Weekly Sporties

-After a particularly tough series against the Washington Nationals which saw them get swept at home while being on what they thought was the wrong end of some ball and strike calls, Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine came out and said that it is just about time Major League Baseball came up with some kind of system that would call the balls and strikes consistently and remove the human element from behind the plate. He thinks that too many umpires have their own strike zones (as well as their own agendas) and it is impossible for teams to keep track of them all. By going to some kind of automated system (similar to what the broadcast teams have with the 'pitch zone' graphics) it would at least make everything consistent. Now, on the surface I kind of agree with Bobby - it insane that what is supposed to be a uniform strike zone from every umpire can clearly be altered depending on who is calling the balls and strikes. Also, science has proven the human eye can barely even see a 90 mph fastball for the last few feet before it reaches the plate, so most umps are guessing anyway. That being said, the timing of his idea sucks. By waiting until his team just lost this argument, no matter how valid, feels like a poor attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that the Sox had just gotten beaten badly for three straight games. Not to mention, the Sox might have gotten squeeze once or twice, but not that badly. On the whole I feel like this particular Red Sox team complains about the umpires too much as it is. At least now I know where they are getting it from.

-One guy where no umpire has a hard time seeing his pitches is Mets' knucklballer R.A. Dickey. Now, early in the week Dickey was pitching against the Rays in Tampa when he gave up a first-inning hit. Turns out that was the only hit he gave up all game. While that might be enough for most teams, the Mets are flying high after getting the franchise's first no-hitter last week so they appealed to MLB saying the hit really should have been ruled an error. The ball did seem to eat up Mets' third baseman David Wright, but not that much. If the Mets were at home it might have been called that way because home scoring always favors the pitcher, but under any other circumstances it wouldn't even have been an issue. Frankly, this just makes the Mets look greedy. I mean, they are currently selling anything that isn't nailed down and is remotely associated with Santana's no-hitter (you'll do that when your owner lost a lot of money to Bernie Madoff) and this looks as though they just want another opportunity to cash in. Considering Santana's no-hitter included a clearly-blown call of what should have been a double but was ruled a foul ball that would quickly have been overturned had the Cardinals felt like raising a stink about it, I suggest the Mets not press their luck with this one. Not to mention I doubt R.A. Dickey wants to get a no-hitter this way. Fortunately late Friday MLB upheld the ruling and the game remains a 1-hitter. Given that prior to this year R.A. Dickey's career high for wins was 11 and the one-hitter was his 10th win of the season, I think he already has enough good fortune to celebrate.

-There was a mini scandal this week when the New England Patriots claimed tight end Jake Ballard off waivers from the New York Giants. Ballard is considered by many to be a rising talent in the game, but he was hurt during the Super Bowl and won't be healthy enough to play for the entire upcoming season. The Giants had hoped that he would clear waivers so they could sign him to a new deal and then place him on the Injured Reserves list, keeping him with their organization. That won't be happening as the Patriots put in a claim and got Ballard's rights. Publicly the Giants are saying that everything is fine and that the Patriots simply did something which the rules allow them to do. However, there are reports that privately the Giants are pissed, claiming the Patriots broke some kind of unwritten rule between squads concerning injured players. The sources point to the fact that the Patriots already seem to have an abundance of amazing young tight ends and don't really need Ballard, so this seems like nothing more than trying to tweak the team which beat them in the Super Bowl. First off, I don't doubt for a second that is exactly what the Patriots are doing. But, secondly, the Giants need to stop crying about it. If they don't like what the Patriots did they should go to the league and try to force some of these unwritten rules onto paper. Of course, if the Giants go to the press and complain about the Patriots going against some secret agreement teams have about injured players and their ability to move between teams on the waiver wire that would pretty much be like admitting collusion. The NFL might have gotten away with that once this offseason, but I don't think they want to try it again.

-This week is the NFL's rookie symposium. For those of you who aren't football fans, think of it like freshman orientation for college. It's a few days of former and current players and coaches talking to the incoming rookies about being smart on and off the field, being careful with their money and the fact that all groupies are crazy. This year Commissioner Roger Goodell has also decided to bring in Bengals cornerback Adam "Pac-Man" Jones to speak to the kids. On the surface this seems like a pretty good idea. Jones has had multiple run-ins with the law off the field including a shooting at a strip club which left a security guard paralyzed, was suspended for an entire season because of that incident and after a promising start his career plateaued, causing him to bounced between a few teams after that, so he can speak from personal experience about how what you do between games can impact your career more than you probably think. It would be the NFL's version of "Scared Straight." The only problem with the idea is that it only works if the guy doing the talking is actually sorry about his actions and I have never gotten that vibe from Jones. The entire time he was suspended Jones never seemed to take any responsibility for the strip club shooting or its aftermath, saying it was all the fault of the people he was around and publicly claimed he wasn't getting fair treatment from the NFL (who, shockingly, didn't want to reduce his suspension). Maybe not the guy you want the next crop of NFL stars to learn from. All I'm saying is that while the message might be the right one, they might want a different messenger.

-Moving from one disgraced athlete to another: early this week lawyers for Floyd Mayweather sent an appeal to the courts, asking that the boxing champ be allowed to serve the rest of his three-month sentence for domestic battery under house arrest. The motion contends that irreparable harm is being done to Floyd's career because his fame has forced prison officials to place him in solitary confinement which has limited the boxer's ability to workout. Also, because of the poor quality of prison food Mayweather hasn't been consuming enough calories and is losing muscle. According to his lawyers, if Floyd is forced to finish his sentence under these conditions it could end his career, which normally might last another two or three years. Considering Mayweather has been ducking a fight with Manny Pacquiao (which is the only Floyd Mayweather fight people really want to see), I don't think we'll miss much if it turns out the ruling ends his career. Basically, the appeal says that Floyd wants out because prison kind of sucks. (Who knew?) I say if Mayweather wants out of solitary he can join the general population and we'll find out just how good a fighter he really is (also, if the movies are to be believed the warden can stage one hell of a prison pay-per-view). Of course, he could have avoided this entire mess by, you know, not assaulting his girlfriend in front of their kids. Thankfully, the judge heard this case and quickly dismissed the motion, meaning Mayweather stays put until his sentence has been fulfilled. Considering how many bad judges' rulings there are in boxing it was just refreshing to see someone finally get one right.

-A couple days ago the Washington Post broke the story that the United States Anti-Doping Agency intends to bring new charges of using performance-enhancing drugs against 7-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong. They claim to have proof he took performance enhancers while he was winning all those races, based on blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010. (Two years, the cynic in me feels compelled to point out, in which he did not win.) Obviously, this is not the first time we have heard this claim. Armstrong has vowed to fight the charges and clear his name once and for all. Honestly, I'm not even sure I care anymore. First of all, Armstrong hasn't raced as much more than a ceremonial figure since his last win in 2005, so way to be speedy with that investigation, USADA. Secondly, at this point the sport of cycling is so tainted with these kinds of allegations that it is assumed everyone has doped, which means awarding all those Tour de France titles to the various runners-up won't exactly return the sport to glory, just shift the investigation to those new winners. Still, I think the penalties are what make me not care about this story the most. Seriously, stripping titles is one of the most toothless penalties imaginable because it doesn't actually do anything. Life doesn't come with do-over's. You can't go back and undo the memories, the endorsement or the other accolades and, going back to our earlier talk about R.A. Dickey, who wants to get a victory on a technicality? Short of re-running the event stripping the winner of the title is nothing more than a show. Lastly, these allegations have come up without being proven so many times that at this point it has begun to feel like a witch hunt against Armstrong and short of a confession most people aren't going to believe the USADA's finding anyway. So, unless that happens, this will pretty much be the last time we talk about cycling on this blog.

-For the last few years the NCAA has been fighting an uphill battle against coaches texting and calling potential recruits. They have put limits on how many texts coaches are allowed to send to athletes and recruits per week, but a lot of coaches have pushed those boundaries. (Repeated violations of this rule is essentially is what got Kelvin Sampson fired from Indiana.) So, coaches asked the NCAA rules committee to take another look at the practice, saying that it needed to be changed to keep up with the times. "Kids only want to communicate by texting," they argued. So, what did the NCAA do in response? Why, they simply erased the rule from the books. That's right - they completely deregulated the number of text messages coaches could send to recruits. Go nuts, fellas - call and text until your fingers bleed. Seriously, this might be the moment which perfectly sums up the NCAA rule committee. Only they could make up a rule, enforce it to the point that violators are suspended and hit with a show-cause penalty (making it much harder for them to get another job) and then decide a couple years later that the rule is silly and just do away with it. As a result my hope is that some high-ranking recruit out there has a mindset which is similar to mine (I don't like it when my phone just rings and rings all day long) and goes the other way, deciding that any coach who texts him too much will be the first one eliminated from his list of potential schools. Also, I hope when he makes this decision he texts it to them.