Guilty until proven innocent: Mixed thoughts on Williams Wall suspension

Several NFL policy changes may be made by recent suspension of six players including Minnesota DTs Kevin and Pat Williams for an anti-doping violation.

After a Hennepin County Judge temporarily blocked the NFL's suspension, which was expected when the NFL handed down the suspensions, the average fan can only sit back and wait for the legal process to do it's job.

Well, maybe there is more than we can do. As a Vikings fan, you might say "let them play!" As a Bears or Packers fan you might say "you did the crime, now pay the time." One of the things I love about having something resembling a brain but actually using it settle otherwise subjective arguments (example: I'm a Vikings fan who hates the Packers but love the rich history the Packers have and love watching Brett Favre play regardless the shade of green he is wearing).

So let's use our brains to ask some critical questions: How are the players at fault? How is the NFL at fault?

Let's look at the first question. The Williamses are at fault because NFL policy essentially says if it is in your body, you are responsible for it. Also, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) has agreed to the rules that the NFL has set regarding the anti-doping policy. Pretty clear there, isn't it?

The Williamses' arguement is that the banned substance was not listen on the bottle. Professional athletes are always aware of what they put in their bodies. Should the players be responsible when it wasn't listed? This, I think, is the key question. Professional athletes should "double check, triple check and quadruple check" said Jay Mariotti on ESPN's Around the Horn Wednesday. Sounds fair.

But here is where it gets sticky (the second critical question). Part of the Williamses' argument is that the NFL lawyers and chemists knew about the banned substance. Oops. If true, that deflates any type of argument by the NFL about the players themselves or the NFLPA's response to it.

The NFL could pardon the players and given a letter of apology for not considering the situation more closely. To let these players take the fall sets a precedent so all players will have to be more accountable and take a better look at a substance before ingestion.

However, to let the players off lets the excuse of "it wasn't listed" as a viable one. What's to stop a company from intentionally mislabeling a product to let players screw over the NFL system (probably for a price that is easily made up in a better salary)?

Like I said, this might change the NFL policy because of the precedent. Personally, if the league didn't disclose all the information about the product then the players cannot and should not be held accountable for taking something they felt was safe. Athletes are scrutinized enough the way they are and it shouldn't be any other way. However, this is a situation where the players did what they needed to do to protect themselves and shuld get a slap on the wrist while creating new NFL policy for diuretics as masking agents for doping.