…seems backward to me. I’m not saying criticisms of Harrison are unwarranted in the least, but I disagree with his reasons for why.

I certainly think Rodney has lost the moral high ground to criticize other players for performance enhancing substances. Were he chastising Williams for using HGH or anabolic steroids, I think calling “foul” on his statements would be justified and acceptable.

Similarly, if players want to call out Rodney for criticizing a low block by an opponent, citing his own history of personal fouls would be an appropriate rebuttal. I don’t think it would be unfair of them to point this out as a hypocritical stance of his.

What I don’t understand is why Ross feels that the performance enhancing substance history should be the basis of criticism of dirty hits, but Rodney’s reputation for dirty hits itself is not. It just seems more logical to me to base one’s counterargument of his statements on the most relevant history to whatever Rodney’s talking about.

Something wasn’t quite right in that article but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Tucker’s logic was indeed off in the way that you pointed out. Instead of the pot calling the kettle black, it’s just apples and oranges.

I also took exception to his professed personal admiration of Rodney Harrison’s play, while making sure he passed along the information that OTHER players and coaches consider him the dirtiest player in the league and voted him as such (in an anonymous poll, no less.) An undeserved reputation that didn’t have to be included in his article.