The Texas Water Safari

Texas%20Water%20Safari.jpgI’ve heard about The Texas Water Safari, but didn’t realize quite what is involved:

The Texas Water Safari begins in San Marcos with a gunshot that sends 200 paddlers madly thrashing across a murky pond.
Multicolored boats, ranging from six-seated scull-like canoes to single-seat kayaks, barrel into each other, tipping and tossing their occupants into the water. The bigger boats slam into the smaller ones, driving them toward rusty pilings.
Once the paddlers traverse the pond, they jump into the mud and drag their boats through thick brush to portage a dam churning with whitewater. They twist ankles and skin knees as they carry their boats down an incline of sharp rocks to the mouth of the San Marcos River near the center of Texas.
And that is only the beginning of the 262-mile endurance test that takes most entrants two to three days to complete and has enough danger lurking along the way to give Indiana Jones nightmares.
Poisonous water moccasins fall from trees. Wasps and fire ants are constant threats, mosquitoes and mayflies swarm at night.
In fast water, logs turn into torpedoes and trees tumble like boulders. In high water, hanging limbs snatch water jugs and knock competitors unconscious.
Paddlers navigate rapids in the first half of the race and cope with the broiling heat of the Texas summer in the daytime, then fight off hypothermia at night.
There are 12 classes for boats entered in the race, but competitors can use any kind of craft, as long as it is human-powered. No sails or motors are allowed.
No wonder it is billed as the worldís toughest canoe race. [. . .]
Remarkably, no one has died in the raceís 44-year history.
But many have come close.

Read the entire article. Golf, anyone? ;^)

Steroids, home runs and variables

steroids.jpgThis post about Barry Bonds from a week or so ago prompted an interesting exchange in the comments between me and Gary Gaffney, a University of Iowa physician who blogs about steroid use over at Steroid Nation. Following on that exchange is this Michael Salfino/Grand Rapids Press article that raises questions regarding the conventional wisdom these days that steroid use dramatically increased home run totals in Major League Baseball:

Between 1995 and 2003, the era where, [steroids critics contend that] home run totals were inflated dramatically by alleged steroid use, each team hit, on average, 173 homers.
Unfortunately for [the steroids critics’ argument], home run totals per team post-steroid testing are actually up, not down: 176 homers for the average team in the average year.
Leaguewide, there were 5,250 homers hit on average between 2001 and ’03; 5,290 between ’04 and ’06.
One argument is that between ’00 and ’02, seven batters slugged 50 or more homers. Between ’03 and ’05, just one did.
But two batters, Ryan Howard and David Ortiz, hit more than 50 homers last year, and another, Albert Pujols, just missed with 49.
We again share the great insight by Art De Vany, professor emeritus of economics at the University of California-Irvine, that hitting home runs is an act of genius.
So, De Vany concludes, we must expect wide variance in the best years of athletes just like we accept wide variance in the best films of directors, albums of musicians or books by authors relative to their main body of work.
De Vany also concludes that large swings in individual home run performance are irrelevant to the steroids debate.
This year, teams are hitting homers at a 4,632 pace, which would be the lowest, by far, per team, in all the years cited by Kriegel except for ’95. The homer rate thus far could be a fluke that will correct itself going forward.
Still, it would be surprising if the year-end total cracked 5,000, about where it stood in ’02 and ’05. Swings of 10 percent are common in every era. In the modern context, that means a range of anywhere between 4,800 and 5,800 homers should be considered normal.

Professor DeVany comments.

And you thought your boss was bad?

monty_210.jpgArgentina’s Angel Cabrera won the U.S. Torture er, I mean, Open Golf Tournament yesterday over Tiger Woods and Jim Furyk, but the more interesting story from the Open was Colin Montgomerie’s extraordinary effort to retain his “most unpopular golfer” status on the PGA Tour.
A couple of weeks ago, Monty summarily fired his longtime caddy while going through the worst stretch of his career. Thus, for the U.S. Open, Monty picked up a local caddy who had previously worked for Jack Nicklaus. Apparently, while Monty was missing the cut at the Open, things did not go swimmingly between Monty and his new bagman:

Colin Montgomerie’s love affair with the US Open is on the rocks after his latest attempt to win the championship ended in abject failure and an ignominious falling out with his 62-year-old caddie.
On a day when a quartet of Britons conjured up hopes of ending Europeís eight-year drought in the majors, Montgomerie slumped to his worst score in the tournament since his debut in 1993.
He missed the halfway cut at unforgiving Oakmont by eight shots and allowed the volatile side of his nature to wreak its revenge on the hapless Billy Goddard.
The veteran caddie, hired to carry Montgomerieís clubs after the 43-year-old Ryder Cup star sacked long-term bagman Alistair McLean last week, tried to find a kind word to say about his temporary employer.
“Heís a good guy but he just gets mad at himself,” said Goddard. “And he got mad at me, absolutely.” [. . .]
After contacting the caddiemaster at Oakmont Country Club to request an experienced bagman ó the main condition of his employment being that he should not talk too much ó Montgomerie was allocated Goddard, a man with a reputation as a kindly soul who can get along with anyone.
Even though Goddard is so valued that he has caddied for Jack Nicklaus, he was to learn that Montgomerie can be easily upset by what seem innocuous comments.
After a first-round 76 left him with plenty of ground to make up, Montgomerie was unable to cope with the increasingly difficult demands of Oakmontís penal rough and slick greens as he tossed shots away like a highhandicapper having a bad day.
Montgomerie was so distressed by an incident during the front nine of his second round that he walked over to speak to his girlfriend, Gaynor Knowles, on the 10th fairway and was overheard to say: “Itís such a shame. Itís really upset me. It really, really has.”
When Goddard was asked whether he knew what had caused Montgomerie to become so agitated, he admitted being responsible, saying: “On the fourth hole he asked me what the yardage was and I said: ‘Lay up or go for it?’. He said: ‘Iím going for it’. After he made a bogey on the hole, he said to me: ‘You should never have said the words lay up’. After that we hardly talked. That was the first taste I had of his reputation.” [. . .]
On the 18th his drive landed in such thick rough that he could not see the ball and hacked it only 10 yards forward.
When he launched his third towards the green, a youth yelled ëGet in the holeí to be greeted by the coldest stare Montgomerie could muster. As the object of his anger was identified, the spectator turned to the rest of crowd and appealed: ëI was only trying to encourage him.í [. . .]

So far, so good

riceowlsbaseball.jpegThe Rice Owls are enjoying their sixth trip to the College World Series in Omaha so far as the Owls have won their first two games, have a couple of days to rest their pitchers before facing the winner of Tuesday’s North Carolina-Louisville Loser’s Bracket game on Wednesday, and are set up well to compete for one of the two spots in the best two-out-of-three final championship series that determines the champion. The Woodlands boys on the Owls are playing particularly well, which makes watching the Rice games in the series all that more interesting for me. Here is the bracket for the entire World Series, the World Series website, the World Series blog, as well as the local Rice Owls Baseball blog. Go Owls!

Father’s Day 2007

Walter%20Kirkendall%20061707.jpgIt’s a working Father’s Day for me this year, so I am passing along this Father’s Day post from a couple of years ago on a very special father. Here’s hoping that all fathers out there in the blogosphere have a joyous and fulfilling Father’s Day.

Say again, Johnny?

Johnny%20Miller.jpgMy sense is that former U.S. Open champ and NBC golf color commentator Johnny Miller is not going to be joining B.J. Lisko of the Salem News for cocktails any time soon after this broadside prompted by a U.S. Open press conference earlier this week:

The kingpin jackass of all golf media had his own press conference. Yes, Johnny Miller himself took the stage and squawked and squawked and squawked. Miller is perhaps the most pompous, self-righteous, arrogant man to ever have played the game. And to top it off, aside from the miracle tournament he had at Oakmont Country Club back in 1973, his golfing career certainly didnít amount to anything epic. So now what does Johnny do? He squawks. Just like the rest of them. Only Johnny is on NBC Sports so we get the distinct pleasure of listening to him on an almost weekly basis.
Well, according to Johnny not only did he ìusher in Tiger and Phil,î but he also played ìtee to green, under pressure, the best round of golf heís ever seen.î
ìIím not trying to pat myself on the back,î he said. Yes, Johnny. Thatís exactly what youíre doing. And it didnít stop.
For over a half hour he yammered on about how great he was and how great and difficult the course that he won on was. ìThis is the finest golf course in the world,î he said.
Then Johnny went on to say that ìwhen you make a championship ridiculous, you can get ridiculous winners. You can get winners that will never win again, just happened to have a hot week putting or a good bounce here and there. We are trying to identify the A-plus player, not the only guy to survive that can hardly make a cut on the Tour.î
Okay then Johnny, I thought to myself. If weíre trying to find the ìA-plus player,î then why is every professional predicting perhaps the most ridiculous scores in the history of a major championship? Why did Tiger Woods say the funest hole on the course is ìthe 19th?î
So I asked him, ìIf Oakmont is as ridiculous as all the players are saying it is, and itís setting up like the winner is going to be a lot more lucky than good, does that change your opinion of the course?î
Well, this of course threw Johnny for a loop as he backtracked into saying how great the USGA was and that the USGA wouldnít let a tournament get so out of hand. Well, they already have. Numerous times. Some players wonít even try to qualify for the U.S. Open, and if they already did, wonít play in it. Why is that? Because the best ball striker, the best player on the course, likely doesnít win these tournaments. Good shots are not rewarded, and the scores go so high it becomes miserable for those in attendance. Iím not saying the U.S. Open shouldnít be hard. It should. But walking around the course, my feet completely obscured by the rough just off the fairway, running my hand over undulating fairways cut as low as the greens on most public courses, this thing is going to be ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the questions the press will be asking all weekend. But no where near as ridiculous as Johnny Millerís fantastic insight on what every player needs to do, even though he canít do it himself.

Enjoy some laughs with Robin Williams

RobinWilliams.jpgOne of my sons and I had a good laugh together watching this David Letterman interview of Robin Williams from a couple of years ago, so I am passing it along for you to enjoy at your leisure. Who other than Williams could, in the course of a 15-minute interview, generate laughs on subjects as diverse as the U.S. legal system, jury duty, golf announcers, linguistics, family therapy, acting with his daughter, welding, baseball, Barry Bonds, and Christopher Reeve? The first excerpt of the interview is below and the three other excerpts from the interview are after the hyperlinked break below:

Continue reading

A risky strategy in the Black trial

conrad_black%20061407.jpgMark Steyn — who has done a wonderful job blogging the Conrad Black trial — reports that the case will go to the jury next week after the defense rested this week with Black electing not to testify.
The Black’s defense team strategy in holding Black off the witness stand is risky. As Martha Stewart and Jamie Olis learned the hard way, jurors in white collar criminal cases expect to hear the defendants explain why the government’s charges are not true. When the jurors do not hear from the defendant, no jury instruction will ever remove the seeds of doubt from the jurors’ minds that the defendant is trying to hide something. Granted, as Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay experienced, testifying in one’s own defense certainly does not assure a successful defense. Likewise, the courtroom dynamics of each trial are different, so those in play in the Black trial courtroom may favor Black staying off the stand. But as the late Edward Bennett Williams used to advise his white collar criminal clients, “If you elect not to testify, then you better bring your toothbrush with you to the courthouse.” Inasmuch as the government’s case in the Black trial appears to be extraordinarily weak, here’s hoping that the Black defense team’s decision to keep Black off the stand does not come back to haunt them.

Investing in fat people?

doughnuts2.jpgFollowing on earlier posts here and here on how the U.S. anti-obesity industry often misrepresents the nature and extent of the health problems related to widespread obesity in American society, Laura Vanderkam reviews NY Times nutrition columnist Gina Kolata’s new book, Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss–and the Myths and Realities of Dieting (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2007) in which Kolata challenges the conventional wisdom that an obese person’s capacity to lose weight and maintain that reduced weight is merely a question of an individual’s willpower.
Despite Kolata’s book and a growing body of research that questions the anti-obesity crusade, investing in anti-obesity appears to be a potentially lucrative investment opportunity. A case in point is this Merrill Lynch research report on how best to invest in “the emerging obesity epidemic.” Table 5 presents “stocks that represent the ML Obesity Theme” which, by the way, includes Whole Foods and Wild Oats Markets.
“The developed world is getting older and fatter,” writes ML analyst Jose Rasco. “People are increasingly eating more proteins and processed foods, leading more sedentary lives and gaining weight.” Inasmuch as ML projects that the number of obese people worldwide will increase to 700 million in 2015 from 400 million in 2005, there’s money to be made in those companies that are fighting obesity or, as ML might say, “why not monetize a trend of more fat people?”

Perverting justice in predator hunting

perverted%20justice2.gifEarlier posts here, here and here addressed NBC’s To Catch a Predator series in which a television crew cooperates with police and a vigilante justice group to create child predator crimes. Then, the television crew follows the police as they apprehend the suspects, which NBC then broadcasts for all to see in a sort of modern witch hunt. On Tuesday night, a local Dallas news program aired the report below about how the show operates, including the tragic case of Louis Conradt, Jr. It does not paint a pretty picture: