Seattle could face fines by the NFL for multiple PEDs

Ian Rapoport
‏@RapSheet
.@wyche89 reports #Seahawks could face fines by @NFL for multiple players being suspended in a season for violating PED policy after Irvin


https://twitter.com/RapSheet/statuses/3 ... 3583804420

Don't care as long as they don't take draft picks. PA can afford a fine or two.

So Irvin counts as multiple now? :roll:

An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

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

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

Click to expand...

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:

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

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?

I have confidence in P & J to get the message across.

kidhawk":3ijlkhbg said:

An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

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

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

Click to expand...

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:

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

Click to expand...

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.

KCHawkGirl":fvkwfu4g said:

kidhawk":fvkwfu4g said:

An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

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

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

Click to expand...

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:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

There will not be any fines. Much ado about zilch. Ian is just as bored as us.

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.

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

I wouldn't put anything past Rog Goodell!

kidhawk":vlx433x7 said:

KCHawkGirl":vlx433x7 said:

kidhawk":vlx433x7 said:

An article about that is also on the front page of NFL.com

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

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

Click to expand...

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:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Erebus":8mjsf5ib said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sports Hernia":iybdhcbd said:

I wouldn't put anything past Rog Goodell!

Click to expand...

Nor would I. He's a POS.

Bakergirl":2i2r9a67 said:

Erebus":2i2r9a67 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

taz291819":br2fow2r said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

I hope they do. We need to put an and to this garbage.

sc85sis":2m275f82 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.