The First Last Man

Standing at the back of the field, looking down Main St., I couldn't even see the start line. The gun sounded, officially kicking off the Dallas Marathon and Half Marathon, but my race didn't begin for another 17 minutes. That's how long it took for me to finally get to the start line and set off on my "Last Man Running" adventure.

I had the task of trying to pass as many runners as I could, with The Cotton Patch Cafe donating $4 to the Scottish Rite Hospital for every runner I caught. I had no idea how the race would go. Would it be easy? Would it be a beating? Would I pass 1,000, 3,000 or 5,000 runners? We play the hypothetical game a lot on our radio show, and this was like getting to act out a hypothetical.

My training had been sketchy, as I outlined in my previous blog post. The weather on race morning didn't help--almost 70 degrees, 90% humidity, and a decent south wind (runners like 50 degrees, low humidity, and no wind). But I was excited. And nervous. And ready.

My biggest fear was fighting my way through the logjam of runners on the road ahead of me. I thought I might be able to hold a 7:00 per mile pace, but my first mile was 8:15. It was impossible to go any faster because of the congestion. I started jumping up on the sidewalks, or curbs, or running in the gutter--anything I could do to make some headway. I always took the wide side of the road on turns because it was open--I took the longer route, running zero tangents the entire day, but it helped me gain ground. There were so many runners (about 10,000 running the half marathon alone, with thousands more running the full and relay) that the crowds never really thinned out until mile 10 or 11. I could never get into a rhythm or a flow--I would run hard for 50 feet, then have to stop, then run sideways across the street to an open spot in the road, then jump up on the sidewalk, then back to the road, then slow down, then speed up again. It was taxing. But I was also making progress.

At the finish, I checked my watch. I had run a 1:38--a little slower than I thought I could run, but considering the crowds and weather and my poor training, I was pleased. But I still had no idea how many people I had passed. It wasn't until Dallas Marathon officials checked the computer results (based on the timing chips each runner wore) to determine that I had passed 9,000 runners!

The Cotton Patch Cafe had pledged $4 per runner passed, up to $25,000, because in their estimation I would pass a maximum of 6,000 runners. But when I exceeded their estimates, they decided to honor the $4 per runner number anyway, and they ended up writing a check to the Scottish Rite Hospital for $37,500! I can't thank the Cotton Patch Cafe enough. They have been such a great sponsor of the Scottish Rite Hospital over the years, and they went above and beyond with their donation yesterday. Make sure you grab a bite this week at a Cotton Patch Cafe near you, and thank them for their generosity and for supporting "The Last Man Running."

In the end, it was an honor to be the first "Last Man," something the Dallas Marathon is planning on making an annual part of the race. It was a thrill to know that I was making a lot of money for a great cause, and it was a thrill to hear all of the support from the other runners and the spectators as I made my way through the throng. Sure, it was a stressful, and it was warm and humid, and it was at times frustrating. But I hate to ever complain about a run. One of the great things about this sport is that so many people race for a cause, running for those who can't. There is a great fundraising spirit in the endurance sports community.

Knowing you're helping a great cause makes it easier to toe the start line, especially if you're the last man to get there.

Last Man Running

Three weeks ago, Hawkeye Lewis from KSCS (sister station of The Ticket as part of the Cumulus empire) called me to ask a favor. He had broken his ankle in a training race, and wanted me to take his spot in the upcoming Dallas Half Marathon (note: HALF marathon, not FULL marathon). Hawkeye, and the Dallas Marathon (formerly the White Rock Marathon), had come up with an idea to raise money for the Scottish Rite Hospital, the long-time official charitable cause of the race. Hawkeye was to start in last place--let every single runner, probably about 13,000, cross the start line before he would. He would be the "Last Man Running." For every runner he would pass on the road during the 13.1 race, the Cotton Patch Cafe would donate $4 per head to the Scottish Rite Hospital. Great idea, great cause--but a bad break meant Hawkeye wouldn't be able to run. So he picked up the phone.

I didn't give Hawkeye and immediate "yes" answer, mainly because I hadn't been running much due to extreme burnout. After running my best-ever marathon last December at California International, I was on cloud nine. I should have stopped and taken some time off. Instead, I ran Boston in April--it was a 90 degree day, and it was miserable. Then, thinking I should run another marathon soon after Boston so that my Boston training wouldn't go to waste, I signed up for the Utah Valley Marathon in June. On the start line, I thought to myself "what the hell am I doing here?" It was my 5th marathon in 14 months, and I had no interest in pushing my body hard for 26.2 miles. Needless to say, I had a another miserable run. Since then, I've been running one day a week, about 6 miles each time--not the kind of mileage I should be doing to prepare for a half marathon.

I've been riding my bike quite a bit, and I actually started swimming two days a week this summer (with the idea of doing triathlons next year, which will be the topic of a future blog post as I detail my ridiculous triathlon attempts of the mid-80's), so I've been staying in shape--I just haven't been running. So, when Hawkeye asked me to take his place, my first thought was "but I hate running right now!" But, it's for a great cause, and I'm intrigued by the idea of seeing how many people I might be able to pass, so day later I called Hawkeye back and told him I'd do it.

For the past three weeks, I've been on a crash training program, trying to get ready for the race. Instead of one day of running per week, I'm up to three days per week. I've done a couple of slow 13 mile runs, a couple of track sessions, and I ran the Turkey Trot last week as a tune-up. My half marathon best is a 1:28, but I'm not in that kind of shape right now. I think I can run a 1:35 or so, but I have no idea how much I'll be slowed down by the congestion on the road ahead of me once I start running. I could end up running a lot more than 13.1 miles if I have to do a lot of weaving through and dodging around the runners ahead of me.

To add to the pressure, Channel 8 will be televising the race, and they've informed me that they're going to follow me for the first five miles with a helicopter to check my progress. Great.

If you would like to make a donation to the cause and support my run, and more importantly the Scottish Rite Hospital, go to: http://www.dallasmarathon.com/last-man-running/ (sorry, you'll have to cut-and-paste this because blogspot won't let me post a proper link--I plan on suing them for this inconvenience).

My best guess is that I can pass about 4,000-5,000 runners, but I really have no clue. I just hope I don't start last and finish last, and end up not raising a single dollar for the charity. If that happens, I will officially retire from running forever. I will also wear a dress to work for one year--actually, I may do that anyway.

The Lance Decision

Lance Armstrong has announced he will not fight the latest charges being brought against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). USADA is accusing Armstrong of using performance enhancing drugs during his Tour de France winning streak from 1999-2005. Is this an indication that Lance is guilty of these charges, since he's decided not to contest them? Is Lance really tired of the fight? Or, was this the smartest play that Lance could make? It's a very, very convoluted topic, and what follows is the official take of The Junes.

First, I don't believe for a second that Lance is tired of the fight--he never tires of any fight. He's just very smart about which battles he takes on, and which he walks away from. His decision to not contest the charges has more to do with the end result. Lance had two options: he could go to arbitration, which could last for weeks, which would mean that every day in the news there would be a report about another former teammate testifying that Lance used PED's, or another report about a possible failed drug test--it would be a daily badgering of his reputation. Or, he could choose to not fight, claim that USADA is on a witch hunt and that the charges are baseless, and not have to go through a nasty process. Either way, Lance knew that the end result would be the same: USADA was going to find him guilty. In a criminal case or Federal case, they need to prove that the accused cheated beyond a (reasonable) shadow of a doubt, but USADA only needs a semi-high level of suspicion to find someone guilty. Armstrong was willing to fight the Feds because he had a much better chance of winning, since there is no hard evidence that would help lead to a guilty ruling. But USADA doesn't need a smoking gun.

The USADA process is not a trial, so Lance can now claim that he never had his day in court. He can claim that they've unfairly targeted him since he's never officially failed a drug test. He knows he's got millions of supporters who will back him. He also knows that USADA doesn't have the power to strip him of his seven Tour de France victories. That decision would have to be made by either the UCI (the governing body of world cycling) or by the Tour de France itself. The UCI has always been in Lance's corner, so they won't push to strip him. The Tour has a tough call to make--if they decide to strip Lance of his wins, do they promote the second place finishers in each of those seven races? If so, they would would have to promote Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich, Joseba Beloki, Andreas Kloden and Ivan Basso--all of whom have tested positive for doping or admitted to using PED's. What about elevating the third place finishers in those years? The problem is the same, as you have guys like Vinokourov and Rumsas who also have tested positive for PED's who were on the podium for those races. Or, the Tour could just leave those seven years empty. But for a race which has such a rich history and markets that rich history to its full advantage, that would leave an ugly, gaping hole to have to stare at each time you looked at the list of winners. Plus, the Tour still lists the likes of Ullrich, Bjarne Riis, Marco Pantani and Alberto Contador as past winners--all of whom have tested positive or admitted to doping. So if they wipe Lance off the books, don't they have to wipe almost 20 years of their race history off the books as well? I can't see the Tour ever deciding to do that. I think they just want to move forward and hope it all goes away. Yes, the Tour has always had a strained relationship with Lance, and they could decide to strip him, but I think that decision would open a can of worms that the Tour would rather not deal with.

USADA is now preventing Lance from competing, even though he's retired. They can prevent him from racing in the Ironman triathlon series, which he had been doing this year as a professional, but I think Lance can live without that. I hate it, because I couldn't wait to see how he would have fared against the best in the Ironman--he had already won two Half-Ironman races this spring. Lance can, however, continue to compete in other events such as the Xterra off-road triathlon series, other world-wide triathlon events, or races like the Leadville 100 mountain bike race, or marathons, etc.

In the end, Lance had two roads to take, and both ended with USADA finding him guilty of doping. He knew that USADA was 58-2 in arbitration cases. He knew his best course of action was to basically ignore USADA. Instead of going to arbitration and losing, he knew that he would be better off by ignoring USADA and maintaining his innocence. It would have been very damaging for Lance to fight, and then to have USADA trot out former teammates who are creditable (not Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton, but guys like George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer, who have never failed drug tests and who were set to testify) who would have testified that they saw Lance doping, or knew of him doping. The Lance camp would argue that these witnesses either have no credibility or were blackmailed. Either way, it's to Lance's benefit that whatever evidence or testimony USADA had on their side never come out. This way, it never will.

Do I think Lance doped? I think he's a true freak of nature, and stronger in the mind than most athletes I've ever covered--yet, it's hard to believe that he won cleanly when everyone else was doping. I believe he was better than everyone, but not that much better. However, the playing field was level--practically everyone in the 90's and 00's in the pro peloton was doping, therefore, Lance was the strongest. If the entire peloton, including Lance, had been clean, I believe Lance still wins. So, while I think it was highly probably that Lance doped, I don't think it gave him an unfair advantage since everyone else was doping, too. It doesn't make what any of them did right, it's just (as Dan McDowell might say) the way it was.

I feel bad for Lance in that this is clearly a witch hunt. He is correct in that he's never failed a drug test (it should be noted that in 1999 at the Tour de France he did test positive for cortisone use, but it was dismissed after his doctors presented the Tour with a note of explanation, and that there is heavy speculation that in 2001 at the Tour of Switzerland he tested positive for EPO and that the result of that test was covered up by the UCI). So why, then, would USADA go after Lance? And why would they go after him seven years after his last Tour win? It's pretty obvious that USADA has it out for Lance, and I believe that his recent dalliance with the Ironman was too much for them to take--that they couldn't stand to see him compete again. And, when the Feds dropped their case against Lance, USADA saw this as a chance to make a big name for their organization by going after the biggest fish in the pond.

I also feel bad for the sport of cycling. There is no doubt that the sport was filthy from about 1991 (when EPO hit the scene full-force) until about 2008, and of course there are still cheaters out there. But, it's getting better. The sport has always been way ahead of the curve in terms of how it deals with cheats, but that's also meant a lot of negative publicity. The sport should be lauded for it's crusade against doping, not chided for what it's uncovered. It's a beautiful sport, and always will be. And today, it's a cleaner sport that it's been in a long, long time. But there will always be cheaters, and in every sport.

Lance will survive. He has an army of supporters, and they will continue to support him. I don't believe that his decision to not fight the USADA charges will have any long-term impact on his legacy. Those millions who love Lance will still love him, and they'll agree with his reasons not to fight. Those millions that hate Lance will, of course, still hate him. I would be shocked if the Livestrong Foundation suffers at all--I'll predict that their donations may in fact increase now, much as Penn State saw donations increase following the Sandusky scandal.

Lance made the best call. It will be difficult for him, short term, to read the headlines that he's "guilty" or that he's "been stripped of his Tour wins." Ultimately, though, his life will go on. He'll keep his Tour wins (I think), and he won't go to jail. He's basically survived every accusation levelled against him over the last 15 years. His foundation will survive, as will his legacy, for the most part. It's the best possible outcome for Lance, considering he had to choose between two negative outcomes. He chose the lesser of two evils. Whether or not Lance Armstrong contested those races by virtue of evil means is up for everyone else to now decide on their own.

Defending the ABA

This week, it was reported that Kobe moved past Shaq into 5th place on the all-time NBA scoring list. Wrong. Kobe moved past Shaq into 7th place on the all-time scoring list, not 5th.

The NBA still does not officially recognize statistics from the ABA. I don’t understand why. When you look at a list of the top passers in NFL history, you see the pre-merger AFL numbers for Joe Namath and Len Dawson and George Blanda included in their career total. There is no AFL asterisk. There are not two separate lists, one saying “NFL Only Yardage” and one saying “NFL-AFL Combined Yardage.” That’s as it should be.

Granted, I’m an ABA apologist, but I think this is an easy argument for anyone to understand. The ABA was not a minor league. The ABA was, in many ways, miles ahead of the NBA. The style of play, the coaching, the promotions, the dunking--in the 60’s and 70’s the ABA was what the NBA became in the 80’s and 90’s. In fact, it took the NBA-ABA merger (or absorption, as some say) to jump start a boring and somewhat dying NBA.

Superb, Hall of Fame players like Julius Erving, Moses Malone, George Gervin, Dan Issel, Rick Barry, and others are constantly having their great careers either downgraded or altogether ignored by the NBA and it’s followers. The ABA points scored by Dr. J came against a solid level of competition in a professional league that eventually was absorbed by the NBA--there is no reason his 11,662 points as a Virginia Squire and New York Net should not count in the eyes of the NBA. Dr. J’s numbers dipped when he came into the NBA, but it was not because of the better competition--instead it had to do with his aging knees and the dynamics of his new Sixers team.

When the two leagues merged, the ABA leftovers immediately made their presence felt. The Nuggets and Spurs were perennial playoff teams. The first post-merger All-NBA team (’76-’77) featured four ABA players (David Thompson, Gervin, Erving and George McGinnis) on the first and second teams. The next year, 3 of the 5 on the first team were from the ABA (Erving, Gervin, Thompson).

There is no doubt in my mind that the last dominant ABA team, the ’74-’76 New York Nets (who won two titles in three years), would have given the mid-70’s NBA Champion Warriors and Celtics a run for their money, or would have flat-out beaten them in a seven game series. The Nets featured Erving, John Williamson, the at-times brilliant Brian Taylor, Rich Jones, and the original Dunking Dutchman Swen Nater. They were more athletic than either the Celtics or Warriors, and, they were coached just as well (if not better) by Kevin Loughery than Boston or Golden State were by Tom Heinsohn and Al Attles.

Kobe Bryant is 7th, not 5th on the all-time scoring list. The NBA chooses to ignore the ABA point totals of Dr. J and Moses Malone, both of whom scored more points in their careers than Kobe has. Dirk is 26th on the all-time scoring list, not 21st. Dirk is behind Erving, Malone, Issel, Gervin and Artis Gilmore, not ahead of them. Gilmore’s 7,169 ABA rebounds should not be ignored (as he had to work for those against sometimes more athletic and all-out meaner front lines than he would have faced in the NBA). Gilmore should be recognized as the 5th leading rebounder of all-time--instead, the NBA ranks Gilmore 42nd. What a crime.

In November of 2010, Tim Duncan was celebrated as the Spurs all-time leading scorer, passing George Gervin with his 20,709th point. In fact, Duncan still hasn’t caught Gervin, whose own ABA-rooted organization doesn’t even acknowledge the ABA numbers put up by the Iceman. Ridiculous.

It’s time somebody stepped up and made the case for the ABA greats. I’m happy to carry the torch. Sorry Kobe, you’re 7th--you’ve still got about 1,500 more points to score before you pass Julius Erving into 5th place on the all-time scoring list.