Edelman Suspended 4 Games for PEDs

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
I would imagine because they can just get away with using EPO without all the complexities of blood doping. My understanding is that blood doping is pretty much undetectable other than measuring the resultant changes in certain blood test measurements. I don't think any of the major sports are tracking things like hematocrit levels the way cycling has, but I see no reason why if it's beneficial for a 110 lb cyclist that you wouldn't have basketball, hockey, football, tennis or soccer players all using them as well.

As far as I can tell, in the history of the NBA the only players who have been suspended for PEDs are Lindsey Hunter, Darius Miles, Rashard Lewis, OJ Mayo (twice), Hedo Turkoglu, Joakim Noah and Jodie Meeks. Shows how much of a joke their testing policy must be.
EPO and blood doping only really help endurance athletes. Cross country skiers, cyclists, marathoners. Soccer players may benefit, but the other major revenue sports are closer to sequentially explosive athletes than endurance ones. I don't think it would make a significant difference for a football player to take EPO, at least not significant enough to offset the increased risk of heart issues it can cause like heart attacks, strokes, and clotting. They have a long enough period between exertions to replenish blood oxygen levels, unlike an endurance athlete who is always operating close to peak heart rates during their events.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
EPO and blood doping only really help endurance athletes. Cross country skiers, cyclists, marathoners. Soccer players may benefit, but the other major revenue sports are closer to sequentially explosive athletes than endurance ones. I don't think it would make a significant difference for a football player to take EPO, at least not significant enough to offset the increased risk of heart issues it can cause like heart attacks, strokes, and clotting. They have a long enough period between exertions to replenish blood oxygen levels, unlike an endurance athlete who is always operating close to peak heart rates during their events.
You sure?

 

JohnnyK

Member
SoSH Member
May 8, 2007
1,941
Wolfern, Austria
https://nesn.com/2018/06/nfl-rumors-julian-edelman-in-suspension-appeal-claims-nfl-mishandled-ped-test/
Did the NFL fail to follow proper protocol while administering Julian Edelman’s performance-enhancing drug test? That’s reportedly what the New England Patriots wide receiver is claiming. Edelman, who is facing a four-game suspension for violating the NFL’s PED policy, “plans to mount a vigorous defense” at his appeal hearing Monday, according to a report from ESPN’s Dan Graziano. “As the MMQB reported a few days (after news of the suspension broke June 7), the substance for which Edelman tested positive wasn’t one the league’s drug testers recognized,” Graziano wrote early Monday morning. “That remains one of two key issues at the heart of his appeal.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
ESPN also thinking that if the appeal doesn't work, Edelman may take the league to court.

Here we go again!
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
ESPN also thinking that if the appeal doesn't work, Edelman may take the league to court.

Here we go again!
We had a judge back in the 90's that would read the jury instructions on a DUI and add "may not" to the written law. It was something along the lines of "if the defendant blows a .10 you 'may' infer (etc) ....." He would always add "may not" to that line when he read it to the jury. One time the prosecutor chased him back to chambers reading out of the book, emphasizing it only says "may" and he responded, "yes, may or may not." That was the end of that. I loved him since I was on the defense side of those.

May basically means anything is possible. Click bait network at it again.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
We had a judge back in the 90's that would read the jury instructions on a DUI and add "may not" to the written law. It was something along the lines of "if the defendant blows a .10 you 'may' infer (etc) ....." He would always add "may not" to that line when he read it to the jury. One time the prosecutor chased him back to chambers reading out of the book, emphasizing it only says "may" and he responded, "yes, may or may not." That was the end of that. I loved him since I was on the defense side of those.

May basically means anything is possible. Click bait network at it again.
That is one of the coolest jury instruction stories I have ever heard.

Granted, there are a limited number of great jury instruction stories, but that? That's up at the top of the list.

Man, if Edelman really is clean, man... I hope he goes scorched earth on the NFL in retaliation for a certain friend of his whom he may or not feel some gratitude to for enhancing his life beyond anything he might have otherwise considered imaginable...

Please, please, PLEASE let this be game. fucking. on.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
That is one of the coolest jury instruction stories I have ever heard.

Granted, there are a limited number of great jury instruction stories, but that? That's up at the top of the list.

Man, if Edelman really is clean, man... I hope he goes scorched earth on the NFL in retaliation for a certain friend of his whom he may or not feel some gratitude to for enhancing his life beyond anything he might have otherwise considered imaginable...

Please, please, PLEASE let this be game. fucking. on.
It was great. He would say "may, or may not" but he would really emphasize the "not" part. Most of the prosecutors trying those cases were pretty green so it was always funny. He never budged, as far as I can tell was never appealed on that ground, and probably never got instructed by court admin to do it any different. Went on for years.

When I saw may in that post, I immediately thought of that.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
It was great. He would say "may, or may not" but he would really emphasize the "not" part. Most of the prosecutors trying those cases were pretty green so it was always funny. He never budged, as far as I can tell was never appealed on that ground, and probably never got instructed by court admin to do it any different. Went on for years.

When I saw may in that post, I immediately thought of that.
I know you were obviously partisan as a "member of the court," but man, I do love a judge that trusts the jury.

And yeah, it's a perfect story for framing that statement about Edelman in a legal context.

As the cliches go, do you think he's willing, "TO TAKE THIS ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT!!!"? ;)
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
The policy looks pretty comprehensive. I would think the arbitrator's decision would be really tough to challenge.

The policy defines prohibited substances to include not only the specifically listed substances but also "other substances with a similar chemical structure and similar biological effect(s)." So, if his claim is that the substance was not on the list, it seems he would also be required to show that the substance is different from those on the list in structure or effect. (Actually, I think it's the NFL's obligation to show they are similar, but he would have to rebut whatever showing they are prepared to make.) If he has any irregularities he can show in the testing protocol, that would be his best bet, but if he loses his appeal, it's hard to see him getting any traction in court. There is really strong no-appeal language, and the standard would be at least as significant as in Brady and Elliott.

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Agents/2016PESPolicy_v2.PDF
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
The policy looks pretty comprehensive. I would think the arbitrator's decision would be really tough to challenge.

The policy defines prohibited substances to include not only the specifically listed substances but also "other substances with a similar chemical structure and similar biological effect(s)." So, if his claim is that the substance was not on the list, it seems he would also be required to show that the substance is different from those on the list in structure or effect. (Actually, I think it's the NFL's obligation to show they are similar, but he would have to rebut whatever showing they are prepared to make.) If he has any irregularities he can show in the testing protocol, that would be his best bet, but if he loses his appeal, it's hard to see him getting any traction in court. There is really strong no-appeal language, and the standard would be at least as significant as in Brady and Elliott.

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Agents/2016PESPolicy_v2.PDF
His best chance would most likely be the Ryan Braun method of challenging the handling of the sample.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
A couple of folks who seem/claim to know say good news is coming. I don't know if this is accurate. Your mileage may vary.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
A couple of folks who seem/claim to know say good news is coming. I don't know if this is accurate. Your mileage may vary.
Please be true. Please be true. Please be true. Twitter or personal contacts, Theo?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
A couple of folks who seem/claim to know say good news is coming. I don't know if this is accurate. Your mileage may vary.

Same guys who said B.B. would be suspended for the DFG Super Bowl — or different ones?
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
The policy looks pretty comprehensive. I would think the arbitrator's decision would be really tough to challenge.

The policy defines prohibited substances to include not only the specifically listed substances but also "other substances with a similar chemical structure and similar biological effect(s)." So, if his claim is that the substance was not on the list, it seems he would also be required to show that the substance is different from those on the list in structure or effect. (Actually, I think it's the NFL's obligation to show they are similar, but he would have to rebut whatever showing they are prepared to make.) If he has any irregularities he can show in the testing protocol, that would be his best bet, but if he loses his appeal, it's hard to see him getting any traction in court. There is really strong no-appeal language, and the standard would be at least as significant as in Brady and Elliott.

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Agents/2016PESPolicy_v2.PDF
I don't know anything about the policy beyond this quote, but the requirement that it have a "similar biological effect" seems like a HUGE issue here. I mean, I get that you can tell a substance is structural similar to another without being able to identify it, but how can you possibly claim to know the biological effects without knowing what it is? Two chemical substances can have very similar structure and massively different biological effects. I mean, ritalin and cocaine are basically the same thing, but even though they share some biological similarities, there's a reason one is illegal and one is prescribed (mostly due to clearance rates and therefore addictiveness, though snarky responses that the main difference is monetization are fair).
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I imagine same biological effect and not structure was used because it’s broad as hell. Steroids aid protein synthesis or “build muscle” we a biological effect. Under that formulation, a substance with an entirely different structure could still get a player dinged if the league wants it. Hell, creatine or steak could too, I guess.
 

Norm Siebern

Member
SoSH Member
May 12, 2003
7,123
Western MD
I know you were obviously partisan as a "member of the court," but man, I do love a judge that trusts the jury.

And yeah, it's a perfect story for framing that statement about Edelman in a legal context.

As the cliches go, do you think he's willing, "TO TAKE THIS ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT!!!"? ;)
Take it to the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is not exactly covering itself in glory these days.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
TheoSchmeo strikes again!
Seriously, 0-2.

Sounds legit.
During the course of the investigation, it was learned that the NFL made mistakes in the manner in which the test results were handled. Edelman had argued that the mishandling of the evidence is one of the reasons he should be exonerated.

Edelman could end up pursuing an appeal of his case in federal court.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
My confidence in the nfl’s process adherence could not be lower.

Unless perhaps it was my confidence in the arbitrators selected under the collective bargaining agreement

Those said, likely time to move on here
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Might be time for you to stop with this kind of shit.
I suspected that this, or something like this, was coming.

Two people with reason to know thought coming out of the hearing that they had won. I wrote that my contacts believed it, not that it was true, and cautioned people that their mileage may vary.

For every note like yours, I have gotten multiple emails and PMs from people saying that they appreciated me passing on whatever I was hearing. So I am not going to stop posting stuff that I hear, and you and anyone else so inclined can discount it down to zero. Or just ignore it. Or assume that whatever I have written is exactly the opposite of being true, which itself has a value! (Poking fun of self there; some tone deaf issues re the same at other times on SoSH).

As a lawyer who spends part of his time in Court, I probably should have known that the post hearing impressions of those on site are inherently unreliable. I have participated in numerous hearings when all the questions and leanings of the Judge (or the panel, in the case of the Second Circuit) suggested that Side A was the winner and, of course, Side B prevailed. One of the two sources I particularly thought would not fall into that trap and would only say Jules was going to win if he had more than just breathless enthusiasm after a hearing; sadly, both his assessment and mine of him were wrong.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I understood where you were coming from. Post hearing optimism can be high, especially if things went exactly as planned for the defense. Problem with these hearings is the burden is so high, that things can go exactly as you’d like and it doesn’t move the needle. I figured his chances were about 2% going in and upped my mental odds to about 30% based on your posts. Not surprised at all it didn’t go his way, and I’m not doubting your source one bit. The realities of these things are hard for people to understand.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Thanks for that, PMB. Exactly. The Edelman side thought they had totally crushed it. High burden indeed.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
Thanks for that, PMB. Exactly. The Edelman side thought they had totally crushed it. High burden indeed.
I have no horse in this race, but there's a big difference between:

TheoShmeo said:
A couple of folks who seem/claim to know say good news is coming. I don't know if this is accurate. Your mileage may vary.
And
The Edelman side thought they had totally crushed it.
If "the Edeleman side" had been originally mentioned as the source of the optimism (as I am inferring), I think that most people would have given the prediction little value. I'm NOT suggesting you did it intentionally to avoid that sort of reaction. But "seem/claim to know" sounds (to me anyway) a lot more like a non-affiliated entity.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Thanks for that, PMB. Exactly. The Edelman side thought they had totally crushed it. High burden indeed.
I appreciate the insight. I think given what Edelman is doing you were probably right in that his side crushed the arguments. The NFL process is, imo, unfair to the players but they bargained for it. I have no doubt actually that what you heard was true and that parties who witnessed it thought Edelman's side had the better performance and argument. And maybe that will be the case in federal court. Let's see how this plays out.

I don't particularly care about this issue other than the punishment.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
If "the Edeleman side" had been originally mentioned as the source of the optimism (as I am inferring), I think that most people would have given the prediction little value. I'm NOT suggesting you did it intentionally to avoid that sort of reaction. But "seem/claim to know" sounds (to me anyway) a lot more like a non-affiliated entity.
Yup, theo's post made me hopeful in a way I wouldn't have been if I had known the source. I don't know anything about theo's posting predictions and so probably should have taken it with more of a grain of salt, but by insider, I thought we were talking about something more than someone who had just been part of the arguments on one side.

Turns out Polian nailed this, which pisses me off.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I have no horse in this race, but there's a big difference between:


And


If "the Edeleman side" had been originally mentioned as the source of the optimism (as I am inferring), I think that most people would have given the prediction little value. I'm NOT suggesting you did it intentionally to avoid that sort of reaction. But "seem/claim to know" sounds (to me anyway) a lot more like a non-affiliated entity.
Noted. One source was directly tied to Edelman, the other was a bit more attenuated but definitely sympathetic to him. Both were so confident that Edelman was going to win based on what they had seen and heard that I ignored my own experience with the difficulty of predicting outcomes based on how a hearing might go.

I'm a little annoyed that I allowed myself to be mislead and then I compounded things by sharing what I thought was good news here.

But I'm mostly just pissed off that the Pats' degree of difficulty for games 1-4 will be increased, and that I wont be able to watch one of my favorite Pats players in recent years for another four games.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
You might say he is the goat at this.
I can’t believe I got goaded into hitting “show ignored posts” or whatever to figure out what was going on.

Shouldn’t this be moved to close encounters with almost famous people or whatever that humbrag thread in P&G is?

Now I’m going to spend forever trying to figure out why some people capitalize Court and Judge.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I can’t believe I got goaded into hitting “show ignored posts” or whatever to figure out what was going on.

Shouldn’t this be moved to close encounters with almost famous people or whatever that humbrag thread in P&G is?

Now I’m going to spend forever trying to figure out why some people capitalize Court and Judge.
Wait, professor pretentious has me on ignore?