I've heard it so many times, you'd think it would lose its luster by now.

But the humor of "Dick Pound" will not die.

to spread the completely unfounded rumor that Clemens was sitting out a secret 50-game suspension for steroids as part of a under-the-table deal with MLB? You can't get this kind of expert analysis anywhere. Just the crazier parts of the internet. I love it!

Please don't ever mention this clown again. (Apologies to clowns everwhere for the comparison)

Is it just me or was the Miami promo department a bit off when they decided that "team spirit" meant "Everyone wears White!" It looks like a cult meeting at American Airlines Arena - I keep expecting the mothership to land and take all the good little cult members up to Xenon for their eternal reward. The "White Shirts" (also the whitest crowd I've ever seen in Miami) practically watch the game with their hands folded in their lap. Kind of coincidental that Shaq moved from L.A. - home of fan indifference - to someplace where the fans actually seem less enthused... But at least they all show up on time!

Side note: To the letter poster 2 days ago when said that Ben Wallace was overrated and a liability to his team I say: Nya, nya!!! Who's a liability now, Shaq-fan?!?!?

Punctuated by the "Big Shazam" himself in postgame interviews where he said something to the effect of "That was a foul. No more stupid questions." as the mini-recorder wielding classes tittered nervously as most 5'5" people tend to do around 7'2" assholes...

Lets see, Roger Clemens is about twice the size he was when he joined the Red Sox back in the 80's, he's a post-season choker, he's put up his best numbers after the age of forty, he plays intermittently and at his convenience, he neither confirms or denies anything, and he's shown a marked inablilty to control his emotions on the field.

The Houston Asteriks sound like a good fit for him in 2006...

king:

i must say it is kind of pathetic and unworthy of your usual insight to cling blindly to the pistons mystique and see game 5 as a turning point for them. yes, wallace blocked shaq's shot, and yes, the pistons played some excellent "D" for part of the 4th quarter. but the biggest play of the game was prince's 3 off of shaq's block of (i think it was) rip hamilton's lay up. that was a great block, and if the heat had gotten the ball and gone the other way for a bucket, it would have been something like 78-76 with the pistons in trouble. and the reason prince got that ball was - blind, stupid luck. it was not a hustle play, he was just hanging out at the 3-point line and the ball came right to him. plus, of course, he made it, but that's his shot. and there's at least a little luck involved when your opponent goes 6 for 20 from the line. my point is the pistons could have easily lost that game. it just was not classic pistons dominance. they just aren't the same team. now, of course they will be favored in a game 7 at home (duh). but i really doubt they will get one. why? they aren't playing very well, and like you astutely pointed out, they can't stop shaq or wade. and i think there is one more reason - helmsmanship. i think riley can get the heat past the pistons in game 6, and i think that this series will then literally be the poster child for what a difference coaching can make in the NBA. not that saunders is a bum or anything. but the difference between these teams right now is small, and riley knows the territory. king, you're a smart guy, you could have been the first to say it. maybe next time...

King, I understand what you are saying about the "shoddy police work" not exonerating Lance Armstrong but only "getting him off the hook." And I agree. So, let me make a couple of points: First, how often do you beat your wife? And have you ever considered stopping? Look, I am a husband myself I know how frustrating being a husband can be so it stands to reason that you have had that kind of frustration too. As we know, a lot of frustrated husbands hit their spouses so only the conclusion I can come to is that you must beat your wife. You are right that I can't prove that you have ever hit her, but now I have made the charge, there is evidence that it happened (lots of husbands beat their wives and you MUST fit some profile or another of a wife beater), so don't be upset if the next story some newspaper writes is that Salon's sports columnist is a spouse abuser.

Of course I don't think you hit your wife. I don't even know if you are married. I also don't think that Lance Armstrong doped his way to a Tour victory. I could be wrong about either of those things, though, as I don't know the principals involved. The point is, there is still no credible evidence that Armstrong used any illegal or illicit drugs on his way to winning the Tour de France. If you go around saying that the report doesn't exonerate him, then you are giving the weak-no-chain-of-custody-could-have-been-tampered-with-not-certainly-identifiable-produced-by-a-publication-that-has-been-hunting-Armstrong-for-years "evidence" exactly what it lacks- credibility. And this alleged "evidence" saying that Armstrong cheated is every bit as solid as my "evidence" that you beat your wife. I mean, I am sure that she has shown up with bruises sometime, right? And, like I said, if you are a husband, then you are, definitionally, frustrated, at least sometimes. My evidence of you hitting your wife is every bit as solid as the evidence against Armstrong.

Look, I am sorry if it seems that I am hitting below the belt by bringing up your family. I don't mean to and I don't mean to suggest that you have ever laid an angry hand on anyone in your life. I don't know you, but I still think highly of you. But what is the real difference between me saying "King Kaufman denies hitting his wife, but there is very strong evidence, from his frustration as a husband to the fact that his wife has been seen with bruises and scratches that could be consistent with an abusive household, that he does. The fact that Mrs. Kaufman denies that her husband ever hit her means nothing. All it says is that the police weren't able to make her rat on her spouse. King must really have that poor woman frightened," and you saying that there is nothing that exonerates Armstrong, only bad police work getting him off the hook.

In the end, you may be right. This evidence doesn't prove that he didn't take drugs, but he has done everything ever asked of him every time it was asked in the way of testing to prove that he is clean. It isn't up to him to prove he is clean anymore than it is up to you to disprove ridiculous allegations that you beat your wife. As far as I am concerned, this exonerates Armstrong completely. We can't use some kind of doublespeak to say that this doesn't clear him when there was never any evidence that he was dirty in the first place but that it only gets him off the hook. That isn't fair.

Gavin Fritton