Making Bonds: The Steroid ScandalWritten by Gary Whittaker
Public opinion these days seems to be swaying towards an acceptance of steroid use in baseball. People are not asking so much about if it is being done, but rather how can you actually prove it. There is very little debate over consequences of being found out, this is a sport where statistics are king. For baseball enthusiasts, numbers like 500, 30-30, 50-50, .300, .400 need no additional information. We all know what they mean, and their significance is based on premise of fair play. Barry Bonds, media’s favourite whipping boy, is at center of this controversy, even if recent hearing on this matter excluded him. Barry Bonds has not only broken McGuire’s single season record, but he is about 1 juiced season away from becoming all-time leader. There were allegations and positive tests before, in newspapers and on television, but these rumours turned into air after a few days since it was not considered cool to go after Sosa and McGuire during their historic Maris-breaking single season event. McGuire himself is in best position. He was only caught taking Andro, a substance that was banned after fact. He has been out of baseball now for a few years, and there is virtually no way to do any kind of testing that would conclusively prove he was juiced during his Hall of Fame making seasons. Voters who choose not to select into Hall of Fame will be doing so simply out of principal. In fact, if McGuire was part of an ethnic minority, he could easily gain instance entrance if he publicized fact that bias would be based on race. Bonds pulls race card on a daily basis, not caring that his personality makes him hated by people of all colors. To me, there have been some really sad events that have happened as a result of all this: •Politicians using scandal to get their faces on camera so that they can spout written speeches about state of game, and even more useless, asking players ridiculous questions that they are in no position to answer
| | Fishing with Strike IndicatorsWritten by Cameron Larsen
Used properly Strike Indicators lead to more fish being caught. Used improperly they can actually hamper fly fisher's ability to catch fish. How can one tell if their strike indicator is helping them or hurting them? Well that is question we will try to answer here. I was introduced to strike indicators about 15 years ago. A friend of mine had been fishing on guided trips in Montana, and came back with them, raving about them. Of course not wanting to be on outside of latest edge in fly fishing, I had to try them. I hated them. They interfered with my casting, they did kept my nymph off bottomw, and everytime I wanted to switch over to dry flies, I had to take off strike indicator. Further I had 'set hook' on several false indications. It wasn't until several months later, while fishing a deep swift riffle, that indicator really paid off. And I mean really paid off. Fishing at about a depth of six feet, in water faster then I would care to wade in today, indicator would literally stop in mid-drift. Doubtful I would set hook, after a few large trout, my doubts disappeared and I loved that little orange float on my leader. These strike were virtually undetecteable without it, water so fast, and deep, by time I felt tug fish would probably be gone. From then on everytime I nymphed, I used an indicator. Until one early spring on a drift trip, I was quickly falling behind my indicatorless fishing partner. All his hook-ups were on very bottom, he said. And I reasoned my indicator was keeping me off bottom. I dropped indicator, and voila, I began catching fish on bottom. I am sure I was missing some strikes as well, but missing some strikes was better than none at all.
|