Supreme Court won't put Title IX in play

Nobody should be surprised that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a lawsuit brought by wrestlers over Title IX. The court has never heard the merits of a Title IX case involving sports, and this case was more rhetoric than real law. The College Sports Council had sued the Education Department over the three-part test, claiming that the law was an unfair quota. No court has taken this argument seriously, except for one district court in California.
I think this clears the docket for Title IX-athletics cases, at least at the appellate level and above. But I'm quite sure the wrestlers will come up with another challenge. Or they'll wait to see what happens with the new Title IX interpretation issued in March.

Teenage girls and steroids

The NYTimes had a full section on women's health on Sunday, including an odd story about girls using steroids in junior high and high school. Only it really wasn't--they couldn't find any girls who were shooting up to interview. I have to confess that this hasn't stopped me from writing about performance-enhancing drugs either, but when I've written stories it was about college football players. Honestly, I have a much easier time believing that football players are doping up than junior-high girls running track. But perhaps I'm naive.

Also, yet another women-aren't-interested-in-sports screed...

Teenage girls and steroids

The NYTimes had a full section on women's health on Sunday, including an odd story about girls using steroids in junior high and high school. Only it really wasn't--they couldn't find any girls who were shooting up to interview. I have to confess that this hasn't stopped me from writing about performance-enhancing drugs either, but when I've written stories it was about college football players. Honestly, I have a much easier time believing that football players are doping up than junior-high girls running track. But perhaps I'm naive.

Also, yet another women-aren't-interested-in-sports screed...

Danica Patrick. Blah blah blickety blah.

Danica Patrick, your SI covergirl and Indy 500 4th placer deserves all the plaudits and attention she can get. She's a hell of a driver.
But guess what? Just like Katie Brownell (remember her? see below if you don't), Patrick is another talented athlete who happens to be among the few who can compete at the top level of their sports. We'll keep seeing these folks touted as girls who can keep up with the boys until we see them as athletes who can compete with the best in their respective leagues.
What is much more interesting is when we see all women as potential athletes allowed to compete in the leagues that best suit their talents, whether it's single-sex, coed, or virtually all male. (By the way, there's no reason women shouldn't be competitive in auto or horse racing; in fact, they may have an advantage due to lighter bodyweight.)
I think that's happening, but still only in pockets. I can't find a link, but the Washington Post had a cute story last fall about a 9-year-old girl playing on the offensive line on a PeeWee football team.
Why not?