Those things that used to be so uncool...

... suddenly become totally acceptable, even desirable.

When I was back in Iowa in July I discovered that Mom and Dad often listen to a Sirius XM radio station called "Willie's Roadhouse".  It's what most people would call classic country - the older stuff.  And more specifically, the stuff that was playing in our house on KOEL when we were growing up.  The music struck a chord with me for some reason, and when I'm driving Jennifer's car (which isn't very often) I usually flip between Backspin (old school rap) and Willie's Roadhouse.  It's a weird combination, I know.

One of the artists that I found myself thoroughly enjoying was Ronnie Milsap.  Do you guys remember him?  I did some research on iTunes and found an album called "Ultimate Ronnie Milsap" with 22 songs.  I don't think there is a bad song on it.  Many of the songs that I'm sure I haven't heard for 25+ years sound as familiar as the Beastie Boys.  It's amazing how lyrics can be so deep in your memory and come to mind with a familiar tune.

So just a little while ago I was having a funny debate with myself about whether or not I was really going to spend $10 on a Ronnie Milsap album, an album that my parents would have paid money for 30 years ago.  In the end, I put the silliness behind me and decided that it's good music that I like to listen to, so it's worth the money.  Yep, I bought a Ronnie Milsap album.  It's just a matter of time before I catch myself saying things like, "I'm getting to where I really like chicken."

Thick Skin

I agree with the author that using the word "priority" can be a useful tool. It's a good way to gain some self-awareness about why or why not you do certain things as opposed to others. However, I will say that you have to have some pretty thick skin.

Let's face it, there are a million really GOOD things that we can do on any given day. But the fact is that we just don't have time to do all the good things that could be done, even if we only consider the good things that others specifically ASK us to do. We have to be able to say no. If we say, "No, I'm sorry, it's not a priority," we have to be prepared to offend people. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to say, "No, I'm sorry, I have some other things that are a HIGHER priority right now that don't leave me any time for that." The bottom line is we have to be comfortable with saying no.

Pick your horses gentlemen.

Was the Tour de France clean?

I propose that we rename this blog from "Brothers 3 Are We" to "Boy It's Fun to Talk About Doping".
 
According to this article, the TDF was clean this year. I know that Ed might disagree based on the numbers, but it's good enough for me. I think the "passport" idea is the way to go in tracking what athletes may or may not be putting into their system. I wish I had a better understanding of the UCI, but it does mention that the guy who is vying for the position of president wants to create a separate, independent testing panel. That would address the question that has been raised previously about the UCI itself being dirty. The current president thinks that the current system is fine.

 BTW, I'm still doping. I'm still taking about 600mg of ibuprofen every day. But it's NOT on the banned list!

Priority

Instead of saying “I don’t have time” try saying “it’s not a priority,” and see how that feels. Often, that’s a perfectly adequate explanation. I have time to iron my sheets, I just don’t want to. But other things are harder. Try it: “I’m not going to edit your résumé, because it’s not a priority.” “I don’t go to the doctor because my health is not a priority.”

If these phrases don’t sit well, that’s the point. Changing our language reminds us that time is a choice. If we don’t like how we’re spending an hour, we can choose differently.

-Laura Vanderkam

I went so that you didn't have to.

These are my crazy summary notes.  They may or may not make sense!  Some of the speakers are unquestionably church focused, so their talks were more like a Sunday morning sermon.  Others were more pure in their general leadership focus.  I list the speaker, who they are, and my rating for their presentation.

BILL HYBELS - Founder and Senior Pastor of Willow Creek Community Church - B

     - Accept vision and ACT on it (don't ignore it)
     - Be courageous enough to face current reality (be honest)
     - Create positive culture in the organization
          + Staff cultures will only ever be as healthy as the LEADER wants it to be
          + Making brave apologies for contributing to poor culture is the best way to improve
          + Don't pay people to bruise or bust your culture (get rid of them)
     - Establish and enforce organization values
          +Vision has to be converted into organizational VALUES
     - Finish strong
          + Succession conversations have to start early
          + Great rewards often come late in the race

GENERAL COLIN POWELL - Former Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - A+

     - Leadership is getting more out of people than what the science of management says that you can
     - Leadership focuses on followers
     - Followers must understand purpose = WHY are we doing this?
     - Invest in the people who get it done
     - Empowering others means accepting risk
     - Trust is the glue that holds an organization together and the lubricant that keeps it moving
     - Remain calm and be kind
     - Get mad, then get over it
     - It's not as bad as you think; it will look better in the morning

PATRICK LENCIONI - Founder and President of The Table Group, Author (You can read my review of his book Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team on Amazon) - A+

He spoke from his latest book, The Three Signs of a Miserable Job.

     - Anonymity - People can't be fulfilled in their work if they are not known.
     - Irrelevance - Everyone needs to know that their job matters to someone.  Anyone.
     - Immeasurement - People need to be able to gauge their progress and level of contribution for themselves.  It can't depend on the whims of another person.

LIZ WISEMAN - President of The Wiseman Group, Author - C+

 DIMINISHER                                                          MULTIPLIER

- Empire builder                                                         - Talent magnet
- Tyrant                                                                      - Liberator
- Know-it-all                                                              - Challenger
- Decision maker                                                        - Debate maker
- Micro manager                                                         - Investor

CHRIS BROWN - Co-Senior Pastor and Teaching Pastor, North Coast Church - A-

     - Can we empower others by giving up our own title/position?
     - With the title I've been given, do I have the ability to lead like Jesus?
     - Do I expand God's kingdom through my leadership or my own reputation?
     - What difference is the Holy Spirit making in my leadership?

BOB GOFF - Founder and CEO of Restore International, Author, Attorney, Honorary Consul for the Republic of Uganda to the United States - A+  (this guy was off the hook!)

     - The key questions we have to be able to answer as leaders is "Who are you?" and "What do you want?"
     - Love God, love you neighbors, and DO STUFF!  This is the Christian life in its simplest form.
     - LAND THE PLANE!  In other words, just execute.  Do something, anything, execute.

MARK BURNETT - Four-time Emmy Award Winner, Executive Producer of Survivor and The Voice - D+ (not compelling at all; just wanted to talk about how awesome he is)

     - When Jesus calls, you have to get your ass off the couch and do something
     - Raise up the people in the trenches that are doing the work
     - Don't keep team members that suck the energy out of your mission

JOSEPH GRENNY - Co-founder of VitalSmarts, Business Strategy Expert and Author - B+

     - Leadership is intentional influence
     - Connect values to principles
     - It's how good and bad behaviors are framed that affects the level of their influence
     - Skills/abilities must be paired with motivation to get effective action
     - Practice setting must approximate real world conditions to be effective
     - Replace accomplices to undesirable behavior with friends and coaches
     - Cues are extremely powerful
     - Make good choices easier and more obvious
     - Harness peer pressure

VIJAY GOVINDARAJAN - Professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, Author, Executive Coach - A

     - If you want to lead in the future, you must be able to change and adapt.  The future will be different.
     - Manage the present ---> Selectively abandon the past ----> Create the future
     - Most companies emphasize managing the present, when the emphasis should be on the other two
     - Dominant logic imposes boundaries for innovation but is useful for current operations
     - Innovation does NOT equal creativity
     - Innovation = IMPLEMENTING creativity
     - The bulk of the work of innovation is execution
     - Innovation = Idea + Leader + Team + Plan
     - Innovative leaders don't subvert the current performance engine, but harness it for change
     - Innovation = non-linear shift
     - Improvement = linear shift (improvement is not the same as innovation)
     - If you want a tree that produces fruit in five years, you have to start working on it today

DR. BRENE BROWN - Research Professor, University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work, Author (check out her TED talks The Power of Vulnerability and Listening to Shame) - A

     - There are two irreducible needs for every man, woman and child:  Love and belonging.  Without those two things, there is some degree of suffering in life.
     - Growth comes through connection.  Leaders model the courage to ask questions that establish connection (i.e.  How are you kids doing?)
     - As leaders we cannot give what we don't have.  If you can't ask for help, then you can't give it.  (Subliminally, if you are judging yourself when you ask for help, you are judging others every time that you offer help).  Deriving self-worth from being the helper is a form of judgment.
     - Professing vs. Practicing.  Professing love and practicing love are NOT the same thing.  Practice is important, and even messy practice is more acceptable than not practicing at all.
     - What kills love will also kill organizations.
     - If you're not failing occasionally, you're not trying hard enough.  Failure MUST be allowed.  In fact, failure is necessary.
     - Blame has no value and nothing to do with accountability.
     - Feedback is a function of respect, and you can't be good at feedback if you can't be vulnerable.
     - Belonging vs. "Fitting In".   To fit in, everything has to be perfect.  To belong means being accepted as the real you, whether or not you dress, talk, and believe exactly the same way as everyone else.
- If you're in the arena, you're going to get beat up.
- "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly..."  Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

OSCAR MURIU - Senior Pastor, Nairobi Chapel in Kenya - A-

     - Matthew 9:37-38:  The size of the harvest depends on the number of leaders.  More harvesters = bigger harvest.
     - Psalm 71:18:  Invest your vision in the next generation.  Live for the next generation.
     - Numbers 11:10-18:  Some of your best leaders are right under your nose.  Identify budding leaders and take them before the Lord in prayer.
     - Mark 12:30-33:  Instill the 5 loves into your budding leaders: Love the Lord God with all of your heart, soul, mind, strength, and love your neighbors as yourself.
     - Acts 4:13:  Never do ministry alone.  Surround yourself with budding leaders in EVERYTHING that you do.

DR. HENRY CLOUD - Executive Coach, Author - A+

     - The hardest thing to be in charge of is yourself
     - Take someone who can't but believes he can over someone who can but believes that he can't
     - The three Ps that cause leaders to downward spiral
          + Personal - Data becomes personal; it's interpreted by the leader as, "I'M not good enough"
          + Pervasive - Limited data is applied to EVERYTHING, so everything looks bad
          + Permanent - Feeling that you need to bail or things will never change; always be like that
     - Your brain gives up when you start a downward spiral
     - Countering the three Ps:
          + Log negative thoughts and dispute them (for Christians, this may mean disputing negative thoughts about who you are with what the Bible says about who you are)
          + Control: Identify what you can and what you canNOT control so that you can focus effort
          + Connect through relationships - The opposite of bad is not good, it is love.  Stress levels drop when you are in it with a community, with other people
     - Remember your life is a movie, not a scene.  Don't characterize your entire life based on one scene!
     - In the end, as a leader, you are always going to get a combination of two things:  what you create and what you allow

ANDY STANLEY - Founder and Senior Pastor, North Point Ministries - B

     - Jesus said that he would build His church; He did and He IS building his church
     - Find your place in the local church and get your hands dirty
     - Obey God and leave all the consequences to Him

It was a good couple of days.  As if I don't have a long enough "to read" book list, I added a few more after hearing some of the speakers:

It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership by Colin Powell
The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business by Patrick Lencioni
Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter by Liz Wizeman
Love Does by Bob Goff
Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change by Joseph Grenny
Daring Greatly: How the Courage to be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead by Dr. Brene Brown
Deep & Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend by Andy Stanley

Making it work

Here here on the thoughts on marriage.  Nothing new from me, just a couple of my own thoughts.

I'm very thankful that early in our marriage Jennifer and I attended a couple of those extremely cheesy (for the most part) marriage enrichment seminars, because it taught us how to communicate.  I think communication is one of the things that can cause a lot of damage in a marriage if you don't follow some guidelines.

Some of these basic principles have really helped us in being able to talk through issues by actually sticking to the issue and not escalating.  That's not to say that we're perfect and things never get a little heated, but for the most part we can "argue" without the yelling and screaming.

DID YOU HEAR A WORD I JUST SAID? - Active listening is key to communicating in a relationship.  It's a little weird at first, but if you're not good at active listening, the "repeat back" method is a good one to ensure that you are actually hearing the other person.  In those cheesy seminars, we learned how to listen to the other person and then reply by saying, "What I'm hearing you say is that..."  At that point you repeat back what you just heard.  When you have to repeat back, it really forces to you listen to what the other person is saying.  It also gives the other person the opportunity to clarify if the message wasn't communicated correctly.  Amazingly, in and of itself, that will mitigate a lot of relational problems.  Often people just want to be heard. 

ONE AT A TIME - Another method that works in communication (especially when its heated) is having something that serves as the "talking stick".  If you're not holding the stick (or whatever you choose to use), you're not allowed to talk.  It ensures that only one person at a time is talking and you're not just talking over eachother. 

DON'T USE ABSOLUTES - Sentences that begin with the words, "You never..." or "You always..." are rarely, if EVER, true statements.  In the marriage context, those words will cause defenses to go up immediately so they're not helpful.  Again, we're not perfect, but Jennifer and I try very hard not to use those phrases.  When used, "always" is always inaccurate, and "never" is never accurate.  You see what I did there?  That is called wit my brothers.  Damn I'm good!

THINGS AS THEY RELATE TO ME - Another communication tool we learned is to talk about the other person's behavior in the context of how it makes YOU feel.  As an example, rather than saying, "I hate when you don't take off your shoes in the house," a better way would be to say, "When you don't take your shoes off in the house, it makes me feel like you don't care about the time that I spend cleaning the house every week."  It changes things from hating a behavior to a relational concern. 

WHY YOU BRINGIN' UP OLD SHIT?  -  Stick to the issue at hand, and don't dredge up old arguments in the process.  Usually when people bring up old issues rather than sticking to the one at hand it is because they are trying to change the argument into a personal attack.  When you attack the person about things that don't have anything to do with the topic, you're no longer communicating and it's probably going to escalate.  Stick to the issue!

WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME?  -  Name calling is an absolute no go.  It serves no purpose.  It only escalates the argument and attacks and belittles the other person.  Don't do it.

Those six communcation tools have been pretty effective for us.  However, I do agree with both of you in that every relationship is different and couples need to figure out what works for them.  That will take some work, but as Brad said, that's what you need to do: work at it. 

Two more things:  First, compromise.  In my opinion, its unlikely that a couple will be able to come to agreement on everything in life.  Someone has to give, and preferably both are going to give a little.  It's not personal weakness to compromise, it's personal strength to be willing to do so.  Second, getting out is not an option.  I know that sounds like lip service to a lot of people, but I've always believed that if you know you're stuck with that person (as bad as that sounds) good or bad, you will be willing to put in the time to make it good rather than bad.  So many marriages fail, I think, because if there is already a "better" option waiting on the other side (in other words, they already are in a relationship with someone else) then there's no incentive to work on the current relationship.  It makes it too easy to walk away.  When things get ugly in marriage, if there is an "emergency exit" door, people are going to take it.  Please don't take my words to the extreme... I'm not applying this principle to abusive relationships, etc.  Just making a general principle.

I'm very thankful that we've not had to deal with divorce in our immediate family.  Here's hoping that we never will!

Did someone say doping?

You guys are cranking out blogs so fast that it’s making my head spin.  What has gotten into you two??

Disjointed thoughts on doping… and… begin.  

I feel a little bit like a broken record when we have long debates on the telephone, but I’ll try to summarize.

Jen, after listening to my heated debate on the phone, reminded me of a principle that we try to follow in making our marriage work, but it’s a pretty good principle to follow in general debate too.  That principle is to NOT make absolute declarations.  I failed at that on the phone.  So I’m going to back off a bit and say that it would not surprise me if a large majority of professional athletes are taking some kind of performance enhancing stuff.  I use the term “stuff” because the word “drug” has a lot of negative connotation.  Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) = Doping (another bad word), but performance enhancing stuff (i.e. amino acids, equipment, coaches) = Getting stronger, faster, better, etc.  What I’m trying to say is that almost anyone who wants to excel at something is always looking for ways to get just a little better.  That might translate to a lighter bike, a better golf club, a corked bat, a new coach, or… dope.  

And so, the discussion of doping gets convoluted in my mind because what I think the REAL issue is for athletes is whether or not they are doing something to improve their performance that is illegal as defined by the regulating body in the sport.  In going around and around, one of the things I tried to convey to you, Ed, is that I believe that there is an entire industry dedicated to creating performance enhancing drugs that those regulating agencies don’t know about yet, and therefore they haven’t been declared illegal.  I’m a human, so I can see how easy a sell it could be to an athlete, and it would go something like this:  “Look, this is going to improve your performance by insert-percentage-here, and it is NOT illegal in insert-your-sport-here.  It’s not a banned substance.  There’s no down side to this.  It will only make you better.  Why would you pass up on a chance to be better??”

Of course, none of that directly answers your primary question, “But what is cycling doing about the doping issue?”  Well, for one thing, as per my previous paragraph, you can only test for what you know is out there.  On another side of the issue, I will fully admit that I cannot speak intelligently on actual testing methods.  Asking the question, “Why did Armstrong never test positive all those years?” is a valid question.  I suspect that there was some type of collusion on the part of the International Cycling Union (UCI).  In fact, according to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Armstrong himself led them to believe that was the case.

I don’t want to make it sound like the UCI shouldn’t care about doping in cycling, but I still don’t quite understand what exactly that you think they should do in order to demonstrate that they do care about it.  Maybe they should have a big press conference and say the words, “We have a problem with doping in cycling,” and then walk off the podium.  Would that do it?  Do you walk around with a video camera on the riders for 24 hours a day so that the world can see what they are doing every second of every day?  Perhaps the UCI should get into the business of urinalysis and blood testing and spend $200 billion to open up their own testing laboratories and hire their own lab specialists.  I don’t know.  I just don’t agree that cycling is burying its head in the sand on the issue when both race organizers and riders openly talk about doping every single day.  I would have to watch video to verify, but I would be willing to bet that Lance Armstrong never addressed doping from the top of the podium in the yellow jersey in Paris.  The fact that Chris Froome DID says a lot about acknowledging the doping issues in cycling.  

Money is the root of all evil, so they say.  Could that be the case with doping?  I don’t know if it’s the root, but it’s a major contributing factor.  A minor league baseball player makes $1100 per month, plus $25 a day for meals, and spends hours each week travelling around on a bus.  The minimum salary for a professional baseball player is just shy of $500K, and the league average is about $3.2 million.  A college basketball player can’t even sell a signed basketball for $100 without getting a suspension, but the NBA league minimum salary is about the same $500K, while the league average is over $5 million.  I’m no mathematical genius, but that’s a whole lot of economic pressure to try to find a little bit of an edge.  What do you have to lose if you dope?  Maybe a 4-game suspension?  A measly fine?  The cost of getting caught is negligible of you can't make the cut WITHOUT doping.  From what I can find online, a professional tour cyclist, if he’s REALLY good, can make a little less than $200K per year.  Keep in mind that none of the figures above include endorsement money, but I would venture a guess to say that you have to be in the top tier to tap into that big money.  Froome won around $650K for finishing in the yellow jersey at Le Tour.  I can’t substantiate this, but if the BEST tour riders in the world make $200K per year cycling (there are roughly 18 professional teams of 8 riders), you really have to be one of the best to be able to make a living doing it.  Alright, I know you’re tired of the numbers, but you get the point.  If you make it to the top tier you have the opportunity to make a lot of money.  If you don’t, you aren’t going to make ANY money.  That’s a lot of incentive to dope if you don't have the natural ability to get there.  There's not a lot of downside.  

And I’ll throw in one more economics angle, and it has to do with the regulating agencies of any sport.  Do they really care about doping?  I hate to bring it up, but professional sports exist because they are businesses, and for the most part professional sports are very profitable businesses.  When you talk about what gets the attention of the regulating body, or the commissioner, or whatever that person or organization looks like, the answer is the bottom line: money.  Does Bud Selig give a crap about doping in baseball?  Eh, maybe.  But in reality, is the doping in baseball affecting the bottom line?  Probably not.  People are still going to games.  Tickets are still expensive.  About every third person that I see in this town is wearing some sort of Padres gear, and they SUCK (last place in NL West, 45-57).  I watched most of the Tour de France and the streets were packed with fans.  Paris was a mad house, and in the post race interviews all of the riders talked about riding in the high noise level.  I don’t think doping has affected cycling’s bottom line.  If I was really cynical, I would say that doping is improving cycling’s bottom line since they are trying to recover all of that prize money from Lance Armstrong!  But anyway, the only reason that head injuries in the NFL are getting lip service from the NFL is because they ARE starting to affect the bottom line.  There is a line of former players with lawsuits lined up out the door and down the street.  I think that former players filing lawsuites, in and of itself, is ridiculous, but that's another blog for another day.  But until the NFL actually starts losing those cases and having to pay out multi-million dollar settlements, they will continue to give lip service and the appearance of action, such as 75 cent fines for a helmet to helmet hit.  The leadership and regulating agencies have one major purpose, and that is to keep the business profitable.  Player safety?  Give me a break.  So, Ed, I don’t think a lip service press conference from the UCI is worth the money it would cost to send out invitations to the press.  The UCI can't fix doping in the Tour de France. 

So how do you stop doping?  I don’t think the regulating agencies or anti-doping agencies can do anything but react.  They can’t prevent it.  I would make the argument that the reason that the culture is changing (in my opinion) in cycling is due to the only thing that works: peer pressure.  Once the Armstrong affair started to get some wind in the sails, riders started ratting on each other.  The riders who don’t want to dope now have the acceptance of the general public in ratting on other riders who are doping.  THAT is what will put a dent in that kind of activity.  Nobody in baseball is squealing on teammates yet.  If a player came forward and accused a teammate of doping, the ATH, PTI, and Rome is Burning panels would tear the whistleblower to pieces.  It would only result in that whistleblower getting persona non grata status in most clubhouses.  It just doesn’t happen.  No active player is willing to talk about other players who are doping.  That means it’s still a problem.  Floyd Landis and the throngs of people that Lance Armstrong went after during his reign of doping don’t seem like such bad people any more.  There are current riders on the tour that have come out and testified against other riders who they were a witness to or even complicit in their doping.  Nobody is running them out of town.  I know you don’t agree Ed, but I really think, or rather I really hope, that the new generation of cycling stars doesn’t want to be associated with the era of doping.  They are riding clean and they want the world to know it.  I don’t know all the science to it, but just as an example, Team Sky (TDF winner Chris Froome’s team) shared rider “power” data with the press daily.  The commentators were talking about it one day and the average rider output during the doping era was 7.2 whatever-the-measurement-was, but this year the average rider output was 6.5.  It was lower, which they seemed to take as an indication that if power output levels are actually down, then it’s probably because the doping has gone away.  It’s not that the TDF got any easier; the Alp de Huez stage this year included not one, but TWO trips up the Alp de Huez on the same day!  

That's how I see it, at least until doping comes up again in about three months on our blog!

And finally…

- I wouldn’t watch the Food Network, The Bachelor, or the MLB All-Star game.  I’d shut off the TV first.

- I’ve already come clean.  I dope nearly every time I ride with 600 or even 800mg of ibuprofen!

- I WOULD play a round of golf with Dennis Rodman.  That would be some interesting conversation.

- I’m more interested in Tony the Tiger than Tiger Woods.

- WHO declared, and under what authority, that baseball is “America’s past time”??  I’m not buying it.  Baseball is "past its time", not a past time.

- All-Star games are kind of like going to watch the Harlem Globetrotters or the WCW.  It might be entertaining, but you know that there is no actual competition going on.  

- Yes, I blame Ray Lewis.  

- I’m out of spades.