"Crew" is NOT a Verb!

Emily and I went on a DC monument boat cruise on Sunday afternoon. It was a beautiful day to be out on the Potomac and it was kind of interesting to hear the narration about the various sites as we motored between Alexandria and Georgetown. I thought it was nice that they mentioned Thompson Boat Center (a favorite club of scullers in the DC area) and I wondered if they would mention the Alexandria Community Boathouse on the way back. They did: "... a gift from the city of Alexandria to the T.C. Williams crew team. T.C. Williams has one of the finest high school crewing programs in the country..."

CREWING PROGRAMS!? This has got to stop. I appreciate that rowing is not a "major" sport with a significant fan following. I admit that the terminology is esoteric and mastering it takes significant exposure to the sport. But this is fundamental: Rowers ROW. They don't CREW. They are not CREWERS and they do not spend their mornings CREWING. The only thing more obnoxious than having a non-rower use "crew" as a verb, is when they do it in conjunction with that weird arm flailing that is supposed to signify rowing.

Now, I understand the confusion. Ask most high school or college rowers what they do with their time and they'll respond, "I'm on the crew team." Even the term "crew team" is an affront to the purist, who demands these organizations be called "rowing teams." But "crew team," or referring to the sport of rowing as "crew" has won a battle of attrition and worked its way into acceptable rowing vernacular. In addition, the use of the word "crew" as a verb is technically correct when it's definition is limited to "participating as a member of a crew or team in the activities related to the operation of a boat, yacht or ship." So if I were to say that I crewed an eight in college, that's a legitimate use of the word. As long as I mean that I was one of eight rowers who participated in the operation of the boat. But if I'm referring to act of propelling a shell in a race through the act of rowing, "crewed" no longer applies. Once I intend to convey the specific action of rowing, only the word "rowing" is correct.

In sailing, participants use the word "crew" as verb much more frequently than in rowing. As in, "I crewed an America's Cup yacht last year." But if you asked the speaker what they were doing on that America's cup yacht, they would say "sailing."

Ok, so maybe the subject is a little convoluted. And as folks who enjoy the sport, we can correct the misguided crew-speak of our friends and family. But when a popular recreational provider like the Potomac Riverboat Company (PRC) includes the word "crewing" 10 or more time a day in their narration and in front of hundreds of uninformed tourists, it just makes the situation that much worse. So I'm calling on the PRC and all tour operators in the Alexandria area to clean up your narrations and be a part of the the fight to stop one of America's most troubling grammatical issues: The improper use of "crew" as a verb.

Golden Girls

No, this isn't a belated tribute to Estelle Getty (we will miss you Sophia Petrillo). The golden girls I'm referring to are Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh. They just knocked off a tenacious Chinese duo to win their 108th straight match and second consecutive Olympic gold. Want to know how freakishly good these ladies are? Two straight gold medal runs without dropping a set.

After Michael Phelps won his eighth gold medal the other night, I cautioned that before we start lauding his Beijing games as the greatest sporting feat of all time, we need to put it in perspective. So here's some perspective: May-Treanor and Walsh winning every single set, of every Olympic match at both Athens and Beijing is sort of like Phelps winning every single heat, semi, and final of the past two Olympics. Every time these two hit the beach, they win. Phelps is ridiculous in his own right, but even he cruises to a 3rd place in the semis every once in a while.

Of course, sometimes in swimming it makes sense to hold back in a preliminary round. And there is no benefit to dropping a set in volleyball. But what we're talking about here is dominance. The willpower to enter an athletic arena on an international stage and never submit to the competition. Does such a performance diminish Phelps' achievement? Absolutely not. But it does suggest that there are other Americans at the games putting on some truly amazing athletic performances.

Drink, Freshman!

I read an interesting article on CNN.com this morning. It involves a group of over 100 college presidents who have become signatories of the Amethyst Initiative. The goal of the Amethyst Initiative is to spur public debate about changing the legal drinking age back to 18. Originally, I planned a little exposition piece here about why this is an issue. But let's cut to the chase: On any given college campus, the vast majority of students are going to drink. And of that vast majority, less than half can do so legally.

Lowering the drinking age back to 18 Raising the drinking age back to 21 solves a lot of problems:
-It removes the social taboo of drinking in college. Take away the forbidden-fruit status of booze, and suddenly getting tanked at every possible opportunity doesn't seem as attractive.
-It opens up venues where alcohol can be purchased and consumed legally, and in moderation. Where's the incentive to drink in somebody's basement when you could just as easily have a beer in a bar?
-It frees up police and college resources (money and manpower) committed to a never ending war on underage drinking.
-It presents educational alternatives to the "alcoholic abstinence" stance parents and educators are forced to adopt given the national drinking age.
-It ceases the blatant violation of civil liberties engendered by the fact that an 18 year old can vote, enter into a legally binding contract and serve in the armed forces, but they cannot purchase a beer.

If any of the above items sounds like a good reason to consider lowering the drinking age, then welcome to the club. But of course, every reasonable idea has its detractors. And in this case MADD is leading the charge. Head on over to their website and you will be inundated with quotes from "experts" citing all of the "scientific data" that the current drinking age saves lives. Click through enough of these "expert" testimonials and you eventually work your way to a single line graph which tells us that modifying the drinking age to 21 reduced alcohol related fatal crashes by 32% between 1983 and 1989 for individuals age 16-20. Now, seeing as this is the sole piece of quantitative evidence offered up by MADD, a couple of questions:

-Does this data account for deaths per mile driven, or is the data raw?
-Why are we counting 16 and 17 year olds? We're talking about lowering the drinking age to 18.
-How has the data looked since 1989? Fatalities still going down? Maybe that's because DUI penalties have gotten stiffer and enforcement has gotten more aggressive. Something that would continue to happen regardless of the drinking age. Fatalities up? How could that happen if people under 21 can't legally obtain booze?

I could continue asking probing questions all day, but that would only anger the MADD folks. Especially when they're awfully busy running a smear campaign against college presidents who work the front line of the underage drinking battle and are finally admitting that the system is broken. I'm not sure when MADD turned into Focus on the Family and became a bunch of propaganda smearing zealots, but letting reactionary hot heads determine the social and political landscape in this country has got to stop.

Great Eight

Less than 10 minutes ago Michael Phelps became the Olympic golden boy, winning his eighth gold medal of the Beijing games. The magnitude of his accomplishment is undeniable. For this this Olympics, this week, this moment in time, there is no one better than Michael Phelps.

So let the punditry begin: Is Phelps the greatest athlete ever? Is he the most dominant athlete in a single sport? Is this the greatest Olympic accomplishment ever? Already, the questions are being asked.

What's my opinion? I think we need to be careful about what we say about the performance. We cannot diminish the magnitude of the accomplishment, nor should we call into question the enormity of other athletic feats. Lance Armstrong, 7 consecutive Tour yellow jerseys; Tiger Woods, 15 14 majors in a pro career spanning only 11 years; Michael Jordan, 2 championship three-peats with the Bulls. The list goes on. There's going to be a lot of buzz about Phelps' accomplishment being the greatest in sport. But let's use some restraint, perspective and imagination in trying to qualify the amazing display of athleticism Phelps has brought to Beijing this week.

Olympic Air Supply

I heard it on PTI the other day: "Michael Phelps is sucking all the air out of Beijing." And I thought it was just the smog. But it's a true statement. Michael Phelps' improbable run at eight gold medals has reduced the rest of the Olympics to an afterthought. For the most part, I'm OK with that. Phelps is a dominant performer in most of his events, and he conducts himself with poise and enthusiasm. He's the type of athlete you don't mind being inundated with.

However, there are athletes in other sports that are not getting the typical level of attention. Great example: Women's gymnastics. The other night, the US had two gymnasts with realistic medal hopes. Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin both had the potential to win the women's all-around. But Phelps-mania held the collective attention of the American audience and remains the big story despite Liukin and Johnson's Gold-Silver finish. But is it really all Phelps' fault? Nope.

Much of the reason that Phelps has been permitted to dominate the attention surrounding the games is that he was the only viable storyline the media chose to promote prior to the opening ceremonies. Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor are the two most dominant women's beach volleyball players in the world. They closed out the gold in the 2004 Olympics in Athens without dropping a set. But the dynamic duo didn't get much press heading into games, despite the fact that they're favored for another run to the gold. And as far as gymnastics go, most sponsors that actually sunk money into a specific athlete backed the wrong horse. Shawn Johnson was remarkably consistent, but it was Nastia Liukin who took the gold. Now the pre-games face of the US women's gymastics team isn't the winning face. Oops. Looking at track and field, we have no flamboyant speedsters like Michael Johnson to market, so another Olympic staple loses focus to the goings-on in the Water Cube.

I can't explain why Walsh and Misty-May didn't get more pre-games press, but I have a theory as to why gymnastics, track and field, and the US swimmers not named Michael Phelps don't get much play before the opening ceremonies. The reason: Competitive parity. Back in the cold war days, it was the US vs the Soviet bloc. If the Soviets didn't have a contender in a sport that the US did, nobody else was going to get in our way. But times have changed. The globalization of sport has allowed elite athletes to emerge all over the world. No longer can corporate sponsors and the media predictably crown their heroes before the games. Phelps is an exception, but in coming Olympiads, the media will be less and less likely to celebrate the achievements of an athlete before the gold is in the bag.

The Danny Almonte Reverso

It's official. We Americans may be the world's worst losers. After the US team's poor showing in the women's gymnastics competition last night, the excuses came fast and furious. First came word that Chellsie Memmel was competing with an injured ankle. But then the media seized on the idea that some of the Chinese gymnast were ineligible to compete. And why might these athletes be ineligible? Was it doping? Secret liaisons with the judges? Nope, it seems that three of the golden ladies might be under 16 years old, the minimum age for Olympic eligibility.

Many of you remember Danny Almonte. Danny was the lights out ace pitcher for the Bronx team in the 2001 Little League World Series. Danny seemed to enjoy a distinct height and strength advantage over the other twelve year old players. An advantage that suddenly made sense when investigations after the fact revealed that Almonte was actually 14 at the time. The media circus surrounding the Almonte situation was ridiculous.

Here we are, seven years later. And after an effort that really amounted to a sub-par performance, we are collectively up in arms that our female gymnastic representatives got their asses kicked by a few 72 pound 14 year olds.

So what exactly gives a 14 year old gymnast an edge over an older, larger gymnast? Depending on who's whining about it, 14 year olds don't understand the gravity of the situation and are less likely to succumb to pressure. They're lighter, requiring less muscle mass to execute the same skills and achieve the same velocity of larger gymnasts. Pick your excuse, they all suck. Not because they aren't legitimate, but because you could so easily flip the arguments for the older gymnasts: They're more mature, focused and poised because of their age and experience. Their larger, more muscular bodies make the skills easier, etc. You can spin anything. Ask our presidential candidates.

The bottom line here is that the situation is admittedly goofy. But I'm still conflicted. The part of me that refuses to take a mulligan on the golf course thinks that despite the nature of the violation, it boils down to cheating, and the athletes should be punished. But the part of me that tries to view this event from a cultural perspective thinks this is much ado about nothing. If we're going to be a nation of poor losers, then let's at least stick with excuses that don't get us laughed at. Blame it on the officiating and move on...

Those Who Can't Do... Get TV Gigs

Last night, in addition to the men's 4 x 100, NBC also covered the women's gymnastic qualifiers. It wasn't a great night for the ladies. There were some falls, a dq for stepping out of bounds and one gymnast managed to hurt her ankle between the locker room and the first event. But all-in-all, the women's team still qualified in second place behind the Chinese favorites. Not too shabby. Of course, if you were listening to the three banshees calling the event, you would have thought Marta Karolyi was going to march the whole team out the back of the gym and beat them in an alley. I distinctly remember that the commentators for gymnastics at the past few Olympics have been very uptight, very judgmental and sort of cruel. But this year, they're taking it to a new level. They hammer on the competitors (American and international alike) and make each misstep sound like a grievous sin. Before I go on, let's meet the offenders:
Al Trautwig: I'm not going to go too hard on Trautwig here. He's a career sports reporter, and has no personal experience in gymnastics. His general knowledge of the sport is really sufficient to call a quadrennial event and he makes a nice counterpoint to his buddies in the booth. Which brings us to...

Elfi Schegel: A Canadian gymnast whose career peaked at the 1980 Pan Am Games. Schegel never medaled in an Olympics, and is now almost 30 years removed from her prime, but still feels comfortable tearing apart contemporary gymnasts for minor mistakes.

Tim Daggett: If you've ever done a double take at the unnaturally high voice when a male gymnast is being interviewed, then you probably also grit your teeth while this male pixie damages egos one vicious comment at a time. Daggett is the obnoxious, talkative John Madden to Al Trautwig's fairly competent Pat Summerall.

Aside from the fact that these goons have a vendetta against self esteem, what makes them truly obnoxious is how they never stop to acknowledge the fact that gymnastics have progressed a long way since they last competed. I still think they spend too much time being unnecessarily cruel, but it wouldn't be so bad if they exhibited some class and acknowledged that in their primes they could never do what gymnasts do today.

Not all commentators exhibit this kind of poor behavior. During last night's historic swimming events, Dan Hicks asked Rowdy Gaines what it felt like to hold a world record. Gaines responded by immediately pointing out that the last record he held was now the property of Michael Phelps and was 5 seconds better than his WR time 28 years ago. He copped to the fact that it's a totally different playing field out there now. And I think that gives Gaines some additional credibility, and makes him far less irritating.

There's a whole platoon of gymnasts from recent Olympics who would probably be great in the booth. It's time NBC made an effort to develop some new talent that isn't as dissonant, harsh and out of touch.

Wicked Fast

In my last post, I think my frustration with the Beijing games was apparent. What I really needed was a little Olympic magic to get me back on board and feeling good about the whole production. The magic arrived last night. The men's 4 x 100 freestyle relay team of Michael Phelps, Garrett Weber-Gale, Cullen Jones and Jason Lezak silenced some trash-talking French poolboys by putting together a come-from-behind, last second victory that demolished the previous world record by nearly four seconds.

In the aftermath, anchor Jason Lezak is getting much of the press for his anchor leg heroics. Trailing by a half body length deficit at the turn, Lezak found a gear somewhere between "hauling ass" and "superhuman" over the last 10 meters, outreaching Alain Bernard at the wall to snag the win. There was no mystery about the affiliation of most of the 17,000 fans at the Cube, as the place exploded following finish. It was one of those sporting moments that you can walk into with no context whatsoever and still get pumped about. Well, unless you're French.

NBC tried a little too hard following the spectacle to grant the race "instant-classic" cred, but I'm letting that slide. This was the most exciting 3 minutes and 8 seconds in recent Olympic history.

International Smackdown

Despite their underdog status, the Chinese men's basketball team kept things interesting for the first half of their eventual 101-70 loss to team USA. Watching the Chinese team keep things tight with some ridiculous perimeter shooting in the first half sort of reminded me of every NCAA game I've watched where a ridiculously overmatched 13, 14, 15 or 16 seed goes out and makes a run at a top seed. But inevitably the tide turns, as it did for the US in the 3rd quarter. What they lacked in 3 point shooting, team USA made up for with ridiculous defensive rebounds and powering through the lane like Yao Ming was a JV player. After some embarrassing losses during recent international outings, this morning's blowout was a good indicator. But there are some more serious tests before anyone with a right mind declares these guys a gold medal lock.

Some Olympic observations from the opening days of the Olympic games:
-Way to go Beijing! Disgusting air quality, filtered internet to the Olympic Village and now a tragic murder suicide involving the family of an American coach. 24 hours down and you're doing a bang-up job. And I hear those opening ceremonies were gorgeous.
-Dara Torres: Fastest leg of the women's 4x100 freestyle silver medal effort. Props to Dara for showing up the young'uns. Here's hoping she doesn't pop positive for HGH.
-Micheal Phelps: Thanks for losing the facial hair prior to competing. The gold medals are going to look a lot classier without the porn star 'stache.
-Laura Bush and Henry Kissenger: You're at the US vs China basketball game. You're getting roughly the same amount of camera time as Chris Bosh. Try to stay awake.
-George Bush: Don't restrain yourself. When Kobe drops a tomahawk dunk down on Yao's head, stand up, pop your shirt and ask the Chinese President, "whatchoo gonna say 'bout THAT, shorty?" It's only slightly less classy than how you usually behave on an international stage.

Mask of Rage

Earlier this week 4 members of the US cycling team arrived in Beijing sporting masks to ward off the effects of Beijing's notoriously smoggy air. These four athletes were hammered in the popular press. Even Wilbon and guest host J.A. Adande ripped these athletes on PTI. And I'm disgusted.

The Olympics represent an opportunity for some of the world's best athletes, in the most underrepresented sports, to perform on a world stage and enjoy the attention and glory we dole out daily to professional athletes in the US. If you are a cyclist, a runner, a rower, a triathlete, or any other athlete who has worked many long years to get to the Olympics, why would you accept anything less than your absolute peak physical condition? I could not care less if the Chinese are offended by those athletes who wisely choose to don masks. If the host country had kept their promise of pollution reduction, then the mask would be unwarranted. But when daily air conditions flirt with the 100 mark on the air quality index, China forfeits their right to get upset that visiting athletes don't want to inhale airborne sludge.

Shame on members of the media who are slamming these athletes for protecting themselves. These are not NBA prima-donnas making millions a year. These are amateur athletes who have gotten to the games without shoe deals and fat Olympic Committee money. If these athletes want to ensure they are able to compete without any reservation or excuse, let them be.

With the opening ceremonies just wrapping up a few minutes ago, the question of whether other US athletes chose to wear the masks (provided by the USOC by the way) during the open-air ceremonies will be determined sometime around 8PM ET tonight. I truly hope that a number of athletes choose to wear the masks, or skip the opening ceremonies altogether (I know I won't be watching). The news media may be keeping it's mouth shut about China's treatment of Tibet during these games, but I don't think that's indicative of anyone giving China a pass on the issue. So why are US athletes being attacked in response to the air quality issue, when the Chinese are responsible for the mess in the first place?

Favregate Over?

Yesterday morning reports began popping up around the web that Brett Favre had been traded to the Jets. I know that throughout this entire saga the Packers had been looking at the Jets and the Bucs as nice safe landing places for their franchise QB. Of course the last thing they wanted was to see Favre end up with division rivals Chicago or Minnesota. For more on that, check the Verbal Currency archives for my "Nightmare Scenario" posts.

And now it appears the Packers have gotten exactly what they want: Brett is going to play on an AFC team that will NEVER be in an position to embarrass the Packers organization. Sure, Brett's got Laveranues Coles and Jerricho Cotchery, but does anyone honestly believe that the Jets are going to beat down the Patriots, the Colts, and the Chargers to be in a position to match up against an NFC opponent in the Super Bowl? Of course not, and that's what Packers management is counting on.

But how does Brett feel about this situation? Let's face it: Minnesota would have been the perfect place for Favre to end up. The Vikings have a fantastic RB duo, a great defense, much improved WR corps and one of the best O-lines in the game. What they're missing is a QB who can exploit defenses that are already shellshocked by the Peterson/Taylor combo. Favre would have been a perfect fit, and the Vikings would have been an immediate contender. Once the Packers made it clear that Favre was not going to be allowed back as the starting QB (Mike McCarthy made that official on Tuesday), why didn't Brett take a hard line? "Trade me to a contender, release me, or watch me sit on the sidelines and lead the Aaron Rodgers second guessing." Instead, he seemed to acquiesce to this trade to the Jets that seems to work out a lot better for the Packers than for Favre. If it were me, I wouldn't have gone quite so quietly into that dark night.

And sure, the Jets could go on a run this year. But it's not likely. And if they do, guess who's going to get all the credit... No, not Brett. It'll be the Mangenius, head coach Eric Mangini, who will get heavy praise for working Favre into a new system so successfully. Part of the reason Brett got so much credit for his MVP-caliber season last year is because nobody thinks of Mike McCarthy as praise-worthy. But Mangini is a different animal. He's gotten a lot of cred for being an uber-talented coach and a disciple of Bill Belichick. So if Brett thinks he can swing the Jets to a winning record, or a playoff run, and bask in all the Jersey accolades, fuhgeddaboudit.

Summer Doldrums - Time to Shape Up

I've been saying it for a week, but we have officially hit the summer doldrums. The doldrums are that 2-4 week period during the summer where things go quiet at the office, there's not much on TV, baseball is just starting to get interesting and the NFL regular season still seems a long way off. So to kill time, I'm committing to getting back in shape. I've started a new blog to track my daily workout activities, and maybe once daily activities aren't embarrassing, I'll make it public.

So aside from sheer boredom, what else is motivating me to get my ass in gear and start moving? First and foremost, there's a Bucknell Crew Associationreunion in October. And part of that reunion is going to involve some alumni rowing. I know I can't keep up with the current rowers and recent graduates, but I'd like to hold my own against the other "old guys."

I've also made it clear that I'm not in love with Northern Virginia, but one of the benefits I have yet to experience is a winter that is far milder than Rochester's. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of the nice weather to run. And I'd like to be in a routine by then.

Another drawback to the doldrums is that there isn't much to write about. Hence this lame entry. I'll find something interesting and topical to write about tomorrow.

Reality TV: Dumb and Dumber

I just wrapped up a post regarding A&E's Intervention, and I would be remiss if I didn't add some commentary regarding the VH1 travesty that is I Love Money. We were flipping channels Sunday morning at the cottage and came across this abomination. Apparently, the entire cast on this show comes from other reality shows on VH1. Joan is an expert on the history and culture of VH1 reality shows, so she tried to explain the origins of these freaks. But aside from the reality show pedigree, it looked like the only thing these people had in common was silicone, steroids and an IQ of less than 85.

In my post on Intervention, it may have come across as cruel that I was rooting for the addict to make the interventionist look bad. But ultimately this type of detached response to the gravity of the situation reflects the dirty truth about reality TV: Whether we're watching a legitimately tragic figure like Dillon, or brain-dead celebutantes named 12-Pack, Whiteboy or Toastee, the goal is entertainment. And as consumers of both types of media, it becomes difficult to differentiate our responses. How do we not mock the stupidity and foolishness of the drug addict and the interventionist, when that's the entire point of a show like I Love Money?

Best Intervention EVER!

Last year I started watching Intervention on A&E. It's a compelling show that clearly demonstrates the horrific toll drug and alcohol abuse takes on the addict, as well as their friends and family. The show's formula is fairly simple: The addict is told they are participating in a documentary on addiction; the addict and their family are interviewed and followed by camera crews to demonstrate the need for an intervention; an interventionist preps the family and friends; the intervention is sprung on the addict and ultimately they are convinced to enter a treatment facility; black and white captions update the progress of the addict at the end of each episode.

I have no doubt that the individuals featured on this show have turned their lives into train wrecks of grand proportions and are in imminent danger. However, two things have always bothered me about the intervention process:
1. Addiction 101 tells us that an addict cannot successfully embark on recovery until they have hit rock bottom. What constitutes "rock bottom" can vary widely (prison, loss of family, and loss of a home are oft-cited examples). An intervention attempts to simulate rock-bottom by exposing the addict to the pain he or she has caused their loved ones. But I question how effective the simulation really is. Can someone who has not yet felt the need for recovery themselves actually commit to the process as a result of external input?
2. The interventionists strike me as smug, obnoxious individuals who have a standoffish demeanor that clearly frustrates the more aggravated addicts. Their approach to the intervention is formulaic and always presumes superiority over the addict.

As a result, I think I've always been secretly rooting for one of the addicts to call BS on the interventionist and just walk out. And last night's rerun of a season 3 episode, "Dillon," was exactly what I was waiting for. After starting the ball rolling with the "documentary" following Dillon and his family around Oklahoma, the production gets gummed up pretty fast when Dillon quickly suspects he is on Intervention. Seeing the producers get screwed by their own success was enormously gratifying.

But of course, there's production money invested already, so why do the smart thing and call the whole thing off? Instead, interventionist Jeff VanVonderen decides to ambush Dillon in his trailer with members of the local police department and force the intervention anyway.

After having his entire family and the local police chief barge into the trailer, Dillon becomes understandably upset. When Jeff tells him he's going to explain how this works, and Dillon curtly replies, "don't bother, I've seen the show," I started dying. It only got better when Dillon locked himself in his room, slipped out a window and took off running. A sharp-eyed family member in the living room sees the escape and the local police (who obviously take the donuts and sitting around regimen very seriously) take off in pursuit. Apparently prolonged crystal meth abuse really takes a toll on the ol' gas tank because Dillon doesn't make it very far with Chief "Hell Yeah I Want Gravy on That" in hot pursuit.

At this point, we are 56 minutes into the episode and I'm thinking that this is it. Finally, one of these unfortunate addicts is going to succeed in making the interventionist look the jackass he appears to be. But after a talking-to by the cops, Dillon caves and heads off for treatment.

This was one of the few times where a reality TV subject manages to turn the production on it's head by refusing the play by the rules. And that seems immensely more entertaining than the standard fare.