After Atalanta

No--just kidding. Don't burn anything. Fire is dangerous. But at least female badminton players can ditch their skirts if they would rather play in shorts (or pants I would assume). The Badminton World Federation has nixed its plans to require female athletes to wear skirts in competitions. There was a sizable enough outcry to make it a rule not worth fighting for. But the federation--still concerned with the aesthetic appeal if its female athletes--is urging the women to look as good as possible for the cameras in London. The men, too, though apparently their appeal is not tied to skirts. Still looking for more appealing and camera-friendly outfits, though, the BWT is working directly with apparel companies in an attempt to get them to offer players better outfits. So, technically, they could encourage these companies to offer mostly skirts and dresses to women while providing just a few shorts options. But they wouldn't do that, would they?

...and a loooooong badminton racket. Yep. New rules for female badminton players. Skirts are now required. REQUIRED. Despite my occasional equivocation over skirts because I wear them myself when playing tennis, this is just wrong. The official peeps at the Badminton World Federation say that aren't trying to sexualize female players, they are just trying to create a standard of dress that will enhance the popularity of the sport. One professional who is opposed to the new rule says she understands the federation's desire to raise the game's profile but that skirts are not going to accomplish this: "If people want to see women in skirts, they will go elsewhere--they won't go to watch badminton." So very true. It should be noted that the BWF is accommodating various religious beliefs by allowing anyone to wear tights, track bottoms or shorts underneath the required skirt. Small points for that, I guess.

Bryan Hollister of the Bleacher Report has a " humor" column this week in which he lists and explains the top 15 sports that are not sports. I'm not going to get super uptight about this list. But I do have some things to say about his choices. First, though, it should be noted that the definition of sport is always up for debate--and this is the way it should be. Because a sport does not always involve "blood, sweat, and tears shed through hours of workouts, practices, scrimmages, successes, and failures." Or at least not all those elements all the time. It's a pretty naive definition of a sport, but it's the only one that Hollister offers. I'm not going to comment on all 15 of Hollister's offerings. Check them out for yourself. Here are just some of my thoughts on some of his. Winter sports seem to be especially heavy hit, curling, bobsled, and luge. And if Hollister really thinks that no one has ever said about luge "that's what I wan...