Dead last. And, no doubt, the real winners of the men's 100 in Budapest

BUDAPEST – What does it mean to be a winner in the men’s 100 here at the 2023 track and field world championships?

Not the winner. That’s easy. Noah Lyles won the race Sunday night in 9.83 seconds.

But a winner. When you finish dead last. And you are beaming with pride and wonder.

On the one hand, you are hardly Lyles. No, you come from remote islands in the Pacific Ocean. On the other, hold on, isn’t it the truth that you’re exactly the same? There you were, on the same track, running the same damn race. And for your part, you ran the fastest you have ever run, and at the world championships!

Not again with Shelby Houlihan. Dayenu!

Not again with Shelby Houlihan. Dayenu!

It’s August, so why bring up the springtime Jewish holiday of Passover, the story of the telling of the Exodus? And what would Passover in any way have to do with yet another column about Shelby Houlihan?

Because one of the key words in the telling of the story is, in Hebrew, the word dayenu! – enough! You pronounce it like this: die-yay-nu! Emphasis on the yay, y’all.

The Washington Post devoted more than 4,000 words to a sob story posted Friday about Houlihan, about how her running career is in “purgatory” because she got tagged for doping and then claimed, absurdly, that it was because of a tainted burrito. That ridiculous defense got rejected but she keeps insisting on playing the victim, telling the Post, “I feel embarrassed, and I’m feeling ashamed, and all of these different emotions for having to serve a ban, even though I didn’t do anything. So that’s been really hard to navigate and work through.”

The third rail of track and field: money. It needs money. Way more ... money

The third rail of track and field: money. It needs money. Way more ... money

BUDAPEST – Some number of years ago, Anna Cockrell was an undergraduate at the University of Southern California, where I teach journalism. At a track and field dinner, she and I happened to get seated next to each other. It was obvious she was destined for big things. 

On Friday, at the Team USA news conference before the start of the 2023 world championships, Anna, who is a standout hurdler, was asked – by a non-American journalist – how it is that the United States can keep sending a dominant team even though the sport is “losing popularity” and has essentially no “major support” at home. That is because, as he asserted, not incorrectly, “ESPN is ignoring it.” 

Anna delivered a lengthy soliloquy that, for the most part, hit the right notes. (Not surprising. She is, as noted, hugely capable.) At the same time, it also underscored the blunt reality facing track and field as the sport heads into what seems by every measure to be first-rate world championships, what could be the best-ever, here in Budapest.

The IOC president v. the sheikh: hardball, as real as it gets

The IOC president v. the sheikh: hardball, as real as it gets

A shockwave of epic proportions boomed out Thursday across the Olympic world. 

The International Olympic Committee president, Thomas Bach, opted to take on – with the obvious goal of taking out – Kuwait’s Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahad al-Sabah, the kingmaker once and perhaps again. 

The obvious question: why? The follow-on: will Bach succeed? The IOC president is nothing if not intelligent and calculated. Then again, so is the sheikh.

Whereabouts art thou, Tobi Amusan? And thou hast system thoughts, Katie Moon?

Whereabouts art thou, Tobi Amusan? And thou hast system thoughts, Katie Moon?

Well, here we go again with another high-profile whereabouts case in track and field, and another dose of hot takes. 

How about some calm, measured, you know – facts?

The anti-doping rules are not that difficult. The world’s leading athletes should – emphasis, should – be able to follow them and, correspondingly, fans should – should – be able to understand, clearly, what’s what.

Let’s find out.

The IOC confronts a changing, emerging, new world order -- and loses. Now what?

The IOC confronts a changing, emerging, new world order -- and loses. Now what?

For nearly 10 years, since he was elected president of the International Olympic Committee, it has been a rare thing for Thomas Bach to be told no. 

And for good reason. Despite his many vocal critics, almost all of whom have little to no idea how the IOC or the Olympic movement works in the real world, history will likely record Bach as the most consequential IOC president other than Juan Antonio Samaranch. Perhaps even more so.

Bach’s mantra is simple: change or be changed. He has sought to drag a traditional, conservative, European-oriented institution into the 21st century. He can claim considerable success, implementing major reforms, including the end of the corruption-plagued host-city elections.

Thus what happened Saturday, at an election for the presidency of the Olympic Council of Asia, amounts to the first signs of what may well be not just restlessness but pushback if not potent insurrection in the Olympic movement – one year ahead of Paris 2024 and two years before Bach is due to step down as president.

In banishing the IBA, is the IOC on the right - or wrong - side of history?

In banishing the IBA, is the IOC on the right - or wrong - side of history?

If Umar Kremlev, president of the International Boxing Association, was named, say, Bill Jones, and he was not Russian, then all of everything that has been at the root of the problem with the IBA and the International Olympic Committee would very likely have been solved long ago. 

Instead, in a historic decision, the IOC membership, by a vote of 69-1, decided Thursday to banish the IBA into the Olympic wilderness – or, in its formal language, withdraw the federation’s recognition.

The vote was predictable. Under president Thomas Bach, the members rarely if ever deviate from the recommendations of the IOC executive board.

The IOC dates to 1894. The vote Thursday is believed to be the first time in those 128 years it has severed ties with a sport’s federation. The action means zero for boxing in Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028. Boxing will be on the program. Who will run it? That’s a question.

The bigger question: will the IOC ultimately be proven on the right side of history?

PGA-LIV settle: 'stunning' only if you believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or unicorns

PGA-LIV settle: 'stunning' only if you believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny or unicorns

There’s an old saying that’s especially apt in the wake of Tuesday’s news that the PGA Tour and LIV Golf have settled, a purportedly “stunning” announcement. 

It’s stunning only if you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or unicorns. 

Because, as ever, money talks and BS walks. 

Here’s the saying: 

When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.

Here's hoping a U.S. panel on the 'state' of the Olympics thinks -- big

Here's hoping a U.S. panel on the 'state' of the Olympics thinks -- big

The United States Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has empowered a Commission to study the “state” of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympics.

Rather than surrendering to an avalanche of easy jokes, having covered the “state” of this enterprise for 25 years, having myself triggered the last major reconstruction amid Congressional hearings of the then-USOC board structure in 2003, sparked by a story I wrote in late 2002 for the Los Angeles Times, let’s simply note that the new USOPC board chair, Gene Sykes, is a man of uncommon decency and intelligence, so there’s hope.

At the same time, it’s not clear whether Congress, sparked by the Larry Nassar scandal, wants 1/ yet again to point fingers, or 2/ a report that like many things in Washington amounts to a lot of words but says nothing because 3/ something performative allows Congress to go, yep, we did something because we all know Larry Nassar was a really bad guy and, oh, China almost beat us in the medals count at the Tokyo Olympics, and what is that about?

Yo, Adrian: can the IBA and IOC get to — détente?

Yo, Adrian: can the IBA and IOC get to — détente?

In the iconic 1985 ahead-of-its-time Cold War-era cinematic classic, Rocky IV, Sylvester Stallone and Dolph Lundgren do battle in the boxing ring.

Stallone of course is the American Rocky Balboa. Early in the film, Lundgren, cast as the emotionless automaton Soviet Ivan Drago, beats the former heavyweight champ Apollo Creed, ultimately to death, in an exhibition bout. “If he dies, he dies,” Drago says.

Rocky decides to challenge Drago. He sets up camp in the Soviet Union on Christmas Day. He does roadwork in deep snow and works out using ancient equipment. Finally, the match. Predictably, Drago gets the better of it early, only for Rocky to come back. In the 15th and final round, Rocky knocks Drago out, avenging his friend Apollo’s death and, of course, affirming truth, justice and the American way, but never mind that.

During the fight, the once-hostile Soviet crowd, seeing how Rocky had held his ground, began to cheer for him. After winning, he grabs the mic and says, “During this fight, I’ve seen a lot of changing, the way you felt about me, and in the way I felt about you … I guess what I’m trying to say is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!”