Archive for the ‘Sports figures’ Category
A Small Post About Domestic Violence and Sports
Domestic violence, child abuse, and professional football. Who ever would’ve thought these words would go together?
That is, if you haven’t been paying attention for the past few weeks. Because a number of players — Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, Jonathan Dwyer, and Ray Rice — all have been prominent in the news lately, mostly because they’ve been violent with a child or girlfriend. All have serious problems, and all have now been told their services are no longer required (though three of them, Peterson, Hardy, and Dwyer, have effectively been put on paid administrative leave).
However, I can’t help but notice one player with a current arrest on his record for domestic violence who is still being allowed to play: San Francisco’s DE Ray McDonald. McDonald was arrested on 9/1/14 in San Jose for domestic violence, and has not yet been charged . . . and it’s because he hasn’t been charged (yet) that the 49ers will not bench him with pay like the others.
Why am I only singling out professional football players? Well, they’re the ones who’ve been in the news lately.
But to be fair, domestic violence happens in all sports. Even my favorite sports teams are not immune to this: Milwaukee Brewers closer Francisco “K-Rod” Rodriguez has had run-ins with the law in the past regarding his own behavioral issues, and so did RB Ahman Green of the Green Bay Packers. (Green is now retired, while “K-Rod” has apparently reformed.)
For that matter, domestic violence happens on a regular basis throughout the world. Because our society as a whole has a problem. The statistic I’ve seen spouted a lot on TV is that one in four women will fall victim to domestic violence — and some men will, too.
But things do not need to stay bad forever.
Treatment works, you see, if someone truly wants to change. Some current NFL players, like Brandon Marshall of the Chicago Bears and Dez Bryant of the Dallas Cowboys, have gone into psychiatric treatment and/or anger management counseling, and have become advocates for abused women (and men) instead.
Change is possible.
(Yes. It really is.)
But if you read nothing else in this blog, please read this: Domestic violence is a lot more important than any game. So if you feel that you are in danger, or have been abused, please get yourself to a counselor or at least call the national domestic abuse hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE. Or visit this website: http://www.ncadv.org/ — that’s the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Do it today. Because your life won’t wait.
National Outrage Ensues After Ray Rice Gets Suspended by the NFL for Only Two Games After Domestic Violence Arrest
Folks, there are some things as a human being that deeply offend me. Domestic violence against your life partner is one of those things.
Recently, Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was caught hitting his then-fiancée, now-wife on camera at a casino to the point that she ended up unconscious from the blow. This was a senselessly stupid act in more ways than one, and he was quite properly arrested for it.
However, as he married his fiancée not long afterward (exactly one day after an Atlantic City grand jury indicted him, according to this New York Times article), and as Rice both pled not guilty and entered a diversion program as a first-time offender (this according to an article from Huffington Post), apparently the NFL did not think it needed to suspend Ray Rice for more than a mere two games.
Considering Rice’s suspension is less than your typical four games for using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, this has caused a national furor. And not just from outraged female sports fans, either.
Take a look at this quote from this past Monday’s Shutdown Corner column over at Yahoo Sports, which points out that this particular suspension doesn’t make sense compared to other suspensions dealing with NFL players committing violent acts:
Cedric Benson once received a three-game suspension for assaulting a former roommate. Albert Haynesworth got five games after stomping on an opponent’s head in the heat of a game. Terrelle Pryor received five games in the Ohio State tattoo case before he ever entered the NFL. Tank Johnson was suspended half a season for illegal firearm possession.
Where is the consistency? Is there any scale at all here?
And when you consider that someone who’s used marijuana and been caught using typically gets a four-game suspension for a first offense, this particular two-game suspension becomes even more baffling.
Look. I know that pro football is a very violent game. I know that the men who play this game have a good amount of aggression in them — they have to have it, or they could not possibly play pro football at a high level. And there are very, very few men like the late Reggie White who are as gentle off the field as they are near-murderous upon it.
Even so, it’s wrong that a man like Ray Rice gets only a “piddling two-game suspension” (paraphrased from the words of Frank DeFord, who’s on record as asking if Roger Goodell is truly good enough to lead the NFL) for hitting his then-fiancée when someone who takes Adderall without first getting a therapeutic use exemption (or whatever the NFL calls it; I’m using MLB terminology as I’m much more conversant with that) gets a four-game suspension?
How can the NFL possibly justify only a two-game suspension for Rice under these particular circumstances? How is taking Adderall or smoking Mary Jane worse than hitting your fiancée?
Also, this sends a terrible message to any female fan of every NFL team. That message goes something like this: “We don’t care about you. At all.”
Because if they did, the NFL wouldn’t have come out with this stupid, pointless, ridiculous and utterly senseless two-game suspension for Rice. Instead, they would’ve ordered him into counseling — tougher and more stringent counseling than he’s already paying for on his own. They would’ve suspended him at least the same four games for any other first-time offense whether the police pressed charges or not, or allowed Rice into a diversion program or not. And they would’ve then gotten some counseling — big-time, major counseling — for Rice’s now-wife. (Remember her? The woman Rice hurt badly? The woman the NFL doesn’t want to talk about, because they seemingly want to see this as a “victimless crime” because Rice already is in counseling and he’s already married his then-fiancée?)
Right now, the NFL’s message is really bad. It says that their players can hit any woman they please and knock them out, and they will do almost nothing. Then, after giving the player what amounts to a mild slap on the wrist, the NFL will turn around and say what a tremendously wonderful human being the guy in question is (in this case, Ray Rice), and how this was an aberration and will never happen again.
And how do I know this is their message? Because their actions speak much louder than their actual words; they say, loudly and clearly, that domestic violence just doesn’t matter to the NFL. Or Rice would’ve at minimum received a four-game suspension, and quite possibly longer than that.
That he didn’t, my friends, is just wrong.
“Youngstown Boys” a Story of Hope, Redemption, and College Athletics
Folks, over the past few weeks, I’ve been struggling with first something akin to strep throat, then a nasty sinus bug. While I’ve continued to edit and write as much as I can, I haven’t been able to be online much and I certainly haven’t been able to blog. It’s not a fun state to be in, to put it mildly.
What I do when I’m feeling like this is watch a lot of television. But in addition to watching the Milwaukee Brewers play baseball, which I do whether sick or well, I’ve been catching up with ESPN’s “30 for 30” documentaries. And one, in particular, I felt was quite memorable: Youngstown Boys.
Why? Well, this is a documentary of troubled running back Maurice Clarett, once of Ohio State University, and his college coach, Jim Tressel. Both were from Youngstown, Ohio (hence the name); both started at OSU at the same time. And while Tressel stayed involved in Clarett’s life, good things happened for both of them, culminating in a 14-0 season and a double-overtime win over Miami in the Fiesta Bowl during the 2002 season.
Then Clarett ran into trouble. He’d gotten some help with getting a car and a cell phone. He admits to this in the film. The NCAA, in their infinite whatever, started an investigation — but before the NCAA could suspend Clarett, OSU suspended him instead . . . for the entire 2003 season.
And Tressel, the guy who had said he’d help Clarett when Tressel had recruited him, stood aside. (Possibly Tressel was in fear of losing his own job, or maybe Tressel just didn’t have the strength of character to intercede right then and there. But Tressel redeemed himself later on . . . more on that later.)
At this point, I was livid. I am a big proponent of players being paid, and think the way the NCAA forces athletes to live is utterly wrong. And the whole idea that a young man like Clarett, whose only goal in life was to play professional football, could get derailed like this was quite frustrating.
But it got worse. Clarett’s lawyers sued the NFL and tried to get him “draft-eligible,” as this was Clarett’s best shot at making a living. Clarett won his first-round court case, too . . . but lost later on.
So what’s a guy to do when he doesn’t have his scholarship, is poor, has tremendous athletic gifts, but has no direction? Clarett tried for a few years to ready himself for the NFL on his own, with indifferent success. And while Clarett was drafted by the Denver Broncos down the line, he never took so much as one snap in a preseason game before being let go by the Broncos.
After that, things just went into a downward spiral for Clarett. He ended up in prison, which could’ve broken him.
Instead, prison actually saved him — saved his life — as he started using his intelligence for good things. He started to read voraciously. He stayed in good contact with his girlfriend, calling her every day, and even started a blog (he’d read what he’d written to her, and she’d post it online). And he vowed to both redeem himself and to reform.
At this point, Tressel ran into trouble himself due to a recruiting scandal at OSU. Maybe because of this — the movie wasn’t clear — Tressel decided to involve himself again in Clarett’s life. And the two of them have become fast friends, working on behalf of improving other people’s lives. Reminding people that so long as you live, you can hope for better, dream of better — and you should do those very things no matter how badly the deck is stacked against you.
Mind, both of these men’s lives have not gone according to plan. Clarett, who had all the talent in the world to become a star running back in professional football, is now a motivational speaker and runs football camps. And Tressel, oddly enough, is now the President of Youngstown State University — a place where he won multiple national football championships at the I-AA level (now called the Football Championship Subdivision, or FCS) — and has retired from coaching college football.
But I venture to say that the detours both men’s lives have taken have made them better and stronger people. Clarett speaks to many, including former and current inmates, and his words have the ring of authority. He’s done some very strong and positive things since getting out of prison, and it’s possible that none of that would’ve happened if he hadn’t gotten into bad trouble — then clawed his way out of it. And Tressel is active in many charities and has stayed in contact with many of his former players, including a number of troubled ones, and his life has been deepened and broadened thereby also.
Youngstown Boys, in short, was a powerful film that affected me deeply. It showed that no matter how long it takes, goals and dreams matter. Even if you don’t achieve one goal today, you can still achieve it tomorrow; even if you can’t do it tomorrow, you can do it the next day if you refuse to give up, you refuse to give in, and you refuse to take “no” for an answer.
I think many people — not just writers, editors, and musicians — can learn from these men. Because it shows that redemption is truly possible, and that you can, indeed, become a better and stronger person through adversity.
————
Quick note: I’ll be working on a couple of stories the rest of this week, so blog posts may be scarce. But I hope to finally get a review up of VICTORIES at Shiny Book Review later this week, so do stay tuned for that (computer connectivity problems kept me from it last week).
Figure Skater Johnny Weir and Victor Voronov Separate, on the Road to Divorce
Folks, a few years ago I was proud to congratulate figure skater Johnny Weir on the event of his marriage to Victor Voronov.
Now, I am saddened to hear of their impending divorce.
Media reports thus far have said that Victor Voronov feels blindsided by what’s happened (the link I cited above from US Weekly had a headline of “shocked by the abrupt ending of his marriage, dealing with trauma endured”), which saddens me even further.
Look. Divorce is no picnic. (I should know; before I finally found Michael, I was divorced.) It can come out of the blue, or a lot of little things can lead up to a dissolution that at the time seems abrupt . . . but after a healing distance seems inevitable.
I don’t know what happened in Johnny Weir and Victor Voronov’s marriage, mind you. But I can tell you that historically, in some marriages between two people who are otherwise well-suited — such as English mystery writer Dorothy L. Sayers and Scottish journalist Atherton Fleming — when one person succeeds more than the other, as Sayers did in a resounding fashion with her successful series of mysteries featuring Lord Peter Wimsey and his eventual wife, Harriet Vane, it can cause fissures that are nearly impossible to heal.
Granted, Ms. Sayers lived during a time where divorce for an observant Christian was not always the “done thing,” which is possibly why she did not divorce Mr. Fleming. (Divorce was possible, sure. But unless there were overpowering reasons for it, usually couples would suffer in silence.) But in most of the biographies I’ve read about Ms. Sayers, the reason for her marriage having enormous difficulty was given over and over again as one, simple thing: She was successful. And he wasn’t successful to the same degree.
Now, that doesn’t mean Atherton Fleming resented his wife or her success. But her overwhelming success still hurt the marriage, because he wanted to be equal to his wife, was a good writer in his own way, and just didn’t find the same success no matter what he did or how hard he tried.
Worse yet, it’s harder for a man sociologically in Western society when a male spouse in a partnership isn’t equal to his spouse. (Just because both spouses are male in the case of the Johnny Weir/Victor Voronov marriage doesn’t change that sociological fact.) It doesn’t seem to matter how much love there is, or how much empathy, or how much understanding if one spouse is more successful than the other — under those circumstances, unless both people are fully present in their marriage and are willing to see themselves as flawed people who need and love each other and see success as a relative thing as opposed to simply a status thing — and will throw one hundred percent of themselves into their marriage — their marriage ultimately has little chance of success.
Now, what do I mean by success being relative? Well, in this case, Victor Voronov is successful because he’s always fully supported his husband Johnny Weir. That isn’t always easy to do even for the most loving of spouses, especially when one person is in the public eye all the time and the other just isn’t.
Whereas Johnny Weir is successful for other reasons.
And both of them need to see each other as a success in his own way and on his own terms, or the marriage just hasn’t a prayer of working.
In this particular case, looking in from the outside, Johnny Weir has obviously been on an upswing in his professional life over the past year-plus. He’s just come off a well-received stint at the Sochi Olympics as a figure skating commentator, where he received largely favorable publicity. He and his figure skating commentator partner, Tara Lipinski, were both signed by Access Hollywood to provide coverage for all sorts of things, including the Oscars. And his own personal, rather flamboyant sense of style has been plastered across society pages from one end of the Internet to the other.
Whereas Victor Voronov has apparently been settling into a career as a lawyer. His job is full of stress and long hours for much lower pay than Weir has been receiving for Weir’s various duties. Voronov is trying to establish himself, which is incredibly stressful in its own right.
Having a globe-trotting husband who’s plastered across society pages is possibly not what Voronov had expected his marriage to look like, especially as he married an athlete, not a celebrity icon (though to be fair, Weir was already both things when he married Voronov in December of 2011).
This sets up a lot of inequality that would be tough for any couple to deal with. One member of the marriage — Weir — is often gone and away from the other. Even with all the love in the world and complete and utter fidelity to one another, that one thing has been the death of more marriages than almost anything else.
At any rate, Weir has announced his separation from Voronov on Twitter and apparently has filed for divorce. Weir will be talking with Access Hollywood (one of his employers) later today (Thursday, March 20, 2014) by most media accounts, so perhaps at that time more will come out about the dissolution of his marriage.
That being said, while I can see from the outside why there would be extra stress on the Weir-Voronov marriage, I still had hoped it would endure. Weir seemed to settle down quite a bit after his marriage, and had shown himself to be a more mature and sensible individual — perhaps he always was that way, granted, and the media just didn’t portray it overmuch because being colorful is always “good copy” — and by every account I’ve ever read, Voronov was deeply in love with Johnny and was an extremely supportive spouse.
That’s why I find this particular divorce between two men I have never met and don’t know to be incredibly sad.
* * * * *
Edited to add:
Since I first wrote about this, a number of particularly nasty things have come out regarding the split between Weir and Voronov, most particularly via the gossip magazines.
I feel badly for both of these men. Divorce is hard.
But divorcing in public in the age of Twitter and non-stop communication seems to be the height of insanity.
I don’t know what to make of some of the things that have come out, to be honest. But I still believe that people have the right to make their own choices, as well as their own mistakes; because of this, sometimes marriages don’t work no matter how much love there is between the two parties.
I wish both men well as they do their best to move forward from what all accounts have shown thus far to be an incredibly traumatic experience.
More Olympic Figure Skating Controversy: Korean Olympic Commitee Sends Protest to IOC
This time, folks, I’m not mistyping — the Korean Olympic Committee has sent an official letter of protest to the International Olympic Committee demanding answers regarding the ladies figure skating event in the 2014 Olympic Games, according to this article from the USA Today filed as of 4 a.m. EST 2/22/2014 (today).
The Koreans are concerned that Yuna Kim was not scored fairly, and want answers as to what happened.
Personally, as I’ve said several times, I believe Carolina Kostner was also underscored (Mao Asada, too), and believe Adelina Sotnikova was wildly overscored.
Regarding the substance of the protest, it’s unclear how much good it can do. The International Skating Union still says they haven’t received the official complaint from the Korea Skating Union I discussed in my last blog post (this also according to the USA Today article), and it appears that will be needed also.
(One would hope that if there was a face-to-face meeting between the bigwigs as Reuters reported — which I discussed in my earlier blog post, someone will let the rest of the ISU know about it one of these years?)
However, the fact that the KSU and the KOC have both complained has to matter somehow . . . so my thought is that the IOC and the ISU will both have to respond and figure this out.
If there really was a bias in favor of Adelina Sotnikova, the IOC and ISU should move to fix this as fast as they possibly can. Because this looks very, very bad and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
As this controversy appears to have legs, I promise to stay on top of it as best I can, and will post updates as I receive them. (But for right now, I need to go get some sleep. Seriously.)
Figure Skating Controversy Deepens as S. Korea Asks ISU for Inquiry
Folks, it’s official: South Korea has asked the International Skating Union# for an official inquiry into whether or not the judging at the Sochi Olympics in the ladies figure skating event was fair.
Later on Friday the Korea Skating Union (KSU) issued a statement saying it had met with International Skating Union (ISU) President Ottavio Cinquanta and “officially requested to confirm whether the figure skating ladies single competition was held fairly based on the ISU’s regulations and procedures.”
All I can say is, it’s about time. Because with an official inquiry, it’s possible this nonsensical result will be overturned.**
As I said yesterday, I believe Ms. Sotnikova should’ve been on the podium — but in the bronze position. Both Carolina Kostner (the official bronze medalist) and Yuna Kim outskated her.
(Mind you, I’d also have been perfectly fine with Mao Asada winning a bronze medal, as I believe Ms. Asada was underscored in her long program. But that’s a side issue.)
And I’m far from the only one who’s upset about this highly questionable result, as this online petition calling for an investigation into the judging of the Olympic figure skating event has already garnered nearly 1,900,000 signatures as of this hour (roughly 1:35 a.m. CST) . . . in less than two days.
My final thoughts tonight? Well, it’s simple: Ms. Sotnikova benefited from a home-field advantage and a stack of judges that seem, on their face, to be highly questionable. (Please see this article by the redoubtable Christine Brennan if you don’t believe me.)
She did not deserve gold.
And to my mind, she also did not deserve silver.
———
**Note that the Korea Skating Union needs to file an official protest to get this result overturned. But it’s possible the inquiry might be the first step into that, as I can’t remember enough of what happened during the 2002 figure skating fiasco that resulted in Jamie Salé and David Pelletier of Canada initially being given a silver rather than gold, then later being awarded gold after Canada filed a formal protest, to tell you the exact steps Korea needs to go through to get this injustice rectified.
# An earlier version of this blog said that the Korea Skating Union had gone to the IOC (International Olympic Committee) over this — that’s what happens when you write a blog at 1:35 a.m. in the morning, as that was a complete and utter misstatement on my part. I regret the error and have corrected it for the record . . . mea maxima culpa!
Olympics Controversy in Figure Skating Again as Sotnikova “Wins” Gold over Kim, Kostner
Folks, I have rarely been as upset about a result in Olympic figure skating as I am right now.
In fact, the last time I was this upset, it was over Johnny Weir’s brilliant skate in the 2010 Vancouver games being marked too low for him to medal (he started in sixth after the short and stayed there despite his brilliant long program).
But this time, it’s because one skater — Russia’s Adelina Sotnikova — was given marks that were far, far too high, allowing her to “win” the gold medal over two far superior skaters — South Korea’s Yuna Kim, and Italy’s Carolina Kostner.
This is a controversy of major proportions for two reasons: One, Kim, the reigning Olympic gold medalist, skated a clean, challenging program, but was not rewarded to the same level as Sotnikova. And two, Carolina Kostner’s program was perhaps even better than Kim’s and Sotnikova’s from an artistic perspective, yet she, too, was undermarked.
Here are just a few articles talking about the controversy:
Yahoo Sports columnist Dan Wetzel says:
(Sotnikova’s) score was through the roof, 5.76 points higher than what Kim was given on another flawless-looking program and 7.34 above what Kostner received for her own tremendous program.
The judging, because of the size of the gap between the scores, is likely to be analyzed and criticized for years to come. In fact, American Ashley Wagner wasted no time, saying “people need to be accountable.”
The Age, an Australian newspaper, was much more blunt in its assessment:
Russia’s Adelina Sotnikova rode a powerful wave of national emotion to win a controversial Olympic figure skating title on Thursday as the Sochi Games felt shockwaves from Ukraine’s bloody civil unrest.
Sotnikova, 17, captured Russia’s first ever women’s individual gold as defending champion and red-hot favourite Kim Yu-Na was dumped into the silver medal position.
The Age also points out that Sotnikova made at least one obvious error — double-footing a combination jump (this is when both feet come down at the same time, and is unmistakable) — when both Kim and Kostner made zero errors in their respective programs.
Kostner was gracious, being quoted by the Age as saying, “I just have faith that the judges made the right decision.”
“People don’t want to watch a sport where you watch people fall down and somehow score above someone who goes clean,” she said. “It’s confusing and we need to make it clear for people.
“People need to be held accountable. They need to get rid of anonymous judging. There are many changes that need to come to this sport if we want a fan base.”
Note that Wagner may be complaining more about the fact that Gold, who fell, was placed ahead of Wagner in the standings than the current controversy. But her point is still well-taken; if Kim and Kostner both skated difficult and clean programs, why did Sotnikova, who skated a difficult program but did not skate clean, get rewarded?
My own assessment is this: Sotnikova deserved a medal. Bronze.
Kostner should’ve won the gold, to my mind, but I’d have been OK with her winning silver and Kim winning gold because both skated clean programs with lyricism and heart.
I watched Sotnikova’s program several times. She actually double-footed two jumps (the last two) in her three-jump combo, and she also had a slight double-foot on one other triple jump. Those all should’ve had negative grade of execution scores that should’ve been reflected in her overall scores . . . but weren’t.
And while I enjoyed commentator Johnny Weir’s assessment immensely on NBCsn’s coverage — he did a fantastic job with every event alongside Tara Lipinski and Terry Gannon — I do not agree with him or Lipinski that Sotnikova deserved gold.
A few other final thoughts about the women’s figure skating event:
- Mao Asada had by far the most impressive skate in the long program, landing at least one triple axel cleanly and skating with a buoyancy I hadn’t been expecting after her disastrous short program. It’s truly a shame that she wasn’t able to get some sort of combination into her program yesterday, as she might well have medaled despite the bad fall had she done so. She ended her competitive career with grace and dignity; it was an honor to watch her skate for so many years.
- Ashley Wagner’s skate was clean; she had one under-rotation and one wrong-edge entry deduction (this is really tough to spot, but it’s when a figure skater starts the jump on the wrong edge and switches over just before making the jump in order to make it a little easier to perform), but these things happen. She looked good and validated her entry into the Olympics.
- Polina Edmunds had a fall in her long program and didn’t skate as well as she did at the U.S. Nationals, finishing in ninth place. (This is who should’ve been replaced by Wagner; Mirai Nagasu should’ve gone instead as I believe she’d have placed above Edmunds.)
- Gracie Gold had one fall that looked almost like a somersault on the ice (as she got up so quickly, you almost didn’t notice it was there). She’s a rising star.
- Julia Lipnitskaia had a nice free skate with one fall and was placed about where she should be in fifth place due to her incredibly difficult spins. Ashley Wagner is not happy about it (see this article by Yahoo Sports writer Martin Rogers), but Lipnitskaia’s marks were not anywhere near as wildly inflated as Sotnikova’s.
Ultimately, Sotnikova’s “gold” medal is yet another black eye for figure skating. And while I was sure as of last night that the judges would not do something like this — as they had to know a protest would ensue (Italy is not likely to protest, but South Korea sounded to me as if they’re strongly considering it) — the judges have exceeded my expectations . . . in a bad way.
Don’t be surprised if the IOC overrules this one and gives Kim a gold medal along with Sotnikova.
Olympic Thoughts: Dance, Ladies Short Program
Folks, the last few days have been hectic. So I’ve not had much time to discuss the latest doings in the world of Olympic figure skating.
But since I had a request from a friend to discuss a bit of the ice dancing, I thought I’d talk about that.
But wait — there’s more.
Because I managed to see every single one of the ladies perform their Olympic short programs yesterday, I thought I’d discuss a little bit about that competition as well.
First, let’s talk about the ice dancing. United States figure skaters Charlie White and Meryl Davis excelled in their short program, and skated a solid long program to a beautiful piece of music (Scheherezade by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) with technical brilliance and a great deal of speed to win the first-ever gold medal for the U.S. in ice dance. (Note that Davis and White won silver in 2010, while Tanith Belbin and Ben Agosto also won silver in 2006.)
I enjoyed White and Davis’ skating, and felt they were worthy of a gold medal.
However, in some ways I responded a whole lot more to Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir. They, too, are excellent skaters with the whole repertoire of moves . . . they won gold in Vancouver, though, so it’s hard to feel like they’ve been cheated.
As for the women’s short program, here’s my take:
- The American women are in good shape, with Gracie Gold in fourth place, Ashley Wagner in sixth and Polina Edmunds in seventh. All skated credibly or better; Gold has a real chance to win a silver or bronze if she skates a clean long program.
- There’s no way in the world Adelina Sotnikova belongs among the top six. Her scores were wildly inflated.
- What a shame that Mao Asada wasn’t able to complete her triple axel or her combination jump. Her program was lovely except for the fall, but missing those required elements dropped her all the way to sixteenth place. She’d need several miracles to get within striking distance of the podium.
- My overall winner of the short program? Carolina Kostner of Italy. She skated beautifully to “Ave Maria,” and was every bit as good as Yuna Kim.
In case you’re wondering what I’m looking for in Friday’s long program from the ladies, here goes:
- Russian ladies’ scores will continue to be wildly inflated, but none will medal (as if they did, an international judging controversy would no doubt ensue).
- Mao Asada will land at least one triple axel and a three-jump combo (probably triple-triple-double).
- Gracie Gold will skate clean and medal.
- Podium (who I think should win): Carolina Kostner, gold; Yuna Kim, silver; Gracie Gold, bronze.
- Podium (who the judges will inexplicably pick): Yuna Kim, gold; Carolina Kostner, silver; probably still Gracie Gold, bronze, unless Mao Asada lands two triple axels cleanly (if so, she’ll win the bronze somehow, and deserve it).
NBC’s Christin Cooper Pushes Bode Miller to Tears After Bronze Medal Win
Every time I think I’ve seen it all when it comes to the Sochi Olympic Games, something happens to make me change my mind.
In Sunday’s Super-G Olympic ski race, American Bode Miller won the bronze medal (actually tying with Canadian Jan Hudec) behind fellow American Andrew Weibrecht and gold-medal winning Kjetil Jansrud of Norway. In doing so, the thirty-six-year-old Miller became the oldest Olympic medalist in skiing history, and has now won six Olympic medals — one gold, three silvers, and two bronzes.
However, NBC reporter Christin Cooper, herself a past Olympic medal winner in skiing (silver in 1984 in the Giant Slalom), pushed Miller way too far in an interview aired in prime-time television an hour or so ago. The interview has been transcribed by Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column; here’s Cooper’s first question and Miller’s first answer:
Cooper: Bode, such an extraordinary accomplishment, at your age, after a turbulent year, coming back from knee surgery, to get this medal today, put it in perspective. How much does this mean to you?
Miller: I mean it’s incredible. I always feel like I’m capable of winning medals but as we’ve seen this Olympics it’s not that easy. To be on the podium, this was a really big day for me. Emotionally, I had a lot riding on it. Even though I really didn’t ski my best, I’m just super super happy.
This is a perfectly reasonable question, and a good answer by Miller. No problems here.
Next was Cooper’s second question:
Cooper: For a guy who says that medals don’t really matter, that they aren’t the thing, you’ve amassed quite a collection. What does this one mean to you in terms of all the others.
Miller: This was a little different. You know with my brother passing away, I really wanted to come back here and race the way he sensed it. This one is different.
This, again, is a reasonable question and a good answer by Miller. He was starting to tear up at this point, though, and most interviewers would’ve backed off and thanked him for his time.
For whatever reason, Cooper did not do this.
Here’s Cooper’s third question and Miller’s third answer:
Cooper: Bode, you’re showing so much emotion down here, what’s going through your mind?
Miller: Um, I mean, a lot. Obviously just a long struggle coming in here. It’s just a tough year.
This wasn’t a terrible question, but it wasn’t good because Miller was already in distress. Miller again gave a credible answer, but he teared up and was having a lot of distress in the process.
Again, most interviewers would’ve backed off. But again, Cooper did not do this.
Instead, here was Cooper’s fourth question and Miller’s abortive fourth answer:
Cooper: I know you wanted to be here with Chelly, really experiencing these games. How much does this mean to you to come up with this great performance for him? And was it for him?
Miller: I don’t know if it’s really for him but I wanted to come here and, I dunno, make myself proud, but … (trails off)
Here is when Cooper made a big mistake. She mentioned Chelone Miller, Bode’s brother, by name — Chelone was only 29 when he passed away in 2013 of a seizure, and was considered a possibility to make the Sochi Olympics in snowboarding until the end of his life.
Then Cooper made an even bigger mistake — she asked a fifth and final question:
Cooper: When you’re looking up in the sky at the start, we see you there and it looks like you’re talking to somebody. What’s going on there?
Miller: (breaks down and cries, Cooper puts an arm on him)
Now, this was just way out of line. Miller had answered the question already, as best he could, at least twice, and was obviously emotional. (Cooper even said this, earlier, so she was aware of it.) His brother has been dead for less than a year, for pity’s sake (see this story about Chelone Miller’s passing if you don’t believe me). The wound is still fresh, and Miller was showing the strain after Cooper’s second question.
But she didn’t back off.
As a journalist — no matter how unemployed I may be at the moment — I can tell you right now that Cooper’s behavior was completely wrong. She should’ve backed off after the second question and not asked the third, but once she did ask the third and saw that Miller was so emotional, she should definitely have backed off then.
That she instead chose to ask the fourth and fifth questions after he was already extremely upset for a completely understandable reason made absolutely no sense.
Fortunately, I’m not the only person out there who feels this way, either, as Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column written by Mike Oz (about Olympic events) has also taken Cooper to task. Here’s a bit of that:
Reporters have to ask tough questions. It’s part of being a journalist. One of the hardest parts of the job — and one of the toughest nuances to learn — is knowing when enough is enough in an emotional situation. Cooper, it’s worth nothing, was a skier before getting a TV gig with NBC, not a lifelong journalist
Maybe when she looks back at the tape on this, she’ll realize that one question about Miller’s brother was enough — perhaps two would have been OK. But the third one, the one that broke Miller down into a ball of emotion, came off as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, cheap.
All I can say is, I sincerely hope so.
Because what Christin Cooper did wasn’t just poor journalism and wasn’t just insensitive.
It was plain, flat wrong on every level. Period.
In Olympic Long Program, U.S. Figure Skater Jeremy Abbott Silences Critics
Yesterday’s blog discussed U.S. figure skater Jeremy Abbott, who took a particularly nasty fall, laying stunned on the ice for nearly twenty seconds due to the pain, but got back up and finished his heart-felt short program to finish fifteenth.
Finishing that far back meant it would be nearly impossible for Abbott to pull up into the top ten. And indeed, he didn’t, finishing twelfth.
But what he did today was still quite impressive, as despite being in obvious pain, Abbott skated a clean long program.
After that, Abbott had a message for his critics, according to Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports:
Asked what he had to say to those who say he chokes, he first exhaled loudly, put his head back and said, “Ahhhh … I would just love…”
He turned to Barb Reichert of U.S. Figure Skating public relations.
“Sorry Barb, you’re going to kill me,” he said.
“No,” she said. “I’m not. Bring it. Bring it.”
Abbott brought it.
“I would just hold my middle finger in the air and say a big ‘F you’ to everyone who has ever said that to me because they have never stood in my shoes,” he said, the kind of direct language not commonly found in the skating hall.
Now, why did Abbott say this? Well, not every commentator is as polite as I am, not by a mile. Twitter yesterday was particularly unforgiving, and half (if not more) of the commentators never once took a look at what Abbott did after he took that hard fall.
Figure skating is one of the most difficult athletic pursuits around. Even though I can’t do it — I don’t have the balance, the strength, or the stamina, and never have — I understand skating and I understand the skater’s mentality, mostly because I’m a musician and I performed at many music competitions. And having to do your best when your reed isn’t working, or your keys are sticking, or you know you’re competing against someone who’s won the competition several times and you’re a newcomer — well, those nerves are hard to deal with.
That’s why I never faulted Abbott for having nerves, or being willing to acknowledge them. But as a commentator — even an armchair one like myself — I have to be honest about what I see.
Yesterday, I said that Abbott’s story of falling hard but getting up and finishing when he could’ve walked away without fault was inspiring. And it was.
Today, going out there when he knew he had no realistic chance for a medal and giving it his all, then skating a clean program despite being in pain from yesterday’s fall, was even more so.
Life is about how hard you try after you’ve been knocked down. It’s all about how you get up, or don’t. And that’s why I’d rather talk about Jeremy Abbott, who’s competed now in two Olympics, finishing ninth and twelfth, than talk about 2014 Olympic champion Yuzuru Hanyu, who’s only nineteen and has not faced significant adversity on the ice as of yet (off the ice, yes, due to the tsunami a few years ago). And I definitely don’t want to talk about Olympic silver medalist Patrick Chan, who apparently felt he deserved the gold medal despite taking three falls, because that young man has way too much publicity already.
For today, this Valentine’s Day, I want you to consider the courage of a young man who’s about to retire from the sport he loves — Jeremy Abbott — at the young age of twenty-eight, because the sport is so difficult, so demanding, requires so much dedication, that his legs and back and body and mind just cannot keep doing it at the high level required to attain the Olympics.
Then consider how difficult it was for him to take that fall — look at the program in context (I’m sure it’s available on YouTube by now, or at NBC.com), and see what Abbott did to get up again, then skate the rest of his program with vigor and panache.
That’s what we all need to do, in this life.
I have a lot of sympathy for Abbott. I had it in 2010 at Vancouver, when he finished ninth by skating a brilliant program to pull way up in the standings. And I have it again today.
Because what makes an Olympic champion is not the medals.
It’s the heart.
That’s why Jeremy Abbott will forever be an Olympic champion.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 