How would you feel if someone gave you a dangerous infection and then covered it up by besmirching your genitalia in public? If you're anything like Kellen Winslow, you'd be none too appreciative. But those microphones in front of his face are there to promote the company line, and Winslow will have to take a game off for protecting his health and self interest. Which was justified -- Winslow's rant or his one-game suspension? The NFL FanHouse discusses.
Tom Mantzouranis: Isn't Kellen Winslow fully entitled to take this staph stuff public if he wants? It's well within an employee's rights to point out his employer's inability to provide a healthy workplace (I understand that the NFL, by nature, isn't a healthy workplace, but people sign up for the league with an understanding that they'll be getting tackled; can't say the same for contracting career-threatening infections).
I mean, if AOL were to hold a weekly "Undercooked Chicken Day," and a group of us were to get salmonella, it'd be within my legal rights to come out and say "uh, dudes, cook that chicken better!"
The point being: somebody should put more pressure on Cleveland to fix this thing, and, until then, the NFLPA should back anybody who feels like they need to call the Browns out on this.
UCLA's 
The recent 
