Fast living. (Emphasis on “living”)

Anyway, nobody died.

Reports of Sunday’s Indianapolis 500 stretch run, describing “a perilous blocking move” by eventual winner Simon Pagenaud swerving back and forth across the track ahead of runner-up Alexander Rossi in the final lap, recalled a similar—and frightening—drivers’ dare in 1989, the one time I covered the celebrated race.

That high-risk duel 30 years ago, between Emerson Fittipaldi and Al Unser, Jr., hardly resembled typical last-second sports drama—the decisive jump shot, walk-off home run or tackle-breaking touchdown dash. It was deadly serious, a game of chicken at speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour. And a reminder that an aversion to chronicling human fatalities was a major factor in making sports my chosen sphere of journalism.

Automotive competition has its attraction, certainly. In what feels like a previous lifetime, I in fact partook in a gymkhana event, maneuvering my old MGB through a parking-lot maze of cones and turns for time. I have no recollection how well I did, but it was great fun. And quite safe.

Compare that to my first racing assignment at the 1979 Formula One championship in Watkins Glen, N.Y., when it was required, in obtaining press credentials, to sign a form acknowledging the possibility of collateral damage (including death) to us non-combatants. A real attention-getter, that.

A subsequent mission in 1982 to report on the Indy 500 “speed week,” the series of training sessions leading up to the race, began with the news that Gordon Smiley, attempting to qualify for his third Indy, had just hit the wall at 190 miles per hour and died instantly. He was 36.

A sobering twist of the traditional Indy 500 opening command of “Gentlemen, start your engines” once was offered by Jim Murray, the often snarky sportswriting great, by beginning his column on the race with “Gentlemen, start your coffins.”

Department of irony: A first impression in 1989 of finally witnessing the self-proclaimed America’s Greatest Sporting Spectacle was mostly dullness. Cars whizzed past, over and over for hours, in a deafening, almost lulling routine, while the usual attrition of broken automotive parts thinned the field.

But when Fittipaldi and Unser began their treacherous jousting through the last half-dozen laps, the speeds and the drivers’ abandon became unsettlingly evident. With continuous turns rushing at them in a blur and no room to spare in the corners, Fittipaldi and Unser were dodging and weaving dangerously past lapped cars. Unser had barreled past Fittipaldi on the straightaway with just more than two laps to go, then wandered all over the track to keep Fittipaldi from latching onto his draft. There seemed every chance that if the wall didn’t get them, a car was bound to.

So, when it ended no worse than it did, it was fairly miraculous. Unser was literally bumped from the lead when Fittipaldi’s right front tire clipped Unser’s left real tire and sent Unser into a slow spin, sliding backwards into the outside restraining wall. Somehow, trailing racers avoided a multi-car pile-up as Unser slipped back across the track and onto the infield.

The baseball expression “suicide squeeze” came to mind. But in a literal sense. Yet Unser, having lived through it, insisted afterwards that it was “just racing.”

“Y’know,” he said, “in racing there’s just times when you don’t think about life, you don’t think about money, you think about winning. [Fittipaldi] wasn’t going to lift [his foot off the accelerator], and neither was I.”

According to the Indy 500 website, only 16 drivers have died during the race in its 103 years (and another 27 during qualifying and practice sessions.) Fittipaldi, now 72, and Unser, now 57, could be said to be too old to die young anymore.

Veteran Indy 500 driver Johnnie Parsons years ago argued that he and his colleagues “are not wild and wooly characters who do not care if they live or die, nor or they clowns or speed-happy maniacs. They are men with a special skill….envied by many who were not gifted with the daring spirit and the ability to live life to the fullest.”

Still. Kids, don’t try this stuff at home.

Sports justice and King Solomon

Of the 156 golfers entered in last week’s PGA championship tournament, only one—53-year-old former champ John Daly, was permitted to ride an electric cart to traverse the hilly 7,459-yard (4.2-mile) course. Because, the PGA’s American with Disabilities Act committee ruled, Daly has an arthritic knee.

Was that fair?

“Well,” 15-time major tournament champion Tiger Woods said, “I walked on a broken leg, so….” Woods was referring to the 2008 U.S. Open, which he won while playing with a stress fracture in his leg and a torn knee ligament.

Given that a core principle of sports is the so-called level playing field—theoretically a pure meritocracy, all competitors held to the same standards—there are some tricky dilemmas that are not so easily dealt with. Try this one:

Because two-time Olympic women’s 800-meter champion Caster Semenya of South Africa has a rare disorder of sexual development that produces high naturally-occurring levels of testosterone, she has been ruled ineligible in women’s events from 400 meters to a mile.

The international Court of Arbitration for Sport determined that Semenya’s condition provides a significant advantage in speed and endurance. And its not-so-great compromise is that Semenya may compete against men or in intersex categories not obviously available. Or she—and the tiny number of women with her condition—must reduce her testosterone levels either with drugs or surgery. (She is allowed to compete against women in other distances and has entered a 3,000-meter race at Stanford University next month.)

Not fair, Semenya said.

“Discriminatory,” the court in fact admitted. But “necessary, reasonable and proportionate” as a means of being fair to her female competitors.

All right: Define “fair.” Sameness? (Must Semenya have the same XX chromosome makeup as the female majority to be included in that group?) Deservedness? (Was John Daly entitled to special consideration because of his bad wheel?)

How about need?

In 2007, Oscar Pistorius of South Africa argued he should not have been excluded from running 400-meter Olympic qualifying events just because he had no legs. A double-amputee, Pistorius was producing times just a tick slower than the best able-bodied athletes in the world by using carbon-fiber artificial legs. Before he eventually was cleared for Olympic competition, there actually was some concern that Pistorius’ spring-like prostheses gave him an edge over runners with real legs.

Was that a worry about sore-loser complaints? Or the reasonable anxiety of well-meaning fairness-doctrine guardians so often confronted with performance-enhancing drugs, doctored equipment and other dastardly fudging?

For the equity police, there are no easy answers. Even well-intentioned drug testing—which has been used in Olympic sports for a half-century but came much, much later to American football, baseball and basketball pros—can only monitor chemistry. Not morality. What about doping sabotage? Inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance? Imperfect science?

“It’s a deep philosophical question,” swimming official John Leonard told me years ago. “Maybe we should say, ‘The hell with it. Let them use what they want and let’s just compete.’ But that’s not sport. That’s war. When you use any means available to win, that’s war. When you have rules that you agree to, to make things as equitable as possible, that’s sport.”

Still, “as equitable as possible” might not cover all aspects of genetics. Given all the gray areas, the incalculable bits of individuality, can even sincere attempts at sports justice truly balance the scales?

Julian Savulescu, a biomedical ethics professor based in Australia, posted an online proposal suggesting that, since Caster Semenya’s testosterone levels were natural and not the result of attempted cheating, she should remain eligible and her competitors should be allowed to add synthetic testosterone to “reduce any advantage Semenya may have.”

Problem solved. Cut the baby in half. (And golf carts for all.)

This. Is. Jeopardy!

What is…Not the Mueller Report?

(The category was Big News and the answer was: James Holzhauer’s $1.7-million Jeopardy! run, now the most anticipated ongoing story of the spring.)

Let’s get down to business. Pick up your signaling buttons.

Category: Analytics.

Answer: This web site, apparently beaten to the punch by James Holzhauer, posted a chart on the frequency of where the Jeopardy! Daily Doubles have been located over the past 18 years.

What is…Fivethirtyeight.com?

Category: Close But No Cigar.

Answer: Brandeis University sports information direction Adam Levin got within this much money—closer than anyone else—of beating James Holzhauer so far.

What is…$18?

Category: Sour grapes.

Answer: Former non-winning Jeopardy! contestant Charles Lane’s description of James Holzhauer in a Washington Post column.

What is…a “menace”?

Category: Curmudgeon at Large.

Answer: Vanity Fair’s Daniel D’Addario’s take on James Holzhauer’s Jeopardy! dominance.

What is…“boring” and “deadly dull television”?

Category: Believe It or Not.

Answer: James Holzhauer’s winning strategy, according to the satiric “news source” The Onion.

What is…Threatening other contestants with a nail-studded baseball bat during commercial breaks?

Category: Not Hair Brained.

Answer: Washington Post columnist Norman Chad wrote that James Holzhauer outranks Albert Einstein’s IQ because Holzhauer is this.

What is…a “buzzer genius”?

Category: Sports.

Answer: James Holzhauer’s stated dream job, according to an interview posted by The Athletic.

What is…Major League Baseball general manager?

Category: Homophones.

Answer: A Jeopardy! contestant closely related to James Holzhauer’s adventure.

What is…kin Jennings?

Category: Nostradamus. DAILY DOUBLE.

(I’ve always wanted to say this, Alex: Let’s make it a true Daily Double.)

Answer: The most likely person to finally beat James Holzhaeur.

Who is…Not me?

But not necessarily for everybody…

As April wanes I wax poetic

Concern myself with things aesthetic

Like rhyming onomatopoeia

With maybe an encyclopedia?

But as this month for special language

Comes to a close I always anguish

Over beats, syllables, also grammar

And iambic pentameter.

I think that you shall never see

Good poetry composed by me

But that won’t stop me e’ry April

To see if I am sudd’ly capable

Because it would be really fun

To write as Ogden Nash had done

Except a diphthong for me to coin

Might pull a muscle in my groin

Suppose I try for assonance

And wind up being half a dunce?

Or strain to conjure up a dactyl?

It’s just not feasible, not practyl

So poetry is not my deal

It’s hard to write, somehow not real.

Let Kilmer match a poem and tree

That seems a stretch, I’ll stick to free

Verse.

Or worse.

Too few good women in basketball?

Muffet McGraw

This month’s NCAA women’s basketball championship final had a decided past-is-prologue feel when Notre Dame head coach Muffet McGraw lamented her sport’s dearth of “women in power.” For only the eighth time in the last 20 years, both coaches in the title game—McGraw and her Baylor counterpart, Kim Mulkey—were female.

And the context for current gender-equity issues certainly includes the personal histories of McGraw and Mulkey.

In the late 1970s, when McGraw, upon graduation from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, competed in the WBL, the first women’s pro league, 32 of the 42 people who held head coaching positions—several for as few as one game over the WBL’s brief and troubled three-year existence—were male.

A couple of years later, when Mulkey was an all-American guard at Louisiana Tech, the team’s preparation and in-game coaching were handled by a man, Leon Barmore, though his title was “assistant.” The titular head coach, Sonja Hogg, sat on the bench for games but stuck to the second banana’s job of recruiter and luncheon speaker.

In 1982, that Louisiana Tech team won the first women’s national tournament sponsored by the NCAA. The previous 10 women’s versions of the Big Dance had been run on a shoestring by the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, while then-NCAA executive director Walter Byers insisted that facilitating women’s teams would “destroy the NCAA and college sports as we know them.”

But as Title IX, the 1971 law banning sex discrimination in education, slowly took effect, Byers wound up in the stands for that initial NCAA-backed title game in Norfolk, Va. He was there to witness Louisiana Tech’s 14-point victory over Cheney State, and to see the shortest player on the court—5-foot-4 Kim Mulkey—seize control in the second half.

During Tech’s decisive 20-2 run, Mulkey drove the lane for a layup, drove again and dished to senior Pam Kelly for a layup, lobbed a pass to leading scorer Janice Lawrence for another gimmee, sank a 20-foot set shot and looped another assist to Lawrence.

“Hey, gang,” Hogg said then, “this is what it’s all about. The NCAA will give us credibility. Exposure.” Also money, with the women’s tournament teams receiving travel expenses for the first time.

But something else happened under NCAA control. The proportion of female head coaches in women’s college basketball programs, at more than 90 percent in the early 1970s, has steadily dropped to under 60 percent.

As one way to reverse that trend, McGraw declared during Final Four weekend that it is her intention to never again hire a man as assistant. Predictably, there was the rejoinder that the most successful college women’s basketball coach in history—a guy, UConn’s Geno Auriemma—has done plenty to advance females in the sport by showcasing a record 11 national championships and by employing all women on his staff.

Mulkey, furthermore, wouldn’t go beyond saying she “understands” McGraw’s position. “I want the best person for the job,” said Mulkey, whose top assistant at Baylor is male. In 2008, in fact, Mulkey hired Barmore, the former Louisiana Tech championship architect, who served as her Baylor assistant for three seasons.

It could be that Mulkey’s experience, in terms of female-male balance, always was closer to cosmic justice than McGraw’s. During Mulkey’s playing days at Tech, that school’s women’s athletic budget equaled the men’s, even though there were 12 men’s teams and only three women’s.

But McGraw’s promise of women-only on her staff, in the face of the sport’s big-picture numbers, forces the contemplation that the past isn’t entirely past.

The Knicks as contenders? (Ask your parents.)

This is how long it’s been since the New York Knicks played for a championship: One early-season Knicks’ loss leading up to that most-recent NBA Final-round appearance was the result of a last-second three-point basket by a Milwaukee Bucks sharpshooter named Dell Curry.

Stephen Curry’s father.

Way back then, in 1999—20 years ago; a generation ago—I had volunteered to cover that season after Newsday’s designated Knicks beat reporter traded herself to the New York Times. I can report that the experience was akin to having a courtside seat at a Stephen King novel. Abundant horror. Relentless suspense. Imperfect, real-life ending.

Knicks fans, not as thoroughly despondent as during this—the worst season in the team’s 73-year existence—nevertheless were as restive as ever then, regularly in full grumbling mode during a disorienting season which had been downsized from the usual 82-game slog to a 50-game frenzy over 13 weeks.

Because of a protracted labor dispute, training camps weren’t opened until mid-January, almost four months later than originally planned, and immediately the sky seemed to be falling. Spectator favorites Charles Oakley and John Starks had been traded away and in their place were an (unfairly) perceived slacker, Marcus Camby, and the NBA’s Enemy No. 1, Latrell Sprewell, whose 68-game suspension for choking his Golden State coach a year earlier had just been lifted.

The first game wasn’t played until February 5 and on April 19, already down to the last eight games, the Knicks—their roster stocked with fabulously compensated but aging, injury-hobbled veterans—were adrift at 21-21. They likely were going to miss the playoffs for the first time in 12 years.

The condensed schedule, which cut significantly into practice time, exacerbated the Knicks’ health issues and the need to marshal a reconstituted roster. There was an ongoing sense of fitting square pegs into round holes, constant talk of seeking a “chemistry”—though backup point guard Chris Childs argued that “chemistry is between lovers. Not basketball players.”

Really, those Knicks were schizophrenic. And so were those Knicks. Beautiful music one night. Completely off-key the next.

Five days into the season, Sprewell suffered a stress fracture in his heel and missed 13 games. The theoretically indispensable Patrick Ewing, from the start, was nursing a bad knee, a deteriorating Achilles tendon—and, later, injured ribs. He was absent for 12 games and below par for many others. Larry Johnson, another past-his-prime former All-Star, was restricted by chronic knee tendinitis.

Holding on to late leads was a persistent problem, a recurrence noted one night in Phoenix by radio play-by-play man Gus Johnson as the clock—and the Knicks’ advantage—again were leaking away.

“Coach Jeff Van Gundy is pacing the sidelines,” Johnson reported to his listeners.

Van Gundy, three feet away, turned to Johnson. “Damn right,” he said.

As the Knicks’ new hired gun, Sprewell engaged in serious one-on-one practice duels with the team’s shooter-in-residence, Allan Houston, in attempts to establish a pecking order. Until, eventually—and just in time—the two came to the conclusion that there was room for both of them.

Sprewell bridled at being used as a sixth man most of the season and declared that he wouldn’t change his full-throttle style to fit Van Gundy’s half-court sets. Like Van Gundy, though, his intense persistence ultimately served the team well.

Somehow, despite their deficiencies, the Knicks never lost their fire, a trait embodied by Childs, all of 6-foot-3, who late in the season offered to rumble with Atlanta’s 7-2 Dikembe Mutombo after accusing Mutombo of an intentional elbow that knocked out Childs’ tooth.

“It’ll be a 12-round fight,” Childs promised. “I’m going to call Don King and get it set up. I may not be able to reach his mouth, but I’ll get him.”

As the Knicks continued to flail around the .500 mark, rumors persisted that general manager Ernie Grunfeld was about to fire Van Gundy, who hardly was surprised. (“What’s he supposed to be saying to me?” Van Gundy said, “‘Good job’? You know, like, ‘Keep it up’?”)

When the Knicks hit that 21-21 low point, three places out of a playoff spot, team president Dave Checketts instead fired Grunfeld. And word leaked that Checketts was talking to Phil Jackson, coach of the six-time NBA champion Chicago Bulls, about also replacing Van Gundy.

Then came the series of far-fetched happenings. Down 15 points with seven minutes to go in Miami against the first-place Heat, the Knicks wound up winning by two. The next night, they won in Charlotte in the process of taking six of their last eight and sneaking into the playoffs. Barely.

Whereupon Houston’s awkward, desperation last-second 14-foot jump shot, waffling on the rim and backboard before deciding to fall through, bushwhacked Miami in the last seconds of the decisive fifth game of the first round. That was the first—and still, only—time a No. 8 seed eliminated a No. 1.

A second-round sweep of Atlanta suddenly had Garden fans, those insatiable beasts, temporarily sated and chanting Van Gundy’s name—“I thought the next word would be ‘sucks,’” was Van Gundy’s sly reaction—and had Checketts admitting he had lied about denying contacts with Jackson.

Next, tied a game apiece against Indiana in the third round, the Knicks learned that Ewing’s Achilles tendon was torn. But while he watched from the bench in the third game, with 11.9 seconds to play and the Knicks down by three, another impossibility was conjured by Larry Johnson. He caught a deflected inbounds pass and drilled a three-point shot as he was fouled, and his subsequent free throw won the game. And the Knicks won the series in six.

That the Knicks, without Ewing and with Johnson’s bad knee acting up, then lost the Finals to a younger, healthier San Antonio team in five games was perfectly reasonable.

So, close but no cigar.

There is a tired old cliché in sports that “nobody remembers who came in second,” a contention that anything less than a championship is failure. Horsefeathers. Those Knicks were memorable. And they get better as the years pass.

An April Fools’ Day Tradition

(Stan Isaacs)

It used to be an annual tradition on April Fools’ Day for my longtime employer, Newsday, to publish star columnist Stan Isaacs’ whimsical rankings of decidedly inconspicuous topics—such as bowling pins; Fred Astaire’s dancing partners; TV remote buttons; “Things That Aren’t As Good as The Used to Be.” Stan died in 2013 and I officially retired from the newspaper the next year. But in Stan’s memory, his delightful parody must not go away.

It was conceived, he said, “as a loving spoof of the Ring Magazine boxing ratings….a rush to respond to the unrecognized need for evaluations of quantities like the Bridges Across the River Seine.”

His waggish purpose was to offer “an appraisal in areas that are generally ignored by raters” and he declared that “no category is too arcane” to grade. He called his yearly polls IRED, the Isaacs Ratings of Esoteric Distinction.” What follows is my pale imitation—which I will call the J-Faux—of similarly (and seriously) judged objects that normally might seem trivial.

Eating utensils: 1 (tie), Knife. Fork. Spoon. 2, Chopsticks. 3, Fingers.

Times: 1, Daylight. 2, Standard. 3, New York (print edition).

Thoroughfares: 1, Route 66. 2, Abbey Road. 3, Bourbon Street. 4, Barcelona’s Las Ramblas. 5, Broadway. 6, Straight and Narrow.

Chess strategies: 1, Nimzo Indian Defence. 2, Noak’s Ark Trap. 3, Morphy Defence. 4, Fianchetto.

Prognosticators: 1, Nostradamus. 2, Punxsutawney Phil. 3, Jeane Dixon. 4, Jimmy the Greek. 5, Your daily horoscope. 6, Any meteorologist in Southern California, where “it never rains.”

Three Stooges: 1, Moe. 2, Larry. 3. Curley.

50-Year Anniversaries Being Observed in 2019: 1, First man on the moon. 2, Amazin’ Mets’ World Series victory. 3. Woodstock. 4, Joe Namath’s Super Bowl guarantee. 5, First post-college job for yours truly.

Famous Pairs: 1, Pinky and the Brain. 2, Bob and Ray. 3, Romeo and Juliet. 4, Simon and Garfunkel. 5, Bonnie and Clyde. 6, Macaroni and cheese. 7, Death and taxes.

Harry Potter characters: 1, Hedwig. 2, Professor Dumbledore. 3, Draco Malfoy. 4, The sorting hat. 5, Hermione Granger. 6, Voldemort. 7, Ron Weasley. 8, Various muggles. 9, Dudley Dursley.

Forms of precipitation: 1, Rain. 2, Snow. 3, Sleet. 4, Fog. 5, Graupel.

Books on my bookshelf that I really mean to read some day: 1, Finnegans Wake. 2, War and Peace. 3, One Hundred Years of Solitude. 4, The Satanic Verses. 5, The other 35 of Shakespeare’s 37 plays.

Dogs: 1, Snoopy. 2, Lassie. 3, Tramp. 4, Rover. 5, Balto. 6, Rin Tin Tin. 7, Pluto. 8, Old Yeller. 9, Fido. 10, Sprocket. 11, Jack Russell.

Puzzlers: 1, Pi. 2, Rubik’s Cube. 3, E=mc2. 4, More than a few New Yorker cartoons.

Dreadful sports clichés: 1, They control their own destiny. (Impossible; destiny is destiny.) 2, Step up to the plate. 3, It is what it is. 4, At the end of the day… 5, That team just wanted it more. 6, They dodged a bullet. 7, They were playing with a chip on their shoulders. 8, There’s no tomorrow. 9, They gave 110 percent.

New Year’s Days: 1, April 1 (Until the Gregorian calendar replaced the Julian in 1564). 2, Jan. 1. 3, Sometime between Jan. 20 and Feb. 20 (Chinese or Lunar New Year); 4, Sometime between Sept. 5 and Oct. 5 (Jewish New Year, or Rosh Hashanah). 5, Sept. 11 (Coptic New Year, or Nayrouz). 6, Baseball Opening Day (“This is going to be our year!”)

Not a 2020 candidate

(As close as I and my potential First Lady will get to entering the White House)

Today I am announcing that I have decided not to run for President in 2020. I am doing this, in part, to stand out from the crowd. But there are many other reasons, beginning with the fact that the country really doesn’t need an old white guy in the Oval Office who has not previously been elected to anything.

In coming to this conclusion, I weighed the fact that I have no interest in conducting a listening tour through Iowa or New Hampshire. It’s really cold in those places this time of year. Also, I have determined that I don’t have a single political adviser. Or a speechwriter. And my donor base is nonexistent.

Name recognition, too, would be a problem on the stump. I acknowledge that I’m not well known by voters outside my state. Let alone in my immediate neighborhood. And though I have traveled widely, I confess that I never have set foot in either Hawaii or South Dakota. That’s seven electoral votes I probably couldn’t count on.

Then there is the matter of the relentless media scrutiny that is inevitable in a national campaign. The failure to receive my college diploma until I paid a $5 parking ticket in 1969 was an oversight, a thoroughly innocent memory lapse. But some aggressive snoop from the Washington Post or New York Times, bent on winning a Pulitzer, no doubt would make a big deal of that.

My international agenda might be another drawback. I took a Russian history class in college. But it was ancient Russian history and I didn’t exactly ace the course. Same with a “Power Politics” class. That was mostly about the 1930s and 40s. In 1991, I was in Cuba and saw Fidel Castro several times, but we never spoke. Besides, he’s gone now. So I’d have to get up to speed on a lot of things.

Economic policy: I read the Ron Chernow biography of Hamilton, founder of the nation’s financial system, before it had inspired the smash Broadway musical, but I can’t say I possess much fiscal savvy. What’s a bitcoin, anyway?

I do believe I’m on the same page as many of my fellow Americans regarding several pressing matters. I think the NFL has to figure out a way to substantiate pass-interference calls when the Super Bowl is at stake. I advocate the Oscars’ no-host format. I ascribe to no specific political ideology, though I do empathize with the semi-Libertarian tenet that you can do anything but don’t step on my blue suede shoes.

Bottom line, though: A campaign is just too daunting. Too exhausting. All those babies to kiss and selfies to pose for. All those “spontaneous” drop-ins at diners, interrupting folks just trying to eat their pancakes in peace. All those debates, mixing it up with a fair number of blowhards trying to one-up each other with tales of humble upbringings, pulling up bootstraps and walking miles to school in the snow.

And the good campaign slogans already have been used. Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too. He’s the One. Happy Days are Here Again. A Chicken in Every Pot and a Car in Every Garage. The People’s Choice. Where’s the Beef? I considered “He Means Well” but it sounds a bit wishy-washy.

It would be cool to go on Meet the Press, though. It would be fun to have, you know, a lawn sign with my name. But, no. I’ll leave it to others.

Vice president? I’m not seeking it, I’m not requesting it. I don’t expect it to happen.

Now hear this

(This appeared in Newsday’s Act2 section)

This was in the fall of 2013 at an Arlo Guthrie concert, where there was an abundance of gray and thinning hair in the room. Arlo was digressing, as he often does midway through a song, about an upcoming show with his mentor Pete Seeger, the folk-singing social activist who was then 94 years old (and just months short of his death).

“Pete said, ‘Arlo,’ I don’t like that I don’t sing as well as I used to,’” Guthrie related. “I said, ‘Pete. Look at our audience. They don’t hear as well as they used to.’”

It took more than five years, but I got the hint. And went for hearing aids.

It’s just part of finally acting my age, really. According to the Center for Hearing and Communication, one in every three people over 65 has some degree of hearing loss. Two in three over 75—a number I’m closing in on—are losing their decibels.

I should note that, the marching of time aside, I have been functioning in mono for a while now. More than a decade ago, via a translabyrinthine craniotomy—a wonderfully named procedure—a benign tumor was yanked out of my head with the minimally negative result of deafness in one ear.

But the other one seemed in mint condition. So I worked at maneuvering speakers to my good-ear side, which typically was done by executing a slide-step and half-turn (as subtly as possible). Also, I got accustomed to holding a phone in my opposite hand. No problem.

Alas, the fact that people increasingly seemed to be mumbling under their breath, and the recent occasional need for TV’s closed captioning, moved me to schedule a visit with an audiologist.

It would be an overstatement to describe the minutes locked inside a sound-proof booth, straining to react to little beeps and hums in headphones, as akin to taking a polygraph. But the surprisingly stressful process does get to the truth. And the truth, that the good ear isn’t as good as it used to be, was right there in the downward trend of lines on the audiogram graph.

And what sealed the deal for me was the discovery of a veritable miracle of advancing technology: The crossover hearing contraption.

The way it works is that the gizmo plugged into the previously deaf ear transmits audio instantly to the better-ear aid, restoring a version of stereophonic sound.

This is the kind of thing that could lead a progressively mature person into Six Million Dollar Man territory—thinking in terms of bionic implants for various failing parts and a forever-young pretense.

Especially since there is a certain amount of stealth involved in wearing these new gadgets. Long out of style are those massive ear trumpets, the human equivalent of television rabbit ears—blatantly obvious and not particularly efficient—as well as several generations of appliances that brought to mind the 1964 song “Beans in My Ears.”

Here in the 21st Century, the “assistive listening device” consists of an inch-long apparatus that fits behind the ear—the flappier the ear, the better for disguise, lucky for me—and a virtually invisible wire leading into the ear canal. It’s the same look you get of your Congresswoman during a remote televised interview from the Capital.

Not that I should be the least bit self-conscious about signaling codger-hood by sporting hearing paraphernalia. Seriously, is it possible to cross paths with a member of Generation X or Z who doesn’t have something plugged into his or her ears?

And, listen: These little doodads resonate. Eerie? No. Ear-y.

R.I.P.: Track’s Fred Thompson

Too late now. I wish I had asked Fred Thompson what originally drew him to track and field as a youngster; whether his participation in the sport—he competed for Brooklyn’s Boys High and City College—enhanced his feeling of personal worth; whether running track not only gave him something to do, growing up in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant community, but also dared him to push limits, stay in school, think in terms of being a productive member of a group.

All those things were transmitted by Thompson to the thousands of girls and young women he mentored through the Atoms, the track club he founded in 1963, and enhanced with the female-only Colgate Games he organized in 1974. Thompson died last week at 85, and I never even asked him the source of his transformational club’s name.

I could guess. The atom is the smallest unit of a chemical element, and Thompson’s club was for the little ones, kids as young as 8 and 9 and teenagers, often from broken homes and lives of poverty. (Thompson originally was a chemical engineering major at City College before switching to history and later earning his law degree at St. John’s University, so he knew his atoms.)

He himself had grown up in Bed-Stuy, which rivaled Harlem as a prominent black enclave, raised by an aunt after his parents split. And whatever it was he got out of running track he soon realized was available only to boys in those pre-Title IX days. So, barely into a career of law practice, he created the Atoms, based on the belief that more investment in grade-school sports would counter “the many problems in high school” and the lure of the mean streets. The atom, of course, is a primary source of energy.

He promoted competition—not winning-as-the-only-thing but as a means to demand maximum effort in a challenging world—and a responsibility to teammates. He preached a “yes, you can; yes, you can” attitude that one of his runners called “stubbornness” to be “positive instead of negative.”

In strict coaching terms, Thompson was among the best. His Atoms’ stars included Cheryl Toussaint and Diane Dixon, Olympic gold medalists in 1972 and 1984, and two-time Olympian Lorna Forde. (In 1988, Thompson was named the women’s sprint coach for the U.S. Olympic team.) But the Atoms were started as a social project; no previous track experience was required but school attendance was. And what the club really stood for, he said, was “excellence in education, trying to better yourself.” In the club’s first 15 years of existence, the unlikely total of 50 former Atoms earned college degrees and went on to varied careers that included teaching, the law, nursing, psychology.

A long-ago NBC-TV series, Real People, once aired a segment on Thompson in which Toussaint called the Atoms “my second family…the encouragement I got. If anyone wants to call Fred a saint, it’s fair enough.”

One of my first beat assignments for Newsday in the early 1970s was the New York track and field scene, including the annual winter series of meets at Madison Square Garden. One of my first expert sources was Thompson—almost always in a suit and tie, always dripping with passion for the sport and his Atoms, which often had as many of 50 team members.

For a while, they trained in locked Brooklyn schoolyards by scaling fences in the early evening before he arranged workouts at Pratt Institute and before the most accomplished Atoms performed at the Garden, the self-proclaimed “world’s most famous arena.” Thompson brought his kids, and then the Colgate Games, to that premier athletic stage. (Since Thompson’s 2014 retirement as Colgate meet director, his replacement has been Touissant.)

He never married, he said, because no woman would have put up with him and the Atoms. He didn’t like to be called “Coach” by club members, preferring “Fred” or “Freddie.” “I’m their friend,” he said.

In that old Real People report, Lorna Forde said, “Freddie’s crazy. He takes his whole income and just spends it on us and, ‘Well, maybe I’ll get it back when I get some funds and stuff.’ And nobody would do that. Nobody.

“They don’t make people like that anymore.”