Posts Tagged ‘Sports


Gambling at the Track

First, I must own up to skipping two posts this week. A combination of work projects and lack of clarity about what I wanted to say were equal contributors. I even debated about posting today until I saw the news that Marion Jones is expected to plead guilty to lying to federal agents. The lie? That she never used performance-enhancing drugs.

For several years, especially after her husband and shot-putter C.J. Hunter tested positive for steroids, Jones defended her record and emphatically denied that she had ever used performance-enhancing drugs:

  • Nobody has ever said anything about Marion Jones every using performance-enhancing drugs and they never will.
  • I will continue to express the fact I am for a drug-free sport and always will be.
  • I met Mr. Conte [BALCO’s president] a number of years ago, and we had a conversation or two. Did our conversation involve talking about any performance-enhancing drugs? No. (link)

My favorite denial comes from her 2004 autobiography:

…she used an entire page to assert her innocence. In oversized, red capital letters she wrote: “I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN UNEQUIVOCAL IN MY OPINION: I AM AGAINST PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS. I HAVE NEVER TAKEN THEM AND I NEVER WILL TAKE THEM.” (link)

Jones is a word gambler, and probably one of the boldest I’ve seen in quite some time. Besides loudly and publicly stating her innocence, Jones continued to associate with individuals either known or later identified for their involvement with performance-enhancing drugs:

  • Trevor Graham: Jones’ coach; several athletes that trained with him have been caught using banned drugs. Graham was indicted in 2006 “on charges he lied to federal agents…[he has] pleaded not guilty.”
  • Tim Montgomery: Jones’ former boyfriend; he “admitted his use of banned drugs to the BALCO grand jury, pleaded guilty earlier this year in connection with a bank fraud and money-laundering case.
  • Charlie Francis: former trainer; this guy admitted to providing steroids to Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson (remember him? he tested positive at the ’88 Seoul Olympics, lost his medal, and lost his World Record).

Hmm. I’m left wondering why someone proclaiming her innocence would continue to associate with, at a minimum, questionable individuals. Maybe the adrenaline rush of telling the initial lie is too much to resist. Whatever her reasons, I’m not sure what you do to shift the thought process.

I struggle with professional sports, because in spite of USADA’s crusade against illegal drug use, I question the commitment of individual leagues to address the issue. For those who read my earlier post on whether public figures should be role models, you might wonder if I’m backsliding from my opinion (I’m not convinced they—sports figures, movie stars, etc.—owe us anything; no one is forcing us to buy tickets or support them in other ways.)

What I take issue with is how the individuals and the organizations making millions dance around the question of whether they’re “clean” (whatever that means). Fess up and move on. Don’t pay lip service to something you clearly don’t believe. For example, if baseball was serious about weeding out drug users, they’d skip over the the “three-strikes your out policy.” Instead, they’d change it to, “if you test positive, you’re done.” But that isn’t the case, so why pretend otherwise?

Honesty isn’t necessarily going to change people’s attitudes, but at least you know what you’re dealing with and can make your judgments accordingly. What people choose to support is their business, but I’m a firm believer that people should know exactly what they’re supporting.



Billie Jean, Tara Hunt, & the Bionic Woman

I’ve had an idea percolating for about four days now, and it took watching the pilot episode of Bionic Women for everything to gel. Let me start at the beginning. This past week, I heard a brief mention on the radio that it’s the 34th anniversary of “The Battle of the Sexes” between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs (CBS Sportline; Wikipedia). I paid attention mostly because of my recent viewing of a bio on HBO about Billie Jean.

I grew up after Title IX was firmly in place and enjoyed every benefit as I ran track and played basketball through much of junior high and high school. While I knew about the match between King and Riggs, I didn’t understand why it was such a big deal until I saw the bio. Beyond the historic value, something else about this anniversary was nagging at me.

Women in Technology

Then, a few days later, courtesy of Robert Scoble‘s link feed, I got another piece of the puzzle when I saw Shroki’s post on Tara Hunt‘s recent article for O’Reilly. Tara, from what I’ve read on her blog and in interviews, gives a voice to women in technology, pointing out the value they’ve brought to the industry as a whole. She also does an excellent job of highlighting the blind spot that pops up when the story relates to women and technology. In this particular article, she addresses the question, “where are the women in tech” with an impressive list of participants:

If you look around, you’ll see that there are many Sandras. Some of the hottest companies of early Web 2.0 (and before) have been co-founded by women: Flickr (Caterina Fake), Blogger (Meg Hourihan), SixApart (Mena Trott), Mozilla (Mitchell Baker), Guidewire Group (Chris Shipley), and Adaptive Path (Janice Fraser).

My exposure to the tech world is relatively recent, not quite a year. But I have met some amazing women at some of the seemingly all-male conferences I’ve attended. I had the pleasure of briefly meeting Gina Trapani, one of my favorite tech bloggers, at SXSW. I’ve also become friends with Rachel Clarke at JWT. Then at Gnomedex, I saw Cali Lewis and her husband Neil talk about their experience with GeekBrief.TV. Also at Gnomedex, as part of the Ignite Seattle group, I greatly enjoyed Deborah Schultz. These women are just a few of the amazing individuals I’ve been exposed to since my entrance into the tech world. Now for the final piece of the puzzle.

The Bionic Woman

Tonight, I watched the premiere episode (via Amazon’s video download) of the new Bionic Woman. The original was on the air from 1976–77. This new iteration uses the same basic premise. A “normal” woman, through a series of events, is “rebuilt” and ends up with super-human skills and healing abilities, courtesy of a shadowy government group. I like sci-fi, so the story was interesting to me anyway. But what drew me in was this idea of melding women with technology into something that could easily overpower a guy—and not for the reasons you might be imagining.

For a long time (forever actually), women have had to rely on their brains for the majority of their survival. Physical prowess is not a natural ability gifted to the female form, so we balanced it out with mental skills. What do you think the world would be like if men and women were actually on a level playing field (if such a thing exists), mentally AND physically?

Combining Brains & Brawn

Billie Jean proved that she had the physical and mental ability to beat Bobby Riggs at a time when women in sports had significantly lesser status. Today, some of the biggest stars on the tennis circuit are the female singles players—Venus and Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova to name three. It’s taken time, but these women are garnering their own endorsement contracts conquering other terrain normally reserved for the male superstars.

Tara Hunt has shown that many women have the necessary mental power to be the leaders in today’s technology industry, a field heavily dominated by men. Women are coding their own programs, creating their own companies, and getting funding from VCs. Now that they’ve found their tech voice, women are using it.

What brought all these random thoughts together was the Bionic Woman (if I remember right, the character’s name is Jamie). For me, she represents a melding of these two realities. Physically, she’s a match for any man, and mentally, she’s got the brains to outwit anyone, too (her IQ score is higher than her genius boss). Plus, she’s got $50 million in technologically advance body parts.

I’m willing to admit I’m stretching this concept a bit, but isn’t that what this medium and everything else haphazardly categorized as Web 2.0 is about? Stretching, testing, discovering, imagining. Maybe Web 3.0 won’t be about any particular technology or toy. Maybe it will be about a level playing field that accepts anyone—woman or man—that dares step onto the turf.


View Britt Raybould's profile on LinkedIn



July 2019
« Jun