In the wake of Patriotgate, Cowboys quarterbacks coach Wade Wilson has questioned why he got a five-game suspension for receiving a shipment of human growth hormone, while Patriots coach Bill Belichick got no suspension at all for cheating. But in his interview yesterday with Bob Costas of NBC, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he didn't buy the comparison:
Costas asked: "Wade Wilson, quarterback coach of the Cowboys, received a shipment of HGH. You suspended him five games, fined him $100,000, which is one-third of his salary. Half a million, we guess, is about one-tenth of Belichick's salary. Wilson, who is no longer a player, said he received it to help him cope with the effects of diabetes. Is that a disproportionate penalty?"
Goodell replied: "First of all, I'm not going to get into the personal situations of why Wade was taking it, but that's not an accurate point. Second of all, Wade Wilson was involved in a criminal activity. It was against the law. There's a very clear policy for our clubs and our players that if you violate that, it's a four-game suspension. I suspended him for five games because I think a coach should be held to a higher standard. That is why I approached it that way. They all understand the rules, and I think we did what was appropriate in Wade Wilson's case, and I'm comfortable with that."
By saying, "that's not an accurate point," Goodell seemed to be suggesting that Wilson is lying when he says he takes HGH for treatment of diabetes. But if that's the case, why wouldn't Goodell get into why Wilson was taking it? Shouldn't there be a full accounting of exactly what Wilson was doing when he illegally acquired a substance that's banned by the NFL?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-17-2007 @ 8:51AM
Phil said...
This should just bring to light that either Wade Wilson is lying, or listening to some very stupid people. One of the major symptoms of Diabetes is high blood sugar. It is what causes the impotence. One of the side effects of HGH is high blood sugar. If someone told him to take HGH to help with the diabetes, they are an idiot. So what's more likely, he listened to someone that has no idea what they are talking about? or he is lying?
Reply
9-17-2007 @ 10:23AM
Kustie the Klown said...
Uhh, or perhaps quality of life issues aren't always an either/or proposition. Maybe kinda someone who desperately wants to have kids will take the measured risk of suffering higher blood sugar than normal under diabetes in order to increase the chance of overcoming impotence.
Every so-called NFL "scandal" isn't Watergate. jeez. having children is very important to people, and it is not unusual for people to accept even the risk of losing one's own life in order for the chance to create another.
Reply
9-17-2007 @ 11:49AM
shawn said...
i thought the new comish was doing a good job til he had to open his mouth sunday
Reply
9-17-2007 @ 4:17PM
paul said...
Phil, it is true that initially hgh will raise your blood sugar level and patients need to monitor it closely and adjust medication accordingly but long term the hgh will decrease body fat especially around mid-section which in turn dramatically helps diabetics. The medical community is split on hgh use in diabetics.
Reply
10-14-2007 @ 10:18PM
Glenanne Johnson said...
Wade is my uncle and he is one of the most wonderful people in my family. He is the kind of person who doesn't lie and he is a wonderful role model. He was taking this medicine for impotence and now has had to suffer the embarrassment of having to explain that to the entire world over this situation. He was not dealt with properly or fairly and I find it a huge injustice that he has been treated this way by the Commissioner. He is a role model and a spokesperson for diabetes and he has taken huge risks with his personal health to have one of the longest careers with the NFL, so I wish the Commissioner would show some respect for his accomplishments and his constant health battle. He would have never taken that medicine if he was still a player and it was prescribed to him, bottom line. I don't appreciate the Commissioner’s comments in this interview insinuating false hoods. I think a Commissioner would do a better job if he would only evaluate facts.
Reply