Friday, July 28, 2006

The straight dope

Floyd Landis, the miraculous winner of the Tour de France after being virtually eliminated only 4 stages from the end was able to bask in the glory of victory for about 72 hours before his drug-test results came back positive for elevated testosterone levels. Apparently the norm is 1:1 and the limit is 4:1. Landis' results haven't been published, but they are obviously above the 4:1 threshold.

As with everything, I'm pretty sure we will never know the truth. Even if the International Cycling Union (UCI) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) push forward and determine that Landis was "doped," he will undoubtedly appeal and say that one-or-more of the drugs and/or results of his rotting hip have caused his testosterone levels to sky-rocket. Maybe he's just really virile. Maybe, as some sources say, his high testosterone levels were a natural reaction from his performance on Stage 17, or maybe, as the above article also theorizes, he placed a testosterone patch on his scrotum after Stage 16 to try to rebuild his energy reserves (or maybe he was too tired to be "intimate" with his wife and was embarrassed by this enough to take extraordinary steps).

I think that the majority of riders are doped in one way or another. The doctors who develop the performance-enhancing products are always one step ahead of WADA and the doctors who test. No one has been able to create a reliable test for Human Growth Hormone and that's been available for a few years now. So the anti-doping agents use imperfect tests. They test the relative testosterone levels, they test the relative red-blood cell levels. None of these things prove that you were doped, they just prove that you have a higher than normal level of something. But world-class athletes are already freaks, it only makes sense that some of them are naturally beyond the normal range of normal people. Then there are these agencies like WADA who are just so out there. For the past year or so they have stated their desire to ban "altitude chambers," which recreate the low-oxygen conditions of extreme altitude allowing athletes to create more red blood cells. Wow! They can go train up in the Rockies or the Alps (I hope at least, maybe that's the next step), but they can't put themselves into a compression chamber to do at sea-level what can be done at 15,000 feet. One of the biggest critiques of this is that athletes from poorer countries will even get more disadvantages. European athletes, Americans, etc, can afford to go up into the mountains to train. But the Nigerians probably don't have the money to fly to Aspen for 2 months to train. Altitude chambers were the only way they could "naturally" keep up with the rest of the world.

I don't know what the solution is. I'm pretty sure that since there has been competitive sports, there have been cheaters. Legend has it that Pheidippides ran 26 miles Marathon to Athens to create the modern day "Marathon." I bet he took a couple of short cuts and it was only 24.5 miles. When the payoff is big enough, most people will cheat; it's human nature. The current system makes everyone suspicious of everyone and no one can be determined to be truly "clean." Luckily for me, this is just a blog. I don't know how to fix this problem, but I don't think WADA is helping anything. Cynicism, the bane of professional sports? Probably not, but it can't be helping things.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

The Return of Politics to Arbitrary and Biased

Is George W. Bush the worst president ever? Many people are inclined to say yes: Just search "Worst President Ever" in Google...yeah, yeah, I know, that's just people taking advantage of the Google algorithm, but still, there are the "yeas" and the "nays" for this. I'm not sure yet. William Henry Harrison only lasted a month before he died, he obviously didn't make a lot of bad moves in that time, but it's hard to argue that you can get worse than that.

Anyway, before I get off track on a history lesson, the real reason for this post is the complete mess that the current administration is making in the Middle East. One democracy (our friends) are bombing the hell out of another democracy (sort of our friends, but less important). Unnamed sources announced today that the US government was going to give Israel "some time to defang Hezbollah," translated to English (and using metaphor), the US is going to let the husband (Israel) beat the crap out of the wife (Lebanon) because we don't agree with what one of her [adult] children from a previous marriage (Hezbollah) did/is doing. Don't send the cops just yet, that woman needs to learn her lesson about controlling her adult son.

Just a little while ago, the Bushites were gaga about the rebirth of democracy in Lebanon. Someone in the administration forgot to read who was actually going to be represented in this democracy. Hezbollah, as much as they may be a "terrorist" organization (defined by the fact that they get military support from countries that are not our friends), is actually right there in the parliament. They also have more military power than the Lebanese government (this story has some background the problems with the power-sharing in Lebanon). How are we going to get the moderate Middle East on our side, when we let the Israelis bomb the free DEMOCRACY (THAT WE SUPPORTED ONE YEAR AGO) of Lebanon? What's this going to do? It's obviously going to lead more and more Lebanese to support Hezbollah. Hell, if the US doesn't give a shit about us, why should we remain neutral as they allow the Israelis to kill us and our children and destroy our hard work and infrastructure.

I think Germany better watch out, a bunch of those 9/11 bombers lived there for a while. The US is probably drafting plans to bomb Hamburg as we speak. England? Same deal, wasn't Richard Reid living there? He somehow slipped through their fingers and got on a plane to the US. He apparently studied at the Brixton Mosque, anyone in the neighborhood is better off getting out - not sure that nukes are necessary, but hey, George, why not? Why run the risk of other dirty little Arabs studying there?

Of course, I'm not saying that we should turn a blind eye to Hezbollah, or that we should force the Israelis to accept that their two soldiers are gone, but I thought we had a Secretary of State for a reason - to deal with these problems. Condi isn't going to do a lick of good going to NYC to visit with Kofi Annan, he's not the one killing Lebanese citizens. I'm not here bearing solutions; well yeah, I think the first solution is to stop Israel from bombing Beirut, but after that, it's up to the negotiators and the different countries to work out a deal. I just can't believe that our government is allowing it to continue.

On a personal note, Julie visited Beirut about three weeks before the Israelis blew up the airport. That strikes close to home.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

YOUTUBING FOR MUSIC

I just want to post a few Youtube videos here to share some great music with all of you. I'm not going to imbed everything for those of you that are still stuck on dial up!!!

This is a great version of my favorite Tom Waits song - live from the Montreal Jazz Festival from 1981:



(for the record, it's called Tom Traubert's Blues and not Waltzing Matilda)

If you like "I Wish I Was in New Orleans" or "$29.00" (29 dollars is my second favorite Waits song-there's something to be said for a line that goes, "all you've got is twenty-nine dollars and alligator boots"), you can find the video from Montreal here. The two are in the same feed. If you only want to see $29.00, scroll through to 4:15.

Moving to other artists: Jacques Brel died in 1978, but he made some great music during his 50 years on this earth. Le Port d'Amsterdam is what an Irish song would be if it was song in French by a Belgian; "In the port of Amsterdam, there are sailors who drink; and they drink and they drink and then they drink some more. They drink to the health of the whores of Amsterdam, of Hamburg and of everywhere else."
You can tell Brel was passionate about his work (if you disagree rewatch this video starting at minute 2:00, he starts to look like those old videos of Hitler giving speeches).

As my friend Alex said, Jacques Brel donne tout (just watch his face) in this video of Ne Me Quitte Pas ("Don't leave me"). For anyone that doesn't understand French (most of you, I imagine), here's the to-English translation of the song (I know that's not great, but it's the best I could find at short notice - you get the idea):



Nina Simone did a great cover of Ne Me Quitte Pas, but I can't seem to find it on Youtube (so I doubt that it exists on video!). Anyway, here's a video of her singing To Love Somebody (ok we don't actually see her, but it's a video of her music). If you want to actually see Nina, here's For A While from Ronnie Scott's.


Since Nina covered some of the same stuff as Dylan did (plus she covered some of his stuff), I'll naturally move into Bob right now. Here's Dylan doing Tangled Up in Blue Live in 1975.

After Jeff Buckley died, there was so much stuff that could be released for profit that many many more albums were released after his death than before. This video of Forget Her was obviously produced after his death...Notice how he doesn't sing at all in the video? Oh well. Great song. He does sing on this version of Hallelujeh from Canal Plus - He even dedicates it to Nina Simone.

Oops, I was almost ready to end this post, but how could I with something from Stevie!!! Sorry sorry. Here's Life Without You.

One last video, by another Belge: I think he's kind of like the European version of Tom Waits; grand affinity for alcohol (although Tom's gotten over that), eccentric beyond belief, gruff voice, etc. Anyway, here's the song Dans Les Yeux de Ma Mère (In My Mother's Eyes).

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Le Tour: Two hours of Waiting and Thirty Seconds of Guys on Bikes

So Le Tour de France swung by my house yesterday midday. I had looked on the site the day prior, and saw that the riders should come within about 50 feet of my house during the "prerace" or "warmup" period. Not knowing much about what this meant, I figured it would be easier to walk down to the boulevards where the riders would come by, than to get into my car, drive to a place along the route, wait for the riders, be stuck there until everyone had passed, etc. It seemed fairly easy to walk out my front door and watch these athletes go by.

So, I get down there, not knowing much about how the whole thing takes place. I had read on Letour.com that the "caravane" was set to leave the "Stage 9 Pre-Start" at 11:30. I kind of thought that this meant the riders would leave at this point. So I leave at about 11:29 and go down to wait for the riders to come by. For a few minutes there was very little action. A few people were sitting around in lawnchairs and chatting with the cops guarding the route, but there was no action. Then, the first rider came by:

Now, I knew that the tour was in rough shape after a bunch of the top-tier riders got bumped after doping allegations, but I didn't know that they were so desperate that they had to get Lance Armstrong's mother to ride!!! (thanks Jeff).

Anyway, in all truthfulness, there was a lot of waiting involved. After waiting for a long time, all of the sudden there was movement on the horizon! Something's coming! Riders...Ah no, in fact the "caravane" is 45 minutes of "official suppliers and official sponsors" blaring annoying euro-trash music and throwing things at you. On the plus side, I got a lot of tour-related swag. I have a cool Credit Lyonnais bag in awesome YELLOW! I have two Champion hats in that lovely red-on-white polka-dot pattern for the best climber. And a bunch of other stuff that was thrown my way: Fortunately, I was the only person standing on my patch of sidewalk, so I got everything!

Once these 45 minutes had passed a bunch of people who were on the sidewalk with me started to walk away. I started to become afraid at this point...was that it? were the riders actually going to go directly to the real start and skip the prerace part? I was a bit consoled by the fact that lots and lots of team cars kept coming by without bikes on them, so I figured the bikes must be at the pre-start point. Anyway, as it turns out the racers left the prerace start at 1:15 pm. A few minutes prior, the vehicle activity picked up with lots of race officials and cops and reporters and whatnot coming by. Then the "Tour Information" car came by blaring information about the riders and telling us to clear the street! Ok, great, the anticipation is now building and finally I see the yellow jersey:




My god, I knew that EPO and other performance enhancing products were a problem in bike racing, but I didn't know that human growth hormone was used!!!!









Ok, in all honesty, finally after waiting for 1:45, the riders finally came. But (and here's where I learned what "pre-race" or "warmup" means) they all came at once. 171 racers passed me in one group that took a grand total of 30 seconds! They weren't "racing" more than just cruising along. I've seen 70-year-old men going harder on 50 year old 10 speeds than these guys. They were just taking their time to slowly warm up before they got to the actual start! A friend of mine told me last year when I was lamenting the fact that I was going to miss the tour, "watch it on TV, you see much more and it's much more interesting." He is right. I am glad that I saw these guys, 'cause now I have done it, but it's nothing very spectacular. That's why you always see the masses of fans watching on the climbs - it's must be more interesting than watching them on the flat.
In any case, I have seen the tour de france live now. Maybe in the future I will try to go somewhere more interesting to watch them race (climbs, descents), but I'll probably avoid the warmup period in the future (unless of course they are coming within 50 feet of my house and I can make the time to go see them).

Monday, July 10, 2006

The End [Allegedly] - UPDATE IV (Now with video)

So, Zinedine Zidane, the "Artist" or "Blue Angel" as he has become known by French sportwriters, ended his career with a red card at 110 minutes of the World Cup final last night. Lots of talking heads are throwing around lots of words about this, with reason. It's rare that such a renowned player acknowledges the end to his career in such manner (that he would retire from from all professional soccer at the end of the cup), and it's rare that someone who shows such form ends his career and it's even rarer that someone commits a foul as flagrant and as blatant as the one of Zidane last night. But many of the [english-language] sportswriters are dead wrong.

(disclosure) Before, I get into the meat of this post, I just want to clearly state - I do not condone his actions. He was wrong. He deserved a red card for his actions. (/disclosure)

First things first: Both Domenech and Lippi addressed this issue and the ref is wrong for this reason. THERE IS NO REPLAY IN SOCCER. I will quote Lippi here, because I think his opinion is more relevant than Domenech's:
You will realise that it was not Materazzi who got the attention of the referee. It was the fourth and fifth officials looking at the video at the edge of the pitch. We did not do anything. They saw it and they called the attention of the referee.

I repeat - there is no video replay in soccer. None of the referees saw what happened. Buffon ran to the assistant on the sidelines after it happen, the head ref Elizondo, came walking over afterwards - he showed no inclination to card Zidane (although Zidane thought he was going to be redded, going as far as removing his captain's arm band, before replacing it minutes later when he thought he may get away with it). Only after an extended amount of time did the head ref go over and speak with the fourth linesman, who told him what happened, undoubtedly after seeing the replay on the sidelines. Whether Zidane deserved to be redded or not is not the issue at hand. If the refs say they can't review plays because FIFA does not allow video review, but then sends a player off after one of the refs sees the video replay - this doesn't fly in my book. One standard for all, FIFA.

Now, getting to the buffoons (not to be confused with Buffon) who have written and will write so much drivel about Zidane's "fall." The French love this guy. After the '98 world cup, they were chanting "Zidane, President" on the Champs Elysée. He is a great football player who truly personifies French football. A son of immigrant parents who rose from the tough neighborhoods of Marseille to become a world-class soccer player who is an idol for 1000s of little French footballers, dreaming of playing in the World Cup one day. I do not think that this will have a huge effect on the views here of the man. Zidane, while generally stoic, has a temper. He stamped on a Saudi player during the Cup in '98. He was suspended for 5 games in the Champions League when he played at Juventus for two different acts (one of which was a headbutt). I have seen him be really nasty - spiking players who pissed him off. While it comes as a surprise that he allowed emotions to get the best of him at that point in a match with such a magnitude of importance, I am not totally surprised to see him do such an action. The French will never hate him. It started as soon as it happened, both on French TV ("he was obviously provoked") and with the people who were watching with me. BBC commenter Alan Hansen erroneously said that Zidane will be the "loneliest man in the world after that." ESPN's Soccernet leads with the totally misquoted headline "Domenech: Zidane red cost us the match." Domenech said that it was a turning point and that France realized that the Italians were playing for penalties and that they should have tried to take advantage of this, but with Zidane being sent off they couldn't really do it. He didn't really blame Zinedine, other than say it was too bad that he lost his cool.
Reading some posts from Britain, I think that many normal people (i.e. bloggers) are more or less speaking along the same lines as me - it's not excusable, but it doesn't change what he has done for the last 15 years. I can't read Italian, which is a shame, I'd like to know what they are saying. Lippi, while stating that it was a definite red, basically said the same thing: Zidane is[was] a great player who will be known for his on-field ability. It's basically just the ignorant American press who seems to think that this is going to have a profound change on how people view Zidane.

Just a few notes on the non-red card aspects of the match:
It was ok. Both teams played well. I think from the second half on the French played better, but the Italian defense was a wall - literally (how d'ya like that, Jeff?) - any time the French crossed the midfield line, there were 5-7 Italians there to stop them. If they won, it's because of this. Buffon is probably the best keeper in the world. Just a little statistic: The Italians did not allow ONE "regular" goal in the entire World Cup competition. They conceded an own-goal against the Americans and Zidane's penalty yesterday, but they did not allow any normal-play goals. That, my friends, is insane defense.

Coupet and Barthez: I think that Coupet would've stopped at least one penalty shot.

[UPDATE]: Breaking news. Despite his red card, Zidane won the Golden Ball for best player in the World Cup tournament. I was sure that he was on path to win it, but thought that his headbutt/red card would count against him and I thought that Gigi Buffon would take it home. Not to be. Stick that in your pipes, ESPN et. al. in the American sports press.

[UPDATE II]: French TV is reporting that rumors coming out of the French locker room have Materazzi making racist comments to Zidane before the now infamous action.

[UPDATE III]: FIFA is terrible organization that must resort to lying to try to clean up its own mess. Or put into other words, FIFA denies that video evidence was used to (rightfully) red card Zidane on Sunday night. They claim that although 3 or 4 minutes passed between the incident and the fourth referee telling the head ref (in person) what happened, the fourth ref did not see any video replay and in fact had see the action in real-time and immediately told the head ref over the head set. The head ref then decided to wait for this time period before physically running over to confirm with the fourth ref (who once again, didn't see any video evidence) that the incident did take place. FIFA is ruining football. This World Cup was one of the lowest scoring and the dirtiest (plus there were tons of bad calls - red card for Mastroeni anyone?), yet they're sure they are doing a stand-up job.

[UPDATE IV]: VIDEOS: I just want to put up a couple of video angles of this. If anyone lip reads Italian, this video may reveal to what Materazzi said. Here's the video from TF1 (France).