Cycling is Corrupt and Hypocritical

 

     Pardon me for being cynical, but the Lance Armstrong story can not possibly be so simple.  Organized cycling would like you and me to believe that there was just one bad guy in the sport, namely Lance Armstrong, and now that we have proof that he used performance enhancing drugs, the rightful winners will be recognized.

     The fact of the matter is, however, that despite hundreds if not thousands of tests, there was no test result indicating that he used PED.  The same with Marion Jones, the jailed  olympic sprinter.  She never failed a drug test, but instead was convicted by testimony.  The conclusion is obvious:  the athletes know how to defeat the test.  Evidently  they have masking agents or some other way to completely defeat these tests.  THE TESTS DO NOT WORK.   

    People who get caught do something stupid, like forgetting to use the stuff that removes traces from urine.  The evidence says that if you are careful, you can enjoy at least a decade with frequent testing and not get caught.  

    Since that is true, it is very hard to believe that the second place finisher is any more clean than Lance Amrstrong.  Or the third place finisher, or the fourth or fifth.  Why not take PEDs, if the chances of getting caught are very very small?

    Do you believe that ten of Lance Armstrong's teammates decided to turn him simply because they are brave and honest?  No, it makes more sense to believe that they were threatened with going to jail if they didn't out him, because THEY WERE DOING IT TOO.  

    However, organized cycling does not want to admit that it is 100% corrupt.  Instead, they are trying to promote the fiction that there was only one person  of significance who ever cheated with performance enhancing drugs, namely Lance Armstrong, and the rest are all innocent and play by the rules.  

    I'm inclined to believe that virtually all of the top 1000 cyclists, and probably most of the high school kids who raced, used PEDs of one form or another.  Why wouldn't they use them, if there is a way to avoid detection, and you can't win without doing it because everyone else is?

   That is the reason why they are going on this witch hunt.  They would like to blame the entire doping scandal on Lance Armstrong, rather than admitting that all of the athletes are doing the same stuff.   Well, the whole thing is disgusting and a farce.  If you're going to throw the book at Lance Armstrong, fine.  Let him go to jail.  But let's also put the next top 1000 cyclists in jail because they did they same stuff.  And let's put the officials in charge of cycling in jail for a much longer time because they are willfully lying about the extent of the problem and in effect protecting the huge number of people who dope in order to blame the whole scandal on one person.  

Positive Cleveland Browns Analysis!

    Some of my fellow Browns fans say I have been too harsh on the Browns.  That is not true.  I do think that the team has been at a disadvantage because of financial problems in the ownership, and now that they have a new owner, things are going to get better.  For 2012, they are definitely in the top 5 of football teams in Ohio, right behind the Bengals, Ohio State Buckeyes, UC Bearcats and Miami Redhawks.  

   Some of you object to my prediction that the Browns will draft a quarterback in the first round next year in order to replace the aging Brandon Weeden, who will be stuck as the number two quarterback, while Seneca Wallace finishes the year as the number one quarterback.

   Well, we seem on course for that to happen, as we now understand the Browns strategy of drafting offensive position players this year in order to pump up the value of the franchise and prepare it for sale.  When they have to play games, however, it will become all too apparent the Browns just don't have enough talent.  

  

   Nevertheless, I've decided to be a good sport and issue some story lines to make my faithful readers (and there are probably about ten of you out there) happy.  Here we go:

   Number One:  The Browns can easily afford to give up a 4th, 5th and 7th round pick to move up one spot in the first round for Trent Richardson, and they won't miss a number 2 in 2013 for a  wide recieiver with a drug history, because the Browns are so deep that only future Hall of Famers have a chance to make their roster.  

This Cleveland Browns fan is literally crying with joy at the news that the Browns were able to trade four draft picks for Trent Richardson.

   Number Two:  AFC Central Quarterbacks Roethlisberger, Flacco and Dalton  have combined for 21 playoff games, including 6 AFC Championship Games and 3 Super Bowls.  But we think that being a minor league baseball pitcher like Brandon Weeden was actually better preparation!

   Number Three:  After the Browns' Peyton Hillis totalled 1654 yards from scrimmage in 2010, we think the Browns are vastly improved by getting rid of him!

A jubilant Browns fan celebrates the departure of Peyton Hillis.

   Number Four:  After finishing 4-12, the Browns were smart not to sign any free agents, because their roster is just LOADED with TALENT!

   Number Five:  The Browns rebuilding program is going so well, it is not necessary to add payroll.  Spending way under the salary cap is the logical move for a team in this position!

  Number Six:  The Browns have an excellent training program, and losing two regulars during training should not be a concern, especially since their spectacular depth will cover the loss of Phil Taylor and Chris Gocong.  

   A Cleveland Browns fan, intimidating James Harrison of the Steelers!  Take that!

     Number 7:  Goldman Sachs will place bets on the Browns with Las Vegas rather than investing in their usual stocks and bonds, because it is so certain that the Browns will win this year. 

     Number 8:  The Browns are developing a more sophisticated offense than any other team in the league, thanks to he ingenious Brad Childress, who was Brett Favre's favorite coach.   

 Brad Childress explains how his new offensive schemes are certain to eclipse his achievements with Brett Favre and the Vikings.  

     Number 9:  Then there's Pat Shurmur, who helped the St Louis Rams score the 26th most points in the NFL in 2010 as their offensive coordinator.  With this kind of brilliant record, he is just the guy to lead the Browns on their Super Bowl charge in 2012!    

 

Browns fans are giddy, anticipating a return to the playoffs in 2012.

     Number 10:  The Browns biggest advantage is stability, with Mike Holmgren, Tom Heckert and Pat Shurmur all expected to stay for long careers in Cleveland.  
 ***
    So there you have it, faithful fans.  Ten positive story lines about the Cleveland Browns.  There is no reason to be anything but optimistic for the upcoming season.  
   

Born to Run

     I think Born to Run (the Emmylou Harris version, not be be confused with the song of the same name by Bruce Springstein) could be a really good song for someone. 


     

Some 30 years ago, Emmylou Harris cut a version that crested at number 3 in the Country Western Charts.  

There's nothing wrong with Number 3, but I always thought that it could be a much better song.  

First of all, I wish that they had had a fiddle player for this song, preferably the lead singer.  Instead, they kind of use the electric bass player to carry the song as a rockabilly lead, which is an odd choice.  To me it just doesn't work. 

Another problem is that the "Hot Band" isn't really all that hot, at least not for this song.  To me they look like they are bored, and just playing to collect a paycheck.  They just don't look like they are having fun. They seem to be looking at the floor, and they rarely smile or show any emotion at all.  I think if I were playing with Emmylou Harris I would go absolutely nuts (in fact, after 30 years Emmylou is still a babe, and yes I am ready to quit my day job and tour with her at any time!), but you just don't see any reaction from this band despite their obvious talent.

That said, it is a great song with a fantastic melody, and interesting lyrics that  tell the story of an untamed "bad girl." This is pretty much announced in the second line "No man is master to me, I ain't that kind."  Yikes! 

I think I know someone from the Morgantown musical scene who could really take this song to the next level.   Not that I am any kind of expert, but I think it could be a hit.

Born to Run

Well I never did crawl and I never did toe that line
No man is a master to me I ain't that kind
I just put on my traveling shoes
If you wanna win you just can't lose 
the time
Or stay behind
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Well I take the chances sometimes I've made mistakes
But you don't get nothing unless you take the breaks
Living as dangerous as dynamite
Sure makes you feel nervous but it makes you feel alright
Makes you feel alright
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Nobody's gonna make me do things their way
By the time you figure it out it's yesterday
Well it comes to he who waits I'm told
But I don't need it when I'm old and gray
Yea I want it today
Well I was born to run
To get ahead of the rest
And all that I wanted was to be the best
Just to feel free and be someone
I was born to be fast I was born to run

Thanks Randy Lerner, Welcome JH3, Jimmy Haslam III.

Randy Lerner is said to be selling the Cleveland Browns to  Jimmy Haslam III. Is this a betrayal, selling the team to an outsider, particularly one that was involved in the ownership group for the Pittsburgh Steelers?

No I don't think it should be viewed this way.  Randy's dad was the guy behind the effort to restart the franchise and Randy continued that tradition.  Clevelanders should be grateful to the Lerner family for that reason.  However, it may be that Randy has been hurt by economics, not to mention a painful divorce, such that estimates of his fortune have shrunk from $1.5 billion in the 2006-2009 time frame, to around $1.0 billion in 2011.  This can't be good.  

Now we can understand the weird off-seasons of 2011 and 2012.  Namely, the Browns signed zero high profile free agents.  I've been shooting emails back and forth with some of my fellow Cleveland Browns fans, and I have to admire the support that some of them have for the team.  Some believe that the reason for the Browns signing zero free agents is because the roster is so packed with talent that there was no room for a veteran wide receiver or lineman.  What a laugh!

Rather, the main concern in the offseason for the Browns was to get rid of players like Colt McCoy (who isn't gone yet, but soon will be as the Browns have no stomach for "quarterback controversy"), Eric Steinbach, Peyton Hillis and Tony Pashos. 

Moreover, in this year's NFL draft the Browns followed the classic recipe for failure by trading multiple picks in order to draft marquee position players in Trent Richardson and Brandon Weeden.  The Weeden pick is the greatest mystery, as the Browns are getting a 29 year old guy with a background in minor league baseball.  Weeden never got out of A-ball.  But Weeden is thought to be ready to play immediately (or put it this way, he isn't going to get much better in the future because of his age, so you might as well play him now. Plus having an unrepaired torn labrum in his shoulder is usually not a good sign for longevity).  The Browns also managed to blow 3 additional draft picks so that they could move up one spot in Round 1 and draft Trent Richardson.  Richardson will probably gain 1000 yards next year, but he would need to gain 2000 in order to be worth all those picks.  They also gave away a number two pick in 2013 in order to obtain the services of pot smoking wideout Josh Gordon in the NFL Supplemental Draft.  This is a substantial risk for a fellow whose career might go up in smoke, and again leads to the conclusion that the Browns are trying to generate some excitement in 2012 at the expense of 2013 and beyond.  Now that the team has been sold, hopefully these foolish moves will stop. 

     But while we might question the football sense of this attrocious use of the NFL draft, in terms of positioning the team for sale, it makes sense to add a few glamour boys on offense, and it also makes sense to decrease the long term obligations of the team by not signing any major free agents.  That way, Jimmy Haslam can come in and make a big splash on the free agent market immediately (that is, in the 2013 off season).  Even if the Browns flop in 2012, and they have an excellent chance of doing so, Haslam will be granted a bye by the fans and the media and will get the chance to call his own shots.  It would be interesting to see what they might do with some financial backing, but most observers figure both Holmgren and Heckert will be out the door.  They may be the fall guys for doing what had to be done to get the team ready to sell, but under the circumstances I can appreciate what they did. The Browns will miss those three extra draft picks this year and they will also wish that they had kept that number two pick in 2013. 

 

Randy Lerner was a good owner, and as I see it he is selling the team because he is not able to continue being a great owner. 

 

Welcome, Jimmy Haslam III.  May we call you JH3?  Hopefully JH3 will allow the team to acquire a few free agents next year and compete for real by about 2014.  

Explorer I, Einstein and the Theory of Crustal Displacement

   There is  fringe theory in earth science by Charles Hapgood, called the "Crustal Displacement Theory."  His idea, put forward in the 1950s, was that the earth's crust might get extra heavy near the poles due to the buildup of ice caps, and that this might cause the earth's axis to shift or rotate, kind of like an orange peel could slide around the inside of the orange.  This is postulated to be the event that ended the Ice Ages around 10,000 BC or so. 

   Support for this occurs because some ancient maps show a land mass corresponding to Antarctica, with rivers that supposedly could not exist if it were glaciated.  Also it helps to explain flood myths in the Bibile and elsewhere. 

   This idea may sound pretty crazy, and perhaps at the end of the day it is.  But Albert Einstein wrote the introduction to Hapgood's book.  So if it is crazy, at least Hapgood is in some rather good company.  For that reason, several fringe archeologists have been interested in Hapgood's theory,  and wondered if it is possible that Antarctica might have been the source of the Atlantis myths.  If so, it would have been  free of ice in the ancient time, until put into a deep freeze with some polar shift.  Popular author Graham Hancock has discussed this theory in some of his writings (and in fact, if any of my readers know Graham, I hope you'll attract his attention to this blog.  

      The Crustal Displacement theory begs the question of why Antarctica can be covered in ice that is million of years old if it only froze over 11,500 years ago, and I guess that is as good a reason as any to not believe it. 

    More than that however, for some time I've been aware that the math controlling Crustal Displacement idea bears a lot of similarity to the real problem of spin stabilization, which was worked out for satellites in the late 1950's.  Oddly, the math for this was well known by the 19th century if not earlier, but our best and brightest in the space program didn't understand it when they designed the Explorer I satellite shown below.

    Briefly, they wanted the satellite to be cigar shaped to fit on the rocket, but in earth orbit they wanted to stabilize it by letting it rotate like a spinning top.  But once they launched the satellite, it didn't rotate like they wanted it to, and within hours it was in a flat spin. 

    Why didn't Explorer I stabilize properly?  Well the mathematicians went back and reviewed what they were doing.  It's sort of like the kid's trick, of spinning an egg like a top.  If you have a hard boiled egg, it behaves like a rigid body, and you can stabilize it by spinning it on the pointy end.  But an uncooked egg cannot be spun this way, not at all.  It winds up lying on its "side" which is the most stable configuration  (i.e., it can not fall over once it is lying on its side.  The mathematicians had treated Explorer I as if it were a perfectly rigid body, suitable to be stabilized around its "minor axis" or the centerline as it sat on the launch pad

  Every real object has an axis that it "likes" the most, including both Explorer I and the Earth.  The salient point is that it wasn't a passing asteroid or some other event  that caused Explorer I to change its orientation.  It just did it by itself.  

   Similarly, you could imagine situations in which the earth might get "top heavy,"  such that it is no longer the most stable axis of rotation (mathematically, the earth earth would be rotating around a minor axis of rotation rather than the major axis).  In such a case, the earth's axis would continue to be inclined at 23.4 degrees.  But the north pole would be whatever point results in the most stable rotation.  No external force needs to be applied to the earth to get it to rotate in this way.  By the same token the fact that the earth's oceans bulge at the equator does not have anything to do with the stability of the earth's poles.   What matters is the stability of the solid portion only (in other words, if you could magically remove the oceans, the stable axis is the one that stabilizes the solid crust.  The liquid ocean, molten magma  and the molten outer core of the earth  do NOT determine the most stable axis of the earth's rotation.

     Hapgood imagined that this might happen if the ice cap got very thick.  But, jeepers Hapgood, the earth is 12,756 km, and the ice cap is only a few kilomaters at most.  
    What matters most is the configuration of the solid portion of the rotating body, not the liquid portion.  So perhaps if the boundary between the earth's crust and liquid interior were to change, the earth might realign itself, as shown below.

Figure 1.  The earth is sometimes descriged as a "bumpy sphere," with most of the land masses in the northern hemisphere, although the north pole is underwater.  

 

Figure 2.  Conceivably, the earth's rotation could become unstable if the solid crust and mantle region become thicker at the poles and/or thinner near the equator.  In this case the solid portion of the earth would simply reorient itself by shifting by up to 90 degrees.  The earth's axis would continue to be inclined at 23.4 degrees.  Note the position of the pyramid shown as a reference.  


This is referred to as the "polhode" (pole wander) process, and as mentioned above, the math for this was accomplished in the 19th century.  People didn't really understand it very well until the 20th century when Explorer I was used as an object lesson. So here are the salient points as the apply to "crustal displacement."


1.  Yes it is possible for the earth to become "top heavy."  However, this is not likely to happen due to ice cap formation unless the ice caps were to become many, many miles thick.  A much more likely scenario would be for changes in the boundary between the solid crust and the liquid interior to be the precipitating event.  


2  Hapgood's idea was that some cataclysmic event would caused Antarctica to move from some temperature location to the south pole.  However, Antarctica is not Atlantis.  It could not have shifted in a major way because we know darn well by now that the ice has been there for millions of years.  


3.  Although there are a few maps that show rivers in Antarctica, this is not proof of anything other than, at best, ice melts in the summertime. If Antarctica were truly located at a temperature location in the recent past, this should be evidenced in the physical ice record.  I'd be much more impressed if there was a ye olde map with a different north and south pole.  But even then we have to trust the physical record first and foremost.  


4.  Records such as this do exist, but they are millions of years old, not thousands of years old. 


5.  The stable principal axis of rotation depends upon the moment of inertia of the solid crust  only.  The shape of the ocean, and in particular the bulge at the equator doesn't matter for this problem, as it is just following the tendency of gravity, modified by centrifugal force from the earth's rotation.    
 
6.   The earth's axis of rotation would not change if the earth reoriented itself as I have described, and would continue at 23.4 degrees.  But there would be a new north and south pole.  


So while Hapgood's interpretation is way off on how this might occur, the fact of the matter is that is possibe for the earth to reorient itself, possibly due to a change in the interfacial boundary between the solid crust and the liquidlike interior.  We can be pretty sure that that did not happen recently because of the historic stability of Antarctia ice.  We can be sure that it was not not not temperate anytime recently.  


In the distant past, however, it may make sense to see if the earth might have shifted to relocate the poles, and possibly  resultied in huge climate changes.  If this happened however, there would be major changes in the geologic ice record and other physical records.    

I don't know enough about contemporary earth science to know if anyone has articulated this type of model formally in a peer reviewed publication. If they have, and I haven't properly credited it, I apologize. But it might be that this idea is original with me.   So if someone out there thinks that this should be developed in a more formal article, I would be happy to contribute to that.   

Ancient Navigators and the Demon Star

  I just read an article that shows that the Ancient Egyptians knew about the eclipsing binary star Algol back in the 13th Century BC.  It occurred to me immediately that this could have allowed ancient navigators to crudely measure longitude!

   Ancient navigators knew how to measure latitude fairly accurately.  All they needed to do was to figure out the apparent height of the North Star, measure the angle, and bingo, they had an estimate for latitude.  But what about longitude?  The easiest way to estimate that is to know that sunrise and sundown happen at different times depending on longitude (or, as we might think of it today,  what time zone you are in).  So if an ancient navigator knew sunrise was supposed to be a 6:55 AM in Oslo, and instead it happened at 7:55 AM, that would tell him that he was positioned 15 degrees West of the reference location, or out in the Norweigian Sea somewhere.  This can very easily be done today, what with electronic watches, but note that a sundial would not work to measure time, because it is based on the position of the sun, and automatically cancels out the effect that you want to see.  Other forms of ancient clocks were not very good.  It is generally assumed that the ancient navigators had no way to measure longitude until 1773, at which time John Harrison produced an accurate marine chronometer.  

    But wait a minute.  The Demon Star Algol (which actually consists of two stars which rotate around each other, Beta Persei A, which  regularly gets eclipsed by the dimmer Beta Persei B) dims by more than a factor of three for 10 hours at a time, dwindling easily seen with the naked eye.  This was recorded by the Ancient Egyptians according to an article that has just appeared in LiveScience.com, by Charles Choi.  

   I frankly had no idea the effect was visible to the naked eye.    But according to Choi, Algol dims by more than a factor of three for 10 hours at a time, which is easily seen with the naked eye.  

     Jiminy Christmas, this is a huge effect, and I can't believe none of us apparently put two and two together before.  The clues are staring us in the face.   Algol, known as the Demon Star, represents the eye in Medusa's head!  Doesn't this suggest that ancients thought this star was a bit unusual??

    The period is 2.867 days now, but back in the 13th century BC it may have been closer to 2.85 days. The slowing is consistent with calculations of the change of mass of the binary as it spirals out.  
      The salient point is that if you know the period accurately, it becomes a universal clock that can be used from any point on the earth (as long as the weather is clear and if the eclipse occurs at night).  That allows the navigator to calibrate his hourglass and get a true calibration to measure longitude.  That could allow trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific navigation.
     An observer could detect up to four events, depending on the sensitivity of the instrument (in this case, the human eye):  the beginning of the dimming phase; the end of dimming, the beginning of the brightening phase and the achievement of maximum brightness.  
    Over many cycles, it is possible to determine the period with great accuracy.  But how accurately can the magnitude or change in magnitude be estimated by the naked eye over a single cycle?  
   An upper bound exists from the ancient Greeks, who classified stars over six magnitudes.  Algol is normally magnitude 2.1, but decreases to about 3.3 and the back to magnitude 2.1 over 10 hours. The change rate is thus 1.2 magnitudes per 5 hours, or 0.24 magnitudes per hour. In recent times, naked-eye astronomer Alan MacRobert describes how to estimate magnitudes by eye to roughly within 0.1 magnitudes.  If so, a sunset-calibrated hourglass could be used to plausibly determine the minimum brightness of Algol within about 24 minutes, allowing a crude estimate of longitude, accurate to some 6 degrees, corresponding to 600 km at the equator.  At northern latitudes, this is roughly the difference between Dublin and London. 

Data from the Northern Houston Astronomy Club  indicate that it is possible to trace the light curve of Algol.  By extrapolating the shape of the curve and directly measuring the time of the minima, it is possible to estimate the time of minimum brightness to within about 0.01 to 0.02 periods, or plus or minus 20 to 40 minutes, or 5 to 10 degrees of longitude. If a highly skilled stargazer were able to improve upon the accuracy demonstrated by the North Houston Astronomy Club, better precision might be obtained. 

    Now, there is absolutely no evidence, as far as I am aware, that the ancients actually used this method to navigate.  The key would have been for ancient astronomers to realize that the brightness variations occur independent of longitude.  But if someone had made that connection, it is clear enough that longitude could have been crudely estimated in ancient times.

For Additional Reading

History of Longitude, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude 

L. Jetsu, S. Porceddu, J. Lyytinen, P. Kajatkari, J. Lehtinen, T. Markkanen, J. Toivari-Viitala, Did the ancient egyptians record the period of the eclipsing binary Algol - the Raging one? (Submitted on 27 Apr 2012)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.6206

Why Are You Booing Your Children?

   Hey, you!  Why are you booing your children?  

 

This is what we want--a happy team getting some healthy exercise with friends.

   Yes, I'm talking to you, the parents of my 10 year old daughter's teammates in kiddie basketball and church league volleyball.  Now, most of the parents are very nice and support the children, and the programs are designed to promote sportsmanship and do a very good job of that.  The child players are really great.  But it seems that some of the parents are kind of weirded out by seeing their children play.

   Oh they don't literally yell, "Boo!  You stink!"  to their 10 year old.  However, some of them--especially Dads--seem compelled to yell more polite things that mean the same thing.  For instance....

    "Jane!  WHAT WAS THAT?"  (translation:  Your performance is unacceptable= you stink.)

   

    "Mary!  YOU DIDN'T CONCENTRATE!"  (Translation:  I would have made that play = you stink).

    "COME ON ALICE!  YOU GOTTA MAKE THOSE."  (Translation:  You have failed = you stink).


    Usually parents are supportive of other kids, thankfully, but with their own kids they show little mercy. The parents seem convinced that their kids can not function without their "gentle constructive" criticism. 


    Now Dads and Moms, I have some boos right back at you.  JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?  THINK ABOUT IT!  Growing up is hard enough without Daddy and Mommy making sarcastic and critical remarks for everyone else to hear. 
  
   These are not teenagers trying to get ready for a pro career, like the kids playing for Bobby Huggins in an effort to land a million dollar contract.  Little girls especially are very sensitive in their young teens, and they are all going through that awkward stage (they usually stay there until at least age 40, by the way).  And, Dad and Mom, you ain't no Bobby Huggins. 

"Oh no!  DId you see that?"

   I notice that the 10-14 year olds on my daughter's volleyball team become afraid to try to make plays when they are criticized.  They stand in one place, hoping that someone else will make a play and save them, rather than trying to make a play.  I suspect that they would rather be doing something else, but they play volleyball in order to try--unsuccessfully--to meet their parents' expectations.


   Dad and Mom, please believe that your daughter knows when she misses a shot.  She does not really benefit from your genius observations pointing out their failures.  And remember that the rest of the kids hear what you are shouting to your kid.  It's not a private conversation.   It ain't cool. 


   I probably did some  booing of my own as an inexperienced parent, but hopefully I have learned a little over the years.  I find that it's much better to use encouragement for young children.  


  "That's okay--you'll get the next one."
  "Good try!"
  "Good hustle!"


   If your child's Coach is on the ball, he or she will make a habit of coaching the NEXT play, and never the LAST one.  Little kids forget whether they are supposed to play defense or offense.  They don't really need you to point out that they missed a short or failed to get a rebound.  Instead, they need to be told to forget about the last play and concentrate on the next one.  


   Perhaps sports can be a training exercise for parenting.  It's an opportunity to show what is really important--not winning or losing or the proper form to shoot a layup--but that parents love their children and will support and encourage them, no matter what.  


   Yay kids!  Have some fun out there, eh?