Seahawks Cornerback Richard Sherman Has PED Suspension Overturned After Appeal
In this case, the fight was over Sherman's pending four-game suspension for violating the league's performance-enhancing drug policy. Sherman appealed and clearly won, as he revealed on his Twitter account on Thursday:
Thank you @nfl for upholding the truth! To the 12s Thank you your faith is rewarded! Thank you lord— Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) December 27, 2012
I won— Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) December 27, 2012
One would imagine Sherman's case of a broken "chain of custody" was the deciding factor. He was said to have laid out the following case, according to Sports Illustrated:
Sherman's argument hinges on his belief that the cup was leaking at the time that he submitted it and that there were mistakes made by the tester at the lab. Sherman said a second cup was placed under his cup to stop the leaking and the seal on that second cup was broken. If this proves to be true, his drug test for Adderall will be voided because it will have broken the chain of custody.
This is huge news for the Seattle Seahawks, which will now have the star cornerback available for Sunday's clash against the St. Louis Rams. While the Seahawks will need to win and have the San Francisco 49ers lose, the NFC West is still up for grabs.
Sherman has been excellent this season, with 61 tackles, seven interceptions, 23 passes defended, three forced fumbles and a sack. Alongside Brandon Browner—currently serving his own four-game suspension—Sherman helps form one of the best cornerback tandems in the NFL.
Suspensions are rarely overturned in the NFL, so this is a pretty shocking result and a banner ruling for the NFL players.
Sherman can now enter his name next to Jonathan Vilma and the New Orleans Saints players involved in Bountygate as the players that challenged NFL rulings and came out a winner.
Pandora's Box is officially open. Expect significantly more rulings from the league to be appealed by its players going forward.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?