The last we heard of former first-round Vikings pick Erasmus James, the defensive end was indefinitely suspended by the NFL.

After an arrest Thursday morning, consider James' suspension, um, more indefinite. 

James was arrested for punching a "friend" in the face.  Authorities say it happened after James tried to order a drink after closing time at a bar near the University of Wisconsin, where James went to college. 

If James was a senior without a budding NFL career, this could make for a funny story.  When you are That Guy still reliving college glory while your NFL career is on life support, it's a little sad.

James was last with the Redskins, who cut him after acquiring him via trade from the Vikings.  This incident may finish James' chances of getting back in the league if that indefinite suspension ever finds an end.

The Cleveland Browns were bizarrely silent for most of Monday night, as rumors and reports of the departure of G.M. George Kokinis spread like H1N1 in a house of ill repute.

And now, amid reports that Kokinis was fired not just because the team is terrible but "with cause," the Browns are likewise saying mostly nothing.

But they're saying just enough to create an environment in which speculation is certain to occur, especially in the wake of the abrupt termination of Erin O'Brien only days before Kokinis was fired.

Browns owner Randy Lerner has complicated the situation dramatically, in our opinion, by answering a long list of questions from Tony Grossi of the Cleveland Plain Dealer by e-mail.

Asked specifically to elaborate on the reasons for Kokinis' presumed "with cause" departure, Lerner said, "We are not at liberty to discuss the details of George's departure at this time."

That response, standing alone, implies to us that the team thinks Kokinis did something pretty bad.  We'd be willing to give them a pass on this, however, because Lerner had to say something in response to the question.  (That said, "We cannot comment on the matter at the present time" would have been even better.)

But the "next question"-style response from Lerner came after he defended the timing of the move by saying this:  "My justification for the recent change is that circumstances dictated the action taken and I can assure you they were unforeseen."

OK, now the message is clear.  The Browns are saying that Kokinis did something he shouldn't have done, without specifically saying that he did something he shouldn't have done.  And we believe it's not fair to Kokinis to drop vague hints that will prompt people to wildly guess at possible reasons that likely are far worse than the worst reality the Browns could conjure.

By all indications and based on everything we've ever heard, Kokinis is a good and honorable man whose biggest mistake was to believe that a contract giving him final say over the Cleveland roster meant what it said.  In eight-plus years of running this site, we've never heard a bad thing about Kokinis -- and we've heard plenty of bad things about plenty of other coaches and personnel executives.  

Though we're not saying that Lerner should roll out the overhead projector and engage in a two-hour Davis-Kiffin rant regarding Kokinis, we believe that, if the Browns believe Kokinis did something to justify a termination with cause, the Browns need to say what it is, or they need to say absolutely nothing at all about the matter.

Our guess?  The Browns are deliberately dancing around the edges of the situation in the hopes of squeezing Kokinis into accepting a settlement of his contract.  If the truth is that Kokinis was made merely to be the scapegoat for coach Eric Mangini and that the Browns are now trying to trump up a case for a "with cause" termination in the hopes that Kokinis will take 50 cents on the dollar as to what he otherwise would have earned, we hope that Kokinis sticks to his guns and fights this thing hard.
 

The case against the man accused of firing bullets into former Jaguars offensive lineman Richard Collier has gone to the jury.

The six-person panel currently is deliberating whether prosecutors sufficiently proved that Tyrone Hartsfield pulled the trigger.  Fourteen times.

"He was 26 years old, when he was brutally gunned down," prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told the jurors, per the Associated Press.  "He lost everything that he dreamed and struggled to accomplish.  Mr. Collier will no longer be able to make a living as a football player."

Hartsfield testified in the trial, a risky move that usually doesn't end well for the defendant in a criminal case.

"The quality of the state's evidence in this case is unbelievable and I would say pathetic," said lawyer Ann Finnell in her closing argument.

Collier had beaten out Khalif Barnes for the starting left tackle position entering the 2008 season.  The shooting paralyzed Collier from the waist down.  Eventually, one of his legs was amputated.

As the Raiders and the NFL embark on the inherently delicate process of determining the best course of action in the wake of allegations of domestic violence against coach Tom Cable, the National Organization for Women has chimed in.

"Tom Cable's history of violence against women raises a question:  why is he still the head coach of an NFL team?"  Terry O'Neill, the President of NOW, told USA Today.  "Mr. Cable admits having battered his first wife, and he stands accused of battering two other intimate partners as well.  As a survivor of domestic violence, I know that women do not make such accusations lightly.  Indeed, women have much more to lose than to gain by coming forward to tell their stories.

"The Oakland Raiders, properly, say they are undergoing a 'serious evaluation' of these recent allegations.  At the very least he should be suspended during this process. . . .  A man who has admitted battering his wife has no business being a role model for all of us who would like to be able to look up to the head coach of an NFL football team."

Though the problem of domestic violence is very real and should not be minimized, the fact that the incident to which Cable has admitted occurred more than two decades ago gives us some concern.  . 

So the NFL faces a difficult dilemma in this case.  Given that Cable has struggled as a head coach and in light of the fact that defensive assistant Randy Hanson emerged from an August meeting with a broken jaw, it makes sense for the Raiders to sever ties with Cable in light of the totality of the circumstances.

A far thornier dilemma will arise if/when an NFL head coach with no history of assault allegations and a solid won-loss record faces outdated but meritorious claims of domestic violence.  Cable surely isn't the only NFL head coach who ever has snapped under the stress of a job premised in large part on physicality.  Indeed, we're surprised in hindsight that similar claims haven't previously been made against other NFL head coaches.

Now that multiple women have gone on the record regarding Cable, we wonder whether any of the former wives and girlfriends of other NFL coaches will do the same.

Chargers wide receiver Vincent Jackson was arrested for drunk driving in January, and his case has been held up since by a request to throw away the blood-alcohol evidence against him.

A judge rejected that request and Jackson's appeal to that ruling was recently thrown out as "premature" according to the San Diego-Union Tribune.

The upshot is that all of the delays should extend the case past this NFL season.  "I'm just going to continue it until after the season is over," Jackson's attorney Cole Casey said. "Then we'll decide from a legal standpoint what to do from there."

Jackson will have to deal with the arrest eventually, but he's having a career year on the field.  He's among the top five in the league in receiving yards (664) and yards per catch (17.9).

Under the terms of the old collective bargaining agreement, Jackson was set to hit unrestricted free agency in 2010.

The Harrah's employee that has accused Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault has resigned from her position at the casino, according to multiple sources.

The woman was not forced out from her job, but she resigned reluctantly after returning to work. 

We've previously reported on the accuser's attempt to sue Harrah's as part of her pending legal claims. 

It is not surprising then that the accuser felt like a pariah while still employed at the casino.  The uncomfortable environment apparently led to her resignation.  As one source with knowledge of the situation told us, "She quit when she couldn't get any colleagues to sign on with her and they began to avoid her."

It appears that a trial could still be coming despite some clear problems with the accuser's case.

Usually, captains of private industry who are dragged before Congress prefer that the nation's primary lawmaking body refrain from sticking its nose into the private industry's business.

This time around, the NFL is applying a much different approach.  The NFL is asking Congress to pass a law that will close a glaring loophole in the league's substance-abuse policy and testing program, due to drug-testing statutes in states like Minnesota.

In a transcript of the remarks that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will make to a Congressional committee exploring the StarCaps litigation, which has enabled multiple Vikings and Saints players to avoid four-game suspensions after testing positive for a banned substance, Goodell advocates "narrow and specific legislation that would confirm the primacy of federal labor law and respect agreements on this important subject."

We agree.  As we pointed out several days ago, "By passing a narrow law declaring that the terms of a collectively-bargained drug-testing program applicable to businesses operating in interstate commerce preempt any state laws that might otherwise apply, the loophole would be forever closed."

Our only regret is that the NFL continues to overplay its hand in this regard, incorrectly blaming the union for supporting a lawsuit that the union was compelled to support. 

As the league would have Congress -- and anyone else who cares -- believe it, the NFLPA betrayed the league by assisting the efforts of the members who faced suspension based on the consumption of StarCaps, an over-the-counter supplement that had been secretly spiked with a banned substance.  But the evidence in this case supports a finding that the league knew that StarCaps had been spiked with a prescription drug, that the league knew players had been taken StarCaps, and that the league issued no specific warning to the players that taking StarCaps could be hazardous to their careers -- and more importantly to their health.

As we've said many times in the past, the fact that the the internal appeal process tilts so heavily toward the league forced the union to help its members.  Failure to do so could have resulted in a potentially viable lawsuit for breach of the duty of fair representation.

So our preference would be for the league to take a big step back from the legal niceties of the case, acknowledge that the league's information regarding the truth about StarCaps should have been specifically shared with the union, and realize that the NFLPA's role in the matter didn't amount to slapping the league in the face with a white glove.

The union was merely doing its job.

If the league can't or won't accept that, then maybe we all really should be making alternative plans for the months of September 2011 through early February of 2012.  Indeed, if the league and the union can't get on the same page regarding such a basic concept, they'll never be able to hammer out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

As the reports continue to surface that George Kokinis is no longer the General Manager of the Cleveland Browns -- and as the Cleveland Browns continue to say nothing about the situation -- Jay Glazer of FOX cites an unnamed source who says that Kokinis was fired "with cause."

In other words, the Browns plan to stop paying Kokinis, and to not honor the balance of his contract.

The basis for the "with cause" designation isn't known.  Typically, NFL coaching and executive contracts contain specific language that would justify a termination of the agreement "with cause."

Kokinis will be permitted to file a grievance over the "with cause" determination.  Typically, however, the contracts include a term authorizing the Commissioner to resolve any dispute, with no right of appeal.

Naturally, it's the most favorable forum possible for the franchises, since the Commissioner is employed not by the players, but by the teams.

We're not suggesting that the Commissioner isn't fair in such situations.  But fairness is an objective concept shaped by the subjective biases and prejudices of the person who hopes to display fairness.  Every man and woman who has ever donned a black robe and used a gavel to open walnuts is subject to that same human reality.

That said, the Browns will need something more substantive and tangible than general allegations of poor performance.

The Oakland Raiders have issued a statement regarding the recent allegations of past domestic violence made against Raiders coach Tom Cable by a former wife and a former girlfriend.

"Over the last few days, we learned of the allegations made against Coach Cable and we are, of course, aware of his response thereto," the statement says.  "In conjunction with the League office, we will undertake a serious evaluation of this matter.

"We wish to be clear that we do not in any way condone or accept actions such as those alleged."

The statement also seems to imply that the Raiders are willing to take strong action against Cable, if the team determines that strong action is warranted. 

"There have been occasions on which we have dismissed Raider employees for having engaged in inappropriate conduct," the statement reads.  "For reasons of privacy, we kept the basis for those dismissals confidential.  We endured public opprobrium for the dismissals, all the while knowing our basis for them was appropriate."

The team apparently is referring to dismissals other than the dismissal of former coach Lane Kiffin, who was fired very publicly, with detailed reasons provided by owner Al Davis.

By the way, "opprobrium" is "public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious." 

I know this because I looked it up.

I looked it up because I had no idea what it meant.

And it's too damn bad I took the SAT 27 years ago.

On the same day that the Raiders issued a response to the recent allegations made regarding coach Tom Cable (more on that to come), the Raiders also took aim at ESPN for its role in providing a public platform for two women who claim that Raiders head coach Tom Cable committed violence against them.

"ESPN's role in this matter must be carefully examined," the Raiders said in a statement released within the past half hour.  "ESPN routinely disseminates falsehoods about the Raiders.  During the last year, ESPN (working with someone who was in this organization) engaged in a calculated effort to distort the truth about the Raiders, utilizing lies and innuendo."

The statement does not specific the former employee with whom the Raiders contend ESPN has been collaborating.

Last year, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported that controlling interest in the Raiders was available for sale, without giving the Raiders a chance to respond.

"The Raiders have lost the privilege with me of running stories past them for comment," Mort said at the time.  "This stems from their history of denials to most stories I have reported -- as well as others in the media -- when those stories have eventually proven to be true." 

Mortensen later admitted that he was wrong not to check with the team, and he apologized to the Raiders.

We're aware of no other specific incidents between ESPN and the Raiders.        

The good news for ESPN is that the Raiders have not yet reiterated the charge that NFL insider Adam Schefter is a "false rumor monger."

But it's still early in the evening.

ESPN continues to hammer away regarding allegations that Raiders coach Tom Cable committed violence against a former wife and a former girlfriend.  (We wonder what ESPN would be doing if the story was that Cable had sexual relations with female coworkers?)

Though the situation already has melted into a sea of conflicting statements and Colleen Dominguez reporting live from Raiders headquarters that . . . there's . . . nothing . . . new . . . to . . . report, the NFL has a real problem.

As we pointed out last week in an item for SportingNews.com, the league office already has fostered the perception of a double standard by not investigating the events resulting in Raiders defensive assistant Randy Hanson emerging from a meeting not with a list of things to do but a broken jaw.  Now, on the heels of a massive effort by the league to support breast cancer awareness in October, the league has been confronted with a situation suggesting anything but sensitivity to issues affecting the fairer sex.

We're a bit surprised that reports of domestic violence have not previously arisen as to other coaches.  The job is inherently stressful, the sport is premised on pushing and shoving and hitting, and households with a husband who is rarely around for seven months of the year can be incubators for resentment, infidelity, and strain.  Frankly, we're wondering who'll be the next NFL coach to face such allegations if/when ESPN or someone else catches wind of self-serving statements in divorce papers or he said/she said allegations based on claims that the football coach acted like one of the many football players who get in trouble for committing violent acts against the women in their lives.

As to Cable, the fact that two different woman are making the claims enhances the credibility of each of them.  One could be explained away as a case of "hell hath no fury"; two or more suggests that a more careful review is necessary.

Meanwhile, the statement Cable issued Sunday morning suggested that he did not receive an opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the Outside The Lines report.  It appears, however, that Cable received an opportunity to respond to at least some of the charges.

Then again, it's not clear whether Cable had a chance to respond to everything -- or whether ESPN used everything that Cable, through his lawyer, supplied.  We had major concerns regarding the extent to which ESPN handled evidence that tended to exonerate Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall on charges of roughing up a former girlfriend; at this point, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that the reporting in the present case entailed similar flaws.

But none of this changes the fact that the NFL needs to do something about Cable.  Despite the possibility that the NFL has handled Cable gingerly for fear that the Raiders will react negatively -- and publicly -- to any effort to punish the head coach, the time has come for a confrontation between the NFL and Raiders owner Al Davis regarding a string of incidents that has made the league and the other 31 member franchises look bad.

With fresh allegations of domestic abuse being made against Raiders coach Tom Cable, Peter King of NBC predicts that Cable will be required to undergo an evaluation and/or counseling after the 2009 season ends.

King cited this key portion of the Personal Conduct Policy during Football Night In America:  "Apart from any disciplinary action, persons arrested, charged or otherwise appearing to have engaged in conduct prohibited under this policy will be required to undergo a formal clinical evaluation."

The breadth of the phrase "arrested, charged or otherwise appearing to have engaged" in prohibited conduct could encompass the claims made against Cable either by multiple women or defensive assistant Randy Hanson.

Then again, Cable would contend that the only time he has laid hands on a woman came 20 years ago, when he wasn't an NFL employee.  As to Hanson, Cable would claim that he has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Regardless, neither the Raiders nor the league can continue to ignore the smoke surrounding Cable.  Maybe there's no fire at all -- but it would be reckless for Cable's employer to continue to rest its head in a sandy hole.

As the love-fest in Denver continues (it could be in jeopardy today in Baltimore), the Broncos and receiver Brandon Marshall have worked out one of their past differences.

Per Jay Glazer of FOX, the Broncos have agreed to rescind fines imposed on Marshall and actually return previously collected money.

Glazer reports that roughly $73,000 was involved.

The specific calculation of that amount isn't clear.  Marshall exposed himself to roughly $35,000 in fines by skipping a mandatory minicamp during the offseason, and other fines likely were imposed as a result of Marshall's behavior at practice, which triggered an August suspension for conduct detrimental to the team.

Marshall is in the last year of his rookie contract.  So the next transaction between player and team could involve the franchise giving Marshall a lot more than $73,000 of his own money.

Raiders coach Tom Cable has issued a statement in response to ESPN's Outside The Lines report regarding allegations that Cable had committed violence against a former wife and a former girlfriend.

"On only one occasion in my life have I ever touched a woman inappropriately," Cable said in a statement read on the air by ESPN SportsCenter anchor Bob Ley.  "More than 20 years ago, during my first marriage, I became aware that my wife, Sandy, has committed adultery.  I became very angry and slapped her with an open hand.  What I did was wrong, and I have regretted and felt sorrow about that moment ever since. . . . 

"The incident involving Ms. Lutz in which she came to my home uninvited was fully investigated by the Alameda police department and I cooperated fully with that investigation.  I never battered her in any way.  The police concluded correctly that I had done nothing wrong and that was the end of the matter.  It is most unfortunate that ESPN has given Miss Lutz this forum to revisit this incident when I did nothing wrong and . . . ESPN further chose not to provide me with an appropriate opportunity to respond."

The allegation in the last sentence is significant.  If true, ESPN failed to follow one of the primary principles of investigative journalism -- giving the subject of damaging allegations a chance to tell his side of the story. 

The alleged failure of ESPN to give Cable an appropriate chance to respond becomes even more curious in light of the specific history between the Raiders and ESPN.  Last year, Chris Mortensen admitted that he failed to seek a comment from the Raiders regarding a story relating to the potential sale of controlling interest in the team. 

"The Raiders have lost the privilege with me of running stories past them for comment," Mort said at the time.  "This stems from their history of denials to most stories I have reported -- as well as others in the media -- when those stories have eventually proven to be true."  Mortensen later admitted that he was wrong, and he apologized to the Raiders.        

Meanwhile, Mort now reports that the league will soon issue a statement soon regarding the situation.  In the statement, the league will commit to reviewing the allegations to determine whether Cable has committed any violations of the Personal Conduct Policy.

As Mort points out, Goodell still hasn't spoken to Cable regarding the allegations made by Raiders defensive assistant Randy Hanson.  Mort assumes that Goodell hasn't spoken to Cable because he has been cleared by authorities of any criminal responsibility.

Still, and as we've pointed out a few times, the fact that Cable won't face criminal punishment doesn't mean he didn't do something to result in the fracturing of Hanson's jaw, and we continued to be astounded by the fact that the league has, by all appearances, failed to conduct its own thorough, in-person investigation of the situation.

Whenever the U.S. Congress decides to sniff around the backyard of a specific private industry, a common refrain is this.

"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"

Given the whole health care thing and the war in Afghanistan and the economy in the crapper, it's not a bad point.

But, still, Congress spent time this week pondering brain injuries in football.  Next week, they'll take a look at the Minnesota statute that has provided refuge to Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams after testing positive for Bumetanide, a prescription diuretic that also is a banned substance under the league's steroids policy.

As MDS pointed out earlier tonight, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection will convene at 1:00 p.m. ET on November 3, for the purpose of conducting an inquiry into the situation, according to Brian Murphy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA Executive Director De Smith will testify.

It's actually a fairly simple fix, if Congress chooses to get involved.  By passing a narrow law declaring that the terms of a collectively-bargained drug-testing program applicable to businesses operating in interstate commerce preempt any state laws that might otherwise apply, the loophole would be forever closed.

Of course, the NFL and the union could fix the situation as well, by agreeing that any state-specific statutory drug-testing claims specifically are waived by the players, whose rights will be determined by the grievance process in the CBA.

But that approach could result in the union trying to leverage the NFL, claiming that the current state of the drug-testing protocol is the league's problem -- which is the same posture the NFLPA has assumed with respect to the current system for paying rookies.  So, basically, the union would want something in return.

Thus, in this specific case, the NFL should welcome the involvement of Congress.

Our only to the league?  This time around, Goodell should be prepared to talk about Rush Limbaugh and Fergie.  And possibly Eddie DeBartolo.
 

After 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree signed his rookie contract earlier this month, it was believed in some league circles that the tampering allegations made by the 49ers against the Jets would quietly disappear.

And, by all appearances, they have.

Per a league source, however, they haven't.

The source says that the investigation is proceeding.  Details as to who has and hasn't been interviewed are sketchy.  Because the league office has no jurisdiction over players or agents in matters of this nature, Crabtree and his representative, Eugene Parker, have the right to refuse to cooperate.

The wild card in this equation is Deion Sanders.  Technically, he's a league employee, via his relationship with NFL Network.  So he could be compelled to talk.

And he already did talk, to an extent, during an interview earlier this month with NFL Network's Jason La Canfora.  Sanders claimed that he simply inferred that two other teams were willing to pay Crabtree wanted because, as Sanders explained it, Parker told him that two teams were willing to make a trade for Crabtree's rights.

But if that's true, why would the 49ers tell Parker that other teams are interested in trading for Crabtree, if the obvious inference becomes that those two teams will pay Crabtree what he wants?  If the Niners' goal was to get Crabtree signed, the worst thing they could have done would have been to let him know that other teams are willing to give him what he wants.

So, for now, the bottom line is that the investigation has not gone away.  Whether it results in a penalty for the Jets remains to be seen.
 

As part of Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee meeting that was, in theory, completely unrelated to the fitness of persons to own a chunk of an NFL team, one of the men who posed questions to Commissioner Roger Goodell took aim at the league's position regarding Rush Limbaugh's former membership in one of the groups attempting to buy a large chunk of the Rams.

In all fairness, another member of the Committee, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), opened the door with an indirect reference to Limbaugh.  And so Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) pounced, questioning Goodell regarding the inconsistency between the perceived unfitness of Limbaugh and the approval of "Fergie" from the Black Eyed Peas and Jennifer Lopez to hold limited interests in the Miami Dolphins, despite the content of the lyrics of some of their songs.

The transcript of the remarks and a video clip of the question and answer session are available at Limbaugh's web site.

King's point is a valid one.  If the NFL is going to wade into the murky and subjective process of deciding who should and shouldn't have a seat at the table, it's important to do so with a clear understanding of what does and doesn't make a person fit or unfit to become a partial owner of a pro football franchise. 

But we also think that King overplayed his position a bit by suggesting that the only potentially racially offensive comment Limbaugh ever made came in 2003, when Limbaugh said that the media has overrated Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb because it wants to see a black quarterback do well.  King, who argued that the McNabb quote speaks to racist tendencies of the media and not Limbaugh, suggested that eight other quotes attributed to Limbaugh are "complete fabrications."

King is incorrect.  At least one of the statements -- and indeed one of the most potentially racist and offensive of the group -- is not a fabrication.  Limbaugh said that, at times, the NFL looks like the Crips and the Bloods without weapons.  Limbaugh admitted it on October 14, 2009, and he seemed to express some regret for saying it.

"I have the game on a pedestal," Limbaugh said.  "I have the people who play it on a pedestal.  I don't want that to change.  So I was criticizing a mind-set that is destructive, and it was not helpful.   It was not racial.  Bloods and Crips makes it look racial, the way I chose to describe it.  I could have perhaps chosen a different term."

In response to King's point, Goodell offered up an answer suggesting to us that Goodell simply wasn't properly prepared to be asked about the likes of Limbaugh and Fergie. 

"Let me try to take this in a couple of different directions," Goodell said.  "First off, my comments at the annual meeting were directed about specific comments [Limbaugh] made about Donovan McNabb; and I made the point, and I will make it again here today, that the NFL is about bringing people together, it's about unity and that we do not -- we do not move towards divisive actions.  And, in fact, our teams, I think, have demonstrated that both on and off the field.  Nothing brings a team and a community together better than the NFL."

Goodell didn't address the question of whether lyrics from Fergie and Jennifer Lopez are "about unity" and bringing people together.  It's probably fair to assume that this issue wasn't even a factor in the vetting process of these and the other new partial owners of the Dolphins.  Steve Ross is trying to inject a "wow" factor into his new franchise, and he has targeted musicians and other celebrities toward this end.  The specific things that helped make these folks sufficiently famous to add sizzle to the Fins likely weren't closely reviewed.  So it wasn't an issue.

But it potentially becomes an issue when someone is excluded from ownership under a general character test that apparently wasn't applied to Fergie and Lopez.

Limbaugh responded to yesterday's developments by calling Goodell "a total weasel," which likely won't prompt the NFL to revisit its position regarding Limbaugh.  Our view on the matter is that neither Goodell nor any of his handlers anticipated that a hearing on brain injuries would include questions about Limbaugh, and that Goodell was simply forced to squeeze out a little impromptu lemonade.  Given the apparent lack of preparation, Goodell did the best that he could.

But Goodell (whose father was a U.S. Senator) or someone else in the upper reaches of the league office probably should have accounted for the possibly that politicians might behave like, well, politicians.  For example, Goodell should have been ready to cite Limbaugh's  Crips and Bloods comment, which many would view as revealing an inherent race-baced mindset that no amount of post-hoc explanation by Limbaugh can erase. 

Goodell also should have been prepared to explain that the use of language in song lyrics can be problematic only if the lyrics cause widespread controversy and division, and that none of the Dolphins' minority owners has reached with the words they sing the level of notoriety that Limbaugh has achieved with the words he speaks.

It's unknown whether this issue will again rear its head.  If/when it does, we suspect that Goodell will be properly equipped to put the matter to bed, once and for all.

It's undisputed that Chiefs running back Larry Johnson used a three-letter homophobic epithet on Twitter after Sunday's 30-point loss to the Chargers.

As to whether he used the six-letter version of that same term in the locker room on Monday, well, it's not quite as clear.

Here's the audio, thanks to the Kansas City Star.  As the Star explains, it took the audio from a hand-held tape recorder and professionally enhanced it.

But even with the enhancements, it's not completely clear (in our view) that Johnson said what he allegedly said.

Given that Johnson's apology from Tuesday was so general and vague, it's also unclear whether he has admitted to using the term. 

The problem is that we're all predisposed to think that Johnson said "get your faggot ass out of here"l thus, our ears are hearing the words through that prism.  We'd be interested to know what someone who doesn't know about the situation believes that Johnson says.

And, frankly, the first question a neutral observer might have upon listening to the tape is whether the person speaking is James Earl Jones in his Darth Vader voice.

None of this changes the fact that Johnson said what he said on Twitter.  So we're not sure the locker-room incident really matters. 

Still, we expected a smoking gun.  This is more like a glove that may or may not fit.

Many of you have asked us whether, upon the conclusion of his two-week suspension, the Chiefs will tell running back Larry Johnson to take the rest of the year off, with pay.

The Chiefs might prefer to do that, but they can't.

The Eagles' decision to suspend receiver Terrell Owens without pay for four games in 2005 followed by a paid suspension for the balance of the year caused the NFLPA to slip through the owners' collective five hole a CBA term prohibiting such measures moving forward. 

So, as of March 2006, a team can suspend a player without pay for up to four games at a time for conduct detrimental to the team.  But a team cannot suspend a player with pay.

Of course, if the player agrees to go home with pay, it's not an issue.  But since Johnson is a vested veteran, he'd get the balance of his $4.55 million salary if he's released.  He'd then be able to climb aboard the bandwagon of a playoff contender with a record far better than 1-6, and he'd be able to collect a salary from his new team -- and to keep the full amount of his termination pay from the Chiefs.

As a result, look for the Chiefs to try to find a way to keep Johnson, but possibly to marginalize him.  And if he chooses to be disruptive in the hopes of getting cut, they'll probably suspend him again.

At the end of the day, the Chiefs would at worst be required to pay Johnson if they lose the inevitable grievances.  But if they cut him, they'll pay him, too.  So why not come up with a way to pay him and keep him from getting to the playoffs -- and possibly winning a Super Bowl -- with a team that would be able to provide him with the kind of blocking that would allow Johnson to make good use of the remaining tread on his tires?

The possibility that Johnson decided to act up now in the hopes of getting cut will likely make the Chiefs even less inclined to give L.J. his way.  The only question is whether and to what extent the Chiefs are willing to tolerate the distraction.
 
Since there's no concern that any distraction will keep them from qualifying for the postseason, look for the Chiefs to dig in their heels, if necessary.
 

The Chiefs have imposed a two-week suspension on running back Larry Johnson.

And Johnson will be challenging the suspension immediately.

"We will be filing an appeal tomorrow," agent Peter Schaffer told us by phone tonight.  "It is our belief that the action did not warrant the discipline unilaterally imposed by the Chiefs.  We'll be asking for an expeditied hearing, and hopefully we can work out a positive, mutual resolution with the Chiefs.  If not, we'll defer to the arbitrator's decision.  Larry's desire is to get back to his teammates as soon as he can."

Unlike league-imposed suspensions, which ultimately are appealed to the Commissioner, suspensions imposed by the team are reviewed by an independent arbitrator.

Johnson is banished from the team until November 9.  If the suspension is upheld, he'll miss only one game -- November 8 at Jacksonville.