ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

Sponsored By: Two Men and a Truck
cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
80°
Thunderstorms
H 86° L 75°
  • cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
    80°
    Current Conditions
    Thunderstorms. H 86° L 75°
  • partly-cloudy-tstorms-day Created with Sketch.
    78°
    Evening
    Thunderstorms. H 86° L 75°
  • cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
    76°
    Morning
    Mostly Cloudy. H 84° L 77°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest top stories

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest traffic report

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest forecast

00:00 | 00:00

Sports
LeBron James soft? He is criticized by NFL player Jonathan Martin
Close

LeBron James soft? He is criticized by NFL player Jonathan Martin

LeBron James soft? He is criticized by NFL player Jonathan Martin
Photo Credit: AP
LeBron James struggles with cramps during Game 1 of the NBA finals.

LeBron James soft? He is criticized by NFL player Jonathan Martin

LeBron James soft?

Sounds silly to suggest if you’ve seen him barrel down court like a train or shrug off opponents who try to drag him down by the neck when he races to the rim.

But the Miami star took heat on social media today after exiting early because of cramps in the Heat’s 110-95 loss to San Antonio in Game 1 of the NBA Finals.

Former Miami Dolphins offensive tackle Jonathan Martin — the victim of the team’s bullying scandal last season — was one of the first to weigh in.

On Twitter, @J_Martin71 said: “With that said … C’mon bruh. Drink a Gatorade and get out there.”

Martin, who now plays for the San Francisco 49ers, sent that tweet at 11:36 p.m. — before the game had ended — and later deleted it.

The game was played in a sweltering arena in San Antonio because the air conditioning failed.

 

Gatorade also took a shot at James, an endorser of Powerade.

@Gatorade said on Twitter:

It’s likely that this will be Topic A on all ESPN programming today. It’s a perfect launching point for a Skip Bayless-Stephen A. Smith debate on LeBron vs. Jordan.

After all, one of Michael Jordan’s most famous performances came when he was ill with the flu. That was on June 11, 1997. As the story goes, he was so sick — it might have been food poisoning, from a bad pizza — that he didn’t get out of bed until 70 minutes before Game 5 of the Chicago Bulls’ championship series against the Jazz.

But he made it to the arena in Salt Lake City and scored 38 points in a 90-88 victory that gave the Bulls a 3-2 lead in the series that they wrapped up two days later.

James did have some of the Twitterati defending him, too.

NFL free agent receiver Donte Stallworth tweeted:

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

The Latest News Headlines

  • Officials told people at Alabama’s Redstone Arsenal to shelter in place after reports Tuesday morning indicated a possible shooter at the U.S. Army installation. >> Read more trending news Redstone Arsenal officials announced the lockdown on social media around 10:25 a.m. local time.
  • Danish shipping conglomerate A.P. Moller-Maersk was one of multiple European companies to fall victim Tuesday to a cyberattack as Ukrainian government officials reported a “large-scale hacker attack” across the country. >> Read more trending news It was not immediately clear whether the attacks were connected. The Associated Press reported that Russia’s Rosneft oil company also reported being hacked Tuesday.
  • Update: The suspect has been identified as 28-year-old Scott Cone, who has been charged with armed robbery. ------------- The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office has announced the arrest of suspect in Monday’s bank robbery in Mandarin. Police responded to the Suntrust Bank on San Jose Blvd. Monday after a suspect walked in, slipped the teller a note demanding money, and fled with cash. JSO says the suspect went to a 'blue crossover style” vehicle parked nearby and then drove off.  This incident has been classified as an armed bank robbery, although JSO says a weapon wasn’t shown and nobody was hurt.  JSO thanks the public for submitting tips, and credits Sun Trust for having outstanding video of the suspect.  This robbery is not believed to be related to any other recent bank robberies which have occurred in the area, including one just to the north of this bank ten days ago. 
  • The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to the Unites States from certain countries to be reinstated has left many unanswered questions.  And while the administration can restrict certain groups of people from entering the country beginning as early as Thursday, the answer to what else Trump is legally allowed to do when it comes to immigration may not come until the fall when the justices will hear arguments about the case. Here’s what other media outlets are saying about the ruling. What the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling means The Washington Post “The Supreme Court’s decision to allow portions of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect is a win for the administration, but the impact will be far less severe than President Trump’s initial version of the measure. That is because the high court effectively allowed Trump to ban from coming to the United States only citizens of six majority-Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term. For now, if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.” Court's travel ban ruling gives Trump a boost, changes media narrative Fox News “Nine justices delivered a reminder yesterday of why the Supreme Court was such an important campaign issue. In allowing key parts of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect, the high court—with help from Trump’s man Neil Gorsuch—upended the conventional wisdom on the case. After all, in agreeing to hear the case in October, the justices could have left the temporary stay in place pending a final ruling. Instead, they sent a strong signal to the appellate courts that they had gone too far in blocking the executive order—and enabled the president to claim “a clear victory for our national security.” But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump.” Supreme Court's compromise on travel ban raises big questions for US tourism industry Forbes “After battling through lower courts, a watered down version of the travel ban was re-instated Monday, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear appeals on the ban this October. In the meantime, a limited version will be in effect in as little as 72 hours. Although President Trump is claiming it as a victory, this iteration is far more limited than the two previous versions. Restricting travel from six majority Muslim countries for 90 days and suspending the country’s refugee program for 120 days, the latest version only effects people without any connections to the US.” Trump applauds Supreme Court, feels ‘gratified’ by ruling to revive travel ban The Washington Times “The Supreme Court revived President Trump’s extreme vetting travel ban Monday, ruling that much of it can go into effect — and along the way delivering an implicit rebuke to the army of lower-court judges who blasted the president as anti-Muslim. In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the justices said the president has important national security powers that the courts must respect and ruled that he likely has the power to deny entry to broad categories of would-be visitors and immigrants. But the justices said those who already have a connection to the U.S. — either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection — will be exempted from the 90-day ban on travel from six countries as well as the 120-day pause on refugees. Minutes after the ruling, both sides were fighting over what that meant.” Supreme Court ruling on travel ban sparks fear, frustration — and joy — in Southern California OC Register “Muslim Americans in Southern California described the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow a temporary, partial version of the Trump administration’s travel ban as disappointing and “irrational,” but noted that until the issue gets a full hearing later this year it’s unclear how it will play out. The ruling was also met with a chorus of bravos from Trump supporters who say it will make America safer, with additional vetting of who gets in and who doesn’t. Both sides are gearing up for what’s next.” SCOTUS splits the travel ban baby Slate “The Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s travel ban is like an optical illusion: Your perception of it changes depending on your vantage point. To Trump and his allies, the decision looks like total vindication for the administration, a move that allows its long-delayed executive order to take effect. To left-leaning analysts, it’s a clever political compromise that still protects many of the refugees and foreign nationals who would’ve been excluded by the ban. There’s a reason for these wildly differing takes: The decision itself is confusing and ambiguous. That’s because the court ruled only on the injunction and thus dodged the central issue: the legality of the order and the president’s authority to pass it. The court’s baby-splitting shields the president and his opponents from an outright loss or a clear-cut victory. But it doesn’t make much sense as a matter of law. It preserves the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the law is—even though, by its own terms, it fails to say what the law is.”
  • An overweight passenger on a Spirit Airlines flights from Las Vegas to Denver said he was embarrassed and humiliated by the airline when it took away one of two seats he had booked in order to fly more comfortably. >> Read more trending news Jose Cordova told Denver 7 that he bought two seats on both his original flight to Vegas and for the return trip because of his size. 'I am a big person and I know one seat wouldn't fit for me, and to be comfortable, I wanted to have two seats,' Cordova said.  'You don't want to overhang on someone else's lap, so you want to make sure you have that extra seat without bothering anybody.'  Cordova said his flight to Vegas was fine, but Spirit overbooked his return flight and took one of his seats without asking. >> Related: United Airlines changes policy after man dragged from flight “They stole one of his seats. They sold it out from under him,” Denver 7 quoted one of Cordova’s friend Scott Tenorio as saying. Spirit apologized to Cordova and said it was refunding the cost of his flights. It also said it was investigating what happened.

The Latest News Videos