Badminton: You Can’t Win For Losing

shuttlecockOne of my favorite sports bloggers, Joe Posnanski, has written a really funny piece about the Olympic badminton scandal involving eight players from three countries, who intentionally tanked their doubles matches.  Joe does a great job explaining the round robin system that incents players to lose.

I don’t know much about badminton, beyond the backyard version most of us played when we were about 12 years old.  Earlier in the week, an NBC sportscaster provided a quick remedial education on what makes Olympic badminton a demanding sport, including the fact that the shuttlecock can travel at speeds topping 100 mph.  (If you are asking yourself whether I’m referring to an African or European shuttlecock right now, you watch too much Monty Python.)

When I think of an athlete taking a dive, it’s usually for money, like the Black Sox Scandal of 1919.  Or Marlon Brando’s character in On the Waterfront.

“I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been SOMEbody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.”

The athlete has to be subtle, so that his sabotage goes undetected.  So how, I wondered when I first heard the story, would one know if an Olympic-level badminton player was throwing a match?

Turns out it’s not difficult, when everyone on the court is trying to lose.  It’s also hysterical… unless you traveled to London for the Olympics and paid a tidy sum for your ticket to watch badminton, of course.

If both you and your opponent desperately want to lose, you can’t do anything but play your absolute, humiliating worst.  If you try to up your game even a little, to look more convincing – say, because everyone in the building is booing you – your opponent can put forth just slightly less effort and win.  Er, I mean… lose.

The only solution is, everyone puts forth as little effort as possible.  I’m surprised these players even bothered to take the covers off their racquets.

I second Joe’s recommendation; you have to watch the video.

What do you think the Chinese players were saying between points?  Given how angry the spectators were, perhaps they were planning their escape route for after the match.

“Wait, you remembered to leave the keys in the ignition right?”

Anyone else want to caption this?

Chinese badminton players

The San Francisco Giants Mean No Offense…

I’ve gone to a LOT of San Francisco Giants games at AT&T Park, often sitting in a seat near the dugout so that I could take hundreds of photos of whoever was on the mound.   It’s fun with a fast shutter speed, because when you race through the photos later it’s like looking at a cartoon flip book.

There are only so many pitches you can photograph at 8 frames per second before they start to look redundant, though.  Eventually it’s helpful when OTHER THINGS happen in the game that I can take photos of, like the scary collision between Tim Lincecum and Collin Cowgill at home plate in May.

Unfortunately, aside from Ryan Vogelsong’s solid outing, there was precious little to photograph during Sunday’s 4-0 loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers.  I don’t think a Giant ever even made it over to third base, where I could snap him in a confab with third base coach Tim Flannery.  A few made it to second, but my lens is a 28-300 which means photos from that distance are kind of ho-hum.

I was close enough, however, to see Buster Posey get stranded on base (again) early in the game.  I can’t be sure, but I think he may have rolled his eyes before jogging back to the dugout after the third out.  Seemed a little un-Posey like… but I know what I saw.

Listen up guys; I have tickets to four more Giants games this season.  I’m not buying any more until I start to see some offense.  I have already spent so much time photographing Giants’ pitchers, I could land a gig as a bullpen coach in the minors.

In the meantime, I’ll have to be satisfied with these shots of Vogey pitching to bad-bunter Clayton Kershaw (who does some kind of sun salutation stretch before every pitch) and of various Giants returning to the dugout scoreless, with their heads hanging low.  Pretty much sums up the game, really.

 

Get the Picture?

Tim Lincecum
Tim Lincecum

I played hooky on Wednesday afternoon. Can you call it hooky if you tell your boss in advance that you’ll be out of the office, and you use 1/2 of a vacation day to do it?

Well, even though I did it all by-the-book, it still felt decadent.  I had a blast. I was ITCHING to take in a San Francisco Giants game and shoot some photos — especially of Tim Lincecum since he seemed back on track after the All-Star break.

Yes, I have a soft spot for the guy.  He’s so much fun to photograph. Nobody has a pitching motion like his — certainly not cute, chubby-chubster bullpen guy Brad Penny, who I had never photographed before. Ditto for reliever George Kontos, who is not chubby.  He’s just relatively new to the team… so we were not yet acquainted with one another.

While the game was rather lackluster, and Timmy struggled despite his eight strikeouts, the weather was stunning and my seat was very good for photo taking.  It was my first time in section 125, thanks to StubHub.

It wasn’t Larry Baer territory, where I’ve taken so many photos I’m proud of.  At times I wanted to thump the third base coach on the back of his big head for obstructing my view of the mound, but I restrained myself. (That would be the PADRES third-base coach — not sweet Tim Flannery, who can stand wherever he likes as far as I am concerned.)

I’ll be back at AT&T Park on Sunday, when the Giants take on the Dodgers. Ryan Vogelsong is pitching, and I’m hoping to get some great shots of him too.  I’ll be sitting near the visitors’ dugout — another brand-new vantage point for me.

Where is your favorite place to take photos at the ballpark?

 

There Is No Their They’re

Bristol Palin & Tripp
Don’t let the cap and gown fool you. She cut a lot of classes, starting with remedial English and ending with Human Biology (a-hem).

Like most perfect parents (read: childless people), I have a low tolerance of naughty children — especially disrespectful ones.

Two weeks ago, I was in a San Francisco jewelry store with one other customer, whose husband and VERY LOUD, precocious young son were waiting outside.   After five minutes or so, her yammering youngster marched into the store and bellowed “Mom, are you ready to go or are you going to live in this store?

It took everything I had not to turn to the beleaguered woman and say “Don’t you DARE reward his behavior.  Take your time.”  I held my tongue though, and she left with a hangdog expression — like a condemned prisoner returning to solitary after her daily exercise time in the yard.

My God, I wondered.  What will that little monster be like as a teenager?

Cut to Sarah Palin’s grandson Tripp, who is three years old, and a central figure in his mom’s new reality show, “Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp”.  Indeed it is, Bristol.  Indeed it is.

In a promotional clip from the show, Tripp throws a hissy when Bristol and his Aunt Willow deny him a visit to the swimming pool.  He hurls a gay slur at them (starts with an “F”) that he could only have learned at home.  Or from Kobe Bryant.

Auntie Willow Palin used the same slur in response to criticism from a classmate on Facebook in 2010.  (Hey Willow – you might want to check those privacy settings!)

Her homophobic language is, of course, inexcusable.  But what tickles me about the exchange is… well, I’ll just quote her.  You all are smart people; you’ll get my point.

“Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I’ve seen pictures of, your disgusting … My sister has a kid and is still hot… Your such a fa*****.”

Bristol admits that she’s “doing a terrible job disciplining Tripp.”  Well yeah, no question.  But what’s almost as scary is… she and her sister may also be teaching him to SPELL.

Keeping It Simple, Stupid (Part II)

Assault RiflesI’m doing more thinking tonight… about the importance of not overthinking.

More specifically, I’m pondering the art of  keeping problem-solving simple, instead constructing complex rationales for avoiding fixing what’s wrong in our lives… and the world.

Overthinking to the point of inaction can happen for two basic reasons; Either you fundamentally don’t care much about accomplishing something, or you desperately care, but the challenge is so big and overwhelming you are worried you may fail.

The first one is easy;  You say you want to achieve something that is totally attainable, but you never do… because you never really knock yourself out.

You know what?  It’s OK to decide something isn’t important enough for you to put in the effort to accomplish it. We all have a million things we COULD do — and in many cases our friends are doing (or talking a lot about doing) those things, so we feel pressured. Do yourself (and the rest of us, who have to listen to you) a favor and admit it.

“I really don’t care about running a 10k, so I’m not going to schedule – then make elaborate excuses for skipping – training sessions anymore.”

Guess what?  Your friends and family have probably heard your excuses so many times, they KNOW you’ll never run that 10k.  So you aren’t fooling anyone.

Sometimes, though, we overthink as a way to avoid doing something critically important… because it’s really, really hard.  That became painfully obvious after Friday morning’s cinema massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

It took less than 24 hours for Americans to starting asking obvious questions, like HOW did the perpetrator get so many guns and explosives, and so much ammunition, without raising suspicion?  Could an assault weapon ban have prevented this tragedy?  Isn’t there a way to apply simple common sense to the “right to bear arms”?

Unfortunately by Sunday, the discussion had stalled.  It seemed to have been universally decided; What would be the point of resurrecting the gun control/gun safety argument?  It never goes anywhere.  It’s an election year.  The NRA is too powerful. Proposing change would be political suicide for any candidate.

No more excuses.  The gun lobby is HUGE and ridiculously influential, but we need to keep the conversation alive.

At an NRA convention in April, Mitt Romney said this in support of “gun rights”:

“We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those who seek to protect their homes and their families.”

Because, let’s face it.  When you hear words like “victimized”, “disenfranchised” and “discriminated against” what groups immediately spring to mind?  Hunters and sportsmen, of course.

Where are the clearer heads, asking the basic questions?

  • Does anyone honestly believe that the founding fathers intended all Americans to be armed to the teeth as a basic human right?  That was a time of citizen militias, folks.  They were not worried about individual rights.  America needed an army.  The framers of The Constitution were worried about England and France.  And maybe witches.  Oh, and bears. That’s it.
  • What is so sporting about a high-powered military-style assault weapon with a 100-shot magazine like the one used by the Aurora shooter? Hunters don’t need such a weapon.  Neither do romantic cowboys.  Alan Ladd (a.k.a my reformed gun-slinger hero Shane) did just fine without one.
  • If concealed weapons are so great for  personal protection, how is it possible that no one among the moviegoers in Aurora managed to take down the killer?  Here’s your answer:  This argument is rubbish, concocted by the gun lobby to terrify you and convince you that you NEED to buy lots of guns to keep your family safe.  The truth is that — unless you are a trained Navy Seal — if someone enters your home wielding a high-powered assault rifle, you don’t stand a chance.  I don’t care what kind of weapon you have in your nightstand.

Gun ownership results in more violence, not less.  A recent study in The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance found that when someone has a gun, he or she is more likely to believe an object held by someone else is also a gun.  In other words, when you have a firearm… all the world’s a burglar.  (Just ask George Zimmerman.)

I hope the tragedy in Aurora will renew the debate about gun control in earnest.  I’m not even calling for a gun ban, just serious legislation outlawing the kinds of high-powered weapons and arsenals that no sane, law-abiding person needs.

Don’t tell me there are millions of guns out there, and the task is too monumental.  It’s a matter of life and death, and we have to try.

Let’s not overthink it.  Let’s just do it.

Freeh Ends Paterno’s End Run

Graham Spanier and Joe Paterno
Spanier and Paterno, Better Days.

Publication of the 267-page Freeh Report on Penn State University’s actions related to sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky dominated the news today.  Let me tell you, it is a fascinating, disturbing read.

The media has already dissected the report – which is based on 3.5 million emails and other documents and 430 interviews of current and former university officials, including trustees – left, front and sideways, so I can’t say my observations are earthshattering but… here they are:

The Heartlessness Of the Matter: The report hammers home that University President Graham Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary Schultz, Head Football Coach Joe Paterno and Athletic Director Tim Curley never demonstrated, “through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky’s arrest.”   Their concern was ensuring that — if assaults happened – they happened somewhere OTHER THAN on the Penn State Campus.

They never spoke to Sandusky about the 1998 assault of an 11-year-old boy in the Lasch Building showers, which was reported to the University Police Department by the boy’s mother.  Likewise, they failed to ask about the welfare of Victim 2 from 2001, whose assault was witnessed and reported by Assistant Coach Mike McQueary.  When McQuery told Joe Paterno what he saw between Sandusky and the boy in the showers, Paterno waited several days to alert Curley and Schultz so as not to interfere with their weekends.

What’s more, according to his attorney Sandusky offered to provide the name of Victim 2 to Curley for questioning, but Curley said he didn’t want it.

What Jerry Knew: For more than a dozen years the “leadership” at Penn State looked the other way while Jerry Sandusky did as he pleased.  Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley were all aware of accusations against him – but Sandusky knew the PSU culture, and recognized that he had immunity.  He was untouchable.

In the face of the 1998 allegations, when interviewed by police and a Public Welfare case worker, Sandusky explained that he hugged the boy in the shower but that it wasn’t sexual.  He was cautioned against showering with boys in the future, and agreed to stop doing so.  It should have surprised no one that, over the next four years, Sandusky assaulted at least four more boys — often in those same showers.

Shortly AFTER the 1998 incident, Sandusky announced his intention to retire but requested a position running a youth camp so that he could continue to work with young people “through Penn State”.  That didn’t happen, but I suspect it was only because he was rehired for one year to assist Paterno.

Gary Schultz Is a Liar: And not a very smart one considering the evidence Louis Freeh was able to uncover about his activities related to Sandusky.  Although he testified before a grand jury in 2011 that he never knew details of the 1998 allegations, his personal emails and handwritten notes prove otherwise.  In a memo at that time, he expressed concern that Sandusky’s behavior might at best be “inappropriate” and at worst be sexually improper.  He questioned if there could be “other children”.

After interviewing Sandusky, University Police Chief Harmon reassured Schultz via email that he could “justify” not pursuing charges due to lack of clear evidence of a crime.  Justify?  An interesting word choice.

Later, after no charges were filed Schultz wrote an email to Curley and Spainer:  “I think the matter has been appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind us.”

In a Nutshell: A great analogy in the report sums up the Penn State football culture perfectly.  In 1997 – just one year before allegations of sexual abuse first surfaced – Spanier declared a sports agent “persona non grata” on campus for buying $400 worth of clothing for a Penn State football player.  Spanier said the agent “fooled around with the integrity of the University, and I won’t stand for that.”

Um, O.K.

Tending To My Spiritual Chakra: There Must Be An App For That

Yoga with an iPadBay Area yoga instructor Alice Van Ness was fired from teaching on Facebook’s Menlo Park campus last month, because she discouraged cell phone use during class. Before class began she asked students to turn off their electronic devices – a pretty standard request in the yoga world. However one student apparently felt she couldn’t unplug for a whole hour, and began texting midway through. So Ms. Van Ness shot her a look.

“I’m sure my face said it all. Really? Your e-mail is more important than … taking time for you? It’s more important than everyone else here?”

The student excused herself for a few minutes to take care of her business, but later complained to the fitness center’s managers and Van Ness was fired.

My first reaction when I read this story was… CRAP, you can get fired in Silicon Valley just for giving someone the stink eye? As my friends and family can attest, I don’t play poker for a reason. Let’s just say I don’t have the face for it. This could be trouble.

Next thought: There is one in every class… as well as every movie theatre, concert hall and restaurant. Regrettably, these days there even seems to be one in every public restroom. (Icky, right?)

Actually, there’s probably more like five in every restaurant – at least the ones I go to. This baffles me. It’s true I am an introvert and have a high tolerance for solitude, so grabbing lunch on my own isn’t a big deal to me. In fact, I love lunch-for-one when I’m running errands; Wasn’t that why Kindles were invented?

Are the solo eaters who talk on their phones throughout their meals extroverts, in medical need of conversation to aid digestion? Or is theirs a compulsion resulting from extreme self-consciousness, like “I am not a loser who needs to eat alone. Can’t you hear my nonstop chatter? I have FRIENDS, damn it!”

In public places where even more quiet is expected, and requests are made to silence cell phones, there is still always someone who “forgets” to do so. Then when his or her ring tone pierces the air, disturbing everyone in the room, they pretend to be shocked – SHOCKED – that they are the culprit. Can someone actually be too lazy and/or self-involved to use the mute or vibrate-only features available on every modern cell phone? It would seem so.  Or perhaps we have all grown unaccustomed to waiting.  For anything.

Technology has provided us innumerable ways to stay connected, and get information whenever we want it. That’s tremendously powerful. Remember when you had to check your home answering machine – from a pay phone! — in case you missed an important call?  How about when you had to wait until after the game to tell your friends how much fun you had at the ballpark?

Unfortunately common sense, judgment and manners have not kept pace with technology. Just because you can get (or send) information anytime you want, doesn’t mean you need to do so. And just because something can be addressed immediately, doesn’t mean it can’t wait. Yet these days, you’ll raise eyebrows if you tell someone you are going offline for one hour, or one day, or (gasp!) one week – especially in the corporate environment. But… what if you miss something really important?

But shouldn’t we all be asking, what are we missing today by not being in the moment? In my case, what might I be missing at the ballpark when I am hunkered down, updating my Facebook status in the middle of a San Francisco Giants game? (You know, like a foul ball fired straight at me?)

When was the last time you had a meal with a friend and gave your undivided attention, without checking your smart phone even once? I have to admit, it’s been a while for me. My friends deserve better, though. We all do, don’t we?

This Is a Team Timmy Zone. Proceed With Caution.

Tim LincecumI just spent a grand total of 15 minutes – time I will never get back – watching the 2012 Home Run Derby.  Why do I do this to myself every baseball season?  The Home Run Derby has to be one of the most boring spectacles on earth.  It might be more fun to watch hitters knock baseballs out of the park, if they weren’t practically tossed underhand with momentum that even Barry Zito would scoff at.  Ooh!  Ah!

What’s more, when I switched on my TV, Andrew McCutchen  — Lincecum slayer — was batting.   This was not a positive development.  I guess you could say I’m a little bitter about the San Francisco Giants’ 13-2 loss to the Pittsburg Pirates on Sunday.

Tim Lincecum’s post-game interview was heartbreaking.  I obviously have a soft spot for the guy — and listening to him whisper his pain and frustration, while his chin practically trembled, tore me up.   He wondered if he’d reached “rock bottom”, and talked about being the Giants’ weak link, disappointing his teammates, and having “nothing left to lose”.   The reporters quizzing him seemed almost as miserable as he was.

I’ve always found Timmy’s eloquence, and his openness with the media, endearing.  During his 2010 slump, he thoughtfully answered reporters’ questions after every game when everyone knew he’d rather be just about anywhere else.  Compared to the disingenuous Bull Durham-style platitudes and grudging one-word answers from other ballplayers, it was refreshing.

Timmy is beloved in San Francisco so reaction to his implosion was subdued at first – after all, he’s struggled before, and always bounced back.  But this week I’ve begun hearing, “If he’s not hurt, then he must be washed up.  He’s finished.”

It’s true, his 6.42 ERA is the worst of any starting pitcher in the league, but I haven’t given up on Tim Lincecum. I have nothing to back this up but my pure, blind faith.  He had his stuff against the A’s and the Dodgers, and his delicate confidence seemed on the rebound.  Then came the heat and humidity of D.C., where he lasted fewer than four innings and probably lost 10 pounds in perspiration.  Timmy won’t make excuses for himself, so I will – he is not a hot weather pitcher, which is one of the reasons he’s thrived here in foggy San Francisco.  I can’t help but wonder if things would have been different, had July 3rd’s game been played at AT&T Park.

Anyway, I refuse to believe Tim Lincecum is washed up.  I’m with Ann Killion, who wrote today about Timmy’s need to not over think things during the All-Star break.  Let’s hope he takes this chance to regroup, remind himself how he got where he is… and hopefully get his swagger back.

Come Saturday, when he’s scheduled to pitch against the Astros, I’ll be watching on tenterhooks.  When it comes to Tim Lincecum, I’m not just on the bandwagon… I’m driving it.

So, anyone out there want to ride shotgun?

 

Just Squint and Think of Tartan

Hang on to your Dodgers’ gear.  Evidence suggests that a San Francisco Giants fan may have infiltrated the animation department at Disney!

I have been accused, from time to time, of seeing (read: imagining) Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum all over the place — but how could anyone overlook the uncanny resemblance between Young MacIntosh in Disney’s new film “Brave”, and our Timmy?

It’s as plain as the soul patch on Timmy’s chin.

Aye, both lads are tall and lanky with a dearth of body hair — which they make up for on their heads.  And don’t forget, Lincecum hails from Seattle, land of the utilikilt.

Spooky, huh?  Have I successfully blown your mind?

The good news: MacIntosh is partial to feisty redheads.  I’m just saying…

You all see the resemblance too, right?  If not, trying squinting and thinking of tartan.

Brave's Young MacIntosh
Brave’s Young MacIntosh
Tim Lincecum
Tim Lincecum

Here Today, Gone Tomorrow

Americans can be quite loyal to their morning news programs, and as such can take great offense when an anchor or other on-air personality is replaced.

I mock the Today Show, but have watched it for years.  I have yet to make a clean break from it — not because I am so attached to the personalities who supply me with the news, but because I have grown accustomed to the show’s pattern.  I don’t need to watch the clock; I know that I can usually wait until Natalie Morales finishes up at the news desk before I must jump in the shower.  If I linger to catch Al Roker, I know I’m pushing it.

I am also a big fan of several NBC political correspondents, particularly Chuck Todd for White House and election coverage.

All that said, I am now officially auditioning morning news programs.  This week, it’s been the recently retooled CBS This Morning with Charlie Rose, Erica Hill and Gayle King.  I’m not sure what to make of the triumvirate approach at the anchor desk.  No offense to Ms. King, but Charlie Rose is a heavy-hitting interviewer and journalist who, at times, can make her seem a little out of her depth.

The show is seriously low-key, and mercifully unlike Today in that no one seems to be going for the big belly laughs from the crew.  No jovial weatherman, no brotherly/sisterly teasing between anchors.  And so far, nothing remotely tabloid-ish.  Everyone sits around a big table, where the average IQ is at least 150, talking about real news.  Even – hang on to your hats, here – international news that does NOT involve what Kate Middleton wore to buy groceries last week.  It’s all very… PBS.

Perhaps best of all, there are no screaming crowds outside the studio.  No tourists captivated enough by the prospect of being on TV that they lug signs from Minnesota to New York City.  “Duluth Loves Al Roker!”

Next week I will give Good Morning America a shot, although after the cerebral CBS This Morning I think it may throw me into a fit from overstimulation.  The backdrop is Time Square, everything is a bright color, and there are two anchors, one news guy and one weatherperson crammed behind a teeny anchor desk — for easier banter, presumably.

No matter which network I settle on, it will be an improvement over Today.

Today showThe Ann Curry fiasco represents everything that’s wrong with NBC News; Today Show ratings drop over the past year, and since veteran reporter Ann Curry is the newest add to the anchor desk… she must be to blame. Fire her. Never mind that Today is hands-down the fluffiest, most vacuous of all the morning news shows. Forget that Matt Lauer seems bored and disinterested, and editorializes his way through just about every segment, especially those that involve a debate over good vs. bad parenting.  (What about objective journalism?)

Some recent Today lowlights?

  • iPhone video of a girl and her screaming dad on a death-drop roller coaster, rerun several days in a row.
  • Multiple-morning check-ins with an alleged “soccer mom madam”, who has finally been released from jail. NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
  • A long, drawn out series about Madonna Badger, who lost her entire family in a tragic Christmas day house fire.  The promo clips of Matt Lauer asking whether she could see her children through the window of her home as they perished were both shameless and tasteless.
  • An unhealthy obsession with a bullied school bus monitor from New York state.  Yes, it started out as an important story.  One of those “teachable moments”.  But by day five, the kindly old lady herself seemed confused about why Today kept inviting her to appear.
  • “Really Hot” ambush summer makeovers.
  • Segments featuring Kathy Lee Gifford.

I will miss Today for political coverage, though. Following this morning’s Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s healthcare legislation, NBC worked like a well-oiled machine.

As a CBS reporter tried to digest the ruling on camera as we all watched — and CNN and Fox News went one step further by misunderstanding it, and declaring it a White House defeat – Today had one veteran reporter on camera, and several seated off camera, to quickly parse and digest the complex ruling and draw the appropriate conclusions.

Best of luck Savannah Guthrie – Magna Cum Laude Georgetown Law graduate, former criminal defense attorney, and newest co-anchor of Today.  Wonder how many cute videos of puppies you’ll report on, before you want to knock yourself in the head with a judge’s mallet?