The first part of the defense, that the substance is “permissible with the proper use exemption,” doesn’t mean much. If Ingram had the proper use exemption, the NFL wouldn’t have moved to suspend him in the first place. All sorts of banned performance-enhancing substances, from Adderall to testosterone to human growth hormone, can be prescribed by doctors and used legally. But that doesn’t mean that a player who tests positive for them without having first obtained a therapeutic use exemption is going to get anywhere by noting after the fact that he theoretically could have used the substance legally.

The second part of the defense, that Ingram “has vigorously challenged the test results,” would seem contradictory with the first defense. If Ingram is going to claim he was using the banned substance for a therapeutic reason, then there would be no need to challenge the test results because he would readily admit that the substance was in his body. If Ingram is claiming that the test was invalid and he didn’t use the substance, then what difference does it make if he could have used it with a proper use exemption?

An arbitrator’s ruling is expected within a week. Unless there’s more to Ingram’s appeal than his agents’ statement suggests, it’s hard to see him avoiding the suspension. Ingram was the leading rusher for the Saints last season but is reportedly unhappy with his contract and not planning to participate in voluntary offseason work.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ned-substance/

Its disappointing that so many people assumed Mark was snortin coke, smokin crack, and shootin roids all at the same time.

Its disappointing that so many people assumed Mark was snortin coke, smokin crack, and shootin roids all at the same time.

Its disappointing that so many people assumed Mark was snortin coke, smokin crack, and shootin roids all at the same time.