Manning Legacy: Scrotal Recall

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,830
Michigan
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.
Didn't most/all of them agree to an interview with NFL investigators, but instead refuse to travel to NYC to grovel before Goodell?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,584
“@JimTrotter_NFL: In the NFL, ”investigation“ is quickly becoming a euphemism for ”witch hunt“.”
As a Pats fan, it sucks that the NFL is continuing to operate this way.

On the other hand, as a Pats fan, sit and spin motherfuckers, you reap what you sow.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,830
Michigan
As a Pats fan I hope Goodell suspends them all four games each, since taking PED and refusing to cooperate is roughly twice as bad as knocking out your fiancee and not quite as bad as maybe knowing about some shenanigans with footballs that probably didn't happen. My only regret is that there aren't more teams involved, especially the Jets, Ravens and Colts.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,933
Here
I know it's been mentioned, but since Sly is the only "witness" against the players here, if they found him uncredible as it pertains to Manning, why even bother with the others?

As a Pats fan I hope Goodell suspends them all four games each, since taking PED and refusing to cooperate is roughly twice as bad as knocking out your fiancee and not quite as bad as maybe knowing about some shenanigans with footballs that probably didn't happen. My only regret is that there aren't more teams involved, especially the Jets, Ravens and Colts.
It would have to be more than four, correct? Presumably the assumption is guilt if they don't comply, so 4 for PEDs plus a few extra for non-cooperation.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,017
If the NFL goes thru with the suspension the odds of a Lonnnnng strike go up tremendously
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,720
Problem is the 4 games for PED is collectively bargained so they can't get them on that without a positive test or missing a test

Good news is Goodell has been cleared by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court to do whatever the fuck he wants so nothing else matters.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,720
If the NFL goes thru with the suspension the odds of a Lonnnnng strike go up tremendously
From 0% to 0%? Unless the NFLPA grows some balls and is willing to miss games nothing is going to happen. NFL players seem unwilling to miss a game which means they have no leverage.

I'd put odds on any strike at 0% never mind a lonnnnng strike.
 
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Problem is the 4 games for PED is collectively bargained so they can't get them on that without a positive test or missing a test

Good news is Goodell has been cleared by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court to do whatever the fuck he wants so nothing else matters.
And $25000 for equipment violations is collectively bargained.

They've suspended guys (Rodney Harrison, for one) without positive tests. There's no reason that after the Brady case he can't suspend for failure to cooperate, or some other integrity of the game bullshit. He has carte blache at this point.

As a Patriots fan, I agree with DrewDawg here - you reap what you sow.
 

dabombdig

New Member
Aug 14, 2008
261
quincy, ma
I know it's been mentioned, but since Sly is the only "witness" against the players here, if they found him uncredible as it pertains to Manning, why even bother with the others?



It would have to be more than four, correct? Presumably the assumption is guilt if they don't comply, so 4 for PEDs plus a few extra for non-cooperation.
It's a great point and the only reasoning I can come up with is that their name is not Peyton Manning.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,830
Michigan
I know it's been mentioned, but since Sly is the only "witness" against the players here, if they found him uncredible as it pertains to Manning, why even bother with the others?
Just like in the Brady case, the underlying accusation is rendered irrelevant if a player doesn't fully cooperate, i.e. kiss Goodell... um... ring.

No evidence of tampering? So what? You didn't "repect mah authoritah" so here's a four-game suspension.

The only witness against you is unreliable? So what?

The only difference is that in the second case the NFL found itself in the position of discrediting the evidence against the players because Manning. But so what? None of this has anything to do with science, facts, evidence, logic, fairness or common sense.

I'm kind of hoping some Cowboys players go ahead and put the stickers honoring the slain Dallas cops on their helmets just to say "fuck you" to Goodell. Then for Goodell to suspend them for whatever integrity of the game-type bullshit reason.

Remember, that's what Spygate was about too, Belichik ignoring a stupid league memo about what exact locations were ok and not-okay to film from. The memo wasn't even a rule, just some nonsensical edict from Goodell. Belichick ignoring showed disrespect. That's what the penalties were for, dissing Goodell. Same with Brady. Same with the PED Five Minus One.
 

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

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,303
Providence, RI
Meh the NFL will suspend them. The home crowds will yell and scream about the injustice, but no one else will care. Rival fan bases will enjoy it and say things in the comments section of online articles. It will make no sense, be unfair and a mockery of the collective bargaining process. But the season will start, we will all watch, the NFL will make an obscene amount of money and this will fade to memory. Players will not be disciplined or organized enough for a work stoppage. Eventually another preposterous NFL vs player fight will happen and we will all talk about the weak NFLPA, power hungry league office and list all the examples. But that scandal won't matter either.

Sorry to be bleak but nothing will change until the football addiction in America dies and the money stops flowing.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
There is nothing to this report. I mean BSPN told me that this was all made up and Peyton was innocent! I'm not sure why an upstanding network would say this and then bring in everyone else but Peyton Manning for an interview...he's retired now but surely they asked him before he left....:D

What a joke
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,863
Nothing more damning than the Ray Rice video will ever come out and Goodell weathered that. The realists among us know that he'll skate because football is too popular. I mean, shit, ESPN is running a 28 hour fantasy football special. T&A said it best - whenever something like this comes about, the fans of that guy will be pissed but the rival fans will love it. The only time when the opinion was uniformly against Goodell was Rice and it was a flesh wound. Had to do a little damage control but that was it. The only hope of Goodell revenge is another Pats SB title or maybe a nice tax evasion charge or something.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,419
Los Angeles, CA
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.
It's like one of those viral iPhone vids of a police interaction gone bad.

"The black female is being charged with resisting arrest."
"Okay, but what was she being arrested for?"
"Resisting arrest."
I know it's been mentioned, but since Sly is the only "witness" against the players here, if they found him uncredible as it pertains to Manning, why even bother with the others?
I know I'm piling on, but this can't be quoted enough. You'd think something like this would eventually cause a judge to say "what the hell is going on here?". Unfortunately, we now know it doesn't matter. These players are at RG's mercy. God help them.
 
Last edited:

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,933
Here
A number of other fanbases are going crazy now, judging from the wide world of internet comments. Personally, I just wish these players would MAN UP and accept their punishments.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,757
I bet the players do the interviews, the NFL says they couldn't find any evidence, no suspensions, and then the ESPN/NFL spin becomes "Brady should have co-operated with the league" and "it's Brady's fault that the deflategate story got out of control and stretched on for two years."
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
I just wish Brady would have been messed up behind smoking weed behind the wheel while having a couple of semi automatics in the backseat around his 12 year old. If you're a Jet that's a 1 game suspension. Patriots player would be gone an entire season. Goodell has the power to suspend anyone he chooses for any reason. That's what he won from the Brady ordeal. He has a few chosen teams that he will protect until the bitter end. Such as Baltimore, Jets, Giants, Colts. Ray Rice was at first a two game suspension and then only after the owners pressed him did he give him a real suspension. He didn't even suspend Terrell Suggs for dragging his wife from his car and pouring bleach on his kids. If Suggs played for someone like the Chargers he would have been gone.

Manning has always been and always will be the golden boy of the NFL. They know America just eats up his "aw shucks" attitude and he's by far the most visible face of the league since he is willing to endorse any product for a price. Would not be surprised if he's involved in an ownership group soon. But that's what is interesting about this. For years people thought the Packers and Steelers were protected by Goodell now it seems like that he's gunning for Green Bay. Either it's a BS story and no one is guilty or everyone is guilty. When was the last time one of these stories came out and it ended up being a farce? Give Selig credit where it's due. He's screwed up a lot however he went after everyone involved in the Biogenesis scandal. Some of those players were current MVPs or future hall of famers.

I do find it funny that now some people are seeing Goodell for what he is trying to do. Especially since those are the same people who cheered Goodell for railroading Brady.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I've said it a bunch of times throughout this. If Article 46 can be construed to have this meaning (and the NFL is pushing for it), then you might as well not bother to even negotiate a CBA. The rest of it is meaningless ink on paper. This move proves this is the understanding the NFL is going to use going forward.

This is how we will end up with the 18 game season.

NFL is playing a long game here. They got what they needed out of the Brady appeal that they now have a hammer that they get to use however they want (though there has been lots of talk about how they want to get away from the discipline game) or they can trade it for something of real value. Two extra games a year for TV revenue.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
36,219
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Amen! , and armed with Article 46 Rog will eventually get to the J-E-T-S, Kensil or no Kensil.
Will never happen. Roger himself interned with the Jets. Kensil worked for them as well, and Kensil's father worked for them for 30-something years.

The NFL offices are lousy with ex-Jets guys. No chance the league goes after them with anywhere near the same fervor they've gone after other teams and players.
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,729
Wayland, MA
Will never happen. Roger himself interned with the Jets. Kensil worked for them as well, and Kensil's father worked for them for 30-something years.

The NFL offices are lousy with ex-Jets guys. No chance the league goes after them with anywhere near the same fervor they've gone after other teams and players.
Roger does whatever it takes to keep his job. If doing that at some point is facilitated by screwing over the Jets or a Jets player, I am confident as to what will ensue.
 

SoxVindaloo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 20, 2003
988
Titletown of the Aughts
Roger does whatever it takes to keep his job. If doing that at some point is facilitated by screwing over the Jets or a Jets player, I am confident as to what will ensue.
Yea this. At some point even the Jets are not going to "Respect his Authoritie!!!" the way he demands it and he will bring down the Ginger Hammer on them.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,422
There is nothing in Article 46 that says the players have to submit to any interviews from the league. Fuck the NFL and I hope these guys stand their ground.
There's nothing in Article 46 that says Goodell can do half the crap he's been doing lately.

The two courts of appeals have basically given him carte blanche.

And thus we have the worst of all worlds.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
10,226
Boston, MA
This fall Roger begins his 11th season as Commissioner. He's "earned" a couple of hundred million dollars as the League front-man and thanks to the DFG decision, he wields unlimited owner power. Life is good for Roger.
 
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Article 46 gives him the right to do whatever he wants basically:

Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness... is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to 262 fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

The way the courts have interpreted that, it doesn't matter what the offence is - as long as Goodell thinks its detrimental to the league. 46 allows him to do whatever the hell he wants - we thought the court would rule that it doesn't supercede the rest of the specifically negotiated rights, but they said no.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,422
Article 46 gives him the right to do whatever he wants basically:

Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness... is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to 262 fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

The way the courts have interpreted that, it doesn't matter what the offence is - as long as Goodell thinks its detrimental to the league. 46 allows him to do whatever the hell he wants - we thought the court would rule that it doesn't supercede the rest of the specifically negotiated rights, but they said no.
The thing is, there doesn't even need to be an offense. Just a hint of a wisp of a chance that there may have possibly been kinda sorta an offense.

That "fundamental fairness" does not need to be a consideration now, is just mind-boggling.
 

slowstrung

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
46
Alexandria, VA
Eluding police Driving over 140 mph with a loaded gun, on weed, and a child in the back seat is of higher integrity in Roger's world. Where's the invoking of A46 here??
I feel dirty typing this because it has a hint of defending the red menace, but maybe he makes an "integrity of the game" distinction, where potential on- field infractions have to be treated more severely than mere psychopathic off-field behavior. The owners can't have a pro wrestling tint to the league or people might stop watching, but they can just pay some lip service to the drugs, abuse, etc., knowing we won't tune out in disgust.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
I feel dirty typing this because it has a hint of defending the red menace, but maybe he makes an "integrity of the game" distinction, where potential on- field infractions have to be treated more severely than mere psychopathic off-field behavior. The owners can't have a pro wrestling tint to the league or people might stop watching, but they can just pay some lip service to the drugs, abuse, etc., knowing we won't tune out in disgust.
Will qualify by stating I am a Pats fan, but doesn't the league already have a pro wrestling tint?
The unfair treatment of the Pats in DFG. The other teams believing that the Pats got off easy in SG. The seemingly incompetent refs. The inability to define a catch. The constant inconsistent treatment of players/teams.
 
Last edited:

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,290
Go f*ck yourself
ESPN/NFL spin becomes "Brady should have co-operated with the league" and "it's Brady's fault that the deflategate story got out of control and stretched on for two years."
Felger and Mazz were playing around a bit with this angle today, but ultimately discounted it because of the leagues vendetta going back to spygate.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
In any unionized (or non unionized) environment, refusing to participate in a disciplinary investigation is going to get you suspended or fired. You cannot maintain discipline if employees can refuse to participate in the investigatory proccess without consequence.

Brady was different because he did participate, and was not on notice that his failure to give "full cooperation" would itself result in discipline. Wells admitted as much. These guys are simply refusing to be interviewed. I'm sympathetic to their skepticism of the proccess, but the fact that they may be disciplined is hardly unique to the NFL.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,524
Balboa Towers
The concern is the basis for the investigation.

The NFL, in all its rush to clear St. Peyton in time for the NFL season Direct TV and Papa John commercials to start rolling, determined that the one source forming the basis of the accusations was not credible. So why should the players have to sit down with the commissioner so he can use his wizard powers to determine if their eyes are truthful?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,757
The concern is the basis for the investigation.

The NFL, in all its rush to clear St. Peyton in time for the NFL season Direct TV and Papa John commercials to start rolling, determined that the one source forming the basis of the accusations was not credible. So why should the players have to sit down with the commissioner so he can use his wizard powers to determine if their eyes are truthful?
Because Manning agreed to be interviewed by the NFL? (which he presumably agreed to do because he is no longer a member of the NFLPA)
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,681
Newton
Hard not to kind of smile at Harrison's position here:

Defiant Harrison refuses to talk to league

Steelers’ linebacker James Harrison, one of NFL four players being eyed for suspension by the league for their alleged link to performance-enhancing drugs, risked being sanctioned for defiantly resisting to cooperate with league investigators by Aug. 25. ‘‘I’m not going to answer questions for every little thing that some Tom, Dick, and Harry comes up with,’’ Harrison said. ‘‘If that’s the case, somebody can come out and say that James Harrison is a pedophile. [Are] they going to suspend me and put me in an investigation for being a pedophile just because somebody said it?’’ Harrison said. He agreed in June to an interview if it were at his home and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was present. “Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with doing an interview,” Harrison said. ‘‘Come to my house. Bring Roger with you.’’ . . .
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2016/08/16/log/6KLUQAJp1nj2CAlZBShNQI/story.html
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
The concern is the basis for the investigation.

The NFL, in all its rush to clear St. Peyton in time for the NFL season Direct TV and Papa John commercials to start rolling, determined that the one source forming the basis of the accusations was not credible. So why should the players have to sit down with the commissioner so he can use his wizard powers to determine if their eyes are truthful?
Because employees don't have the unilateral right to determine which investigations are legitimate.

The real issue is that the players have no resort to a neutral arbitrator, and thus no protection against the whims of Supreme Leader Shithead. The fix for that is changing Article 46, which will probably require them to be willing to strike. Refusing to participate is a losing strategy.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,763
I doubt even that would do it. They have to be willing to strike.
Agree..Basically they are going to need to miss games where the owners lose money, the networks lose money with sponsors, etc. before the NFL caves. It's in the players best interest to go to the mat on this next CBA and not be fucking cowards.
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
37,989
Nobody Cares
Agree..Basically they are going to need to miss games where the owners lose money, the networks lose money with sponsors, etc. before the NFL caves. It's in the players best interest to go to the mat on this next CBA and not be fucking cowards.
It's not cowardice, it's Darwinism. Four or five big stars per team can possibly afford a prolonged strike, but the bulk of the rank and file of the NFLPA are merely trying to cling onto a 53-man roster spot for a couple of years, and then they're gone. None of their contracts are guaranteed, so they need to cash-in during their oh-so-brief period of NFL relevance. That's the major difference between the NFL and, say, MLB. The MLB union is strong because the leadership is excellent, and most of the players enjoy long careers and guaranteed money. While I agree that a player strike is the only way we'll see meaningful change in the next CBA, the reality is that the survival instincts of the majority of the union will kick in long before that happens.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
990
Upper Valley
What would be amazing is for those 4 or 5 big stars on each team to take a % of their salary to protect those low down the food chain to see this through. Change is needed, a real strike is needed and I HOPE after watching Brady go through the crap he went through they understand this and see it through to the end. 2020 is a long ways away, I can hardly wait to see all the NFL management screws up until then...:rolleyes:
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,524
Balboa Towers
Because Manning agreed to be interviewed by the NFL? (which he presumably agreed to do because he is no longer a member of the NFLPA)
I'm not following what the point is. The remaining players should interview because Peyton did?

Because employees don't have the unilateral right to determine which investigations are legitimate.

The real issue is that the players have no resort to a neutral arbitrator, and thus no protection against the whims of Supreme Leader Shithead. The fix for that is changing Article 46, which will probably require them to be willing to strike. Refusing to participate is a losing strategy.
Yes they blew it with Article 46. Although I can't entirely blame the current union leadership for that. It's a clause that had been in place for multiple commissioners but has only more recently been used in this fashion. And, in my opinion, correctly interpreted at the federal district level while being grossly misinterpreted at the appellate level.

Whether or not an employee has a right to determine whether an investigation is legitimate depends upon the contract. If there were no contract, and the relevant state law provided for at will employment, I would agree with you.

But here there is a contract. The CBA says, players who are convicted, admit, "or are found through sufficient credible documented evidence to have used, possessed or distributed performance enhancing substances are subject to discipline at the discretion of the Commissioner, including suspension up to six games." The player contract requires a player "to avoid contract detrimental to the NFL and professional football or the public confidence in the games or its Players."

Nowhere in there does it say that the player has to answer questions, likely under oath, every time the league calls.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
I'm not following what the point is. The remaining players should interview because Peyton did?


Yes they blew it with Article 46. Although I can't entirely blame the current union leadership for that. It's a clause that had been in place for multiple commissioners but has only more recently been used in this fashion. And, in my opinion, correctly interpreted at the federal district level while being grossly misinterpreted at the appellate level.

Whether or not an employee has a right to determine whether an investigation is legitimate depends upon the contract. If there were no contract, and the relevant state law provided for at will employment, I would agree with you.

But here there is a contract. The CBA says, players who are convicted, admit, "or are found through sufficient credible documented evidence to have used, possessed or distributed performance enhancing substances are subject to discipline at the discretion of the Commissioner, including suspension up to six games." The player contract requires a player "to avoid contract detrimental to the NFL and professional football or the public confidence in the games or its Players."

Nowhere in there does it say that the player has to answer questions, likely under oath, every time the league calls.
There are very few CBAs that contain any language regarding the obligation (or lack thereof) of employees to participate in investigations. Absent specific language to the contrary, it is implicitly a right of management to investigate potential disciplinary violations. That includes requiring employees suspected of wrongdoing to be interviewed by management (with a union representative present) or otherwise cooperate with an investigation. I've never heard of putting anyone under oath until there's an arbitation hearing.

Worth noting that when there is an arbitation, witnesses can be subpoenaed to testify.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
10,226
Boston, MA
It's not cowardice, it's Darwinism. Four or five big stars per team can possibly afford a prolonged strike, but the bulk of the rank and file of the NFLPA are merely trying to cling onto a 53-man roster spot for a couple of years, and then they're gone. None of their contracts are guaranteed, so they need to cash-in during their oh-so-brief period of NFL relevance. That's the major difference between the NFL and, say, MLB. The MLB union is strong because the leadership is excellent, and most of the players enjoy long careers and guaranteed money. While I agree that a player strike is the only way we'll see meaningful change in the next CBA, the reality is that the survival instincts of the majority of the union will kick in long before that happens.
Precisely this. IMO, there is zero chance that the players strike over Article 46 or anything related to DFG and/or the commissioner's powers. None. As between the owners and the players, the owners have a million times more financial strength to endure a work stoppage. The players are fucked so long as a meglomaniacal (sp?) commissioner like RG remains in place.

Edit: coherence
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,524
Balboa Towers
There are very few CBAs that contain any language regarding the obligation (or lack thereof) of employees to participate in investigations. Absent specific language to the contrary, it is implicitly a right of management to investigate potential disciplinary violations. That includes requiring employees suspected of wrongdoing to be interviewed by management (with a union representative present) or otherwise cooperate with an investigation. I've never heard of putting anyone under oath until there's an arbitation hearing.

Worth noting that when there is an arbitation, witnesses can be subpoenaed to testify.
When there is sufficient credible evidence. Before the NFL decided to announce that Sly was not credible, I think they would have a stronger argument to request the interviews. Now that the league has admitted there is no credible evidence, I don't see the basis for the interviews.