eones speech.The Slants and the Redskins can continue using their prefe

Rory McIlroy believes the spate of withdrawals from this summers Olympics is not embarrassing for golf because the Games do not represent the pinnacle of the sport.McIlroy, who will marry fiancée Erica Stoll next year, opted out of representing Ireland in Rio after citing his concerns over the Zika virus, a mosquito-borne virus which has been linked to defects in newborn babies and Guillain-Barre, a rare neurological syndrome that causes temporary paralysis in adults.World No.1 Jason Day and U.S. Open runner-up Shane Lowry also withdrew their names from consideration this week, joining a growing list of players which includes Australian pair Marc Leishman and Adam Scott, South African trio Branden Grace, Louis Oosthuizen and Charl Schwartzel and Fijis Vijay Singh. Graeme McDowell also made himself unavailable as his wife is due to give birth to their second child during the Games.Speaking ahead of the Open de France at Le Golf National, McIlroy was coincidentally forced to bat away an insect as he answered the first of several questions on the topic, including whether the number of withdrawals meant golf should not have returned to the Games for the first time since 1904.Thats not for me to say, the four-time major champion said. I wasnt a part of the process. The R&A and some of the other bodies that run our sport thought it was a great idea, and obviously it is, to try and get golf into different markets, and the Olympics is obviously a great platform to do that.Ive said to people I have four Olympic Games (major championships) a year. Thats my pinnacle. Thats what I play for. Thats what Ill be remembered for.Some people argue that it would have been better to send amateurs there, but the whole reason that golf is in the Olympics is because they wanted the best players to go and compete. But unfortunately with where it is this year, people just arent comfortable going down there and putting themselves or their family at risk.Id say if the Olympic Games were in most other cities or most other countries in the world this year, you wouldnt find as many people not wanting to go and participate.I dont think its embarrassing for the game because most other athletes dream their whole lives of competing in the Olympics, winning Olympic gold, and we havent. We dream of winning Claret Jugs and we dream of winning green jackets. Whether that makes golf look insular in any way ... its just the way it is.Although there is no vaccination for Zika, McIlroy recently had the others required to travel to Brazil and said in May he wanted to go and give it my best shot while he did not have a family. The 27-year-old also said he did not want to let down Irelands golf captain Paul McGinley, whom he spoke to before announcing his withdrawal.That was probably one of the toughest phone calls Ive had to make, because weve talked about it so much, McIlroy added. Weve done so much work, got accommodation, got security down there, got a chef in, got everything planned out. I got my jabs; I had two dead shoulders for about four days.But then at the end of the day, if Im not 100 percent comfortable going down there, I just dont want to put it at risk. Theres another Olympic Games in Tokyo in 2020 and Im more than happy to wait until then to get that Olympic experience.Asked why none of the top female golfers had withdrawn despite the risks posed by Zika, McIlroy added: I guess some of the top women golfers might not have plans to have children in the next six months to a year. Youve got Shane [Lowry] who has just got married. Jason Day has a young family. Im getting married next year.I think you cant really compare apples-to-apples because were just in a different position than they are. Id say 90 percent of the athletes going to the Olympics are single and have no plans to start a family in the near future, whereas there are some golfers that are in that position and in that scenario.World No.2 Jordan Spieth said on Tuesday he was uncertain about playing in Rio, adding: Ive heard some stories on both sides about the security threats that Brazil and Rio have.Transportation is a big security issue down there, how to get from one place to another with the different kind of violence that we dont see here.Im going to get answers soon on how we plan to be secured down there. This is a personal safety decision which is going to outweigh any pressure that we feel [to compete].In contrast, Germanys Martin Kaymer is keen to compete in Rio and compared the Games to the Ryder Cup, only a lot bigger.He added: The Ryder Cup is a lot of passion and a lot of heart, but if you play for your country and you see the people from your country getting prepared for the Olympic Games, for their moment, that they prepared for four years. Thats super inspiring.In a selfish way, Im happy that they pulled out if it makes it easier for me to become a gold medal winner. But if you see the bigger picture , if no one goes this year and very little go in four years, the chance that we are going to compete [in 2024] is going to be slim. Fake Nike Air Max China .J. -- Seven games into a disappointing season, New York Giants defensive catalyst Jason Pierre-Paul is getting the feeling hes back. Fake Nike Air Max Free Shipping . Speaking to the Chicago Tribune at baseballs Winter Meetings in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, Boras called the former home of the Expos a "tremendous environment" for baseball. https://www.fakeairmaxwholesale.com/ .S. hockey team after paying his dues as an NHL general manager for more than three decades and giving up a lot of his free time to help USA Hockey. Nike Air Max Outlet .ca! Hi Kerry, Heres an interesting one. I know its common knowledge that all players are responsible for their sticks. We witnessed that when Zack Kassian hit Edmontons Sam Gagner in the face after a missed check. Nike Air Max Discount .7 million, one-year contract, a raise of $2.2 million. Wieters had asked for $8.75 million and the Orioles had offered $6. WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the governments refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name.The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time.Still, a high court ruling in favor of the Slants could bolster the football teams legal fight. Both groups argue that it is unconstitutional for the government to reject trademark rights for offensive speech.The trademark dispute is one of eight new cases the Supreme Court added to its calendar for the term that starts Monday. The court continues to operate with only with eight justices since Antonin Scalia died in February. His successor appears unlikely to be confirmed until sometime after the election.In the Slants case, front man Simon Tam tried to trademark the name in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the request on the ground that it disparages people of Asian descent. He sued, and a federal appeals court ruled last year that the law barring offensive trademarks violates free speech rights.The Redskins hoped to piggyback on the bands case, asking the Supreme Court to consider both disputes at the same time. The trademark office canceled the teams trademarks last year after finding they are disparaging to Native Americans.But the teams appeal has not even been heard yet by a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia. In an unusual request, the team asked the Supreme Court to intervene before the lower court acts. The high court almost never grants such requests.Tam says his goal in choosing the name was to transform a derisive term about the shape of Asian eyes into a statement of ethnic and cultural pride. The Redskins have similarly claimed their name honors American Indians, but the team has faced years of legal challenges from Indian groups that say the name is racist.The team has also come under intense public pressure to change the name, but owner Dan Snyder has refused.In the bands case, a divided federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., struck down a portion of the 70-year-old federal trademark law. The courts majority said the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities.ddddddddddddIt is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys, Judge Kimberly Moore said for the majority.In dissent, Judge Alan Lourie said the decision interferes with the governments authority to filter out certain undesirable marks from the federal trademark registration system. He said the ruling would lead to further the degradation of civil discourse.The Obama administration is urging the high court to overturn the ruling. The government says the law simply reflects Congress judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of racial slurs and other disparaging terms by granting the benefits of registration.The administration also argues that the law does not restrict speech because the band is still free to use the name even without trademark protection.The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have supported the Slants and the Redskins in their legal fights. The ACLU says the government cant withhold benefits just because it disagrees with the content of someones speech.The Slants and the Redskins can continue using their preferred names even without trademark protection. But a trademark confers certain legal benefits, including the power to sue competitors that infringe the trademark. For the Redskins, the team could lose millions if it cant block the sale of counterfeit merchandise.The Redskins say they have an even stronger case against the government than the Slants because team has already relied on financial advantages of trademark protection for many years. The team registered six trademarks including the name between 1967 and 1990.The justices will hear arguments in Lee v. Tam, 15-1293, early next year.Other new cases the justices agreed to take up on Thursday include:-a dispute over the minimum standards that public schools must meet to help learning-disabled students-whether state laws can prohibit merchants from imposing fees on customers who use credit cards-the Obama administrations appeal of lower court rulings making it harder to deport immigrants whove been convicted of crimes ' ' '