Cheese Rolling - Are you Serious?

So I was watching ESPN the other night and they showed video of something called Cheese Rolling. Trust me, you need to google this or search it on YouTube. It's crazy!! I'm always amazed at the things people will do for money, fame or sheer boredom.

The premise is people line up at Cooper's Hill in Gloucester England to chase a round block of cheese down and insanely steep and bumpy slope. The cheese itself can reach speeds of 70mph! The first one to reach the bottom of the hill wins. Because of the number of participants they actually have to hold the race in 4-5 stages, kind of like the playoffs.

The tradition is at least 200 years old and grows more popular every year. Injuries range from sprained ankles to broken bones and concussions. No deaths yet that I'm aware of, which is amazing considering that this has been going on so long. Seriously, you have to watch the video to appreciate how dangerous this looks and how pumped up (or bored) these guys have to be to do it.

Oh, I forgot to mention - if you're fortunate enough to be on your feet when you reach the bottom of the hill there are people waiting for you to help slow your momentum...by tackling you!! I'm sure this started as necessary convenience but if you watch the video you'll see a couple of people basically getting pile driven into the earth after narrowly escaping death coming down the hill. Hilarious!

Now, I must say that there are definitely people who have developed this into a skill. They alternate between running and going into a controlled roll or slide. Then when they hit a nice bump they use the momentum to pop right back onto their feet. Everybody else just kind of free falls into an entanglement of limbs and other body parts.

If any of you have done this or seen it in person...I need to hear from you firsthand - why would anyone do this? What would drive you to say "hey, I think I'll roll 200 yards down a cliff for a piece of cheese"? I'm not knocking it, after all the entertainment value is pretty high, I'm just trying to understand. I mean, I see perfect logic in chasing an orb of pigskin and ramming your body into anyone who gets in your way and then celebrating like crazy when you run over a little white line...but I'm not too sure about this cheese rolling thing.

The Vick Verdict - Fair or Foul?

After serving an 18 month sentence for his role in operating a dog fighting ring, Michael Vick is free to play for another NFL team. On Monday, 7/27/09, Roger Goodell announced the terms of Vick's reinstatement. The terms are as follows: 1) Vick can immediately participate in preseason workouts, practices and meetings, 2) Vick can play in the final 2 preseason games, 3) Vick can participate in all regular season team activities EXCEPT games until he is fully reinstated, 4) Goodell will consider Vick for full reinstatement by week 6 at the latest. All of these terms come with the assumption that Vick will get picked up by a team, which so far is the pink elephant in the room that no NFL team really wants to talk about.

The question making its rounds through much of sports talk radio is whether this is a fair and just punishment or if it is simply "piling on" for someone who has already paid his debt to society. Lets examine this from both sides; why it was a fair ruling from Goodell but an unfair ruling for Michael Vick. As with most disputes, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Why is this a fair ruling from Mr. Goodell's viewpoint? A few reasons. First and foremost, he has made no secret of how intolerable he is of player misconduct. Misconduct off the field has consistently led to investigations and often to fines or suspensions. Yes, Vick has paid his debt to society, but playing football in the NFL is not a right it is a privilege. Second, besides all the negative publicity, besides the fact that he committed a heinous crime, he lied to Roger Goodell about it when given the opportunity to defend the allegations. Goodell seems to me to be one of those straight shooter types who can work with anything you give him as long as you don't lie to him (I can appreciate that since that is how I see myself). Third, let's be honest, there would definitely be a great deal of noise made by animal rights groups if he were reinstated with no additional penalty. As it is some of those group don't want him to play ever again. Fourth, I don't think Roger wants the biggest stories during week 1 and 2 to be about Michael Vick, and they certainly would be.

Why is this an unfair ruling from Michael Vick's standpoint? It's clear that he is being made an example of. First of all, Vick paid dearly for his crimes. To many, even his criminal sentencing was over the top and unfair. But that's neither here nor there and not the topic of this article. The fact is, he lost just about everything, including almost 2 years of his life. He took what the legal system meted out against him and conformed to everything asked of him, including devising ways of paying back debts though not having a job or confirmation that he would ever resume an NFL career that would allow him to pay those debts. This he does not complain about, nor should he. This was the retribution decided by our courts of law for unspeakable crimes against animals. (I could go into a rather lengthy explanation here of Vick's childhood and cultural influences regarding dog fighting and other things, but I deem it irrelevant since we are really discussing his future in football rather than his past with animals) After that heavy retribution, he now comes back hoping to get picked up by a team for a fraction of his former worth only to find out that he MIGHT be able to play week 6 or after? Vick just wants to continue his career and put this whole mess behind him. He's already spent 2 years away from football and now more time is being added to that.

Let's look at some middle ground here. I think Goodell is playing it pretty safe. Had he suspended him for the whole season or even half the season, the uproar from players and even many fans would have been loud. Had he not suspended him at all, PETA along with some private citizens would've been down his throat which could threaten some advertisers to pull out. So, he is allowing him to find work, play football during preseason and practice with a team. He remains purposely ambiguous about when Vick will be fully reinstated. I suspect that Vick will apply for full reinstatement as early as week 1 and I suspect that Goodell will grant full reinstatement between week 4 and 6. All this is assuming that Vick stays clean for that time period. I can't imagine him getting in trouble again, at least not for dog fighting. He's not known for off the field troubles. (Unless you count marijuana in airports...Vick - stay away from the dutchies!)

My initial reaction to this issue of fair or foul was to put myself in Vicks shoes. Let's say I get busted for a felony and go to jail. As a result I lose my job at Best Buy. 2 years later I'm released from prison. Best Buy doesn't want to re-hire me which is their right. I look elsewhere but am told by the BBB that I cannot work for any business for an additional 6 months. (BBB is the closest thing I could think of to a governing body on short notice and I realize that this is not the same thing since the NFL is like its own private industry in which Goodell does have the final say, unlike the BBB which has no real authority. But you get my point, I'm sure. Vick would get hired by an individual team, not by Goodell himself.) To me it seems a little excessive. I've never fully applied to the theory of "making an example of someone". I think by applying fair punishment you do make an example of someone. However, by common standards, when you make an example of someone today it usually means that you add a little extra to the punishment so that others get the idea. Once you cross that line it is no longer fair, it becomes purposely foul with the intent of stopping the behavior in the future. If I had to call fair or foul on this one I would lean towards foul.

In reality though, its both fair and foul. Fair for the NFL (to a degree) and foul for Michael Vick. The bottom line, though, is that Vick will have to make the best of it. He may not ever be the face of the league again like he once was. But I don't doubt for a moment that he can and will be the face of a franchise again. The verdict is still out on which franchise that will be and how long it will take.

Congratulations Brett - You Made the Right Choice

One of the legends of our time, Brett Favre, retires...again. Or, to be more precise, flirted with the idea of coming back to the NFL and ultimately decided to remain retired. Bravo! I don't mean that as a dig either. He's absolutely one of the best quarterbacks ever (I don't necessarily think he is the best ever, but he's definitely in the conversation). But it was time and I'm glad he recognized it.

Here's the deal, you saw him come out and have an awesome 1st half of the season last year with the Jets and then fade a little toward the end when they were in the playoff hunt. He's 39 and will turn 40 in October. He's taken a lot of hits. I actually think he would've gotten the Vikings to the playoffs if for no other reason than having the best running back in football on his team. But those December games in Minnesota and those January games (or game) in the playoffs would not have turned out well. I am a legend fan - meaning I root for the legends to go out as heroes riding off into the sunset on their own terms.

Even though he had a 'good' year with the Jets, after all the hoopla every day (will he or won't he? will he or won't he?), not to mention the verbal rips back and forth with the Packers, and then to see him fade in December took a little bit of the luster off of his legacy for me. Just a little. You can only lose so much luster when you lead the NFL all time in touchdown passes, completions, yards passing, most consecutive starts and regular season victories (and interceptions...but we'll gloss over that for now) But you have to admit, it was a little disappointing to see how things played out last year.

If you're a Vikings fan, this news sucks. I mean, you have 2 serviceable quarterbacks with Rosenfels and Jackson but neither has shown themselves to be a franchise quarterback. And then of course there's John David Booty, remember him? But Favre wasn't your long term answer here anyway. The Vikings organization has to do something at some point to get a younger, long term solution at the position.

This brings me to why I'm happy for Brett. First of all, he decided to call it quits. This was on his terms. He didn't get 3 quarters of the way through the season only to realize he couldn't do it anymore. He doesn't have to worry about any embarrassment during the season. Secondly, he comes off looking classy by letting the Vikings know before training camp (or at least classier than he looked during the Packers/Jets travesty last year) Thirdly, this is Brett Favre and we can officially close the book on this chapter of his life. (Until next year when the Broncos call him up...another team that desperately needs a long term solution at QB). We can now look back fondly over a career that was, to say the least, incredible. He is firmly entrenched as a legend of the game.

Here's to you Brett. A great quarterback who made a great read on this one. Enjoy you're retirement. Hopefully, relationships can be repaired with the Packers organization so that you can have some future involvement with the team that will be forever synonymous with your name.