Archive: May 23, 2010 - May 29, 2010
Is the NFL doing enough to curb the use of banned substances through its drug testing and suspension policy?
By Reader Poll | May 28, 2010; 10:47 AM ET | Comments (0)
The NFL could and should do more to enforce its banned substance policy, starting with making first-time offenders sit out a full season without pay.
By Leonard Shapiro | May 28, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
With the NFL's current haphazard drug policy it appears the league will only take action against a player who test positive for a banned substance if it absolutely must. There's got to be a better way.
By Doug Farrar | May 28, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
The NFL's drug testing system, for the most part, is effective in discouraging its players from using performance enhancing drugs, but it may be time for the league to regulate human growth hormone use as well.
By Dr. Mark Adickes | May 28, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (1)
The NFL's performance enhancing drug policy is a sufficient enough deterrent and those who seek to beat the system are outliers, not the norm.
By Tim McHale | May 28, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
Like the tragic results that often result from legal drug use, the NFL's banned substance testing and suspension policy does enough to curb the use of performance enhancing drugs in the league.
By Dave Goldberg | May 28, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
New York is the perfect site to host the Super Bowl and the biggest week-long party in all of American professional sports.
By Edward Valentine | May 25, 2010; 12:01 AM ET | Comments (3)
Playing a Super Bowl in New York could change the style of play on the field, but it won't make the dream of hosting the NFL's biggest game any closer to reality for the rest of the league's cold-weather teams.
By Brandon Benson | May 25, 2010; 12:01 AM ET | Comments (3)
Every city, regardless of climate, should have the opportunity to host the Super Bowl and experience the pinnacle of the NFL experience.
By Anthony Stalter | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
Cold weather Super Bowls would enhance the experience of the vast majority of NFL fans -- those who watch the game from the climate-controlled comforts of their own homes.
By Michael Kun | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
The promise of a Super Bowl helps convince local municipalities to open up their wallets to help pay for new stadiums, regardless of climate.
By Jason Brewer | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
If the NFL begins to play Super Bowl games at outdoor stadiums in cold-weather climates, it will lead to the thought that championship games can be played anywhere and forever alter the league's grandest spectacle.
By Dave Goldberg | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
While hosting Super Bowls in cold climates may weed out some of the corporate presence at the NFL championship game and allow more average fans to attend, the product on the field could cost the league casual fans who prefer high-scoring affairs to defensive struggles.
By Adam Tracey | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
Nostalgia aside, while playing multiple Super Bowls in cold weather cities would provide a boost to local economies, it would also test the financial abilities of those markets to host such a massive event.
By Josh Kirkendall | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (0)
If New Meadowlands Stadium hosts a Super Bowl, it will be a reward for the New York Giants and Jets spending so much money on a new stadium, but that won't necessarily lead to more cold weather championship games.
By Doug Farrar | May 25, 2010; 12:00 AM ET | Comments (4)