Neal suspended 4 games has ocd

The only possible way I could understand it is if he was seeing a psychiatrist and his psychiatrist felt more comfortable prescribing it and monitoring it for him then going through the team and maybe Neal felt more comfortable with him also. Also, because he is Neal, he probably didn't assume Adderall was on the banned substances list.

But, to tear holes in my own theory here, his outside doctor should have DEFINITELY checked into that or at least told Neal to make sure it wasn't banned before hurting his career. Also, if he wasn't seeing an outside psychiatrist (I am assuming the packers don't have one on staff) it makes 0 sense for him to see an outside doctor because regular MD's can prescribe medicine such as this.

While I agree he should have known to notify the league, does anyone have a clue in what is different between Andre Brown's situation and Neal's? They took the same drug and neither informed the league - like SpartaChris posted looks identical to me so I wonder why the league suspended Neal in the first place and now, how can it rule differently on his appeal?

Let's hope the "money quote" from that article is true and not McCarthy attempting to motivate Neal:

In all fairness, by the time a suspension is made public by the league, the player's have already gone through the appeal process. Any conclusions made initially were fair conclusions based on the information provided at the time.

By the time it's made public, the appeal process has already been exhausted? Is that true? That would be news to me.

Made public by the league.. Sometimes it gets leaked by a reporter before the appeal, but when the information comes from the league, that means the players appeal has already been heard and denied.

Ah, OK. Was Neal's suspension made public by the league or by a leak?

It was announced by the league and confirmed by the team:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/13/nfl-suspends-packers-mike-neal-four-games/

interesting... the same posters on the new thread about neal that are still negative about him were the same ones here too!

Not surprised are you? If you pull any old thread, the positive people will be positive and the negatives will be negative.

Yes it's all black and white? Some support Neal and diss Hawk, versa vice and both. Some don't like Jennings, some do. Some will never give Finley a break, some do. Some want to fire Capers, Slocum and Campen. Some don't. Some jump on MM on his paycalling. And do I have to mention Crosby? You will find people on different sides depending and not 100 % one way or the other.

There are plenty of reminders that can be pulled up to see where people have stood on these things btw. The apology list would be a long one I'm afraid.

And those who like to argue will argue.