IHSA POLL ON PED TESTING IMPLEMENTATION-REVISITED

ARTICLE BELOW:
Drug study: College coaches 'looking other way'
Nearly a quarter of NCAA steroid users are 'certain' coaches knew
03:09 AM CDT on Thursday, April 27, 2006
By GARY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News

I would like to see a congressional inquiry into this issue. Nearly 25% of college players are certain that their coaches knew of their use? This doesn't surprise me a bit, in fact it seems like it may be on the low side. And if this is the number in college, I can't imagine what the the number would be at the high school level where the coaches have more control and influence on the athletes and the culture.

Now if Congress can get up in arms on the basis of "role-models" exerting undue influence on the Youth of America, I ask you this: At the high school level, who do you think exerts more influence over the life of kids? Their coach or their favorite athlete.

The numbers I have seen indicate that teachers (coaches) are right up their with parents and slightly ahead of the athlete. But I don't want to get into a battle of the studies, because as we've seen with the "reported use of steroids by youth" studies, they could be all over the map.

Although it may sound cynical, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the reason is the ratings for a Congressional Inquiry into coaches would not quite pull down the same numbers as the anal probe, uh inquiry of Roger Clemens.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drug study: College coaches 'looking other way'

Nearly a quarter of NCAA steroid users are 'certain' coaches knew
03:09 AM CDT on Thursday, April 27, 2006

By GARY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News

Among NCAA athletes who reported using anabolic steroids in the organization's most recent study, 24.1 percent said they were "certain" their coaches knew they were using the banned drugs.

Pete Carlon, athletic director at the University of Texas at Arlington and a former member of the committee that oversees the NCAA survey, said he was "startled" and "disappointed" by the finding.

"If that's true, then somebody is turning and looking the other way," Carlon said Wednesday.

Mary Wilfert, the NCAA's associate director of Education Outreach, said the finding indicates a need for additional education of coaches about steroids.

In the NCAA's 2001 study, 20.7 percent of steroid users said they were certain their coaches knew.

The NCAA, which published highlights from its 2005 survey in August, posted the entire study on its Web site Tuesday. Just 1.2 percent of the nearly 20,000 athletes in the study said they used steroids, down from 1.5 percent in 2001. Since its first study in 1985, the NCAA has surveyed athletes about their drug and alcohol use every four years.

Other findings from the 2005 study:

• Of steroid users, 17.8 percent said they got their steroids from a coach, athletic trainer or team physician.

• 4.1 percent of the athletes said they used amphetamines, which, like steroids, are performance-enhancing substances. Amphetamine use has increased steadily from 2.1 percent in 1993 and is highest (4.6 percent) in Division III.

• Use of steroids (2.3 percent) and amphetamines (3.9 percent) by baseball players equaled use by football players.

• 5.2 percent of women's softball players said they used amphetamines.

• 11.2 percent of the athletes said they had "been taken advantage of sexually" one or more times in the last 12 months because of their drinking or drug use.

• Among those who said they had used amphetamines "recently," 27.9 percent said they used the drug as treatment for attention deficit disorder (ADD) and 9.7 percent said to improve athletic performance.

Frank Uryasz, president of the National Center for Drug Free Sport, which conducts the NCAA's drug-testing program, said his group is seeing greater use of ADD medication.

"Some athletes are readily sharing their prescription drugs," he said Wednesday. Any use of stimulants, including Ritalin and Adderall, increases the risk of heat illness for an athlete, he said.

Uryasz said he expects the latest results from NCAA drug-testing to be released later this year. They will include the first findings from year-round testing of Division I baseball players.

"We had a disproportionate number of pitchers test positive," he said. "I didn't expect that."

NIU Coping

NIU students returned to campus Monday after the university was closed for nearly a week following the tragic shooting last week. Faculty, students and parents are left to answer perhaps the unanswerable question: WHY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE DAILY HERALD:
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=137620

Family and friends have started burying the victims.

Many of the wounded are healing, at least physically.

But five days after that bloody Valentine's Day at Northern Illinois University, it seems increasingly doubtful the public will ever know exactly why the gunman walked into a lecture hall and opened fire on scores of unsuspecting students.

How to Help
# MEMORIAL FUND - DeKalb and Sycamore business associations have established a fund to help erect a community memorial in remembrance of the five lives lost in Thursday's shootings. To donate, visit www.dekalb.org.
# MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND - NIU has established a scholarship fund in memory of the five students slain Feb. 14. To contribute, visit webcluster.niu. edu/CreditCard/fdn2_step1.html or call (877) 448-2648.

Yet, those close to him say he seemed normal to them, and several teachers and friends still can't grasp that the ace student who studied social justice and the mentally ill was so troubled himself.

"He was kind, well-mannered, quick with a smile. He wanted to do his best," said NIU sociology professor Kristen Myers in an e-mail Monday. "Regardless, he chose an abominable path on his last day. His victims and their families were seemingly arbitrary targets, and I grieve for them."

Baty of Wonder Lake said she had no indication her boyfriend was having serious mental health issues. She said he was seeing a psychiatrist once a month and wanted to stop taking the anti-depressants because "he wanted to deal with his problems and not have to use medications."

Baty described her boyfriend as harmless, and that she didn't see anything wrong with him in the weeks leading up to the murders.

"I was with him all the time," she said. "How could I not have seen this coming? I feel partially responsible because maybe I should have seen something."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the more troubling aspects to this story is that in the post event analysis, there may not be anything we can do as a society to prevent these types of things from happening periodically.

Sure, you'll hear the pros and cons from the gun control advocates and defenders of the 2nd Amendment. They will reflexively seek to capitalize on stories such as these to promote their agendas every time they crop up. That's the political reality.

But what troubles many people is, how can something like this happen and nobody sees the signs? It would make more sense if the guy was a prototypical Hollywood lunatic. One who the neighbors would say things like, "Oh yeah, we always new Johnny was going to go off. It was just a matter of time." But you never hear that. And while in this case--as well as the Virginia Tech case--there were signals that in hindsight would have provided clues that the perpetrator was perhaps a troubled individual, they could not accurately predict the tragic events to follow.

Perhaps the scariest truth is not that these events occur at all, but perhaps that they don't occur more often. How many other people could be described as "troubled" as the NIU student is currently described? Or worse. How many are struggling with depression issues and trying, often unsuccessfully, to find the answers with the aid of pharmaceuticals? How many times do we joke about someone having a bad day as being "off their meds"?

Maybe instead of this being defined as a gun control issue it should be looked at a mental health issue and the failure of Big Pharma and the medical community to come up with effective protocols for dealing with these issues effectively. That seems to be where these stories should be pointed but the public debate always seems to go off in an entirely different direction. Interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THOUGHTS ON GOOD VS. EVIL: HANNAH ARENDT AND "THE BANALITY OF EVIL"
http://www.radioopensource.org/hannah-arendt-and-the-banality-of-evil/

Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil” while covering the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official charged with the orderly extermination of
Europe’s Jews.

Arendt herself was a German-Jewish exile struggling in the most personal of ways to come to grips with the utter destruction of European society.

In a series of articles for The New Yorker that later became the book
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt tried to tackle a string of questions not necessarily answered by the trial itself:

Where does evil come from?
Why do people commit evil acts?
How are those people different from the rest of us?

Her conclusions were profound:
People who do evil are not necessarily monsters; sometimes they’re just bureaucrats.

The Eichmann she observed on trial was neither brilliant nor a sociopath.

He was described by the attending court psychiatrist as a “completely normal man, more normal, at any rate, than I am after examining him.”

Evil, Arendt suggests, can be extraordinary acts committed by otherwise unremarkable people.

[Arendt] insisted that only good had any depth. Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any
demonic dimension yet — and this is its horror! — it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world.

Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from
which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.

In the past forty years Arendt’s ideas have been championed in two landmark psychological experiments — Stanley Milgram’s electroshock experiment and Philip
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment — but decried by luminaries like Norman Mailer.

Even if the phrase itself has lost some of its punch through sheer repetition, the ideas it embodies are no less relevant. It’s hard to talk about real-world
horrors like the Rwandan genocide or torture at Abu Ghraib without referencing Arendt.

So for her centennial we’re reminding ourselves why her ideas still matter. Help us out by taking a stab at some of her initial questions:
Where does evil come from?
Why do people commit evil?
Do you buy Arendt’s thesis, or do you think there is something else (be it religious or biological) that leads to evil and distinguishes good from evil people?

IHSA POLL ON PED TESTING IMPLEMENTATION

Where is the leadership? Where and when have those in leadership positions stood up and held themselves accountable when things go bad in this country.

Some recent examples of abdication of leadership:
The role of the Federal Reserve and government policy in the housing/credit crisis.
Owners and the Players Union culpability in the PED issue.
The role of government policy and ties to Big Pharma in the growth of the PED issue.
Indiana's administration during the Kelvin Sampson controversy.

Here is a local example from Illinois, the implementation of drug testing for student-athletes, that shows pretty clearly, step by step, how the so-called leaders are willing to pass off responsibility, accountability and the imposition of penalties and sanctions down the line and do not accept PERSONAL responsibility or accountability. Although they do expect that from others. What is it they say? If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

In this case specifically, and the others I mentioned previously, is an illustration of the antithesis of true leadership, as I understand the definition. And then we wonder why some these situations develop and then fail to get resolved. It's a lack of leadership and a failure of leadership in most cases.

I've inserted my notes after the questions and responses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2008-01-15.htm

IHSA Announcements

January 15, 2008
Tabulated Results of Survey on Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Classification, and Tournament Structure

On December 11, 2007, IHSA member schools were asked to respond to a survey dealing with performance-enhancing drugs, classification, and tournament structure. One survey was allotted to each school, to be filled out by its official IHSA representative, which in most cases is the principal or athletic director. The deadline for submitting the survey was January 13, 2008.

In all, 414 of 765 member schools (54%) responded to the survey.
Members Responding
765 414 (54%)

The Slav: This speaks volumes right off the bat. Only 54% response rate for an issue of such significance and importance.

Following are the survey questions and tabulated responses.

1. Do you favor the IHSA implementing a performance-enhancing drug testing program? (If the answer was no, respondents were asked to skip to question 6.)
Yes No
294 (72%) 117 (28%)

The Slav: Pretty good so far. First step, identify that there is a problem. Still have to wonder about the other 46% schools.

2. Do you favor the drug testing program described at the Principals' Rules Meetings?
Yes No
252 (87%) 37 (13%)

The Slav: OK second step, propose a solution. And note the 87-13% landslide.

3. Do you favor ineligibility for a student-athlete who tests positive for a banned substance on an IHSA administered drug test?

Yes No
284 (97%) 8 (3%)

The Slav: OK, so once we have testing it's 97-3% for punishing the kid who tests positive.

4. Do you favor the consequence for a school that would require the school to submit an education plan in the event one of its students tests positive for a banned substance on an IHSA administered drug test? The plan would address the harms associated with anabolic steroids and other performance enhancers and implementation would be required before the school is allowed to participate in IHSA state series competitions.

Yes No
168 (57%) 125 (43%)

The Slav: OK, here is where we start to slide a little bit. It's 97-3% to punish the kid, but here we start to look at the school's responsibility to the kid. And all it seems like we're asking for here is for them to do what theoretically they've been doing all along, which is educate the kids. EDUCATE THE KIDS!!! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOLS HERE!!! AND ASKING THEM TO EDUCATE THE KIDS, AND THEY WANT TO ABIDCATE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE???? ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??? OH BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.

5. Do you favor an additional consequence for a school that would require it to forfeit any post-season award won by its team that had a student who tested positive for a banned substance on an IHSA administered drug test?

Yes No
116 (40%) 175 (60%)

The Slav: Oh no way. Ask Coach Trophycollector to give up his goodies? No Way. There is no possibility that either the school or the coach that benefits from it's reputation as a football power should be held accountable. They certainly have no responsibility and shouldn't be held accountable for setting up and reinforcing the "culture" that puts KIDS in the position of having to make the choices that they do, now should they?

So to review:
We went from 97-3% for punishing the kids.

To 57-43% for just asking the schools to do what they've been doing all along, just maybe do it a little better since it seems like you may have failed a bit here, what with this positive test and all.

To 40-60% against holding the team, the coach, and the school (ie: leadership) accountable.

And we call this leadership. AMAZING.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The other questions are entirely unrelated to the issue so I left them out, but in my opinion, it is morally wrong for the schools and the so-called leaders of young men and women to take this position. I do not understand how they can look these kids in the face, much less expect to lead them after basically saying "Kids, if we fail in teaching you about the serious consequences of this issue, you're on your own. You'll take the hit by yourself."

What happened to the teachers refrain of "If you fail, I fail"?
What happened to the concept of team?
If one of us goes down, we all go down.

We preach that to teams all the time as coaches. I know in speaking about this issue with my wife, whose opinion I respect greatly, she did not feel that you can punish the entire team for the actions of one person. But in reality, in a team setting, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

And I think most who participate in team sports, understand and appreciate the concept.

And I'm not sure if that actually where the environment in practice, instead of just in words, that perhaps the climate and the culture would change.

Because if a kid is doing something like this on a football team for example, generally speaking I think its fair to say that someone else on the team knows about it.

If the punitive setting were such that the TEAM, the ENTIRE TEAM would suffer the consequences, then the WALL OF SILENCE COMES DOWN, THE ENTIRE CULTURE changes. Coaches would have to ensure that they are not spewing mere words and that their actions are sending an entirely different message to these kids.

And then we have a real chance of beating down the numbers of kids who are tempted to use PED's. You have to attack the entire culture and EVERYBODY has to be one board, willing to take on the responsibility. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE KIDS ARE INVOLVED.

Do these so-called leaders think that kids are stupid and don't understand what's going on here?

SHAME ON THESE SCHOOLS (THE SHAMEFUL 60%) THAT ARE SELECTIVELY IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEPT OF ACTING AS PARENTS WHILE OUR KIDS ARE IN THEIR CARE, BUT CHOOSE TO ABDICATE THE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN IT SERVES THEIR OWN INTEREST.

THAT'S NOT HOW A RESPONSIBLE PARENT WOULD ACT WHEN THEIR CHILD'S HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY ARE AT STAKE. I APPLAUD THE 40% WHO SEEM TO HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE.

Random Thoughts from Obama-Clinton Texas Debate

Senator Obama made the claim during the debate that "You've got CEOs who are making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers are making in a year." This sounded like hyperbole, so I put pencil to paper and came up with the following:

Note: I used the $7.50 per hour rate for simplicity, but technically the median hourly rate for workers in the US is probably more in the area of $15/hour. The median rate would seem to be the best statistical fit for the phrase "ordinary" workers. But I'm erring on the side of Senator Obama here.

40 Hour Work week
x $7.50/hr. rate for average worker
= $300/week wages
x 52 weeks/year
=$15,600/annual wages

$15,600 average workers wages
x6 (to get hourly CEO rate, 6 ten-minute periods/hour)
=$93,600 CEO/Hourly Rate
x 40 Hours/Week
=$3,744,000 CEO Weekly Wages
x 52 Weeks/Year
=$194,688,000 CEO Annual Rate

I'm not sure if I'm aware of any CEO's who are paid $200M per year, much less twice that amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Clinton again used her favorite technique of relating a story about a woman (and it's always a woman) who "grabbed her arm" and told her about the seriousness of some such issue or another. It could be about health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, whatever. Someone is always grabbing this woman by the arm and jawboning her about the issues.

My first question is where the heck is the Secret Service when all this grabbing of the candidate is going on? Second, does she ever listen to men while on the stump? Or do men have to grab her by that arm to get her attention? And where do you think the Secret Service would be then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the Clinton crack about "Xeroxing change" was perfectly legitimate and right on target. The crowd applauded her seconds earlier when she said if Obama was positioning himself as the agent of change, it's perfectly valid to know what the nature of the change is and where it's coming from.

Obama is a bit of a Teflon candidate at this point and he may be able to use that shield to hold off Clinton and secure the Democratic nomination, but don't think for a moment that Senator McCain will extend him the same courtesy during the general campaign.

NIU Shooting

On Valentine's Day, a day built around celebrating and sharing love, one former NIU student chose to share hate and grief. By spraying dozens of bullets throughout a lecture hall filled with students, this mentally deranged lunatic left behind dozens of grieving loved ones, including those of his own family, by ultimately concluding his final, horrific act and committing suicide.

All praise should go to the various first responders who are the real-life heroes in all this mess.

We often laud athletes as:
clutch performers
with nerves of steel
and ice water running through their veins
performing well under pressure
performing well in do-or die situations

However, events like this remind us that they do what they do on the field or court in controlled games.

The policemen, firemen and medical personnel in these real-life situations have to perform their jobs in conditions like those we hear about today. When people are running away from danger, these folks have to run towards it and perform.

They should be applauded with all the energy we expend to applaud our favorite on the field heroes. They are truly the real-life heroes.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims.

THE CLEMENS CONGRESSIONAL HEARING

"Andy and Roger chatting during better days, hopefully Andy didn't misremember what Roger told him here"


It is now officially time for Congress to get out of the baseball-steroids mess. Originally we were sold on the premise that Congress was united behind this cause, Republicans and Democrats living together like cats and dogs, in order to protect the children from the scourge of steroids.

Well, apparently the Congressmen and women showed their true colors and their true motivations yesterday as the questioning broke down along party lines, with the Republicans siding with Clemens (whatever happened to law and order?) and the Democrats surprisingly siding with McNamee. Are we to take from this that now the children have become a political football to be punted back and forth across the aisle between the Republicans and the Democrats?

That's the only thing that was clear after the smoke cleared. It was the only thing we saw with some level of clarity and certainty after the dueling banjos of questioning was concluded.

If you watched the whole thing, and if you did you'd have been better served sticking knitting needles in your eyes, you had to come away reminded of this classic bit of political satire courtesy of Saturday Night Live:

Old SNL Skit - Jane, You Ignorant Slut.mp3 | Funny Jokes at JibJab

http://www.jibjab.com/view/159106

(A parody of the 60 Minutes Counterpoint segment which pitted conservative James J. Kilpatrick and liberal Shana Alexander during the 1970s).

This is the impression I had about Congressmen Waxman and Davis and their cronies after the hearing. It personifies what went on in the hearing room for the most part. They succeeded only in creating more heat than light, bringing up more questions than they did answers.

I was happy to hear that many of them no longer wanted to hold future hearings into this matter. I can only assure the Committee that the feeling is mutual. Because we're talking about real-life issues with very real ramifications for the particulars involved as well as the sport being potentially decided or influenced by in this circus tents, by these clowns who are acting as if this is all a parody.

In the days leading up to the hearings we heard quotes like this from some of the arbiters of Clemens fate:

"I'm not looking forward to it," Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) said last night. "I feel we've gone beyond our mandate. Our mandate is not to decide the legacy of individual baseball players."

He also questions whether today's hearing can solve the question of who is telling the truth.

"I hope and pray Roger is telling the truth," said Shays, who met with Clemens privately last week. "He's a sports icon. He's a remarkable player. Brian McNamee is, frankly, kind of sleazy. I hope he's the one that is lying. I hope someone who a lot of Americans look up to is telling the truth."

Never mind that the congressmen themselves created some of the circus atmosphere by engaging in borderline unethical behavior with their photo-ops with Roger and the gathering of autographs by members of staff.

The question arises--Will Roger get the same level of treatment by the media and the public as Barry Bonds did if these allegations are proven to be substantively true?

On a number of fronts, the media has already failed miserably in this regard.
In the first place, the presumption of guilt was placed on Bonds from Day One and he was attacked personally, viciously and on a daily basis.

Clemens, on the other hand, has had the bulk of media run interference and carry water for him, by both questioning his accuser and the process itself, instead of questioning Clemens actions as reported.

The presumption of innocence was given Clemens from Day One and in some quarters, is still being given today. Brian McNamee has been characterized as a "sewer rat" (by Gammons and others) for coming forward, whereas Greg Anderson would certainly have had parades in his honor, if he had been forthcoming and prevented Bonds from surpassing Henry Aaron.

It's not difficult to see what's going on, you just have to open your eyes and ears.
Now, Bob Costas, the media appointed pope of ethics, says that while Clemens may have in fact cheated, if the allegations are true (what, no mountain of evidence?), at least he didn't cheat as much as those players whose physiques were transformed into "cartoon-like figures". OK, so that's where the bar is set now.

Thanks Bob, for displaying that you are not only a physical midget, but a mental one as well. Mark that down kiddies, it's apparently OK to cheat as long as you're not real obvious about it. Or you don't break any "hallowed" records. Or you're black. Or you speak a foreign language. Got that? But stay tuned because I'm sure the midget will continue to twist and contort his ethical position as future events unfold.

And here's another question I've been pondering:
Why hasn't anybody put together a book, whose premise revolves around the idea that a certain esteemed pitcher from the Land of Chowder, who was banished from the Nation by a GM with the words "in the twilight of his career" burning a hole in his ears, his brain, his considerable ego, didn't vow that he would get "jacked up" on "that stuff" and show everyone that he was "The Rocket" once again?

Why isn't this superstar, this super-ego capable of the same behavior? Is he incapable of jealousy or vengeance? Let me check with Mike Piazza on that one. Seems like some enterprising reporter looking to catapult themselves from a local newspaper gig to the bright lights, fame and salary bump that the new digs at ESPN and it's ties to Hollywood via Disney would provide. You can even use all the Waxman Commitees back up and testimony to provide filler for the book and have your fellow cronies in the media call it a "mountain of evidence" against your "target".

-------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:

Meaning of the term "It is what it is". Note #7 attributes it to LA not New Yorkers, but, whatever.

According to the website Urbandictionary.com:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It+is+what+it+Is

1. A cliche, popular within the circles of coaches,
business execs, and those of us who just want to say
"It's happened. 'I'm going to forget about it. I'm
going to move on. There is nothing that can be done
about it."

Voted by USA Today as the #1 cliche of 2004

2. A) A phrase that seems to simply state the obvious but
actually implies helplessness.

B) A phrase that seems to simply state the obvious but
actually means "it will be what it is," as in "it
ain't gonna change, so deal with it or don't." See
also tough shit, oh well, cry me a river and tfb.

3. in a nutshell, it means "this is the way its going
right now, and thats how it is." kind of a way to say:
don't over think the situation. a reminder to keep
things simple, don't over analyze things, or a way to
put a definition on something thats hard to explain.

4. What incredibly vapid, stupid and unoriginal people
say when they cannot construct a proper thought,
retort or sentence.

Or when you catch a person in a lie, scheme or have
proven them wrong in any way, It is what it is is sure
to leak from their gaping mouth.

5. Used often in the business world, this incredibly
versatile phrase can be literally translated as "fuck
it."

6. Phrase has many meanings. Normally used to describe
something of irrelevance or an acceptance of the
situation.

Used primarily to cause confusion to the listener.

7. A term popularized by the people of Los Angeles. It
connotes that the truth is simply that... the truth.
Deception of the truth will only piss people off down
the line, and you don't want to piss people off, who
knows you might get shot. LOL. You want to live in the
truth, and you like to keep it real.


----------------------------------------------------------
Making the rounds on the internet:

Clemens: You want answers?
Congressman: I think I'm entitled to them.
Clemens: You want answers?

Congressman: I want the truth!

Clemens: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has
baseballs. And those balls have to be hit by men with bats. Who's gonna
do it? You? You,Congressman? I have a greater responsibility than you
can possibly fathom. You weep for steroids and you curse HGH. You have
that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that HGH,
while illegal, sells tickets. And my existence, while grotesque and
incomprehensible to you, sells tickets...You don't want the truth.
Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want
me on that mound. You need me on that mound. We use words like
fastball,
slider, splitfinger...we use these words as the backbone to a life
spent
playing a sport. You use 'em as a punch line. I have neither the time
nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and falls
asleep to the Sportscenter clips I provide, then questions the manner
in
which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your
way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a bat and dig in. Either way, I
don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Congressman: Did you order the HGH?

Clemens: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

Congressman: Did you order the HGH?

Clemens: You're goddamn right I did!!

MCNAMEE TO FEDS: I DID CLEMENS WIFE TOO!!!!

The Clemens, McNamee, Emery, Ward, Brueuer & Hardin Circus continued its tour through the nations capitol today with the following stunning revelation.

The congressmen better double up security for Wednesday's testimony. You can imagine how badly Clemens wants to fire heat back at McNamee now. Look what he did to Piazza for just digging in and having the nerve to hit a home run or two off the Rocket. He must literally and figuratively want to tear McNamee apart with his bare hands.

This is rapidly going from the ridiculous to the absurd and threatens to take whatever degree of seriousness the issue may have previously had right down into the cesspool.
-------------------------------------------------------
ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK POST:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02082008/sports/i_injected_clemens_wife_with_hgh__mcname_985092.htm

February 8, 2008 -- Brian McNamee told staff members of a congressional committee on Thursday that he injected Roger Clemens' wife with human growth hormone, a source familiar with his testimony said today.

Debbie Clemens appeared in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue with the pitcher in February 2003. McNamee, Roger Clemens' former trainer, told staffers of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he injected her with HGH as part of her efforts to get in condition for the photo shoot, the source said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE NY DAILY NEWS:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/08/2008-02-08_source_brian_mcnamee_testified_roger_cle.html

Friday, February 8th 2008, 5:04 PM

Daily News back page showed the 2003 Sports Illustrated photo in which Debbie Clemens appeared. Brian McNamee testified that the star pitcher's wife took HGH to get in shape for the shoot. Brian McNamee told congressional investigators Thursday that Roger Clemens' wife took human growth hormone before she appeared with the pitcher in Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue in 2003, according to a Washington source.

"McNamee discussed his wife's use before the committee," according to the source. "She was trying to get in shape for the SI cover. He told them the story that Debbie took growth."

McNamee testified that he injected her at Roger Clemens' direction, according to the source. McNamee was speaking under oath before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which will hold a hearing on the Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball Wednesday.

"I tell you what, guys," said Rusty Hardin, another of Clemens' attorneys. "This guy never ceases to amaze me. I think it reveals what he's really about. First, he throws out waste and then he wants to talk about this."

Debbie Clemens, who is active in charity work in Texas and designs high-end baseball-themed clothing, was one of several athlete's wives that appeared in pictorials in the 2003 swimsuit issue.

She discussed the photo shoot on her Web site.

"Roger came to me one day and told me that we had been asked to do a photo shoot for Sports Illustrated," Debbie Clemens recalls. "I had major anxiety! I was a 39-year-old mother of 4! Once I realized that this WAS going to be a reality, I decided I had to give it everything I had."

"My mind was set," Debbie Clemens continued. "I am not a risk taker, but have since learned that with great risk, sometimes comes great reward. The responses from that experience have been wonderful and I feel it was a turning point in my life. It's nice to have a goal for yourself and to see it through. The goal kept me motivated and focused. Using common sense and my ability to balance my life, I achieved that goal."

"This case to me is about science now," Emery said. "They're jumping to this manufactured-evidence defense, which is an admission that they expect a positive result."

Emery said McNamee kept the evidence because he feared Clemens might deny use if the issue ever came up.

GIANTS PARADE

This is good to see. I had a dream last night that the Giants DIDN'T win the Super Bowl. Is that even possible? Can you have a dream about an event not occurring? That seems rather counter-productive. I woke up shivering and drenched in a cold sweat. Make mental note to not fall asleep on the porch.

D-E-L-I-R-I-O-U-S !!!
-------------------------------------------------------

FROM 18 & OH TO 18 & OH NO: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE PATS

We have only one story. All novels, all poetry, are built on the never-ending contest in ourselves of good and evil. And it occurs to me that evil must constantly respawn, while good, while virtue, is immortal. Vice has always a new fresh face, while virtue is venerable as nothing else in the world is.” – John Steinbeck, East of Eden
----------------------------------------------------------------

In the great classics of literature we see that evil often triumphs, but never conquers. By definition, triumphs and victories are short-term in nature. That's the nature of any title, any victor, any champion. There will be another one next year or next game.

When something is conquered, it generally remains conquered forever. Because of the G-Mens' mind-set, the Pats were unable to conquer the Giants, even though they defeated them weeks earlier. They simply refused to be conquered.

The ancient Greeks believed that good and evil are not necessarily found in a good man and an evil man individually. We tend to believe that we as individuals are either good or evil, and that there is a large moat or impenetrable wall, separating the two that we cannot and do not cross. However, history shows, over and over again, that the potential to do good or to do evil lies in all of us and there is a continual struggle for dominance between the two and the victor often depends entirely on the situation or the environment in which we find ourselves .

All men act with what they perceive at the time to be good intentions and it is this dynamic struggle between the two forces--the contesting polarities in our nature-- that gives life's drama vitality and meaning.

The issue is less often whether the good man will triumph over the bad man, but whether good will triumph over evil within the hero.



It's why we watched the game and why, as I predicted, this would be one of the most watched Super Bowls in history. Given the compelling story lines, two large media markets, it could not help but be anything else.
---------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080204/ap_on_en_tv/super_bowl_ratings

NEW YORK - Very preliminary findings from 49 of the nation's biggest markets showed that ratings for this year's Super Bowl, with the New York Giants' thrilling win over the New England Patriots, were up 6 percent over last year's big game, according to Nielsen Media Research on Monday.

Experts say those numbers indicate the game has a strong shot at being the most-watched Super Bowl of all time, and the second most-watched broadcast ever.
----------------------------------------------------
Another two universal teaching moments were put on full on full display for all the sports world to see. The first was after Plaxico's prediction (not a guarantee) of a 23-17 victory.

The media then dutifully reported that Tom Brady, perhaps still flush with excitement from his practice romps through the fields of Giselle, was "upset" that Plax only gave the Pat's credit for scoring 17 points. Of course, it was not widely reported that Plax picked one of his past uniform numbers (23) and his current uniform number to arrive at the predicted score.

Real scientific, obviously he put a lot of though into it. Almost like when you take a girlfriend or wife to the track and she wins by picking the winning "horsies" by the silk colors, or the horse name, and just cleans you and your "scientific systems" clock. But I digress.

It turns out that Plax was being more than generous in his assessment of the Pats offense, little Tommy. So next time you are in this position, remember where your team's practice is. Maybe the ankle boot was really an excuse to get out of his team practices and play some touch football with Giselle. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just saying it may have cost the Pats.

*****GRATUITOUS GISELLE BUNDCHEN PHOTO*****

GISELLE BUNDCHEN: IT MUST HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR TOM BRADY TO CONCENTRATE ON FOOTBALL SUNDAY, WITH GISELLE IN HIS BOX. WAIT, IS THAT RIGHT?? NEVER MIND.



*****GRATUITOUS GISELLE BUNDCHEN PHOTO*****

Let's face it, I'm having trouble concentrating on this post right know. NFL coaches are going to have to re-institute the philosophy that was good enough for Mick, Rocky's trainer. No women, they take the legs right out of you. Yeah, but what a way to go, huh?

LESSON LEARNED: Play first: Win first, talk later.

The second example, is the Boston Globe's decision to publish a book titled, 19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots and released advance notice of said book in advance of the victory, as if that victory was a given. The book has of course been removed from the various distribution outlets. Too bad, it would go rather nicely with my Billy Ripken baseball card. I'll bet his brother wrote the message on the knob of the bat.



LESSON LEARNED: Play first: Win first, talk later.

OK then, maybe next time the Pats are in this position, they and their fans will know better. Although, I certainly would like a copy of that book. It's sure to be a collectors item.

The larger lessons on display were the Giants continued and undying faith in themselves as a team and their chance to accomplish great things, to make their own history.

I believe that this was very much a clash of good (Giants) versus evil (Patriots). The antics of Coach Bellicheat historically, forged that perception. And even if nothing comes of Congressional involvement or the continued digging by reporters who are enterprising and questioning, the Coach and those who follow him and apologize for his actions, have to answer a moral question for themselves. And they would have had to answer it even if they had won, and had completed the "perfect season" with the Spygate controversy currently swirling about them:

And that question is this:
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world, but lose your own soul? -- Matthew 16:26 and taken from the book "Quiet Strength: The Principles, Practice & priorities of a Winning Life" by Tony Dungy that ironically enough leads into the chapter of the book entitled "Race to the Super Bowl".

How rich is that? Like I have said many times before, you can't make some of this stuff up. You simply cannot write a better script.

Because, ultimately the larger lesson on display yesterday, and the answer to all those who struggle with the moral dilemma that revolves around the all cheating scandals and the issue of "What do we tell the children?"

We tell them this:
Keep the faith
Stay on the right path
Keep doing the right thing
You know the difference between right and wrong
Character Counts
Evil may win some of the battles but eventually, good wins the war
You ultimately want to be on the winning side

We tell them that yes, perhaps Coach Bellichick has three Super Bowl rings and Coach Dungy has "only" one, and that somehow by this measurement that appears to make Bellichick the better coach or the better man. We have to learn how to more properly measure success and how we keep score and define winners and losers, both on the field and in life. In the way I would keep score or measure success, Dungy would triumph over Bellichick by landslide or blowout proportions.

And that's why I thoroughly and completely and overwhelmingly enjoyed the Giants victory yesterday. It was truly a victory that transcended the scoreboard.

WAY TO GO GIANTS



Philippians 4:13 - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

SUPER BOWL XLII PREVIEW

Perhaps not since the Christians faced off against the Lions in ancient Rome has there been a more one-sided match up of foes as we will see in Super Bowl XLII.

Interesting that since the days of the Roman Empire, there has been a need for societies rulers to keep the masses in tow and their attention diverted from the important issues of the day (sound familiar?). The premise was that you could give people some relatively cheap entertainment so that they would--at least temporarily-- forget their grievances against the collective shortcomings of their rulers or political system.

It just seems as if it will all come together so perfectly tomorrow. The Super Bowl is the ultimate TV event. The ultimate "opiate of the masses" if you will. And with all the other side issues circling over the event, yet to be resolved, it makes for both perfect theater as well as a perfect teaching and learning moment for the country.

Arlen Specter may or may not be able to call Commissar Goodell on the carpet to explain the inexplicable. Why he punished the Patriots for wrongdoing and then destroyed the evidence of the wrongdoing, which smacks of a cover-up (remember, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up) I just can not explain. But he has multiple billions of reasons (measured in dollars of revenue) to protect the NFL's image at all costs.

At first blush, his explanation that any advantage Bellicheat and the Pats may have gained from the illegal videotaping was "limited." I'm sure the Nixon Administration tried to sail similar logic past the public when the initial details of the Watergate break-in and cover-up were uncovered, and look what it did for Nixon.

After the Super Bowl, it seems that Congress will attempt in earnest to determine what most already suspect. Bill Belichick is a cheater, albeit an equal opportunity cheater. He cheats on the field as well as off the field. And Congress will do this if only to show they can come together on certain select issues like this and steroids in baseball, but continue to fail to come together on issues that make real differences in real peoples lives. Amazing.

As far as defining Coach Bellicheats character--I would just like to know from Pats apologists--how do you respond to the following questions?:

How do you explain the reports that Coach Bellicheat was the "other man" who helped break up his secretary's marriage by chasing her around the desk too much?

FROM SPORTSBYBROOKS.COM
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/both-of-new-england-coachs-beli-chicks-at-sb-15755

How do you explain Spygate? Just a one-time thing, like Andy Pettitte's dalliances with HGH? It was just to prepare for the Jets that week? The 4-12 Jets you had to skirt the rules to try and beat?

What's that? The media told you not to worry, Spygate was nothing. Just a one-time thing, right? It doesn't have any effect or in any way tarnish any of their Super Bowl victories, correct? HAHAHAHAHA.

All the talking heads on ESPN who continue to spit that logic, as well as the one about the NFL having the toughest PED policy and NO PROBLEM WITH PED USE ought to be writing fairy tales. Just don't read them to kids.

Tell me, how do we explain away the recent reports that indicate the Patriots taped the Rams walk-through prior to their very first Super Bowl XXXVI victory six years ago? You remember, back when they were supposedly David and the Rams were Goliath.

FROM THE BOSTON HERALD:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1070762&srvc=sports&position=0

The one where "team unity" banded together to overcome the mighty Rams offense. Well, I guess if you knew in advance what they planned to focus on offensively either through having their signs or effectively, their game plan, it's easy to acquire the label of defensive genius that it now appears Bellicheat does not deserve.

It all made for a cute story for the media to serve up and salivate over, but it now is beginning to appear more and more like it was a story built upon a lie and a cheat. And for the story to be promoted as it was by the media, who are supposed to be the guardians of fairness and integrity in sports. What say you now, fellas?

The media missed the boat on the steroid story that grew right under their own eyes.
Now it appears as if they missed out on the Spygate story, even though it also appeared to grow and flourish right under their own eyes. That's a big oh-for-two if you're scoring at home, or even if you're all by yourself. HAHAHAHAHA.

And yet the media wants to continue to be the arbiters of righteousness and fairness and integrity in sports? Give me a break.

I know, I'll make it easy on you to cut through all this bullshit once and for all. So you can get things right for a change, right from the get go. Just imagine how quickly you would jump on this story, how rapidly you would turn it into the biggest issue the country faces, if it were noted Christian and man of character Tony Dungy who was suspected of cheating and wrongdoing.

You would have thrown him to the lions quicker than the Romans. You would have strung him up and brought up on charges in the court of public opinion.

In my opinion, Dungy and his legacy are harmed the most by this. Imagine how many rings he might have now if everyone was playing on a "level playing field".

Maybe Peyton Manning would be the one hanging and banging with multiple Super Models and multiple Super Bowl rings and God knows what else instead of little Tommy Brady.

Nah, Peyton has too much class and character. And so does Dungy. That's why the media will never fight or dig for guys like that. They wouldn't know class and character if it punched most of them right in the face.

And how about Dick Vermeil? The Patriots cheated and still barely beat 'em? Yeah Bellicheat's a real genius all-right. Another Super Bowl victory makes him an all-time great coach, right?

Tomorrow, the Giants will be served up as a foe against the Patriots and like the Christians of yore, will seemingly only have their faith in each other to give them any chance at victory. That and the collective spirit of those who would rather not see cheaters continue to prosper.

I hate to make it as serious as a clash of good vs. evil, but in this case, I think I will. The Giants simply must win, and I believe they will win. God help us if they don't. What will we tell the children when such blatant cheaters are allowed to prosper? I guess I could do the Roger Goodell thing and try to cover it all up. Nah, not a good choice there.

The Giants faith in each other will propel them to victory.

"Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life." Revelations 2:10

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=church&book=lions&story=lions
From the book: To the Lions, A Tale of the Early Christians, by Professor Alfred J. Church

"HE HATH SHUT THE LION'S MOUTH."

The Patriots want to join the Dolphins in as a part of football immortality as the only undefeated teams in history, but as much as they and their lackeys in the media and the NFL executive suite want to cover it up, they know in their heart and soul that they do not deserve it. They are not worthy of the honor and they have not earned it. They will fail under the collective weight of their organizational guilt.

AND THE LION'S MOUTH SHALL BE SHUT

It will be the Giants who are granted their slice of football immortality, since they have endured much this season and continued to keep the faith when others of lesser strength gave up on them. They will have earned and deserved the praise that is given to them. Call it karma, call it faith, call it what you will.

GIANTS TO WIN SUPER BOWL XLII.

SNOW AND THE MISERY INDEX

According to Forbes, Chicago is the 6th most miserable city to live in.

Let's see:
Long Commutes (check)
Income Tax Rates (3% State Income Tax, check)
Superfund Sites (yikes)
Unemployment (not that I'm aware of)
Violent crimes (not yet)
Weather (oh yeah, check, check and triple check)

Of course, I post this after having to rise at 5AM to shovel another foot of snow off the driveway, so we can get out in the morning. That snow-blower at Lowes or Home Depot is looking mighty tempting at this point.

But what's with the hating on the Cubs? That strikes me as a bit of piling on. I don't get the impression that Cubs fans are too miserable at all. At least not those that attend Wrigley Field, how could you be? They obviously did not read my Wrigley Field post. Shoddy research Forbes.

Also, they fail to mention the seemingly mindless attachment to a predominantly Democratic (socialist) leadership in city government that has led to wastefully inept and blatantly corrupt political leadership. It's ingrained into the cultural fabric. And seemingly impossible to get out.

On the plus side, there is the so-called "Viagra Triangle" on the corner of State and Rush Streets, so named because of the high density of "eye candy" to be observed there. I have no personal knowledge of this phenomena, I heard about it from this guy, who knows someone, who used to work with this other guy, who told him about it. Really, I swear.

This does give folks like me a hook to hang our hat on, however. It is obviously not so much that we are inherently miserable people, it's the onerous environment we are forced to live in. Yeah, that's it. Thanks Forbes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/29/detroit-stockton-flint-biz-cz_kb_0130miserable_slide_7.html?thisSpeed=3000

No. 6
Chicago, Ill.
Rank

Commute times 144
Income tax rates 35
Superfund sites 107
Unemployment 108
Violent crimes 118
Weather 122

Misery Measure 634

Residents of the country's third-largest metro face
long commutes (31 minutes on average) and high violent
crime rates (619 crimes per 100,000 residents).
Another chief complaint: the bitter-cold winters. And
as for misery, nothing tops being a Cubs fan. The team
has not won a World Series since 1908, the longest
winless streak in baseball.

Ranks are based on the 150 largest metro areas.

Sources: Bert Sperling; Moody's Economy.com; U.S.
Census Bureau
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/29/detroit-stockton-flint-biz-cz_kb_0130miserable.html

America's Most Miserable Cities
Kurt Badenhausen 01.30.08, 6:00 AM ET

In Pictures: America's Most Miserable Cities
By This Author
Kurt Badenhausen


The Motor City grabs the top spot on Forbes' inaugural
list of America's Most Miserable Cities.

America's Most Miserable Cities
Misery is defined as a state of great unhappiness and
emotional distress. The economic indicator most often
used to measure misery is the Misery Index. The index,
created by economist Arthur Okun, adds the
unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It has been
in the narrow 7-to-9 range for most of the past
decade, but was over 20 during the late 1970s.

There also exists a Misery Score, which is the sum of
corporate, personal, employer and sales taxes in
different countries. France took the top spot (or
perhaps bottom is more appropriate) with a score of
166.8, thanks to a top rate of 51% on personal incomes
and 45% for employer Social Security.

So we decided to expand on the Misery Index and the
Misery Score to create our very own Forbes Misery
Measure. We're sticking with unemployment and personal
tax rates, but we are adding four more factors that
can make people miserable:
commute times,
weather,
crime
and that toxic waste dump in your backyard.

We looked at only the 150 largest metropolitan areas,
which meant a minimum population of 371,000.
---------------------------------------------------------


YEAH, YOU HAVE A NICE ****ING DAY TOO PAL.