At least part of the problem is that as a society we really haven't decided that performance enhancing drugs are not okay, just that certain ones are not okay, just as certain recreatonal drugs (alcohol, caffeine, nicotine) are legal, and others are not.

Speaking of caffeine, it has a strange status in sports. Many people use it as a performance enhancing drug (I remember reading articles encouraging its use as such), and it's legal to use up to a particular level. A little caffeine speed-effect is okay, but too much is not okay.

Alberto Salazar attributed his successful comeback in the early 90s to his use of Prozac™. No outcry followed.

Willis Reed used Cortizone in order to play in the NBA finals, and people didn't bat an eye, and people still use pain killers of various sorts to help them perform when they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

I can guarantee you that any any ultramarathon there will be plenty of ibuprofen floating around. In my first 24-hour run, I felt the strongest in miles 80-105 after downing several ibuprofen tablets. Nobody suggested my performance wasn't legitimate because of the drugs I used.

Ibuprofen has even been linked to cases of kidney failure, yet, as far as I know, there has been no move to ban its use in sports.

We really need to have a discussion about what constitutes an illegal performance-enhancing drug, and why some should be allowed, and others disallowed.

I just have to wonder about the marketing wisdom of calling the triangle shape "Bermuda Triangle," though I suppose the faux sense of danger may appeal to some.

I wonder how many women do it for themselves and how many do it because their man wants it, or they think their man wants it, or they think that men in general want it. I, for one, prefer bushy to shaved. But maybe that's just me.

Rather than gouging season ticket holders for exhibition games, why don't they have NFL games in cities that don't have NFL teams, thus helping to market the league to those outside of their base cities.

Now, I realize that the NFL is currently #1 among sports leagues, but it's no sure bet that they'll always remain so. By having games in other cities, they can increase their popularity in those cities, and also lessen disgruntlement among their season ticket holders. For those teams that don't sell all of their available season tickets, they may actually see an increase in revenue, as the lowering in price of season tickets would result in more people purchasing them (this assumes that ticket sales in the non-NFL cities would be comparable to the current situation).

When I was a kid, we had an NFL exhibition game here in Portland, at what was then Multnomah Stadium (later Civic Stadium and now PGE Park). I believe it was between the Browns and Giants (I couldn't find any info on it on the internet, though I did discover that the first-ever overtime NFL game was an exhibition game in Portland in 1955 between the Los Angeles Rams and the Giants).

Even though it was mostly subs playing, it was exciting to watch NFL players in a game.

By the way, this is the one area where Major League Baseball has it right and the NFL seems to have it wrong. Over the last few years, we've had the Mariners and the Padres play exhibition games here in Portland (San Diego is the parent team for our local AAA team, the Beavers).

I'm skeptical of self-reported hours worked. The coaches likely are paid the same regardless of the number of hours worked, so their tracking is likely to be not very detailed.

As for paying high school athletes, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the current biggest drawback--doing so would make the recipients ineligible for the next rung of the sports ladder for many of them--college sports.

Yet one more argument for minor leagues in sports other than baseball and hockey.

The line about having macaca troubles and a noose in his office should refer to Allen, not Webb.

Apparently the reason the replay official didn't overturn the call on the field is that he had only one replay to look at, and it didn't show the Oregon player touching the football before it travelled 10 yards. The replay official was being pressured to make a quick decision, apparently because of TV concerns, so based on the information he had he upheld the decision on the field.

Given that, it's an overreaction of the Pac-10 to suspend the replay official, and probably an overreaction to suspend the officiating crew as well. The suspensions appear to be an attempt to calm down the folks from Oklahoma, but it hasn't worked that way.

is the fact that Oregon almost lost the game due to a squib kick.

Oh, and why aren't Oklahoma fans complaining on the non-call on the push-off on the TD pass?

In 1972 Ms. Magazine ran an ad in which prominent women stated that they had had an abortion. This was in the year prior to Roe v. Wade's overturning of laws banning abortions in the U.S.

A similar idea would be for an ad campaign featuring former NCAA athletes of note stating that they had received "gifts" in violation of NCAA rules during their college days, and calling for college athletes to be paid.

It's likely that most current college athletes would deem taking such a stand as too risky, but former college stars would have little to lose.