We haven’t heard much about the NFL’s investigation into Green Bay Packers linebackers Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers lately. There’s good reason for that. Both Packers and the other players being investigated for their alleged connection to a drug ring have refused to cooperate with the NFL at the urging of the player’s union.
The NFL said they were coming to interview all of the players involved — that includes former Packer Mike Neal and Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison — the day training camp opened. Those interviews, of course, never happened.
So it’s come to this. An ultimatum.
NFL says James Harrison, Clay Matthews, Julius Peopers, Mike Neal have till Aug. 25 to give interviews on PEDs – or face Aug. 26 suspension.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) August 15, 2016
The league also sent this letter to the NFLPA, which Schefter posted.
We find it interesting that Neal, the only one of the players to previously be suspended for a drug violation, supposedly provided false statements to the NFL in his statement.
Neal is the only one of the four players currently unemployed. We’re sure this investigation and his previous suspension has something to do with that.
It’s clear why the NFLPA doesn’t want these players to submit to the interviews. The allegations and thus, the investigation, is based on since-recanted statements in a report filed by a now-defunct news organization. The player’s association contends the NFL has produced no evidence of any wrongdoing. Ultimately, this is about precedent. If the league can badger players because someone said something in an open forum (which they later said wasn’t true), the NFL can pretty much launch an investigation into anyone at any time without any actual evidence.
Clearly, the league isn’t going to back down because they feel they need to assert their right to do whatever they want to whoever they want at all times.
Will the player’s association back down? Or will the players cave now that they’re being faced with suspensions?
Our guess is this is going to end up in court.
Even if the league hands out suspensions, any court proceedings would likely delay those from being served in 2016.
Shouldn’t Al Jazeera have stayed focused on shit they know?
How to make a goat your bitch.
Stoning – What to do if she likes dick.
Or maybe, helpful stuff like our 10 best quick and tasty recipes for sand.
Well, now this just got serious. Is this deflategate all over again? Don’t cooperate, get suspended, NFLPA appeals and wins, NFL appeals, then wins. NFLPA threatens to take case to the Supreme court. They don’t, and the players get suspended anyway. Of course, after spending millions. Not too mention, this would drag the Packers name through the dirt. That’s just fucking terrific.
I’ve read Birch’s letter to the NFLPA. Think what you want about the Al-Jazeera report, this situation may very well give the NFL at least the right to interview the players involved. But of course DeMaurice Smith has never seen a lawsuit he doesn’t like and isn’t afraid to squander millions of dollars of the players money in litigation trying to make a name for himself.
The NFL may be looking to interview these players as due process, and maybe nothing even happens unless the players admitted using. See Peyton Manning.
So here we are, the NFL is saying, talk to us, or be suspended indefinitely. One thing the NFL is not known for, is bluffing.
So to me, it’s actually pretty simple. The players need to talk to the NFL and the sooner the better. They denied using? Great, then talk to them, put this to rest, and lets get on with the season. With no suspensions, no court cases. It won’t make DeMaurice Smith happy, but we’re not here to make him happy, we’re here to enjoy the Packers 2016 season, with all our players on the field.
This was predictable. Did the NFLPA or the players really think that if they refused to cooperate the issue would all just go away? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
It was always going to come to this once the players refused to cooperate. They would be forced to cooperate or they would be suspended. That’s it, those are the options. So. let’s explore those two options….
I give 90% odds they do cooperate and avoid suspension. Their resistance then was symbolic. And meaningless. And silly. A big waste of time, money, and a source of training camp distraction. Way to go Clay and Julius, hope you are proud.
I give 10% odds they refuse to cooperate and are suspended. I don’t believe they will be able to get a court stay. It is the NFL’s job and prerogative to investigate and address failure to cooperate and it is contractually agreed upon by the NFLPA and players. If no stay then the distraction to the team and the loss of players is on Matthews and Peppers. Way to hurt your team guys! On the other hand, if there is a stay then the distraction will continue much much longer and likely lead right back to suspension. Way to hurt your team guys!
A few concerns with the actual article. It starts out like news but sneaks in opinions and untruths.
First the author writes that Mike Neal “supposedly provided false statements to the NFL in his statement”. I don’t see any room for “supposedly” or for the plural use of “statements”. The NFL pointed out “Mr. Neal’s statement includes an assertion that is demonstrably false”. An assertion meaning one assertion. The NFLPA acknowledged the false statement and redid the statement to correct the false information Neal gave under oath, said correction then being sworn to under oath by Neal. There is no “supposedly” there.
Then the expression of the opinion that Neal is not currently employed in the NFL because of the investigation and previous suspension. Well, it could be but we don’t know that. Don’t you think his poor play also has something to do with that? There are a lot of good players who have played much better who are not in the NFL right now. But, if you really think Neal is not on a team due to the investigation then you are attacking TT and MM aren’t you? Nothing wrong with that but I’m not sure you are self-aware that is what you are doing. As per whether his previous suspension plays a role in his unemployment, well, that is Neal’s fault isn’t it? He broke the rules, he cheated, he got caught, he faces the consequences. We’ll never know if that is definitely the reason he is not in the NFL (despite the author’s assertion “We’re sure”) but, if it is, Neal can confront the person responsible face to face any time he wants by simply looking in a mirror.
The reporting goes a little further downhill from there. The author writes that the investigation is based on “since-recanted statements in a report filed by a now-defunct news organization”. These are tandem efforts to de-legitimize the concern. Clarlie Sly did recant, that is true. He says that he was lying when he told about Matthews, Neal, Peppers, Manning, and Harrison. If that is true then it means he is a liar. If that is not true then it means he is a liar. So, all we know for sure if that Sly is a liar. The author pretends we should have confidence the liar is now telling the truth and was previously lying.
So, either he told the truth about these players or Sly lied. So… 50/50, right? So ONLY a 50% chance Matthews, Peppers, Neal and the others were cheating or trying to cheat and were taking or trying to take illegal substances. If FBI had information that a group of guys were 50% likely to be the ones responsible for a bank robbery do you think they would then ignore the information? Or would you think the FBI was irresponsible for not following up on that lead?
But… is it 50/50? Look at motivation and awareness. Teh original statements Sly was not aware he was being recorded. He spoke naturally. He did not need to sell that the imposters should get PEDs. They already wanted them. He had no need to name drop at all. Certainly dropping Neal’s name would not persuade anyone anywhere to take PEDs. Also, Neal and Sly were buddies and used to work out together. There are photos of them! (check this out = https://www.google.com/search?q=charlie+sly+mike+neal+photo&biw=1366&bih=577&tbm=isch&imgil=Qnyxn-ouy5vTVM%253A%253BmC1tLj3noyJqxM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fadvanceindiana.blogspot.com%25252F2016%25252F01%25252Fnew-york-times-report-ties-charlie-sly.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Qnyxn-ouy5vTVM%253A%252CmC1tLj3noyJqxM%252C_&usg=__eQFEY3rRaQPlncVix1PI43VRaOY%3D&ved=0ahUKEwinvNCQsMbOAhUlD8AKHZbNC5MQyjcINQ&ei=BEKzV6eqCqWegAaWm6-YCQ#imgrc=Qnyxn-ouy5vTVM%3A) Would he really frame a buddy to no purpose when it could not help him at all? As per recanting he has every reason to then lie and say he was previously lying. Legal reasons, financial reasons, criminal prosecution reasons, and his friendship with Neal. And who did Sly name? His buddy Neal who had been previously caught using PEDs, a guy who gained 81 pounds in 6 years (Matthews), a 35 yeear old playing like a 28 year old (Peppers), and a 38-year-old playing like a 31 year old (Harrison). As per Manning he says the PEDs were sent to Manning’s home in his wife’s name. To this day, while Manning has denied taking PEDs he has never ever denied PEDs were sent to his home in his wife’s name. For Sly to randomly name all these names and they just happen to coincide with suspect events and levels of play staggers the imagination.
So, looking at circumstances and motivation, there is about a 95% chance Sly’s original statements were the truth and his recant was the lie. Whether or not the audio recording was made by a “now defunct” news organization is completely meaningless. Do you think the FBI, if presented an audio tape from CNN of a man confessing to a bank robbery should investigate that but if the Al Jazeera presented the same audio tape the FBI should ignore the information?
The author goes on to talk about “precedent” and “no actual evidence”. There is no precedent here. It has already been set. The NFL has the right — the contractual right agreed to by the players — to investigate. This right is very open and broad. The premise you have to entirely prove a case before you investigate it is just silly. You investigate to prove, not prove in order to be allowed to investigate — an investigation you would then not even need because it was already proven! If that was the case in the outside world, outside the NFL, then no robber, burglar, or murderer would ever be caught or even investigated. Is that the world you want to live in?
By the way, there IS “actual evidence despite the author’s assertion otherwise. The audio of Sly is itself, evidence. In a natural unaware conversation he is implicating himself in criminal activity. Confessions and audio and witness statements are all evidence. There is also plenty of circumstantial evidence including Sly visiting the Packers, taking photos with Neal after working out, Matthews’ bizarre gain of 91 pounds of muscle in 6 years (60 pounds of that muscle in the first 3 years alone!), Peppers and Harrison playing at an unnatural level of performance for their ages, Neal’s PED history, that Matthews’ co-linebacker in college Brian Cushing was also caught taking PEDs, that Manning cannot even bring himself — and save his wife from scrutiny — to deny PEDs were sent to their home in his wife’s name. That is just to name some of the circumstances.
Again, an investigation is done to gather evidence and find proof, not because there already is absolute proof. An investigation can prove guilt or innocence or fail to prove either. An innocent person has much to gain and nothing to lose. A guilty person? They would, of course, try to stymie the investigation and would refuse to cooperate … which is exactly what Matthews, Neal, and Peppers are doing.
More poor and biased reporting was seen in the following argument presented:
“… because someone said something in an open forum (which they later said wasn’t true), the NFL can pretty much launch an investigation into anyone at any time without any actual evidence.” I don’t consider Sly implicating himself in criminal actions while being secretly recorded as being “an open forum”. We already examined why Sly’s recanting is meaningless and not to be believed.
If a drug dealer was on audio talking about supplying drugs to persons V, W, X, Y, and Z would and should the police look into that? Yes they would and yes they should. Anything less would be negligent.
The author’s perspective, when you boil it down, is, “Shame on the NFL for not being negligent”.
Why are you here? Exiled from all Queeny websites? Go away ya skin tag on the ballsack of sporting franchises.
You keep citing Matthews weight/muscle gain and yet you forget Matthews was cited for PAINKILLERS in the RECANTED report. Since when does popping Vicodin turn you into the fucking Hulk? SOLID logic. Furthermore, the difference in NFL training and dietary regimens and college ones is astounding-Matthews physique change is by no means naturally unprecedented.
You keep espousing the belief that players who were HoF/All-Pro-calibre Manning, Matthews, Harrison, etc. cannot continue to perform at a naturally high level late in their careers, especially when put into the best position to do so. There are decades of football excellence that invalidates this claim: Rod Woodson, Charles Woodson, Junior Seau, Tom Brady, Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, the list goes on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on on and on and on and and on and on…and on.
Finally, if you’re so confident in it’s merits, actually POST the audio so we can hear it for ourselves, because there are a fuckton of variables that need to be accounted for tha you conveniently skim over: Context (the ACTUAL question, potential leading, respondent’s demeanor-for all we know he was joking), potential, personal, societal, or economic issues affecting the interviewee, the interviewee’s moral rectitude, fucking etc.
Put up or shut the fuck up ya dirty little Hormel-laced pablum-spewing, ovine-fornicating, urine-imbibing, pleb.
Woah, slow your roll, Fatguts.
I sifted through your abusiveness and profanity (with great amusement) to find areas where you have legitimate ignorance or misunderstanding that I can help clear up. See, I like to help. If a transient comes up to me and says, “Give me some money, *sshole!” I reply, “Sir, I must correct you, I am not an *sshole. Also, I will not give you any money. However, let’s go get a bite to eat over here at this restaurant and I will pay the check. I’d love to hear some good stories of the times you’ve had and people you have met.”
Let us enlighten you now, Fatguts=
I’ve never even heard of “skin tag on the ballsack”. You sound very familiar with them however so I can only assume you are so afflicted. I wish you best of luck ridding yourself of your skin tags on your ballsack or that you can at least work out some sort of truce with them. Don’t feel bad about all those skin tags on your ballsack. It’s not like you have a girlfriend who would be horrified by them. Your unwilling celibacy has a silver lining after all.
As to Matthews: Yes, I am familiar that he purportedly texted Charlie Sly a request for painkillers and did not request PEDs. This was early last year. Why would he ask for painkillers when he could get all he needs from the Packer trainers? In order to abuse them obviously, to take more than he actually needs. Why would he not ask Sly for PEDs? Because he already has a supplier of PEDs and has had one since age 17. He did not need a second supplier. Check this out:
So, the weight gain I wrote about was from age 17 to age 23, 81 pounds of muscle in 6 years. With 60 pounds of muscle actually added in the first three of those years. 20 pounds of muscle per year for three consecutive years! He has been using for a long time. He did not need PEDs from Sly. Now, take ten random dudes (all of them 6’1″ growing to 6’2″ or 6’3″ in that time span) who at age 17 are 165 lb. and then at age 20 are 225 lb. with single percentage body fat, all the weight gain muscle. How many of them took PEDs? Was it all ten of them or only 9 out of 10? If the former then Matthews took PEDs. If the latter then there is only a 90% likelihood that Matthews took PEDs.
As far as your use of all-capitalized RECANTED I take it you actually think that has significance. We know either way Sly is liar. Now, the original comments were made in a private setting in which Sly is confessing his own crime and implicating others — people we know he interacted with — because he has no fear of consequences. Then, in public, he RECANTED which he had every reason to do for his own good. Your perspective is similar to a murderer being secretly recorded talking to a friend about killing someone, why he did it, and how he disposed of the body but, when arrested by the police, says, “Hey, I was just kidding and just made that up.” I guess if you were the prosecutor you would just let that murderer go. You’d be telling the cops and the victim’s family, “Look, he RECANTED. Obviously if he RECANTED he could not be the murderer. All RECANTS are honest. I think I read that somewhere. Also, victim’s family, are you aware you are skin tags on ballsacks? I mean, you look just like what I see all over my own ballsack….”
Another note of interest: In 2013 at age 33 Peppers had 7 sacks. In 2014 at age 34 Peppers had seven sacks. Then Peppers met Sly and, according to Sly, started being supplied with PEDs. Then in 2015 at the age of 35 Peppers had 10.5 sacks, a 50% increase in sacks. This is yet another example of correlating or circumstantial evidence to add to the big overall pile.
The rest of what you wrote appears meaningless or is simply distraction or abuse, none of it worthy of comment. Don’t feel guilty about the abuse though. You made me laugh a lot so I thank you. Plus, I know you probably can’t even help yourself.
Because 10 “random dudes” have the same body type as an all-world athlete. I thought I saw my neighbor Jim in the Colts secondary last week, that makes fucking sense, thanks for solving that mystery for me.
If the journalist had any journalistic integrity he would not have recanted if he believed he had uncovered the truth, then again, if he had any he wouldn’t have acquired those names in the first place.
Peppers switched from a 4-3 end on a losing team with crap leadership to a hybrid 3-4 LB/DL on a winning team with much more talent. So, LMFAO, no no it is NOT a corollary, because his season was by NO means a statistical outlier for his career, nor even recent production. Furthermore, there are numerous other variables to be accounted for. Please don’t act like you understand correlation, it’s insulting to those of us that actually do.
Trust me I don’t feel the least bit of compunction, just as I wouldn’t feel the least bit of regret for a toilet that I just dropped a Viking simulacrum (or is it the other way around?) in; same event, really.
Okeydokey, Fatguts =
I did say “random dudes” but that is really not what it is. That misunderstanding is on me. It is actually imagining ten guys with the same dimensions as Matthews at age 17 — 6’1″, 165lb. — and the same dimensions as him at age 20 — 6’2″, 225 — and all of the 60 pounds gained in 3 years being muscle, and then ask yourself how many of them would have done this incredible feat naturally and without PEDs. I think a reasonable person would conclude that either all 10 utilized PEDs or that AT LEAST 9 out of 10 had. You say Clay Matthews is an all-world athlete like that is an exoneration but that is my point. At age 17 and at 165lb. no one would think he is an all-world athlete or even had any chance at any such potential. He went from a relatively scrawny non-athlete who could not even get playing time on his own father’s team to an all-world athlete. Suspicious? Yes. Obviously. Proof? No.
Which is just one of the many reason the investigation is necessary. Remember, investigations can prove the innocent as being innocent or the guilty as being guilty. They cannot prove the guilty are innocent or the innocent are guilty (though an investigation can also be inconclusive of course). An innocent person has nothing to fear. Apparently, Clay Matthews is afraid of telling the truth and of the investigative results.
The journalist never recanted. Sly recanted. Sly is not a journalist. He is definitely 100% for sure by his own admission a liar but he is not a journalist. The actual journalist was a woman, not a man (though she does not work alone obviously). Her name is Deborah Davies. As per recanting she is on record stating that Al Jazeera isn’t “changing anything” and her investigative team stands by “everything in the program.”
Your observations on Julius Peppers are deceptive to say the least. He did switch from a 4-3 team to a 3-4 team. He did switch from a losing team to a winning team. However, both teams have, as you put it, “crap leadership” (see: McCarthy and TT scapegoating Brandon Bostick and see McCarthy starting Josh Sitton at left tackle in Game 17 last year — just a couple of many examples of poor leadership). A 3-4 OLB and a 4-3 DE have roughly equivalent odds of getting tot he QB. A 3-4 OLB may rush a bit less often but are also sometimes not blocked whereas a 4-3 DE may rush the QB a few more times a game but is always blocked. The type of defense does not lead to more or less sacks per se. But here is where you really got deceptive: Peppers came to the Packers in 2014, not 2015. So, while one of the 7 sack seasons he was in Chicago, the other he was in GB. So, obviously, he did not go from 7 sacks in 2014 to 10.5 last year because he switched from a losing team. It was that same GB team. In fact, the Packers were a 12-4 team in 2014 and a 10-6 team in 2015, so, in a way, he switched to a worse team. If you look at games where the Packers won by more than 10 points, in which pass rushers can really go after the QB and rack up sacks at a much higher rate, in 2014 Peppers had tee-off games in which the Packers won 38-17, 42-10, 38-17, 35-14, and 53-20. Last year he only had tee off games of 30-13 and 28-7.
You also talk about Peppers’ career and recent production. As per his 14 year, 136 sack career, one can quickly calculate he does average nearly 10 sacks per year. However, that is my point. A 35 year old should not be performing at the same level he did as a 29 year old and as he did as a 25 year old — which were the last two seasons he got exactly 10.5 sacks! As per recent production, yes, it is different. I would consider the last three years recent . He went 7 sacks, 7 sacks, and 10.5 sacks. Last year saw a 50% increase over his “recent production”.
What if his sacks went from 7 in 2014 down to 3.5 last year? Well then, you would be the first person to point that out as reason he could not be taking PEDs. But, given the opposite circumstance, you choose to blind yourself.
Once you are done with your 4th grade homework (I don’t know how old you are so much judge based on the maturity of your words and insults) do you have the courage to answer this question=
Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers are going to cave in and cooperate or they are going to punish themselves until they do (by forcing the NFL to suspend them) or they are going to effectively end their own careers. Those are the three options. Which one do you think they will/should pick?
Congratulations on continuing to find ways to make yourself look EVEN dumber, astounding really.
THAT is what I was addressing vis a vis “random dudes”. Clay Matthews is an athletic freak. anyone with his BODY TYPE off the street will not necessarily mature in the same way as he does. It’s basic genetics, get a fucking. The VAST MAJORITY of people who were 6’1 161 do not become NFL players even if you gavage them with fucking PEDs, , because their bodies don’t mature in the same manner as Clay’s because of GENES.
Peppers went from a shitty Bears team with leadership including A former CFL coach who could never make it in the NFL and Jay Cutler to a perennial SB-contender with Aaron Rodgers and the 2nd-winningest coach in the history of THE WINNINGEST franchise in professional football. Easily one of your stupidest comments yet, congratulations. So Peppers had MORE opportunities to tee off in the pass rush, boy THAT sure couldn’t be one of the reasons his numbers were where they were. good job providing evidence CONTRARY to your position, smart guy. Keep ignoring the position-switch, better teammates/coaches, and historical success of fellow HoFer’s storylines, though, by all means. When the facts don’t support your beliefs, act like they don’t exist. EXACTLY the type of logic I would expect from a Queens’ fan.
SLy’s a liar, glad we got that established. No possible fucking way he was lying when he spoke to the reporter.
FYI, stats are generally a collegiate/high-level HS course, but of course you wouldn’t know that, likely having dropped out of 4th-grade to pursue a fulfilling carer as a glue-and-paint sniffer. Good stuff.
3.5 sacks above the recent “mean” (as if you could call two years a fucking mean) is not even close to a statistical outlier. Again, get a clue about what you’re talking about before making yourself look like the dumbass you clearly are.
The whole thing is a power grab by Ranking Roger. There is no evidence. The report was later recanted by a now defunct “news” organization. I’d bet that the NFLPA is telling CM3 and JP on the prinicpal of the issue that they need to resist. The CBA dictates that there can’t be a PED suspension without proof. So the NFL is using the “conduct detrimental to the league” language acquired from the Brady ruling for deflategate to overstep the PED witch hunt.
I’m sure our guys would be happy to testify and put this behind them. It’s the union telling them not to.
As previously discussed there is evidence. As previously discussed it is irrelevant if the audio evidence was made by a defunct or funct news organization. The report was never recanted by that news organization. Only the liar — Sly — said he had lied but was probably lying about having lied then.
The principle of the matter should be cooperation with an investigation, nothing to hide, clear their names. Obstructing an investigation is not a principle, it is a tactic the guilty utilize.
You cite the need for proof or there can be no PED suspension. Isn’t that even more reason to cooperate, even if they are guilty as they seem to be? Sounds like the only way they can face suspension is by failing to cooperate — which is exactly what they are doing. How silly is that? You call it a witch hunt. It isn’t but, if it was, then they are playing right into the hands of the evil cackling witch hunters. Is that really a wise tactic? Only if you guilty and have things to hide. But wait, according to you, even then it is silly for them to not cooperate.
Look, they are going to cave in and cooperate or they are going to punish themselves until they do (by forcing the NFL to suspend them) or they are going to effectively end their own careers (if they never cooperate, once the suspension starts they will never play again other than maybe the Arena League). Those are the three options. Which one do you think they will/should pick?
So by your logic, if I put up my own blog and said “there’s no way Adrian Peterson recovered from his ACL surgery without using PED’s” that the NFL would be obligated to investigate? I say bullshit. I have no credibility. Neither does Al Jazeera. So why should the NFL feel the need to do anything about what some two bit hack of a news “organization” that’s now defunct? This is a power grab under the guise of protecting the shield….pure and simple.
And NO – there is no evidence. If so what is it? how many random drug tests has CM3 or Peppers failed? So the players should just be forced to comply with a witch hunt because ranking Roger says so?
Go take your Vikings trolling elsewhere.
C’mon, Abe. Really?
I usually go in order but let’s address this trolling thing. When someone speaks the truth or their honestly held opinion in a polite fashion, non-profane, and non-abusive, it is not trolling. Just because someone has information or an opinion you don’t like does not make them a troll. Now, I did just post a smack down of Fatguts up above here but that was simply self-defense. If someone assaults you and you fight back to defend yourself, that is not assault, it is self-defense. So, please, drop this false pretense of my being a troll. It is either your conscious or subconscious attempt to de-legitimize the truths I write. Please keep the debate on the filed of logic. If you can’t, then you lose via disqualification. I welcome an apology from you and would accept it warmly and with forgiveness in my heart.
Your analogy of your blog is wildly off target. There is no comparison between a random person posting anything vs. a drug dealer secretly recorded implicating himself and those he supplied. There is no similarity. It is an entirely false pretense by yourself and the NFLPA and these players to make it seem like their obstruction of an investigation is due to principle and not actually due to guilt.
The news organization does not matter or whether they are funct or defunct. It does not alter the audio and the information, the admission and implication recorded by Charlie Sly.
As per “power grab”: The NFL already has that power to investigate any concerns as per the conduct of the game and off field concerns as well. Obviously, possible illegal performance enhancing drug use is a huge concern. They would be totally negligent if they did not investigate. It was negotiated and signed over by the NFLPA and the players. They can’t be out to grab power they already have. However, the NFLPA is actually doing a power grab because they are trying to take back what they themselves agreed to. So, you are right there is a power play going on here but you have the perpetrators and victims reversed.
The drug tests are a complete joke. You have to have taken PEDs less than 24 hours before and the tests are pretty predictable actually. As a player explained, all you have to do is take PEDs and then not answer your phone for 24 hours and you are in the clear. You do not have to take PEDs every day or even most days to be effective. Players have compared being caught taking PEDs to equivalent to winning two lotteries in a row.
Look, they are going to cave in and cooperate or they are going to punish themselves until they do (by forcing the NFL to suspend them) or they are going to effectively end their own careers. Those are the three options. Which one do you think they will/should pick? (You have yet to answer this question.)
Killer’s fingers gotta be worn down to nothing after all that typing. Wow.
This message is for Fatguts. Had to put it down here because there was no reply allowed to his most recent posts.
It looked like you did not read or were not able to understand what I wrote. Please read it again and again until you understand it. You will know you comprehend it once you agree with what I wrote. It was all factual and common sense.
I noticed you lacked the bravery to answer the question I asked you. Too late to gather your courage. We now know #1 was the end answer. Predictable from the very beginning.
PS My favorite part of your post was when you wrote “The VAST MAJORITY of people who were 6’1 161 do not become NFL players even if you gavage them with fucking PEDs, , because their bodies don’t mature in the same manner as Clay’s because of GENES.” You do understand that you are adding credence to the likelihood that Matthews did take PEDs and were essentially bragging that only his superior genes allowed the PEDs to have that big of an impact on him? No, probably you don’t……