OSU’s Russell, Tate, Scott, Thompson nab All-Big Ten Honors
March 9, 2015Browns showing interest in Darrelle Revis—again
March 10, 2015Happy Tuesday WFNY!
I was out of town over the weekend, and when I returned home on Sunday, I came back only to find that my TV and internet were both down. I made a quick call to AT&T’s customer service1, they ran some tests on their end, and they found they couldn’t ping a signal to my location. Basically, there was nothing they could do over the phone, so they were going to have to send a technician out to my house to fix it.
So I just went 24 hours without having TV or internet at my house. I know this is nothing new and it’s been said a million times before, but it truly is nuts how dependent most of us have become to technology. I felt like a piece of me was missing with no TV or internet. I realized just how far integrated into our very being our devices have become. There have been plenty of articles written in recent years about how close we might be to a world where electronics become literally integrated into our physical bodies. But on a figurative level, that time is already here. My phone, laptops, Xbox, TV, etc are all to some degree extensions of myself.
Typically, not having “distractions” like TV and internet would lead to higher productivity. I had the same thought. “Oh, this is great! I’ll just use this time to get some work done”. One problem. All my project files and notes are stored in the cloud, accessible only with internet access. Thankfully, technology was still there to rescue me. I simply turned my phone into a hotspot and tethered my phone’s data stream into wifi for my laptop. Life is funny like that. The very thing upon which I have grown dependent was taken away from me, only to have it be used to find a convenient workaround solution.
And that’s the rub. Some people2 fear technology. Some would say our ever growing dependence on it will be our downfall. While others say that technology is going to allow humanity to achieve levels of advancement we never even dreamed possible. Things that have long been staples of science fiction such as warp drives and wormholes are now actually being researched and worked on. Maybe they’ll succeed at some point centuries from now, or maybe they won’t. But either way, the technology will grow and it will revolutionize our way of life.
But the question remains, is this good for us? Or is it problematic that we are growing ever more dependent on a substance that can be taken away from us at any point? It’s a fine line between fiction and how we define our own humanity. To tie this in to sports, it reminds me a bit of the discussion that I had with WFNY’s Craig Lyndall in a recent podcast. When it comes to “Performance Enhancing Drugs”, are they really a bad thing? We’re not talking about horse steroids that have well known negative impact on health and well-being. But new designer drugs that harness technology to improve our bodies in varying ways are less cut and dry when it comes to long term health.
If technology can give us medical advancements that allow players to recover from injury faster and get back to their jobs sooner, is that really such a bad thing? And if medical advancements create drugs that allow humans to grow more muscle mass, jump farther, throw harder, etc, etc, etc, is that something to be feared or embraced?
I think these are questions that are going to shape a lot of interesting discussions in the near future. The limitations of our own physical bodies may be getting torn down in the near future. Heck, it may be happening now. But at some point, I suppose we as a society will have to decide how far we want it to go and whether it is cheating on one of the most basic tenets of sport, which is a test of the physical limitations of our own humanity.
*****
There’s actually a memorial to Derrick Rose?
This just makes me sad. Kind of. Some Chicago Bulls fans have created a roadside memorial to the injured star Derrick Rose in an underpass in Chicago. The fans then held a vigil there for Rose. I’m not entirely clear if this was meant tongue-in-cheek or if this is just desperate fans turning to whatever measures they can to help bring Rose back to his MVP form, but either way, this memorial is actually really well done.
They included a lot of the typical things you’d expect to see at a roadside memorial, but the candles are my favorites:
There was a candle of Phil Jackson dressed like the pope, candles of Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen photoshopped into classic Catholic imagery and, of course, a candle featuring a sketch of the praying hands emoji outfitted with Chicago’s six championship rings.
Sometimes sports fans are the worst, capable of saying some of the most mean spirited things imaginable and constantly looking to use cheap debate ploys to shout down anyone who has a differing opinion. Other times, sports fans can be the best and they do creative things like this.
*****
Will the Thunder really trade Kevin Durant?
The Oklahoma City Thunder are a somewhat star-crossed franchise. Born out of the sin of taking away basketball from Seattle, the Thunder have been blessed to have Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook leading their franchise. But for all of their greatness, the Thunder still haven’t won a Championship. And now, Kevin Durant is about to become a free agent.
Or will he? According to ESPN’s Tom Penn, on a recent appearance on The Herd with Colin Cowherd, Thunder GM Sam Presti may not let it get to that point, choosing instead to trade the superstar. WHAT? Yeah, exactly:
I think this burst from Westbrook makes it much more likely that Durant ultimately gets traded next year. … Sam Presti has proven that he does not ever want to lose anybody for nothing. So he traded James Harden a year early to avoid a potential luxury tax problem a year later.
The Kevin Durant drumbeat next year is going to be so loud because he will not commit early to Oklahoma City contractually because the rules are against that. He can’t get the same contract if he signs early as if he just goes to free agency and resigns.
So if Sam Presti doesn’t get that commitment, he’ll look to to trade Kevin Durant. And looking at the performance of Westbrook and the team around Westbrook will make it easier for him to do that potentially.
You know, it’s actually maybe not as crazy as it sounds. Maybe. I mean, the concept of trading Durant is nuts. But if the Thunder feel like there’s a real chance he’s going to leave, then maybe it’s better to take whatever you can get in return to keep building around Westbrook. Right?
Well, probably not. There’s just no way you trade Kevin Durant and get better for doing so. Durant is by all accounts a great teammate and he has proven his value on the court. He’s more or less been everything you could want in a superstar. It’s hard to imagine the Thunder giving up on him.
But even more importantly, you’re probably not winning a Championship without him. Yes, potentially losing him for nothing would hurt. But it’s worth that risk to try making another run for a Championship. The Thunder are still a Championship caliber team. I don’t care what the return would be in trading Durant, the Thunder would absolutely be a worse team if they lose him.
*****
That’s all I have this week. No favorite new album of the week because, well, this is one of the worst weeks for new music in recent memory. Yikes. Anyway, hopefully next Tuesday will be better. I hope everyone has a great week!
31 Comments
I read that the Rose memorial is an art installation.
In keeping with the religious imagery, it appears that Rose is wearing a crown of thorns. If so, that’s a bit much.
Trading Durant after Harden – wouldn’t that be sort of like the Tribe trading Lee after Sabathia? Not sure how OKC can do that. You need two stars to win it, the heavens had to align for them to even be in this position and there’s not really equivalent trade value for Durant in his prime. You just try to get back enough to make your team good, not great. If I’m OKC I take my last shot as the window closes, because they dare not bet that window will ever exist again.
Zach Lowe and Simmons made a good point in their podcast: Westbrook is playing ridiculously hard in Durant’s absence, every minute he’s in there and on both ends of the court. The question is whether that effort is sustainable even through this year’s playoffs. But they can’t count on that all the time into the future. And for all his post-trade happy talk it’s not like Dion is giving them the help they would have liked.
No, it wouldn’t be like trading Lee after Sabathia. It’d be much, much worse.
To spin off another idea Simmons and Lowe were talking about… Blake Griffin and a 1st for Durant. Probably leaves too big of a hole at the 3 for OKC, but that’d be pretty crazy.
I also played around with the idea of Washington building a package around Beal but if you’re OKC you don’t really need Nene or Gortat with Ibaka, Adams, Kanter, and even Collison, so I don’t really know that the Wizards have enough to throw into a package.
The NBA needs more challenge trades (and MLB needs to get back to doing that too). I get why it doesn’t happen, but at this point in the NBA, you can’t receive fair value for your star otherwise.
Durant for Gasol and some filler.
In the modern environment, there’s no way OKC is getting talent equivalent to Brantley and Carrasco back for their star.
If there is one think that Poison taught us (and there are many), it’s that every rose has its thorn.
Unless they get very lucky with the picks they would receive, but it’s certainly true that in the NBA you can’t take 2-3 “very good” players and say it’s a decent substitute for one superstar player. Unless they get an MVP candidate level player back, it’s always going to be a step down.
Top tier basketball players are the most valuable commodity in sports imo.
I don’t know enough about NBA advanced statistics to come up with some comparison grounded in numbers, but I’m guessing trading away Durant would be like trading away three or four of an MLB team’s best players.
Exactly. In baseball, you can trade away a Miggy Cabrera and use the saved money to upgrade other positions to compensate for the loss. I don’t think you can do that in the NBA. In MLB, a roster of just above average players can win the WS. Don’t think that has ever happened in the NBA.
the problem with PED’s is that they won’t be distributed evenly. Lance Armstrong wasn’t the only cyclist taking drugs, he just had the most money so he got the BEST drugs. That’s how legalizing PED’s would work.
In the real world, steroids are really not that dangerous. Only when they are abused by bodybuilders do we see how bad they can be. Those guys use over 100-times the clinical dosages, they stack their drugs, and they pummel their bodies in ways no body should ever be pummeled. Most athletes who want to cheat barely take 5 times the clinical dosages, and – as studies have shown – a prolonged period of disuse eventually returns the body to a state in which the prior steroid use is untraceable.
I am not pro-PED, but I do think they get a bad rap, physiologically – regardless of how they are viewed morally. (did you know that cholesterol is a steroid?)
Yeah, you’d have to be incredibly lucky with draft picks, as I’d say much more than other sports is star talent bunched at the top of the NBA draft. You pick after five, and your chances of getting a star drop significantly, draft after 15 and the same can be said about getting even a decent contributor. And if a team is trading for your star, they’re generally not going to be in a position to be giving you top five picks.
19 win shares each of the previous two years. Translating from 82 to 162 games gives us 37-38 wins on the MLB field. That’s a rough comparison, maybe not usable, but that’s not just three or four of a MLB’s teams best players, but three or four Trouts.
“he just had the most money so he got the BEST drugs”
Possible, but also quite possibly a stretch. I think it’s a really tough assumption to make.
But does EVERY cowboy sing a sad, sad song? I find that very difficult to believe.
Steve, you should know better than that. In my opinion, it’s actually pretty easy to make this assumption.
More $ = better doctors, better equipment, better ingredients, thus better drugs. More $ also means bigger and better payoffs (bribes). US Postal service had tens of millions of dollars behind them. That’s an insane amount of money in cycling.
“The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen…….The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices.”
This is directly from the 2012 USADA statement on the US Postal Service Doping Conspiracy.
http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
Drugs are like cars – if you have more money you can get a better one. Simple as that.
You’ve demonstrated the possibility for him to have acquired better drugs, which I agree with. That is not evidence that he actually did take better drugs than his peers. And of course, the quote is ” . . . that sport has ever seen”, which means we are excluding ones that are so sophisticated, professionalized, and successful that they haven’t been caught.
And I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying that having better drugs was a primary reason that Armstrong won, which I’m not so sure of.
no, i am not saying he won because of those drugs. That dude was a maniacal freak. Netflix has a short film about his drive and desire to demolish anyone in his path. Kinda scary. The drugs, of course, helped. But who knows how much his drugs helped him as opposed to the stacks the other guys were taking. Probably not measurable at this point in science.
But I’d argue that with lesser drugs his performance would have been worse.
I was making the point about money and its relation to drugs.
Having the ability to do a blood transfusion in a $500,000 rigged-up van while driving through the local country roads is FAR more convenient and energy-efficient than having to travel 4 hours each way to the German border in the cover of night to have the same procedure, which is what many of the low-level cyclists do during the tour.
I’d agree with this. I think we’re pretty close to the same page.
I think my only quibble comes from the idea that more money means better drugs. Alex Rodriguez has more money than any MLB player, but he decided to buy his drugs from some creep, without a medical license, running an anti-aging clinic. It was certainly a lot more scam than science. I’d bet a lot of athletes, many of which wear those worthless magnetic wristbands, are duped by all kinds of bad science when it comes to improving athletic performance, regardless of their bank account.
Right, but in that case, we’re only looking at the guys we’ve caught, which is not the full population of users. Who’s to say that someone else hasn’t figured out a better system than the van, one so good that the WADA hasn’t caught on?
I think I’m being more contrarian than I intend to be on the matter, as I said below, I think we’re pretty close to the same page.
Steve, I really haven’t looked to deeply into Bosch. I have heard/read so many conflicting things that i don’t know what to believe. And A-Rod, as we all know, is an idiot.
IF you get caught by a drug test you are a moron. It’s very easy to get around the rules in many ways (that i won’t go into). Barry Bonds never got caught. McGwire never got caught. Hell, Lance Armstrong DID get caught but he beat it! A-Rod is one big dummy.
I’m going to bet it exists.
These guys have geniuses working for them. The drug guys are true chemists, the logistics guys are underworld connectors, and the money men are, well, money men.
Talent still matters the most, but quality of drugs can enhance that talent better if the quality of the drug is better.
Well, I don’t think Alex Rodriguez has failed any punishable test either. He reportedly failed the 2003 survey testing, but that was before PED use was explicitly being punished. He also reportedly failed a test in 2006 for stimulants, when a first time offense warranted no missed game time. These are also both just reports, with nothing confirmed. Rodriguez was caught because MLB officials pressured/bribed the creep to rat on the player.
McGwire retired before the PED ban in baseball, and Bonds only played 270 games in the testing era. I don’t think the latter two are much evidence on the easiness of beating exams.
“quality of drugs can enhance that talent better if the quality of the drug is better.”
Right, but this is the most bland of statements, of course its possible that better drugs can mean better athletic performance. But we’re just going in circle now, back to the point where I said:
“You’ve demonstrated the possibility for him to have acquired better drugs, which I agree with. That is not evidence that he actually did take better drugs than his peers”
good point. I chose my subjects poorly. I was indeed speaking of the 2003 A-Rod test, and I was just saying that even after Bonds was outed with regards to the Cream and the Clear, they still never got him.
Here is the BEST point I can make about the state of drugs in sport. This from Sochi:
The IOC is conducting 2,453 drug tests in Sochi, a record for the Winter Games.
There was only one positive test at the previous Winter Olympics four years ago in Vancouver.
IOC President Thomas Bach said the new cases showed that the zero-tolerance policy is working.
”For me it was never a question of the numbers and how many,” Bach said in an interview with The Associated Press. ”I think it shows we are on the right track.”
THAT IS MORONIC!!! All that shows is that athletes are waaaaay too good at beating these tests. ONE POSITIVE TEST?? Cripes. As I said, and as I think this should prove, beating drug tests is comically easy if you’ve got the right “teammates”.
I always wonder how much of statements like those is the IOC not actually wanting to report positives. It’s a lot easier for all parties involved to say “nothing to see here, the system works great!” than deal with any problems.
I totally used to think that until the Marion Jones case. They crushed her, her husband, and their ring. Just seeing how they went about their business makes me believe that they really want to get people.
Holy crap! Jimmy Graham to Seattle???!!??