I scribbled this some time ago but didn't post it for two reasons: 1) those who care about the subject tend to hold very strong opinions. 2) none of my estimated 2.1 readers will care about the subject. Ah well, here it is anyway:

There have been a rash of stories in the sports world the past few years about cheating of all types. Barry Bonds, Floyd Landis, the Patriots Videogate. For years now baseball has been reeling from steroid scandals and the league's historical ostrich-style attitude, and cycling's crown jewel, the Tour de France, has become a doping punch line. In this year's edition the pre-race favorite was thrown out due to a failed blood-doping test and the race leader was dumped by his own team with three days to go because of revelations about his avoiding out-of-competition tests. This led to several French teams staging a PR-driven "rider protest" about the perceived rampant cheating, only to have one of the French team's riders fail a test later that day due to synthetic testosterone.

The public and media outcry for all these has been the same: how dare these rich, spoiled prima-donnas bespoil the sport by cheating in a vain grab for glory? Why can't these guys play by the rules set by their sport and society?

Not to sound like a doping sympathizer, but I'm wondering if it's more complicated than that. What is cheating? How do we define what is encompassed by "cheating" and what falls under "finding a competitive advantage?" Do you define cheating only as something that breaks a rule? How about if there is no rule, as with baseball and steroids in the '90's when Bonds, MacGuire, Sosa, and unnamed pitchers ran rampant? There is no rule against bionic arms or eyes (to help see a fastball better) -- would that be cheating? Even if you scoff at that kind of science fiction scenario, some players today have taken to wearing special red-tinted contact lenses in the theory that it helps them visually pick up the pitch earlier and better. There is no rule against this, but past players did not have this option, and it gives an "unnatural edge" over the pitcher, if the theory is true. How about something that is technically against the rules, but is undetectable and is widely done by most of the athletes, like EPO use in cycling in the '90's? Any cyclist who didn't "cheat" then would not have been competitive and would have risked losing their job. Maybe cheating is doing something that helps performance but is also unhealthy -- the "role model" way of judging. But then, what about things like autonomous blood doping, where a person's blood is extracted, stored until the body has recovered, and then reinjected for extra oxygen-carrying capacity? This is undetectable and considered safe, but is against the rules and is considered "cheating."

Some thoughts:

Barry Bonds is widely seen as the spawn of satan because he took the all-time home run record from the classy Hank Aaron, ringing up the majority of his dingers during the "steroid era" when there was no rule against or testing for steroids (or HGH, synthetic testosterone, etc.). Nobody with higher than mushroom-like intelligence believes Bonds achieved this feat without massive chemical help, so in a public voting orchestrated by the rich owner of the record-setting ball, said ball will be branded with an asterisk and sent to the Hall of Fame. However, enshrined in this same hallowed Hall are many beloved players who have admitted the frequent use of amphetamines and other stimulants, which apparently were (are?) as common in the dugout as chewing tobacco and sunflower seeds. Reportedly the non-use of amphetamines was rare and called "playing naked." One of the most colorful and popular players in the Hall of Fame is Gaylord Perry, a pitcher who made his career (and marketed his image) from throwing spitballs. Of course, any "foreign substance" on a thrown ball is illegal, but Perry was lauded for being crafty and savvy and became an icon. For the record, I think Bonds should crawl back under the rock from whence he came, but is this inconsistent?

I think part of the question has to be, what is the purpose of watching these athletes? Is it simple entertainment? If so, and if what we want as a society is a spectacle, then should we care by what means this entertainment is generated? I'm not saying we should not care, but I think the question is interesting. Why is it that when we watch a movie for entertainment then it's OK to know that there are special effects to exaggerate the physical feats, makeup and other special effects to hide cosmetic flaws, and actors frequently on the very same "performance enhancers" that are banned in sports? Many musical artists, especially in the '60's and '70's, prescribed to the theory that drugs helped bring out creativity and would not think of performing without being high as a kite. But who boycotts the music of the Beatles, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Led Zeppelin, etc. because the performances were achieved with unnatural aid?

The cheating stories we always hear about are the superstars: Bonds, Landis losing the Tour title, Palmiero getting caught after testifying in front of congress. But most of those caught are mid- to lower-level athletes. Is it fair to judge without knowing the unique pressures placed on these people? The choice faced by professional athletes to do something like steroids, or EPO, isn't: "Hey, here is something which is illegal, unethical, and dangerous, but which will make you filthy rich and bathe you in glory." Rather, it's more like this: "Hey, you are not getting younger, your team is likely to drop you like a bad habit if you don't produce soon, and you'll be faced with life out of the sport you love and with no means of supporting your wife and kids. Here is something which is used by everybody you compete against, the same guys who are trying to take your job, and which may enable you to provide some financial security for your family."

And if "cheating" is simply defined as gaining an unnatural advantage against your competitors, how does that apply to things we do every day in the name of vanity, or to better "compete" in romance, in the workforce, or in society? Some obvious examples are cosmetic surgery, liposuction, Viagra, etc., but how about things like dying hair, wearing makeup or cologne, or even a push-up bra? What defines why some "unnatural performance enhancements" are acceptable and others not?

After much reflection I may have arrived at some answers to my own questions, and may share these in another post, but I'm curious to hear the thoughts of others. Anyone?

I know it's been a while, and there are a lot of things going on that I should probably comment on: wedding in about two weeks, monumental moving tasks, end of school activities, cat V hurricane that's about to wipe out Manhattan, this morning's Venutian spacecraft landing in Nevada, etc. However, what really has my interest today is that one of my favorite cyclists, Erik Zabel, just won stage two of a race in Germany called (really): The Bayern Rundfahrt. I think that's a title every athlete would love to have attached to their name for all eternity: Champion of the Bayern Rundfahrt.

Just thought you should know.

Since Madel has seemingly fallen off Xanga Planet (even more than I have) I thought I would brag a bit about my daughter.

For HS, the band is divided into two groups: "symphonic" and "concert" bands, with the former group playing more difficult music during the school year. Basically, they hold tryouts and those in the top half play in symphonic. Of course, that is the goal, and for the freshmen-to-be it is pretty intimidating to not only be faced with the typical freshmen pressures but also to have to audition against all the upperclassmen with the very challenging selected piece, a test of the full-range chromatic scales, and a sight reading. Madel, being first chair in her 8th grade band, naturally wanted to do well and her stated goal was to make the symphonic band. Her "stretch goal" was to be in the top five chairs. According to Ms. Latham, the HS director, and Mr. Geiman, the trumpet tutor, the current HS trumpet players were motivated and on the lookout for Madel from her playing reputation, and also because of her name -- Madeline Baker is a graduating trumpet player who is a total stud and under whom all the current players have toiled for years. Of course, that did not stop one of the upperclassmen from proclaiming that no freshman would make top five.

Anyway, Madel practiced very hard over several weeks and improved her range and the tough music piece. She also received some good pointers from Lori, who knows something about playing the trumpet. Madel was confident going into the audition and all her hard work paid off: not only did she make the symphonic band and reach her goal of top five, she will start the year as first chair of the entire HS trumpet section (I believe 23 trumpets in symphonic band and 20 in concert).

Of course, this means that she walks in to the school year (and summer band camp) with a big, fat target painted on her back, but I think she will use that as motivation to practice.

So it's time for my quarterly post of ramblings. Of course, the most significant news item is that She Said Yes. The Date is June 16th. I'm told that the dress is nice and that I will be stunned by it's beauty when I see it during the wedding. I'm sure it's a nice dress, but Lori could be wearing sweatpants and I would be just as happy.

On a totally separate and much less joyful note: as some others have more eloquently put, there are times in life when you want to comfort somebody but don't know how, or if the "words of comfort" will help or make the situation worse. So instead I will share some thoughts about my own history. After my older sis was born, my mom wanted another child but was unable to conceive. After several years she was thrilled to learn that she was indeed pregnant, only to have those hopes crushed by a miscarriage. More years of troubles followed, but I was the eventual result, 10 years after the birth of my sister. I can only imagine how my mom felt after the miscarriage, and after futile years of hoping and praying for another child, but that empathy is tempered with the knowledge that without that miscarriage and corresponding years without "success," I would never have been born, nor my younger sister. Was that the Grand Plan? I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my existence justifies years of frustration and the sorrow of a miscarriage, but perhaps what does is the existence of my children, and their children, and all who have been or will be affected by their lives.

Soon after June 16th will be the Mother of All Yard Sales. If anyone has furniture needs, let me know. I also have somehow accumulated approximately 32 old computers (none of which I originally bought), if anyone needs a state-of-the-1987-art 386 machine which is capable, with only slight modifications, of running Windows 3.0.

With March Madness starting, I will be hoping to repeat the bracket success I enjoyed last year. For those who want a sure-fire pick for their competing brackets, I will offer this juicy tidbit: go with Syracuse.