Justify is the heavy favorite heading into the 143rd running of the Preakness Stakes at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore.

While it’s a field of eight horses, it’s expected to be a two-horse race: Justify and Good Magic.

Justify is a 1-2 favorite for the Preakness. The Kentucky Derby winner drew the seventh post in Saturday’s race — the same post he had at the Derby.

Good Magic drew the fifth post and is the second pick at 3-1. Good Magic finished 2-1/2 lengths behind Justify two weeks ago at Churchill Downs.

This will be the fourth consecutive year the top-two finishers in the Kentucky Derby have a rematch in the Preakness. In the last two years, the Derby runner-up finished ahead of the Derby winner in the Preakness.

Justify ran an impressive race in the mud at Churchill Downs on May 5. Conditions will be similar in Baltimore — it has rained all week, and more on race day would make for another sloppy track.

Justify had a bruised heel more than a week ago, and The Associated Press reports there are concerns it “could get irritated from a couple of days working out in mud and how the surface might complicate the start.”

The AP reports: “Trainer Bob Baffert is happy that the bruise on Justify’s left hind foot hasn’t bothered the colt during his morning workouts at Pimlico since arriving Wednesday. If Justify breaks clean and gets over the 1-3/16 mile race with no discomfort in that heel, even the strongest competitors are likely running for second.”

The strong showing expected from Justify energizes this year’s talk of a Triple Crown winner. The last was American Pharoah in 2015.

Both of those horses have something in common: Hall of Fame trainer Baffert. Earlier this week, he told TMZ that Justify is a “superior” animal to American Pharoah.

When it comes to the second leg of the Triple Crown, Baffert has experience on his side. He has won the Preakness six times — including with all four of his previous Derby winners. The third leg of the Triple Crown is the Belmont Stakes on June 9.

Post time for the Preakness is 6:48 p.m. ET, and it will be broadcast on NBC stations.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

When an NBA team interviews potential head coaches, it’s a big deal on sports sites and the fan blogs. It gets a write-up in the hometown paper.

It’s not usually headline news at the New York Times, The Washington Post, Vogue and Salon.

But this month, after another underwhelming season, the Milwaukee Bucks reportedly invited Becky Hammon, an assistant coach for the San Antonio Spurs, for a first-round interview — making her the first woman ever with a shot at an NBA head coach position.

The Washington Post confirmed the ESPN scoop. Mother Jones noted the news.

As the interview process moved forward, the New York Times’ Frank Bruni opined: “She’s making cracks in a glass ceiling few people even noticed, because few could imagine a woman aspiring to — or being considered for — such a role.”

Vogue asked: “Is the NBA Woke Enough to Make Becky Hammon Its First Female Coach?”

Salon asserted: “The NBA is ready for a woman head coach, and Becky Hammon is ready for the job.”

Hammon got an interview, to be clear. She was never reported to be the frontrunner for the job.

That honor goes to Michael Budenholzer, the recently departed head coach of the Atlanta Hawks — and, like Hammon, a disciple of legendary Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. ESPN reports that Ettore Messina is the other top finalist for the job.

But many commentators suspect that Hammon will be head coach of some team, sooner rather than later.

And they’re taking this chance to hash out the debate over whether the sport is ready.

Before Hammon’s interview was reported, sports radio host Mike Francesca said the odds were “a million to one” that she would ever become a head coach, and it was “not even something that would make sense to aspire to … It’s a gender situation.”

After the news broke, Pau Gasol, a San Antonio Spurs player who has experienced Hammon’s coaching firsthand, wrote an open letter to, as he put it, “knock down a few of the silly arguments and talking points against Coach Hammon’s candidacy — and the larger idea of a female NBA head coach — that I’ve seen floating around.”

The idea that a woman can’t coach men? “If you’re making that argument to anyone who’s actually played any high-level basketball, you’re going to seem really ignorant.”

As for the suggestion that Hammon has her job because it’s good PR: “No. We’re talking about the NBA here — a business where there’s a lot of money on the line, and little patience for mediocrity.”

And the concept that there might be “awkwardness in the locker room,” he said, is “almost too stupid to include,” but he explained how NBA locker rooms work to emphasize that the concern is “just very ridiculous.”

Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Gary D’Amato argued against hiring Hammon, not based on her credentials, which he called impressive, but explicitly because of her gender.

“Heaven forbid the Bucks lose a couple close games at the buzzer,” he wrote. “The vocal segment of fans who believe a woman can’t or shouldn’t coach an NBA team would be relentless and cruel in their criticism.”

“… What if she failed? What if the team took a step backward under her leadership? The Bucks would come under fire for allowing a “social experiment” to derail their title aspirations.”

“It’s just too big a gamble,” he concluded.

That prompted a response, a few days later, from another Journal Sentinel sports writer — Lori Nickel, who covers the Packers.

She opened like this:

“I am so damn tired of this question I just can’t stand it anymore.”

“My guess is that Hammon … is absolutely qualified to coach in the NBA,” she wrote. “It was good that the Bucks interviewed Hammon to see if her vision aligns with theirs. Why do we even have to ask the question whether Hammon might be a publicity stunt, a token hire? It demeans the whole process.”

She also noted, rather archly, that it might not matter who coaches the Bucks if the players just can’t score.

In many ways, of course, this conversation isn’t about Hammon at all.

But for what it’s worth, before coaching, Hammon was a point guard with the San Antonio Stars. NPR reported on her WNBA career in 2014, when she became the first woman ever hired as a full-time assistant coach by the NBA:

“In the WNBA, Hammon has been a star in more ways than one — in her 16 seasons, she’s been to six All-Star Games and was named as one of the league’s top 15 players of all time. She also leaves as the Stars’ career leader in assists and 3-point field goals, despite spending half of her career with the New York Liberty.”

As an assistant coach, Hammon coached the Spurs to a Summer League championship victory in Las Vegas.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

What if Bucky Dent’s long fly ball in the 1978 American League East playoff game hadn’t cleared the Green Monster at Fenway Park? What if John Paxson had missed the 3-pointer at the end of game 6 in the 1993 NBA Finals? What if Carli Lloyd had been injured in the final of the 2015 Women’s World Cup?

Sports fans are particularly good at asking what if questions. Sports, after all, are full of counterfactual possibilities replete with drama.

“It’s more as if we’ve had it thrust upon us,” says Mike Pesca, host of the Slate podcast The Gist and an NPR sports commentator. “Because in every league, there are many, many more losers than winners, right? Every season ends with a team either not making the playoffs or being eliminated from the playoffs. That means everyone’s a loser. And in almost all cases, every one of those losers has a moment, and their fans have a moment, when they say what if — legitimate or not, and it’s often legitimate. And sometimes the what if extends beyond one pitch, and it goes to that draft pick we didn’t make 8 years ago. That’s kind of the engine of sports.”

Mike Pesca assembled the new book titled Upon Further Review: The Greatest What-Ifs In Sports History. In an interview, he explained some of the book’s 31 different scenarios written by 31 sportswriters.

Interview Highlights

On Jason Gay’s essay “What if football had been deemed too boring in 1899?”

1899: They were inventing this game. It turned into carnage between the lines. It was eventually rehabbed by Theodore Roosevelt because too many people were dying. But back then, it was just, you know, bunches of guys grunting into a line and going two yards at a time. So football was boring then. What if it stayed boring, and there was no football in America? And so Jason paints a picture of Sundays that are free for perhaps to worship at your local church. The foam finger industry would certainly take a big setback. Soccer might be more popular. There are many ways that football has entangled itself in the rhythm of life that maybe we don’t even think about, and he tries to untangle that. …

He is just asking us to consider the possibilities. And this is one type of what if essay — that you throw a pebble, the ripples happen. And all Jason’s doing with the essay is looking at the ripples and saying, “Oh, I didn’t know it would ripple there in that particular way.” There are other forms of essay which really talk about the sociological impact. And some of these are binary — the thing happens or the thing doesn’t happen. And some of them are more, you know: Let’s just set in motion a set of actions, and see what results.

On Shira Springer’s essay “What if the United States had boycotted Hitler’s Olympics?” on the 1936 Berlin games which made Jesse Owens a cultural icon

They did [make Owens an icon], and what happened to Jesse Owens afterwards was a crime, essentially — he was shunned in America to a large degree after being a hero who stood up to Hitler. They burnished Hitler’s credentials. They established the Olympics as a political tool, where they were supposed to transcend politics. And the great thing about that essay is it’s also a history lesson. And history seems like it’s inevitable — the march of history, well, of course that was going to happen, and of course Jesse Owens wins, and we close our eyes, and we can see at least the newsreel footage. And when you erase the memory, I don’t know exactly what you replace it with, but that’s what Shira and a lot of the other essayists are trying to provide.

On Paul Snyder’s essay “What if a blimp full of money had exploded over world track [and field] headquarters in 1952?”

Well, one scenario is that the battles we saw on the [basketball] hardwood between Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell very well could have taken place on the track. … What if this all played out mano-a-mano, Russell against Chamberlain, on the track? And he, as this huge track nerd, analyzes for himself if he would have liked that — because I think fans of niche media do this thing where they wish it was bigger. They say, “why doesn’t everyone like this, you know, kind of prog-rock that I do?” But then he realizes that part of the appeal of track for him is the nerd-dom, and is also the things inherently that stops it from being a huge sport in America. So it’s kind of a nice contemplation on that level. …

Look, I have to be honest with you: All I ever wanted to do was write a book of essays that was blimp-related. And this was the only chance that I could get a dirigible in there.

Tori Whitley and Jessica Smith produced and edited this story for broadcast. Patrick Jarenwattananon adapted it for Web.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Now that the Supreme Court says it’s OK, states are free to legalize betting on sports if they want to. As a once under-the-table economy moves into the open, it creates some large business opportunities — and the potential for millions in new tax revenues.

But first comes the nitty-gritty part: writing the rules for how sports fans can bet on their favorite games — the legal age, where people can bet, licensing requirements, software standards for mobile apps, and money laundering safeguards.

“We also have to establish what the tax structure will be,” says New Jersey Assemblyman John Burzichelli. “That’s very important. We’re actually in our budget cycle now.”

He says the tax rate is still being negotiated, but will be between 8 percent and 15 percent of revenue after winnings are paid out. He says New Jersey can get these rules written in about four weeks.

This puts the state neck and neck with Delaware and Mississippi. Close behind them — and just in time for football season — are Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Connecticut. These are all states with an established gaming industry, all trying to be the first to take legal sports bets.

“Markets of this size don’t just come into being on a regular basis,” says Chris Grove, a gaming analyst for the research firm Eilers & Krejcik.

He expects 32 states to eventually allow sports gaming, worth roughly $6 billion annually. But, he says, that may not come so easily.

“There’s an existing black market. It’s entrenched. It’s attractive. It offers a number of advantages that regulated betting sites will never be able to offer: the lack of having to fill out tax forms and have your winnings reported, the ability to bet on credit,” Grove says.

But new entrants into the gaming industry don’t expect much competition from the black market.

“I think most people would prefer to do things in a legal manner if given the option,” says Jason Robins, CEO of the daily fantasy sports company DraftKings.

He compares illegal sports betting to the pirating of music. Most people shifted to legal products when streaming services came along. He contends something similar will happen in sports gambling.

Some analysts warn that profit margins might not be as plush as investors hope. A lot depends on how heavily sports betting is taxed.

And on top of taxes, there’s what professional sport leagues want.

After years of fighting against sports betting, the NFL, Major League Baseball and other leagues have changed their approach. Over the last few months they’ve been going state to state, lobbying aggressively for a special fee to pay for policing against cheating, like an athlete intentionally throwing a game.

In New Jersey, leagues tried to get a fee between 2 percent and 3 percent of gross wagers. But lawmakers balked.

“They’re not paying that in Nevada and their not paying that to the illegal sportsbooks.” Burzichelli says. “That’s a nonstarter as far as I’m concerned.”

In statements Monday, the major sport leagues said they will be looking to Congress for a “regulatory framework” to protect the “integrity” of their games.

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey is sponsoring one bill, which would establish a legal framework for consumer protections and give the Federal Trade Commission some oversight. But he acknowledges it’s not getting passed anytime soon.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)