Cheetah Woods

Frankie, didn't I tell you

You've got the world

In the palm of your hand

It wasn't your intention

Frankie to fall in the trap you made

            It's a crying shame

You left a trail of destruction

Heartbreaker you know now

They really did care cause it's your first affair

The party's over

Now you discover

It's your turn to cry

                             Sade 1984

  

I can always tell when an athlete takes steroids, well before they get busted.  This is not in the least bit impressive.  It's simple.  First, you look to see if they have gone from average or good to very good or great.  Then you look to see if their body has undergone major physical changes, such as Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, or those female East German Olympic athletes from the 70’s who had deeper voices than mine.  Lastly, you see if they hang out with people known to take and dispense drugs.  Steroids, especially the sophisticated kind designed for extreme performance and non-detectability, don't just appear by themselves.  There’s always a scumbag doctor involved.

Which brings me to Tiger Woods.  It's a little strange that I’m doing a blog about him considering I've never played golf, don't follow golf, and don't care about golf.  However, I do think a well manicured golf course is the most beautiful thing that humans have created, so that's gotta be worth something.  Back to Tiger Woods.  So I think he's been on drugs most of his career.  However, all the other athletes I've been sure were taking were easy to spot, but with him I'm not 100%.  Let’s call it 90%.

Here's my theory.  Woods spent his entire marriage cheating on his classically beautiful wife, with girls that as far as I can tell can be described as “sleazy hot”.  (Not that they would ask me, but when it’s time for my sons to get married if the choice is between a girl who is sleazy hot or classically beautiful, I'm going to strongly suggest the latter).  He cheated on his wife, and to my way of thinking his kids also (you know it's true).  So after losing his pristine reputation, family, and a ton of money, he decides to get his life together.  This involves getting off the drugs.  The result? His career goes in the toilet.

Before he got caught he was the #1 player in the world, had won 14 major championships and 71 tournaments, and was widely considered the best golfer in history.  Afterwards he dropped out of the top 50, and not only didn’t win any more majors but didn’t win any more tournaments period.  So basically the guy considered the best in history in his sport becomes a mediocre professional.  I know he’s had injuries, but didn’t he once win a major championship with a torn ACL? I don't buy it.

The other evidence? Well, he got big and muscular compared with what he looked like when he first started playing professionally.  Not quite freakish like Bonds, but still.  He also started hanging out with Anthony Galea, the Canadian doctor linked to dispensing human growth hormone and other performance enhancing drugs.  Galea used a controversial blood-spinning technique to help Woods recover from knee surgery.

          The one flaw in my argument, which is why I’m not 100% sure?  Woods was always good, and won an amateur championship when he was 19.  But no amateur champions ended up being considered the best of all time except him, and he could've been on the juice early.

My guess? He took steroids and eventually will be forced to admit it.

Have a good night everyone.

JR

Charitable Giving

Give blood but you may find that blood is not enough
Give blood and there are some who'll say it's not enough
Give blood but don't expect to ever see reward
Give blood you can give it all but still you'll be asked for more

                                                Pete Townshend 1985

         

When I hear about how much a person has given to a particular charity, my reaction is not “that is fantastic” or “that is sad how little that person gave”.  My reaction is “how about them Red Sox”? It's not that I'm ambivalent, or don't recognize the need to give.  It’s just that making a judgment about whether another person gave enough is impossible.  This is because to make an accurate judgment you have to know two things, both of which are unknowable: 1) How many charities that individual gives to, and 2) What their financial situation is.

First, the easy one.  Unless you're married to that person or are their accountant, you’re not going to know the number of charities.  If someone gives $25,000 to one charity, they're either going to have something named after them or they will be listed as one of the larger donors and praised.  If that same person gives $1,000 each to 25 different charities, no one is naming anything after them. In fact, if people they know are listed as giving more, it might even be embarrassing for them.

The next unknowable is a person's financial situation.  We might think that we know how much money someone has, but believe me, we don’t.  Based on my work as a lawyer, I’ve sometimes been privy to this information; trust me, we don't have a clue. The surprises, both to the upside and downside, are tremendous.  You might think that based upon a person's profession that they are or are not doing well financially, but that is often misleading.  There is a wide disparity of income within professions. 

For example, some attorneys do extremely well while others get out of the profession.  Some “consultants” are in between jobs, while others are millionaires.  Also, you don't know how well or poorly that person has invested, whether they have other sources of income such as family money, or whether they have had massive unexpected expenditures such as healthcare costs.  Looks can also be extremely deceiving, especially with real estate. A person that buys a $500,000 house does not become $500,000 richer.  He immediately has $500,000 in debt, minus the down payment.  We simply never know how many assets a person has, or their liabilities/debt.

So how can we accurately judge whether a person is giving enough to charity?  You can’t.  Who is to judge? God.  This one is between man and God.  No one else really has a clue.

It would logically follow from this that I would be against public listings of charitable giving, or naming things after people based on how much money they have given.  In truth, however, I support them because they work.  In some ways, I am an ends justify the means kind of guy.  Almost universally the regular fees associated with charities are not enough to keep them going.  The tuition won't pay enough for the school.  The dues won't be enough for the synagogue.  The entrance fee won't take care of the museum.  You're always going to need some big hitters, or at least a lot of people who can hit singles on a regular basis. 

So if it takes a little friendly guilt, not so gentle persuasion, or fierce competition, so be it.  If this is what it takes for people to give, we can live with that, even if it makes no sense.  But for me, though, the only donors I’m impressed with are those whose last names are “Anonymous”.

Have a good night everyone.

                               JR