As Tiger's scandal winds to a middle, we're hearing more about what actually happened, and all the sad mis-uses of technology that led the man-of-many-races to this point. Here are the mistakes he made, and how you can avoid them to better cheat on your spouse.

Come on El Tigre, this is the most obvious one. Never use your own cellphone to call your mistress! Seriously, how hard is this concept? Your wife can check your cellphone bills, check your account status or even check your phone for weird calls. Just buy a new pre-paid phone and use that instead. You'll want to always keep that on vibrate, so your spouse doesn't question why there's a weird ringtone going off.

As Mark Wilson suggested, if you're going to be dumb enough to keep keep your cheat-pal on your phone, save her as "Mom". Or "Grandma". Or "Chiropractor".

Make sure your spouse doesn't have any kind of tracking device on you. This means turning off AT&T's FamilyMap, or any similar services from other providers. Hell, you probably just want to shut off your main phone entirely and claim you were somewhere without reception.

As we saw in the Taiwanese recreation, Tiger was driving away from his wife when he turned around to inspect a) what the hell club she was using to smack his car with, and b) how much damage the crazy woman was doing to his ride. Bad move. You turn your head at 2:30 in the morning, all goosed up on pills, and you're going to smack into a tree.

What he should have done was install a backup camera in his car so he could keep his eyes on the road, yet still see what his wife was swinging at. [Amazon]

And this one is just sad AND dumb. Mr. 1 billion left his own name on the voicemail of his mistress, begging her to change her greeting so that when his wife calls, he could have some deniability as to who he was calling.

First, never leave your name. "It's me" works just fine. She'll know who you are. I mean, you've slept with her a number of times. And your voice is all over TV. It's likely that she can recognize you without you having to identify yourself. And even then, it's a good idea to use a voice modulator when you leave voicemails, so that people can never trace them back to you. "Hey, that wasn't my voice," you claim, before following up with a denial about even knowing how voice modulators work.

"This is Optimus Prime. The Earth is in danger unless you meet me at the Motel 6 off route 57 at 10 PM tonight." (Don't pick that one.) [US Magazine voicemail and Voice Modulators]

As the father of two kids, Tiger should have prepared himself for the possibility—however slim—that he was going to get caught. And when you're super rich and you get caught cheating, that's reason enough for your wife to divorce you and try and get half of your stuff.

What should he have done? Set up a spy camera in his living room. Not only would it have documented the supposed domestic abuse (face slapping) generously given by his wife, it might have captured HER cheating on him as well; both things very handy in a divorce hearing.

The Amazons, after all, amputated their left breast so it wouldn't impede their skill in archery. Though athletes have taken some truly crazy stuff to have an advantage, nobody's gone so far as elective amputation.

I've spent the better part of my lifetime trying to get out from under an idea of being "disabled," and the baggage that comes with that label. (Look it up in a thesaurus if you want a taste of what I mean.) As of yet, the best prosthetic available is not as efficient and not as capable as what Mother Nature gives us—or, what she was supposed to give me, and South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius. The revolutionary design of the woven carbon-fiber Cheetah Leg, nicknamed for its design inspiration, has been in existence for nearly 15 years—and after my initial triumphs with them in the mid 1990s, it has been the leg of choice for nearly all elite amputee sprinters. But in one instant, after Pistorius entered a summer 2007 track meet in Rome and placed second in a field of runners possessing flesh and bone legs, he and I were deemed too abled.

Commence the comical nightmare of being told that we now possess an "unfair advantage" in wearing prosthetic limbs to run. The scores of amputee sprinters who had competed with the limbs for the previous 13 years—and were still comfortably categorized as "disabled"—were virtually ignored. What is fascinating is the immediate shift in society's regard of a disabled athlete as an "inspiration" (cue the patronizing "awwwww") to a legitimate threat to other athletes ("Uh, what the hell do we do now?").

The first obvious issue for me was the deliberate ignoring of the truly excellent athletic feat performed by Pistorius and the insistence that if he could beat able-bodied athletes, "it must be the legs." Look, I also beat a few able-bodied athletes when I ran Division I track in college, and so have plenty of other well-trained amputees in the last decade. The difference is, none of us have ever posted his times. Bottom line: If it were just the legs making us superfast, I would have done a decade ago what he's doing now, and so would others. Oscar's not running with any different technology than what I ran with 14 years ago.

The modern sports ethos that we've constructed is based upon increasing advantages. Because certainly, in so many sports, we have pushed past natural human function to facilitate a more exciting game—better times, better performance. But where does an advantage become unfair? The crux of that question lays under the umbrella of ethics, which should indeed govern our rule structure within the competitive arena, but there's something in this story which specifically points toward a deep-seated fear, one we don't want to talk about in polite conversation, one which parallels historical instances of racial integration of sport and gender integration of sport. If we allow a person, one who we view as our inferior (in whatever way), to play with us, and then that person beats us, what does that say about us?

In the 1930s, Jesse Owens and Joe Louis blew the lid off common thinking of how "capable" an athlete of African descent was compared to an athlete of European descent, although the beginning of league integration took a decade more to achieve, and in some sports another three decades. It was as recent as 2003 when some members of the PGA balked at Annika Sorenstam's quest to compare her talent to the best men in the world, admitting their fear of how it might feel to have a woman beat them, an embarrassing display of archaic thinking.

In 2001, golfer Casey Martin, who played with a degenerative circulatory leg condition that made it nearly impossible to walk an 18-hole course, successfully won a Supreme Court decision allowing him to use a cart as an acceptable assistive medical device. The PGA Tour fought Martin for years, saying all pro golfers must walk because uniform rules are essential for the integrity of the sport. "Accommodating Martin with a golf cart will not fundamentally change the game," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for a 7-2 majority.

What keeps percolating for me is this perceived discrepancy between advantage and "unfair" advantage. It's absurd to look at a star line-up of athletes and think that they all have an equal shot. We don't cry foul play when an athlete from the United States, with the best access to training facilities, coaching staffs, and nutritional science is up against someone from say…Uzkbekistan. It's tough luck that 5' 11" Tyson Gay has to line up against a 6'5" Usain Bolt.

It makes me twitch when we talk about "a level playing field." No two athletes are the same genetically and environmentally, and the mental and emotional factors they've endured in their life are relevant in their performance, too. The only reason athletes today are better than those of decades ago is because of science and technology: We know exactly what and when to feed our bodies for maximum energy, we have lighter shoes and better bikes and new rubberized track surfaces and (legal) supplements and altitude training. We are upping the ante each Olympic year with "smarter" design of an athlete's tools, both inside and outside the body.

A whopping 74 world records were broken last year between March and November with the Speedo Fastskin LZR Racer suit. 74! Do you wonder if Mark Spitz is annoyed that his times are compared to those of athletes using something he didn't have the opportunity to use or wear?

My interest was piqued in the latest version of the Fastskin LZR suit, an R&D collaboration with NASA. From the initial press releases to subsequent monthly articles, whatever I could find describing it was overwhelmingly celebratory: Writers cooed about the sharkskin-inspired biometric fiber panels for less drag in the water, and its corset-like torso construction, enabling a swimmer to compress their physique and keep better, more supported form during fatigue, making them markedly more efficient in the water.

Very, very few writers brought up any kind of ethical concern of such a tool like this suit until after the Beijing Olympics, choosing to focus on the race between swimwear companies to develop their own supersuit. Even then, the majority of articles on swimming were marveling at how Michael Phelps says he "literally felt like a rocket coming off the wall" using the device. Jason Rance, the lead designer on this Speedo suit, commented, "It's part of the evolution of the sport, and it's really exciting for swimmers. They say they feel like Superman."

After the ensuing arms-race to out-do the performance of the Speedo, the Americans and Australians led a protest to FINA, the governing body of swimming. In July of this year, FINA banned the full-length suit, having the suit stop at the knee instead, and mandated that all must be constructed of a "textile," which is in itself an incredibly ambiguous, vague rule. The ban will take effect in January 2010, and—most intriguing—FINA will allow all records set with the suits to stand.

Let's think about Tiger Woods having not one, but two LASIK surgeries to achieve 20/15 vision, when what we consider the best of natural vision to be is a mere 20/20. Before his first LASIK surgery, Woods had lost 16 straight tournaments. Immediately following the surgery, he won 7 of his next 10. Advantage through technology, or not?

On a company website he endorses, there's a quote from Tiger after his first LASIK surgery, and I found what he said remarkable on a few levels. He said:

For years I played golf with an invisible handicap, invisible to everyone but me. It was my contact lenses. My eyes would sting burn and water all the while I was trying to concentrate on championship golf. I had the Lasik procedure with a TLC laser eye center surgeon and the results were fabulous. I'm 20/20 with no contacts. My vision is so crisp I feel I can read all the subtleties of the green and look down the fairway hundreds of yards and focus perfectly on the fly. I'm very happy with the results, and grateful for my TLC center experience.

The first remarkable aspect of this is that for him, the "handicap" was the ineptitude of the contact lenses, and not the fact that he was visually impaired. (He suffered from -11 nearsightedness, considered the worst 1%, legally blind without corrective glasses or contacts.) The second is his own literal description of being able to now clearly see—without the impediment of burning, stinging eyes—hundreds of yards down the fairway thanks to his technological altering. He himself declares the advantage.

"Invisible to everyone but me." So is that why nobody's up in arms, the fact that you can't see his augmentation? Is that why nobody's challenging this medical method which assists him in achieving dominance in golf? Of course, in the same way that my running legs don't power themselves, Tiger's new eyes don't power and execute a beautiful swing. His athletic talent is further revealed and enabled than what it would have been under the limits of nature, thanks to technology.

Advantage is just something that is part of sports. No athletes are created equal. They simply aren't, due to a multitude of factors including geography, access to training, facilities, health care, injury prevention, and sure, technology.

I really don't know how we compare world records of today to those of 50 years ago. A modern climber's ascent to Everest has innumerable inherent differences than an ascent of a climber who didn't have access to lighter tanks, comfortable breathable fibers against the skin, medical support at base camp, etc. The competitive benchmarks in that sport have changed from simply being, "Can you climb the mountain?" to "Can you climb it with oxygen, or without?" A wooden tennis racket isn't the same thing as the graphite ones used now. We wholeheartedly accept titanium golf clubs, LASIK surgery, the invention of new pitches, better injury prevention and repair, titanium knee and hip replacements, Tommy John surgery (surprisingly even in Youth Leagues), and a notable shift in the size of the average NFL player.

Where do we draw this ethical line on performance enhancement? I'm not sure I can answer that right now. What I will say is that I don't think it's useful to have this discussion around the existing Cheetah Leg, confusing the current non-enhanced technology with future prosthetics that will indeed provide augmentation. As with all evolution in sport, let's decide the parameters of competition when the technology actually exists, when we have metrics that inform us as to what extent augmentation is a certainty. Conjecture has no place in this discussion.

Maybe our acceptance of Tiger's LASIK super vision is really answered in the question, "Can everyone have access to it?" In other words, perhaps because the average citizen out there on the street can get laser surgery, it's okay for Tiger to get it, too, whereas the nature of a bionic prosthetic is still viewed as exclusive, and having to wear one isn't exactly a position the average citizen covets.

What's going to happen in the future, especially with the rise of more capable prostheses? The human leg is actually a series of internal motors and springs, so the fact that external motors aren't allowed in track is kind of interesting. (Case in point: Dean Kamen placed 14 motors in his new design of the artificial arm to simulate human function.)

In the not-so-distant future, designers will be able to build a prosthetic leg with a chip in it that they can program to accurately simulate human performance thresholds. (Since we know that no two "able-bodied" athletes have the same bodies, and therefore what they can achieve with their bodies are different, will they average out individual "able-bodied" thresholds to get those metrics? Will they cap how fast they imagine the fastest man on earth to be at 9.58? That time was unimaginable even 18 months ago, when Bolt then set the new WR at 9.72.)

The chip used in a prosthetic that will dictate "acceptable human" metric-based output is what will be allowed in the Olympic standard; meanwhile, the Paralympics will be no holds barred. In an ironic, amazing cultural flip, you will see runners in the Paralympics going faster than those in the Olympics. Now won't that be an interesting comment on "dis"ability?

Aimee Mullins is an athlete, speaker, actress and model we met at TEDMED. She's also the guest editor for our theme week This Cyborg Life. Read her bio here.

This week, Gizmodo is exploring the enhanced human future in a segment we call This Cyborg Life. It's about what happens when we treat our body less as a sacred object and more as what it is: Nature's ultimate machine.

LASIK image: Stefan Zaklin/Stringer/Getty; Tiger image: Lucas Dawson/Stringer/Getty Images; LZR image: Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images; Aimee images: Howard Schatz, Greg Kadel

Thanks to all who entered the Maximum Tailgating contest. And remember—keep it maximum at all times when tailgating!

Congrats, Michael!

For more info on the two best tailgating gadgets of all time, click below!

Michael W.'s Portable Sports Bar vs. Alex R.'s Ultimate BBQ Trailer

Update: Voting is complete! See who won.

We've got our winners from the second round. Vote for the winner in the final round!

1) Winner: Alex R with the VW BBQ Trailer

2) Winner: Michael W with the Mobile Sports Bar

We've got our winners from the first round. Vote in the next round!

1) Winner: Alex R with VW BBQ Trailer

2) Winner: Trey D with Trey's Trailer

3) Winner: MIchael W with the Mobile Sports Bar

4) Winner: Bonnie J with the Tailgate Trailer

Draw, photograph, scan, and/or record your most innovative gadget idea and send it to Eddy D at eddyd@gizmodo.com. These are your own personal inventions, people. It can be something you already use or a dream tailgating gizmo, e.g., a set of team logo-emblazoned blinky ice cubes or a chicken wing-shaped walkie-talkie set.

After much deliberation, Eddy will pick the best eight gadgets. Then you will vote for your favorite.

The winner will get two tickets to the Big Game in Miami, courtesy of Gizmodo and Pepsi Max.

You have until MIDNIGHT TONIGHT to submit. Last chance, folks!

Standard contest rules apply.

Thanks to all who have entered...and keep them coming! You still have until Monday, October 5, at midnight to submit your genius tailgating idea (this can be an actual thing that exists, or something you have cooking up in that head of yours). Email your photos, drawings, and videos to Eddy D., Maximum Tailgater, at eddyd@gizmodo.com.

Eddy will pick the brackets next week then the voting will begin, so stay tuned to Maximum Tailgate to cast your vote for the best gadget. The winner gets two tickets to the Big Game in Miami, courtesy of Gizmodo and Pepsi Max!

Standard contest rules apply.

Courtesy of reader Alex R. "This is a BBQ trailer made out of the front end of a 1985 VW Jetta GLi. It has BBS wheels, a 10in subwoofer, 6x9s, 6 ½" speakers, 2 kenwood amps, A kenwood deck, and a charcoal 50 Gal drum cooking area. The headlights are tail lights and the turn signals work correctly, it even has its own VIN number and is 100% legal on the road." [Photo by Joel Parker.]

Stereo-cooler from reader Sean S. "The speakers are all marine grade and run off 12V batteries to ensure the tailgating never has to stop in any weather or beer-spilling conditions."

Reader David L.'s gadget is a "6500 pound wood-burning pizza oven on wheels in the shape of a football helmet complete with facemask."

Reader Jamie P. says of Bar2D2: "I built this in my garage over about 9 months just for the heck of it. My friends say I have too much free time and too many power tools."

Reader Josh W.'s submission is "built in beer taps for the kegs in the custom painted and converted delivery truck."

Draw, photograph, scan, and/or record your most innovative gadget idea. These are your own personal inventions, people. It can be something you already use or a dream tailgating gizmo, e.g., an electronic corn shucker or an inflatable Porta Potty.

Send your entry directly to Eddy D. at eddyd@gizmodo.com. After much deliberation, he'll pick the best eight gadgets. Then you will vote for your favorite.

The winner will get two tickets to the Big Game in Miami, courtesy of Gizmodo and Pepsi Max.

You have until October 5 to submit. That is four days away. So get going!

Standard contest rules apply.

Send Eddy your tailgating dreams. Draw, photograph, scan, and/or record your most innovative tailgating gadget. These are your own personal inventions, people. It can be something you already use or a fantasy tailgating gizmo, e.g., a suit made entirely of moist towelettes or a pair of extend-o grill tongs.

Send your entry directly to Eddy D. at eddyd@gizmodo.com. He (perhaps with a little help from his pal Feens) will pick the best eight gadgets. Then you will vote for your favorite.

The winner will get two tickets to the Big Game in Miami, courtesy of Gizmodo and Pepsi Max.

You have until October 5 to submit. That is seven days away. So get going!

Standard contest rules apply.

If you think you've got what it takes, draw, photograph, scan, and/or record your most innovative tailgating gadget. These are your own personal inventions, people. It can be something you already use or a fantasy tailgating gizmo, e.g., a rotating BBQ-sauce fountain shaped like a Viking (Big Red, anyone?) or a set of customized beverage koozies.

We've already received pictures of a 16-foot kitchen on wheels and a proposed "space-based grilling system" with which tailgaters can grill their food via satellite. Now that's what we're talking about.

Can you do better? We're looking for ingenious stuff, folks! Send your entry directly to Eddy D. at eddyd@gizmodo.com. He (perhaps with a little help from Feens) will pick the best eight gadgets. Then you will vote for your favorite.

The winner (and a guest) might be joining Feens and Eddy at the Big Game in Miami, courtesy of Gizmodo and Pepsi Max.

You have until October 5 to submit. So get going!

Standard contest rules apply.

If he likes your gadget (something you already use or a fantasy tailgating gizmo) best, you could win two tickets to the Big Game in Miami. Send entries to eddyd@gizmodo.com, and the Reverend will examine and evaluate each one in order to create the Maximum Tailgate brackets. Stay tuned for the finalists...

Visit Maximum Tailgate on Gizmodo.

Standard contest rules apply.

That's right. Draw, photograph, scan, and/or record your best tailgate-maximizing gadget (something you already use or a fantasy tailgating gizmo) and send it directly to Eddy D at eddyd@gizmodo.com. He will pick the best eight entries, then you will vote for your favorite. The winner gets two tickets to the Big Game in Miami, courtesy of Gizmodo and Pepsi Max!

Standard contest rules apply.

I've been involved in the conception of a few different activities or disciplines of surfing, however you want to describe them: Foil boarding, kite-surfing, stand-up paddling most recently, and then of course tow-in surfing, which kind of allows us to ride some of the biggest waves in the world.

Stand-Up Paddling

I don't describe them as inventions, but really as a combination of a couple things that together created a new thing, a form of invention I guess, but we're never going to take credit for something that existed in some form before, that somebody else may have done.

Tow-In Surfing
I just think we were the first people to realize that you needed a motorized vessel to give you the speed in order to catch waves that are beyond 50 to 60 foot faces. They move at 30 or 40 miles an hour and manually you're just unable to match the speed and the timing it takes to ride one. That's really where tow-in surfing came from—a necessity.

We were able to catch these giant waves with a wind surfer and ride them unlike when we were surfing. Then we had foot straps. We already had a relationship with riding these outer-reef breaks in real rugged conditions that you just couldn't get to by laying on your stomach, paddling around.

And once we realized it, we were able to do it. And we started with a Zodiac boat and an outboard. That was obviously a little fragile and dangerous, so then, eventually, came the jet-skis. I think the first Yamaha sit down jet skis came out—the Wave Runner helped us evolve. Driving a Zodiac around in 30 foot surf is a lot trickier than getting on a Wave Runner. If the Zodiac gets tipped by a wave, you're over, whereas the jet-ski doesn't do well but it can survive.

I describe it like the four-minute mile. Once the guy broke the four-minute mile, then 30 guys broke the four-minute mile, but before that it was this invisible barrier. That's a little bit like what's happened with tow surfing.

Hydrofoil Surfing
As for the hydrofoil surfing, what we've found is that the foil board is probably the single most efficient wave riding instrument that we know of today. The reason why we say that—and the reason why we know that—is because you can ride waves that don't break.

Now we have a thing that we can use on a day when we wouldn't be able to ride the waves on anything except maybe a jet ski or some sort of power boat. We get on them by being towed, and we ride these waves for miles and miles at a time. By eliminating surface texture and tension, resulting in less friction, we created the ability to ride waves that don't break—to surf waves that were really unsurfable. Now we can ride a ground swell in the middle of the ocean.

We've also done it with the kite, but then you're obviously not going to let go of the kite—as you would a tow line—so then you're kiting-foiling instead of just foil surfing.

Kite Boarding
We were involved with the conception of kite boarding as well. Not the first people to ever kite obviously, since they've been around for thousands of years, but we were first guys really to start, because we had these big wave boards with foot straps—the perfect setup for being towed by a kite. We had these kites that you get launched, but if your kite crashed you were done. If you were a mile out in the ocean and your kite crashed, you now had yourself a giant bed sheet and a small little board.

Inflatable kites really created kite boarding. We were able to get those from a French guy who had invented a blow-up kite and a blow-up little catamaran—you could have a backpack and go hike and launch your blowup catamaran and your blowup kite and go and sail around with it. We got a hold of one of those little blowup kites and then one thing happened after another, then kite surfing or kite boarding was really born. Since then, it's been just a matter of evolution.

Laird Hamilton has been a surfing hero since the 1980s, solidifying his reputation as the king of big wave surfing when he conquered Tahiti's Teahupo'o Reef at its most perilous in August 2000. As an innovator, he pioneered many new activities including kitesurfing, tow-in surfing and hydrofoil boarding. He's on the board of directors at H2O Audio, makers of pro-level waterproof iPhone and iPod cases, and has his own signature line of Surge waterproof earphones, proceeds of which are donated to the Beautiful Son foundation for autism education.

David says: "We deep-fry turkeys, make bananas flambé', roast a whole lamb on a spit, and most of all flip pizzas for hundreds of tailgaters in the parking lot."

It has BBS wheels, a 10-inch subwoofer, 6x9s, 6 ½" speakers, 2 Kenwood amps, a Kenwood deck, and a 50-gallon drum charcoal cooking area.

Alex says: "The headlights are taillights and the turn signals work correctly. It even has its own VIN number and is 100% legal on the road."

• 10" JL W3
• Phoenix Gold XS 4600 amp
• 2 Pioneer 150 watt 6" x 9"s
• Alpine deck with iPod controls
• AM/FM antenna
• iPod/ iPhone dock with remote
• 2 3' green neon tubes (I had them laying around, they're 12v DC.. Why not!?)
• Optima Blue Top deep cycle marine battery with a Schumacher 15A trickle charger
• Blue illuminated switches for deck, amp and neons

Tyler says: " This thing seriously pounds! It's been party tested and party people approved!!"

She says: "In additon to the trailer, my husband and I make 'shotskis.' Literally, a ski with shot glasses attached. Everyone takes a shot at the same time (we find it to be team-building :) ."