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

I'd say Santana did the right thing .. keep your mouth shut.

Secondly, no one knows the story here ... the Doc could have been treating an injury ... gets out a needle .. this will help you heal faster ... Santana: Uh Doc .. is this ok to take .. we are tested you know ... Doc: it's fine .. this won't be an issue with the tests the NFL mandates.

Of course, I have a problem with penalizing a player for a substance that isn't on the list of substances being tested for .. which opens up the possible scenario above ... the Doc said don't worry .. this won't cause you to fail any tests .. and the player says cool ... go ahead and hit me.

If the NFL wants to ban a substance ... put it on the list and test for it. If it ain't on the list, no foul.

It's like getting a speeding ticket on a road with no posted speed limit.

Except that HGH has been on the list of banned PEDs for about as long as there's been a list. So it'd be like getting a ticket from a red light cam, or photo speed enforcement. The rules are the rules and everybody knows 'em. How a player gets caught after the fact is pretty immaterial.

Honestly, I don't see the difference between a potential claim that Moss didn't know what the doc was giving him and Merriman's joke of a tainted supplement excuse. Allowing plausible deniability as a defense against PED use charges would eviscerate a policy that's already inadequate (because ultimately, even if there were adequate and definitive tests for everything that's been banned, there will never be a testing regime that a) will be compatible with the rigors of the NFL season--in terms of sheer number of blood draws--and b) will be acceptable to the NFLPA absent untenably huge concessions from the owners).

If it can be proved that Moss was given HGH (and given that there's a Federal investigation pending, it shouldn't be hard), there's really no counterargument against suspension.

Well said Paralis, but I still side with Ray. How can you ban a substance but NOT test for it? You as well as I know that most of these atheletes aren't bright enough to know what to do, so they ask a "Doctor." He says that it's cool for any tests...and he's NOT lying! Sounds good to me it I was in his/their shoes.

RayNAustin wrote:.... Of course, I have a problem with penalizing a player for a substance that isn't on the list of substances being tested for .. which opens up the possible scenario above ... the Doc said don't worry .. this won't cause you to fail any tests .. and the player says cool ... go ahead and hit me.

If the NFL wants to ban a substance ... put it on the list and test for it. If it ain't on the list, no foul.
It's like getting a speeding ticket on a road with no posted speed limit.

excuse me Ray - HGH is on the NFL's list of banned substances AND Dr Galea's lawyer has stated that the players DID get HGH but the ONLY reason the 23 players on the list used HGH was to aid in their rehabilitation

IF the players on that list took HGH they will and should be suspended


I agree that the use of PEDs is a lot more widespread than the NFL suits think BUT I also think that the athletes themselves should be a lot more against this than they are - there are more 'clean' athletes than guys who take these substances and they should be a lot more vocal about it

Countertrey wrote:Call it what you want... he struck me as deliberately evasive... just as the reporter saw it...

Even an inarticulate man can say "Nawwww... not me, man."

Or he could have had legal counsel telling him not to address the situation.

Or the 'interview' could be disected for the exact PoV to come across.

I'm not defending him, but in situations like these, there is politicking at hand. Hell, he probably DID do it. He'll be suspended and then that'll be the end of it.

yupchagee wrote:He comes accross as being inartuculate, a common trait among pro athletes.

#IRONY

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Call it what you want... he struck me as deliberately evasive... just as the reporter saw it...

Even an inarticulate man can say "Nawwww... not me, man."

Or he could have had legal counsel telling him not to address the situation.

Or the 'interview' could be disected for the exact PoV to come across.

I'm not defending him, but in situations like these, there is politicking at hand. Hell, he probably DID do it. He'll be suspended and then that'll be the end of it.

That only reinforces the point... If I have NO guilt, my attorney has NO problem with me saying "Nawwwww... not me man". I doubt that he has been well served by his agent in this case, whom, it appears to me, did not adequately prepare Moss to deal with the press on this.

Regarding your point of the possibility that the reporter played with context? It is a fairly lengthly line by line of direct quotes... plus, it is Jason Reid's blog... it's a reliable source, known for shooting straight. Jason did not post this article, but were it not accurate, he would have IMMEDIATELY corrected it.

I agree with the conclusion, however. Probably 4 games, as this is his first encounter.

By the way, the primary purpose of HGH IS healing of soft tissue injuries. It is often used in conjunction with AAS's to hasten repairs that occur due to the vigorous increase in weight being moved with the accompanying anerobic exercises that is usually part of the program.

I have no doubt that Moss' purpose was to get back on the field more quickly, not to enhance performance. Unfortunately, it does not matter. The drug is banned. Period.


For those who are complaining that they can't punish because they don't test for it:
So What? It's banned. How does not testing for it make it somehow wrong to enforce it's ban? This is not a court of law. Those named in the criminal complaint against the Doc can expect a call from the Commish... deal with it.

Santana Doping Poll

http://www.interaskit.com/viewPoll.php?PollID=508


Santana seems a little small to be doping but what the hell do I know. This might give our young receivers a chance to prove themselves.

TheTruth wrote:Santana Doping Poll

http://www.interaskit.com/viewPoll.php?PollID=508


Santana seems a little small to be doping but what the hell do I know. This might give our young receivers a chance to prove themselves.

Santana has been struggling with injuries the past couple of seasons. HGH clearly speeds soft tissue healing. I doubt that he was using to enhance his performance, so much as to get back onto the field in playing condition.


BTW... check your poll...

Here's the hitch in all this. Yes, it's banned. But the only proven test for it is a blood test and the union won't sign off on that.

There's 10,000 shades of grey through all of this and I doubt there's going to be a high enough level of proof to satisfy everyone.

But the NFL will do as it will -- meaning they don't need the same level-of-proof parameters as the justice system (see: Roethlisberger).

Some may never be convinced that Moss is the guy -- but he's getting four games. That's just the M.O. of the NFL these days.

RedskinsFreak wrote:Here's the hitch in all this. Yes, it's banned. But the only proven test for it is a blood test and the union won't sign off on that.

There's 10,000 shades of grey through all of this and I doubt there's going to be a high enough level of proof to satisfy everyone.

But the NFL will do as it will -- meaning they don't need the same level-of-proof parameters as the justice system (see: Roethlisberger).

Some may never be convinced that Moss is the guy -- but he's getting four games. That's just the M.O. of the NFL these days.

Pretty much Freak.. I have to agree.

Countertrey wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Call it what you want... he struck me as deliberately evasive... just as the reporter saw it...

Even an inarticulate man can say "Nawwww... not me, man."

Or he could have had legal counsel telling him not to address the situation.

Or the 'interview' could be disected for the exact PoV to come across.

I'm not defending him, but in situations like these, there is politicking at hand. Hell, he probably DID do it. He'll be suspended and then that'll be the end of it.

That only reinforces the point... If I have NO guilt, my attorney has NO problem with me saying "Nawwwww... not me man". I doubt that he has been well served by his agent in this case, whom, it appears to me, did not adequately prepare Moss to deal with the press on this.

Regarding your point of the possibility that the reporter played with context? It is a fairly lengthly line by line of direct quotes... plus, it is Jason Reid's blog... it's a reliable source, known for shooting straight. Jason did not post this article, but were it not accurate, he would have IMMEDIATELY corrected it.

I agree with the conclusion, however. Probably 4 games, as this is his first encounter.

By the way, the primary purpose of HGH IS healing of soft tissue injuries. It is often used in conjunction with AAS's to hasten repairs that occur due to the vigorous increase in weight being moved with the accompanying anerobic exercises that is usually part of the program.

I have no doubt that Moss' purpose was to get back on the field more quickly, not to enhance performance. Unfortunately, it does not matter. The drug is banned. Period.


For those who are complaining that they can't punish because they don't test for it:
So What? It's banned. How does not testing for it make it somehow wrong to enforce it's ban? This is not a court of law. Those named in the criminal complaint against the Doc can expect a call from the Commish... deal with it.

He shouldn't be saying a damn thing to the media. He is a federal witness and saying anything to the press is beyond stupid. He says something publicly that changes the prosecutors mind about using him as a witness and he could all of a sudden be sitting in the defendant's chair as opposed to the witness stand.

Which, again, simply goes to the point that he has not been well handled by his agent...

OTOH... if he were "innocent", no one would coach him not to say "Nawwww... not me, man." (which, of course, he didn't say)

SkinsJock wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:.... Of course, I have a problem with penalizing a player for a substance that isn't on the list of substances being tested for .. which opens up the possible scenario above ... the Doc said don't worry .. this won't cause you to fail any tests .. and the player says cool ... go ahead and hit me.

If the NFL wants to ban a substance ... put it on the list and test for it. If it ain't on the list, no foul.
It's like getting a speeding ticket on a road with no posted speed limit.

excuse me Ray - HGH is on the NFL's list of banned substances AND Dr Galea's lawyer has stated that the players DID get HGH but the ONLY reason the 23 players on the list used HGH was to aid in their rehabilitation

IF the players on that list took HGH they will and should be suspended


I agree that the use of PEDs is a lot more widespread than the NFL suits think BUT I also think that the athletes themselves should be a lot more against this than they are - there are more 'clean' athletes than guys who take these substances and they should be a lot more vocal about it

Maybe you need to read what I said rather than cherry pick one sentence.

The point I was making is that Moss may not have known he was doing anything wrong ... yet all of you fine squeaky clean saints have already decided the matter ... like some bubba sheriff who says "Boy, we're gonna give you a good lawyer and a fair trial ... and then we're gonna hang you".

As previously stated, the Doctor could have led Moss to believe that nothing in the treatments given him would violate the league rules by simply stating that "No, this treatment won't cause you to fail the testing you are required to submit to". In such a case, the Doc wouldn't have been overtly lying since the substance isn't tested for, so the statement would have been true ... and since this doctor is a highly respected guy who treats a large number of high profile clients ... can you not entertain the idea that Moss (like 90% of the rest of people) trusted the Doctor, and didn't go any deeper into questioning the treatments? I can certainly see this as a plausible scenario.

On the philosophical side of it ... the league rules were instituted ostensibly to curtail performance enhancing drugs that give an undue advantage to athletes who partake ... and certainly not geared toward banning treatmenst that would simply aid the healing process of an injury.

So, from that standpoint, I think taking a zero tolerance, guilty until proven innocent approach is out of line. The onus should be first placed on Doctors who are trained in these matters, and not on the athlete, unless there is clear evidence that the athlete was indeed knowingly taking a substance for the express purpose of gaining advantage by boosting athletic performance pharmacologically.

On a much deeper philosophical level, I disagree with the premise that the NFL (or anyone else) can ignore the principles of due process and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, subject only to their whim and discretion as sole judge and jury. Under such conditions, our entire society and principles of law and justice could be transformed .. and all employers could take such an approach, punishing employees for a mere accusation or the appearance of wrong doing without a reasonable standard of proof being necessary.

And if you don't believe that is possible ... just re-read some of the posts here that have already issued Moss a suspension, under guilt by association without much thought or discussion, or evidence.

If Moss is suspended based on the "evidence" made public thus far, I think we can be sure of lawsuits.

1: Someone hooked Moss... and all of these other players... up with the Doc.

2: I would not be suprised if that someone were someone who, supposedly, has Moss' "best interests" at heart.

3: As far as the NFL is concerned, "I didn't know" has no mitigating influence on the outcome. Even in criminal law, "ignorance is not a defense".

Play the "not-fair" card all you want... if Moss' name is on this Doc's list of clients who received HGH... he is going to be sitting for 4 games.

The NFL is a private entity, entitled to use whatever means are availible to it to maintain the integrity of the game. The NFL AND the NFLPA have BOTH agreed that this is an important issue, and have agreed that the NFL must have discretion to act. We may not like it... but, then, we don't have to. That's simply how it is. As a libertarian, I'm, frankly, surprised that you have a problem with this. These men are very generously remunerated to play a kid's game... there is bound to be some tradeoff...

Finally, I don't see anyone judging Moss... what I see is what has occurred with Rothlesberger and Cushing, ergo the very reasonable conclusion that, if on the list, Moss will be experiencing a very uncomfortable "sit-down" with the commish... Cushing's outcome is probably the standard, here. Folks on this thread are not ignorant... they have eyes, and are quite capable of connecting the dots. That's all anyone is doing.

Cushing tested positive. Moss hasn't.

yupchagee wrote:Cushing tested positive. Moss hasn't.

Vick was convicted... Burgermeister wasn't... Your point?

Countertrey wrote:1: Someone hooked Moss... and all of these other players... up with the Doc.

2: I would not be suprised if that someone were someone who, supposedly, has Moss' "best interests" at heart.

3: As far as the NFL is concerned, "I didn't know" has no mitigating influence on the outcome. Even in criminal law, "ignorance is not a defense".

Sure it matters. I'm your neighbor for 20 years .. we BBQ together on weekends .. I ask you .. hey, drive me down to the convenience store to get some beer .. you say OK. I go in and rob the joint, hop back in your car and go home. The next day the surveillance camera with your tag # leads the police to your door. Are you guilty of armed robbery?

I didn't think so.

Countertrey wrote:Play the "not-fair" card all you want... if Moss' name is on this Doc's list of clients who received HGH... he is going to be sitting for 4 games.

That's it then. No other evidence necessary other than his name on a list? What if there was a hired contract murder list .. and his name was put on it ... is he also a hit man? Should he get the death penalty?

Countertrey wrote:The NFL is a private entity, entitled to use whatever means are availible to it to maintain the integrity of the game. The NFL AND the NFLPA have BOTH agreed that this is an important issue, and have agreed that the NFL must have discretion to act. We may not like it... but, then, we don't have to. That's simply how it is. As a libertarian, I'm, frankly, surprised that you have a problem with this. These men are very generously remunerated to play a kid's game... there is bound to be some tradeoff...

As a constitutionalist, I don't see anywhere that exempts private entities from the requirement of following the law. And it doesn't matter how much they are paid or for what they get paid to do ... the fact remains that having his name on a piece of paper is not evidence of anything other than having his name on a piece of paper. In the absence of any other evidence .. i.e. testimony under oath that he received a banned substance and understood it was a banned substance and agreed to it along with the potential consequences ... or that he might confess, or that he actually tested positive for a banned substance ... it's simply wrong to declare guilty without reasonable evidence. A piece of paper with his name on it is not reasonable evidence .. and note that I'm not applying the criminal conviction criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt, but applying civil law, more or less, in the form of reasonable proof.

Countertrey wrote:Finally, I don't see anyone judging Moss... what I see is what has occurred with Rothlesberger and Cushing, ergo the very reasonable conclusion that, if on the list, Moss will be experiencing a very uncomfortable "sit-down" with the commish... Cushing's outcome is probably the standard, here. Folks on this thread are not ignorant... they have eyes, and are quite capable of connecting the dots. That's all anyone is doing.

That's all you've done here ... judging him guilty based on his name being on a piece of paper ... his name .. not even his signature.

Comparing him to Roethlisberger or Cushing is absurd. The Berger has had one issue after another, and his conduct, even if not criminal, was inappropriate at best and not in keeping with conduct standards (even having consensual sex in a public restroom is a crime). And Cushing tested positive for a banned substance, which IS evidence as opposed to his name being on a piece of paper.

Now maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm not aware of Santana having any difficulties on or off field. I'm not aware of him ever having failed a substance test, or even implicated in such things before.

Apparently that doesn't matter ... his name is on a piece of paper, and you believe it's an open and shut case, and further, you support that type of railroading of a player that's never been accused of wrong doing before.

My question to you would be ... how would you like to be fired simply because your name was on a piece of paper? Because this is what you are advocating ... it's simply a matter of degrees. You think it's OK for your employer to punish you for suspicion of doing something wrong because it's a private entity? Or would you expect them to have some reasonable evidence before taking such action against you?

RedskinsFreak wrote:Here's the hitch in all this. Yes, it's banned. But the only proven test for it is a blood test and the union won't sign off on that.

There's 10,000 shades of grey through all of this and I doubt there's going to be a high enough level of proof to satisfy everyone.

But the NFL will do as it will -- meaning they don't need the same level-of-proof parameters as the justice system (see: Roethlisberger).

Some may never be convinced that Moss is the guy -- but he's getting four games. That's just the M.O. of the NFL these days.

AND .... we all agree that ANY athlete that 'uses' a banned substance for ANY reason should be suspended - right?

let's not twist this thing around - if an athlete knowingly 'uses' a banned substance for ANY reason, he should be suspended - I'd like to ban them from the NFL, but that is not happening

I cannot believe that some think that there are shades of guilt here - if an athlete tries to get an 'edge' on another athlete by this means I think the 'clean' athletes should make sure he pays some sort of 'price' for that - if the only recourse right now is a suspension then so be it but I'm all for any of these cheaters getting banned if that's what it takes

no real fan wants athletes that have to resort to cheating on their team

I am amazed that anyone could think that an athlete that contacts Dr Galea is just trying to 'get better' quickly and that by doing so he's really not doing anything 'illegal' - this quack of a 'Dr" is the epitome of doing something illegal - ANY player on Dr Galea's list was trying to cheat the system OR they would have contacted a "Dr" through their team - end of story - they're lucky they are allowed to keep playing if u ask me

SkinsJock wrote:let's not twist this thing around - if an athlete knowingly 'uses' a banned substance for ANY reason, he should be suspended - I'd like to ban them from the NFL, but that is not happening

I cannot believe that some think that there are shades of guilt here - if an athlete tries to get an 'edge' on another athlete by this means I think the 'clean' athletes should make sure he pays some sort of 'price' for that - if the only recourse right now is a suspension then so be it but I'm all for any of these cheaters getting banned if that's what it takes

no real fan wants athletes that have to resort to cheating on their team

I am amazed that anyone could think that an athlete that contacts Dr Galea is just trying to 'get better' quickly and that by doing so he's really not doing anything 'illegal' - this quack of a 'Dr" is the epitome of doing something illegal - ANY player on Dr Galea's list was trying to cheat the system OR they would have contacted a "Dr" through their team - end of story - they're lucky they are allowed to keep playing if u ask me

I don't think half of the comments here display an iota of understanding of the point. One, there is no evidence of wrong doing on Moss's part... and two .. the use of HGH in healing an injury is not at all even close to using steroids or other substances for the purpose of enhancing physical performance. So the issue is not so clear cut. There is NO EVIDENCE that he took HGH, nor even if he did, there is no evidence that he knew it was HGH when or if the Doctor administered it.

Maybe this is too freaking complex for some of you to understand .... but be careful about how much you LOVE the Gestapo ... because the Gestapo don't love you .. except when you're being so compliant and useful.

What a sad display of support for one of our valuable team members. It's almost like I'm reading a Dallas cowgirl board, and you all that are so quick to throw Moss to the lions ... you're punks and not Redskins.

Ban me if you will ... I need you NOT.

Moss was the last player I would have predicted, but it once again proves -- players from the U can be as much trouble as their worth.

I always used Santana as the one who wasn't a knucklehead...now I have to find another. Maybe McIntosh is my new main guy. I guess Ed Redd is okay.

My gut says, Moss is guilty but I can't see how you suspend him if there isn't some evidence, a name on a sheet doesn't do it for me.

I just do not understand why Moss would get in touch with a 'Dr' that has the reputation this guy has - why not find out through the team OR the NFL which Dr he could use to get better quicker - why not call the NFL and say "I want to heal my body quicker so I can get back on the field and make plays for your league"

By contacting this quack Moss or someone that represents him has taken a route that could lead to big trouble - he deserves to get whatever is coming to him - BUT ... IF Moss OR anyone that represents him, did not contact this quack for anything then I agree, he should not be suspended

I am not sure about whether he took anything or not - I just think he should be banned but at least suspended for trying to get away with treating himself in a manner that is not condoned by the NFL - if that is what he did

anyone that wants to step on a field and play has to play by the 'rules' OR they take the risk of being suspended

I am fine with banning all the guys on that list unless they can show that they went and got permission from the NFL to contact this obvious quack from Canada
by looking into having this guy 'work' with you OR give you anything, you are attempting to do something that is called CHEATING

ban em all - maybe some kids will take note and try to play the game 'properly'