The Undergraduates Embrace of the Transgressive

For all the brow-beating and wailing and self-righteous pieties about the horrible scandal of the St. Mary’s University in Halifax Frosh Week ditty, I have yet to read or hear a single rumination on the essential nature of the evil song: it’s transgressiveness.

I suspect that the reason for that is that to acknowledge the essential thrill of the song experienced by the student representatives would be to acknowledge that they didn’t mean it. It was a joke. It was a joke in very bad taste, but it was, nevertheless, a joke.

That would emasculate the thrill of the self-righteous: how dare they! We are good, decent people who don’t approve of rape and non-consensual sex, therefore we ring out our condemnations. Let us issue a collective gasp of astonishment: our young people are perverted.

It was one of those things that I watched with contempt and then, just as I was ready to form a categorical opinion of the incident, I encountered the chorus of disapproval and denunciation. Both the CBC and CTV, for a time, made it their top story. The CBC, as usual, tried to make you feel like your friends were reporting the story: “so Tara Goodtan is in Halifax; Tara, how are students reacting to the sudden onslaught of vindictive hysteria? And how do you feel about it? What are your thoughts? Where are you now? Are you concerned? How can parents make sure their children never attend St. Mary’s University? Is there some way we protect our noses from the smell? Let me stroll over to another desk in our studio here so it looks like I am actually involved and absorbed by this feat of journalism.”

The students responsible are now to be administered a corrective session of sensitivity training, as if sensitivity was something you could train into a person, and as if we could somehow make the transgressive less appealing to young people on their own for the first time in their lives. While we’re at it, could we teach them not to drink and drive, and to do their homework?

Does anyone seriously believe that any sexual assaults that actually take place on campus will have anything do with the notorious frosh week chant? We think some macho male student is going to say, well, we chanted about doing it during Frosh Week, so I thought it would be okay. Do we think he wouldn’t know that it wasn’t okay, that it was not allowed, that it was abhorrent behavior?

This is acute scandal management. A few years ago, in 2010, the entire football program at the University of Waterloo was cancelled because a few players were caught using steroids. There. Are you convinced that the management of the university is in the hands of righteous people? They are so righteous, and so incompetent, and so incapable of making reasoned, intelligent judgments, that they had to swat the entire athletic division– 65 players– into temporary oblivion because three of them were caught using steroids, to be sure that you got their point: we do not countenance cheating!

Do they countenance unfairness and arbitrariness and loud, incoherent, pointless gestures? You bet. Most of the 2010 team transferred to other universities and continued to play.


The CBC on the Delinquency

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.