Amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius allowed to compete in Beijing - Times Online

Well he is cleared to attempt to run in the Olympics but the Court of Arbitration for Sport has said that Pistorius can compete against two legged runners. However, Pistorius is about a second off the standard qualifying time of 45.5 seconds.

Still, I wish him luck, it is hard to shave a second off a 400 meter time.

A Good Question about Student Athletes and Historically Black Colleges

From Phi Beta Cons, highlighting a story from yesterday's Washington Post:

This reader flags in particular the suggestion (by a white player at one such school, ironically) that “there could be limits on the number of scholarship white players at HBCUs to ensure the schools' and teams' missions and histories are not affected," and notes the likely outcry if the shoe were on the other foot and such limits were placed on the number of black athletes at non-HBCUs. Good point.

Odd Response by YouDiligence Owners

a couple of weeks ago, I posted this piece about YouDiligence as monitoring tool that would allow colleges and universities to monitor what their student-athletes post on the web about anything.

I have receive three comments to the post that quite frankly, I didn't expect. One was trying to correct my understanding of how the software operates and made this statement:

Second, let me ask you a question. If a student goes running though the halls screaming "Let's kill all the kikes and niggers", is it censorship to take this student aside and have a discussion with them? I believe it is educators' duty to confront this student.

Now let's consider that the student is screaming these words in Chinese. It should not change the need to have a discussion with this student. All YD does is give educators the power to understand within the public forum, the world of the web. In the case of Chinese student, opaqueness comes from the language. With the web, it is the sheer amount of data out there that creates the opaqueness.

Well, actually pulling a student aside for racial slurs and talking to him is not censorship. But mandating that he talk to someone about his speech is. Monitoring his speech is not censorship per se, but you are one step closer. but it goes futher. The only speech that the university could monitor is public speech, but that speech is protected--even it is racist, uneducated and otherwise offensive. That is the point of free speech.

Then there is this:

Lastly, it is the University's interests that are being served. Over time, a University's reputation and endowment will be much better served by good respectful citizens than by inappropriate, rascist assholes. If users are revealing themselves as such within public spaces, why shouldn't a University have the right to say "we do not want to be associated with a person who behaves as such"?

Yes, the university's interests are being served, possibly at the expense of their free speech rights. A public university may not take any action against any student for the content of that student's speech absent a clear contractual obligation by the student otherwise (and no a student Handbook doesn't count). Something like an athletic scholarship that was clear in its langauge would suffice. But since an athletic scholarship, even if it has a morals and behavior clause, is not likely to be specfic enough, but I am willing to concede it is possible.

Sure, a public university can choose not to associate with a student (and most readers of a Facebook page would never impart a student's words with the stamp of university authority). But the university cannot, absent something significantly more, dismiss a student for racist or stupid language. Nor can they punish a student.

As a tool, I would suspect that YouDiligence is rather neutral in its approach. My guess is that it works like a web search tool, looking for specific combinations of schools names, mascots, players, students and other terms it is programmed to seek and if present notify the designated person. In and of itself, the tool is probably not much more than specific type of search engine. Harmless enough. But is is not the tool that is the problem, but the application of the tool. Univesities of late have not exactly proven themselves as defenders of the freedom of speech and thought. Just take a look at FIRE's Website.

The second comment said this:

We would like to clarify that the person who wrote this post is not part of the company that built, owns and operates YouDiligence(TM) . The opinions of the person expressed while in spirit do match an important part of the mission ( efficient reputation management) -the tone and words used in no way reflect the opinions of GlobalNI Inc. The fact is that people who conduct themselves in certain ways in public are with or without YouDiligence(TM) risking personal and professional consequences- the technology is neutral and defensive not invasive. Additionally there is much false information posted about high exposure individuals and Youdiligence(TM) is also designed to give people situational awareness and empower them to manage exposure that may harm their personal or professional interests. Athletes are not the only people who are exposed.

First, no where on the post or my blog do I indicate that I am in anyway associated with the program or its designers/owners. Similarly, I am not sure if the second comment was referring to the first comment or not. (so if someone from GlobalNI Inc. wishes to clarify I will post those comments in their entirety).

By freedom of speech, as I have said, I do not mean to indicate that the speaker is free of the consequences of their speech to either their personal or professional reputation. A person must be associated with their words and deeds. But the problem I have with this kind of service and its application is the potential for a student-athlete to be punished by the university for their speech. The university cannot (again absent a contractual clause otherwise) punish a student for his/her speech. that does not mean the student can't otherwise be held accountable.

Finally, MVP Sports Media Training posted this comment:

We at MVP Sports Media Training, have the exclusive rights to market YouDiligence(TM) to the collegiate and education markets would also like to get on the record that the person who made the initial post is not part of MVP. Additionally, the initial post includes tone and words that do not reflect the opinion or mission of MVP. We are about helping student-athletes proactively protect their reputations and athletic departments project a positive image. YouDiligence(TM) can be an effective tool to assist with both in the new media era. We welcome further open discussion and debate about this topic.

Again, I don't know if MVP is referring to my original post or the first commenter. As with GlobalNI, I am willing to post verbatim anything MVP sends to me.

I know that image management is an important part of any athlete or athletic department's mission. However, having said that, the Athletic Department is still part of the university community and a public university cannot discipline a student or student athlete for the content of that student's personal Facebook account. As for managing the reputation of a student-athlete-certainly, I will grant that YouDiligence will enable a school to monitor what others might be saying about their student-athletes to manage the reputation. But it is the monitoring of the student-athelte themselves by the school that is troubling. This is from the YouDiligence materials:

YOUDiligence, searches MySpace and Facebook for any potentially damaging material. YOUDiligence automatically notifies you by email should it find questionable written material posted by one of your
student-athletes. What you decide to do with that information is entirely up to you.

It is the last statement is what is troubling?

Perhaps MVP could clarify how it intends the product to be used? What does it envision the University doing with the infromation they receive? Managing reputation is one thing, policing the online thoughts of a student-athlete is a far different thing.

Again, I will be happy to post verbatim anything MVP sends my way.

Kids and Sports

My daughter may not play soccer, but she likes going with her daddy to watch soccer games. This story reminded me of the summer days watching the Washington Freedom. I figured a women's team is more likely to get my daughter engaged and with a significantly smaller crowd, it was easier to let my six year old run around.

Does Michel Vick Deserve a Second Chance?

Jayson Whitlock lays out a case for giving Michael Vick a second chance after he has served his jail term (assuming there will be one) and what ever NFL suspension Roger Goodell hands down.

I know there's more to Michael Vick than dogfighting. He can learn from this. He can evolve. We need to give him room to do it. When he is freed from incarceration, I hope PETA and other groups concerned about animal welfare reach out to Vick and make him part of a solution, not a target of harassment.

I have the same wish for Imus. He's going to return to radio. I hope he's learned a lesson and reserves his harshest barbs for legitimate public figures, not college girls. I hope people allow Imus to work in peace. He's been punished. He's been used as an example. Now we have to demonstrate that we will allow people to recover from their mistakes.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has been aggressively trying to police the behavior of his athletes. He wants to change the growing negative image of NFL players. There will be a lot of public pressure on Goodell to ban Vick for a year or more after he's been released. I think that's a mistake.

Vick is likely to receive 12 to 24 months of prison time. The Falcons are likely to demand the return of a large portion of his signing bonus and void the remaining years of his contract. Vick is going to receive a very stiff penalty.

If he hasn't been scared straight by now, he's unsalvageable. Having him sit out of the league once he's freed will not be a deterrent, aid his rehabilitation or do the NFL any good.

Rather than slap Vick with a suspension, Goodell should slap him with a host of stipulations regarding his return to the league. Require Vick to work with animals, speak to kids about his troubles, etc. Treat Vick better than he treated his pit bulls.

Whitlock is in the minority in America and perhaps he has a point.

But I want to look at this from Roger Goodell's viewpoint and Whitlock's last paragraphs are instructive. Goodell could certainly toss Vick from the NFL for life and probably be justified for it. There is a whole host of lesser punishments that can be imposed as well, but Roger Goodell has a proportionality problem.

Earlier this summer Goodell suspended Adam Jones of the Tennessee Titans for an entire season for repeated run-ins with law enforcement and being in the wrong place at the wrong time far too many times. Through all of his legal entanglements, Jones has never been indicted on any charge, let alone convicted and yet he will sit an entire season. In essence, Goodell has no choice but to impose a stiffer sentence on Vick, if for no other reason than Vick has actually been indicted and plead guilty to a series of crimes. Whether Vick serves prison time or not is irrelevant, he has to sit for at least a season and a half. Goodell can allow that suspension to be served concurrently or not, and quite frankly I don't care which. Unlike Whitlock, I don't think Vick can simply come back after being in prison. But I do agree with Whitlock, if Goodell allows Vick to come back, there would have to be a list of stipulations and conditions as long as my arm and that would be more than fair.

While we should not treat Michael Vick like he treated is dogs, we don't have to treat him like a prized poodle either. Vick deserves stiff and harsh punishment from the NFL, but he does not deserve a second chance. Michale Vick must earn a second chance.

Vick Cops a Plea

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick as agreed to a plea deal. The terms of the deal were not announced, but Vick will be sentenced next week and could get five years in prison, although that is unlikely. Chances are he will get one year--to start almost immediately and he could be out with 80% of his sentenced served by July of next year--in time for NFL training camps.

With the plea deal, the big question mark will be the NFL suspension to be handed out by Commissioner Roger Goodell. The variables will be how much Vick lied to Goodell (and he almost certainly lied to the Commissioner) and how much Goodell wants to make an example of Vick.

As one of the NFL's marquee players, if Goodell give Vick anything less than a full year suspension (the same given to Adam "Pacman" Jones who was not convicted of anything), Goodell will be charged with being unfair. Anything much more than a year may trash Vick's career, not that such a move would necessarily be a bad thing for the NFL.

For me, I would like to see Goodell void Vick's contract if at all possible, lose all guaranteed money for this year (if there is any), have a suspension of 8 games to run when and if he returns to the NFL, in addition to all teh time he will miss by sitting in prison. If Vick gets no prison time (which is highly unlikely), Vick must sit this season and at least 4 games of next season. I think a nice hefty fine is in order as well, with the NFL giving the money over to dog rescue charties.

Goodell cannot be seen as favoring Vick any more than any other player. Vick's crimes were certainly serious and compounded by the lies he must have told Goodell and Goodell, if he is to be taken seriously by the owners, the players and the players' association must be viewed as scrupuously fair.

Ambassador Cal Ripken?

Yep, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has named Baseball Hall of Famer and Iron Man Cal Ripken to be a special envoy for sports

."[The] Hall of Fame a couple of weeks ago and now this honor bestowed upon me by the State -- that's a pretty good little run, pretty good little streak," said Ripken, who traveled to the State Department this morning to appear with Rice and Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes.

Hughes said the State Department reached out to Ripken in 2002 after his playing career had ended to try to interest him in helping promote baseball globally as a goodwill ambassador representing the United States. Ripken said he was interested then but that the timing wasn't right. It is now.

"At this point in his life, he feels, with the foundation set up and the youth baseball program established, that it's a good point for him to be able to go out and represent us," Hughes said. Word of his appointment came out last week and became official today.

Ripken is essentially an unpaid consultant working for as long as he is interested and needed. "I don't think there's any term limits on the job, yet," he joked.

If Ripken puts half as much dedication into this role as he did in his playing career, the whole world will be playing baseball in 20 years.

Blasting Soccer Coverage

Ted Leonsisrips SportsTalk 980's coverage of teh LA Galaxy/DC United match from last week.

As I was driving into the DC United game last week, to join 47,000 other fans, I was listening to the Sports Reporters on SportsTalk 980. That number -- 47,000 -- is way more people than listen to the Sports Reporters broadcast as an aside. I was disappointed to hear Steve and Andy basically questioning why people would go to a DC United game and why is it that the community would turn out in such droves to watch David Beckham play?

They made fun of the regular attendance of DC United which averages about 19,000 per game. They questioned whether soccer would make it in America. They basically parroted every cliché about soccer and MLS that we have heard through the years. There was a sarcastic mention equating soccer fans to hockey fans. They made mention that teen girls and soccer moms were all attending this game…as if that was a bad thing. They lost sight of the fact that DC loves an event and that David Beckham is probably the world's most recognized athlete, ahead of even Tiger Woods. All I could think of was:

Isn't SportsTalk 980 an all sports network? Shouldn't they be celebrating this game as an event? Shouldn't they be promising all of the people listening to the broadcast that were going to the game and listening in that they would cover more soccer so tune in regularly? Wouldn't that help ratings?

For those outside of DC, Leonsis is the majority owner of the Washington Capitals hockey team, a team that often suffers from a dearth of coverage by the chuckleheads at the Sports Reporters. While Leonsis has a point, and apparently it didn't stop the United game, there is a reason why DC United and indeed much of American soccer doesn't get the coverage--the major sports reporters and columnists don't give a damn!!

Now, that sad state of affairs is not necessarily their fault. Most of these men (and they are mostly men) were raised on football, baseball and basketball. Their coverage of other sports, like hockey, or NASCAR or just about any other sport, sufferes in comparison to the big three leagues. These people don't understand soccer and can't break it down quantitatively since the game is a qualitative enterprise. How do you describe the one goal in a game, or the events leading up to it? How can you convey a game that was lopsided in possession and play, yet still have the dominant team lose because their opponents were able to make their three shots count?

Take a look at the people who cover soccer full time for major newspapers or networks. Most of them have one or two things in common. They are either young-as in under 35, or they are foriegn born. I think that in 20 years, soccer will be huge in this country. Because the leading sports writers will have grown up on a steady diet of the sport, either through having played it or having covered it for a long time. Once the major dailies and the networks get beyond the single player hype (Beckham anyone) and concentrate on the quality of other players and the quality of play, figure out how to report it, and then hype the game through the players rather simply hyping the players, you will see much better soccer reporting.

By way of example, Peyton Manning is by all accounts a Hall of Fame quarterback, and rightfully so. His accomplishments on the field and his self-deprecating style off the field make him a star. But football has existed for long before he took his first snap under center and will exist long after he has retired. People understand the superlatives bandied about by Manning, but also understand that he cannot accomplish anything without teammates who help the Colts win, recievers who can gather in his wonderful passes, linemen and running backs who can stop defenses from pummeling him like some second rate David Carr.

The LA Galaxy could be a good team, in a about two years. Right now, though, with or without Beckham, they are not as quality a team as say the Houston Dynamo or the New England Revolution. In last Thursday's match in the monsoon in Washington, Beckham was joined on the field by three players of similar quality and perhaps more excitment in the run of play--DC United's Luciano Emilio and Fred (two of the most prolific scorers in MLS) and LA's own Landon Donovan. There is no doubt to Beckham's skill on a dead ball situation and he may be one of the world's best in free kicks. But Beckham himself cannot win games without 10 other players on the field with him and once soccer coverage in America begins to understand that, the better off the sport will be.

South Carolina's Football Coach Mad

Michael O'Brien at Phi Beta Cons has this story:

News out of the University of South Carolina today, where Gamecocks coach Steve Spurrier is steaming mad that two of his recruits won't be at practice this week...because they weren't admitted to the school.

This isn't the first time this has happened to Spurrier, and now he's making veiled threats at leaving if the school doesn't relax its admissions standards for athletes.

Sure, the idea of the scholar-athlete may be a bit antiquated, but can coaches at least put up a façade of academic integrity?

O'Brien hints at something that is sort of boiling underneath the surface of big time college sports, that is Division I football and basketball. Schools make a ton of cash on these sports, often making enough on these two sports to support the entire athletic department and even then most athletic departments operate in the red. In order to keep competing on the national level, schools like South Carolina and most other Div. I schools sort of "relax" entrace standards already to get "student-athletes" into school.

The NCAA is attempting to beef up the standards a little, but the economics of the situation demand that schools fudge the numbers in order to draw high quality athletes even if as students they wouldn't make the cut. Athletic conferences split money for TV and radio rights. Schools sign deals with equipment providers worth millions. Alumni contribute heavily based upon the success of the school's sports teams. The better the program, the more the money flows.

Yet, obstensibly, athletic scholarships are designed to provide education to athletes. But if the student can't get into the school, who should shoulder the blame, the school for not bowing to the needs of the athletic department or the coach for recruiting borderline students?

Tour de France Now a Joke

Doping scandals, failed drug tests and now a tour leader yanked over lies to his team have turned cyclling's biggest event into a late night show punchline. Danish rider Michael Rasmussen, who had won yesterday's grueling 16th Stage and looked set to win the event this weekend, we booted from his team for violating team rules. What does that mean?

The expulsion, which Bergsma said was ordered by the Dutch team's sponsor, was linked to "incorrect" information that Rasmussen gave to the team's sports director over his whereabouts last month. The Danish cyclist missed random drug tests May 8 and June 28, saying he was in Mexico. But a former rider, Davide Cassani, told Denmark's Danmarks Radio on Wednesday that he had seen Rasmussen in Italy in mid-June.

Only once before in the history of the 104-year-old Tour has the race leader been expelled. In 1978, Belgian rider Michel Pollentier, trying to evade doping controls after winning a stage at the Alpe d'Huez in the Alps, was caught with an intricate tube-and-container system that contained urine that was not his, said Tour historian Jean-Paul Brouchon.

Under the rules of itnernation competition for the World Anti-Doping Agency, athletes must make themselves available for random testing throughout the year, including out-of-competition testing. Reportedly Rasmussen missed two test days. Such behavior cannot be tolerated and probably should have been know before the Tour began, in essence Rasmussen's team should not have let me start the race at all.

But why pull him now? I think the team thought something might be a little fishy in his lack of appearances for random testing and they figured it better to pull him from the race rather than allow him and his team to become tainted if anything came up later. Although Rasmussen has tested clear during the race, his team may wonder about his pre-race preparation.

This year's tour has seen two riders and an entire team disissed from the competition.

German rider Patrick Sinkewitz crashed into a spectator then was revealed to have failed a drug test in training before the Tour, and [Alexndre] Vinokourov [and team Astana were] sent home after testing positive for a banned blood transfusion. On Wednesday, as Rasmussen was riding toward his stage 16 win, the Cofidis squad confirmed its Italian rider Cristian Moreni failed a doping test, prompting the withdrawal of the entire squad.

Police detained Moreni after he finished the stage and searched the hotel where his Cofidis team was staying. Results from the raid weren't expected until Thursday. France has tough laws against trafficking in doping products.

Cofidis manager Eric Boyer said Moreni "accepted his wrongdoing" and waived his right for a follow-up test to confirm the results of the first, which was positive for the male hormone testosterone.

The ridiculous matter is that these riders somehow believe they will not be caught? The status of international cycling has lead some calling for drastic steps:

All this talk of doping prompted Jean-Francois Lamour, vice president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, to suggest the sport should be yanked from the Olympics. German public broadcasters have stopped airing the race, and one of Switzerland's biggest newspapers stopped writing about it. The daily Tages Anzeiger said on its Web site Wednesday it will limit its coverage to results and doping stories.

What a joke this race has become. One of the world's premier endurance events has become nothing more than an advertisment for wrongdoing.

What has happened to sports when the biggest stories are drowned out by cheating scandals?

In Defense of Soccer in America

For those few readers who have reguarly been coming to this space, you may have noticed that I am posting a lot more soccer news and material to this blog. As the brief bio points out, this blog is about my passions and I love soccer. I have loved soccer since I started playing at age 9. I still love the "Beatiful Game" and probably always will. My vision of my deathbed is my wife, kids, grandkids and close friends sitting around watching a soccer game.

I also love the United States, with all my heart. In terms of my allegiances, you could easily say, my family, my country, my fiends and my soccer--in that order. But there are times when I wished that I grew up in a nation that followed soccer a great deal more than the United States--say England or Germany. But I was blessed to be an American and cursed to be a soccer fan in America.

I have come to accept that right now, Americans don't follow soccer with the same passion that I do. In fact, thanks to chuckleheads like this guy, most Americans get a viciously skewed view of the game. But Americans can and should love this game, if only they looked at from a different point of view. Instead of looking at the scoreboard and the game's lengthy test of endurance, Americans needs to view the sport in terms of American values. There is so much about American that can be seen in soccer, so many things that while not uniquely American in the game, certainly match with American sensibilities and mores.

From the time I was consciously aware of it, America has always been a land of optimisim. Even in the worst of circumstances, America maintains a positive outlook, predicated on plucky, stick-to-it-iveness that simply is not a part of the national psyche in other countries. America has always believed that if it kept trying, kept thinking, and kept working, then success would come to them. That optimism underscored the phenonenal success of our nation, our government and our way of life. No other nation achieved so much in such a short history.

Detractors bemoan the lack of scoring in soccer, noting that games often end with just one or two goals scored in a game. To these people soccer lacks excitement and thus they are pessimistic about the game. But soccer is a game designed for optimists, for American optimism. It takes a great deal of optimism and "stick-to-it-iveness" to routinely and repeated go on the attack trying to score. It takes faith, another American trait, to believe that this attack will end in a goal, even though statistically, it won't. Teams scheme and work and continually try to score. In that respect, soccer is no different than football or baseball.

America has always prided itself on its inherent inventiveness, the genius of finding a new solution to a problem. We are a nation of Robert Fulton, Eli Whitney, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, NASA engineers, Bill Gates and Sergey Brin. We are the people that find solutions to problems. We are a nation of thinkers and of do-ers. We are an industrious people, for whom hard work is no stranger and believe that hard work leads to success, regardless of whether that success is modest or grandiose.

In so many ways, soccer is thinking man's game. It is a game of fluidity, of action and reaction. Soccer boasts a constant movement, a constant adjustment of strategy and tactics. Unlike football, where plays are plotted and rehearsed over and over again, soccer is a game the requires adaptation on the fly all the time. Improvisation and ingenuity are rewarded, routine and rigidity punished. The only time you see improvisation on a football field during a game is when a play breaks down. With soccer you see solutions to problems developed in the run of play, not in a huddle every 40 seconds. Soccer should appeal to the thinker in us all.

Despite everything, America is a nation that believes the little guy can still win, where a poor adopted kid from Hope, Arkansass can become President. Soccer is a game where at anytime, on any given game day, anyone can win. A combination of luck, skill and determination can carry the day over big payrolls and big names. Soccer is a game where the George Mason's of the world are far more common than you would believe. While soccer as a game can carry heartache and heartbreak, remember it is still a game of optimism. There will be another time, another match.

Soccer is not a game of bursts of energy or violence in the same way that baseball or football presents. Soccer can't be broken down into numbers and situations the way those games lend themselves to. Soccer has so few set plays, whereas football and for the most part basketball are predicated on set plays. There is no playbook for soccer. Soccer has skills that are rehearsed regularly in training, but unlike baseball, they must be combined every game in new ways and applied in new situations against new teams.

Perhaps this is why soccer fails to garner the type of fan base as others. But outside of the professional ranks of sports in this country, there are more people playing soccer.

More children participate in soccer in the United States than in baseball/softball and football combined. Soccer atrracts more young people to sport than any other game in America. Soccer is is a game that requires teamwork, communication and group problem solving, but it is also a game that still admires the talented individual.

Soccer is the ultimate democratic game of democractic nation, it requires no specialized equipment or specialized fields, it requires no massive outlay of money, only an effort, desire, an open space, a ball and a few peple who want play. Soccer can be played with teams as few as three and as many as 11 at anyone time. It asks nothing of a player but his or her energy and skill. It provides the joy of athleticism, of speed and endurance, of individual achievement and group success. It teaches about life, about failure and success, about learning from mistakes and reveling in success.

Soccer may not be America's game but it is a game that shares American values far more than any other.

Cool News for Marylander

Chris Warner, a resident of Annapolis, MD and the owner of Earth Treks climbing gyms, has reached the summit of K2, the second highest peak in the world. In doing so, Warner has become only the 8th American and one of 112 people in the world to have successfully climbed both Mt. Everest and K2.

In a brush with fame, I shook hands with Warner about 10 years ago at the Earth Treks in Columbia, MD.

Michael Vick Indicted--What Will Roger Goodell Do?

Michael Vick has been indicted by a federal grand jury. What is NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell going to do now? It is one thing to suspend a less than marquee star in Adam "Pacman" Jones for behavior unbecoming, but it is a whole other thing to suspend one of the marketing hooks for the NFL and a man with a $100 million dollar contract.

While I can appreciate the delicacy of the situation for the Atlanta Falcons, I think Goodell's course is clear--Vick should be suspended for the entire season. Adam Jones has been arrested on numerous occaisions and he received a lengthy suspension despite having never been convicted of any crime. Vick has been indicted, but not convicted, of some serious federal crimes. What Jones did was bad, what Vick did was bad. Goodell cannot be seen as playing favorites if he has any hope of cleaning up the "thuggish" behavior of some of the Leagues Players.

The NFL Players Association also has to support Goodell's decision. Many of the NFL players are upset that a few players are giving the vast majority of good men a bad name. As some players have said, most NFL careers are four or five years long, meaning that the players will have to find work after teh NFL and can't afford to have some players giving all players a bad reputation.

What should Goodell do? Suspend Vick for one full season (preferably without pay) and send the message publicly that such behavior, or even suspicion of such behavior will not be tolerated by the League. If Vick and other players don't like it, they can find work elsewhere.

Rep. Linda Sanchez: On Title IX

Over at the Huffington Post, California Rep. Linda Sanchezwrites about Title IX and keeping it alive, but for all the wrong reasons.

Title IX of the Educational Amendments, which became law on June 23, 1972, says that, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That framework has helped provide women a more equal opportunity for education.

The great legacy of Title IX is most often talked about in the context of sports. After winning two gold medals in swimming in the 1964 Olympic Games, Donna de Varona had to put off her college education at UCLA because sports scholarships for women did not exist.

A generation later, Title IX has helped propel women's sports to increasingly higher levels of performance, awareness and respect. Indeed, some of our country's most recognizable and influential stars are women who have excelled at collegiate, Olympic and even professional sports.

Yet the most telling effect of Title IX is the fact that today, more women than men are attending college. Equal education for women was rare before 1972. Many law and medical schools accepted a maximum of 15 women per year, and women were often shut out of classes such as criminal justice and auto mechanics.

Today, well over half of all undergraduate college students are women, and women outnumber men in many graduate programs.

Despite this progress, Title IX continues to come under attack. In March 2005, the U.S. Department of Education announced it was watering down its enforcement. More recently, opponents of Title IX have used the so-called "boy crisis" debate to fan the myth that expanded educational opportunities for girls have come at the expense of boys.

Title IX has been a boon to a great many things, women's education and sports not the least among them. Title IX has expanded educational opportunity across the board since with more people enrolling in colleges, the academic community has gotten larger and colleges are making more money. Not a bad side-effect.

But let's face it, Title IX enforcement cannot be biased toward women any more. At a time when women make up 55 to 60 percent of a graduating class, and that has been the trend for some time now, one cannot rationally argue that Title IX must be biased toward women.

Rep. Sanchez must understand and I am sure can read, that Title IX is gender neutral and must be so. I don't think that expanded educational opportunities for women have come at the expense of boys--at least in terms of strictly educational opportunities. You might be able to make a case in the sports context--but that is another matter.

When graduating classes are so overwhelmingly female, we do indeed have a "boy crisis" in this country. There is no reason why a nation so dedicated to equality amongst the sexes to have the interpretation of a law the is pre-disposed to aiding women. That may have been the case 30 years ago, but it is not the case now.

Beard, Patrick, Stokke, Kournikova and the Sexualization of Female Athletes

One the biggest hit generating posts I have had in recent months is the post where I talked about U.S. swimmer Amanda Beard posing for Playboy. Even now, some month and changes after the original post, I am still getting a lot of traffic on the post. Another popular post is one where I talk about the trials of Allison Stokke and her family in light of the posting of pictures of the very attractive Stokke, and how parents might have to face similar problems in the future.

At the same time, prior to Amanda Beard, one of the most downloaded athletes in terms of photos was Anna Kournikova. Indy race car driver Danica Patrick, another athlete blessed with stunning good looks has appeared in a number of magazines where she is featured more for her looks than her driving skills. While men's magazines and other media have often been drawn the physically attractive, there are more and more comments about female athletes and how we as a nation are drawn to these women because of the way they look rather for their skills as an athlete.

From the outset, many of these women, with teh possible exception of Anna Kournikova, have generated interest in them because of their skills. Despite having never won an Inday race, Danica Patrick consistently performs well enough to be ranked in the top ten of her sport. Beard has a lot of gold medals hanging in her house and Allison Stokke is the California state champion in pole vaulting. Other athletes like volleyball's Gabrielle Reese, Kerrie Walsh and Logan Tom, soccer's Brandi Chastain and Heather Mitts, and literally dozens of tennis players, have racked up impressive records in terms of their sports. But more and more, these athletes are using their athletic fame to move into something else, such as modeling or at least using their physical appearance to further their career and expand their bank accounts.

When I first posted about Amanda Beard's decision to appear in Playboy, I got a few emails saying that I was objectifying her, degrading Beard and turning her into nothing more than a sexual being with no other purpose. First, I would like to point out that no one puts a gun to these women's head and says, "we are going to tak pictures of you in skimpy attire or without clothes." Amanda Beard volunteered and made money for her pictures. If she didn't want me looking at her with a sexual overtone, appearing in Playboy is a bad decision. Even for athletes like Danica Patrick and others, they made the decision to sexualize themselves, even without taking off their clothes, to a certain degree and for us to ignore that factor is to bury our head in the sand.

Second, in a society that at once exalts the sporting life and is descending into obesity, why not celebrate the physical appearance of an athlete whose body is honed not by mere genetics, but by hard work. As I noted in my original post, women have appeared in Playboy with a body that resulted from genetics. This is not to say that Beard would not be beautiful were it not for her gold medals, but without the medals, it is unlikely that Playboy would have approached her to appear sans her Speedo. Athletes work hard to maintain their bodies in peak condition and the fact that it happens to be connected to a pretty face is something that is to be celebrated.

What we forget, often times, when thinking about female athletes, particularly those like Beard, Patrick, Kournikova and others who are at least adults, is that these women, in addition to being athletes are themselves sexual beings. One presumes they have and in some cases we know, that they have romantic and presumably sexual relationships. These women are not nuns who wait in a convent until it is time to compete and retreat to the cloistered halls after the competition. If these women choose to express their sexuality in teh pages of Playboy or FHM or any other magazine, why should we as a society get our collective underwear in a twist?

We don't put the same standards upon men? Male athletes are assumed to be sexual creatures and no one questions their attendance at a strip club. But for women athletes to express a sexuality, that becomes something to be feared or criticized. And men who partake in the celebration of the female form in the shape of an athlete in a magazine are some how misogynistic for their enjoyment.

One emailer asked me if I would allow my daughters to pose in Playboy. Well, first, by the time Playboy could hire them to pose, they would be adults and no matter what I say, they would be able to make the decision themselves. But at the same time, I hope that by the time my daughters reach adulthood, I will have equipped them with the decision-making skills to make the choice themselves. If they choose to do so, why should I stand in the way. Such an activity is lucrative and if my daughters grace the pages of Playboy as result of their athletic achievements, who am I to argue. More to the point, who are you to argue. Would I buy that issue--maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't prohibit my daughters from doing what they choose.

In the expansion of the media to encompass so many different forms, there is a cry out for content. If a woman, who happens to be an athlete and attractive decides to pose with little or no clothing for a paycheck, she has no more sold out her sport or herself than anyone else who does things for material gain.

U.S. should boycott Beijing Olympics

What a stupid idea by both Bill Richardson and by Kevin Blackistone in the Politico.

About a year before it was to host the 1988 Summer Games, South Korea's authoritarian government acquiesced to popular demands for democratic elections. A former general, Roh Tae-woo, was voted president. Thus was ushered in what has become a steady transformation of a longtime repressive government.

A little more than a year from its first hosting of the Summer Games, change isn't coming along so swimmingly in China.

Here is a fundamental difference between China and South Korea--South Korea had a history, albeit a short one, with democratic govenrments. China--not so much.

Look, a boycott is not going to change the Chinese minds any more than the American boycott of the Moscow games in 1980 for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Balckstone then talks about the link between sport and politics:

Maybe there would have been a hue and cry six years ago against China's Olympic candidacy had it then been linked to genocide. It did lose the bidding in 1993 for the 2000 Olympics in part because of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, which was yet another reminder of the entanglement of sports and politics, especially with the Olympics. Olympians have been the pawns since they first swaddled themselves in national colors.

The most recent games -- not just 1972, 1968 and 1936, most famously -- were colored by politics. The Bush reelection campaign was accused of hijacking the Athens Games in 2004 with an ad that claimed its war on terror was responsible for athletes from Iraq and Afghanistan being able to participate. Australia went on the apology at the 2000 games in Sydney as its star, sprinter Cathy Freeman, represented the Aboriginal natives historically discriminated against there. The 1996 Games in Atlanta saw the Palestinian Authority participate.

Look, just because sport has become politicized doesn't mean the United States should extend that connection by boycotting the Beijing games.

Does China have a long way to go on its human rights record? Sure, but is boycotting the games going to fix that? No. But what will change it is the money spent in Beijing by the hundreds of thousandas of visitors and the billions of dollars that will be spent there. Capitalism and repressive governments don't mix for every long and the hard reality for the Beijing regime is that once tasted, people don't leave capitalism behind.

A Tale of Pitching Comparisons

Yesterday had an juxtaposition of sports and worth and I think the values are completely out of whack. First comes this story from USA Today about Yankees mega-millionaire pitcher Roger Clemens:

Roger Clemens appeared set to make his 2007 major league debut Saturday against the Pittsburgh Pirates after throwing 54 pitches during batting practice at the New York Yankees' minor league complex.

The seven-time Cy Young Award winner made 21 throws in the outfield and eight warmup tosses Wednesday before his 20-minute batting practice session against players from the Yankees' extended spring training team.

Clemens also took part in a short fielding session before jogging around the area outside the complex.

snip

If Clemens is added to the major league roster on Saturday, he would earn $17,442,637 this season and cost the Yankees $6,977,054 in luxury tax, a total of $24,419,691. Clemens agreed May 6 to a one-year contract worth $28,000,022 — the last two digits matching his uniform number — but only gets paid his major league salary once he is on the big league roster.

Roger Clemens is at best a six inning pitcher and if he wins more than 8 games the remainder of this year, I would be surprised.

Compare Clemens with this young lady:

After throwing more than 1,000 pitches in a week to lead Arizona to its eighth NCAA softball title, Taryne Mowatt finally admitted the obvious.

“Now that the week is over, I can admit I'm extremely tired now,” said Mowatt, who set a Women's College World Series record by pitching 60 innings.

“My arm, it's felt better.”

Taryne Mowatt pitched 8 games in 7 days for the Arizona Wildcats who won their 8th NCAA championship.

While I admit that the pitching motion in fast pitch softball is much different than the bone punishing baseball pitching, Mowatt was firing pitches in at 65+ miles per hour and threw over 1,000 pitches in a week. Clemens, who is some 25 years Mowatt's senior, will probably have to play 9 to 10 games to equal Mowatt's pitch total and it remains to be seen if the Yankess can even make the playoffs.

Hats off to the Arizona Wildcats, who not only fought back from the loser's bracket to make it to the championship series, but came back from a game down to win the last two games in the best of three series.

So who is the more valuable player?

Soccer (and other sports) and The Law

Professor William Birdthistle has been guestblogging at the Volokh Conspiracy. While Professor Birdthisltle's main fields are business organizations and securities, he is a passionate fan of soccer and has been blogging about soccer and sports internal laws (i.e. the rules of the game) and the refereeing of soccer.

His posts have been fun, with lots of video clips, (including in his first post a clip of a unidentified team being coached on how to take a dive, writhe around as if shot or otherwise gravely wounded). He has published a paper, called Football Most Foul, in which he discusses the poor performance of the referees of the 2006 World Cup and the incentives and disincentives of referees in soccer matched.

His six posts have been fun to read (and watch) and if you are at all interested in soccer or sports and how the rules of the game affect the play of the game, I recommend his posts.

Soccer Stars and Sex Toys

I'm in a mood about soccer of late but for some reason, sex keeps creeping in. This is not a story I expected to ever read:

German sex shop chain Beate Uhse must pay German soccer stars Michael Ballack and Oliver Kahn 50,000 euros ($67,380) each for using their names for vibrators without permission, the company said Monday.

The company had marketed the sex toys, dubbed "Michael B." and "Olli K.," before Germany hosted the World Cup in 2006.

Although the surnames of the two German soccer stars were not used, it was clear they referred to Chelsea midfielder Michael Ballack and Bayern Munich goalkeeper Oliver Kahn.

Kahn and national team captain Ballack sued Beate Uhse in court for unauthorized use of their names and won.

"The products have been withdrawn," the spokeswoman said. "We have to pay 50,000 euros to each of them."

Hat Tip: OTB Sports.

Sophia Loren--Stripping Soccer Fan

Loren promises that if her favorite team Napoli gets promoted to the Serie A soccer league, Italy's top league, the 72 year old actress will do a striptease. Now most Americans probably don't understand promotion in European and indeed most world soccer leagues. Most countries have multiple level, usually two or three levels, in which pro team compete. Usually, the top three teams from the lower division move up to the next division and the bottom three teams move down.

Promotion and demotion are big deals and mean a lot of money. For example, under the revenue sharing plan for the English Premier league, teams that remain in the Premiership will receive some $60 million dollar bonuses. The three teams that are demoted, don't get the bonus.