Lance Armstrong [sort of] Comes Clean - May Testify Against UCI and WADA Officials

Leaks from last night's Oprah interview with Lance Armstrong are all over the Internet (the interview is scheduled to air on Thursday). It seems Armstrong offered a limited admission to using to performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) during his career.

However, the bigger news is that he plans to testify against officials of the International Cycling Union, the governing body of professional cycling, about their involvement with doping in cycling, but he apparently will not testify against other riders.

Part of his motivation in testifying is that he is named in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Floyd Landis, a former teammate, who filed the case in 2010 against Armstrong and other principals of the Postal Service team (where he and Armstrong were teammates). Landis's lawsuit claims US Postal and Armstrong "defrauded the government because its riders used performance-enhancing drugs in violation of its sponsorship contract." Armstrong could be liable for millions of dollars in damages if the Justice Department decides to join the case (they are close to making a decision).

According to CBS News, Armstrong and possibly his longtime agent, Bill Stapleton, has offered to repay several millions of dollars of the more than $30 million the Postal Service spent sponsoring the team, as part of their cooperation as witnesses in the case, which would seem to be his way to avoid being named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit.

It seems Armstrong has met with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) including its chief executive, Travis Tygart, to discuss what he needs to do to lessen the punishment against him so that he can compete in running and triathlon events from which he is banned under the ruling that stripped him of his racing titles.

Armstrong Admits Doping, and Says He Will Testify

By JULIET MACUR
Published: January 14, 2013

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey that is scheduled for broadcast on her network on Thursday, Lance Armstrong confessed that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career, according to two people briefed on the interview, which was recorded Monday in Austin, Tex.

It is unclear, though, how forthcoming Armstrong was about his doping program, which the United States Anti-Doping Agency has said was part of the most sophisticated, organized and professional doping scheme in the history of sports. Armstrong, when reached by e-mail Monday, said he could not discuss the interview.

Acknowledging his doping past has cleared the way for Armstrong to take the next step in trying to mitigate his lifetime ban from Olympic sports. He is planning to testify against several powerful people in the sport of cycling who knew about his doping and possibly facilitated it, said several people with knowledge of the situation.

Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, about their involvement with doping in cycling, but he will not testify against other riders, according to the people familiar with his plans.

He is also in discussions with the United States Department of Justice to possibly testify in a federal whistle-blower case. That case involves the cycling team sponsored by the United States Postal Service, and Armstrong would testify against several of the team’s owners, including the investment banker Thom Weisel, and other officials, one person close to the situation said. That person did not want his name published because the case is still open.

Floyd Landis, one of Armstrong’s former teammates, filed the whistle-blower case in 2010 against Armstrong and other principals of the Postal Service team on which he and Armstrong competed together for several years. Landis claimed the team defrauded the government because its riders used performance-enhancing drugs in violation of its sponsorship contract.

Now Armstrong and possibly his longtime agent, Bill Stapleton, are seeking to repay several millions of dollars of the more than $30 million the Postal Service spent sponsoring the team, as part of their cooperation as witnesses in the case, said the person with knowledge of the matter. (CBS News first reported Armstrong was in talks to return money to the Postal Service.) The Department of Justice is considering whether to join the case as a plaintiff and is close to making that decision, the person said.

Armstrong, who for more than a decade vehemently denied doping, would be willing to testify against the cycling union officials and his former team’s officials because he badly wants to compete in triathlons and running events again. Last fall, he was barred from many of those events because they are sanctioned by organizations that follow the World Anti-Doping Code, the rules under which he is serving his lifetime ban. Armstrong said that lifetime ban was unfair.

He met with United States Anti-Doping Agency officials, including Travis Tygart, the agency’s chief executive, last month to discuss what he needed to do to mitigate his ban. Several people with knowledge of the discussions said Tygart would be willing to reduce Armstrong’s punishment if Armstrong would testify against the people who helped him dope. That would possibly include Pat McQuaid, the president of the cycling union, and Hein Verbruggen, who was the cycling union’s president from 1991 to 2005, a time when doping in the sport was rampant. Verbruggen, who is close with the International Olympic Committee president, Jacques Rogge, is also the cycling union’s honorary president and an honorary member of the I.O.C.

David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said in a telephone interview Monday that he would not believe that Armstrong would testify in other cases to help clean up the sport until it happens.

“This guy is an enigma and nobody really knows what he is going to do, no matter what he says,” Howman said. “I think he’s got his own demons to deal with, but nothing can be done about his lifetime ban when he hasn’t done anything to help us yet.”

Last fall the United States Anti-Doping Agency called Armstrong the kingpin of the doping program on his Tour de France winning teams when it made public evidence that he had doped and had encouraged his teammates to dope. During his interview with Winfrey, Armstrong rebutted the claim that he was a leader of the doping program, saying he just did what his teammates were doing, according to the two people who did not want their names published because they are not authorized to speak about the interview.

Before heading to the Winfrey interview in downtown Austin, Armstrong stopped at the headquarters of his cancer charity, Livestrong, and apologized to the staff. He told them he was sorry for letting everyone down and for putting so much stress on the organization because of his doping scandal.

He did not confess to using performance-enhancing drugs, but spoke for about 20 minutes in the organization’s boardroom, eliciting tears from some of the employees, said Rae Bazzarre, a spokeswoman for Livestrong.

“It was emotional and he choked up for a moment,” she said. “But we were all glad to see him.”

Armstrong had not been at the headquarters since Oct. 21, Bazzarre said, about two weeks before he resigned from Livestrong’s board of directors.


A version of this article appeared in print on January 15, 2013, on page B11 of the New York edition with the headline: Armstrong Will Implicate Officials.

Andy Hinds on His Experience in Hanna Rosin's The End of Men

In an interview with Lisa O'Kelly in The Guardian (UK), Hanna Rosin says she feels miscast in the gender wars, despite the incendiary title of her book, The End of Men. O'Kelly asks her about the stereotyping she employs in the book (men as lazy, women as achievers), and Rosin confesses that it's a fair criticism, but she also defends it:

How do you respond to critics who accuse you of 21st-century stereotyping in your portrayal of women as organised go-getters and men as lazy, unambitious couch potatoes?

I actually think that is a fair criticism. I was trying to capture a certain little slice of society, so I was intentionally looking for couples who exemplified the changing dynamic and it was only when I put the whole thing together that I realised there was an echo in couple after couple. At the very end of the book, I do talk about men's capacity for flexibility, especially at key moments in history, such as the end of both world wars. But it's true that as a series of portraits it does emit certain stereotypes and I don't know what to say about that. I'll have to fix that in my next book.

Someone who no doubt agrees that he was stereotyped - and even caricatured - is Andy Hines, one of the subjects for her research who feels he was misrepresented in the book. He writes about it in a recent column at The Daily Beast. Hines writes at his personal blog, Beta Dad, as well as DadCentric, Aiming Low.

Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men Turned Me Into a Caricature

Sep 29, 2012 

I’m a happy and satisfied stay-at-home dad. So why did Hannah Rosin turn my story upside down for her bestselling polemic? Andy Hinds calls the author and asks her.

Last year, I responded to a survey on Slate that asked readers in marriages where the wife earned more money about their relationships with their spouses. The survey was conducted by Hannah Rosin, in connection with an article she was writing about “breadwinning wives.” The survey results were eventually incorporated into her bestselling book, The End of Men: And the Rise of Women.

If you haven’t read it already, The End of Men essentially argues that men in the United States (and pretty much everywhere else) are falling behind women in all facets of life. In school and in the workplace, women have made huge strides over the past few decades, while men have failed to adapt to the new economic and social realities that have obliterated “a power arrangement that’s prevailed for most of history.” Furthermore, according to Rosin, even as we men quickly ebb into marketplace obsolescence, those of us with families continue to be slacker manchildren in the home, unable to overcome sloppy parenting, haphazard home economics, and fealty to bro culture.

After I took her survey last year, Rosin contacted me directly, which led to an email exchange and then a long telephone interview in which I spilled my guts about my experience as a stay-at-home dad to toddler twins.

We spoke for over an hour about the joys and challenges of parenting, about perceptions of masculinity, about my relationship with my wife, and about my and my wife’s backgrounds. Among other topics, we discussed the fact that, despite growing up in a military family, I have parents who enthusiastically support the decisions my wife and I have made regarding our parenting roles. Likewise, my very traditional Vietnamese immigrant in-laws have no qualms with our domestic arrangements.

Rosin seemed surprised and impressed at this, yet she continued to press me for evidence to support her theory: marital tensions, awkward encounters with moms on the playground, feelings of shame at my own gender betrayal, and so on.

The reality: As I told Rosin, I’ve never been happier or more comfortable in my own skin than I have during my three-year stint staying home with my kids. I said there are moments of frustration and fatigue, of course, but when I consider how I feel about my place in the “new gender landscape,” I feel my life is a tremendous success.

Then I saw the book. Here’s how Rosin characterized our talk (as well as in a more recent Slate piece, “I Ain’t Sayin’ He’s a Gold Digger”): 

... It was clear from my dozens of interviews that there are tensions under the surface. A power arrangement that’s prevailed for most of history does not fade without a ripple. In many cases I heard the same old marriage anxieties, only they showed up in the reverse gender. Andy, a stay-at-home dad in San Jose, Calif., had to cancel several appointments with me because he couldn’t get his twins to sleep. Before he stayed home with his kids, he was a carpenter. His wife is a physician, and because she makes so much more money it made sense for him to take the parenting lead. Andy likes watching the toddlers, but he is wistful about his old life, and somewhat defensive about his new one.

The feelings flood over him when he passes construction crews while taking the twins on a walk: What would it be like to work with a group of guys up on a roof again? What adventures is his wife having while he’s wiping off bibs? When his wife and her doctor friends rib him about staying home, he over-aggressively pulls the manual labor card: “How about I come over and help you put that Ikea furniture together, Mr. Doctor?” It’s the old Betty Friedan identity crisis, only in masculine form. These days when his wife suggests that he should go back to work, Andy feels “terrified.” It’s been a long time, and he’s lost the stomach for the outside world.

I laughed out loud when I read this description of me. Despite our wide-ranging conversation about the richness of my life since I became a father and a fulltime caregiver, Rosin had rendered me as a hapless stock character in her tableau of post-masculine despair.

Let me make a few clarifications.

Read the whole article, including his conversation with Rosin about her portrayal of him in the book.

Michael Castleman - Men Fake Orgasms, Too

This seems to me to be a risk of the casual sex trend - too much to drink (or drug), the newness of the partner, or even prescription medications (like antidepressants) all can make orgasm seem unlikely or impossible.

In a committed relationship, with trust and openness, faking it should never be necessary (or even an option). A little honesty goes a long way when we are clear that it's not about our partner, but about our own exhaustion, racing mind, or lack of emotional closeness (yes, some men need this, too, to relax into sexual expression).  If it is about your partner, it's time for a talk.

But when it's casual, or friends with benefits, no reason to hurt the other person's feelings, I guess.

Men Fake Orgasms, Too

Men faking orgasm? Unheard of! Well, no, not exactly. 

 

Published on February 14, 2012 by Michael Castleman in All About Sex

Over the past 40 years, many surveys have asked women if they've ever faked an orgasm, and consistently, half to two-thirds (53 percent to 65 percent) have said yes they have at least once.

But men faking orgasm? That's unheard of. Well, no, not exactly. Many sex therapists offer anecdotal reports, and a 1981 study of 280 college students (185 women and 95 men) showed the familiar rate among women (60 percent)—and faking by 36 percent of the men. But that was the only real study, until recently.

In 2010, researchers at the University of Kansas asked 281 undergraduates (180 men and 101 women) to complete an anonymous sex survey that included questions about faking orgasm. Consistent with previous findings, two-thirds of the women (67 percent) said they'd pretended at least once—and 28 percent of the men said the same.

While not a nationally representative sample, the participants included a reasonable demographic cross-section of college students: largely white, but some Asian, Hispanic, and African-American, and largely heterosexual, but some gay/lesbian or bi. Pretenders and non-pretenders reported generally similar sexual experience, but the fakers were more experienced, so they'd had more opportunities to pretend. Fakers were also sexually more adventurous, reporting more masturbation, oral sex, and anal play.

Most faking took place in established relationships (78 percent of the women, 53 percent of the men), but it also occurred among dating couples (2 percent of women, 16 percent of men), friends with benefits (10 percent and 9 percent), and casual hook-ups (10 percent, 16 percent).

No women faked it with men they'd just met, but 7 percent of the men did with new women acquaintances.

Most faking took place during vaginal intercourse (55 percent of the women, 80 percent of the men), but some occurred during oral sex (8 percent, 11 percent), or other unspecified sexual play (37 percent, 8 percent).

Women's pretending was rarely linked to alcohol, but men's was. Two percent of the women had some alcohol before faking orgasm and 6 percent said they were drunk. Meanwhile, 11 percent of the men had been drinking and 24 percent claimed they were drunk.

Faked orgasms typically involved acting—moaning, hip thrusting, and thrashing about in an effort to fool the partner. Young women's acting often tricks young men because guys with limited sexual experience may not recognize the pelvic muscle contractions of real female orgasms.

But men's orgasms produce visible evidence, semen, so how can men fake it? Condoms are often the key. Men thrust and moan, and then deftly discard the condom before the women notice there's nothing in it. But the men who'd pretended didn't always use condoms, so it seems that some college-age women are as clueless about men's orgasms as men can be about women's. As one man recalled about faking it: "She was like, well, did you get off? And I was like, yeah."

Men and women fake orgasms for similar reasons:

• Orgasm was taking too long or wasn't going to happen: women, 71 percent; men, 84 percent.
• They wanted the sex to end:  61 percent and 82 percent.
• They wanted to avoid hurting the partner's feelings: 69 percent and 47 percent.
• They felt bored, or tired, or sleepy, or no longer in the mood for sex: 56 percent and 72 percent.

This study confirms the previous research that a majority of women have faked orgasm at least once, and it corroborates the one previous study that men also fake it. Based on these two studies, it seems somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of college-age men have faked it, meaning that men pretend to have orgasms about half as much as women.

Have YOU ever faked orgasm? I'm especially hoping for comments from men. Why? And how did you explain the lack of semen? Or did you? I'm also interested in reports of faking by people older than college age. Is anything about faking different for older lovers?

The study: Muehlenhard, C. and S.K. Shippee. "Men's and Women's Reports of Pretending Orgasm," Journal of Sex Research (2010) 47:552.

We Must Own Our Mistakes - And Face the Consequences with Strength

One of my clients told me about this Today Show segment with a former star of the TV series Prison Break, Lane Garrison. In less than 30 minutes (in 2006) he made a series of mistakes that cost a teen boy his life and landed Garrison in jail for 40 months - after he pleaded guilty to all changes against him.

He did a horrible thing - and a family lost their son. As Garrison admits, he deserved the jail time. But while most kids his age (he was 26) would have fought the charges and tried to plead them down, he stood there in front of the judge and court and the cameras and said, "Yes, I am guilty."

That takes courage and strength. We all mess up, seldom as bad as that, but do we own the mistakes and face the consequences? Would we "man up," as Garrison calls it in the interview, if we were in that same spot he was in?

I'd like to think I would, but I'm not sure I would be that strong.

'Prison Break' star not free from pain of actions

Lane Garrison owned up to deadly accident but wishes he could make it better with family of dead teen

By Courtney Hazlett

TODAY.com

updated 4/18/2011

In 2006, actor Lane Garrison, then best known for his role on “Prison Break,” made 26 minutes worth of terrible, tragic decisions.

At a supermarket near his home in Beverly Hills, Calif., he accepted an invitation from star-struck high schoolers to go to a party. He went, he drank and then he left the party with three teens to get more alcohol. While driving, Garrison jumped a curb in his Land Rover at about 50 mph and hit a tree. The accident killed Vaughn Setian, a 17-year-old Beverly Hills High School student, and injured two 15-year-old girls.

When the time came to go to trial, Garrison did something you don’t often see celebrities do: he owned up to his actions. On May 21, 2007, he pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter, drunken driving and providing alcohol to a minor. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison. For the first time since his 2009 release, the actor spoke about the experience Monday, on TODAY with Matt Lauer.

But Garrison has more to say about his experiences. He wants young people to know what life is really like behind bars and that not being able to contact the Setian family has been one of the most difficult parts of the experience.

“I wish I could have talked a little bit more about what life was like inside prison so that people could understand the consequences of their actions. Really see what’s going on inside of a prison, inside of a jail — which obviously I put myself in,” Garrison said after his TODAY interview. “Waking up in a cell covered in ants and roaches. Being tortured by guards. Not having anything but four walls. One of the things about jail that’s weird is that you’re sent to a place where you’re supposed to sit there and think about your actions and their consequences and why you’re there. And I think now, it turns more into — the minute you go there, it’s just survival.”

Survival is one thing. Knowing you’re wholly responsible for a family’s grief is an added challenge. “There’s a family that doesn’t have their son. The least of my worries was doing jail time. The whole notion that I was responsible for someone losing their life, that’s what really ate me up inside,” Garrison said. “This is something that I am never going to get over, they’re never going to get over.”

Getting through prison — eight different prisons, in fact — was something Garrison did by making the choice to be a “bright light in a dark place.”

“These people were in so much pain, no matter what crime they committed — and I didn’t ask, because in there you’re all the same. You’re a number, not a name. Most guys can’t leave, they can’t write, their parents were drug dealers and they were doing drops for them on their way to school by the time they were 11 years old. They’ve never had one chance, let alone two,” Garrison said.

“There were days in there that I felt, ‘how can I help these guys?’” At one point the actor organized a talent show. As president of the substance abuse program at one prison, he was able to use the program’s budget to get a Thanksgiving dinner delivered. Garrison recalls the reaction he got afterward: “There was a man over in the corner and he calls me over and is sobbing. He’d been locked up for 15 years. And he said ‘I want to thank you so much for doing this for us. Just the smell of real food gave me back all the memories of my family that I’d forgotten. I haven’t smelled real food in 15 years.’ And there are days like that that I’d think, I’m in here for a reason.”

Through all of this, Garrison wishes that he could have contact with the family of the young man he killed. Through his attorneys, he has reached out to the family. During the trial, Garrison was ordered to not make contact with the victims, which was difficult for him.

“It was eating me up inside. I literally wanted to scream. Walking into a courtroom and having the family right there and not being able to say anything literally made me go insane,” he recalled. “I just wanted to scream and say this is who I am; this is who I’m not. If you want to slap me, punch me, whatever. I just wanted some kind of contact with them. I pray to God that over time, that will happen.”

In the meantime, Garrison is moving forward with his life, but that too is taking time. After his April 29, 2009, release, it took him about a year to be able to function on a level close to normal, much less work. “My nervous system was shot. You’re desensitized after, by all that you’ve seen. And as an actor, that’s the worst thing you can be. To be a good actor you have to feel life, and observe life. And it felt like I came back from war. It took me about a year to adapt, to hug someone, to be able to tell someone I love you. Or even be able to hold a coffee cup. Post-prison, I was jittery.”

Garrison is currently appearing on a multi-episode arc on “The Event,” his first television work since his release (he’s also written a screenplay, “One Heart,” and participated in “Graduation Day,” a PSA about drinking and driving).

“It’s amazing,” he says of being back at work. “I want to do it every day. When I show up on set, I feel like, ‘this is my home. I’m supposed to be here.’ There is nothing better to me.”

Regardless of where Garrison’s career takes him, he is certain about the events of December 2006. “There was no other choice than to say, ‘I’m guilty. I made a bad decision.’ This family is in pain because of me,” he said. “I’m just trying to tell people what it’s like so they don’t make the same mistakes.”

Tags: morality, integrity, honesty, maturity, men, mistakes, Today Show, NBC, former star, TV series, Prison Break, Lane Garrison, alcohol, drunk driving, death, manslaughter, regret, jail, prison, guilt plead, own our mistakes, consequences, courage, strength

Open Practice - Owning Our Parts with Integrity

Yesterday, I posted an Onion "article" here that made fun of how easily distracted men are by naked women, and how stupid the political polling process appears very often. The article was funny and it was good satire.

However, I felt the need to somehow justify and rationalize my choice to post it, rather than simply honor the adolescent part of me that enjoyed the humor and picture of an attractive naked woman. One of my Facebook friends called me on that disconnect. As soon as she made her comment, which resulted in a variety of responses from others, I knew she was right.

Here is my response to the conversation, where I try to own my parts and the disconnect I revealed - and do it with as much integrity as I can:

this is what happens when my inner adolescent gets a little free reign

seriously: when I first read Liz's comments, my felt sense was *shit, I hate when I act without consciousness* - and then my response was, *thank [fill in the deity of yo...ur choice] I have friends who will give me a gentle slap upside the head when I am not being conscious*

I see a lot of pieces of the truth in the various responses - yes, the NSFW should have been disclaimer enough - and yes, my extra words reveal some need to make myself seem "better than" the silly adolescent who found the article (and the image) amusing - better I should just honor the impulse and not do what Liz correctly observed in rationalizing it to myself or my readers

I appreciate the conversation and the growth opportunity (for me) that this errant post provided

it's good to have good friends :)

In a personal communication to Liz, the friend who saw my disconnect and did what good friends do, called me on it, I said this:

Mostly, I'm thankful that you risked the ensuing [conversation] to call me out when I acted in a manner that is less than who I am capable of being - your perspective on my need to rationalize the post was spot on and very useful to me - I was NOT in alignment, and I was not conscious of what my motivations were, so you pointing that out helps me grow

I really do make an effort to own and honor the various parts of myself - and when I don't, I hope my friends feel safe enough with me to call me on it, so BIG LOVE to you for being one of those friends

This last paragraph is the important part - owning our parts and our actions. Try as we might, we will all make mistakes, so this is where friends - real friends who are willing to risk denial to serve our growth - are so important.

For many men, the only place they can find this is in men's groups - where men work to develop both the fearlessness to be vulnerable in their "shadow" stuff, and the courage to stand in truth when someone is not in alignment.

I am fortunate to have friends, both in meatspace and the virtual space, who will do this for me. It's a huge gift, and I am so very grateful.

Most importantly, I wanted to share this with my readers as a form of Open Practice, a way to be transparent in my own personal growth. To me, it's important that men model these things for each other as a support for doing this kind of work.

So, my apologies to you, the reader, for not being in full awareness and alignment with my desire to have this blog be an honest place of mature masculinity. I can still express and honor my adolescent parts (they are welcome in the conversation), but I want to do so without trying to rationalize them, which only serves to deny their unique truth.

Tags: open practice, shadow work, friendship, honesty, disconnect, parts, friends, integrity, mistakes, alignment, owning my parts

What It Really Means to Man Up - Thoughts on Joyce's Blown Call That Cost Galarraga's Perfect Game

Galarraga smiles following the blown call that cost him a perfect game.

I'm sure most people have heard about the blown call last night by umpire Jim Joyce that cost pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game (only the 21st in the history of the sport, but the third this season). It was on ESPN most of the day, it was on the morning talk shows, it was even on NPR.

What could have been another example of men behaving badly isn't.

We have had far too much of that in the last year with Tiger Woods, Ben Roethlisberger, Lawrence Taylor, all of whom are involved in sexual misconduct scandals - then there are the doping issues with Floyd Landis admitting his own use of PEDs and ratting out his former teammates (including Lance Armstrong). Recently, the world's #1 cyclist (Spanish rider Alejandro Valverde) being banned for two years, and then there are all the steroid users in baseball and football - the list of athletes behaving badly goes on and on.

So it is truly wonderful - and unexpected (how sad is that?) - that the two men most directly involved in one of sports greatest mistakes are behaving like men and not like little boys. Here is some of the aftermath from ESPN:

Joyce emphatically said he was wrong and later, in tears, hugged Galarraga and apologized.

"It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the [stuff] out of it," Joyce said, looking and sounding distraught as he paced in the umpires' locker room. "I just cost that kid a perfect game."

"I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay," he said after the Tigers' 3-0 win.

Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski said Joyce asked to speak with Galarraga. Denied the first perfect game in Tigers history, Galarraga appreciated the gesture.

"You don't see an umpire after the game come out and say, `Hey, let me tell you I'm sorry,' " Galarraga said. "He felt really bad. He didn't even shower.

It's rare for an umpire to acknowledge a mistake and, in one of the few sports that relies heavily on the human eye, it's certain to prompt a push for Major League Baseball to use increased replays.

Here is another take from Bleacher Report:

Most major league umpires would simply have headed to the dugout and taken their thoughts on the matter with them . . . . Jim Joyce apparently couldn't live with himself if he did.

This too is where Joyce diverges from many of us.

Joyce did the unthinkable after the game and approached Armando Galarraga to admit his error and to apologize to the pitcher. Man to man Joyce looked him in the eye and admitted his mistake and asked for forgiveness. Both men were said to embrace following the exchange.

"I cost the kid a perfect game” Joyce told reporters after the game.

Yeah, Joyce ruined a piece of baseball history, damaged himself as an umpire and just might have triggered the beginning of the end of his major league umpiring career.

But Jim Joyce did something almost unheard of in a world gone mad. In a world full of cheating superstars, blow hard politicians and lying talk show hosts, he stood up and owned up to his mistake. He showed character in the face of adversity and humanity in a moment when too many won't.

Blast Jim Joyce for a bad call. Rip him for being a bad umpire. But admire Jim Joyce for being a man about it.

Joyce stepped up in a way I have never seen an umpire do in the past. But the other person involved also stepped up in a way I probably would not have done - I would have been irate, yelling, screaming, cursing. But not Armando Galarraga. After the blown call he smiled, did not say anything, did not argue, simply walked back to the mound and got the next out - credited with a one-hitter rather than the 21st perfect game ever.

After the game was over, Joyce went into the locker room and watched the replay - then he called the Detroit locker room and asked to see Galarraga:

Later, Joyce summoned him to the umpire's room to say he was sorry.

"He really feels bad -- probably more bad than me," Galarraga said. "But nobody's perfect. I give a lot of credit to that guy because he needed to talk to me and say, 'I'm sorry.'

"His body language said more than a lot of words. His eyes were watering. I gave him a couple hugs. There is going to be a couple more -- I hope so."

Galarraga smiled and winked.

"Nobody's perfect," he added.

And nobody knew that more than Galarraga.

Yet, he handled it perfectly.

Indeed - he has shown more grace than anyone might expect from a professional athlete - these guys have not recently been known for their grace, their poise, their integrity. Galarraga handled this situation perfectly - and so has Joyce (aside from the blown call), he has shown integrity, honesty, and strength beyond what we might expect.

Elsewhere (from USA Today's collection of comments on the play):

"There's no doubt he feels bad and terrible. I have a lot of respect for the man. It takes a lot to say you're sorry and to say in interviews he made a mistake." ~ Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga.

"When I walked out of the tunnel and got applause from the Tigers fans, I had to wipe the eyes." ~ Umpire Jim Joyce, a day after the missed call.

"That was certainly the best three hours and 20 minutes that I've spent in the last 24 hours. After the second inning, I could finally spit, and by the fifth or sixth inning, I felt normal again." ~ Joyce.

Here is the audio of Joyce admitting his mistake - it feels authentic and that he is suffering for his mistake:

Here’s what Jim Joyce had to say:

“It was the biggest call of my career, and I kicked the (stuff) out of it,” Joyce said, looking and sounding distraught as he paced in the umpires’ locker room. “I just cost that kid a perfect game.”

After reviewing the play, today Major League Baseball decided they will not reverse a blown call that cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game Wednesday night, commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement Thursday.

And here is the story from today's game - where both men continue to act with honor and integrity:

A tearful Jim Joyce takes lineup card from Armando Galarraga

June 3, 2010

Jim Joyce, whose blown call at first base with two outs in the ninth inning ruined Detroit pitcher's Armando Galarraga's perfect game Wednesday, worked Thursday's Detroit Tigers-Cleveland Indians game as the home-plate umpire.

Galarraga brought out the lineup card and shook hands with Joyce, who was wiping away tears, at the pregame home-plate meeting.

At a news conference before the game, Joyce said that he was touched by the outpouring of support he received after he apologized for missing the call.

"I cannot believe the outpouring of support I've gotten, not only from my fellow umpires but all my friends, my family and, frankly, you guys," Joyce said. "I can't thank you enough. I can't thank the people enough. I'm a big boy. I can handle this. It's probably the hardest thing I've ever had to go through in my professional career, without a doubt."

Tigers Manager Jim Leyland said Thursday that Major League Baseball gave Joyce the option to skip Thursday's game, but that Joyce refused.

Tigers catcher Gerald Laird, who got into a heated confrontation with Joyce after Wednesday's game, apologized for his actions too.

"We probably were a little bit out of line, I'd say," Laird said. "At the time, I'm sure he thought he made the right call. It's just more out of frustration and wanting it so bad for your teammate. That's all it is when some of us get on him.

"I've got all the respect in the world for Jim Joyce. He's a great umpire. He's always been. I've always had a good relationship with him. I think it's just more the heat of the moment. That's why we were getting on him. You just want it so bad, something of that caliber for your teammate."

Perhaps White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs summed up the situation best (and yes, it HAS become something the White House is talking about):

"I have a 6-year-old right now who's playing baseball. ... To watch an umpire take responsibility and to watch a pitcher do what he did, the type of sportsmanship that was exhibited there, I think that gives a lot of heart whether you're a 6-year-old just learning how to play baseball, whether you're somebody like you or I who have - who watched baseball for the sheer enjoyment of the game." ~ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Both of these men are models for sportsmanship - for what it really means to man-up. I wish more athletes would model this level of true manliness.

Tags: manliness, sports, integrity, honesty, ethics, Men Behaving Like Men, Blown Call, Perfect Game, Jim Joyce, Armando Galarraga, Detroit Tigers, Cleveland Indians, Major League Baseball, Jim Leyland, owning mistakes, poise, courage