July 17 | 11 p.m.

With a week to go in the Tour de Lance, Lance Armstrong looks as unbeatable as Tiger Woods with a four-stroke lead and nine holes to play in a major golf tournament. A win will make it seven straight for the remarkable Texan in the final big race of his career.

But even before the race is over, the debate has begun again, as it does with every Armstrong victory, over where he stands among the greatest athletes in history.

It’s a passionate subject. Three years ago, when Lance was celebrating his fourth straight, my colleague, Ron Borges, wrote that Armstrong isn’t the world’s greatest athlete because racing bicycles isn’t a real sport. He’s a great champion, but all he does is pedal a bike; Armstrong himself admits he has little aptitude for more conventional sports, particularly those that involve throwing, hitting and catching.

We no longer have that column on the site, but you can read it here. Or you can just Google “Ron Borges” and “Lance Armstrong” and find a treasure trove of blogs on the subject. Be careful, though, the language gets pretty salty in many of them.

I subsequently wrote a column saying Armstrong is perhaps the greatest American athlete alive today. Both Ron and I were buried in mail after those columns. Most of it was passionate on both sides.

I’m hearing the same debate now on local sports radio, and the hosts generally don’t think Armstrong is an actual athlete. Again, it’s supposedly because all he does is sit on a bike and pedal.

I’m convinced the guy is the best I’ve seen. He competes physically, and he’s better than anyone ever was in a sport that attracts athletes from around the world. Granted, he can’t throw a baseball 100 miles an hour; he probably can’t even throw one 60. And he can’t dunk. Nor can he run a fly pattern and make a one-handed grab in the back of the end zone. But he’s got one of the greatest cardiovascular systems ever measured, and he rides more than a 100 miles a day for three weeks, much of it up and down mountains that most mortals couldn’t even walk up.

On the other hand, I respect opposing viewpoints. There is something to be said for hand-eye coordination as part of what it means to be an athlete.

Beyond that, there are a lot of sports that aren’t as well publicized as even bike racing that can make similar claims.

Tom Jones of the St. Petersburg Times decided more than a year ago that a water polo player, Tony Azevedo, is the best athlete in the world, and makes a good argument for that conclusion.

Then there’s Matt Majendie who wrote for the BBC last year that Armstrong isn’t even the best cyclist ever, despite his six consecutive Tour titles. Eddie Merckx, the great Belgian rider known as the “Cannibal” because he ate up the opposition, was better, Majendie argues.

Finally, I found this well-reasoned argument that holds that it’s impossible to even argue about who’s the best, either overall or in an individual sport. The author, Alaa Abdel-Ghani, is probably right, but where’s the fun in arguing that you can’t argue?

July 14 | 3 p.m.

Michelle Wie truly is a phenomenon, and I wish her luck in the national Publinx tournament, if only because it would be so much fun to see her teeing it up at Augusta National, whose members have to be cringing at the thought of all the publicity and commentary they’re going to have to endure as a result.

But I’ve always been troubled by parents who push 15-year-olds – almost always girls – into competition against professionals. Sally Jenkins wrote a great column about why we should all be troubled. If you haven’t read it already, do so now.

The headline said that the All Star game hit a ratings low this year. But the subtext was that baseball’s premier exhibition is nearly twice as popular as the NBA’s and more popular than any other all star game. Given that ratings for everything are down, that’s just another indication that baseball isn’t as sick or as irrelevant as people keep telling us.

But as healthy as baseball is, I don’t think it’s ready for Bud Selig’s Baseball Classic – at least not the way it’s set up. It’s interesting that Cuba, which lives and dies with baseball, doesn’t like the format, either. Although Cuba says it may not participate because the event will be too “commercial.” That’s a laugh. Few events are as commercial as the Olympics, and Cuban athletes wear clothing emblazoned with big capitalist logos. It’s true that at the Olympics there are no commercials of any kind inside the venues, but walk outside, and it’s one big advertisement.

The problem with the tournament is the timing; it begins March 3, not long after spring training starts. Baseball is asking a lot if it expects major league teams to send its biggest stars to play a tournament before they’ve even played a full game in the spring – and for three weeks.

A-Rod has said he wants to play for the Dominican Republic. But Gary Sheffield, who’s never been known for his agreeable disposition, ripped the idea of the series and said he’ll refuse to play. One reason for Sheff’s reluctance is the possibility of getting hurt.

While he’s a whiner sure to make Sunday’s new edition of Whine of the Week, Sheffield has a point. There’s no better time to get injured than early in the spring, when players aren’t yet in game shape.

Then there are the pitchers. In the first week of March, they’re looking to go two or three innings, and the veterans don’t really care if they win or lose; they want to work on mechanics and certain pitches and situations. It’s a lousy time to throw them into serious competition. If I were an owner, I wouldn’t let my players go, not in March.

I would encourage them to participate in November, though, after the regular season and playoffs, when they’re still in shape from the season. That’s the time to play a world tournament, not in March, when you’re not asking for injuries, you practically begging for them.

July 13 | 3 p.m. ET

There will be hockey this fall. I know that doesn’t matter to a lot of people, including the person who took the time to send me an E-mail to complain that I wrote about the imminent end to the strike, because, “Who cares about hockey?”

You don’t have to go far to find someone who will say that about not just every sport but every facet of human endeavor, from space exploration to microbiology to theology to art to quilting to hockey. The point is, more than a few someones care.

It’s a great game, and unless you’ve been to a game live and sat near a corner or behind the goal, don’t bother arguing with me. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I wrote a long time ago about whom the protracted labor dispute was really hurting. I’ve felt all along that the players made a terrible miscalculation about the resolve of the owners. Even before the season was scrapped, I said that the owners would win, because they were willing to sacrifice the sport itself to their principles.

They’ve won, it appears, although it is not clear if the prize is worth the effort. Attendance will lag for a long time, just as it did after every other strike in every other sport.

But if the long dispute was an enormous loss, great good can come out of it. More attention will be focused on hockey starting in August than ever. Practices and games will be covered as never before, because the NHL finally has made itself newsworthy.

It’s what the league and the players do with that attention that will decide whether the game comes back and grows or continues to wither.

The league and players have to bend every effort to ensuring that the new season will bring a better, more competitive game. One trusts that the NHL will institute rules changes to increase scoring and excitement.

There are no shortage of suggestions, as is evident here and here among many other places. My suggestion would be to cut back on the size of goalie pads, eliminate the red line and actually call all the obstruction and interference penalties that players commit. Those minor tweaks would open the game up.

I will predict that at least one team will thrive under the new rules: the New Jersey Devils. The reason is Lou Lamoriello, the best general manager in any American sport and one of the most honest and ethical men and caring I have met. Lamoriello created a dominant team on a moderate budget. He’ll do the same on an even tighter payroll.

The teams that are going to have a huge awakening are the high spenders, and none more than the New York Rangers, who, according to Forbes, were the worst-managed team in the game before the lockout and are a sure bet to remain so after.

The big spenders will have trouble making the cut in hockey’s new world. The small spenders will remain small spenders. But with less discrepancy among payrolls, better competition is almost assured.

It’s easy to say it shouldn’t have taken this long. But it’s also legitimate to say that the end came more quickly than one would have expected. Instead of waiting until training camps were ready to start, the players and owners did what they had to do. They sat at the table for long and grueling hours and got a deal hammered out more than a month before camps open.

That’s a start. It guarantees that the news in August will be positive not negative. It’s not much, but it’s a start.

July 11 | 1:35 a.m. ET

The standings at the break show 18 of baseball’s 30 teams at .500 or better, and four more within four games of .500. This is a remarkable level of parity that speaks for a healthy sport.

While this promises to make for an exciting second half, it also presents problems for those teams that want to improve themselves for the pennant race before the July 31 trade deadline. Unless some teams utterly collapse in the next couple of weeks, there are going to be many more buyers than sellers.

Everybody figures — rightly — that the Yankees will be buying and trading. That’s understandable given the team’s rocky first half, but it’s absurd given what the Yankees are paying for what they have.

We regularly mention New York’s $208-million payroll, but we rarely put it in perspective. To appreciate how badly the Yankees are at judging talent, look at what other teams are paying. The Red Sox are second, and they’re $85 million behind. Then come the Mets at $101 million, which isn’t even half of what George Steinbrenner spends.

So, of the 30 major league teams, only one spends at least half of New York’s investment, and 16 spend less than a third of the Yanks’ tab. And, while it helps to be able to spend money for top players, it’s hardly necessary.

Of those top three teams on the spending list, only the Red Sox are in first place in their division; the Mets are in last place in theirs. The Angels, fourth on the spending list, are also in first place, as are the Cardinals, at sixth in spending.

But the fifth team, the Phillies, and teams 7-9, the Giants, Mariners and Cubs, are all struggling. The Giants have an excuse — no Barry Bonds. The Mariners just haven’t gotten what they thought they’d paid for. The Cubs have also suffered from injuries, but they haven’t played all that well, either.

In 10th place are the Braves, who just keep on winning. But the NL East leaders, the Nationals, are 23rd in spending at $48.6 million. The AL Central leaders, the White Sox, are 13th at $71.2 million. The NL West leaders, the Padres, are 16th at $63.3 million.

The good news in all of this is that you don’t have to spend wildly to win. The bad news is that among the eight teams that are pretty much done already, three aren’t even trying — Tampa Bay, Colorado and Kansas City.

According to Hal Bodley writing in USAToday, the Rockies and Royals both reduced their already bargain-basement payrolls this year. Both teams are getting subsidy payments from the other teams under revenue sharing. It’s an embarrassment to the game and an insult to the concept of competition.

And it points out that the one thing baseball needs more than a payroll ceiling is a minimum payroll.

Just for fun, check last year’s NBA payrolls. The highest, the Knicks, is less than half that of the Yankees. The lowest, the Bobcats, is just $25.2 million, which is a little less than $5 million below that of Tampa Bay — and that’s for 12 players as opposed to 25 and 41 home games as opposed to 81.

I’m behind on the mail, but here are some recent E-mails.

Eddie from Columbus, Ga., had this comment on my post on Jason Giambi:

I totally agree with you on your comments about Jason Giambi. You have to respect the way he has handled adversity and just gotten back to being a baseball player. Like I have contended all along, steroids cannot help you hit. Playing in a market like New York is tough enough, without the added pressure he put on himself. Now that he has gotten his confidence back, with the opportunity to swing the bat, he will be just fine. I predict his batting average will be at or around .300 by the end of the season and he will be a major factor in the Yankees' race for the pennant.

A while back, I commented on Shaq’s Internet MBA. Some readers questioned the value of the degree from The University of Phoenix. Others have since responded.

Dan from Honolulu:

Let's stop doggin Mr O'Neal (MBA). As a member of the U.S. military, we have service men and women that take up to 20 years to complete an undergraduate program because of military commitments and raising a family. Okay, The University of Phoenix isn't the Wharton School of Business. . . (but) LBJ graduated from Texas State(a teachers school, back in the day).  Shaq should get a pat on the back.

Added Walt from Warwick, N.Y.:

The fact that the school is not accredited does not detract from Mr. O'Neal's accomplishment. It’s not the Close Cover Before Striking School of Business. Also, while it might have taken him a few years to finish his BA, he finished it! I believe that the purpose of your blog was to compliment an athlete who goes beyond athletics. Mr. O'Neal proves that there are positive role models in professional sports. They deserve a mention, and you did. Thanks.

July 7 | 10:46 p.m. ET

A quick check of the box score from Thursday night’s Yankees-Indians game shows that Jason Giambi was two-for-three with a home run — his ninth of the season and fourth in the past three games. His batting average was up to .274 and his on-base percentage a robust .423.

Look at his chart on the season: Midway through May, Giambi, who had bottomed out early in the season at .150, was still struggling to break .200 and had just six RBI. By the beginning of June, he still had just 12 RBI, and everyone was writing him off.

But he’s more than doubled his RBIs since then and jacked his average to a respectable range. He’s won games with his bat, played decently in the field and has become a vital part of the Yankees recent surge.

This is a guy who was miserable last year, then was reviled when his grand jury testimony in the BALCO case was leaked in the San Francisco Chronicle. He came into the season under a cloud, being hounded by questions he kept saying he couldn’t answer.

When he started so badly, it looked as if a once-proud career was over. I don’t know how many people would have crumbled under the pressure of what he was going through, but it’s more than would have overcome it. And Giambi overcame it.

Through it all, he’s never whined, he’s never complained, he’s never gone after a cameraman or reporter, he’s never even kicked a water cooler in disgust. He’s just worked his butt off, tried to be decent to everyone and otherwise kept his mouth shut.

I had never been much of a Giambi fan, but I’m becoming one. It’s not, after all, how a person reacts when life is good that defines him, but how he carries himself when nothing is going the way it should. You learn more about a person when he’s facing adversity than when he’s basking in success.

And Giambi has proved to be tough, resilient, determined and decent. No matter what he did before to make himself a giant, he’s not taking it now. You don’t have to like him, but based on how he’s handled this season and responded to it, you’ve got to respect him.

NHL will bounce back
The warring sides in the NHL lockout are saying there still is no collective bargaining agreement. But it appears inevitable that there will soon be one.

What’s impressive is how quietly both sides are conducting this round of negotiations. There are few press conferences, little fanfare, virtually no national publicity. There are also no accusations flying back and forth; whatever their remaining differences, it’s clear that both players and management are determined to get this done sooner rather than later.

The players lost a lot. So did the league. But out of the wreckage both sides created should come an NHL that is financially viable, more competitive than ever, and, with rules changes to increase scoring certain to be adopted, more exciting, too.

It will take a long time to draw fans back, but it may turn out to have been worth it. Here’s hoping the signs aren’t illusory and that a deal is coming, not within weeks or months, but within days. Hockey is one of the greatest sports you can ever see live. It occupies just a niche market, but it’s an important niche.