Month: July 2012

  • Gunman Attacks People in Colorado Movie Theater.

    By Rong-Gong Lin II

    July 20, 20126:50 a.m.

    A lone 24-year-old masked gunman entered a Colorado movie theater playing the new Batman movie and opened fire early Friday, killing at least 12 people and wounding 50, according to police and local media. The suspect, a white male, was found in the parking lot and did not resist arrest, CNN said. 

    Witnesses described a chaotic scene, telling television reporters that they were overcome by noxious gas unleashed by the suspect just before he started shooting, and that they had to decide between staying on the ground, helping wounded victims or running away before the gunman was able to reload his weapon. Survivors said they were forced to run past bodies in the aisles and theater. 

     

    The gunman was armed with a rifle, a shotgun and two handguns, police said. Cellphone videos show panicked moviegoers running — some screaming — and others with blood visible.

    The death toll was revised downward from an earlier figure of 14 dead given by police in Aurora, a suburb east of Denver. 

    Crowds of worried family members and friends were gathering at Denver-area hospitals, hoping to hear about their loved ones. According to images broadcast by local television,  some held their heads down, and rocked back and forth as they sat on the sidewalk, as the sun rose. 

    The shooting came minutes after the 12:05 a.m. premiere showing of the widely anticipated premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises."

    Photos: Dark Knight Rises' shooting 

    Eyewitnesses said the gunman entered the movie theater through the emergency exit door near the front of the screen in theater No. 9 at the Century 16 in Aurora. A witness, who declined to be identified, told The Times that the gunman then  "threw a canister across the theater," unleashing gas, "then started shooting."

    The witness said he saw a man two seats over who was shot in the head. "I can't get his image out of my head," the witness wrote in a message. The victim was wearing a shirt bearing the face of the Joker from the Batman series; after he was shot, he slumped back in his chair, his face covered in blood. 

    Witnesses told Denver's NBC affiliate, KUSA-TV 9News, that the tall, muscular gunman , wearing a riot helmet, gas mask and dressed all in black, said nothing as he entered the theater. Initially, spectators thought he was part of the show.

    But witnesses  described seeing him toss two canisters to the ground, and once they exploded, spectators began ducking or running out of the theater, an escape made difficult by the blinding gas. 

    "He looked so calm when he did it," a witness told 9News. 

    At one point, there was a pause in the shooting, when the gunman appeared to reload his weapon, and some spectators took that opportunity to flee, witnesses told the NBC affiliate. Witnesses described scenes of gunshot victims scrambling to escape the theater.

    The Denver TV station played police dispatch audio of first-responders asking operators to ask for gas masks. 

    Some of the bullets pierced walls and traveled into the adjacent theater, No. 8, and injured people, 9News reported. A 3-month-old baby was taken to the hospital, but was not wounded by gunfire, 9News reported, quoting a hospital spokesperson. The TV station reported that the infant was checked and then released from the hospital. 

    "This is a horrific event," Aurora police chief Daniel J. Oates told reporters during a news conference. There was no evidence of a second gunman, Oates said. 

    The shooting came just after hundreds of theater-goers had lined up for hours, eager to see "The Dark Knight Rises," the third installment of director Christopher Nolan's Batman series. 

    Oates said 10 people were found dead in the theater. 

    The suspect was found outside the theater holding a rifle and a handgun, the TV station reported, quoting police. 

    9News reported that the suspect indicated to police that his apartment building might have explosives, and authorities were evacuating that structure  and searching for possible explosives.

    Warner Bros., the studio that produced the movie, said in  a statement: “Warner Bros. is deeply saddened to learn about this shocking incident. We extend our sincere sympathies to the families and loved ones of the victims at this tragic time.” 

    President Obama released the following statement: "My administration will do everything that we can to support the people of Aurora in this extraordinarily difficult time. We are committed to bringing whoever was responsible to justice, ensuring the safety of our people, and caring for those who have been wounded. As we do when confronted by moments of darkness and challenge, we must now come together as one American family. All of us must have the people of Aurora in our thoughts and prayers as they confront the loss of family, friends, and neighbors, and we must stand together with them in the challenging hours and days to come." 

    Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, issued a statement shortly after Obama's saying he and his wife, Ann, were "deeply saddened by the news of the senseless violence." 

    RELATED: 

    Obama, Romney express shock and sorrow

    'Dark Knight Rises' shooting has eerie overtones 

    How will Colorado shootings affect 'Dark Knight Rises' screenings? 

    ron.lin@latimes.com 

    Times staff writers Kathleen Hennessey and David Lauter contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

     
    MORE FROM THE TIMES

    • Jessica Simpson, that cleavage looks like a (few) million bucks
    • Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio dares George Lopez: Say it to my face
    • Warren Beatty and Annette Bening list Beverly Crest home
    • Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent
    • Apple Mountain Lion expected to launch Wednesday

  • German GP: Pastor Maldonado quickest in second practice

     

     
    Pastor Maldonado

     

    German GP: Practice two highlights

    20 July 2012 Last updated at 13:53 GMT

     

    German GP: Pastor Maldonado quickest in second practice

    By Andrew Benson Chief F1 writer at Hockenheim

    Williams driver Pastor Maldonado was fastest in a wet second practice session at the German Grand Prix.

    The Venezuelan, winner of the Spanish GP in May , was 0.088 seconds quicker than Mercedes driver Nico Rosberg, with Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel third.

    In the drier, but still rain-hit, first session, Jenson Button headed McLaren team-mate Lewis Hamilton by 0.498secs.

    Lee McKenzie and Jenson Button

     

    Inside F1 - German Grand Prix

    Michael Schumacher crashed his Mercedes coming into the Stadium section in the closing minutes of the second session.

    The German legend lost the rear of the car coming through the fast fourth-gear right-hander called the Mobil 1 Kurve and spun across the track into the wall.

    "Basically I was not fully concentrated. I was on the radio and I was doing some other changes to the car, and touched the white line. That's it," said seven-time champion Schumacher.

    "Cosmetically it looks [like] almost all four corners touched on the barriers, so that's not the nicest way, but the impact wasn't too big."

    But he said he was confident of a good weekend.

    "It's OK. Any time we've been out, we've been top end."

    Basically I was not fully concentrated. I was on the radio and I was doing some other changes to the car, and touched the white line. That's it

    Michael Schumacher

    BBC F1 technical analyst Gary Anderson said: "Last two minutes of the session and probably £200,000 worth of damage, so that will be an expensive night for Mercedes."

    In the course of two sessions in tricky conditions, only two other drivers terminally lost their cars.

    Toro Rosso's Daniel Ricciardo, in the second session, and Williams reserve driver Valtteri Bottas in the first beached their cars in the gravel after losing control during braking for the Sachs Kurve, the hairpin in the Stadium section.

    Hamilton was two seconds off the pace of Button when the track was at its quickest and Anderson said McLaren would have to look at why that was.

    Hamilton was also slower than Ferrari's Fernando Alonso, the world championship leader, when running in the wetter conditions towards the end of the session.

    The teams were trying out upgrades aimed at improving performance, with greatest attention focused on McLaren and Lotus.

    McLaren have introduced redesigned sidepods, aimed at improving airflow over the car and closing the gap in performance that has opened up between them and championship pace-setters Red Bull and Ferrari.

    Previous winners

    • 2011 - Lewis Hamilton
    • 2010 - Fernando Alonso
    • 2009 - Mark Webber
    • 2008 - Lewis Hamilton

    Lotus were trying out their own version of the 'double DRS' straight-line speed boosting device pioneered by Mercedes at the start of the season.

    Unlike the Mercedes system, the Lotus device does not work by ducting air from the rear wing to stall the front wing.

    Instead, there are air intakes around the roll-over bar behind the driver's head and a new central pylon in the middle of the rear wing.

    It appears air is taken in through the first, through the car and up the second, stalling the rear wing further and giving an extra boost in straight-line speed.

    It is not yet known whether the device is linked to the DRS moveable rear wing system or - as seems more likely - operates when the car is going beyond a certain speed.

    The system is being trialled this weekend and the team have not yet decided whether it will be raced.

    If it is, it will only be on Kimi Raikkonen's car as it is too much work to fit it on team-mate Romain Grosjean's in time.

    As far as McLaren were concerned, Button had said on Thursday that McLaren were optimistic they would be a step forward.

    "Here we come with mechanical upgrades, aero upgrades, so hopefully they will work well. I have to believe they will, they're very straightforward, so we should put them on and go faster. It's a pretty good chunk.

    Drivers with more than one win at Hockenheim

    • 4 - Michael Schumacher
    • 3 - Ayrton Senna, Nelson Piquet
    • 2 - Gerhard Berger, Nigel Mansell, Alain Prost, Fernando Alonso

    "You'd have to say Ferrari and Red Bull are the two who have stepped forward compared to everyone else and I think that's just big updates.

    "Ferrari have been consistently fast since Barcelona [in May], where they had a big update and their results have shown that.

    "We haven't had a big enough update to be in the mix. Here should be that update and I hope it takes us back to the front."

    McLaren sporting director Sam Michael said: "Today is all about testing them and so far it's looking pretty good. We have new sidepods and a few other things under the skin.

    "Basically the undercut hugs closer to the car so you're not pushing the air so far out before it gets to the Coke-bottle area. It's just a much nicer solution."

    Anderson said: "McLaren are pretty confident in their updates - they have decided to just believe in the wind tunnel."

    Mercedes driver Nico Rosberg will drop five places on the grid as a result of a penalty for changing his gearbox. Romain Grosjean of Lotus has the same penalty after changing his after the British Grand Prix.

    German Grand Prix 2012, day one

    • Friday, 20 July: Second practice 12:55-14:35; BBC Radio 5 live sports extra & BBC Sport website

    German Grand Prix 2012, day two

    • Saturday, 21 July: Third practice 09:55-11:05 BST; BBC Sport website and BBC Radio 5 live sports extra. Qualifying 13:00; BBC Sport website and BBC Radio 5 live. Highlights 17:00 BBC Two and BBC HD

    German Grand Prix 2012, day three

    • Sunday, 22 July: Race 13:00 BST; BBC Sport website and BBC Radio 5 live. Race highlights 17:30 BBC Two and BBC HD. Race highlights repeat 23:40 BBC One and BBC HD

    Copyright. 2012.BBCSport.com

  • 12 Killed in Shooting at Colorado Theater

    Barry Gutierrez/Associated Press

    Witnesses to the shooting in Aurora, Colo., were brought to Gateway High School for questioning after a gunman opened fire at a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." More Photos »

     

    Readers’ Comments

    uly 20, 2012
     

     Killed in Shooting at Colorado Theater

     

    By  and 

     

    AURORA, Colo. — A gunman dressed head to foot in body armor and brandishing three weapons, including an assault rifle, opened fire in a theater crowded with families and children at a midnight showing of the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rises” in a Denver suburb early Friday morning, killing at least 12 people and wounding 59 others, police and federal officials said.

    The suspect, James Holmes, 24, told the police after his arrest that he had booby-trapped his Aurora apartment with explosive devices, leading the police to evacuate five buildings in the neighborhood as they sought to disable what they described as “incendiary devices” rigged to trip wires.

    Mr. Holmes’s only criminal history was a traffic summons, said Aurora’s police chief, Dan Oates. Mr. Holmes earned a bachelor’s degree with honors in neuroscience in 2010 from the University of California, Riverside.

    During the attack, witnesses said Mr. Holmes had entered through a side door of the packed theater and first set off at two smoke devices before firing randomly at audience members, who had just settled into their seats. Within minutes, he was arrested in a parking lot behind the theater near his car, the police said.

    Mr. Holmes had apparently planned the attack for some time: He wore a gas mask, body armor, a tactical helmet and was dressed completely in black. He entered the theater with an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-guage shotgun and a 40-caliber Glock handgun. A fourth gun, another Glock pistol, was found in his car. The authorities believe that Mr. Holmes acted alone, and that the death toll may increase because some of the injuries were serious.

    The police and witnesses described a scene of utter chaos inside the darkened, smoke-filled theater as bullets resounded loudly around them, and people who had gone to see a PG-13-rated action movie were suddenly forced to scramble to safety as friends and loved ones were felled around them.

    Chief Oates said he did not know how many shots Mr. Holmes had fired, saying only that it was “many, many rounds.”

    Jordan Crofter, 19, said he had felt lucky to have snagged a seat in the front row at the midnight screening. But about five minutes into the movie, he said, a side door swung open and a man in black wearing a gas mask calmly strode through.

    At first, Mr. Crofter thought perhaps the man was part of the movie. But within a few seconds, he said, the man hurled two gas canisters down the theater aisle.

    “He walked in so casually, like he knew what he was doing,” said Mr. Crofter. “I heard two pops. Everyone was distracted. That was when the panic and the chaos started.”

    Mr. Crofter said that once he noticed that the man was also carrying a rifle, he ran in the opposite direction as fast as he could.

    “He started shooting, and everyone ducked and started screaming,” he said. “He looked like he was ready to go into battle, It was like he was walking around and having fun. Emotionless.”

    With the investigation in its earliest stages, the authorities said they were unsure what prompted the attack, or whether Mr. Holmes had ties to any hate groups.

    “No motivation yet,” one senior law enforcement official said, adding, “The kid’s not talking.”Mr. Holmes however, did tell the police that he had explosives at an Aurora residence, which led F.B.I. agents, along with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the local police to cordon off a north Aurora neighborhood, focusing attention on a third-floor apartment in a red brick building.

    Firefighters perched on a cherry picker were seen breaking the window with an ax.

    The police described the apartment as being full of wires.

    “It’s something I’ve never seen before,” said Chief Oates.

    John Priest, who lives in the neighborhood, said that his 21-year-old son had been in the movie theater with two friends during the shooting, but was unharmed. The two friends, however, had been wounded — one was hit by a bullet in the buttocks and grazed in the leg, and the other was shot in the leg. Neither injury is life threatening, he said.

    “How could people do something like this?” he said. “I don’t understand this.”

    Aurora, which has a population of about 325,000, had only six killings in all of 2011, according to F.B.I. crime data.

    At Gateway High School, where the authorities have directed people to gather to get news about friends and family members, Rosemary Ratcliff said she had so far been unable to find her son, Abdullah, 17, who she believes had been at the midnight screening.

    “I haven’t heard from him, and none of his friends are picking up their phones,” she said in a near-whisper as she left the school.

    The authorities have not released the names of victims, but Pentagon officials said that some members of the military were among the casualties. The officials said they did not yet have an accurate count, or know what branches of the service the victims were from, or whether they were dead or injured.

    The injured were sent to six hospitals in the region, including Children’s Hospital Colorado and the University of Colorado Hospital.

    “The entire emergency department staff was called in,” said Dr. Comilla Sasson, who said that even though the emergency room was full before the shooting happened, it admitted 20 victims who ranged in age from 3 months to 45 years. The victims’ injuries included gunshot wounds and shrapnel injuries, Dr. Sasson said. Nine people were in critical condition.

    At least three other people were in critical condition at other hospitals, officials said.

    The shooting erupted at the Century 16 Theater during the first showings of “The Dark Knight Rises.” Throngs had gathered, some dressed as characters from the highly anticipated Batman sequel.

    The police and witnesses said after the gunman entered the theater through an exit door that there was the smell of either pepper spray or tear gas in the theater as gunshots rang out.

    Chief Oates said the device made “a hissing sound” before starting to emit smoke.

    President Obama, in southern Florida as part of a campaign swing, was notified of the shooting by his top counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, at 5:26 a.m., the White House said. He later released a statement saying that he and his wife, Michelle, were “shocked and saddened by the horrific and tragic shooting in Colorado,” and vowed to bring those responsible to justice.

    Mr. Obama was briefed Friday morning by Mr. Brennan, Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, and Jacob Lew, the White House chief of staff. “We do not believe at this point there was an apparent nexus to terrorism,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Air Force One.

    Mr. Obama returned to Washington on Friday afternoon, cutting short his Florida trip, his campaign said.

    In remarks in Fort Myers, Fla., Mr. Obama talked in highly personal ways about the tragedy. “My daughters go to the movies,” he said. “What if Malia and Sasha had been in the theater as so many of our kids do every day? Michelle and I will be fortunate enough to hug our girls a little tighter tonight.”

    He reflected on the fragility of life and the triviality of so much of what passes for daily existence, calling on the country to remember what really matters. “The people we lost in Aurora loved and were loved,” he said. “They were mothers and fathers, they were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled.”

    He asked for a moment of silence and asked the crowd to “spend a little time thinking about the incredible blessings that God has given us.”

    Both Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, said they planned to pull television campaign advertisements in Colorado.

    The movie studio Warner Bros., which is owned by Time Warner, released a statement Friday morning, saying that the company and the filmmakers were “deeply saddened” and “extend our sincere sympathies to the families and loved ones of the victims at this tragic time.”

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who has waged a national campaign for stricter gun laws, called on President Obama and Mr. Romney to more concretely address the issue of gun violence in their campaigns.

    “You know, soothing words are nice,” Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly radio program, “but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

    On Friday morning, television images showed several ambulances moving about and dozens of police officers gathered at the Century 16 complex in the early morning darkness. A police robot could be seen inspecting a white compact sedan, its two doors and trunk wide open, in the parking lot of the movie complex, television images showed, though it was unclear whether the car belonged to the gunman.

    Cellphone video appeared to show the traumatic scene outside of the large multiplex immediately after the shooting. Some people wandered away with bloodstained shirts as others could be heard screaming, “Get out of here!”

     

    Dan Frosch reported from Aurora, William K. Rashbaum and Timothy Williams from New York, and Michael S. Schmidt from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker from West Palm Beach, Fla.; Elisabeth Bumiller from Washington; and J. David Goodman, Victoria Shannon and Thomas Kaplan from New York. Kitty Bennett and Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

     

     

  • THE STRONGEST MAN IN THE WORLD

     

    THE SPORTING SCENE

    THE STRONGEST MAN IN THE WORLD

    A new era of strength competitions tests the limits of the human body.

    by Burkhard BilgerJULY 23, 2012

    At six feet eight and four hundred and thirty pounds, Brian Shaw competes in events such as car lifts and the Manhood Stones.

    At six feet eight and four hundred and thirty pounds, Brian Shaw competes in events such as car lifts and the Manhood Stones.

     

    The giant of Fort Lupton was born, like a cowbird’s chick, to parents of ordinary size. His father, Jay Shaw, a lineman for a local power company, was six feet tall; his mother, Bonnie, was an inch or so shorter. At the age of three months, Brian weighed seventeen pounds. At two years, he could grab his Sit ’n Spin and toss it nearly across the room. In photographs of his grade-school classes, he always looked out of place, his grinning, elephant-eared face floating like a parade balloon above the other kids in line. They used to pile on his back during recess, his mother told me—not because they didn’t like him but because they wanted to see how many of them he could carry. “I just think Brian has been blessed,” she said. “He has been blessed with size.”

    Fort Lupton is a city of eight thousand on the dry plains north of Denver. In a bigger place, Shaw might have been corralled into peewee football at eight or nine, and found his way among other oversized boys. But the local teams were lousy and, aside from a few Punt, Pass & Kick contests—which he won with discouraging ease—Shaw stuck to basketball. By seventh grade, he was six feet tall and weighed more than two hundred pounds. When he went in for a dunk on his hoop at home, he snapped off the pole, leaving a jagged stump in the driveway. By his late teens, his bulk had become a menace. One player knocked himself out running into Shaw’s chest; another met with his elbow coming down with a rebound, and was carried off with a broken nose and shattered facial bones. “It was bad,” Shaw told me. “One guy, we dove for a ball together, and I literally broke his back. It wasn’t that I was a dirty player. I wasn’t even trying to do it hard.”

    Like other very large men, Shaw has a surprisingly sweet nature. His voice is higher and smaller than you’d expect, and he tends to inflect it with question marks. His face has the bulbous charm of a potato carving. “He’s almost overly friendly,” Terry Todd, a former champion weight lifter and an instructor at the University of Texas, told me. “It’s like he thinks that if he’s not you’ll be frightened of him and run away.” At six feet eight and four hundred and thirty pounds, Shaw has such a massive build that most men don’t bother trying to measure up. His torso is three feet wide at the shoulders; his biceps are nearly two feet around. His neck is thicker than other men’s thighs. “I know I’m big,” he told me. “I’ve been big my whole life. I’ve never had to prove how tough I am.”

    In the summer of 2005, when Shaw was twenty-three, he went to Las Vegas for a strength-and-conditioning convention. He was feeling a little adrift. He had a degree in wellness management from Black Hills State University, in South Dakota, and was due to start a master’s program at Arizona State that fall. But after moving to Tempe, a few weeks earlier, and working out with the football team, he was beginning to have second thoughts. “This was a big Division I, Pac-10 school, but I was a little surprised, to be honest,” he told me. “I was so much stronger than all of them.” One day at the convention, Shaw came upon a booth run by Sorinex, a company that has designed weight-lifting systems for the Denver Broncos and other football programs. The founder, Richard Sorin, liked to collect equipment used by old-time strongmen and had set out a few items for passersby to try. There were some kettle bells lying around, like cannonballs with handles attached, and a clumsy-looking thing called a Thomas Inch dumbbell.

    Inch was an early-twentieth-century British strongman famous for his grip. His dumbbell, made of cast iron, weighed a hundred and seventy-two pounds and had a handle as thick as a tin can, difficult to grasp. In his stage shows, Inch would offer a prize of more than twenty thousand dollars in today’s currency to anyone who could lift the dumbbell off the floor with one hand. For more than fifty years, no one but Inch managed it, and only a few dozen have done so in the half century since. “A thousand people will try to lift it in a weekend, and a thousand won’t lift it,” Sorin told me. “A lot of strong people have left with their tails between their legs.” It came as something of a shock, therefore, to see Shaw reach over and pick up the dumbbell as if it were a paperweight. “He was just standing there with a blank look on his face,” Sorin said. “It was, like, What’s so very hard about this?”

    When Shaw set down the dumbbell and walked away, Sorin ran over to find him in the crowd. “His eyes were huge,” Shaw recalls. “He said, ‘Can you do that again?’ And I said, ‘Of course I can.’ So he took a picture and sent it to me afterward.” Sorin went on to tell Shaw about the modern strongman circuit—an extreme sport, based on the kinds of feat performed by men like Inch, which had a growing following worldwide. “He said that my kind of strength was unbelievable. It was a one in a million. If I didn’t do something with my abilities, I was stupid. That was pretty cool.”

    Three months later, Shaw won his first strongman event. Within a year, he had turned pro. He has since deadlifted more than a thousand pounds and pressed a nearly quarter-ton log above his head. He has harnessed himself to fire engines, Mack trucks, and a Lockheed C-130 transport plane and dragged them hundreds of yards. In 2011, he became the only man ever to win the sport’s two premier competitions in the same year. He has become, by some measures, the strongest man in history.

    Shaw does his training in a storage facility in the town of Frederick, about fifteen minutes from his home town. His gym is behind the last garage door to the right, in a row of nearly identical bays. He leaves it open most of the year, framing a view of the snowcapped Front Range, to the west. Inside, the equipment has the same cartoonish scale as his body. One corner is given over to a set of giant concrete balls, known as Manhood Stones. Across the room, a flat steel frame leans against the wall, a pair of handles welded to one end. It’s designed to have a vehicle parked on top of it and hoisted up like a wheelbarrow. (Shaw has lifted an S.U.V eleven times in seventy-five seconds.) Next to it sit piles of enormous tires, which will be threaded onto a pipe for the Hummer Tire Dead Lift.

    Strongman events tend to be exaggerated versions of everyday tasks: heaving logs, carrying rocks, pushing carts. Awkwardness and unpredictability are part of the challenge. When I visited, Shaw was coaching his lifting buddies in the Super Yoke and the Duck Walk. The former harks back to the ancient strongman tradition of carrying a cow across your shoulders. (In the sixth century B.C., Milo of Croton, the greatest of Greek strongmen, is said to have lugged a four-year-old heifer the length of the Olympic arena.) The cow, in this case, was in the form of a steel frame loaded with weights, which the men took turns shouldering around the gym. The Duck Walk was something that a blacksmith might do. It involved lifting an anvil-like weight of around three hundred pounds between your legs and waddling down a path with it as fast as possible.

    Tyler Stickle, a twenty-four-year-old strongman from nearby Lakewood, took the first walk. A bank manager by day, he had a line of Hebrew letters tattooed around his right calf: “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” It was a prayer from Philippians long beloved by followers of Muscular Christianity, a movement that sprang up in the mid-eighteen-hundreds with the notion that God deserves burlier believers. (As the Giants center fielder Brett Butler once put it, “If Jesus Christ was a baseball player, he’d go in hard to break up the double play and then pick up the guy and say, ‘I love you.’ ”) Muscular Christianity went on to give us the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Touchdown Jesus mural at Notre Dame’s stadium, and a stained-glass window depicting wrestlers, boxers, and other athletes in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, in New York. But Stickle just hoped that it might help him waddle a little faster. “I hate the Duck Walk,” he said.

    By the time he’d gone back and forth across the gym, his face had puffed up like a blowfish, and the tendons stood out from his neck. When he bent over to catch his breath, he saw that his inner thighs were chafed an angry red. “Wait till you see what it looks like a couple of days from now,” one of the other lifters said. “It just chews up your legs.”

    “I hate the Duck Walk.”

    “You’re mentally weak.”

    For a long time, strongmen didn’t bother with specialized training. When CBS televised the first World’s Strongest Man contest from Universal Studios, in 1977, the competitors all came from other sports. There were bodybuilders like Lou Ferrigno, football players like Robert Young, and weight lifters like Bruce Wilhelm, who won the contest. Even later, when the dilettantes had mostly dropped out of contention, there was no standardized equipment. Shaw had to cast his own Manhood Stones from a plastic mold, and he practiced the Keg Toss in his parents’ back yard, in a large sandpit that they’d built for volleyball. “Even ten or twelve years ago, you wouldn’t have had a place like this,” he told me at his gym. “But a guy can’t just come in off the street anymore and be amazing.” These days, most of Shaw’s equipment is custom-forged by a local company called Redd Iron; his diet and his workout clothes are subsidized by his sponsor, the supplement maker MHP—short for Maximum Human Performance.

    “I see guys accomplish things that are just blowing my mind,” Dennis Rogers, a grip master in the tradition of Thomas Inch, told me. Although the lifts vary from contest to contest, the most popular strongman events and records are now well established, and the latest feats circulate instantly on YouTube. “The weights they’re moving, the dead lifts they’re doing, the things they carry—it wasn’t until 1953 that the first five-hundred-pound bench press was done,” Rogers said. “Today, you have guys who are doing a thousand pounds. How much can the human body take?”

    The urge to perform feats of strength for no good reason seems to be deeply embedded in the male psyche. Shaw’s Manhood Stones are just modern versions of the thousand-pound volcanic boulder unearthed on the Greek island of Santorini. It was etched with a boast from the sixth century B.C.: “Eumastas, son of Kritobolos, lifted me from the ground.” Similar accounts crop up in countless early histories and anthropological studies. The Vikings tossed logs, the Scots threw sheaves of straw, the ancestors of the Inuit are rumored to have carried walruses around. Even a man as brilliant as Leonardo da Vinci felt the need to bend horseshoes and iron door knockers, just to show that he could.

    By the nineteenth century, men like Thomas Topham, Louis Cyr, and a succession of German Goliaths had turned such feats into lucrative theatre. Topham, an English fireplug who was five feet ten and weighed two hundred pounds, could bend iron pokers with his bare hands, roll pewter dishes into cannoli, and win a tug-of-war with a horse. According to a playbill from 1736, cited in David Willoughby’s classic history, “The Super-Athletes,” Topham’s act included the following feats: “He lays the back Part of his Head on one Chair, and his Heels on another, and suffers four corpulent men to stand on his Body and heaves them up and down. At the same time, with Pleasure, he heaves up a large Table of Six Foot long by the Strength of his Teeth, with half a hundred Weight hanging at the farthest end; and dances two corpulent Men, one in each Arm, and snaps his fingers all the time.”

    The World’s Strongest Man was a title of cheap coinage in those days: no circus ever made a shilling claiming to have the second strongest. Still, like other athletic skills, it eventually ceded to a stricter accounting. Equipment was standardized, rules established. The debatable merits of bouncing four fat men on your belly—because how fat were they, really, and how high did they bounce?—gave way to a pair of uniform and highly regulated lifts: the snatch and the clean and jerk. In the first, a barbell is gripped with both hands, thrown into the air, and held above the head in a single motion. In the second, the weight is swiftly lifted to the shoulders (the clean), then flipped up and caught overhead (the jerk). Carrying cows was left to amateurs.

    Olympic weight lifting made its début at the first modern Games, in Greece, in 1896. But it wasn’t until 1920, when weight classes were created, and 1928, when one-hand lifts were abolished, that it settled into a predictable sport. Americans were soon the dominant power. Under the savvy sponsorship of Bob Hoffman, the founder of the York Barbell Company, in Pennsylvania, the national team produced a succession of gold medalists in the forties and fifties, including Tommy Kono, John Davis, and Paul Anderson. Early on, to get around rules restricting Olympic participation to amateurs, Hoffman would hire the lifters at his factory for as little as ten dollars a week and let them train on-site. They would also promote York products in Strength and Health—the house organ, “edited in an atmosphere of perspiration and horseplay,” as Fortune put it in 1946.

    “Bob took a bunch of nobodies and turned them into the greatest team in the world,” Arthur Drechsler, the chair of USA Weightlifting, told me recently. To Drechsler, a former junior national champion, Olympic weight lifting remains the finest test of strength ever devised. “This thing was created to cut through all the B.S.,” he told me. “Are you the best or not? Let’s see. Let’s do two events and we’ll see who’s really good. Everyone lifts the bar from the same place; everyone is competing at the same level. We haven’t discriminated by race, creed, or color since the nineteen-twenties. So we have a legitimate claim to having the strongest people in the world.”

    The awkward part, for Drechsler, is that this élite no longer includes Americans. Since 1960, the United States has suffered through an extended drought in the sport. Bulgarians, Hungarians, Cubans, Poles, Romanians, Koreans, an East German, and a Finn have all topped the podium, and Russians and Chinese have done so dozens of times. (Weight lifting, with its multiple weight classes, is an ideal means of amassing medals, they’ve found.) But aside from Tara Nott—a flyweight from Texas who won her division in 2000, when women’s weight lifting was introduced at the Sydney Games—no American has won the gold. This year, the men’s team didn’t even qualify for the Olympics. (One American, Kendrick Farris, later qualified individually.)

    It’s this void that the strongmen have helped to fill. Like the rise of NASCAR over Formula One, professional wrestling over boxing, and “Jersey Shore” over “The Sopranos,” the return of men like Shaw seems to signal a shift in our appetites—a hunger for rougher, more outlandish thrills and ruder challenges. A modern strongman has to have explosive strength as well as raw power, Shaw told me, but most of all he has to be willing to lift almost anything, anywhere. “I’m a fan of functional strength,” he said. “If you’re the strongest man on the planet, you ought to be able to pick up a stone or flip a tire. Those Olympic lifters—how can you call someone the strongest man if he can’t walk over to a car and pick it up?”

    Early in March, I went to see Shaw defend his title at the Arnold Strongman Classic, the heaviest competition of its kind in the world. The Classic is held every year in Columbus, Ohio, as part of a sports festival that was founded by Arnold Schwarzenegger and a promoter named Jim Lorimer, in 1989. Like its namesake, the festival is a hybrid beast—part sporting event and part sideshow—that has ballooned to unprecedented size. It’s now billed as the largest athletic festival in the world, with eighteen thousand competitors in forty-five categories. (The London Olympics will have ten thousand five hundred athletes in twenty-six sports.) Lorimer calls it Strength Heaven.

    At the Greater Columbus Convention Center, that Friday morning, the main hall felt like a circus tent. Black belts in judo tumbled next to archers, arm wrestlers, and Bulgarian hand-balancers. A thousand ballroom dancers mixed with more than four thousand cheerleaders. In the atrium, a group of oil painters were dabbing furiously at canvases, vying to produce a gold-medal-winning sports portrait. The only unifying theme seemed to be competition, in any form; the only problem was telling the athletes from the audience. A hundred and seventy-five thousand visitors were expected at the festival that weekend, and half of them seemed to be bodybuilders. In the main hall, they made their way from booth to booth, chewing on protein bars and stocking up on free samples. “Yes, I can lift heavy things,” one T-shirt read. “No, I won’t help you move.”

    Up the street, at the hotel where most of the strongmen were staying, the breakfast buffet was provisioned like a bomb shelter. One side was lined with steel troughs filled with bacon, potatoes, scrambled eggs, and pancakes. The other side held specialty rations: boiled pasta and rubbery egg whites, white rice, brown rice, potatoes, and sweet potatoes. This was “clean food,” as strength athletes call it—protein and carbohydrates unadulterated by fat or flavoring. The most competitive bodybuilders eliminate virtually all liquids and salt from their diet in the final days of the contest, to get rid of the water beneath their skin and give their muscles the maximum “cut.” “What do you think I’m doing here, having fun?” I heard one man shout into his cell phone in the lobby. “This is work. This isn’t playing around. My dad died, and I was lifting weights three days later. What am I supposed to do, go home and drop everything to take care of my girlfriend?”

    If bodybuilders were the ascetics of the festival, the strongmen were its mead-swigging friars, lumbering by with plates piled high. “It’s a March of the Elephants kind of thing,” Terry Todd told me. “You expect that music to start playing in the background.” Todd and his wife, Jan, have designed the lifts and overseen the judging at the Arnold since 2002. (Like Terry, Jan works at the University of Texas and had an illustrious athletic career: in 1977, she was profiled by Sports Illustrated as “the world’s strongest woman.”) They take unabashed delight in the strongmen and their feats, but as educators and advocates for their sport they have found themselves in an increasingly troubling position. The Arnold, like most strongmen contests, doesn’t test for performance-enhancing drugs, and it’s widely assumed that most of the top competitors take them. (In 2004, when Mariusz Pudzianowski, the dominant strongman at the time, was asked when he’d last taken anabolic steroids, he answered, “What time is it now?”) The result has been an unending drive for more muscle and mass—an arms race unlimited by weight class.

    “It’s a little frightening,” Todd told me. “The strength gains dictate that we make the weights higher, but at what point does the shoulder start to separate, or the wrist, or you get a compression fracture? We really don’t know how strong people can be.” Gaining weight has become an occupational necessity for strongmen. The things they lift are so inhumanly heavy that they have no choice but to turn their bodies into massive counterweights. “Centrifugal force is the killer,” Mark Henry, a professional wrestler and one of the greatest of former Arnold champions, told me. “Once the weight starts to move, it’s not going to stop.” Fat is a strongman’s shock absorber, like the bumper on a Volkswagen—his belly’s buffer against the weights that continually slam into it. “I wouldn’t want to be too lean,” Shaw said. When I asked about steroids, he hesitated, then said that he preferred not to talk about them. “I really do wish that there was more drug testing,” he added. “I would be the first one in line.” The same is true for most of the strongmen, Todd told me, but they feel that they have little choice: “You don’t want to take a knife to a gunfight.”

    In the past five years, Shaw has added more than a hundred pounds to the svelte three hundred that he weighed at his first contest. “It gets old, it really does,” he said. “Sometimes you’re not hungry, but you have to eat anyway. Training is easy compared to that.” Pudzianowski once told an interviewer that his typical breakfast consisted of ten eggs and two to three pounds of bacon. “Between meals, I eat lots of candy,” he said. Shaw prefers to eat smaller portions every two hours or so, for maximum absorption, supplemented by “gainer shakes” of concentrated protein. (“His one shake is twelve hundred calories,” his girlfriend, a former model for Abercrombie & Fitch, told me. “That’s my intake for the entire day.”) Until he renewed his driver’s license last year, Shaw often got hassled at airports: the guards couldn’t recognize his ten-year-old picture because his face had fleshed out so much. “He’s grown into his ears,” one of his lifting partners, Andy Shaddeau, told me. “Those were not three-hundred-pound ears.”

    On the night before the contest, the strongmen were summoned to the convention center for a private audience with Schwarzenegger. I could see them scanning the room for potential hazards as they filed in. The downside of being a giant is that nothing is built to your scale or structural requirements: ceilings loom, seams split, furniture collapses beneath you. “You only have to hit your head a few times before you start to watch out,” Shaw told me. “Going into a restaurant, I have to look at the chairs and make sure that they don’t have arms on them or I won’t fit.” When Shaw went shopping for a Hummer recently, he couldn’t squeeze into the driver’s seat, so he bought a Chevrolet Silverado pickup instead and had the central console ripped out and moved back. Even so, he has trouble reaching across his chest to get the seat belt.

    Schwarzenegger had brought along two of his sons: Patrick, a slender, sandy-haired eighteen-year-old, and Christopher, a thickset fourteen-year-old. (It would prove to be a trying weekend for them. The following morning, in front of Veteran’s Memorial Auditorium, the city unveiled an eight-and-a-half-foot bronze statue of their father, while a heckler shouted from the crowd, “Hey, Arnold! How are your wife and kids? Been cheating on your wife today, Arnold?”) Both boys were great fans of the strongmen—“They’re my favorites by far!” Patrick told me. As they sat in the audience, their father talked about being a teen-ager in Vienna, watching the Russian Yury Vlasov clean-and-jerk nearly five hundred pounds. “It was so impressive that I went home and started training,” he said. “Instead of an hour a day, I did two hours a day, and then three hours a day.” Years later, Schwarzenegger said, he was happy to be crowned the most muscular man in the world. But he was “at the same time very angry” because he knew that others could lift more. “So I am, of course, a big admirer of yours,” he said. “You are the real strongest men in the world. I thank you for your training and I thank you for being so powerful.”

    The Arnold is an invitational event. Only the top ten strongmen are asked to attend, so most were nearly as big as Shaw. Hafbor Thor Björnsson, an Icelandic behemoth, came in glowering like a Viking, his head honed smooth and his jawline edged by a beard. At twenty-three, he was the youngest of the group but heir to a long line of champions from his island—a fact that he attributed to the springwater. “We are meant to be strong,” he told me. Zydrunas Savickas, a six-time winner from Lithuania, credited his strength to another fluid. “My mother work in milk factory,” he said. When Savickas was three years old, his grandmother found him in her back yard, building a fort out of cinder blocks. Now a baby-faced thirty-six, he was the sport’s elder statesman, voted the most popular athlete in Lithuania and a member of the Vilnius city council. “We have small country,” he said. “Every athlete like diamond in Lithuania.”

    There were five Americans in the group, three of whom were serious contenders. Derek Poundstone, from Waterbury, Connecticut, had won the contest in 2009 and 2010, and was the runner-up in 2008. He was the only man here with the chiselled, armor-plated look of a bodybuilder, and he liked to play up that fact with a crowd. (“At some point in the competition, I predict, Derek will tear his shirt off,” Jan Todd told me.) Mike Jenkins, an up-and-coming strongman from Hershey, Pennsylvania, had placed second to Shaw the year before. Six feet six and three hundred and ninety pounds, he had a sharp wit buried in the rubbery form of a Stretch Armstrong doll. “Sometimes people talk to me like they think that I might be mildly retarded,” he told me. “They hear that you lift rocks and pull trucks for a living, they don’t think Nobel Prize. But a lot of us are educated.” Jenkins had a master’s degree from James Madison University, and many of the others had bachelor’s degrees. Most of them had brought wives or girlfriends with them, as petite and straw-boned as their mates were gigantic.

    This year’s contest would stretch over two days and five events. Shaw was the odds-on favorite. He hadn’t lost a competition in more than a year, and had been setting personal records in training all winter. But his best event—the Manhood Stones—had been replaced by a barbell lift called Apollon’s Wheels. This played to Savickas’s greatest strength: his immensely powerful arms. “I have a lot of things left to prove,” Shaw told me later, in his hotel room. “Ideally, I’d like to walk away with the most championships ever. But Zydrunas, he’s tough, he’s strong, and I’m sure he’s hungry. He wants to prove that last year was a mistake. I want to prove the opposite.”

    Apollon’s Wheels were named for one of the great strongmen of the nineteenth century, Louis (Apollon) Uni. A Frenchman from the southern city of Marsillargues, Uni was visiting a junk yard in Paris one day when he came across a pair of spoked railway wheels that were perfect for his stage show. Mounted on a thick steel axle, they formed a barbell that weighed three hundred and sixty-seven pounds. Apart from Uni, only four men had ever managed to clean-and-jerk the device: Charles Rigoulot, in 1930; John Davis, in 1949; Norbert Schemansky, in 1954; and Mark Henry, in 2002. Todd’s version weighed almost a hundred pounds more. The strongmen, rather than jerk it overhead (the easiest part of the lift), had to raise it to their chest, flip it up to shoulder height, then drop it and repeat the lift as often as possible in ninety seconds.

    The strongman stage was at one end of the convention center, elevated above the crowd and flanked by enormous video screens. It was covered with black rubber matting and reinforced with steel beams—the contestants alone weighed close to four thousand pounds. As the strongmen trudged out one by one to attempt the lift, speed metal blasted overhead, and several thousand people whooped them on. But it was a discouraging start. On an ordinary barbell, the grip spins freely, so the plates don’t move as they’re being lifted. But these railway wheels were screwed tight to the axle. The men had to rotate them around as they lifted—murder on the arms and shoulders—then keep them from rolling out of their hands. Dealing with this, while holding on to the two-inch-thick axle, required an awkward grip: one hand over and the other hand under. “Even now, most of the men in our contest can’t clean it,” Todd said.

    Travis Ortmayer, a strongman from Texas, took a pass and dropped to the bottom of the ranking. Two British strongmen, Terry Hollands and Laurence Shahlaei, managed one lift each, while Jenkins, Poundstone, and the Russian Mikhail Koklyaev did two. The surprise of the contest was Mike Burke, one of Shaw’s protégés from Colorado, who lifted the wheels three times, his face bulging like an overripe tomato. Then came Savickas. He’d put on considerable weight in recent years, most of which had gone to his gut—a sturdy protuberance on which he liked to rest the barbell between lifts. When he’d raised it to his shoulders three times in less than a minute, he took a little breather, like a traveller setting down a suitcase, then casually lofted up a fourth.

    Shaw had done as many or more in training, in the thin air of his gym at five thousand feet. But this time, when he brought the bar up to his chest, something seemed to catch in his left arm. He repositioned his hands, dipped down at the knees, and flipped the weight up beneath his chin. But it didn’t look right. “I don’t know what happened,” he told me later. “The warmups felt really good, and the weight felt light off the ground. But when I went up . . . it’s a hard feeling to describe. Almost like electrical shocks—like three different shocks in a row.”

    Afterward, Shaw reached over to touch his arm. By the time I found him backstage, the situation was clear: he had “tweaked” his left biceps. The strange shocks were from strands of tendon snapping loose, rolling up inside his arm like broken rubber bands.

    Injuries, sometimes devastating, are almost intrinsic to strongman contests: the inevitable product of extreme weight and sudden motion. In 1977, at the first World’s Strongest Man competition, one of the leaders in the early rounds was Franco Columbu, a former Mr. Olympia from Sardinia who weighed only a hundred and eighty-two pounds—a hundred less than his closest competitor. Columbu might have gone on to win, had the next event not been the Refrigerator Race. This involved strapping a four-hundred-pound appliance, weighted with lead shot, onto your back and scuttling across a lot at Universal Studios. Within a few yards, Columbu’s left leg crumpled beneath him. “It was at an L,” he told me. “All the ligaments were torn, and the calf muscle and the hamstring, and the front patella went to the back.” The injury required seven hours of surgery and threatened to cripple Columbu for life, but he came back to win the Mr. Olympia title again in 1981. (He later settled a lawsuit against the World’s Strongest Man for eight hundred thousand dollars.)

    The Arnold has a somewhat better track record—“We’ve never had anyone hurt so bad that they had to be carried away,” Todd told me—but its strongmen are a battle-scarred lot. “Man, you can almost go down the list,” Shaw said. Ortmayer had ripped a pectoral muscle, and Poundstone had fractured his back. One man had damaged his shoulder while lifting the Hammer of Strength, and others had torn hamstrings and trapezius muscles. “In strongman, everybody injured,” Savickas told me. “For us, stop just when it’s broken totally—joints, bones, or muscles.” In 2001, at a strongman contest on the Faeroe Islands, Savickas slipped on some sand while turning Conan’s Wheel and tore the patella tendons off both knees. “I can’t walk,” he recalled. “I am laying down. Everybody says that I can’t back. But I back—and won.”

    Shaw’s injury was a small thing by comparison. But there were four events left, each of which would put a terrible strain on what remained of his left biceps. “It’s wide open now,” Mark Henry, the former Arnold champion and a judge at the contest, told me between rounds. “I think Brian’s going to have to withdraw. It’s like your daddy probably told you: if the stove’s hot, don’t touch it.”

    Ten minutes later, Shaw was back onstage. Using his right arm only, he proceeded to lift a two-hundred-and-fifty-five-pound circus dumbbell above his head five times. “I was hoping to do eight or nine,” he told me afterward. “My left arm is really stronger than my right.” Even so, he took second place in the event—bested only by Jenkins, who did seven lifts—and was now within striking distance of the over-all lead. But how long would his arm hold out?

    Strength like Shaw’s is hard to explain. Yes, he has big muscles, and strength tends to vary in proportion to muscle mass. But exceptions are easy to find. Pound for pound, the strongest girl in the world may be Naomi Kutin, a ten-year-old from Fair Lawn, New Jersey, who weighs only ninety-nine pounds but can squat and deadlift more than twice that much. John Brzenk, perhaps the greatest arm wrestler of all time, is famous for pinning opponents twice his size—his nickname is the Giant Crusher. And I remember, as a boy, being a little puzzled by the fact that the best weight lifter in the world—Vasily Alexeyev, a Russian, who broke eighty world records and won gold medals at the Munich and the Montreal Olympics—looked like the neighborhood plumber. Shaggy shoulders, flaccid arms, pendulous gut: what made him so strong?

    “Power is strength divided by time,” John Ivy, a physiologist at the University of Texas, told me. “The person that can generate the force the fastest will be the most powerful.” This depends in part on what you were born with: the best weight lifters have muscles with far more fast-twitch fibres, which provide explosive strength, than slow-twitch fibres, which provide endurance. How and where those muscles are attached also matters: the longer the lever, the stronger the limb. But the biggest variable is what’s known as “recruitment”: how many fibres can you activate at once? A muscle is like a slave galley, with countless rowers pulling separately toward the same goal. Synchronizing that effort requires years of training and the right “neural hookup,” Ivy said. Those who master it can lift far above their weight. Max Sick, a great early-nineteenth-century German strongman, had such complete muscle control that he could make the various groups twitch in time to music. He was only five feet four and a hundred and forty-five pounds, yet he could take a man forty pounds heavier, press him in the air sixteen times with one hand, and hold a mug of beer in the other without spilling it.

    The convention center was full of people searching for a shortcut to such strength, and venders trying to convince them that they’d found it. There were seven hundred booths in all, staffed by muscle-bound men and balloon-breasted women, handing out samples with complicated ingredients but simple names: Monster Milk, Devil’s Juice, Hemo Rage, Xtreme Shock. “That’s the fastest-acting testosterone booster on the market,” Ryan Keller, the marketing director for Mutant, a maker of “experimental muscle modifiers,” told me, pointing to a product called Mutant Test. “Then there’s Mutant Pump. It’s for the hard-core guys.” Mutant Pump contains a proprietary compound called Hyperox, which pushes the body’s nitric-oxide production “past all previous limits,” according to its marketing material. This allows the muscles to stay pumped full of blood long after a workout. “You can stop lifting, get in your car, and it’s still working,” Keller said. “Some guys say it almost hurts, it gets so hard.” Shaw uses a similar supplement, called Dark Rage, designed to increase his red-blood-cell count. “When he drinks it, he gets excited and does this little dance,” his girlfriend told me.

    Here and there among the salespeople were a few who claimed to be doing damage control. I talked to an insurance agent who said that her firm had a strong “appetite” for extreme sports. When I asked if she would indemnify a strongman, she frowned. “Probably not,” she said. “We do mixed martial arts, but if they have a fifty-per-cent loss ratio we aren’t going to do it.” A few aisles over, I met Tom O’Connor, a physician from Hartford, who called himself the Metabolic Doc. A longtime weight lifter, O’Connor was in the business of treating muscle dysmorphia—a kind of reverse anorexia. The condition is often marked by obsessive bodybuilding, abetted by anabolic steroids. “It’s an absolute epidemic!” O’Connor told me, leaning in so close that I could see his pupils dilate and sweat bead on his forehead. “The men come to me broken and hurt. They come to me with cardiac problems and libido problems and erectile dysfunction.” His solution: low-dose hormone-replacement therapy. The sign above his booth read, “Got Testosterone?”

    It was tempting, to a flabby outsider like me, to dismiss all this as anomalous—an extreme subculture. But to athletes it was the new normal. “Are you kidding me?” O’Connor said. “Have you seen what’s happening around here? It’s never going to end.” When I asked Jim Lorimer, the co-founder of the festival, what he thought about rising steroid use, he called it a “knotty problem.” Then he told me a story. In 1970, when he brought the world weight-lifting championships to Columbus, the event was a bust at first. “We were at Ohio State University, at Mershon Auditorium, and the first three days—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday—it was empty. Maybe a few family members.” Then, on the third day, a scandal broke: eight of the nine top lifters tested positive for steroids. “Well, that Thursday evening Mershon filled up,” Lorimer recalled. “Friday, Saturday, Sunday—it was filled every day. Now, what lesson do you think I learned from that?”

    The bigger the body, the bigger the draw. When it comes to steroids, public censure and private acceptance have tended to rise in parallel. In 1998, after Mark McGwire admitted to doping while setting his home-run record, he was attacked in the press and later blackballed from the Hall of Fame. But sales of steroids skyrocketed. Eight years earlier, George H. W. Bush had both criminalized the use of steroids and appointed Arnold Schwarzenegger—the world’s most famous steroid user—chairman of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. “It’s like an oxymoron,” a strongman said. “Arnold is the poster boy. But if you got into a private conversation, do you really think he’d say, ‘I never should have done that’? Of course he would have done it! He’s a movie star and a millionaire because of it. He was governor of California! He could never have done any of that without it.”

    Late one afternoon, when the thumping soundtrack in the main hall was giving me a headache, I ducked into one of the side rooms to watch the women’s Olympic weight-lifting trials. The crowd here was a fraction of the size of the one outside, and the atmosphere was almost monastic by comparison. During the lifts, the room would go completely quiet—no whoops or catcalls, just the deep silence of absolute concentration. The athletes, too, seemed to be of a different species from the strongmen: flexible and surprisingly slender, with muscles that had the almost slack look I remembered in Alexeyev. There was a terrific fierceness about them—some would stamp their feet and let out a shriek before grasping the bar—but its focus was inward. The best female lifters can toss the equivalent of two very large men above their heads in a single motion. It’s the closest that humans come to being superheroes, and these women acted accordingly.

    “Weight lifting is fifty per cent mental and thirty per cent technique,” Tommy Kono, among the greatest of all American lifters and a spectator in the crowd that day, told me during a break. “Power is only twenty per cent, but everybody has it reversed.” Kono was a prime example of the miraculous change that weight lifting can effect. A Japanese-American from Sacramento, he was a spindly twelve-year-old in 1942, when his family was relocated to an internment camp at Tule Lake, in Northern California. “The name is a misnomer, really,” Kono said. “It was the bottom of a dried-up lake. When the wind blew, it really kicked up a sandstorm, but the dry air helped my asthmatic condition.” It was there, in another boy’s house, that Kono discovered weight lifting and began to train in secret. (His parents didn’t think his body could handle it.) By the time his family was released, in 1945, he had put on ten or fifteen pounds of muscle. By 1952, he was the Olympic gold medalist as a lightweight. He went on to win another gold as a light heavyweight, and a silver as a middleweight.

    Kono blamed the decline in American lifting on an influx of foreign coaches. “They brought in the European idea of training five or six days a week, twice a day,” he said. “Instead of being athletes, they became like workers. Rather than improving, they started getting injuries and overtraining. Even the South American countries started passing us up.” This women’s team was an exception. Unlike the men, they’d qualified for two spots at the Olympics. The best athletes were in the middleweight classes: Amanda Sandoval and Rizelyx Rivera, at fifty-eight kilos, and Natalie Burgener, at sixty-nine. But the competition at those weights was so stiff overseas that the heaviest lifters were more likely to get the spots. (At the trials, all that mattered was how your lifts compared with those of others in your weight class worldwide.) And so, once again, Lorimer’s rule held true: the bigger the body, the bigger the draw. To judge by the cheering between lifts, most of the crowd was there to see Holley Mangold.

    Mangold was something of a local celebrity. Born and reared in Dayton, she had played football in high school, on the offensive line, and come within a point of winning a state championship. (Her older brother, Nick, is an All-Pro center with the New York Jets.) Although she’d come late to lifting, Mangold had quickly climbed the ranks and was threatening to supplant the country’s top super-heavyweight, Sarah Robles. “My little girl is all about pure power,” her father, Vern, told me. Five feet eight and well over three hundred pounds, Mangold was astonishingly quick and flexible for her size—she could drop into the full splits with ease. “I’m a huge girl,” she said to me. “I’ve always been huge. At three hundred and fifty pounds, I feel sluggish. But at three hundred and thirty I feel like I can conquer the world.”

    In the end, Mangold and Robles both made the Olympic team—Mangold winning the clean and jerk, Robles the snatch. But their lifts were well short of medal contention. To Mangold’s coach, Mark Cannella, the gap wasn’t a matter of too much European-style training but of too little. “We need to be more like them,” he said. “They’re breaking it down, videotaping and analyzing every single lift.” Like gymnastics and dance, Olympic lifting requires such balance, flexibility, and form that it greatly rewards early training—it’s like “barbell ballet,” Vern Mangold said. But most American schools have long since replaced their free weights with machines. “It’s a national disgrace,” Arthur Drechsler, of USA Weightlifting, told me. “If you want to fight childhood obesity or increase fitness, no sport can transform you as much as weight lifting—look at Tommy Kono. And it’s one of the safest things you can do. We don’t have spinal-cord injuries. We don’t have head injuries. They just don’t happen. But weight lifting is not part of the public schools.”

    Even with the right training, Americans might still not reach the podium. Unlike strongmen and bodybuilders, Olympic athletes are subject to stringent drug tests in this country, including unannounced visits to their homes. Oversight tends to be much spottier abroad. Since 1976, twelve lifters, all but one of them from Eastern Europe, have been stripped of Olympic medals owing to drug use. A weight lifter can expect about a ten-to-fifteen-per-cent boost from performance-enhancing drugs, Terry Todd estimates—just about what separates Mangold from medal contention. It’s a situation that reminds him of Mark Henry, another prodigy who came late to lifting, stayed clean, and fell short of Olympic gold: “If he had started early and didn’t take drugs, he would have beaten them,” Todd said. “If he had used the drugs and started later, he would have beaten them. But two hurdles was too much.”

    The strongmen didn’t have that problem. Theirs, for better or for worse, was a sport without a rule book—an unregulated experiment. It set no limits and allowed no excuses. In the elevator at the hotel on the last night, I heard a groan and looked over to see Travis Ortmayer, the strongman from Texas, doubled over with his elbows on his knees. “You all right, Travis?” I asked. “I’ve been better,” he said. “A thing like this puts the beat on you.” The smallest man in the contest by twenty pounds, Ortmayer had been a late substitute for Benedikt Magnusson, an Icelandic strongman who tore one of his biceps in training. “I’ve never zeroed out of a competition like this before,” he said. “Usually, I would have been getting ready since December. But after the World’s I took three months off to give my body a rest.” When I asked him what hurt, he said pretty much everything.

    Earlier that day, Ortmayer and the others had completed two more rounds. First came an event called the Austrian Oak, in honor of Schwarzenegger’s nickname as a bodybuilder. This involved lifting a ten-foot log from a stand at close to shoulder height, then pressing it overhead repeatedly. Banded with steel and coiled with thick rope at the ends, the Oak weighed four hundred and fifty-nine pounds—it took five large men to carry it onstage. Four of the strongmen declined to try to lift it at all, and four tried and failed. That left Savickas, who managed one lift, and Jenkins, who did two. Shaw, his left arm in obvious pain, was among those who had to settle for a lighter Oak, of three hundred and ninety-three pounds. But in a display of incredible grit he lifted it seven times in a row—screaming himself hoarse on the sixth try—putting him in fourth place over all.

    “Blood, sweat, and tears, broken bones and torn muscles,” the commentator, a former World’s Strongest Man named Bill Kazmaier, told the crowd. “This is strongman. It’s the last man standing.” On the speakers overhead, Alice in Chains sang “Check My Brain.” The Hummer Tire Dead Lift was next: up to eight oversized tires hung on a bar with steel plates—the heaviest of all the lifts. Jenkins conceded the lead early, topping out at nine hundred and twenty-eight pounds. Derek Poundstone, ranked third, outlifted him by over a hundred pounds—more than enough, I thought, to beat Shaw with his biceps half gone. “Get behind an injured man who’s shot in the arm,” Kazmaier shouted. “C’mon, Brian! Everybody’s behind you!”

    Shaw’s left hand had begun to lose its grip, but the rules allowed him to secure it to the bar with a nylon strap. As he bent down to take the weight—a thousand and seventy-three pounds, eleven pounds more than Poundstone’s lift—he raised his face toward the crowd and bellowed. Then he blew out his cheeks once, twice, and lurched upward. The crowd was on its feet, as Kazmaier thundered into the microphone, “Power! Power! Power!” The barbell bent beneath its load, and Shaw’s body began to oscillate like a tuning fork. By the time his back was straight, his eyes were burning and blood was streaming from his nose, into his mouth and down his chin. But the lift was good.

    He was now tied for second place with Jenkins and Poundstone, just two and a half points behind Savickas. The latter had set a new world record in the dead lift: eleven hundred and seventeen pounds. But the last event—the Timber Carry—was one of Savickas’s worst, whereas Shaw had won it in record time the year before. If he could hang on one more time, the championship would be his.

    On their way to Veteran’s Memorial Auditorium that night, for the final event of the contest, the men sat quietly in a private coach, submerged in their thoughts. They had the half-desperate look of soldiers in a convoy, advancing toward a beachhead. Strongman is a brotherhood, they said. There wasn’t much trash talk or posturing at contests like this—the lifts were daunting enough on their own—but I’d often seen them cheer and comfort one another between lifts, and even offer advice. The year before, at the World’s Strongest Man, they had to drag a twenty-two-thousand-pound Titan truck more than eighty feet down a road. Shaw, who prided himself on fastidious preparation, had ordered a pair of custom truck-pulling shoes from England, with high-friction soles. He would have won the contest, had he not given his spare pair to Björnsson, who beat him by half a second.

    Victory at the Arnold meant much more than bragging rights: it was a rare chance to earn a living at this sport. The purses for most strongman contests are paltry—three to five thousand dollars—especially given the risks involved. But the winner of the Arnold would take home fifty-five thousand. Shaw and his girlfriend were living in a small two-bedroom apartment not far from his parents. And Jenkins had been laid off from a teaching job that fall, at a high school for troubled teen-agers in Harrisburg. In November, he’d opened up a gym with money that he borrowed from his parents, but business was slow, and he was getting married that summer. “My gosh, fifty-five thousand dollars could change your life,” he told me.

    At the auditorium, the bodybuilding finals were just wrapping up. A line of women in high heels and glitter bikinis were posing for photographs backstage, their skin bronzed and lacquered, their implants all in a row. Theirs was the least bulky of the bodybuilding categories—which rose, in order of ascending mass, from Bikini to Figure to Fitness to Ms. International—but they looked as sinewy as velociraptors. When I asked the winner, a diminutive brunette named Sonia Gonzales, what set her apart, she flashed her teeth. “My sex,” she said. Behind the curtain, the male bodybuilders were preparing for the final pose-down. They’d been dehydrating themselves for days, so every vein and striation showed, but their limbs were cramped, their minds depleted. They sat hunched on benches or stood flexing in front of mirrors, as hollow-eyed as statues in a sculpture garden.

    The stage set had a classical theme—broken columns against a fiery sky—and a long, low ramp ran in front of it. When the strongman final began, a huge wooden frame, roughly bolted together out of barn timbers, was carried out and placed at one end. The object was to stand inside this frame, lift it by a pair of handles along the sides, and run up the ramp as fast as possible. The frame weighed nearly nine hundred pounds—more than most strongmen could deadlift—and, unlike the previous year, no wrist straps were allowed. This was a problem for Shaw, but no less so for Savickas. The great Lithuanian had lost some of his grip strength over the years, as the weight he’d gained had gone into his fingers. “It’s like putting on a tight pair of gloves, then another pair, and another pair,” Todd told me. “Each one makes it that much harder to grip—there’s flesh where there used to be space.”

    The Timber Carry was the climax of the contest and extremely hard on the body. Four of the strongmen never made it up the ramp. The weight tore calluses from their hands, and the frame kept tipping and slipping as they ran. Savickas looked strong at first, then lost his grip, dropping the frame six times before leaving it for good—two yards from the finish line. Others fared better. Travis Ortmayer reached the top in just under nine and a half seconds—good enough for a touch of redemption—and Derek Poundstone was almost two seconds faster. Afterward, Poundstone tore off his shirt and flexed for the crowd, just as Jan Todd had predicted.

    When Shaw came to the starting line, he looked loose and light on his feet. He shook the kinks from his arms and bounced on his toes like a boxer, then bent down to pick up the frame. It seemed, for a moment, as he charged up the slope, that he might just make it in time. “I could see the finish line,” he told me the next morning. “But then you’re trying to hold on, and your grip starts to lose it, and it’s just opening, opening, opening. And it’s just . . . pain. I feel the worst pain. I don’t know anything else.” He was less than two feet from the top when the last strands of his biceps tore free, and the frame came thudding down. He managed one last, agonizing push to the finish line, as blinded and enraged as Samson in the temple. Then he stumbled backstage and collapsed.

    Victory, in the end, went to Mike Jenkins. He hurtled up the ramp in just under seven and a half seconds—fourteen-hundredths faster than Poundstone—and won the championship by a single point. Later that night, at the trophy presentation, Schwarzenegger asked him how he’d done it: “For schlepping up this weight up the ramp—I mean, how do you train for something like that?” Jenkins levelled his eyes at him, deadpan. “On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I do yoga at 6 A.M.,” he said. “Then Tuesdays, Thursdays, I have Zumba at 7 P.M.” Schwarzenegger grinned and nodded. “That’s very impressive,” he said. “I can really visualize you in yoga positions. This is exciting. I think we can sell tickets to that one.”

    When I last saw Shaw, he was back home in Colorado, recuperating from surgery. The injury had been worse than he feared. The tendon had all but exploded—“It looked like the end of a mop,” his surgeon, Peter J. Millett, told me—and the muscle had fully retracted inside his arm. To reattach it, they’d had to trim the tendon down, drill a hole through the radius bone, then pull it through and secure it with a titanium button. “He said my tendons were three times the size of normal,” Shaw said. “They had to use a hip retractor.” Still, if he was lucky, the repaired biceps would be even stronger than before and more sturdily attached. “I heard the sutures they used are like the strongest industrial space-age stuff they could find,” Shaw said. I thought of a line that Terry Todd had quoted at the Arnold, from “A Farewell to Arms”: “The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.”

    Shaw’s left arm was in a removable cast, and he said that his skin felt rubbery and numb, but he insisted on driving me around anyway. “There’s never a right time to get hurt,” he said, as we circled past the old basketball courts at his high school, the fields where he used to bale hay for his uncle. “This was supposed to be the performance that people would talk about for years. That’s probably what makes it harder to swallow.” He shook his head. “What’s crazy is, if it had happened on the third rep of that first event, instead of the first, I still would have won.” Even with the injury, Shaw had come within seven seconds of victory—perhaps his greatest feat, though it earned him only fourth place over all. In Fort Lupton, the city council had recently hung a banner across Main Street, declaring it “Home of the World’s Strongest Man.” But the wind had blown the banner down, and it was nowhere to be seen.

    Shaw hoped to be back in top form by late summer—time enough to get ready for the World’s Strongest Man, in September. In the meantime, he had nothing to do but wait for his body to heal. Late in the afternoon, he pulled into a Toys R Us to buy a present for his nephew Caiden, who had just turned one. “This isn’t exactly my specialty,” he said. “When my niece had her birthday, I bought her a battery-powered Jeep. Turned out she couldn’t even ride it.” He spent the first few minutes in the electronics section, looking at toys marked for kids age four to nine—“I’d like to buy him a robot or something,” he said—then finally settled on a car with a built-in cannon that shot rubber balls.

    By the time we arrived at his parents’ house, the party was in full swing. Relatives were circled in chairs around the living room, while toddlers romped across the carpet in the middle. Shaw sat on the couch, holding himself as still as possible as the kids crawled all over him. He looked happier than I’d seen him in a while. “When Caiden was born, Brian was too intimidated to hold him,” his sister, Julie, told me. “He was six pounds ten ounces and nineteen and a half inches. Curled up in a ball, he was the same size as Brian’s shoe.” She sighed. “I pray my son won’t take after him. Finding clothes is so hard. But I’m sure Caiden will want to bring Brian in for show-and-tell—holy cow! he’s like a superhero!—and he’ll want to rough around with him. I’ll be, like, ‘Brian, you just sit there. Don’t give him a high five. You’ll knock him out.’ ” 

    ILLUSTRATION: BARRY BLITT

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/07/23/120723fa_fact_bilger?printable=true#ixzz211y8uY1m

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New Yorker. All Rights Reserved

  • Yoga and Sex Scandals: No Surprise Here

    ACCUSED GURU Swami Satchidananda was a superstar of yoga who gave the invocation at Woodstock.

     

    Mark Sullivan/WireImage

    IN RETREAT John Friend's sexual indiscretions upset many devotees of Anusara yoga, which he founded.

     

    George Rose/Getty Images

    CELEBRITY GURU Swami Muktananda had many thousands of devotees, including celebrities. A senior aide charged that he was a serial philanderer and sexual hypocrite.

     

    February 27, 2012
     
    Yoga and Sex Scandals: No Surprise Here

     

    By WILLIAM J. BROAD

     

    The wholesome image of yoga took a hit in the past few weeks as a rising star of the discipline came tumbling back to earth. After accusations of sexual impropriety with female students,John Friend, the founder of Anusara, one of the world’s fastest-growing styles, told followers that he was stepping down for an indefinite period of “self-reflection, therapy and personal retreat.”

    Mr. Friend preached a gospel of gentle poses mixed with openness aimed at fostering love and happiness. But Elena Brower, a former confidante, has said that insiders knew of his “penchant for women” and his love of “partying and fun.”

    Few had any idea about his sexual indiscretions, she added. The apparent hypocrisy has upset many followers.

    “Those folks are devastated,” Ms. Brower wrote in The Huffington Post. “They’re understandably disappointed to hear that he cheated on his girlfriends repeatedly” and “lied to so many.”

    But this is hardly the first time that yoga’s enlightened facade has been cracked by sexual scandal. Why does yoga produce so many philanderers? And why do the resulting uproars leave so many people shocked and distraught?

    One factor is ignorance. Yoga teachers and how-to books seldom mention that the discipline began as a sex cult — an omission that leaves many practitioners open to libidinal surprise.

    Hatha yoga — the parent of the styles now practiced around the globe — began as a branch of Tantra. In medieval India, Tantra devotees sought to fuse the male and female aspects of the cosmos into a blissful state of consciousness.

    The rites of Tantric cults, while often steeped in symbolism, could also include group and individual sex. One text advised devotees to revere the female sex organ and enjoy vigorous intercourse. Candidates for worship included actresses and prostitutes, as well as the sisters of practitioners.

    Hatha originated as a way to speed the Tantric agenda. It used poses, deep breathing and stimulating acts — including intercourse — to hasten rapturous bliss. In time, Tantra and Hatha developed bad reputations. The main charge was that practitioners indulged in sexual debauchery under the pretext of spirituality.

    Early in the 20th century, the founders of modern yoga worked hard to remove the Tantric stain. They devised a sanitized discipline that played down the old eroticism for a new emphasis on health and fitness.

    B. K. S. Iyengar, the author of “Light on Yoga,” published in 1965, exemplified the change. His book made no mention of Hatha’s Tantric roots and praised the discipline as a panacea that could cure nearly 100 ailments and diseases. And so modern practitioners have embraced a whitewashed simulacrum of Hatha.

    But over the decades, many have discovered from personal experience that the practice can fan the sexual flames. Pelvic regions can feel more sensitive and orgasms more intense.

    Science has begun to clarify the inner mechanisms. In Russia and India, scientists have measured sharp rises in testosterone — a main hormone of sexual arousal in both men and women. Czech scientists working with electroencephalographs have shown how poses can result in bursts of brainwaves indistinguishable from those of lovers. More recently, scientists at the University of British Columbia have documented how fast breathing — done in many yoga classes — can increase blood flow through the genitals. The effect was found to be strong enough to promote sexual arousal not only in healthy individuals but among those with diminished libidos.

    In India, recent clinical studies have shown that men and women who take up yoga report wide improvements in their sex lives, including enhanced feelings of pleasure and satisfaction as well as emotional closeness with partners.

    At Rutgers University, scientists are investigating how yoga and related practices can foster autoerotic bliss. It turns out that some individuals can think themselves into states of sexual ecstasy — a phenomenon known clinically as spontaneous orgasm and popularly as “thinking off.”

    The Rutgers scientists use brain scanners to measure the levels of excitement in women and compare their responses with readings from manual stimulation of the genitals. The results demonstrate that both practices light up the brain in characteristic ways and produce significant rises in blood pressureheart rate and tolerance for pain — what turns out to be a signature of orgasm.

    Since the baby boomers discovered yoga, the arousal, sweating, heavy breathing and states of undress that characterize yoga classes have led to predictable results. In 1995, sex between students and teachers became so prevalent that the California Yoga Teachers Association deplored it as immoral and called for high standards.

    “We wrote the code,” Judith Lasater, the group’s president, told a reporter, “because there were so many violations going on.”

    If yoga can arouse everyday practitioners, it apparently has similar, if not greater, effects on gurus — often charming extroverts in excellent physical condition, some enthusiastic for veneration.

    The misanthropes among them offer a bittersweet tribute to yoga’s revitalizing powers. A surprising number, it turns out, were in their 60s and 70s.

    Swami Muktananda (1908-82) was an Indian man of great charisma who favored dark glasses and gaudy robes.

    At the height of his fame, around 1980, he attracted many thousands of devotees — including movie stars and political celebrities — and succeeded in setting up a network of hundreds of ashrams and meditation centers around the globe. He kept his main shrines in California and New York.

    In late 1981, when a senior aide charged that the venerated yogi was in fact a serial philanderer and sexual hypocrite who used threats of violence to hide his duplicity, Mr. Muktananda defended himself as a persecuted saint, and soon died of heart failure.

    Joan Bridges was one of his lovers. At the time, she was 26 and he was 73. Like many other devotees, Ms. Bridges had a difficult time finding fault with a man she regarded as a virtual god beyond law and morality.

    “I was both thrilled and confused,” she said of their first intimacy in a Web posting. “He told us to be celibate, so how could this be sexual? I had no answers.”

    To denounce the philanderers would be to admit years of empty study and devotion. So many women ended up blaming themselves. Sorting out the realities took years and sometimes decades of pain and reflection, counseling and psychotherapy. In time, the victims began to fight back.

    Swami Satchidananda (1914-2002) was a superstar of yoga who gave the invocation at Woodstock. In 1991, protesters waving placards (“Stop the Abuse,” “End the Cover Up”) marched outside a Virginia hotel where he was addressing a symposium.

    “How can you call yourself a spiritual instructor,” a former devotee shouted from the audience, “when you have molested me and other women?”

    Another case involved Swami Rama (1925-96), a tall man with a strikingly handsome face. In 1994, one of his victims filed a lawsuit charging that he had initiated abuse at his Pennsylvania ashram when she was 19. In 1997, shortly after his death, a jury awarded the woman nearly $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

    So, too, former devotees at Kripalu, a Berkshires ashram, won more than $2.5 million after its longtime guru — a man who gave impassioned talks on the spiritual value of chastity — confessed to multiple affairs.

    The drama with Mr. Friend is still unfolding. So far, at least 50 Anusara teachers have resigned, and the fate of his enterprise remains unclear. In his letter to followers, he promised to make “a full public statement that will transparently address the entirety of this situation.”

    The angst of former Anusara teachers is palpable. “I can no longer support a teacher whose actions have caused irreparable damage to our beloved community,” Sarah Faircloth, a North Carolina instructor, wrote on her Web site.

    But perhaps — if students and teachers knew more about what Hatha can do, and what it was designed to do — they would find themselves less prone to surprise and unyogalike distress.

     

    William J. Broad is the author of “The Science of Yoga: The Risks and the Rewards,” published this month by Simon & Schuster.

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

     

     

     

  • Women Lose Interest in Sex Over Time, While Men Don't.

    By Jennifer Abbasi, LiveScienceWed, Feb 01 2012 at 11:52 AM EST
     
     

    Frustrated couple in bed
    Photo: David De Lossy/Getty Images
    New research is demonstrating what many people already knew from experience: Women lose interest in sex over time, while men don't.
     
    The finding has the potential to help couples, the researchers said. Knowing that many women's sexual desire diminishes over the course of a relationship could encourage both partners to be more realistic about their sex lives, and could help them weather the changes in desire as they occur.  
     
    Sex researchers Sarah Murray and Robin Milhausen, both of the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, asked 170 undergraduate women and men who had been in heterosexual relationships for anywhere from one month to nine years to report on their levels of relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction and sexual desire. Desire was scored using an established model called the Female Sexual Function Index, which ranges from 1.2 to 6.0.
     
    The participants reported being generally satisfied with their relationships and sex lives, but women reported lower levels of desire depending on the length of their relationship. "Specifically, for each additional month women in this study were in a relationship with their partner, their sexual desire decreased by 0.02 on the Female Sexual Function Index," the authors wrote online Jan. 23 in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
     
    In fact, relationship duration was a better predictor of sexual desire in women than both relationship and sexual satisfaction. While the 0.02 decrease in female desire was small, it contrasts with male desire, which held steady over time, the researchers said. [6 Scientific Tips for a Happy Relationship]
     
    Evolution of desire
    Scientists have disagreed on what happens to desire over the course of a relationship. "Some researchers suggest that both men's and women's desire would decrease over time as relationships move from passionate love to compassionate love," said Murray, the lead study author and a doctoral candidate in human sexuality.
     
    Yet evolutionary theorists predict that male desire should remain perpetually high in order for them to produce many offspring, while female desire should decrease as their attention turns, historically, toward child-rearing.
     
    The new research points toward the latter theory, although longer-duration studies on different groups of people are still needed, Murray said.
     
    Men consistently report higher levels of sexual desire than women. Differences in levels of hormones — testosterone, specifically — are believed to at least partially explain the gender divide.
     
    Hormonal changes that occur as couples move from the passionate early stage to the compassionate later stage into monogamous relationships sometime between six and 30 months may also mediate changes in desire over time. Pharmaceutical companies are currently researching the impact of testosterone on women's desire, but so far, the results have been inconclusive.
     
    Hormones are only part of the story, Murray told LiveScience. "Although they are one piece of the sexual desire puzzle, focusing too heavily on hormones can remove the contextual factors that play into desire, such as whether or not a woman is in a satisfying, loving relationship, and if she has time to feel relaxed, playful and sexy," she said.
     
    Keeping the spark alive
    The results could help researchers understand why women who seek sex therapy complain of low desire more than any other problem. Differences in levels of desire within couples, known as desire discrepancy, is a growing area of interest for therapists.
     
    "The concept of an absolute level of 'normal' or 'low' sexual desire is being replaced by the view that low sexual desire is relative to one's partner's level of desire," Murray said. But although desire discrepancy is known to negatively affect overall sexual and relationship satisfaction, very little else is understood about it, such as whether it contributes significantly to infidelity or breakups.
     
    The new research could also help couples manage their relationships over time. In an earlier study, Murray found that women who reported more realistic expectations about what sex would be like in a long-term relationship also had higher levels of desire than those with less realistic expectations. "I think that individuals who expect to maintain the high level of excitement and passion that often exists in the first few months of a new relationship are setting up unrealistic expectations about what is to come and will be more disappointed when the desire and passion take on different forms," she said.
     
    She added that normalizing the fact that sexual desire may decrease over time may help both sexes to understand that this decrease does not necessarily mean anything is intrinsically wrong with their relationship, and may help couples put more effort into their sexual relationship.
     
    "When an individual has had sex with their partner over the course of many, many years, it takes creativity and openness to keep things fresh and exciting," Murray said. "Making time to be together and keep one's sex life as an important part of one’s relationship is very important, and putting in effort and keeping things fun and interesting are crucial components."
     
    A long-term trend?
    The researchers cautioned that longer-term studies of desire that include older couples could show different results. Younger women may report decreased desire as they experience their first relationship move away from the "honeymoon phase," for example.
     
    They may also not have experienced some of the benefits of longer-term relationships that may increase desire, such as going on romantic vacations, getting engaged, learning more about their sexual likes — and feeling comfortable sharing those likes with their partner. [5 Ways Relationships Are Good for Your Health]
     
    Murray added that the self-reported nature of the study could have also skewed the results. "It has been theorized that men may be less inclined to admit that they have low desire as this is considered against male gender norms and masculinity," she said. "Thus, it may be that men are not accurately reporting their level of desire and they may too experience a decrease." Murray is preparing to study whether men accurately report their levels of desire.
     
    Follow Jen Abbasi on Twitter @jenabbasi. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.
     
    Related on LiveScience:
     
    Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.

  • Most Comments Are Horrible—Sites Look for Ways to Make Them Better

    Most Comments Are Horrible—Sites Look for Ways to Make Them Better

    Jul 16, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

     

    Online news outlets realized long ago you can have an open commenting space or you can have intelligent conversations—but you can’t have both. Jesse Singal reports on the latest attempts to stem the flow of Internet bile.

     

    If you want a bracing look at just how infantile Internet comments get, you could do worse than glance at a recent Huffington Post article on Arizona’s immigration law.

     

    “IN AZ when I see an illegal i bump into his car, call the cops and watc wahts happens lol,” wrote “Come Out and playSB1070,” who, one hopes, is not an English teacher.

    “This is typical of left wing liars,” opined Bebescwho was apparently accusing President Obama of going soft on immigration. “These people are running this country into the ground with their lies and misinformation.”

    The screechiest liberals on the board didn’t do much better. “We don’t need no stinking Facts!” “Ex-Fed” wrote. “We have Rupert’s Fake News to tell us what to hate and what to fear. Life is so simple for the mouth breathing fox-bats out there, it’s like no thinking, and no homework, ever!”

    Suffice it to say there was not a lot of cogent discussion of immigration policy. And although moderators quickly started excising the worst of the worst comments, any intelligent discussion that might have approached this particular story page was likely scared off.

    Of course, since the beginning of the Internet, comments sections—which combine our love for barstool pontification with the allure of instant, worldwide publication—have always been a sort of digital Wild West, in which leathery cowboys are replaced by pasty people with names like RedDog1974 slouched before glowing screens in darkened rooms, shooting first and thinking later, if at all.

    The Huffington Post isn’t alone, of course, in enduring the fetid wave that is the vast majority of Internet commenting. Every major online-news site—The Daily Beast included—has its share of commenting issues. (Perhaps nowhere is the scene as bad as it is at YouTube, whose developers have acknowledged the problem and say they’re working on a solution.)

    So how should community managers tamp down the vitriol yet keep the discussion alive? Most larger online-news outlets realized long ago that you can have a fully open, democratic commenting space, or you can have intelligent conversations—but, generally speaking, you can’t have both.


    internet-commentors-singal

    Stockbyte / Getty Images

    Academic research into online civility backs this up. Kate Kennski, a political-communications researcher at the University of Arizona, is currently studying online behavior in discussion settings. She and her colleagues are still early in their research, but she did say that they’ve found that 15 to 20 percent of all online comments contain some form of name-calling. The level of vitriol varies from site to site, which buttresses the idea that social norms greatly impact online discourse. “Different communities as well as different boards do establish their own norms,” Kennski said.

    Community standards are surely an important part of it. Just as a neighborhood’s social norms have great power to determine residents’ behavior—do people throw trash on the street? blast loud music at all hours?—online communities are strongly shaped by the prevailing standards. Keep these standards high, it’s reasonable to assume, and an intelligent conversation will follow.

    In general, though, it’s become clear that the old model of anonymous free-for-all commenting is on its way out. News sites both large and small are requiring online commenters to post an identity, often by connecting them to a Facebook profile.

    “People, when they are anonymous, don’t feel the same level of responsibility for their actions,” Kennski said. “And when you know that your words can come back as a direct reflection of you, as something that can be carried around, you may decide to temper your comments in some way.”

    But some people will continue to spout invective even when their name is attached to their comments, and so larger news outlets, such as NPR, have instituted heavily moderated comment policies.

    Previously, the station’s website, npr.org, only intervened to moderate comments that readers had specifically flagged. But starting in March of last year the site introduced a new policy requiring all prospective commenters to endure a period of pre-moderation—that is, none of their comments go up before a moderator has had a look. Once the user’s first set of comments have passed muster, they’re able to comment freely and without moderation. But commenters who regularly and consistently flout the site’s commenting rules get put back on probation.

    A large part of the reasoning behind this approach, said Kate Myers, NPR’s product manager for social-media tools, is to weed out vitriolic drive-by commenters—people who are often referred to NPR by an outside link and who show up at an article just to cause trouble. “They’re not part of our regular, consistent community,” Myers said.

    Myers acknowledged that there are tradeoffs inherent in this approach, which runs counter to the Internet’s wide-open, anything-goes ethos. “We make those calculations and make those balances every time we talk about making changes,” she said. “Because we really are committed and believe in the idea of the free and open community. But we know that we want to have these sometimes conflicting goals of encouraging a safe space for people to comment and to have a civil discourse.”


    “It’s gotta be on-topic, first and foremost. If I’m moderating a comment thread on horse racing and someone says, ‘Obama sucks,’ that’s out immediately, and that happens quite a bit.”

    This all sounds very nice, but maintaining that safe space isn’t cheap. The New York Times, for instance, also employs a raft of moderators—three full-time and 10 part-time. One of the full-timers is Erin Wright, who has been a moderator for the Times for the past five years. Based in Philadelphia, she works from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. The job, she said, is “sort of like coming in and being a referee in the middle of the game.”

    Wright said she moderates between 500 and 600 comments on a given night and “easily 800-plus” on a big news night—or nearly two per minute. She lets through about 70 percent of the comments that come across her screen, she estimated. “It’s gotta be on-topic, first and foremost,” Wright said. “That’s what I look for immediately. If I’m moderating a comment thread on horse racing and someone says, ‘Obama sucks,’ that’s out immediately, and that happens quite a bit.”

    Wright also makes sure “there is no name-calling either of each other or any attacks on Times reporters or management, and that there’s a good, healthy dialogue from all sides.”

    Without moderators, Wright said, things would get ugly fast. “The stuff that we reject is pretty virulent,” she said. “People try to get the most disgusting comments through us.”

    Bassey Etim, the Times’ community manager, said his driving philosophy is that “when you’re coming to the Times, what you’re coming for is urbane and literate content, and there’s no reason for comments to be held to a lower standard than that.”

    “If your comment is incoherent, we don’t approve it,” he added. “If you use all caps we don’t approve that. If your comment is clearly just trolling we don’t approve that either.”

    ***

    But most news outlets don’t have the resources to hire a dedicated staff of comment moderators. One less costly approach, still in its early stages, is to use technological solutions which hold out the promise of making flame wars easier to ignore, if not quite eliminating them altogether.

    In 2009 Srikanth Narayan created tldr (Internet shorthand for “too long; didn’t read”) for his master’s thesis project at the Berkeley’s School of Information. Narayan told The Daily Beast he was inspired by the link-sharing site Reddit, which often features robust discussion.

    “I was on Reddit from the days it was starting out,” said Narayan, who now works at Tidemark Systems in San Francisco, “and what attracted me to Reddit was the community actively discussing all these stories that were coming out, and the quality of commentary that was building up.”

    But that quality got diluted as the site expanded into the behemoth it is today, he said. “There would be thousands of comments, and you would drown in all these comments.”

    Working with his adviser Coye Cheshire, Narayan developed tldr to help users navigate the maze of comments. The system examines the structure of a conversation—is it a lot of quick back-and-forth comments (suggesting a flame war), or longer posts?

    Employing this structural examination, and also taking into account the degree to which each comment gets upvoted or downvoted by other users, Narayan and Cheshire developed an elegant visualization system that makes it easy, even in a thread of thousands of comments or more, to see where (likely) productive conversation is going on and where things have devolved into a flame war.

    Each comment is portrayed as a block and color-coded to indicate whether it is popular or not. Replies stack downward, leading in some cases to long, stalactite-like structures. Users can gauge the tone of a discussion by its shape and color, allowing them to quickly jump down to the most productive parts of a given discussion.

    Using tldr, Narayan wrote in an email, “it is easy to discern threads where the discussion has tended to be verbose and expressive, or a thread where most of the comments are one-liner quips.”

    The nifty part of tldr is that it eliminates the need for costly moderators. The flamers can hurl invectives at each other all they want, but those seeking a productive discussion, empowered by a bird’s-eye “map” of the thread, can avoid getting sucked in.

    “You always know where there are flame wars happening,” said Narayan,” and you don’t need to look at them if you don’t want to, and you can just skip over them and go to the [conversations] you’re interested in.”

    ***

    For those who don’t have the money for moderators and don’t want to deal with trolls and flame wars, there’s always the nuclear option: turning off comments altogether. The most prominent blogger to have done this is probably The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan, one of the earliest bloggers, said his initial decision not to have a comments section was purely pragmatic: a dozen years ago, when blogging was in its infancy, no one knew how or why libel laws would apply, and Sullivan didn’t want a hotheaded commenter to land him in legal jeopardy.

    (In fact, federal law largely protects websites from liability over user-generated comments.)

    But he’s retained his no-comments policy despite financial incentives to do otherwise. “The one thing comments give you is easy pageviews,” he said. “Commercially, it makes sense to add comments simply by virtue of the fact that you have a little group of crazies who can build up your traffic just by their constant frenzy of fights.”

    Instead, Sullivan encourages an ongoing civil conversation his own way: by posting and responding to readers’ emails—particularly those that take him to task for this or that—in essence moderating a conversation that occurs not in a comments section, but on the blog itself.

    He and the team that now works for him realized that this could be a powerful method. “If we treated them right and we gave them space, they were very good writers,” he said. “I mean really smart, interesting, nuanced, knowledgeable people. So we decided that this is a great thing.”

    But don’t his readers get annoyed at not having a comments section? Three years ago or so he put it to a vote. “Our readers voted 2-to-1 against comments.

    “The good news is there really are people out there—readers, consumers—who don’t want the sort of propaganda scream-match flame wars of large amounts of the partisan blogosphere,” Sullivan said. “And if you give them a space to really bring their expertise or their stories or their lives, and make sure that it’s a safe space—you don’t abuse them, you don’t set them up for mockery, you respect each and every one—then I think we basically got an unpaid staff of about 1.3 million people.”

    Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

     

    Jesse Singal is a reporter at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He can be reached at Jesse.Singal@newsweekthedailybeast.com.

     

    For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast ateditorial@thedailybeast.com.

  • The Libor Scandal and Capitalism's Moral Decay

    The Libor Scandal and Capitalism's Moral Decay

     

     
     

    JUL 13 2012, 2:45 PM ET 1

     

    The scandal engulfing the financial industry is yet another sign that our business leaders no longer respect the rule of law. 

    615_Scales_of_Justice.jpg

    Reuters

    Maybe the acronym at the heart of the scandal is too confusing. Or Americans are simply tired of hearing about greedy bankers. By any measure, though, the Libor bank scandal is an extraordinary example of the 1 percent stealing from the 99 percent - and our crumbling ethics.

    If an organized crime group was accused of breaking into the Nassau County Treasurer's Office on New York's Long Island and stealing $13 million, outrage would be widespread. And if the same group was accused of stealing millions from the City of Baltimore and other struggling municipalities, they would emerge as an issue in the presidential campaign.

    Instead, the Libor scandal is emerging in dribs and drabs and drawing little public attention. The middle class is being victimized, and there is little protest.

    Last month, the British bank Barclays agreed to pay $453 million to American and British authorities to settle allegations that it manipulated key interest rates for profit between 2005 and 2009, specifically the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor. American and British investigators are now examining whether traders at a dozen other banks -- including the "too-big-to-fail" U.S. banks JPMorgan, Citibank and Bank of America -- also manipulated rates.

    It is hard to overstate the impact of the Libor benchmark, which is used to value some $360 trillion in loans and financial contracts worldwide. It affects lending to governments, businesses and consumers, and even student loan and credit card rates.

    So Barclays' victims weren't just other banks and traders. They included taxpayers in dozens of communities who are believed to have paid millions more in interest than they should have at the height of the financial crisis. Teachers and other public servants may have been laid off because of bankers' pursuit of ever-higher profits.

    Lawsuits filed by the City of Baltimore and dozens of other parties against Barclays, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank and Deutsche Bank have been consolidated into a single case in a New York federal court. Banks are denying any wrongdoing, and the true scope of the losses -- and the role of American banks -- is expected to emerge in the complex legal battles ahead.

    I do not believe all bankers are evil. I admire business owners who innovate, create jobs and strengthen communities. But theft -- whether the perpetrator is clad in a business suit or blue jeans -- is theft.

    And let's not kid ourselves. Our ethical decay stretches beyond Wall Street. It spans industries, political parties and groups. In April, systematic bribery by executives of the U.S.'s second-largest company - Walmart - was reported across Mexico. In June, American sports officials accused cyclist Lance Armstrong of engaging in a massive doping conspiracy. And Jesse Jackson Jr. appears to be the fifth member of Congress to be embroiled in an ethics scandal in two years.

    Around the world, a globalized economy is creating planetary-sized profits -- and relentless pressure. A May survey by Ernst & Young of 400 chief financial officers around the world found that a growing number of them were willing to pay bribes and falsify their firm's financial performance to survive the financial downturn.

    The number of chief financial officers who said they would engage in bribery to stay in business grew from 9 percent in 2011 to 15 percent in 2012. And the number who said they would misstate their company's financial health to get though a downturn rose from 3 percent in 2011 to 5 percent in 2012.

    "One of the most troubling findings of the survey is the widespread acceptance of unethical business practices," Ernst & Young said in a statement. "It is particularly alarming that respondents are increasingly willing to make cash payments."

    Corporate boards and other overseers, meanwhile, appear to be looking the other way. Eighty-one percent of those surveyed worldwide by Ernst & Young said anti-bribery and anti-corruption codes of conduct were in place in their companies. But nearly half said they did not believe employees had been punished for violating those polices.

    The same problem exists in American institutions. Senior executives at Walmart tried to bury internal reports of bribes being paid. Leaders of Congress continue to hand out shamefully light punishments to their peers, such as the 2010 censure of New York Representative Charles Rangel.

    And a report released today by former FBI Director Louis Freeh found that Joe Paterno and other senior leaders at Penn State covered up Jerry Sandusky's sexual abuse of children for over a decade to protect the university's multi-million dollar football program.

    Many columnists have said this before and many more will say it in the future. I am no paragon of virtue and I have made mistakes. But we can and must do better. Our moral decay threatens us.

    A liberal, capitalist democracy -- and a middle class -- can only thrive in a culture where the rule of law is respected, information is reliable and the playing field is as level as possible. If we abandon that, we lose much more than self-respect. We squander a way of life.

    This post originally appeared at Reuters.com, an Atlantic partner site.

     

    COPYRIGHT © 2012 BY THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY GROUP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

  • Exclusive Q&A with Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel13 Jul 2012

     
     

    Exclusive Q&A with Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel13 Jul 2012

    Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel customises a pair of jeans to be auctioned for charity, Berlin, Germany, July 2012Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel, Berlin, Germany, July 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing RB8. Formula One World Championship, Rd9, British Grand Prix, Race, Silverstone, England, Sunday, 8 July 2012Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel, Berlin, Germany, July 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing celebrates on the podium. Formula One World Championship, Rd9, British Grand Prix, Race, Silverstone, England, Sunday, 8 July 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing. Formula One World Championship, Rd9, British Grand Prix, Qualifying, Silverstone, England, Saturday, 7 July 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing. Formula One World Championship, Rd5, Spanish Grand Prix, Practice, Barcelona, Spain, Friday, 11 May 2012Kimi Raikkonen (FIN) Lotus and Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing, walk to the drivers parade. Formula One World Championship, Rd9, British Grand Prix, Race, Silverstone, England, Sunday, 8 July 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing RB8. Formula One World Championship, Rd9, British Grand Prix, Qualifying, Silverstone, England, Saturday, 7 July 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing. Formula One World Championship, Rd6, Monaco Grand Prix, Qualifying Day, Monte-Carlo, Monaco, Saturday, 26 May 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing RB8 on the grid. Formula One World Championship, Rd9, British Grand Prix, Race, Silverstone, England, Sunday, 8 July 2012Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel, Berlin, Germany, July 2012Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel customises a pair of jeans to be auctioned for charity, Berlin, Germany, July 2012Race winner Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing, kisses the trophy. Formula One World Championship, Rd4, Bahrain Grand Prix, Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir, Bahrain, Sunday, 22 April 2012Sebastian Vettel (GER) Red Bull Racing RB8. Formula One Testing, Mugello, Italy, Day Three, 3 May 2012

    In the build-up to his home Grand Prix in Germany next weekend, we caught up with Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel to discuss his hopes for Hockenheim, his 2012 title rivals and - more importantly - to get his thoughts on fame and fashion. Why fashion? Vettel was at Berlin’s iconic Bread & Butter fashion fair, getting to grips with a branding iron and some paint to help customise a pair of one-off jeans to be auctioned off to raise funds for the Wings for Life charity…

    Q: Formula One racing is a glamorous business. Do you consider yourself to be a fashionista?
    Sebastian Vettel: 
    Ha, to be honest fashion is not too high up on my agenda, but of course I do look at the mirror before I leave the house so I am not totally free of a vanity. (laughs) One thing is clear: my clothes have to be comfortable. Jeans and a t-shirt, with a shirt loosely worn over the top - these kind of things. When it comes to colours, I would count myself among the gutsier dressers. I definitely do like things colourful. 

    Q: What’s the craziest item of clothing you have bought?
    SV: 
    There has never been an ‘extreme’ purchase. I am not that kind of guy. I have always bought things that I will definitely wear. Actually, that’s not entirely true. I once bought an old-fashioned hat in my teens - I never wore it.

    Q: Finish the sentence. Clothes have to be…
    SV: 
    …comfortable, functional and, of course, they should look good. At least I hope they look good! (laughs)

    Q: If jeans are the mainstay of your wardrobe, which famous names do you associate with them?
    SV: 
    Well, I think everybody wears jeans. They are a global garment; a part of our everyday culture. Sure, it was different in the days of James Dean or Marlon Brando, as jeans back then were not the norm but the exception - rebel gear - so you could probably name them as the most famous poster boys for jeans. Today you can wear jeans to almost every occasion. At least I can! I still count myself below the age when you become a bit too old for that. 

    Q: What’s the age limit then?
    SV: 
    When you’re over 30 or so? Then the ‘every occasion’ should be narrowed down. 

    Q: What are the downsides to fame?
    SV: 
    What people don’t see. They see you in the car, see you racing, and if it works out for you they cheer you. But they don’t see what it takes to be at this level - the discipline, the daily training and toil, overcoming your inner temptations and struggling through tempers. Those are the physical challenges that the outside doesn’t see. But then there is also the intellectual challenge - in meetings with your engineers, to be at the same level of discussion as they are, to understand what is going on technically in an almost laboratory-like environment. All these aspects are hidden from the fans. They don’t appreciate it because they don’t see it. When you switch on the telly and see qualifying you might think that it’s much ado about nothing - just a few laps. But to get there is a 24/7 marathon for at least ten months.

    Q: Have you ever bought a fashion magazine?
    SV: 
    It might surprise you, but yes, I have. Several times. (laughs) 

    Q: So you are into high-end fashion magazines like Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar?
    SV: 
    Oops, I have to admit that I have never heard of the latter.

    Q: You are living your dream. How does it feel?
    SV: 
    Different than you might think. You have always dreamed about the racing and in that respect it cannot get bigger. But the life that goes with it you cannot dream about because you don’t know what it will be like. You can’t imagine in the slightest what comes your way. You are permanently travelling, have a 24/7 job, and have little time for yourself, and even less time for friends and family. Don’t get me wrong, I am not complaining as I love to live this life and if I had to choose all over again I would always pick this one, as I get the most satisfaction out of racing. I have never come across anything that would remotely give me the same level of fun. But I also have to admit that it comes with baggage and it seldom looks from the outside how it feels to live it. All that glitters isn’t gold! 

    Q: But you look pretty comfortable…
    SV: 
    …and I definitely am. I am in a lucky position and I hope that I do appreciate it enough. 

    Q: What makes Formula One racing glamorous? 
    SV: 
    I think Formula One and glamour go hand in hand, yes, but for me the sport, of course, takes priority. It’s more the fascination with the technical aspects, rather than the grid girl beside your car. That doesn’t mean that I never dare to take a look, but it is definitely not the highlight of my weekend! (laughs) 

    Q: Who do you think is cool? Brad Pitt, Barack Obama, Homer Simpson?
    SV: 
    Somebody who lives in his own way. If you follow the footsteps of others you will never leave marks. To judge Brad Pitt, for example, I would have to know him, which I don’t. What I admire is people who are grounded and resistant to all kinds of whisperings. Kimi Raikkonen, for example. You may like him or not, but he lives his way. He does the things he has identified as worthy for him and he is not trying to be everybody’s darling. At least he doesn’t give that impression.

    Q: Is Raikkonen the closest thing to a friend you have among your competitors? The two of you are often seen chatting together during the drivers’ parade…
    SV: 
    Yes. He is straightforward and honest and he tells you if he has a bad day. Period. He is real. He’s not political. He’s never up to something. If he doesn’t want to tell you something he will say so and not hum and haw. He doesn’t beat around the bush, never coming to the point. 

    Q: After years of being the darling of the media, you have felt a bit of head wind so far this season. Could that have a positive effect?
    SV: 
    I believe in the saying that you are never as good as others say you are - and not as bad. I would not go so far as to say that you should ignore all of it, but it should not influence you. My parameter is that you should be able to look in the mirror and be satisfied with what you see. I adore honesty and self-honesty. How easy and convenient would it be to say that the wheel came off and that’s why I flew off the track? But mistakes do happen and you have to stand tall through them and also apologise when it’s your fault. Like in Spa two years ago when I tried to overtake Jenson (Button) but lost the car and ruined both our races. It was natural that I went to him and apologised. I expect the same. It’s about respect. 

    Q: So far we’ve seen seven winners in nine races. Who would you say has the upper hand?
    SV: 
    At the moment it is still very competitive. There are a number of drivers performing on a similar level, as the results show. There are three of us within 29 points - after nine races. I think that the drivers who stand out right now are Fernando (Alonso) - he is one of the most complete drivers - and Lewis (Hamilton), who is very quick even though he was a bit unlucky in Silverstone. But then again there are plenty of others. Michael (Schumacher) is still in the game, as I don’t think that he’s lost it. The truth is that your performance is only as good as you and the package you have - and that can change every fortnight. So there are definitely more names to drop than just one. 

    Q: When it comes to the greats of the sport, would you judge them by the number of titles they’ve won?
    SV: 
    Yes - and no. Sure, success plays a huge part in our business. If you take names like Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna, Jackie Stewart or Niki Lauda for example, they all won numerous titles. But sometimes there are other names which remain in your memory because they had something extra. Everyone in Formula One is a quick driver, but then there have been guys who had that special something, who connected exceptionally well with the fans. Maybe they had a good sense of humour or could mock themselves. These things make these men linger in our memories even though their number of wins doesn’t match up to others…

    Q: Who would you class as one of these drivers?
    SV: 
    Jochen Rindt. He won one championship but he was someone that went far beyond that title. He was an icon - and not just for the German, Austrian or Swiss fans. He was probably the first Formula One ‘superstar’. He met the expectations of his time - and of course he was a flashy dresser! (laughs)

    Q: You have lived out of your suitcase for several years now. How at home do you feel?
    SV: 
    Sure, your suitcase becomes very dear to you. And with time packing becomes routine, of course. You never quite eliminate the mistake of taking too many things that in the end you don’t need. I think that is in a traveller’s DNA. (laughs) Overall I believe that being in Formula One is kind of the antithesis of being a holiday traveller. They look forward to getting on the plane, sleeping in a hotel, having a breakfast buffet in the morning, whereas we are happy to sleep for once in a while in our own bed and fumble around in our own kitchen. 

    Q: What must you never forget to pack?
    SV: 
    Toothbrush - and the white socks that immediately identify you as a German! (laughs) 

    Q: If you had one month to yourself how would you spend it?
    SV: 
    Definitely not jumping on a plane! I would spend some time with friends and family and for the rest of it I would take a tour either on foot or on a bike. Set a destination and then to go off cross-country. 

    Q: Your home Grand Prix at Hockenheim is just around the corner. Do you feel that you owe your fans something there?
    SV: 
    Sure, it is always a special race, no doubt. So it is different, yes. But on the other hand, you don’t get more points there so I will enjoy the weekend and do my best. That goes without saying…

    Q: But you would like to win it, wouldn’t you?
    SV: 
    Yes I would.

     

    Copyright. 2012. F1.com All Rights Reserved

  • Freeh Report: Penn St. hid key facts

     

     

    NCAA FB

     

    Freeh Report: Penn St. hid key facts

    Watch: Louis Freeh says Penn State officials hid key facts and failed to act.
     
     

    Watch: Louis Freeh says Penn State officials hid key facts and failed to act.

     
    SHARE THIS STORY
     

     
     

     

     
    UPDATED JUL 12, 2012 7:21 PM ET
         

     

    STATE COLLEGE, PA. (AP)

    Joe Paterno and other top Penn State officials buried child sexual abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky more than a decade ago to avoid bad publicity, according to a scathing report Thursday that exposed a powerful ''culture of reverence'' for the football program and portrayed the Hall of Fame coach as more deeply involved in the scandal than previously thought.

     


    FREEH REPORT

    Read the complete Freeh reportwith findings regarding how much Penn State university leaders knew of Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse.

     

    The alleged cover-up by Paterno, then-university President Graham Spanier and two other Penn State administrators allowed Sandusky to prey on other boys for years, said the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who was hired by the university's trustees to investigate.

    He called the officials' behavior ''callous and shocking.''

    ''Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State,'' Freeh said at a news conference in Philadelphia upon the release of the 267-page report. ''The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.''

    The findings of the $6.5 million, eight-month investigation into one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports could further stain Paterno's reputation. The revered coach who emphasized integrity both on and off the field and ran what was considered one of the cleanest programs in sports died of lung cancer in January at age 85, months after he was summarily fired by the trustees.

    Freeh said that while he regretted the damage the findings would do to Paterno's ''terrific legacy,'' the coach ''was an integral part of this active decision to conceal,'' and his firing was justified.

    Asked whether the actions of the four officials amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be a matter for a grand jury to decide.

    In a statement, Paterno's family strongly denied he protected Sandusky for fear of bad publicity.

     

     

    Four of the most powerful people at The Pennsylvania State University — President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno — failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.

     

    The Freeh Report

     

    ''The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept. The far more realistic conclusion is that many people didn't fully understand what was happening and underestimated or misinterpreted events,'' the family said. ''Sandusky was a great deceiver. He fooled everyone.''

    The findings could have consequences for the criminal case against Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and retired senior vice president Gary Schultz, who are awaiting trial on charges of failing to report abuse and lying to a grand jury. In addition, the Pennsylvania attorney general's office is still investigating the scandal, and others could be charged.

    Sandusky, a former member of Paterno's coaching staff, is awaiting sentencing after being convicted last month of sexually abusing 10 boys over 15 years.

    Freeh and his team, which included lawyers and former law enforcement officials, interviewed more than 430 people and examined more than 3.5 million emails, handwritten notes and other documents. Paterno died before he could be interviewed but testified before a grand jury.

    The investigation focused largely on the university officials' decision not to go to child-welfare authorities in 2001 after a coaching assistant told Paterno that he had seen Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the locker room showers.

    Paterno and the others gave various explanations for their decision, saying among other things that they misunderstood the allegations, that they did the best they could and that this was the ''humane'' way to handle the matter.

    But the Freeh report said: ''It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university - Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the university's board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large.''

    A number of other factors contributed to the decision to keep quiet, the report found, including ''a culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community.''

    Spreading the blame around, the report also said the trustees failed to exercise oversight and didn't inquire deeply into the matter when they finally learned of it.

    Spanier's lawyers Thursday denied Spanier took part in a cover-up and said Freeh's conclusion ''is simply not supported by the facts.'' Spanier was ousted along with Paterno four days after Sandusky's arrest last November.

     

    FOX SPORTS POLL

     
    • In light of Freeh Report, does Penn St. football deserve death penalty?
      • Yes
      • No
     

     

    Attorneys for Curley and Schultz said that the investigation was flawed and that their clients would prove their innocence in court. Curley lawyer Caroline Roberto called it a ''lopsided document that leaves the majority of the story untold.''

    Freeh said officials had opportunities in 1998 and 2001 to step in.

    In 1998, police investigated after a woman complained that her son had showered with Sandusky. The investigation did not result in charges. But the emails show Paterno clearly followed the 1998 case, Freeh said. University officials took no action at the time to limit Sandusky's access to campus.

    Then, after the 2001 report of Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the showers, university officials barred him from bringing children to campus but decided not to report him to child-welfare authorities.

    Some of the most damning evidence against Paterno consists of handwritten notes and emails that portray him as having been involved in that decision.

    According to the report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up an ''action plan'' that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind about the plan ''after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe.'' Instead, Curley proposed to offer Sandusky ''professional help.''

    In an email, Spanier agreed with that course of action but noted ''the only downside for us is if the message isn't (heard) and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.''

    Freeh suggested it was Paterno's intervention that kept administrators from going to authorities. ''Based on the evidence, the only known intervening factor ... was Mr. Paterno's Feb. 26 conversation with Mr. Curley,'' Freeh said.

     

     

    Michael Boni, a lawyer for a boy known as Victim 1, called the report a ''serious indictment against Penn State's culture and environment of protecting at all costs the football program.'' He added: ''Nothing is shocking anymore in this case ... but the fact that the highest levels of the school made a conscious decision to cover up what Sandusky had done, it comes close. It is shocking.''

    Karen Peetz, chairwoman of the trustees, said the board ''accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred.'' She said the panel believes Paterno's ''61 years of excellent service to the university is now marred'' by the scandal.

    The report chronicled a culture of silence that extended from the president down to the janitors in the football building. Even before 1998, football staff members and coaches regularly saw Sandusky showering with boys but never told their superiors about it. In 2000, after a janitor saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in the team shower, he told his co-workers. None of them went to police for fear of losing their jobs.

    Reporting the assault ''would have been like going against the president of the United States in my eyes,'' a janitor told Freeh's investigators. ''I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone.'' He went on to assert that ''football runs this university.''

    According to the report, Sandusky was permitted to retire from the university in 1999 ''not as a suspected child predator but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy,'' thus ensuring his access to football events and campus facilities. That, in turn, ''provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims.''

    Sandusky received what Freeh called an unprecedented lump sum of $168,000 when he retired. But the former FBI chief said there was no evidence it was an attempt by the university to buy Sandusky's silence.

    The report could influence investigations under way at the NCAA and at the U.S. Education Department, which is examining whether the university violated the Clery Act, a federal law that requires reporting of certain crimes on campus. The Freeh report said Penn State apparently failed to comply with the law. Neither the Education Department nor the NCAA would comment directly on the report.

     

     

    George Enteen, a retired professor of Russian history, called the Freeh report a ''terrible mark'' on the character of Paterno, a man he otherwise respected as someone who raised a lot money for Penn State and elevated the school's reputation and academic quality.

    ''The worst suspicions were borne out,'' Enteen said. Paterno, he added, ''was the key figure. If he had said, `Report it,' they would have.'' But he said: ''It doesn't negate all the good things he did.''

    Christian Beveridge, a masonry worker who grew up near Penn State, said the findings will damage Paterno's legacy.

    ''He built this town,'' Beveridge said. ''All of his victories, he'll be remembered by everyone in town for a long time, but there will be that hesitation.''

    Scott Berkowitz, president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, said the hard-hitting report ''is opening people's eyes to the potential liability that schools face if they don't address this correctly.''

    ''Heads of every college and university in the country have got to be taking note of this, and calling board meetings today and saying, `We need to make sure that we change the way we're doing things,''' he said.

      • © 2012 Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC. All rights reserved