Busted Athletes Are 0% Believeable (Mathis)

[NinerSickness]

Why should they? It's not like he's getting away with anything. What he says now really doesn't matter to the NFL.

It's insulting to my intelligence and yours to listen to the wagon-circling media try to marginalize what Mathis did. I take it personally.

 

[sjballer03]

Just curious, but do you think a positive result from a contaminated test is a confirmation of guilt?

I don't consider it a contaminated test. He won his appeal based on the argument that the chain of custody was broken. That means that the results of the test can't be used against him. It doesn't mean the results themselves are meaningless.

 

[WizardHawk]

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what they say. Their statements are completely irrelevant because they can't be verified or refuted.

No shit. That's what I've been saying. It is something we have discussed up here over and over given the Seattle issues. There is nothing newsworthy here. There is nothing new here. There is nothing that ANYONE has EVER argued against here. So why keep going on and on over it?

So when they have a positive substance policy violation, I'm going under the assumption it was intentional cheating. Is there an infinitesimal chance their ludicrous stories are true?

Why listen to or care about what they say? When the league says they came up dirty and are facing some consequence that is that. Their story or any discussion of what they may, or may not have taken is entirely moot. Seriously, who fucking cares? You can't know the truth so anything said or guessed at is irrelevant. Entirely.

Most people will lie to your face their ENTIRE lives until they're caught.

FIFY

If you're willing to take a banned substance, you're willing to lie about it pathologically.

Again, this is news to you? I mean why on earth does this even need to be said? If you are willing to violate the rules you are willing to lie about it. And apparently this is shocking and thread worthy now.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's insulting to my intelligence and yours to listen to the wagon-circling media try to marginalize what Mathis did. I take it personally.

SO DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.

 

[NinerSickness]

SO DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.

I don't when they start circling the wagons like they always do when players get busted for PEDs or when the Patriots got caught cheating and so on. But that doesn't mean I won't take the chance to trash them and the players / coaches they're defending.

Just as a side note, you're overdoing it with the smileys.

 

[NinerSickness]

Again, this is news to you? I mean why on earth does this even need to be said? If you are willing to violate the rules you are willing to lie about it. And apparently this is shocking and thread worthy now.

You're not understanding. Some people actually buy the BS stories the sports media can't wait to repeat every other segment. And most people don't know what the NFL substance abuse policy is. I know you're an expert on the subject because you're a Seahawks' fan, but this thread wasn't directed specifically to you.

 

[WizardHawk]

You're not understanding. Some people actually buy the BS stories the sports media can't wait to repeat every other segment. And most people don't know what the NFL substance abuse policy is. I know you're an expert on the subject because you're a Seahawks' fan, but this thread wasn't directed specifically to you.

THIS site has had numerous threads going over the policy ad nauseam. That was the point. This isn't news to people who aren't new to this board.

Trash people all you want. It's just the perception that you appear to have had an epiphany with this information I scoff at. It isn't just Seattle fans that are experts on the substance policies, but your fans as well considering they were totally obsessed with it for years now.

However, you did sort of leave questions about your knowledge when you said ALL people who are serving suspensions must be repeat offenders. Under the PED policy you are suspended for 4 games on the FIRST offense. If it was for steroids or other illegal drugs you may also face prosecution. The leagues rules still require cooperation with federal legal investigations.

The substance abuse policy (seperate policy) goes through stages. You are not suspended on a first offense. So those who got popped for pot have been busted before and probably at least on their 3rd dirty test by the time you hear of it.

 

[NinerSickness]

THIS site has had numerous threads going over the policy ad nauseam. That was the point. This isn't news to people who aren't new to this board.

Trash people all you want. It's just the perception that you appear to have had an epiphany with this information I scoff at.

Can I play the smiley card now? These kinds of responses to the Mathis story are not the least bit uncommon:

Well with it being a fertility drug he gets a bit of a pass in my book but at the same time these guys should know how important it is to call the league and check. It is very easy and confidential so it is just stupid when these guys get caught and say they didn't know.

Exactly, if you aren't 100% sure, you better check. No excuse is necessary or acceptable.

And since you and I agree that people (and I added athletes in particular) are typically pathological liars, I think this part of the discussion has run its course.

 

[WizardHawk]

Can I play the smiley card now? These kinds of responses to the Mathis story are not the least bit uncommon:.

You made this about Seattle and Sherman as well, not I. Did I use the bold correctly enough for you?

Read the OP again and tell us how this is just about what Mathis did and said about it.

if he's being suspended that means this isn't the first time he's tested positive!

Despite the vociferous use of oversized letters, this statement is false. PED use is a first time 4 game suspension. This is well known and has been discussed at length here. Your statement is just flat out WRONG. You confused two distinctly different policies and it would appear not matter how many times one of us tells you this, you are going to continue to ignore it.

That includes Josh Gordon, Richard Sherman and the other 5 Seahawks who tested positive.

Wrong again. Sherman's controversial case was a PED case, not a substance abuse case. The former carries a 4 game suspension for a first offense (as described above) while the latter simply moves you into a new phase of testing.

Part of what may be confusing you is the Browner case. He initially failed a substance abuse test while with the Broncos and was placed into a higher testing phase. This is where all of the discussion about which policy he was being penalized under came into the discussion. His 4 game suspension wasn't for a SA like his earlier case, but rather a first time PED test failure at the same time as Sherman's test. We do not know what either came up dirty for, only that it was for performing enhancment drugs.

And as for your blanket statement that ALL who are caught on this policy are now presumed by you to have taken the worst thing on the list because you cannot know the truth, that's just fucking silly. There is a huge list of ingredients that are in various over the counter supplements that can make you come up dirty for PED's. The league has been criticized many times for not making some of those more obscure items more known to the players. They are guilty of taking something against the rules of the league. We cannot, and will not, ever know whether or not it was something seriously bad, or something that was more of a mistake.

We do know your hard on for Seattle and their issues under the policy haven't subsided yet as was evident by the OP.

 

[NinerSickness]

You're right for correcting me about PEDs causing a suspension the first time. I actually read through a few huge PDF Files with the banned substances policy, and I thought it said the first time for all banned substances just caused more testing the first time. That part of it was wrong.

The point of the thread was to the credibility of the person getting busted, and they still have no credibility because of the confidentiality part of the policy. The entire purpose of the NFLPA pushing for that was to protect liars an their reputations.

And yes, this includes Sherman. His story is 100% bull shit. He tested positive and got off on a technicality. Like someone else already said in this thread, the sample was not contaminated. The tester did not put Sherman's pee sample in an already-used pee cup he just happened to have sitting on a counter for some reason (which would be pretty nasty). His story is just as stupid as Mathis' story.

I'd say the exact same thing about any 49er who gets busted for PEDs. I'm not a homer. Backup linebacker Larry Grant was also a cheater, and I'm glad the 49ers never brought him back after he got suspended.

 

[WizardHawk]

I've never defended Sherman and that wasn't the point. His test was dirty for something. What, we don't know and won't know because of the policy. Because of that this notion of making a fuss over whether or not they are lying is moot. I don't give two shits about what any of them claim.

Now on this new guy it's fertility medication. Even if he's right he's still a fucking idiot for taking ANYTHING and now knowing for sure if it is allowed or not and very possibly it's BS anyway. We all get that. So I don't even bother. Everyone who comes up dirty gets what they deserve under the policy. What they really took or what their story is doesn't matter.

 

[Uhsplit]

I don't consider it a contaminated test. He won his appeal based on the argument that the chain of custody was broken. That means that the results of the test can't be used against him. It doesn't mean the results themselves are meaningless.

Thank you for the clarification.

Per Shefter:
A major part of Sherman's appeal, which was heard Friday, involved his claim that the cup containing his urine specimen was leaking, prompting the collector to place a second cup underneath it to capture any leakage.
Sherman stated that the second cup's seal already had been broken before being used to stop the leakage from his cup, according to the source. Since the second cup's seal was broken, the chain of custody also was broken, therefore nullifying Sherman's positive test for Adderall.
Sherman and his representatives argued that his tested urine sample was contaminated as a result of the second cup. If the collector confirmed the second cup's seal was broken, there would be grounds for Sherman escaping his suspension.
Allow me to rephase my question to fit your view.
Do you feel a person is guilty if he tests positive even though the chain of custody of evidence is proven broken and unreliable?

I am not defending Sherm.
sick was wrong to bring the Seahawks into a present tense agrument about Mathis.

 

[dredinis21]

Thank you for the clarification.

Per Shefter:
A major part of Sherman's appeal, which was heard Friday, involved his claim that the cup containing his urine specimen was leaking, prompting the collector to place a second cup underneath it to capture any leakage.
Sherman stated that the second cup's seal already had been broken before being used to stop the leakage from his cup, according to the source. Since the second cup's seal was broken, the chain of custody also was broken, therefore nullifying Sherman's positive test for Adderall.
Sherman and his representatives argued that his tested urine sample was contaminated as a result of the second cup. If the collector confirmed the second cup's seal was broken, there would be grounds for Sherman escaping his suspension.
Allow me to rephase my question to fit your view.
Do you feel a person is guilty if he tests positive even though the chain of custody of evidence is proven broken and unreliable?

I am not defending Sherm.
sick was wrong to bring the Seahawks into a present tense agrument about Mathis.

Yes and no. It may have been wrong because of the shitstorm that this one sentence jab created with Hawk fans but no in the context of him being fed up with the bullshit stories being used to describe their failed drug tests. I'm guessing he was referring to Adderall being the go-to excuse in order to minimize the PED failed tests in many of the Hawks' cases.

 

[NinerSickness]

I am not defending Sherm.
sick was wrong to bring the Seahawks into a present tense agrument about Mathis.

No I wasn't. The title was to the believability of busted athletes. That includes Sherman. His story was BS. It was good enough for lawyers, but it was still BS.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes and no. It may have been wrong because of the shitstorm that this one sentence jab created with Hawk fans but no in the context of him being fed up with the bullshit stories being used to describe their failed drug tests. I'm guessing he was referring to Adderall being the go-to excuse in order to minimize the PED failed tests in many of the Hawks' cases.

Sorry, but he even admitted he was wrong. Not for bringing Seattle into it, but for how it was characterized.

Few defend any Seahawk for their dirty tests. Everyone is splitting hairs if they are defending Sherman and really it doesn't matter either way. It was the notion that they all had to have failed those tests several times that created much of the backlash. I mean if you expect people to not make corrections to gross errors I'm not sure why you would chose this place to post. If it had been a hawks fan making that kind of mistake there is no doubt the SC 9'er fans would have been coming out of the woodwork and rightfully so.

 

[NinerSickness]

Sorry, but he even admitted he was wrong. Not for bringing Seattle into it, but for how it was characterized.

No, I admitted I had the particular distinction between a first PED test and a first other-banned-substance test wrong. I missed that one distinction, but the point about their stories being bull shit is still valid.

 

[Uhsplit]

No I wasn't. The title was to the believability of busted athletes. That includes Sherman. His story was BS. It was good enough for lawyers, but it was still BS.

Not a problem to mention Mathis as he is the most current example and his story is current front page. I tend to agree with your position on this. He can say whatever he wants in defense of his stupidity.
In a similar vein, if an NFL HC got a DWI and someone mentions that Harbs is also guilty of that same offense, it appears to show a vendetta against DHS, even though his transgression is in the past. In that case, there would be no need to rag on DHS while instead focusing on the fact that the DWI was wrong and how could someone under the public microscope be as foolish as to not call a cab. The point gets across without the mention of the case(s) in the past.

 

[Am I Blue Through it All?]

Just you wait until it cums out that half the Seahawks and nearly all of their fans are on bull semen!

 

[NinerSickness]

In a similar vein, if an NFL HC got a DWI and someone mentions that Harbs is also guilty of that same offense, it appears to show a vendetta against DHS, even though his transgression is in the past.

What's "DHS?"

 

[MarkOU]

Shenanigans going on around a Pete Carroll coached team?

Say it ain't so?