In article a698b475-1d90-477d-a129-0e0e34785b35
@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 17, 12:48*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...







On Dec 17, 9:21*am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. *Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
* emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.

Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

Not me. If you read carefully, I clearly said "MAY not have
deserved...". I do not claim to know enough about golf to make that
call, but it's the first thing that came to mind after hearing the
sports casters discuss the situation in quick news intervals... Either
way, I didn't think of color, until you brought it up...