More speculation about the appeal for Sherm

Are you guys kidding me??? I chalked this up as a joke the first second I read it on Twitter.

I think a too few many of the posters are confusing speculation with what Sherm has actually said. (Which is basically nothing on the subject).

Basis4day":2l3df5kr said:

I think a too few many of the posters are confusing speculation with what Sherm has actually said. (Which is basically nothing on the subject).

Click to expand...

He's told us a few times not to worry about it, that the "truth" will come out and all will be fine.

So the only logical conclusion that a seemingly intelligent football player that attended Stanford would tell us not to worry about a PED suspension that very few people have ever beat would have to go along the lines of tainted sample. What other scenario gets Sherman off?

1. Drank my homey's drink with Adderall in it? Nope, not gonna fly.
2. I had a prescription, but forgot to give it to team doctors? Nope, not gonna fly.
3. I didn't have a prescription, I didn't know I needed one. Nope, not gonna fly.

Anyway, you get my point. The only excuse that's feasibly going to get him off is for there to be some sort of mismanagement with how the league tested him. That would put the mistake on the testing and not him.

rideaducati":265one97 said:

JKent82":265one97 said:

Kenneth's joking haha, follow him on twitter he's a crack up. And read more Fieldgulls you guys, they have good stuff these days.

Click to expand...

If you do go over to fieldgulls.com, don't disagree with the "groupthink" or they'll banish you from posting. They're very efficient in their banishing. The first time they disagree with you, some "staff" member will casually call you a name. When you state your case, many more "staff" members call you names and when you get into a back and forth with them, they ban you because you didn't agree with them. Fieldgulls is more of a Seahawk site for a few elitists that think they know more than they actually do.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Anyways they write some good stuff. Not everything is great but they have some good analysts and occasionally have some hilarious articles.

Seahwkgal":28imp23t said:

Whatever happened to innocent until "proven" guilty? Maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Well, its nice to be hopeful, but history's not on his side.

Remember when the Seahawks signed "Frank Onkeypunch" this past offseason? That was his work as well.

Sgt. Largent":3stk767w said:

Basis4day":3stk767w said:

I think a too few many of the posters are confusing speculation with what Sherm has actually said. (Which is basically nothing on the subject).

Click to expand...

2. I had a prescription, but forgot to give it to team doctors? Nope, not gonna fly.

Click to expand...

This actually did fly in Donald Browns case in NY. Thats exactly what happened and the suspensions were uplifted.

The guy for the Skins had a prescription and told the league, had the league doctors examine him and the league attorney still found him guilty, well thats what the article on PFT said anyway.

They announced his and judged him in a couple of days.

Sherman's has been drawn out, now whether it's due to him hiring lawyers or if their is an actual situation that needs to be investigated who can be sure at this point. One thing is evident, the league is being careful with it for it's own reasons. Be it something that could have ramifications about many of the other findings and create an avalanche of contested claims with legal representation as well as compensation for lost wages and legal fees, or the league having to change how they administor there judgements and testing.

They are likely being careful due to HIPAA. Which would tend to point to the fact that Richard has a legitimate medical condition. Whether he ok'ed it with the league may not be an issue. I am not required to disclose to my employer what medications I take, unless I fail a drug test... then I need to submit proof that I have a prescription for what they claim I am taking that is a "drug of abuse".

Richard has a very strong defense if he truly has ADD or ADHD or even Narcolepsy. These are all very possible, especially when you consider how smart he is. Many people with ADD have very high intelligence, but have difficulty completing tasks.

So... let's say Richard has ADD/ADHD. He goes to the doctor during the lockout and gets Adderall. He wouldn't communicate it to the league or the team's doctors at that point. He continues taking it and never tests positive for it since it is eliminated from your body quickly, particularly if you drink orange juice or take in a lot of vitamin C (which is in a lot of supplements). Richard forgets to take his adderall the day of the test last year, and tests clean. This year he takes it as normal and tests "dirty". The league goes after him. He says, "Wait, I have a legitimate prescription, I've been taking it for X amount of years." League fires back with, "So what, you need to tell us." Richard fires back with "Talk to my lawyer." Lawyer fires off letter to NFL about this being a HIPAA violation because they are announcing to the world that Richard Sherman has a disability. Lawyer threatens NFL with massive lawsuit for violating Richard's HIPAA rights. NFL craps pants realizing that this is a very gray area, regardless of the league's collective bargaining agreement which allows for testing and suspending for performance enhancers.

Richard doesn't say anything about his condition, because then he is giving up his HIPAA rights essentially by telling the world about his disability and weakening his case, but as of now, still having a strong case against the NFL since he's been quiet about what the situation is and seems confident and says it will all work its way out.

He goes to hearing. Lawyer speaks. Doctor speaks. NFL barks back. Lawyer barks back about forthcoming lawsuit if you suspend a guy for having a learning disability/impairment and for punishing him for receiving legal treatment from a doctor and having a valid prescription. NFL doesn't want to look stupid or let others get away with using, so they go to the hearing stage and claim it has been handled and Richard was subject to league discipline. Richard then sues for being disciplined for being disabled.

Trust me.... I'm on this road right now myself, and there's a whole lot that can be going on behind the scenes. I had a boss attempt to force me to divulge a disability I had because I missed work and she didn't feel my doctor's note was adequate. Lawyers get involved, everything goes crazy, I'm "force transferred" and I quit instead. I then get a lawyer and we star the process of suing the state over discrimination due to my disability.

The process is long. I'm now 23 months in. So the fact that his has dragged tells me that they are gathering as much evidence as possible on both sides and probably trying to come to an agreement that makes everything work for both parties. As for me.... I will not quit on mine because I was wronged, they know it, I know it... and they know they are going down for it. I've got 500 pages of documentation, and I bet Richard does too.

Go get them Richard (if you're clean). If you're not.... knock it off, because you make it harder for those of us with legitimate disabilities to receive fair treatment in the workplace.

PP has some very good points. I also think there's the distinct possibility he's challenging the chain of custody of his sample, or something similar i.e. if the NFL is not using the best standard practices, and the testing regime is slipshod, that's a valid reason to get a lawyer involved.

Both of these are good reasons too as to why we had all those leaks and then suddenly there's been no information at all. If the NFL is in jeopardy of having a bunch of players come at them, or even the NFLPA, because they designed a crappy testing system, well, they'd really keep their mouths shut, get Sherman some sort of deal, and then put some new procedures in place for 2013 and hope no one goes back and challenges the earlier suspensions.

we still don't know it's for adderall do we?