Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
He was suspended for four games, late in the year, and he was able to drop his appeal to ensure he didn't miss any important games. Then he got to play in the Pro-Bowl. He didn't "come back" from anything. He cheated for the first half of the season, then he took a break, albeit an unpaid vacation, and then he returned as if nothing happened.
He played the last 5 games of the season after sitting out 4 games. The suspension started in the first half of the season. I was mistaken in that I thought it started earlier, but the original point is still valid. He originally was trying to appeal the ruling, delaying the actual suspension date by several weeks. He chose to drop his appeal because he figured he was better off just sitting out a few games in the middle of the season then appealing, possibly losing, and then not being able to play at the end and/or in the playoffs.
I can only speculate as to when the actual drug test occurred, but have to assume that was at least a couple weeks before the original announcement and decision to appeal. That means we're talking about maybe week 3 or 4 of the season. Maybe earlier. The bigger point is that he did not fail any of his tests after that point (even while he was appealing and still playing) and his performance was the same after that point as it was before.
He got to play in the pro-bowl specifically because of his record after the incident occurred, not before. I'm pretty sure that if he'd been charged with using steroids, stopped using them and then suddenly he couldn't play for squat, that he'd not have made the pro-bowl. It's not like they make that decision that early in the season...
Quote:
Well, two different rules were broken here. The Patriots broke a silly rule about videotaping signs.
That's a "silly rule"? Excuse me? I think sneaking someone onto the sideline with a press pass so that he can aim a camera at the opposing teams coaches from up close and transmit them to his teams bench is pretty firmly in the category of "cheating". That's what the league believes the Patriots were doing.
I think that's a pretty big deal, don't you think?
Quote:
Shawne Merriman ingested anabolic steroids. Merriman missed four games, basically of his choosing. The patriots will lose a high draft pick(s), impacting the team for seasons to come.
The player broke the rules. The player suffered the penalty for that rule. I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to argue? If he hadn't attempted to appeal his suspension, he'd have sat out 4 earlier games instead of the ones he did sit out. His only choice was to continue to attempt to appeal and run the risk of not being able to play at the end of the season and perhaps the playoffs, or drop it and help his team when they would need him the most. I see his choice as a decision to put the good of his team ahead of himself. IMO, that's admirable.
In any case, the only person who should be punished for Merriman's actions is Merriman. And once he's been punished that should be the end of it, right? So, if the league feels that in the 7-8 games he played after the steroid test were sufficient to allow him to play in the pro-bowl, that's their choice. Additionally, the penalty could have stipulated that he not be able to participate in post season games. It didn't, but you seem to want to punish him more then the punishment he was assigned.
The actions of the coaching staff should affect the whole team. The penalty is appropriate IMO. A player screws up, you punish the player. A coach screws up, you punish the team. I'm sorry, but I tend to place a higher degree of moral expectation on a coach then on a player. You're free to disagree of course...
Quote:
The point I was making was that Merriman broke a much more serious rule, hell, he broke a law, even, and his punishment was far less severe than the Patriots'.
First off, I'm not aware that that particular steroid is actually "illegal". It's against the rules to use while competing professionally.
Second. I suppose that's a matter of degrees. Did the entire Patriot's team have to forfeit 4 games? Then their punishment as a team was not as severe as Merriman's was. You're trying to equate a punishment to an entire franchise to a punishment applied to a single player. Predictably, you're going to fail at that.
Quote:
Seriously, though, just shut the fUck up. You're pretty obviously not a fan of the game if you don't know even the length of Merriman's suspension, given that he's the best defensive player on your hometown team.
I didn't remember exactly how many games. But I did remember that he came back and played most of the second half of the season, which was correct. I tend to not watch most of the games during the first half of the football season, so from my viewing perspective I just remember them talking about him being suspended, and then coming back and playing in the last part of the season.
None of which changes the fact that he was punished. His punishment is over. Done. Meanwhile the Patriots are suffering their own punishment. And when that's over, it'll also be done. I'm not going to start grumbling next year that it's unfair that the Patriots cheated, but now that they lost a pick or two, it's over and they'll get to pick normally the next season. Nor will I ***** and complain if/when several Patriot players make it to the pro-bowl this year and insist that they shouldn't be allowed to because of the cheating done by their coach.
Why? Because then I'd be acting like a bitter old vag. Kinda like you... ;)
