Seattle could face fines by the NFL for multiple PEDs

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13

  • Don't care as long as they don't take draft picks. PA can afford a fine or two.
    User avatar
    hedgehawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 577
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:37 pm


  • So Irvin counts as multiple now? :roll:
    User avatar
    Seahwkgal
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:27 pm



  • I read a Wiki article yesterday that the Redskins have had the most since 2011.

    If true, why are they being mentioned for these fines?
    EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3067
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


  • I have confidence in P & J to get the message across.
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22746
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


  • kidhawk wrote:An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000204830/article/seahawks-could-be-fined-by-nfl-for-players-ped-violations

    The team could fall under the league's remittance policy since multiple players recently have been suspended for violating banned substance rules.

    Seattle has had six players suspended for PED violations since 2010......

    Per rule, a team would be fined a portion of the salaries of the players that have been suspended based on an agreed-upon formula


    Also on NFL.com, Schneider is "disappointed" and Carroll says they need to make changes in the team policy....not sure exactly what that means, it's not like their policy is "it's ok if you don't get caught" at least I hope not.

    That article is here:

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000204689/article/seahawks-gm-bruce-irvins-suspension-disappointing

    Sounds like their policy is quite the opposite of "it's ok just don't get caught". The team is young and young men do boneheaded things it's like death and taxes. 20ish years old guys WILL do boneheaded things. They will get this fixed.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6832
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


  • KCHawkGirl wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000204830/article/seahawks-could-be-fined-by-nfl-for-players-ped-violations

    The team could fall under the league's remittance policy since multiple players recently have been suspended for violating banned substance rules.

    Seattle has had six players suspended for PED violations since 2010......

    Per rule, a team would be fined a portion of the salaries of the players that have been suspended based on an agreed-upon formula


    Also on NFL.com, Schneider is "disappointed" and Carroll says they need to make changes in the team policy....not sure exactly what that means, it's not like their policy is "it's ok if you don't get caught" at least I hope not.

    That article is here:

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000204689/article/seahawks-gm-bruce-irvins-suspension-disappointing

    Sounds like their policy is quite the opposite of "it's ok just don't get caught". The team is young and young men do boneheaded things it's like death and taxes. 20ish years old guys WILL do boneheaded things. They will get this fixed.



    That was kind of my point. How exactly can you change the policy...the policy is (I assume) follow NFL rules and don't take PED.....what's there to change? Emphasis.....maybe now it'll say PLEASE don't break NFL rules regarding PED? I just don't get what any "policy" can do to change behavior. It's already banned, the policy is to follow the NFL guidelines. They can't add any additional suspensions to players because of the CBA, so I don't know what he meant by that. I would like to know what his train of thought was with that though.
    Image
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13034
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • There will not be any fines. Much ado about zilch. Ian is just as bored as us.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10846
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • This says mutliple suspensions in a season. Doesn't Irvin's count for 2013? Should be the first Seahawk suspension of 2013. I don't see how it violates the remittance rule.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 646
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm
    Location: Ft. Meade, MD


  • The majority of the league does this and typically the league looks the other way,except when they want to make an example of someone or some team. The enforcement system is broken. It's no different than the sanctions brought against USC for providing monetary benefits to players. Carroll is not the problem, it's the authorities that seek primarily to punish the successful teams
    usc17hawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 113
    Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:30 pm


  • I wouldn't put anything past Rog Goodell!
    42-13, 29-3, and 23-17 and a Lombardi trophy from THIS millennium.....deal with it niner trolls

    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!
    User avatar
    Sports Hernia
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11246
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: Lombardi Land


  • kidhawk wrote:
    KCHawkGirl wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000204830/article/seahawks-could-be-fined-by-nfl-for-players-ped-violations

    [quote]The team could fall under the league's remittance policy since multiple players recently have been suspended for violating banned substance rules.

    Seattle has had six players suspended for PED violations since 2010......

    Per rule, a team would be fined a portion of the salaries of the players that have been suspended based on an agreed-upon formula


    Also on NFL.com, Schneider is "disappointed" and Carroll says they need to make changes in the team policy....not sure exactly what that means, it's not like their policy is "it's ok if you don't get caught" at least I hope not.

    That article is here:

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000204689/article/seahawks-gm-bruce-irvins-suspension-disappointing

    Sounds like their policy is quite the opposite of "it's ok just don't get caught". The team is young and young men do boneheaded things it's like death and taxes. 20ish years old guys WILL do boneheaded things. They will get this fixed.



    That was kind of my point. How exactly can you change the policy...the policy is (I assume) follow NFL rules and don't take PED.....what's there to change? Emphasis.....maybe now it'll say PLEASE don't break NFL rules regarding PED? I just don't get what any "policy" can do to change behavior. It's already banned, the policy is to follow the NFL guidelines. They can't add any additional suspensions to players because of the CBA, so I don't know what he meant by that. I would like to know what his train of thought was with that though.[/quote]
    They can bench guys for violating team rules. There may be some other actions they can take as well. Not sure what the CBA does or doesn't allow. Can the team do (additional) testing beyond what the NFL requires? If so, that's another option. And they can increase education, though that won't do much unless guys decide to actually heed what is learned.
    Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
    http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com
    User avatar
    sc85sis
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4711
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • Erebus wrote:This says mutliple suspensions in a season. Doesn't Irvin's count for 2013? Should be the first Seahawk suspension of 2013. I don't see how it violates the remittance rule.


    My sentiments exactly. Irvin did not test positive during the 2012 season, and while Browner served his suspension last season Sherman was exonerated. It's just the media feeding frenzy trying to shake things up and cause whatever distractions they can. Personally I hope it just feeds the fire and puts an extra chip on this teams collective shoulders.
    Image

    “There’s no reason, with Mr. Allen and the fan base here and the stadium, that this can’t be a stable, long-term winning organization.” - John Schneider
    User avatar
    Bakergirl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3302
    Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:13 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Sports Hernia wrote:I wouldn't put anything past Rog Goodell!

    Nor would I. He's a POS.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10917
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • Bakergirl wrote:
    Erebus wrote:This says mutliple suspensions in a season. Doesn't Irvin's count for 2013? Should be the first Seahawk suspension of 2013. I don't see how it violates the remittance rule.


    My sentiments exactly. Irvin did not test positive during the 2012 season, and while Browner served his suspension last season Sherman was exonerated. It's just the media feeding frenzy trying to shake things up and cause whatever distractions they can. Personally I hope it just feeds the fire and puts an extra chip on this teams collective shoulders.


    Do we know that as fact yet? He could have tested positive during the post-season for all we know. Unless I missed some news.
    User avatar
    taz291819
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3534
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:16 pm
    Location: Huntsville, Al


  • taz291819 wrote:
    Do we know that as fact yet? He could have tested positive during the post-season for all we know. Unless I missed some news.


    Exactly.

    Can we definitively say we have 100% of the facts regarding when, what, (et. al.)? Until then it is probably really good advice to take a chill pill and avoid any assumptions. Media reports are spotty, at best, and full of speculation.

    I'm tabling this issue in my mind.
    "God bless America, and God bless the Seattle Seahawks" - Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    HoustonHawk82
    * NET Mechanic *
     
    Posts: 6013
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:51 am
    Location: Beneath, Between & Behind


  • I don't care about policies and who did what right now

    This is a seroius problem and this needs to be cleaned up

    There is no honor winning like this, absolutely none
    User avatar
    Shaz
    *BRONZE SUPPORTER*
    *BRONZE SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 374
    Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:40 am
    Location: Tacoma, WA


  • I hope they do. We need to put an and to this garbage.
    TJH
    *NET #1 Sherman Fan*
     
    Posts: 646
    Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 pm


  • sc85sis wrote:They can bench guys for violating team rules. There may be some other actions they can take as well. Not sure what the CBA does or doesn't allow. Can the team do (additional) testing beyond what the NFL requires? If so, that's another option. And they can increase education, though that won't do much unless guys decide to actually heed what is learned.


    The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.
    Image
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13034
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Shaz wrote:There is no honor winning like this, absolutely none


    I heard somewhere that if you don't win the SB with enough honor, they really smudge up the Lombardi trophy before they give it to you. Like, Terry Bradshaw eats a bunch of fried chicken and then wipes his face all over it before the team is anointed champions.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7978
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • kidhawk wrote:
    sc85sis wrote:They can bench guys for violating team rules. There may be some other actions they can take as well. Not sure what the CBA does or doesn't allow. Can the team do (additional) testing beyond what the NFL requires? If so, that's another option. And they can increase education, though that won't do much unless guys decide to actually heed what is learned.


    The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.

    Simple solution. Front offices that are concerned about PED's and rules enforcement on PED's simply have to write it in the players contract. For Example: A violation of the NFL's PED rules is punishable by death (obvious exaggeration here but you get my point) and that's allowed under the CBA. I'm assuming since (I think) about half of the 'Hawk players that have had PED violations haven't really suffered any terminations and are still on the team - makes me think the Front office who's writing the players contracts fell asleep at the wheel when writing them. Or, what could be a better reason, is that they were not concerned about it in the first place and hence didn't attach a punishment clause to a PED violation in the player contract.
    Giedi
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 324
    Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:03 am


  • Giedi wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    sc85sis wrote:They can bench guys for violating team rules. There may be some other actions they can take as well. Not sure what the CBA does or doesn't allow. Can the team do (additional) testing beyond what the NFL requires? If so, that's another option. And they can increase education, though that won't do much unless guys decide to actually heed what is learned.


    The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.

    Simple solution. Front offices that are concerned about PED's and rules enforcement on PED's simply have to write it in the players contract. For Example: A violation of the NFL's PED rules is punishable by death (obvious exaggeration here but you get my point) and that's allowed under the CBA. I'm assuming since (I think) about half of the 'Hawk players that have had PED violations haven't really suffered any terminations and are still on the team - makes me think the Front office who's writing the players contracts fell asleep at the wheel when writing them. Or, what could be a better reason, is that they were not concerned about it in the first place and hence didn't attach a punishment clause to a PED violation in the player contract.


    Actually as written, the NFL would reject that contract (even with a less harsh punishment). It's still punishment for a future offense that is already covered in the CBA. You can always cut a player; that is not out of the team's realm of possibility, but they cannot enforce extra punishment above the agreed upon amount. Now, if a player has previous issues, then they can put financial clauses in the contract, but most of these players wouldn't have fit under that since most were/are first time offenders of the policy.
    Image
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13034
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote:
    Giedi wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:
    The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.

    Simple solution. Front offices that are concerned about PED's and rules enforcement on PED's simply have to write it in the players contract. For Example: A violation of the NFL's PED rules is punishable by death (obvious exaggeration here but you get my point) and that's allowed under the CBA. I'm assuming since (I think) about half of the 'Hawk players that have had PED violations haven't really suffered any terminations and are still on the team - makes me think the Front office who's writing the players contracts fell asleep at the wheel when writing them. Or, what could be a better reason, is that they were not concerned about it in the first place and hence didn't attach a punishment clause to a PED violation in the player contract.


    Actually as written, the NFL would reject that contract (even with a less harsh punishment). It's still punishment for a future offense that is already covered in the CBA. You can always cut a player; that is not out of the team's realm of possibility, but they cannot enforce extra punishment above the agreed upon amount. Now, if a player has previous issues, then they can put financial clauses in the contract, but most of these players wouldn't have fit under that since most were/are first time offenders of the policy.


    I don't see how the CBA limits punishment when the words clearly state that termination of the players contract *is* an allowable punishment if it's written in the contract, **and** conduct detrimental to the team is punishable by fines and deduction of salary - up to 4 weeks.

    (xv) Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct

    [...]
    Section 6. NFL Drug and Steroid Policies: No Club may impose any discipline against a player, including but not limited to terminating the player’s Player Contract, as a result of that Player’s violation of the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Sub-stances or the NFL Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse, or for failing any drug test, provided, however, that the fact that a player has violated the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances or the NFL Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse, or has failed a drug test will not preclude the termination of his Player Contract if such termination is otherwise expressly permissible under this Agreement or the player’s Player Contract.


    http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/201 ... 1-2020.pdf
    Giedi
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 324
    Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:03 am


  • HoustonHawk82 wrote:
    taz291819 wrote:
    Do we know that as fact yet? He could have tested positive during the post-season for all we know. Unless I missed some news.

    Exactly.

    Can we definitively say we have 100% of the facts regarding when, what, (et. al.)? Until then it is probably really good advice to take a chill pill and avoid any assumptions. Media reports are spotty, at best, and full of speculation.

    I'm tabling this issue in my mind.

    A wise decision IMO. Back when I actually cared about the news, I made it a point to ignore everything until about a week or so after something happened -- because it seemed like nobody really knew anything for sure until that much time had gone by.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7387
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • volsunghawk wrote:
    Shaz wrote:There is no honor winning like this, absolutely none


    I heard somewhere that if you don't win the SB with enough honor, they really smudge up the Lombardi trophy before they give it to you. Like, Terry Bradshaw eats a bunch of fried chicken and then wipes his face all over it before the team is anointed champions.

    Well played, sir.
    User avatar
    Sonichellboy
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 267
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:41 pm


  • Image

    "So then then, I tell the guy, fine me? i'm paul @#$@#$ing allen"
    We are the 2014 Superbowl champions and it can never, ever be taken away.
    Greatest defense in NFL history.
    User avatar
    Seeker
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1343
    Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:21 pm




It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:13 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information