Self Reflection

I am currently tasked with writing a reflective essay for a class I'm taking. I should be reflecting on what I've learned about literary criticism and analysis, but, in reflecting back on this quarter I've found myself thinking more about my personal growth than my academic growth.

After much reflection I finally figured out what I'm afraid of, the very core of my indecisive nature, and here it is:

I am afraid of being wrong. I'm afraid that the things that I want are the wrong things and, lets face it, they often have been so it's a more realistic fear than most. The reason I can't commit to anything (person, or career path, or sandwich topping), is because I am terrified that I'll make the wrong choice. On the bright side, once I do make a choice I really stick with it, but the fear of making the wrong choice is strong. In the past three months I've tossed aside a lot of fears I didn't realize I had, that I didn't even know were holding me back, and looking back on it I can't really say what made me push my limits. Perhaps it was necessity, or frustration, or external influences that I didn't even notice at first.

I had a weird dream a few nights ago. Weird both in that I hardly ever remember my dreams (I remember maybe two or three dreams a year) and also weird with regard to the contents of the dream. I dreamt that I was standing, in what I think was an airport, at a door (probably at the gate), and a guy I barely know was standing on the other side of the open door saying, repeatedly, "are you coming?" and beckoning me to follow. I know, as dream imagery goes this seems ridiculously obvious -- guy I barely know standing on the other side of the door represents, what else, the Unknown and my reluctance to follow is obviously my fear of said Unknown. Of course, it wasn't a guy I don't know at all and if it were a "fear of the unknown" dream then why any familiarity at all? Maybe it's a less metaphorical connection than that, maybe this guy I barely know has pushed me to take more chances without my realizing it and the dream was just pointing it out. In the dream, I did ultimately follow him through the door.

Now it has me wondering how much influence someone you barely know can have on your life. Is this guy the reason I've become, what I think is, a better version of myself? All of the sudden, over the last three months, I've started doing things that I've always wanted to do but for some reason never got around to. I mean, I just met him and I'm not inclined to believe that the timing is coincidence.

Then again maybe it has nothing to do with him. Maybe I'm totally over-analyzing (and not giving myself enough credit). Maybe dreams don't mean anything and this guy is just in my head because I saw him practically every day this quarter. Either way I'm glad I met him because, whether he had an influence on me or not, it's rare to meet someone as cool as this guy.

"I don't even know her and, no joke, I really like her. It's a little painful to me that I'm not gonna be seeing her tonight" - Dan (Sports Night)

The sport of kings...no, wait, that's horse racing.

According to Cycle Sport ( http://www.cyclesportmag.com/) Ivan Basso will be riding for the Discovery Channel team next season. I, of course, am trying not to get cynical about the state of the sport of cycling. It's so hard to tell anymore who is clean and who is not clean. Marco Pantani was one of the great crusaders against doping in the sport of cycling and he was ultimately caught doping himself and died of a cocaine overdose. That was very disillusioning. Doping allegations have dogged several of my favorites and some of them fight back, some take their suspensions without comment and some admit doping and try get back on track (like David Millar). It would be easy to either assume guilt or innocence and just forget about it, but I don't like to make assumptions.

Part of what makes doping in cycling so bizarre is the methods professional cyclists use. They don't, usually, dope themselves up with steroids, as other athletes might. Steroids are used by athletes who want to bulk up and cyclists are almost always concerned with staying light (because the lighter you are the less weight you have to haul up the mountains). Cyclists turn to drugs, or methods of doping, that help their blood carry more oxygen. The primary types of doping in cycling today are EPO, which is basically a blood cleaning drug, and blood transfusions. EPOs legitimate uses, as I understand it, include treatment of diabetes and aiding recovery of cancer patients who've been on chemotherapy and are in remission, because it helps the blood get rid of unwanted stuff (like excess insulin or the leftover toxic chemicals that may shrink cancerous tumors but will also attack other healthy cells if left to their own devices). Now, I'm not entirely sure of the medical science involved here but the impression I'm getting is that blood that carries more of oxygen is cleaner, the oxygen must help the blood get rid of stuff, like the insulin and chemo drugs or lactic acid that otherwise builds up in the muscles as a result of extreme physical exertion. Obviously the same holds true if you add more blood to the system (through a transfusion), more blood carries more oxygen. That's the extent of my understanding of doping technology.

The test for specific evidence of EPO is a recent addition to the cycling landscape and testing for specific evidence of transfusions is really difficult unless the athlete was transfused with someone else's blood in which case they can DNA test for it. Usually though, they take their own blood out, give their body time to replace the missing blood and then put it back in. So, the main indicator for these types of doping has been hematocrit levels, which can be affected by a number of factors aside from doping, and which vary from person to person anyway. Obviously there is an acceptable range of hematocrit levels to account for natural variations and effects of dehydration (which is a common problem for Tour riders and can raise Hematocrit levels) among other things. Of course, when Pantani's hematocrit levels got him kicked out of the Tour de France he claimed it was due to dehydration, which I believed at the time because I'm an overly trusting person, and now it seems like Pantani probably was on drugs. Still, it seems like a really inaccurate test for doping, not like the tests for steroid use where the corolation between a positive test and use of drugs is more direct.

The point of all this is that it is really hard to tell who's been doping and who hasn't. Add to that the huge bias that exists in the sport against American athletes that has lead to false accusations and possibly even tampering with tests. The same lab that tested Floyd Landis and found evidence of synthetic testosterone (a type of steroid and remember that, while doping is rampant in cycling, steroid use is uncommon) also leaked to L'Equipe that they had found evidence that Lance Armstrong hadn't been clean when he won his first tour. After an extensive investigation it was found that their allegations against Armstrong were baseless and it was recommended by the independent investigators that the lab in question not be used anymore for athlete drug testing. I was fully willing to believe though, that Landis was guilty. Despite the fact that the lab is known to be shady and that it seems like taking a large dose of synthetic testosterone would more likely be performance detracting to a cyclist in the middle of a three week grand tour, I was willing to believe he was guilty. But, Landis is fighting back, like Tyler Hamilton fought back when he was accused of blood doping and I've looked at some of the evidence in both of these cases (which both athletes have made available online, http://www.floydlandis.com/, http://www.tylerhamilton.com/) and now I'm not so sure Landis is guilty (and I never believed for a second that Tyler Hamilton was guilty).

Basso is another story. The investigation into Basso's alleged doping has been dropped, for now, by the Italian Olympic Committee, but he never really defended himself. Okay, he got a lawyer and he did defend himself a little, but he didn't get the blood test. He says he wanted to but his lawyer advised against it. Now, why would a lawyer advise against something that would almost completely exonerate their client. If Basso's blood were not a match (a DNA match) to any of the bags of blood found in Operation Puerto then he would be cleared. Sure, there would still be some circumstantial evidence against him but nothing concrete. If he was sure that the blood would not match, in other words if Basso is definitely innocent, why would his lawyer not want him to have his blood tested? It seems like it would make the job of defending him much easier, if he is, in fact, innocent.

In case you're wondering if I have a bias in favor of American riders, of course I do, but I also have a bias in favor of athletes that do everything they possibly can to prove their innocence. I don't know if they really are more innocent, but they certainly have more confidence in their innocence which is reassuring somehow. They want me to believe they are innocent so I am more inclined to. Not my best logic but the other option is to wonder if anyone in the sport is really clean anymore and if I even care if they're all on drugs or not. I mean this past Tour was one of the most exciting Tours in memory and if they want to kill themselves to keep us entertained who am I to argue.