Technically Incorrect

Playing fantasy sports can be as addictive as watching "The Biggest Loser."

My own lowest point was when I went to see the Golden State Warriors play the Los Angeles Clippers and cheered when the Clippers' Michael Olowakandi snagged his 10th rebound. I am a Warriors fan, but Olowokandi was in my NBA fantasy team.

It took a team of bullish psychiatrists and several wily girlfriends to remove me from this iniquitous pursuit, which is why I have some sympathy with Cameron Pettigrew and three of his fellow Fidelity Investments employees.

Actually, they are former Fidelity employees, as, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, they were all fired from Fidelity's Westlake, Texas office for playing fantasy NFL during their hours of employment.

Fidelity is the world's No. 1 sponsor of mutual funds. These are, I believe, the folks who tell you in their ads to follow the green line on your way to having hairy gray ears and a condo in Boca. It sounds like a sure thing, but we all know how this 401(k) thing can sometimes work out.

So perhaps you might find it curious that Fidelity frowns on gambling. And fantasy NFL, where money might be involved, is, according to the company, gambling.

"We have clear policies that relate to gambling. Participation in any form of gambling through the use of Fidelity time or equipment or any other company resource is prohibited," Fidelity spokesman Vin Loporchio told the Star-Telegram.

He added: "In addition to being illegal in a lot of places, it can also be disruptive. We want our employees to be focused on our customers and clients."

Righteous words, indeed. However, Pettigrew made some rather human points. "Firing a guy for being in a $20 fantasy league? Let's be honest; that's a complete overreaction," he told the Star-Telegram.

This whole thing started in October when e-mails pertaining to a different fantasy league fell before the eyes of Fidelity management. It was then that they realized that Pettigrew was the commissioner of an office league.

Pettigrew, however, said that managers and leaders played in at least 10 fantasy leagues around the office. This was despite the fact that Fidelity does have a policy against fantasy leagues, a policy that Pettigrew says was routinely ignored.

Even though Pettigrew says he never sent fantasy-related e-mails at work, it all seems to have come down to two IMs that Pettigrew received.

"One of my buddies sent me something about how bad Trent Edwards was playing or something like that," Pettigrew told the Star-Telegram. "So they called me in and talked to me for about 90 minutes on everything I ever knew about fantasy football. They interrogated me as though I was some sort of international gambling kingpin."

Shortly afterward, four league commissioners, including Pettigrew, were fired.

Corporations have many rules. Indeed, I know people in corporations who rather enjoy making up rules and enforcing them.

But perhaps the first rule should be to ascertain whether an employee's private behavior, even if occasionally on company time, actually does adversely affect his work performance. Or whether it might actually help it.

Wayne A. Spring might be wishing he had better privacy settings on his Facebook page.

According to the Associated Press, Spring, in an attack of hubris, madness, or merely Saints fandom, told his socially-networking nearest and dearest that they could come and shoot his TV if the Saints beat the Washington Redskins last Sunday.

Yes, I said "beat," because Spring is a longtime, long-suffering fan of one of the NFL's more spirited and unfortunate franchises.

"I was a Saints fan, but used to be they never could win, and I admit I was a fair-weather fan," Spring told the AP.

The Saints won in overtime, 33-30. And as soon as the winning field goal pierced the uprights, Spring's ears were pierced by the sounds of his ringing phone.

Around a dozen equally sane Saints fans turned up with beer and guns. The resulting video has already caused something of a stir on YouTube. So please enjoy the merriment and the fact that Spring, who owns a medical staffing company, will apparently be watching the Saints on a small black-and-white screen this weekend.

Sometimes, it seems, electronics just don't get the respect they deserve.

As many a famous person might or might not tell you privately, it's hard to know when to be honest.

Should you admit that you have at least 11 lovers? Should you tell the world that you might enjoy a prescription drug or two?

And then there was Carol Bartz's dilemma at the UBS Media Conference Monday--should you admit just how delighted you are that Tiger Woods might have at least 11 lovers and enjoy a prescription drug or two?

Bartz chose to open her feelings to the world. "God Bless Tiger," she was quoted by The Huffington Post as declaring.

The very public trials of the great golfer have forced untold millions of people to seek out untold stories and photos of Woods' personal life all over Yahoo's pages.

(Credit: CC Yodel Anecdotal/Flickr)

I know there may be some who found Bartz's admission rather callous. Didn't it sound like she was attempting to perform a Riverdance on someone's funeral casket? This view might have been supported by her reportedly mentioning that Tiger's woes had even conquered Michael Jackson's physical demise.

May I offer an alternative theory? You see, in the way that corporations sometimes behave with all the directional unity of Medusa's hair, perhaps Yahoo was, this week, behaving with uncommonly singular purpose.

On the same day that Bartz made her comments, her company launched something it calls its campaign to inspire the world.

Entitled "You In?", it is Yahoo's attempt to let kindness be its (and, by extension, your) guiding light this holiday season.

The idea is that, bathing in the need to be nice to someone, you should go immediately to Kindness.yahoo.com and share what it is you have decided to do to express your altruism. This way others might be able to be inspired by the ripple effect of your goodness.

It could be to finally tell your husband that his nasal hair has reached beyond reason into a desperate forest. It could be to finally tell your boss that he is a primping goon who shouldn't be running a bath, never mind your IT department.

Or it could be, like Carol Bartz, subtly encouraging your fellow imperfect human, Tiger Woods, to partake of the soothing balm called honesty.

"Look," she was really saying. "Just tell them exactly how it is. They'll respect you for it in the morning. It works for me."

I wonder if Tiger Woods' first post-scandal sponsorship might come from Yahoo? I can just see him yodeling after hitting a five-iron to within two feet of the pin, can't you?

Tiger Woods, this week's Icarus, grew up with the Web.

Indeed, when he seemed to be flying most closely to the sun, Woods insisted that instead of talking to the police, he would only communicate through his own blog, TigerWoods.com.

News of his striking an iron fire hydrant and a wooden tree with his Cadillac Escalade was generated not by conventional media, but by Web media, principally led by TMZ.com.

While the more conventional media were still telling the story of how Woods' wife had supposedly saved him from a terrible fate, TMZ, RadarOnline, and others (the one conventional medium on TMZ's side was the more traditional Enquirer, but traditional media have always despised this under-rated institution) approached the matter with a cynic's eye, a skeptic's nose, and perhaps even a spy's technology.

Together, they produced many alleged lovers and tales of Tiger's conversations with close friends in which he allegedly confided that only a Kobe Special (the evocatively phrased "house on a ring") might remedy the situation.

And now that, according to numerous online sources, we have rumors of sexted photos of the inside of Tiger's trousers, I can think of nothing other than Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

(Credit: Cliff 1066/Flickr)

Is it mere coincidence that on the day that Woods' most hallowed reputation was assaulted by rumors not only of smutty cell phone photos, but of an affair with a fascinating porn star, Google's CEO spoke to the world from on high?

In an interview with CNBC, Schmidt declared in what some might feel was his softest, most touchingly moralistic tone: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

His statement was meticulously constructed in response to a question about the trustworthiness of the world's most enveloping search engine. However, surely his answer applies to technology in general.

The problem with technology isn't so much that it immediately reveals, but that it immediately records. That is how Google makes much of its money, by recording the preferences of those who use it.

That is also how photographs, opinions, flings, even drunken nights come back to haunt those who may not wish nor deserve anyone's criticism.

In days gone by, sportspeople, movie stars, even, perish their memory, congressmen could keep their less socially acceptable behavior on the down low because proof was somewhat hard to clutch. Of course, people may have talked. But there was no physical evidence.

Now, the minute Playgirl decides that photographs of Tiger's private life and parts are genuine, all will be revealed in its less than salubrious glory. And Woods' interesting faith in the power of his blog to bring the unquestionable truth to those who admire him will seem like faintly naive bluster.

However, as we watch this whole sad, real, painful and even slightly amusing affair (or, as it seems, affairs) unfold upon our Macs, PCs and smartphones, shouldn't it make us wonder what it is to be free?

In order to live a life of freedom, shouldn't we fly in the other direction from Facebook, put some space between ourselves and MySpace, smash our cell phones and invest in landlines, let go of our laptops and most definitely never imagine that our personal blogs will persuade people that we are who we really think we are?

Shouldn't we attempt to live in a way that no one can observe and no one, especially Google, can record?

Tiger Woods might have gone the old media route--an interview with Diane Sawyer or Oprah. Even a Roger Clemens-like session on "60 Minutes." Perhaps one of those might have garnered him a little sympathy, might have earned him a few points in a game now largely driven by a 24-hour news cycle.

But Woods believed in new technology. And it is new technology that might end up doing him the most damage of all.

I am consumed, as I am sure all imperfect beings are, by the furor surrounding Tiger Woods' sudden and somewhat vertical descent from his image pedestal.

There will be those who will have much sympathy with his plight, as there will be those who will have none.

However, I was reading a quite brilliant editorial on Yahoo Sports offered by Dan Wetzel.

I was fully absorbed by Wetzel's strong, persuasive arguments that Woods should really not bleat about the tabloid world, when my right eye was drawn to an ad from the Professional Golfers Association. I immediately took a shot of it, because, well, please look at it.

(Credit: Chris Matyszczyk)

Some clever word-associating media planner or algorithmic program has managed to juxtapose this article about revelations in the life of Woods with an offer from the Professional Golfers Association to reveal the secrets of Woods' great rival, Phil Mickelson.

His, um, golfing secrets, as far as one can judge.

This touching coincidence approaches the poignancy of the Twitter billboard seen recently in Mobile, Ala. And one wonders how quickly anyone will notice that perhaps this is not in the finest of tastes, especially as it is coming from an organization that makes quite a lot of money from Woods' exertions.

As I am typing this sentence, the "Phil's Secrets Revealed" ad has moved on. One wonders just how quickly it will return.

He calls himself Agent Zero. His shirt number is a big, fat zero. And this accurately reflects the number of tweets Gilbert Arenas has posted to his Twitter account.

It's not that Arenas, the Washington Wizards point guard, isn't confident of his literary skills. Oh, no. Just look at his finely sculpted blog.

However, according to The Washington Post, Arenas has no interest in being a small time Twitter player. He wants 1 million followers before he will start to offer tweets from his copious and wondrous life and imagination.

Just last week Arenas told the Associated Press that he's chosen to go for 1 million because "it's so far-fetched."

And when some cruel know-it-all tried to point out that the way folks normally get followers is, well, by tweeting, Arenas replied with the sagacity of Wittgenstein: "I'm trying to do the opposite."

So that you can get some sense of Arenas' twittering possibilities, I have embedded a small piece of film featuring the Arenas bobblehead, quite a character in its own right.

However, I know you'll be wondering just how far away Arenas is from achieving immortal far-fetchedness. Well, he's pretty close to catching Shaquille O'Neal, who enjoys just over 2.5 million followers.

Yes, Arenas has already amassed, at the time of typing this, 5,717 followers. Perhaps the 4-9 Wizards will need to win a few more games before his Twitter page is swamped by mass anticipation of Arenas' first tweet.

Boxing's popularity seems to have been overtaken by such pleasures as mixed martial arts and American Idol over the last few years. This doesn't seem to have discouraged Facebook users from forming groups around their love of expressing hate for certain boxers.

According to the Telegraph, WBA World light-welterweight champion Amir Khan, a Briton of Pakistani heritage, has decided to threaten the social-networking company with legal action over some of these Facebook groups.

Together with his manager, Frank Warren, Khan has employed legal counsel after so far failing to persuade Facebook to take down so-called hate groups aimed at him. These groups, in the view of Khan and Warren, made racist and defamatory comments about the boxer.

Khan and Warren complain that they have so far received only standard acknowledgments from Facebook and have therefore employed the law firm Lupton Fawcett.

"The problem is, when you search for a celebrity on the site, you also come across pages using the celebrity's name and image that have no official link but in some instances are full of defamatory and illegal content," according to a quote in the Guardian of Lupton Fawcett's Stephen Taylor Heath.

Khan is a somewhat-polarizing figure in British sports. However, it is perhaps surprising just how many Facebook hate groups there are aimed at him. I counted more than 20.

Does he know there appear to be 1,600 "Hate MySpace" Facebook groups?

(Credit: Cc Deneyterrio/Flickr)

Facebook's terms of service are very clear about hate: "You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence." So perhaps it's hard to understand how the company can allow so many groups that claim they hate Amir Khan in their very name.

One can, of course, argue that you can say you hate a sportsman, in the sense that the mere sight of them arouses unpleasant thoughts (for some, David Beckham, for others, the German national soccer team). One doesn't necessarily wish that person or those persons harm.

Indeed, when one goes through the Amir Khan hate groups, the vast majority seem to dislike Khan for his attitude, for only fighting (in their opinion) boxers of a poor level and for his lack of boxing skill.

Much of the tone and content, however, is undoubtedly abusive, and there are suggestions of racist overtones in certain comments. Khan's lawyers say they are specifically focusing on material that they believe is defamatory or racist.

This case lends further indication that many interpretations Facebook makes of content on its site are highly subjective. In removing some Holocaust denial groups and one Muslim-hating group, Facebook made it clear that it made its own judgments on what should be considered hateful speech.

It will be interesting how far Khan's lawyers are prepared to push their case. It will also be interesting whether other sporting personalities will join together in attempting to remove potentially defamatory content from Facebook and other sites.

While it seems almost comical that there appear to be 1,600 Facebook groups that profess to hate MySpace, there are only 54 that claim to hate David Beckham, and only one Facebook group appears when you search for "I hate the German football team."

You don't want some old chap in a large check jacket with a florid pocket handkerchief staring up into a basketball player's nostrils and asking him inane mundanities.

No, you want to hang on the every direct word of your favorite, or perhaps not quite so favorite, athlete.

For you, therefore, there is Jockipedia. Oh, yes, the very name might make you think that this is Wikipedia for jocks. But it's more than that. Well, not really.

Jockipedia, the creation of a former network news producer called Douglas Warshaw, is your own encyclopedia of every musing that emerges from a famous athlete's tonsils or touch-screen telephone.

David Ortiz. Big Papi, Small Tweeter.

(Credit: CC terren in Virginia/Flickr)

It allows you to surf by athlete's name, by league, even by country. And each entry looks not merely at such frippery as Twitter. No, it delves into the athlete's personal blog site, their Facebook page, MySpace page, their charity site, and even their contributions to Flickr.

You can absorb Estonian tennis player Kaia Kanepi's personal Web site (it's really a little dull), just as readily as you can speedily keep up to date with the Twitter feed of Red Sox power (occasionally) hitter David Ortiz. Yes, all two of his tweets.

Warshaw told the New York Times: "The Tower of Babel is getting bigger (....) The desire to find people will just get bigger. It just is. It's like gravity. Every day, more and more athletes, not just the professionals, are doing this online."

Warshaw also has very lofty goals for his informational tower: to have every athlete in the world included on Jockipedia. Naturally, he will need a little help from many eagle-eyed Estonians, anal Albanians, baseball-loving potheads, and others before he can reach his goal.

Still, would life really be worth living if we couldn't have instant access to the Twitter musings of, say, Lakers' splendidly erratic shooting guard, Sasha Vujacic? Here is the very latest: "No matter what they say to you! No matter what is thrown upon/against you! Never lose your believe! Never lose focus! Dreams DO come true!"

Jockipedia. Where the Shakespeare in every athlete is revealed in all its glory.

It's one thing to go and play with LeBron James. It's quite another to face Bruce Manley.

Perhaps you are not yet familiar with the name. Manley is something of a YouTube cult hero for his rather picturesque basketball trick shot skills.

Somehow, Shaquille O'Neal, the newest Cleveland Cavalier, saw the video. Apparently, his ego was piqued even more than when he saw Orlando's Dwight Howard claim to be Superman.

So what did the NBA's king of social networking do? He Twittered a challenge to a HORSEing duel.

"i wanna play this guy n horse for a thousand dollars, find him pls http://bit.ly/CK5nk," read Shaq's tweet.

According to the HoopDoctors.com, Manley has accepted Shaq's challenge and the contest should happen some time in July. So I really would encourage everyone to look at the YouTube video I have embedded.

If you are not utterly astonished by his tree-point shot, then your emotions have left you for another woman. And, yes, I said tree-point shot--no spelling mistake.

As for the shot Manley hits totally blind from behind a wall, well, if that isn't extraordinary talent then I am the new chief executive officer of the Golden State Warriors.

Will Shaq be able to compete against this kind of ability? It will be very interesting which H-O-R-S-E rules they choose to play. But, if I were a betting man, and perish the thought, I would be betting Manley.

Unless, of course, there's some very fine editing going on here.