Tyson Gay gets a year...kind of

Last July, Tyson Gay and a handful of other sprinters tested positive PEDs in what some called a watershed day for the sport of athletics (it wasn't).  Gay got popped for testosterone, HGH, and "two other banned substances" that he acquired from an anti-aging specialist.  At the time of his ban, he said, "I don't have a sabotage story....  I basically put my trust in someone and was let down."  Gay was originally sentenced to a two year ban from the sport under IAAF doping code at the time (the IAAF last summer was pushing to move to four year bans but it doesn't appear as though that change was made).

I would also like to point out that Gay was enrolled in the USADA's "My Victory.  I compete clean" program.  Best I can tell, all this means is that he promised not to take PEDs.  In fact, anyone can sign up for its successor program TrueSport here.  I'm not really sure what signing up buys you or any other athlete.  Somewhat related, Asafa Powell was enrolled extra drug testing to prove has cleanliness before his positive test, which is a different display of cojones to sign up for a legit anti-doping program while you're on the juice.  In the summer of 2011 I called into The Big Show on WEEI and said that if I were a doper and knew I wasn't going to get caught, I'd do the same thing to show the world that I was clean.  I wouldn't say I was torn apart for that view, but the hosts didn't exactly follow my logic.  My point is, if an athlete is 95% certain he isn't going to get busted, it is beneficial to enroll in such a program to buy public support.

In the past week, Gay's ban was reduced to one year because he played nice with the USADA in its investigation of his offenses.  In exchange for passing along information about potential other dopers, Gay's suspension was reduced under WADA code 10.5.3.  Not only has his punishment been reduced, but the penalty began last June when he originally failed the drug test.  It's been determined that he started serving time before his official penalty was announced and he is thus being rewarded.

So what's this all mean?  Gay can start competing again right when the European circuit gets going this June.  He got a slap on the wrist and, in essence, was told to take a 10 month break from competition for training.  He has elected to return some prize money and his silver medal from the 4x100m at the 2012 Olympics, but he can win the money right back.  Who wouldn't be interested in seeing what Gay can do in his first couple of meets back from suspension when he's supposedly clean?  The appearance fees he'll command will be as high as ever.  Additionally, I'd guess Gay was dropped by some sponsors, but those will come back.  He's marketable, and America loves a redemption story.

I have two criticisms of how this case has been handled (aside from the reduction in penalty): the first is that the IAAF needs four year bans.  Gay was less than a month away from turning 31 when he got banned.  Slap a four year ban on and he's almost 35 when he comes back.  His career would be over, as should be the case for cheaters.  He could, feasibly, come back a month away from 33 and still be competitive at the elite level.  This argument is nothing new to anyone who's been reading my posts.

The second, more grave, criticism I have is the precedent WADA is setting here.  You can dope, get caught, snitch, and get a greatly reduced penalty.  Ready for what's worse?  Sean Ingle of the Guardian writes: "Under Wada's new code from January 2015, athletes who cheat could get a full amnesty and complete anonymity in exchange for information – and keep their prize money too."

WHAT.

WHAT.

WHAT.

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT: Someone can drug himself to the gills, get caught, rat out his easily replaceable supplier that he probably didn't care about in the first place, and get off scot-free?  Excuse me?  This isn't counterterrorism; this is anti-doping.  Who defines what sufficient information is to be granted amnesty and anonymity?  How far does a nice chunk of change from a sponsor go for reducing that minimum?

TAKE IT ALL

If I were an elite, I'd see this as a green light to load up on everything in the pharmacy, walk over to vet's office, and load up on everything in there.  I'll run super fast and roll in the cash.  Maybe I piss hot, maybe I don't.  If I do, I rat out my doctor, and no one will ever know about my positive.  I keep my sponsors, I keep my prize money, I keep my medals, I keep my reputation, I keep everything.  

This is absurd.  We all know the dopers are ahead of the testers, so if someone's testing positive and is willing to talk, how much new information are we going to get?  If they had some super secret undetectable drug, wouldn't they have taken it so as to not get popped?  Sure, we could see marginal increases in information, but nothing groundbreaking.  But you know what would be groundbreaking?  Banning a star for four years.  Ruin their career and their reputation.  Destroy their livelihood.  Strike the fear of god into the athletes.  It's the only way we're getting a clean sport.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading this post, one of my friends asked me if I thought this new rule was legislated to protect the sport of track from a potentially dirty Usain Bolt.  Given that it is a WADA rule and not an IAAF rule, I don't think it was written with Bolt specifically in mind.  It could, however, incidentally protect NBC's chosen Olympic heartthrob come 2016.

Fritz vs. 'Them'

I would like to begin this post by apologizing to my mother for the headshot that appears in Bryan's last post. To any readers who don't know me personally: I promise I don't usually look like that.

My current thinking on the NCAA is fairly well-captured by a column that Bryan and I ran in the Middlebury Campus newspaper last week, and what I want to get into here is essentially an expounded version of that piece. For posterity: let it be known that Bryan and I penned the column before the NCAA changed its policy on feeding athletes. Call us game-changers.

The NCAA's (from henceforth, 'them') most basic orientation to its athletes is two-fold: to make sure that we are brand ambassadors for the national organization (see Bryan's post) and to ensure that we behave in a way that reflects positively on the brand. The latter point is, in my view, a vehicle to a deeper sort of criticism of how they conduct business.

Consider three anecdotes from my weekend in Lincoln:

1. In the athlete hospitality room, there was a staff member (Tyrone) on hand to ensure that we did not take an unreasonable number of snacks.
2. The championships featured an elaborate and fairly confusing credentialing system. There were certain areas designated for spectators, for athletes, coaches, media folks, etc. There were scores of staff stationed at choke-points to ensure that no one was in violation.
3.When we wanted to go to the field house to warm-up on Friday, they assigned us a volunteer to supervise as we waited for the bus. His name was Alex. I'm not sure what exactly he was looking out for, but I was probably the only athlete who spoke with him all weekend. This show was surely just as dehumanizing for the scores of "volunteers" as it was for us.

The point here is simply that they treat their athletes like children. This point isn't in itself that damning; many 18-22 year-olds probably deserve to be treated like children, and I happen to have the privilege to be part of an athletic program that trusts its athletes to drive college-owned vehicles, host recruits and do their own homework.

It is a bit suspicious, however, that this paternalistic attitude is paired with indulgence. When you're at the championships, they pay for everything: travel, hotel, meals, snacks, gear. I got the sense that all of this expense was supposed to make us feel important, like we were being celebrated for all of the hard work that it took just to qualify for the meet. For most of my teammates, this effect was realized; it just left me feeling like I was being manipulated.

Mark Emmert doesn't stand a chance.

Here is the part where I wave my English-major flag a bit. There is a word in literary criticism for this sort of indulgence that is used to cover up a less fun reality: carnivalesque. The idea comes from Mikhail Bakhtin, who thought of the carnival as a way for those in power to keep their subjects contentedly suppressed. The carnival presents a warped version of reality in which traditional standards and power structures are temporarily put aside and subordinates get to feel like they run the show, if only for a short while. Think Mardi Gras or, in a lesser sense, Halloween.

The NCAA championship doesn't feel like real life. It feels like a slightly altered form of real life in which people are constantly showering you in attention and free stuff, asking in return only that you abide by a few rules that easily go unquestioned in the face of so much free stuff. Bakhtin's point, and mine here, is that we should try to look past such a system to see what is really going on.

What is really going on at NCAA championship events is that athletes are being combed to be NCAA spokespersons who return to their real lives after a weekend of "carnival" to show off their flashy new gear and tell stories about how amazing it all was. As long as that system is working and we all continue to "participate" (their favorite word, but not in the way that Bakhtin uses it) in the big show, no one is likely to ask questions like "What does the NCAA do for me?" and "Why does all of this exist in the first place?" (or, if you are a Division-I men's basketball player, "Where is all this money going?") When people start to do that, they realize, it will mean an end to all the fun and games.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Tacit approval of what we don't approve of

Last month, I qualified for and Participated in the NCAA Division III Indoor Track & Field Championships.  While the weekend in Lincoln, NE, and the frantic fortnight leading up to the event could be the subject of decently-lengthed short story perhaps of interest to a non-trivial number of people, I'd rather use this space to talk about my first personal experience with the NCAA; specifically, the manner in which the NCAA uses its student-athletes as advertisements for itself.

Briefly, some background.  I qualified for the meet running the second leg of Middlebury's 4x400m relay.  Fritz Parker, blog co-contributor, ran the first leg.  Middlebury also qualified one guy in the mile, a women's DMR, a woman in the 400m (she ran the 800m leg on the DMR), and a woman in the high jump.  We arrived in Omaha, NE, on a Thursday night and left before dawn on the following Sunday.  The Championships were on the intervening Friday and Saturday.  In terms of performance, my relay came in 12th (out of 12, but saying we were 12th in the country sounds a lot better than last), but we also entered the meet seeded 12th (again, last).

F. Parker             B. Holtzman             A. Nichols               P. Hetzler

As I mentioned, this weekend was my first direct experience with the NCAA.  Prior to my Participation, I had perceived the NCAA as two factions: the governing body of big-time college football (and basketball, but I don't follow CBB the same way I do CFB) and as the name of the national meet which I had spent four years trying to qualify for (much in the same way that, back in my day, Nike Indoor Nationals was the namesake of the national T&F meet run by the NSSF).  I never gave much thought to its governance over other sports and student-athletes.  The NCAA had never affected me before so I never considered it in that context.  The only NCAA regulation I ever cited was its ban on gambling as an excuse to get out of playing poker for money while home on school breaks.

That said, I have historically been a skeptic of the NCAA in regards to how it treated its high-profile athletes and teams.  I always thought the organization was out to get the odd athlete or program instead of protecting those athletes and programs (some examples, and it would be irresponsible not to mention that Oklahoma had to self report an NCAA violation because a few players ate too much pasta.  Thanks in large part to comments by Shabazz Napier, schools can now feed their athletes).  This historical skepticism was recently compounded by a renewed interest in the NCAA manifest largely by reading numerous news articles both criticizing and defending it.  With this in mind, I undoubtedly--perhaps subconsciously--approached my experience with disdain for the NCAA.

The NCAA Experience is one of continuous overstimulation.  Everywhere I looked, the NCAA was present.  From being constantly babysat to the countless number of blue logos emblazoned around the track, there was no escaping the watchful eye of the NCAA (nor the constant reminder that we were at UNL: popcorn isn't just popcorn, it's Husker popcorn; the time on the clock isn't simply just time, it's Husker Time, which, it's worth noting, was incorrect).  This made me uneasy.  Forgetting to wear my Participant badge made me feel like I was accumulating an NCAA infraction for each minute I was without it.

The NCAA has, in a sense, adopted the "everyone gets a trophy" attitude towards the championships.  By qualifying, I will eventually be sent an NCAA pull-over I can proudly wear around telling the world I Participated in an NCAA event, a drawstring bag, and a commemorative medallion.

(Side note--really wish I could do foot/endnotes on this blog: I am usually stoutly against the "everyone gets a trophy" attitude, but not in this case.  For example, I did not receive an All-American trophy by simply Participating, so there was some separation between the winners and the Participants.  Additionally, the commemorations are a nice reward for the accomplishment of qualifying.)

Right at the door to the track was an ad hoc gift shop selling shirts, sweatshirts, and hats with the NCAA logo and the event printed on them.  Items were flying off the shelves, appealing to the athlete's desire to be marked as a Participant when they return to their respective institutions (I'm guessing they don't have to wear a badge at school labeling them as a Participant).  I am guilty of purchasing apparel: I bought a quarter-zip sweatshirt and an Under Armour technical shirt.

Wearing my gear makes me uneasy on two fronts: first, I feel kind of obnoxious by showing such an outward display of my accomplishment.  Realistically, nobody cares that I Participated in the meet.  I also separate myself from my teammates; they don't need a reminder that we went to NCAAs--they all know we did.  Second, by wearing my gear, I passively tell the world I support the NCAA in whole when I staunchly do not.

We are Participants

The second point is what really gets me.  At most schools around the country, some segment of students (athletes?  student-athletes?  Participants?) are wearing NCAA sponsored apparel.  Here at Middlebury, I see students who have NCAA patches sewn on their backpacks, students carrying NCAA water bottles (officially sponsored by Powerade), etc.  Even when you're not at an NCAA event, the NCAA is present and ever-looming.  We Participants are propagators of its presence and the NCAA knows this.  It knows the Participants will display their free mementos and commemorations creating a walking advertisement out of every Participant.  When you add up EVERY athlete in EVERY sport in EVERY division, this number becomes quite large.  I'd wager 90% of them will show the world a piece of their memorabilia with some frequency.  This reminds everyone who sees such memorabilia a. that the NCAA exists and b. that Participating in an NCAA event is good.  To the second point, if one qualifies for NCAAs in something, one is obviously good at what they do.  The association of NCAA = good is immediate.  Unfortunately, there is not much depth to this association.  The achievement of making NCAAs is remarkable, but the associated approval of the NCAA--either by the wearer or viewer--is not questioned when it should be. 

This brings me to my concluding question: how can the accomplishment of competing in an NCAA event be separated from the NCAA (and thus tacit support of the NCAA)?  Students should not feel even the slightest amount of guilt about showing the world a memento of their accomplishment.  They should be proud of their accomplishment.  I am proud, damnit.  But I cannot, in good conscious, show my pride.  This, to me, is unfortunate and is a slight to every athlete in the country.

WC Preview - Mens Track

Disclaimer: I am not good at track predictions.  I always finish middle to back-of-the-pack in the Massachusetts All-State Prediction contest.  Anyways...

100m
Gold: Usain Bolt (JAM)
Silver: Justin Gatlin (USA)
Bronze: Nesta Carter (JAM)
The only way Bolt loses this is if he false starts.  Hard to think that'll happen after 2011.  The other big boys, Yohan Blake (injury) and Tyson Gay (PEDs) are out.

Bolt on his way to victory in the 200m in London

200m
Gold: Usain Bolt (JAM)
Silver: Warren Weir (JAM)
Bronze: Wallace Spearmon (USA)
Again, the only person who can beat Bolt is himself.  Weir, the 2012 bronze medalist, will take silver with easy.  I don't even know who to pick for bronze because it could be anyone but I'll go with Spearmon for his experience.

400m
Gold: Kirani James (GRE)
Silver: LaShawn Merritt (USA)
Bronze: Luguelín Santos (DOM)
James is the defending Olympic and World champion and the only non-American to break 44.00.  I don't think Tony McQuay is quite ready to medal after the rounds.  That will come in 2015.

Aman topping Rudisha in 2010

800m
Gold: Mohammed Aman (ETH)
Silver: Nick Symmonds (USA)
Bronze: Duane Solomon (USA)
Yes.  You read that right.  Two Americans are going to medal.  A year after the greatest 800m ever, in which the world record was broken, 7 of 8 athletes set PRs, 5 people broke 1:43, the entire field broke 1:44, and 3 national records were set, this race will be a little different.  Rudisha and Amos are out with injury and Athletics Kenya decided not to send last year's bronze medalist, Timothy Kitum.  That means Americans Solomon and Symmonds are the top two returners.  Still, I'm picking Aman for the victory--he ran 1:42.53 in Zurich last year and is the last person to beat Rudisha back in 2011.  This year, he sports a best of 1:43.33 and has been winning a handful of races on the European circuit.  Solomon beat Symmonds at USAs but Symmonds has had the upper hand as of late; if he can make sure he has good position in the final 300m, Symmonds will beat Solomon.  Apparently Yuriy Borzakovskiy is out due to "illness".

1500m
Gold: Asbel Kiprop (KEN)
Silver: Silas Kiplagat (KEN)
Bronze: Ayanleh Souleiman (DJI)
Kiprop ran 3:27.72 in Monaco a couple of weeks ago.  If it's a kicker's race, he wins.  If he wants a drag race, he wins.  He was banged up pretty badly last year in London when he limped in to a 12th place finish.  That said, he's the defending World champion and was crowned Olympic champion in 2008 after Rashid Ramzi was DQed for doping, so Kiprop's no stranger to the big stage.  Behind him is kind of a mess.  Americans Leo Manzano (2nd in London) and Matt Centrowitz (4th in London, 3rd in Daegu) haven't shown much to indicate that they'll be able to snag any hardware.  Also note that Charlestown High (Massachusetts) graduate and UMass Lowell runner Omar Abdi got an exemption to compete for Somalia.

5000m
Gold: Edwin Soi (KEN)
Silver: Mo Farah (GBR)
Bronze: Yenew Alamirew (ETH)
A combination of Farah blowing a goat a little too early with his 3:28 in Monaco plus the prelims of the 5k and the 10k final before having to run here means he'll get outkicked by Soi.  Farah's got the wheels if it's slow, but the East Africans should know better than to let that happen--if they let it go 13:41 like they did last year, Farah will blow them out of the water.  I also think this is the end of the line for Bernard Lagat.

Jeilan ousting Farah in 2011.  Don't expect a repeat.

10000m
Gold: Mo Farah (GBR)
Silver: Dejen Gebremeskel (ETH)
Bronze: Kenenisa Bekele (ETH)
Farah is fresh and will want some redemption after getting shocked by Ibrahim Jeilan in Daegu.  Bekele's a longshot, but even the shell of a 12:37/26:17 runner can contend.

110m hurdles
Gold: Aries Merritt (USA)
Silver: David Oliver (USA)
Bronze: Orlando Ortega (CUB)
Oliver looks to be back near 2010 form after his atrocious 2012 season.  Merritt has been a little banged up but should be good to go when it's time.

400m hurdles
Gold: Javier Culson (PUR)
Silver: Michael Tinsley (USA)
Bronze: Felix Sanchez (DOM)
After two silvers at the WCs and bronze in London, it's Culson's year.  I don't think Tinsley has the requisite championship experience to pull out the win.

Why not finish in lane 8 for a 7.5 lap race?

3000m steeplechase
Gold: Ezekiel Kemboi (KEN)
Silver: Paul Kipsiele Koech (KEN)
Bronze: Conseslus Kipruto (KEN)
The steeple is the Kenyan national pastime.  The biggest question here is how outrageously will Kemboi celebrate.

4x100m relay
Gold: Jamaica
Silver: USA
Bronze: Great Britain
Both Jamaican and American relays got hit hard by the recent doping bans, and Jamaica was already without Blake due to injury.  Still, it's hard to bet against Bolt, and it's equally hard to bet on the US getting the stick around.

4x400m relay
Gold: USA
Silver: Bahamas
Bronze: Trinidad and Tobago
The US will not lose this after they got ravaged by injuries in London.  A 3-4 finish punch of McQuay and Merritt will be too much for anyone to deal with.