Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
“@AdamSchefter: After a seven-month investigation, NFL has determined that Peyton Manning did not use HGH nor any other PED, sources told ESPN.



SHOCKING!
LOL. "Investigation." Where's the hundred-page report, the cooked up "science" and the "less probably aware than not" language. Oh, and the false leaks to ESPN?

Agree that the NFL is trolling the Patriots with this.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cartman+authority&&view=detail&mid=096E29FB16121752524C096E29FB16121752524C&rvsmid=80E637E1BAED04D626E380E637E1BAED04D626E3&fsscr=0&FORM=VDQVAP
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
I'm getting so fucking pissed off all over again about this. This whole league is a fucking witchhunt against the Pats. It couldn't be more obvious. HGH delivered to Manning's home and the league's like, "meh," and then trolls the Pats in the press release.

Goodell's an amazing piece of shit.
 

Brand Name

make hers mark
Moderator
SoSH Member
Oct 6, 2010
4,397
Moving the Line
“Following a comprehensive seven-month investigation into allegations made in a documentary by Al-Jazeera America, the NFL found no credible evidence that Peyton Manning was provided with or used HGH or other substances prohibited by the league’s policy on performance-enhancing substances, it was announced today,” the league said in a statement.

Emphasis mine. Didn't Sly make a point to note that Delta-2/Androgenetx was undetectable in testings, assuming this was a standard test, beyond the investigations? Furthermore, having just scoured all the NFLPA's banned substances list from last season, available through the NFLPA's page it's nowhere to be found, under either name. So, even if Manning -did- take it, it wouldn't be under the banned substances, and as such, I wonder: Is there possibly anything more to this wording and/or findings than it gives beyond initial glance?

To say nothing of the fact that HGH was only banned by the NFL as a part of the July 2011 labor agreement, since this use could have been before then, and thus deemed legal. Need to step away before I get genuinely further angry at this whole process and league.

If anyone's curious about the list in full, it's here: https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Active Players/BannedSubstanceList2015.pdf


Bigger general drugs stuff here: https://www.nflpa.com/active-players/drug-policies
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I'm getting so fucking pissed off all over again about this. This whole league is a fucking witchhunt against the Pats. It couldn't be more obvious. HGH delivered to Manning's home and the league's like, "meh," and then trolls the Pats in the press release.

Goodell's an amazing piece of shit.
To be fair, the league wasn't ever going to do anything about this regardless of Deflategate. My hope is that the Al Jazeera reporter has some more info that can later be released to embarrass the NFL but not getting my hopes up.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
What a surprise. NFL finds Manning innocent of all allegations (I wonder if Ted Wells & Co were on the case).

Of course Peyton never did anything wrong and TB12 is the worst cheating QB ever. Stay classy NFL.
I'm still angry about this one. You have Colts Jets and Ravens on one side. Pats on the other everyone else in between.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,103
They haven't even completed their investigations of the other players named in the AJ report. But, they can say for certain that nothing they could unearth will digging into those could possibly implicate Manning.

Sure, Roger, that makes sense.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
My personal summary is:

- The league continues the farcical whitewashing of PEDs in the sport.
- Patriots fans continue to whine about how everything is a slight towards them.

This makes today pretty much exactly like the last few thousand.
Just because Pats fans whine doesn't make it any less true that the NFL and ESPN truly appear to have it out for the franchise.

The punishments and coverage of the activities related to the Pats are just different than for any other NFL franchise.

I do not think the NFL and ESPN actively conspire against the pats, but when give the opportunity, the league and its minions go out their way to make the pats look as bad as possible.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
They haven't even completed their investigations of the other players named in the AJ report. But, they can say for certain that nothing they could unearth will digging into those could possibly implicate Manning.

Sure, Roger, that makes sense.
Exactly. There was one source in this. If he is uncredible, why are the cases against the others proceeding? Oh, that's right, because it's really about NFLPA vs. Commisioner's powers.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
So Brady got 4 games because Goodell equated what he did to using a substance that was actually delivered to Manning's house?

Awesome.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,863
Just because Pats fans whine doesn't make it any less true that the NFL and ESPN truly appear to have it out for the franchise.

The punishments and coverage of the activities related to the Pats are just different than for any other NFL franchise.

I do not think the NFL and ESPN actively conspire against the pats, but when give the opportunity, the league and its minions go out their way to make the pats look as bad as possible.
Yes Paranoid / not out to get you, etc etc, rinse repeat.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Just because Pats fans whine doesn't make it any less true that the NFL and ESPN truly appear to have it out for the franchise.

The punishments and coverage of the activities related to the Pats are just different than for any other NFL franchise.

I do not think the NFL and ESPN actively conspire against the pats, but when give the opportunity, the league and its minions go out their way to make the pats look as bad as possible.
In the espn.com story that tells us the difference between the Manning and Brady cases, they argue that it really is about the cooperation angle.

This is bogus, but even granting that premise, they highlight as an example Favre's unwillingness to turn over his cell phone as a situation where the league penalized a player for not fully cooperating.*

Ok fair enough Goodell. Penalize Brady the same thing you penalized Favre for: $50,000. Not four games!

*We should note that Gostkowski, in the Deflategate investigation, also did not turn over his cell phone, and he was hit with precisely NO penalty.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
So Brady got 4 games because Goodell equated what he did to using a substance that was actually delivered to Manning's house?

Awesome.

Well put...and I would add that the sender of said PEDs looked like a rundown roadside bar. All kinds of sketchy, but not enough to cause the NFL to dig with the half the intensity they employed in deflategate.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
So now that Goodell has "determined" that Al Jazeera's source, Charlie Sly, was not credible are all the other players mentioned off the hook too? Or does the NFL think Sly lied about Manning, but told the truth about the others?
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
So now that Goodell has "determined" that Al Jazeera's source, Charlie Sly, was not credible are all the other players mentioned off the hook too? Or does the NFL think Sly lied about Manning, but told the truth about the others?
Who else have that he named has Goodell suspended?
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Nobody but the others' investigations are still pending. Think they're going after Neal, Matthews, Peppers, probably a couple others. Peyton's the only one that's been fully exonerated due to the amount of money he can make the league in the future.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Goodell wants to establish that he has the power to command them to come in for an interview for any reason whatsoever. The NFLPA wants to establish that Goodell doesn't have that power, but the longer it takes before the players come in to kiss his ass the more likely he is going to lay the hammer down.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
In the espn.com story that tells us the difference between the Manning and Brady cases, they argue that it really is about the cooperation angle.

This is bogus, but even granting that premise, they highlight as an example Favre's unwillingness to turn over his cell phone as a situation where the league penalized a player for not fully cooperating.*

Ok fair enough Goodell. Penalize Brady the same thing you penalized Favre for: $50,000. Not four games!

*We should note that Gostkowski, in the Deflategate investigation, also did not turn over his cell phone, and he was hit with precisely NO penalty.
It's not just that, the argument ignores that he was suspended 4 games before "lack of cooperation" ever became an issue. I don't care what they did/did not find during the appeal, that punishment was not changing.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nobody but the others' investigations are still pending. Think they're going after Neal, Matthews, Peppers, probably a couple others. Peyton's the only one that's been fully exonerated due to the amount of money he can make the league in the future.
So we are just going to run with the assumption that the credibility of the source will not be given equal weight in the investigation of the other players.

Listen, if you want to run with the angle "The league doesn't want to run hard with a PED suspension because the PED problem in the NFL is off the charts" I would be on there in a heartbeat. But not everything comes back to Tom Brady being a super hero for overcoming all of the obstacles the league has thrown in his way, while acting as patrons to his rivals.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
It's not just that, the argument ignores that he was suspended 4 games before "lack of cooperation" ever became an issue. I don't care what they did/did not find during the appeal, that punishment was not changing.
This part isn't true, I don't think. In Vincent's original letter to Brady, he mentions a lack of cooperation. Here's a relevant portion:

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
So we are just going to run with the assumption that the credibility of the source will not be given equal weight in the investigation of the other players.

Listen, if you want to run with the angle "The league doesn't want to run hard with a PED suspension because the PED problem in the NFL is off the charts" I would be on there in a heartbeat. But not everything comes back to Tom Brady being a super hero for overcoming all of the obstacles the league has thrown in his way, while acting as patrons to his rivals.
Where do I say anything about Brady? If anything, my post more has to do with the angle you mention than any Brady-centric conspiracy theory.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
This part isn't true, I don't think. In Vincent's original letter to Brady, he mentions a lack of cooperation. Here's a relevant portion:

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
I do love the last few lines of that letter. It is sad when the truth and scientific fact gets in the way (contradicts) the fantasy spun by the NFL during the entire saga.
Wasn't the Ideal Gas Law not plausible to the NFL?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Wow, I had that completely wrong. Thanks for the correction.
No problem - it's hard to keep everything in order. I think (if I remember correctly), what happened later was that before his appeal, Brady told Goodell that he "destroyed" his cell phone. That got leaked to Stephen A. Smith. That is what people remember about the "lack of cooperation" on Brady's part. But they had already determined that he had not cooperated fully. I think part of that was on the part of the Patriots - they didn't let them interview Jastremski or McNally like a 6th time, this last time immediately following the discovery of the "deflator" text. Part of it was Brady not handing his phone over in the first place. But yeah, people remember him "destroying" it before the appeal.

I mean, it's all complete nonsense, of course.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
No problem - it's hard to keep everything in order. I think (if I remember correctly), what happened later was that before his appeal, Brady told Goodell that he "destroyed" his cell phone. That got leaked to Stephen A. Smith. That is what people remember about the "lack of cooperation" on Brady's part. But they had already determined that he had not cooperated fully. I think part of that was on the part of the Patriots - they didn't let them interview Jastremski or McNally like a 6th time, this last time immediately following the discovery of the "deflator" text. Part of it was Brady not handing his phone over in the first place. But yeah, people remember him "destroying" it before the appeal.

I mean, it's all complete nonsense, of course.
Thanks for the summary.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
Related to Manning, I suppose...
Here's a quote from the NFL:
“We’re somewhat mystified at the union’s stance here and why they’re trying to stand in the way of us completing these investigations,” Joe Lockhart, the NFL’s executive vice president of communications, told USA TODAY Sports.

“A thorough review, and a perception of a thorough review, is in everyone’s interest. And part of a thorough review is talking directly to the people that are involved. It just doesn’t make any sense to us why this has been such a difficult issue for them.”
Why, oh why, is the NFL PA not being cooperative?
Can Goodell suspend each player for 4 games just for lack of cooperation?
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Related to Manning, I suppose...


Here's a quote from the NFL:


Why, oh why, is the NFL PA not being cooperative?
Can Goodell suspend each player for 4 games just for lack of cooperation?
If the NFL was concerned about the perception of a thorough review it wouldn't have exonerated Manning with a terse, uninformative statement. The players have ample reason to believe that NFL "justice" is capricious, biased and arbitrary.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I liked this quote:

NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis responded in a statement: "Mr. Lockhart is new to the world of NFL investigations where there is typically only a casual relationship with the truth
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Also, there is a definite fight over what the language in the CBA means here that is under-reported.

The NFLPA is avoiding setting a precedent where the NFL can request interviews on whatever basis they desire. I believe the CBA language requires the NFL to have proof of some credible type before interviewing players (I would guess to avoid fishing expeditions).

The NFL has already come out and said Charlie Sly is un-credible when it comes to Manning so they shouldn't be able to rely on Sly's talk of any of the other players as a triggering event (plus it probably wouldn't qualify even if he was somewhat credible).

This is the NFL trying to push the boundaries of the CBA again, and the NFLPA is smart to oppose it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Sly may not be credible, but is it true that HGH was shipped to Peyton's house? Isn't that something that could be objectively verified?

If so, isn't that a pretty good starting point for a real investigation?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
It doesn't even need to be verified. Ari Fleischer and Peyton admitted that Mrs Manning was receiving HGH.
So the investigation went:

NFL: "Peyton, was HGH shipped to your house?"
Peyton: "Yes."
NFL: "Was it for you?"
Peyton: "No, it was for my wife."
NFL: "Why?"
Peyton: "None of your business. Good bye."
NFL: "Well, I guess you didn't do anything wrong then!"

No check of any records, no check of texts or emails, no check on why Peyton's guys went in to see Sly or dig into the files. Nothing like that?

Or really, was it just simply the case that, right at the time when Peyton was recovering from a major injury, his wife just happened to start taking HGH, receiving supplies from a very shady place, and then when Peyton was all better, she stopped, and Peyton went on to have the greatest season in NFL history?

PS - To my original question, isn't the fact that HGH was indeed shipped to Manning's house supportive of Sly's credibility? Why does the NFL consider him to not be credible, when the one obvious fact is verifiable (and has been verified)?
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Also, there is a definite fight over what the language in the CBA means here that is under-reported.

The NFLPA is avoiding setting a precedent where the NFL can request interviews on whatever basis they desire. I believe the CBA language requires the NFL to have proof of some credible type before interviewing players (I would guess to avoid fishing expeditions).

The NFL has already come out and said Charlie Sly is un-credible when it comes to Manning so they shouldn't be able to rely on Sly's talk of any of the other players as a triggering event (plus it probably wouldn't qualify even if he was somewhat credible).

This is the NFL trying to push the boundaries of the CBA again, and the NFLPA is smart to oppose it.
Which, taken together with the #DFG fight, tells me that the League is picking for fights right now over the CBA – seemingly intentionally pushing the absolute limits of their powers at every opportunity so as to put them front and center in the next negotiation. Which beg(gar)s the question:

Why?

I mean, the short answer is always "money" but what pot in particular here? What leverage and advantage is the NFL hoping to seek in the next CBA?
 

Yossarian

New Member
Jan 22, 2015
89
Honestly, it wouldn't shock me if part of the aggressiveness is just pushback to the union's challenge of the league's authority in Deflategate. Battle lines over the extent of the CBA's grant of power to the commissioner have never been so thoroughly drawn, and the NFL might just have decided to fuck with the union -- partly out of revenge, partly as signaling that they will not budge on this issue.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Which, taken together with the #DFG fight, tells me that the League is picking for fights right now over the CBA – seemingly intentionally pushing the absolute limits of their powers at every opportunity so as to put them front and center in the next negotiation. Which beg(gar)s the question:

Why?

I mean, the short answer is always "money" but what pot in particular here? What leverage and advantage is the NFL hoping to seek in the next CBA?
I'm reminded of the story of the Scorpion and Frog. It's well known that Roger is just another big ego, narcissistic, that is not half as smart as he thinks he is. It's in his nature to push and fight the union as much as possible. I'm not even sure there is a long term plan here, outside of Goodell wanting to be right and powerful. A labor stoppage is not good for anyone in the short or long term. I'm sure he and the owners may think the answer is money and to some extent that may be true, but I think it's a much more primal and short-sighted motivation.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
Also, there is a definite fight over what the language in the CBA means here that is under-reported.

The NFLPA is avoiding setting a precedent where the NFL can request interviews on whatever basis they desire. I believe the CBA language requires the NFL to have proof of some credible type before interviewing players (I would guess to avoid fishing expeditions).

The NFL has already come out and said Charlie Sly is un-credible
when it comes to Manning so they shouldn't be able to rely on Sly's talk of any of the other players as a triggering event (plus it probably wouldn't qualify even if he was somewhat credible).

This is the NFL trying to push the boundaries of the CBA again, and the NFLPA is smart to oppose it.
The fact that the NFL might have shot themselves in the foot in a rush to exonerate Saint Manning is just perfect.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
They are going to trade it for something they want...

18 game schedule, more this or that, whatever.
Do the owners actually want an 18 game schedule at this point? It's almost impossible to keep a significant percentage of even top tier players playing a full 16 games.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mo' games = Mo' money. Damn right they want 18 game schedule. If players get hurt they'll bring in more players. We watched during the strike. We watch preseason. We'll watch 3rd string guards and 4th string cornerbacks.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
James Harrison, Clay Matthews, Julius Peppers and Mike Neal will be suspended if they haven't submitted to interviews by Aug. 26 source said
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
Good. The more the NFL pushes the more chance the NFLPA has to stand their ground.

Question is is how long they'll accept being suspended and dealing with the inevitable outcome.

I don't think this pushes them to a strike but I do see it possible before the next CBA.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Quite the choice the players have. Don't submit to an interview, get suspended. Give an interview, get suspended anyway, most likely because you didn't immediately agree to give an interview. I guess choice three is change your name to Peyton Manning and hope they don't notice.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,277
“@JimTrotter_NFL: In the NFL, ”investigation“ is quickly becoming a euphemism for ”witch hunt“.”