COMMENTARY : Why Not Four Strikes for Dexter Manley?

Kitty Dukakis is in trouble. She has admitted being addicted to diet pills, and, now having swallowed rubbing alcohol, it appears she has an alcohol addiction, too. Our hearts go out to her, to her family. If she licks this problem, we will applaud her. We will talk about her courage, her unwillingness to give up. She, like Betty Ford before her, could become a national inspiration.

Which brings us to Dexter Manley, three-time loser. He is in trouble, too. Our hearts don’t seem to extend as far in his case, however. We talk about how he had so much (undeservedly?) and threw it all away. We talk about celebrities and their drug habits. We talk about lack of willpower.

Where is the difference?

Dexter Manley, having failed a drug test for the third time, is banned from football for life. I don’t understand that. First of all, I don’t understand what a lifetime ban means when one can apply for reinstatement in a year. Why isn’t it simply a conditional one-year ban, with the only conditions being that the football player is clean and that he submit to regular drug testing? Actually, I know the answer, and so do you. It starts with P and ends with R, as in PR, public relations. Drugs are bad. Drug users, after the correct amount of compassion (two failed drug tests being the established benchmark) must be punished in the most dramatic manner. They get life, even if no one really means it.

But what is magical about one year? And is punishment the correct course?

The punishment is right there in a contract that Dexter Manley willingly signed. Of course, the alternative to not signing that contract was not being allowed to play professional football, so his options were not exactly plentiful. And I’m guessing that when he signed, he had no intention of failing any more drug tests. He knew he couldn’t fool the people grading these tests. This was not college, where Manley was able to get by without being able to read. This was different. This was real life, and Manley, we know, failed. That’s as good a definition of addiction as any.

Others have failed before him. Keith Richards was a confessed heroin addict for a decade. He and running mate Mick Jagger were busted for possession of drugs. And, yet, we bought millions of Rolling Stones albums. Do we really want mandatory drug testing for rock-and-roll singers? If they are using drugs, that is their own personal tragedy. They are putting their own lives at risk. We can feel sorry for them. We do not put a lifetime ban on their music.

OK, football is different, you say. The National Football League must protect the integrity of the game. It cannot have wild-eyed junkies distorting its mission. It must, in order to survive, maintain the public trust. In other words, we must keep the games free of non-football influences so that gamblers can safely put down their hard-earned cash on an illegal betting card. Yes, the NFL is all about gambling. You knew that. Do you think people turn on the Kansas City Chief-Seattle Seahawk game for its essential beauty? Why do you think the NFL releases weekly injury lists? Gambling on the NFL is a multibillion-dollar pastime that keeps people interested in the games.

Yes, gambling on football in most locals is illegal, just as using cocaine is illegal. If those who use cocaine are arrested and tried and convicted, they should be punished by law. Those who are not should be treated. Drug use is a health issue. Some drugs -- nicotine and alcohol, our two biggest killers -- are legal. Others are not. In either case, they are all more or less dangerous to those who use them. But when a football player stops using drugs, when a football player is clean, why shouldn’t he play?

Let’s be clear on one thing: There should be rules to deter drug use. There should be suspensions (although the get-tough NFL turned a blind eye to steroid use for decades). We really don’t want wild-eyed junkies on the field. But if someone has stopped using drugs and a team is willing to hire him, why shouldn’t he be allowed to play? Of course, all suspensions should include mandatory treatment. And, of course, the player should never have been using cocaine in the first place. But it’s easier to ban someone than it is to deal with the individual and his problem.

Those who have spent any time with Manley tend to like him. He is a fun person who doesn’t take himself too seriously. In Washington, he became a folk hero, out of all proportion really, but that says more about our societal values than it does about Manley. Because of an addiction, he has lost all that. On the down side of his career anyway, he is probably finished now. But say he isn’t. Say he rehabilitates himself and his football game. Say Manley spends six months in a drug clinic, comes out drug-free, is given a clean bill of health by doctors. Why shouldn’t he play if, say, the Vikings want him?

He is a three-time loser. That doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to give up on him. If somebody wants to believe in Manley, and Manley wants to believe in himself, they should both have that chance, even if it’s a fourth one.