NFL tells NFLPA have players interview or else

But what if Clay and Julius submit to these 'interviews' but the league isn't satisfied with the answers they provide? They could still be suspended because of "conduct detrimental to the league'. The Brady saga has opened up a Pandora's Box and now any player can get similar treatment at the whim of Goodell and Company. Unfortunately for the players they gave the commish this power.
 
Pugger said:
But what if Clay and Julius submit to these 'interviews' but the league isn't satisfied with the answers they provide? They could still be suspended because of "conduct detrimental to the league'. The Brady saga has opened up a Pandora's Box and now any player can get similar treatment at the whim of Goodell and Company. Unfortunately for the players they gave the commish this power.
Click to expand...

Night and day different. Brady case was about the power of the commish. This is about a player possibly using a banded substance.
 
Packinatl said:
Night and day different. Brady case was about the power of the commish. This is about a player possibly using a banded substance.
Click to expand...

From what I understand they haven't failed a drug test so IMO this too is all about the power of the commish.
 
Pugger said:
From what I understand they haven't failed a drug test so IMO this too is all about the power of the commish.
Click to expand...

There is no credible reason. The story was withdrawn, the source admitted it was faked. They already cleared their poster boy Manning of any wrong doing. This is ALL about the GodRoger. No one should have to be interviewed for anything that might incriminate themselves, especially when there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE.
 
Dubz41 said:
There is no credible reason. The story was withdrawn, the source admitted it was faked. They already cleared their poster boy Manning of any wrong doing. This is ALL about the GodRoger. No one should have to be interviewed for anything that might incriminate themselves, especially when there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE.
Click to expand...

Tbh I have thought Clay is guilty of steroids since day one. Hell I'm such a cynic I believe most of (@ a very high %) are on some type of PEDs. Now you can definitely make a case for there not being enough evidence or noneand I get that argument. If there is nothing to hide then talk to the higher ups and prove you've done nothing.
 
Their evidence is the strike that's since been recanted. The reason why they want to interview them is to see if they slip up and if there's conflicting stories.

If they don't agree to be questioned then they WILL be suspended for conduct detrimental to the league. And no they won't get out of it in court. This is the deal the NFLPA agreed to and it's the reason why Brady is sitting 4 games and the NFL has already been ruled within their rights to suspend players for not being cooperative.

Like it or think it's BS, players are employees with a binding clause in each contract about "conduct detrimental to the league " and it's been upheld in court. They can talk or sit.
 
As an ex-cop, I probably side with the league a little more than I do the players. Not because I think the league is automatically right, but because I believe that there has to be controls, and the day of guys using enhancements and getting away with it through masking has to stop.

Despite new controls, and testing, you can count on the fact that the large number of guys who have been suspended for PEDs obviously knew there was a risk. Yet, they had to believe there was a very strong chance they'd get away with it, because for some reason, it wouldn't show up in testing. They obviously wouldn't just do it unless they felt a degree of safety.

My guess is - notice I said a guess - there is a "cocktail" of acceptable drugs that will mask PEDs. I have no idea what it is, but we all know the practice of using PEDs isn't new. Finding ways to beat the tests has turned into a science, and there have been a lot of people getting caught over the years, as testing changes because of new drugs being added to the list of banned drugs.

Now, in support of the players, have you ever looked at the list of banned drugs? It's enormous. I'm a bit concerned that the players are clueless as to what they can and cannot use, drink, or even eat, in a lot of cases. It's a real problem for them, and the league has to help them realize how close to the edge they walk any time they put something in their mouth, or even topically.

It wasn't that long ago that boxers in the Olympics used diuretics to lose several pounds prior to weigh in for fights, then rehydrate with Gatorade, or any other "concoction" that someone that could dream up, that would work.

Where am I going with this? It's time that all this come to an end. I understand some people side with the players, but in all honesty, I can't. If you allow these players to travel down the same road as Lyle Alzado, you're condoning it at the college level, and in the end, in high schools, and even younger.
 
Pugger said:
From what I understand they haven't failed a drug test so IMO this too is all about the power of the commish.
Click to expand...
You don't need a failed test to be investigated. The league has evidence. Imo the league has something. Just not cooberated. To me the statement "no creditable evidence" was a nice way to say we need more cooberated evidence.
 
The Brady case is now a precedent. Since there was no info on Brady's phone that the league didn't find, or was provided by NEP, by other means and they still suspended him then these guys better do those interviews. Brady didn't take his case as far as he could so the last definitive ruling on this s the league can do what it wants in regards to punishment for refusal to cooperate, even if they are able to obtain the info other ways. Wells report was shredded, the NFL got all the info they needed and they still got Brady for 4 games for non cooperation. It's a power trip for Goodell and the owners.

These fights also are all proxy battles for the war which will be the next CBA fight.

Like Mark said if these guys are clean do those interviews....
 
I'm not siding with the players. It deals with probable cause. The Brady ruling was because he tossed out his phone text messages before they could read them or something like that. What's happening here is the NFL (GodRoger) wants to interview/interrogate them about a 'story' published by Al Jezeera. AJ's source has recanted and admitted he made it up. So the Commish wants to force them to answer for something that didn't happen. So if this is okay and the league can take any rumor or comment as a means for interrogation, well you can imagine what will happen down the road. All you have to do is 'leak' a rumor and the League office will conduct 'interviews' or you WILL be suspended. So, say before a playoff game a 'story' comes up that Michael Bennett (Seahawks) was smoking weed and the Commish has to interview him before the game, for the good of the game, or he will be suspended. It is a downward spiral. This is a little different (PEDs) than the Brady instance, but GodRoger is trying to use that ruling to RULE. The PEDs part of the CBA says credible evidence= there is none in this instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top