Performance Enhancing Drugs and Athletes

by Bill Holmes

In the past few weeks there have been several headlines about performance enhancing drugs (PED) and athletes. A couple of Major League players have been suspended in baseball bringing the number this year to five. Also in baseball, Roger Clemens talks about a comeback in an independent minor league game and made rumblings about returning to the majors. The biggest story was that Lance Armstrong decided not to go to arbitration with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) over his alleged drug use.

Of course PEDs and athletes have been a topic for many years. As far as I remember the modern controversies started during the Cold War years when the East German athletes, particularly women, began to dominate some Olympic events and look a little masculine. There had been suspicions before that about body builders and athletes in strength events such as weight lifting and shot put. Nobody really cared much about body builders competition since it was a marginal “sport” and looked upon more like a male beauty pageant. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a very few others made a name and career from body building but even today it is a fringe sport. We were a little more concerned with the Olympic sports. All of a sudden a small poor Iron Curtain country like East Germany was beating the USA and winning gold medals. The USSR, mostly current Russia, began winning Olympic medals at a rate similar to the USA. Problem was there were either no or very limited tests for these drugs and there was no formal testing of athletes. The drugs were primitive too and many of those early users, many unaware or forced to use, are dead or have serious health problems.

Like all technology and science, drugs, legal and illegal, improved over time. They became more targeted and effective and less lethal. Testing also improved although never at the same pace as the drugs. The first testing I remember was the Olympics. They didn't catch many but it did start the cycle that is still going on. Drug developed, used by athletes, performance improved, test developed, athletes caught, new drug developed, … In addition to the actual performance enhancing drugs, the cheaters have discovered masking agents that hide the PED from the tests. Now we have to test for those too. It is a constant race between drug development and drug detection.

My prediction is this cycle will continue forever. The lure of a magic pill or shot or cream or supplement will always have allure for a win at all cost athlete. The same for the doctors and chemists who develop the drugs. If the brass ring of fame doesn't get them, the vast amounts of money will. Elite athletes can now make $20 million a year in salary and many times that in endorsements. Average athletes make $1 million or more a year. The minimum salary in the NBA and MLB is almost $500K. That's an awful lot of temptation to cheat.

Now on to the recent PED/ athlete stories. The four or five MLB players caught this year have admitted they used a banned substance although some say it was an accident. Maybe, but that makes them either liars or stupid. Alberto Contador, a multiple Tour de France winner, finally accepted a two year ban after months of negotiations although the two year ban wound up being about eight months with retroactive credit. He accidentally ate a tainted and imported steak. Cycling has been one of the most blemished and regulated sports. Now we have the Lance Armstrong case.

I have very mixed emotions about the situation. I'm totally against the use of PEDs to gain a competitive advantage but I'm also totally against Gestapo methods to catch the cheats. I sometimes have a problem with what is defined as a PED. Most pain killers are OK but an asthma medication may not be. Even insulin or psychiatric drugs can be questioned. They all enhance performance or at least allow the athlete to perform. This whole definition of PEDs is murky and gray.

In the last few years most major professional sports leagues and sanctioning bodies have instituted drug testing. Then the governments around the world got involved. There are also quasi-government agencies. We now have the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), USADA, the various leagues and associations and almost every government in the world regulating, testing and prosecuting drug use in sports. Here is where I get concerned. There are way too many entities checking this. Whenever you get multiple agencies or organizations trying to do the same thing you get conflict and competition. They all want to be the first or the best at catching the bad guys. Competition should be on the playing field, not with the anti-doping agencies.

The International Cycling Union (UCI), WADA, USADA and US Justice Dept., plus others had a hand in the recent prosecution of Lance Armstrong. Some of these organizations and agencies get to be investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. That's not my favorite separation of powers. Apparently USADA can force athletes into arbitration and cut deals although they have no subpoena power. They are funded by our tax dollars.

I'm tired of these cases of high profile athletes being prosecuted with our tax dollars. I have my personal opinions about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong. What I don't know is how the government or their funded agencies can justify spending millions of dollars on these cases. It's estimated that the Barry Bonds case cost anywhere from $6 million to $100 million. Result, a misdemeanor conviction. Roger Clemens trial cost $2 to $3 million. Not Guilty. I'm sure the Lance Armstrong case has cost millions. The Justice Department decided not to prosecute. The defendants have spent millions too in their defense. I'd much rather be rebuilding our infrastructure with those dollars.

This is typical behavior. Any time we perceive a problem we appoint a committee or pass a law or create an agency.  No way a current law, procedure or policy will do.  Absolutely no way common sense is to be used.   It almost never solves the problem or fixes the situation. What it does do is create another group of people that have to justify their existence, promote their continuation and gain power. The heads of these agencies are mostly egotistical men (very few women) who's main job is to consolidate power. By the way, hardly any of them were ever elite athletes.

I don't know if Barry or Roger or Lance cheated. Like I said earlier I have my opinions.

I was never a Barry or Roger fan so I didn't keep close track of their cases, although they were hard to ignore. Lance was and is still on my A-list. He excelled in biking, which I do, he survived a devastating cancer, which my Mom also did, and then dedicated a big part of his life to raising money and awareness for cancer research and treatment. To me LiveStrong and Lance Armstrong, bike guy, are separate.

Stay tuned, much more to come on this subject. No way you have no opinion on this subject.

wjh

100 Years Ago

by Bill Holmes

This year, 2012, marks the 100th anniversary of both my parents birth. Dad lived until 2006 and Mom lived until 2002. Full lives and mostly enjoyable at least until their very last few months. I think of each of them almost every day. Sometimes it's just a fleeting thought or memory. Sometimes it's a dream I remember all or part of when I wake up. Sometimes it's a long memory. Sometimes it's sad and sometimes it's happy. Sometimes I'm angry at them, either for something they did or didn't do while alive or because they died and left me. Sometimes I couldn't believe how stupid, naïve, or old fashion they were. Other times I couldn't believe how smart, insightful and up to date they were.

Often I have no idea how or why many of these memories pop into my mind. Other times I know exactly what triggered the memory. It can be a place, a song, a picture, a TV show, a food, a news story, a smell or any of a thousand other things. Sometime I catch myself using a phrase they used or making a gesture that they did. Like almost every child I would never do or say anything the way my parents did. Now, mostly it doesn't bother me and in fact I smile.

Life was different in 1912. My parents grew up in a world that was far more formal and polite than now but was certainly not politically correct. People got dressed up for social engagements and events. There were rules for courting. Pregnancies were either after marriage, forced a marriage or caused the women to be banished. Despite all those high moral standards, every religious, ethnic and racial group had a “nickname”, most of which are no longer acceptable. Mentally and physically challenged people were ignored, ridiculed or hidden. There were no Gays, just reprehensible sexual deviates. There were no African-Americans or Native Americans or Italian-Americans or Asian-Americans or Hispanics in their day. There were no hyphens in our ethnicity. Men were clearly in charge. Woman's suffrage wasn't the law of the land until 1920. Women's equality wasn't even an issue until the 1960's. My Mom had to quit work when she got married because married women weren't allowed to work at her company.

They also went through two World Wars and the Depression. Those events shaped their lives forever. Those were gut wrenching periods in our history. Over 100,000 thousand US troops died in WWI and over 400,000 died in WWII. More than that were wounded. With a drafted armed forces in a country with a smaller population, almost every family was touched by those wars. The US was not sure of victory in those wars. The Depression saw unemployment rates of 25% and lasted a decade. The poverty of the Depression was replaced by the rationing and sacrifices of WWII. Tough times.

There are many things to admire about the “good old days” but there are also many things we should be glad have changed. I'm not talking about the technology changes. Those are great and make life much easier. When I ride my bike I'm glad the streets are paved and not full of horse shit. Planes are faster than Conestoga wagons, computers are faster than pencil & paper. The changes I'm most thankful for are the social changes.

My parents were born before women were first class citizens or could vote. There were still more horses than cars. Blacks were openly oppressed and not just in the South. Even open-minded Northern women were taught to be afraid of Black men. It's hard to shed those lessons and norms of society.

I'm sure looking back on my life there have been many more technological changes than during my parents life but I don't know if there have been as many lifestyle and societal changes. I think it might be more traumatic to go from horses to cars and planes or pencils to computers or agri/city to suburban than what their children went through. We went from 1957 Chevy's to 2012 Volts, prop planes to jets, room size computers to handheld computers and near suburbs to farther out suburbs.

I've read, studied and thought about history since my youth. What I've most taken away from that is that we must look at the past and those that inhabited it in context. Times, customs, mores, circumstances and many other things were different. If you are fighting everyday just to survive your priorities don't leave much time for anything else. Hopefully we evolve for the better. It is unfair to judge our forefathers and ancestors by todays standards. Our founding fathers said “all men are created equal”. What they meant in context of the times was that all white male landowners were equal to the aristocracy. Slavery and denial of womens equality was acceptable. Pick any point in human history and you can find some behavior that will appall you. Many beliefs of 1750, 1850 or even 1950 now seem either stupid or barbaric. It is unrealistic and self righteous to believe that you would have been part of the 1% that was decades ahead of the norm in moving social change. What I'm sure of is that if you are lucky enough to live another 25 years you will look back at 2012 and wonder how could that have been or what were they, or you, thinking.

I don't know if I'll live 90+ years, nor am I sure I want to. If I do, I hope I adjust as well as my parents. One did better than the other but both did OK. I like change and new stuff, so maybe I have a chance. Life is never easy and getting old is not for sissies. It can be physically, mentally, financially, culturally and emotionally challenging.

One hundred years ago two special people were born. For selfish reasons I'm glad they were. If I'm lucky a couple of people will be glad I stopped by for a visit.

wjh

Curiosity and Mars

by Bill Holmes

I watched the landing of Curiosity on Mars last night.  For geeks, nerds or just the curious it was exciting.  It's another step in our quest to explore the universe.  The months and years ahead will determine how successful the mission is but you have to get to Mars before you can explore it. That was done on 8/6/12.

This is an amazing accomplishment.  NASA was able to land an SUV where they planned to on a planet millions of miles away.  Your mileage may vary from about 55 to 400 million kilometers.  Google maps turn by turn directions to Mars are only in beta so NASA couldn't use them.  They had to use slide rules and AAA maps to figure it out.

This was not exciting TV in the normal sense, it was a control room that looked like the old NASA space missions.  Tiered rows  of people wearing headsets and looking at computer monitors.  Not even any human audio from space saying we've achieved orbit or we've landed or "Houston. we have a problem".  Just telemetry and eventually two B&W pictures.  But you could see the joy of the people in the room as Curiosity went through different milestones.  People responsible for different phases of the mission were able to breath a sigh of relief.  Once she landed the room went wild in celebration.  To make an analogy, this was like the Olympics for the people in that room and they just won a gold medal.  Of course there are differences.  Most of those scientists have worked much longer than our Olympic athletes.  The average age is probably a bit higher too.  You can't become a rocket scientist at 17 years old or with a couple of years of training.  Luckily NASA is better at science than producing must watch TV.  Being a geek and curious (see what I did there), I enjoyed watching history being made.  I also enjoyed most of the news conference after the landing.  I'll get back to the news conference.

The mission control center was a potpourri of our American population.  It was made up of young and old, male and female.  There were Anglos, East Asians, South Asians, Hispanics, immigrants, hippies, Gays and who knows what else.  There were earrings  even in some men and I suspect there was a tattoo or two.  Everybody was wearing blue golf shirts and casual pants or jeans.  This was not your Daddy's mission control from the Mercury launches.  Some of you will remember that everybody back then was white, male, clean cut and wearing a white shirt and tie.  The new mission control looked good to me.

Now, lets talk about the stuff that concerned me and/or made me angry.  Some of this may not be politically correct, but it's my blog and I get to say what I want.

I did not see a single African-American in a blue golf shirt in mission control.  The only black I saw was NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and he was wearing a suit.  Mr. Bolden is an outstanding American and former Marine and Astronaut, but he did not contribute to the science of the mission.  I don't think NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) discriminate against minorities.  Otherwise there would not be a Middle Eastern Lebanese immigrant, Charles Elachi, as Director of JPL.  Nor would there be all the other groups represented.  I think it's a cultural and scholastic discrimination much earlier in the lives of the Blacks.  Just as society and probably educators believe all Asians are good at math and science, they also believe Blacks are not good at those disciplines.  I think these stereotypes make a difference.  Blacks are encouraged to pursue social studies and sports.  Asians are encouraged to pursue math and science.  I guess Anglos are encouraged to pursue law, sales and finance.  Some stray from the expectations but I think those stereotypes have a profound effect on most children.  There is also the family and peer expectations.  Some cultures appreciate and emphasize the hard sciences and others emphasize less intense disciplines or none at all.  It's too bad that any child grows up with that stigma and expectation.  My guess is that there are brilliant African-American rocket scientists in the making.  We just need to encourage and cultivate them when they are young.

After the successful landing of Curiosity, there was a press conference.  Well, who do you think opened that press conference and made the opening remarks?  Was it someone who had worked for years on the Mars mission, even a JPL or department head whose team participated?  No, it was Charles Bolden who opened the press conference.  He read almost the entire opening since he probably didn't know what just happened or who was responsible.  The only time he strayed from his script was when he made a personal comment about his good friend, John Holdren, Obama's chief science guy, being nervous during the landing.  Holdren spoke second, from a script, and made several political BS statements.  Next Chuck took the podium again and excused himself and Johnny from the remaining proceedings.  Seems John had another engagement.  So, what in the government funded scientific world was more important than landing a $2.5 billion SUV on Mars?  Maybe a more public and less nerdy event.  Makes me sick.

Luckily after the politicians left the real guys took the stage.  Amazingly there was very little read.  Charles Elachi did have a few notes but that was all.  The whole mission control team paraded through the press room.  Then the six or seven bosses talked about the mission and answered questions.  They were excited, proud and of course knowledgeable.  

I get so sick of politicians and/or far removed bosses taking the credit and the podium.  I hold little hope that this will ever change but I still get to bitch about it.  I just wish that those that do got the credit, not those that talk.

Congratulations to the Curiosity team for their outstanding accomplishment.  Boo to the politicians that tried to take credit for it.

Comments always welcome.

wjh

You Can't Do That! It's Illegal

By - Bill Holmes

A re-post from the original post on The View Point July 2012 - 

It seems like every time I turn on the news, read the paper (yes, I still read the paper) or check the Internet somebody is telling me what I shouldn't or can't do.  More alarming is that they want to make that activity illegal.  The official mantra 45 years ago was "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" from Network.  I think we need to revive that movement.

What I'm referring to is the constant barrage of politicians, clergy, experts, advocacy groups and just plain busy bodies who want to impose their beliefs and behavior on my life.  Not by persuasion or example but by law, maybe even a constitutional amendment.

I'm partial to the first amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are a few other amendments I like too.  In fact all 27 are fine except for the 18th.  Isn't that the one that told us what we can't do as opposed to the others that dealt with government or what we, as citizens, had a right to and could do.   How did that 18th amendment thing work out?

I am neither a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian nor Tea Bagger.  I am also not a Socialist, Communist or Fascist.  At one time or another I did identify with a political party, not always the same one, but no longer.  They once had ideals and ideas how to govern.  If they got 51% of their way it was a win.  Now it's 100% or nothing.  They have all become so entrenched with their  BS “talking point” platforms that I doubt they even listen to what they are saying.

Back to the point of this blog/rant.  We can no longer agree to disagree among ourselves.  We now must impose our views onto the rest of society by whatever means we can.  This is not a Democratic or Republican monopoly.  Both parties are equally guilty, they just have different hot buttons.

In no particular order, a political party or government body has proposed that we outlaw, heavily tax and/or restrict the following:

•  Cigarettes/Smoking
• Birth Control
• Large Soft Drinks
• Evolution
• Pornography
• Happy Meal
• Trans Fats
• Guns
• The Internet
• Sex in parked cars
• Same Sex Marriage
• Religion, but only if it's not ours
• Bicycle lanes

NYC has also allowed (encouraged) cops to frisk anyone they want.  Kinda like the TSA.

The latest war on large soft drinks is absurd.  Sure sugar is a problem in our overweight population but are the no calorie sweeteners any better?  Are they safe?  By the way, under NYC's proposed ban you can buy a very large diet drink to wash down your Twinkie and Hostess Cupcake. 

Be very careful what you, as the majority, wish for and push through the legislature. 

Say you're a Southern Baptist living in a small town that demands all businesses close on the Sabbath (Sunday).  Then your town majority becomes Jewish and now the Sabbath is mostly Saturday.  Then Tuesday's Children or Druids take control.  You get the picture.  So instead of mandating when businesses do business let each open or close when they want. 

If a man and woman want to use birth control it's not the government's concern.  I really don't care if Medicaid or government dictated insurance provides contraceptives although I think it's a good idea. Just say yes or no, but don't make it a moral issue.  Also, don't pay for stiffy pills but deny contraceptives.  Many private insurance programs don't cover eye glasses, dental, birth control, hearing aids or elective procedures.  We don't make political planks out of it.  We either live with it or find an insurance program that covers what we need.  

Neither major party has a monopoly on the repression.  The Democrats want to regulate what we drive, eat, drink or where we smoke.  The Republicans want to prohibit who we eat, what we smoke or who we marry.  The Libertarians and Tea Party have their pet peeves they want to outlaw too.

I'm not advocating eliminating all government regulations.  We need laws to protect citizens from each other and corporations who don't play fair.  Regulations to require Wall Street transparency or cars to get certain MPG are fine.  Just don't dictate that I must use E. F. Hutton or buy a Ford.  We need zoning laws so the nuclear recycling plant doesn't move next door to the elementary school.  Of course there are many other areas government has a place.  

Mostly what we don't need is a government that tries to protect adults from ourselves.  Maybe tax (not excessively) bad behavior or restrict (within reason) where or when it can be done but don't outlaw it.  The operative words are “not excessively” and “within reason”.  Complete elimination, zero tolerance or mandatory are the problem.  You've all heard a story or two about the honor roll, star athlete student who drove his Mom's car to school and there was a cake knife in the trunk, left there after the baby shower Mom attended yesterday.  The student was suspended from school, kicked off the team and lost a scholarship because the school had a zero tolerance policy about knives on campus.  No common sense or judgment involved.   These boneheaded rules and decisions are made by highly paid and highly educated school officials.  High pay and education should mean they can make an intelligent decision based on facts and circumstances. 

Bottom line, many of these bans, restrictions and laws sound good on first blush.  No thinking person will deny that tobacco, sugar, trans fats and bacon flavored sundaes are not particularly healthy.  In excess they kill and incapacitate.  Guns also kill and incapacitate.  Sex in a parked car may not be prudent or very comfortable.  Democratic Nanny Government proponents want to ban most of those. Abortions, contraceptives, same sex marriage, separation of church and state.  Republican Tea Party proponents want to ban those and don't even think about taking my gun. 

I don't want to ban any of them.  I just want a little tolerance and common sense injected into our political discourse.  I want back the days Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill were political opponents but friends.  When 51% meant a win.  When it was possible to have a moderate Republican or conservative Democrat.  If that's not possible, how about just a little civility.

Champion and live by your beliefs, just don't force them on me.