The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

riggofan wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:Word is it was for missing a test, not failing it.

That's what I'd read too.

Two odd pieces of info I picked up though was that TW has already gone through the appeals process on this. There is no further appeal. And second, the coaching staff was surprised by the suspension. Trent didn't notify them? I don't know if that was the case or not, just the way the story came across.

Two questions:
1. When did he miss the test?
2. How could the FO not know, if he not only missed the test, but went through the appeals process?

I'm guessing their surprise was that the league actually suspended him, or did not reduce the suspension, based on the appeal.

there is obviously more to this - while the NFL/Goodell have decisions to make regarding Williams, the FO also needs to ensure that the players know that this team is better off with players who put the team first no matter who they are

this franchise will be better off when all players and coaches are held accountable for their actions and choices both on the field and off

So heard this on espn 980 this morning.

Drug tests are done during the off-season.
Trent missed that test and appealed
The appeal just got denies, which is why he is being suspended now.

I'm sure the FO knew all about it. Coaches are either surprised because they weren't told, or just surprised because it's happening so late in the year

are you kidding me - that just doesn't sound right

Deadskins wrote:2. How could the FO not know, if he not only missed the test, but went through the appeals process?

I'm guessing their surprise was that the league actually suspended him, or did not reduce the suspension, based on the appeal.

Weird, right? Here is the ESPN story where I read it:

Williams’ suspension caught many at Redskins Park by surprise. Coaches didn’t find out until just shortly before it was announced. Several people said the same thing: “I didn’t see that coming.” That was followed by three words: “It’s a shame.”

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-red ... suspension

Hard to know what to make of it. You could be right that "I didn't see it coming" meant they were surprised the league actually suspended him. But that seems like kind of an odd reaction. There's nothing surprising at all that the league denied his appeal and suspended him since this is a repeat offense.

I thought it was weird that the FO would not know too. But I don't know how the testing and the CBA works. Its very possible that its part of the CBA that the team isn't notified until a player is actually suspended or whatever.

You'd think a player who has played 92 games over seven seasons and never missed or failed a drug test might be given the benefit of the doubt.

I'd be less surprised to hear the Pope failed a drug test. And the timing is horse pucky. The next four games are the toughest stretch on the schedule.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:You'd think a player who has played 92 games over seven seasons and never missed or failed a drug test might be given the benefit of the doubt.

I'd be less surprised to hear the Pope failed a drug test. And the timing is horse pucky. The next four games are the toughest stretch on the schedule.

Well, Goodell is Mara's puppet.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:You'd think a player who has played 92 games over seven seasons and never missed or failed a drug test might be given the benefit of the doubt.

What are you talking about? This is the second time he's been suspended for a failed test.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fo ... _blog.html

That's exactly why he didn't get the benefit of the doubt. Jim Mara has jack to do with it.

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:You'd think a player who has played 92 games over seven seasons and never missed or failed a drug test might be given the benefit of the doubt.

What are you talking about? This is the second time he's been suspended for a failed test.

Ugh. I forgot about that one.

Who's Jim Mara? I'm talking about John Mara, the vaGiants owner. And this was not a failed test, but rather a missed test, so I'm sure there is some leeway for Goodell to rule on the appeal. Maybe Trent had a family emergency on testing day, and volunteered to take the test the next day, but Goodell is being a hard-ass about it. I'm not saying that's the case, but Goodell is the final arbiter in all disciplinary actions, and since he is Mara's puppet, the timing and length of the suspension can totally be called into question.

Deadskins wrote:Who's Jim Mara? I'm talking about John Mara, the vaGiants owner. And this was not a failed test, but rather a missed test, so I'm sure there is some leeway for Goodell to rule on the appeal. Maybe Trent had a family emergency on testing day, and volunteered to take the test the next day, but Goodell is being a hard-ass about it. I'm not saying that's the case, but Goodell is the final arbiter in all disciplinary actions, and since he is Mara's puppet, the timing and length of the suspension can totally be called into question.

I know who you're talking about. Correcting my typo, doesn't make your point.

The guy who has already served a season ending suspension for a failed drug test doesn't get leeway to miss a test. Its embarrassing for us to try to make such a lame ass excuse.

Prowl33 wrote:So heard this on espn 980 this morning.

Drug tests are done during the off-season.
Trent missed that test and appealed
The appeal just got denies, which is why he is being suspended now.

I'm sure the FO knew all about it. Coaches are either surprised because they weren't told, or just surprised because it's happening so late in the year

Anyone suspect Mara concerning the timing??

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:You'd think a player who has played 92 games over seven seasons and never missed or failed a drug test might be given the benefit of the doubt.

What are you talking about? This is the second time he's been suspended for a failed test.

Ugh. I forgot about that one.

I wonder if his previous failed test is why they came down on him for missing one and denied his appeal.

Irn-Bru wrote:I wonder if his previous failed test is why they came down on him for missing one and denied his appeal.

That's exactly why, IMO.

I believe, per the CBA, teams are not made aware of a player’s positive test until he is suspended, which only occurs after multiple violations. Players are given a chance to "clean up' their problem before any of it goes public. This means at some point Trent tested positive, enter the "intervention" program and probably skipped the test because he knew it would be positive.

riggofan wrote:The guy who has already served a season ending suspension for a failed drug test doesn't get leeway to miss a test. Its embarrassing for us to try to make such a lame ass excuse.

Glad you can be so sure, not knowing any of the circumstances.

DEHog wrote:I believe, per the CBA, teams are not made aware of a player’s positive test until he is suspended, which only occurs after multiple violations. Players are given a chance to "clean up' their problem before any of it goes public. This means at some point Trent tested positive, enter the "intervention" program and probably skipped the test because he knew it would be positive.

He was suspended five years ago, and has been tested ever since. We don't know the circumstance of why he missed the test, but I doubt it's because he knew he wouldn't pass. Otherwise, why the appeal?

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:The guy who has already served a season ending suspension for a failed drug test doesn't get leeway to miss a test. Its embarrassing for us to try to make such a lame ass excuse.

Glad you can be so sure, not knowing any of the circumstances.

If its somehow true that Trent's grandma was in the hospital and there was no way he could possibly get to his drug test, then I apologize profusely. Believe whatever you want to believe. IMO when a guy has already been caught once and doesn't show up for his test, he's not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. They're going to assume he doesn't want to take the test. It doesn't take John Mara - or Jim for that matter - acting nefariously in the background.

Btw on the subject of these tests, I sort of remember a player talking about the process on the radio recently. Maybe Portis? I remember it struck me as kind of crazy. Like the NFL during the off season can call these players up completely out of the blue. They could be anywhere in the country, the NFL will give them a nearby location to take a test, and they have to be there in X hours. It actually was kind of nuts.

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:I believe, per the CBA, teams are not made aware of a player’s positive test until he is suspended, which only occurs after multiple violations. Players are given a chance to "clean up' their problem before any of it goes public. This means at some point Trent tested positive, enter the "intervention" program and probably skipped the test because he knew it would be positive.

He was suspended five years ago, and has been tested ever since. We don't know the circumstance of why he missed the test, but I doubt it's because he knew he wouldn't pass. Otherwise, why the appeal?

Don't know much about this, but it appears he did appeal. How long was the appeal process? When was the non-appearance?

My guess is he appealed because the players union did it for him, I am sure he was able to come up with some sort of excuse, and it extended his ability to play during the appeals process. In his case, why not appeal -- even if you don't think you have a chance.

I am not sure why he would miss a test --- is the penalty for positive the same as the penalty for failure to take a test?

As far as the conspiracy theory about Mara and Goodell --- if they really wanted to screw us, they wouldn't have informed us 3 days into our bye week. They would have waited....

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:I believe, per the CBA, teams are not made aware of a player’s positive test until he is suspended, which only occurs after multiple violations. Players are given a chance to "clean up' their problem before any of it goes public. This means at some point Trent tested positive, enter the "intervention" program and probably skipped the test because he knew it would be positive.

He was suspended five years ago, and has been tested ever since. We don't know the circumstance of why he missed the test, but I doubt it's because he knew he wouldn't pass. Otherwise, why the appeal?

Per 980 this morning the clock resets if you stay clean for (two years I believe). Why test if you know you're not clean? Take your chances with your appeal...Like Bell earlier this year, he got his reduced by a game??

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:I believe, per the CBA, teams are not made aware of a player’s positive test until he is suspended, which only occurs after multiple violations. Players are given a chance to "clean up' their problem before any of it goes public. This means at some point Trent tested positive, enter the "intervention" program and probably skipped the test because he knew it would be positive.

He was suspended five years ago, and has been tested ever since. We don't know the circumstance of why he missed the test, but I doubt it's because he knew he wouldn't pass. Otherwise, why the appeal?

Don't know much about this, but it appears he did appeal. How long was the appeal process? When was the non-appearance?

My guess is he appealed because the players union did it for him, I am sure he was able to come up with some sort of excuse, and it extended his ability to play during the appeals process. In his case, why not appeal -- even if you don't think you have a chance.

I am not sure why he would miss a test --- is the penalty for positive the same as the penalty for failure to take a test?

As far as the conspiracy theory about Mara and Goodell --- if they really wanted to screw us, they wouldn't have informed us 3 days into our bye week. They would have waited....

I'm only partially joking about the Mara bit, but no, the penalty is not at all the same. So that is an argument for him avoiding the test due to his certainty to fail it. But it seems to me, that in the case of marijuana, which stays in your system over 30 days (depending on your body fat), that the test could be administered the next day with reliably the same result. So there could be some leeway given here, if the Commish wanted. My point about Mara was more that Goodell wouldn't budge an inch, where a Redskins was concerned, but might make an exception if he played in NJ.

the penalty is not at all the same

It's not? Reports said missed test=+test??

I'm sure Scot will a long look at this and hash everything out in order to avoid making a half-baked decision - something that should resinate with our ownership. Either way, there's bound to be some blow back from the fan base.

One thing's for sure - with all the time off, Trent should not be suffering from burn out. That can creep up on you if you're not careful. On the flip side, Trent has to be a bit concerned about still having it when he returns - he'll know after his first hit. Let's hope the first LB who blindsides him decides to be kind rather than just lighting him up. I'm sure Trent will be looking to run over some nickel back on the second level instead.

After Trent sits for 4 games I expect the bowl to be packed for his debut against Philly. The Eagle defense will surely be looking for as many sacks as possible. I'd expect some screens to slow the rush. It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Anyway, maybe Trent can provide a spark when he gets back. If not, they can trade him or, if he gets injured, stash him on IR. He certainly should not let one missed test get into his head. He needs to stem any feelings of melancholy and try to be as medicated ... um ... dedicated as possible. This may be his last chance so this would be a terrible opportunity to go wasted. His first morning after his first game back will be no time to catch an extra Z. That's a sure way to lose a chance at hanging onto his JOB.

No time to zig-zag, Trent. Just roll with it. Get fired up. Blaze a new trail. Be the bomb.

it would be nice to get some facts, before this gets blown out of proportion - well, more than it is already

there's an awful lot of speculating going on

DEHog wrote:

the penalty is not at all the same

It's not? Reports said missed test=+test??

I didn't realize that things got reset after two years clean. If that's really the case, then maybe it is the same. I was working under the impression that a repeat offense would result in at least a one year suspension, so four weeks seemed light by comparison.