NFC North/NFL Thread 2016-17

[GB Warrior]

Outstanding article. Painkillers are the next battle that the NFL is going to have to fight. Like concussions, it's unreasonable to expect athletes to know or act in their health interests when it so clearly contradicts their career interests. The only way you do that is to remove the decisions from their hands. Sure, educate the athletes, but it's on the team physicians to act in the best interests of the player. 

[mu03eng]

Outstanding article. Painkillers are the next battle that the NFL is going to have to fight. Like concussions, it's unreasonable to expect athletes to know or act in their health interests when it so clearly contradicts their career interests. The only way you do that is to remove the decisions from their hands. Sure, educate the athletes, but it's on the team physicians to act in the best interests of the player.

Also leads to a discussion around medicinal marijuana as a lower impact alternative to painkillers.

And why are painkillers an acceptable performance enhancer but HGH is not? Both have legitimate medical usage and can be abused, why make a distinction?

[GB Warrior]

Also leads to a discussion around medicinal marijuana as a lower impact alternative to painkillers.

And why are painkillers an acceptable performance enhancer but HGH is not? Both have legitimate medical usage and can be abused, why make a distinction?

Because the NFL makes its decisions in the vacuum of public opinion, and public awareness hasn't caught up to this issue. Medical marijuana is a confusing scenario because of its real benefits in temporary pain management and no one is confusing it as a "performance enhancer"

[jesmu84]

The funny thing is, there are studies out there that say Toradol is no more efficacious than Ibuprofen. Patients who receive either one blindly say they work about the same for reducing pain/inflammation. I'd love to see the NFL try and crack down on an OTC pain-reliever.

[rocket surgeon]

The funny thing is, there are studies out there that say Toradol is no more efficacious than Ibuprofen. Patients who receive either one blindly say they work about the same for reducing pain/inflammation. I'd love to see the NFL try and crack down on an OTC pain-reliever.

Tornados is brutal on the kidneys.  Ibuprofen is an amazing pain killer if taken properly.  Problem is, ya don't get a buzz like hydrocodones and oxycodone.  NSAIDs work at the source of the pain, opioids trick your brain into "not feeling" the pain.  I took a conscious sedation class during which they reviewed all the pain relievers-their studies showed that ibuprofen was the most effective when taking 3 x 200 mg every 8-12 hours initially then every 12.  One needs to get a blood level going.  I love it when someone tells me, "but I don't like taking pills". But they are raging alcoholics or smoke dope like a rastaman

[mu03eng]

Did anyone miss the Hall of Fame game last night? Nope, me neither. Will say the NFL finds new ways to be incompetent with each passing season. I especially enjoyed all the people pointing out on twitter that if the field in Canton was unplayable what does the NFL think of Soldier Field in November.

[4everwarriors]

Someone's boulders outta roll. No need to wait 'til Sunday ta figure da field is rock hard. What were dey waitin' on, a monsoon or somethin' ta soften up da turf, hey?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Did anyone miss the Hall of Fame game last night? Nope, me neither. Will say the NFL finds new ways to be incompetent with each passing season. I especially enjoyed all the people pointing out on twitter that if the field in Canton was unplayable what does the NFL think of Soldier Field in November.

If the Bears don't go to turf, they should at least get someone besides the Chicago Park District to maintain that grass. May I recommend the Diaz Bros?

[brandx]

Someone's boulders outta roll. No need to wait 'til Sunday ta figure da field is rock hard. What were dey waitin' on, a monsoon or somethin' ta soften up da turf, hey?

The field was in use on Friday night, so the paint that caused the issue wasn't put down until Saturday. There was nothing wrong with the field itself (I walked on it on Friday), it was the paint they used for the logos, etc.

[DegenerateDish]

Halftime at Soldier's tonight was the frisbee dogs. One of the dogs relieved itself at the 50.

Potential sign of things to come this year.

[MU82]

Halftime at Soldier's tonight was the frisbee dogs. One of the dogs relieved itself at the 50.

Potential sign of things to come this year.

What? Even the dogs are already pissed off?

[🏀]

Halftime at Soldier's tonight was the frisbee dogs. One of the dogs relieved itself at the 50.

Potential sign of things to come this year.

Cutler's going to literally have the pissed sacked out of him?

[MU82]

Cutler's going to literally have the pissed sacked out of him?

Actually, Cutler's literally going to have the piss sacked INTO him!

[DegenerateDish]

What's happening to Peppers, Matthews, etc., is ridiculous. NFL is putting those guys in total no win situation, I strongly disagree with the NFL here.

[GGGG]

What's happening to Peppers, Matthews, etc., is ridiculous. NFL is putting those guys in total no win situation, I strongly disagree with the NFL here.

This is inevitably the result of the Deflategate ruling.  The courts have ruled that the NFL *can* do this because of the poor CBA signed with the players association.

Interesting that Peyton Manning was conveniently "cleared" after retiring although mentioned in the same report. 

[MerrittsMustache]

What's happening to Peppers, Matthews, etc., is ridiculous. NFL is putting those guys in total no win situation, I strongly disagree with the NFL here.

Disagree. They could have easily "won" by cooperating with the league and putting this behind them. Unless, of course, they're guilty of doing something wrong. Let's face it, Peppers has been busted before (for "unknowingly" taking a banned substance  ), Matthews has had PED red flags attached to him since his USC days and Harrison's best seasons began about the time most players begin to decline. No one should be at all surprised if these guys were getting some unnatural help.

This is inevitably the result of the Deflategate ruling.  The courts have ruled that the NFL *can* do this because of the poor CBA signed with the players association.

Interesting that Peyton Manning was conveniently "cleared" after retiring although mentioned in the same report.

Manning met with NFL officials and cooperated with the investigation before he was cleared. The others easily could have done the same.

[DegenerateDish]

This is inevitably the result of the Deflategate ruling.  The courts have ruled that the NFL *can* do this because of the poor CBA signed with the players association.

Interesting that Peyton Manning was conveniently "cleared" after retiring although mentioned in the same report.

That's what ticks me off, is the Manning thing here. I can't say Manning threw these guys inadvertently under the bus, but Manning did these guys zero favors by agreeing to be interviewed. That's my beef here, you have a guy who recanted his allegations, a now defunct news organization (in the US) that reported this, and Manning got cleared. I get the process is a binding negotiated procedure, but I feel going after these guys is flat out wrong.

[DegenerateDish]

Disagree. They could have easily "won" by cooperating with the league and putting this behind them. Unless, of course, they're guilty of doing something wrong. Let's face it, Peppers has been busted before (for "unknowingly" taking a banned substance  ), Matthews has had PED red flags attached to him since his USC days and Harrison's best seasons began about the time most players begin to decline. No one should be at all surprised if these guys were getting some unnatural help.


Manning met with NFL officials and cooperated with the investigation before he was cleared. The others easily could have done the same.

Be that as it may, the unintended consequence potential here is to blow the door off of Pandora's Box, that's the real issue here if these guys agree to get interviewed. I don't envy these guys, this is a total no win situation with whatever they decide. The new CBA in 20'/21' will address this situation, but the next few years could be a long news cycle of accusations/investigations.

[MerrittsMustache]

Be that as it may, the unintended consequence potential here is to blow the door off of Pandora's Box, that's the real issue here if these guys agree to get interviewed. I don't envy these guys, this is a total no win situation with whatever they decide. The new CBA in 20'/21' will address this situation, but the next few years could be a long news cycle of accusations/investigations.

With all due respect, I don't get why it's a no win situation for these players. Peyton Manning talked to the NFL, cleared his name and is moving on. If these guys talk, is there going to be a rise in PED accusations among random media outlets?

[GGGG]

Disagree. They could have easily "won" by cooperating with the league and putting this behind them. Unless, of course, they're guilty of doing something wrong. Let's face it, Peppers has been busted before (for "unknowingly" taking a banned substance  ), Matthews has had PED red flags attached to him since his USC days and Harrison's best seasons began about the time most players begin to decline. No one should be at all surprised if these guys were getting some unnatural help.


Manning met with NFL officials and cooperated with the investigation before he was cleared. The others easily could have done the same.

OK I understand the Manning difference.

But Matthews, et. al., who are passing PED tests according to the terms of the CBA in place, are being asked to submit to an interview based on the same, generic reasoning under which Brady was suspended.  The NFL doesn't need to have proof of anything...just an accusation that something bad happened.

I'm not saying the NFL *can't* do this.  They clearly can.  I am saying that this is a result of that Brady ruling, the weak CBA and IMO is an overreach. 

[DegenerateDish]

With all due respect, I don't get why it's a no win situation for these players. Peyton Manning talked to the NFL, cleared his name and is moving on. If these guys talk, is there going to be a rise in PED accusations among random media outlets?

Here's an example: Let's say Matthews agrees to get interviewed, and a few questions he refuses to answer. He's not wrong to not answer them (this isn't a court of law). But is his answer perceived as implicit guilt? Ultimately the NFL can decide to do what it wants with his answers.

There is so much gray area involved as to what the NFL's limits (or lack thereof) for investigative purposes are. Could the league potentially threaten to suspend a player if he didn't hand over his cell phone for an investigation?

These guys agreeing to interviews would create a precedent where anytime a media organization accuses a player of something, the player is going to be subject to an interview. This plays into then following the money...media organizations have significant financial incentives to pursue accusations against NFL players.

Someone with a law background can probably explain better than I can, but this has potential to be a real mess.

[MerrittsMustache]

Here's an example: Let's say Matthews agrees to get interviewed, and a few questions he refuses to answer. He's not wrong to not answer them (this isn't a court of law). But is his answer perceived as implicit guilt? Ultimately the NFL can decide to do what it wants with his answers.

There is so much gray area involved as to what the NFL's limits (or lack thereof) for investigative purposes are. Could the league potentially threaten to suspend a player if he didn't hand over his cell phone for an investigation?

These guys agreeing to interviews would create a precedent where anytime a media organization accuses a player of something, the player is going to be subject to an interview. This plays into then following the money...media organizations have significant financial incentives to pursue accusations against NFL players.

Someone with a law background can probably explain better than I can, but this has potential to be a real mess.

Juiced, Game of Shadows, Balco, Biogenesis, etc. Perhaps the NFL is simply doing their due diligence.

[GB Warrior]

Here's an example: Let's say Matthews agrees to get interviewed, and a few questions he refuses to answer. He's not wrong to not answer them (this isn't a court of law). But is his answer perceived as implicit guilt? Ultimately the NFL can decide to do what it wants with his answers.

There is so much gray area involved as to what the NFL's limits (or lack thereof) for investigative purposes are. Could the league potentially threaten to suspend a player if he didn't hand over his cell phone for an investigation?

These guys agreeing to interviews would create a precedent where anytime a media organization accuses a player of something, the player is going to be subject to an interview. This plays into then following the money...media organizations have significant financial incentives to pursue accusations against NFL players.

Someone with a law background can probably explain better than I can, but this has potential to be a real mess.

This is pretty spot on, IMO (full disclosure, not a lawyer, but legalese enthusiast), but the precedent has already been set. The problem with what the NFL is doing is that they're circumventing the PED policy. It's their "right" because of the precedent that was set by the Brady case. It STANDS as their right if the NFLPA does not appeal it to the Supreme Court (in all likelihood, if they couldn't get RGB in the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court, they're not going to win against 8/9ths of the SC. This gives them authority to suspend for obstruction rather than specific violations of the PED policy. Meanwhile, the NFLPA is pointing to the PED policy that states "credible evidence", but the NFL is ignoring that document altogether.

This is important for the next CBA, because post-Brady, the NFL has powers that were not bargained for courtesy of the courts. The NFL can and will demand severe concessions if the NFLPA wants to dent into that, and the NFLPA won't be willing to give in because it doesn't believe the NFL, in fact, has those rights. We could very well be looking at a lengthy lockout when the time comes - I think it's that big an issue.

Now, in the short term, where that leaves the NFLPA is anyone's guess, but they SHOULD choose whatever drags this out the longest. I imagine if they don't interview, the NFL will point to the Brady decision to suspend them on the grounds of obstructing the investigation. If they go through, they can be suspended for equally dubious reasons. The difference, I think, is that the NFL has already debunked part of its own evidence, deeming the evidence 'not credible' in the case of Manning. If a witness is discredited (I do agree with the NFL that him retracting his comments isn't evidence of falsities per se), they're generally unreliable across the board. Courts - judges and juries alike - don't like 'partially reliable' witnesses. But opening it up to the courts is going to open it up to discovery, so NFLPA better do its own internal investigation with the players to make sure they're not going to end up with egg on their faces.

So if I were the NFLPA (I'm not) and confident that I could utterly discredit the witness who has already helped in doing so, I go through with the investigation, offer enough commentary to say you're not obstructing* (more on this next paragraph) to then put the onus of punishment under the PED policy that is much more prescriptive. Then, take the punishment that we can assume is a self-fulfilling argument for the NFL and appeal the suspension was based on inadequate evidence to merit suspension via the PED policy. Simultaneously, appeal to the SC on the Brady case with the hopes of overturning it so that you can argue the investigation was not based on sufficient evidence to begin with.

*The problem with all of this is that the NFL will claim any evidence withheld is considered obstruction, which is precisely the issue with Brady. Evidence was circumstantial at best, but the NFL used the refusal to provide his phone as evidence of obstruction. So is the NFL going to demand bank statements?

At the end of the day, best guess is they all get suspended, but appeal and play out the year. At the end of the year, the only real casualty will be Matthews, who could be the lone player that has not retired.

[Spotcheck Billy]

I agree with this analysis:

The latest imposition of NFL power over its players goes something like this:

If someone, anyone, makes a public allegation, substantiated or otherwise, recanted or supported, of possible improper conduct, the player must submit to an investigation on the league's terms or face suspension.

It would be easy to say that a rule-abiding player has nothing to worry about, but I'm going to guess that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and retired defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove, among others, might not agree.

 Based on recent history, at least, these players are more likely to be disciplined for their conduct during the investigation than for any of the allegations that spurred the investigation in the first place.

Brady will serve a four-game suspension to start this season because the NFL determined he was "more likely than not" involved in a scheme to deflate footballs in the 2014 AFC Championship Game. The league's final report, of course, carried not a shred of direct and verified evidence that Brady was involved -- or even that the balls themselves were artificially deflated. It focused heavily on Brady's refusal to provide his mobile phone, even though he said he provided all the information the league requested from it.

Hargrove, meanwhile, essentially lost his career in 2012 when the NFL pinned much of its Bountygate investigation on him telling his New Orleans Saints teammates to "pay me my money" after a hit on then-Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre. Hargrove adamantly denied saying it, and the NFL concluded he was not being truthful in his deposition. Later, an NFL Films video confirmed Hargrove's account. The NFL quietly acknowledged it.

The NFL already has a PEDs policy, to which all four players have been subject. The policy's testing procedure should be the source of any allegation. Unless one or more of them have tested positive, they are innocent under the terms of the agreed NFL-NFLPA policy. The policy does allow for discipline if violations are found through "sufficient credible documented evidence," but unless the NFL has uncovered something more than Al-Jazeera did from a now-discredited source, it's difficult to imagine what that might be.

In this case, the NFL is asking the players to step outside the policy and answer to the allegation anyway. Ask Brady and Hargrove, both of whom denied their respective accusations from the start, how that worked out for them.

In truth, this really isn't about PEDs. Again, the NFL has a policy for that. This is another maneuver in the now-ubiquitous power struggle between the league and its players. The NFL is emboldened by its legal victory over Brady and is using the same broad authority -- as written in Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement -- to compel participation in an otherwise out-of-policy investigation.

[wadesworld]

When these players go to these interviews, will the Players Association refuse to send a rep with them since the PA doesn't want them doing these interviews at all?