This one will be way out there people who normally look at my blog. I'm a baseball junkie. A stat geek. I've been playing a baseball simulation game called Strat-O-Matic baseball since I was a teenager. I once replayed an entire MLB season using "Strat" on my own. It was the 1978 season, and there were 2102 regular season games, if I recall correctly. I played them all. Plus the playoffs. At the end, the Yankees still beat the Dodgers in the series, so my 1000+ hours of effort failed to overturn the results of that series. I think I only re-played the season because I was so disappointed when the Yankees won. I wanted to reverse it, if just on a personal level. No luck. Or given how the game of Strat is played, maybe I should say "no dice."
Today, 35 years later, I still play in Strat leagues. I'm currently in the playoffs in one league, one win away from a world series appearance.
I was once a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, a collection of fellow baseball geeks. In SABR, there seemed, at the time, to be two kinds of members - the stat geeks and the history geeks. And, we needed each other.
What I want to address today is the 2012 Baltimore Orioles. They are tied for first place in the AL East with the Yankees. And, they have absolutely no business being there. In reality, they should be just ahead of the Red Sox, well out of playoff contention. Yet, they are winning one run games at a ridiculous rate. They are 27-8 in one run games.
Over history, most teams win one run games at a rate somewhere between their winning percentage in games not decided by one run and .500. That is, both good teams and bad teams will somewhat regress toward the mean in one run games. (I hope I don't get any statistical terms wrong here, because one of my readers is a math professor). Think about it. If you are a bad team and you lose a lot of games, when you are lucky enough to be in close game, you will probably win more of those than you would win if the game hadn't been close. Conversely, good teams will lose more often in tight games, because they've allowed an inferior opponent time to stay close and sometimes get lucky.
The same concepts apply in extra inning games, which are quite often 1 run games. The Orioles are 14-2 in extra inning games.
Ignoring the one run games, the Orioles are essentially a .500 team. So, you'd expect them to be close to .500 in one run games. In that case, their record would be 75-73 or 74-74. Yet, they are 84-64.
Another formula used to project baseball winning percentages, one that assumes a fairly normal run distribution over time, is called the Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball. I'm not going to go into details here, but that formula focuses on total runs allowed and total runs scored. Amazingly, the 84-64 Orioles have been outscored this season by a slight margin of 660-652. According to those numbers and the PToB, they should have won 49.3% of their games, for a record of 73-75. In other words, they've won 11 more games than expected based on this theorem. Looking above, they've won 9 or 10 games more than they should have won.
Three other teams are at +5 this year, and one team is -6, but no one is close to +11. None of the other lucky teams appears playoff bound. One thing that's funny is that two of the unluckier teams are the Reds and Giants, who despite being -5 are both in first place by decent margins. In reality, they should have wrapped up their divisions by now.
Yes, there are confounders in this formula. The first one that occurs to me is an absolutely dominant closer. Great closers are used primarily in close games, and if they dominate, they can push their team's record in close games to higher than otherwise expected levels.
The Oriole's closer leads MLB in saves. And he's having a very good year. But, statistically, hes' not as good a pitcher as his set-up man. (Maybe the set-up man being so good is a boon to the O's in tight games).
Other closers in the league like Fernando Rodney, Craig Kimbrel, Jason Motte, Aroldis Chapman, and Kenley Jansen have clearly been better. Another half dozen are of similar quality.
So, I don't see a truly dominant closer as the reason for Baltimore winning so many games. I think it might explain Tampa Bay being 5 games better than projected, but I see no such shift for the Orioles.
I haven't examined historical records for how these O's would rank in the history of good luck, because I can't find them on the web.
I also haven't looked at the results that I would have found using a slightly revised version of the theorem, that uses a different exponent that makes the formula look less "Pythagorean".
However, there is no doubt in my mind that the 2012 Orioles are an absurdly lucky team. If they take this season and assume that they are actually a good team, and they make few changes in the off-season, fans should expect a significant drop-off next year. Historically, teams that win lots of one run games tend to get worse the next season, when their luck, essentially, doesn't repeat. The free agent era has changed this a bit, but holding tight after a lucky season is not the way to repeat.
I would bet that they are one of the 20 luckiest teams in MLB history to this point, but I can't verify that.
But, like most math geeks, I enjoy looking at an interesting statistical anomaly, and the 2012 Orioles are the definition of an anomaly.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Once again, nothing to write about
It's been 8 days since I had any thoughts I thought were worth posting. I was going to write something yesterday, but realized I had nothing to say.
"When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?"
from Psycho Killer by Talking Heads
Last week, I did a lot of CrossFit. Said that before.
This past weekend, I didn't do much of anything - farmers market, college football, cook, nap, mow the lawn, watch some episodes of Breaking Bad. Said that before.
Last night at CrossFit - front squat PR of 235#, and I did two reps. My old PR was 225#, probably from 18 months ago. If I was more flexible in the correct places, I could probably do 275# or so. I've read on the interweb, so it must be correct, that a typical front squat max is about 80% of your back squat max. That would put me at 268#, so maybe 275 is a stretch.
We are now in our 9th week of a 12 week squat cycle. I'm guessing that I will improve my back squat to about 350# or so by the end of the cycle. I made that comment to my wife, and she asked me if I thought I would be able to do the same without the testosterone injections. It would have been nice to say yes, but I doubt that it would have been true.
My wife is still unemployed. We are still uninsured. Said that before.
However, my wife has 3 interviews today, and another later this week. Maybe something will change for the better on that front.
Next week, I'm taking a week of vacation. I'm going to stay in Vermont, go fly fishing, go to CrossFit, go to the farmers market, do some cooking, hang out with my family, and that's about it. I think I said that before as well.
"When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?"
from Psycho Killer by Talking Heads
Last week, I did a lot of CrossFit. Said that before.
This past weekend, I didn't do much of anything - farmers market, college football, cook, nap, mow the lawn, watch some episodes of Breaking Bad. Said that before.
Last night at CrossFit - front squat PR of 235#, and I did two reps. My old PR was 225#, probably from 18 months ago. If I was more flexible in the correct places, I could probably do 275# or so. I've read on the interweb, so it must be correct, that a typical front squat max is about 80% of your back squat max. That would put me at 268#, so maybe 275 is a stretch.
We are now in our 9th week of a 12 week squat cycle. I'm guessing that I will improve my back squat to about 350# or so by the end of the cycle. I made that comment to my wife, and she asked me if I thought I would be able to do the same without the testosterone injections. It would have been nice to say yes, but I doubt that it would have been true.
My wife is still unemployed. We are still uninsured. Said that before.
However, my wife has 3 interviews today, and another later this week. Maybe something will change for the better on that front.
Next week, I'm taking a week of vacation. I'm going to stay in Vermont, go fly fishing, go to CrossFit, go to the farmers market, do some cooking, hang out with my family, and that's about it. I think I said that before as well.
Monday, September 10, 2012
More on testosterone supplementation
I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was interviewed by an AP writer about my testosterone usage. In his original request for people to talk to, he wanted to talk to men age 50 or older, and he preferred people using the gels (Axiron, Androgel, etc.) for supplementation. His article has hit the wires today, and here is one link to what he wrote:
Testosterone Article by Matthew Perrone
I found a couple things interesting about the article. In some ways, I think my positive comments were merely an afterthought. There was no comparison of what I said to what any of the "experts" said. The economic side of the article was based on the gels and patches, which are very expensive because they are under patent. The injected testosterone that I use is not under patent and is much cheaper.
Much of the research quoted is fairly old and newer research seems to have been ignored. Concerns about prostate issues and heart disease seem to have been alleviated by more recent studies. I read a lot of studies, older and newer, before I started taking this medicine, and I am not concerned about those two issues. I did a lot of homework before agreeing to start giving myself shots a couple times of week. That was not an easy decision for someone so afraid of needles.
I am concerned about high red blood cell levels and blood pressure, the latter, in particular, because I weigh more than I should. And, I'm having those things monitored.
In general, when browsing various forums on the net, it seems that users of gels are not nearly as satisfied as users of injected testosterone. (Yeah, I know that's a highly unscientific statement prone to all sorts of biases on my part.) Most of the clinics that are advertising under the guise of "anti-aging" prefer injected T to gels, because they believe it works better. And, it's cheaper.
I have seen so many positive stories on the internet regarding improvements people have seen in their lives. This article paints a very different picture, IMO. There is a lot of information to refute statements in the article, and maybe I'll post links on another day. Today, I'm kind of disappointed to have been part of this article - something that seems very one sided - armed with quotes rather than links to studies to make its claims.
Yes, I'm sure a number of drug companies out there are trying to make a lot of money. That's how the world works. But, that doesn't invalidate the potential benefits adding an exogenous hormone when your body does not make enough internally. The article made it sound like anyone and everyone can just ask for and receive testosterone, without a clinical need for it. That might be possible, but it took me a long time to find a doc who was willing to prescribe the med. There is a big difference between steroid abuse and clinically indicated hormone supplementation.
Testosterone Article by Matthew Perrone
I found a couple things interesting about the article. In some ways, I think my positive comments were merely an afterthought. There was no comparison of what I said to what any of the "experts" said. The economic side of the article was based on the gels and patches, which are very expensive because they are under patent. The injected testosterone that I use is not under patent and is much cheaper.
Much of the research quoted is fairly old and newer research seems to have been ignored. Concerns about prostate issues and heart disease seem to have been alleviated by more recent studies. I read a lot of studies, older and newer, before I started taking this medicine, and I am not concerned about those two issues. I did a lot of homework before agreeing to start giving myself shots a couple times of week. That was not an easy decision for someone so afraid of needles.
I am concerned about high red blood cell levels and blood pressure, the latter, in particular, because I weigh more than I should. And, I'm having those things monitored.
In general, when browsing various forums on the net, it seems that users of gels are not nearly as satisfied as users of injected testosterone. (Yeah, I know that's a highly unscientific statement prone to all sorts of biases on my part.) Most of the clinics that are advertising under the guise of "anti-aging" prefer injected T to gels, because they believe it works better. And, it's cheaper.
I have seen so many positive stories on the internet regarding improvements people have seen in their lives. This article paints a very different picture, IMO. There is a lot of information to refute statements in the article, and maybe I'll post links on another day. Today, I'm kind of disappointed to have been part of this article - something that seems very one sided - armed with quotes rather than links to studies to make its claims.
Yes, I'm sure a number of drug companies out there are trying to make a lot of money. That's how the world works. But, that doesn't invalidate the potential benefits adding an exogenous hormone when your body does not make enough internally. The article made it sound like anyone and everyone can just ask for and receive testosterone, without a clinical need for it. That might be possible, but it took me a long time to find a doc who was willing to prescribe the med. There is a big difference between steroid abuse and clinically indicated hormone supplementation.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Penn State "Situation"
Friday night, I was having a conversation with some friends while my wife and I were on a camping trip. It was a weekend we had feared a little bit because we had never left our children (ages 19 and 14) home alone for more than one night for the first time ever. As it turned out, everything was fine. They even got up early on Sunday and drove 25 miles to a place they like to go for breakfast. They also gave us the bill for the food, but we are the parents, so I guess that's fair.
So, on Friday night, after dinner, the subject of college football and Penn State came up. There were four people in the conversation - two married couples. One of the couples (my wife and I) have extensive ties to PA and Penn State. The other couple has no such ties, and they are not especially interested in college football.
As we discussed the NCAA sanctions against Penn State, I tried to make a couple points. First, I didn't think the NCAA had the authority to impose the penalties that they chose. However, the university accepted the penalties, so someone believed that the NCAA had authority or that the penalties were appropriate or both. So, let's ignore that belief.
I also made the point that I thought the wrong people got punished by the NCAA sanctions. By the wrong people, I meant the residents of PA whose state university will pay the fines and absorb other lost revenues. I meant the students. I meant the football players - past and present. Other Penn State athletes outside the football program. And, the fans - all of them. The death penalty would have even punished athletes at a number of other schools, but this did not happen.
It is easy to make the counterpoint that most, if not all, of those people were part of the "culture" that seemed to value winning above anything else. Therefore, even by creating expectations for success, everyone "sinned". But, I have a hard time with that argument, to be honest.
I've seen a lot of people take exception with the Freeh report, stating that the conclusions do not match the information in the main document. Most, if not all, of them have been PA residents and Penn State fans. I haven't read the entire document, so I can't really comment there. I've seen a lot of hatred on the web towards PSU and their "delusional" fans, and I even saw one post calling them "dillusional", whatever that means. There isn't even an implication of guilt. Many people seem to be saying that being a fan equals being a child molester - an explicit accusation against all fans.
One of the people in our conversation asked me what I thought the punishment from the NCAA should have been. To be honest, I had not even considered what it should be, only that I think what was done was wrong. For days, I've been thinking this question over, and I'm still not sure I have an answer.
Jerry Sandusky is a convicted child molester and what he did cannot be undone.
A number of university employees are apparently guilty of covering up the crimes, and by doing so, perpetuating them. That is disgusting. I would say unforgivable, but I hope I haven't gotten to a point in my life where I find anything ultimately unforgivable, no matter how much I hate the crime.
So, for the handful of readers I have out there, I have a question. What should have been done to PSU in terms of punishment. By whom? And, why?
Vitriolic responses, especially without justification, will be deleted. Sorry. My blog, my rules. Call it censorship if you will, but I'd love to see a reasoned conversation here. Or maybe nothing at all because no one cares other than a few delusional Penn State fans.
So, on Friday night, after dinner, the subject of college football and Penn State came up. There were four people in the conversation - two married couples. One of the couples (my wife and I) have extensive ties to PA and Penn State. The other couple has no such ties, and they are not especially interested in college football.
As we discussed the NCAA sanctions against Penn State, I tried to make a couple points. First, I didn't think the NCAA had the authority to impose the penalties that they chose. However, the university accepted the penalties, so someone believed that the NCAA had authority or that the penalties were appropriate or both. So, let's ignore that belief.
I also made the point that I thought the wrong people got punished by the NCAA sanctions. By the wrong people, I meant the residents of PA whose state university will pay the fines and absorb other lost revenues. I meant the students. I meant the football players - past and present. Other Penn State athletes outside the football program. And, the fans - all of them. The death penalty would have even punished athletes at a number of other schools, but this did not happen.
It is easy to make the counterpoint that most, if not all, of those people were part of the "culture" that seemed to value winning above anything else. Therefore, even by creating expectations for success, everyone "sinned". But, I have a hard time with that argument, to be honest.
I've seen a lot of people take exception with the Freeh report, stating that the conclusions do not match the information in the main document. Most, if not all, of them have been PA residents and Penn State fans. I haven't read the entire document, so I can't really comment there. I've seen a lot of hatred on the web towards PSU and their "delusional" fans, and I even saw one post calling them "dillusional", whatever that means. There isn't even an implication of guilt. Many people seem to be saying that being a fan equals being a child molester - an explicit accusation against all fans.
One of the people in our conversation asked me what I thought the punishment from the NCAA should have been. To be honest, I had not even considered what it should be, only that I think what was done was wrong. For days, I've been thinking this question over, and I'm still not sure I have an answer.
Jerry Sandusky is a convicted child molester and what he did cannot be undone.
A number of university employees are apparently guilty of covering up the crimes, and by doing so, perpetuating them. That is disgusting. I would say unforgivable, but I hope I haven't gotten to a point in my life where I find anything ultimately unforgivable, no matter how much I hate the crime.
So, for the handful of readers I have out there, I have a question. What should have been done to PSU in terms of punishment. By whom? And, why?
Vitriolic responses, especially without justification, will be deleted. Sorry. My blog, my rules. Call it censorship if you will, but I'd love to see a reasoned conversation here. Or maybe nothing at all because no one cares other than a few delusional Penn State fans.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Good and Bad Numbers in the Gym Last Night
My wife and I had a nice weekend in the Finger Lakes region of NY, spending time with friends and tasting wines at a number of wineries. The person who invited us is a fellow ski instructor who has been a mentor of mine for a decade now. He noticed that my physical shape had changed since the end of ski season. While I simply feel fat (but I always feel that way), he said that my upper body had clearly grown some and that my body was more proportional that it was before. He said that at the end of the ski season, I had a large, strong lower body, a beer belly, and my upper body didn't match up. So now, my upper body has caught up and I'm too big everywhere?
We were discussing this because I told him about the testosterone treatments I've been doing. He was intrigued because he is really stymied in the gym these days. A few years ago, he developed a form of auto-immune hepatitis, spent a year on some strong drugs, and he's never really come back 100% from that illness.
We are about the same age, and spent some time lamenting how time is not kind to our skiing abilities unless we work really hard every single off-season.
After our relaxing weekend (I lifted on Thursday, did sprints on Sunday, but took three other days off), I was back in the gym last night. There were two reasons for being there. First of all, we started the second half of the 12 week squat cycle we've been doing. After a lazy weekend, I was curious how this workout would go. It was our heaviest workout in the cycle to date, and on our fifth set of back squats (rep scheme of 5-5-2-3-1), we were supposed to tie our current best in the back squat. The coach warned us that a few people had already come in earlier in the day, after a bit too much partying on the holiday weekend, and struggled with the workout.
The second reason for being at the gym was the start of another month-long Paleo challenge. I have participated in three of these earlier. All three have started well, but my resolve didn't last in two of them. So, I've paid $20 each to enter and got $40 in prize money once. This will be my fourth attempt. Our scores are based on dietary adherence, body weight change, a subjective review of body composition (shirtless pictures - ugh!), and improvement on a couple benchmark workouts.
But, before we could even get to the benchmark workouts, we had 9 sets of squats to do, including heavy back squats. Overall, I was pleased with how I felt, and rather than tying my best on the fifth set at 330#, I put on an extra 5#, to shoot for a modest PR. I also really wanted to feel how my strength was compared to that lift. Sometimes, if a squat weight is difficult, it's easiest to move pretty quickly, but this can result in questionable depth. At 335#, I squatted slowly, let myself settle into the bottom and really feel the weight, and then stood back up. I was shocked by how easy it was. We then did 4 sets of front squats, before moving to the benchmarks.
Our first benchmark workout was max pull-ups, without releasing from the bar. Assistance is OK, as long as you use the same assistance at the start and the end of the challenge. I used a green resistance band and completed 12 dead-hang (non-kipping) pull-ups.
Our next benchmark was as many reps as possible in ten minutes:
10 power cleans
20 wall balls
40 double-unders
I scaled the workout somewhat, but I'll use the same scaling at the end of the challenge.
After the workout came the shirtless pics and the official weigh-in. My weight was the highest I've ever seen. In the 4 months since I started testosterone supplementation, my weight has gone up 14 pounds. At first, I'd gone up 10, then dropped 3 and now I'm up 14 net. Overall, my clothes don't fit much differently. I have had a couple shirts where some increased size in my shoulders and arms has made the shirts tight. But, my pants still fit, my workout clothes still fit, and I was surprised to see an increase that large. I'm curious how much is muscle and how much is fat.
I do feel like I'm dragging more weight around when I'm running or going uphill on my bike. But, I still feel fairly strong as well.
So, for the next thirty days, my goal is to work out as many days as make sense. I'll do some extra reps, on my own, at CrossFit, to help with the skills for the benchmark lifts. From a food perspective, I really want to focus on what I'm "allowed' to eat, rather than what I'm not supposed to eat. So, for the next month, I'll be eating meat and seafood, lots of veggies, lots of salads, some nuts, some seeds, coffee, and high quality fats. All I need for dinner most nights is some meat to grill, my salad spinner, and a homemade salad dressing. Given the time of the year, with a late season bounty of veggies, this isn't a tough way to live.
We were discussing this because I told him about the testosterone treatments I've been doing. He was intrigued because he is really stymied in the gym these days. A few years ago, he developed a form of auto-immune hepatitis, spent a year on some strong drugs, and he's never really come back 100% from that illness.
We are about the same age, and spent some time lamenting how time is not kind to our skiing abilities unless we work really hard every single off-season.
After our relaxing weekend (I lifted on Thursday, did sprints on Sunday, but took three other days off), I was back in the gym last night. There were two reasons for being there. First of all, we started the second half of the 12 week squat cycle we've been doing. After a lazy weekend, I was curious how this workout would go. It was our heaviest workout in the cycle to date, and on our fifth set of back squats (rep scheme of 5-5-2-3-1), we were supposed to tie our current best in the back squat. The coach warned us that a few people had already come in earlier in the day, after a bit too much partying on the holiday weekend, and struggled with the workout.
The second reason for being at the gym was the start of another month-long Paleo challenge. I have participated in three of these earlier. All three have started well, but my resolve didn't last in two of them. So, I've paid $20 each to enter and got $40 in prize money once. This will be my fourth attempt. Our scores are based on dietary adherence, body weight change, a subjective review of body composition (shirtless pictures - ugh!), and improvement on a couple benchmark workouts.
But, before we could even get to the benchmark workouts, we had 9 sets of squats to do, including heavy back squats. Overall, I was pleased with how I felt, and rather than tying my best on the fifth set at 330#, I put on an extra 5#, to shoot for a modest PR. I also really wanted to feel how my strength was compared to that lift. Sometimes, if a squat weight is difficult, it's easiest to move pretty quickly, but this can result in questionable depth. At 335#, I squatted slowly, let myself settle into the bottom and really feel the weight, and then stood back up. I was shocked by how easy it was. We then did 4 sets of front squats, before moving to the benchmarks.
Our first benchmark workout was max pull-ups, without releasing from the bar. Assistance is OK, as long as you use the same assistance at the start and the end of the challenge. I used a green resistance band and completed 12 dead-hang (non-kipping) pull-ups.
Our next benchmark was as many reps as possible in ten minutes:
10 power cleans
20 wall balls
40 double-unders
I scaled the workout somewhat, but I'll use the same scaling at the end of the challenge.
After the workout came the shirtless pics and the official weigh-in. My weight was the highest I've ever seen. In the 4 months since I started testosterone supplementation, my weight has gone up 14 pounds. At first, I'd gone up 10, then dropped 3 and now I'm up 14 net. Overall, my clothes don't fit much differently. I have had a couple shirts where some increased size in my shoulders and arms has made the shirts tight. But, my pants still fit, my workout clothes still fit, and I was surprised to see an increase that large. I'm curious how much is muscle and how much is fat.
I do feel like I'm dragging more weight around when I'm running or going uphill on my bike. But, I still feel fairly strong as well.
So, for the next thirty days, my goal is to work out as many days as make sense. I'll do some extra reps, on my own, at CrossFit, to help with the skills for the benchmark lifts. From a food perspective, I really want to focus on what I'm "allowed' to eat, rather than what I'm not supposed to eat. So, for the next month, I'll be eating meat and seafood, lots of veggies, lots of salads, some nuts, some seeds, coffee, and high quality fats. All I need for dinner most nights is some meat to grill, my salad spinner, and a homemade salad dressing. Given the time of the year, with a late season bounty of veggies, this isn't a tough way to live.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Social Media - What's the Point? (Political and Sarcastic)
I've been a bit crabby recently. Mostly when using Facebook. But, not just then. Well, a lot of it has been interweb-related. And, in this post, I'll reveal more of my liberal bias than I have in a long time, maybe since my Masters Of War post in 2009. If you don't want to risk being offended, leave now.
Maybe it's the election season. Maybe I'm crabby because I'm not going to be happy, no matter who wins. Our current President has been a major disappointment to me. When people on the far right call him a socialist or a liberal, I usually laugh, and think to myself "I wish". The people on the other side just plain scare me.
I'm not voting for the same person for President as you are. Let's just say that if I make that bet, even-money, with every one of my blog readers, that I'd make a lot of money. OK, I don't have enough readers to make a lot of money, but I'll make a profit. I refuse to vote for mediocrity, especially when I feel like the mediocrity is self-inflicted. Years ago, I shared season tickets to the San Jose Sharks hockey team, starting in their very first season. That first year, we, the fans, didn't boo much. We expected the team to be bad. But, starting in the second season, we would boo the Sharks. Why? It wasn't because they were bad. We booed them when they didn't try. We booed them when they played like being bad or even mediocre was acceptable.
Maybe I'm crabby because my wife is still unemployed and my family and I remain without health insurance. And yet, we are way better off than so many people I know. We can buy health insurance when we need to do that. It's absurdly expensive, and the time window provided by COBRA is allowing us to hold tight for a little bit, unless we have a sudden unexpected health issue. And yet, half of the people in this country seem to think that we should all live like this - with no guarantee that health care will be available if or when we need it. Rationing. Death Panels. Infinite Waits. Give me a break.
Maybe I'm crabby because too many people are trying to sell me stuff on social networks. LinkedIn is probably the worst. I use it to try to stay in contact with former and current professional acquaintances. Maybe I can help someone find a job or vice versa in the future. Maybe I can use an acquaintance to get a recommendation for a company to do some work with my company. But, instead, people are finding me on LinkedIn and trying to sell me stuff - services, software, employees, consultants, etc. One person recently found me on LinkedIn, called my company to track me down, tried to sell me something, and then wanted to be a contact on LinkedIn. No. I don't know you.
And Facebook is the worst. I wish people wouldn't post stuff where a quick trip to Snopes can verify or deny the accuracy of the post. After referencing Snopes, I've even been told that Snopes is a liberal web site and cannot be believed.
I've been unfriended on FB because I used an article from the NYT (mostly numbers and graphs - facts, which are well known to have a liberal bias) to try to make a point.
And lately, I've been unfriending people on FB. I don't care if you like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Obama, or Shakes the Clown. If people are going to start throwing their political views at me, and think that I'm going to change my mind about a candidate, maybe I don't care about the rest of what that person has to say. I have been judicious with this to some extent. I have one really good ultrarunning friend who is Mormon, and is supporting Mitt and Ryan purely because of that. We are also truly good friends, not Facespace acquaintances. But, if you and I are "friends" with multiple degrees of separation, are we really friends? Do either of us care about the other's political views?
I've unfriended a number of high school classmates. I grew up in the bottom of the "T" that geographically defines the conservative part of Pennsylvania, a portion of the state often referred to as Pennsyltucky. I don't know if that's an insult to people who live in PA or KY or both. In these cases, my rationale has gone beyond what candidate people like. It's usually because someone posted a bunch of talking points for one side or another. One person was demanding a rational explanation for Obama's "You didn't build that" statement. Anyone who has seen the entire clip knows that what he said was rational and made sense. If you disagree with that, Romney has given a nearly identical stump speech in the past, so it's not like it's a one-way issue.
I'm tired of the hatefulness of politics in our country. My kids are tired of it. My son, as cynical at 19 as I was, hates them all. It's hard to provide a valid counterargument.
If I'm going to use Facebook, I honestly want to stay in touch with my friends. My sister is getting a new puppy this weekend. A good high school friend just took her daughter on a trip to Paris. The breeder of my first Rhodesian Ridgeback is now showing Basenjis and posting some great photos. My niece has moved to Boston and is adjusting to a new world. Friends from CrossFit post great stuff about workouts. Running friends are going to interesting places and running. Or just having great training runs.
I honestly don't care what Starbucks anyone is at, at any time. I don't care what you think about Chik-Fil-A. I'm not all that curious about what anyone is listening to on Spotify.
And I sure as hell don't care if you like Paul Ryan or not.
Maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon. But, if you feel the need, please unfollow by blog, unfollow my dormant Twitter feed, unfriend me on Facebook - whatever you need to do. Please note that I am posting this bit of grouchiness on a "pull" media, rather than "push". In that way, only the RSS followers of my blog (single digits) will be forced to read this rambling rant. The rest do so voluntarily, by choosing to come to this page. And, I've even warned them up front about the contents of the post.
Maybe it's the election season. Maybe I'm crabby because I'm not going to be happy, no matter who wins. Our current President has been a major disappointment to me. When people on the far right call him a socialist or a liberal, I usually laugh, and think to myself "I wish". The people on the other side just plain scare me.
I'm not voting for the same person for President as you are. Let's just say that if I make that bet, even-money, with every one of my blog readers, that I'd make a lot of money. OK, I don't have enough readers to make a lot of money, but I'll make a profit. I refuse to vote for mediocrity, especially when I feel like the mediocrity is self-inflicted. Years ago, I shared season tickets to the San Jose Sharks hockey team, starting in their very first season. That first year, we, the fans, didn't boo much. We expected the team to be bad. But, starting in the second season, we would boo the Sharks. Why? It wasn't because they were bad. We booed them when they didn't try. We booed them when they played like being bad or even mediocre was acceptable.
Maybe I'm crabby because my wife is still unemployed and my family and I remain without health insurance. And yet, we are way better off than so many people I know. We can buy health insurance when we need to do that. It's absurdly expensive, and the time window provided by COBRA is allowing us to hold tight for a little bit, unless we have a sudden unexpected health issue. And yet, half of the people in this country seem to think that we should all live like this - with no guarantee that health care will be available if or when we need it. Rationing. Death Panels. Infinite Waits. Give me a break.
Maybe I'm crabby because too many people are trying to sell me stuff on social networks. LinkedIn is probably the worst. I use it to try to stay in contact with former and current professional acquaintances. Maybe I can help someone find a job or vice versa in the future. Maybe I can use an acquaintance to get a recommendation for a company to do some work with my company. But, instead, people are finding me on LinkedIn and trying to sell me stuff - services, software, employees, consultants, etc. One person recently found me on LinkedIn, called my company to track me down, tried to sell me something, and then wanted to be a contact on LinkedIn. No. I don't know you.
And Facebook is the worst. I wish people wouldn't post stuff where a quick trip to Snopes can verify or deny the accuracy of the post. After referencing Snopes, I've even been told that Snopes is a liberal web site and cannot be believed.
I've been unfriended on FB because I used an article from the NYT (mostly numbers and graphs - facts, which are well known to have a liberal bias) to try to make a point.
And lately, I've been unfriending people on FB. I don't care if you like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Obama, or Shakes the Clown. If people are going to start throwing their political views at me, and think that I'm going to change my mind about a candidate, maybe I don't care about the rest of what that person has to say. I have been judicious with this to some extent. I have one really good ultrarunning friend who is Mormon, and is supporting Mitt and Ryan purely because of that. We are also truly good friends, not Facespace acquaintances. But, if you and I are "friends" with multiple degrees of separation, are we really friends? Do either of us care about the other's political views?
I've unfriended a number of high school classmates. I grew up in the bottom of the "T" that geographically defines the conservative part of Pennsylvania, a portion of the state often referred to as Pennsyltucky. I don't know if that's an insult to people who live in PA or KY or both. In these cases, my rationale has gone beyond what candidate people like. It's usually because someone posted a bunch of talking points for one side or another. One person was demanding a rational explanation for Obama's "You didn't build that" statement. Anyone who has seen the entire clip knows that what he said was rational and made sense. If you disagree with that, Romney has given a nearly identical stump speech in the past, so it's not like it's a one-way issue.
I'm tired of the hatefulness of politics in our country. My kids are tired of it. My son, as cynical at 19 as I was, hates them all. It's hard to provide a valid counterargument.
If I'm going to use Facebook, I honestly want to stay in touch with my friends. My sister is getting a new puppy this weekend. A good high school friend just took her daughter on a trip to Paris. The breeder of my first Rhodesian Ridgeback is now showing Basenjis and posting some great photos. My niece has moved to Boston and is adjusting to a new world. Friends from CrossFit post great stuff about workouts. Running friends are going to interesting places and running. Or just having great training runs.
I honestly don't care what Starbucks anyone is at, at any time. I don't care what you think about Chik-Fil-A. I'm not all that curious about what anyone is listening to on Spotify.
And I sure as hell don't care if you like Paul Ryan or not.
Maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon. But, if you feel the need, please unfollow by blog, unfollow my dormant Twitter feed, unfriend me on Facebook - whatever you need to do. Please note that I am posting this bit of grouchiness on a "pull" media, rather than "push". In that way, only the RSS followers of my blog (single digits) will be forced to read this rambling rant. The rest do so voluntarily, by choosing to come to this page. And, I've even warned them up front about the contents of the post.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Lance, Melky, and Bartolo
Since I'm not focusing my blog so much on training for and racing in ultras, I feel like I can remove some of the artificial boundaries that I'd created in the past, when deciding to address a news topic or not.
I have reviewed concerts here. I even wrote a couple posts about the scandal at Penn State when it first broke. I've decided to stay away from that one since then though.
But, in the past two weeks, we've seen two baseball players suspended for 50 games for using testosterone, and then yesterday, Lance Armstrong lost a court case and decided not to fight USADA any more on its doping charges. I have to say I'm confused how the US Anti-Doping Agency thinks it can strip 7 tour titles from Lance, but I don't really care. Last year's MLB NL MVP was also caught, but used a technicality to avoid his likely well-earned suspension.
I don't care at all about how many drug tests anyone passed. Or failed.
What interests me the most is a culture of denial and hero worship. And yes, that applies back to the Penn State issue as well, but that's for another day.
Baseball players have been using drugs of one sort or another for generations. Perhaps Jim Bouton's "Ball Four" was the first book to really address this issue, but it wasn't new. Painkillers and amphetamines were the early choices. Do we really think that those huge guys who play football every Sunday got to that size strictly through hard work and not with the addition of some performance enhancing drugs?
Tour riders have been using drugs for generations as well. Tom Simpson died during the Tour de France in 1967, with amphetamines and alcohol in his blood. There is even a report of a rider dying in 1886, during a one-day classic, due to a mixture of cocaine, strychnine, and caffeine. There have been many deaths linked to EPO in cycling.
It takes amazing talent and dedication to even approach the top level in most sports. If an athlete gets to the national or world class level, but can't quite break through to winning championships, you are talking about someone with an amazing desire to win who is falling short. If that person begins to suspect that his or her competitors are "juicing", why not go along? Now, maybe this is silly, because the results would be the same if everyone juiced or no one juiced. But, there's always going to be one person who wants to win at all costs. As soon as one juices and starts to excel, the next will come along, and then another, etc. Along with that drive and desire, I imagine it takes a big ego to need to succeed at that level. Heck, Barry Bonds's head got physically bigger during his career, and it still couldn't contain his ego.
The big home run guys of the 1990s were impressive - not just their stats, but their physical presence. Mark McGwire could take a short swing that looked like it wouldn't get the ball out of the infield, but the ball would travel over 400 feet.
Caminiti, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, Canseco, Clemens - think about it. Did any of these guys look "normal"? In many cases, their physiques changed dramatically at an age that should have been past their physical prime. Why? Anybody who doesn't know the answer is simply in denial. Even utility middle infielders got huge in the 1990's.
The backlash against steroids is an issue of concern to me. That backlash has made it difficult for me and and many other men to get treatment for truly low levels of testosterone. I think a similar thing is happening with opiates in this country right now. They are so abused that many doctors are becoming more and more afraid to prescribe them when they do make sense. I wonder how many current baby boomers will endure excessive pain near the end of their lives due to an increasing backlash against opiate abuse.
Testosterone has very legitimate medical uses. So do opiates. Even amphetamines.
But, we also have a culture that glorifies athletes. To get to the top, athletes will do whatever it takes, as long as they don't get caught. The medications listed above, variants on those meds, and masking agents are all part of the repertoire of many athletes.
Maybe some are clean. Maybe many are clean. Maybe most are clean. But, blind hero worship is just that - blind. I'm not here saying that Lance cheated or didn't. There are 17 years worth of data there and I don't know the answer. Melky got caught. Braun got caught. Colon got caught. Caminiti confessed. Bonds and Clemens were tried. Others had to testify before Congress and admit to doping rather than risk being tried for contempt of Congress.
Whose fault is all of this? If we didn't glorify sports and athletes, I'm guessing this would happen a lot less. So, instead of pointing fingers at the athletes, and feeling let down by our heroes, perhaps we should all consider taking a look in the mirror.
I have reviewed concerts here. I even wrote a couple posts about the scandal at Penn State when it first broke. I've decided to stay away from that one since then though.
But, in the past two weeks, we've seen two baseball players suspended for 50 games for using testosterone, and then yesterday, Lance Armstrong lost a court case and decided not to fight USADA any more on its doping charges. I have to say I'm confused how the US Anti-Doping Agency thinks it can strip 7 tour titles from Lance, but I don't really care. Last year's MLB NL MVP was also caught, but used a technicality to avoid his likely well-earned suspension.
I don't care at all about how many drug tests anyone passed. Or failed.
What interests me the most is a culture of denial and hero worship. And yes, that applies back to the Penn State issue as well, but that's for another day.
Baseball players have been using drugs of one sort or another for generations. Perhaps Jim Bouton's "Ball Four" was the first book to really address this issue, but it wasn't new. Painkillers and amphetamines were the early choices. Do we really think that those huge guys who play football every Sunday got to that size strictly through hard work and not with the addition of some performance enhancing drugs?
Tour riders have been using drugs for generations as well. Tom Simpson died during the Tour de France in 1967, with amphetamines and alcohol in his blood. There is even a report of a rider dying in 1886, during a one-day classic, due to a mixture of cocaine, strychnine, and caffeine. There have been many deaths linked to EPO in cycling.
It takes amazing talent and dedication to even approach the top level in most sports. If an athlete gets to the national or world class level, but can't quite break through to winning championships, you are talking about someone with an amazing desire to win who is falling short. If that person begins to suspect that his or her competitors are "juicing", why not go along? Now, maybe this is silly, because the results would be the same if everyone juiced or no one juiced. But, there's always going to be one person who wants to win at all costs. As soon as one juices and starts to excel, the next will come along, and then another, etc. Along with that drive and desire, I imagine it takes a big ego to need to succeed at that level. Heck, Barry Bonds's head got physically bigger during his career, and it still couldn't contain his ego.
The big home run guys of the 1990s were impressive - not just their stats, but their physical presence. Mark McGwire could take a short swing that looked like it wouldn't get the ball out of the infield, but the ball would travel over 400 feet.
Caminiti, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire, Canseco, Clemens - think about it. Did any of these guys look "normal"? In many cases, their physiques changed dramatically at an age that should have been past their physical prime. Why? Anybody who doesn't know the answer is simply in denial. Even utility middle infielders got huge in the 1990's.
The backlash against steroids is an issue of concern to me. That backlash has made it difficult for me and and many other men to get treatment for truly low levels of testosterone. I think a similar thing is happening with opiates in this country right now. They are so abused that many doctors are becoming more and more afraid to prescribe them when they do make sense. I wonder how many current baby boomers will endure excessive pain near the end of their lives due to an increasing backlash against opiate abuse.
Testosterone has very legitimate medical uses. So do opiates. Even amphetamines.
But, we also have a culture that glorifies athletes. To get to the top, athletes will do whatever it takes, as long as they don't get caught. The medications listed above, variants on those meds, and masking agents are all part of the repertoire of many athletes.
Maybe some are clean. Maybe many are clean. Maybe most are clean. But, blind hero worship is just that - blind. I'm not here saying that Lance cheated or didn't. There are 17 years worth of data there and I don't know the answer. Melky got caught. Braun got caught. Colon got caught. Caminiti confessed. Bonds and Clemens were tried. Others had to testify before Congress and admit to doping rather than risk being tried for contempt of Congress.
Whose fault is all of this? If we didn't glorify sports and athletes, I'm guessing this would happen a lot less. So, instead of pointing fingers at the athletes, and feeling let down by our heroes, perhaps we should all consider taking a look in the mirror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)