Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
When there is sufficient credible evidence. Before the NFL decided to announce that Sly was not credible, I think they would have a stronger argument to request the interviews. Now that the league has admitted there is no credible evidence, I don't see the basis for the interviews.
Sufficient credible evidence isn't a standard I've ever heard of.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that the players have some sort of legal right to refuse to participate in an investigation that isn't based on sufficient credible evidence? (Whatever that means.) What And who is going to make that determination? A federal court?

If the players refuse to be interviewed, they'll be suspended, and Goodell will uphold their suspension when he conducts the internal appeal. If they challenge his ruling in federal court, they will lose at every level.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,510
Balboa Towers
It's the standard written into the PED policy.

Except here, like deflategate, the league says, actually that bargained for policy, PED here or equipment in the case of deflategate, doesn't apply. This is an Article 46 conduct detrimental issue. That's what Berman and Karzmann got correct, in my opinion. That there was a specific bargained for section of the CBA that applied. However, now that the 8th and 2nd circuits have sided with the NFL, allowing 46 to essentially be a catch all, the NFL is already invoking that new authority, handling what should be a PED issue under its 46 authority.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,057
Mansfield MA
When there is sufficient credible evidence. Before the NFL decided to announce that Sly was not credible, I think they would have a stronger argument to request the interviews. Now that the league has admitted there is no credible evidence, I don't see the basis for the interviews.
Mostly playing devil's advocate, but the NFL did admit that Manning had HGH sent to his house. And they interviewed his wife as part of the process, IIRC. So they might be saying that Sly is credible but the HGH wasn't for Peyton (which strains credulity, but whatever).
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,800
Rotten Apple
Mostly playing devil's advocate, but the NFL did admit that Manning had HGH sent to his house. And they interviewed his wife as part of the process, IIRC. So they might be saying that Sly is credible but the HGH wasn't for Peyton (which strains credulity, but whatever).
I would LOVE to see the transcripts of that "interview."

NFL: So, how are you today?
Mrs. Manning: Fine, thanks.
NFL: Great, thanks for your co-operation. Goodbye.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,510
Balboa Towers
Mostly playing devil's advocate, but the NFL did admit that Manning had HGH sent to his house. And they interviewed his wife as part of the process, IIRC. So they might be saying that Sly is credible but the HGH wasn't for Peyton (which strains credulity, but whatever).
Really strains, I think. The NFL said there was "no credible evidence that Peyton Manning was provided with or used HGH." I don't know how the league can conclude that Peyton wasn't provided with HGH without saying Sly's claims weren't credible.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Interesting article on Pats Pulpit correlating the success of a particular franchise and the penalty given in a particular incident. It's a distinct pattern. If you're good, you get harsher penalties. If you're not and nobody cares about your franchise, you get smaller penalty.

http://www.patspulpit.com/2016/8/16/12507526/a-pretty-clear-pattern-is-emerging-in-roger-goodells-witch-hunts
I read that too but I think he got close but eventually drew the wrong conclusion. I don't think it's the success of the team that can be correlated to the penalties but actually the media's level of interest in that team/scandal. Now it's a given that the media would likely be more interested in scandals at winning teams vs losing teams. But that article suggested the league leveled big penalties on the pats, steelers and now packers so that they could level the playing field and drive parity. He used the Broncos taping a practice and the Falcons pumping crowd noise as scandals that got a slap on the wrist because why would the league benefit if the Falcons suck more. That would make parity worse.

I think the stronger correlation is that the NFL didn't hit the Falcons hard because no one cares about the Falcons and the media barely touched the story. But a scandal with the Patriots about science deflating footballs was the biggest media story in the country for a shockingly long amount of time. The attention and headlines lead to the league feeling the need to react.

Same with most of the others. Star QB accused of rape; big media coverage/big penalty. Denver with Tebow tapes a practice; little attention and little penalty. News outlet that many people ignorantly assume is tied to radical Muslims breaks a steroid story about the most popular sport in America; big media coverage/league acting like a bully.

Now there are certainly counter examples. Ray rice being the obvious one. But I would chalk that up to the league making a judgement call that was woefully wrong. In my opinion the common thread in all the harsher penalties is the league trying to counter and control a story that has got a lot of attention while letting the problems that don't get a lot of the spotlight quietly fade away.

I also think there is a lot of ego and hubris in the league office that is a major root cause of league going after these four players. The court rulings that strengthen their power seem to have only embolden them.
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,813
deep inside Guido territory
I read that too but I think he got close but eventually drew the wrong conclusion. I don't think it's the success of the team that can be correlated to the penalties but actually the media's level of interest in that team/scandal. Now it's a given that the media would likely be more interested in scandals at winning teams vs losing teams. But that article suggested the league leveled big penalties on the pats, steelers and now packers so that they could level the playing field and drive parity. He used the Broncos taping a practice and the Falcons pumping crowd noise as scandals that got a slap on the wrist because why would the league benefit if the Falcons suck more. That would make parity worse.

I think the stronger correlation is that the NFL didn't hit the Falcons hard because no one cares about the Falcons and the media barely touched the story. But a scandal with the Patriots about science deflating footballs was the biggest media story in the country for a shockingly long amount of time. The attention and headlines lead to the league feeling the need to react.

Same with most of the others. Star QB accused of rape; big media coverage/big penalty. Denver with Tebow tapes a practice; little attention and little penalty. News outlet that many people ignorantly assume is tied to radical Muslims breaks a steroid story about the most popular sport in America; big media coverage/league acting like a bully.

Now there are certainly counter examples. Ray rice being the obvious one. But I would chalk that up to the league making a judgement call that was woefully wrong. In my opinion the common thread in all the harsher penalties is the league trying to counter and control a story that has got a lot of attention while letting the problems that don't get a lot of the spotlight quietly fade away.

I also think there is a lot of ego and hubris in the league office that is a major root cause of league going after these four players. The court rulings that strengthen their power seem to have only embolden them.
That is also an excellent conclusion. I think they go hand in hand though. The more success a team has the bigger the story it would be in the media.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,797
Michigan
Really strains, I think. The NFL said there was "no credible evidence that Peyton Manning was provided with or used HGH." I don't know how the league can conclude that Peyton wasn't provided with HGH without saying Sly's claims weren't credible.
[Edit:] The NFL didn't say Sly's claims weren't credible. Apparently, the NFL interviewed the Mannings and his wife said the HGH was for her. That would actually support Sly's credibility. Sly never said, only implied, that the HGH mailed to Manning's house was for him. While I think you have to be incredibly naive to believe that it wasn't, Ashley Manning's word was obviously good enough for the NFL to prove a negative, that Peyton didn't use HGH.

Goodell is a dick and the AJA Five-Minus-One are right to be distrustful of the NFL's farcical investigations, but the NFL is correct on this one: employees who refuse to cooperate in reasonable employer investigations into misconduct are asking for suspensions or to be fired.

I still hope the players tell him to shove it and that Packers and Steelers fans get a taste of what passes for NFL integrity and justice. Besides, this kind of nonsense keeps the league and its lapdog media busy. Less time for Cheatriots nonsense.
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,813
deep inside Guido territory
The point is it became a huge deal without Miami being A) good or B) a big media team
I think that became a big deal because of the whole bullying thing and that being such a big buzz word in society these days. Also because Martin actually left the team because of the bullying made the media dig deeper into the story. Incidents like this are supposed to be made into a big deal. League matters such as the alleged penalties in Deflategate and in this Al-Jazeera report are made into bigger deals because the NFL chooses to do so even though there are documented rules on the books for those alleged violations.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,739
I read that too but I think he got close but eventually drew the wrong conclusion. I don't think it's the success of the team that can be correlated to the penalties but actually the media's level of interest in that team/scandal. Now it's a given that the media would likely be more interested in scandals at winning teams vs losing teams. But that article suggested the league leveled big penalties on the pats, steelers and now packers so that they could level the playing field and drive parity. He used the Broncos taping a practice and the Falcons pumping crowd noise as scandals that got a slap on the wrist because why would the league benefit if the Falcons suck more. That would make parity worse.

I think the stronger correlation is that the NFL didn't hit the Falcons hard because no one cares about the Falcons and the media barely touched the story. But a scandal with the Patriots about science deflating footballs was the biggest media story in the country for a shockingly long amount of time. The attention and headlines lead to the league feeling the need to react.

Same with most of the others. Star QB accused of rape; big media coverage/big penalty. Denver with Tebow tapes a practice; little attention and little penalty. News outlet that many people ignorantly assume is tied to radical Muslims breaks a steroid story about the most popular sport in America; big media coverage/league acting like a bully.

Now there are certainly counter examples. Ray rice being the obvious one. But I would chalk that up to the league making a judgement call that was woefully wrong. In my opinion the common thread in all the harsher penalties is the league trying to counter and control a story that has got a lot of attention while letting the problems that don't get a lot of the spotlight quietly fade away.

I also think there is a lot of ego and hubris in the league office that is a major root cause of league going after these four players. The court rulings that strengthen their power seem to have only embolden them.
I think this is right on but I would add that the NFL interprets 'integrity of the league' to mean anything that makes the NFL look bad including bone headed decisions that the NFL may have made.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,206
Los Angeles, CA
[Edit:] The NFL didn't say Sly's claims weren't credible. Apparently, the NFL interviewed the Mannings and his wife said the HGH was for her. That would actually support Sly's credibility. Sly never said, only implied, that the HGH mailed to Manning's house was for him. While I think you have to be incredibly naive to believe that it wasn't, Ashley Manning's word was obviously good enough for the NFL to prove a negative, that Peyton didn't use HGH.

Goodell is a dick and the AJA Five-Minus-One are right to be distrustful of the NFL's farcical investigations, but the NFL is correct on this one: employees who refuse to cooperate in reasonable employer investigations into misconduct are asking for suspensions or to be fired.

I still hope the players tell him to shove it and that Packers and Steelers fans get a taste of what passes for NFL integrity and justice. Besides, this kind of nonsense keeps the league and its lapdog media busy. Less time for Cheatriots nonsense.
Where are you getting all of this information? I only remember the one statement by the NFL. People grumbled a bit, and then it was dead. Can you share a link because I must have missed it.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
It's the standard written into the PED policy.

Except here, like deflategate, the league says, actually that bargained for policy, PED here or equipment in the case of deflategate, doesn't apply. This is an Article 46 conduct detrimental issue. That's what Berman and Karzmann got correct, in my opinion. That there was a specific bargained for section of the CBA that applied. However, now that the 8th and 2nd circuits have sided with the NFL, allowing 46 to essentially be a catch all, the NFL is already invoking that new authority, handling what should be a PED issue under its 46 authority.
I read the policy. It's a standard for finding a violation of the PED policy based on documentary evidence (i.e., not based on testing or another adjudication). It has nothing to do with a player's obligation to participate in a disciplinary investigation. If that were the case, the league would have to prove a violation before it could interview the player suspected of violating the policy.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,797
Michigan
Where are you getting all of this information? I only remember the one statement by the NFL. People grumbled a bit, and then it was dead. Can you share a link because I must have missed it.
From two places. Manning's statement, via his p.r. guy, former White House flack Ari Fleischer, and the NFL's statement.

Fleischer confirmed that HGH was mailed to the Manning house, which actually supports Sly's story and makes his initial version seem seem more credible. Manning had previously suggested the HGH was for his wife, Ashely. The NFL exonerated Manning after an interview with him and his wife so it's reasonable to assume that they were convinced by the Mannings' stories, that the HGH delivered to their house was for her use, not his. His miraculous recovery was just a coincidence.

The short NFL statement doesn't even mention Sly's credibility. It simply said its "comprehensive seven-month investigation into allegations made in an documentary by Al-Jazeera America found no credible evidence that Peyton Manning. [my emphasis] was provided with or used HGH..." Of course, if you don't look very hard for credible evidence or go to the trouble to invent some, you're not likely to find any.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,671
From two places. Manning's statement, via his p.r. guy, former White House flack Ari Fleischer, and the NFL's statement.

Fleischer confirmed that HGH was mailed to the Manning house, which actually supports Sly's story and makes his initial version seem seem more credible. Manning had previously suggested the HGH was for his wife, Ashely. The NFL exonerated Manning after an interview with him and his wife so it's reasonable to assume that they were convinced by the Mannings' stories, that the HGH delivered to their house was for her use, not his. His miraculous recovery was just a coincidence.

The short NFL statement doesn't even mention Sly's credibility. It simply said its "comprehensive seven-month investigation into allegations made in an documentary by Al-Jazeera America found no credible evidence that Peyton Manning. [my emphasis] was provided with or used HGH..." Of course, if you don't look very hard for credible evidence or go to the trouble to invent some, you're not likely to find any.
Or, if your the Commish and you're given credible evidence that you don't like, you just set it aside.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,206
Los Angeles, CA
From two places. Manning's statement, via his p.r. guy, former White House flack Ari Fleischer, and the NFL's statement.

Fleischer confirmed that HGH was mailed to the Manning house, which actually supports Sly's story and makes his initial version seem seem more credible. Manning had previously suggested the HGH was for his wife, Ashely. The NFL exonerated Manning after an interview with him and his wife so it's reasonable to assume that they were convinced by the Mannings' stories, that the HGH delivered to their house was for her use, not his. His miraculous recovery was just a coincidence.

The short NFL statement doesn't even mention Sly's credibility. It simply said its "comprehensive seven-month investigation into allegations made in an documentary by Al-Jazeera America found no credible evidence that Peyton Manning. [my emphasis] was provided with or used HGH..." Of course, if you don't look very hard for credible evidence or go to the trouble to invent some, you're not likely to find any.
Okay. I was asking for a link because it sounded like you were repeating some inside knowledge about the ongoings of the Goodell / Manning interview.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,797
Michigan
Sometimes I think you have to FAIL an IQ test before being hired as a sportswriter.

From Bleacher/Report (okay, not exactly the pinnacle of sportswriting, but still):

"Sly was probably telling some version of the truth, but his word—his recanted word—still isn't proof.
"In fact, the NFL's own investigation showed there was no credible evidence to the Manning aspect of the story."

Um... no. The NFL's investigation showed no such thing. In fact, the NFL's investigation of Manning showed absolutely nothing at all. In the Manning case, the NFL issued its findings without showing any of its work. The NFL simply declared in a statement that it found no credible evidence that Manning used HGH even though Manning admitted it was mailed to his house for use by his wife, Ashley.

Even without a supposed seven-month investigation, the NFL had considerably more reason to believe that Manning used HGH -- the shit was mailed to his house -- than it did to support any allegations of involvement with ball-tampering against Brady. For that matter, there's considerably more evidence that the Al-Jazeera Five-Minus-One used PEDs than there is of any Patriots ball tamparing at all.

I'm glad the Packers and Steelers players are telling Goodell to stuff it. I'm glad that Packers and Steelers fans all-of-a-sudden see that Goodell is an out-of-control asshole. But the idiocy and hypocrisy of the sportswriters covering this stuff drives me nuts. I expect some fans to be morons, but the ability to get simple facts straight should be a prerequisite for even the most in-the-tank, home-team cheering sportswriters.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2658044-power-hungry-nfl-all-wrong-to-demand-players-talk-to-about-recanted-accusations
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,495
From two places. Manning's statement, via his p.r. guy, former White House flack Ari Fleischer, and the NFL's statement.

Fleischer confirmed that HGH was mailed to the Manning house, which actually supports Sly's story and makes his initial version seem seem more credible. Manning had previously suggested the HGH was for his wife, Ashely. The NFL exonerated Manning after an interview with him and his wife so it's reasonable to assume that they were convinced by the Mannings' stories, that the HGH delivered to their house was for her use, not his. His miraculous recovery was just a coincidence.

The short NFL statement doesn't even mention Sly's credibility. It simply said its "comprehensive seven-month investigation into allegations made in an documentary by Al-Jazeera America found no credible evidence that Peyton Manning. [my emphasis] was provided with or used HGH..." Of course, if you don't look very hard for credible evidence or go to the trouble to invent some, you're not likely to find any.
Do you have a link to that statement? I thought they stated she received some medication but I don't remember any mention of hgh.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,621
They didn't mention the part where he sent his goons to the guy's home to threaten his family? Must have missed that part.
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,880
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
Herm Edwards on ESPN:

if you dont want to get pulled over for speeding, then just don't speed;

if you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide and you agree to the interview.

(I didnt catch all of it, but he was also trying to make a point along the lines of: there are 800 players in the NFL, so if 20 a year get called in to speak with or interview at 345/Roger, what's the big deal, you just go in for the interview.)
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,664
Herm Edwards on ESPN:

if you dont want to get pulled over for speeding, then just don't speed;

if you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide and you agree to the interview.
Screamin' A has already called for an immediate suspension for Harrison, which places me even more firmly onto Team Harrison.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,517
Newton
I don't see anything in that statement where they admit HGH was sent to the house.
They don't – at least not in that WaPo article:

The story Sly said he made up contained at least a bit of truth, though: The Guyer Institute did ship medication to Ashley Manning, Fleischer confirmed. Citing Ashley’s right to privacy, Fleischer declined to specify whether the medication was human growth hormone, which is banned by professional sports leagues and only legal to prescribe in America for a few specific conditions, such as growth hormone deficiency, HIV wasting syndrome and short bowel syndrome.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,671
Herm, having the Commish put on his wizard hat and talk to you as the basis for any discipline isn't problematic to you?
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,800
Rotten Apple
What punishment did the Dolphins, not the players, receive?
This comment should be circled and highlighted.

What punishments will any of the teams receive during this round of "investigations" by the league? Furthermore, since Roger himself equated and escalated Brady's equipment violation into a PEDs level offense (with no evidence or precedent to support that, naturally) we would expect the teams to receive some sort of penalty and loss of picks here for no co-operation, right?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,739
This comment should be circled and highlighted.

What punishments will any of the teams receive during this round of "investigations" by the league? Furthermore, since Roger himself equated and escalated Brady's equipment violation into a PEDs level offense (with no evidence or precedent to support that, naturally) we would expect the teams to receive some sort of penalty and loss of picks here for no co-operation, right?
If the league is to be believed, Brady conspired with team employees in a scheme to deflate the footballs after the officials inspected the balls which is why both team and player were punished.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,783
Hingham, MA
If the league is to be believed, Brady conspired with team employees in a scheme to deflate the footballs after the officials inspected the balls which is why both team and player were punished.
Also, the Pats were punished for failure to cooperate, in that they didn't allow McNally for another interview
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,398
Washington
I believe the Dolphins were lauded for their level of cooperation with Wells and other NFL investigators. Maybe that had an impact as sanctions were being considered.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,800
Rotten Apple
If the league is to be believed, Brady conspired with team employees in a scheme to deflate the footballs after the officials inspected the balls which is why both team and player were punished.
That's fair.
Not to sidetrack this but to what extent does a team's culpability have here? Can Roger ask the team about what they know or didn't know? Are teams under any obligation to assist the league or no?
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,495

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,739
That's fair.
Not to sidetrack this but to what extent does a team's culpability have here? Can Roger ask the team about what they know or didn't know? Are teams under any obligation to assist the league or no?
Teams do face a financial penalty for suspended players, but I believe it is more about salary control than it is about penalizing the teams. Basically it's preventing teams from gaining salary cap space just because a bunch of their players have been suspended for the first four weeks of the season.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,135
Rhode Island
What would be amazing is for those 4 or 5 big stars on each team to take a % of their salary to protect those low down the food chain to see this through. Change is needed, a real strike is needed and I HOPE after watching Brady go through the crap he went through they understand this and see it through to the end. 2020 is a long ways away, I can hardly wait to see all the NFL management screws up until then...:rolleyes:
I'd take it a step further. The NFLPA should create a secondary dues structure that pulls a decent amount of salary from the players into a special escrow fund. They can make it some type of voluntary savings plan where the players will get it back with interest post next CBA agreement. Perhaps even easier is to have the players agree that a slice of the players revenue pie comes off the top and goes straight to the union rather than factor into the salary cap (and can be redistributed later). The only way they will have any leverage come 2020 is if there is a massive (nine figure) strike contingency fund. I don't have the faith in the players to put aside their short term selfish interests enough so that enough money can be socked away to get the owner's attention that they won't cave come the 1st missed paycheck. It's doesn't seem feasible that they will make any progress in cleaning up the CBA structure without going on strike and putting a (non scab) season at risk.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,739
I'd take it a step further. The NFLPA should create a secondary dues structure that pulls a decent amount of salary from the players into a special escrow fund. They can make it some type of voluntary savings plan where the players will get it back with interest post next CBA agreement. Perhaps even easier is to have the players agree that a slice of the players revenue pie comes off the top and goes straight to the union rather than factor into the salary cap (and can be redistributed later). The only way they will have any leverage come 2020 is if there is a massive (nine figure) strike contingency fund. I don't have the faith in the players to put aside their short term selfish interests enough so that enough money can be socked away to get the owner's attention that they won't cave come the 1st missed paycheck. It's doesn't seem feasible that they will make any progress in cleaning up the CBA structure without going on strike and putting a (non scab) season at risk.
Could Tier 1 players (stars) strike while Tier 2 players continue working? That would hurt the league right?
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,135
Rhode Island
Could Tier 1 players (stars) strike while Tier 2 players continue working? That would hurt the league right?
Can't see that happening. No matter how you look at it, anyone playing while others are striking would be a scab. The owners would love it, because it would tear apart the union.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Haha.. and note it's already been updated to reflect only 3 are meeting... I mean the jokes write themselves at this point for Mort
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Breer has the letter Mcphee (NFLPA lawyer for those that don't remember the who's who of deflategate) wrote, and makes no sense why caving as it just emboldens the NFL...

accuses NFL of leaking letter to press before players even received it

Harrison agreeing to end witch hunt

claim of "non-precendent" meeting.

Article 46 not relevant

NFLPA reserves all rights to pursue.





 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Peppers and Matthews have been quiet about this (I haven't seen any comments from them, maybe others have).
James Harrison has said things that the NFL office will consider a slight or insult against them.

The odds of Harrison getting a suspension and the other two getting nothing have to be extremely high right?
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,402
Sometimes I think you have to FAIL an IQ test before being hired as a sportswriter.

I'm glad the Packers and Steelers players are telling Goodell to stuff it. I'm glad that Packers and Steelers fans all-of-a-sudden see that Goodell is an out-of-control asshole. But the idiocy and hypocrisy of the sportswriters covering this stuff drives me nuts. I expect some fans to be morons, but the ability to get simple facts straight should be a prerequisite for even the most in-the-tank, home-team cheering sportswriters.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2658044-power-hungry-nfl-all-wrong-to-demand-players-talk-to-about-recanted-accusations
Steelers fans and more importantly the Steelers themselves have known what an out of control piece of shit Goodell is for a long time, that's why the Steelers were the only team that voted against the current CBA, specifically because of the concentration of power in the Commissioner's hands on issues like this that was written into it.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Part of me cynically wonders if the league wants another ratings-boosting "scandal" to occupy the backpages, now that the Brady nonsense is over.