http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=bryant_howard&id=2986420

This is wrong in about every way, in my opinion. The correct stance for the union to take is to pick and choose its battles with the owners and the NFL, not to defend every convicted felon in the league.

Part of his argument is absolutely facile- look at baseball, basketball, and football, he says. But am I missing something? Haven't all three of those leagues suffered mightily at some point in the past 15 years primarily because of the adversarial stance between players and owners. Meanwhile, football has successfully expanded to 32 teams (whereas at least two of the other three leagues are seriously considering contraction) and the money thrown at both rookies and free agents has grown mightily. Today, the most significant behind the scenes issues in the NFL are intra-union (what to do about ex-players) and intra-owners (revenue sharing), and the state of the NFL has been never better. Why start to piss all that away over a soon-to-be convicted felon? Why not save your battles for more worthy players?

_________________
Fire Phil Emery