Anyone Not on Drugs?

Let's see Barry Bonds (supposedly), Floyd Landis and Justin Gatlin (all positive tests), and now Marion Jones, whose A sample from the Nationals in Indy has come back positive with EPO. Jones had been under suspicion because of her affiliation with ex-husband CJ Hunter and boyfriend Tim Montgomery, who both tested positive for drugs. Her former coach was Trevor Graham, who was Gatlin's coach and had BALCO connections. After dominating the 2000 Olympics, Jones's performances dropped off dramatically, failing to medal in 2004, struggling with the accusations and injuries that had people wondering if she was legit. This year, she returned to the top of her sport winning the 100 meters at Nationals. Now, it appears like Landis, her story will end in disappointment. Her B sample must still be tested, but things don't look good for her.

It has not been a good year for Olympic sports: the Bode Miller saga, the removal of softball from the Olympic program, drugs at the Tour, Gatlin, and now Jones. Asafa Powell just ran another 9.77 100, his 2nd of the year. Unfortunately, questions will start to mount against his amazing year.

And while I'm on the subject, I have a problem with baseball hall of fame voters' take on the steroid era. I've heard mulitple writers say they'll vote Mark McGwire in, despite the accepted opinion that he took steroids, because he was the best during that era when most were on drugs. So because the majority of baseball was on steroids, because he was the best of all of them, he should be in the Hall of Fame. What kind of an example are we setting by doing that??? Some high-school kid could be thinking, "Hey, if everyone is using steroids, I'll use them too. And it'll be ok, as long as I'm the best of all of them." Basically, if you cheat and do the best, it's ok because everyone cheated. If writers think McGwire is innocent of using steroids (he is innocent still currently) and feel his career is legit, then I have no problem with them voting him in. But if they use the other line of reasoning, I have a problem with that.

There is something (or a lot of things) that are not right with John Mark Karr, the self-confessed killer of JonBenet Ramsey. I know this is a serious matter, but there are a couple of things that strike me about this. First, what's with the first, middle and last name thing? Is that only reserved for 'special' killers. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan. Why does this guy deserve it? I don't remember Jeffrey Dahmer's middle name. If OJ were guilty, would he have changed to Orenthal James Sampson? Second, the way the media is covering this, it reminds me of the Eddie Murphy SNL skit, "Who killed Buckwheat?" I think the killer's name was John David Stubbs? Thanks to the media, I know everything about John Mark Karr's life, a lot more than I wanted to know. Which brings me to my third and final point: Why does he wear his pants so damn high???? Look at a picture of him, he's a walking wedgie.

I don't get why so many of the basketball analysts are pessimistic about the US's chances at the World Championships, which begin later tonight. I don't think the US will keep winning by 30 points, but I think we're playing really well and have a great chance to win the whole thing. Yes, this team hasn't played together a lot compared to others, but neither did the successful Dream Teams when they dominated. I don't think that's as big of a factor as being fundamentally sound. The international game is more like the college game, movement without the ball, all out effort all the time, tough defense, good shooting, things you don't see regularly in the NBA now. That's why the US has struggled. Those issues have been addressed thus far. Coach K has got the team playing tough, college like man defense. The effort is there every minute, and the shooting is getting better.

Staying with the shooting issue, some are concerned as to what will happen when teams play zone against the US? Well, from my experience, being able to play zone defense is predicated upon scoring offensively. Most teams play zone after they make a basket and man defense after a miss because it's easier to set up in zone after a made basket since the other team has to take the ball out and bring it back down the court. So if you don't score, you'll most likely play man defense because it's easier to find the man you're guarding than try and play zone where you're assigned specific spots. So far, the US isn't allowing opponents the opportunity to score, playing great defense themselves. So if the US keeps playing great defense, they won't have to worry about facing zones because if the other team doesn't score, they won't play zone.

G'night, have a great weekend.