Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

02 Jul 2009

Calvin Pace Suspended Four Games

Adam Schefter is reporting on his Twitter page that Calvin Pace has been suspended for four games. Also, "ouch".

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 02 Jul 2009

26 comments, Last at 06 Jul 2009, 2:00pm by Rich Conley

Comments

1
by Led (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:17pm

Pace's statement (click my name): "This is a situation that resulted from an over-the-counter dietary supplement that contained a substance that I did not know violated the League’s policy," said Pace. "I am responsible for what I put into my body and I should have paid closer attention to the League’s guidelines."

2
by Peepshowmopguy (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:30pm

Seriously, if true, why does this keep happening to players? Haven’t they learned by now?!?

3
by Pat F. :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 3:48pm

A lot of over-the-counter spplements are mislabeled. As for why the players don't just stick to products from the NFL-approved list, I'm not sure, but it appears that the NFL only approves products made by one company, EAS, so that might have something to do with it.

25
by PaulH (not verified) :: Mon, 07/06/2009 - 12:09am

And, at the risk of sounding cynical, a lot (if not most) of these players claiming they "accidentally" took something are just flat-out lying their asses off.

You can probably count on two hands the number of players in the three major professional sports who have came out the past few years and admitted to just taking steroids because they were trying to get a competitive advantage. Almost always they were either unknowingly being given something by someone else that they didn't know was illegal, or they bought something over the counter which, again unbeknown to them, contained a banned substance, and it's usually just chalked up as a "labeling" issue.

Again, it's probably just lies. Most guys who probably get caught know damn good and well what they were taking, and they were confident that it was giving them a legitimate advantage in order to continue consumption.

4
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:30pm

With all the coaches, trainers and health personel on all the teams, it's beyond me, why these players keep drugging them selves without knowing what's in the pills. I remember some comedian (George Carlin?) saying that there should be a law against stupidity. I like this suspension, simply because if you drug yourself with something you don't know what is, and the information is easily obtained, and financial issues is abcent, then you are simply too stupid.

With all that said, though, it sounds like a bad excuse to me.

13
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 8:03pm

"because if you drug yourself with something you don't know what is, and the information is easily obtained"

The information isn't easily obtained. See the StarCaps case, where the information wasn't actually available anywhere. It'd be easier if the NFL vetted more supplements, but they don't.

20
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 07/03/2009 - 2:42pm

Well, eating something that you don't know what contains, even if nobody else knows, is still stupid.

22
by ThunderThumbs (not verified) :: Fri, 07/03/2009 - 3:46pm

Really? How many times a day are you stupid?

24
by krugerindustria... :: Sun, 07/05/2009 - 3:31pm

agree, have you ever eaten anything with the "may contain nuts" lable? If the makers can't even be sure what goes in, how can the consumer.
Having said that, if eas is an approved supplier, then why would you bother buying protein, creatine, glutamine or whatever from anyone else? That is what bugs me, it isn't a guessing game if they are given reasonable alternatives and easy access.

26
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 07/06/2009 - 2:00pm

"may contain nuts" is legaleeze for "made in a plant that has something with nuts made in it".

They damn well know whats in those products, they're just protecting themselves.

5
by am_misfit (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 4:51pm

Pace's statement is as bad as Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" excuse.

6
by jimbohead :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:05pm

It honestly doesn't sound that terrible to me. Imagine a scenario where the trainer recommends you take X supplement. Gives you a sample bottle from the league. You finish it, then go to get a replacement at the local GNC - cheaper and more convenient. The label says X, which it is, but it includes Y as a non-active ingredient. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me...

9
by dbostedo :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 6:03pm

Yeah but the point is that players are specifically told not to do that. That's why the official list of approved products exist. It's not just a list of approved substances - like "it's OK to take Gingko Biloba". Instead it says "You should only take EDS Gingko Biloba in the red bottle". (I'm making that up, but I think it's the gist of it.)

So the trainer wouldn't say "take X supplement". He would say "only take this brand of X supplement with this label". Now the NFL only working with one supplement maker seems a little fishy to me - like they also took the chance to get a bit of kickback, as long as they were approving supplements.

7
by Tracy :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:25pm

When was the last time a player said, after having tested positive for a banned substance, "I knew that the substance was banned, but the reasons for taking it anyway were compelling. I took a calculated risk that I wouldn't get caught, and it didn't work out for me."

The point is, I don't know whether Calvin Pace got caught cheating, or whether he accidently ingested something he wasn't supposed to. I don't even know enough about him to make a guess about whether he's telling the truth. Either way, the "It was a mistake" excuse has become stale. I'd prefer that players not comment at all.

8
by Anonymous (not verified) (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 5:54pm

In football? no clue

In any sport. Last I can remember is Hermes Franca from the UFC in a title fight where both he and his opponent failed their drug tests. (2007 btw). And yes, the opponent (Sean Sherk) did make excuses.

23
by Dunbar (not verified) :: Sat, 07/04/2009 - 1:46pm

So he "Sherked" his responsibility, as it were....

*rimshot

10
by Anonymoussdfads (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 6:56pm

Rodney Harrison?

Also, I just got an error because the name "Anonymous" belongs to a registered user. Come on.

17
by Bobman :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 10:22pm

Anonymous is registered? That is SWEET!

Roidney Harrison, much as I dislike him, did face the music like a man. I believe it was the, "I was trying to recover from an injury quickly, took the wrong thing, f-ed up, and I'll see you in four weeks" response. "Oh, and don't disrespect me while I'm gone, or I'll hear about it...." Probably the most honest and responsible I can recall. I assume a lot of the "mislabeled" or "mistake/accident" excuses ARE legit, honest mistakes, but they sound so weak.

Frankly Harrison's excuse is the one I can see excusing. Yes it's a competitive advantage, unless everyone can take meds for that reason. Have it strictly overseen by a doctor and lasts like 4 weeks, instead of a lifelong bout of steroid-fueled weight-lifting. I am being naive, I am sure and it is probably simplest to just ban everything.

11
by Travis :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 7:38pm

Luis Castillo? Worked out pretty well for him, too.

15
by Drunkmonkey :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:37pm

That was my first thought. He did do alright, especially since a lot of league personnel predicted he would drop out of the first round for that.

12
by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 7:54pm

Calvin Pace okay palyer.

14
by Percy Harvin (not verified) :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 8:46pm

Why is there a deal between the NFL and EAS supplements? That seems kinds of suspicious to me.

16
by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 9:52pm

denver broncos first team to use EAS. J Elway, Romanowsko, and TE S Sharpe and T Davis too and some others were first team to use it. broncos win two Superbowls in row after using EAS. Maybe league didn't want to ban EAS becauuse of this becausue it would make Elway and the SuperBowl and Davis and Sharpe look bad

18
by Bobman :: Thu, 07/02/2009 - 10:23pm

Well, Romanowski didn't need any help looking bad....

19
by David :: Fri, 07/03/2009 - 8:37am

It does *seems* suspicious, I grant you, but a little thought suggests it has a rational basis

The NFL has a list of things that you cannot take. It is therefore not unreasonable for the players (through their union, I suspect) to request a list of things that can be taken.

However, it would be cost prohibitive (and somewhat unrealistic) for the NFL to engage with every single supplement manufacturer (not to mention product revisions)

So, the NFL establishes a programme in which the external companies come to them to get certified.

And, since it's going to cost the NFL money to run this programme, they charge companies to participate

And only a single company has made the decision that it is worth the money to participate - not surprising, since as a single company, they have a strong advantage. The second company in, however, has to pay just as much money, for half the advantage, since they will, by definition, be sharing the 'authorised supplements' market with another, more established company

So, I suspect that if GNC (for example) wanted to get certified by the NFL, they could do, but it doesn't make economic sense for them to do so.

However, all of the above is supposition, and it could just be that the one certified supplements provider is a bit dodgy, and has done a backdoor deal with the NFL for a monopoly :)

21
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Fri, 07/03/2009 - 2:47pm

That actually makes sense.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.