TWIR...the week in review...

The Yankees won two games in a row, Friday and Saturday, and lost a half game in the standings to the Red Sox who dismantled the White Sox.

Tim Wakefield and Josh Beckett both have 16 wins on the season and Daisuke Matsuzaka has 14. That's huge in the absence of an effective Curt Schilling.

Michael Vick is likely done in the NFL. The NAACP should stop wasting their time with this and find someone whose civil rights are actually being violated and help that person.

With the exception of one lapse in pass coverage late in the first half, the Patriots looked sharp in their pre-season match-up with the Carolina Panthers. Some quick observations -

• After looking a little tentative and indecisive on his firs couple of rushes, Maroney looked good.
• I'm not sure I like the offensive line going to a zone blocking scheme - it seemed at times that too many people were coming free in the backfield on running plays. The pass blocking, on the other hand, was almost flawless.
• Tight end Marcellus Rivers is making a strong case for sticking with the team. He had two more catches including one for a touchdown, and is a decent blocker. If the Pats cut him and no one picks him up, I will be shocked. I can't figure out why the Giants cut him.
• Donte Stallworth made a hell of a play coming back on a severely under-thrown fluttering duck from Brady.
• Wes Welker appears to have come as advertised and might be the biggest impact free-agent the Pats picked up.
• Am I the only one who is wondering if Randy Moss is pulling a T.O/Terry Glenn here with the hamstring injury?
• Mike Richardson looks like a real player at corner. Hopefully that arm in the sling was precautionary and nothing more.
• For a team playing with only one of its starting defensive linemen, the guys up front did a good job of slowing down the run and of getting penetration.

One final observation (not Patriots)...

Just another example of how ESPN's product has been slipping. ESPN has a piece about baseball teams and "who's the face of the franchise." In the case of the Red Sox, Eric Young at baseball tonight said that it was the Green Monster.

While not the worst choice, it is indeed a choice that required no thought, reflection, or the realization that an inanimate object associated with where the team plays cannot be the face of the franchise. That would be like saying the face of the franchise in Toronto is the Sky Dome because there is no player who is big enough, or has a strong enough personality to be the face of the franchise.

Not surprisingly, three of the other four sources named David Ortiz, and the fourth named Mr. Red Sox, Tim Wakefield.

Ultimately, I guess you have to wonder what the criteria are for being the face of the franchise. My own criteria, and the player has to meet any three of these to qualify - is he the guy the press go to for a comment? Is he the guy that kicks the rest of the team in the ass when they aren't playing well? Is he the guy that carries the team on his back when the team needs him to? Is he the guy that the Team actively markets to get fans to games? Is he the guy that fans automatically associate with the team?

The only exceptions to this can be owners. As much as Derek Jeter is the face of the Yankees, so to is George Steinbrenner. The player doesn't even have to be the best player on the team, he just has to...well meet a number of the above requirements.

To give you an example - two of the sources named Miguel Tejada the face of the Orioles. I live in Oriole country, and I don't see it. Brian Roberts, Peter Angelos, even Kevin Millar I think all are better choices.

It's an interesting, albeit flawed list. Worth a visit none the less.

A Look at Landis from Both Sides...

As someone who has spent years as a professional journalist, I try very hard to remain neutral when it comes to certain things related to reporting...even when I am a fan. If you search my site, knowing I am a big Patriots and a big Red Sox fan, you will find articles that are often critical of my favorite teams. I'm a fan, but I understand reality.

I don't give players or the team a pass when I think they have screwed up.

Shades of guilt?
I have to admit...in all the doping scandal involving Floyd Landis, I think he screwed up. I don't know that he actually doped...he might not have, he might have. I do know that his initial reaction is problematic in the court of public opinion.

In the immediate aftermath of the first test Landis, a former teammate and domestique of perennial accusee Lance Armstrong launched into a variety of excuses for why the tests came back positive for elevated levels of testosterone. I freely admit to being no doctor, but the lines about ingesting the alcohol and the line, “now there's also the possibility, and it's an argument that has been used by other people. At this point, I don't know if it's somehow or some way I ingested something that caused the tests to be that way,” that he gave Jay Leno both ring hollow.

This led Landis to fall back on the stand-by of pointing the finger at the lab, which typically smacks of desperation.

Reasonable doubt...
Let's look at some of the surface issues here, I won't even delve too deep.

Landis has been able to fall back on the lab because, let's face it, this lab has had a history of mishandling samples.

Landis finds himself caught in a "perfect storm" type of scenario. Consider the following - cycling as a sport in recent years has garnered a reputation as a haven for the performance enhanced, particularly blood dopers. Cycling's governing body decided it was finally time to crack down hard on suspected cheaters - bouncing some of cyclings' biggest names, including Jan Ulrich and Ivan Basso, before the Tour even got underway last year. Couple that with the president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Dick Pound's), profound and even slanderous contempt of Lance Armstrong and a growing resentment of American riders dominating the French event (wins in 10 of the last 20 years - Greg LeMond twice, Armstrong seven times, and Landis once) and what do you have? A situation in which being able to disqualify the winner gives the IOC the biggest trophy of all in cleaning up their sport.

I'm not saying this is what has happened, but I don't believe this is outside the realm of possibility.

Even those believing in Landis' guilt - which I admit is a possibility - I pose to you the following questions -

If WADA was convinced that there was no possible way that the test on the A sample was wrong, then why require representatives of USADA to be present when Landis' representative is present?

If the USADA rep couldn't be present, then why not reschedule?

In 2004 two riders were kicked out of the Tour after doping investigations. Is there some reason that the IOC's and WADA's people were unable to complete an investigation with enough time to prevent Landis from crossing that finish line? They were able to do it in 2004.

Also, with historical issues with the lab, would it really have been so difficult to farm the test out to a different lab that both parties could agree on?

Due process has been negligible at best throughout the course of this affair, and I am only scratching the surface here. And I think it's safe to say that it doesn't look like he will get a fair hearing from doping officials.