My first thought is that Farinella somehow needs well over 1,000 words to make the point that, unlike in the past, franchises today overlook incidents on a player's resume that can raise character issues if the coach thinks the player adds value on the field. He then has a second point that fans apply a double standard when criticizing and/or judging players, depending on their team loyalties. Both of those statements seem like truisms to me, so I'm not sure why they're worth the bandwidth or ink.
I've posted out here in the past that the NFL has crossed the "felony threshold" by allowing those who have been so convicted to play in the League, if they have done their time and are, in the sole judgment of the Commissioner, "rehabilitated." As long as the rehabilitated individual is not a problem in the locker room, all that matters is what he does on Sunday.
Once you cross that line, everything is a matter of degree and comes down to the standards that a particular Ownership might decide to apply. Michael Vick butchered dogs; he can play, at least in Philadelphia. Others have patterns of abuse of women or neglect of their children; they can play, at least for the Steelers and Jets. Plaxico endangered innocent civilians by carrying and discharging an improperly registered firearm with no safety into a crowded venue in the waistband of his sweats; we are only a few months from the drumbeat to allow him to return.
My point? Whether we like the above or not is irrelevant; the NFL has decided.
It's a shame that failing a single test for Marijuana gets lumped in the same discussion with rape and not supporting your children and animal abuse, as, personally, I could care less if the guy gets baked from time to time...but that's my standard.
If we're honest, we all have the lines the crossing of which we approve and disapprove.
