That sound you hear coming from Milwaukee is Bud Selig patting himself on the back.

Major League Baseball just passed the "toughest steroid policy in professional sports." Yippee. Pardon me while I turn handsprings. "It was an integrity issue," Selig said Thursday. "The integrity of the sport, the integrity of everybody involved, including the commissioner. I really felt very deeply about it." Great. Now I need to vomit.

I grant you, Selig is not the primary villain in the ridiculous drugfest baseball became over the past 20 years. That role is reserved for Players' Association head Donald "Satan" Fehr. But please, cut the self-congratulation, will you, Bud? I'm the first one to bash ESPN for being a network of phony, hype-generating corporate vultures, but ESPN.com (in conjunction with ESPN The Magazine) did an amazingly thoughtful and in-depth look at who knew what about the growth of steroids in baseball, and I believed it. And everyone knew. As Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds and Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell and Jason Giambi and Rafael Palmeiro and Jose Canseco and Gary Sheffield and Juan Gonzalez and Bret Boone "saved" baseball by posting huge offensive numbers after the 1994 World Series was cancelled, they all (allegedly!) turned themselves into meat pillows via chemistry, and everyone knew. General managers. Owners. Agents. Managers. Other players. Doctors. The commissioner. And everyone turned the other way, because it made the game billions of dollars. Selig jumping up and down and spiking the new drug policy is quite a lot like McGwire sitting in front of Congress and saying, "I'm not here to talk about the past." Of course none of them want to talk about the past. Because if they did, they'd be subject to class action suits from the millions of hoodwinked fans who believed they should pay thousands of dollars for seats to 1998 Cardinals and Cubs games. And they'd all have their names erased from the record book. And they'd, y'know, go to jail. So shut up, Bud. This isn't a happy day.

Are the Philadelphia Eagles completely cooked?

Rob Gillespie, BoDog.com: Yes. McNabb proved T.O. was right with that bad call last night and Andy Reid should have yanked him then instead of sacrificing the second-to-last drive. They have four wins and two of them came against teams struggling this year (S.F. and Oakland), with one other requiring a miracle blocked-FG return. They've got the Giants twice, Seattle and Washington on the horizon. Green Bay also looks to be playing better and St Louis is getting healthy. That leaves just one easy game on the schedule. Start planning for next year boys, and get McNabb healthy.

Bob Aggarwal, Pro Handicappers League: This club is toast. They will win a few games (at home to Green Bay in Week 12 and a road contest at Arizona in Week 16) but that's about it. They not only have no McNabb and no T.O., but questions with L.J. Smith's health don't help this offense either.

What's your take on the T.O. situation? Do you expect him to surface with another team this year? If so, who?

BA, Pro Handicappers League: It's tough to say if anyone will want him. I know I wouldn't, and there aren't many teams in the NFL that would want to carry that baggage. I see him suiting up, just not until next year. Be prepared for another summer of T.O. this and T.O. that.

RG, BoDog.com: A few random thoughts: (a) the Eagles should not be surprised it came to this. T.O. was an uncontained mouth in S.F., and paying him more wasn't going to keep him quiet; (b) his contract is big in total but there is no doubt he was underpaid last year and this year, so the Eagles should have known there was potential for trouble; (c) Drew Rosenhaus was the gasoline that ignited a situation that was smoldering. Without him, T.O. is still mouthy, but probably toes just under the getting-suspended line. (d) They cannot cut him, they need to move him and get some talent and/or picks in exchange to justify what they have been through with him. (e) Personally, I was never a T.O. fan until Super Bowl last year. When I heard he was defying doctors' orders to come back and play for a ring, I had a whole new respect for him as a player. That has evaporated in my mind, and I'm sure in the minds of numerous CEOs or marketing folks looking to spend endorsement dollars. In asking for more money, Owens probably cost himself lots.

Because I've heard a lot of Vince Young talk the past week or so, I'm going to re-ask a question: Does Reggie Bush still win the Heisman?

RG, BoDog.com: Bush had 82 yards on the ground and four yards receiving last week, with no TDs. He went 113/27/1 the week before, and 97/40/0 the week before that. Those are not Heisman numbers for three games where your team scores 141 points combined. Too many weapons on USC for any player there to be the winner, unless Young has a really bad game and loses to the Aggies or in the Big 12 Championship Game.

BA, Pro Handicappers League: No, I don't think so. Vince Young has been putting up some astounding numbers this year, and to his credit he has not had the offensive help that Reggie Bush has had. Young has had most of his success with defenses keying solely on him while USC has several weapons opposing defenses have had to worry about (LenDale White, Matt Leinhart). With that being said, I think what Young has done this season is more impressive. It should be taken into consideration; I think Young should win the Heisman.

Were there any postseason baseball awards handed out that irked you?

BA, Pro Handicappers League: In my mind Andrew Jones deserved National League MVP. The definition of this MVP award really is Most Valuable Player to your team. Pujols had a ton of help throughout the lineup with Edmonds and Rolen (for part of the year), as well as a very solid pitching staff. Jones literally carried his team in the middle of the year with Chipper Jones out of the lineup and Rafael Furcal banged up as well. With a pitching staff that was nothing to write home about, and a lineup that really couldn't protect him (full of rookies and second-year players), Jones still managed to put up stellar numbers and get his team into the postseason. He was NL MVP in my mind as the Braves would never have had a successful season without him.

RG, BoDog.com: Not really. I thought they were all pretty much as expected and deserved. A-Rod vs. Ortiz is probably the most contested, as the numbers were close and Ortiz was more clutch. The argument that A-Rod plays the field isn't so much the factor for me as where he plays. If he was a LF or RF, then I probably vote for Ortiz, but the fact that A-Rod can play SS or 3B, positions where competitors are not getting near the numbers from, allows the Yankees to boost their offense in the field or at DH. That's the difference for me.

Christopher Harris is a featured writer for the Professional Handicappers League. Read all of his articles at http://www.procappers.com