Clay Matthews linked to painkiller

[Mondio]

if players thought it would just be an "interview" it probably isn't such a big deal. But they aren't asking them if they did it or not, because they've already supplied affidavits that state their position. They're on fact finding mission. They want to see everything. They'll ask for all the stuff they want to see until they can see no more. If you don't turn over the keys to your house so we can search, you're not cooperating, you're suspended.

I disagree the union can't fight it. They can and should. There are differences between this and the Brady case, namely this is about peds and their is a clear PED set of guidelines. What they're asking the players to do isn't part of it. The NFL could easily this one.

Matthews and Peppers should just go in and do the interview. If your boss wanted to talk to you about something that was said, wouldn't you want to go in and clear things up.

Goodell is not going to back down on this, (see Brady). It won't be about PED's anymore, it will be about not cooperating and the players union can't fight that, see Brady.

 

[Mondio]

Btw, nothing makes sense when I have to use these fat fingers in my phone. Sorry

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree with the union that this goes beyond the intent of the terms contained within the CBA.

I don't believe that's the case. The CBA grants the commish exceptional disciplinary powers. He might even claim that the refusal of players to answer allegations is "unbecoming to the league".

Unless and until Brady or Peterson appeal to a higher court and win on some violation of basic rights claims, the commish holds the cards.

The NFLPA better file an injunction, and it better be ready to file by 8/25.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Matthews and Peppers should just go in and do the interview. If your boss wanted to talk to you about something that was said, wouldn't you want to go in and clear things up.

That's fine (maybe) if you're innocent or a very skilled and nimble liar. They're not going to just ask, "were those Al Jazeera claims true," and accept a "no" as the end of it.

They've been investigating this for awhile and may have some leads, vague indications, sketchy circumstantial evidence. You would want to avoid falling into a trap, whether lying or not.

Further, the NFLPA can't just say "go on in" to the innocent and "stay back" to the guilty. That's a bit of a tell, wouldn't you say? So they keep them all back.

I would not assume those Packers players to be innocent or guilty. The real p*sser of this situation is 2 of 5 in this case are Packers plus one ex-Packer when hundreds violate in one way, shape or form.

Of course, without Matthews and Peppers we can kiss this season goodbye.

 

[adambr2]

Of course, without Matthews and Peppers we can kiss this season goodbye.

Why? I mean, if we lost them for the entire season, probably, but hypothetically, if they were out for say, 8 games, Datone has some possible upside, Perry is back, you've got Fackrell now and Elliott could be at least passable.

Definitely wouldn't be ideal but I think we could skate by for awhile and at least give ourselves a chance. There's some depth there.

 

[JK64]

I disagree the union can't fight it. They can and should. There are differences between this and the Brady case, namely this is about peds and their is a clear PED set of guidelines. What they're asking the players to do isn't part of it. The NFL could easily this one.

In Brady's case it started as an equipment violation and then turned into a lack of cooperation issue. Brady took it to the U.S.A court of appeals and lost. This set a precedent. Goodell has total power because of a bad collective bargaining agreement.

Manning already went in and was let off the hook. Why wouldn't the others named in this case get off the hook?

If Goodell comes down on them after the interview then you take it to court. Right now they will be suspended indefinitely for not coorperating. If they were found guilty of PED use, which I doubt because there is no positive test, they would get 4 games.

Let's see, indefinite suspension or 4 games, Hmmm?

 

[Mondio]

suspend and appeal, no games missed.

the Brady case was different. There is a clearly spelled out PED policy. It's in the agreement. It's detailed as to what is and isn't allowed. This isn't one of those things. In Brady's case it wasn't the same and the NFL is puffing it's chest again. I would not be surprised at all to see them lose. They have a policy, that was agreed to, and they're trying to circumvent it. They also have the issue that the players have destroyed nothing and have each submitted affidavits denying all of it.

Manning isn't even in the league and the league bent over backwards for that family There's a reason they weren't forced to be interrogated and investigated in December last year.

 

[sschind]

I don't think it was all their players, just the starters. Same rumors coming out of Minnesota.

I heard rumors out of Chicago as well but it turns out the league actually prescribed them to the Bears. Something about parity and giving them an equal chance.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why? I mean, if we lost them for the entire season, probably, but hypothetically, if they were out for say, 8 games, Datone has some possible upside, Perry is back, you've got Fackrell now and Elliott could be at least passable.

Definitely wouldn't be ideal but I think we could skate by for awhile and at least give ourselves a chance. There's some depth there.

I lost my head for a moment. I forgot about the cr*p schedule. So I'll rephrase...you can can kiss the division goodbye.

 

[HardRightEdge]

suspend and appeal, no games missed.

the Brady case was different. There is a clearly spelled out PED policy. It's in the agreement. It's detailed as to what is and isn't allowed. This isn't one of those things. In Brady's case it wasn't the same and the NFL is puffing it's chest again. I would not be surprised at all to see them lose. They have a policy, that was agreed to, and they're trying to circumvent it. They also have the issue that the players have destroyed nothing and have each submitted affidavits denying all of it.

Manning isn't even in the league and the league bent over backwards for that family There's a reason they weren't forced to be interrogated and investigated in December last year.

The PED policy covers the testing regime. That's not what this is about. It's about cheating, and that can fall under the "conduct unbecoming" provision.

There's no mandatory drug testing during the season. The last test through the Superbowl is during training camp and has already past. From here, there is a small random sample of players tested each week.

So imagine if a player was stupid enough to say, "Yeah, I take HGH during the season, legally prescribed by the way, but I roll the dice that I won't get tested." By your logic, he should go scott free.

For the life of me, I don't know why the NFLPA did not bargain for an independent arbiter of "conduct unbecoming". Instead, they gave the commish what amounts to carte blanche. They probably extracted some monetary concession in giving the commish that power, calculating that he would not go ******* star players. That was a miscalculation.

 

[Poppa San]

Of course, without Matthews and Peppers we can kiss this season goodbye.

Why? I mean, if we lost them for the entire season, probably, but hypothetically, if they were out for say, 8 games, Datone has some possible upside, Perry is back, you've got Fackrell now and Elliott could be at least passable.
Definitely wouldn't be ideal but I think we could skate by for awhile and at least give ourselves a chance. There's some depth there.

Another view: http://totalpackers.com/2016/08/packers-appear-prepared-matthews-peppers-suspensions/

How would the Packers survive?
When the organization trotted out Ted Thompson on Tuesday, he mentioned that the team has a contingency plan in place at every position. One of their best contingency plans might be at outside linebacker, where they seemingly have unprecedented depth.

 

[adambr2]

In Brady's case it started as an equipment violation and then turned into a lack of cooperation issue. Brady took it to the U.S.A court of appeals and lost. This set a precedent. Goodell has total power because of a bad collective bargaining agreement.

Manning already went in and was let off the hook. Why wouldn't the others named in this case get off the hook?

If Goodell comes down on them after the interview then you take it to court. Right now they will be suspended indefinitely for not coorperating. If they were found guilty of PED use, which I doubt because there is no positive test, they would get 4 games.

Let's see, indefinite suspension or 4 games, Hmmm?

Just because the league can try to hand down indefinite suspensions doesn't mean they can enforce it. I'm betting the NFLPA can get an injuction and tie this up in the courts all year. Which in Peppers' case, might be the rest of his career.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The troubling part for me is that Al Jazeera Asttmerica is considered a reliable source of news by many.

Actually, yes. And is one to believe the NFL investigators have been sitting on their hands since this story broke? They may have uncovered more information independently.

So just have to take a wait and see what happens approach.

There really isn't any choice, is there?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Another view: http://totalpackers.com/2016/08/packers-appear-prepared-matthews-peppers-suspensions/

"Serviceable" is d*mning with faint praise, so it's not that different a view. By the way, Peppers took 67% of the defensive snaps last season which constitutes "full time".

4 games would be my guess if it comes to that, just as with Brady. If the NFLPA can milk an injunction for the balance of the season, then it's all good. 2017 was going to be the year of shuffling the deck chairs anyway.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just because the league can try to hand down indefinite suspensions doesn't mean they can enforce it. I'm betting the NFLPA can get an injuction and tie this up in the courts all year. Which in Peppers' case, might be the rest of his career.

That would be the optimal scenario.

 

[HardRightEdge]

LOL...my bad...in my head I was thinking Daniels....not Neal.

What does Daniels have to do with this?

 

[Sky King]

Here's a nice primer below for those unfamiliar with their Weingarten rights. Pay particular attention to the cautionary note found at about mid-page.

It would be surprising that the NFL would not allow the players representation and even more surprising if the union would not provide it if so asked by the players to be interviewed. If the NFL has already agreed to allow the players to have representation present and the union was to advise the players not to cooperate, anyway, then I would not want to be the pawns in this needless controversy because it could become an ugly distraction to a promising new season and also serve to taint one's career and legacy.

BTW, refusing to cooperate in an investigation within an organization (outside the confines of the NFL) may cost one their job. Nothing to hide nothing to fear.

http://www.umass.edu/usa/weingartenqa.htm

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Matthews and Peppers should just go in and do the interview. If your boss wanted to talk to you about something that was said, wouldn't you want to go in and clear things up.

The NFLPA allowing the league to interview players because of a rumor spread by an intern of a clinic, who has
since withdrawn the accusations, sets a terrible precedent. If the NFL has any evidence for the players having used PEDs it would be a whole different story but as of right now they haven't presented any to the union.

Why? I mean, if we lost them for the entire season, probably, but hypothetically, if they were out for say, 8 games, Datone has some possible upside, Perry is back, you've got Fackrell now and Elliott could be at least passable.

Definitely wouldn't be ideal but I think we could skate by for awhile and at least give ourselves a chance. There's some depth there.

While the Packers have some depth at outside linebacker the team doesn't have a proven player at the position outside of Perry who has had trouble staying healthy.

Losing Matthews and Peppers for an extended period would be devastating.

If Goodell comes down on them after the interview then you take it to court. Right now they will be suspended indefinitely for not coorperating. If they were found guilty of PED use, which I doubt because there is no positive test, they would get 4 games.

Let's see, indefinite suspension or 4 games, Hmmm?

If the league had any evidence about the players having used PEDs they would have already been suspended. That makes it pretty obvious there aren't any and the NFL forcing the players to cooperate because of a rumor is them overstepping their boundaries.

BTW, refusing to cooperate in an investigation within an organization (outside the confines of the NFL) may cost one their job. Nothing to hide nothing to fear.

Aside of having to fully cooperate with the league (it has already been
mentioned that the league wants way more detailled information than just having an interview with the players) based on a rumor which isn't supported by any evidence.

 

[Mondio]

I don't live by the Nothing to hide, nothing to fear mantra. There's a reason people can't come into your house and look just because they want to. I can't ask to see your bank records because I want to, I can't make you submit to any demand I make because I want to, just because I want to see if you know anything. You wouldn't like it if I could either. Actually you would like it even less if my wife did it. There probably isn't a person on here she couldn't get tossed in jail, fired from their job, or make their spouse leave them from discrepancies she'd find somewhere in some trail you've left behind. and before you started, you've already lost because if you don't submit to everything, regardless of the proof they have, you're punished anyway. Give them enough, and you'll be punished because somewhere, something won't add up perfectly.

This isn't just about answering some questions. The players have done that, they have denied it, in an affidavit. Your employer, no matter where you work, can do little more without more proof. I can ask you about taking cash out of the drawer. I can't ask to see your cell phone records, your friends records, any person I think may have helped you, records. I can't get your bank records, search your home, vehicle, etc either. Unless of course I have other proof that links you to the alleged activity. There's a reason for this.

I don't like it when people get away with crap they shouldn't be, I hate abuse of power and corruption even more. That's what this is.

and i'm pretty sure by "my logic" an admission of guilt at any level in any realm could, should and would result in discipline. Why? Because it is logical. Just as what is logical is that i wouldn't be subjected to another set of rules just because I play football. Just as is logical is that being subjected to what the NFL deems and "interview" for a recanted rumor in the absence of any proof is crazy. So, the players decide that they'll give an interview. Now the NFL demands bank records to see if anyone may have been paid for PED's, cell phone records to see who all they have contact with and a history of travel records for the past however many years they've been in the league. Plus they want to see all your hard drives just to see if there isn't anything lurking there.

They don't have to demonstrate cause to do it, they just can, according to some. They aren't asking them if they did it, the players have already answered to that. They're looking for info, they will be asking to go thru stuff and if you deny it, again you're not cooperating and will be suspended. That's garbage.

 

[Sky King]

...If the league had any evidence about the players having used PEDs they would have already been suspended. That makes it pretty obvious there aren't any and the NFL forcing the players to cooperate because of a rumor is them overstepping their boundaries.../QUOTE]
Not so. The NFLPA is protected by law just like any other union. Weingarten is a very important piece of the management/labor relationship. You may have overlooked a very important item in the interpretation of the law (linked in my previous post):

If an employer has provided all the necessary Weingarten rights, may an employee refuse to answer questions? No, unless the matter under discussion has criminal implications. Generally, an employee generally does not have the right to remain silent, as long as his/her representational rights have been honored, nor may the union representative direct the employee to remain silent.

Using your logic it would be obvious that the players are refusing to answer because they have engaged in criminal activity. I don't believe that, at least I would hope not. This looks more like the NFLPA is fighting a battle over some principal of their own choosing. If Matthews and Peppers are allowing themselves to be the pawns in this adventure then they may have to face the consequences if they fail to rewrite labor law to allow them to cherry-pick when they will cooperate in an employers investigations. Good luck with that one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not so. The NFLPA is protected by law just like any other union. Weingarten is a very important piece of the management/labor relationship. You may have overlooked a very important item in the interpretation of the law (linked in my previous post):

If an employer has provided all the necessary Weingarten rights, may an employee refuse to answer questions? No, unless the matter under discussion has criminal implications. Generally, an employee generally does not have the right to remain silent, as long as his/her representational rights have been honored, nor may the union representative direct the employee to remain silent.

Using your logic it would be obvious that the players are refusing to answer because they have engaged in criminal activity. I don't believe that, at least I would hope not. This looks more like the NFLPA is fighting a battle over some principal of their own choosing. If Matthews and Peppers are allowing themselves to be the pawns in this adventure then they may have to face the consequences if they fail to rewrite labor law to allow them to cherry-pick when they will cooperate in an employers investigations. Good luck with that one.

Not living in the US I don't have any idea about the Weingarten rights.

The players not agreeing to be interviewed by the NFL doesn't mean they have engaged in criminal activities but are acting according to the league's PED policy.

In my opinion the NFL is grossly overstepping their boundaries by forcing the players to cooperate with league officials because of unproven rumors, hiding behind conduct allegedly being detrimental to the league.

 

[Half Empty]

That's fine (maybe) if you're innocent or a very skilled and nimble liar. They're not going to just ask, "were those Al Jazeera claims true," and accept a "no" as the end of it.

They've been investigating this for awhile and may have some leads, vague indications, sketchy circumstantial evidence. You would want to avoid falling into a trap, whether lying or not.

Further, the NFLPA can't just say "go on in" to the innocent and "stay back" to the guilty. That's a bit of a tell, wouldn't you say? So they keep them all back.

I would not assume those Packers players to be innocent or guilty. The real p*sser of this situation is 2 of 5 in this case are Packers plus one ex-Packer when hundreds violate in one way, shape or form.

Of course, without Matthews and Peppers we can kiss this season goodbye.

One man's opinion, but http://packersnotes.com/2016/08/packers-would-be-ok-without-clay/

 

[HardRightEdge]

One man's opinion, but http://packersnotes.com/2016/08/packers-would-be-ok-without-clay/

OK. Releasing both Matthews and Peppers would result in $13,550,000 in cap savings. Why not do that, regardless of any drug allegations? That's the logical conclusion to draw from this piece.

 

[JK64]

If the league had any evidence about the players having used PEDs they would have already been suspended. That makes it pretty obvious there aren't any and the NFL forcing the players to cooperate because of a rumor is them overstepping their boundaries.

The League doesn't think it is overstepping their boundaries and will suspend the players and this will end up in court, with bad results for the players. Again, see Brady. The NFL had no clear evidence against Brady and beat him down like a dog. The judges looked at the CBA which made Goodell, judge, jury, and executioner. The same applies here. These players will get suspended for not cooperating and this will have nothing to do with PEDs in the end. It will have to do with the power the CBA gave Goodell. According to the CBA, (and the appeal judges) Goodell has the right to call these players in for an interview and can punish players that don't cooperate.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

According to ESPN's Chris Mortensen Matthews and Peppers have agreed to meet with league investigators about PED report.