Cabrera Suspension Yet Another Sign that MLB's "Steroid Era" is not Over

We know that performance-enhancing drug (PED) use was widespread in MLB during the so-called "Steroid Era" when the owners, the players and most members of the media largely ignored the fact that players were bulking up, setting records, winning championships and stealing millions of dollars in salary as a result of boosting their production with the help of illegal drugs. We are supposed to believe that the "Steroid Era" is over because now MLB conducts drug tests and has a three-tiered scale of punishment for offenders: 50 game suspension for strike one, 100 game suspension for strike two and a lifetime ban for strike three; all suspensions are served without pay. Despite the institution of the testing program and the aforementioned penalties, 2011 NL MVP Ryan Braun failed a drug test (he was later cleared on a procedural technicality, with no scientific explanation offered for how his test could possibly been wrong) and Manny Ramirez--one of the top sluggers of the "Steroid Era"--retired in disgrace in 2011 after his second failed drug test (Ramirez later successfully lobbied to get his 100 game suspension reduced to 50 games and after serving that suspension earlier this season he is trying to make a comeback). Melky Cabrera, the current NL batting average leader (.346, .062 points above his career average), has just been suspended for 50 games; the only good thing that can be said about Cabrera is that he did not use the "dog ate my homework" type of excuse offered up by most cheaters who have been caught: he admitted that he intentionally took a banned substance.

What possible motivation could MLB players have to risk missing so many games and losing such a significant portion of their salaries? These are the two most likely reasons that MLB players could be caught using PEDs now:

1) The players believe that they can beat the system; perhaps many players are still using PEDs and getting away with it while only a few players are stupid enough and/or unlucky enough to get caught.
2) PEDs provide such a huge advantage that the potential rewards (money, stats, championships) outweigh the risks of getting caught.

Some economists insist that PEDs do not in fact enhance performance; I would not ask a medical doctor for economic advice, so I am not sure why anyone would ask an economist for advice about medical matters/sports performance but both the clinical and anecdotal evidence strongly suggest that PEDs do exactly what their name suggests: help an athlete to enhance his performance. Yes, that athlete still has to train hard but that is the point: all elite athletes train hard but the ones who take PEDs are able to train even harder and get more results from that training. PED usage can help a marginal prospect make it to the big leagues and it can help a talented player like Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire put up superhuman numbers. Cabrera hit .255 for Atlanta in 2010, .305 for Kansas City in 2011 and this season he not only set a new career-high in batting average but he made the All-Star team for the first time and he won the All-Star Game MVP (clinching home field advantage for the National League in the 2012 World Series). Cabrera made $3,100,000 in 2010 but after his poor performance that season his pay was slashed to only $1,250,000 in 2011. His increased numbers in 2011 helped him land a $6,000,000 contract for 2012. He recently reportedly turned down a three year, $27 million contract extension because he expected to receive much more than that as a free agent after the 2012 season.

It is not difficult to figure out the calculations being made by Cabrera and other MLB players; increased performance is literally worth tens of millions of dollars. Only the players know how easy or difficult it is to evade detection for PED use but if Ramirez and Cabrera (and almost certainly Braun, technicality aside) were willing to risk getting caught it is not much of a stretch to assume that either (a) a lot of other players are still getting away with PED use or (b) those are the three stupidest guys in the sport.

If drug testing works--and if PEDs don't work anyway, as some economists suggest--then why are players still taking PEDs? It is premature to assume that the "Steroid Era" is over; the drugs of choice may have changed and the methods for evading detection may have improved but the positive drug tests that we know about probably just represent the tip of the iceberg.

NCAA's Penn State Sanctions are Disproportionate, Unfair and Hypocritical

"The sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family or those who knew him best. That the President, the Athletic Director and the Board of Trustees accepted this unprecedented action by the NCAA without requiring a full due process hearing before the Committee on Infractions is an abdication of their responsibilities and a breach of their fiduciary duties to the University and the 500,000 alumni."--Paterno family statement

Jerry Sandusky's sex abuse crimes are abhorrent and he deserves the severest possible penalty under the law--but even he deserved and received due process and his day in court. Sandusky received justice but his case has now shifted into a witch hunt that appears to be designed to consume and destroy the reputation and legacy of Joe Paterno. Paterno is an easy target because he is deceased and thus not able to defend himself and his actions/alleged actions. Although a Pennsylvania grand jury declined to charge Paterno and there is no direct evidence that Paterno knowingly covered up Sandusky's crimes, Paterno's name is being smeared based on the words "reasonable to conclude": the Freeh Report interviewed hundreds of people and reviewed over three million documents but failed to find a single proverbial "smoking gun" implicating Paterno. Instead, the Freeh Report engaged in some form of literary interpretation and determined that it would be, in Freeh's repeatedly stated words, "reasonable to conclude" that Paterno actively sought to cover up Sandusky's crimes--even dating back to a time when law enforcement authorities had investigated Sandusky and been unable to prove that Sandusky had in fact committed any crimes.

The accusations against Paterno simply do not make much sense; why would Paterno report Mike McQueary's allegations about Sandusky to Tim Curley and Gary Schultz if Paterno's primary motivation was to cover things up at all costs? Paterno has a well documented history of suspending players for even minor infractions and for emphasizing academics/integrity over wins. Paterno did not cover up or whitewash small, technical NCAA violations so why would he actively cover up heinous crimes? Paterno said that in retrospect he wishes that he had done more; it is reasonable to suggest that Paterno should have taken a more active role to ensure that his superiors properly handled the Sandusky matter but it is more than a bit of a reach to assert that Paterno deliberately covered up child sex abuse just so that he could win more football games.

Would you want the sum total worth of your life to be defined by what other people think is "reasonable to conclude" based on reading emails that you did not write and that were composed by people who currently are facing charges of perjury (former Penn State administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley)? There certainly appears to be plenty of direct evidence to implicate those two individuals; at the very least, decisions permanently affecting Paterno's legacy and status should wait until the Curley and Schultz trials hopefully shed more light on what exactly Paterno did and did not do.

The NCAA sanctions against Penn State are unprecedented. The NCAA fined Penn State $60 million, with those funds to be dedicated to an endowment to help child abuse victims. That is certainly a worthy endeavor, although it is not clear how it was decided what amount the fine should be or who specifically will bear that cost; if money is being taken away from the education of innocent Penn State students (as opposed to be taken away from people who actually committed crimes) then that is not right no matter how noble the cause is.

The NCAA also banned the Penn State football program from postseason play for four years, enforced scholarship reductions lasting for four years and placed the athletic department on probation for five years. Perhaps the most stunning decision is that the NCAA vacated 112 Penn State wins from 1998-2011, 111 of which had been credited to Paterno's personal record. The cumulative effect of these NCAA punishments hurts Paterno, his former players and current/future Penn State players but it does nothing to punish the men responsible for the actual crimes: Sandusky (whose fate correctly lies in the hands of the justice system), Curley and Schultz. Also left unscathed is former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was heavily criticized in the Freeh Report but has not been charged with a crime and has vehemently denied that he knew about and covered up Sandusky's crimes.

The NCAA claims that it is acting so harshly against Penn State to make a statement proving that collegiate sports should never be elevated over academics and should not become "too big to fail" in the words of NCAA President Mark Emmert. Are we really supposed to believe that Penn State and Penn State alone stood for the worst of what college sports represents? Jerry Sandusky was a serial child sexual predator who manipulated and deceived his family, the people at the Second Mile charity and others around him but his crimes do not represent the totality of what Penn State stood for during Paterno's era; Paterno guided many players who became productive members of society and his teams were consistently successful on the field without committing violations off of the field. Instead of self-righteously singling out Penn State the NCAA should take down the entire bloated system that has essentially transformed college sports into minor leagues for football and basketball in which all of the profits go to the NCAA, the athletic departments and the coaches while the players are not paid anything other than scholarships. Why should college football and basketball coaches be the highest paid state employees in any state? Paterno ran his program with more integrity than just about anyone else--based on the documented record, not based on what someone decides it is "reasonable to conclude"--but if the NCAA feels that big time college sports are somehow inherently corrupt (which is certainly "reasonable to conclude" at this point) then Emmert and his cohorts should refund all of the television and sponsorship money that they receive and let some other organization take over minor league football and minor league basketball in this country while the NCAA sets up a new structure in which college sports consists entirely of intramural games that are not sources of billions of dollars in revenue.

The NCAA is a self-appointed judge, jury and executioner--but who judges the NCAA? The NCAA has a huge book filled with Byzantine rules that it enforces or fails to enforce solely at its own discretion, with no outside oversight. Big name programs like Miami (the infamous "U"), Oklahoma, Nebraska and others had endemic problems/crimes/violations yet their wins and championships have not been vacated; to cite just one example, Nebraska's sainted Coach Tom Osborne kept Lawrence Phillips on the team despite the fact that Phillips assaulted his girlfriend. Phillips ultimately played a major role when Nebraska won the 1995 national championship. Phillips has since faced numerous criminal charges and is currently serving a term of at least 26 years in prison for committing various assaults. Did Osborne, Nebraska and the NCAA ultimately do right by Phillips--coddling him instead of insisting that he be punished for his crimes and possibly get help for his anger issues--and his victims? Perhaps you say that Phillips' numerous assault cases are not as bad as Sandusky's child abuse crimes; well, what about murder? Is murder worse? In 2003, Baylor basketball player Carlton Dotson murdered his teammate Patrick Dennehy; the ensuing criminal and NCAA investigations turned up a host of crimes and NCAA violations committed by Coach Dave Bliss and other members of the coaching staff/athletic department. NCAA history is full of murder, mayhem, point shaving, academic fraud and grown men lining their pockets while taking advantage of the athletic talents of the young men in their charge, young men who often do not receive much academic, moral or social instruction during their college days.

The NCAA's swift and unprecedented action against Penn State and against Paterno's coaching record is not about justice or morality. This is really about two things: (1) public relations and (2) taking preemptive action to prevent lawsuits against the NCAA. The NCAA is a greedy and inherently corrupt organization that is more concerned about preserving its revenue streams than anything else.

Not only is the NCAA acting with breathtaking hypocrisy, it is doubtful that the NCAA's actions are legal. ESPN's Jay Bilas, a former Duke basketball player who is also a practicing attorney, says that the NCAA's actions set a precedent that the NCAA is "willing to violate its own rules and act without going through the normal course." Florida-based attorney Michael Buckner goes even further, telling ESPN's Mike Fish that what the NCAA did is "perhaps unconstitutional." Fish reports that Iowa attorney Jerry Crawford says that the NCAA made a "rush to judgment.'' Crawford adds, "I don't know any reason for the NCAA to feel they needed to rush in other than they were getting bullied in the court of public opinion, which they obviously didn't like. What I believe I know is Joe Paterno ran an NCAA sanction[ed] football program that didn't just play within the rules, but played well within the rules. Recruited good people. Got them educations. I thought it was a program the country needed to emulate, not ostracize.''

In Christopher Nolan's recently concluded Batman film trilogy, Batman takes the fall for Harvey Dent (the maniacal "Two Face") so that Dent can be viewed by Gotham's citizens as a hero and as a symbol for justice--but propagating that lie turned out to be very costly for all involved. Jerry Sandusky must be punished for his crimes and anyone who knowingly covered up his crimes should also be punished--but making Joe Paterno and the entire Penn State football program take the fall to supposedly prove the integrity of the NCAA is as bold a lie as saying that Batman is a criminal while Harvey Dent is a hero. Such lies always have dreadful consequences.

Freeh Report Condemns Penn State's Handling of Sandusky Case

The Freeh Report about the Jerry Sandusky child abuse case unilaterally condemns the university--including President Graham Spanier, top ranking officials Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, the Board of Trustees and football coach Joe Paterno--for completely failing to handle the matter appropriately and indeed covering up Sandusky's crimes instead of following federal laws requiring the reporting of accusations against Sandusky. The press release announcing the findings of the Freeh Report includes this statement that will likely forever alter how Penn State and Coach Paterno are viewed:

Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky’s victims until after Sandusky's arrest.

When the information about the Sandusky case initially became publicly known last November and the Penn State Board of Trustees reacted swiftly by firing Coach Paterno without even meeting with him, I felt that Paterno was being made into a scapegoat for others' failures. Obviously, if it is true that Paterno clearly knew about Sandusky's criminal actions and participated in a cover-up--as the Freeh Report alleges--then it was correct to fire Paterno. Unfortunately, Paterno became ill and passed away before Freeh's investigators could interview him--and Freeh himself said that he believed that Paterno intended to fully cooperate with the investigation if his health had permitted him to do so. Freeh and his associates reviewed over 3 million documents/emails and conducted more than 430 interviews but--while it is easily confirmed that Spanier, Curley and Schultz directly acted to conceal evidence of Sandusky's crimes--it seems that the main evidence against Paterno is circumstantial: Freeh interpreted the contents of various emails to mean that Paterno had urged Penn State officials--Paterno's superiors, it must be emphasized--to handle the Sandusky matter internally instead of reporting it to outside authorities. Even if that is true--and there is no "smoking gun" that confirms this interpretation of events--the Penn State President and the university's other leaders had a legal and moral obligation to report the allegations about Sandusky to the proper authorities. The idea that Paterno was more concerned about bad publicity than doing the right thing is belied by the high standards that Paterno set for himself and his football program for several decades. In retrospect it is clear that Paterno should have taken a more active role in addressing the Sandusky allegations--Paterno himself expressed regret that he had not done more--but I still find it hard to believe that Paterno knowingly and deliberately covered up child abuse merely to avoid bad publicity for his football program.

Whether Paterno passively let matters take their course or took an active role in Penn State's deplorable handling of the Sandusky case, this is a sad day not just in college football history but in the history of American sports. If Paterno's "Grand Experiment" is in fact tainted then what hope is there for the future of amateur athletics as a positive force in our society? The influx of big money into amateur athletics has perhaps had an irredeemably corrupting influence; that statement is not meant to justify anything that Paterno failed to do but rather to indicate that if even someone who--over the course of several decades--proved himself to be a fundamentally decent and morally upright person could not stay on the right path then perhaps the entire culture of amateur athletics is inherently corrupt. It is simply inexcusable for the football coach to be the most powerful figure on any college campus--and it is indisputable that this is the case, in practice if not in theory, on many, many college campuses.

Here is a statement from the Paterno family regarding the Freeh Report:

We are in the process of reviewing the Freeh report and will need some time before we can comment in depth on its findings and conclusions. From the moment this crisis broke, Joe Paterno supported a comprehensive, fair investigation. He always believed, as we do, that the full truth should be uncovered.

From what we have been able to assess at this time, it appears that after reviewing 3 million documents and conducting more than 400 interviews, the underlying facts as summarized in the report are almost entirely consistent with what we understood them to be. The 1998 incident was reported to law enforcement and investigated. Joe Paterno reported what he was told about the 2001 incident to Penn State authorities and he believed it would be fully investigated. The investigation also confirmed that Sandusky's retirement in 1999 was unrelated to these events.

One great risk in this situation is a replaying of events from the last 15 years or so in a way that makes it look obvious what everyone must have known and should have done. The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept. The far more realistic conclusion is that many people didn't fully understand what was happening and underestimated or misinterpreted events. Sandusky was a great deceiver. He fooled everyone--law enforcement, his family, coaches, players, neighbors, university officials, and everyone at Second Mile.

Joe Paterno wasn't perfect. He made mistakes and he regretted them. He is still the only leader to step forward and say that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more. To think, however, that he would have protected Jerry Sandusky to avoid bad publicity is simply not realistic. If Joe Paterno had understood what Sandusky was, a fear of bad publicity would not have factored into his actions.

We appreciate the effort that was put into this investigation. The issue we have with some of the conclusions is that they represent a judgment on motives and intentions and we think this is impossible. We have said from the beginning that Joe Paterno did not know Jerry Sandusky was a child predator. Moreover, Joe Paterno never interfered with any investigation. He immediately and accurately reported the incident he was told about in 2001.

It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs. We accept this criticism. At the same time, Joe Paterno and everyone else knew that Sandusky had been repeatedly investigated by authorities who approved his multiple adoptions and foster children. Joe Paterno mistakenly believed that investigators, law enforcement officials, university leaders and others would properly and fully investigate any issue and proceed as the facts dictated.

This didn't happen and everyone shares the responsibility.

Yankees' Ban of Reggie Jackson is Ridiculous

Reggie Jackson will forever be known to baseball fans as "Mr. October" but his current official title is Special Advisor to the Senior Managing Partners of the Yankees; in that capacity he fills a variety of roles, including giving hitting advice to young players and meeting with the team's current and/or potential business partners. Jackson will not be dispensing tips or shaking any hands for at least a little while, though; Jackson recently made some candid--and quite correct--criticisms of steroid cheater Alex Rodriguez and the Yankees responded not by taking a principled stand but rather by punishing Jackson.

It is disgraceful that Major League Baseball--under the "leadership" of Commissioner Bud Selig--turned a blind eye and deaf ear while players broke federal laws, cheated in a manner that cost honest players a shot at playing professional ball and turned the sport's record book into a farce. Cheaters like Rodriguez should be banned from the sport, not lauded--and it is ridiculous that Mark McGwire has been brought back into the MLB fold as a hitting instructor.

The Yankees are ostracizing Jackson for these remarks about Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa, five players linked to performance-enhancing drug (PED) use who passed Jackson on the all-time home run list:

"I don't think the fans really count them, and I agree. I believe that Hank Aaron is the home run king, not Barry Bonds, as great a player as Bonds was." Jackson said of Rodriguez, "Al's a very good friend. But I think there are real questions about his numbers. As much as I like him, what he admitted about his usage does cloud some of his records."

If Selig had any, shall we say, intestinal fortitude, he would have made sure that MLB effectively dealt with the PED issue long before Rodriguez and the others defaced the record book with their tainted names. Rodriguez and the rest of the cheaters should be on the outside of the sport looking in but, instead, Selig will likely do nothing while the sport's flagship franchise exiles one of its greatest players.

Federer Claims Seventh Wimbledon Crown with a Virtuoso Performance

Andy Murray, the fourth ranked tennis player in the world, played the best that he has ever played in a Grand Slam final--and he took just one set from Roger Federer, who claimed his 17th Grand Slam singles title (extending his own record) and seventh Wimbledon crown. Federer's virtuoso performance against Murray provided a classic demonstration of the difference--mentally, physically and emotionally--between an all-time great player and a very, very good player. As ESPN's Darren Cahill aptly put it, Murray did not do anything wrong but Federer just took the match away from him.

Federer's triumph enabled him to equal two modern era records held by Pete Sampras: most Wimbledon singles titles and most weeks as the number one ranked player (286). Federer ended his two year drought without a Grand Slam title, winning his first major since the 2010 Australian Open; prior to this year's Wimbledon, Federer had made it to just one final in his previous nine Grand Slam appearances after advancing to the previous eight finals and winning four of those. During Federer's struggles--by his high standards--it seemed reasonable to wonder if he would ever win another Grand Slam title, just as now it seems reasonable to wonder how many more Grand Slam titles Federer might be able to win despite his relatively advanced age (he turns 31 next month). Sampras had eight winless Grand Slam appearances after winning his 13th Grand Slam title--tying the longest such drought of his career--and he retired at 31 after winning the U.S. Open to claim his 14th major title but Federer believes that he can keep playing at a high level for the foreseeable future. It is too soon to say if this was the last great singular moment of Federer's career or the beginning of some kind of revival.

For several years, it has been popular to acclaim Federer as the greatest tennis player of all-time or at least the greatest tennis player of the Open Era; the first claim is virtually impossible to logically prove considering the vast differences (equipment, rules, surfaces, etc.) between the various tennis eras, while the second claim is at the least very debatable considering the simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open dominance achieved by Bjorn Borg, not to mention Rafael Nadal's head to head mastery of Federer and the fact that Nadal won more Grand Slams by age 25 than anyone in tennis history other than Borg.

While the greatest of all-time/greatest of the Open Era questions are more complex than most people seem to be willing to acknowledge, on the occasion of Federer's most recent Wimbledon triumph it makes sense to compare Federer's stellar career at tennis' most prestigious Grand Slam with the numbers posted by Borg and Sampras, the two other most distinguished Wimbledon champions of the Open Era:

Federer has played at Wimbledon 14 times, amassing seven titles plus one other finals appearance. He has lost in the first round three times and has a 66-7 match record (.904).

Sampras also played at Wimbledon 14 times, winning seven titles in seven finals appearances. He lost in the first round twice and he posted a 63-7 match record (.900).

Borg played at Wimbledon nine times, winning five titles in six finals appearances. He never lost earlier than the third round and he posted a 51-4 match record (.927).

Federer and Sampras share the modern era record for most Wimbledon titles but Borg still holds (or, in one instance, shares) several other Wimbledon records:

1. Career match winning percentage (.927)
2. 41 consecutive match wins (1976-81)
3. Only player to win Wimbledon without losing a set (1976)
4. 24 consecutive sets won (1976-77)
5. Five consecutive championships won (1976-80; Borg shares this record with Federer, who won five in a row from 2003-07)
   

However, Borg's most impressive Wimbledon record--and one of the reasons that I still consider him to be the greatest player of the Open Era--is that for three years in a row (1978-80) he captured the "Channel Slam," triumphing first on the slow clay at Roland Garros and then prevailing on the fast grass at Wimbledon. When Borg retired, he was the four-time reigning French Open champion and he held the Open Era record for both Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six). Sampras and Federer broke Borg's Wimbledon record and Nadal broke Borg's French Open record but no other player has simultaneously ruled both surfaces the way that Borg did.

Federer's mastery is deservedly lauded but the fact that even a player as gifted, durable and motivated as he is cannot match the multi-surface dominance that Borg accomplished indicates just how much respect and praise that Borg deserves as well.

Brenda Warner's Inspiring Message to Kurt Warner

NFL Network's series of one hour profiles titled "A Football Life" provides a riveting look at some of pro football's most accomplished and revered figures, including Bill Belichick, Al Davis, Mike Ditka, Tom Landry and Walter Payton. The episode about Kurt Warner detailed Warner's amazing football journey from the minor leagues to Super Bowl champion and his equally amazing journey to become a husband/stepfather/father after marrying the former Brenda Carney Meoni and adopting her two children--including son Zach, who sustained a traumatic head injury as an infant that left him blind and brain damaged.

During a rough patch late in Warner's NFL career, Brenda wrote Kurt a letter in Zach's voice. The Warners shared the text of that letter with "A Football Life":

Remember me when you want to give up.
Remember I didn't...

Remember me when you think life is hard.
Remember my life is...

Remember me when you want to hurry through life.
Remember me...slow down.

Love, Zach

Two Sports Ilustrated Cover Stories Detail the Sordid Legacy of Baseball's "Steroid Era"

Ten years ago, Sports Illustrated published a cover story about how performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) helped Ken Caminiti become the 1996 National League MVP. Caminiti told Verducci that he did not feel guilty about using PEDs because PED usage had become widespread throughout the sport. That article prompted Congress to hold the hearings that finally, belatedly convinced the MLB Players Association to agree to allow drug testing: "It was the beginning of the end of the Steroid Era," writes Tom Verducci in a cover story for the June 4, 2012 issue of Sports Illustrated; Verducci, who also penned the 2002 SI cover story, now examines the Steroid Era not in terms of its effect on the stars of the game, the records that they shattered and the Hall of Fame votes that they may not--and should not--receive but rather through the prism of the careers of four minor leaguers: three who stayed clean and never made it to the big leagues and one who cheated his way out of minor league purgatory.

When Dan Naulty received a call from one of the Mitchell Report's investigators, he willingly talked about how steroids transformed him from a tall, skinny minor leaguer with a fast ball that topped out well short of 90 mph into a ripped, muscular hurler with major league stuff. Naulty realized very early during his career that he would never move out of A ball unless he got much bigger and stronger, so he began cheating by taking an array of substances that helped him add nearly 70 pounds to his 6-6, 180 pound frame. Verducci writes:

It was a cycle that would repeat itself every year: Naulty would use various steroids through the winter, gain muscle mass and velocity, and wow the coaches in camp. He would not use steroids during the season, causing him to lose some weight--about 10 pounds if he had gained 20--and his numbers to fall off as the year progressed. Then it was back to an off-season of doping, with a veritable buffet of steroids. "We were mixing them," he says. "Some for size, some for speed. There was a steroid I took one off-season that was purely to speed your body up. You didn't gain any size at all. [Your arm speed] just got faster. The point was the faster I moved the harder I'd throw."

In four years Naulty gained 50 pounds and added 10 miles an hour to his fastball. (He would eventually top out at 248 pounds.) His legs were enormous. His shoulders looked like cantaloupes, with the rounded, watery hallmark of steroids. He loved the way his body looked, loved to take his shirt off, loved the compliments he got from coaches and loved the way nobody in baseball asked, How? The Steroid Era was taking hold, made possible by a don't ask, don't tell policy. "Everybody is telling you how great you look," Naulty says. "Nobody ever asked if I was using drugs. I never had one discussion about steroids around another baseball player. All my discussions about steroids were with bodybuilders."

Ninety percent of all drafted players never spend one day in the big leagues. Steroid users made the odds even worse for clean players.

Thirty-three players appeared in at least one game for the 1994 Fort Myers Miracle. Only six of them reached the majors long enough to earn $500,000 in their careers. Half of those players are known PED users: Naulty, outfielder Matt Lawton (who tested positive in 2005) and pitcher Dan Serafini (who flunked a test in '07).

This detailed information will no doubt surprise the economists and "stat gurus" who foolishly assert that PEDs don't work. PEDs work; that is why athletes use them even though these substances are dangerous to their long term health and even though such usage is both against the law and forbidden by their leagues/sanctioning bodies. PED usage has wrecked lives and transformed the record books from nonfiction into something more fraudulent than a three dollar bill.

Verducci reports that Naulty's minor league teammate Brett Roberts, who never cheated and never made it to the big leagues, is understandably angry:

"It's cheating," says Roberts, who bristles at the steroid users who made it. "It sticks in my craw because I know how hard I worked. Was I going to be a guy with a five- to 10-year career? Probably not. But I know I could have been there."

While Roberts and others dealt with crushed, broken dreams, Naulty advanced to the big leagues and received (stole) $185,000 a year. Verducci relentlessly breaks down all of the myths about the Steroid Era:

The rationalizing and enabling goes on even today by players, fans and media. The popular myth is that before testing, steroids in baseball "weren't illegal" (in fact, their use was made illegal by the federal government in 1988 unless prescribed to treat a medical condition), were "not against the rules" (a 1991 memo by commissioner Fay Vincent specifically prohibited steroids) and that "everybody was doing it, anyway." (Tell that to Legault, Linebarger and Roberts.) But the silence in the culture of steroids is a dead giveaway that the users knew they were corrupt. "I was a full-blown cheater, and I knew it," Naulty says. "You didn't need a written rule. I was violating clear principles that were laid down within the rules. I understood I was violating implicit principles.

"I have no idea how many guys were using testosterone. But I would assume anybody that was had some sort of conviction that this was against the rules. To say it wasn't cheating to me...it's just a fallacy. It was a total disadvantage to play clean."

Jeff Horn is another minor leaguer who used PEDs to try to make it to the big leagues; he eventually injured two disks in his neck in a collision at home plate during a game in the Atlanta Braves' 2000 training camp and then in 2001 he was busted in the first year of the minor league baseball drug testing program (MLB would not institute drug testing until Congress intervened) while he was trying to make a comeback, prompting him to retire. Horn told Verducci, "I was, at best, an average hitter. A good fastball could tie me up. When I had the stuff in me I could get to those pitches easier. With steroids you could do those things you otherwise couldn't do. The things that kept you in the minor leagues all of a sudden didn't hold you back anymore. It's not like you could take a guy off the street, give him steroids and he can hit a Jered Weaver fastball. But if you have the ability to do it, you can get a little help doing things you were not able to do."

Rick Reilly once called the minor leaguers who got cheated out of jobs by steroid users The Forgotten Victims of MLB's "Steroids Era" and Verducci's article graphically illustrates the toll that this cheating took not just on those victims but also on the cheaters and on the sport itself. The players who cheated, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, the MLB owners and the MLB Players Association should be ashamed for enriching themselves at the expense of integrity.

Seventh Heaven: Nadal Beats Djokovic, Surpasses Borg

Rafael Nadal won one of the most historically significant matches in tennis history, defeating Novak Djokovic 6-4, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 in the French Open to both break Bjorn Borg's record for French Open titles and end Djokovic's bid to simultaneously hold all four Grand Slam singles titles. Nadal has now won the French Open seven times in eight tries and he owns a 52-1 match record at Roland Garros; Borg won six French Open titles in eight appearances, posting a 49-2 match record. Borg skipped the French Open once during his prime--a result of the Byzantine chess politics of that era--and he retired at just 25 as the four-time reigning French Open champion. The 26 year old Nadal won the French Open the first four times that he entered it--2005-2008--to tie Borg's record for consecutive championships at that event and after Nadal's lone setback in the fourth round in 2009 versus Robin Soderling he has won three more French Open titles in a row.

Commentators have been attempting for years to elevate Roger Federer to greatest of all-time status but while the talking heads chirp and the writing heads pontificate Nadal has been getting the job done where it really matters: between the lines on the court. Nadal is now tied for fourth (with Borg and Rod Laver) on the all-time list with 11 Grand Slam singles titles, trailing only Federer (16), Pete Sampras (14) and Roy Emerson (12)--but in many ways Nadal's career record is more impressive than the career records of Federer, Sampras and Emerson. Nadal has won 11 of the 32 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.344), a percentage second only to Borg's phenomenal 11/27 (.407); Borg is the only male player who won more Grand Slams at a younger age than Nadal (Borg won his 11th Grand Slam at 25). Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is .308 (16/52), Sampras' Grand Slam winning percentage is .269 (14/52) and Emerson's Grand Slam winning percentage is .207 (12/58).

Although Emerson did complete the career Grand Slam and was the first player to win at least two titles in each of the Grand Slam events, all of his wins came during an era when professionals were banned from the Grand Slams and six of his 12 Grand Slam titles came in the Australian Open at a time when many top non-Australians did not play in that event, so Emerson cannot be given serious consideration in any legitimate greatest player of all-time discussion. Federer's Grand Slam total is also padded by four Australian triumphs, while Nadal only has one win in the least important Grand Slam and Borg only played Down Under once, early in his career.

Nadal completed the career Grand Slam at 24 (Federer was nearly 28 when he accomplished this) and Nadal has bested Federer on Federer's favorite Grand Slam surface--Wimbledon's grass--but Federer has never beaten Nadal at Roland Garros. Federer has lost in the first round of a Grand Slam six times and Sampras suffered seven first round Grand Slam losses; neither Borg nor Nadal ever lost in the first round of a Grand Slam.

Borg's simultaneous grass (Wimbledon)/clay (French Open) dominance is unparalleled--he won Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year an unprecedented three straight times and when he retired he held the Open Era record for both Wimbeldon titles (five) and French Open titles (six). Sampras (seven) and Federer (six) broke Borg's Wimbledon record and now Nadal has claimed Borg's French Open record but no player has come close to matching Borg's simultaneous multi-surface dominance. It is baffling that Borg is not more widely considered to be the greatest Open Era player or at least on equal footing with Federer and Nadal. Sampras' inability to even make it to the French Open Finals--he only made it to the semifinals once--places him below Borg, Federer and Nadal in the Open Era pantheon.

Djokovic is the wild card in this discussion. He was clearly a distant third behind Federer and Nadal for several years until he had a season for the ages in 2011 but his year of dominance may have ended; after beating Nadal in three straight Grand Slam Finals--and seven straight matches overall, each of them in Finals--Djokovic has lost to Nadal three times in a row, with each of those setbacks coming in Finals. Commentators spoke of Nadal's supposed "Djokovic problem" but it is not unusual for the tide to go back and forth somewhat in a rivalry between two players who are almost exactly the same age--and the reality is that Nadal still has a healthy head to head edge versus Djokovic overall (19-14) and in Grand Slam matches (6-3). It is hard to understand how Nadal's "Djokovic problem" could possibly be more significant or relevant than Roger Federer's much larger "Nadal problem": Nadal owns an 18-10 head to head advantage over Federer, including 8-2 in Grand Slam matches.

Perhaps if Nadal wins five more Grand Slam titles even Federer's most loyal devotees will have to admit what has been apparent for several years: Nadal has authored a career that is at least as dominant and accomplished as Federer's.

Anand Retains World Chess Championship Title with Playoff Victory Over Gelfand

Viswanathan Anand successfully defended his World Chess Championship title for the third consecutive time, defeating challenger Boris Gelfand 2.5-1.5 in a Rapid playoff (G/25 with a 10 second increment) after the two players drew a 12 game match at the Classical time control. Anand has held at least part of the World Chess Championship title since 2007 when he won the eight player FIDE World Chess Championship event in Mexico and he unified the title beyond any doubt in 2008 when he defeated Vladimir Kramnik 6.5-4.5 to become the 15th World Chess Champion (Kramnik won the linear championship by defeating Garry Kasparov in a match in 2000 and it could reasonably be argued that Anand did not fully succeed Kramnik--even though Kramnik participated in the 2007 Mexico event--until he took the title from Kramnik in a Classical match format).

Although serious chess observers place the most emphasis on the Classical format, it is worth noting that Anand is the only player in chess history to win at least part of the World Chess Championship title in four different formats:

1. Anand defeated Alexei Shirov in 2001 to win the FIDE World Chess Championship in a knockout format.
2. Anand won the eight player FIDE World Chess Championship tournament in Mexico in 2007.
3. Anand defeated Vladimir Kramnik in a Classical match in 2008 and then defended his title in a Classical match versus Veselin Topalov in 2010.
4. Anand defeated Boris Gelfand in a Rapid tiebreak match in 2012 after the players drew a 12 game Classical match (two wins each plus 10 draws).

The Anand-Gelfand match received a lot of criticism because the players seemed to be very risk-averse, agreeing to draws in positions that other Grandmasters thought still had some play left. Gelfand surprised the chess world with a win in game seven after six consecutive draws--Gelfand's first Classical win over Anand in nearly two decades--but Anand bounced back with an even more shocking win in game eight, taking out Gelfand in just 17 moves after Gelfand miscalculated and allowed Anand to trap his Queen. The players then drew the rest of their Classical games, setting up the Rapid playoff.

Previous World Chess Championship matches have either lasted longer--24 games was a standard format for many previous matches--and/or permitted the Champion to retain his title in the event of a tie score; the new format of a much shorter Classical match to be followed in the event of a tie by matches with progressively faster time controls until a winner emerges naturally makes the players hesitant to take risks early in the Classical match: a loss could be potentially disastrous, while a draw just brings the players one step closer to the playoff matches. Only the players know if either (or both) of them believed that his chances were better in the faster games and/or if either (or both) of them simply did not want to go all out in the Classical games when the Champion did not have the luxury of automatically retaining his title in the event of a drawn match.

The two players had an action packed, exciting draw in the first game of the Rapid playoff. In the second game, Anand successfully exploited the advantage of the White pieces to gain an edge and put pressure on Gelfand to defend accurately. Gelfand used up a lot of time to eventually reach a theoretically drawn position but with just seconds remaining on his clock Gelfand made a decisive mistake. The third game went back and forth before Gelfand built a winning position but with less than a minute remaining on his clock Gelfand blundered and Anand held the draw. Gelfand needed to win with Black in the fourth game in order to force a Blitz playoff (G/5 plus a 10 second increment) but he was unable to generate any meaningful winning chances and Anand eventually forced a draw. Gelfand proved to be a worthy challenger--despite the predictions by many commentators that Anand should be considered an overwhelming favorite--but in the end Anand's superior clock management in the Rapid playoff proved to be the difference.

Both competitors showed their class not just as elite chess players but also as great sportsmen; they talked amicably with each other after the games (far from a regular occurrence in World Championship competition) and they consistently displayed enormous mutual respect in their words and deeds. Anand graciously said that this was his toughest match ever and that if he had to lose the title to anyone he would have been happy for Gelfand to succeed him.

It seems strange to determine the result of a Classical World Championship match with Rapid games; this is like breaking a tie in the Boston Marathon by having the two competitors square off in a 100 yard dash. Other possible World Championship formats also have flaws but at least they don't significantly change the nature of the competition in the middle of the event. Nevertheless, that is a subject for another time. Anand is a battle tested World Champion in many different formats and with each successful defense of his title he moves up in the pantheon of all-time great chess players.

Garry Kasparov Comments about the Anand-Gelfand World Chess Championship Match

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov is known for speaking very directly and bluntly, so it was very interesting to hear his comments during the online broadcast of game six of the Viswanathan Anand-Boris Gelfand World Chess Championship match:

1. Kasparov asserted that Anand has lost some motivation and that this loss of motivation has caused a lack of precision in Anand's play. Kasparov said that former World Chess Champion Boris Spassky once noted that the hallmark of a great player is the ability to sense the moment of crisis in a game and to focus at that moment on finding perhaps the only way to force a win (or save a draw as the case may be). Kasparov said that such a moment happened in game three but that Anand played too quickly--"played by hand" instead of making precise calculations--and the moment slipped away.
2. Kasparov noted that an Indian journalist became upset with Kasparov for criticizing Anand's motivation level and Kasparov wryly commented that the journalist should be more concerned with Anand's motivation than with the fact that Kasparov mentioned this.
3. Kasparov said that Anand played brilliantly and with great energy to defeat Vladimir Kramnik in the 2008 World Championship match but that Anand struggled in his 2010 World Championship win over Topalov and that Anand's play over the past four years shows that he is "sliding downhill." Anand's play during this period is "not very inspiring" in Kasparov's opinion.
4. Kasparov said that this is not only Gelfand's first chance to become World Chess Champion but likely his only chance and that, considering the enormous pressure this entails, Gelfand has played well so far, though Kasparov would like to see Gelfand take some more risks in an effort to win a game (the first six games of the 12 game match have been draws). 
5. Kasparov speculated that Gelfand's match strategy may be to reduce the struggle to the last two games (by drawing the first 10) because, in Kasparov's opinion, Anand is slightly more likely to "stumble" if that happens. Kasparov said that "psychology will become dominant" late in the match if the score is even and "Anand (is) not the most stable player psychologically." Kasparov is impressed by the psychological fortitude that Gelfand showed by winning the Candidates Matches despite being the oldest player in the field.
6. Borrowing from the title of Alexei Shirov's collected games, Kasparov said that he hopes to see "more fire on board" in the second half of the match.

The Baseball Hall of Fame Should Not Honor the Tainted Career of Ivan Rodriguez

Ivan Rodriguez recently retired after a 21 year career during which he set three significant records for catchers: most hits (he belted 2749 of his 2844 career hits while playing catcher), most games played (2377 of his 2543 total games) and most Gold Gloves (13). Those are certainly Hall of Fame caliber numbers--but Rodriguez' body went from chubby to sculpted during the height of MLB's so-called Steroids Era and Jose Canseco declared that he personally injected Rodriguez with steroids when they both played for the Texas Rangers. Canseco is an admitted performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) cheater, so one might be tempted to say that a cheater should not be believed because he also may be a liar--but everything that Canseco has asserted about PED usage in MLB that can be verified has proven to be true, even accusations that initially seemed outrageous. Rodriguez never failed a drug test and he was not mentioned in the Mitchell Report but that does not prove his innocence; MLB hardly did all that it could to investigate the extent of PED usage in the sport during Rodriguez' career. We know that even some of the people who later tested positive for PED usage--including, perhaps most infamously, Rodriguez' fellow Texas Ranger Rafael Palmeiro--vigorously denied that they ever cheated. Here is what Rodriguez said said when he was first informed of Canseco's quite specific and graphic accusation: "Only God knows." Think about that: a confirmed PED cheater says that he personally injected Rodriguez with steroids and Rodriguez' response was not an unequivocal, indignant denial (which could still be false--like Palmeiro's was--but would certainly be the natural response from someone who is innocent) but rather a vague platitude. That is as close as Rodriguez could have come to admitting his guilt without directly saying that he cheated the sport and the ticket buying public. The Baseball Hall of Fame voters must do the right thing and make sure that Rodriguez is not given the sport's highest honor.

It is fascinating and instructive that some of the people who write the most blatant nonsense about sports also are on the wrong side of the PED issue. As a basketball fan who also appreciates great writing and logical reasoning, I am disturbed that so much credence is currently being given to "advanced basketball statistics" that are not in fact particularly advanced; while it is certainly a noble quest to attempt to accurately quantify the individual and collective productivity of basketball players, it is hardly noble or honest to suggest that "stat gurus" have successfully completed a mission that they are in fact just beginning to undertake: baseball is a much easier sport to quantify because that sport consists of discrete actions that can be separated and measured, while basketball is a sport that consists of dynamic, interrelated actions that are far more difficult to accurately separate and measure (for instance, it is not so easy to quantify how much credit each player should receive for a successful screen/roll action that involves multiple players from both teams).

However, the follies of basketball's "stat gurus" pale in comparison to the pernicious bleatings of "stat gurus" who attempt to minimize the effectiveness and/or potential lethality of PEDs. Believe it or not, some "stat gurus" earnestly insist that PEDs do not work and that Barry Bonds' physique never changed (I think that it will not be too long before a "stat guru" insists that the moon landings never took place). The well documented reality is that PEDs do work--they enable athletes to train longer and harder and thus increase their muscle mass, explosiveness and power--and that PEDs can cause serious long term health problems. It will be interesting to see what kind of medical issues Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez and the other recent MLB drug cheaters develop in the coming decades but, if the experiences of many East German athletes from the 1970s are any indication, many of baseball's sluggers and power pitchers may not age very gracefully.

The PED issue in MLB and other sports goes far beyond tainting the record book and affecting who wins championships. PED usage is deplorable not just for legal and ethical reasons; it is a public health concern because young amateur athletes in college and high school inevitably are influenced by the choices made by their professional heroes, choices that could result in many broken lives and shattered dreams. It is silly when a "stat guru" like Dave Berri declares that Dennis Rodman was more productive than Michael Jordan but it is dangerous when "stat gurus" spread misinformation about PEDs.

Hard Fought Dayton Chess Club Championship Crowns Three Co-Winners

The Dayton Chess Club Championship has been held since 1959. I entered the 2012 event seeking my record ninth championship and my first back to back crowns since 1999-2000. This year's tough field included promising young Expert Les Whorton (the number one seed, sporting a career-high 2145 rating after winning the Board One prize in the recent Midwest Open Team Chess Festival), six-time former DCC Champion Earle Wikle (my first chess mentor) and several strong Class A players. I was the second seed but I got off to a rough start, scoring just 1.5/3 (conceding a draw to my talented student Noah Keating-Adams and blundering a piece in a winning position against Mark Kellie, my first loss in the DCC Championship to a player rated below Expert level since 2008). Whorton sprinted to four straight wins and seemed poised to lap the field--but I recovered to win my fourth and fifth round contests while veteran Class A player Riley Driver held Whorton to a draw in round five, giving me the opportunity to have a last round battle on board one with Whorton; Whorton had already clinched at least a share of first place and I needed to beat him with Black to join him in the winner's circle.

I took my inspiration from Garry Kasparov's win versus Anatoly Karpov in the 24th and final game of their 1987 World Championship match; Karpov only needed a draw to wrest the title away from the man who had dethroned him in 1985 but instead of attacking from the outset Kasparov patiently and methodically built up his position, turning around the notion that it is hard to win a chess game when you must win: Kasparov proved that it can also be challenging psychologically for the player who only needs a draw to find the proper balance between the necessary level of caution to keep the game equal and the appropriate amount of aggression to avoid drifting into a passive position. Kasparov later called that win "the most important game of my life." It is difficult for me to single out one game from the more than 2000 rated games that I have played since 1987 but this struggle with Whorton certainly ranks among the more memorable battles of my chess career; any last round game against a strong player with first place on the line is special. Also, Whorton and I have faced each other very frequently so--like Kasparov and Karpov (but obviously at a lower level of the sport)--we each entered the game with certain notions about how our opponent likes to play; according to the data at USCF's MSA webpage, I am Whorton's most frequent opponent at both Regular and Quick time controls, while Whorton is my third most frequent opponent at Regular time controls and is tied for my third/fourth most frequent opponent at Quick time controls (Whorton holds a slight lead over me in our Regular head to head encounters, while I have a larger lead in our Quick head to head encounters).

Here are the moves from my game with Whorton, along with some brief annotations:

[Event "DCC Championship 4/28/12 (6)"]  [White "Whorton, Les"] [Black "Friedman, David"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A53"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nf3 Nbd7 4. g3 (Objectively there is nothing wrong with this move but Whorton usually plays more aggressively so I took this as a sign that he would try to avoid risks because he only needed a draw to clinch clear first.) e5 5. dxe5 dxe5 6. Bg2 Bc5 7. a3 a5 8. Nc3 O-O 9. O-O Re8 10. Rb1 Qe7 11. Bg5 c6 12. Ne4 h6 13. Bxf6 (Superficially it may seem like these exchanges bring White closer to the desired result but in fact they actually free up Black's position a bit.) Nxf6 14. Nxf6+ Qxf6 (Black now has the two Bs on an open board.) 15. b4 Bf8 16. Nd2 Rd8 17. Ne4 Qe7 18. Qb3 Bf5 19. e3 axb4 20. axb4 Ra7 21. c5 Rda8 22. Qc3 Ra3 23. Rb3 R3a7 (A little bit of psychology is at play here. My 22nd move induced White to play Rb3, thus preventing White from trading off Rs with Ra1. White could of course play R3b1 here, repeating the position, but I gambled that Whorton would like his position too much to just settle for a draw by repetition.) 24. Nd6 (There is nothing wrong with this move but the game continues without pieces being exchanged and I sensed that White was a bit conflicted between wanting a draw and wanting to play for more.) Be6 25. Rbb1 Ba2 (I remember a classic game when Karpov [as White in a Ruy Lopez] closed the a file to double Rs and only opened the file again when he was ready for action. Objectively this position is equal but I felt very comfortable with my practical prospects here.) 26. Ra1 Qe6 27. Rfd1 f5 (This double-edged move is objectively not best--but it may have actually effectively been the winning move because it induced White to go for broke and abandon any pretense of seeking a draw;  27... g6 followed by ...Bg7 was my original plan but I wanted to first prevent White from enforcing an e4 blockade. I overlooked his clever response.) 28. Nb5! Bb3 (28... cxb5  29. Rxa2 is deadly: White threatens Bd5 winning the Q and Black's Q-side pawn structure is ruined.) 29. Nc7  (29. Nxa7 Bxd1 30. Nxc6! Houdini suggests this move, a desperado that neither player noticed during postmortem analysis; White wins a solid extra pawn and forces Black to trade Rs.) 29... Rxa1 30. Rxa1 (30. Nxe6 Rxd1+ 31. Bf1 Bxe6 and Black is winning) 30... Rxa1+ 31. Qxa1 Qc4 (This position is objectively equal but White has to play very carefully to keep Black's Bs under control while also avoiding back rank problems and making sure that the Nc7 does not become trapped.) 32. Qe1 e4 33. Qd2 (The losing move. White understandably--but carelessly--assumes that Black will not want to trade Qs. After the game, Whorton suggested 33. Bf1 and this is clearly better than the text.) 33... Qd3 34. Qe1 (34. Qxd3 exd3 and White must give up his B to stop Black's passed d pawn; this is the point that Whorton overlooked when he played his 33rd move.) 34... Qd8 35. Qc3 Bf7 (White's N is trapped.) 36. Bxe4 (36. Qe5 Qd1+ 37. Bf1 Bc4 and Black is winning) 36... fxe4 37. Qe5 Qd1+ 38. Kg2 Bc4 39. h4 Qf1+ 40. Kh2 Qxf2+ 41. Kh3 Bf1+ 42. Kg4 Qf3# 0-1

Class A player Richard Mercer bounced back from an upset loss in round one to finish with 4.5/6 as well; he defeated Driver in the last round to become a DCC Champion for the first time. The Dayton Chess Club Championship holds a special meaning for me and I am very happy to once again add my name to the list of champions on the Richard Ling Memorial Award trophy and I extend a warm welcome to Richard Mercer and Les Whorton as they each join that distinguished list for the first time. Each of this year's three winners are separated in age by approximately 20 years, so we represent three generations of chess players.

DCC Champions, 1959-2012
1959	J. Fink
1960	H. Fleat
1961	R. Ling
1962	V. Zukaitis
1963	D. Wolford
1964	D. Wolford
1965	R. Ling
1966	R. Ling
1967	R. Ling
1968	R. Buchanan
1969	D. Wolford
1970	V. Burk
1971	C. Unruh
1972	D. Wolford
1973	R. Ling
1974	B. Espedal
1975	A. Casden
1976	A. Mantia
1977	A. Mantia
1978	V. Burk
1979	D. Guehl
1980	D. Guehl
1981	B. Beard
1982	V. Burk
1983	V. Burk
1984	J. Jordan
1985	G. Vitko
1986	A. Hood
	J. Jordan
	E. Wikle
1987	D. Blossom
1988	T. Chou
1989	A. Miravete
1990	R. Springer
1991	M. Chiminiello
1992	V. Burk
	A. Mantia
	J. Langreck
1993	J. Vehre
1994	A. Mantia
1995	F. Titus
1996	C. Atkins
1997	D. Friedman
1998	M. Fowler
1999	D. Friedman
2000	D. Friedman
2001	E. Wikle
2002	D. Friedman
	E. Wikle
2003	C. Atkins
	E. Wikle
2004	E. Wikle
	D. Friedman
	J. Dowling
2005	R. Sprague
	M. Kalafatas
	J. Dowling
	B. Coraretti
2006	R. Sprague
2007	D. Friedman
2008	E. Wikle
	C.Atkins
	J. Dowling
2009	D. Friedman
2010	A. Goldin
2011	D. Friedman
2012	D. Friedman
R. Mercer                L. Whorton Notes: Dale Burk's given name was Vernon, so that is why he is listed as "V. Burk" on the trophy; Chiminiello (1991) changed his surname to Kalafatas (2005).
Most Wins: David Friedman: 9 Earle Wikle: 6 Richard Ling, Dale Burk: 5 Dave Wolford, Tony Mantia: 4 Repeat Champions (including shared titles; except for special circumstances affecting the 1986 and 1992 championships, most first place ties were resolved by playoffs until the late 1990s when it was decided to simply list tied winners as co-champions): Dave Wolford (1963-64) Richard Ling (1965-67) Tony Mantia (1976-77) David Guehl (1979-80) Dale Burk (1982-83) David Friedman (1999-2000) Earle Wikle (2001-04) John Dowling (2004-05) Ross Sprague (2005-06) David Friedman (2011-12) At Least Three Championships in a Four Year Span (including shared titles): Richard Ling (1965-67) David Friedman (1997, 1999-2000) Earle Wikle (2001-04) David Friedman (2009, 2011-12)

Armageddon on the Chess Board

If you think that chess is boring, slow paced or not a real head to head sport, then check out this 1995 video of Grandmaster Viswanathan Anand (who is currently the World Chess Champion) versus Grandmaster Alexey Dreev in an "Armageddon" showdown. "Armageddon" is a tiebreaking procedure in chess; the two players face off in a one game showdown in which White has six minutes to Black's five minutes but Black only has to hold a draw to be considered the victor; a coin toss usually determines who gets to choose the white or black pieces. The commentators for this game are Grandmasters Daniel King and Maurice Ashley.

Federer and Nadal as Non-Religious Experience

David Foster Wallace's lengthy, well-regarded essay titled Federer as Religious Experience depicts Roger Federer as an incomparably gifted tennis player who literally should be worshiped. Wallace's experience as a successful junior tennis player no doubt heightened his appreciation for Federer's talents but Wallace became such a devoted member of the Church of Federer that he failed to fully grasp Rafael Nadal's equally compelling greatness. As Michael Mewshaw put it in his August 15, 2011 Newsweek article titled Rafa!, "Though Wallace dismissed Nadal as 'mesomorphic and totally martial,' it seems that almost everything he wrote about Federer applies to Rafa and that it was the Spaniard's apostasy in beating Federer over and over that clouded Wallace's judgment." Federer's "apostasy" has indeed inspired many commentators to twist and torture logic to its breaking point (and beyond) in elaborate attempts to avoid stating the obvious: Federer has had few answers for Nadal in their battles against each other and Nadal's career accomplishments are at least as impressive as Federer's. It is puzzling that so many tennis aficionados blithely dismiss Nadal's head to head dominance versus Federer as if it were a small dirt smudge carelessly smeared against a masterpiece painting, an irrelevant splotch easily removed by a good restorer; the reality is that no portrait of Federer or Nadal is complete unless it depicts just how convincingly Nadal has owned Federer: Nadal enjoys an 18-10 head to head advantage over Federer, including an 8-2 lead in their Grand Slam encounters after Nadal's 6-7 (5), 6-2, 7-6 (5), 6-4 victory against Federer in the 2012 Australian Open semifinals. Mewshaw adds, "A fantastic chimera, part bull, part bullfighter, Nadal has his own supernal gifts and wins not by making the game look easy, but by making it look every bit as demanding and difficult as it actually is. While Federer is planning points four shots in advance, Nadal often kills the ball before Federer has a chance to realize his arabesques of excellence."

Wallace's essay begins with an intricate--yet inaccurate (the New York Times later had to append a correction to the piece)--description of one point in Federer's 2005 U.S. Open match versus Andre Agassi; Wallace attempts to demonstrate why tennis observers--particularly those who also play the game--are so awestruck by Federer's skills. It is disappointing that Wallace focused more on breathlessly praising Federer than on accurately depicting the sequence from the Federer-Agassi match--lyrical flourishes are not more important than basic facts in a nonfiction article--but the larger issue is that, even though painting a vivid verbal portrait of a great athlete at work is a rare skill, such a portrait does not prove that Federer is greater than any one of several other players about whom Wallace could have also waxed poetic. When Wallace's essay was published in August 2006, Federer had played in 29 Grand Slam singles events, winning eight titles and losing six times in the first round. Bjorn Borg--the Sandy Koufax of tennis--won 11 Grand Slam singles titles in 27 appearances, never losing in the first round and only once losing in the second round. Pete Sampras won seven Grand Slam singles titles in his first 29 Grand Slam appearances, losing in the first round five times (he finished his career with a then-record 14 Grand Slam titles in 52 appearances, with seven first round losses). Rod Laver--who had five prime Grand Slam years stolen from him because of tennis' archaic rules preventing professionals from competing in the sport's most prestigious events--won six Grand Slam singles titles in 25 appearances as an amateur while suffering four first round losses (all in his first year on the tour) and then won five more Grand Slam titles as a professional for a career total of 11 wins in 40 appearances. Nadal won 10 Grand Slam singles titles in his first 29 appearances and did not suffer a single first round loss. Federer is an artist and Federer is a great player but Federer's artistry does not prove that he is greater or more dominant than some of his prestigious predecessors.

Federer acolytes are quick to point out that many great players--including Nadal himself--have anointed Federer as the greatest player ever but Mewshaw wryly notes that Nadal has good reason to say this: "Of course, humility is as much a part of the wallpaper of sport as Muhammad Ali's boasting. It's often good strategy to praise an adversary, all the better to aggrandize yourself. If Federer is the best ever and you beat him...well, you don't need to say the rest." Wallace's essay is an entertaining read but despite the large amount of technical and historical information Wallace included the lasting impression is not that Wallace objectively analyzed Federer's game but rather that he wrote a passionate fan letter about it.

Chess Teacher Bruce Pandolfini's Credo

Renowned chess teacher/author Bruce Pandolfini recently won the Chess Educator of the Year award. His excellent acceptance speech is worth reading in its entirety but his credo is particularly striking:

"When I sit across from a talented young person, I'm aware how in time that individual may become one of the most important people in the world. I consider myself honor-bound to guide such minds on the way to full attainment of knowledge and power. Perhaps I can inspire them to make their own special commitment."

It certainly would be wonderful if more teachers, educators and administrators viewed gifted children that way!

More Insight into Bobby Fischer's Brilliant yet Tortured Mind

No reasonable and well informed person can dispute that Bobby Fischer was both a tremendous genius and a deeply troubled, mentally ill person. The fruits of his genius will live forever in the games that he artistically won, the tournaments and matches that he dominated and the great classic book that he wrote titled My 60 Memorable Games. Fischer's frustration about the republication and editing of his masterpiece book lends some insight into the nature of his mental illness and the way that the reckless actions of several people worsened Fischer's psychological imbalances. Edward Winter reports that the 1995 Batsford edition of My 60 Memorable Games contains over 570 changes from Fischer's original text. Fischer was understandably outraged that his creative work had been tampered with and he also alleged that Batsford neither had the right to publish his book nor had sent him any royalties after doing so. Winter takes no position on those two matters but he explains in detail how Batsford not only "butchered" Fischer's book but stubbornly refused to admit or correct this cascade of mistakes. As the affair dragged on with no resolution in sight, Fischer not only publicly lambasted Batsford but he even took aim at Winter, criticizing Winter for vastly understating how many changes Batsford had in fact made. Fischer had exhibited clear signs of paranoia for quite some time but the desecration of his great book only served to reinforce his belief that a grand Jewish conspiracy exists not only to conquer the world but to specifically target him.

The world was not out to get Fischer; the greed, carelessness and foolishness of various individuals does not prove the existence of some vast, organized conspiracy: the world is just messed up and does not function logically. Unfortunately, Fischer's mind was not able to accept and interact with the flawed world as it exists, so rather than acknowledge the true nature of the rampant chaos surrounding him he sought to impose order on that chaos by constructing elaborate conspiracies as an organizational framework that could explain why people act so illogically and foolishly. As a chess player, one of Fischer's greatest attributes was his ability to create order out of what seemed to be chaos but when you try to create order out of our messed up, chaotic world you may end up seeing (or inventing) connections and conspiracies that do not exist.

Winter notes that the David DeLucia collection of Fischer memorabilia includes a handwritten letter from Fischer to Osama bin Laden. Fischer considered bin Laden to be a kindred spirit because they both were wanted by the U.S. government and both were, in Fischer's twisted and paranoid world view, victims of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Fischer seriously believed that bin Laden would actually care about the books, magazines and other possessions that Fischer lost when the contents of his locker at the Bekins Storage facility were auctioned off after Fischer's representative failed to pay the storage fee despite being sent the requisite funds by the exiled Fischer. Fischer was rightfully outraged at what happened to his precious possessions just like he was rightfully outraged at the butchering of his book but in his tortured mind this rightful outrage simply fueled his paranoid delusions. Maybe Fischer would have been paranoid and delusional no matter what had happened to him but the fact that he repeatedly dealt with idiots and fools surely did not aid his peace of mind or fragile psychological state.

Mutiny on the Bounty: NFL Must Severely Punish Renegade Saints

Supposedly, "real" NHL fans don't want fighting taken out of their game and "real" NFL fans don't care about bounties paid out for hits that could maim a player or even end his career. If that is what it means to be a "real" fan then I am proud not to be a "real" fan because I believe that even in an inherently violent sport there still should be not just a written code of conduct--which the New Orleans Saints clearly and admittedly violated in several ways from 2009-2011--but also an unwritten code. Current and former players often speak of a "brotherhood" or "fraternity" that crosses team lines but the idea of an institutional mindset involving large cash payments expressly for "cart off" and "knockout" hits makes a mockery of such alleged unity.

This bounty scandal is inevitably being compared to the so-called Spygate situation but I still don't understand how something can be called "spying" when it involved someone in team regalia not even attempting to disguise the fact that he was gathering publicly available information. As King Kaufman put it, "Where a team has an expectation of privacy, it should get privacy. A guy standing on the sideline and flashing semaphores to the middle linebacker can't expect privacy." The Spygate situation did not affect the outcome of games, unlike three scandals that I mentioned in a September 15, 2007 BEST article: (1) the widespread use of steroids/PEDs by the 1970s Steelers teams that won four Super Bowls, (2) the use of steroids/PEDs by more recent Pro Bowl players like Shawne Merriman and (3) the salary cap circumvention that enabled the Denver Broncos to build and maintain a roster that won back to back championships.

The Saints' bounty program run by then-defensive coordinator Gregg Williams with the knowledge (and thus tacit approval) of Coach Sean Payton allegedly included between 22 and 27 players, resulted in injuries sustained by two star quarterbacks (Brett Favre and Kurt Warner) during playoff games won by the Saints in their 2009 championship run and is an egregious violation of both written and unwritten rules. The written rules involve the prohibition against specifically and deliberately targeting individual players with the intent of committing injuries and also involve circumvention of the salary cap through the payment of bonuses; the unwritten rules, as indicated above, involve the gross (in every sense of the word) and flagrant disregard for the brotherhood that supposedly unites all NFL players.

Another very real and significant issue here is that the NFL has to swiftly and severely punish everyone involved in the bounty program not only to react to what has happened and prevent it from ever happening again but also to make it clear that from an institutional standpoint the NFL firmly comes down on the side of player safety. Hall of Fame quarterback and current ESPN analyst Steve Young noted that if he had been injured playing against the Saints during the time period in question he would have to seriously consider filing a lawsuit because of the organized and institutional nature of the Saints' program to deliberately and seriously injure opposing players. The NFL is already under fire for its current and historical policies regarding head injuries and post-career health care, so the Saints' bounty program is a legal, ethical and public relations nightmare for the league (not to mention possible implications regarding legal wagering on games whose outcomes were altered by "cart off" and "knockout" hits). If it is true that Williams ran similar bounty programs with other teams and/or that such programs are also in place on other squads that he was not involved with then that only makes the NFL's problem even worse.

Today on ESPN, former NFL defensive back and head coach Herm Edwards summed it up best: "Players and coaches alike all know this: it's a privilege and not a right to be a part of the National Football League. The intent to maim or take a player out or maybe end his career is not professional football. It shouldn't be coached that way and shouldn't be taught that way and shouldn't be played that way."

The idea of deliberately targeting a specific opposing player for a "cart off" or "knockout" injury is so repugnant that I would not be opposed to the NFL permanently banning Gregg Williams (and possibly others, depending on the extent of their involvement) from coaching in the league. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has repeatedly said that he holds owners, executive and coaches to an even higher standard than players, so if that is the case then in addition to issuing long suspensions to the participating players Goodell must severely punish Williams and the other coaches or executives directly involved in the bounty program. This is not a matter of "boys will be boys" or football being an inherently violent sport; there is nothing wrong with delivering hard, clean hits or with trying to use legal physicality to break the will of your opponent but deliberately targeting opposing players for serious and possibly career-ending injuries simply cannot be tolerated.

***************

Postscript:

The hit that then-Indianapolis Coach Tony Dungy believes led to the neck problems that Peyton Manning is still dealing with was delivered by a Gregg Williams-coached Washington defense. Sports Illustrated's Peter King suggests that this topic should come up when Williams meets with NFL brass to discuss the extent of Williams' bounty programs.