League likely to stand its ground with Bell
The dog ate his homework.
That’s pretty much the excuse reg being floatedarding Le’Veon Bell’s missed drug test that now has him facing a possble four-game suspension.
Bell wrote on Instagram today that, “I’m not going to miss games, trust me.”
I’m sure he truly believes that. I’m sure he feels like he has a good excuse for missing a mandatory test.
The theory has been put forth that Bell missed his test because he had gotten a new cell phone and the league didn’t have his new number.
That’s all well and good. But even if you believe that – and to be honest, I have no reason to doubt Bell – it’s strikingly similar to Tom Brady’s excuse for smashing his cell phone into little pieces when the league asked him to turn it over during the Deflategate investigation.
That excuse didn’t fly for Brady and it’s unlikely that it will get Bell off the hook – no pun intended – with the NFL, either.
The league has to look at it this way, if it lets Bell skate because he says he got a new number and missed their call, 20 other guys are going to use the same excuse.
The league has to stick to the letter of the law. And in this case, that doesn’t bode well for Bell.
• All of that said, the NFLPA should be hopping mad about this.
The NFL’s drug testing policy and its appeals are supposed to be confidential. But somebody’s leaking this information in violation of the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. And it’s looking like its somebody at the league office.
It was an issue during the Deflategate investigations and it’s an issue in situations like this.
Let’s say, for example, that the news about Bell had never come out. Let’s say he had his hearing and was exonerated.
Under what is supposed to happen, nobody would have known with the exception of those involved with the hearing.
Now, however, in the court of public opinion, he’s labeled a loser and a druggie. He’s already been convicted in the minds of many.
So much for confidentiality.
If Roger Goodell really believes in “protecting the shield,” as we’ve heard so many times over the years, he would ferret out the leaks coming from his office.
But it appears Goodell is only interested in protecting the shield when it suits his purposes.
I’ve defended Goodell in the past because I feel like a lot of the things he’s done have been with the league’s overall best interests at heart.
This case does make you wonder, however, how many guys have won their appeals over the years in these drug cases and haven’t had their names tarnished because of it?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I’m a fan of Team A and work in the league office. Team A’s star QB is due for a hearing. But I don’t leak that.
But when Team B has a guy scheduled, I leak that information and allow public opinion to pressure the league’s decision.
That can certainly happen. And it certainly should not.
I’m a member of the media and part of what we do is take advantage of leaks to provide news to the public. It does not, however, always make it right.
• I’d still try to sign Bell to a contract extension now if I’m in the Steelers front office – especially if you believe his excuse for missing a drug test.
• The NFL released a statement Monday clearing Peyton Manning of HGH use.
The charges stemmed from an Al-Jazeera America report in which a former worker at an aging clinic in Indianapolis claimed to have provided HGH to Manning and some other NFL stars, including James Harrison of the Steelers.
In its statement clearing Manning, the league clearly notes that Manning and his wife cooperated with the NFL in its investigation.
But Harrison, Clay Matthews, Julius Peppers and Mike Neal also were named in the report. Why weren’t they cleared?
Because they have chosen not to cooperate with the league and sit down with investigators, instead signing sworn affidavits that they are clean.
The NFL is trying to use the bully pulpit in this case, but the NFLPA is rightly standing its ground. Anyone can make accusations about a player. Where is the line drawn on whether or not they are credible?