which is likely since it came from the same cup of piss, then Floyd is suspended and he gets to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS, or TAS if you're French, and I sincerely hope you're not). At this point, based on the history of appeals related to this test, he has very very good chance of his appeal being granted and the sport of cycling issuing a collective, "my bad."
So, there's my defense. We'll see how it holds up. The good news is I'm not alone. It seems that in a cycling community that lately has jumped on every accused, suspected, or rumored doper, there is a surprising amount of support for Floyd. Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the TIAA-CREF Us Pro team, on Velonews.com:
I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.
From Dirk Demol, director of Team Discovery:
I cannot truly believe that Landis positive. I never imagined anything behind his exploit (to Morzine). As an ex-pro, I know you can have a good day after a bad day and the legs can come back and succeed again. Be careful. The counter-analysis is not yet positive and we shouldn't draw too fast of a conclusion.
Of course, suspicion, surprise, frustration, and doubt rule the day. We live in a guilty until proven innocent era in sporting history, where the shadow of doubt is strong than the light of truth. But we do make mistakes. Just days ago, 5 riders from the Astana-Wurth squad who were disqualified from the Tour de France in the midst of the Operacion Puerta doping scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing. They'll never get their race back, and that's a damn shame, but a necessary product of the sporting environment in which we currently find ourselves. I don't blame the UCI for their suspensions, and even in hindsight, I support that decision. It was done for the good of the race, and for the good of the sport. But we do make mistakes. And only time will tell if Floyd is innocent or guilty. But until I have proof of guilt, I'm standing by his innocence.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Back on my 2-wheeled high horse
...or "Celebrating Landismas" for the cycling anointed.
For those who have heard my complaints/ramblings/pleas/explanations/diatribes/other- descriptive-noun-for-long-drawn-out-discourse, yes, this post is absolutely intended to serve as a plug for my favorite Euro-sport, professional cycling.
The 2006 edition of the Tour de France is over, which means 99% of Americans won't have any recollection of who Floyd Landis is, or what he has accomplished, or why we should care in about 3 weeks; which should, oddly enough, be right around the time that Floyd goes under the knife to replace his dying hip. Read that last part again.
A brief review of history for those who may not be completely up to speed. Yesterday, Floyd Landis, a Mennonite from rural Pennsylvania (think barn-raisin', goat-grazin', busted-hip-not-phasin') became the third American in history to win the world's greatest bike race. Numbers like that perpetuate the myth that cycling is not an American sport. Third ever...in the 100+ year history of Le Tour...not really our thing I guess.
Guess again. 3 is an amazing number when you consider that Greg LeMond was the first American to do it, just 20 years ago in 1986. (Note: another thing LeMond was first at was using those funny little aero-bars for time trials and doing the wind tunnel testing that Lance Armstrong made famous - because, damnit, when we do something, we damnwell do it right.) In the 21 editions of Le Tour since LeMond's breakthrough victory, the 3 American champs have totalled 11 wins. 11. In 21 years. Not too shabby.
(As an aside: believe it or not, America, there was a time when cycling was more popular than baseball, basketball, and football combined...of course, that's mainly because the three markedly American sports had not yet been invented, but what's a few hundred years of history between friends?)
Ok, back to Floyd. His performance this year has been billed as the greatest championship performance in the modern history of the sport. What Landis did on Thursday, erasing all but :30 seconds of an 8:08 deficit on a single, balls-to-the-wall, brutally calculating, and savagely dominating performance, over a sinlge day in the Alps, may in fact be the greatest performance in a generation, not just in cycling, but in all of sports.
How can I possibly make that claim? Let's break it down.
1. Landis did it alone. Nobody followed. Nobody helped. Nobody could. In professional cycling, a solo break is a suicide mission. They don't succeed. Not for 150 km. Consider this: drafting in the peloton requires the riders in the pack to expend as much as 40% less energy than a solo rider will use.
2. He did it following one of the most devestating bonks in recent memory, on a climb that once bonked no less that the great Lance himself. A quick summary of Floyd's power numbers for his attack: One the first climb of the day, he averaged 340 watts as he rode away from the entire peloton, with no one able to hold his wheel. On an average day, this is a typical number for most riders in the peloton, but after two next-to-impossible days in the Alps, it's quite the output. On the next climb, as Landis closed the 10 minute gap to the day's earlier breakaway of 11 riders, he averaged an uber-climber 370 watts. But Floyd wasn't finished. On the 3rd major climb of the day, Floyd stretched his lead on the peloton from just over 4 minutes, to more than 8 minutes. His average output for this push: an incredible-by-any-standard, 390 watts! What does that number mean? Let's make a comparison to Landis himself the day before. During his "bonk" up La Toussuire, Landis averaged a meager 260 watt average. On a flat road this translates to about 19-20 miles per hour...a ride well within even my range (albeit not at the end of the stage they had just completed). So the very next day, Floyd upped his wattage by 50%. That 390 watt value?...about what Floyd would do for a 50 km time-trial. Not so much after 100 km solo attack in brutal heat with a chasing peloton on the third consecutive alpine stage. Unreal. Period.
3. He was being chased. Floyd Landis is a dangerous rider. He is a rider no one wanted to let back into the race. All day long the teams of Oscar Periero, Carlos Sastre, and Andreas Kloden chased and chased and chased as hard as they could to pull Floyd back. And with no less than 20 riders busting-tail to bring him back, he kept gaining ground. He was not only stronger than everyone in the pack, he was stronger than the entire pack. In a sport where synergy in the name of the game, where teams rule and the pack is relentless, Floyd took them all on.
4. They all knew it was coming. Word on the pave is that the entire peloton knew Floyd was planning to attack, and they were all scared. Allegedly, a number of riders road alongside Floyd at the early part of the stage, and literally begged him not to attack. They couldn't defend and they knew it. To the beggars, Floyd only threw the barest crumb, " Go drink some Coke, cause we're leaving on the first climb if you want to come."
5. He did it without any significant support from his team. In a race that we Americans have grown used to seeing dominated by the blue-train of the Postal Service/Discovery Channel Team, Landis' Phonak team was suspect at best, and dismally unable to protect their leader at worst. Make no bones about it. This is a team sport. The riders who earned the podium alongside Landis, and the next few who just missed, all had incredibly strong teams. Floyd didn't. Period. He won this race on his own.
6. Did I mention his hip? On good days he can barely walk. On bad days, he's lucky to get out of bed. And he just won the most grueling endurance event on the planet. His hip is dying. After a crash three years ago, he had 3 pins inserted into the desimated bone that remained. The bone never recovered. One leg is an inch shorted than the other from the surgeries. THe bone in that leg has slowly worn away all the cartiledge that cushions the joint. All that's left is a jagged bone, literally pins and needles, tearing away at the bone on the other end of the socket. There's no easy days, only one's where the pain is marginally less unbearable.
He plans to have the hip replaced within a month and says he'll defend his Tour title next year. The surgery he'll have is the same one the Bo Jackson had 15 years ago. Yes, the medicine is better now, and the procedure much safer, but Bo was no slouch, and the surgery eventually spelled the end of his career. Now Floyd, well known as the toughest SOB in the professional peloton says he'll be back from the surgery, with a new hip to defend next year. You know what? I have no doubt he'll do it.
Floyd Landis isn't going anywhere, and neither is American cycling. We're here to stay. This is a beautiful sport rich in tradition, history, and honor. And for anyone who says it's not a tough sport, ask Floyd.
For those who have heard my complaints/ramblings/pleas/explanations/diatribes/other- descriptive-noun-for-long-drawn-out-discourse, yes, this post is absolutely intended to serve as a plug for my favorite Euro-sport, professional cycling.
The 2006 edition of the Tour de France is over, which means 99% of Americans won't have any recollection of who Floyd Landis is, or what he has accomplished, or why we should care in about 3 weeks; which should, oddly enough, be right around the time that Floyd goes under the knife to replace his dying hip. Read that last part again.
A brief review of history for those who may not be completely up to speed. Yesterday, Floyd Landis, a Mennonite from rural Pennsylvania (think barn-raisin', goat-grazin', busted-hip-not-phasin') became the third American in history to win the world's greatest bike race. Numbers like that perpetuate the myth that cycling is not an American sport. Third ever...in the 100+ year history of Le Tour...not really our thing I guess.
Guess again. 3 is an amazing number when you consider that Greg LeMond was the first American to do it, just 20 years ago in 1986. (Note: another thing LeMond was first at was using those funny little aero-bars for time trials and doing the wind tunnel testing that Lance Armstrong made famous - because, damnit, when we do something, we damnwell do it right.) In the 21 editions of Le Tour since LeMond's breakthrough victory, the 3 American champs have totalled 11 wins. 11. In 21 years. Not too shabby.
(As an aside: believe it or not, America, there was a time when cycling was more popular than baseball, basketball, and football combined...of course, that's mainly because the three markedly American sports had not yet been invented, but what's a few hundred years of history between friends?)
Ok, back to Floyd. His performance this year has been billed as the greatest championship performance in the modern history of the sport. What Landis did on Thursday, erasing all but :30 seconds of an 8:08 deficit on a single, balls-to-the-wall, brutally calculating, and savagely dominating performance, over a sinlge day in the Alps, may in fact be the greatest performance in a generation, not just in cycling, but in all of sports.
How can I possibly make that claim? Let's break it down.
1. Landis did it alone. Nobody followed. Nobody helped. Nobody could. In professional cycling, a solo break is a suicide mission. They don't succeed. Not for 150 km. Consider this: drafting in the peloton requires the riders in the pack to expend as much as 40% less energy than a solo rider will use.
2. He did it following one of the most devestating bonks in recent memory, on a climb that once bonked no less that the great Lance himself. A quick summary of Floyd's power numbers for his attack: One the first climb of the day, he averaged 340 watts as he rode away from the entire peloton, with no one able to hold his wheel. On an average day, this is a typical number for most riders in the peloton, but after two next-to-impossible days in the Alps, it's quite the output. On the next climb, as Landis closed the 10 minute gap to the day's earlier breakaway of 11 riders, he averaged an uber-climber 370 watts. But Floyd wasn't finished. On the 3rd major climb of the day, Floyd stretched his lead on the peloton from just over 4 minutes, to more than 8 minutes. His average output for this push: an incredible-by-any-standard, 390 watts! What does that number mean? Let's make a comparison to Landis himself the day before. During his "bonk" up La Toussuire, Landis averaged a meager 260 watt average. On a flat road this translates to about 19-20 miles per hour...a ride well within even my range (albeit not at the end of the stage they had just completed). So the very next day, Floyd upped his wattage by 50%. That 390 watt value?...about what Floyd would do for a 50 km time-trial. Not so much after 100 km solo attack in brutal heat with a chasing peloton on the third consecutive alpine stage. Unreal. Period.
3. He was being chased. Floyd Landis is a dangerous rider. He is a rider no one wanted to let back into the race. All day long the teams of Oscar Periero, Carlos Sastre, and Andreas Kloden chased and chased and chased as hard as they could to pull Floyd back. And with no less than 20 riders busting-tail to bring him back, he kept gaining ground. He was not only stronger than everyone in the pack, he was stronger than the entire pack. In a sport where synergy in the name of the game, where teams rule and the pack is relentless, Floyd took them all on.
4. They all knew it was coming. Word on the pave is that the entire peloton knew Floyd was planning to attack, and they were all scared. Allegedly, a number of riders road alongside Floyd at the early part of the stage, and literally begged him not to attack. They couldn't defend and they knew it. To the beggars, Floyd only threw the barest crumb, " Go drink some Coke, cause we're leaving on the first climb if you want to come."
5. He did it without any significant support from his team. In a race that we Americans have grown used to seeing dominated by the blue-train of the Postal Service/Discovery Channel Team, Landis' Phonak team was suspect at best, and dismally unable to protect their leader at worst. Make no bones about it. This is a team sport. The riders who earned the podium alongside Landis, and the next few who just missed, all had incredibly strong teams. Floyd didn't. Period. He won this race on his own.
6. Did I mention his hip? On good days he can barely walk. On bad days, he's lucky to get out of bed. And he just won the most grueling endurance event on the planet. His hip is dying. After a crash three years ago, he had 3 pins inserted into the desimated bone that remained. The bone never recovered. One leg is an inch shorted than the other from the surgeries. THe bone in that leg has slowly worn away all the cartiledge that cushions the joint. All that's left is a jagged bone, literally pins and needles, tearing away at the bone on the other end of the socket. There's no easy days, only one's where the pain is marginally less unbearable.
He plans to have the hip replaced within a month and says he'll defend his Tour title next year. The surgery he'll have is the same one the Bo Jackson had 15 years ago. Yes, the medicine is better now, and the procedure much safer, but Bo was no slouch, and the surgery eventually spelled the end of his career. Now Floyd, well known as the toughest SOB in the professional peloton says he'll be back from the surgery, with a new hip to defend next year. You know what? I have no doubt he'll do it.
Floyd Landis isn't going anywhere, and neither is American cycling. We're here to stay. This is a beautiful sport rich in tradition, history, and honor. And for anyone who says it's not a tough sport, ask Floyd.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
WOW it's been a while...
It's been so long that I've practically forgotten that this whole blogging adventure even existed. So long in fact that the thought of catching up to speed on my life since the end of Lent is more than overwhelming...it borders on impossible.
So, where do I start? Probably right where I left off. As most of you probably know, I'm living in wonderful Aiken, SC for the summer...in the middle of suburban hell, only without any "urbia" to be a suburbia of. I'm working for Milliken in Barnwell, SC - the "Gateway to the Low Country" as the town self-describes. It has been, well, interesting.
This summer has been nothing short of an awakening. At times, I've been overwhelmed by the sense of loneliness that I feel down here. I'm learning very quickly what it means to be a Marylander. I've long known that to my "Yankee" friends from the north, we are considered southerners; now I find out just how much of a Yankee I really am. If this is what it means to be "Southern" then I am riding on the roof of that bus at best. So I find myself in the middle, like Switzerland; not northern enough to be a Yankee, or Southern enough to have any desire to "rise again."
I've found that my bike is my refuge. I owe a great debt to the folks I met in Seattle a few years ago, not only for my bike itself, but for giving me my first taste of cycling culture. I have since become a fanatic. From my own personal riding and training, to following the pro peloton online (standard cable in Aiken doesn't carry OLN, so my dreams of Tour fanaticism are currently set on simmer) cycling has become an outlet for me as exercise, competitive outlet, and mental escape.
So that's life outside of work. Inside work, the story is somewhat similar. The job is proving a valuable experience, not to mention a test of my patience and personal fortitude on a daily basis. It would be a gross understatement to say it's not what I had expected, but it has given me numerous insights into my future aspirations. Primarily, I'm focused more than ever on product development and marketing, because I find that the manufacturing environment is not one that I personally thrive in. I could say more, but I'll save it for another time.
I don't mean to sound overly negative about this summer, because I don't look at it in that way. I've merely found out how possible it is to feel like a stranger in your own country; which is a truly remarkable realization. I think I'll leave it at that for now, as this entry is scattered enough in theme and mood to confuse even those who know me best. Any of the topics I've covered here could (and well may) be a topic for an entry entry of its own.
Till next time, take care and God bless.
So, where do I start? Probably right where I left off. As most of you probably know, I'm living in wonderful Aiken, SC for the summer...in the middle of suburban hell, only without any "urbia" to be a suburbia of. I'm working for Milliken in Barnwell, SC - the "Gateway to the Low Country" as the town self-describes. It has been, well, interesting.
This summer has been nothing short of an awakening. At times, I've been overwhelmed by the sense of loneliness that I feel down here. I'm learning very quickly what it means to be a Marylander. I've long known that to my "Yankee" friends from the north, we are considered southerners; now I find out just how much of a Yankee I really am. If this is what it means to be "Southern" then I am riding on the roof of that bus at best. So I find myself in the middle, like Switzerland; not northern enough to be a Yankee, or Southern enough to have any desire to "rise again."
I've found that my bike is my refuge. I owe a great debt to the folks I met in Seattle a few years ago, not only for my bike itself, but for giving me my first taste of cycling culture. I have since become a fanatic. From my own personal riding and training, to following the pro peloton online (standard cable in Aiken doesn't carry OLN, so my dreams of Tour fanaticism are currently set on simmer) cycling has become an outlet for me as exercise, competitive outlet, and mental escape.
So that's life outside of work. Inside work, the story is somewhat similar. The job is proving a valuable experience, not to mention a test of my patience and personal fortitude on a daily basis. It would be a gross understatement to say it's not what I had expected, but it has given me numerous insights into my future aspirations. Primarily, I'm focused more than ever on product development and marketing, because I find that the manufacturing environment is not one that I personally thrive in. I could say more, but I'll save it for another time.
I don't mean to sound overly negative about this summer, because I don't look at it in that way. I've merely found out how possible it is to feel like a stranger in your own country; which is a truly remarkable realization. I think I'll leave it at that for now, as this entry is scattered enough in theme and mood to confuse even those who know me best. Any of the topics I've covered here could (and well may) be a topic for an entry entry of its own.
Till next time, take care and God bless.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
So about this no talking thing...
Here's the update on the whole Lenten silence thing (Hopefully this will satisfy Hack). For those of you who don't know, after a few weeks of what I felt was fruitful progress, the whole thing fell apart. I struggled with it for a while and really wanted to continue in the effort, but on the whole, I really felt that the whole practice was backfiring in a lot of ways.
Sometime in the third and fourth week of Lent, I needed to consider my goals for this whole thing and evaluate what was happening in reality. I wanted to learn how to listen better...but without my response, many people had essentially stopped talking to me. I wanted to remove myself from the center of conversations...and everytime I had something valuable to say, my miming and charading put the focus on my Lenten fast, rather than the conversation. Something wasn't working.
Of course, I had to ask myself, am I just being weak and undisciplined, and of course, there's definitely a good amount of affirmative response to that question. Not talking was hard, especially for me. But my decision to start talking again wasn't so much about the fact that I wanted to talk, as the fact that not talking really wasn't proving all that fruitful.
On top of the fact that I wasn't getting what I wanted out of it, there were several other problems I was having. First, not talking is incredibly socially awkward, and rather rude, especially when people aren't aware of the situation. Second, not talking works just fine in group settings, but in one-on-one situations, it can be rather offputting, for both myself and the other person. Part of me wished that wasn't the case. It'd be nice to be able to sit with people in silence and not have it be uncomfortable, and in some cases that's very possible, but by and large, our culture demands conversation and dialogue in a number of settings.
The third prblem I was having was that I was meeting a large number of new people. I was still very new to the community at the Doggett Center (Catholic Campus Ministry here at State) and was trying to get more involved. My relation to the Catholic Church is very much based on the value of community. The Church for me is much more about the people than anything else. I was finding it very difficult to integrate myself into the Doggett community in silence.
So basically, the silence thing worked for the first few weeks and I really did get a lot out of it. Probably the most valuable thing I learned during that time was simply that a significant amount of what I say on a daily basis really doesn't need to be said. I had a pretty good understanding of that going into Lent, but I really gained an appreciation for it. Forced to mime things and put a great deal of effort into making a point, you learn just how valuable each statement you make actually is. Guess what...most of it's not worth the effort, but there are some things that you'd give pretty much anything to express. Maybe that's the greatest bit of all of this. The fact that some things bring so much joy and excitement that you can't help but share them, the fact that we as humans are a social, communal group, and that some things just don't hold much meaning until you're able to share them with those you care about.
So that's that, another Lent, and some more good stuff to learn. It didn't last the whole time, but it was still a very valuable experience, and I learned even more about how valuable community really is.
Sometime in the third and fourth week of Lent, I needed to consider my goals for this whole thing and evaluate what was happening in reality. I wanted to learn how to listen better...but without my response, many people had essentially stopped talking to me. I wanted to remove myself from the center of conversations...and everytime I had something valuable to say, my miming and charading put the focus on my Lenten fast, rather than the conversation. Something wasn't working.
Of course, I had to ask myself, am I just being weak and undisciplined, and of course, there's definitely a good amount of affirmative response to that question. Not talking was hard, especially for me. But my decision to start talking again wasn't so much about the fact that I wanted to talk, as the fact that not talking really wasn't proving all that fruitful.
On top of the fact that I wasn't getting what I wanted out of it, there were several other problems I was having. First, not talking is incredibly socially awkward, and rather rude, especially when people aren't aware of the situation. Second, not talking works just fine in group settings, but in one-on-one situations, it can be rather offputting, for both myself and the other person. Part of me wished that wasn't the case. It'd be nice to be able to sit with people in silence and not have it be uncomfortable, and in some cases that's very possible, but by and large, our culture demands conversation and dialogue in a number of settings.
The third prblem I was having was that I was meeting a large number of new people. I was still very new to the community at the Doggett Center (Catholic Campus Ministry here at State) and was trying to get more involved. My relation to the Catholic Church is very much based on the value of community. The Church for me is much more about the people than anything else. I was finding it very difficult to integrate myself into the Doggett community in silence.
So basically, the silence thing worked for the first few weeks and I really did get a lot out of it. Probably the most valuable thing I learned during that time was simply that a significant amount of what I say on a daily basis really doesn't need to be said. I had a pretty good understanding of that going into Lent, but I really gained an appreciation for it. Forced to mime things and put a great deal of effort into making a point, you learn just how valuable each statement you make actually is. Guess what...most of it's not worth the effort, but there are some things that you'd give pretty much anything to express. Maybe that's the greatest bit of all of this. The fact that some things bring so much joy and excitement that you can't help but share them, the fact that we as humans are a social, communal group, and that some things just don't hold much meaning until you're able to share them with those you care about.
So that's that, another Lent, and some more good stuff to learn. It didn't last the whole time, but it was still a very valuable experience, and I learned even more about how valuable community really is.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Mikey Likes It
Let me start this post by saying, "Thank you," to all the folks who have supported my fast from social speaking for Lent. It's the first Sunday of Lent which puts me officially 10% of the way there, and if the final 36 days are as fruitful as the first 4, I'm going to get a lot out of this.
I want to share one particular experience that stands out from my first day of silence. As with any conscious-effort fasting, I've had a few slips of the tongue in these first few days, but the first one was note worthy and, I think, illustrates a really cool development in the world of Craig.
My first slip up was a reflex response to say, "God bless you," when my friend Melissa sneezed. I hope that this doesn't strike anyone as a particularly upsetting slip up, if I can even consider it that. (After all, the point of this whole thing is to learn to listen, not to be rude, and in the case of saying things like "God bless you" or "Please and Thank you," I can hardly see a moral dilemma here regarding my Lenten fast.) The reason I found this particular reflex response noteworthy is because it was just that--reflexive.
So what? Well here's the back story: 4ish years ago, I was climbing with a good friend, Mikey Guarraia. We were working together through a project that he had put up in the gym that neither of us had been able to send. About 2/3 of the way through the climb, Mikey's looking really strong, and I'm convinced that he's going to send. Then Mikey sneezes. The sneeze doesn't pull Mikey off the climb, and I breathe a sigh of relief. Sweet, he's gonna finish it! Then he releases from the wall, hangs on the rope and stares down at me. "What's up?" I ask. "Um, what about 'God bless you, Mikey'?" he replies. Hhmmmm, hadn't really thought of it.
Probably doesn't sound like much of a story, but at that moment I became far more aware of how important little things like saying "God bless you" can be. Mikey was someone I had a great deal of respect for and to see him so disappointed and upset struck a chord with me. I made a conscious effort to start saying "God bless you." It was hard at first. It started by me hearing someone sneeze, and hearing someone else say "God bless you," and me thinking, "Damn, I missed it." Eventually I started to get it. And now, I'm happy to say, that my first slip in my 40 days without social speech was the say "God bless you" as a knee jerk reaction.
This is a simple illustration of personal growth--the same kind of personal growth that I hope to get out of this Lenten experience. Maybe I'll learn to be a better listener, maybe I'll learn to think more before I speak instead of just saying the first thing that comes to my mind, maybe it'll be a totally different outcome. Personal growth isn't always planned or expected; it comes from experiences, some you can predict, others come out of left field, like Mikey's stare while dangling 20 feet above me.
So that was my first realization this Lent, that in some small way, I'm a more polite person than I was 4 years ago. To me, knowing that makes this whole effort of Lent more promising and more rewarding. So thank you all for your support and kind words, and God bless you.
I want to share one particular experience that stands out from my first day of silence. As with any conscious-effort fasting, I've had a few slips of the tongue in these first few days, but the first one was note worthy and, I think, illustrates a really cool development in the world of Craig.
My first slip up was a reflex response to say, "God bless you," when my friend Melissa sneezed. I hope that this doesn't strike anyone as a particularly upsetting slip up, if I can even consider it that. (After all, the point of this whole thing is to learn to listen, not to be rude, and in the case of saying things like "God bless you" or "Please and Thank you," I can hardly see a moral dilemma here regarding my Lenten fast.) The reason I found this particular reflex response noteworthy is because it was just that--reflexive.
So what? Well here's the back story: 4ish years ago, I was climbing with a good friend, Mikey Guarraia. We were working together through a project that he had put up in the gym that neither of us had been able to send. About 2/3 of the way through the climb, Mikey's looking really strong, and I'm convinced that he's going to send. Then Mikey sneezes. The sneeze doesn't pull Mikey off the climb, and I breathe a sigh of relief. Sweet, he's gonna finish it! Then he releases from the wall, hangs on the rope and stares down at me. "What's up?" I ask. "Um, what about 'God bless you, Mikey'?" he replies. Hhmmmm, hadn't really thought of it.
Probably doesn't sound like much of a story, but at that moment I became far more aware of how important little things like saying "God bless you" can be. Mikey was someone I had a great deal of respect for and to see him so disappointed and upset struck a chord with me. I made a conscious effort to start saying "God bless you." It was hard at first. It started by me hearing someone sneeze, and hearing someone else say "God bless you," and me thinking, "Damn, I missed it." Eventually I started to get it. And now, I'm happy to say, that my first slip in my 40 days without social speech was the say "God bless you" as a knee jerk reaction.
This is a simple illustration of personal growth--the same kind of personal growth that I hope to get out of this Lenten experience. Maybe I'll learn to be a better listener, maybe I'll learn to think more before I speak instead of just saying the first thing that comes to my mind, maybe it'll be a totally different outcome. Personal growth isn't always planned or expected; it comes from experiences, some you can predict, others come out of left field, like Mikey's stare while dangling 20 feet above me.
So that was my first realization this Lent, that in some small way, I'm a more polite person than I was 4 years ago. To me, knowing that makes this whole effort of Lent more promising and more rewarding. So thank you all for your support and kind words, and God bless you.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Lenten Fasting
February 14th would have been my grandfather's 76th birthday. It's still odd to say the words "would have been" because his passing is still so recent, and this is still a year of "firsts since..." The past week has given me plenty of time to think about my relationship with him; a relationship that I credit as being the most influential on who I have become, and who I am continuing to become. With this thought in mind, I've recently been reminded of a conversation I had with my grandfather several years ago about church, religion, and the afterlife. I was a newly confirmed Catholic, and he never had much use for church. That's not to say he lacked faith. In fact, I'd venture to say he was one of the mostly deeply spiritual people I've ever had the pleasure to know. Yet, every Sunday, as my grandmother headed off to church, he'd head for his garden. "I'd rather be in my garden experiencing and doing God's work than at church listening to some version of God's Word."
I recall asking him what he believed about the afterlife. Where do we go from here? What's next? I'll always remember his answer because I believe it illustrated beautifully how he related to God. He told me that he didn't believe that we were alone in the universe, that this planet, and our lives were not so special. He believed that there were other "earths" with life on them, and that when we passed on, we had the opportunity to review our lives, and gain an understanding of where we went right and where we went wrong. Then, we'd be re-incarnated on another planet (either in some other "dimension" or simply on the other side of the universe), and given another chance to do it right. This process would continue, eh believed, until we managed to "get it right." Then we'd have the chance to move on to heaven. I don't know if he realized at the time how Buddhist his belief sounded, but it always rang true to me with a deep sense of awe for creation, and respect for God's work, and what is expected of us as God's children. There was no hell, only second chances, third chances, and so on (after all, we have an eternity)
One thing I'll always remember about my Granddad was that he was a man of action. He'd teach by doing, not by telling. In the family, I think I'll always be remembered as the grandson who posed the question, "Well, Granddad, what are we going to do that's unusual today?" Usually the story is told to illustrate my curiosity, but I've come to think that it's truly more telling of who he was, and who he was teaching me to be. I never would've thought to ask him what story he'd tell me, or what lessons he might be able to share with me, but always what opportunity we had to do something new.
So here's the question...what on earth does all this have to do with Lenten fasting?
I'm a talker, always have been and probably always will be. Of course, if you're reading this, you probably know that already. I've been told that 75% of all communication is non-verbal, and yet, in my life I remain skeptical (maybe it's 50/50). So, in light of the famous quote from St Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words," I've decided to give up speaking for Lent. I'm hoping that this sacrifice will teach me two things: first, to become a better listener, and second to learn to express myself and my beliefs through actions. Too often I find myself thinking of the next clever thing to say rather than listening to what is being said. I love a debate more than anyone I know, and can talk circles around almost any argument (Granddad always encouraged me to be a lawyer). I think now it's time to learn more about listening, about the values, experiences, opinions, and beliefs of others. This is an opportunity for action. A time where my opinions can take the backseat and other people can share their thoughts and ideas with me freely (without interruption or correction, as I'm so prone to do).
Those who I've mentioned this to think I'm crazy. I thought I'd die when I went of a 4 day silent retreat, how will I last 40? Maybe that's the challenge. This Lent thing isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to make you a better person. Hopefully, this year it will.
I have to note a few "exceptions" since so many people also like to tell me "Craig, you can't just give up speaking, you have classes and presentations." Since giving up speaking as a graduate student is not particularly feasible, I will allow myself to speak in class and formal settings where to refrain from speaking would be both disrespectful and detrimental to my educational experience. As April said, "So, you're really just giving up fun talking." Yes.
Also, two other instances merit exception. When asked of his thoughts on fasting rituals, Jesus responded "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast." (Lk 5:34,35) Times of celebration are not times for fasting. In light of this, I think it's only appropriate that I speak during my camping trip in Asheville with Annette, as a time to be reconnected with an old friend, and to "catch up" (plus it's rude to camp with someone for 3 days and not speak to them). Also, when my mother and grandmother visit at the end of March, the same rule will apply. In each of these events, I will take care to give priority to listening, and speak only as much as is required by the circumstances. In order to balance these events out, I will carry my fast from speaking into Sundays which are traditionally "feast days" celebrating the Easter Resurrection.
Ok, so that's the plan. You can call my cell during Lent, and I will say hello and goodbye and nothing else in between (except perhaps a grunt to acknowledge that I'm following along and have not hung up the phone) so be prepared to talk. My AIM will be on. You can leave messages but don't anticipate a response. Email still works, and I will respond to those in a business appropriate way, following the same rules I've established for classes and meetings.
I'm really hoping that this proves a beneficial and growth filled period of fasting. (Don't worry, I still have a week and a half to get some talking in before this all starts)
I recall asking him what he believed about the afterlife. Where do we go from here? What's next? I'll always remember his answer because I believe it illustrated beautifully how he related to God. He told me that he didn't believe that we were alone in the universe, that this planet, and our lives were not so special. He believed that there were other "earths" with life on them, and that when we passed on, we had the opportunity to review our lives, and gain an understanding of where we went right and where we went wrong. Then, we'd be re-incarnated on another planet (either in some other "dimension" or simply on the other side of the universe), and given another chance to do it right. This process would continue, eh believed, until we managed to "get it right." Then we'd have the chance to move on to heaven. I don't know if he realized at the time how Buddhist his belief sounded, but it always rang true to me with a deep sense of awe for creation, and respect for God's work, and what is expected of us as God's children. There was no hell, only second chances, third chances, and so on (after all, we have an eternity)
One thing I'll always remember about my Granddad was that he was a man of action. He'd teach by doing, not by telling. In the family, I think I'll always be remembered as the grandson who posed the question, "Well, Granddad, what are we going to do that's unusual today?" Usually the story is told to illustrate my curiosity, but I've come to think that it's truly more telling of who he was, and who he was teaching me to be. I never would've thought to ask him what story he'd tell me, or what lessons he might be able to share with me, but always what opportunity we had to do something new.
So here's the question...what on earth does all this have to do with Lenten fasting?
I'm a talker, always have been and probably always will be. Of course, if you're reading this, you probably know that already. I've been told that 75% of all communication is non-verbal, and yet, in my life I remain skeptical (maybe it's 50/50). So, in light of the famous quote from St Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words," I've decided to give up speaking for Lent. I'm hoping that this sacrifice will teach me two things: first, to become a better listener, and second to learn to express myself and my beliefs through actions. Too often I find myself thinking of the next clever thing to say rather than listening to what is being said. I love a debate more than anyone I know, and can talk circles around almost any argument (Granddad always encouraged me to be a lawyer). I think now it's time to learn more about listening, about the values, experiences, opinions, and beliefs of others. This is an opportunity for action. A time where my opinions can take the backseat and other people can share their thoughts and ideas with me freely (without interruption or correction, as I'm so prone to do).
Those who I've mentioned this to think I'm crazy. I thought I'd die when I went of a 4 day silent retreat, how will I last 40? Maybe that's the challenge. This Lent thing isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to make you a better person. Hopefully, this year it will.
I have to note a few "exceptions" since so many people also like to tell me "Craig, you can't just give up speaking, you have classes and presentations." Since giving up speaking as a graduate student is not particularly feasible, I will allow myself to speak in class and formal settings where to refrain from speaking would be both disrespectful and detrimental to my educational experience. As April said, "So, you're really just giving up fun talking." Yes.
Also, two other instances merit exception. When asked of his thoughts on fasting rituals, Jesus responded "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast." (Lk 5:34,35) Times of celebration are not times for fasting. In light of this, I think it's only appropriate that I speak during my camping trip in Asheville with Annette, as a time to be reconnected with an old friend, and to "catch up" (plus it's rude to camp with someone for 3 days and not speak to them). Also, when my mother and grandmother visit at the end of March, the same rule will apply. In each of these events, I will take care to give priority to listening, and speak only as much as is required by the circumstances. In order to balance these events out, I will carry my fast from speaking into Sundays which are traditionally "feast days" celebrating the Easter Resurrection.
Ok, so that's the plan. You can call my cell during Lent, and I will say hello and goodbye and nothing else in between (except perhaps a grunt to acknowledge that I'm following along and have not hung up the phone) so be prepared to talk. My AIM will be on. You can leave messages but don't anticipate a response. Email still works, and I will respond to those in a business appropriate way, following the same rules I've established for classes and meetings.
I'm really hoping that this proves a beneficial and growth filled period of fasting. (Don't worry, I still have a week and a half to get some talking in before this all starts)
Friday, February 03, 2006
Education in America...what does it all mean?
Most talks of education are full of buzzwords and silly ideas about how to make sure that every child receives the same education. We have congressional idiots creating things like the "No Child Left Behind Act" which has proven to be good for little besides giving teachers incentive to cheat on behalf of their students to either gain funding for their schools or avoid scores based probation (if you want to see it in writing just ask and i'll send you the article). I've grown increasingly frustrated with the grade inflation that's occurred in this country. There once was a time when intelligent people graduated high school and got good job, the truly special folks went on to college and were rewarded for it with high level jobs, and master's degrees and phd's held remarkable value. Now, everyone is expected to graduate high school, everyone who wants a job must go to college to get the jobs they used to give high school graduates, and a master's degree is pretty much the usual. It's essential the beauty of capitalism...colleges get to make more money off of more people, businesses save money because they theoretically have to train people less (read:"invest less in their people"), and students get to live off their parents longer. It's a win win win situation, right? Well sure, unless you count the truly intelligent people who actually would like to receive an education for their money and maybe graduate from college with some idea of how to function.
I'm reminded of the quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I often get accused of being arrogant or "an asshole" for saying thngs like this, but it's true. If you want to understand why American students are falling behind the rest of the world, start looking at the highest level students and how they are held back to be taught the same curriculum as everyone else, and I think you'll soon see where a large part of the problem lies.
(Disclaimer: I don't believe that the phrase "All men are created equal" was inteded to be used as liberally as it often is. I do, however believe that all men should be given the same opportunity for things such as education, and on that level are equal. This is what I'm talking about. We shouldn't reward schools that perform well and punish those that don't...we should treat all schools equally, (regardless of location, socioeconomic background of the students, minority population, etc) in terms of funding, and quality of teachers (which we certainly don't currently do). Rather, we should reward students who perform well on tests by giving them a more rigorous and challenging curriculum, challenging them to fulfill their potential, instead of draggin everyone collectively toward some governmentally defined center.)
(Disclaimer to the disclaimer: I also think that parents need to be held more accoutnable for the education of their children. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that very often dumb kids come from dumb parents, but we all seem shocked when dumb kinds come from smart parents, or smart kids pop up out of underfunded schools.)
So where is this all going...no where really. But I would like to say this: I think the biggest problem in the American education system is not with the grade schools, but with the colleges and universities. These are supposed to be "institutions of higher education," and in many cases they disappoint. If we're going to force some sort of standard curriculum on students, it should be at college, not at grade school. I say this because you should leave college with the ability to analyze a probelm and form an intelligent thought.
Here's my proposed first semester curriculum for all college students: 3 credits of discrete methods and logic (the nature of true, and false, decision making, and logical thinking), 3 credits of dimensional analysis (so that when you get out of college and some one gives you X cm/rev and Y rev/min and asks you what the speed is in cm/min, you don't need to try to remember a bunch of equations, realize you don't remember them and stare blankly at the page, but you know automatically that if you mulitply the numbers together the revs cancel out and you get the right answer...more importantly you know that adding them together makes no sense at all), 3 credits of debate (so that you can form a coherent arguement and hold a reasonably intelligent conversation), and finally, 3 credits of writing (not creative writing, or technical writing...I'm talking about sentence structure, grammar, and how to develop a paragraph, since aparently we aren;t teaching this in grade school any more.) One 3 credit elective about the real world (Possible titles: "How to find a job: Resumes and Interview Skills," "Managing your Finances" (I could've used this one honestly), or "Most People Are Idiots: How to Deal with them Effectively" (again, I needed this one).
15 credits on how to approach thought and life in an intelligent, rational, and understandable way. I don't think that's too much to expect from a college graduate. Do you?
I'm reminded of the quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I often get accused of being arrogant or "an asshole" for saying thngs like this, but it's true. If you want to understand why American students are falling behind the rest of the world, start looking at the highest level students and how they are held back to be taught the same curriculum as everyone else, and I think you'll soon see where a large part of the problem lies.
(Disclaimer: I don't believe that the phrase "All men are created equal" was inteded to be used as liberally as it often is. I do, however believe that all men should be given the same opportunity for things such as education, and on that level are equal. This is what I'm talking about. We shouldn't reward schools that perform well and punish those that don't...we should treat all schools equally, (regardless of location, socioeconomic background of the students, minority population, etc) in terms of funding, and quality of teachers (which we certainly don't currently do). Rather, we should reward students who perform well on tests by giving them a more rigorous and challenging curriculum, challenging them to fulfill their potential, instead of draggin everyone collectively toward some governmentally defined center.)
(Disclaimer to the disclaimer: I also think that parents need to be held more accoutnable for the education of their children. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that very often dumb kids come from dumb parents, but we all seem shocked when dumb kinds come from smart parents, or smart kids pop up out of underfunded schools.)
So where is this all going...no where really. But I would like to say this: I think the biggest problem in the American education system is not with the grade schools, but with the colleges and universities. These are supposed to be "institutions of higher education," and in many cases they disappoint. If we're going to force some sort of standard curriculum on students, it should be at college, not at grade school. I say this because you should leave college with the ability to analyze a probelm and form an intelligent thought.
Here's my proposed first semester curriculum for all college students: 3 credits of discrete methods and logic (the nature of true, and false, decision making, and logical thinking), 3 credits of dimensional analysis (so that when you get out of college and some one gives you X cm/rev and Y rev/min and asks you what the speed is in cm/min, you don't need to try to remember a bunch of equations, realize you don't remember them and stare blankly at the page, but you know automatically that if you mulitply the numbers together the revs cancel out and you get the right answer...more importantly you know that adding them together makes no sense at all), 3 credits of debate (so that you can form a coherent arguement and hold a reasonably intelligent conversation), and finally, 3 credits of writing (not creative writing, or technical writing...I'm talking about sentence structure, grammar, and how to develop a paragraph, since aparently we aren;t teaching this in grade school any more.) One 3 credit elective about the real world (Possible titles: "How to find a job: Resumes and Interview Skills," "Managing your Finances" (I could've used this one honestly), or "Most People Are Idiots: How to Deal with them Effectively" (again, I needed this one).
15 credits on how to approach thought and life in an intelligent, rational, and understandable way. I don't think that's too much to expect from a college graduate. Do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)