Cheating

So why is it that Lance Armstrong is vilified for cheating at cycling but the news that Beyonce lip-synched at the inauguration provokes nothing more than a shrug?

Lance Armstrong used blood-doping and drugs to make it seem like he was a better cyclist than he really was. Beyonce used pre-recorded vocals to make her sound like a better singer than she really was
Lance Armstrong is probably not as good a cyclist as he looked. Beyonce is not as good a singer as she sounded. At least, not live. “Most people don’t care”. Okay, then let’s not keep a secret any more. Tell us before hand that you are not really going to sing. Tell us before-hand that you are going to dope. We’ll let you know if we want to watch.
Everybody does it. I just want a level playing field. You can’t expect me to sing and dance at the same time
Lance Armstrong not cheating is even more boring than Lance Armstrong cheating. He really doesn’t have any personality apart from his athleticism. A lot of elite athletes are like that. They have spent their entire lives consumed with refining their athletic skills. They don’t have a minute for politics or religion or literature or activism or charity. (The charities are almost always vanity projects handled by staff). That’s why the best commentators in sports are never the elite athletes (like Armstrong, or Gretzky, or Carl Crawford, or Lindsey Vonn, or Roberto Alomar, and so on). The journeyman players are always more interesting. Beyonce has never sung anything really interesting anyway. She is a diva, just as Lance Armstrong is a diva: it’s all about me. Look at me sing. Did you see it? Look at me! I’m a star.

An Honest Olympics

I propose an honest Olympics. We set up a new international organization. Every four years, we select about 50 people at random from a pool of volunteers from each country. And I mean “random”, as in, “from the general population”. Not athletes. I don’t care how pathetic they are– I want to see them race, jump, throw, and swim. I want to know that the winners did it without cheating, because they couldn’t have cheated.

The competition will be held in existing sports facilities– none of this billions of dollars in new stadiums and housing crap.  They can stay in the nearest college dorm.

And when they win a competition, they actually have to sing their own national anthems, solo, in front of thousands of people.

Then you get your medal.

Seriously: I would enjoy watching this way, way more than the current ugly spectacle of the Olympics.

Is There a Single Honest Athlete in the House?

It has recently been reported that Lance Armstrong is attempting to prevent publication of a book that alleges he may have used steroids.

The book is “LA Confidential: Secrets of Lance Armstrong” by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester.

Now, it’s not unimaginable that the book is entirely scurrilous. But it is written by two serious European sports reporters and it’s information comes from named sources.

And it’s not as if Lance Armstrong is saying, “I am a clean athlete who wouldn’t go near an illegal supplement or steroid”.

In fact, he will go very near.

One of the experts Lance Armstrong regularly consults with is Dr. Michele Ferrari, an Italian who has been charged with involvement in producing erythropoietin (EPO) for illegal use by athletes.

Ferrari is a protégé of Francesco Conconi who is also suspected of involvement with doping. Armstrong does not, obviously, deny his association with Ferrari– he can’t; it’s on the record. Armstrong correctly describes Ferrari as an expert on training and fitness and claims that that is the only reason he consults with him and allows him to perform physiological testing.

If you were clean, would you admit a close personal association with an expert on doping, even as you claim it is for other reasons? Would you be willing to risk your reputation and all your endorsement contracts for… what? His friendship and encouragement? Is there really no other expert in the world who can perform the same services… without the suspicious background?

Recent reports suggest that a large number of top U.S. athletes may have been using illegal substances. Some of these substances were not detectable until an informant obtained a syringe containing traces of the supplement and supplied it to the authorities.

There was also that allegation in 2002 that the U.S. Postal Team had tried to dispose of several bags of Actovegin during a race.

In fairness, the U.S. Postal Team tested clear. In fairness, it is now known that certain masking agents can be used to disguise the use of steroids.

Is there a single honest athlete in the house? What is the point of these competitions? You won? You cheated. Case closed.

Not fair? Why aren’t athletes speaking out? Why are there no public demands that the athletic federations work harder to clean up their sports? Why isn’t there an outcry from honest athletes– you cheaters are destroying the credibility of our games?

If I was a world-class athlete and I was not cheating, I would be enraged. I would be enraged because I know that if I actually won an event, everybody would assume I was cheating anyway. If I improved my time dramatically: cheating. If I managed to set a world record: boy, you really cheated. Why would any honest athlete choose to remain in athletics?

Do you watch any of these cycling races?  Why?

I would tell the press that I want tougher testing and tougher regulations because unless the public can be convinced that they are witnessing honest, real performances, they will, sooner or later, stop watching.

Just how big of a scam is this?

I don’t think I personally will accept that any world records established after about 1968 are valid. I don’t accept Barry Bond’s record for home runs. I don’t accept that Roger Clemens can still pitch competitively at 40 just because he works out every day.  I don’t accept that David Ortiz, like a fine wine, is improving with age.

I don’t accept that the organizations that are responsible for ensuring the integrity of their sports really cares. Ask yourself if it hurts them, to have world records broken at almost every meet, every season.


 

Oh Neil Simon! Oh Mary Tyler Moore!

Neil Simon is not exactly Chekov. In fact, he’s not even Neil Simon anymore, having long ago sold-out on his quirky if tired stereotypes and embraced “playwriting for people who think that writers think about things that matter while they don’t.”

In other words, his characters have dilemmas that you think you might have if you were in a play by a rich and pretentious play-write. You won’t be surprised by this dilemma. You won’t be disturbed by it. You will leave the theatre, amused at being amused.

So I find it ironic that he was upset when he discovered that Mary Tyler Moore, who was starring in his most recent play, had not memorized her lines. She was wearing an earpiece at rehearsals, so she could receive prompts. The article about this in the New York Times was not clear as to whether or not the play was actually into production at this time, but it is clear that Neil Simon believed that Mary Tyler Moore was going to wear the ear-piece during performances. He sent her a note saying, get rid of the ear piece or get out of my play.

Mary Tyler Moore got out of the play.

Well, isn’t that a sad story? Mary Tyler Moore is, like, about 80. Well, 60 or something anyway. It must be hard to memorize lines at that age. It must be hard for her to have a famous play-write tell her she wasn’t good enough for his play. Neil Simon is pretty old himself. He hasn’t had a hit in years. He has a feel for dialogue and character-based humour and a person’s idiosyncrasies, but he hasn’t written anything really important, ever. But he is good enough to fire Ms. Moore.

Neil Simon, bless his naïve little heart, admitted that he didn’t know that many other actors were now using ear-pieces during actual performances. Simon said that if he had only known that, he wouldn’t have been so harsh on Mary Tyler Moore.

It sounds a lot like Mr. Simon is reacting to the blowback of him rudely firing an esteemed elderly actress.  Mary Tyler Moore, after all, is a celebrity.  People want you to think they have a relationship with her and really care about her, when what they really care about is being perceived to not be heartless.

My sympathy for Ms. Moore is limited by the fact that she was in the play in the first place because her celebrity status would attract ticket-buyers despite the fact that many better actresses could have played that role more convincingly.  Doing live theatre confers status on celebrity actors who are primarily known for television roles.  She shouldn’t have “auditioned” for the play if she couldn’t memorize lines.

I doubt that Mr. Simon did not mean it: get out of my play.

[As I write this, I think: you see why I’m not popular?]

So next time you pay $65 for a seat at a theatre somewhere, don’t think for one moment that it is mightily impressive that the actors learned their parts.

They might have.

They might not have.

Barry Bonds might have hit all those home runs without the assistance of chemicals. He might not. Madonna might be singing— it might just be dubbed. Those might be Demi Moore’s natural breasts, or they might not be. (Check out a movie called “About Last Night” if you’re seriously wondering).  Beyonce might have great pitch: it is very likely her vocals are autotuned (in fact, judging from radio play, the vast majority of vocalists today are autotuned.)

I know some people think that being concerned about honesty and authenticity nowadays is really rather quaint and precious. Aren’t we all little frauds in our own way? Do any of us admit to our friends and family that we’re really not as smart or good or wise as they think we are?

Sure we are.

But we don’t charge people $65 a seat to come and listen to us.