The power of the mainstream media to shape our discussion of the issues of the day can’t be understated. For this reason, journalists have a responsibility to be very careful consumers of information. Back in the early 1980s, when I was in the bootcamp known as the University of Missouri School of Journalism, this concept was drilled into our heads on a regular basis. It is as true today as it was back them. Perhaps even more so, because the 24-hour newscycle was just a gleam in Ted Turner’s eyes, and only in its earliest of infancies in those times, and the World Wide Web was yet to light up Tim Berners-Lee’s imagination.
With the advent of cable news channels featuring all news, all the time, and the ubiquity of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the stories reported today reach farther and wider than they did way back when. So today’s topic is context. Without the context, an entirely different story emerges.
Even though I don’t cover politics all that often, let’s consider the recent statements by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who many know as Barack Obama’s former pastor. Wright has been the subject of a number of stories, featuring brief soundbytes of his comments, for some time now. But in all the coverage of Wright, something has been missing. You guessed it. The full context of what he was saying.
As inflammatory as his reported statements have been, do we really know what his message is/was? Maybe. Maybe not. Most recently, he appeared at the National Press Club in Washington, DC for what might charitably be described as an entertaining press conference. Many press reports about the event linked Wright to Obama, even though Obama’s name wasn’t mentioned in any of the televised clips, or in any of the minister’s published statements. Regardless of that fact, his performance cast a negative light on a certain presidential candidate.
Now, about the context of that performance. If you’ve heard of it, you’ve probably already formed an opinion about Rev. Wright. And, if you’re following the presidential campaign, it may have affected your opinion of Barack Obama. Would your opinion change if you found out that the person spearheading his appearance is a supporter of Obama’s opponent, Hillary Clinton? Well, it’s true, as this story by Errol Louis in yesterday’s New York Daily News points out. Louis writes:
I don’t know if [Barbara] Reynolds’ eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton – my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren’t returned yesterday – but it’s safe to say she didn’t see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.
Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable, and his reading of the Judeo-Christian tradition as an epic story of people trying to escape slavery is far more right than wrong – and not something to be caricatured or compressed into a 10-second sound bite.
But Wright should have known – and his friend and ally Reynolds, a media professional, surely knew – that bickering with the press can only harm Wright and, by extension, Obama.
Barbara Reynolds may not have purposely intended that Wright’s appearance would help the Clinton campaign, but it’s certainly easy to wonder if that thought didn’t cross her mind.
Onwards to context as it relates to a different article, this time dealing with a story reported here and at Trust But Verify about six weeks ago. Gina Kolata, writing for The New York Times, penned an article yesterday about research into whether genetics can have an effect on athletes passing or failing the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio test used by anti-doping labs to catch those who are doping.
When presenting a story, the most important decision a journalist makes is what to leave in and what to leave out. Different reporters will write about a subject in different ways, depending on their own perspective and thoughts about what is important and what isn’t.
There are two aspects to the story about this particular research, as Tom Fine pointed out in a comment at TBV, and Kolata left out one of the major points. As Kolata reports, there are people who, by virtue of the genetic lottery, can avoid exceeding the 4:1 T/E ratio, even after taking doses of synthetic testosterone. What she fails to mention is that there are also people, by virtue of bad luck in the genetic lottery, who can test above the screening limit without ever taking synthetic testosterone.
Put another way, she got the part about false negatives. She ignored the part about false positives. In theory, if the CIR/IRMS test is used to double-check whether or not an athlete cheated, and if the test is performed correctly, false positives should be discovered and weeded out. That’s assuming that the science of the CIR/IRMS testing is rock solid, and that the test is actually capable of doing what it’s supposed to do. And, it’s also assuming that the technicians conducting the test are properly trained and using their equipment properly.
There’s an old saying about when you assume. (As in: “When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.”) The issue raised by the Karolinska researchers is this: Is the T/E screening test an adequate test to catch those who are doping with testosterone (or a testosterone precursor)? False negatives are a big part of the story. Too many of those, and a test isn’t worth anything, because cheaters can literally get away with it undetected. False positives are the other side of the coin. Too many of those also makes a test worthless, as many more confirmation tests need to be done to verify the original results. And those tests are expensive, draining resources from other testing or other research.
Given the Karolinska results, should (and will) gene testing become part of the anti-doping arsenal? Taking into account the relative porousness of various organizations when it comes to medical information, could an athlete’s right to privacy be preserved if such testing is added to the mix? It’s bad enough when an athlete is accused via leaks to the media. But how bad could things become if genetic information was leaked — not just to the media, but to insurance providers, for example.
Some genetic variations leave their owner with predispositions to one illness/condition or another. However, that doesn’t always mean the person in question will come down with that particular malady. If an insurance company knew that someone had a predisposition to a certain form of cancer, they could refuse coverage. Would that be fair? Could such information manage to find its way out of a lab? Perhaps.
Genetic testing could certainly determine whether or not a person might be able to evade the screening tests (or, for that matter, be likely to test as a false positive), but with it comes a greater need for privacy protections.
There’s one other story that caught my eye today, and that’s the one about the Italian Swimming Federation investigating Speedo’s LZR Racer swim suit, which is currently allowed in competition by FINA, the international governing body for the sport. Over the last year, a large number of world records have been eclipsed by swimmers using Speedo’s new (and bloody expensive) technology. As an article on ESPN.com notes:
The Italian team, which is sponsored by Arena, has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the new suits, with coach Alberto Castagnetti calling them “technological doping.”
However, swimming world governing body FINA twice this month affirmed they conform to regulations. Critics say the suits are illegally buoyant and FINA has no test for buoyancy.
Buoyancy and fluidity are among the characteristics the Italian institute will examine, along with the relationship between the suits and swimmer’s mechanics.
Several suits from different manufacturers will be tested.
Did you catch that the Italian team is sponsored by Arena, one of Speedo’s main competitors? Now, call me a cynic, but this “technological doping” rhetoric sounds like an awful lot of moaning and groaning that the Italian team isn’t using a product that stands up to Speedo’s latest technology. (They do have a choice as to who the sponsors are. I’m sure they could have come to some arrangement with Speedo if they’d wanted to.) This research sounds to me like the Italian institute is going to help the swim team’s sponsor figure out how to develop a competing product. Several suits from different manufacturers being tested? Interesting, no?
From various reports, it sounds like those who use the suits do gain some advantage, and those who don’t are left in the other guy’s wake. Back when I used to compete, we didn’t have that as a problem, but I can see how today’s swimmers who can’t afford (or whose sponsors don’t make) the suits could be upset. Technology has only recently become the kind of factor in swimming that it’s been in other sports. Those who have access to technology have a distinct advantage, which makes the playing field less than level.
Context. Sometimes it’s what is said, and sometimes it isn’t. But without placing information in its proper context, journalists do their readers and viewers a disservice. Since these people are our eyes and ears, we depend on them to tell us the full story. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.
———-
Note: Today was a bang-up day for doping stories it seems, with plenty of other stories to chew over in the coming days. Sir David of Millar, along with the possible WADA/Interpol data sharing arrangement, and France’s new laws concerning doping will all get their turn in the coming days — unless something newer and bigger comes along.
Hi Rant, Interesting stuff about the technological doping. I always wondered why Laurent Fignon in the ’89 Tour de France never used the tri bars that Lemond used. I forget the actual history of how they were developed. Was the original idea first used in the Race Across America then adopted/adapted by tri athletes? Regardless, they had been around for a while before the ’89 Tour and Fignon did not use them. Was it arrogance? French insouciance? Whatever the reason Lemond had a distinct technological advantage and the Tour organisers did not prevent the blatant techno doping in that year’s Tour. I think some regulations were brought in the following year to prevent this from happening again. There is no question in my mind though, (despite a very exciting race) that had there been a level playing field GL would not have ridden away with the Tour victory.
Rant – “context” is a terrific piece pal! How right you are!
Personally, I am not much for the belief in “coincidence” – since everything is connected – it may be that what appears as coincidence is in reality the observers lack of ability to see the connections leading to the event moment.
Until yesterday – at least for me, when I heard Obama give a response to the Rev. I was torn between him and Hilary. But after listening to his responses to this present situation – I made up my mind – that of the two – Obama is actually trying his hardest to win on the merits of his own view on how to treat people.
Obama does not strike me as a dull person – quiet the opposite – I find him highly intelligent – but more importantly – I see his actions following the methods he is trying to bring into the system – while Hilary is not.
It is one thing to “talk the talk” – quiet another to do it. I don’t know about the rest of you – but the state of affairs that exists in our politics – stinks – and I for one am ready for something different! – Obama – talks the talk – and he seems to be walking it too.
Oh for Petes’ sake – how people LOVE TO THROW AROUND the newest fashionable trigger word or phrase! TECHNODOPING…..
It would seem to me that there are factions in the “tifosi” – be it cycling or swimming or whatever that would have one think that technological developments are “bad” – and these are BAD – because the users have an advantage – well – duh!
While it may very well be true that the the new Speedo suits caught Arena with there, ahem…pardon me – I can’t resist…THEIR PANTS DOWN (:-)))) – involving the ENTIRE world swimming federations in Arenas’ attempts to get their hands on the Speedo suit is a bit stretching it – I think. That is of course if we are to believe that Arena hasn’t already its mits on a few dozen pairs already and they are just plain too stupid or cheap to do their own scientific testing…
No – I think it is the same old stupidity like what the UCI has done with cycling – for some unquantifiable reason – these people think that technological innovations are “bad”— I’m not going to be living in fifty years – but I very much wonder – will the bicycle have not “changed” in all that time? Man – tell me it isn’t going to be so….
Interestingly enough – the UCI has managed to limit the developments in cycling – under the guise of “fair play” – does anyone actually buy into this? We are told that it is to keep a “level playing field so that poorer countries can compete…er – a rider or a swimmer may come from a “poorer” country – but either his or her sponsor more then likely does not – so where is that notorious unevenness of the “playing field” – OR IS THIS ALL MERELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF OLYMPIC COMPETITORS – who are now almost all sponsored by big money? or is it the IOC trying to control the playing field – and having very little to do with anything that is “fair or level?”
In an competition where equipment plays a part, there is an issue of to what extent technological development should be allowed. On one side there are those that believe that wide open competition (in regards to equipment) stimulates development which then trickles down to ordinary users. In our context, this side believes that the more we allow technological development in competition, us ordinary folk eventually get better bikes as result. I am not too sure that this is all that true, a number of major technological developments in cycling developed outside of racing, although to be fair, in some cases in may have been due to restrictive regulations.
The other side of the issue is the idea that cycle racing is and should be a competition between men or women and not a competition between equipment designers and manufacturers. Should Lemond have been allowed to have such a technological advantage? Was his win in 1989 not because he was the better racer, but simply because he had an equipment advantage in the final TT? BTW, I at one time did see someone claims that calculations showed that GL still would have won if equipped as Fignon was. How true that is, I don’t know. And one could claim that choosing to use the best equipment available and allowable is a tactical choice and such tactical choices are part of the game. We don’t expect today’s racers to show up with the same type of bike that Maurice Garin used in 1903.
In the 1930’s, the UCI banned fairings and recumbent bikes after they had been used to break records. I think this was the right action as these types of bikes would change the fundamental nature of cycle racing, where wind resistance and pacing are a big part of the equation. For this reason, I believe that banning aero bars except in TTs is the right action. I also think that the changes in the hour record rules, setting up a separate category for bikes/positions like Obree’s is right too. When Eddie Merckyx set his record, he did use a drilled out bike, but otherwise it was much the same as any track bike. Among other things, this allows us ordinary folks to compare our own efforts with the best in a meaningful way.
As far as swimsuits, I don’t have much personal investment in the sport of swimming. In some ways, I would tend to the opinion expressed in a comment over at TBV (probably made with tongue in check) that swimmers race nude, hence eliminating any question of artificial aid from swimsuits. Since that is not likely to happen, I would suggest that suits be limited to those similar to what was used in the past. How worth while is a record that was set, not because the swimmer was in better shape, but simply because s/he had a better suit?
Hi Rant,
Good article. My own personal epiphany on the subject was the media-induced public outrage at the woman who sued McDonalds because she burned her lap with their coffee. Another story sold on largely missing context. It’s always important to remember that news is not impartial – they’re selling something. A more recent one is the ridiculous flap over the Hannah Montana photograph, which to me is not such an outrageous photo. Maybe it has something to do with Disney owning half the media in the world?
I’m actually sympathetic to the swimming argument, although I don’t doubt that there’s a real corporate money interest.
One could argue that it’s probably only temporarily “unfair”, because soon all swimmers could have this technology. So by itself, that sounds fine. But unlike cycling, swimming has never been a technological arms race, and this suit changes that forever.
Since FINA has no standard on buoyancy, each new swim suit could be progressively more and more buoyant, until swimming effectively turns into some kind of skin-tight boating event. Obviously a buoyancy standard would be put in place before things went that far. This then begs the question – what exactly should this buoyancy standard be? Since drawing such a line is ultimately arbitrary, you might as well draw it in a way that preserves your ability to compare current performances with the past.
That’s a luxury cycling can never enjoy, since technology (the bicycle) is and always has been required. But swimming still has a chance to preserve it’s purity. IMHO, the Italians are right – the time to make this rule change is now.
tom
The same flap about swimsuit legality came up the FIRST time full-body skinsuits were introduced. If memory serves, that was like 12 or 16 years ago.
Having failed to draw a line at that point, it is probably hard for FINA to say that this generation of skinsuit is less legal than the previous one.
And to go back further, it was a revolution when Speedo itself started to provide its eponymous tank suits to the Australian team, when no one else had them, back in the 50s.
Hey Rant, this might have been worth a few paragraphs in “Dope”, especially now the Italians have called it “technological doping”.
To make a situation more charged, think of the literally religious implications of banning full bodied suits. At one recent games, there was a conservative Muslim figure skater whose costume almost completely covered skin to address theological views of modesty.
TBV
TBV,
I’ll be adding the technological doping subject to the Afterword, which is already under way, and will available on this site once the book is released. (That way, it’s more up to date than a printed afterword would be.)
Rant, I disagree with your beef with Gina Kolata for only writing part of the story. You’re a journalism hack: you know you are supposed to stay on task for an article. Her article was NOT about how to test negative when you dope, or positive when you don’t, but was instead about the intricacies of T testing in the absence of key metabolic enzymes. I thought her article conveyed that data just fine.
Rant sed: “I can see how today’s swimmers who can’t afford (or whose sponsors don’t make) the suits could be upset.”
Yep, I’m one of them. I still do an occasional masters swim meet – if it’s nearby and I have friends there. I refuse to shell out 500 bucks for a suit. What’s the point ? There’s no prize money in these events.
Mostly I’m just comparing me to earlier me (and watching my times get worse and worse as the years go by). I think it’s just silly when someone lines up beside me in a full suit. I secretly think it’s just to cover the muffin top.
I am curious as to whether current me in a lzr could swim faster than younger me.
Snake at 50 in a lzr=snake at 40 in his teeny suit ?
BSMB!,
I disagree; the genetics work BOTH ways, and only one way was reported in a way that slants the story.
In thinking about this reply, I did some math, found a point that someone should have made. With 40% false negative, and 17% false positives, the T/E test is likely to be incorrect more than half (57%) of the time. It is, in fact, a minority of people who have genetics that produce reliable results.
It would not have hurt to put three more sentences in to address this at the cost of three sentences of hand wringing about dirty dopers getting off.
TBV
I agree TBV.
If the article were about the intricacies of T testing, then you would mention both the false positives and false negatives. By leaving out the false positives, you change it into an article about dopers getting off.
57% – that really puts things into perspective, with respect to this test being well-validated. How can a test that’s biased towards wrong 57% of the time have ever been validated enough to be considered useful?
tom
Snake,
I haven’t done a swim meet since I was a teenager. Rant in a lzr at almost 50 definitely wouldn’t come close to beating Rant at 18 or 19 in a “regular” Speedo. 😉
bsmb,
It seems to me that the focus of Gina Kolata’s story is that genetics plays a role in this particular test’s weaknesses, one of which is that some people can beat the test based on the luck of the genetic draw. The other weakness is that some people will test positive incorrectly, also because of the luck of the draw. That’s as much a weakness as those who manage to get away.
TBV makes a good point about how accurate the test is. That’s something Kolata should have explored further, as it provides a more complete picture of a test that’s been at the heart of a number of controversial doping cases.
lzr, my understanding of the suits is that you have to be swimming fast enough for skin friction drag to matter in the first place. Dolphins can swim this fast, which is why they shed their skin as they go. But, only very elite swimmers (probably say, the top 2000 in the world) can reach the speeds where it makes a difference as far as human hydrodynamics. Even at the elite level it makes a difference whether it is a distance race or a sprint, as to whether it is worth it too, and it is totally pointless in an open water swim.
So for the average person, even in a race it makes no difference. It’s far more cost effective to pay for a stroke clinic to improve the efficiency of your stroke, than worrying about wearing one of these suits.
Technology should continue to improve. At least I hope so. One option would be to swim in the nude as others have suggested. You could bike in the nude, but the bike would still be adjusted by technology. Seems to me you have to keep a somewhat middle line. I don’t think anyone would suggest that you have to race on a bike from the ’30’s. I also think most people would want the bikes to stay as what we think of as a bike. Some of the bikes in the ’90’s were leaving that area.
In lots of sports the equipment is part of the sport. But no one is going to win a professional event just because of the equipment. I think there should be regulations on the equipment, but I don’t think everyone should be required to use the exact same equipment. Though I guess you could have the tour organizers hand out bikes at the beginning of the day. Races instead of teams sponsored by manufacturers. Every rider on the same make and model.
By the way, there is complete coverage of Wright’s speeches out there. So you can see for yourself. And Wright uses Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam bodyguards. So you can use that for context. You can also believe he was Obama’s pastor for 20 years and this is all news to Obama. Just like it being against NFL rules to film the opposing team’s defensive signals was news to Belichick.
One last thing. Replacing my 20 year old Bianchi did help. I can tell a difference. Now instead of 2 hours behind the race leader I’d only be 1 hour and 55 minutes behind.
I did not read that piece from the point of view of “look, this is how bad the test is!” I read it from the perspective that if you lack this gene product that the test it not effective. Obviously we all bring contextual difficulties to how we interpret what someone writes/says….
BannaOj,
Point taken. Given my once a week swims, and the fact that I was never a Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps to begin with, the lzr would only lighten my pocketbook. I never doubted that it wouldn’t be of much use to us “mere mortals.” 🙂
Ken,
Interesting points about coverage of Wright’s speeches, etc. Over the next day or two, I’ll go see if I can track down some of that coverage and provide links for anyone who’s interested.
BSMB,
True, we all bring our own perspectives to what we read and view. I do see how you would read Gina Kolata’s article that way. And it does illustrate that the T/E test is not the most effective of screening tests. Tightening up the ratio to 2:1 won’t make it any more effective in that regard, as tightening it from 6:1 to 4:1 didn’t, either. But what it does do is cause more confirmation tests to be done. If budgets were unlimited, and the tests were relatively quick, no harm done, I suppose. (Well, as long as confidentiality is maintained, etc.)
But there’s more to the story than what she presented, and that’s my particular beef. By the way, readers of the print edition of the NYT found the article (at least in the edition I received) on the front page. So the editors clearly decided it was an important news story.
Luc,
Sorry for the delayed response. I actually mentioned that point in the first draft. I don’t know if LeMond would have won that fateful time trial without the aero bars. The supposed aerodynamic efficiency that one gains from that position could well have accounted for his win. Riding the more typical bikes used in that era, I suspect Fignon would have won. But that’s Monday-morning quarterbacking, about 22 years late. 😉
Rant,
I agree with you in the importance of context. It seems ironic that you chose a political example since there has been much discussion about the anti-doping Bureaucracy’s lack of accountability, and politicians create and support the many bureaucratic machines.
It is necessary to look at Rev. Wright’s quotes in the context of his full comments and his world view. It is also important to view Mr. Obama’s campaign claims of being a post-partisan candidate in the context of his acquaintances, as well as his voting record and the amount of bipartisan supported legislation he has cosponsored.
As a conservative from fly over country, it has been hard to reconcile the underlying American sentiment that government is not to be trusted but yet we want it to do more , or to balance the dichotomy of egalitarianism and freedom as affected by the bell curve.
In regard to the Gina Kolata story and the information not included concerning the genetic difficulties inherent in T/E ratio testing, thank goodness America no longer depends on the New York Times to tell us what we need to know- Keep writing Rant.
Farmer,
All points well taken. Would you agree though that while the populace has a love hate relationship with the role of government in their lives – there is a reality that government does and can have positive roles to play in making the lives of people better?
It is frustrating to me that none of the candidates chooses to speak directly but rather in polit-speak. perhaps expecting such complete change from them is stretching things…but at least Obama – seems to be making every effort to be what he is trying to communicate that he is?
Personally – I think he is struggling to be a man of integrity and doing the most for the most people…will he be able to pull this rabbit out of a hat ? I don’t know – but Obama has been more direct in addressing what to me appears to be the biggest problem we have been facing – POLITICALS running government…and them thinking that we the public should take this for right and the natural way of things…
Morgan, the government does and must play a role. I think what is lost though, frequently, is the idea that the government’s core role is to protect the liberty of the individuals that it serves. Not to ensure an equality of disposition (which can never be achieved). My twenty seconds of american libertarianism/conservatism.
I have no problem with a sport dictating what defines its sport. In hockey, a stick must fit within certain dimensions. A baseball bat must be made of wood and of a maximum weight and length. Balls must be certified by the leagues for official use. Etc. So the UCI defining a bike as having a double diamond does not bother me. We can argue over spinacci bars, saddle length, and weight restrictions as being necessary to regulate, but they are tools of the trade and open to debate. Now clothing – can you imagine a day when they start regulating clothing – we all must go back to baggy wool shorts and jerseys. Those Lycra suits clearly provide an unfair advantage:-).
The swimmers could swim naked. That would be fair. Of course someone would come up with some sort of rub-on cream that would allow a person to pass through the water faster. Then where do we go? IOC officials hosing down naked swimmers before an event? Titillating, but not swimming.
Point: There is no logical end if the authorities decide to eliminate technological advantages not directly related to a tool of the trade. How about, everyone must swim in the ocean – swimming in filtered pools without currents is unfair to people who can’t afford pools. Every tour rider must ride a 1910 edition of the TDF bicycle. Those dérailleurs and light weight components are just so unfair to people on steel bikes with coaster brakes. Football players must go barefoot. Those specially made shoes are unfair. You can kick the ball so much harder.
This also applies to pharmacological advantages too. No more Tylenol for you!!! Getting rid of pain is unfair. Vitamins – did god make those? UNFAIR!!!
Oh wait a second, Lance Armstrong has better genes than me – UNFAIR!!!!
Life is so unfair. I want the (insert your favorite governing authority’s name here) to fix that. Provide your own desired level of cynicism there.
And to say that the press sometimes misses or avoids the point – yeah I’ll go along with that. “As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch” “” October 16, 2007 story by McClatchy News Service. Seriously. You couldn’t make it up.
The sport of sailing takes a very interesting approach to the question of technology; actually 3 approaches. Some sailing classes are very strict one design races: everybody has the same boat, same design, so the outcome is totally determined by how well one sails, plus perhaps a bit of luck here and there. Then the are events like the America’s cup races: there are certain parameters a design must meet, but within those limits, one is free to design and build a boat however one wants, and design plays a role in determining the outcome. Then there are some events (largely long-distance open water events, AFAIK) where any boat can race, and each boat in handicapped based in theory on its performance.
Cycle racing is rather in the 2nd situation: UCI has established certain limits in terms of design; within those limits we are free to use any technology we want. What those limits are and should be can and is questioned, for example there was some flap last year in the Tour of Missouri re TT positions. UCI seems to be pulling back more towards traditional designs, although certainly we are using materials and accessories not in use, say during the 1960s, when I got involved in the sport.
Back in the 1990, I sort of inhereited a 1969 Bianchi when my Dad no longer rode. It was in pretty good shape, and I started to use it when my regular ride, a Cannondale from the 80s, got in bad shape. As I recall, I didn’t notice any real effect on my performance, except that I came to realize that, while the “size” as expressed by seat tube length, fit me, the top tube was very short. After several years, I got a new machine and was much more comfortable, if not any faster.
Dear Morgan,
I may be too hopelessly biased to view government and the bean counters and box checkers of bureaucracy objectively. My wife’s career path, after she became a whistleblower over alleged abuse reporting protocols for the disabled in my state, has left me pretty jaded.
I will concede that the private sector is motivate by self interest and needs some restraining force on its self interest. Whether the public sector can effectively provide that role is certainly the multi-trillion dollar question.
Politicians, as individuals, have the same motivation of self interest as anything we label as the private sector. The multi-trillion dollar question then becomes how much can we trust them to deliver on the pretty words of the sound- bite campaigning which gives them access to power- and when they are elected what will be the restraining force on the bureaucracies that the politicians set in motion to address the sound-bites.
Senator Bill Bradley ran as an openly progressive candidate in 2000. His campaign with its clear message was viewed as dull by the pundits and progressives supported Gore. I disagreed with many of Senator Bradley’s premises, but really respected him for the straightforward way he campaigned. When the few honest candidates, who present specifics like Bradley did, fail to garner enough support from their constituencies to be nominated it makes it hard for me to have faith in government providing a positive role in people’s lives.
In an attempt to tie my political ramblings back into the subject of WADA and PEDs, I will say that having been through a bureaucratic meat grinder, and even though I don’t drink, I can understand why FL would want to toss back a few
Michael –
I do not disagree with what you state. I agree that the governments MAIN concern should be the protection of the individual rights – as time and again experience and events show us that the government gets waylaid in these endeavors. Since the “government” is not a single entity – it is susceptible to individuals personal biases of its parts. It is rightly or wrongly, the peoples’ belief that the President of the United States is their “voice” in the government bureaucracy – I think Obama speaks the clearest in the end.
>->->”Life is so unfair. I want the (insert your favorite governing authority’s name here) to fix that. Provide your own desired level of cynicism there.”
Cynicism eventually leads to despair – despair is the worst sickness that any human being can catch. But government can help people with less ability then perhaps you or I – to live like human beings – rather then in mud huts and no sanitation or in abandoned tunnels or houses. To provide “free medical care” for everyone – especially for those who cannot “earn it for themselves!”
People tend to forget that the Positions of Government are not “defined” by the politics” of the individual office holder – but rather by what the Constitution suggests…Politics is a business that has gotten its hands on our government and we need someone who will be honest enough to “remember” what they are there fore…
Morgan, I don’t think it is a very good idea to get into a political discussion here. (but here we go nevertheless) I don’t think I could be philosophically further from your statement in your third paragraph. A centralized government is incapable of moving quickly and efficiently enough to respond to the needs of the down-trodden. The government takes, by force if necessary, the fruits of my labor and gives them to another because the politicians deem it necessary or appropriate for their own interpretation of social justice. What if I demand that they justify this redistribution of my efforts? That I expect them to prove first an actually need for taking my money, and second actual results. There is no government on earth that can satisfy those requirements. A government that takes the results of my efforts by force and gives them to another, for whatever reasons, is open to all sorts of corruption. Where does it stop? They may even give my money to rich agricultural businesses (ethanol), or universities (government backed loans), just to buy votes. Of course I say that just hypothetically (am I too cynical?).
the cynicism is hard for me to avoid.
To tie this back, I think of WADA and the IOC as a quasi-political entity more interested in the perpetuation of their existence than in the actual athletic principals upon which they were founded.
Michael, Farmer –
All the accusations you make against government, Michael stand on merit. I do not disagree with you – except that I make a distinction with “government as run by and defined by politicians” and government that is an attempt by any society to govern itself for the betterment of that society as a whole.
I do not feel that I stand for anyone taking what you have earned – by any force. This action of force that allows government to take what is yours is stemming from corruption that is motivated by self-interests.
I do hold that we should all have enough awareness of our surroundings to note that while we may have “earned our social position” through honest hard labor – we may not ignore when people around us are living below a basic existence? Is it “political or governmental” to notice that people who live with no fresh water or with open toilets will die of causes that are directly related to both these.
Government when understood only from the definition of “politics” allows thousands in St Luise to live for years without any humane assistance. Government as understood only through the definition of politics – allows WADA and the UCI at. al, to confabulate and “redefine” the ideas behind the concepts of “fair play” and good governance.
Farmer – I can only say – “respect” to your wife for having the cajones to “do the right thing – even – when in the end – she and you must pay a heavy price. Without detracting one iota from your situation – I would point out that all the people who stood up and fought the Nazis around here – also faced social sanctions at the least and death in many cases. Doing the right thing – is not necessarily “rewarding” – as I am certain you know. But it sure as hell needs to be done.
In my opinion – there is a difference between the positions in governance and the “interpretations” it is flooded with by individuals or groups with their own agendas. It would seem that we have forgotten that there are situations where our “individual egocentric view” of the world – does not rule. That there are things and positions that should demand from us to surrender this view and look to a greater thing then merely ourselves.
The ideals of our land – may not be defined by some “particular” political viewpoint. Or such particular political viewpoints should not be “easily accepted” – since to struggle for awareness and harmony amongst ourselves is an ever changing process that no amount of Political Posturing or Defining – can achieve. Floyd Landis to me is “not a political” movement – rather it is an instance when one individual has come to represent what many may have felt as an injustice in the system, and they cared enough to do something to change it.
I don’t drink either – but I can certainly see why people would want to knock back a few under such conditions…
and now bike to cycling.
Floyd may actually have started a political movement. Not so transcendental as say Rousseau or Thoreau (ho ho), but it is not hard to link the collapse of the governance of professional European cycling with his overtly public defense against the sport’s heavy weights. I would not go so far as to say that he was the cause, but he may have been the last straw. So I hope.
His case has generated millions of pages on the internet that have shown that WADA is ineffective at satisfying their mandate (to be polite), the UCI is a straw man, and ASO is not capable of going it alone (despite their overblown opinion of themselves). Getting back to the original point of this (which was?), it is all too common to read news articles that accept one part of the story as explanatory of the totality of events. Floyd’s case should have been simple to report – it all comes down to one thing, did the test results prove that he used testosterone? Were the results reliable? But so often news articles would get hung up on the wrong end of the telescope. LeMond, Anne Gripper, Pat McQuaid, Richard Young, and Floyd too, give sound bites that are titillating. None of them answer the central question. How does a journalist not see that and report it? How often did we read in cyclingnews (as an example) that the ADA’s provided scientific evidence supporting the AAF and therefore refuting Floyd’s arguments? Oh, NEVER. How can that be? The lab pack was accepted as conclusive without any further scientific evidence. Despite the issues raised by Floyd and his henchmen.
Perhaps the media runs into the same stone wall that Floyd ran into; all the experts work for WADA and cannot comment in any meaningful and independent way about the efficacy of the test results. But isn’t that a news story in itself?
So despite the failings of the NYT article that started this whole thing, I have to admit that it is refreshing to finally read someone who actually went so far as to scratch the surface.
I do drink. For what that’s worth.
This morning I made my weekly visit to the public library. I was reading the latest issue of Bicycling, and notice an ad for some substance, apparently amino-acid based. It promised, if I remember correctly, a 13% to 16% increase in performance after a 10 week period.
Now, my question is, assuming the claims are valid, should this be a banned substance?
Michael,
Good points. And for what it’s worth, I have the occasional beer or single-malt or cognac. The last two are bad habits that my dad and uncle introduced me to.
Floyd’s story should have been simple to report, as you say. Did the results from LNDD conclusively prove Floyd doped or not. If not, why not? Unfortunately, all too often the reporters writing about the case (with some notable exceptions like Bonnie DeSimone Ford and Michael Hiltzik) were easily sidetracked by the sideshow. Give Gina Kolata credit for trying. She could have examined the story more fully, but at least she gave it a shot.
William,
I suspect that lurking inside some of those supplements are substances banned by WADA. Just a guess. But there have been cases where the athlete apparently did test positive due to some of the ingredients in a “natural supplement.”
With my wife gone to Russia for three weeks on a business trip, I’ve had plenty of time to read and watch the “news” and I will say it is very frustrating. The cable news channels will spin off into a tangent for an entire day on some scandal (like the D.C. Madam committing suicide) while they short change real news that really matters. While things like the Rev. Wright issue need to be covered, this coverage needs to be balanced against the coverage of other important issues like where the candidates stand on issues and rounded discussions (without self important talking heads) of candidates plans. Also when stories like Rev. Wright putting on a show at the National Press Club happen, the press needs to look beyond the distracting theatrics. Prior to your blog post referencing the New York Daily News article about Barbra Reynolds’ role in all of this, I had only seen a reference about her in an LA Times article (as I recall they were also one of the few news outlets that did a good job covering the Landis story).
Her role in the event and connections to the Clinton campaign are a critical piece of the story that needed to be covered because it goes to motives. Even Rev. Wright’s own relations to the Clintons is important (he went to the White House after Bill fessing up to inappropriate relations with a certain intern). Rev. Wright was totally over the top at the National Press Club and there were even leaders of the Nation of Islam on the stage. Why was this? What was the agenda? Was it done to discredit Obama? These are media savvy people, they had to have known what kind of damage they were doing. You would think in the three days of nearly continuous coverage of this “story” the media could have spent even a little bit of time investigating things and putting the story in a larger context. They should be finding out the who, what, why, when and how surrounding stories like this and giving us the “news we need to know” in a “fair and balanced” fashion.
Rev. Wright and Floyd Landis aren’t the only cases where the media let us down, they just happen to be two really good examples of how the news media fails us on a daily basis. It is really sad when two current event comedy shows on the Comedy Channel does a better job of getting to the heart of political matters than the commercial news channels. If it weren’t for news programs on PBS and the internet giving me the ability to dig for stories in the good investigative newspapers like the LA Times and in this case the New York Daily News, I would have a very inaccurate and incomplete grasp of the important issues that could affect my life. The question is, how do we as consumers of the news change the dismal state of news reporting?
—
On a separate note for those of you who do or did attend church on a regular basis, weren’t there times you disagreed with you pastor, priest, etc.? I know I have had serious difference of opinion from my pastors over the years. In fact, one pastor could make my blood boil with some of his preachings that ran against what I knew to be factually true (e.g. scientifically provable), yet I still valued his spiritual guidance and enjoyed having spirited discussions with him. In fact I was even seriously dating his daughter at one point. The point is someone may stay with or seek out a preacher they strongly disagree with on different issues because they want to challenge their own beliefs and find a fuller spiritual awareness they would not find if they took the placid approach to religion and sought out a church/preacher they were in complete agreement with.
How many of our own friends, teachers, “spiritual advisers”, mentors etc. would crumble under the scrutiny placed upon Rev. Wright?
—
Now let’s get back to counting the days until the final verdict is in. Personally I have lost faith in Landis’ chances of having had a fair hearing that clears his name, but I still want to know what the out come is. Maybe by some small miracle Landis got a fair hearing where good science won out and the scientific fraud committed at the lab was fully exposed.
For me, one sad outcome of the whole Landis saga is that I have totally lost any joy in watching professional cycling, which was the only sport I really cared to follow. It is hard to get excited about a long race when events and politics of the bicycle can have a bigger determination as to the outcome than the performance on the bicycle.
Ken (EC.com),
Sorry about the delay in getting your comments posted. It got caught in limbo for some reason. Many good points in your comments. Will the ultimate outcome of Floyd’s case be a fair hearing that clears his name (since what happened in March at the CAS hearings is still being kept under wraps)? Hard to say. Given the way the system is structured, it’s easy to have doubts on that score.
Other Ken,
You know, one place that I’ve found that has a large numbers of links about the Rev. Wright is Wikipedia. For those interested in learning more about what he said and when, start with the links at the bottom of their entry on Jeremiah Wright. I wonder how many of the talking heads on cable news went and read up on him before spouting off?
Rant,
My bet is very few of the talking heads looked beyond the outrageous sound bites. My understanding is that while Rev. Wright was a fiery preacher, which is common in black churches, there really have only been three really “outrageous” sermons that have generated all the controversy and church records show Senator Obama missed those services. The first sermon was his 9/11 “chickens coming home to roost” sermon, which ironically was quoting a U.S. ambassador who actually made the statement to begin with, the other sermon was his now infamous “not God bless America” sound bite and his third was his “U.S. of [white] America” sermon.
Personally I found his most outrageous comments less appalling than the some other high profile preachers who blamed 9/11 on gays and have been embraced by prominent politicians.
To the point about how the media covered things, PBS style rational discussion may be informative, but it isn’t entertaining. So what the media does is pick up and then over simplifies things for the purpose of creating drama and outrage to entertain viewers and grabbing ratings. Last night I was channel surfing the cable news channels and they were still trying to milk the Wright controversy even to the point that Rev Wright was even being “interviewed” (a shouting match was more like it) on Fox News (I didn’t stick around).
Good investigative reporting on REAL issues takes a back seat to outrageous sound bites. The problem being that this trend is spreading to the public airway networks and other news sources.
We do still have some good reporting from newspapers like the LA Times, the Chicago Sun Times, NY Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, etc. but their budgets are getting hit as they struggle to find a new business model. Plus, people just don’t have the time or inclination to sit down and read the morning paper (whether on paper or computer) any more.
Almost all of the newspapers are publishing a fair amount of copy discussing real issues like the political pandering in regards to the proposed fuel tax holiday, which will effect all consumers directly. Unfortunatly voters aren’t getting their information from these news sources. They are relying on sound bites from The cable news channels, which only cover the fuel tax story in passing as a “he said she said” issue. Thus what the voter sees is that Hillary is promising to lower how much they are spending at the pump and Obama’s preacher is really scary. They aren’t learning the larger truth beneath the sound bites.
There is good news reporting out there but that it takes learning how to effectively use the power of the Internet to find it. Unfortunatly, this is beyond what the average voter can or are inclined to do. Using Google News or Yahoo News is not enough to get past the shallow reporting that is dominating the news media today. One needs to search out sites like TBV and Digg.com to help find what is being written about specific issues. Unfortunatly, voter ignorance on issues is driving who gets elected.
Rant:
It is true that sometimes, “nutritional supplements” have been “contaminated” with PEDs, but my question about the ad I saw is more general. If I discover or create some substance, not currently on the banned list and not just as isomer or minor chemical variation of some banned substance, and said substance delivers significant performance advantages, what criteria are used to determine if it should be banned? The ad promised 13% to 16% increase (although it did not specific exactly what was being increased); such an advantage would be pretty significant. Are PEDs banned simply because they delivery a performance advantage (which in theory, an rider could take advantage of, if he so desired and they weren’t banned), or is the fact that many PEDs have possible dangerous side effects?
Look through your latest Nashbar or Performance catalogue at the pages with nutritional substances: these are promoted as conveying a performance advantage if used, at least by implication if not in so many words. Some are even listed as being for “after workout”, implying some aid to recovery, the supposed advantage for using testosterone. Why are Powerbars, Gatorade, etc., considered OK, but other things not.
The Gatorade story is interesting, I think, in this light. Supposedly, the U of Florida football was loosing a lot of games in the second half. Someone on the staff decided that players were not only dehydrating, but loosing electrolytes and developed a formula to replace them. Remember, UF would by playing much of its season in warm and humid conditions. This formula allowed the players to maintain their level of performance throughout a game, and (so the story goes), become a football power. Now, I would assume that in part, the fact that a player could become exhausted, dehydrated, etc. in the course of a game from the effort of playing is “part of the game”, so did using Gatorade alter the nature of things? Also, I wonder why the opponents were not suffering similar lose of performance during a game. BTW, I understand that the Gatorade you can buy today is rather different in formulation from the original, which apparently did not taste very good.
William,
True enough. What makes one thing legal (Gatorade, PowerBars, Gu and so forth) and other things not legal for use in sports. My hunch is that there are a couple of factors at play. One, is it a “drug”? If so, it’s probably going to be outlawed. Is it a new technology (like the Speedo LZR suit)? Then maybe it will be outlawed and maybe it won’t depending on what the decision makers in the international federation think.
Is it a nutritional product? Well then, that gets us into murkier waters still.
I suspect that some of the decisions to ban things are based on factors other than whether the thing in question gives a performance boost. Gatorade, PowerBars, etc. are relatively affordable, and they sponsor quite a few teams and organizations and races, giving out free or seriously discounted product. If something isn’t readily available, affordable, and carries some health risk with it, I suspect it would ultimately be banned. But until it is, would it be unethical to use such a substance? Interesting question, no?
Right. I remember an article in Bicycling a while after the 1984 Olympics, discussing the blood doping that some on the team used, perfectly legally at the time. As I recall, there was some discussion of the ethics of the situation.
What might be nice would be for WADA to publish criteria for determining whether a given product would be acceptable or not.