2059: A look back at the last 50 years in sports.

In the last 50 years, sports fans world wide have been forced to re-examine their beliefs like never before. Since Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez were inducted into the Hall of Fame, baseball fans in particular have come to reject much of the reporting and opinions that their parents and the press once preached. The eldest of us will fondly remember the days when names like Rafael Palmeiro disapeared as a result of "performance enhancing drugs", as they were called in those days.

The same people who reminisce fondly of baseball around the turn of the 21st century will be the first to admit that they have changed their opinion with time. Just as our parents recalled Ted Williams and Hank Aaron, we fondly recall names such as Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, Mark McGuire and Manny Ramirez. We remember berating many of those same names for using steroids and other drugs. Many people once called for them to be kicked out of the game altogether. The worst, however was a simple asterisk symbol, used to indicate an achievement was somehow tainted. Roger Maris was the first to receive the treatment and the asterisk became the official way to insult Barry Bonds. Fewer recall that neither was a favorite of the fans or of the press.

Today, we teach our kids the most fundamental fact about professional sports. Pro athletes do not compete against the past, nor do they compete against the future. Babe Ruth never batted against Roger Clemens, Tiger Woods never seriously competed with Jack Nicklaus and Michael Phelps never raced Mark Spitz. The fundamental rule of sports is everyone plays under the same rules, and everyone does everything they can to gain every advantage that they can. Many professional athletes break the rules, and sometimes they get caught for it and are punished. Perhaps most importantly, the rules change in sports.

The sports world finally realized that every pitcher Bonds faced in the final years of his career played under the same rules as he did. All of them wanted to and were paid to be the best and all of them had every opportunity that Bonds did to do so. Every other batter in the game faced the same pitchers and the same rules and had all of the same opportunities as well. Most wonder why it took so long to realize that during his long career, and particularly towards the end of it, we were witnessing The Greatest Home Run Hitter That Ever Lived. We have come to realize this doesn't in any way diminish the previous holders of that title, Hank Aaron and The Babe himself.

Most importantly, we have realized that when it comes to history, we can't simply rely on our fond memories. We often forget that Babe Ruth was a notorious drinker and Pete Rose was once banned from baseball for betting on the game just like we forget that Mark McGuire's arms and Barry Bonds' head were impossibly large.

Roger Maris' asterisk was because many thought a recently extended season gave him an unfair advantage. Many used to think Barry Bonds should be expelled from baseball simply because public opinion and the rules changed just as his career was coming to a close. We don't have any less respect for basketball players of the early part of the century just because the hoop had not yet been raised to 12 feet. All of those players competed against others who were playing under the same rules and all of those players played to the best of their ability and gained every (in most cases legal) advantage they could. The players don't change the rules and the change has in no way diminished their accomplishments.

This topic hits a personal note for the writer. As a native of Vermont, I grew up a New England Sports fan and in my college and early professional years was proud to cheer on my teams during the most successful sports times a city has ever seen. After watching the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics falter for as long as I could remember and hearing my dad swearing at Drew Bledsoe year after year, I had the good fortune of celebrating four super bowl victories in nine years, three world series victories and plenty of success in basketball. I also had to endure the pain of having my teams called cheaters, which I often considered to be a direct insult to me personally.

Some may recall the Patriots were accused of stealing signs. Most have now come to realize that stealing signs is a natural part of the game and is in fact why we give signs in the first place. It seemed to me growing up that to penalize a team for stealing signs would be akin to banning signs and then penalizing a baseball team for pitching out after hearing the opposing coach yell "STEAL ON THIS PITCH".

A few years after falling in love with David Ortiz and his 15th and 16th inning magic way back in 2004, I opened a newspaper on the subway (they used to print those on paper, you know) to see a picture of David Ortiz with a large white asterisk.

The minute I saw that picture I was proud to have paid little mind to the media when 'A-Rod', as Alex Rodriguez was called (or just as often "something that rhymes with 'a'"-rod) was accused of taking steroids. I can not overemphasize how much I appreciate the struggle many of these baseball players went through in those years. I was elated when Major League Baseball finally apologized to those players who trusted that their names would never be revealed for the results of a drug test. That test and those players are one of the biggest reasons we have a game free of drugs today.

So when you hear of the allegations against players today for using microchips and nutrition as an unfair advantage, don't forget the lessons I learned when I was young.

First (of many) thoughts on Bike Lanes in the city

Let me start by saying as an avid biker, you should not be surprised that I am a big fan of bicycle lanes on city roads. Done right, they make it clear to both car and bicycle drivers that bicyclists belong on the road and that biking is a legitimate form of transportation. Not only do they make it easy and safe for cars to pass bikers provided both parties are in their respective lanes, but they also give bikers a bit of a relief from feeling like they have to "keep up" with traffic. Having used and observed the bike infrastructure in Cambridge and Somerville for the past few months, I am also certain that they promote biking to a certain extent, although if that is the only goal, I'm sure there are better and more effective ways to do that.

On the other hand, there are some serious drawbacks to bike lanes as they currently exist. The first drawback is the most obvious and serious one: this and this . Many car travel lanes are in the door zone and it isn't a problem for a simple reason: a moving car will wreck an open door! But it doesn't work for bike lanes because an open door will wreck a moving biker!

The other big issue, it seems to me, is a simple one. Bike lanes are striped with solid lines. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a safety measure of some sort or what but it just seems wrong. If there are two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction, there is typically a dashed line between them right? Isn't that standard? Not with bike lanes. The big problem here is it seems to be a message to bikers to stay within the bike lane and to cars to stay out of it. While in general that's a good idea, the fact is when cars make right turns and park, that car should (carefully) move into the rightmost lane, in this case a bike lane (I'm pretty sure they teach somewhere when you get your license). When bikes need to turn left, they shouldn't be doing it from a bike lane on the right side, they should do it from the left most lane (again, basic rules of the road). If this doesn't happen, bikers get "right hook"ed and bikers do stupid things. MassBike teaches vehicular cycling, which means if a bike is going straight and a car is turning right, the car should be positioned to the right of the cyclist and the cyclist should most likely be in the wider car lane. I think dashed lines between moving lanes do a much better job of sending this message.

Finally, why do we spend money on paint to do this? If I'm driving a car that's say seven feet wide, I'm pretty sure I'll figure out that I'm not supposed to use the lane that's five feet wide when there's a ten or twelve foot lane right next to it. Likewise if I'm on a bike I'll realize that there's a lane intended for me! I'm pretty on top of like that. I'm guessing this person knew that that wasn't going to work well, and s/he didn't need a sign to tell him/her. Again, this in many cases encourages poor vehicular bicycling. When a car needs to use the narrow lane it should and when a bike needs to use the wider lane it also should.

So although I like bike lanes, for these reasons I think we need to be careful in implementing them, and I'll go into some of that in the future. Thanks for making it this far!

Glass bottle deposits should be a quarter

I have a bunch of reasons for starting this blog, including thoughts on bike infrastructure to living in the city to politics to whatever else I feel like. For those reasons, when starting a blog, the content of the first post is difficult to choose. Anyway I'm going with the deposit amount on glass containers, ie the amount you can get for returning them. In general this amount is around 5 cents or so, at least here in New England. It should be raised to at least 15 cents (tripled), maybe a quarter even. Why? I think it would seriously cut down on the amount of broken glass strewn on the roads and in yards. If you needed to vent and felt like smashing something and you just happened to have a glass bottle in your hand, would you break it in the street and forfeit your five cents? I sure would! But what if that glass bottle was worth a quarter? Wouldn't you be more likely to save it and get your money?

More valuable glass bottles mean fewer bottles smashed in the street. Fewer bottles in the street means generally safer/more attractive places to live. I took a group bike ride this morning and was amazed how many times I had to swerve to avoid broken glass in the road. Would more expensive bottle returns perhaps encourage bicycling in a roundabout way?

Now obviously you can't just go and up the glass deposit without also changing cans and plastic bottle deposits. I believe glass is nearly 100% recycleable and is almost certainly better for you than plastic soda bottles. I don't know what needs to be done about this one, but I'm sure it gets into some tricky math as far as how to balance the deposit amount or make them different to encourage glass vs plastic or cans vs plastic. Making glass more viable to bottlers might just mean more glass bottles and thus more broken glass. Who knows?

And yes I know a higher deposit would make beer more expensive. But you can get the deposit back!