So I had the TV on to the CBC evening news the other night while making dinner, and much to my surprise, they showed the BBC world report instead of the actual CBC news. It seemed weird but I didn't give it much thought. Then, on the weekend, we were watching CFL football on CBC but oddly enough, there were no commentators! First ever sporting event that was aired with no commentators, only the PA announcer.

So, today, the mystery was solved. I was flipping through a newspaper on the subway and discovered that the CBC has actually been locked out. I didn't even know TV stations could be locked out.

Actually, judging by the fact that I actually enjoyed football without the boisterous talking heads, and I actually enjoyed the BBC world report... maybe the CBC shoudl end this lockout before we all get too used to this...

I have to say that even though I am a huge Lance Armstrong fan, I also wouldn't be surprised if the allegations of performance enhancing product use were true. Cycling as a sport is so full of cheating and performance enhancing this and that, that it's hard to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Just last year, Armstrong's formerly loyal lieutenant Tyler Hamilton was suspended for doping or steroid use. Of course, he denied it. Of course, nobody believed him, and why should we?

I suppose the issue we have to ask is, is this worth arguing over. The argument against steroid use in sports is that using chemicals is unnatural and that it therefore constitutes cheating - with the added effect of actually being bad for one's health.

However, athletes are always trying to get an edge over their opponent. Nobody accused American athletes of cheating when they showed up at track meets with fancy Nike spikes while some competitoirs from Africa ran barefoot. So I guess the level playing field really isn't an issue. I guess some people just abhor the idea that people would use chemical enhancers to increase their preformance. But then again, these people probably have no qualms about using Viagara if it came to it. Let's face it, we live in a chemically enhanced society. How many of us will not end up on a lengthy list of medications some day?

Having said all this, I think the real problem is that our society has made sport such a big deal that it's actually worth it for people to cheat and risk public humiliation in exchange for monetary success and fame. Sports is supposed to be about a bunch of buddies going out on a Saturday afternoon to throw the frisbee or hitting the local gym for pickup basketball or going for a jog on a windy day. Sports isn't about big, muscle bound, overpaid professionals whacking baseballs out of the ballpark while bitching the whole time that they are underappreciated. I think what we need ultimately, is a reality check. If Jason Giambi wants to stick himsefl with needles so he can hit a few more home runs, and if a nation of Yankee fans is willing to suspend their disbelief and cheer him on, then hey, do as you please. There are bigger fish to fry in the sea than this.

I think I have to agree with you on that one about Navratilova. She's probably had a more well rounded career than Graf and her impact on tennis overall is far greater. Plus, she was engaged in some great rivalries, although most of them, ie. with Chris Evert, took place before my time.

So one thing I realized today is I have to envy sports fans of yesteryear. Imagine growing up in the 60s or 50s, when your heroes would have been Dimaggio, Mantle, Johnny Unitas or Bart Starr. Even now, years after the fact, these guys are regarded as not just great athletes, but solid people who played on teams that played with pride, honour and respect for their opponents.

Now, instead, we're stuck in the era of the overpaid, steroid enhanced, hollywood preening prima donna. On that note, let me go on a rant. If you were a Yankees fan 50 years ago, you'd be cheering on Mantle and Dimaggio and a host of others. Today, you're just trying to block out the noise Gary Sheffield is making about who the real leader of the team is, or trying to determine if Giambi is back on the juice, or if Arod is really worth 26 million this year? The sick part is that there are a lot of fans out there who still insist on pretending that the Yankees of today are somehow a descendent of the Yankees of yesteryear. Yes, I am pointing my finger at you, Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News. I am sick and tired of your Yankee loving ways. You're always the first writer to bash the team when they lose two games in a row or a pitcher has a bad start, but then you're always the first writer to start quoting some marvelous Yankee legacy and tradition when they win a big game against Boston. Get off of it! You are delusional! The Yankees are what they are, a very expensive, modern day baseball team with little farm system and not much penchant for fostering continuity. They happen to play in the biggest market in the world and have a free spending owner so they are able to contend every year, but they have nothing more in common with Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Joe Dimaggio then the logo on the hats and the stripes on the shirt. So stop living in some 1950s fantasy world!

Actually, I was going to make a separate list for women also. The thing is, during the years I really liked tennis, women's tennis was extremely uncompetitive. Steffi Graf was head and shoulders above everyone else, and when Seles finally came along and appeared ready to topple her, there was that horrible stabbing incident. I think that if I were to rework the list to include women players, I'd have to put Steffi Graf on the list, and possibly Navaratilova. But beyond them, I don't really have any favorite players. Chris Evert's game was always kind of boring, Sabatini didn'win very often, and this new generation of Williams' sisters don't seem to take the sport very seriously. The one player who did have a very intriguging game was Martina Hingis but in some ways, she came in the wrong era. Before the Williams sisters and their power games showed up, she was able to use her uncanny ability to use the whole court to beat almost everyone. Too bad injuries and the evolution of the power game derailed her altogether.

Book Review:

I read another book today, Let Me Tell You a Story by John Feinstein. For those of you who don't know, Feinstein is my all time favorite basketball writer. His seminal work, A Season on the Brink, which contained a behind the scenes look at everyone's favorite basketball tyrant, Bobby Knight, remains one of my all time favorite sports books and several of his other books, notably A Season Inside and Hard Courts a book about a season on the pro tennis circuit, were great books back in the day. However, in the last several years, his books have grown less interesting but I suppose a part of me still remembers voraciously reading through his earlier books and when I saw this new book on the shelf at the library, I couldn't resist.

Let Me Tell You a Story is a book about the life of Red Auerbach, told largely through Red's own memories as the two of them and other friends gathered weekly over a several year period for lunch every Tuesday. It tells the story of the NBA, of the dynasty Celtics of the 1960s through to the evolution of the modern game, and it does it through the eyes of maybe the most astute basketball mind ever in Auerbach. So this in itself makes it a pretty good read for serious basketball fans.

Still, the book is a little offsetting. For one thing, the typeface is enormous which means the book is unnecessarily thick. Can't we just make the book smaller and save paper, rather than trying to pretend that Feinstein has as much to say as he used to? Could the margins get any bigger? Also, the book tends to drag when Feinstein starts describing things, rather than letting Red do the storytelling. Still, I think for true basketball aficionados and people who are intersted in the nuances of being a coach, this book is worthwhile. If nothing else, it teaches that believe it or not, the NBA existed before Magic and Michael came along, and maybe, just maybe, Bill Russell could give Shaq a run for his money.

Now, since we are on the subject of great tennis players, here's my list of 5 favorite players of all time.

1. Boris Becker
2. Andre Agassi
3. John McEnroe
4. Jimmy Connors
5. Ivan Lendl

Notables who missed the cut: Michael Chang, Stefan Edberg, Roger Federer

I caught some tennis on the tube this afternoon. Rogerer Federer easily beating Andy Roddick in one of the last tuneups to the US Open.

The amazing thing is that Roddick is actually a very solid player, but next to Federer, he looks helpless, always scrambling to reach the next shot, whereas Federer, with his long, looping strides makes every shot look easy.

There's no doubt in my mind that Federer is the best player in the world now by a large margin. His only weakness is on clay where he can be had by the heavy, looping groundstrokes of some clay court specialists. However, get him on an attacking surface and he's so far ahead of the pack it is silly.

The real question that I'm throwing out there now though, is that given that he has no adequate competitiors in today's game, where does he rank against that other great player of recent times, Pete Sampras, the curly haired fellow regarded by some as the greatest player ever. The truth is both of them faced inadequate competition during their careers. Sampras' main nemesis was Andre Agassi, a gifted player in his own right but not quite in Pete's class. Federer's main competition in the future will likely come from the young Nadal kid from Spain, but for now, it's a bit of a mismatch, except on clay.

Now personally, I'm inclined to think that Federer has a slightly more complete game than Pete. His service is not as dominating, but his all court game makes him a more complete player. Plus, Pete was perpetually plagued with fitness issues. Having said all that, Sampras always answered the call in big matches, so it's really hard to say. For now, I'll say that Pete would probably beat him but Federer, given his age, is not yet at his peak.

Only time will tell, I suppose.

I finished reading Superfolks by Robert Meyer today. It's a novel that tells the story of an aged, comic book superhero whose powers once resembled Superman, now being culled out of suburban, middle age restlessness to save the world once more. Sound familiar? Sound a little bit too much like the Incredibles? Yeah, I thought so too.

The thing is, this novel was published in the mid 1970s, long before not only the Incredibles, but long before the comic book world became ultra realistic and "serious" in the 1980s. Copyright infringements and creative theft aside, the book is still interesting, with a raw sense of bawdy humour that goes way beyond the kiddie comic books we're all used to and ultimately, becomes a hilarious parody of all that is serious (and not serious) in the comic world.

It's an amusing story, a very very fast read that I devoured while riding up and down the subway line the last few days to get back and forth from my parents' house. Still, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to people who aren't comic book fans to start with. After all, who else would care where superheroes go to get their uniforms tailor made?

I purchased a box of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comics recently on ebay. Included is almost the full run of the original Mirage Comics run of Turtles which debuted back in the 1980s, albeit somewhat water damaged, as well as some of the more recent followups.

Thus far, I've read through the first two issues. As far as comics go, I suppose they're decent. The artistic style is cluttered and busy, but given their status as indepent publishing icons, it feels somewhat appropriate for the whole thing to feel a little dirty and gritty.

The stories too, are much campier and less serious that I remembered, but the fighting is much more savage and bloodier than I recall also. All in all, it's a silly read. I mean, how can you take four talking turtles and a giant ninjitsu rat seriously?

Still, it does bespeak of a simpler time, when a couple of drunk guys could come home, think of the whackiest idea that they could possibly imagine and eventually take Hollywood by storm with it. Kinda awe inspiring.

My contribution.

Signs of life.

It starts with a stirring, the rustling of leaves or the blinking of a half asleep eyelid. Then, it gradually gains momentum, the whispers of a few gradually becoming the roar of a large, teeming mass, unstoppable in its power.

This is the sound of revival. Go Fuzz!

In any case, this is a good time to update people on my whereabouts. When the blog adjourned, I was slogging through the tedium of my last year of medical school. Now, those days have ended and I've resurfaced as a resident at a busy, inner city hostpial in downtown Toronto. I'm living in downtown Toronto also, but my apartment does not sound quite as spacious as the madman's. No floor to celing windows here, just the joys of a short walk to work through Chinatown, and being within walking distance of the comic shop and a smattering of decent restaurants.

Long live the angryasianman.com!

Many many months have passed since our heroes last conferred beneath the auspices of "the League."

They've become scattered, lost to one another. Some of them are now in hiding. presumably living under assumed identities in foreign lands. Still others are off wandering in their own private wilderness, events having changed them irrevocably since the League last conferred.

And yet, somewhere, something stirs....

And the question that brought us here in the first place rears its face once more, "if a blog is posted in cyberspace but nobody reads it, does it still make a sound?"

I'm back.