Wednesday, August 24, 2005
The week is half-over. Or is half-full?
(Disclaimer: He has a link on the side and is a friend, but...) I would be remiss if I did not plug Dave Scott's latest foray into the murky world of technology and virtual insanity: Podshots.
Catching the wave of podcasting, DScott combines his talent and wisdom behind the keyboard with a voice that would sooth the most savage of beasts. He is like the Mel Torme of sports internet podcasting.
To take a listen, click here.
-----
The nation of Brazil says it wants answers in regards to the suspected terrorist that London police mistakenly shot in the Underground a few weeks ago. Which made me think...if I was the headline writer for one of those London tabloids that oft toe the line of tact, would "Brazilian Waxed" have been appropriate?
-----
Pet peeve: people who use the word "fabulous" on a more-than-regular basis to describe things where other adjectives would suffice. Example, "that wine we had a Froo Froo restaurant was fabulous." You're not Posh Spice. You're not these girls. You're not this guy. So save it. And besides, where I come from, it's spelled F-A-B-O-L-O-U-S.
-----
I mentioned it last night, and it beared mentioning this am: the Royals TV announcers were pretty good. One small measuring stick I use to ascertain whether a visiting team's production quality is good is by the Aflac trivia question.
The KC crew did not disappoint: named the six Red Sox (check!) who have won an AL batting title since 1969. It was both tricky (as Yaz won it in '67) and semi-easy. Throughout the half-inning, both guys threw names out there - some correct, some wrong, some very good guesses. Overall, I give them high marks.
But I still want Donnie Baseball and Scoot back. And the answer is, in order of closest to farthest: Mueller, Manny, Nomar, Boggs, Lansford, Lynn.
-----
Cool story here.
-----
To the French and the L'Equipe newspaper, I would like to say something. But since I've adopted a bit of a candor rule here at TLBR, I'll say it clearly in a language you can understand:
Va te faire voir. (scroll down a bit)
Basically, they hate the fact a brash American came into their country, dominated their race in their sport. So they screamed, over and over, the slur of the sport of cycling: you're cheating.
But why now, why six years later - not that L'Equipe didn't accuse Lance of doping on a daily basis - have these reports come out? Well, according to a report on ESPN.com, the allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year - when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.
When you submit to a drug test, using urine, you provide two samples, which are marked "A" and "B." The "A" sample is used for analysis. Should the "A" come up positive for some sort of substance, the "B" is tested. If the "B" is poz, you're screwed. If the "B" is neg, then chalk it up to lab imperfections.
The "A" samples were already tested, back in '99. The "B" pee, which were stored this long (gross, confusing and troubling), were used in this experiment. It was just supposed to be practice, not a witchhunt.
But not to the French and certainly not to L'Equipe. Lab samples are also intended to be "double-blind," so that both the lab and the scientist do not know whose specimen it is. But L'Equipe says one of the 15 cups of wiss is definately Armstrong's. They know it. They were able to match it to him. The lab couldn't match it to Lance, but the newspaper could.
Funny, who owns L'Equipe? Oh, it's the company that organizes the Tour de France? Hmmm. I'm sure they don't have any controlling interest in trying to smear Lance. That'd be like if the Red Sox were owned by a newspaper and they, in turn, owned a television station and that...oh, forget it.
Lance vini, Lance vidi, Lance vici. Seven times. Sept temps. So, to L'Equipe...arret, s'il-vous plait.
-----
One.
Catching the wave of podcasting, DScott combines his talent and wisdom behind the keyboard with a voice that would sooth the most savage of beasts. He is like the Mel Torme of sports internet podcasting.
To take a listen, click here.
-----
The nation of Brazil says it wants answers in regards to the suspected terrorist that London police mistakenly shot in the Underground a few weeks ago. Which made me think...if I was the headline writer for one of those London tabloids that oft toe the line of tact, would "Brazilian Waxed" have been appropriate?
-----
Pet peeve: people who use the word "fabulous" on a more-than-regular basis to describe things where other adjectives would suffice. Example, "that wine we had a Froo Froo restaurant was fabulous." You're not Posh Spice. You're not these girls. You're not this guy. So save it. And besides, where I come from, it's spelled F-A-B-O-L-O-U-S.
-----
I mentioned it last night, and it beared mentioning this am: the Royals TV announcers were pretty good. One small measuring stick I use to ascertain whether a visiting team's production quality is good is by the Aflac trivia question.
The KC crew did not disappoint: named the six Red Sox (check!) who have won an AL batting title since 1969. It was both tricky (as Yaz won it in '67) and semi-easy. Throughout the half-inning, both guys threw names out there - some correct, some wrong, some very good guesses. Overall, I give them high marks.
But I still want Donnie Baseball and Scoot back. And the answer is, in order of closest to farthest: Mueller, Manny, Nomar, Boggs, Lansford, Lynn.
-----
Cool story here.
-----
To the French and the L'Equipe newspaper, I would like to say something. But since I've adopted a bit of a candor rule here at TLBR, I'll say it clearly in a language you can understand:
Va te faire voir. (scroll down a bit)
Basically, they hate the fact a brash American came into their country, dominated their race in their sport. So they screamed, over and over, the slur of the sport of cycling: you're cheating.
But why now, why six years later - not that L'Equipe didn't accuse Lance of doping on a daily basis - have these reports come out? Well, according to a report on ESPN.com, the allegations surfaced six years later because EPO tests on the 1999 samples were carried out only last year - when scientists at a lab outside Paris used them for research to perfect EPO testing. The national anti-doping laboratory in Chatenay-Malabry said it promised to hand its finding to the World Anti-Doping Agency, provided it was never used to penalize riders.
When you submit to a drug test, using urine, you provide two samples, which are marked "A" and "B." The "A" sample is used for analysis. Should the "A" come up positive for some sort of substance, the "B" is tested. If the "B" is poz, you're screwed. If the "B" is neg, then chalk it up to lab imperfections.
The "A" samples were already tested, back in '99. The "B" pee, which were stored this long (gross, confusing and troubling), were used in this experiment. It was just supposed to be practice, not a witchhunt.
But not to the French and certainly not to L'Equipe. Lab samples are also intended to be "double-blind," so that both the lab and the scientist do not know whose specimen it is. But L'Equipe says one of the 15 cups of wiss is definately Armstrong's. They know it. They were able to match it to him. The lab couldn't match it to Lance, but the newspaper could.
Funny, who owns L'Equipe? Oh, it's the company that organizes the Tour de France? Hmmm. I'm sure they don't have any controlling interest in trying to smear Lance. That'd be like if the Red Sox were owned by a newspaper and they, in turn, owned a television station and that...oh, forget it.
Lance vini, Lance vidi, Lance vici. Seven times. Sept temps. So, to L'Equipe...arret, s'il-vous plait.
-----
One.
