Upon reading several blogs most notably those of John Hirsch and Bree Wee I have gotten different perspectives of the sport of triathlon. John is a grisled veteran coming into the final 3-4 years of his pro staus writing about how this maybe the next couple of years might be his peak. He balances, a "real job", relationships and his real life with racing ,training,and coaching. Bree Wee is a former age grouper who has just entered the "pro world" and at an amazingly high level. She writes with the excitement of a newbie, exposing the almost secret world of the pros ( which is a lot like the age group world except devoted more to training, sponsorship, and getting paid to compete.) Upon reading the blogs and race reports of pro athletes I find myself in shock and amazement at how easy it looks, but how hard it really is. When you read about practices averaging 6:30/mile pace on the run, sub-5 hour bike splits, sub 3 hour marathons, a 47 min 2.4 mile (3.8km) swim, there is nothing but amazement. ( Especially from a kid who has manage to average under 6 min. miles only once in his career, and that was a 2 mile (3.2km) track race in high school.)
Part of me would really like to develop the talent to go pro. In 2007 I though I was hot. I had podiumed in my age group every race, Won against a semi-competitive at Park City. Even in early 2008 I still though I was hot stuff. Ironman New Zealand I did an 11:18 with very limited bike training ( granted I was the slowest American in my Age group, but I still managed to top half in the AG and top third overall.) Eagleman I managed to hang on for 7th on a rough day, when all but the best runners were reduced to a death march in merciless heat. But the last two half-Irons were the ones that have cut me down to size. At the Patriot Half I had a solid swim split and a decent bike split, but I just couldn't get my running legs to turn over. It was the first time my run leg had been a weakness and I had been passed more than I was passing. I finished behind all but 2 of the other elite men, but it was my first time as an elite. Rhode Island the following weekend, I got humbled and hard. 16th in My age group ( that's the humble part)and 197th out of 2000+ finishers ( The good part but a sign for the talent of the young guys). Maybe it was my training, or lack thereof, maybe it was the headgames of watching two guys infront of me go down hard, maybe it was my crazy two halves and a sprint in eight days, lack of sleep, bad nutrition,a whole list of other varibles,( the Canadians and New England's best came to play) or maybe it was a sign of "Bob, you're not as good as you thought, leave the elite ranks to the fast kids."
Maybe the reason I want to go pro is to get the ghost of former swim and track coaches off my back. To get the word's "You work hard but you'll never be champion." out of my ears. To stop being the kid with all the desire but none of the talent. To take those words bury them and toss a nice lily on their grave. Maybe it's the idea of being paid for what I love to do, to realize there is more to life than working nine to five, and ending up that crazy guy who does this crap on the side as an escape from his "real life." To live out some crazy childhood dream But irregardless, that's neither here nor there at this moment in time. The thing after every race I'm always left wondering will I ever be fast enough to become a pro or will I always be a wantabe.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Athletic Mercenary
Bernard Lagat, Becky Hammon, Lisa Stublic what do the three have in common, they were born in one country but were representing/trying to represent another in this year's Olympics. The cases of Lagat and Hammon are probably the most famous/infamous. Lagat, who had gone to college, trained and competed in the United States was finally granted US Citizenship and would compete wearing the Red, white and Blue in Beijing instead of the Black, green, and red of his native Kenya. Hammon spurned by team USA coaches decision to not take her decided to use her parent's double citizenship to get on to the Russian National team. Former Connecticut Track great Lisa Stublic she was using her Croatian double citizenship to try to qualify for the women's steeple chase ( Sadly she failed to make the "B" qualifying standard).
It leaves an interesting question should athletes be allowed to change their nationality to compete? It a sporting rich country such as the United States, some of the best athletes may miss making an Olympic team by hundredths of a second, especially in sports like swimming where only two athletes can qualify for a given event. For some athletes, a reasonable option is competing for another country that doesn't have as deep of a talent pool. It may not be unreasonable, if like in the case of Lagat, the person has been living and training in their adopted country for a number of years. Or in Stublic's case if they still have familial ties (ie relatives still living )in the country they are representing. The other argument is on the duel citizenship, in some country's citizenship is awarded up to two generations from the first expatriate ( layman's terms, Grandpa left Ireland for the US so sonny and grandsonny can get Irish citizenship.) Stublic's dad was born and raised in Croatia and emigrated to the US so in her case she still has strong ties, but let's say me, a third generation American ( longer on Dad's side.), was to find some loop hole that would allow me to get Lithuanian citizenship ( great grandpa on Mom's side was from the Lithuania) so I could swim or do Tri for them if I made the time standards. Would I be right in doing so? For one I know little to nothing about the country ( except it's a Baltic State, Predominately Catholic, and was a pain in the Soviet's side.) I don't speak the language, I know very little about the culture, so if I was to win a gold medal for them and heard a National Anthem I don't even know the words to, for a country I don't know, would it not seem a bit hypocritical, but at the same time if I was the World number 3 in swimming second only to two other Americans would it not be a waste of talent, time and effort, not to do everything possible to compete.
In Hammon's case what has made her a social pariah may not be the way she went about getting into the games but the country she representing. Hammon, born and bred in the US is representing Russia. Yes, that's right Russia, formerly the USSR, formerly the Evil Empire, Formerly Stalin's Stomping ground, the Antagonists to the 1980 Miracle on Ice, and a source of tremeandous bad blood in the infamous 1972 3sec. from gold USA/USSR Gold medal basketball game. (The USSR won after a decision to reset the clock to 3sec. when a Soviet coaches call for a timeout went unanswered what resulted were two confusing sequences, one when the clock was being reset and the refs resumed play and the US thought they won, then the official restart in which the USSR got the ball to the net and got past the US for gold. To this day that men's basketball team has not and swore they will not accept their silver medals.) So a US kid playing for Russia, can be seen as treason to many especially those of us from the Cold War generations.
For athletes in powerhouse countries such as the United States, the decision between athletic goals and patriotism are a heartbreaking double edged sword. On one side if an athlete does the "right thing" and try to represent the US and get shut out at Olympic trials or team selections, they live with the knowledge that you will be an unknown and all the years of hard work, sacrifice, and desire were for naught. If they choose to represent someone else ( especially a Cold War enemy) they are seen in the same hue as Benedict Arnold. For athletes on the bubble, an agonizing decison awaits them what drives them more, love of sport, or love of country.
It leaves an interesting question should athletes be allowed to change their nationality to compete? It a sporting rich country such as the United States, some of the best athletes may miss making an Olympic team by hundredths of a second, especially in sports like swimming where only two athletes can qualify for a given event. For some athletes, a reasonable option is competing for another country that doesn't have as deep of a talent pool. It may not be unreasonable, if like in the case of Lagat, the person has been living and training in their adopted country for a number of years. Or in Stublic's case if they still have familial ties (ie relatives still living )in the country they are representing. The other argument is on the duel citizenship, in some country's citizenship is awarded up to two generations from the first expatriate ( layman's terms, Grandpa left Ireland for the US so sonny and grandsonny can get Irish citizenship.) Stublic's dad was born and raised in Croatia and emigrated to the US so in her case she still has strong ties, but let's say me, a third generation American ( longer on Dad's side.), was to find some loop hole that would allow me to get Lithuanian citizenship ( great grandpa on Mom's side was from the Lithuania) so I could swim or do Tri for them if I made the time standards. Would I be right in doing so? For one I know little to nothing about the country ( except it's a Baltic State, Predominately Catholic, and was a pain in the Soviet's side.) I don't speak the language, I know very little about the culture, so if I was to win a gold medal for them and heard a National Anthem I don't even know the words to, for a country I don't know, would it not seem a bit hypocritical, but at the same time if I was the World number 3 in swimming second only to two other Americans would it not be a waste of talent, time and effort, not to do everything possible to compete.
In Hammon's case what has made her a social pariah may not be the way she went about getting into the games but the country she representing. Hammon, born and bred in the US is representing Russia. Yes, that's right Russia, formerly the USSR, formerly the Evil Empire, Formerly Stalin's Stomping ground, the Antagonists to the 1980 Miracle on Ice, and a source of tremeandous bad blood in the infamous 1972 3sec. from gold USA/USSR Gold medal basketball game. (The USSR won after a decision to reset the clock to 3sec. when a Soviet coaches call for a timeout went unanswered what resulted were two confusing sequences, one when the clock was being reset and the refs resumed play and the US thought they won, then the official restart in which the USSR got the ball to the net and got past the US for gold. To this day that men's basketball team has not and swore they will not accept their silver medals.) So a US kid playing for Russia, can be seen as treason to many especially those of us from the Cold War generations.
For athletes in powerhouse countries such as the United States, the decision between athletic goals and patriotism are a heartbreaking double edged sword. On one side if an athlete does the "right thing" and try to represent the US and get shut out at Olympic trials or team selections, they live with the knowledge that you will be an unknown and all the years of hard work, sacrifice, and desire were for naught. If they choose to represent someone else ( especially a Cold War enemy) they are seen in the same hue as Benedict Arnold. For athletes on the bubble, an agonizing decison awaits them what drives them more, love of sport, or love of country.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Second Place is the first loser?
"Winning isn't everything...it's the only thing." -Vince Lombardi
Last night NBC showed the women's pole vault and it turned into a duel between Jennifer Stuczynski of the US and Elena Isinbaeva, the current world record holder, from Russia. The two were going vault for vault until Stuczynski missed tying her own American record. Isinbaeva went on to break her own olympic and world records, but what was shocking was the reaction of Stuczynski's coach. Instead of the "ok we got silver, let's get back to the training grounds in a couple of weeks and we'll prep for the world championships." It was a litnany of the faults that she had done in that and the previous two attempts at her record followed by the snide remark " I guess silver isn't bad for someone who's been doing this for four years." For one thing Stuczynski's medal after doing the sport for four years is a massive accomplishment, the only person who beat her is the world champion, who by the way has been doing it longer. For someone who's been doing a sport for only four years she schooled several competitiors that have been doing this for almost a decade, she has nothing to be ashamed of....except she wasn't good enough gold. She showed more class than her coach, she talked to reporters despite the fact she probably wanted to hang herself by her shoe laces after the tounge lashing..and tried to hold her head high .
This incident leads me to ponder, Is Second place really the first loser? The reaction of Stuczynski's coach was in stark contrast to the men's gymnastics team which pulled a shocking upset for Bronze. The way those guys were celebrating you would have thought they won gold and set 8 world records in the process. Dara Torres earning the silver in the Women's 50m Free and silver on the 4x100 medley relay. There were no snide comments of "good for a middle-aged mother of 1." "Or you really should have exploded more off the blocks, and you turnover, well what happended, you swim faster in practice." They were athletes doing the best they could on a given day and on that given day there was somebody who was just a bit better. So does that mean they're losers? Tell you what when you can do a routine on Pommel Horse and score a 15, Pole Vault over 16 feet or you're 41 and swimming close to world record pace give me a call. Then you can call these athletes losers, leave the snide comments, and boast on how they are no talent bums, but for the rest of us struggling along in the sports world, being able to qualify for the olympics let alone win a medal would be a honor. But at the same time when you go into any competition the main goal is to win. So to stop beating around the bush is second place the first loser, I guess you'd have the person who came in second.
Last night NBC showed the women's pole vault and it turned into a duel between Jennifer Stuczynski of the US and Elena Isinbaeva, the current world record holder, from Russia. The two were going vault for vault until Stuczynski missed tying her own American record. Isinbaeva went on to break her own olympic and world records, but what was shocking was the reaction of Stuczynski's coach. Instead of the "ok we got silver, let's get back to the training grounds in a couple of weeks and we'll prep for the world championships." It was a litnany of the faults that she had done in that and the previous two attempts at her record followed by the snide remark " I guess silver isn't bad for someone who's been doing this for four years." For one thing Stuczynski's medal after doing the sport for four years is a massive accomplishment, the only person who beat her is the world champion, who by the way has been doing it longer. For someone who's been doing a sport for only four years she schooled several competitiors that have been doing this for almost a decade, she has nothing to be ashamed of....except she wasn't good enough gold. She showed more class than her coach, she talked to reporters despite the fact she probably wanted to hang herself by her shoe laces after the tounge lashing..and tried to hold her head high .
This incident leads me to ponder, Is Second place really the first loser? The reaction of Stuczynski's coach was in stark contrast to the men's gymnastics team which pulled a shocking upset for Bronze. The way those guys were celebrating you would have thought they won gold and set 8 world records in the process. Dara Torres earning the silver in the Women's 50m Free and silver on the 4x100 medley relay. There were no snide comments of "good for a middle-aged mother of 1." "Or you really should have exploded more off the blocks, and you turnover, well what happended, you swim faster in practice." They were athletes doing the best they could on a given day and on that given day there was somebody who was just a bit better. So does that mean they're losers? Tell you what when you can do a routine on Pommel Horse and score a 15, Pole Vault over 16 feet or you're 41 and swimming close to world record pace give me a call. Then you can call these athletes losers, leave the snide comments, and boast on how they are no talent bums, but for the rest of us struggling along in the sports world, being able to qualify for the olympics let alone win a medal would be a honor. But at the same time when you go into any competition the main goal is to win. So to stop beating around the bush is second place the first loser, I guess you'd have the person who came in second.
About this blog.
Well for my familiar readers you may be wondering why I put up a new site, the reasons are many but I believe there is some content I want to express that doesn't fit the brash writing style I convey on my other blog. So while my other blog will continue with my posts of race reports, things that tick me off, and the more colorful side of my personality, this blog will express more of the spritual, artistic, and analytical side of me, in essence what I think,or jot in notebooks but never seem to get around to putting up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
