Plenty of confusion has emerged regarding the circumstances surrounding the four-game suspension imposed on Saints running back Mark Ingram. My current goal will be to clear some of it up. If possible.
When the report of a PED suspension for Ingram first emerged, it seemed that his appeal rights hadn’t been resolved, raising among other things the question of whether his argument on appeal could still be successful. Several years ago, the NFL and NFL Players Association agreed that appeals of suspensions arising from positive tests would be resolved by independent arbitrators; thus, any player who tests positive for a PED at least will have someone not connected to the NFL or the NFLPA make a decision about whether the suspension is valid.
As it turns out, the appeal already has been resolved, given that the league has announced the suspension. The decision simply hasn’t been reduced to writing. So what happens once the written ruling has been provided to all parties concerned? Here’s the full statement from Ingram’s agents, Paul V. Bobbitt and David Wallace Jones of VIP Sports Management in Detroit: “At the end of the 2017 season, as a result of an NFL mandated random drug test, Mark Ingram tested positive for a substance that was not a performance enhancing substance, nor an illegal substance, but a substance in fact permissible with the proper use exemption with the NFL. He has vigorously challenged the test results through the arbitration process. The arbitrator’s opinion is due on or before Wednesday, May 16. Upon having the opportunity to review the arbitrator’s opinion, we will explore what further options are needed.”
Since both Bobbitt and Jones have only one active NFL client each (presumably Ingram, who per a league source only recently hired them), there’s a chance they simply don’t know “what further options are needed” because they don’t know “what further options” are available. The truth is that, as a practical matter, there are none.
Since the arbitration process is now independent, a legal challenge to the ruling has almost no chance (more accurately, no chance at all) of prevailing. The PED policy gives the NFLPA’s executive director the ability to petition the Commissioner to vacate or reduce the discipline, if there are “extraordinary circumstances” to support such action, but good luck with that.
So, basically, it’s over. And if Ingram truly was taking a banned substance that isn’t a PED or an illegal substance for which a therapeutic use exemption could have been obtained, that’s on Ingram for failing to seek and obtain the TUE. Otherwise, it’s a case of strict liability. Test positive, get suspended.
And even though the agents now claim Ingram didn’t test positive for a performance enhancing substance, they concede he tested positive for a substance banned by the policy. Which means it is a PED, by definition.
But, hey, since no one who tests positive under the PED policy ever was actually consciously trying to cheat, the agents need to say something. Even if the something that is said as a practical matter means nothing.
