(08-19-2016, 05:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Biggest part is, not only is it reduced to 3, but if he fails another drug test, he doesn't get 10 games like he should with an advancement in the program. Instead he stays at 4 games for his next failed test.

Skip test(s) because you know you're going to fail, and rather than 4 games and 10 the next time, he gets 3 games and 4 the next time.

Life as a Steeler in the Goodell NFL.

This was the part that pissed me off the most. He could conceivably get popped for a 3rd year in a row and only get 4 games. Ridiculous. Heck, maybe they'd reduce it again. The Steelers and Goodell are getting ripped to shreds in the PFT comment sections on these stories.

Probably Pats and other AFCN fans who feel the same way we do.

(08-19-2016, 04:48 PM)McC Wrote: I look at it this way--as stupid as he is, he'll **** up again.

if he don't, Burfict will eff him up!

(08-20-2016, 12:01 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This was the part that pissed me off the most. He could conceivably get popped for a 3rd year in a row and only get 4 games. Ridiculous. Heck, maybe they'd reduce it again. The Steelers and Goodell are getting ripped to shreds in the PFT comment sections on these stories.

Probably Pats and other AFCN fans who feel the same way we do.

Don't forget the Cheifs who got destroyed with the harshest penalty ever for "collusion" despite 100% cooperating. (The Jets got a slap on the wrist for the same.)

And the Packers who two of their three best players just got threatened with an indefinate suspension for a report from a "source" who long since recanted, coming from a foreign "media" group who's most well known for having loved to show videos of Americans being decapitated by terrorists back when that was a thing.

Plus you always have the salty Saints fans from their Bountygate, I am sure.



Goodell is really starting to burn a lot of bridges, though I guess technically as long as he keeps slightly over 1/3rd of the owners happy with favorable treatment, his job is the safest thing around.

This guy is dumber than a box of rocks.

"Le’Veon Bell deletes video in which he admits smoking after arrest

Posted by Michael David Smith on August 20, 2016, 8:50 AM EDT
Le'Veon Bell
AP
Steelers running back Le’Veon Bell posted a video on Friday in which he took responsibility for the missed drug tests that resulted in a three-game suspension. But Bell has now deleted that video.

Presumably, the reason he deleted it is that he said in the video that “I haven’t smoked since December 2014.” Bell’s two-game suspension at the start of last season was for an arrest for marijuana possession and DUI in August of 2014.

Bell tried to sound in the video like a man who has learned his lesson, but if he was still smoking pot in December of 2014 after an arrest for marijuana possession and DUI in August of 2014, that won’t endear him to the Steelers or the NFL.

The Steelers will be without Bell for Weeks 1-3, and he’ll return in Week 4. Assuming he doesn’t run afoul of the NFL’s substance-abuse policy again."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/20/leveon-bell-deletes-video-in-which-he-admits-smoking-after-arrest/

(08-20-2016, 10:35 AM)Atomic Orange Wrote: Assuming he doesn’t run afoul of the NFL’s substance-abuse policy again.

Not if....when.

(08-19-2016, 04:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: From what I read the NFLPA actually had an argument here. The Tester may have not made a good faith attempt to contact him because he was not given Bells new phone number.

Bell clearly knew about the test -- he tweeted about it on the day it was scheduled!

TheLeonardLeap: > Biggest part is, not only is it reduced to 3, but if he fails another drug test, he doesn't get 10 games like he should with an advancement in the program. Instead he stays at 4 games for his next failed test.


This ticks me off so much.  


Heck, I can only imagine how Browns fans must feel.

(08-20-2016, 01:09 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And the Packers who two of their three best players just got threatened with an indefinate suspension for a report from a "source" who long since recanted, 

The reporter who wrote the story claims the source was lying when he tried to recant.  It is not as clear as many people claim.

And the league never claimed they would suspend them based just based on that report.  They just said they would suspend them based on a refusal to cooperate with an investigation.

(08-20-2016, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The reporter who wrote the story claims the source was lying when he tried to recant.  It is not as clear as many people claim.

And the league never claimed they would suspend them based just based on that report.  They just said they would suspend them based on a refusal to cooperate with an investigation.

I was told by informant Shake that Fredtoast is a Steelers fan.



....now prepare to cooperate fully, including giving access to your emails, full access to your cellphone, and anything else we may ask for, otherwise you are hereby banned from this site indefinately.

Sure Shake told everyone he was lying later, but I think he is lying about lying. So cooperate or ban!

(08-20-2016, 02:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I was told by informant Shake that Fredtoast is a Steelers fan.



....now prepare to cooperate fully, including giving access to your emails, full access to your cellphone, and anything else we may ask for, otherwise you are hereby banned from this site indefinately.

Sure Shake told everyone he was lying later, but I think he is lying about lying. So cooperate or ban!

1.  You do not understand what went down with the Al Jezeera story at all.  The source, Charlie Sly, only recanted his story after he found out his statements were recorded and thought there might be some repercussions for his comments.  Also a second source confirmed the delivery of HGH to the Mannings, so it appears that some of the stuff Charlie tried to say was not true actually was.

I see this happen in court all the time.  The victim of a crime tries to recant his story when he is threatened or intimidated.  And prosecutors do not just automatically drop a case when they have reason to believe that the victim is lying when he recants.

2.  The league claims there are "inconsistencies" in the written statements that the players have provided.

3.  If you had the power to ban me then I would cooperate because I have nothing to hide.

(08-20-2016, 02:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  You do not understand what went down with the Al Jezeera story at all.  The source, Charlie Sly, only recanted his story after he found out his statements were recorded and thought there might be some repercussions for his comments.  Also a second source confirmed the delivery of HGH to the Mannings, so it appears that some of the stuff Charlie tried to say was not true actually was.

I see this happen in court all the time.  The victim of a crime tries to recant his story when he is threatened or intimidated.  And prosecutors do not just automatically drop a case when they have reason to believe that the victim is lying when he recants.

2.  The league claims there are "inconsistencies" in the written statements that the players have provided.

3.  If you had the power to ban me then I would cooperate because I have nothing to hide.

Except Peyton Manning has already been cleared. So if your cheif evidence to prove it's not BS is something you've already cleared someone for, then continuing to go after the rest continues to just be BS.

(08-20-2016, 02:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except Peyton Manning has already been cleared. So if your cheif evidence to prove it's not BS is something you've already cleared someone for, then continuing to go after the rest continues to just be BS.

Peyton was not cleared because the HGH was never delivered to his house.  Manning was cleared because because apparently he showed that it was for his wife.  And Peyton was not cleared until AFTER HE AGREED TO MEET WITH THE LEAGUE.

The fact is that some of the stuff the source claimed he was lying about has been shown to be true.  So it appears he was telling the truth in the first place and just tried to back out when he discovered that his statements were recorded anjd he was threatened with a law suit.

Plus the league claims there are inconsistencies in the written statements the players have provided.

It may very well turn out that the Al Jazeera story was not strong enough evidence to suspend these players, but it appears to be enough to justify an investigation.  

(08-20-2016, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Peyton was not cleared because the HGH was never delivered to his house.  Manning was cleared because because apparently he showed that it was for his wife.  And Peyton was not cleared until AFTER HE AGREED TO MEET WITH THE LEAGUE.

The fact is that some of the stuff the source claimed he was lying about has been shown to be true.  So it appears he was telling the truth in the first place and just tried to back out when he discovered that his statements were recorded anjd he was threatened with a law suit.

Plus the league claims there are inconsistencies in the written statements the players have provided.

It may very well turn out that the Al Jazeera story was not strong enough evidence to suspend these players, but it appears to be enough to justify an investigation.  

The league also claimed that cold weather doesn't lower air pressure in inflated things.
The league also claimed that using the crown of the helmet was legal as long as you didn't "line up your target".
The league also claimed that a coach pulling a player's hair on the sidelines wasn't worth a suspension, and on appeal wasn't even worth a fine.
The league also claimed that...

Anything from Al-Jazeera is only strong enough to warrant a fart in their general direction at the best.


The league's claims have less credibility than.. well, I can't even think a proper equivalent because they're so F'ing untrustworthy.

(08-20-2016, 03:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The league also claimed that cold weather doesn't lower air pressure in inflated things.
The league also claimed that using the crown of the helmet was legal as long as you didn't "line up your target".
The league also claimed that a coach pulling a player's hair on the sidelines wasn't worth a suspension, and on appeal wasn't even worth a fine.
The league also claimed that...

Anything from Al-Jazeera is only strong enough to warrant a fart in their general direction at the best.


The league's claims have less credibility than.. well, I can't even think a proper equivalent because they're so F'ing untrustworthy.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say now.

Are you really trying to argue that the NFL should NEVER be allowed to investigate ANY player for ANY reason?

That is the only conclusion I can draw from this gibberish.  So if I am wrong please explain exactly what you mean.

(08-20-2016, 03:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't even understand what you are trying to say now.

Are you really trying to argue that the NFL should NEVER be allowed to investigate ANY player for ANY reason?

That is the only conclusion I can draw from this gibberish.  So if I am wrong please explain exactly what you mean.

Fred, when aren't you wrong? We all know you just prefer arguing with people. People post reasonable things on this site all the time and you intentionally just take it to the obtuse extreme every time.

"Oh, people are arguing that Nugent is a low tier kicker? I better pretend they're saying he's the worst."
"Oh, people are saying Nugent hasn't been good for 4 years and 1 preseason? I better compare it to Giovani Bernard's week 2 preseason game."
"Oh, people don't think Kirkpatrick is a good first round pick, or a good #2 CB? I better say they're calling him the worst CB in the league, and then call him the 16th or 17th best just to be a turd."
"Oh, someone said that Al Jazeera "news" and a recanted testimony isn't legitimate proof because neither are trustworthy? I better say that they actually mean nobody can ever be investigated for any reason ever."

Sure it's nice to have a foil every now and then on this forum, but it just wears thin real quickly when it's 24/7. Go back under your bridge and prepare a riddle for someone who wants to cross it.

(08-20-2016, 04:01 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "Oh, someone said that Al Jazeera "news" and a recanted testimony isn't legitimate proof because neither are trustworthy? I better say that they actually mean nobody can ever be investigated for any reason ever."

Al Jazeera is a credible news source and I have already proven that the recantation was not what you claimed.

When i proved you wrong you started squealing about how the NFL has been wrong before which has nothing to do with what we were discussing

Now you still will not admit you are wrong, but instead start taking personal shots at me.  

Don't hate me just because I am right.

(08-20-2016, 04:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Al Jazeera is a credible news source and I have already proven that the recantation was not what you claimed.

When i proved you wrong you started squealing about how the NFL has been wrong before which has nothing to do with what we were discussing

Now you still will not admit you are wrong, but instead start taking personal shots at me.  

Don't hate me just because I am right.

Yes Fred, you are "right", as always, and I am "wrong" along with everyone else on the site you constantly argue with.

Have you ever considered making your own forum with a population of just you, so everything written on there will be "right"? Then you'll never have to deal with all the people you have to "correct" and we all don't have to deal with you. Win win.

(08-20-2016, 04:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes Fred, you are "right", as always, and I am "wrong" along with everyone else on the site you constantly argue with.

Have you ever considered making your own forum with a population of just you, so everything written on there will be "right"? Then you'll never have to deal with all the people you have to "correct" and we all don't have to deal with you. Win win.

Now I am really confused.

You are the one all upset because someone dares to disagree with you, but I am the one who needs to go off to his own forum where no one disagrees with me.

I think you have that backwards.

(08-20-2016, 02:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I was told by informant Shake that Fredtoast is a Steelers fan.

Well that's the last time I ever tell you anything. Sheesh.

(08-19-2016, 04:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: From what I read the NFLPA actually had an argument here. The Tester may have not made a good faith attempt to contact him because he was not given Bells new phone number.

Um, that's gotta be one of the lamest excuses and it certainly doesn't explain multiple missed tests.

If the tester phoned Bell's number that's good faith. If Bell changed it and didn't tell the tester, that's bad faith on Bell's part. It's not like he doesn't know he's going to be tested.

(08-19-2016, 10:51 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: And not one ))*(^^%%$$$&(*&&*^%$#$%#$# person in the media will DARE to speak out that the NFL is in bed with these (O&(&$&*^*^#^^&@&*$(*!!!!

Those symbols represent the lowest form of profanity possible. I can't actually type them on here, but they are the worst possible words to describe this complete lack of parity when it comes to the rules.

Lowest form of profanity? I like profanity so the lower forms would be like saying shucks darn, cheese and crackers.. Actually the lower forms come from people who don't really understand the conversational tone and use F words as modifiers to describe pleasant experiences with grandma and grandpa on a Sunday afternoon eating f##&éing ice cream..