9ers trade for CB

[NinerSickness]

The cup was ALREADY OPENED BEFORE TRANSFERING THE SAMPLE and therefore used (seal broken = used test cup by definition).

How could the pee be transferred without first breaking the seal in order to transfer the pee into the other cup?

Are you saying that a guy who does this for a living had a used, empty pee cup lying around the testing area? If that's true then... yuck and this guy's the biggest idiot in the history of pee testing.

But even if that's the case, (and I've see nothing indicating as much) I still don't buy the notion that his sample was clean. Do you know whose sample was supposedly in the 2nd cup? Was he using PEDs & not Sherman? Someone must have in order to have gotten the positive test.

Like I said: guilty until proven innocent. I don't believe a word these guys say. Athletes lie with impunity all the time. If he were a baseball player, I would be even more convinced of his guilt. Sherman got a freebie.

 

[jakedog56]

How could the pee be transferred without first breaking the seal in order to transfer the pee into the other cup?

Are you saying that a guy who does this for a living had a used, empty pee cup lying around the testing area? If that's true then... yuck and this guy's the biggest idiot in the history of pee testing.

But even if that's the case, (and I've see nothing indicating as much) I still don't buy the notion that his sample was clean. Do you know whose sample was supposedly in the 2nd cup? Was he using PEDs & not Sherman? Someone must have in order to have gotten the positive test.

Like I said: guilty until proven innocent. I don't believe a word these guys say. Athletes lie with impunity all the time. If he were a baseball player, I would be even more convinced of his guilt. Sherman got a freebie.

What you are stating is incorrect. The tester used a sample cup that had previously been opened. He didn't just break the seal to transfer the sample. He grabbed an already opened cup to contain the urine that was leaking out of the original cup.

So yes, what I am saying is that the guy used a cup that was lying around. He panicked because urine was leaking out of the cup he was holding. So the guy was not doing his job correctly and I do believe that I read somewhere that he was fired (not his first offense in breaking with procedure)(?).

At that point, it does not matter. You can convict him in your mind all you want, but you have nothing to back it up. If it would have been baseball and they would have suspended him, Sherman would have sued them and won. That is why the NFL did not pursue it further.

I was joking when I quoted the Animal House speech earlier and I am not some over-the-top patriot who waves the flag and questions nothing about the USA, but your continued "guilty until proven innocent" really is anti-American and fascist. It goes against everything that this country stands for. Sherman is a USA citizen and he has the same rights as everyone else. If you want to just sentence people as it suits your needs, then please move to China or someother country where they can ignore all human rights as they wish.

 

[dredinis21]

How could the pee be transferred without first breaking the seal in order to transfer the pee into the other cup?

Are you saying that a guy who does this for a living had a used, empty pee cup lying around the testing area? If that's true then... yuck and this guy's the biggest idiot in the history of pee testing.

But even if that's the case, (and I've see nothing indicating as much) I still don't buy the notion that his sample was clean. Do you know whose sample was supposedly in the 2nd cup? Was he using PEDs & not Sherman? Someone must have in order to have gotten the positive test.

Like I said: guilty until proven innocent. I don't believe a word these guys say. Athletes lie with impunity all the time. If he were a baseball player, I would be even more convinced of his guilt. Sherman got a freebie.

One step further is that regardless of what these guys SAY they took, according to the CBA, the NFL cannot come out and say what the player tested positive for. It seems very much like PR damage control to say, "hey, I was taking Adderall, no big deal!" when there is no way that the NFL can call bullshit on their story. So the incentive to lie is there along with a rock solid ready-made cover up already systematically in place for them.

 

[NinerSickness]

The tester used a sample cup that had previously been opened.

Opened yes (otherwise the 1st cup couldn't enter). But opened and opened + having piss in it are not the same thing. I've read nothing indicating there was already pee in the 2nd cup.
[/QUOTE]

As far as guilty-until-proven-innocent goes... I'm talking about my own opinion of him. I'm not talking about convicting him of a crime. If I were a juror and Sherman were being tried, I would assume he's innocent until proven guilty. If I'm just a football fan watching him flap his gums on TV, I'm going to go ahead and say he's full of crap and got off on a technicality. Why? He's an athlete with a positive drug test. And pro' athletes are generally douche bags who will lie if it helps them. Is that a gross generalization? Yep. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course. That doesn't dissuade me from believing the stereotype.

I take just about all stereotypes into strong consideration.

 

[jakedog56]

It is obvious that 9er fans will believe what they will in this situation, and Seahawks fans will do the same.

A couple of notes:
There was not a clear statement as to whether or not the opened cup already had pee in it. The truth is that neither you nor I know the answer to this question.

When it comes to adderall vs. other substances (steroids, HGH, etc.), the suspension is the same so there is nothing to gain by claiming it was one or the other. I don't see what the purpose would be here unless you feel public perception would be less negative to adderall? Even then, nothing really to gain (by observing Richard Sherman's behavior I would state that I don't think he really cares what the public thinks).

Also of note: the Von Miller situation seems to be leaning in this direction now also:

Miller case once again raises questions about sample collection | ProFootballTalk

 

[NinerSickness]

It is obvious that 9er fans will believe what they will in this situation, and Seahawks fans will do the same.

A couple of notes:
There was not a clear statement as to whether or not the opened cup already had pee in it. The truth is that neither you nor I know the answer to this question.

And that's why I say Sherman got a freebie. People don't have used pee-cups just lying around.

 

[jakedog56]

And that's why I say Sherman got a freebie. People don't have used pee-cups just lying around.

So you are stating emphatically with 100% certainty that the person conducting the urine tests who grabs an already opened urine cup to contain a leaky sample, grabbed an already opened urine cup that was not used and entirely clean of any previous urine??

I disagree with that. In fact I would go so far as to say that any open cup that is in the vicinity of the testing is highly likely to have pervious sample in it. Why else would you have an open testing cup around at all??

Again, neither of us know these details or the procedure (it is possible that the samples are transfered to vials for shipping and there is ALWAYS empty previously used cups in the vicinity?)

You can think that Sherman got a "freebie" all you want to, but the that does not make it the truth.

 

[fastforward]

Sherman got a freebie. There's no way in hell a sample collector would have given Sherman a tainted cup. There was an error in the collection process. The contents were transferred from 1 cup to another. The person collecting the sample was required to do this and document it. That didn't happen which invalidated the test. It doesn't mean that the result of the test was wrong.

 

[Jikkle]

Sherman got a freebie just like Ryan Braun got a freebie.

It doesn't help his case that so many other teammates had already been busted for PED use so it's not a stretch that he himself had used as well.

 

[jakedog56]

Again, you all can think whatever you want but it is nothing but opinion and speculation.

I am trying to stick to the facts. People on the internet don't seem to like that, but that is what I am basing this discussion on. Deal with it.

 

[octagondd]

Or Baalke doesn't equate signing a former PED user to having an institutional problem with PED useage.

And exactly why he does not see eye to eye with the coach he hired who has a philosophy of his organization being above reproach. As I said earlier in this thread, if you concede that point, then I am glad they are not on the same page. It means possible tension in upper management at the 9ers.

 

[fastforward]

Again, you all can think whatever you want but it is nothing but opinion and speculation.

I am trying to stick to the facts. People on the internet don't seem to like that, but that is what I am basing this discussion on. Deal with it.

You created a spurious story about the 2nd cup possibly being tainted, (as if anyone would re-use a sample container!!!), and then provide this link:

Miller case once again raises questions about sample collection | ProFootballTalk

This talks about Sherman in the 5th paragraph and in turn provides this link:

Leaking cup helped Sherman avoid suspension | ProFootballTalk

This link says:

"...the cup given to Sherman by sample collector Mark Cook was leaking. Though portions of their stories conflicted, both Sherman and Cook agreed that the cup was indeed leaking and that the contents were placed into a second cup...collection cups rarely leak. When they do, the collector needs to document the incident, transfer the contents to a new, clean cup, and ensure that a clear chain of custody is established. Here, Cook’s failure to include the incident in his report resulted in Sherman’s appeal prevailing..."

The procedure wasn't correctly followed so quite rightly the result doesn't stand. Consequently no penalty should be applied to Sherman. It's a technical point so Sherman gets off on a technicality. This doesn't in any way suggest that either:

1) The sample was tainted after Sherman provided it, or
2) The lab result, which detected an illegal substance, is in some way wrong.

 

[blstoker]

You created a spurious story about the 2nd cup possibly being tainted, (as if anyone would re-use a sample container!!!), and then provide this link:

Miller case once again raises questions about sample collection | ProFootballTalk

This talks about Sherman in the 5th paragraph and in turn provides this link:

Leaking cup helped Sherman avoid suspension | ProFootballTalk

This link says:

"...the cup given to Sherman by sample collector Mark Cook was leaking. Though portions of their stories conflicted, both Sherman and Cook agreed that the cup was indeed leaking and that the contents were placed into a second cup...collection cups rarely leak. When they do, the collector needs to document the incident, transfer the contents to a new, clean cup, and ensure that a clear chain of custody is established. Here, Cook’s failure to include the incident in his report resulted in Sherman’s appeal prevailing..."

The procedure wasn't correctly followed so quite rightly the result doesn't stand. Consequently no penalty should be applied to Sherman. It's a technical point so Sherman gets off on a technicality. This doesn't in any way suggest that either:

1) The sample was tainted after Sherman provided it, or
2) The lab result, which detected an illegal substance, is in some way wrong.

At the same time, because procedure was not followed, it cannot be definitively stated that:

1) The sample was not tainted after Sherman provided it, or
2) That the lab result, which detected an illegal substance, is in all ways correct.

 

[Wedgie]

Interesting how this thread became about the Seahawks and PEDs.

 

[dredinis21]

Although I agree that it seems like we constantly get into arguments that somehow veer towards PEDs, this is an exception as Wright was brought up as a former PED user which kind of kicked off the topic.

 

[NinerSickness]

So you are stating emphatically with 100% certainty that the person conducting the urine tests who grabs an already opened urine cup to contain a leaky sample, grabbed an already opened urine cup that was not used and entirely clean of any previous urine??

He could have also opened another cup in order to put cup #1 in cup #2. There's no way to get cup #1 inside cup #2 if he doesn't open cup #2 in order to get the other one in it to catch the leak.

And asking if I'm stating emphatically with 100% certainty is an argument for a jury or a judge / arbitrator. That's not an argument for someone who can just look at the likelihood of an NFL player cheating & getting away with it on a technicality VS the likelihood that a professional pee tester had a used cup of urine just sitting around (which there's nothing to say there was) and that used cup of urine lying around (gross) just happened to have been a positive test, and that residue just happened to seep into cup #1 and taint that sample as well. I'd say scenario #1 is about 10,000 times more likely. That's enough for me to say he got off on a technicality.

 

[jakedog56]

You created a spurious story about the 2nd cup possibly being tainted, (as if anyone would re-use a sample container!!!), and then provide this link:

Miller case once again raises questions about sample collection | ProFootballTalk

This talks about Sherman in the 5th paragraph and in turn provides this link:

Leaking cup helped Sherman avoid suspension | ProFootballTalk

This link says:

"...the cup given to Sherman by sample collector Mark Cook was leaking. Though portions of their stories conflicted, both Sherman and Cook agreed that the cup was indeed leaking and that the contents were placed into a second cup...collection cups rarely leak. When they do, the collector needs to document the incident, transfer the contents to a new, clean cup, and ensure that a clear chain of custody is established. Here, Cook’s failure to include the incident in his report resulted in Sherman’s appeal prevailing..."

The procedure wasn't correctly followed so quite rightly the result doesn't stand. Consequently no penalty should be applied to Sherman. It's a technical point so Sherman gets off on a technicality. This doesn't in any way suggest that either:

1) The sample was tainted after Sherman provided it, or
2) The lab result, which detected an illegal substance, is in some way wrong.

The link I provided had nothing to do with the Sherman situation. I was only pointing out that Von Miller is now having similar issues in regards to procedure and is protesting his suspension.

There is absolutely no statement regarding as to whether or not the 2nd cup used for transfering was used before or not. All that we know is that it was previously opened (the tester, Sherman, and the NFL all agreed that the seal was broken before it was used for the transfer, hence it was "used" by definition but whether at it had actually been physically used or not is not defined to the public.)

You are making assumptions and asuming that they are facts.

 

[jakedog56]

He could have also opened another cup in order to put cup #1 in cup #2. There's no way to get cup #1 inside cup #2 if he doesn't open cup #2 in order to get the other one in it to catch the leak.

And asking if I'm stating emphatically with 100% certainty is an argument for a jury or a judge / arbitrator. That's not an argument for someone who can just look at the likelihood of an NFL player cheating & getting away with it on a technicality VS the likelihood that a professional pee tester had a used cup of urine just sitting around (which there's nothing to say there was) and that used cup of urine lying around (gross) just happened to have been a positive test, and that residue just happened to seep into cup #1 and taint that sample as well. I'd say scenario #1 is about 10,000 times more likely. That's enough for me to say he got off on a technicality.

Again, we just don't have enough information to correctly define the situation. I will admit that maybe I am wrong but we can't say for sure, just as we can't say that you are correct in your assumption.

I guess that this leaves the debate at an impass.

 

[Uhsplit]

Our team is under scrutiny and should be.

I prefer to piss on this situation and have it be a learning experience.

 

[dredinis21]

Our team is under scrutiny and should be.

I prefer to piss on this situation and have it be a learning experience.

Eye C what you did there.