Another great TED Talk from the archives: Peter Donnelly on statistics. Don't be scared, it's totally accessible and engaging. Trust me, I was an English geek, math ain't my strong suit. Coincidentally, this also crossed my path today, from Nature, The Science Of Doping.

My wife found this browsing The Onion's back catalog (from last year, posted about a month after the tour concluded): Non-Doping Cyclists Finish Tour de France. Hysterical. I won't ruin it by posting any of the funny bits here, but wait until you get to quote that comes right AFTER this bit:

"It became most difficult for us on the 7th stage, which was almost 200 kilometers and the first stage through the mountains," Kvistik said while accepting the non-doping victor's 100-franc check from his stretcher.

On the serious side, today Mark Sisson reposted on his site his piece, Should We Allow Drugs in Sports? I linked to it before when it was hosted on Art De Vany's site, but it's worth the re-link. Whether you agree with the conclusions or not, it's a must-read. Very thought-provoking.

In light of the Floyd Landis test result, this Sisson/De Vany post is worth linking up again for your consideration. After you read that for background, then go ahead to the latest Sisson/De Vany bit on Landis specifically.

I promise I'll get back to real posts after just these few more quick links that caught my sportsman's (such as I am) eye:

• Agassi to retire after Wimbledon, U.S. Open. A great champion, and being the oldest guy to hold the #1 ranking is very inspiring in a sport that tends to retire 'em young.
• Chessboxing!
• Fascinating steroids perspective over at De Vany's blog, from a guy with some noteworthy qualifications:

  I should tell you that I was the Anti-doping Commissioner of the International Triathlon Union (ITU) - a relatively new sport within the Olympic Family - for nearly 13 years. I had to act as "prosecutor" on many doping cases (doping = drugs in sport). Prior to that, I helped write the first set of "anti-doping" rules for triathlon in 1988. Before that, I was an elite marathoner (2:18) and triathlete (4th Place Ironman Hawaii) in the '70s and '80s, so I have accumulated a fair amount of "inside information" regarding drugs in sport at the Olympic level. I also own a supplement company and have done extensive research on performance enhancement in pursuit of natural, legal alternatives.

I really just wanted to write about contacts, but coincidentally this "If steroids are cheating, why isn't LASIK?" piece came across my desk today, so I'm tweaking the headling to reflect its presence here. Very interesting. Now, on to contacts...

This post will be useless to many of you, as I assume most glasses-wearers out there made the shift to contacts years ago. But in case you are like I was—in short, an ocular Luddite—here's my experience.

Growing up, I had terribly sensitive and allergic eyes, and the thought of purposefully sticking anything in them was repellent. So for years and years I just wore glasses. For something ridiculous like 14 years of Ultimate the prospect of tournament rain would put me in a funk, because there's nothing worse than trying to play through rain-spattered and fogged glasses. Finally, a few years ago when I decided to try to get my game back, get back in shape, etc., I decided to bite the bullet. No way I was going to train hard only to have key tourneys ruined for me by capricious northeastern weather (leave the ruination to my capricious ankles).

Y'know what? Contacts are easy now. Back when I was a kid watching my mom deal with version 1.0 of contacts contributed to scaring me off. I took note of all the fussing and cleaning, and I remember how long it took her to adjust to these hard plastic discs floating on her corneas. Now the one-day models are so flimsy and wet they almost feel like they are made out of eyeball material (my eye doc says they're actually mostly water). Once they're in, there's no irritation at all, even on your very first wearing. At something like $0.60 per lens they are relatively expensive, but still dirt cheap if you just want to wear them for tourneys, as I do.

So these days tourney rain just makes me grumpy because I'd rather be dry, not because I can't see. Improved peripheral vision is a nice bonus as well. Anyway, if you've been holding out, you should definitely make the switch.

Oh, there's a catch. Isn't there always? You'll have to get an eye exam, so that might be a bit pricey, depending on your insurance. I think I paid like $150-$200 with no insurance. Also, your contacts prescription is only good for a year or two (might vary from state to state) so you'll have to keep getting exams every couple years to replenish your supply (you can get refills for as long as your prescription is good though). More information here on why this is necessary.

Art De Vany reposts a letter in defense of Barry Bonds. I think I'm going to have to read his paper.