4 comments Luther Campbell Says Adrian Peterson Is Not an Evil Dad, He Was Just Raised To Be One

Some people spank and punish their human babies with violence and other people do not spank and punish their human babies with physical violence. My feeling is if parents want to use corporal punishment on their children, that is their right as a parent to do. If a parent doesn't want to use corporal punishment on their children, that is their right as a parent not to do. There is a line though. For example, anyone who harshly disciplines a one-year old is a fucking moron who deserves to be hit in the head with a 2x4 repeatedly. One-year old children do not understand anything about the world. They shit their pants, they drool everywhere, and think anything they see, including potentially a cat or a remote control, is best served to go into their mouth if they can only find a way to get to it. Harshly disciplining a one-year old is like smacking around your 95-year old grandfather because he won't stop talking about Larry King WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS LARRY KING ISN'T ON TELEVISION ANYMORE!

There is also a limit to how much a child should be punished or spanked. I got the belt once and spanked a few times. I was not one-year old, so I got the point. Anything more than that and you are probably just taking your aggression or frustration out on your child. What Adrian Peterson did went beyond punishing his child and seemed to make him guilty on the charges of child abuse that were brought against him. I understand not everyone likes it, but there's a different lesson being given when a child has welts all over his/her body and genitals. That lesson is "Daddy/Mommy are pissed off about what you did and have no idea how to parent you to stop doing it so they hope to beat it out of you." Again, there is a line and I think Adrian Peterson crossed it. Welts on multiple parts of the body is crossing that line.

So anyway, Luther Campbell says Adrian Peterson isn't evil (which I agree with, though what kind of moron harshly punishes a one-year old? Reggie Bush is evil if you ask me), it's just how he was raised. Fantastic. I get it. I understand. Say I was raised to hit women when they wouldn't agree with me and take pleasure in having sex with farm animals. Does that excuse that behavior? It sounds extreme, but it's really not. Peterson was raised to get whupped and so that's how he treats his children. Fine, I get it. It doesn't excuse what he did to his son and doesn't make him evil. It makes someone who doesn't understand what child abuse is. Now he does. The justice system works. But still, Luther Campbell has some thoughts on the issue.

Many people are shocked and disgusted by the alleged abuse Minnesota Vikings star Adrian Peterson inflicted on his 4-year-old son.

Roger Goodell was originally not disgusted, but then he saw the picture of the welts, and realized it was in his best interest to be disgusted.

He's been indicted in Montgomery, Texas, for reckless and negligent injury to a child because he whupped his son's backside with a switch, leaving the boy with open wounds and large welts on the back of his legs.

It seemed excessive. It seemed especially excessive in my opinion considering that Adrian Peterson had a son pass away from being assaulted by an adult. One would think Peterson might go a little easier on his son for not turning off "Max and Ruby" since he had a son die from being hit repeatedly. One would think wrong.

But before he's convicted in the court of public opinion, folks need to understand how Peterson was raised.

Before you say, "here's how he was raised," you need to understand the laws about child abuse. Laws >how Peterson was raised. 

I don't know many African-Americans who grew up without ever being disciplined with a switch or a belt.

No, no, no, no. You are not taking ownership of this as a "black thing." It is not. I got hit with a belt and my friends got hit with a belt. I had a friend whose parent ripped off his belt so hard to spank him that the clip of the belt caught my friend right above the eye and opened up a gash. It is not a "African-American issue" that Luther Campbell can take sole ownership off, squeeze tight and then claim "you all don't understand." It is more of a Southern thing than an African-American thing anyway.

Peterson's own mother, Bonita Jackson, admitted in a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle that she was a tough parent. "Most of us disciplined our kids a little more than we meant sometimes," she said. "But we were only trying to prepare them for the real world."

Well, I guess we can consider Adrian Peterson well-prepared then.

I grew up in a household with four brothers. We all got our butts whupped when we acted up. The switch and the belt were used many times. Guess what? We turned out OK.

Okay, great. That's not the point. I know a girl who was sexually assaulted as a teenager and she turned out fine. So does that mean sexual assault is perfectly okay in some cases? You know, as long as the person turns out fine? I know people who had other childhood traumas and most of them seemingly turned out fine. It doesn't mean the act behind the trauma is fine or isn't a crime.

The whole "We turned out OK" reasoning sounds a lot like "That's how we have always done it" reasoning in that they are both used to justify future actions based entirely on the assumptions that past actions were the correct ones. It avoids the attempt at change in favor of clinging to how it used to be, as if there were no other way.

Once when I was a teenager, I sassed my mother after she asked me to open a bathroom window to let out the steam from the shower. At the time, she was on crutches from a leg injury.

Luke's father had hit his mom in the leg with a baseball bat because dinner wasn't ready when he got home. But hey, that's how Luke's father was raised, so who can argue with that reasoning? Because Luke's father was raised that way, this is definitely not a crime.

As soon as I snapped at her, she bopped me upside the head with one of her crutches. After that, I always thought twice before talking back to her

A "bop upside the head with one of her crutches" doesn't sound like anything close to the type of whupping that Adrian Peterson's son got with the switch. Not only was Adrian Peterson's son whupped (it's not "whipped" but "whupped") in several spots on his body, he was hit enough to cause multiple welts.

Time-out doesn't work in the African-American community. If kids were disrespectful, got suspended from school, or were caught stealing, they got the belt as soon as dad got home.

I don't think this is just an African-American thing, but I do think Luther Campbell wants to claim it is so that he can state he has some sort of insight others don't have and his point about Adrian Peterson not being evil will be supported.

Corporal punishment kept us on the straight-and-narrow path.

Maybe, but this is assuming not using corporal punishment wouldn't have kept you on the straight-and-narrow path. I don't know if that is a safe assumption. Again, "We turned out fine" isn't a reason to excuse Adrian Peterson for striking his child like he did with a switch.

But by the time I became a father, laws had changed. I never hit any of my four children,

Exactly. Times have changed and though Luther Campbell grew up getting hit, he chose not to hit his children. It was his choice and Adrian Peterson had a choice as well. He made his choice and now he is under indictment for child abuse. Luther Campbell is an example of someone who broke out of how he was raised and there is no reason Adrian Peterson could not have done the same. It was Luther's choice and he made it. There is no reason Peterson could not have just spanked his son.

but when one of my daughters didn't go to school and was disrespectful, I sent her back to live with her mother.

And really, if the world can't take parenting advice from someone who states when things got tough and his child became disrespectful then he just sent the child away rather than parent, who in the heck can advice come from?

I like how Luther Campbell is like, "I didn't hit my kids, I just got rid of them as opposed to taking the time to discipline them."

Corporal punishment is a cultural norm in the black community based on their Christian beliefs. They take to heart biblical passages like Proverbs 13:24: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

So Luther Campbell has chosen to stereotype the entire black community by stating not only are they all Christian, they all base their belief in corporal punishment on Christianity, and they all base that belief of corporal punishment on a specific Bible verse. So of course Adrian Peterson can't be wrong or evil, he's basing his actions on the Bible!

(Bengoodfella sees someone who has stolen from a store, then stones him to death and expects to not be charged with murder)

They use a switch to inflict enough physical pain so a child thinks twice about behaving badly, but it is not done with malice.

A good spanking can inflict enough physical pain to force a child to think twice about behaving badly. And get this, there are other non-violent ways to parent a child. I KNOW! Who knew? I don't think Adrian Peterson is evil, but I would have more sympathy for him if parents had not found a way to discipline or punish their child without causing multiple welts on the child's body. But there are other means to reach the ends of punishing a child, and what Peterson did seems to be against the law, so I find it harder to defend him like Luther Campbell is trying to do.

And yes, what Adrian Peterson did to his son was done with malice. Others may disagree, but I find it hard to justify the lengths with which Peterson seems to have struck his son. Let's just say if a police officer did that to a grown adult suspect then there could be a case for police brutality. Instead it was a very strong NFL player who did it to a four-year old child. So.............yes, it was done with malice. Peterson could have gotten his point across with a few spankings or another non-violent way of punishment.

Peterson can use freedom of religion as a defense.

Oh, it turns out that Luther Campbell is an attorney now. He knows what kind of defense Adrian Peterson can use. I don't know why Adrian Peterson hired a white attorney like Rusty Hardin when he could have hired someone smarter than an attorney who knows the exact Bible verse the black community uses to justify corporal punishment. That person is Luther Campbell. Luther won't even charge Adrian Peterson. But can he get a table dance?

His lawyer will put the Bible on the stand.

Now granted, I don't have the legal expertise that Luther Campbell seems to have. I'm pretty sure you can't put an inanimate object like the Bible on the stand to testify though. Only humans can be on the stand during a trial. Perhaps dogs, but it would have to be a really smart dog. Like Lassie. Yes, Lassie could be on the stand. I don't know, maybe Mr. Ed too. He seems like he could have testified if necessary. But neither of them are inanimate objects and I know inanimate objects can not be placed under oath, be on the stand and testify in a trial.

And in a state like Texas, it will be difficult to find a jury that will convict him.

Will it be difficult to find a jury to convict Peterson if freedom of religion is used as a defense? I'm asking because clearly Luther Campbell has a diverse knowledge of the legal system in Texas and I don't live in Texas. It sounds to me like freedom of religion is not going to be a defense to child abuse. If freedom of religion were to be a defense for crimes then a lot of defendants would go unconvicted (not a word), because the Bible contains some violent stuff in it.

So in summary, Adrian Peterson is not evil (didn't say he was). Peterson isn't necessarily innocent of child abuse because he was physically punished as a child, because there are other ways to punish a child without physically harming the child. And because there is a Bible verse that says it's fine to hit your kid, it doesn't mean Texas' child abuse laws have nothing on the Biblical laws that Peterson follows and a court in Texas will definitely fail to convict Peterson. So basically Luther Campbell thinks Peterson's solid defense is "That's how my mama raised me" and "God said it was okay." I can't imagine what could go wrong.

Of course it doesn't matter because Peterson pleaded and now he won't have to worry about going to a jury. 

2 comments Don't Worry Roger Goodell, Lanny Davis Has Your Back

Roger Goodell has taken a beating lately. I think rightfully so. He was too lenient on domestic violence accusations against NFL players, lied about what he knew in a specific domestic violence situation and then while NFL teams were trying to figure out how to handle their own players accused of domestic violence, Goodell was absent seemingly giving no direction. Maybe he gave direction behind the scenes, but it seems awfully convenient that Goodell gets super-serious about hammering out a drug policy with the NFLPA when NFL teams are floundering around trying to figure out the best way to separate themselves from players and not get sued by the NFLPA. Regardless, Lanny Davis thinks Roger Goodell deserves a chance. Apparently the public has too high of expectations for a person making $44 million per year. The owners of the Panthers, Ravens, and Vikings should have been more present, but Goodell works for the owners and takes great pride in punishing players in order to protect the Shield. Yet, he's been one of the ones hurting the reputation of the Shield. Still, he just needs a chance. Let him have a few more chances to get this right.

Editor's note: Lanny Davis, a Washington attorney and former special counsel to President Clinton, specializes in legal crisis management. He is executive vice president of Levick Communications and the author of "Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping with Crises in Business, Politics, and Life" (Simon and Schuster/Threshold, 2014). He represented the Washington Redskins on matters including the controversy over the team's name until January; he has not represented the NFL or Roger Goodell. The opinions in this commentary are those of Lanny Davis. 

Yes, Lanny Davis has not represented Goodell or the NFL. He has just represented an NFL team regarding a potential name change of that team and Roger Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL and agrees with Davis's position on the issue. So other than representing one of the NFL owners Roger Goodell works for and furthering a position Goodell agrees with, Lanny Davis has nothing to do with the NFL.

Is there any way to ... well ... 

To use too many ellipsis in one sentence? Yes, there is. And that's strong coming from me, a person who uses and misuses ellipsis way too often because I have no regard for traditional grammar rules.

defend Roger Goodell?

Well, yes.

Lanny Davis defended Bill Clinton, helped birth Seth Davis, has helped out to defend the Redskins name, and has worked for overseas presidents who are dictators and commit human rights violations. Defending Roger Goodell? Piece of cake. 

When everyone is piling on, it's time to take a breath and say: We need more facts, less reliance on media reports based on anonymous sources and over-heated pundits who are too ready to rush to judgment.

So here is an opinion from an over-heated pundit who isn't rushing to judgment at all, and in fact is making no judgment, just pointing out no one should worry about facts or opinions right now and just give Roger Goodell another chance. 

As I said on CNN's Michael Smerconish show on Saturday morning, of course Commissioner Goodell made a huge mistake in his decision to give Ravens running back Ray Rice only a two-game suspension after seeing the videotape of Rice dragging his then-girlfriend, Janay Palmer, unconscious, with apparent indifference, out of an Atlantic City casino elevator on February 15.

By the way, the guy who wants more facts and is totally up-to-date on the situation, and isn't just writing this column because he wants to defend Goodell due to his previous affiliation with the NFL, feels so strongly about this situation he HAD to write about it...well, he called Ray Rice the Ravens "free safety" in this column until it was corrected. 

Note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Ray Rice's football position. He is a running back.

I agree. We need more facts and less uneducated opinions on this topic. That's why Lanny Davis thinks Ray Rice should not be signed by another NHL team until he has undergone counseling and should not be under consideration for the Cy Young Award this year. Lanny feels strongly about this. 

(Roger Goodell leans over and whispers something in Lanny Davis's ear, but Davis waves him off)

A month later Goodell realized he had made a terrible mistake, 

(Goodell leans in again and Davis waves him off again saying he'll get to that)

sending a wrong message that domestic violence by NFL players was not all that serious and, thus, putting his own professional reputation and the NFL brand at risk.

Wow, these sound like some really heartfelt comments from Davis. Goodell is so sorry he almost fucked up the NFL's brand by not taking domestic violence seriously. The most important things to Goodell in his situation are his professional reputation and the NFL brand---wait, that's not right. I mean, Goodell cares about women and the fact they spend money on NFL apparel, but it would hurt the women too if Roger Goodell's reputation got hurt or the NFL brand was at risk. So Goodell is looking out for the women by looking out for himself and the NFL. I'm sure they understand.

So Roger knows he let everyone down by hurting the NFL bra---by not taking domestic violence seriously enough and hurting his professiona---Goodell understands he ruined some of the trust women had in him to make the right decisions. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? WHY IS THIS ALWAYS ABOUT YOU WOMEN? JESUS, WE LET YOU VOTE AND DRIVE. WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU NEED? ROGER AIN'T ABOUT TO GROVEL. ROGER MAKES $44 MILLION PER YEAR AND HE DON'T GROVEL FOR NO BITCHES. 

But then he turned in the right direction, following the three basic rules of crisis management, whether in business, politics, or life.

This is brilliant isn't it? The public should forgive Roger Goodell because he's really fucking good at crisis management. Apparently Roger wants to be treated like a four year old who isn't totally potty-trained yet. Sure, he shits his pants sometimes, but then he apologizes, makes cute faces and promises he'll tell you when he has to go to the potty again. Forgive Roger Goodell because he's really good at following the rules of crisis management. I am sure this makes sense to Lanny Davis. 

First, he acknowledged that he made a mistake and took personal responsibility.

So repeatedly setting up friendly interviews, probably lying in those interviews, ducking the public when he can't answer questions in a controlled setting and then hiding while NFL teams struggle with how to punish their players who have been accused of violence against women or children, is taking personal responsibility. In that case, kudos to Roger Goodell for taking personal responsibility. 

He showed that he understood, albeit belatedly, how serious male violence against women is. In his August 28 letter to all NFL owners, Goodell wrote: "I didn't get it right. Simply put, we have to do better."

Oh yes, you can tell by the "we" in that sentence Roger Goodell is taking personal responsibility. Just like Ray Rice's wife took personal responsibility for her part in getting herself knocked the fuck out. 

I'm not a smart man, but when writing an official statement on a topic I don't think using the term "we" is taking personal responsibility necessarily. It's what is called "the proverbial we" which basically means "I am not taking personal responsibility, but will take some responsibility along with other unnamed people." 

In an accompanying memorandum that would be distributed to all personnel in the NFL, he wrote, in bold-faced dark letters, the following:

He used bold-faced dark letters! This indicates super-seriousness. He must be forgiven. If the letters are bold, no grudge must you hold. 

"Domestic violence and sexual assault are wrong. They are illegal. They are never acceptable and have no place in the NFL under any circumstances."

"Which I know now. Please don't hurt my reputation because I didn't take domestic violence seriously enough in the beginning. I had no idea, until recently, that punching a woman was even illegal. Usually I have my assistant punch my wife for me, so I had no idea that an arrest could result. We are taking personal responsibility and we are sorry." 

Second, he laid out a detailed forward-looking mandatory education and training program to implement this policy. 

I'm loving that Lanny Davis thinks Roger Goodell should be forgiven, not for any other reason than he is very good at crisis management. This sounds like the typical out-of-touch bullshit that politicians try to shovel down the throat of Americans. If I were mad at Goodell, I should forgive him because he's good at public relations. 

The third rule is to authorize an independent investigation to answer all the questions and verify the facts. And that is exactly what happened. Of course the emphasis is on the word "independent."

Which is why two NFL owners are overseeing this "independent" investigation. I'm pretty sure Lanny Davis doesn't understand the concept of the term "independent" if he thinks two NFL owners overseeing an investigation makes that investigation independent. Not only that, two of Goodell's most loyal owners are overseeing this investigation. I'm surprised Goodell didn't put his wife, Jerry Richardson, and himself to oversee the investigation. That's pretty much the only way this investigation couldn't feel less independent. 

Two owners, John Mara of the New York Giants and Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers, both of whom are attorneys,

Lanny, I don't think stating someone is an attorney holds quite the trust factor you think it holds. Especially since these two attorneys are incredibly wealthy people who also happen to be the owners of two NFL teams and Goodell works for them. 

appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller III to conduct the investigation of how Goodell and the NFL headquarters handled the Rice matter.

Two attorneys who are also NFL owners and the former FBI Director who now has a law firm which just helped the NFL negotiate a contract with DirectTV in 2009. See, it's independent!

Mara and Rooney publicly guaranteed that Mueller will have full access to all information and all individuals. They have committed in advance to make the report public. It is safe to assume that anyone who refuses to cooperate with Mueller will be out.

Except Roger Goodell. No matter what happens, he's in. 

I have read about doubts about Mueller's objectivity because he comes from a large law firm that has ties to the NFL. My response: Nonsense.

Lanny Davis can read you know. Lanny didn't want to mention this, but he's also an attorney. Yeah, he has a law degree. He's read the doubts about whether Mueller will be objective because he has worked alongside the NFL and NFL teams in the past. But his response is that he doesn't want this to be true, so in his mind, it won't be. Take that. In your face. 

Robert Mueller is a former United States attorney, senior U.S. Justice Department official, and one of the most respected FBI directors in history.

Oh, Mueller is an attorney AND bureaucrat? Well, why didn't you say so? More importantly, does Mueller follow the three rules of crisis management? That is really the most important sign of what kind of man he is. 

Washington is a tough town. I don't know of a single person in DC who knows Mueller who doesn't regard him as "untouchable" -- a modern-day Eliot Ness, tough with the highest level of integrity.

I don't know. I would maybe talk to Andrew Card or Alberto Gonzales. They may be wrong to feel this way, but I think Lanny Davis probably is using hyperbole here. 

If Mueller finds that Roger Goodell lied about not seeing the second videotape or about what he was told by Ray Rice on July 16 when they met behind closed doors, Goodell will no longer be NFL commissioner. And Goodell knows that.

So Roger Goodell should get another chance because: 

1. He's good at crisis management. He follows all three rules required to manage a crisis. 

2. He didn't know domestic violence was so serious and corrected the two game suspension of Ray Rice after finding out domestic violence is indeed serious. 

3. Goodell really did hire an independent investigator to find out if he lied or not. Sure, two of his loyal supporters who are NFL owners are the ones choosing the independent investigator, but see #1. That's how to manage a crisis. 

4. The independent investigator probably isn't on the take and will be serious about trying to find out what was told to Goodell behind closed doors. He'll do the job he was hired to do! 

So while Commissioner Goodell made some serious mistakes and dug himself and the NFL into a deep hole, he did a pretty good job of crisis management,

That's true, but the issue here isn't how well Goodell managed the crisis, but about whether he lied and deceived the public about what he was told by Rice and when. That is the issue at hand and why some people think Goodell should be fired. It goes to show how out-of-touch Lanny Davis is that he believes anyone gives a shit whether Goodell managed the crisis well or not. It's about what created the crisis. That is the issue. In Washington, maybe people get credit for following a crisis management handbook, but in the real world it is the actions behind what created the crisis that determines whether a person should keep his job or not. 

Now after all the media and pundit frenzy, it is up to all of us to take a breath and wait for Mr. Mueller to complete his work -- and to let proven, verified facts speak louder and more persuasively than innuendo and anonymous sources.

It sounds great. Lanny Davis is assuming that everyone gets their day in court to prove what facts are correct and what innuendo and anonymous sources are incorrect. That's not how it works though. Ask Ben Roethlisberger if Roger Goodell cares about proven, verified facts more than he cares about innuendo, anonymous sources and the mere perception that some wrong was done. 

If only we could do that.

Oh, if "we" could do that? Does that mean "we" are taking personal responsibility for this to happen? 

I think Roger Goodell is going to get out of this Ray Rice crisis unscathed and with his job as NFL Commissioner still intact. Maybe it's right, maybe it isn't, but Roger Goodell doesn't deserve another chance because he's good at crisis management. 

Don't worry Roger, Lanny Davis has your back on this one. Things change, but the good ol' boy system still works.

9 comments MMQB Review: Roger Goodell Probably Lied, Though You Wouldn't Know It From MMQB Edition

Peter King continued his shit-show coverage of the Ray Rice situation last week, though most of it happened after he had posted MMQB. In MMQB last week, Peter told us how all of "our" assumptions about the season turned out to be completely wrong after one week of NFL action. So Peter went about making all new assumptions that will undoubtedly end up being wrong and then "we" will be wrong once again. This week Peter asks if we should still love football (which is a pretty overdramatic statement coming from a guy who is the editor-in-chief of a football-only website), a further discussion about domestic violence and how the NFL handles players accused of this crime, and how all of "our" preconceived notions about what teams would be good this year are STILL wrong. It's been a rough week in the NFL.

So, should we still like football? I’ve asked myself that a few times over the past week. I think we all have.

First off, Peter is being overdramatic. He runs a football website as the editor-in-chief and if no one liked football anymore it would affect his paycheck and his livelihood. So yes, Peter should still like football. I won't allow a few bad players to make me forget the good players who don't hit women and children. I won't allow Greg Hardy, and whatever the fuck he did, make me forget that I like it when Cam Newton hands a football to a child after scoring a touchdown. I won't let bad people make me stop loving things I enjoy. It's a personal decision. It's not a matter of whether "we" should still like football, as if I am a bad person for choosing to. Stop making it seem that way you self-righteous, sanctimonious drama queen. I didn't think about not liking football this past week.

It’s a personal decision. I can’t tell you to feel better about the gutter the NFL has fallen into, or to spend your money on one more NFL jersey or hat or Red Zone channel. It has to be your decision.

Oh great! Peter King won't force everyone to hate football and he'll give us the option of liking the sport. Thanks so much for this wonderful gift, oh great Peter King! Your many blessings have us thanking you!

If you think the NFL is so full of greed and Roger Goodell so consumed with the bottom line that human decency is way down the league’s list of priorities, walk away.

Guess what, Peter? Nobody needs your permission to walk away from the sport. Here is what is so sanctimonious about the "Should we love the NFL still?" talk...it takes the high road to the point of being judgmental. I'm not saying Hardy, McDonald, or Rice don't deserve to be judged. They absolutely do, if for even putting themselves in that position, but it takes the road that you yourself are infallible in some way that the sport of football, where 95% of the athletes are not bad people, is below you in some way. In life, bad people can't make you stop enjoying the things you love. You can't let it happen. And being sanctimonious isn't the way to fix the NFL's problems.

If you think the NFL is just too dangerous, and you read in the New York Times last week that the league, by its own admission, acknowledged that one in three former players will have some sort of cognitive problem long before an average person in the general population would, stop watching. It’s your call. No one can make it for you.

I think the NFL and football in general is dangerous, but it is improving. They are working on it. I won't judge or blame a person who stops watching the sport, but I will not stop watching at this point in time.

No one will blame you for walking away.

NO ONE NEEDS YOUR PERMISSION TO STOP WATCHING! STOP BEING CONDESCENDING!

As the day went on, some of the best players—Gerald McCoy, Charles Tillman, Vernon Davis, Jamaal Charles, Eric Berry, Vontaze Burfict, Ryan Mathews, Tavon Austin, Eric Decker—couldn’t finish. Last weekend, 55 players left games and didn’t return. I daresay this week’s number might be higher, once all the injury stats are in. Atlanta is on its third left tackle, St. Louis on its third quarterback, Kansas City on its third right tackle. Someone’s got to figure out why there’s an injury epidemic—wimpier off-season work?—and how to stem it.

Gee, how could the players be getting bigger, stronger, faster and tackle harder? How could that be happening? I'll let you figure that one out for yourself, Peter. If Peter can't figure out how the human body can't take the beating that NFL players have started dishing out then that's his own fault. He covers the league. I think the increase in knowledge about concussions and other ailments plays into more injuries. With more knowledge of concussions comes better awareness, which means more players will be diagnosed with a concussion. Otherwise, how are the players so big, strong and tackle so hard? Maybe Peter can find a way to wrap his brain around that one and then when the first big scandal breaks he'll act like "we" didn't know the whole time.

I’ll reserve judgment on Goodell until all the facts are in—though I join the chorus that thinks he has to be held responsible for the chaos in the Rice case. I’ll be troubled by the violence of the game, which may eventually drive me from it. But I can’t demonize all the players. There are 1,696 active players in the league this morning. Peterson, Rice and Hardy are three.

Notice how Peter is reserving judgment for Roger Goodell, but he wants Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson punished before all of the facts come in. I won't defend those two players, but this is typical. Peter wants all the facts to come in on Goodell, but he's fine with the facts he knows to make a judgment on two NFL players. I'm not talking about the act of lying or hitting a woman, but I'm talking about reserving judgment. Peter reserves judgment unless he thinks he knows enough facts not to reserve judgment. Goodell gets more of a pass from Peter. It's not like Goodell just started lying and covering up things over the past week. Think of all the concussion information the NFL willingly ignored and chose not to act on in the past. The Ray Race video isn't the first time Goodell has decided to withhold information. He even destroyed the Spygate tapes. Goodell had a chance to get Rice out of the NFL for year and he gave him two games. This past week isn't the first week that Goodell's judgment has sucked or he has lied. Yet, let's reserve judgment.

For now, I’m in Hoyer’s camp. I still really like the game, and I can accept the zits on it. I just saw on Twitter overnight that a fantasy football league disbanded because of the mayhem of the past week, and the members gave their fees to charity. That’s cool, and I understand the feeling. But I don’t have the same feeling. Yet.

Please. Peter has over a million reasons (or whatever he gets paid) not to give up on the NFL.

The five things that made Week 2 compelling:

You cannot name, and almost certainly haven’t heard of, the Browns who beat New Orleans.

Yes, I can, and yes, I have.

Only in New York, kiddies, only in New York, can a timeout lose a game.

Unless Peter wants to count the times a team has used a timeout to ice the kicker (and the kicker missed the field goal attempt), followed by the kicker making the attempt after the timeout. But yeah, only in New York.

What would you do with Adrian Peterson if you ran the Vikings?

Do what any other employer would do with an employee who has gotten in some sort of trouble that would affect his job status. Prevent him from playing, but keep paying him, until more facts are known or some legal conclusion has been drawn.

Problems. All week, problems. Center Nick Hardwick, 33, the soul of the offensive line, was lost for the year at Arizona with a neck stinger. He was crucial to the line and is Philip Rivers’ best friend on the team. Big blow. On Wednesday, coach Mike McCoy caught a bug that was going around the team. He felt awful.

What kind of bug was it? And McCoy could have just let the bug go rather than kill the bug. Now NFL head coaches are killing bugs. Does this mean locker rooms have insect infestations? How could this affect the fans attending games? Was it right to kill the bug? IS IT WORTH WATCHING THE NFL IF HEAD COACHES ARE GOING TO MURDER ANIMALS?????????

What McCoy couldn’t anticipate was this generation’s Fouts-to-Winslow winning the game for him. Philip Rivers to Antonio Gates. Of all the stories in Week 2, the chemistry between these two men makes Rivers-to-Gates the story of the week. Rivers threw three touchdown passes Sunday, all to Gates. He threw seven passes to Gates, who caught them all.

“I am serious about this,” McCoy told me Sunday night. “They could wear blindfolds and complete passes.”

I'm serious about this, no they could not. Not during a game. I don't mind a little hyperbole, but when it begins with "I'm serious about this" it's no longer hyperbole. The hypercritical, completely literal me will be here all day to tear apart useless hyperbole.

Over the weekend, I spoke with both Vikings coach Mike Zimmer and GM Rick Spielman, and I got the distinct feeling they were so deep in uncharted water they had no idea how they’d navigate their way out.

Can you blame them? How many times has an NFL player been arrested for beating his child with a switch? But Peter King's intuitive reporter skills told him that the Vikings may not have handled this situation very often. This is why he gets paid the big bucks, you guys.

“There’s a lot of speculation out there,’’ Spielman told me late Sunday afternoon before going into meetings with club officials to discuss what to do with Peterson, the greatest running back in a half-century of Vikings history.

Robert Smith smiles sadly sitting in a chair. Agreeing, but wondering what would have happened if he had decided to play a few more years.

The Vikings have four choices:

AND ONLY FOUR CHOICES!

Cut Peterson immediately, which is unlikely—not only because he still can play at a very high level, but because he’s been great for the franchise, on- and (before last week) off-the-field, since being drafted.

Suspend him for conduct detrimental to the team, but that can last only four weeks, and then the Vikings would have to either take him back or release him.

Then the Vikings would have bought themselves four weeks to make a decision. Why would they choose to hold Peterson out why waiting for more information so they can make an informed decision? That would be crazy. 

Play him.

Which I am sure Peter thinks is a bad decision. After all, why withhold judgment? This isn't Roger Goodell, but an NFL player who got in trouble with the law. 

Trade him before the Oct. 28 deadline. Not easy, because of his current baggage and because he’s 29, old for a back.

If only an NFL owner/GM had expressed interest in Peterson playing for his team in the last few months. That would be really nice for the Vikings, but unfortunately no NFL owner/GM has expressed this type of interest, nor has this NFL owner/GM had a history of not caring how much attention is lavished on his team. Oh well.

I was prepared this morning to be quite opinionated on Greg Hardy playing football for the Carolina Panthers. Except he didn’t play football, so I’m tempted to say, “Never mind.” But I won’t, because a couple of things need to be said.

Peter wants to keep an open mind about Roger Goodell, what he knew, when he knew it and whether he lied repeatedly or not because he doesn't know all of the facts, but he's ready to be really fucking opinionated about Greg Hardy. After all, this is low hanging fruit for Peter to prove how much he really cares about domestic violence. It's a gimme!

By the way, before anyone says I will defend Hardy because he plays for Carolina, I could give two shits if he ever plays a down for the Panthers again for quite a few reasons. I won't defend his actions and he wasn't going to be re-signed after this season anyway. He can go away for all I care. The Panthers can be fine without him and he wasn't an important part of the Charlotte community anyway. Go way, Greg, go away.

But read the trial testimony, and pore over the guilty verdict, and you’ll understand why so many people are outraged that Hardy played in Week 1, or will play at all for Carolina this season.

These people have a point, but they also don't understand the weird laws that North Carolina has on the books which have prevented the NFL from punishing Hardy because he's not been 100% "convicted" yet. The Panthers, obviously, could do whatever they want. Which means the NFLPA could do whatever they want and prior to the outrage over Ray Rice and his video means they would have flown off the handle for an NFL team suspending a player without an actual guilty verdict or conviction. I understand the view that Carolina didn't do anything until the Ray Rice video came out and there was pressure to deactivate Hardy. Prior to the NFL taking a hard line stance against domestic violence and public opinion going hard against letting those NFL players arrested for domestic violence even play until they have been cleared of the charges (if cleared at all), the NFLPA could easily have filed a grievance (and they still can) if Carolina had punished Hardy for three reasons:

1. There was no precedence for this. Ray Rice got two games and Carolina won't allow Hardy to play at all when he hasn't been convicted in the eyes of the North Carolina legal system? Back in June or July, the NFLPA could have easily filed a grievance.

2. The NFL had not acted on Hardy yet. Believe it or not, it's a lot easier to justify a player's suspension from the point of view of an NFL team if the NFL acts first. It's a lot easier for the NFL to go up against the player's union when they have made a ruling on a player's eligibility to play, as opposed to a team suspending a player indefinitely first.

3. Would the NFL even have Carolina's back if they suspended Hardy for the season? I have zero idea if this idea was floated, but the NFL didn't exactly throw the hammer down on Ray Rice, so a few months ago it wasn't as easy to justify harsh action against Hardy.

The Ray Rice video and subsequent season-long suspension opened up Carolina to new opportunities to punish Hardy, because it provided a harsh sentence on Rice and proved the NFL takes domestic violence issues seriously. The move was easy and they did play "follow the leader," but suspending a player indefinitely isn't exactly a move that comes without it's own distracting challenges. It's easy to forget now, but remember the media wasn't talking about Greg Hardy in any serious tones regarding him not playing this season until recently and there is a reason for that. The reason is when teams go too activist before the NFL hands down their punishment, it opens up an opportunity for a grievance on behalf of that player. The Greg Hardy situation also has a lot of "He said, she said" about it. Teams wait for the NFL to act, because that's how the NFL wants it, and it gives them backing if they decide to make their own decision about the player's future with that team.

First, understand that in North Carolina, defendants in criminal trials are eligible to have two cases—one before a judge, and one before a jury. Hardy had a trial this summer in Mecklenburg County (N.C.) Court before Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin and on July 15 was found guilty of assaulting a female and making threats to her. Thorn-Tin sentenced Hardy to 18 months probation and a suspended 60-day jail sentence. Hardy then chose a jury trial, which was scheduled to begin in November. Conveniently, it’s likely Hardy would have been able to delay the trial or find a way to finish earning his $13.1 million salary in 2014 before the jury rendered any verdict in his case; a guilty verdict would certainly have resulted in a suspension without pay for some length of games in the NFL.

The NFL did nothing to Hardy. The league viewed the jury trial as an integral part of Hardy’s due process. This is where I absolutely disagree. Hardy was found guilty by a judge who ruled, “The court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats.’’

Fine, disagree. The NFL needs to take action then. It pisses me off a little bit that the NFL is forcing NFL teams to make hard decisions the NFL isn't willing to make. It would be nice if Roger Goodell, who cares so much about domestic violence, would not leave the 49ers dick hanging in the wind and force THEM to be the one to make a hard decision without knowing if the NFL will support that decision. I think the tide has turned at this point, so unilateral action by a team is very much more probable, but the NFL clearly has no interest in doing anything but wait for a guilty verdict. The NFL wants to wait for all the facts, but fans of the 49ers, Panthers and Vikings don't want to wait, and the media certainly won't wait.

During the trial, former Hardy girlfriend Nicole Holder alleged that Hardy threw her in a bathtub, tossed her on a futon full of automatic weapons that he claimed were loaded, and dragged her across the floor of his apartment by the hair. “He looked me in my eyes and told me he was going to kill me.”

Please read this. I've made my stance on Hardy clear, that I don't mind if he is suspended for the season, but there is nuance in this situation because there isn't a video of what happened. Holder was admittedly on cocaine at the time of the confrontation with Hardy. That doesn't mean she deserves to be beaten, but when a witness is on cocaine, then that person doesn't make for a very good witness. That column is from Bill Voth, who was in the courtroom for the 10 hours of testimony. He heard the transcript of testimony that isn't public. It's a shitty situation and Hardy doesn't look very good no matter what. It's just that Peter (especially THE MMQB and CNNSI.com) haven't reported other parts of each side's testimony that gives the situation nuance. I wish there were video or public pictures of each party's injuries, but there isn't. I've been dreading the public moving on from Ray Rice to Greg Hardy because it's not the same kind of case (though Hardy deserves the same penalty if found guilty) and it was going to be treated as such.

That is not a domestic violence offense fit for NFL discipline?

I can't disagree. But then the media is like, "Why doesn't Team X suspend the player then?" Maybe this should happen, but the NFL is so fucking gung-ho about their personal conduct policy until hard decisions have to be made. At that point, they leave the decision up to the team as they want a "conviction." That is, until the NFL doesn't give a shit about a conviction, like when they suspended Ben Roethlisberger for six games (down to four on appeal) for actions unbecoming of an NFL player, yet he wasn't convicted of anything.

Hardy is one of the league’s best pass-rushers. My question: If Hardy were an average player, or a backup player, how slow to act would the Panthers have been? How long before they cut him, to rid themselves of the headline-causing headache?

This is how the media works. As I said, I am fine with Hardy being suspended all season. The media wants their punishment when they want their punishment in the manner they want the punishment. They didn't give a shit about Greg Hardy prior to a few weeks ago, but now the media is super-serious about domestic violence issues and wonders why the Panthers weren't acting on Hardy long before this past week. The media has decided they want a judgment on Hardy NOW, and by God, why aren't the Panthers doing exactly what the media wants them to do? The media wants movement on this issue, despite the fact they didn't care about movement a month ago, but now THEY CARE so NFL teams need to do what the media wants them to do. The media only sort of cared about Ray Rice hitting his girlfriend (and now wife) until his punishment came down. All of a sudden, Rice's punishment came down and the sports media was OUTRAGED that the NFL wouldn't take stronger action. Prior to that, eh, shit happened on the elevator and it was serious, but there wasn't a great story as of yet.

So the right thing was done Sunday when coach Ron Rivera de-activated Hardy. And the Panthers should not play him again, until or if he’s found innocent.

Which I am perfectly fine with happening. At some point, maybe Peter King can draw his ire away from NFL teams and aim it towards the NFL and why they won't take action in situations like this. I guess Peter is still withholding judgment on the NFL and Roger Goodell, so he expects NFL teams to make the hard decisions the NFL cares so much about but won't choose to take on. After the NFL took action on Ray Rice, how long did it take the Ravens to take action on him? It's easier when the Shield decides to make the hard decisions and avoids any issues with the NFLPA.

Kaplan, who went to the Panthers game against Detroit in Charlotte on Sunday, filed this report from the scene:

If you came to Bank of America Stadium on Sunday afternoon looking for an outpouring of support for Greg Hardy, you weren’t going to find it. If you thought there would be protests or flyovers or even an ounce of unrest, you would have to search pretty hard. Instead, on an overcast yet steamy morning in Charlotte, the mood was indifferent.

Yep, that's my feeling. I just want someone to do something about the situation or stop talking about it.

I lapped the stadium and spoke to nearly three dozen fans before word spread that Hardy would be inactive. By rough estimate, the ratio of Luke Kuechly jerseys to Greg Hardy jerseys: 40-to-1. The ratio of Steve Smith jerseys to Greg Hardy jerseys: 16-to-1. (Smith, in case you missed the news, departed the Panthers six months ago.)

Though, as veteran Panthers scribe David Newton pointed out, not many fans own Hardy jerseys anyway.

I'm ready to talk about football again. In regard to the question of whether Hardy would be suspended if there were video, yes. This is natural. If I am accused of robbing a bank, doesn't the fact you have me on tape robbing a bank help the case that I indeed did the crime? So the video of Ray Rice shouldn't affect how one thinks about domestic violence when it comes to what he admitted to doing, but seeing pictures of him actually committing the crime goes to prove exactly what happened. It's great evidence that leaves little to the imagination. It would be a hell of a lot easier to say Ray McDonald hit his girlfriend if there was a video of it happening.

The following players caught passes on the game-winning drive, starting at the Browns’ four-yard line, that sent the New Orleans Saints down the 0-2 hole Sunday in Cleveland

Miles Austin, the former Cowboy who was jettisoned by Dallas because he couldn’t stay healthy.

Taylor Gabriel, a 5-7 ½ undrafted rookie free-agent wide receiver from Abilene Christian.

Gary Barnidge, a fifth-round pick of Carolina six years ago, from Louisville.

Andrew Hawkins, the 5-7 restricted free-agent wideout the Browns stole from the Bengals in the offseason.

I had heard of all these players except Taylor Gabriel. Peter said "we" wouldn't know these players.

Amazing: I’m writing about the Browns, and the passing game, and Johnny Manziel is not in the story. Hoyer is going to be able to hold Manziel off as long as he keeps making 80- and 85-yard drives (as he did in the second half Sunday) as efficiently as he did Sunday.

Yes, it is amazing you shut up about Johnny Manziel. It's also amazing that if Brian Hoyer keeps playing well at quarterback he won't get benched. Who would have thought that to be true?

We hear a lot of clichés in this business. In fact, most of what comes out of post-game mouths, collectively, is one giant cliché. Even though what you’re about to read (or watch) stems from a cliché, I think it’s well worth your time—particularly if you are a coach or mentor with young athletes or students trying to improve their games or lives.

I always like to seek answers to how really good players try to get better, and I asked J.J. Watt that question:

His answer:

“Well, the first thing I’ll say is the reason clichés become clichés is because they’re true. They hold some truth in their words. People talk all the time about work ethic, working hard, dedication and commitment, and sometimes people write those answers off because they do seem cliché. But the honest-to-God truth is if you put in the time and you put in the effort, and you watch the film and you study and you work out, and you treat your off-season the right way, and you treat every single practice the right way, you truly can be great.

Most quotes Peter hears from an athlete is a cliche, but listen to this cliche because it came from J.J. Watt. He's like the Chip Kelly of NFL players.

I consider this the ultimate compliment for an NFL Films piece: “I wish Steve Sabol were alive to see it.” That’s what went through my mind after watching Brandon Marshall: A Football Life, which debuts this week on NFL Network. Producers Shannon Furman and James Weiner got Marshall (and, surprisingly, Jay Cutler) to open up on things that surprised me. Marshall is candid about everything else in his life, including his mental illness. Much of it is painful. I would have liked to have seen more, however, on the disturbing 2011 stabbing incident in South Florida—Marshall and wife Michi Nogami-Marshall had a domestic violence incident that resulted in Marshall being hospitalized with a stomach wound, and the details in this show are unfortunately lacking.

I can't imagine why Brandon Marshall wouldn't want to talk about this more.

This show is worth an hour of your life. It airs during an interesting week, and NFL Films will get criticized some for soft-pedaling the domestic violence piece of his life, and rightfully so. But overall, it’s still a very good tale, told in the Sabol way.

See, the media wasn't as serious about domestic violence back then, so they didn't try to strong arm NFL teams into taking action regarding NFL players accused of domestic violence, while giving the NFL a pass for not taking on a leadership role. It's always "let's withhold judgment" when it comes to the NFL and Roger Goodell, but that same withholding of judgment doesn't apply to NFL teams who are supposed to punish their players unilaterally while the NFL sits on their hands wondering how they can weasel out of the lies they have told. If it tells you anything, there is very little in this MMQB about Roger Goodell or whether he really lied repeatedly about the Ray Rice video. Peter has no interest in that. Let someone else figure out what happened.

The bottom line is it's a lot easier for NFL teams to be hard on domestic violence when the NFL takes the lead. I absolutely believe teams can or should take action if the NFL doesn't. The NFL wants to be the ones to punish a player. They prefer a top-down approach to punishing a player. Still, it seems at this point Roger Goodell is more focused on covering up his lies about what he knew or didn't know about an act of domestic violence caught on video than he is about taking the lead to ensure guys like Peterson, Hardy and McDonald are punished.

It's just funny to me how Peter is fine with the NFL waiting around for a conviction, but he thinks NFL teams should not wait for this conviction. Why hold NFL teams to a standard that he won't hold the NFL to? Yes, these NFL players are employees of NFL organizations, but it seems the NFL loves stepping in and telling NFL teams how to run their organizations until they decide it's not convenient to do so.

Fine Fifteen

2. Denver (2-0). Wonder if anyone will notice this week that there’s a Super Bowl rematch at CenturyLink on Sunday afternoon at 1:25 Pacific Time. My early prediction: Denver will not lose to Seattle by 35 again.

Whoa, don't go so far out on that limb there Peter.

5. New England (1-1). It helped that Adrian Peterson didn’t play, but the Pats would have creamed the Vikes anyway, as long as Matt Cassel turned it over the way he did.

Yes, but to be fair, Cassel wouldn't have had as many chances to turn it over if Adrian Peterson had been playing. So there is that.

6. San Francisco (1-1). When Colin Kaepernick turns it over four times and the Niners commit 16 penalties for 118 yards, well, a 28-20 loss to a beleaguered Chicago team should be expected.

Lose a home game, get to be 9 spots better than the team that beat you. Peter's "Fine Fifteen" doesn't make that much sense. Chicago is #15 on this list. Even if this is a list of who Peter thinks the best teams are, shouldn't Chicago be a little further up since the only team they lost to was the #10 Bills?

10. Buffalo (2-0). Bills 56, Foes 30. E.J. Manuel’s completing 67 percent. Two statoids I never thought I’d be writing after two weeks.

Who knew preseason wasn't exactly like the regular season games? This comes as a shock to Peter too!

13. Baltimore (1-1). You know who’s playing great?

Steve Smith, Sr?

Left guard Kelechi Osemele. Even without Ray Rice, the running game will be solid because of interior line play, led by Osemele, and Justin Forsett’s emergence.

Even without their starting running back, the Ravens will have a good running game because they have good offensive line play and the backup running back is playing well. So basically, the Ravens running game will be solid even without Ray Rice because the Ravens have a good running game?

The Award Section
So a few years ago, my friend Len Pasquarelli said to me, “Just my two cents, but you shouldn’t have three or four or five players of the week in one category. It kind of cheapens it.” Last Monday, when I gave out about 39 of these things, column editor Dom Bonvissuto told me to settle down and cut out the mega-multiple award winners. They’re right … so my goal moving forward will be to keep it to two max in each category.

My only question is what these people have to say about the "Adieu Haiku?" Can they make Peter stop writing it?

As I wrote last week, it's silly to have 3-4 winners for each category and cheapens the award.

“We started the week with players beating up women, and we ended it with players beating up children. We are in a very serious state here in the National Football League.”
—ESPN’s Tom Jackson, on the network’s Sunday pre-game show

Crazy to think these athletes who play a violent game sometimes have difficulty not allowing this violence to extend off the field.

“People need to understand, the choice was not PTI [pre-trial intervention] versus five years’ state prison. The choice was not PTI versus the no-early-release act on a 10-year sentence. The parameters as they existed were, ‘Is this a PTI case or a probation case?’ ”
—Atlantic County prosecutor Jim McClain, explaining one of the most incredible factoids of a crazy week of news: Under the laws of the county in which Atlantic City sits, a first-time domestic-violence offender, if convicted, would never go to jail. That seems beyond unbelievable to me. Who makes laws like that? ESPN found late in the week that only 1% of those charged with domestic violence get the pre-trial option, but still, to have no chance for jail is just wrong.

Don't you love how the media covers the news sometimes? It's react, react, react (Ray Rice should be in jail!) and then later find out the facts that prevent the reaction from being a reality. I think Ray Rice should not play another down in the NFL this year, but first-time offenders of domestic violence don't often get the book thrown at them. So the idea the Atlantic City prosecutor was in some way in the NFL's pocket was ridiculous. He dropped the ball probably in not explaining this earlier than last week, but there is a good example of where a reaction like "Rice should be in jail" isn't realistic given the legal circumstances.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Notes of the Week

A couple of New York stories:
I
Wednesday, midday, walking down East 52^nd Street in Manhattan. Fairly crowded. I look ahead at the people walking toward me, and everyone, and I mean everyone, is walking while staring down at their phones.
How many is “everyone”? I counted. Thirteen in a row passed me with head down, checking their smartphones.

So more than 13 people were minding their own damn business as you went down the street and stared at people in order to determine how many of these people were on their cell phone? They are certainly the ones with problem, because they are going around not worried about what everyone else is doing, while you are staring at these people and standing in judgment.

Meanwhile, in downtown Charlotte, just saw a guy walk into a bar wearing a t-shirt that read "I Go Hardy." Really.
— Emily Kaplan (@emilymkaplan) September 13, 2014

This is embarrassing to hear about as a Panthers fan. This guy deserves a punch to the kidney though. It's not like he can't support Hardy in his mind, but wearing that shirt is being brazen about wanting attention, almost challenging others to say something to him. What an ass.

NFL players get fined for avoiding the media and Q&A sessions. Goodell hand picks an interviewer and network. #hypocrite
— John Skelton (@johnskelton19) September 10, 2014

Dammit, can we not just hold out judgment on whether Roger Goodell lied or not?

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 2:
a. Owen Daniels can sell a fake.

Maybe Roger Goodell can hire Owen Daniels to sell Goodell to the general public then. 

e. Matt Cassel, 4 of 4 for 75 yards on the opening drive, without you-know-who.

Without David Yankey, who was inactive on Sunday?

l. Joe Theismann’s omniscience.
m. Which, of course, is tied into his Kirk-Cousins-would-win-the-job-in-an-open-competition comment from training camp. Cousins’ first three series of the season, in relief of RG3: 8 of 8, three touchdown drives.

This should be one letter in Peter's outline, first off. Second, it's been one game against the Jacksonville defense that is rebuilding. So let's keep some perspective before announcing Cousins would win the job in an open competition.

5. I think Ray Rice is not a perfect man. He was not good to Robert Klemko of The MMQB when Klemko, then with USA Today, asked Ray Lewis a question about the Atlanta murders a couple of years ago in the Ravens’ locker room. And “not good” is an understatement; Rice was rude and immature. But in all the calls I made and all the reporting I did on Rice in the last seven days, this is what interested me the most: A Baltimore teammate, a player who played more than a decade in the league, said, “He was the greatest teammate I ever had.” Ever? I mean, ever? “The front office could come to him and ask him to do something on off day and he’d do it. The coaching staff would come and tell him someone was screwing up in the locker room, and he’d try to help. Never was he selfish, on the field or in the locker room.”

6. I think that’s not meant to say, Hey, Ray Rice got railroaded. He didn’t. It’s meant to say, Let’s not lock Ray Rice up and throw away the key.

This should all be under #5, but I'm just repeating myself at this point on that issue. I don't think Rice should be locked up and have the key thrown away, but yes, let's not lock up Ray Rice and throw away the key using Peter's reasoning. After all, Rice was nice to his teammates and would do anything the coaching staff or front office wanted him to do, so that should be taken into account in this situation. While Peter asked the following question earlier (and rightfully I think):

My question: If Hardy were an average player, or a backup player, how slow to act would the Panthers have been? How long before they cut him, to rid themselves of the headline-causing headache?

He now is using the fact Ray Rice was a great teammate as a reason to not lock up and throw away the key. It's not fine for NFL teams to factor in whether a player is a great player and teammate when evaluating his suspension for being arrested, but when Peter King evaluates that player and how long he should be suspended it's perfectly fine for him to incorporate how good of a guy that player was in the locker room. Got it.

10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:

d. Four questions for college football-philes. One: Ohio State 66, Kent State 0. Hope you enjoyed that game, Buckeye fans. When will garbage games in early September get killed off by athletic directors?

Perhaps as soon as college football teams don't need the revenue from home games to run their program and quality teams are willing to come to Ohio State and play the Buckeyes. While no one enjoys watching a team get beaten up, it's not always easy to convince a good college football team to play a road game, thereby taking revenue away from a potential home game, against a very good football team. Two things college football programs don't like, losing games and losing revenue. An away football game against Ohio State could result in both for a quality college football team.

g. Four: Any logical reason why USC would lose at Boston College?

Because Boston College played a better game at home than USC played while on the road?

m. Things can only get better (I think), Allen Craig: 10 for 95 (.109) since the trade from Boston to St. Louis, with 24 strikeouts.

When did the Red Sox trade Allen Craig back to the Cardinals? I must have missed that trade.

p. Watched Philomena for the second time over the weekend. If you haven’t seen it, you must. It borders on my top 20 all time.

No Philip Seymour Hoffman? No top 20 movie.

q. Greatest movie of all time: North By Northwest.

How can a movie without Meryl Streep AND Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the two greatest actors of our generation be in the greatest movie of all-time? If U2 scored a movie with these two actors in it, Peter may have a heart attack simply out of excitement.

Philadelphia 23, Indianapolis 21. News Item of the Week That Got Absolutely No Attention: The 2013 NFL sack leader, Robert Mathis, suspended for the first four games of the season for a PED violation, will miss the entire year with a torn Achilles. That’s a huge blow to the Colts’ chances to win their division, particularly with the Texans rising and the Titans showing life.

There was no time to actually cover the NFL this week, because NFL writers were too busy moralizing and telling NFL teams what they should and should not be doing. Why cover the NFL or any major injuries like this if there's no hot sports take to be had?

The Adieu Haiku

NFL on fire.
Worst week I’ve seen for the league
in my 30 years.

This haiku was so informative to me. I can't wait until MMQB is about football again. Well, MMQB never really about football, but I can't wait until the parts that are about football (approximately 50% or so, depending on what the Quotes of the Week and Tweets of the Week are about) are about football again and not discussions about domestic violence.

0 comments Bob Nightengale Discusses Jhonny Peralta, Seems to Be Just an Excuse for More Teeth Gnashing Over PED Use; Goose Gossage Still a Hypocrite

We currently have 9 teams in our BotB Fantasy Baseball League and I'd like to have one more. If anyone wants to join then the ID is 69631 and the password is "eckstein." I'm holding off finalizing the league (the draft is tomorrow) for a few more hours until I see if we can get one more team.

When we last left the "Jhonny Peralta is a cheater" teeth gnashing, Mitch Albom was giving everyone a lecture about caring. Now Peralta has signed as a free agent with the St. Louis Cardinals, the modern day standard for "playing baseball the right way," and Bob Nightengale wants to talk about Peralta and the evolving relationship baseball has with PED users. In reality, it seems he wants to give retired players a chance to talk about what terrible cheating PED use is. What's interesting is Nightengale starts off the column showing Nelson Cruz as an example of a player hurt in free agency by PED use, but then goes on to talk about Jhonny Peralta is now making more money after his PED use in free agency. Bob tries to have it both ways and show how Cruz was hurt in free agency by PED use while showing how Peralta has benefited from his PED use. I'm not sure there is a right answer, but a good teeth gnashing session requires Nightengale only focus on the player (Peralta) helped by his PED use rather than focusing on Cruz, who seems to have been hurt slightly by his connection to PED's.

St. Louis Cardinals shortstop Jhonny Peralta, his eyes dancing, broke into an expansive grin hearing the news that his buddy finally got a job.

Tim Keown is frustrated upon hearing another foreigner has taken an American baseball job. 

Finally, free-agent slugger Nelson Cruz found a team, signing with the Baltimore Orioles on Monday and set to join his new team Tuesday, a week after their camp opened.

So here is an example of a PED user having difficulty finding a job (for a variety of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with PED's...which is an important point). Jhonny Peralta did not have trouble finding a job after getting caught having used PED's. It's so hard to write a narrative when there isn't a clear narrative to write.

I informed him Cruz received a one-year deal for $8 million.

Peralta slammed his eyes shut.

"Oh, no.''

Yes, that sounds hideous. Only $8 million on a one year deal. I wish I lived in a world where this was bad news. I get upset when a local restaurant raises prices by a dollar all across their menu or there aren't any beers on special.

Yep, only $8 million for the finest right-handed power-hitter on the free-agent market, just three months after turning turning down the Texas Rangers' $14.1 million qualifying offer.

It turned out to be a $6 million blunder.

What's weird is that the rest of this column is talking about how it's unfair for PED users to benefit from PED use, yet it's clear that Nelson Cruz was hurt by his link to PED's. So what gives? I know the focus is on Peralta, but when hearing ex-/current players complain about PED use benefiting players why is the fact Nelson Cruz didn't come close to getting the money he wanted on the free agent market and Rafael Palmeiro was essentially black-balled not mentioned? These are two players who clearly did not benefit fully from their PED use and suffered some sort of harm as a result. No team wanted to sign an old and cheating Palmeiro.

The first-round draft pick compensation proved to be a deterrent. So was his age, 33. There were those hamstring issues. His outfield defensive deficiencies.

It's almost like players shown to have used PED's are going to be judged like every other baseball player when it comes time for free agency.

And, of course, that cloud that hovered over him all winter: the 50-game suspension for the use of performance-enhancing drugs during his involvement with the infamous Biogenesis clinic in South Florida.

The bottom line is PED use will be factored in, but MLB teams are going to consider a player who has used PED's the same way they consider any other player...can that player provide a benefit to the team at a price that team finds acceptable? Players who are on a team with a PED user will support him, while players not on that player's team will be critical of him. It's just how it goes.

Cruz suddenly symbolizes baseball's drug policy at its finest. His involvement in the Biogenesis scandal and the resulting 50-game suspension likely cost him tens of millions of dollars in future earnings.

And Peralta has discovered that in some quarters, he symbolizes everything wrong with the system.

Again, maybe this is the result of MLB teams treating these PED users like they treat every other free agent. Cruz had injury concerns and first round compensation tied to him at a position where power can be found, while Peralta hits well for his position and didn't have injury concerns. Plus, the Cardinals play the game the right way, so that's the perfect spot for a cheater like Peralta.

If anything, this mix perhaps best captures the current state of baseball's ever-evolving relationship with the players it believes cheats the game.

Peralta, 31, returned from his suspension to help the Detroit Tigers in the playoffs. And then he received a four-year, $53 million contract.

The truth is that teams don't care about PED use and players only care about PED use when it's not one of their teammates who got caught using PED's. Otherwise, these players support their teammate.

That still eats at some veteran players.

Yea, teeth gnashing!

I completely get why players would be angry at other players for using PED's and then being rewarded. I do, but I also love some good teeth gnashing over PED use by ex-players like there wasn't a large amount of players using "greenies" and other amphetamines back in the 1970's.

"I'm a big believer that players are worth every dollar they get,'' Boston Red Sox outfielder Jonny Gomes told USA TODAY Sports. "You can't say that anybody is overpaid. But this is different.

"This is like if somebody was to rob a bank, eventually got caught, served five years in jail, got out, but still got to keep all the money.

Jonny Gomes is a member of the player's union. Get this changed. If enough players feel this way then the player's union should do something and say that if a player is found to have used PED's then he is prohibited from earning future money. Of course this opens up a number of issues, namely why wouldn't a player be allowed to continue playing baseball and getting paid for doing so if he has paid his penalty? Using Gomes' example, that's like saying because a person robbed a bank he/she can't ever have a job once the jail sentence has been served.

"That's how I compare it. And I like Peralta. I'm not mad at that guy. It's just that when a guy like (free agent shortstop) Stephen Drew is still at home, and this guy has that contract, it's a little tough.''

This is a good example of a non-PED player being treated like a player who has been proven to use PED's. Drew has injury issues, first round compensation and wants more money than some teams are willing to pay...just like Nelson Cruz. So I would submit that Cruz and Drew are being treated in similar fashion and isn't that what players like Jonny Gomes wants? He wants there to be an even playing field where a guy serves his penalty and then doesn't get a benefit from using PED's? Cruz took $6 million less after declining the same $14.1 qualifying offer that Stephen Drew declined. So perhaps Drew could find a job if he took $6 million less than the qualifying offer he declined.

So it's interesting to me that Gomes brings up Stephen Drew, because I find him to be comparable to Nelson Cruz (in terms of situation as a free agent) and as proof that players who have used PED's are treated like every other MLB player after their sentence is served. Maybe that's not right, but why should Jhonny Peralta suffer a larger penalty of losing his chance at earning a contract after his penalty has been served? After all, these are the punishments the player's union and the owners agreed upon.

New York Yankees Hall of Fame pitcher Goose Gossage told USA TODAY Sports: "It's a shame you get rewarded for cheating. There is no punishment. You get slapped on your wrist, you get suspended, and then you're wealthy beyond your wildest dreams.''

"Nothing pisses me off more than guys that cheat,'' Cleveland Indians pitcher David Aardsma tweeted, "and get raises for doing so."

Arizona Diamondbacks player-representative Brad Ziegler actually mockingly thanked the owners for "encouraging PED use,'' in his tweet, saying it's time to severely increase the penalties to eliminate the temptation of cheating.

I get it. I get the teeth gnashing. Unfortunately there is a lot of bitching going on and very little actual effort to provide a solution other than, "Take their money and don't let them make money ever again." It would be easier to take Gossage, Aardsma and Ziegler seriously if they had a real solution to this issue rather than complaints that someone else needs to think of a solution. Simply stating these players can't ever make money again essentially means these PED users are banned for life from baseball and that's not at all the penalty agreed upon in the CBA. Also, I don't recall David Aardsma telling Barry Bonds he is pissed off that he was cheating back when he played with Bonds in 2004. I'm sure Aardsma had NO CLUE Bonds was using PED's.

He lost $1.85 million during his suspension, and most important, he says, the game of baseball was taken from him.

Still, after earning $6 million in the final year of his three-year, $16.75 million deal with the Detroit Tigers, Peralta more than tripled his contract with the Cardinals.

What's wrong with Peralta accepting a contract he's offered? Blame the system and the teams. The same system that the current players agreed to, of course.

Peralta has always been well-liked by his teammates. New York Yankees ace CC Sabathia, who played with him in Cleveland, calls him one of his favorites. Detroit Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter and first baseman Miguel Cabrera consider him one of the game's gentlemen.

As always, it's easier to point a finger and get angry at a player who isn't on your team.

Peralta said he was actually thinking of appealing his suspension. He knew that if he lost the appeal, he would be facing a 100-game suspension, but he didn't want to let down his teammates.

The decision became easy July 30. It was the day the Tigers acquired shortstop Jose Iglesias, preparing for Peralta's suspension.

And we know if Peralta had appealed the suspension then he would have been treated as a pariah just like A-Rod, right?

Peralta returned from his suspension in time for the final series of the season, playing left field. He hit .417 in the Tigers' Division Series victory over the Oakland A's, and found himself coveted during the winter as if Biogenesis was nothing more than a herbal store. He was negotiating with the New York Yankees and Mets, he said, before the Cardinals lured him with their $53 million deal.

It's the Cardinals money. If they want to spend it on Jhonny Peralta, let them. What I also find interesting is these ex-/current players talk about Peralta benefiting from his PED use, but they are assuming his statistics with the Tigers were a result of using PED's and not Peralta's natural talent. I have a few thoughts on this issue that I think guys like Zeigler, Aardsma, and Gossage are neglecting to consider:

1. If Peralta's performance was based solely on his use of PED's then Peralta may benefit from his free agent deal, but the Cardinals are not going to benefit. So the Cardinals may be taking on a lot of risk by paying a player who used PED's to enhance his performance to such a lucrative deal. Again, it's their money and their risk.

2. If Peralta's performance wasn't solely based on his use of PED's then $53 million may be the fair market value for his services and he hasn't benefited from using PED's.

3. These positions aren't totally mutually exclusive, but these ex-/current players can't complain that Peralta is benefiting from his PED use while also complaining the Cardinals will benefit from signing a player who has used PED's. Either the PED's helped Peralta play better or they didn't. If Peralta is a fraud and won't be at the talent level from when he used PED's then the Cardinals are going to be stuck with an underperforming shortstop who is expensive. If Peralta isn't a fraud and he still is at his form when he used PED's then $53 million could be his fair market value and he hasn't robbed a bank or gotten a raise for using PED's.

So the position that Peralta is stealing money also assumes the Cardinals will pay negatively for signing Peralta. So why be angry with the Cardinals if they just took on an expensive, underachieving player? They got played for fools in that situation. Just like the position that Peralta is stealing money isn't an accurate point of view if Peralta continues to play at a high level.

"It's B.S. I don't understand why teams even sign these guys,'' Gossage says. "These GMs get so desperate, they don't care. They wish everybody was on them (PEDs) so they can perform better.

You mean these GM's want to re-visit the 1970's? Again, if the assumption is that Peralta was on PED's and got a big contract because of this, then there also should be an assumption of a decline in performance. So the Cardinals won't benefit from Peralta's great performance and Gossage shouldn't be angry with them.

"I know you can't come out and publicly say you can't sign these guys, but I wouldn't want them on my team. Back in the day, if you did something like that, nobody would sign you. You'd go back home and dig a ditch.''

Funny, I don't remember Mike Schmidt, Willie Mays, Dale Berra, Hank Aaron, or (WAIT, WHAT IS THIS?) Goose Gossage digging ditches after quitting baseball.

Read those comments by Tom House...but I'm sure he's lying, right?

But no, the better part is Goose Gossage says taking "greenies" isn't cheating. Oh okay, I guess if you claim it isn't cheating then that means it's true. I remember that time I got caught with beer in my car in high school and I insisted that Coors Light isn't beer. The principal just laughed, opened up a cold one with me and then we began to search the school for kids smoking in the bathroom.

Said Cardinals GM John Mozeliak: "Uh, that would be collusion. You can't set legislation. You can only follow it.

"There is a penalty. He paid for it. Can you imagine if he was still unsigned? The players association would go nuts.''

But no, but no, the players want stiffer penalties for PED users and collusion against PED users. They just forgot to mention in the CBA and haven't thought to seriously propose this. It's not like the players want it both ways or anything. They don't want stiffer penalties and PED users to be blackballed on the free agent market, while criticizing owners for colluding against certain players.

"I'm surprised there were players that didn't want him signed,'' DeWitt said. "I don't think you want to exclude yourself from a category of players who have ever done anything wrong. It wasn't like there weren't a lot of bidders out there. He fit a need that we had.

Yeah, but collusion is okay in certain circumstances. And also, Peralta should have been prevented from earning a free agent contract, but this is totally different from a lifetime ban for the first PED offense of course. Peralta can still play in the majors, he just can't make money and benefit from his PED use. So Peralta doesn't benefit, he'll just play for free over the rest of his career and have the earnings he made while on PED's taken away. So while the player's union would freak out over a lifetime ban on the first positive test for PED's, this is essentially what these ex-/current players are suggesting.

"I think he's going to fit in real well here,'' says Cardinals veteran outfielder Matt Holliday, a vocal critic of players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs. "There is a penalty for it. And he paid his penalty. He took it like a man. That's the rule.

Everyone is a critic until they have to be in a locker room with a player who has used PED's. At that point, the player has done his time already and we should all move on.

Miami Marlins infielder Rafael Furcal, who spent the past two years with the Cardinals, actually helped persuade Peralta to sign with the Cardinals. He told them he'd not only be accepted by the fans, but may not hear a negative response all season.

"It's St. Louis, man,'' Furcal said. "They have the best fans in the world. They never boo people.

I like how one team's fans being "the best fans in the world" can be seen as another team's fans cheering for a group of players who are cheaters. I guess it all depends on the perspective.

"A-Rod and Braun were more involved,'' Peralta said. "There's more attention on them. They tried to fight. They tried to be tough. But people didn't like what they say.

"We'll see how people react once they see me. They'll see what kind of person I am.

"Hopefully, they will forgive me.''

I think there is a better chance of the fans forgiving Peralta than there is of ex-/current players who live in a world of their own hypocrisy of forgiving players who have used PED's. Ex-players like Goose Gossage live in a world where they think "greenies" aren't PED's and aren't cheating, while current players want stricter penalties and the owners to collude with each other to prevent PED users from earning money playing baseball again...except that's not what these players want at all. They support a lifetime ban on the first positive test for PED's, they just don't want that player to earn money in the past or future from having used PED's too. Because that's so different from a lifetime ban.

6 comments It's Not Like the MLB Playoffs Are Going On or Anything, So Christine Brennan Keeps Talking about Steroids

On the eve of the Detroit Tigers ALDS series against the Oakland Athletics, Christine Brennan wasn't really concerned with analyzing the series, talking about how the Athletics made the playoffs yet again, discussing how the Tigers made the playoffs yet again or comparing the A's payroll to the Tigers payroll. Hell no. She wanted to talk about what she loves to talk about and that's steroids and PED's. She wants to throw Ryan Braun out of baseball, doesn't like A-Rod for being a snitch, and thinks PED users should not make the All-Star game. Brennan also has a bizarre fascination with comparing MLB's drug policy to the Olympic drug policy. I guess that's really her best example to make her case that MLB has a weak drug policy, since if she compared MLB's drug policy to other major sports like the NBA and NFL then this would help her readers understand that MLB isn't perfect in regard to steroid testing, but at least they have a strong policy that has identified the issue of PED use in the sport of baseball. And really, it's all about making her point look strong as opposed to giving the reader information that doesn't fit the agenda Brennan may have. So Christine Brennan thinks the Tigers should not have allowed Jhonny Peralta to participate in the playoffs. Personally, I'm more annoyed by the way Peralta spells "Jhonny" because I am constantly misspelling it and then having to spend precious seconds correcting myself.

Jhonny Peralta deserves nothing but scorn from the Detroit Tigers and their fans. He is a cheater, a title that will follow him for the rest of his career.

Thanks Mitch Albom. We will be sure to make a note about your moral grandstanding.

"Ah! Steroids are bad! What about the kids? Steroids make kids use guns and listen to rap music. Ban it all!"

If Major League Baseball had the tough drug-testing policy it should have, Peralta would have been suspended for a year or two, not just 50 games,

I think MLB could probably tighten their drug policy a bit, but I don't get the idea the current policy isn't the one MLB "should have." Compared to what? The Olympics? I'm speculating the Olympics have such a strict drug policy because it's an international competition where different countries would normally hold their athletes to a different standard as compared to other countries. Some countries would be lenient in drug testing, others would not, so the IOC has a strict policy that doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

If any other sports have a stricter drug-testing policy then it should be the NBA and the NFL. If Peralta were a first-time offender in the NFL then he would miss four games, which is 25% of the season. Peralta as a first-time offender in MLB missed 30.8% of the season. So MLB's drug policy could be strengthened but it's not like they are just letting first-time offenders off the hook with a slap on the back and promise not to do it ever again.

But because MLB hasn't yet caught up with the Olympic drug testing model of two years for the first offense and a lifetime ban for the second,

I'm not entirely sure why MLB needs to catch up with the Olympic model. It's not like they are comparable entities. One is an international organization that polices hundreds of countries who may send amateur athletes to compete in athletic events once every four years and the other is a professional baseball league that polices 30 teams that encompass two countries. Besides, the Olympic drug testing model of two years for the first offense means a first offender of the drug policy may miss zero Olympic action. At least if an MLB player is a first-time offender he misses actual MLB games with a 50 game suspension.

He played in three games at the end of the regular season, leaving the Tigers with a fitting moral dilemma for their American League Division Series starting Friday in Oakland: eschew all responsibility as leaders in the community and use him in the playoffs,

Okay, drama queen. Let's take a step back and not get all on our high horse's high horse. Allowing Jhonny Peralta to play in the playoffs after he has served his penalty for PED use isn't eschewing all responsibility as a leader in the community. Regardless of whether Christine Brennan likes the penalty for a first time offense of the MLB drug policy, Peralta has done his time. I may not like the length of the penalty that a ex-con received for his crime of committing fraud, but it's silly of me to claim anybody who offers this ex-con a job is eschewing all responsibility as leaders in the community. I do realize sportswriters love being the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to PED's, but I think it's this type of attitude that must stop.

or follow the admirable example of the San Francisco Giants last year in the Melky Cabrera case and do the right thing – keep Peralta out of the postseason, likely ending his days in Detroit.

Oh ok, this is the right thing. Got it. Acknowledging that Peralta has done his time and allowing him to play in the playoffs after serving his suspension isn't the right thing to do. Glad this is a fact and not merely an opinion.

They brought in Jose Iglesias to replace him at shortstop, but they want his bat in the lineup – Peralta hit .303 with 11 home runs and 55 RBIs in 107 games this season – so it appears they're making a place for him in left field, where Peralta is not known as a top-flight defensive player.

I like how Christine Brennan includes the comment "where Peralta is not known as a top-flight defensive player" as if the Tigers are allowing Peralta to play at the expense of the Tigers team as a whole. She wants to make it seem like the Tigers are such terrible leaders of the community they would actually hurt the franchise's chances of winning the World Series to get a cheating, PED-using Peralta into the lineup.

The Tigers not only will allow Peralta play in the ALDS, but they will allow Peralta to play at the expense of the team's chances to win a playoff series. The Tigers love steroids more than they love their fans.

"If you accept that bat, then you'd be willing to accept what happens in left field," Tigers manager Jim Leyland said the other day.

This appeared to work out well for the Red Sox when they had Manny Ramirez in left field. Not that Peralta is Manny Ramirez of course. Peralta has only been busted for using PED's once in his career, not twice.

But there are others in the Tigers organization who should know better, who should realize that this decision should be about much more than baseball strategy.

It's about the kids. It's about morality. It's about the fate of the world---no---the fate of humanity on all worlds. If Jhonny Peralta plays left field for the Tigers how will Madam Zersatas on Planet Volto explain it to her 76 young geezellos?

It's a referendum, frankly, on just how serious Major League clubs really are about cleaning up their sport's very serious steroid problem.

No, it's not. How the Tigers treat Jhonny Peralta is no more a referendum on how serious Major League clubs really are about cleaning up the sport's very serious steroid problem (I love the drama in this sentence...Christine Brennan takes PED use VERY seriously) any more than how the Giants handled Melky Cabrera was a referendum on how serious Major League clubs really are about cleaning up the sport. It's all up to each individual team and how each individual team treats a PED user who has served his suspension only speaks for the opinion of that team.

Using the Tigers as our test case, presuming they play Peralta, we have our answer: Not very. They are nowhere near ready to do what they really must to rid their sport of performance-enhancing drugs.

I'll play Brennan's wicked little game. So if the Tigers did sit Peralta would that show MLB teams are ready to get rid of PED's in the game? Would it? Or would it only show the Tigers are going to continue to punish Peralta despite having served his time? Christine Brennan can't truly believe other MLB teams would follow the lead of the Tigers by sitting their players who are suspended for PED use. Why didn't the Giants benching of Cabrera last year show that MLB teams are ready to get serious about PED's in the sport? After all, if teams could set an example, then the Giants have set an example already with Melky Cabrera. I guess that lesson didn't take...assuming one MLB team can influence other MLB teams like Christine Brennan so naively believes.

A 50-game suspension here and there just won't cut it. That's the Olympic equivalent of stripping Ben Johnson's 100-meter gold medal at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but allowing him to run in the men's 4x100-meter relay a week later. 

It's not really like that at all. It's like stripping Ben Johnson of his gold medal and not allowing him to run in any men's events for 50 more races.

It would have been unthinkable, even then, in the Olympic world.

Not at all. If Ben Johnson got caught after the Olympics were over then he would be banned for two years and then could participate in the next Olympics if he qualified. Christine Brennan just stated first-time Olympic drug policy offenders get a two year ban and the Olympics happen every four years. So..........it's not entirely unthinkable that an Olympian could be busted for violating the IOC drug policy and then not miss any following Olympic event.

To make a strong statement to your team and to the young people watching it play,

I knew it would eventually all come back around to "the kids." It always does whenever a sanctimonious sportswriter starts discussing PED use in baseball.

a club has to take away meaningful things from cheating players.

It's not the club's job to take meaningful things away from cheating players. It's the job of MLB to do this based on the drug policy agreement between MLB and the player's union. MLB is responsible for suspending these players and MLB teams have no obligation to take away something meaningful from cheating players as if these players were children who need their blocks taken away for being bad.

Clearly, the Tigers have no inclination to do that, which is all the more disappointing because they were given the perfect primer on this subject last year by the Giants, who, ironically, ended up beating them in the World Series.

It's interesting how the positive message sent by the Giants last year had no effect on other MLB teams to suspend first-time PED users for the playoffs, but Christine Brennan is under the impression if the Tigers sent a positive message this year then all MLB teams would reconsider their sinful ways and get back to being the good leaders in the community she knows they can be. It's very naive to think MLB teams aren't going to do what is best for the team.

As important as Peralta is to the Tigers this year, Cabrera was more important to the Giants last year.

Hmmm...the snide part of me says "obviously not" since the Giants won the World Series without Cabrera and the logical part of me says an All-Star shortstop is worth more than an All-Star outfielder...but that may just be me.

Sadly, the Tigers have bungled the Peralta situation from the beginning. The day that he was suspended, Leyland of course was asked about him. Instead of taking the opportunity to talk to kids about cheating, 

Enough of this crap about how it's hurting the kids and how Jim Leyland has an obligation to give a lecture about the dangers of steroid use. Leyland is the manager of the Detroit Tigers, not the overseer of all things moral in baseball. He doesn't have the time or the obligation to perform a public service announcement because one of his players was busted for using PED's.

or mention the dangers of PEDs, or offer any worthwhile thoughts at all, Leyland replied, "See ya guys. You were told I wasn't going to comment on that," and his pre-game news conference was over in less than 90 seconds.

Leyland had already stated he wasn't going to comment on that. Yet these sportswriters insisted on asking him the question. What do they think Leyland is? Why the hell would he talk to kids about the dangers of cheating or mention the dangers of PED's at one of his press conferences prior to a game?

Based on that performance, it's no surprise that the mistakes keep on coming in Detroit.

Get off your soapbox. Peralta did his time and now he is eligible to play baseball again for the Tigers. The Tigers have chosen to allow him to participate in the ALDS. This doesn't mean the Tigers promote the use of steroids or they don't care about "the kids." It simply means they understand Peralta did his time for a first-time offense of the MLB drug policy and will allow him to participate in the ALDS.

I also find it continually hilarious that sportswriters like Christine Brennan act like MLB's drug policy fosters a system of cheaters who escape punishment for using PED's. MLB's drug policy for first-time offenders is stronger than the drug policy of any other major sport in the United States.