Jarrett Bush Reportedly Suspended Four Games
ESPN's report says the ex-Packers defensive back violated the NFL policy on performance-enhancing substances.
By PackerAaron
Sounds like no matter where he ends up signing, Jarrett Bush will have to sit the first four games of the 2015 regular season.
The veteran cornerback was suspended for the first four games of the 2015 season, two league sources confirmed Monday to ESPN. One source said the suspension was for violating the NFL policy on performance-enhancing substances.
Earlier this offseason, Mike McCarthy kept the door open for a return to Green Bay for the former Packers defensive back. I suspect he was well aware of Bush's suspension at that time.
As for the suspension itself, no word on what the substance in question was, but it is a bit surprising to see a player known for his insane work ethic resorting to performance-enhancers.
Then again, maybe it isn't all that surprising, given the amount of time Bush has already spent in the league. Father Time is undefeated, as they say, and aging veterans can sometimes turn to bending the rules when faced with the proposition that they perhaps are no longer physically able to keep up with the plethora of youth in the league.
Despite all of this, I tend to think McCarthy was sincere when he said he'd welcome Bush back into the fold. Me, I'll be very surprised if Thompson brings him back, for the reasons I laid out earlier this offseason, unless we see a string of injuries hit the defensive backfield early on in camp.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (9)
Idiot Fan
July 13, 2015 at 02:20 pm
So that was the enhanced performance?
(sorry, low-hanging fruit...)
4thand1
July 13, 2015 at 02:45 pm
He'll have to join the bush-league now. Can't wait to get tickets when they retire hid number.
PackerAaron
July 13, 2015 at 09:11 pm
"if he really wants to show to everyone in WI that he is deserving ..."
He is deserving. That's why they're celebrating him.
As for " I want to discuss this big time!!"
Start a blog. That's what I did.
NewNikeShoes
July 14, 2015 at 12:33 am
Yo Nagler, don't reply to the fool.
Better to leave him alone.
As they say, stupidity is contagious.
Anyway, how's ur summer been?
Bearmeat
July 14, 2015 at 07:39 am
I hoped Bush would catch on elsewhere, But since it’s pretty clear that he took PEDs, he deserves the suspension. And it probably does end his career.
That said, the last time the CBA was being bargained, the NFLPA wanted an independent arbitrator to levy and hear appeals on fines and suspensions. The Rog said that was a non-starter.
If the players REALLY wanted to changes in this area, they’d strike. I somehow don’t think that is very likely.
The only good thing about the repeated suspension debacles is that it makes The Rog look more and more foolish in the public eye. Hopefully in 2022 (the next time the CBA is up), the NFLPA will see their public support regarding Goodells judge/jury/executioner schtick, and grow a pair of nuts.
Another issue for me is non-guaranteed contracts. They should be fully guaranteed the moment they are signed for the life of the deal. Considering how violent football is, this should ESPECIALLY be the case for injury.
jeremyjjbrown
July 14, 2015 at 10:26 am
"guaranteed contracts"
Yuck. Just what the NFL needs, a bunch of Bobby Bonillas.
Bearmeat
July 14, 2015 at 01:29 pm
Well, obviously, we disagree.
While I understand your point and agree that baseball takes it too far - their union is too powerful - I'd just like to point out that NFL players put their bodies on the line every snap. Unlike baseball, football contains possible risk of a career ending injury many times per game. What happens if a player like, say, Mike Daniels receives a big time deal in a week, then (God forbid) a career threatening injury in training camp? His career earnings would be the four years on his rookie contract, plus a small percentage of his signing bonus. That's it. While that 2 million or so may be more than you or I will ever make, our careers aren't over at 28 either. Most NFL players are. What are they going to do for the rest of their lives? Are they qualified to make inroads in a workforce that they haven't been trained in? No. Not really.
Further, the owners PRINT money. Even the poorest of them would be able to shrug off the additional 30 million or so a year in salary that guaranteed contracts would require. The players are in the top 1/2 of 1% at their jobs in the world, and without them, the NFL would not be even close to the product it is. Do you watch the NBA D league? Or Canadian Football? Or the WFL when it was around? Me neither. Because the product was inferior.
Even further, if an owner such as Jerry or Danny is dumb enough to sign a Bobby Bonilla type contract, (or Albert Haynesworth for that matter), then why shouldn't their franchise have to live with the consequences? Bottom line, the players should share in the profits of the league much more than they do.
Ok. Side rant over.
Thegreatreynoldo
July 14, 2015 at 04:45 pm
I disagree with your opinion on fully guaranteed contracts, Bearmeat, though I concede you have presented decent arguments for it. Think Tim Thomas. IIRC, players who are injured do not have to return their signing bonus, but do usually lose game day and other roster bonuses. I do think there would be unintended consequences attached to fully guaranteed contracts. There would likely be winners and losers based on the quality of the GM and also among the different types of players. Rookie contracts are basically fully guaranteed already. Those getting 2nd contracts who are also fine players probably would be winners. I foresee shorter contracts for all FAs, especially older players looking for that 3rd contract and any player with a history of injury or a perception of not loving foorball, and/or a perception of not playing through pain. I think it might lead to shorter careers. I am not sure if TT would have re-signed Nelson if it was all guaranteed. There might be a decline in the quality of play if players were only signed for 2-year stints. It would be a coaches nightmare. These consequences I've suggested could all be wrong. There would be results that I've not foreseen (ergo the term unintended!).
Bearmeat
July 14, 2015 at 09:40 pm
You make a good point about guaranteed deals potentially leading to shorter deals - which would lead to less continuity on teams by definition. However, isn't the best organization what we're after anyways? I mean, let the best GMs do their work and the ones who are marginal do theirs. It would make free agency in March MUCH more reserved. And therefore, more palatable.
And then what would Vikings fans brag about between annual losing seasons? ;)