5 comments Peter King Gets To the Bottom of This "Overtraining" Mystery

I have set up a Yahoo Fantasy Football League and those of you who have already expressed interest can feel free to join. Anyone else who wants to join can feel free to do so as well. I am planning on having a 12 team league and we currently have 8 teams. The ID is 269298 and the password is "eckstein."

I also set up a College Football Pick 'Em League for Yahoo. Personally, this is my second favorite fantasy league because it keeps my interest in college football games I wouldn't normally care about on Saturdays. I have set it up against the spread and the games we will be choosing are Top 25 games and games the Yahoo editors choose as "worthy" of being chosen. The ID is 1704 and the password is "asu." Feel free to join and it doesn't take long each week to pick the games, plus it is fun to go against the spread.

When writing his MMQB on Monday (obviously) Peter King mentioned that Brian Cushing thinks he tested positive for hCG because he had "overtrained athlete syndrome." Today, after realizing if he if he is going to write about this syndrome, it might make sense to bring in an expert who can end this discussion once and for all...Peter brings in an expert. I am going to go ahead and spoil the expert's conclusion for everyone. Get this...he thinks Cushing is full of shit.

On a side, yet completely related, note I would like to apologize to the guy I punched in the Target parking lot a couple of days ago. I didn't mean to punch you, I just had "overangered person syndrome" where too many people pissed me off in a short time span, so I had to punch someone. It wasn't my fault and would like for the cops to drop the charges now. Thanks.

In my Monday column, I told you that Houston linebacker Brian Cushing and the owner of the Texans, Bob McNair, would be asking the league to reduce or erase the four-game suspension for a positive performance-enhancing drug test based on a defense that Cushing tested positive for elevated levels of hCG because of overtrained athlete syndrome.

In my Monday mocking of Peter's column, I told everyone that Brian Cushing is full of shit and there isn't any way he the only "overtrained athlete" to falsely test positive for hCG. I didn't need an expert to tell me this. Even the most naive person in the world (except for the person paying Brian Cushing to play for his team apparently...I'm talking to you Bob McNair) would think this was a pretty bullshit explanation for testing positive for hCG. It's a reach in the dark really to clear Cushing's name, when in reality no one cares that he tested positive. I had forgotten all about it.

Today, I bring you an expert in hCG research, courtesy of the work of SI's David Epstein. He interviewed Laurence A. Cole, hCG researcher at the University of New Mexico and director of the hCG Reference Service.

This is sports journalism at its finest. Peter writes about "overtrained athlete syndrome" and how a football player is claiming that is what made him test positive for hCG on Monday. After doing that, he thinks, "Man, it might be helpful if I called someone using my cell phone paid for by Sports Illustrated/NBC to figure out if this is a real viable explanation or not."

Logically, if I were a sports journalist, I would use the few hours of dead time I had during traveling around training camps to get in touch with someone who can tell me if this syndrome could really be to blame for a false positive BEFORE I publish the story on Monday if possible. Of course, I am not a sports journalist for many reasons. One of which that I wouldn't publish a theory given to me for a positive test by an NFL player until I found out if it were a good theory or not. That's just me though. I know Peter wants to leave it up to the reader to decide, plus he used all his daytime minutes for this month trying to get in touch with Brett Favre so he didn't want to go over his allotted minutes.

Cole gave an explanation about how Cushing could have tested positive by ingesting nothing -- but simply by overtraining, as Cushing has claimed. But Cole also made it clear that, in his opinion, such a claim is highly unlikely.

I think nearly everyone thought that Cushing was full of crap, except for Bob McNair of course. Either Cushing really didn't ingest anything against NFL drug policy or he is incredibly stupid and wants to stick to his guns and say he didn't take anything, even though it won't do anything.

If I am Brian Cushing, I accept the damn suspension and go on with my life. It is not getting you anywhere saying you played better when you passed your drug tests, go prove it on the field when you get a chance to play, but at this point you are just reminding everyone you tested positive for hCG. No one cares and we will forget as long as he allows us to forget.

Cole said there are conditions that could trigger false positives in a man. The testicles could completely stop working -- as in a case of testicular cancer, or a disease called hypogonadotropism (which basically means the testicles stop working),

I don't think Brian Cushing will be willing to publicly admit there is anything wrong with his testicles (this is a guy thing), so if this was the case, he won't say it is.

Said Cole: "All these things are rare and remote. The honest truth is that 999 times out of a thousand, the test gives a correct result. If they're positive, they're taking hCG.''

I like the loyalty to his player that Bob McNair is showing, but it's over. Give it up. He tested positive, he will miss four games.

When Epstein asked about the overtrained athlete syndrome, Cole said: "It sounds like a far stretch ... I have never seen a case like that."

What does Epstein know though? He's only an expert. Maybe Brian Cushing has magic testicles that don't work without him getting any disease or cancer or maybe Cushing has a hereditary disease that causes too much hCG to be built up in his system. Either way, he didn't test positive because he was an overtrained athlete.

As I went about my job Monday at Indianapolis Colts camp -- and as I made and fielded phone calls about the Cushing story, one thing came through loud and clear from NFL executives: Roger Goodell would be opening up the league for major trouble from prior PED positive-testers by doing anything to Cushing's sentence except upholding it.

You mean it would be bad news to open up the door to any other bullshit reasons why a player tested positive for PEDs? I can only imagine the scientific discoveries we would have over the next couple of weeks when we learn about the conditions NFL players who tested positive have. Here are some conditions I think the athletes who have been suspended this year and in the past would have, along with their explanations for the why suspension should be reduced...

Julius Peppers- Overdeveloped athlete syndrome

(When Peppers started working out, his body produced so much of a supplement in his body that it came up on the NFL's list of banned dietary substances. It's not his fault, he started working out and his body did the rest. He would also use this to explain why he only seems to try hard in about ten games each season.)

Shawne Merriman- Hyperactive muscle syndrome

(Merriman's muscles grew so quickly they started producing an enzyme known as lightsouteous that made it LOOK like he had taken steroids, which of course wasn't true. This also explains why his production has declined over the past couple of years because he is taking a substance to make this lightsouteous quit occurring in his system...so the Chargers can feel free to make him a contract offer now.)

Santonio Holmes- Marijuana withdrawal syndrome

(Santonio Holmes USED to use marijuana on a frequent basis but he quit doing that. While he quit using marijuana, this caused his body to start producing a substance that DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A NAME which made it look like he did something wrong and got him suspended.)

Ben Roethlisberger- Sex addiction syndrome

(He likes sex and can have it a lot if he wants to. What woman wouldn't want him? Can't his suspension just get reduced?)

Vincent Jackson- Crunkitis

(Vincent likes to go have a good time and is addicted to going to clubs and then driving home drunk. It's not his fault, when Jackson drinks the alcohol tells his brain to get the car keys and drive a car. It's like sleepwalking and Jackson can't control it. He would also accept a new contract from the Chargers in lieu of his suspension being reduced.)

LenDale White- Tequila poisoning

(We are all aware of LenDale White's love for tequila. Well this same love is hurting him. When LenDale drinks tequila, his body turns that into marijuana residue because he has drunk so much tequila there is no more room for his liver to break down the enzymes, so his body takes the tequila and stores it in the body as marijuana residue...or perhaps as fat, it depends on the day really.)

Ryan Tucker- Cleveland Browns syndrome

(He has played for the Browns. Drugs are his only option to deal with this reality.)

John Jolly- Jollyosis

(This is a family disease that John Jolly has. Every male in Jolly's family at some point has an enzyme produced in his system that causes him to immediately get in a fight when near a night club. It is something the adrenaline produces in his system when he is about to enter a club that causes this. Jollyosis also causes the uncontrollable urge to accumulate drugs and other illegal substances at all times to be sold if a family member loses a job.)

The NFL has been very clear about not allowing any excuses for positive tests; the player is responsible for what's in his body. For those reasons, I don't see how the NFL can do anything but uphold the sanction and keep Cushing out for the first four games of the Texans' season.

And take away the Defensive Rookie of the Year award while you are at it! Let's revise all the awards based on events that occur later in that player's career.

Now onto Peter's mail...

"I have to compliment you on your Monday column this week. Well actually all your Monday columns are excellent but what caught my attention this week was that there was absolutely no mention of Brett Favre. Six pages on pro football and no mention of Favre or his 'retirement' for that matter. Congratulations. This just shows why you are the best. You lead. You write about what interests you and not just what everyone (and I mean everyone) else is writing about. Thanks again.''
-- Jim S., Boulder, Colo.

Jim from Boulder. I am sure you are a nice guy who loves Colorado football, no matter how bad the team sucks, but Peter King leads because he leads everyone else in writing about the same things everyone writes about. Every year we can count on 1-2 features on Peyton Manning from Peter, there have been tons of Brett Favre coverage when there is news to talk about Favre, he tends to be the poster boy for NFL East Coast coverage bias because those are the teams that interest him, and he is your typical white wealthy male who likes to bitch to others about the minor inconveniences in life that those same other people just ignore because they don't think they are special enough to never be annoyed by someone in public.

Peter doesn't seem like a bad guy, but he doesn't really "lead" in any way I can think of. When I think of him, I think of him being buddy-buddy with players and having a bias towards the teams he enjoys covering.

The fact Peter King wrote an entire column without a Favre mention is impressive, but the fact we notice when he doesn't mention Favre once is also note-worthy.

"I'm sure you're going to get a lot of these kinds of e-mails, but the comparison between Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson isn't quite fair. Larry is a phenomenal talent and hard worker, but Kurt Warner had a lot to do with Larry's success. Andre Johnson has spent the majority of his career catching passes from quarterbacks considerably less gifted than Kurt Warner. Perhaps the statistics would be tilted the other way had Kurt Warner resurrected his career in Houston instead of Arizona.''
-- Alex, Davis, Calif.

While there may be some truth to this criticism, Larry Fitzgerald was a great wide receiver before Kurt Warner was throwing him the ball. Warner played for the Cardinals from 2005-2009. He only played in 10 games in 2005 and 6 games in 2006. So Fitzgerald was good when he didn't have Warner around all the time to throw him the ball.

In 2005, Larry Fitzgerald had 103 receptions for 1,409 yards (his 2nd highest career total) and 10 touchdowns and in 2006 he missed three games and had 69 receptions for 946 yards and 6 touchdowns. While I know Warner has helped Fitzgerald, to place any large percentage of his success on Warner throwing him the ball is a bit unfair I think. It is true Matt Schaub has helped Andre Johnson's numbers, but to go about criticizing Peter's comparison of Fitzgerald and Johnson in his MMQB, this isn't the best way to do it.

I think the best way to criticize the comparison is to compare what OTHER receivers have been on each team. Fitzgerald has had Anquan Boldin across from him during his career, as well as Steve Breaston. Andre Johnson has had Kevin Walter and Owen Daniels. I would say it is fair to say Andre Johnson has faced many more double teams than Fitzgerald has faced due to this fact. Perhaps Johnson's numbers have been lower than Fitzgerald's not because of the quarterback on his team, but the other receivers teams have to focus on when they play the Cardinals or Texans.

PK: I did hear a lot of that, yes. But I don't buy it. Let's look at the past three years. That's when Kurt Warner played 45 games for the Cards and Schaub 38 for the Texans. In Warner's 45 games, he averaged 261 passing yards a game. In Schaub's 38 games, he averaged 265 passing yards a game.

Peter isn't making a very good case. Andre Johnson's numbers shot up dramatically in 2007 when Schaub joined the team, while Fitzgerald's numbers did not change too much with Warner as the quarterback.

So the quarterback actually did seem to make a difference...but I still think the comparison should be based more upon the other receivers Johnson/Fitzgerald have played on the same team as.

In Johnson's previous years with Houston, his quarterback was David Carr, mostly. In Fitzgerald's previous years with Arizona, his quarterbacks were Warner, Josh McCown and Matt Leinart, all for about a year.

Schaub has only been in Houston since 2007 while Fitzgerald did have Warner part-time since 2005. Peter is destroying his own point and making it look like Johnson benefited more from playing with a better quarterback.

I don't think the quality of quarterbacking has been extraordinarily different, though I would agree that I'd rather have had Warner, on the whole, than Schaub over the past three years.

The quality of quarterbacking may not be terribly different, but the other players on the field for the Cardinals and the Texans have been different enough to set Johnson apart, at least in my mind.

"Peter, just finished reading your book. Thanks for a great read! On your idea for overseas expansion (re: London Jaguars), I really think the NFL has to look 10-20 years down the road and look at setting up four teams in Europe. Although the current talent pool would not support adding four teams to the NFL, I think a lot of the logistics would be solved with scheduling if the NFL set up a European division. Thoughts?''
--Shane Richardson, Phoenix

The NFL overseas would be a disaster if done over the next 15 years. There isn't enough support overseas and the logistics of having any less than four teams overseas would be a disaster. Even with four teams overseas, those teams would have to cross the Atlantic a few times a year to play teams in the United States, which brings up the logistics problems I am concerned about.

PK: The question, really, is whether the NFL could get 70,000 fans a game, for eight or nine games a year in Berlin or Amsterdam or Hamburg. One or two games, I can see. But full seasons? At prices higher than prime soccer games? I think, at least now, that it's a stretch to think the NFL could get that kind of interest.

For once, I think Peter has a good point. Even with four teams overseas that would only be 3 home games for a team, then throw in five other games where a team would have to come overseas to play, it becomes more problematic. If the NFL had teams stay overseas and play all four teams in one division then that team would be in Europe for a month and have four straight road games. That's not exactly fair. I currently hate the idea of football in Europe.

"After reading your column today and the "divide" between players and owners and the CBA and the Commissioner's stance, I am wondering if "scab" football is a possibility next year the way it occurred in 1987?''
--Cam Cameron, Felton, Del.

PK: I think it's almost impossible. The NFL considers that a blight on its recent history, and I don't think any owner would want to go through that again. I know with certainty the networks don't want it. Bad idea.

Sure, Peter says this now, but wait until the networks and the NFL doesn't have a product to put on the field. It sounds terrible to have replacement players but if the NFL doesn't look like it would have a product on the field next year, you never know what could happen. It sounds like a bad idea right now, but when the owners want leverage and there are players willing to cross the picket line or willing to play for current teams, you never know what could happen.

"Tony Dungy's fourth book should be 'How to capitalize on being considered a great leader when you have probably the greatest QB ever playing for you for eight or nine years.' I'm sorry, but Peyton Manning would be great without Dungy, but I'm not sure the reverse is true.''
--M. Schneider, Fort Madison, Iowa

I love Tony Dungy, but I can't help but laugh at this. It's funny because it feels so true to non-Colts fans.

Let's hear Peter defend his friend.

But what about winning without a top quarterback in Tampa, and setting up Jon Gruden for his Super Bowl win?

Setting up Jon Gruden for his Super Bowl win? Like Buck Showalter set up Joe Torre and Bob Brenly for their World Series wins? Yeah, the players on that Buccaneers team did have ties to Tony Dungy, but he isn't the guy who got the Super Bowl win for the Buccaneers so I don't know how much credit he should really be given.

It's fine to do a good job in buying the groceries, you can get credit for that, but if you can't cook a good meal in its entirety how much credit can I give you for another cook making a good meal out of your ingredients?

I have nothing against Tony Dungy, both times he has left an NFL team for another team or to retire, that team has made the Super Bowl the next year. It's a dumb fact, but a fact nonetheless. In Tampa Bay, Dungy didn't get to a Super Bowl. He did much better in Indianapolis with Manning than he did without Manning.

In Tampa Bay, Dungy only came in 1st in the division once and lost in the Wild-Card game two out of the three times they made the playoffs. Yes, he turned the Buccaneers around, but isn't it partly his fault he never had a quarterback? The Buccaneers never developed one under him and he had time to do it. He did try with Shaun King and he also ran into the late 90's and early 2000's Rams teams, though they only played the Rams once in the playoffs during that time (and lost).

Again, I have nothing against Dungy and think he is a great coach. Saying Peyton Manning helped him win more games with the Colts isn't far-fetched though.