Pead’s suspension likely comes from previously unknown violation of law


The NFL won’t say much about player suspensions under the substance-abuse policy, beyond the obvious.  But what the league says often implies plenty.

For example, a player who receives a four-game suspension under the substance-abuse policy necessarily has violated the policy multiples times.  Likewise, a player who receives a one-game suspension likely was suspended due to some violation of the law.

In the case of Rams running back Isaiah Pead, his one-game suspension likely means that there was some incident that triggered a guilty plea, a conviction, a no contest plea, entry into a diversionary program, or some other deferred disposition.  Based on the specific language of the policy, it’s likely not alcohol, since a first-offense for alcohol typically involves only a two-game fine.

There have been no reports or accounts of Pead facing, or resolving, criminal charges of any kind.

Either way, the league is saying nothing.  Likewise, Pead’s agent, Rick Smith, has not responded to a request for comment.

Pead will be eligible to practice with the team and participate in the preseason.  But the suspension most likely means that Daryl Richardson, a seventh-round pick in 2012 who leapfrogged Pead on the depth chart, will be the starter when the Rams host the Cardinals to start the 2013 season.

12 responses to “Pead’s suspension likely comes from previously unknown violation of law

  1. We find joy in this fellow’s misfortune. We laugh at him and his family. We all violently throw eggs and tomatoes at them.

  2. when this was first reported the seahags fans all bitched how come our guy gets 4 games and you only get 1 I made a point even b4 this article the difference between a substance abuse and a PED violation are quite large the league wants to help people overcome substance abuse problems and wants to eradicate the PED problem which gives the players an unfair advantage my guess is a bit of weed is probably involved something that doesn’t give the player an unfair performance advantage

  3. I just read on Sando’s NFC West blog that it could have been caused by entering the NFL’s substance abuse program voluntarily and then failing a test. I would hope that would never be the case. It would certainly discourage players from entering the program.

  4. Garyhd01;
    Don’t categorize us off of us cause 3 angry fans are confused or misinformed.
    We know this is weed related not peds.
    And if rams fans really think they are better then Seattle then so be it. Our bad. Seahawks didn’t get ten top ten draft picks Ten years in a row.
    For u @michealjacksonisdead

  5. The NFL’s ignorance with regard to the treatment of substance abuse/behavior issues, banned “substances” is appaling and hypocritical. Perhaps they need to sign on some experts in the field from the American Psychiatric Association to write their policies and offer them some inservices on the subject if they sincerely want to constructively do something about problems they are creating for themselves.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!