Last summer I wrote an entry about what I consider sport. An excerpt:

Obviously, to be a sport you need an organisation and a set of rules which allow the same sport to be played anywhere in the world. You also need an element of competitiveness. You also require physical ability, beyond a normal non-trained human capacity. Not many people would quibble with those points. There are probably other factors which we can consider.

However, I would like to focus my discussion on a rather controversial belief that I have long held: that a sport is not a sport without an objective standard.

That's right: if you need a judge to decide who the winners are, it's not a sport. No less an authority than ESPN.com's Sports Guy himself, Bill Simmons, has come out and agreed with me . His rules:

1. If you can smoke and/or drink while you're competing, it's not a real sport.

2. If you don't need to shower after you're finished competing, it's not a real sport.

3. If judges are deciding the winners and losers, it's not a real sport.

4. If competing at a world-class level means you have to give up your childhood, as well as eating three times a day, having a menstrual cycle, having body hair and breasts, and being taller than 5-foot-3, it's probably not a sport.

5. If you're wearing a shirt that has your name written on the front pocket in script writing, it's not a real sport.

6. If one of the announcers for the sport spawns questions from viewers like, "Hey, is that Ant from 'Last Comic Standing'?" and "Wait a second ... is he crying?", then it's probably not a real sport.

In addition, a (female) reader declares it's not a real sport unless a sports bra (or swimsuit or some other form of athletic support for the breasts) is required.

There you have it, everyone. The Sports Guy says it, so it must be true!