Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Mathis suspended first 4 games of 2014.


MacDee1975

Recommended Posts

“The drug for which Mr. Mathis tested positive is not approved by the FDA for fertility in males and is a performance-enhancing drug that has been prohibited for years"

 

This comment makes it sound like Mathis was making up a story that couldn't be true. It's funny how they didn't mention that although it isn't FDA approved, it is still prescribed to men "off-label" as a fertility drug. They did a great job twisting his words to not only make him out as a cheater, but as a liar as well. The average person who reads that article isn't going to know enough about Clomid to know that it can still be prescribed to men even though it's not FDA approved, so they'll just assume Mathis was lying through his teeth about the whole story. This is ridiculous.

Except for the fact that it's very, VERY well known that Clomid is banned. So claiming ignorance is a stretch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Except for the fact that it's very, VERY well known that Clomid is banned. So claiming ignorance is a stretch.

He was doing it for his family it is more important than football that's all it was. You aren't going to get anywhere on here with logic.

 

He is out 4 games we will be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You read the story take from it what you want. I am done with the Mathis thing. It doesn't change how I feel about the guy and it won't change the fact that he is gone for 4 games. Read the whole thread it is all there I am not taking the time to break it down for you. It is done, he is gone first 4.

I'm just saying you can't make claims and then not back them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying you can't make claims and then not back them up.

 

Except for the fact that it's very, VERY well known that Clomid is banned. So claiming ignorance is a stretch.

Here dude I am not going to do the work if you want an educated opinion read the thread if you just want to post that is cool too I don't really care. The reality of it is he is gone for 4 games.

 

It is his responsibility to his team and the fans to make sure that doesn't happen. You wanna believe it was a family first thing why didn't he ask for an exemption I'll test right now and then go on the drug if commish say's no then  it is family over football. You really think his DR told him to just go for it when they could have spent 2 mins to look on the internet and find out with a simple phone call. Or more likely after 10 years in the league he did not know that was a banned substance.

 

Either Mathis is not very smart. I think he is. He doesn't care about his job, his team, or the fans. I think he does. Or there is more to this story. I personally think everyone should let it go. I think the more you dig the less you are going to like the answers. I have not lost any respect for the guy he took the suspension had a great story that obviously pulled on heart strings.

 

For him to be innocent It is either he is not very smart or he did not care I find it difficult to believe either of those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that this is Mathis' fault for not checking isn't the end of this story. No, he didn't exhaust the efforts to check, but, and it's a very big but, he was told by the prescribing physician that it wasn't on the list of banned substances.

That is why this is different.

This guy has likely been seeing Mathis and his wife for an extended amount of time, and knows who Mathis is and the accompanying details that come with that. It was this doctors job to know what was and what was not banned. If he assured Mathis that the medication was not banned, why would Robert believe anything different?

I think the physician who assured Mathis the drugs were legal should be at least questioned. Mistakes happen, yes. And of this guy made a mistake I think that should be reason enough to consider at least a reduction in the suspension.

Mathis did what his personal doctor consulted him to do. This is a very different case with a set of highly unusual circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that he violated the rule, no question about that.  However, I also believe there are grey areas in every rule, the is the letter of the rule and the spirit of the rule.  Did Mathis violate the letter of the rule?, absolutely.  Did he violate the spirit of the rule?  No he did not, at least not given the evidence.  He should have checked with the NFL, NFLPA or team doctor.  He didn't and deserves to be suspended, I just do not believe it should be for the same amount of time that someone that violated both the letter and the spirit of the rule.  I am also sure that the Colts can find a solution to the problem and complain to the NFL at the same time.

 

I see what you're getting at, but a couple things need to be in place for that to happen.  IMO, neither are.

 

1. NFL likely doesn't believe the story.  They've heard every kind of excuse, so are cynical to begin with

2. There has to be a policy or clause in the NFL rules to allow the commissioner to arbitraily ajust sentencing.  According to the NFL, there is not as stated-

 

"The policy does not provide — nor should it provide — for the Commissioner to override the policy’s procedures and assess discipline on an after-the-fact, ad hoc basis."

 

So the only way to avoid the penalty is for the B sample to test clean (IOW, there was a false positive from sample A)

 

We just have to accept we will be without Mathis until game 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're getting at, but a couple things need to be in place for that to happen.  IMO, neither are.

 

1. NFL likely doesn't believe the story.  They've heard every kind of excuse, so are cynical to begin with

2. There has to be a policy or clause in the NFL rules to allow the commissioner to arbitraily ajust sentencing.  According to the NFL, there is not as stated-

 

"The policy does not provide — nor should it provide — for the Commissioner to override the policy’s procedures and assess discipline on an after-the-fact, ad hoc basis."

 

So the only way to avoid the penalty is for the B sample to test clean (IOW, there was a false positive from sample A)

 

We just have to accept we will be without Mathis until game 5.

 

On the first point, I have no idea if they believe Mathis and his doctor or not.  You may be correct that they do not.  I agree with you on the second point, which is the very problem with the policy.  It is essentially a zero tolerance policy, which I abhor.  Zero tolerance policies treat everyone the same no matter what the individual circumstances may be.  This is the type of thinking that gets 1st graders suspended for turning a pop tart into a pretend gun.  It is just crazy, one would think "adults" could come up with a better way of determining punishment.

 

And yes, Mathis will be suspended for 4 games no matter how silly the execution of the rule may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're getting at, but a couple things need to be in place for that to happen. IMO, neither are.

1. NFL likely doesn't believe the story. They've heard every kind of excuse, so are cynical to begin with

2. There has to be a policy or clause in the NFL rules to allow the commissioner to arbitraily ajust sentencing. According to the NFL, there is not as stated-

"The policy does not provide — nor should it provide — for the Commissioner to override the policy’s procedures and assess discipline on an after-the-fact, ad hoc basis."

So the only way to avoid the penalty is for the B sample to test clean (IOW, there was a false positive from sample A)

We just have to accept we will be without Mathis until game 5.

I appreciate reading your posts. You and Superman did a good job of presenting the flaws in zero tolerance policies and helping readers look at the Mathis situation from a different perspective.

From what you have read/researched, are there circumstances under which the NFL would allow someone to take a banned substance (such as steroids to treat respiratory conditions)?

I support Mathis and hope this does not hurt his chances of making the HOF. Having said that, the NFL had no other choice but to suspend him in this case because he tested positive for a PED that he did not inform the NFL or his team that he was taking. The penalty is a 4 game suspension, regardless of why he took the substance. As another poster wrote, the reason for taking the banned substance is irrelevant. It is hard to believe that a veteran would not know to check first with the NFL, the NFLPA or his team before taking any medication. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he wanted this to remain a private matter but that is hard to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate reading your posts. You and Superman did a good job of presenting the flaws in zero tolerance policies and helping readers look at the Mathis situation from a different perspective.

From what you have read/researched, are there circumstances under which the NFL would allow someone to take a banned substance (such as steroids to treat respiratory conditions)?

I support Mathis and hope this does not hurt his chances of making the HOF. Having said that, the NFL had no other choice but to suspend him in this case because he tested positive for a PED that he did not inform the NFL or his team that he was taking. The penalty is a 4 game suspension, regardless of why he took the substance. As another poster wrote, the reason for taking the banned substance is irrelevant. It is hard to believe that a veteran would not know to check first with the NFL, the NFLPA or his team before taking any medication. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he wanted this to remain a private matter but that is hard to argue.

I appreciate your comment.  To answer your question, I'm only aware that a few have applied for Adderall exemption.  But R. Sherman says half the league takes it, so there appears there could plenty of players with a 4 game suspension potential every week. Because of HIPAA, I'm sure the list is not as easily found.  But I suppose any physician the needs to prescribe a drug to a player can check that list.  If it is on there, then tell the player he will supply the necessary information to the NFL if the player would apply for an exemption.

 

The list of Steroids and related substance is large and broken down into sections, by  Generic name and Brand name examples.

 

I am still on Mathis' side, but he did mess up by not checking with the team doctor as a second opinion before going on with his personal physicians advice.  Second opinions are always a good idea in the medical field.  I wonder if an exemption would have been granted?  I wonder if there are other drugs on the list that could have very legitimate medical/Rx potential, and might warrant an exemption?

 

In the end though, the NFL policy states this-

 

"If you test positive or otherwise violate the Policy, you will be suspended. You and you alone are responsible for what goes into your body."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that it's very, VERY well known that Clomid is banned. So claiming ignorance is a stretch.

 

I like how Patriot fans would like on this comment. Just out of pure dislike for the Colts. I just don't see the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I suppose any physician the needs to prescribe a drug to a player can check that list. If it is on there, then tell the player he will supply the necessary information to the NFL if the player would apply for an exemption.

The list of Steroids and related substance is large and broken down into sections, by Generic name and Brand name examples.

I am still on Mathis' side, but he did mess up by not checking with the team doctor as a second opinion before going on with his personal physicians advice. Second opinions are always a good idea in the medical field. I wonder if an exemption would have been granted? I wonder if there are other drugs on the list that could have very legitimate medical/Rx potential, and might warrant an exemption?

That is what I was wondering. Would the NFL have granted an exemption for Mathis to take Clomid for a limited time to enable his wife to get pregnant? Based on the statement from the NFL, that seems unlikely. I believe the NFL does not want to set a precedent and give other players an excuse for taking PEDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...