Steroids: Should I Care?

When I read that Floyd Landis failed a drug test during a major event that I care very little about, I was absolutely shocked. Shocked, I tell you. He's a cyclist. They're the biggest dopers in the world. There's no way Landis should have let himself get caught. These guys are the experts at beating the drug tests. Most of the guys who get suspended or kicked out of races didn't fail tests. They were implicated by association with drug supplying doctors or their team cars were found to have more drugs than a Tijuana pharmacy. To be honest, I was surprised he was busted for testosterone, because testosterone is good for building up during training, but wouldn't be that swift for a one day boost. And as a member of a sport awash in performance enhancers, he should know that. I would expect that he used steroids or something like them (HGH) while training. Nothing against him personally, but I find it very hard to believe that so many cyclists get caught doping, and they couldn't win the Tour de France. I just can't see someone riding completely clean beating out a whole lot of guys who aren't clean, but not getting caught. Yes, I am saying that I think Lance Armstrong probably used steroids.

That's the bad thing about steroids in a lot of these sports. If you don't want to take performance enhancing drugs, you will have trouble competing when so many others are. I'm not naive. I know Barry Bonds is the tip of the iceberg in baseball, especially when a lousy pitcher was using an undetectable item like Human Growth Hormone. As much as I love football, I know the league can't keep up with science when it comes to steroids. At times I'm ambivalent. If people want to mess with their long term health by taking that stuff, should I really argue with that? Besides, we don't think anything of players getting very high tech surgeries or using painkillers to get on the field. Of course, those are just getting players back to their natural level, and I still think you need to fight it simply because there are players who probably don't want to resort to steroids just to stay in the leagues. Why make it harder for them?

Testosterone has popped up in the case of Justin Gatlin, but that's another sport I don't really care about. Actually, I don't care too much about baseball either, but I find their latest steroid controversy fascinating. Baseball Hall of Fame voting is getting ready to begin this fall or winter (I don't really care), and Mark McGwire is eligible. Rob Neyer polled several baseball writers (it was ESPN insider so I can't link it) and found there wasn't much support for McGwire to be elected to the HOF. The main reason was his suspected steroid use, and more specifically, his testimony before Congress where he didn't admit or deny anything. Actually, I was really surprised by how sanctimonious the writers who responded were. I probably shouldn't have been. These are the same dorks who stuck their head in the sand for years when it was obvious something was going on a long time ago. If Brady Anderson hitting 50 home runs in 1996 wasn't an indication that junk was being used, I don't know what they were waiting for. Oh, I do know. It took a federal investigation and raid on BALCO for most of these morons to admit what was right in front of them.

Yet, I would still vote McGwire into the HOF. One reason is that I can't hold his Congressional testimony against him for the simple fact that there were too many players I think used steroids (Roger Clemens, for example) who got (and still get) a pass from Congress (and the press). Plus, while I think McGwire did steroids, I don't know. I might disqualify Jose Conseco, because he admitted to using them, but what if McGwire was able to get freakishly big on his own (he did hit 49 home runs his first full season in the majors)? As much as I dislike him, I would give Barry Bonds the same benefit, except a federal grand jury might make that moot if they indict him for perjury for lying about his steroid use. The philosophical argument can also be made whether or not they should be held accountable to steroid use when it wasn't really banned by baseball until 2003. I would probably say yes since it was still an ethical issue.

However, I would still vote him in because the Baseball Hall of Fame is a joke to begin with, and it starts with the location. They put the HOF in Cooperstown because some old fart said Abner Doubleday (who should be better known for his military service) organized the first game there. Modern history has shown he didn't. In fact, Cooperstown doesn't even have a baseball team as they once refused a minor league club because they weren't "a baseball town". Of course, they also induct people for stupid reasons. Candy Cummings is in the HOF for inventing the curveball even though he didn't. Hell, Bruce Sutter just made it in, and the only reason he got in and Goose Gossage didn't is because Sutter popularized (didn't invent) the splitter. Cheating isn't even a problem for HOF voters in baseball. Gaylord Perry admitted while he was still playing that he used an illegal pitch, the spitball, extensively. Didn't matter. He still made it.

To be honest, the main reason I wouldn't hold it against McGwire if he used roids is that I believe pitchers at the time (and now) were also doped up. I've said before, and I'll say it again, how does Roger Clemens not get the speculation others do? A power pitcher whose stats slumped in his 30s but somehow he became better in his 40s? Am I the only one suspicious about this? I do think hitting statistics during the steroid era were inflated, but it's tough to say how much when you consider they may be facing a juiced up pitcher.

Summertime Television

Since I don't watch a whole lot of regular network series, I really don't care that they are in re-runs. I'm just mad that I'm stuck in the deadzone between the end of basketball and football. A lot of summers, the best sport on was the Great Outdoor Games which unfortunately is on hiatus this year which is probably why I ended up watching the World Cup. Still, there was some interesting crap on, and I figured I would review what I had on this past weekend (not necessarily watching because sometimes it was background noise while I did something else).

What I probably would have liked to watch is some classic college football. With digital cable, I have about five Fox Sports Channels, and they like to show classic college football games. Except, Fox Sports Atlantic only seems to show games between Florida and Tennessee. That would be fine except they play once a year so there's not a ton of different games. Fox Sports Pacific is worse. They show two games period. One is last year's Southern Cal/Fresno State which was very good game. Fresno St. led over halfway through the fourth quarter before USC came back to win. Still, I can't even watch it that many times. The other game they show is Southern Cal/Arkansas which was not a good game. USC won by 53 points. Wasn't that interesting. Yet, I can probably catch this game at least once every day of the week if I want.

I did catch some of VH1's top 100 Greatest One Hit Wonders, and too often, I had to wonder what the Hell were people thinking when some of these songs became hits. I also have to wonder who came up with order. Quite a study in contrast when Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back" is followed by Debby Boone's "You Light Up My Life". Plus, how was "Macarena" number one, but "The Safety Dance" was only 83? Still, I must say the show was a learning experience. I had heard "Hot Child In The City" a million times while growing up. Yet, I didn't know that it was about a teenage hooker. And I thought a woman sang it. To be honest, after watching a clip of him singing, it's a good thing that they mentioned his name was Nick or else I might still be under my original misperception.

Actually, any singer who thinks they can write "message music" and change people's minds should watch this show. I could not believe how many songs were hits in spite of no one really knowing what they were about. "Hot Child In The City" wasn't the only song to be a hit because people didn't realize just how risqué or downright dirty the song really was. There was also "Afternoon Delight", "Turning Japanese" and of course "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood. Then there was "99 Luftballoons" which was a huge hit in this country even though it was completely in German.

While not really a golf fan, I did have the last round of the British Open on (I knew Sergio Garcia was toast when I saw he was dressed like a banana). What got me was just what a Prima Donna Tiger Woods is. He bogeyed a hole because he was agitated over someone in the gallery taking his picture with a camera phone. Give me a break, he's got about 20 photographers from news organizations following him around the course taking pictures, but a little camera phone takes him off his game? He's hitting a stationary ball. I saw Aaron Boone hit an 11th inning homerun in game 7 to win the American League Championship while flashbulbs are popping and the crowd is so loud he couldn't carry on a conversation with the catcher. I've seen Adam Vinatieri kick a 45 yard field goal in a driving snow storm to tie Oakland in front of a screaming crowd during the AFC Championship. He would later win it in overtime, and then kick two 40 plus yard last second field goals to win Super Bowls. If they can do that, why can't a pro golfer hit a ball with a little click in the background?

I didn't catch a whole lot of the Tour De France (I wasn't sure where OLN was on my cable), but I did watch the last day to see a guy in need of hip replacement win a bicycle race. Shouldn't the other riders be embarrassed to lose to someone who is riding with a leg injury?
As one who likes trivia, I normally would like a show like VH1's World Series of Pop Culture, but then I saw an episode with a team called Cheetara. Apparently, they were improv actresses which must be a euphemism for "unfunny chicks led by a mouthy midget who makes bizarre facial expressions."

When the NASCAR race I was watching went to commercial, I flipped over to the IRL one on ESPN. It also was in commercial, but they do a split screen so they don't actually leave the race. So, I stuck around to catch the running order, and it suddenly occurred to me that the commercial they were running was the Old Spice one that takes place at a NASCAR race. Considering how condescending hardcore IRL fans are about NASCAR on ESPN.com message boards, I'm not sure this was a good advertising decision. Of course, what I really can't figure out is why Saturday's Busch race was on NBC, but the Nextel Cup race was on TNT.

Then damned if the one show I do normally make a point to watch, The Simpsons, was a rerun.

Fortunately, The Discovery Channel has become a life saver with multiple showings of Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs and apparently more than one show about crab fishermen in Alaska. I thought they were just building tension when the focus was on the rookie crabman working a dangerous spot. Then he fell overboard and I realized it was foreshadowing.

Here Phil

I've put in a post just for you to write that four paragraph response. I don't want you to have to scroll through one of my other posts, because you might find something to disagree with.

It's just driving in circles

I had hoped I wouldn't have to write about the Danica Patrick absurdity again, but it keeps coming back worse and worse. I watched an IRL race on Saturday, and sure enough, the announcers spent more time talking about Danica cruising in fourth place as they did about Scott Dixon beating Dan Wheldon way ahead of her. The write up the next day on ESPN.com made me want to vomit. It was one thing to lead with the fourth place finisher, but the author even admitted he wasn't going to get to the winner until later because he wanted to "focus on Danica's quietly impressive evening." . She did finish fourth, but she wasn't really that competitive. Only six drivers were even on the lead lap, and it was pretty obvious the winner was going to be Wheldon or Dixon.

To top that, half the article was about her possibly moving to NASCAR. The biggest joke in the world is the fact that her "possibly" moving to NASCAR is considered on the level as Juan Pablo Montoya going to stock cars from Formula One. What the Hell? Montoya is a top driver. Patrick is a novelty act. She hasn't even talked about going into the Busch Series to prepare for the Nextel Cup, but Montoya is planning on driving there to gain stock car experience. And Montoya is a much more accomplished driver. He won a CART championship when that series was still the top open wheel racing in the country. During that time, he crossed over to run the Indy 500 and completely dominated in winning. Patrick has never finished higher than fourth in any IRL race (which means she's never won a race). She needed Saturday's fourth place finish to move to ninth place in the IRL standings, and while being in the top 10 means something in NASCAR which has over 30 regular drivers, it doesn't mean much in IRL. Out of nine races, the Indy 500 (with 33) is the only IRL race to have more than 20 starters. So, there's probably only about 18 full time drivers.

Actually, I think the low number of drivers will be the reason that Patrick stays in IRL. Looking at the race results in IRL, it's very competitive at the top, but not at the bottom. The reality is that there are only six drivers in IRL that I would pick to win week in and week out. Sam Hornish, Jr., Scott Dixon, Helio Castroneves, Dan Wheldon, Vitor Meira and Tony Kanaan are way ahead of the rest. Out of nine races, 32 of the top five finishes were from that group. Only 13 were from the rest of the field. Out of 18 first and second place finishes this year, only Marco Andretti's second at the Indy 500 was from somebody other than the six.

Yet, that could work in the favor of Patrick. She's not a bad driver. She just hasn't shown me that she's better than mediocre. One thing she doesn't do is wreck, which I believe is the same reason that she doesn't win. She's not aggressive which means she spends a good chunk of the race cruising around the track. However, by not wrecking, she just needs six guys to wipe out and she's got a shot. In NASCAR, there are a whole lot more drivers capable of winning a race. Their standings change week to week, and last year's champion, Tony Stewart, has actually dropped out of the top ten. I think she'll have a much better chance at getting that elusive win in IRL. And I don't think racing is as important to her as marketing, so I can't see her wanting to drive as many races as NASCAR has.

Another reason I don't think she'll move is because her popularity won't be as high in NASCAR. It was easy to pick up a following in IRL because no one else in IRL had any fans. Think about it. Two years ago, did you ever hear of a hardcore Scott Sharp fan? If Patrick moves to NASCAR, she's going up against a race series where most of the drivers already have a fanatical following. Jeff Gordon fans aren't going to suddenly jump off his bandwagon onto Patrick's. She'll probably pick up some fans by being a novelty, but it won't be to the same level as in IRL. Plus, NASCAR fans want a winner before they root for you. The closest thing to a built in fan base that I've ever seen in NASCAR was Dale Earnhardt Jr, but he pretty much inherited his father's fans after Dale Sr.'s death. I'm just not sure Dale Jr. would be the most popular driver in NASCAR if his father hadn't died on the track (think Kyle Petty and his "following"). However, Dale Jr. didn't jump right into NASCAR. He spent two years in the Busch Series where he won a pair of championships. So, he was pretty accomplished as a racer when he moved up to the top series.

The final reason I don't think she'll make the jump is she would want to be in a top team because she can't win in IRL with a decent team, so she'll want top of the line. Marketing the driver is important in NASCAR, but I don't think it's as important for the top teams. Sure, the teams just scraping by would want her because she brings sponsor dollars. Top teams want winners, because NASCAR doesn't just have a points race for drivers, they have one for owners. Would a top team boot a proven driver to pick up someone who can cost them points? Unlikely.

I don't care if women race professionally. While I don't like it when someone is pushed ahead in sports for reasons other than merit, it's going to happen. What drives me nuts is when sports reporters are pushing an agenda instead of honestly reporting the story. With her complete lack of race course accomplishments, would anyone care if Patrick moved to NASCAR if she weren't a woman? Actually, yes. That driver would be a laughing stock if he had never finished higher than fourth on a minor circuit, and was flirting with bottom half of the standings, but thought he was good enough to jump to the top racing series in the country.

More Random Thoughts

I was watching a Robert Ryan (one of the great unsung actors of his day) cop movie on TCM, and at the beginning ran the logo for the studio - RKO Pictures. The logo calls it "An RKO Radio Picture". What the Hell is a "radio picture"?

Not being a Myspace aficionado, I have no real clue what kind of anti-pedophile protection teenager have on it, but I really have to question this lawsuit by some woman whose 14 year old daughter was sexually assaulted by someone she met through it. She wanted protection for teenagers against adults, but would she have felt better if her daughter was attacked by a 17 year old instead of a 19 year old? If you're going to tell your kids not to talk to strangers, shouldn't you also tell them not to go find a complete stranger that you meet on the internet?

I'm not a Catholic so I don't really care who they ordain. However, I had problem after reading this article on some chick being "ordained" as a Catholic priest. It's how it was written. Isn't it being dishonest for whoever wrote the article to say the woman was ordained as Roman Catholic priest when the Roman Catholic Church law is that women can't be ordained, and the presiding "bishop" had already been excommunicated from the Church? This is the equivalent to me being fired from my job, and then declaring myself Vice President of the company.

I think Phil ripped off my old "Bad Movie Review" from my fantasy football website.

I can understand keeping your job if you win a couple of million in the lottery. I can even understand keeping your job at McDonalds if you're nuts. I just can't understand why anybody would eat the crap they serve at McDonalds.

From reading several news sources, I can find quite a difference of opinion on who is at fault in the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll just make a couple of points. My brother serves in our armed forces. If he were grabbed by a bunch of radicals, I would not object to our military laying waste to half the Middle East to get him back. In fact, I would expect it. Some may not remember that Hezbollah from long ago, but they were the ones who blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983 which killed 241 American serviceman on a peacekeeping mission (for those who think it was because they were Americans, the French lost 58 paratroopers in similar suicide bombing the same day). Let's look at which side really wants peace. In recent years, Israel has evacuated their southern Lebanon and Gaza buffer zones in an effort to push along the "peace process". How did the Palestinians respond? Hamas declared that they ran Israel out of Gaza and won control of the Palestinian government. Gaza is now a staging ground for rocket attacks on Israel. Come to think of it, Hezbollah uses southern Lebanon for the same thing. Israel gives up land as concession for peace. Two terrorist groups who are still dedicated to the destruction of Israel use that land to launch attacks. Yeah, I don't have to put a lot of thought into whom really wants peace.

And please don't think a captured Israeli soldier is equivalent to a captured Palestinian terrorist. The Palestinian is put in jail where they do things like run for the Palestinian Parliament. Captured Israelis have a tendency to disappear for good.

Finally, since Phil has ripped Wal-Mart for their policies, I will defend them for no other reason than I can. Well, not all their policies. They've never had good service (but most general merchandise chain stores don't). I could really care less whether or not they chant in the morning, but maybe it works better than half the employees showing up hungover like at a place I used to work. Still, Wal-Marts are cleaner than KMart, but so is a stall at Keeneland so that's not really a selling point. The main thing I want to point out is that not all poor people work at Wal-Mart. Other retail stores don't pay that too either (don't bother looking for the BMWs in Meijer's employee parking). Not to mention the spare change waitresses at the Waffle House make (I don't bring up their janitors because I don't think Waffle House has them). The unfortunate fact is that we will always have a class of people who work low wage jobs. I think the high school dropout rate is 20 something percent, and I believe all of us who worked at Toys R Us can name people who jumped from job to job because The Man expected them to do things like show up on time. Or at all. Personally, I can afford to shop at Meijer or Target or whatever. For those who are stuck in low income jobs, Wal-Mart is one of the best things that happened to them. Low prices mean they are spending a smaller percentage of their income on necessities.

Hey, it's now the 20th. NFL training camps start opening today. Football is almost here. College practice starts the first week of August and since I'm not a UK fan, I can watch college football past September too.