Please oh please stop saying that soccer is like jazz - the two have nothing to do with each other. If soccer had anything to do with jazz, the English wouldn't be any good at it.

Oh. Wait.

But still - there's no improvising in soccer, there's reacting to situations in a way that works towards a specific result. You don't win a song. It's a stupid metaphor that someone on the BBC decided was the best way to explain the world's game to idiot americans, not realizing that jazz is even less popular than soccer here.

It's great to see both the Stanley Cup and World Cup going on at the same time, and in the same article here. As much as I enjoy watching soccer, the NHL finals have been so much more exciting. The rules are similar in both games, but little elements seem to make hockey more prone to being thrilling to watch. There aren't going to be as many unbelievable saves by the goalie in soccer as there are in hockey because the goal's so big that a keeper has much less influence on the game. There aren't going to be as many lightning fast breakaways because the offsides trap in soccer would force that to be a 50 yard sprint. There aren't going to be as many man advantages because the only way that happens in soccer is if someone's kicked off the field. I'm finding that those differences are the reason I'm enjoying hockey more than soccer right now.

I always wonder why you do your annual "I just don't get this bike racing thing" article. Then I see the number of letters you get and it makes a little more sense. Plus it's summer, and there aren't that many other sporting events going on, and I imagine you're trying to find ways to put together enough words to get a column together.

I don't particularly care about the sport being popular or not, I just like it. Same way I feel about hockey, which is also unpopular. Everyone I know who follows cycling knows it's not something that most people get into and don't hold it against anybody. Still, watching a good mountain stage is something most people can enjoy - my non-cycling wife is now completely hooked on the TDF, in spite of her general dislike of watching sports.

I have no idea if Landis is doping, but would be surprised. Whether this proves untrue or not, the fact that this is a headline around the world amplifies the perceived doping problem in cycling.

"Five Astaná riders who were forced out of the 2006 Tour de France because of alleged links to a blood doping investigation have been formally cleared by Spanish courts."

But there's another story about doping in cycling that came out yesterday that's just as important if not more so:

http://velonews.com/race/int/articles/10588.0.html

Nobody outside of a Spanish invstigative team has seen all of the details of the Operation Puerto investigation, and the prosecutors have shared only the most incriminating details. But nothing conclusive has been publicly presented. So I have to wonder if maybe these are just the first 5 of a long, long list of people who are going to be cleared. I could be wrong, of course, because I only know what's been released.

Cycling's problems with being a percieved hotbed of drugs are, to a great degree, of their own making. I'm not saying there aren't drugs in cycling because there most likely are. Maybe even as many as there are in Football. But rather than dealing with it in a judicious way, the UCI deals with it in a scandalous way. As a result Ullrich and Basso are out of the tour, Vino's out by virtue of losing his team, and Landis is on the front page before he's convicted of anything.

Makes you appreciate the principle of innocent until proven guilty.