The alcoholic may be gone, but problems can persist

Addiction and Recovery

By Bob Gaydos

I recently closed a column on the effects of living with an alcoholic by noting, “It’s not just about the drinking.” In other words, contrary to what many people believe, removing active alcoholism from one’s life does not automatically remove all the effects of that alcoholism. Far from it.

In fact, many of those effects may become deep-seated, behavioral and psychological problems that follow the non-alcoholics into adulthood, They may be unaware of how the exposure to someone’s alcoholism in the past -- especially that of a parent or close relative -- is affecting their lives on a daily basis. Unaware of the root of the problems and unaware that they may be treatable, untold numbers of adults struggle with issues throughout their lives, figuring, in essence, that’s just who they are.

That’s true, but it’s not necessarily a life sentence. Change is possible. Awareness is the key.

That earlier column included a 20-question quiz offered by Al-Anon, outlining certain traits to help non-drinkers decide if they are carrying the effects of someone else’s alcoholism into adult life. These effects have been well-documented by researchers.

Common symptoms of children of alcoholics -- even as adults -- are low self-esteem, guilt, feelings of helplessness, loneliness and fears of abandonment, chronic depression, high levels of anxiety and stress and a feeling that they created whatever the problem is, so they have to fix it.

Perfectionism may become an issue. Some develop phobias. Trust can be a major problem. Intimacy can be threatening.

Adult Children of Alcoholics, which is not affiliated with Al-Anon, has what it calls The Laundry List, which contains 14 traits of the adult child of an alcoholic. The list is similar to Al-Anon’s 20 questions.

A couple of Items:

• Alcoholism is a family disease; and we became para-alcoholics and took on the characteristics of that disease even though we did not pick up the drink.
• Para-alcoholics are reactors rather than actors.

Again, many people struggle with these feelings and behaviors for much of their lives, blaming themselves for not being able to handle things in a more “grown-up” manner. They’re married, they have families, good jobs. They’re respected members of the community, serve on boards, volunteer for good causes.

Yet, inside, unseen, waiting to appear at the most unexpected moment, are behaviors learned many years ago as the result of living with active addiction. If healthy behaviors have not replaced the unhealthy ones learned in living with an active alcoholic, they can become deep-seated.

The good news is that people are capable of change. They can learn, adapt, grow, no matter what age and how long the effects of living with alcoholism have been ingrained in them. The process begins with honestly looking at one’s past and deciding whether or not someone else’s active addiction was a major part of it. Then comes looking at oneself honestly and seeing if any of the common traits associated with growing up with alcoholism are present.

Finally, comes the big decision -- whether or not one is willing to do what is necessary to change, to begin to escape the grips of being exposed to alcoholism. That can be done in a variety of ways.

Groups like Al-Anon and Adult Children of Alcoholics offer opportunities to learn that other people have struggled with and are still struggling with similar problems. You’re not the only one. Being anonymous, they offer a safe place to talk about one’s feelings and they offer ways to begin healing. They offer hope.

Private therapy with a professional trained in the effects of alcoholism is another way to begin the process of self-awareness. A combination of approaches may be useful. There’s no one correct way. The important thing is to begin.

*  *  *

More information

-- http://www.al-anon.alateen.org

-- http://www.adultchildren.org

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Hillary, beware the cloak of inevitability

By Bob Gaydos

Hillary Clinton

Having been dragged into the 2016 presidential debate a year early by the unexpected candidacy of George Pataki, I feel obliged to acknowledge the presidential ambitions of another "New Yorker," Hillary Clinton.

Unlike Pataki, a Republican who carries the baggage of a man looking for a political party to support his aspirations, Clinton has long worn the cloak of inevitability as the Democrats’ likely candidate in 2016.

She may not want to get too comfortable with this bit of political apparel.

History suggests why. In 2008, the so-called conventional wisdom made Clinton a heavy favorite to capture her party’s nomination. All she had to do, it was suggested, was relax and let nature takes its course. After all, she had a well-respected Bill by her side in a reversal of roles, all the money they had amassed since he left the White House, a long list of wealthy Democratic donors and she had even won an election to become New York’s junior senator.

What more did she need?

As it turned out, a few things: 1.) a populist message with which voters could identify; 2.) a campaign persona that projected sincerity, clarity, energy and the possibility of real change; 3.) a little warmth; and 4.) a way to defeat Barack Obama, who, it turns out, had plenty of the first three.

In 2008, the inevitable was overcome by the unexpected.

Enter Bernie Sanders, 2015. The conventional wisdom -- and even major news media, who should know better -- are writing him off as an eccentric, under-funded, liberal -- socialist even -- senator from a small, New England state.

All of which is true, except for the eccentric part.

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, is running for the Democratic nomination for president. Unlike most of the Republican presidential candidates, he is no crackpot. He has a dedicated -- and rapidly growing -- constituency, fueled by the most synergistic form of communication yet created by man -- social media.

In 2008, Barack Obama had it. In 2015, Bernie Sanders has it in spades. Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites offer a non-stop, 24/7 recitation of Sanders’ positions on issues that resonate with so-called average Americans:

Protect Social Security and Medicare. Don’t raise the retirement age. Raise the minimum wage. Decrease the wealth gap by taxing the rich more. Overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allows the super-rich to control elections. Fight global warming. Make college affordable, not a road to lifelong debt. Rebuild the nation's infrastructure.

Furthermore, Sanders recently introduced legislation that strikes at the heart of Republicans’ so-called dedication to family values. His Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act would guarantee 10 paid days of vacation for employees who have worked for an employer for at least a year. Sanders is also co-sponsoring, with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, The FAMILY Act, which allows 12 weeks of universal paid family and medical leave. This could be used to take care of a newborn, a seriously ill family member or to deal with serious medical conditions. Republicans are nowhere on this.

Sanders has also publicly criticized Clinton for not taking any position on President Obama’s TPP trade act, which Sanders has strongly opposed for its lack of transparency and a provision sidestepping congressional approval of new agreements.

This is not the agenda of a crackpot.

One of the knocks on Clinton has always been that she seems to feel entitled, that she should get people’s votes just because she is Hillary. That she should be New York’s senator just because. That she should be the first woman president of the United States just because.

Perhaps prompted by Sanders’ energetic campaign, which is drawing crowds and money to his cause, Clinton has called for universal voter registration -- a knock at the numerous Republican efforts to limit voting rights in the name of fighting voter fraud, a phony issue. It’s a populist issue, but not one on the front burner.

Mostly, her campaign seems to be focusing on setting up a coast-to-coast organization to recruit workers and attract votes and money for the campaign against whoever the Republican candidate may be. That’s because the Clinton team doesn’t expect much of a challenge from Sanders or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination.

O’Malley is also no dunderhead. He would shine among the GOP field of dreamers. Like Sanders, he has an air of believability. Sure, it takes a lot of ego to run for president, but beyond the ego -- even the sense of entitlement -- many voters like to feel the person who gets their vote really means what he or she says and will work like hell to make it happen.

Then-Sen. Obama projected that in 2008. Young voters, women and minorities especially rallied to his side. In 2012, he had a record that was strong enough to validate that commitment one more time.

So the question is, what would a second president Clinton stand for? Would Hillary be a second coming of Bill? In some ways, that might not be bad, given his management of the economy. But Hillary is no Bill, at least when it comes to campaigning. She can’t realistically change her personality, but she can articulate some views that demonstrate an awareness of the issues of concern to many Americans. Sanders has spoken on some, but women’s issues appear to be there for Clinton to claim. Also bias. Immigration. And she needs to challenge Sanders on the others if she disagrees with him.

Like any Democratic candidate, she enjoys the luxury of not having to appease the ignorati of the right, who distrust science, detest non-Christians, deny evolution and dismiss the poor. She is free to say what she really believes and, if it is in line with Democratic Party principles, she can do so without fear of losing primary votes. But she’ll need to take that comfortable cloak of entitlement off and show that she’s interested in more than wooing major campaign donors and renovating the family quarters in the White House.

Why does she want to be president?

Clinton has said, much to her regret, that she and Bill were broke when they left the White House. No one believed her, but, good for them, that’s apparently not a problem anymore. Her problem appears to be that every time she sets her sights on the Oval Office, some man gets in the way. First Bill, then Barack … now Bernie? B-ware, Hillary.

 

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

George says he wants to do it ... as a Republican

By Bob Gaydos

George Pataki ...
 he's running for president

George Pataki is running for president. For those of you not familiar with the name, Pataki was governor of New York state for 12 years. He is the 285th announced or soon-to-be-announced candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. I exaggerate, but not by much.

Pataki is quiet and unassuming -- things most of the other members of the GOP presidential gaggle are not. He also may be delusional, which does put him in good company with the rest of the crowd.

But here’s the funny thing about Pataki: He says he’s a Republican. If that's so, it’s not any kind of Republican that Americans have been exposed to in the 21st century. The Grand Old Party is surely old, but in 2015, it is hardly grand. It is, sad to say, a party that has lost its mind and sold its soul. The onetime Party of Lincoln today is not even the Party of Ford. It’s the party of Cheney and pick-a-Bush, sponsored by the brothers Koch.

I have resisted jumping into the 2016 presidential “debate” until now, figuring it was too early. Like, a year too early. But as the body count has increased (much more modestly on the Democratic side), I started wondering if my lack of zeal for what I was witnessing would somehow risk me being left behind. Then again, I told myself, so what?

Then George Pataki, all 6 feet, 5 inches of him, pulled me in. Is this guy serious? President? Of the United States? Yeah, he’s an easygoing, likeable sort. Bright. Grew up on a farm. Once upon a time, I even wrote editorials endorsing him for the New York State Legislature. And he was elected governor of New York three times. That’s no easy trick for  a Republican since it’s a liberal state with a Democratic voting edge. Even more impressive, Pataki beat liberal icon and incumbent governor, Mario Cuomo, the first time out. In getting re-elected twice, Pataki showed that he can work with people of differing political views to get things done.

But … George … Republicans don’t care about that today. In fact, they run away from it. Since you’ve been away from politics for eight years, maybe you haven’t noticed that the word “bipartisan" has been stricken from the party vocabulary. If Democrats like it, Republicans don’t. Period.

The real irony of the Pataki candidacy, though, centers on his positions on the issues. While he is definitely a state’s rights, low-tax, fiscal conservative in the traditional Republican mold, his views on a host of hot-button issues are simply not in sync with today’s Republican Party.

Let’s start with climate change. Republicans have fought President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat it at every turn. The GOP-dominated Senate even went so far as to vote that humans are not causing climate change and the Republican governor of Florida has actually banned state employees from using the term, “global warming.” Finally, polls regularly show that a majority of Republicans, who proudly proclaim they are not scientists, do not believe global warming is happening.

Pataki? Unlike many Republican politicians, the Columbia and Yale graduate respects science. Strike one. He believes global warming is real. Strike two. In fact, he co-chaired the 2007 blue-ribbon, Independent Task Force on Climate Change organized by the Council on Foreign Relations. The other co-chair was Tom Vilsack, former Democratic governor of Iowa who is President Obama's agriculture secretary. The panel issued a thick report stating that human-caused climate change represented a world crisis that required immediate attention. Strike three.

How about abortion? Pataki is pro-choice. Enough said.

Immigration? He supports a legal path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in this country. "We can't send 11 million people back in railroad cars and buses and trains," he has said.

He believes the issue of same-sex marriage should be left to the states, but as governor he signed a law providing rights for gays, including benefits for same-sex couples.

He also pushed through a tough gun-control law banning some assault weapons and requiring ballistic fingerprinting for weapons as well as raising the legal age to own a gun from 18 to 21. And he thinks it should be up to each state to decide whether to legalize marijuana.

For good measure, the former mayor of Peekskill thinks the nation should invest billions into building a first-class rail system.

Does that sound like a Republican to you?

Yes, he rips Obamacare and thinks the president hasn’t been militarily aggressive enough with ISIS and shouldn’t be negotiating with Iran on nuclear power. But virtually all the Republican candidates say those things, whether they believe them or not.

The point is, Pataki, who turns 70 this month, offers a bipartisan governing approach and reasonable views on some emotional issues in a party virtually devoid of such. In a general election against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, that might sway some Democratic voters of a more conservative bent. But first he’s got to get through the Republican primaries and emerge victorious over the likes of: Ted (I will renounce my Canadian citizenship) Cruz; Marco (I’m young, Cuban and have a sugar daddy) Rubio; Rand (every citizen for himself) Paul; Ben (the perfect prescription for the Tea Party) Carson; Carly (I’m as wacky as any of the guys) Fiorina; Mike (the huckster) Huckabee; Rick (one more time) Santorum; Lindsay (I’m the most conservative of them all) Graham; Jeb (it’s my turn) Bush; Scott (fire the unions) Walker; Chris (I didn’t close the bridge) Christie; Rick (I can count to three now) Perry; Bobby (I really messed up Louisiana) Jindal; John (who?) Kasich; and Donald (oh shut up) Trump. Sarah Palin, where are you?

Fox News, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, says it’s only going to put 10 candidates on stage for its televised GOP debates. Pataki might have trouble just cracking the starting lineup, which tells you where reasonableness, a respect for science and a willingness to compromise in governing get you today in the GOP.

In reporting on his decision to run for president, the Wall Street Journal described Pataki as a “centrist.” Talk about the kiss of death. They might just as well have called him a socialist, as far as today’s Republicans are concerned. It’s enough to make a guy want to switch parties.

Whaddaya think, George?

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

'Natural' food -- a meaningless label

IR Photography

America’s countryside is accentuated by
millions of acres of corn, like this field in
Orange County. But much of it has been 
grown from genetically modified seeds. 
Advocates for clarity in labeling demand 
removal of the word “natural” on such
corn products.

The Healthy Shopper

By Bob Gaydos

Nothing says “natural’ more immediately than a well-tended farm nestled into the countryside. Food grows here, it announces proudly.

Food companies like to tap into that food-farm-nature connection in R their marketing, splashing the word “natural” liberally on packages. The problem is that a lot of the ingredients in the packages come from farms that are more like factories -- a far cry from what nature created. Some of the ingredients may be natural, but are not what consumers ordinarily think of as food.

A few years ago, a story about “natural” ingredients made the rounds of food sites on the Internet. The story focused on a substance that is added to such favorite treats as ice cream, candy, yogurt, iced tea and gelatin to enhance their flavor. Mostly vanilla, strawberry and raspberry-flavored treats.

The ingredient is castoreum. Yes, it’s “natural.” No, it has nothing to do with the castor bean, as one might think. Castoreum is a yellowish secretion from the castor sac of adult male and female beavers. The castor sac is located between the anus and genitals in beavers and, along with its urine, is used to scent mark the beaver’s territory. It has also been used for years to enhance perfumes.

The Food and Drug Administration lists castoreum in the “Generally Regarded As Safe” category, which is good to know. But today, more consumers are insisting that it’s also good for them to know what the ingredients listed on food labels really are. In this case, what qualifies as “natural” ingredients.

Unfortunately, the word “natural” being plastered on packaged food labels today may have a variety of meanings. (Do not confuse it with “organic;” it’s not necessarily the same.) An “all natural” food product may sound healthful, but the real benefits may be to the company’s economic health, rather than the consumer’s physical well-being.

The fact is, the FDA has no specific, enforceable standards for what “natural” means when it comes to food. The agency says it accepts the term on processed food labels so long as the product contains no synthetic additives, artificial coloring or artificial flavoring.

Castoreum, as noted, comes from nature and so, is regarded as natural flavoring. (Some companies have stopped using it in response to the story and negative reaction to it.) As for the castor bean (actually a seed), in addition to being a source for the healthful castor oil and the deadly poison ricin, it is also the source of a “natural” food additive identified as PGPR -- polyglycerol polyricinoleate.

PGPR is a yellowish liquid that acts as an emulsifier. Candy companies use it to hold chocolate together because it’s cheaper to produce than cocoa butter and adds to the shelf life of chocolate bars. Less chocolate for you, more profits for the company. The FDA says PGPR is natural and safe for human consumption. Now at least you know what it is.

Unlike PGPR, thousands of other substances that are derived from some plant source are not listed on processed food labels, but still are considered “natural” additives.  Substances derived from animal sources must be listed, according to FDA rules, but as the beaver tale illustrates, that listing may not be especially informative.

Shoppers who want to know what they are eating can pressure food companies to offer more transparent labels. Many vegetarian and vegan-oriented companies are offering clearer labeling today and some larger food companies, responding to growing truth-in-labeling campaigns on social media, are starting to follow suit.

Consumer Reports recently weighed in on “natural” labels on food products. The non-profit, independent, product-testing organization called for a ban on use of the word “natural” on labels, describing it as meaningless. The call came in connection with a the organization’s report which found that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) -- foods altered in laboratories -- are present in many food products. Their presence, however, is not acknowledged on the label, even though many of those products are billed as “natural.” Grist for a future article.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Women's obstacles to sobriety: Isolation, fear, stigma

My latest Addiction and Recovery column

By Bob Gaydos

“I’ve picked up women for meetings and their husbands were on the porch, screaming, ‘Don’t you leave the house tonight! You need to need to be here! Don’t you go with them!’ ”

“Them” would be the women in the car, members of Alcoholics Anonymous picking up a new member to take her to a meeting. This  scenario, described by an Orange County woman who has been sober more than 25 years, illustrates two of the major elements of recovery from addiction for women: 1) the stigma of alcoholism or drug addiction, while lessening, is still greater for women than for men; 2) it is crucial for women new to recovery to have a strong support network of women in recovery.

Women AA members from Orange, Ulster and Sullivan counties confirm what is reported nationally --  as challenging as it is for men trying to recover from the abuse of alcohol or other drugs, in some ways women have it tougher.

Fear. Intimidation. Stigma. Shame. Physical and/or sexual abuse. The debilitating physical effects of alcohol abuse. Some or all of those may be part of the story of that woman in the first paragraph who had the courage to get in the car anyway. To “go with them” to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Even then, the challenges persist. Women who have been sober in AA for a while say that one of the biggest issues they faced at the beginning was being able to share at meetings. In AA, sharing one’s story and one’s feelings honestly with other alcoholics is considered important to recovery. “But we’re used to being caregivers,” several women said. “Everybody else’s needs must be more important than mine. Let everybody else (the men) go first and if there’s time at a meeting, I’ll share.”

While more women are seeking recovery today, many AA meetings still have considerably more men than women. “The first meeting I went to was all men and I was intimidated about sharing,” said an Ulster County woman sober for four years.  “So I found meetings where there were women. I went to women’s meetings. We process things differently. We need to have women to talk to. It’s important for women coming in to have other women they can talk to about what’s going on. Sometimes there are things we feel uncomfortable sharing with a lot of men.”

Things like abuse. According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, in 2008, 70 percent of women who were in drug abuse treatment reported histories of physical and sexual abuse “with victimization beginning before 11 years of age and occurring repeatedly.”

Despite this overwhelming connection between sexual abuse (including incest), domestic violence and substance abuse, the issues are still often treated separately. Advocates for women in recovery urge dealing with them together.

But even when abuse is not an issue, recovery can be more challenging for women. Two Sullivan County women were asked if there is anything more difficult about maintaining recovery for women than for men. “Not really … except that we always have to prove ourselves. You hear in the rooms talk about ‘women of grace and dignity.’ You never hear them say anything like that about men.”

The stigma. In addition to being a challenge to maintaining sobriety, fear and shame often keep women from seeking recovery in the first place. (Will I lose custody of my children? How can my family get along without me? Will I lose my job?)

According to the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, about 2.7 million women abuse alcohol or other drugs in the United States, the fastest-growing segment of substance abusers in the country. On the positive side, more women are seeking recovery today. Vital to their success, in addition to following whatever program of recovery one chooses and replacing substance abuse with positive behavior, is having other women in recovery with whom to share honestly. To eliminate the feelings of isolation. To remove the shame. To not fear stepping off that porch.

***

Women and alcohol

According to NCADD:

• Women who develop alcoholism have death rates nearly 75 percent higher, than those of male alcoholics. Death from suicide, alcohol-related accidents, heart disease, stroke, cirrhosis of liver, etc. occur more frequently in women vs. men.
• When you compare women and men of the same height, weight and build, men tend to have more muscle and less fat than women.  Because muscle has more water than fat, alcohol is more diluted in a man than in a woman. Therefore, the blood alcohol concentration resulting will be higher in a woman than in a man, and the woman will feel the effects of the alcohol sooner than the man.

A woman’s pattern of drinking is most likely due to one or a combination of factors:

• Having parents, siblings, and/or blood relatives with alcohol problems.

• Having a partner, lover and/or spouse who drinks heavily.
• Having the ability to “hold liquor” (tolerance for) more than others.
• Having a history of anxiety and/or depression.
• Having a history of childhood physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse.

Marty Mann, NCADD’s founder, was the first woman to recover from alcoholism in Alcoholics Anonymous. NCADD is dedicated to increasing public awareness and support for women struggling with addiction to alcohol and drugs. www.ncadd.org

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Surviving February with warm sports memories

By Bob Gaydos

Frank Shorter, left, and Bill Rodgers.

The Super Bowl has been lost, baseball has yet to begin. The basketball and hockey professionals are passing the time until June, when their championships will be decided. lt has snowed three Mondays in a row. It must be February, the time of year when a lot of sports fans turn their attention to another favorite pastime -- talking about sports.

Forget the dropped passes and ground balls that rolled through an infielder’s legs; this is the time of year I like to remember the good stuff, the memorable stuff, the stuff that makes someone a sports fan in the first place.

I found myself wandering into such a conversation the other day. What was the best single athletic feat ever? The greatest athletic accomplishment? Too arbitrary and prone to record-book chasing, I decided. For my February reminiscence, I’m going with the moments in sports that left an indelible mark on me -- the tImes when I experienced something in person or on TV and went, “Wow!,” if just to myself.

The hope here is that you readers will share your own special moments in sports so that we can have an old-fashioned Hot Stove League discussion. Mantle-Mays-Snider? Montana-Unitas-Brady? The “Immaculate Reception?” Willis Reed’s entrance? What special moments in sports are still with you?

• I’m starting my list of most memorable moments with an effort I have often called the best single performance by any athlete -- Secretariat’s 31-length victory in the Belmont Stakes in 1973. In winning the Triple Crown and dominating the best of the rest of the three-year-olds, he set a world record time for the 1 1/2 miles distance – 2 minutes 24 seconds. Check it out on YouTube.
• Also in the category of “can you believe it?” was a more recent display of excellence in the moment -- Derek Jeter’s 3,000th hit on July 9, 2011. With all the baseball world waiting for the hit that would guarantee the Yankee captain a plaque in Cooperstown, Jeter just wanted it to not be an infield grounder that he beat out. No worry. He laced a home run into the left field seats at Yankee Stadium, trotted around the bases with a big smile on his face and proceeded to go five-for-five, including hitting the game-winning single in the eighth inning. Then there were the dives and the flips, the final hit, etc. A memorable career in toto.
• Willie Mays, another New Yorker of earlier vintage, was also a player who rose to the moment. I have plenty of special memories of WIllie, including a day at the Polo Grounds in the 1950s when the Giants’ centerfielder hit three triples in a double-header (they used to play them for the price of one game). I can’t find anything on Google to confirm this, but that’s how I remember it and I’m sticking to my memory.
• Since this is just my personal recounting of memorable sports moments, I have never seen anyone better than Mickey Mantle at dragging a bunt past the pitcher and getting to first base before the second baseman got to the ball.
• When it comes to pure excellence, for me the performance by 14-year-old Nadia Comaneci at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal is in a class of its own. The tiny Romanian gymnast scored the first perfect 10 for a gymnastic event at the Montreal Olympics and added four more perfect scores that year while winning three gold medals and dazzling the world TV audience. Since the scoreboard makers didn’t think a 10 was possible, they only allowed for a 9.9. Four years later, there were updated scoreboards in Moscow.
• The fastest I ever ran was in 1956, sprinting home six blocks from Bayonne High School, where we had been listening to the game on transistor radios, to see the final outs of the Yankees' Don Larsen's perfect game against the Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series. On our black and white TV. It's the highest Yogi ever leapt, too, I think.
• In 1981, the Times Herald-Record newspaper sponsored the first Orange Classic, a 10K race around the City of Middletown. It invited local hero Frank Shorter, 1972 Olympic gold medal winner and 1976 silver medal winner, and his chief rival, Bill Rodgers, Boston and New York CIty marathon champion, to headline the event. They did not fail to deliver. The two turned the corner on the final stretch of the race well ahead of the field, running neck and neck for more than a quarter mile as the crowd cheered. Shorter edged Rodgers out at the end. It was as perfect a finish as the crowd could hope for and, no, I’ve never thought Rodgers held back because it was Shorter’s hometown. A truly classic moment.
• The Miracle on Ice. I admit it. I was swept up with the rest of the crowd chanting “USA! USA!” when a team of American college all-stars defeated a team of Russian professionals, 3-2, in ice hockey at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid. WInning the gold medal that year was almost an after-thought for the American team following that emotional upset. An unforgettable moment.
• Finally, a purely personal moment that came far from any athletic venue. In 1973, while covering a sports-related conference in Binghamton, N.Y., I shook hands with Jackie Robinson and told him what a pleasure it was to meet him. It was more than that. It was memorable.

***

That’s it. Just a few moments that have nourished my love of sports over the years. I’d really like to hear some of yours. C’mon, it’s February. The Knicks are dismal, it’s snowing and the Stanley Cup final is months away. Reminisce with me.

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

How to avoid winning a Super Bowl

By Bob Gaydos

Marshawn Lynch ... doing what he does best.

When you played pickup football as a kid -- in the street, the school yard or the park -- some things were understood even if you didn’t know some of the players on your team before the game started. A major thing was that the best player -- usually easy to know -- had final say on the plays, even if he wasn’t playing quarterback.

So, for example, if Billy, the best player on the team, is playing halfback, and it’s almost the end of the game and your team is losing and needs a touchdown to win and you happen to be on the other team’s one-yard line and Joey, your quarterback, says he’s going to throw a jump pass over the middle to that tall, skinny kid -- Lenny, or something -- who was just hanging out and got to play only because you needed one more guy, Billy says, “Give me the ball!”

Which your quarterback obediently does. Billy barrels over three players on the other team for a touchdown and you win the game. Yay! That’s how it’s supposed to happen.

Even in the Super Bowl.

Only it didn’t this time and the Seattle Seahawks lost a game they should 

have won because their coach, Pete Carroll, got cute at a time when all he needed to do was let his best player win the game for him. The Seahawks were losing to Tom Brady and company, but had moved to the New England Patriots’ one-yard line with 20 seconds left in the game, thanks in large part to a circus catch in which the ball bounced off the receiver’s hands and legs before he caught it.

What now? Simple. Give the ball to your best player and let him win you a championship. Billy, watching the game at home, sets down his chicken wing and screams, “Give the ball to Marshawn!” Joey, at a Super Bowl party, says, “I think he should give the ball to Lynch.”Surely, Seattle, a team built on toughness and a strong running game, would give the ball to Marshawn Lynch, the star running back who speaks with his legs. Lynch never loses yardage. He runs over, around and past opponents with ease. Give him the ball, everyone but Patriots fans tells their TV sets.

Instead, Carroll tells his quarterback, Russell WIlson, a supposedly savvy kid and also a pretty good runner, to throw the ball over the middle to that tall, skinny kid, Whatsizname? Oh, to be in the huddle when that play was called. Oh, to see the eyes of the other 10 players go wide with amazement. Oh, to hear Marshawn Lynch say, “Give me the damn ball!” And, oh, to see him barrel over three Patriots, into the end zone. Touchdown! Seattle goes wild. Brady looks sad.

That’s how it’s supposed to happen.

Oh, would that it had.

Lynch, who spent the week of hype before the game telling reporters he wasn’t going to talk to them, apparently carried his silence into the game. Wilson called the play his coach says he wanted for reasons no football fan will ever fathom. But instead of his own skinny receiver, Wilson threw the ball to some short, skinny kid on the other team. Not even their best player.

Game over. Seahawks lose the Super Bowl.

Billy can’t believe it. Neither can Brady. His coach, Bill Belichick, says that’s just how he planned it.

Now, I’m no fortune teller, but I’m thinking the next time the game is on the line and their coach gets too cute again, Lynch looks up in the huddle and says, “Bullshit, Russell. Give me the damn ball.” And Wilson, if he’s half as smart as they say he is, will.

"Shudda done it in the Super Bowl, you morons!” Billy yells at the TV.