Lance Armstrong’s world appears to be crashing down around him this week.  The number of people coming forward who, along with admitting their own doping, or not, are saying that they have firsthand knowledge that Lance doped, is growing.

And unfortunately, not surprising.

The reality is that doping had become ubiquitous throughout the pro cycling peloton.  It was common in the 70’s and 80’s and by the 90’s you simply couldn’t be competitive if you didn’t.

But it wasn’t just cycling.  Doping has been common in other sports as well.  Cycling is just the first sport to take a really serious stab at eliminating it.  Besides instituting more testing and more rigorous testing, cycling has introduced the biological passport that goes beyond just looking for banned substances to comparing athletes blood indicators over time to look for unnatural changes.

These measures have caught a lot of dopers in the past few years and made it far more difficult to dope than it ever has been.  Combined with a new crop of riders and team directors who are strongly anti-doping, the sport is likely cleaner than it has been in decades and may well be the cleanest pro sport today.

But back to Lance.

Was he cheating?

I hate to say it, but, it depends on your perspective.  If you consider cheating to be having an unfair advantage over your opponents, I don’t think he was.  His opponents, very likely, were doping as well.  The reality is that it was a bit of a catch-22, if you wanted to compete you’d dope, if you didn’t dope, you wouldn’t be able to compete.  If you wanted to be an individual savior of the sport, good luck.

How about riders who wanted to race but didn’t want to dope?  Those who could have been competitive in a fully clean sport?  Were they cheated?  How about fan’s who bought in to the lies that so many told about not doping?  I understand why they did, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they lied.

I think it would have been much better if at some point the riders all came together and decided to confess en-mass.  If they came out and said “you know what, doping crept in to this sport over the past six or seven decades to the point that it became mandatory.  We all, OK, many of us, have done it.  But today we’re taking a stand.  Past sins are forgiven and going forward we pledge to make this a clean sport.”

A pipe dream perhaps, but it would have provided a clean escape from the past and anyone caught doping after that point was fairly warned.  Without such a clean break from the past, riders were left wondering when or if they should stop doping.  If you don’t know that your primary competitors have stopped doping, will you?  Do you want to be on that unlevel of a playing field?

Sadly, that clean break didn’t happen so we’re left with this slow agonizing ordeal.

And, the confusion of how to handle past sins.  If you negate Armstrong’s wins, who do you give them to?  What is the likelyhood that the second, third, or any place rider in these races was clean?

The good news is that I do believe cycling today is cleaner than ever and likely the cleanest of all major pro sports.  The testing protocols put in place make doping far more difficult than at any time in the past and even what doping does still exist is of far less benefit as it requires micro dosing which provides extremely limited benefit.

Postscript

I do not condone doping.  However, I’m also a realist.  If someone has worked extremely hard for several years to make it to the elite ranks only to discover that to be there they’ll need to dope – that’s a tough nut.  You’ve finally made it to the top, you’re on a pro team, and one of your first days the team doc calls you in to his room and hands you some pills.  You quickly realize that to compete, and to remain a pro, that you’ll need to take some occasionally, just like all the other pros.  What’s a young guy who’s finally achieved his dream to do?

There was doping around me when I raced as a Junior & Cat 1, but quite frankly, I wasn’t serious enough to consider it.  Turning pro was not realistic for me.  I’d hope that if I had faced this situation, as so many have, that I would choose to leave the sport rather than dope.  I cannot say that I would have made that choice though.  I’m human.  The pull and tug of being a top pro athlete can be huge.  If everyone else is doing it, who will it hurt?

I have a huge level of respect for those who did face this and made the right choice.  I’m only aware of one.  I do not judge those who made the wrong choice in the past.

Postscript II

Rightly or wrongly I view this differently than business, government, or police corruption.  I’ve faced being asked to mislead customers or lie to higher ups to cover something up.  This was not a difficult choice and I’m glad to say that I made the right choice.  I also quickly learned to act in a way that didn’t leave much doubt in others minds what my choice would be so that they wouldn’t even bother asking.  More later.

Mike Huckabee has had Ted Nugent on his show a number of times.

Now, when I think of Ted Nugent, I immediately think about two things; great guitar playing, and sex.

During his heyday, Nugent was synonymous with sex. Particularly involving his 30-something self and 13-year-old girls.

Consider his third most popular song, Wang Dang, Sweet Poontang:

That Nadine, what a teenage queen.

She lookin’ so clean, especially down in between.

Or Jailbait, his second most popular:

Jailbait you look so good to me, jailbait won´t you set me free, jailbait you look fine, fine, fine and I know I´ve got to have you in a matter of time.

Well I don´t care if you´re just thirteen, you look too good to be true. I just know that you´re probably clean, there´s one little thing I got to do to you.

Or his most popular song, Cat Scratch Fever:

I make the pussy purr with the stroke of my hand

They know they gettin’ it from me

They know just where to go when they need their lovin man

They know I do it for free

Of course, we shouldn’t forget his songs like Yank Me, Crank Me, and, The Flying Lip-Lock, and others.

Enough Nugent.

What I do like about Huck’s show is that he’ll have people like Nugent on. He recently had on Tommy Chong, a strong supporter of legalizing pot. They actually had a really good discussion. They disagreed, but discussed the issues openly. Open, honest discussion like this is good and as much as I sometimes have issues with Huckabee, I do appreciate his willingness to have people on his show who disagree with him, and, unlike some other Fox hosts, lets them talk.

Sometime I’d like to see rapper Common on for a discussion. There are legitimate issues in the black community that he raises but that were overshadowed by Michelle Obama’s poor choice to have him perform.

On a similar note, and what drove me to write this, was what happened after the discussion with Nugent.  That was when Huck, Nugent, and Huck’s band did one of Nugent’s old songs – Cat Scratch Fever.

I don’t think I was the only one who thought it a bit odd for a Baptist pastor to be performing such sexually explicit lyrics.

Epilogue.

I caught myself.

I wrote the article above, as it is, yesterday morning. I was bugged by it though so didn’t post it. It seemed inappropriate, even to me, for Huckabee to perform that song, but something still didn’t seem right about criticizing him for it.

Last night it occurred to me why I was bugged. What came to my mind were similar sexually explicit lyrics written by a 40-something guy about a young teen girl. Not Nugent though, but Solomon. And Solomon’s lyrics are in my Bible.  Would it be narrow-minded of me to criticize Huck for performing that song?

I guess all we’re left with is – Rock on Huck!

This past Sunday Newt said:

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,”

Neither is good nor desirable. No social engineering in history has ever had a positive impact.  Unfortunately, I don’t think Newt meant this the same way.

Fun story from my brother who owns a nursery and garden center. His is a very seasonal business and requires a lot of seasonal help. During the summer he hires college students and K-12 teachers which works very well for all. A tougher time is leading up to Christmas.

In early December he needs people for a few weeks to deliver Christmas trees and set them up in people’s houses. High school and university types aren’t yet available and many people who are available, well, there’s a reason they’re available. And it’s not their great work ethic.

However, several years ago he’d hired a man who turned out to be a great employee. He was dependable, worked hard, and customers loved him. The next year he recommended a friend and he too turned out to be a great employee. For the next several years my brother hired both these gentlemen to deliver trees and everyone from he to his customers were quite happy.

Then one day it happened. Another employee figured out that while driving between deliveries these guys were on the phone setting up appointments. For ‘their girls’

Apparently there is one business that, while very busy most of the year, slows down a bit leading up to Christmas. Tree delivery fit perfectly. They earned enough extra money to tide them over during the slow period, yet could still set up appointments between deliveries.

My brother said that it was very reluctantly that he decided not to hire them again next year. “They were two of my best employees” he said.

Their gig up, there was no need to pretend anymore. When they showed up for their final paycheck, instead of their usual overalls, they were wearing ‘the uniform’ including tight white leather pants and were driving a truly pimped out Cadillac Escalade. They didn’t quite fit the caricature, but apparently didn’t leave you wondering what their real job was.

They thanked my brother for being a great boss all these years and even told him they’d cover a date for him if he ever wanted. He declined their generous offer.

Thanks to clearcanes.com for the pimp!

Velonews and Bicycling, two cycling magazines, are getting a lot of input from their subscribers this month – regarding a full-page ad from Pearl Izumi.  Many of the comments are along the lines of “now I have to hide Velonews’ porn from my 7-year-old”.

Really?

I don’t think any 7-year-olds are going to be traumatized by these ads.  Or harmed in any way for that matter.  I doubt most would give even a first thought to the ads.  Let’s consider a 7-year-old who does.

“Dad, what are they doing?”

“They’re having sex.” Dad replies

“Oh, OK.  Can we go play baseball now?”

And if little Johnny does continue his questioning?  Tell him that’s how babies are made.  And if he continues, just continue answering.  He might learn something.  And far better to learn from a parent than from friends at school or ‘uncle Chester’.

And 12-year-old Suzie?  She’s got a pretty good idea what’s going on.  She and her friends have had a lot of conversations about boys and sex over the past couple of years.  She has likely sexted someone and there’s a bit of a chance that she’s let some guys hand wander down her pants or she’s had her lips around something of his.  If she hasn’t, she knows girls who have and she likely will within a couple of years[1].

So, all of these parents angry about the Pearl Izumi ad – when do they plan to teach their kids about sex?

According to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, only about 30% of American parents have serious discussions with their children about sex.  And on every measure Evangelicals, Mormons, and Mainline Protestants lag well behind other religious and non-religious groups in doing so.  And I’d guess that the people making the biggest fuss over the ad are these very same Evangelicals, Mormons, and Mainline Protestants.

Well, any kid old enough to give any thought to the ad is also old enough to need some education.  This ad may be one of the best opportunities many American parents have for a good conversation with their kids about sex.

In embracing our fears, of this ad and of talking to our children, we are doing a huge disservice to them.  We are leaving them unprepared and vulnerable for challenges most will face before their 13^th birthday, whether we like it or not.

Evangelical parents embrace an ideality – of abstinence until marriage.  Reality though is quite different.  While 32% of all U.S. 15-year-olds say that they have had intercourse, 25% of Evangelicals who attend church at least weekly have done so and this more than doubles to 53% by age 18[2].  Not exactly the ideality these parents hope for.

Perhaps worse, we’ve tried to force our children in to what may be an impossible one-option-only situation – abstinence.  Over half of the kids in our Evangelical youth groups have intercourse before they graduate the youth group (and about half the rest will in the next year, and a few more each year after that, including those at Christian universities).  But while many teens are at least somewhat prepared, Evangelicals, and in particular, abstinence pledgers, are not.  They are not as likely to use contraception and they have a higher rate of STD infection.

Interestingly, Evangelical youth say that they’d feel more guilt if they had used contraception, for that would be admitting that their sexual activities were pre-meditated.  Somehow there is less guilt if they fool themselves in to believing that it’s not.  Besides, in hopes of instilling enough fear in them to keep them abstinent until marriage, we’ve told them that condoms don’t work anyway.

Condoms don’t just protect people from STD’s though do they?  If Evangelical youth are not using contraception as often, what is the likelihood that they are using birth-control?  Not very according to most studies.  Despite this, Evangelical teens have a much lower teen birth rate.  Is it possible that the very group who fights abortion so vocally may itself be a primary cause of our highest in the world abortion rates?

Consider a middle-class, white, Baptist, 16-year-old Evangelical (the average age of first intercourse for Evangelical youth is 16.3) who is very active in her church youth group and who just found out that she’s pregnant because she and her boyfriend didn’t use a condom.  Given the choice of facing her church and youth group and school as a pregnant teen, or quietly getting an abortion, what will she (and her Evangelical parents?) do?

The U.S. is much more of a Christian and Evangelical Christian nation than Europe.  And yet, a teen in the U.S. is 3 times as likely to get an abortion as a teen in Europe.  Yes, it’s not only possible.

It’s time to eschew ideality and face reality.  Perhaps we should thank Pearl Izumi.  After we talk to our children.

Barack Hussein Obama II released his birth certificate today. After over three years of controversy.

I’d expected that if he ever did release it that it would likely show that he was born in Hawaii, but include something mildly embarrassing, like no father listed on it. But, there’s nothing out of the ordinary about it!  Both parents listed.  Everything just as he’s claimed for all this time.  I don’t get it.

If there had been something embarrassing I’d kind of understand his not wanting to release it. I’d get that. Maybe not agree with it, but I’d get it. But now I don’t get it. Why did Obama cause this controversy? Why didn’t he authorize the release during the 2008 campaign?

Is this just some perverse game that he enjoys?  Is there some point he was hoping to make?  I don’t get it.

In his press conference this morning Obama castigated people for making an issue over it.  He made a big show of self-righteous anger about how we need to get past this issue and how we have more important things to deal with.  Like the budget.  I agree.  But, he could have ended this three years ago.  Or anytime over the past three years.  Why not?  I simply don’t get it.

Interestingly, it’s easier to illegally cross the border in to the United States as an illegal alien than it is to legally board a plane as a legal citizen.

And this is all thanks to one and the same agency – The Department of Homeland Security, run by the inestimable Janet Napolitano

While one of its hands is groping 6-year-old girls, its other hand is, according to Fox News, telling its U.S. Border Patrol agents to no longer arrest or detain people trying to enter the U.S. illegally.

Quite amazing.

Then this morning the LA Times published an article stating that crossing attempts are down so much that border patrol agents are bored:

Wild foot chases and dust-swirling car pursuits may be the adrenaline-pumping stuff of recruitment efforts, but agents on the U.S.-Mexico border these days have to deal with a more mundane occupational reality: the boredom of guarding a frontier where illegal crossings have dipped to record low levels.

The issue doesn’t appear to be that “illegal crossings have dipped to record low levels”, as this journalist asserts, but that agents have been told not to apprehend them.  And yep, if you tell your agents not to do anything, they’ll get bored.  It’ll be interesting to see the outcome of this one.

Yes, quite Amazing.

Taxes are due today. Some quick thoughts.

The IRS says that the average person in the U.S. pays 9.3% of their income in federal taxes. That’s a lot. Now, take a look around you. About half the people you see, 45% to be exact, pay no taxes at all.

The top 400 taxpayers in the country pay 17% of their income to the federal government. Given that the top tax rate is 35%, why do they pay ‘so little’? The two biggest reasons are charitable contributions and capital gains.

Charitable contributions aren’t taxed, so someone who earns $4 million and gives $1 million to charity only pays taxes on the $3 million they keep, giving them an effective tax rate of 25%. Interestingly, conservatives give nearly 50% more of their income to charity than progressives or liberals and it’s upper middle class conservatives who give the most, not the wealthiest.

Secondly, capital gains are taxed at 15%, regardless of income. If $1 million of our $4 million was from investments then this portion would be taxed at 15%, bringing our effective tax rate down to 19%. Why do capital gains have such a lower rate? This lower rate encourages people to invest their money rather than horde it or spend it. This investment provides capital for other people to grow their businesses or start new ones which in turn provides jobs for people and strengthens our economy. This is why even the poor in the U.S. have more cars, TV’s, cell phones, food, furniture, healthcare, and other stuff than middle class folk in Europe or elsewhere.

BTW, my belief, based on some bit of analysis, is that investing $1 million in private enterprise, growing businesses or starting new businesses, provides considerably more benefit to society than $1 million in charitable contributions. Charities, though I support them, are largely ineffective. They do a lot of supposed good for people but fewer than 1% of these people end up any better off in the long run. That $1 million investment in private enterprise provides jobs for about 13 people – in perpetuity. Not to mention the goods and services produced by them each year.

Happy Tax Day.

Mike Gallagher is a conservative radio talk show host. A few years ago he’d risen to as high as about 9th in the nation, but due to some rather idiotic comments sunk back to about 20th and now sits in the mid teens. Gallagher is a conservative and is actually anti-libertarian, something I’d guess his tea-party supporters aren’t aware of. He believes in a lot of government meddling in our lives, but from a conservative stance, not liberal.

A couple of years ago he went on a tirade against cyclists. Apparently he’d had to slow down for a brief period on some road because of a group of cyclists and he wasn’t happy about it. He apparently wanted to run them off the road. The next day, fellow Texan Lance Armstrong called in and gave Gallagher an earful resulting in numerous apologies from Gallagher.

Well, he’s at it again. On yesterday’s show (2011.04.13) he let loose with another immature and irresponsible tirade against cyclists.

My biggest concern with this is that some Mike Gallagher fan, driving down some road, is going to get irritated by a cyclist and think, Gallagher hates them, I hate them, so let’s do something about it. And then proceed to run them down. And unfortunately this happens.

In 2009, 630 cyclists were killed on U.S. roads, and 51,000 were injured. The average age of the dead was 41 and of the injured 31. Four of these deaths were known to be the result of driver rage against the cyclist. A number of others are suspected of being so. Were any of these influenced by Mike Gallagher?

Some of these deaths and injuries were the result of stupidity on the part of the cyclist, like riding on the left side of the street, and many were made worse by the cyclist not wearing a helmet. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid cyclists that do stupid and irritating things. I get that. I’ve had to deal with them when I’m driving.

However, most cyclists ride safely and largely obey the law. And many of these are killed every year by either inattentive driving or a drivers inability to control their rage.

What really gets me about Gallagher’s tirades in particular though is the quite massive hypocrisy he exhibits. He is constantly talking on his show about all of the sorrow and anguish in his life; his wife dying of cancer, the physical and mental problems of his son, and a number of other things. He also talks about how he is a Christian and asks for prayer for he and his family and their numerous travails.

But what about the sorrow and travails in the lives of a family whose mother or father or son or daughter was run over and killed or seriously injured while they were out for a bike ride? In Gallagher’s world they are apparently not accorded the same level of sorrow that he thinks should be accorded to himself.

It’s time for Gallagher to grow up.

A fascinating part of travel for me is talking to people about their culture, what issues their society is facing, and how they’ve solved various problems. In Italy last week I had the opportunity to ask people in Sorrento, Florence, and Rome their thoughts on the problems of drugs, drinking, and prostitution.

Drinking: “What problem?” There are effectively no legal limits on alcohol in most parts of Italy. Anyone of any age can buy anything any time. Most people begin drinking a little wine with meals at about 11 years old (though it is often watered down.) People are expected to discipline themselves with regard to alcohol and overall they do pretty well. If someone has a drinking problem it’s their problem, not government’s nor anyone else’s. There are no calls for raising the drinking age (well, establishing a drinking age) or for doing something about the ‘alcohol problem’.

Drugs: Everyone I talked to consistently says that their drug laws are draconian and ineffective. Interestingly though, about half of these same people did not think drugs should be legalized, even though they believed criminalizing them wasn’t working. There did seem to be a north-south difference with Florentines more open to legalization (though the limited number of people I talked with make this assumption statistically invalid).

Prostitution: A far more touchy subject for Italians than most Europeans. And this is the country with the most open ‘mistress’ environment where many wives know who their husband’s mistress is and some even go out to lunch with them. The vast majority started by telling me how wrong prostitution is. Then that it should be more open, legal, and regulated than it currently is. Interestingly, every one of the people who said that their drug laws were ineffective but that drugs should continue to be illegal, also said that prostitution is wrong but should be more legal and regulated.

The most interesting comment on prostitution though was “We have American tourist girls, why do we need prostitutes?” I heard this nearly exact statement from two different people, one in Sorrento, one in Florence. The one in Florence was backed up by two others smiling and nodding their heads in agreement. They were also pretty emphatic that it is American girls they can so easily charm in to bed and rarely girls from other countries. This comment was particularly interesting to me in light of a conversation I recently had with a colleague that teen girls in the U.S. effectively ‘service’ teen guys with sex. More on this later.