Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Redskins would welcome Tanard Jackson back
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
markrc99


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 309
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote: "The best players will play. Not who "might" be the best player in a month, the second half of the season or next year. We'll see what happens."

Sure, but somebody better make sure those better players are new players! Tell me, have you never come across the story about a player finally getting his opportunity? Ha-ha, of course you have. That player is written about every year & can often be found on every team. Do you really believe that player is never on a Mike Shanahan coached team? This premise that emphasizes production is flawed. Where player A has every opportunity to produce & player B is left with the crumbs. As if to imply that if player B were just as good the coach would rotate him into the game every other play or some nonsense. That is so NOT how it works. Look at what Perry Riley has accomplished when he got his chance. How about Fred Davis' performance when Cooley went down? Who is that player today? I think one of them is Aldrick Robinson. I don't think he's a guy they should target 80-90 times, I just don't believe he'd hold up. But nor should he go 6 weeks w/o being targeted even once.

What does any of this have to do with the secondary? Well, nothing as of right now. The point is, your contention that the better player always plays is often true, but not always. And this is not someplace this team should even consider going with respect to that secondary. Consider this, the team cut De' Hall, allowing him to go wherever he wanted. When there was nothing he resigned for comparatively, peanuts. They of course got rid of Madieu Williams. Here are two articles with respect to Josh Wilson & Brandon Meriweather:
Quote:
"Wilson said he preferred to rework his deal rather than leave the team that he has started for the last two seasons..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/04/26/redskins-restructure-josh-wilsons-deal-to-save-2-million/

Quote:
"Meriweather ... has agreed to reduce his salary to $1.2 million... Presumably, his spot on the roster relied on making that decision and El-Bashir reports that there are no incentives involved in the adjustment that would allow Meriweather to make back the money..." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/14/brandon-meriweather-takes-a-pay-cut/

See, same thing with every one of them. They took these guys to their floor and told them to take it or there's the door son! Get your junk on the floor or there's the fuq'n door! Ha-ha, I love it! They didn't give a rats @$$ if the entire unit left! GO!!! Do you think they were bluffing? I don't. They don't need these guys, not at all. Now, couple this with their performance and the way the team drafted. Toss in Jim Haslett's recent comment. These factors have me believing their heading in another direction & I mean day one, knowing that it can't get any worse. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

I remember when Garcon was signed, due to the nature of his contract he was asked by reporters whether he expected to be the team's z-slot rec'r. Oddly, he didn't defer them to Mike Shanahan, indeed, he didn't mention the coach at all. He deferred reporters to Santana Moss, that's where they could go to get the answer! Ha-ha... No doubt, a hangover from failure's past. This last one from 2011 is interesting, it turns it all around. Here, the leftover isn't getting his due:
Quote:
"Reed Doughty knows the three-year contract he signed with the Washington Redskins a week into training camp wasn’t meant for him to show what he can do. He’s not supposed to impress the coaching staff, or show any kind of flash and dash that might give rise to thoughts that he’d start the season at free safety ahead of Oshiomogho Atogwe. Doughty’s simply supposed to be a reserve–a reserved reserve. ... Washington finished in the bottom of the league in several key defensive areas last season... Much of that was because of the adjustment to the 3-4 defensive scheme... With regard to the secondary, whose players’ responsibilities remain unchanged, the Redskins were also 31st with 261.7 passing yards allowed a game. ... Doughty, an on-again, off-again starter since 2007, had 93 tackles while starting nine games last year, missing the last [?] because of a concussion." http://news.fredericksburg.com/redskinsjournal/2011/08/17/redskins-pushing-safety-button-with-reed-doughty-chris-horton/

So much for competition, according to a leftover. Doughty isn't quoted directly, but it's an old article with no correction. Zac Boyer just made it all up? Now, do I believe Reed Doughty was slighted in some way? No, but accordingly, he wasn't suppose to even attempt to challenge for a starting position. I can't say, but this sort of thing does happen. Another interesting point is that part about how the responsibilities of the secondary never changed. The rationale explaining the failure defensively in 2010 was the transition to the 3-4. Yet, assignment-wise, everything was the same for the secondary, but they were still last in the league in pass defense. Accordingly, the transition had nothing to do with the secondary, which does makes sense. If that's true, what's their excuse?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 19201
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

markrc99 wrote:
bowilson wrote: "... The Redskins as a team are heading in a positive direction and his presence could hinder that progress. Plus [he] would take valuable practice time away from some of our promising young talent. I say we move on..."

mike23md wrote: "I dont really care if our S's are not ready, what example do you set for a guy that has been suspended by the league and you still bring him in. No thanks, make way for someone to step up. Or just sink with what you have."

Woz wrote: "Given that they'll get a roster exemption for him, this makes a bit more sense. Otherwise, I'd cut him."

Yeah, these are certainly valid points & warrant releasing the guy. They're taking into account his physical attributes & skill set. Less relevant is that he keeps testing positive for marijuana. Just because he smokes pot doesn't mean he's a bad presence in the locker room. If he were, if he was somebody that wasn't coachable, I don't think they'd even bother. It's more than Raheem Morris, Bruce Allen was with Tampa then, he drafted Jackson. Guys like Brett Favre & Mark Chmura were known for their drinking, but consuming alcohol is not a violation. We went over this with respect to Fred Davis, enforcement of league policy is weak. Avoiding detection is not difficult.


If you know that doing X is going to get you fired and you do X repeatedly, doesn't that put into question your capability of rational thought? Avoiding doing X is MUCH easier than avoiding detection. Given that he's been caught four times, it seems it may also be harder than you think.

Quote:
They just need to go to him and straighten this thing out. No, that isn't it, you can party on your own time. But you can't come into practice, let alone on game day, drunk! You understand that, right? Well, we can't have you in here stoned either. You already know this, but here are the hoops you need to jump through to play. We're going to help you do it! Yes, it's all just league PR, it's all BS. Do you want to play some football or not, just tell us.


I have to believe that more than one set of coaches has tried this. I have to believe Raheem Morris himself has tried this multiple times.

Some guys don't get the message.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
markrc99


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 309
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote: "If you know that doing X is going to get you fired and you do X repeatedly, doesn't that put into question your capability of rational thought? Avoiding doing X is MUCH easier than avoiding detection."

I hope you're not expecting me to dispute this, because I can't. And I agree, the best move is for Jackson to get his head screwed on straight. It also makes sense that Tampa would've certainly tried what options were at their disposal to help Jackson.... But it would be inaccurate to assume Tampa knows something about Jackson that the Redskins don't. Again, both Bruce Allen & Raheem Morris have 1st hand knowledge of his circumstance. Shouldn't you consider that they're aware of something that you're not?

Woz wrote: "Given that he's been caught four times, it seems it may also be harder than you think."

Fred Davis is a leftover who hasn't played to his full potential & would otherwise be in my doghouse if it weren't for the fact that he's still young and very talented. I'm probably wrong about him but I think the team is better with him on the roster. When they couldn't get him signed long-term I thought they should've traded him. There was communique between Allen and the Raiders, a team known to be looking for a TE. If the Patriots are still in their championship window, perhaps they're now a team that would show interest? The lowest I'd go is the back end of the 3rd round. I would allow the Patriots to hang onto the pick & attempt to trade down, recouping a late round pick + Davis for their 3rd round selection. If memory serves, we scrutinized his injury & no one could establish what actually happened to him. It was early in the game, he ran a very short rte, there's no contact, no noticeable buckling of the ankle or limb, he just fell down and his season was over.

Relevant here is his recreational use of marijuana. I cited two sources that were specific to testing for marijuana & widespread use by players. Quoted were former player & ESPN analyst Lomas Brown & Texans owner Bob McNair. Studies done by CBS & ESPN were also cited. These next articles pertain more so to PEDs, but this is relevant because the use of PEDs pose a far more dangerous threat to the player's health & gives him a physical advantage. Meaning, if enforcement to ban the use of PEDs is weak why would you believe that the league is committed to punishing players who smoke marijuana?
Quote:
"The drug-testing programs conducted by the major American professional sports leagues have long been criticized by independent antidoping experts for having what they describe as loopholes that enable athletes to cheat." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/sports/football/nfl-says-drug-testing-will-be-rigorous-and-frequent.html

Quote:
"Critics however, question how rigorous the company’s programs are. They say Drug Free Sport often fails to adhere to tenets of serious drug testing, like random, unannounced tests; collection of samples by trained, independent officials; and testing for a comprehensive list of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs. ... Don Catlin, the former head of U.C.L.A.’s Olympic Analytical Lab, best known for breaking the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative doping ring, oversaw the testing of many of Drug Free Sport’s urine samples when he was at U.C.L.A. ... “The problem with these schools is they all want to say they’re doing drug testing, but they’re not really doing anything I would call drug testing,” he said. ... “You’re not getting positives because they’re not doing real testing,” said Catlin... “The athletes know when the tests are going to take place. They get sick or they don’t show up. They’re not testing for the right things.” He added that the groups had an incentive to collect few positive tests.

Don Hooton has been an outspoken advocate for more stringent drug testing in sports since his son Taylor, a 17-year-old high school pitcher in Plano, Tex., committed suicide in 2003 shortly after he stopped using steroids. Hooton oversees a foundation bearing his son's name that focuses on drug prevention. “I would almost rather see no testing at all,” Hooton said in response to the low rate of positive tests at the college level. He said that many drug-testing programs satisfied public relations concerns rather than scientific or health-related ones. “All these negative tests lead us to the conclusion that there’s no drug problem.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sports/drug-testing-company-tied-to-ncaa-draws-criticism.html?pagewanted=all

So if you weren't sure before you certainly know now. The integrity of the testing is purposefully poor or even non-existant. Again, the 1st article is about H.G.H. & while the 2nd article states that what's lacking in part is testing for "a comprehensive list of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs", it largely addresses the problem at the collegiate level. But what you want to consider there is that the firm hired to do the testing by the NCAA or universities, Drug Free Sport, is the same firm that does the testing for the NFL. Now, if you're apt to afford more weight to feel-good rhetoric put out by the league, that's certainly out there, but that isn't the reality. Note the part where it says a firm like Drug Free Sport has no incentive to tell the league they have a doping epidemic. Which brings us back to Jackson. Perhaps he thought it wise to buck the system, leaving the league no choice but to scrutinize him more closely? My point is that, at least initially, it had nothing to do with stringent policy & apparently the team views the circumstance as repairable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DCRED


Joined: 07 Jun 2010
Posts: 3198
Location: USA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

markrc99 wrote:

So if you weren't sure before you certainly know now. The integrity of the testing is purposefully poor or even non-existant. Again, the 1st article is about H.G.H. & while the 2nd article states that what's lacking in part is testing for "a comprehensive list of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs", it largely addresses the problem at the collegiate level. But what you want to consider there is that the firm hired to do the testing by the NCAA or universities, Drug Free Sport, is the same firm that does the testing for the NFL. Now, if you're apt to afford more weight to feel-good rhetoric put out by the league, that's certainly out there, but that isn't the reality. Note the part where it says a firm like Drug Free Sport has no incentive to tell the league they have a doping epidemic. Which brings us back to Jackson. Perhaps he thought it wise to buck the system, leaving the league no choice but to scrutinize him more closely? My point is that, at least initially, it had nothing to do with stringent policy & apparently the team views the circumstance as repairable.


Before you put a blanket on their NFL policies because of how they test college kids, read about how they drove all the way out to Kirk Cousins' GRANDMOTHER's house. They then followed him into the bathroom

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/kirk-cousins-drug-test_n_2876250.html

If this is not common practice for testing NFL players, then maybe the Redskins have endured some sort of "witch hunt" while Snyder has been provoking the league.

I know turtle thinks it's Shanahan's fault that 7 of our players have tested positive under the substance abuse policies. But I would look at Snyder's obvious arrogance getting to the commissioner before scrutinizing Shanahan. Also, Rob Jackson tested positive for an "unprescribed painkiller". Hardly the same category as illegal drug use or a legitimate PED.

Anyway, if what you say is correct we have absolutely been targeted. Or, perhaps your sources did not reveal the scrutiny that players are under even during the offseason.
_________________

Awesome sigs by mike23md
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marcus21


Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 989
Location: North Carolina
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its importnat to remember which of our players tested positive for PEDS. Cedric Griffin and Jordan black were players making a last ditch effort to stay in the league. Black was out of the league, and Griffen was comming off a pretty bad knee infury trying to get healthy.
Tenard Jackson tested positive for weed like Trent and Fred. Rob Jackson tested positive for paikillers.
So really only Black and Griffin tested positive for PEDs... If I remember correctly Jackson's positive test was before he even signed with the Skins...
So really Trent and Fred were the only true Redskins that failed a drug test, and that was during the lockout. Im not excussing their actions Im just saying we dont have a huge drug or PED problem on this team!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
markrc99


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 309
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DCRED wrote: "Before you put a blanket on the NFL's policy because of how they test college kids, read about how they drove all the way out to Kirk Cousins' GRANDMOTHER's house. They then followed him into the bathroom. ... If this is not common practice for testing NFL players, then maybe the Redskins have endured some sort of "witch hunt" while Snyder has been provoking the league."

I wasn't trying to make a comparison between the policy of the NFL to that of the NCAA, but now that you mention it, when these young players come out, where do they go then? Yeah, to the NFL, which the 1st report covers. I looked into this circumstance with Kirk Cousins & I would say it was an unusual situation, to say the least. But most of the literature on the subject simply cites his tweet and nothing more. The fact of the matter is that he was called the day before to set up his "random" test. He was asked where he would be the following day & I imagine where the best place for him would be to provide a sample. He was the one who determined that the test would be conducted in the privacy of his grandmother's house, while she wasn't there. He stated that he waited all day for the guy to show up. While it's presented with the appearance of being intrusive, it likely verifies what the latter report contends. Which is that this company conducting the testing, Drug Free Sport, "... fails to adhere to tenets of serious drug testing, like random, unannounced tests; collection of samples by trained, independent officials..." I'm not trying to suggest that Cousins has something to hide, but that the entire episode comes off as less than professional. I certainly don't view him as being taken or inconvenienced. On the contrary, he was very much in control of the matter. Here you can scroll down to Mike & Mike and listen to their conversation.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/14880/kirk-cousins

DCRED wrote: "I know turtle thinks it's Shanahan's fault that 7 of our players have tested positive under the substance abuse policies. But I would look at Snyder's obvious arrogance getting to the commissioner before scrutinizing Shanahan. Also, Rob Jackson tested positive for an "unprescribed painkiller". Hardly the same category as illegal drug use or a legitimate PED. Anyway, if what you say is correct we have absolutely been targeted."

Interesting, Redskin players have been targeted and there are competing theories explaining why that is? Given that the process has little to no integrity I would say many players that test out positive may actually be targeted for some other reason. I know that sounds absurd, but if these reports are accurate it doesn't add up that the only guys violating the league's substance abuse policy are guys testing positive. Turtle believes it's Shanahan's fault? How exactly? Your contention, that Goddell is on a vendetta, going after Snyder seems way beyond his authority. He's their stooge, not someone the owners answer to. If it's Goddell, wouldn't that have to be at the behest of other owners & likely a majority? Not all that inviting a thought I might add.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 60768
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I agree with DCRED and Marcus' statements. I can NOT overlook Shanahan's history dating back to Bill Romonowski. I think Shanahan is a good coach but I'm not going to be some apologist for him because he's the coach of my favorite team.

Drug problems for Shanahan coached teams, no matter what the variety seem to be following him.

Is it a coincidence? Maybe, I don't know. You all can have you're opinions, that's fine. I'll stick to mine.

As for Black and Griffin cheating to make the team last year. Well that's disappointing to me on more levels than just them cheating. We cut Willie Smith to keep an "over the hill cheater" in Jordan Black. We cut Kevin Barnes and Brandyn Thompson to keep an "over the hill cheater" in Cedric Griffin. Both Black and Cedric Griffin were one year rentals. Willie Smith, Brandyn Thompson and Kevin Barnes "possibly" could have been part of this teams long term future. At the least, those 3 young players could be on our roster this summer and competing for the last roster spots on the team and bring more young competition to this years offseason.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
—Days until: NFL Draft 22; Training camp 98
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
markrc99


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 309
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote: "I can NOT overlook Shanahan's history dating back to Bill Romonowski. ... Drug problems for Shanahan coached teams, no matter what the variety seem to be following him. Is it a coincidence?"

I agree with respect to Cedric Griffin, Jordan Black & especially Willie Smith. Very raw, but this kid has every tool in the box you'd want. When they brought Jordan Black in ( who had been "out of the game" for some time) it was obvious he was way too small. You could tell he was going to have to juice up to compete. Here you don't explain why, but say that some actual or perceived substance abuse problem follows Shanahan wherever he goes. The evidence of course is that he has X number of players testing out positive. All things being equal one could agree, but they simply aren't. You're rejecting what is clearly established in the literature. Here's yet another mainstream source:
Quote:
"The NFL's collective-bargaining agreement essentially gives players the freedom to lie when they are busted for violating the performance-enhancing drugs policy. ... The NFL doesn't have an Adderall problem as much as it suffers from the burden of a convenient excuse. Adderall is the excuse du jour. A player can get popped for steroids and pass it off as an amphetamine such as Adderall to save face. ... The worst-kept, dirty little secret in the NFL is that no wants to reveal or solve the real problems — not the players, not the coaches, not the owners, not the fans." http://seattletimes.com/avantgo/2019784476.html

Whether the substance used would seemingly be of least concern (marijuana) or performance-enhancing drugs, the reality couldn't be any more obvious! League policy and its enforcement of, is glaringly weak! Is the premise that those who test positive are framed? Of course not, the fact is that the problem or use is far more widespread & detection, under normal circumstances, easily avoidable. Now, whether this team or Shanahan's players are targeted more frequently I can't say. What's obvious is that certain players ARE targeted. We can assume the guys that get caught are really stupid & oblivious to the KNOWN loopholes. But you then have to conclude that everyone else who has a vested interest in them, their agents, as well as the teams that sign them, are equally lost. That's really naive & makes no sense at all. No, the league picks & chooses which players they're going to punish. Any given player is made example of or they've messed up in some other way. This is the point where the literature hits a wall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 60768
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

markrc99 wrote:
turtle28 wrote: "I can NOT overlook Shanahan's history dating back to Bill Romonowski. ... Drug problems for Shanahan coached teams, no matter what the variety seem to be following him. Is it a coincidence?"

I agree with respect to Cedric Griffin, Jordan Black & especially Willie Smith. Very raw, but this kid has every tool in the box you'd want. When they brought Jordan Black in ( who had been "out of the game" for some time) it was obvious he was way too small. You could tell he was going to have to juice up to compete. Here you don't explain why, but say that some actual or perceived substance abuse problem follows Shanahan wherever he goes. The evidence of course is that he has X number of players testing out positive. All things being equal one could agree, but they simply aren't. You're rejecting what is clearly established in the literature. Here's yet another mainstream source:
Quote:
"The NFL's collective-bargaining agreement essentially gives players the freedom to lie when they are busted for violating the performance-enhancing drugs policy. ... The NFL doesn't have an Adderall problem as much as it suffers from the burden of a convenient excuse. Adderall is the excuse du jour. A player can get popped for steroids and pass it off as an amphetamine such as Adderall to save face. ... The worst-kept, dirty little secret in the NFL is that no wants to reveal or solve the real problems — not the players, not the coaches, not the owners, not the fans." http://seattletimes.com/avantgo/2019784476.html

Whether the substance used would seemingly be of least concern (marijuana) or performance-enhancing drugs, the reality couldn't be any more obvious! League policy and its enforcement of, is glaringly weak! Is the premise that those who test positive are framed? Of course not, the fact is that the problem or use is far more widespread & detection, under normal circumstances, easily avoidable. Now, whether this team or Shanahan's players are targeted more frequently I can't say. What's obvious is that certain players ARE targeted. We can assume the guys that get caught are really stupid & oblivious to the KNOWN loopholes. But you then have to conclude that everyone else who has a vested interest in them, their agents, as well as the teams that sign them, are equally lost. That's really naive & makes no sense at all. No, the league picks & chooses which players they're going to punish. Any given player is made example of or they've messed up in some other way. This is the point where the literature hits a wall.
Bill Romanowski
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
—Days until: NFL Draft 22; Training camp 98
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 19201
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

markrc99 wrote:
Woz wrote: "If you know that doing X is going to get you fired and you do X repeatedly, doesn't that put into question your capability of rational thought? Avoiding doing X is MUCH easier than avoiding detection."

I hope you're not expecting me to dispute this, because I can't. And I agree, the best move is for Jackson to get his head screwed on straight. It also makes sense that Tampa would've certainly tried what options were at their disposal to help Jackson.... But it would be inaccurate to assume Tampa knows something about Jackson that the Redskins don't. Again, both Bruce Allen & Raheem Morris have 1st hand knowledge of his circumstance. Shouldn't you consider that they're aware of something that you're not?


I know significantly less than either the Redskins or Bucs, but I think he's essentially a waste of talent. To expect us to get anything out of him at this point is probably a pipe dream.

Quote:
Woz wrote: "Given that he's been caught four times, it seems it may also be harder than you think."

Fred Davis is a leftover who hasn't played to his full potential & would otherwise be in my doghouse if it weren't for the fact that he's still young and very talented. I'm probably wrong about him but I think the team is better with him on the roster. When they couldn't get him signed long-term I thought they should've traded him. There was communique between Allen and the Raiders, a team known to be looking for a TE. If the Patriots are still in their championship window, perhaps they're now a team that would show interest? The lowest I'd go is the back end of the 3rd round. I would allow the Patriots to hang onto the pick & attempt to trade down, recouping a late round pick + Davis for their 3rd round selection. If memory serves, we scrutinized his injury & no one could establish what actually happened to him. It was early in the game, he ran a very short rte, there's no contact, no noticeable buckling of the ankle or limb, he just fell down and his season was over.


I have been on the record many times of washing our hands of Davis. Should we be offered a 3rd for Davis + 6th/7th, I would be willing to drive him to the airport.

Like Jackson, he doesn't show the maturity to maximize his talent. Keeping him on the roster means that we'll be cutting another player who might have his head on straight (but perhaps not as talented). I'd rather have the player less talented, but smarter overall player.

Quote:
Relevant here is his recreational use of marijuana. I cited two sources that were specific to testing for marijuana & widespread use by players. Quoted were former player & ESPN analyst Lomas Brown & Texans owner Bob McNair. Studies done by CBS & ESPN were also cited. These next articles pertain more so to PEDs, but this is relevant because the use of PEDs pose a far more dangerous threat to the player's health & gives him a physical advantage. Meaning, if enforcement to ban the use of PEDs is weak why would you believe that the league is committed to punishing players who smoke marijuana?


I don't necessarily buy your argument that the testing is weak, but as for the bolded section: because they keep suspending guys who smoke marijuana, including major stars?

If the regime was as weak as you assert it is, why would Tanard Jackson have been caught four times? It's either more effective than you think, or his ability to assess risk and/or consequence is severely compromised. If he didn't get the memo that smoking weed would lead to his suspension the first three times (remember: he got the equivalent of a warning on his first failed test), why do we we think he would stop now and thus lead to a successful career going forward?

Quote:
Quote:
"The drug-testing programs conducted by the major American professional sports leagues have long been criticized by independent antidoping experts for having what they describe as loopholes that enable athletes to cheat." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/sports/football/nfl-says-drug-testing-will-be-rigorous-and-frequent.html


The main thrust of this article is about the new HGH testing regime that was accepted (but to date, not implemented) as part of the new CBA.

While the paragraph you quoted and the one immediately following it in the article hint at that, neither really gives any sense as to how the NFL's testing program is failing. There's just an assertion without any facts or even quotes on how the NFL's system is failing. That's a bit of thin gruel to assert that the entire system is broken.

Quote:
Quote:
"Critics however, question how rigorous the company’s programs are. They say Drug Free Sport often fails to adhere to tenets of serious drug testing, like random, unannounced tests; collection of samples by trained, independent officials; and testing for a comprehensive list of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs. ... Don Catlin, the former head of U.C.L.A.’s Olympic Analytical Lab, best known for breaking the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative doping ring, oversaw the testing of many of Drug Free Sport’s urine samples when he was at U.C.L.A. ... “The problem with these schools is they all want to say they’re doing drug testing, but they’re not really doing anything I would call drug testing,” he said. ... “You’re not getting positives because they’re not doing real testing,” said Catlin... “The athletes know when the tests are going to take place. They get sick or they don’t show up. They’re not testing for the right things.” He added that the groups had an incentive to collect few positive tests.

Don Hooton has been an outspoken advocate for more stringent drug testing in sports since his son Taylor, a 17-year-old high school pitcher in Plano, Tex., committed suicide in 2003 shortly after he stopped using steroids. Hooton oversees a foundation bearing his son's name that focuses on drug prevention. “I would almost rather see no testing at all,” Hooton said in response to the low rate of positive tests at the college level. He said that many drug-testing programs satisfied public relations concerns rather than scientific or health-related ones. “All these negative tests lead us to the conclusion that there’s no drug problem.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sports/drug-testing-company-tied-to-ncaa-draws-criticism.html?pagewanted=all

So if you weren't sure before you certainly know now. The integrity of the testing is purposefully poor or even non-existant. Again, the 1st article is about H.G.H. & while the 2nd article states that what's lacking in part is testing for "a comprehensive list of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs", it largely addresses the problem at the collegiate level. But what you want to consider there is that the firm hired to do the testing by the NCAA or universities, Drug Free Sport, is the same firm that does the testing for the NFL. Now, if you're apt to afford more weight to feel-good rhetoric put out by the league, that's certainly out there, but that isn't the reality. Note the part where it says a firm like Drug Free Sport has no incentive to tell the league they have a doping epidemic.


The article you quoted from only discusses Drug Free Sport's interactions with the NCAA, which they are apparently a spin off of.

If you go http://www.drugfreesport.com/our-clients.asp , you will see the NFL's logo on the "Our Clients" page. You'll also see the following above the logo:

Quote:
Our winning track record is why both amateur and professional sports organizations – including the NCAA, Major League Baseball’s Minor League program, the PGA TOUR, as well as hundreds of universities, state high school associations and conferences – choose us as their go-to player. And, it’s why our expertise can give you home-court advantage in the pursuit of fair play.


If Drug Free Sport was involved with the NFL, wouldn't they want to advertise that over MLB's minor league program and high school associations?

Likewise, over on their testimonials page, you'll see quotes from NCAA, PGA, and various officials with high school and colleges. But again, nothing from the NFL.

If they were seriously involved with the NFL's testing program, wouldn't you want to make that front and center? I can understand giving the NCAA top billing given the tight relationship between the company and the NCAA, but to not get a quote or even a reference from the NFL beyond the logo is strange.

Quote:
Which brings us back to Jackson. Perhaps he thought it wise to buck the system,


Shows some poor judgment, especially when the league repeatedly bucked back.

Quote:
leaving the league no choice but to scrutinize him more closely?


He didn't realize this after the second suspension?

Quote:
My point is that, at least initially, it had nothing to do with stringent policy & apparently the team views the circumstance as repairable.


As I said before, based on his actions to date, I think that's a pipe dream. The only reason I can see why the Redskins haven't cut him already is simply insurance on the off chance they get hit with the injury bug. Once his roster exemption expires, if they don't have a M*A*S*H unit in the back four, he's almost certainly gonzo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 19201
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

markrc99 wrote:
I wasn't trying to make a comparison between the policy of the NFL to that of the NCAA, but now that you mention it, when these young players come out, where do they go then? Yeah, to the NFL, which the 1st report covers. I looked into this circumstance with Kirk Cousins & I would say it was an unusual situation, to say the least.


Is it now?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Cooley-Zone-Adventures-in-NFL-drug-testing?urn=nfl,81183

Quote:
But most of the literature on the subject simply cites his tweet and nothing more. The fact of the matter is that he was called the day before to set up his "random" test. He was asked where he would be the following day & I imagine where the best place for him would be to provide a sample. He was the one who determined that the test would be conducted in the privacy of his grandmother's house, while she wasn't there. He stated that he waited all day for the guy to show up. While it's presented with the appearance of being intrusive, it likely verifies what the latter report contends. Which is that this company conducting the testing, Drug Free Sport, "... fails to adhere to tenets of serious drug testing, like random, unannounced tests; collection of samples by trained, independent officials..."


I think you are reading unannounced too literally in this case.

The drug testing regime is agreed upon by both the NFL and the NFLPA. To do a truly "unannounced" test would require two things:
1. The testing agency to know where a player was at any given time; and
2. The ability to demand that the player give their urine at any given time regardless of where they are or whom they are with.

Think about it. How would you actually make a completely unannounced test work work?

If Tom Compton, for instance, wants to go to the movies with his girlfriend, under your scenario a testing agency can walk up to him in the middle of Iron Man 3 and demand a pee sample right then and there. That's quite invasive of the man's privacy. At the same time, how on earth would the testing agency (regardless of who it is) know where the heck Compton was at a given time? Or who the heck Tom Compton is or what he looks like? Could they demand that he open his house at 1 AM to pee into a cup? Would someone who works at the agency want to work weird hours like that?

As such, the NFL and the NFLPA agreed to the following:
1. You are given 24 hours upon a sample request to provide said sample.
2. You are allowed to call the time and place, provided that it is inside of the 24 hour window.
3. If you do not show or do not schedule a time and a place, you are treated as having failed the test.

The idea behind the regime is that it makes it possible for the player to maintain his privacy by picking a time and place to pee into a cup (with a person watching over his shoulder), but difficult to flush your system if you've been taking something.

I believe, but I don't have any links to prove that the NFL uses a two sample test. If sample A is clean, you pass. If sample A turns something up, they then test sample B. If sample B is clean, you pass. If sample B turns up the same as sample A, you fail but you can appeal.

Quote:
I'm not trying to suggest that Cousins has something to hide, but that the entire episode comes off as less than professional. I certainly don't view him as being taken or inconvenienced. On the contrary, he was very much in control of the matter. Here you can scroll down to Mike & Mike and listen to their conversation.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/14880/kirk-cousins


Direct link: http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=9159113

So, imagine for a moment, you've planned to go to Ocean City for a long weekend this coming week for the 4th of July holiday. You know that traffic is going to stink, so you plan to leave bright and early tomorrow morning in order to maximize your time at the beach.

Now, imagine, your employer calls you at 3PM today and says you have 24 hours to provide a pee sample to their testing agency. You then have to throw your entire plan for the next day (and for your entire holiday) out the window just to make the test because you know that you can be suspended if you don't show, even though you already had plans.

Now, further imagine, that when you go to be tested, the tester holds the cup under you. He has to watch the entire shindig holding the cup. I don't know about you, but I like a bit of privacy when I'm doing my thing (trust me when I say once you have kids, this becomes even more valued!).

Even if you didn't have long term plans, it would still inconvenience you since you have wait around for this guy.

Quote:
DCRED wrote: "I know turtle thinks it's Shanahan's fault that 7 of our players have tested positive under the substance abuse policies. But I would look at Snyder's obvious arrogance getting to the commissioner before scrutinizing Shanahan. Also, Rob Jackson tested positive for an "unprescribed painkiller". Hardly the same category as illegal drug use or a legitimate PED. Anyway, if what you say is correct we have absolutely been targeted."

Interesting, Redskin players have been targeted and there are competing theories explaining why that is? Given that the process has little to no integrity I would say many players that test out positive may actually be targeted for some other reason. I know that sounds absurd, but if these reports are accurate it doesn't add up that the only guys violating the league's substance abuse policy are guys testing positive. Turtle believes it's Shanahan's fault? How exactly? Your contention, that Goddell is on a vendetta, going after Snyder seems way beyond his authority. He's their stooge, not someone the owners answer to. If it's Goddell, wouldn't that have to be at the behest of other owners & likely a majority? Not all that inviting a thought I might add.


Hey let's all pull our tin foil hats! Very Happy (that's for everybody, not just you mark)

We're not the only team getting hit guys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 19201
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
While I agree with DCRED and Marcus' statements. I can NOT overlook Shanahan's history dating back to Bill Romonowski. I think Shanahan is a good coach but I'm not going to be some apologist for him because he's the coach of my favorite team.

Drug problems for Shanahan coached teams, no matter what the variety seem to be following him.

Is it a coincidence? Maybe, I don't know. You all can have you're opinions, that's fine. I'll stick to mine.


It's a bit outdated, but Reynolds Wrap was a three time winner for overall brand equity in 2004-2006. http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/news_detail.asp?pageID=20060628005053en&newsYear=2006

Just thought I would help you in your sartorial choices, turtle. Wink

Quote:
As for Black and Griffin cheating to make the team last year. Well that's disappointing to me on more levels than just them cheating. We cut Willie Smith to keep an "over the hill cheater" in Jordan Black. We cut Kevin Barnes and Brandyn Thompson to keep an "over the hill cheater" in Cedric Griffin. Both Black and Cedric Griffin were one year rentals. Willie Smith, Brandyn Thompson and Kevin Barnes "possibly" could have been part of this teams long term future. At the least, those 3 young players could be on our roster this summer and competing for the last roster spots on the team and bring more young competition to this years offseason.


Kevin Barnes - played in the first two games in Detroit and was cut; no stats recorded; was brought back to Detroit in January for a tryout, but wasn't signed; currently unemployed

Brandyn Thompson - didn't play in the NFL in 2012; signed with Toronto Argonauts on March 8, 2013, but was cut on May 2nd; currently unemployed

Willie Smith - played in the first nine games of the 2012 season (starting seven of them); had a ankle/knee injury in week 10 and 11, and was listed as probable; after that, he wasn't active again (Khalif Barnes took over).

Now, it's not surprising that Smith was replaced by Barnes, but to be inactive in place of Tony Bergstrom? That's not so hot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 60768
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote:
turtle28 wrote:
While I agree with DCRED and Marcus' statements. I can NOT overlook Shanahan's history dating back to Bill Romonowski. I think Shanahan is a good coach but I'm not going to be some apologist for him because he's the coach of my favorite team.

Drug problems for Shanahan coached teams, no matter what the variety seem to be following him.

Is it a coincidence? Maybe, I don't know. You all can have you're opinions, that's fine. I'll stick to mine.


It's a bit outdated, but Reynolds Wrap was a three time winner for overall brand equity in 2004-2006. http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/news/news_detail.asp?pageID=20060628005053en&newsYear=2006

Just thought I would help you in your sartorial choices, turtle. Wink

Quote:
As for Black and Griffin cheating to make the team last year. Well that's disappointing to me on more levels than just them cheating. We cut Willie Smith to keep an "over the hill cheater" in Jordan Black. We cut Kevin Barnes and Brandyn Thompson to keep an "over the hill cheater" in Cedric Griffin. Both Black and Cedric Griffin were one year rentals. Willie Smith, Brandyn Thompson and Kevin Barnes "possibly" could have been part of this teams long term future. At the least, those 3 young players could be on our roster this summer and competing for the last roster spots on the team and bring more young competition to this years offseason.


Kevin Barnes - played in the first two games in Detroit and was cut; no stats recorded; was brought back to Detroit in January for a tryout, but wasn't signed; currently unemployed

Brandyn Thompson - didn't play in the NFL in 2012; signed with Toronto Argonauts on March 8, 2013, but was cut on May 2nd; currently unemployed

Willie Smith - played in the first nine games of the 2012 season (starting seven of them); had a ankle/knee injury in week 10 and 11, and was listed as probable; after that, he wasn't active again (Khalif Barnes took over).

Now, it's not surprising that Smith was replaced by Barnes, but to be inactive in place of Tony Bergstrom? That's not so hot.
It's not so hot that we kept one year rentals in their 30's that were both caught cheating to stay in the NFL also Woz over young players developing. I'd much rather have Tom Compton and Willie Smith as Trent Williams and Tyler Polumbus' back ups instead of relying on Trueblood and Pashos to compete for a spot at RT.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
—Days until: NFL Draft 22; Training camp 98
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
markrc99


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 309
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woz wrote: "I know significantly less than either the Redskins or Bucs, but I think he's essentially a waste of talent. To expect us to get anything out of him at this point is probably a pipe dream. I have been on the record many times of washing our hands of Davis. Should we be offered a 3rd for Davis + 6th/7th, I would be willing to drive him to the airport. Like Jackson, he doesn't show the maturity to maximize his talent. Keeping him on the roster means that we'll be cutting another player who might have his head on straight..."

If there's a counter to this I'm unaware of it, apart from what's obvious. These two guys are young & talented & they're still on the roster. If both or either end up moving on w/o helping the team all that much, then it's like, what were Allen & Shanahan thinking? And you're right, in keeping these guys, there's some other player they let go instead. It's just like turtle28's point with respect to Willie Smith & Jordan Black. Smith started a number of games at the end of 2011 & performed pretty well. They needed depth at RT and went with a guy they knew would have to juice up to give himself even an outside chance to contribute. Made no sense, none!

Woz wrote: "I don't necessarily buy your argument that the testing is weak, but as for the bolded section: because they keep suspending guys who smoke marijuana, including major stars? If the regime was as weak as you assert it is, why would Tanard Jackson have been caught four times? It's either more effective than you think, or his ability to assess risk and/or consequence is severely compromised. If he didn't get the memo that smoking weed would lead to his suspension the first three times (remember: he got the equivalent of a warning on his first failed test), why do we we think he would stop now and thus lead to a successful career going forward?"

The argument isn't that guys are framed or that no one is punished, again it is that use is far more widespread than you & I are led to believe & that avoiding detection, while not w/o exception, is usually easy. That isn't an "opinion" or my "argument", it is widely reported fact! Tanard Jackson keeps getting caught for two reasons; the first is obvious, because he's never stopped smoking pot. The 2nd reason and this is the part you're having trouble understanding, is because he & others are subject to greater scrutiny. What we don't know is why. Saying that policy & enforcement are weak probably isn't the most accurate description. Subjective may be the better term. Meaning, the league is certainly capable of finding out whether a player is violating policy but that they close loopholes in order to do it. See it? The flood gate is left open, but occasionally they close it. When I said players are targeted, that part is unsubstantiated, could very well be false. Who knows, perhaps they do just randomly close the gate. If your number comes up bud & you're doping, you're fuq'd!

Woz wrote: "The main thrust of this article is about the new HGH testing regime that was accepted (but to date, not implemented) as part of the new CBA. While the paragraph you quoted and the one immediately following it in the article hint at that, neither really gives any sense as to how the NFL's testing program is failing."

It's amazing those two sentences are back to back. You acknowledge that HGH testing hasn't even been implemented, but you're then unable to see where the policy is failing. It's important to note that when you say "new HGH testing" that does not mean there was something before and now there's something better. The reader needs to know that there was nothing before & what's new has yet to be enforced! While I would encourage people to read more, I don't expect readers to click on all these links I post and read it all. I try to be concise and post the parts that are relevant. I can't believe you read that article & your back here saying there's less not more:
Quote:
"The [NFL's] new drug-testing program includes provisions under which all players will be tested for human growth hormone at least once a year, and possibly many more times, the league said Saturday. ... Tests for growth hormone require a blood sample, and the N.F.L. will be the first major American sports league to carry out blood testing at the major league level."

So it's not just the NFL, no league or university tests for HGH, this is a new precedent! Obviously the net result is the same, but growth hormones and steroids are not the same thing. This is besides the fact that both the NY & Seattle Times articles make glaringly clear that it's easy for players to cheat! The latter source contends that players need to do no more than deny the results; oh, I took some Adderall. Oh did you? That explains it, thank you. Ha-ha.

Woz wrote: "The article you quoted from only discusses Drug Free Sport's interactions with the NCAA, which they are apparently a spin off of. ... If Drug Free Sport was involved with the NFL, wouldn't they want to advertise that over MLB's minor league program and high school associations?"

Now, you could come back and say that this all means something else, but here you're acknowledging that yes, it would be relevant if Drug Free Sport were the firm that does the testing for the NFL because, as the 2nd NY Times article makes clear, they're reputation isn't worth anything you'd otherwise flush down the dung hole! I'm afraid you didn't look every hard to find the connection. Here's the relevant quote from that article:
Quote:
"A privately held company with fewer than 30 full-time employees [Drug Free Sport], it counts among its clients Major League Baseball, the N.F.L., the N.B.A., the NCAA and about 300 individual college programs."

Here's an article from 2011:
Quote:
"Under the NFL's plan, blood samples would be collected by Drug Free Sport (as it has done with urine samples for the NFL's substance abuse program since 2007) and analyzed at WADA-approved laboratories in Utah and at UCLA." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/story/2011-09-22/nfl-still-battling-over-hgh-test/50550956/1

That's interesting. So this firm, Drug Free Sport just does the testing, they collect the samples. The lab that analyzes the samples is separate from them. See, this firm Drug Free Sport is the middle man. The league can't get a prominent & reputable laboratory to just provide the results they'd prefer. This is where a seedy outfit is needed & comes in. Drug Free Sport ensures that it's garbage in, garbage out. Not w/o exception of course. The NFL, in fact all these leagues want you to believe that the problem is a minor one & that it's under control. I'm sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming that that's a lie! Here are two web pages from the firm's website. The 1st one is dated 2009 and the 2nd just says the fourth qtr, 2012:
Quote:
"After administering the NFL’s specimen collection needs for one year, Drug Free Sport renewed its service contract with NFL." http://www.drugfreesport.com/newsroom/insight.asp?VolID=48&TopicID=4

Quote:
"Nick Matheus has been named Senior Director of NFL Drug Testing and is responsible for the collection management, administration, and oversight of the NFL’s Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Substances of Abuse." http://www.drugfreesport.com/newsroom/insight.aspVolID=67&TopicID=2

Okay, so that's all cleared up... Now you have to defend the less-than-transparent sample collection process and this firm that's hired to manage it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woz


Moderator
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 19201
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

markrc99 wrote:
Woz wrote: "I know significantly less than either the Redskins or Bucs, but I think he's essentially a waste of talent. To expect us to get anything out of him at this point is probably a pipe dream. I have been on the record many times of washing our hands of Davis. Should we be offered a 3rd for Davis + 6th/7th, I would be willing to drive him to the airport. Like Jackson, he doesn't show the maturity to maximize his talent. Keeping him on the roster means that we'll be cutting another player who might have his head on straight..."

If there's a counter to this I'm unaware of it, apart from what's obvious. These two guys are young & talented & they're still on the roster. If both or either end up moving on w/o helping the team all that much, then it's like, what were Allen & Shanahan thinking? And you're right, in keeping these guys, there's some other player they let go instead. It's just like turtle28's point with respect to Willie Smith & Jordan Black. Smith started a number of games at the end of 2011 & performed pretty well. They needed depth at RT and went with a guy they knew would have to juice up to give himself even an outside chance to contribute. Made no sense, none!


That bolded section is ridiculous slander. I started to discuss how utterly illogical and foolish it is, but I'll just stick with it being slander. It's not worth my time to respond to.

markrc99 wrote:
Woz wrote: "I don't necessarily buy your argument that the testing is weak, but as for the bolded section: because they keep suspending guys who smoke marijuana, including major stars? If the regime was as weak as you assert it is, why would Tanard Jackson have been caught four times? It's either more effective than you think, or his ability to assess risk and/or consequence is severely compromised. If he didn't get the memo that smoking weed would lead to his suspension the first three times (remember: he got the equivalent of a warning on his first failed test), why do we we think he would stop now and thus lead to a successful career going forward?"

The argument isn't that guys are framed or that no one is punished, again it is that use is far more widespread than you & I are led to believe & that avoiding detection, while not w/o exception, is usually easy. That isn't an "opinion" or my "argument", it is widely reported fact!


No, that's an assertion without basis, not a fact.

markrc99 wrote:
Tanard Jackson keeps getting caught for two reasons; the first is obvious, because he's never stopped smoking pot. The 2nd reason and this is the part you're having trouble understanding, is because he & others are subject to greater scrutiny. What we don't know is why.


Umm ... he and Fred Davis are under greater scrutiny because they failed drug tests before? Remember, for everything except steroids, you have to fail twice before you get suspended. As such, if you failed once, they'll keep a closer eye on you.

And I have hard time understanding this? Really.

markrc99 wrote:
Saying that policy & enforcement are weak probably isn't the most accurate description. Subjective may be the better term. Meaning, the league is certainly capable of finding out whether a player is violating policy but that they close loopholes in order to do it. See it? The flood gate is left open, but occasionally they close it. When I said players are targeted, that part is unsubstantiated, could very well be false. Who knows, perhaps they do just randomly close the gate. If your number comes up bud & you're doping, you're fuq'd!


Okay ... so if they arbitrarily enforce the rules and you break them but don't know if they will catch you ... isn't that random testing, albeit in a sub-optimal way?

markrc99 wrote:
Woz wrote: "The main thrust of this article is about the new HGH testing regime that was accepted (but to date, not implemented) as part of the new CBA. While the paragraph you quoted and the one immediately following it in the article hint at that, neither really gives any sense as to how the NFL's testing program is failing."

It's amazing those two sentences are back to back. You acknowledge that HGH testing hasn't even been implemented, but you're then unable to see where the policy is failing. It's important to note that when you say "new HGH testing" that does not mean there was something before and now there's something better. The reader needs to know that there was nothing before & what's new has yet to be enforced! While I would encourage people to read more, I don't expect readers to click on all these links I post and read it all. I try to be concise and post the parts that are relevant. I can't believe you read that article & your back here saying there's less not more:
Quote:
"The [NFL's] new drug-testing program includes provisions under which all players will be tested for human growth hormone at least once a year, and possibly many more times, the league said Saturday. ... Tests for growth hormone require a blood sample, and the N.F.L. will be the first major American sports league to carry out blood testing at the major league level."

So it's not just the NFL, no league or university tests for HGH, this is a new precedent!


First off, I said "new" because it was an addition to the things that the NFL will test for. So, it was a new test for the NFL.

Second, as I said before, the article you linked was published a week after the new CBA was signed. In the article, it states that HGH testing will soon be allowed and the NFL is the first league to decide to do this. However, the NFLPA and the NFL cannot agree on the testing system, like they did with the drug testing.

Why? Perhaps this from the same USA Today article you quoted below might say why:
Quote:
Gary Wadler, a long-established anti-doping voice and past chairman of WADA's prohibited list and methods committee, dismisses the players' concerns and defends the validity of HGH tests, which were first used at the Athens Olympics in 2004 and are evolving. According to The New York Times, there have been seven positive results involving athletes worldwide in sports that adhere to WADA's standards. Besides the Olympics — which had zero positive tests in two Summer and two Winter games — minor league baseball tests for HGH.


So this test you are championing that would prove once and for all that cheating is so widespread across all of the Big Four leagues (plus the NCAA) ... had managed to catch an average of one cheater per year of the test's existence.

I don't agree with the NFLPA blocking the implementation of any HGH testing since they agreed to do it, but they are acting appropriately as an agent on behalf of the players. If it has only caught seven people in seven years and none during the Olympics (when you have to think it would make the most sense to cheat), why would the NFLPA agree to it? How good is this test?

markrc99 wrote:
Obviously the net result is the same, but growth hormones and steroids are not the same thing.


So growth hormones and steroids are not the same thing, but the fact that the NFL is not testing for HGH means that the entire testing regime is fatally flawed? Okay ...

markrc99 wrote:
This is besides the fact that both the NY & Seattle Times articles make glaringly clear that it's easy for players to cheat! The latter source contends that players need to do no more than deny the results; oh, I took some Adderall. Oh did you? That explains it, thank you. Ha-ha.


Except the excuse "oh I took some Adderall" doesn't work. Even if the player has a prescription, that still counts as a failed test. Players have tried to appeal those sorts of tests; usually they fail, or if they succeed, it's a lesser suspension.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/27/players-must-submit-renewal-applications-for-therapeutic-use-exemptions-by-sunday/

Now, you could (and I suspect will) argue that getting the exemption is trivial; I don't know what goes into getting an exemption. But there is a process. It is either not publicized well by the league office and agents, is insanely difficult to get, players are incredibly lazy, or the system is actually catching guys who are cheating (but they are giving themselves cover by claiming it is something for ADHD). It could very easily be option #1 or #3 ... but it is catching guys.

Is the system foolproof? Most likely not. There could very well be gaping holes. However, it's probably better than you think/assert.

markrc99 wrote:
Woz wrote: "The article you quoted from only discusses Drug Free Sport's interactions with the NCAA, which they are apparently a spin off of. ... If Drug Free Sport was involved with the NFL, wouldn't they want to advertise that over MLB's minor league program and high school associations?"

Now, you could come back and say that this all means something else, but here you're acknowledging that yes, it would be relevant if Drug Free Sport were the firm that does the testing for the NFL because, as the 2nd NY Times article makes clear, they're reputation isn't worth anything you'd otherwise flush down the dung hole! I'm afraid you didn't look every hard to find the connection. Here's the relevant quote from that article:
Quote:
"A privately held company with fewer than 30 full-time employees [Drug Free Sport], it counts among its clients Major League Baseball, the N.F.L., the N.B.A., the NCAA and about 300 individual college programs."


Here's an article from 2011:
Quote:
"Under the NFL's plan, blood samples would be collected by Drug Free Sport (as it has done with urine samples for the NFL's substance abuse program since 2007) and analyzed at WADA-approved laboratories in Utah and at UCLA." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/story/2011-09-22/nfl-still-battling-over-hgh-test/50550956/1

That's interesting. So this firm, Drug Free Sport just does the testing, they collect the samples. The lab that analyzes the samples is separate from them. See, this firm Drug Free Sport is the middle man. The league can't get a prominent & reputable laboratory to just provide the results they'd prefer. This is where a seedy outfit is needed & comes in. Drug Free Sport ensures that it's garbage in, garbage out. Not w/o exception of course. The NFL, in fact all these leagues want you to believe that the problem is a minor one & that it's under control. I'm sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming that that's a lie!


1. You're right in that I didn't dig too deeply into what Drug Free Sport does on behalf on the NFL. Now I know that they're a specimen collector.

2. It surprises you that the NFL contracted out with a third party for the collection processing? I suspect the NFLPA demanded that a third party handle the collections. Did the league and NFLPA find a bad group? Perhaps, but how many groups are out there that do this sort of thing? Other groups screw up (see below about Ryan Braun).

3. Have you gone to get blood drawn at a LabCorp facility? They handle blood and specimen testing for lots of things including but not limited to job drug testing, blood work, and other tests for physicals (I had mine a couple of months ago). You go to the facility, they take whatever it is the doctor or employer requested for the test, and they ship it off to their processing laboratory. The draw sites do not usually process the stuff themselves.

https://www.labcorp.com/wps/portal/insurer/labcorpdifference
Quote:
Convenience
The availability of routine and esoteric testing through our national network of 29 primary clinical laboratories and seven specialty laboratories, which are accredited by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and licensed through the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA), enhances provider satisfaction. Our national service network also includes more than 1,600 facilities for convenient specimen collection.


So, why do I mention LabCorp? Because A) they're a big name in specimen collection and testing in the medical market and B) I want you to see the difference in terms of number of specimen collection locations versus actual testing laboratories: over 40 to 1 in favor of the collection sites. There's not a lot of places that can actually handle that kind of testing.

In the case of the NFL, they don't want to be tied down to a physical location because that gives the player the excuse "I couldn't get to a specimen collection site until five days later." As such, they need a collection provider that can get to anywhere the player is within 24 hours. Enter Drug Free Sport. They handle the collection and transportation of the specimens to the actual testing labs. Now, they can and do screw it up.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000117644/article/richard-sherman-of-seattle-seahawks-wins-ped-appeal

Quote:
NFL.com's Albert Breer reported Sherman won his case because of a major problem with the collection procedure. Sherman said earlier this week that he'd likely sue the NFL if his appeal didn't throw out the suspension.


However, they aren't the only collection company to screw up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Braun#Disputed_testosterone_test
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/wires/02/28/2010.ap.bbn.braun.sample.collector.1st.ld.writethru.0550/index.html

Note that in the SI link, the MLB used a collection agency named Comprehensive Drug Testing. It's possible that the MLB switched to Drug Free Sport after this, but I don't know that for a fact.

4. Why would the leagues want to have a flawed testing regime? All that does is beg for a later screw up and then have the whole entire house of cards come down. In baseball's case, that means their antitrust exemption would be back in play in front of Congress, which is something they absolutely don't want. There's a reason why they went with a system of 50 games-100 games-life after guys like Clemens were up in front of Conress.

markrc99 wrote:
Okay, so that's all cleared up... Now you have to defend the less-than-transparent sample collection process and this firm that's hired to manage it.


Why exactly do I need to defend the sample collection process? It is what the NFL and NFLPA agreed upon. It's how the system has worked for at least seven years (since the 2006 CBA). Are you arguing that the NFL and NFLPA are colluding to hide this from us fans? Why would the NFLPA agree to even consider HGH testing then? Why would they agree to four game suspensions? That makes absolutely no sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group