You actually can get slimmer in six

Every winter, I go through the same thing. I begin indulging a bit too freely in the goodies and libations that come with Thanksgiving, and Christmas, and New Year’s. Unfortunately, I’ve also begun extending my indulgences so that I include the candies and chocolates that come with Valentines and Easter baskets as well. As a result, when Spring rolls around, I invariably notice that even my “heavy” suits (the ones I wear after I’ve indulged a bit too much for a bit too long) begin to feel snug. When I tipped the scale at 207 pounds last spring (2004), which was the first time I’d been that heavy in over twenty years, I knew it was time to act.

But what to do? I’ve been a runner for twenty years now, but after two decades and countless miles, I’ve been finding it difficult to push myself hard enough to trim off the pounds very quickly. I’ve also done my “Ah-nuld” circuit on free weights in the basement, but I have to confess - I find weight-lifting a bit too tedious for my taste. I had a gym membership for a year a while back, but, if I’m going to work out, I like to roll out of bed and get right into my workout. With the gym, I always had the sense I had to make an appointment.

I’ve also been a good dieter over the years, but as I’ve gotten older, dieting is harder. I’ve plateaued on Atkins (having eaten enough cows for a small herd) and I’ve also veg’ed out on salads and low-fat treats (using the word “treats” in its broadest sense). But I was burned out on diets, tired of running, dreaded lifting weights, and needed something new.

Enter Debbie Siebers. I “met” her watching infomercials one early Sunday morning. Sure, I’ve seen all the gizmos, gadgets and programs, and I usually dismiss them. But I was desperate for something different, and something about Debbie and her “Slim in 6” program caught my attention.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Infomercial workout programs? Don’t those rank right up there with the “6 Second Ab” machine, and “Popeil’s Pocket Fisherman”? That’s what I thought, but there was something about the pictures of the folks on the infomercial -- both men and women -- that appeared genuine, and not the air-brushed, carefully lighted, trick photos that so many other companies use in their “before” and “after” shots.

On top of that, Debbie Siebers actually seemed sincere. She was not obnoxiously perky as so many of the infomercial types are. Even better, her six-week program came with a six-week money back guarantee. So I figured: how could I lose? I went on-line and ordered “Slim in 6.” (I did, however, decline the various attempts to get me to buy “supplements” and “resistance bands” to go with my program, figuring my own vitamins and free weights would be an adequate substitute.)

What follows is a summary of my experiences on the “Slim in 6” program and my own opinions about it. Bottom line: the program works, but you’ve got to stick to it. Now, I’m not trying to be a shill for the program. I just figured that, if you are anything like me, you’d like to hear about the experiences of someone who is not being compensated to tell you about them.

THE PROGRAM

I got my “Slim in 6” package on a Wednesday. They recommended doing the program six days a week for six weeks, so I planned on starting the following Monday, giving myself Sundays off. In the meantime, I reviewed the materials they included with my package.

They sent me a log book, a computer cd so that I could join an on-line support group, a diet plan, and an instruction book. I set aside all but the last -- I just wanted to know how to do the program. I’d handle my own diet and support, thanks.

The manual recommended using the two DVDs containing the program in sequence, starting with the “Start It Up” program for two days, then going to the “Ramp It Up” program. This was supposed to take me to the end of Week Two. For weeks Four through Six, I would finish with the “Burn It Up” program.

I wanted to get a sneak-peak of what I was in for, so I popped in the first DVD and watched the first few minutes of the “Start It Up” program. I noticed two running clocks on the bottom of the screen, one for the total time left in the workout, and one for the particular segment of the workout (legs, abs, etc.) that you were doing at the moment. Pretty smart.

I was happy to see that Debbie continued to be upbeat and personable without being irritating. I also thought it somewhat inspired to include two “ordinary” people -- a man and a woman -- and not two pumped-up, trimmed-out, aerobics-instructor types as Debbie’s “assistants.” Apparently, both of these folks had used “Slim in 6,” achieved “amazing results” and were invited to participate in the video as Debbie’s assistants.

As to the program itself, my initial impression was that it was rather ordinary. I didn’t find anything exceptional or compelling about the exercises as I fast-skipped through the various segments of the first 24 minute workout. In fact, the workout appeared to be a variety of rather routine aerobics class moves.

I skipped to the “Ramp It Up” program, which was a 47 minute workout, and fast-skipped through what looked like more of the same. The “Burn It Up” program, which is a 59 minute workout, also looked fairly routine. With a shrug and a sigh, I closed up my DVD case and put it away until Monday. I had promised myself that I was going to do this thing for six weeks, and I was bound and determined to do so. Plus, I always had that money-back guarantee in my back pocket. I was ready to see what Debbie could do for me.

Day 1

I start the DVD. Debbie welcomes me with some words of encouragement before jumping into her warm-up sequence. I notice that her warm-up moves, while appearing rather standard, actually do get my heart beating. In pretty short order, I’m feeling warmed-up and ready to go, and we begin a series of cardio-type moves, combined with some leg exercises, some standing crunches, some floor crunches, and some push-ups for the upper body.

As the workout moves along, I notice that Debbie’s low-key but enthusiastic delivery actually makes the program seem easier than it is. She’s eager, but not annoying, in her persistant encouragement to do the crunches, kick those legs out, and stretch those back muscles. She even makes completing a “plia” ballet move (feet apart, toes pointed to opposite walls, then squat) seem both easy and effective.

About 15 minutes in, I realize that sweat is actually pouring off of me. I’m surprised, because there is nothing particularly strenuous about any one thing I’m doing. But the consistent sequencing of activities, together with Debbie’s pleasant delivery, her moderate pace, and the fact that the two ordinary folks in the background seem able to do the workout with ease, all combine to make the “Start It Up” program go quickly and relatively easily. By the end of the workout, I have worked up a good sweat, learned to plia, and am feeling as if I’ve actually accomplished something.


Day 2

I repeat “Start It Up,” just like the book says, and again I feel as if I’ve actually worked out. I even do the plia moves without stumbling or feeling like an idiot, which in and of itself is quite a feat for me. I actually find myself looking forward to starting “Ramp It Up” on Day 3.


Day 3

I start “Ramp It Up” and right away, I notice something different. The pace is just a bit faster than the “Start It Up” program. The difference is ever so slight, but it’s pretty clear to me that Ms. Siebers and her assistants (two different ordinary folks for this program) are warming up more quickly, and doing the leg work, the back work, and the ab-work at a slightly faster pace. I begin thinking that I’m in for a long 47 minutes.

As I hit the floor for the ab work (which I discover is far more intense than it looks), I feel my stomach is actually quite sore from the first two days of the program. I find that I can’t complete the number of oblique crunches and double crunches that Debbie gently but firmly insists that I do. Oh sure, she’s very pleasant in encouraging me to try “alternate” moves, but what amazes me is that I can’t keep up with what appears to be a relatively straightforward and easy work-out program. I can’t keep up with all of her ab work, or the leg work, or the push-ups. Damn! This ain’t easy!

I look up at the TV and there’s Greg, one of Debbie’s assistants, merrily cranking out push-up after push-up. I grit my teeth and press on, taking some small satisfaction in the fact that at least they’re all sweating as much as I am. But the thing that surprises me most is that I actually find myself looking forward to the next day because I am determined to keep up with smilin’ Greg, Tracey and Debbie.

Day 4

Today’s not going to be the day I keep up. Here’s a tip -- don’t try to “Ramp It Up” on five hours’ sleep. When the alarm went off, I was definitely not in the mood to face Ms. Perky or smilin’ Greg. Plus, after they plia’d me half to death the day before, my knees were barking. I discover that knees take a different kind of pounding in a 47 minute work-out than they do in a three mile run.

Still, I had a personal commitment to honor. So I rolled out of bed, grabbed my shorts and shoes, stretched for a couple minutes, then popped in Debbie and her crew. I got through the work out pretty well, despite my fatigue, until the leg-and-butt work segment. I start doing the leg-kick thing she does at the thirty-five minute mark and -- yow! Apparently, we hit some muscles on Day 3 that I hadn’t used in quite some time. Debbie happily chirps, “Eight more,” and I realize that there is no possible way I can get my leg up eight more times -- it’s flopping around like a carp on a hook. Oh, I try, but it’s a pretty pathetic attempt to squeeze out eight more leg kicks, and I have to stop at five.

As I try to keep my leg up, I watch smilin’ Greg just keep cranking out the leg kicks, and then the leg lifts, and then every other stinking move, and I have to tell you -- there’s a certain motivating factor in seeing him do that. Good old smilin’ Greg is not some sculpted, ‘roid-driven body builder. He’s a regular-looking guy, pretty much just like me, who’s just going along with the program. There’s something in the back of my head that says, “If this guy can do it, I know that I can.”

I fight my way to the end of Day 4, squeezing off as many leg lifts and crunches as I can muster before collapsing in a heap.

Day 5

On Day 5, my knees actually feel better, despite the pounding. Encouraged, I get ready for my third day through “Ramp It Up.”

After only three days of Ramping it Up, I was keeping up better, at least until the leg/ab sequence at the end. I found myself muttering various expletives through gritted teeth as Debbie exuberates, “Keep those legs straight up in the air!” while I struggle to complete my umpteenth raised-leg oblique crunch.

The last six minutes of “Ramp It Up” is a cool down/stretching/yoga compilation of moves. Despite all the “good feelings” that everyone attributes to yoga-think, I just don’t have the patience for a series of “exalted warrior” stretches. On Day 5, I decide to just skip the whole “cool down” phase and see what happens.


Day 6

By Day 6, I was actually keeping up with almost every exercise. To be sure, when it was time for the bicycle kicks during the last two minutes, I was barely able to complete one for every three. But I was actually able to do one for every three, which was significant.


Week 2

Since this week was devoted to ramping it up, I decided to focus solely on keeping up with the routines, step for step, kick for kick, and crunch for crunch. By the end of each workout, the sweat was pouring off of me like it was coming from a faucet and my abs and legs were burning. But, little by little, I was getting closer to keeping up with all of the routines. By the end of the week, I had to admit that I had impressed myself because I remembered how I felt on the first day of ramping it up. I was keeping up, and feeling good doing it. I was almost looking forward to the next phase.

Week 3, Day 1

Time to start to “Burn It Up.” The pace here is quicker still. Debbie and her pals started with a rapidly-paced 4 minute warm-up routine, followed by a long set of cardio-squats, a long set of exercises targetting the waist, then some lunges, then a repeat of the waist routine, then another routine for the legs.

By this time, I had two weeks of practice under my belt, so the moves were familiar and I was able to complete the routines almost effortlessly. However, Debbie does throw in a couple of curve balls as we’re flying through the routines: front-back kicks, double knee pulls, and traveling pliés are all moves I have to learn on the fly, at a fairly quick pace. The end result is that the work-out was actually pretty intense. Debbie explains it perfectly about 10 minutes in: “We call this Burn It Up for a reason!”

The entire program consists of about thirty-two minutes of aerobic/cardio activity at a pretty good clip, after which is about 10 minutes of repetitive light-weight work for the arms and shoulders, followed by 10 minutes targeting the butt, hamstrings, and then abs. There are added moves in all segments, filling out the 53 minute workout, after which is another six minute “yoga-think” stretch/cool-down phase. I just skipped it. Six extra minutes in the shower seems a better way to spend that time.

As before, for me, the killer segments were the ones targeting the butt and abs, which Debbie gets to at about the forty minute mark. Believe me, after forty minutes, the last thing I wanted to do was the leg and butt work and, as before, I was unable to do all of the routines, what with the additional reps and longer sequences. By the end of the workout, my fatigue was genuine and I was drenched with sweat.

At the end of the work-out, I decided to take a few minutes to actually check my progress after two weeks of “slimming.” I looked at my reflection in the mirror and actually saw the vaguest hint of some definition in my stomach. THIS was a very big deal given my ever increasing middle-aged spread. I was actually excited at the first signs of a two-pack! (Hey, I’ll take what I can get!)

The real test came at the scale. My weight on day one of week three: 203. I was happy to take it, because four pounds was four pounds, especially considering the fact that I did not significantly modify my eating habits all that much. The work-outs were demanding, but the progress was genuine.

Remainder of Week 3

These “Burn It Up” workouts were intense. After the first 32 minutes and the end of the cardio jumping around, I found myself totally sucking wind. I determined to focus on keeping up and perfecting form, and I found myself getting better at both. By the last day of Week 3, although I didn’t keep up with every single rep, I no longer needed a break at any point. That, to me, was an achievement all by itself.

Week 4

My weight at the start of Week 4 was a surprising 200 pounds. I say “surprising” because I dropped seven pounds in three weeks without making any significant changes in my eating habits (well, except for eliminating the two or three beers I’d usually have on the weekend. I’ve learned over the years that alcohol is the bane of weight loss.) But the reality is that all I’d done was follow the exercise routine to the letter, and it was working.

As I continued the Burn It Up routine in Week 4, I slowly but surely found myself better able to keep up with the routine to the end. When necessary, I slowed down a bit, but I finished the 53-minute exercise part of the program without a break.

Even in my second week of “Burn It Up,” it was not easy to keep up. But I actually found myself concentrating on -- and feeling a difference in -- the different muscle groups as I completed the circuit of standing oblique crunches, side crunches, and double-knee pulls, all of which worked out my abs pretty well.

By the end of Week 4, I noticed several things. Relying solely on the exercises, my waist felt trimmer and my pants fit better. More surpising to me was the definition I began to see in my biceps and chest. The numerous light-weight reps in the program helped me trim down and define my muscles without bulking up. Don’t get me wrong -- I wasn’t getting “cut” by any stretch of the imagination. That’s not the point of the program. I was, however, noticing a little less jiggle in that belly o’ mine.


Weeks 5 & 6

The last two weeks of the work-out schedule highlighted both the best and the worst of the program. The best part was that, with continued repetition, I was able to keep up better and better each day, I felt and saw my muscles developing over the final two weeks, and I definitely lost weight and added definition. However, on the minus side, I did find myself tiring of the identical workout every single day. By the end of Week 6, I found myself getting a little twitchy at the repetitiveness.

However, that being said, I was actually quite satisfied at the work-outs I was getting. I found myself kicking through the leg routines no problem and reeling off 16 oblique crunches in a row for each side while focusing on form.

Because I did not alter my diet all that much during the six-week period, I was not surprised that the program didn’t make my gut disappear. However, I was not at all disappointed in the results. During the six weeks I dedicated to the workout program, I still enjoyed a few margaritas and a few desserts while I was I dropping 10 pounds. My 36 inch waist pants went from exceptionally tight to comfortable. I added muscle tone to my arms, chest, butt and belly without making any significant changes in my eating habits. I suspect that, had I gone into a full-blown salad/low-fat/low-carb diet (which is what the program recommends to maximize your weight loss), I would have dropped significantly more weight than I did.

EVALUATION

If you’re looking for a different kind of work-out, I can recommend this program whole-heartedly, despite the stigma that some of these infomercial-type programs bear. However, there are a couple of points that you’ve got to keep in mind when you try it.

First, even with the “Start It Up” program, you are not going to just pop the DVD in and glide through the work-out. Just like any new exercise program, there is a learning curve. It is going to take a little effort and concentration on your part to get the moves down and keep up with the music (the DVD lets you turn off the music and just keep up with Debbie, if you’d rather. My preference is to have the music on.) The first program is a 24 minute cardio workout, with some ab- and leg-work incorporated into the routine. It’s not grueling, but it’s not like riding a stationary bike while watching television. You have to put in the time, the sweat, and the dedication to make it through even this easiest segment.

Second, even though the workouts appear fairly routine, expect to struggle early to keep up. The informercials tend to soft-cell these work-outs, but the fact is that you are actually exercising. This is a good thing, by the way, but it is exercise and it will take some effort. For me, even in Week 3, my first week of Burn It Up, I was sucking wind at the end of the workouts. There is definitely a conditioning curve. But don’t be put off -- even if you’re not in A-1 condition, you can ease your way into the program by taking a couple of extra days with “Start It Up” and then pacing yourself through the workouts that follow. You will find yourself catching on and keeping up more quickly than you expected.

However, that brings me to the third point, which is the fact that watching the exact same workout, with the exact same words of encouragement at precisely the same spot every single day may makes you feel as if you’re living in the movie Groundhog Day. If you add a few extra days to the workout, I suspect that the feeling will intensify. However, if you can keep in mind that there is an end in sight, namely, the last day of the sixth week, you can make it through.

This, of course, brings me to the final concern. There is a last day. Ordinarily, you can keep your work-out regimen going by changing sequences, changing days, mixing in the elliptical machine, running on the treadmill, or doing some roadwork outside. With the Slim in Six DVDs, it’s either that routine, or no routine.

I got to the end of Week Six and had no where to go. Sure, I repeated the workouts, and sprinkled in some runs and some free weights. But once the program was done, so was my incentive to keep doing it.

All that being said, however, the advantages of having a pleasant personal trainer at my disposal in my own home made the program worthwhile -- at least to jump start a weight-loss and fitness program. For six weeks, if you want to drop a few pounds in a relative hurry, and you like to roll out of bed and into a workout, there’s nothing easier than popping a DVD into the machine when it’s convenient for you. In addition, if you’re like me and you feel a bit awkward doing pliés and double-knee pulls in a room full of people, nothing beats cranking through this workout in the privacy of your own home. All you need is some space in front of your TV and a little self-discipline.

Most importantly, the program actually works, as long as you commit to it. I can tell you that you can make a significant difference in your body, firm yourself up, improve your endurance, and trim that gut in six weeks, if you really want to.

FOLLOW-UP

Six months after I finished the Slim In Six program, Christmas 2004 was upon me, and so were the cookies, the cakes, the egg nog, the rum punch, the candy canes and the mulled cider. Then came New Year’s Eve, and the champagne, and cheese trays, and sliced pepperoni and.....well, you get the picture. My weight didn’t get back up to 207, but it got close.

I’ve delayed this spring’s annual weight-loss ritual by playing in a men’s basketball league (which also works to shed the pounds, by the way). However, I know I’ve got to do something again, and much as I like Debbie Siebers, I’m just not in the mood for six weeks of Debbie right now.

I’ve discovered, however, that Beachbody.com, the marketers of Slim In Six, have reduced the price of another program they’ve got: Tony Horton’s Power 90. They not only reduced the price (20 bucks for the DVD, which includes the postage and handling) but have also added the idea underlying the old video- and record-club memberships. They promise to send another work-out every few weeks, which I figure will help break up the Groundhog Day effect. So, I’m getting ready to try to keep up with actor-cum-personal-trainer Tony Horton. Hey, it can’t hurt, right? I’ll keep you posted.

It’s not what you know; it’s what you can prove.

Anyone who’s writing anything these days has to put in their two-cents’ worth on Michael Jackson’s recent acquittal. I may as well join the fray.

First, let me get a couple of observations out of the way that pre-date Mr. Jackson’s legal troubles. It cannot be disputed that the guy is talented. There’s simply no denying it. Love him or hate him, back in the 1980s, and even through the 1990s, there was one album that would absolutely guarantee putting people on the dance floor -- Thriller. Apart from The Beatles, I don’t remember another album in my lifetime that contained so many number one hits and absolutely spot-on danceable songs. Billy Jean. Beat It. Thriller. Those are the first three that pop into my head and if you were in a club, or at a wedding, or attending a party, any time after 1985, if any one of these songs started, everybody rushed to the dance floor. (And don’t forget Off The Wall, which came before Thriller and has some exceptionally danceable stuff as well). If you saw Jennifer Garner’s flick 13 Going On 30, they do a pretty good job of capturing the impact of Thriller -- when that song started playing, people started dancing. That’s just the way it was.

That said, Jackson also has an indisputable weirdness that turns many people off. The umbrella man. The surgeries. The chimp. The glove. The falsetto. The skin. The nose. The Sergeant Pepper clothes. Neverland Ranch. Hanging his kid from the balcony. Just to name the top ten that come to mind. And all of that weirdness creates an aura that evokes a sense of unease and suspicion about everything associated with him.

I’m not trying to suggest that Jackson molested any children, nor would I attempt to convince you that he didn’t. But rumour, inuendo, and suggestion, combined with the aura of strangeness surrounding Jackson, is not enough to sustain a criminal conviction. More importantly, this combination should never be enough to sustain a conviction. Hey, if weirdness was a crime, they could lock up half the country.

The thing is, our judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that the State prove a criminal case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. That requirement is built into the Constitution: The Due Process clause protects an accused person from being convicted of a crime except upon proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” of every fact necessary to prove the commission of the crime charged. That’s a heavy burden to carry, and it is heavy for a reason -- to best prevent an innocent man or woman from being convicted of a crime that he or she did not commit.

We know that this high burden of proof sometimes allows guilty persons to escape conviction, especially if the case is mishandled or tried poorly. (Do I have to say “O.J. Simpson” to make that point any more strongly?) But the old adage that it is better to have a legal system that lets one guilty man go free rather than convict one hundred innocent men is one that we should all abide by and adhere to. What would be the alternative? We certainly can’t have a criminal justice system based on polls, or what people believe should be the outcome, or what the popular sentiment is on a particular day. If that was our system, Jackson would be sitting in jail right now because the press and the public had him convicted and sentenced over a year ago.

Our system of justice is based on requirements of proof that protect the innocent. This protection comes with the inherent risk of allowing a guilty man to go free. However, anything else would lead to disrespect for the courts, the laws, the police, and anything and anyone else in authority. Could you imagine what our lives would be like if an arrest equaled a conviction, or if your fate hung on how many people liked you that day, or how 1000 randomly surveyed people voted in a particular poll?

Let me give you another example. You may have heard it said that a good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. This is the absolute truth, because the grand jury is only an initial step in a prosecution. A prosecutor, without having to worry about cross-examination or rules against hearsay or leading questions, or any other details of trial, simply presents only the evidence that the prosecutor knows will lead to an indictment. The prosecutor then asks the grand jury to vote on whether this selected evidence is sufficient to bring the case to trial. If the grand jury votes in favor of the indictment, the case proceeds to trial. However, once trial starts, the defendant can defend himself, with lawyers, motions, witnesses, and whatever evidence he or she wants to bring in to rebut the State’s accusations.

Could you imagine if a trial followed the grand jury scheme? There’d be no defense lawyers, no cross-examination, no rules against hearsay, no room for exculpatory evidence, and no protections for an innocent person faced with a strong circumstantial case. In that system, you or I could be convicted based on the statements of an irate neighbor, an angry ex-spouse, or the nut-job you cut off on your way to work this morning.

In our system as presently constituted, the statements of the witnesses are tested by cross-examination, can be attacked by a defense attorney who has a copy of a previous statement that is inconsistent with the trial testimony, and can be refuted by statements from other witnesses. As importantly, a witness’s demeanor in front of a jury at trial can impact the jury’s feelings about the witness’s credibility and cause it to disbelieve his or her story.

That’s precisely what happened in the Jackson trial. Under cross-examination at trial, the State’s case didn’t hold up primarily because the alleged victim’s mother folded like a bad hand at Texas hold ’em. That doesn’t mean that she was lying (although she certainly didn’t come across well). But when the State’s star witness is not particularly credible, the State should think long and hard about pursuing the case. That’s part of the system, too. If your evidence isn’t enough to convince twelve people that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then the State should not prevail, no matter what the popular impressions of the media and the public are.

Personally, I suspect that the State was more interested in prosecuting the Jackson case simply for the sake of prosecuting it, and not because it had sufficient evidence to actually sustain a conviction. Obviously, I’m just speculating here, but based on my own observations while working for the State once upon a time, there’s a lot of ego involved in criminal prosecutions that shouldn’t be there at all. Many prosecutors forget the ethical requirement on government attorneys that their first order of business is not necessarily to secure convictions but to assure that justice is done. That sometimes means refusing to prosecute bad cases. But I digress.

The point of all this is that, like it or not, the system worked for Jackson. Of course, it helps to have the finest attorneys money can buy, but that’s an unfortunate by-product of both the justice system and the star-struck society in which we live. (I suspect that if this had been State of California v. Mike Jackson, School Bus Driver, Mr. Jackson would be doing 10 to 20 in the State lock-up right now.)

All that being said, and after all is said and done, let’s hope that the King of Pop thinks twice before he has any more sleep-overs, or serves cookies and milk to anyone but his own kids. Go be weird, Michael. Just do it by yourself, in the privacy of your own amusement park.

Somewhere over the Railyards

If you’re not a New York Jets fan, or a New Yorker, the significance of the West Side Stadium Scam (the “WSSS”) might not be as important to you as it is to others. However, we should review the WSSS for the lessons we can learn from it.

Why do I call it a “scam?” Well, because it is. It’s a shameful example of a big business (the Jets) trying to coerce tax payers into footing the bill for a new stadium when that cost should be borne by the franchise itself. It’s an equally shameful example of some politicians urinating on their constiuents’ legs and telling them its raining. To understand all of this, we need a little back story.

The Backstory

The Jets, an NFL football franchise, have been playing football in Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey for about twenty years. The Jets used to play football at Shea Stadium, in Flushing, New York but, for reasons that are not important to the present discussion, moved their games to Giants Stadium in the mid-1980s. To hear some Jets fans tell it, the poor, poor Jets have been without a “home” for twenty years because they don’t have their “own” stadium. They have to play in the blue-and-red colored environs of Giants Stadium, rather than in a green-and-white facility that would reflect the Jets colors (and, presumably, the team’s spirit.)

The Jets offered to buy a large chunk of land on the West Side of Manhattan Island, on which is situated an area known as “the railyards.” This is where a number of train tracks that traverse Manhattan converge. The Jets proposed building a stadium/convention center in this location, over the railyards, which would also include offices and space for other commercial ventures. The stadium was to be a state-of-the-art facility, with a retractable roof and numerous configurations that would enable New York to host larger events than it is presently able to host in the Javitts Center, which is New York’s current convention center. (For some perspective, the Javitts Center is now the 16th largest convention center in the United States. For many New Yorkers, having the 16th largest anything is cause for grave concern and immediate action to ensure that New York has the Number One largest whatever.)

In conjunction with the Jets’ stadium proposal, the powers that be also submitted a bid for the Summer Olympics in 2012. Inextricably tied into this bid was the Jets proposed stadium. New York (or at least Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki) wanted the Olympics, and promised a facility worthy of hosting them if Olympic Site Selection committee chose New York as the venue for the 2012 Olympics.

The Fallacy of the Olympic Bid

Before addressing the meat of this issue, let me go on record as saying that holding the Olympics in New York would be a logistical nightmare and more than just a minor inconvenience to the citizens of the City and the surrounding areas. Getting into and out of the city now, on a good day, can be a nightmare. With the Olympics in town, the City would simply shut down and the people who work in and around the city would have to plan to take a month off. But that’s a topic for another day.

The powers that be all claimed that the West Side Stadium was necessary to ensure that New York was awarded the 2012 Olympics. This claim is simply not accurate. No member of any Olympic site selection committe, or any other Olympic-related entity, ever indicated that if New York built the West Side Stadium, New York would receive the 2012 Olympics.

To be sure, without the stadium, New York’s chances of being awarded the Olympics would be reduced, but nothing was ever guaranteed even if the stadium were built. Indeed, it was entirely possible (and probably more likely) that New York could build the West Side Stadium and yet never be awarded the Olympics. With cities like London, Paris and Moscow in the running, all of which are more centrally located with respect to the rest of the world than is New York (and, save for Paris, none of which come with some of the arrogant sense of entitlement that America tends to project to the rest of the world), it came as no surprise that Paris and London were running one- and two- with the selection committee.

Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki both made the case for the stadium on the back of the potential for an Olympic bid that they made seem more real than it was. The reality is that the politicians were asking the people to foot a significant portion of the bill for the stadium on the empty promise of the possibility of an award of the Olympics to New York. (By the way, no one has yet gotten a hold of a firm handle on the actual price of the stadium. Cost estimates have run in the range of $800 million to $2.4 billion, with taxpayers responsible for a large portion.)

Ultimately, the PACB (the control board responsible for giving approval to the funding of the stadium) declined to vote on the measure at its most recent meeting. As a result, the building process if stalled and, most likely, dead in the water. Now, the Governor and the Mayor are decrying the lost opportunity to get the 2012 Olympics, as if the PACB had thrown it away. It did not. Although the other two voters on the PACB (Pataki is the third) were motivated by their own political self-interest in declining to vote for funding the stadium, the reality is that they were correct in stating that there remain too many questions that are unresolved and that should be resolved prior to the casting of any fuding vote, including the actual financial impact on taxpayers, and the actual impact of the additional commercial space in mid-town Manhattan on the continuing efforts to revitalize lower Manhattan and the area where the World Trade Center once stood. With those questions, and many more like them, still unanswered, it made no sense to vote on the Jets’ proposed stadium simply to perpetuate the fallacy that New York was going to get the Olympics as long as the West Side Stadium was built.

The “Jets Need A Home” Fallacy

Many sports-radio talk-show hosts are all over the argument that the poor, poor Jets need a home. Some even attribute the Jets failure to make it to the Super Bowl since 1969 to the fact that they are without a home. (Never mind that the Jets called Shea Stadium home from 1970 through 1985 and didn’t make a Super Bowl in those years. And let’s not forget that the Cleveland Browns have never made it to a Super Bowl despite having their own home for both periods of their existence (for the football fans among us, those are the pre-Ravens and post-Ravens Browns)).

It seems to be the most nonsensical justification for a stadium imaginable. These poor, poor football players, who make hundreds of thousands of dollars more in a year than I’m likely to see in my lifetime, can’t get “up” for a game because they’re not playing in their own “home.” Only a stadium festooned in green-and-white will be sufficiently inspiring for the Jets to compete in the NFL. What rubbish.

It is obvious that NFL players don’t need colorful pennants, cheerleaders, and the entire student body behind them to motivate them. It’s the NFL, for goodness sake. Practically every home game is a sellout and is attended by rabid fans who are willing to go shirtless in January and paint various body parts in team colors in order to motivate the team. From Raider Nation in California to The Dawg Pound in Cleveland, to the Lambeau Leap in Green Bay, neither the players nor the fans need a “home of their own” to get motivated for games. Would a green-and-white stadium make the Jets fans care any more than they already do? On the flip side, a green-and-white stadium is not going to make one bit of difference in whether I attend a game, or paint my chest green. The game’s the thing, not the building in which it is played.

By the way, this proposed new building on the West Side eliminated one very significant tradition from the Jets fans’ pre-game rituals. No tailgating. There was not going to be the room that exists at Giants Stadium at the proposed West Side Stadium, so no tailgating. No games of touch football in the parking lot. No barbecues going all afternoon long. No contests on who’s got the best pre-game spread. No road trips, with a caravan of cars, to the stadium on game day. Did anyone bother to actually ask the fans whether they wanted to sacrifice this significant aspect of Game Day for a proposed new "home"?

Nevertheless, the tax payers were being asked to foot the bill for a new stadium so that the Jets could finally have a new home. However, whether it’s one dollar, or one billion dollars, I don’t believe for one second that any stadium should be built with taxpayer money -- especially in this day and age. With ticket prices running at $50 a pop for the cheap seats, let’s be real. In a 70,000 seat stadium, even if every ticket was priced at $50 a piece (like that would happen), the team would take in 3.5 million dollars for each game. For eight home games (not counting playoffs), the team would take in $28 million from ticket sales alone. That doesn’t count TV revenues (which are substantial), revenues generated by parking (last game I went to, it cost $20 to park -- and I know they’re not building any more parking lots), concessions, the sale of team paraphenalia (who do you think gets part of the excess from that $5 hat that you can buy at the stadium for $25?) and the revenues from advertising. Believe me, neither the Jets, nor any other sports team, needs taxpayer help to build a new facility.

It’s shameful to even ask Joe Lunchbucket to contribute dime one to a new facility, whether the request is in the guise of building a team “home,” or cloaked in the “spirit of competition” embodied by the “Olympic Dream.” Mr. Johnson, the owner of the Jets, is not a poor man. He’s got a couple nickels to rub together. I’m sure that he can finance a stadium anywhere he wants. He can pick anywhere in New Jersey, or go back to New York and pick from Manhattan, Flushing, Queens, or out on Long Island, where the Jets “fan base” supposedly is. (By the way, going back to New York would disregard the fact that Giants Stadium sells out for the Jets for each and every home game). If Mr. Johnson is having difficulties putting together financing, I’m sure someone can refer him to the Giants, who are financing their own new “home,” or the Yankees, who are also financing their own new “home.” It can be done. Just because Mr. Johnson doesn’t want to pay the freight all by himself doesn’t justify the demand that the taxpayers help him do it.

At the very least, the idea of taxpayer contribution should be put to the taxpayers themselves. In fact, let’s pick a number -- $300 million dollars. Let’s ask the taxpayers for that much money (with 8 million New Yorkers, it would amount to about $37.50 from each New Yorker -- less than the price of one ticket to one game). Then, let’s ask them whether they’d like to spend the $300 million on a new stadium for the Jets -- or salary increases for teachers -- or 10,000 new police officers, at starting salaries of $30,000 per year -- or 10 new state-of-the-art firehouses. I mean, if you want taxpayer money, let’s ask them whether they want to give it and, if so, where they want it spent.

Fortunately, taxpayers and fans alike avoided the ramifications of this scam, although not because anyone was actually trying to protect these people, who are the ones who would be most affected by it. I can only hope that the lessons that can be learned from this whole disaster will not be forgotten the next time the proposal for a new stadium (or some other boondoggle), funded by taxpayers with the promise of accomplishing some ethereal goal, comes around.