Sorry I'm a bit late on this one, been a busy day. Yesterday, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said that when the CBA is resolved and the lockout ends, punishments will be handed out for those who broke the conduct policy that was in place during that time. This is regardless of the fact that players are not allowed to have any communication with teams and vice versa until the lockout ends.

Of course, the most notable (and I believe, as of this writing, the only) incident that's occurred has been Chris Cook's recent trouble, having been accused of wielding a gun in an argument. However, Cook has a hearing set for Monday, and based on the results of that, he might be completely cleared anyways.

The fact that drug testing will not occur during the lockout seems to not have any real bearing on this. Obviously, if players aren't outright caught using any banned substances, and stop in time to avoid being caught by tests when they resume, then there's no way to prove who did what as it is. I would wonder if the NFL doesn't plan on doing a league-wide drug test the moment the lockout ends, in an attempt to catch whoever still has banned substances in their system. This could end up being a black eye on the league depending on the results, however, and the NFL might decide it's not worth the effort.

Normally I leave my opinions for the comments section, but on this one I'm going to break that rule, simply because I think that the issue is pretty straightforward. I would say that the fact that the NFL will still punish offenders, even if it has to come months after the offense, is a good thing. It will help keep the, shall we say, rowdier members of the playing community in line. While the legal system itself should prove to be enough to prevent players from going overboard, we've all heard of the various times that players get away with crimes simply because of their fame and fortune. Say what you will about it, but at least the NFL's tough stance on misbehavior seems to be convincing the majority of players that crimes don't pay. So to ensure that deterrent will still exist should be, again, a good thing.

Of course, if you disagree with that assessment (and of course can back it up with some logic), I'd love to hear from you below.