Cycling - Floyd Landis is a 1337 h4x0r

Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, only to have the accomplishment stripped for a failed drug test following one of the stage victories. The thing that I found odd at the time is that he failed the test due to synthetic testosterone. Anabolic steroids aren't going to help much, if at all, in an endurance event like the Tour de France. It may even make competing in that kind of event more difficult. EPO would be a different story. That would have a big impact on Tour performance. Testosterone would build muscles and make you more aggressive. It might be helpful to be extra aggressive going into a tough stage, but you would still have aerobic limits, and your lactate threshold would still be a big obstacle. Roid rage isn't going to help you win a 3 plus hour stage.

I thought that was odd, but it only gets stranger. Of the 8 samples following Tour stages, only the one tested positive. I don't know what kind of half life exogenous testosterone has, but I would imagine it would still be in the system longer than 4 days. 8 samples would need to be taken about every 3 days. He would have had to taken the testosterone pretty much the day of the test to get those results. Why would someone do that? Muscle building? No, it would take a while to get the pay off from the muscle building effects of testosterone. Being aggressive? No, that isn't going to help you overcome your lactate threshold. It won't increase your VO2 Max. You might get aggressive, but you're just going to be really cheesed off when you hit the wall really early in the stage. So it would be really stupid to do it. Even more stupid to do it when they are going to take a sample every 2-4 days to make sure you aren't cheating. A more plausible hypothesis would be that he was doing something to mask test results, and he slipped one day and got caught. That still doesn't change the fact that he was doing the wrong thing to cheat. If you know how to hide cheating, I would think you would be taking something that would actually give you an advantage.

Then there are claims that the sample in question wasn't a number assigned to Landis. I wouldn't be surprised here. If the lab was testing from a variety of sports and a sample got switched for some reason, it starts to make sense. A rugby player taking testosterone makes a lot more sense. Is there was a paper trail somewhere that suggests that? Some of the lawyers involved in the appeals have apparently made this claim. It is reported that the back up samples from all 8 of the samples were revisited and tested positive for testosterone. The back up samples all tested positive, but the main samples only 1/8 tested positive. Something doesn't make sense here. It makes me wonder if there is some pride thing going on here. The lab has their reputation on the line (and an international testing accreditation on the line). Then there is the fact that the Tour de France is kind of the marquis sports event for the country. A French lab ruling on a violation on THE French sports event with a reputation for testing on the line. If they discovered that the offending test sample didn't belong to Landis, do they fess up, or do they fabricate? I can't answer that question. I would almost dare say that the hypothetical scenario of a cover up almost sounds most likely.

Another allegation of the defense is that the computer files relating to the case are bad or missing. If true we can't really trust that much coming from the lab. They realistically could have mishandled/misplaced Landis' sample, given a false report to look like they didn't mess up, and the computer "paper trail" is incomplete and/or missing. If there was a conspiracy to blackball an innocent cyclist in an effort to look like they didn't mess anything up, then these guys conveniently erase any incriminating evidence. Enron much? If there is no conspiracy, they had a ridiculously inconvenient computer failure. Of course this could be something the defense is making up. They could be just throwing up defense after defense because their guy really is guilty. I hope Landis truly is innocent, but I can't say with 100% certainty that he is innocent. I do think that he is more than likely innocent. There is just too much fishiness in the story from the beginning.

Now with all that out of the way, this story comes up. Apparently Floyd Landis is a hacker. The lab apparently had a computer security breach that resulted in the defense potentially learning that the sample might not have belonged to Landis, and/or the files were damaged or missing. It almost seems like the lab is admitting they were hiding something, got caught, and because that revelation came through illegal channels they were pissed. In all of this the thing that I find the funniest is that the accused hacker grew up Mennonite. I know that Mennonites are not Amish, but they aren't that far removed. The thought of a Mennonite hacker is something that you would expect to see in a fake movie trailer that you would see on Saturday Night Live. The idea is just too funny.

MVPs

I'm a basketball nut. I never see enough basketball for my liking. I'm also not one of those college only basketball fans. I love watching the NBA. After games I like to look at the box scores to see what kind of picture the game stats paint. With that in mind, I have to say that I absolutely hate the way the MVP is determined in the NBA All Star Game.

I know the All Star Game is completely meaningless in the greater NBA picture (which I will concede is meaningless), but the NBA people could at least put in a little effort in determining the MVP. It may as well be a mathematical equation. At the very least it could be put into flowchart form, an extremely simple flow chart at that. It would go something like this:

1. Find winning team
2. Find player with most points
3. Give MVP trophy

That's about all there is to it. Sure points provide the final decision in who wins and loses, but it overestimates the value of a single aspect of how those points are scored. About the only exception to the above is when there is some story involved, but even in some of those cases the players will do their part to "force" that player into the most points.

It would be interesting to see how a composite points + 2x assists would change who received the MVP each year. It would be interesting to see rebounds, steals, shooting percentage, and possibly a few other stats taken into account. This year at least the MVP, Dwyane Wade, looks like he was pretty much the runaway winner even looking past just the points. He also led his team in assists, rebounds and steals.

The place where it falls apart, and seemingly flies in the face of logic, is in a fascinating stat called "+/-". Essentially this stat is a representation of the score while a particular player is on the court. If the good guys score, it is positive points. If the bad guys score, it is negative points. The result is that the good guys score that many more or less points than the opponent while that particular player is on the court. It isn't a "natural" stat in that it isn't directly measuring any specific facet of the players performance, but it gives a feeling of how well the team performed because of the player being in the game. It isn't perfect, but it is an interesting thing to look at.

If "+/-" was a factor in determining the MVP, it might have been LeBron James hoisting the trophy at the end of the game. Dwyane Wade was the only starter for the Eastern squad with a negative "+/-". Dwyane Wade was -2 on 31 minutes of play. LeBron James led the team with a +14 on 32 minutes of play. In a 48 minute game it is reasonable to assume that two players who were in the game for about 2/3 of the game would have about the same numbers in these stats. Instead there is a 16 point difference. LeBron James had fairly comparable stats in points, rebounds, and steals. His shooting numbers were not as hot, along with the assists, but for the most part the numbers were comparable. When it gets to the discrepancy in that one stat it really gets weird. Why do two guys with almost identical numbers have such wildly different "+/-" numbers?

Some of it can be explained by which people were on the floor with the player in question. Match ups away from the player in question could have played a big role in team offense and defense. It could be a whole lot of other things, but I still think it is an interesting line of reasoning.

Aaarrrrgghhh!

It has been an interesting few weeks here at the Minivann HQ. I've been in the process of applying for coaching jobs since the start of the year, but have not yet received any responses. The problem is that the college athletic websites update very infrequently during the off-season, so positions could be filled without my knowing. It is an odd feeling of hopefulness and hopelessness at the same time after sending in applications.

A little while back now I heard from a friend about an opening in Arizona. This has me hopeful for a number of reasons. For one, it is in Arizona. Arizona is home, even though we haven't lived there for about 15 years. The kids haven't really had a chance to really get to know their grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins like we really would like them to, so getting a job in Arizona would be very nice. It wouldn't be terribly close to a lot of family, but closer than it has been since we left all those years ago. Another reason we are excited is that we have been out of Utah for about a year and a half now, and we like not being in Utah. We think of Utah as home now, maybe more than Arizona, so it's not like that. Living in Utah is just a different experience. We enjoyed living there, but we have really enjoyed getting out and into a much more culturally diverse population. Arizona would help us stay in a more diverse population, even more so than this part of Ohio.

The Arizona job is also one that I'm really hopeful for because I see myself as having a very good chance at actually getting the job. The best I can figure, the job was not advertised anywhere but the school's own employment web site. All the other jobs I have been applying for are easy to find on the NCAA web site. Everyone who wants a coaching job will be checking there. I'm just a tiny fish in a very large ocean, but with the Arizona job, the body of water is significantly smaller. Then there is the whole thing about having the same alma mater as the head coach, and trivial stuff like having references that he knows and plays against on a more or less regular basis.

So with that in mind we've been making this a matter of fasting and prayer as a family. We feel pretty good about the whole idea. The best I can figure, I should have been called already for at least a phone interview or something. Nothing so far. I'm not going so far as to say that it is already ruled out, but we haven't heard anything yet.

At about this point I start to remind myself about how I always thought I was patient when I was growing up. I have since been adequately humbled and corrected in that naive assumption many times since. A part of me wonders if I am doomed to a lifetime of lessons on how lacking I am in the patience department.

So today, we are continuing on in our daily routine of nothing new but more monkey wrenches, and I go to check the NCAA website. The most recent posting is for my alma mater. I'm not going to go anywhere near saying that this means something, but aaarrrrgghhh! I like the idea of going back to Utah again, but in many ways it feels like it would be a step backwards. I like the idea more than the other half, but it makes me wonder if we are just incredibly stupid and missing something right in front of our eyes. Did we really need to go to Ohio for a couple years to just turn around and come right back (with a monstrous "if" I get that job)? I haven't got either the Arizona or the Utah job, but I almost feel like we need to make a choice between the two already.

Subtlety

The last volleyball season provided me with a real life example of a principle of learning. It is interesting that the example is one of subtlety. There is a principle that can be expressed to this effect, "You get results based on what you reward." I know there is a better way to phrase it, but I just can't think of it right now. The example is this:

The varsity squad has been operating under a certain standard when it comes to practices. During practice if some individual does not perform up to one of the coaches' standards for effort in a drill, there is some penalty. The penalty is usually some sort of sprints, push ups, or sit ups. Something like that. I think this is a fairly standard idea in athletics. You don't make an appropriate effort in practice; you pay the penalty with sprints. The effort in practice is the desired outcome here, whether the coach consciously desires that outcome or not. This might be a good approach if the drills are all trying to emulate some competitive situation. The problem is that the drills were seldom designed to be like something the team would likely experience on the court in competition. There isn't necessarily a transfer of effort to the competition. Effort was being rewarded, but at the end of the day, it was effort in practice situations that was being rewarded. That was what was trained into the team as a successful outcome.

A second idea being practiced with this is that of team. Essentially if one person is violating this effort standard, the whole team runs the sprint. This one is new to me, and I think it is one of these subtle deviations that take us to a completely different destination. While this team concept is on the surface a good goal, the problem lies in what is being punished and rewarded. With more than a dozen players in practice, and not all of them guilty of the effort violation when the whole team is doing sprints, there is a disconnect between the expressed desired outcome and what is perceived to be the desired outcome. The ones showing good effort are being punished rather than being rewarded. Also it is easy to lose sight of the team building standard when the same few players, or a cycle of players fails to show the prescribed level of effort. This was really foreign to me and my playing experience. I remember occasions in practices when a failure to serve the ball "in" would result in having to do push ups. It would seem entirely inappropriate to penalize the whole team when I missed those serves. A problem here is that the punishments lose meaning. The player with exemplary effort is running sprints along with the ones that are the prime offenders. Effort and lack of effort are being simultaneously punished. While not expressed by the team, I would probably be thinking I have losers for teammates.

These observations lead me to believe that the team is basically being taught that effort in a drill is unimportant, and the most important part of being on the team is performing the drills properly.

Meanwhile I was left to run practices for the JV team. I had free rein to run the practices as I saw fit. There were some subtle differences in the two practices. One of the subtle differences between the JV And varsity practices is that the JV drills were trying to put the players in as many game-like situations as possible. This is an idea that I have loved ever since it was taught to me. I could have stood on a box with a cart full of balls and hit at defenders over and over again. There is some utility in that approach. Instead of some standard of digging X number of balls, the team would score points for each ball they dug and then got a hitter to hit the ball over the net. The former is a useful skill in volleyball, but the latter skills often equate to points scored in a game. That subtle difference in desired outcomes can make a big difference when that type of focus permeates the team's activities.

Another subtle difference lies in how those penalty sprints were administered. With the JV team there would be two or more teams in an individual drill. As mentioned before, the teams would try to score points by doing some set of skills that would be used in the game. The team with the most points would not run the sprints. This subtle difference in what warranted sprints shifts the desired outcome from just effort, to effort towards some concrete victory condition. Rather than training the team to perform drill properly, the focus was on competing to win the game.

These subtle differences led to some fascinating outcomes. Both teams made good progress towards their desired outcomes. The varsity team had a much higher level of skill, and could perform some of the difficult drills remarkably well. They had some excellent practices. They also had some bad performances in practices. In games they were less successful. In hindsight, they got what they should have from the practices. Good practices punctuated with a few moments of brilliance in games. They were a good team, but they never were taught, or learned, how to compete. In contrast, the JV team lacked the polish in practice and in matches, but they had a fight in them that was admirable. While the varsity team at times had horrible effort in games, the JV would regroup and fight. There were often times when they would get into a deep deep hole from bad play, but I can't question their fight. Some of the attempts at a come back from certain defeat were very satisfying to watch. Most of the time those come backs failed, but I imagine that they didn't go home after the match and think, "what if I tried harder." It is a lot easier to be beaten by a team that played better than to be beaten because I didn't try hard enough.

It all comes down to subtle little differences. While the two teams did very similar things in practice, and were rewarded and punished similarly, the subtle differences brought the two teams to very different destinations. I would have loved to see the varsity team play with the kind of fight the JV team had. It would have been something special.