Quantcast

Mark Rebilas/USA TODAY Sports

We've heard a ton of ridiculously terrible hot takes regarding the Patriots this year, but this one might be the worst.

A couple of baseball writers are denying Julian Edelman's incredible performance in Super Bowl LIII, saying he shouldn't have been allowed to play due to his PED suspension that cost him the first four games of the regular season.

USA TODAY's Nancy Armour:

Yet you can argue that Edelman shouldn’t even have been on the field. That he should have lost his postseason privileges as part of his punishment for trying to game the system. That his third ring is already tarnished.

It’s been seemingly forgotten now, but the wide receiver missed the first four games of the season for violating the NFL’s performance-enhancing substance policy. In Major League Baseball, that also would have meant he’d be ineligible for the postseason.

Not sure if Nancy knows this, but that's not how football works....

Oh look! Fossil baseball reporter John Heyman weighed in too!



New York Times' Tyler Kepner also had something stupid to say:

“A reminder that in baseball, Julian Edelman would not have been eligible to play in this postseason because he served a PED suspension this season,” he tweeted.

Again, football and baseball are different sports with different collective bargaining rules. Someone might want to tell these people that. None of this was a problem until the Patriots won the game, so this goes to show you how much of a bias the national media has against them.

Follow me on Twitter - @JesseGaunce

For more of my articles, click here.

Jesse Gaunce 2/04/2019 10:51:00 AM Edit
______________________________________________________________________________________

« Prev Post Next Post »


_____________________________________________________________________________________

    Powered by Blogger.