By now you’ve heard. There were a couple of explosions at the Boston Marathon yesterday. Last I checked, three people were killed and 130 people were being treated for injuries sustained in the blasts. By now, it wouldn’t surprise me if the numbers on both counts climbed.
One of those reported killed was an eight-year-old girl. Who may have been running to show support for the victims of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last December. Or maybe she who was just a spectator in the wrong place at the wrong time. The boy, Martin Richard, was apparently moving to greet his father at the finish line when the bomb exploded. But still. Eight years old. Her His life snuffed out in an instant. [Update: Edited after SarcasticTom on Twitter tipped me off that the victim wasn’t a little girl.]
I’m not going to link to too many articles in the post. Two commentaries I’ve seen stand out: This one by Bonnie D. Ford of ESPN.com, and another one by Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal. As of a quick search a few moments ago, The Guardian is reporting that no one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. And Boston.com has comments by President Obama and others. OK. That’s it for any links.
I first heard about the bombings a few minutes after they happened, when a co-worker noticed on Twitter that a couple of explosions had occurred. He was hoping that it was just a fluke, that it was something akin to an accidental explosion of a gas line. But at the same time, he was also suspecting something worse.
A short while later, searching Twitter and Google News, I ran across some people complaining that there was so much coverage of the events in Boston, when other terrorist attacks had occurred in Iraq and elsewhere yesterday. And if you search, you can easily find articles about a rash of bombings in Iraq yesterday that killed at least 42 people, according to CNN.com.
And let me say, all attacks on civilians anywhere in the world should be condemned. They are tragic and unnecessary losses of life. Sadly, we’ve come to expect certain types of horrors in other parts of the world. And maybe because of that, the media pays less attention to those events. Gives them short shrift.
Or it could just be a case of proximity. What happens in my neighborhood is more immediate and compelling than something that occurs halfway around the world. The closer we live to an event, the more likely it is to affect people we know. My wife has friends who compete at Boston, actually. Some were there and are safe. Others missed this year’s race, and they are safe, too.
There is another element to this, though, that keeps floating around in my mind. And that is, regardless of what happens elsewhere, the thing about the bombings in Boston is that we don’t expect them to happen at an athletic event (unless you’re a Hollywood filmmaker whose movie is “Two Minute Warning“, and that’s about a psychotic sniper, not a bomber). Sports events are supposed to be celebrations of the triumph of human spirit. Especially long, grueling endurance events like the Boston Marathon.
And yet, in the midst of that, someone — or some group — decided to inflict horror on those in attendance. For what purpose, we don’t know. Responsible media outlets and commentators have noted that it’s too soon to say why this occurred. Bravo to them for that. I suspect we all have our mental checklist of the usual suspects. And we could play a parlor game of what might have motivated such an evil deed.
But what’s the point? Playing parlor games doesn’t change the fact that people died for no good reason. Merely because they were attending or participating in a sporting event. After the Oklahoma City bombings, a whole lot of commentators jumped on the bandwagon that it must’ve been foreign terrorists that did such an unspeakable thing — ignoring the obvious question of, “Why Oklahoma City?” And in the end, it was a bunch of home-grown terrorists who committed the crime.
It hasn’t begun, yet, but you can bet there are some media outlets that will be bent on smearing certain politicians, asking, “Why didn’t (fill in the blank) take action to stop this heinous crime?” You know it’s going to happen. Maybe not today or tomorrow. But in a week. Or a month. Or a couple of months. It’s going to happen. And I’m going to call bullshit on that right now. Unless they have specific information that someone knew ahead of time and did nothing, that is just a crock, merely to gin up controversy and ratings.
Such behavior deserves the mocking it will get by the likes of the Jon Stewarts and Stephen Colberts of the world. And by the rest of us. It’s irresponsible to the n-th degree. And those who do it should be roundly drummed out of the journalism profession.
What we know is this: Some evil, sick, twisted individuals unleashed a couple of bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon yesterday. For reasons as yet unexplained. People died. People were injured. For. No. Good. Reason.
When the long arm of justice catches up with the perpetrators, I certainly hope they get punishment in line with their crimes. The darker side of me wishes we could blow them up once for each person they killed or injured. But, of course, that’s not possible.
Yes, those other events yesterday are just are just as tragic. Should the media have focused more on them rather than on the events in Boston? Maybe. It may depend on where you live. Terrorism at a sporting event is pretty big news. At least, it is in my neighborhood.
It is ultimately impossible to guarantee that things like this will not happen. You might be able to secure one particular one time event, but if you consider all the sporting events and other gatherings of numbers of people on any given day, there are simply not enough men, equipment, and time to ensure that some nut case will not do something like this. And I doubt that the American people would be particularly thrilled if extremely tight security was implemented at sporting events and the like: look at all the bitching about TSF at airports. Imagine I’d you had to go through the same types of screening to attend a HS football game, or to enter a house of worship.
Bombs are pretty easy to make, provided you can acquire explosives, and it is not all that hard to acquire or make explosives. Heck, I got some training in the Army on how to make some types of bombs.
We don’t know at this point who was responsible. If it was some single deranged individual there was probably little sign before the event this was going to happen. If this was some organization, either domestic or foreign, perhaps they might have had enough knowledge to keep a lid on things: it’s no secret that various intelligence agencies are monitoring things for indications that something like this will happen.
William,
Absolutely. It is a gargantuan task to secure an event like the Boston Marathon. Or the Tour de France. And no doubt that there is pretty easy access to instructions on how to make at least a crude bomb. The Internet is certainly a vast collection of all sorts of information.
The tradeoffs we might have to make to ensure security at such events may well be unpalatable to most people. If this was a single crazed individual, I doubt there was much that could have been done to prevent it, especially if no one had a clue that he/she was up to no good. If it was an organized thing, then we’ll have to see who was responsible (assuming we ever find out). Only then will we be able to see if there was any way to predict/prevent the attack from occurring.
The bad people are doing exactly what they want: taking away our way of life, bit by bit. Watching us self-impose further restrictions on our daily liberties in the name of the impossible: trying to make people feel ‘safe’. Anybody can go to a sporting goods store and buy black powder (actually it’s mostly pyrodex these days) and I don’t believe there is too many restrictions on that, unless you try to buy a LOT (I shoot black powder weapons, pyrodex has replaced black powder but works pretty much exactly the same…and to show how little care the gov has on black powder stuff, I can buy a revolver ready to shoot online and have it delivered to my doorstep with no signature, no paperwork, nothing..same for the pyrodex).
Witnesses have talked about the large smoke cloud (said they could smell ‘gunpowder”). I guess we can feel ‘lucky’ that the bombs were small enough to ONLY inflict the damage they did…bigger bombs could have brought down a building or taken out a large part of a block (remember Oklahoma city and what that bomb did to the ENTIRE Federal building?) One witness said that if the bombs had been on the OTHER side of the street (where a LOT more people were) it would have been “devastating”.
I’d like to think that our “people” whose job it is to watch for scary people had these very people on a list (can’t do much until you have EVIDENCE) which will enable them to fairly quickly figure out who did it and put together a case against them (and I hope the Pres. is right that the FULL force of our justice system will be levied against them).
Can you imagine being at ANY event and having your child killed by a bomb? Or your wife/husband? Or having your legs cut off? Nobody should have to be party to such things, but in many countries this type of thing is somewhat typical I’m sad to say. And it’s most likely to get worse…the world is a violent place and there’s tons of excuses as to why. Sure wish we could all just have a coke and teach the world to sing.
As Matt says, to an extent, the bad guys win when we sacrifice our personal liberty in the name of security. It’s not an easy task to determine where exactly to draw the line. I can remember when you just walked on a plane, and anyone could accompany you to the gate to say goodby; now we have full body scanners and various limits o what we can bring in carry on luggage. In a way, I don’t mind all this in regard to airline travel as I don’t relish the idea of someone blowing me out of the air.
Since I work at what are often very large sporting events, with sometimes over 70,000 people in attendance, I will be interested to see what if any response we have to this. Without getting too specific, we do have some checks in place but some prohibited items, mostly booze, does get in. As long as what was in that pint bottle was only whiskey, no big deal, but a pint of some explosive could inflict casualties in crowded bleachers. But one doesn’t have to smuggle something into a venue, plenty of damage can be done outside, especially before or after the event itself. You don’t have to even attack some big event, I’d imagine that similar devices detonated on a New York City street on Monday would have done similar damage.
Ultimately, I think we need to keep all this in perspective. It certainly is tragic that, as of this point in time, three people were killed and many injured, but how many people were killed or injuries in traffic accidents on Monday and we don’t even blink an eye (unless of course one of the accident victims was someone we know).
Back to our usual fare:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9204928/justice-department-says-lance-armstrong-was-unjustly-enriched
The story that just won’t quit, eh? 😉
Not until it’s reached a final resolution, whatever that might be.
Here’s an article on how Biogenesis, the South Florida “lab” accused of providing PEDS to MLB players, obtained some of the drugs:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9215008/forged-prescription-forms-friends-performance-enhancing-drugs-supply-chain-major-league-baseball-players-used-south-florida-clinic
Some forward-thinking film producer is gonna snap this up, but I thought you’d like to see it —
http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-ORIGINAL-Floyd-Landis-Tour-de-France-Congratulations-Banner-/200919200948
NOW we’ve got a scandal:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/has-the-paul-kimmage-defense-fund-disappeared
Follow the money. If you can find it. 😉
Other sports have doping issues too:
http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1434405/b-sample-confirms-deco-drug-test?cc=5901
Note that this guy gets a 30 day suspension, not 2 years.
And then there’s the case of Vijay Singh and the deer antler spray.
Interestingly, the article notes that WADA no longer bans the stuff, because the amount of IGF-1 is so small. Curiouser and curiouser.
Some further fallout from l’affaire Armstrong:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9318209/nike-ending-line-livestrong-products
MLB may be going after some big names:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9301536/major-league-baseball-suspend-20-players-including-alex-rodriguez-ryan-braun-part-miami-investigation
If only a part of what T.J. Quinn reports is true, there’s a whole lot of baseball players who are going to have some serious `splainin to do.
Here’s some follow up, apparently Bosch is going to talk:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9301536/major-league-baseball-suspend-20-players-including-alex-rodriguez-ryan-braun-part-miami-investigation
In some ways, this sort of reminds me of the Armstrong affair. People have speculated about some of the big names here as well as baseball in general, but tests did not reveal anything. Except perhaps that test last year of Ryan Braun that got thrown out. But investigation turns up some evidence and perhaps someone or ones are willing to spill the beans. Ow, perhaps in order to cut a deal. Is this the future of anti-doping?
An interesting editorial regarding the current PRD situation in MLB. Particularly the comments.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9346526/why-mlb-punishment-peds-matters
Well…I commented TWICE yesterday, and neither made it somehow. There was a very interesting article on VN about a 30 year study of top riders and their times (and power output) up iconic climbs, ranking them as to how ‘believable’ they are…green, yellow, orange and red (nommal thru mutant). Here’s the link to the article…
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/06/news/new-report-presents-data-driven-doubts-on-performances-past-and-present_290708
Matt,
Not sure how that happened. Looks like something triggered the spam comment filter and they wound up on hold.
My apologies for the inconvenience. I’ll have to take a closer look and see what happened.
While I find that article interesting, and undoubtedly there is some smoke-and-fire to it, on the whole I find the idea that we can tell whose’s doping by declaring performance above a certain level as evidence of doping. To be clear, I an talking about using such “evidence” to charge and convict an athlete.
First of all, who decides what level is proof of PED usage and how is this decided? If a line is drawn at, just to pull a number out of the air, 400 watts, does that mean a ride of 399 watts is clean, while a 400 watt ride is clearly doped?
This approach also will pass over riders who are indeed doping, but for one reason or another, do not put up high numbers. Perhaps, as in the case of domestiques, they are not that good or the strategy they are using does not require riding at “impossible” levels. This could conceivably be true even for top riders: if your goal is simply to beat your main rival to the top of Alpe d’Huez, and your rival is clean, you could dope and then just ride with him most of the way up; then nip him on the line.
This approach might be somewhat useful in identifying riders for further scrutiny: more testing etc. but such an approach will concentrate only on top riders and ignore the lesser riders whose help may be an important part of an over top Tour performance. Who is the more heinous doper: the top rider who dopes to win or the domestique who dopes and helps his leader to win?
Jan fesses up:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9412545/jan-ullrich-1997-tour-de-france-winner-admits-blood-doping
Oh, quel dommage!
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Jalabert-je-prends-un-coup/381186
And more is coming.
The names of the others positive riders of 1998 TDF should be released on July 18th. So we couls hope that some of them will speak before that date.
What we could find in the Senat report :
http://www.rue89.com/rue89-sport/2013/06/26/leut-cru-senat-prone-revolution-contre-dopage-243663
Here’s an interesting list of one writer’s take on the “100 most significant moments” in the history of the TdF:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9426480/2013-tour-de-france-100-most-significant-moments-tour-history
Whatever one may say about recent events and the Tour, it does have quite a history, has been and still remains quite a spectacle. Whether a rider is clean or dopes, he still has to get on his bike and pedal his ass all over France, with some other countries thrown in here and there. Despite all that has happened in recent years I still am looking forward to it. YMMV
Lance shows up again:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9432050/lance-armstrong-says-the-record-tour-de-france-winner
Hi. For those of you who still think it’s important to remember the past — this is de-linked, but still on the Internet for now —
http://www.letour.fr/le-tour/2012/docs/Historique-VERSION_INTEGRALE-fr.pdf