Sorry King. I usually agree with you wholeheartedly on most things, but this one I think you are off base. Replace the word & terminology "videotaping" with "steroids" and all of a sudden you have a different argument? Why not pay some doctor with season tickets to get yourself a prescription? Or go down to Mexico to use them where it's legal? Why - because the term "unfair advantage" comes up. Steroids give a player an unfair advantage; videotaping the signals give a team one, too.

If the league bans Wade Wilson, a quarterback coach, 5 games because he used steroids for a personal use to improve his quality of life (which the league determined he did) where the 'roids clearly made no advantage for the team, why shouldn't they ban the Patriots coaches for the same amount of time?

Also, the videotaping on the sidelines of coaches signals is few and far between from the network cameras. Usually they will show the head coach deep in thought or yelling, and the assistant coaches after a really good series or a really bad one.

Anyone else notice the Eagles using 3 guys with towels around their coaches giving signals on Sunday? Think they knew something we didn't in respect to cheating?

After reading King's response, let me clarify what I meant in my first letter. By the NFL rules, steroids AND videotaping the signs create an unfair advantage. Whether you agree with it or not, that's in their very, very large rule book. And there are many things in there I think are useless (really, has anyone other than the Patriots that one time wanted the Tuck Rule?).

But I will concede your point if the NFL makes Coach Bill hop around like a bunny on the sidelines for at least one game.

In my former job, we would always look up a potential employee/intern on facebook and myspace before going into the interview with them. We were amazed how many keg-stand/drunken-peeing/swimsuit or near-naked photos were posted on these things, as well as "confessions" in their blogs that you would never, ever want an employer to know. I'm not sure if it's because they are younger and they haven't figured out what "public domain" is, or they just don't care.

There is nothing out of the ordinary for young people to go out and get drunk and act generally stupid. That's how they learn not to do it later in life. Most people my age (including myself) have great, amusing stories of an young and stupid drunk night. What we don't have is a pictorial record for the entire world to see.

I can tell you this is nothing new. As soon as you are diabetic, you start figuring out what works for you and makes you sick (different people react differently to foods).

Lots of diabetic girls I knew back in the 80s would skip shots for a week to fit into a prom dress, or for some other reason. Sadly, many of them aren't around to read this article, as they are dead.

A point of contention, however. While insulin itself does make you gain weight, the majority of weight gain many times comes from eating to raise the blood sugar when you "overshoot" or take too much insulin. This is most common with new diabetics, because it takes a while to figure out the correct regimen. Which brings me to my other point: most Type 1 diabetics should be on insulin pumps, which constantly feed insulin the body 24/7, and can help regulate better. However, I've noticed that many doctors have been very slow to recommend it, even though even person I've known who has it said it made their lives easier (I lost 10 pounds after going on it because I didn't have to eat as much because my blood sugars were regular). Not sure why the doctors have been reluctant to do it. Also, it would take more effort on the diabetic girls' part to stop taking her insulin. She would have to disconnect or stop the pump altogether.

I agree with King in pretty much everything in this article.

The most bizarre argument that comes out of this is the "health/long-term damage" one. It's really asinine.

Professional football players really care about long-term damage? Even without the steroids, most of them are playing, knowing in the back of their minds (even if there is a strong amount of youthful denial), it's more than likely they will be a ghost of a man, a cripple, and possibly mentally challenged by the time they reach their half-century mark. If they do at all.

Marion Jones and female track stars? They get their bodies into such shape that they stop menstruating. With or without steroids, that's not good.

And don't forget about those female gymnast stars who are forced to remain the size of 11 year old girls, fighting puberty and nature as hard as possible. Athlete or no, that's not healthy.

There is a notion that because their body is their tool that these people want to take care of it in the long term. The truth is that are all about winning big, winning now, getting the glory in the small window time allows, future be damned. This is nothing new, and steroids have only aided in this, not created it.

A little off target here, but amusing. Nokia paid a PR firm well into the six-, maybe seven-figures to do research and come up with the best possible name of their new venue in downtown Los Angeles. After extensive research, the firm suggested "Nokia Center," because if you had anything else in the name, like "Cahuenga Nokia Center," the first thing people will drop in talking about it is the corporate name.

Also just baffles me that my phone might cost less if Nokia didn't blow tons of money on something everyone else pretty much knows.