News: DeMarcus Lawrence Appeal

[Hoofbite]

Totally agree. Why suspend him if he was properly prescribed the medications. Shouldn't his health take priority over the NFL and it's out-dated policy.

The NFL policy isn't outdated. It provides a process where banned medications can be used and all a player has to do is fill out a form. You can find the form online.

Players have surgeries all the time and nobody ever gets suspended for taking medications relating to those surgeries even though they are undoubtedly taking hydrocodone or oxycodone postoperatively.

The issue here - and just a guess based on the circumstances - is that he took something that would not be expected to be present in his urine based on his medical profile.

Best case scenario is that they determined that he failed to go through the proper process to disclose his medications. Worst case scenario is that he obviously took something for which there is no medical basis.

 

[StarBoyz83]

With no other starting caliber de's on the team this would be big.

 

[TheCount]

Why would it only be reduced to 2 games. If he is guilty it's 4 games, if he is not it's 0 games. What am I missing??

He broke the rule. The question is whether it was with or without intent. If he can prove no-intent, then it's not unusual for the commissioner of a sport to lessen the punishment.

 

[Hoofbite]

This would be good news, although it seems it should be either 4 games or 0. Either he did something wrong, or he didn't.

Gregory is irrelevant. Does anyone doubt he toking as we speak? I feel a Josh Gordon future for that clown.

Agree, but understand why it may not be the case. If he has a legitimate reason for taking a banned substance then he probably shouldn't be suspended. That said, if he never disclosed to the league or filed for an exemption for this banned substance then he was never cleared to use the medication. Additionally, if he doesn't meet the standard necessary to gain the exemption then disclosure really doesn't matter because they would have rejected his claim to begin with anyway.

 

[speedkilz88]

This would be good news, although it seems it should be either 4 games or 0. Either he did something wrong, or he didn't.

Gregory is irrelevant. Does anyone doubt he toking as we speak? I feel a Josh Gordon future for that clown.

Yeah, since they still have him tested and he hasn't been banned for a year yet.

 

[erod]

Yeah, since they still have him tested and he hasn't been banned for a year yet.

He's already failed four tests in 12 months.

 

[marchetta]

This would be good news, although it seems it should be either 4 games or 0. Either he did something wrong, or he didn't.

Gregory is irrelevant. Does anyone doubt he toking as we speak? I feel a Josh Gordon future for that clown.

Didn't Nick Eatman say yesterday on "The Break" that Gregory had failed 4-5 drug tests since being on the team?

 

[erod]

Didn't Nick Eatman say yesterday on "The Break" that Gregory had failed 4-5 drug tests since being on the team?

You have to fail four times to get a 4-game suspension. A fifth failed test is a year suspension.

Gregory failed four tests in about 10 months.

 

[dstew60105]

The NFL policy isn't outdated. It provides a process where banned medications can be used and all a player has to do is fill out a form. You can find the form online.

Players have surgeries all the time and nobody ever gets suspended for taking medications relating to those surgeries even though they are undoubtedly taking hydrocodone or oxycodone postoperatively.

The issue here - and just a guess based on the circumstances - is that he took something that would not be expected to be present in his urine based on his medical profile.

Best case scenario is that they determined that he failed to go through the proper process to disclose his medications. Worst case scenario is that he obviously took something for which there is no medical basis.

The policy is outdated. The whole weed thing is silly. It's legal in many states. Maybe it's time to move the goal posts again on what's a positive test and what isn't.

 

[AbeBeta]

Scandrick's suspension was not reduced to two games. It was overturned by a new policy that redefined what a performance enhancing substance was. He missed two games because it was already week three by the time the agreement was reached.

This whole "reduced to two games" thing is someone getting it wrong. The suspension would be overturned if he was prescribed medicine that led to a false positive.

 

[AbeBeta]

Scandrick was guilty and had his 4 game suspension reduced to 2 games. Lawrence is likely to get the same treatment.

Scandrick was not guilty. Players are free to smoke weed, snort coke, etc. for a four month-ish stretch from the day after the Superbowl to April 20th.

Scandrick received a suspension as a drug he was allowed to take happens to metabolize as amphetamine which, at the time, was part of the performance enhancing drug test. PED testing is year-round.

 

[CWR]

Lol @ all the people jumping to call him an immature, irresponsible idiot.





Or maybe the appeal is a sham.

Unfortunately weve already been conditioned by Gregory's stupidity and are quick to jump on the next player. That being said he should've know better and cleared any new medication or supplements he put into his body. I wouldn't even feel comfortable taking a new protein powder until I analyzed the ingredients.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Mates! What is wrong with this picture?
Rejoicing that one of our meatheads MIGHT have a suspension reduced. I don't buy most stories of OTC medications inadvertently injested. Is this the new model for pro sports? Immature athletes getting 2nd and third chances and the fans and NFL looking the other way as if nothing is amiss?
Rhetorical questions, yes, but something to think about. I say play the players who are careful with their ahem, recreational lives, and stay on the straight and narrow and wish the idiots a good rest if suspended -- but without the adulation.
Tough love for the twentysomethings who missed out on being raised correctly as children.
And don't egg the house; I have security cameras and the Bobbies in Farmers Branch have been bribed to give my neighborhood extra patrols.

Well I don't think any of us know what is going on here or if there's truth to what he's saying. I don't understand how him not getting suspended is bad?

 

[cowboyfan4life2]

Which one is it add meds? Or rehab meds? As someone who has taken add meds before,they have nothing to with rehabing an injury.

 

[CWR]

If the meds were for his back injury., him being suspended is wrong. Posters seems happy to see it reduced to two games , but two genes is still not right. Goodell is so arrogant with his power , that he would never consider that he could be wrong. Just out of curiosity , dies anybody know of any cases that he admitted to being wrong and cleared the suspensions? From the cases I have seen, if charges are brought against a player , he is guilty in Goodell's eyes. It is pretty much a done deal after he assumes that a player is guilty. He is not fair with his decisions at all .

I wish I could give you examples but I do remember a few players getting thier suspensions overturned after apeals. Didnt the Williams wall in Minnesota take their apeal all through the season and then get it dismissed?

 

[Hoofbite]

The policy is outdated. The whole weed thing is silly. It's legal in many states. Maybe it's time to move the goal posts again on what's a positive test and what isn't.

It's illegal at the federal level. Disagree if you like, but that's far from "outdated".

You can call it moving the goal posts if you like. I'd be more inclined to believe you don't understand the policy and have no desire to understand the policy. If an exemption is available and you choose not to seek it, don't complain if you are punished later.

 

[AbeBeta]

Which one is it add meds? Or rehab meds? As someone who has taken add meds before,they have nothing to with rehabing an injury.

I think the argument is that the back medicine metabolizes in a manner similar to the ADD drug. ADD drugs are performance-enhancing but I believe that many players do have prescriptions that exempt them

 

[AbeBeta]

The policy is outdated. The whole weed thing is silly. It's legal in many states. Maybe it's time to move the goal posts again on what's a positive test and what isn't.

Even more ridiculous is that weed is really helpful to players for pain management. Gee, it is OK for them to get hardcore opiates but not smoke weed?

 

[Nightman]

Scandrick was not guilty. Players are free to smoke weed, snort coke, etc. for a four month-ish stretch from the day after the Superbowl to April 20th.

Scandrick received a suspension as a drug he was allowed to take happens to metabolize as amphetamine which, at the time, was part of the performance enhancing drug test. PED testing is year-round.

You got it mostly right...OScandrick had his 4 game PED suspension overturned but he had already missed 2 games by the time the ruling came.....he was still found guilty of violating the substance abuse policy but since it was his first violation it didn't warrant a fine or suspension.....it just means more testing and strike one.....there is no free window for coke and weed, they just don't test for it. But if you get arrested it still counts....

 

[CWR]

I think the argument is that the back medicine metabolizes in a manner similar to the ADD drug. ADD drugs are performance-enhancing but I believe that many players do have prescriptions that exempt them

If that is the case he should be cleared without suspension. I can actually see how ADD drugs are considered performance enhancing though as they give you greater focus and energy, but if you have a script (way over diagnosed and easy to get)and run it through the league office Id think youd be safe. Having a medicine that simply metabolizes in the same manner should be an easy over turn.