RENTON, WASH. (AP) - Even when others were suggesting he drop his case and accept his punishment, Richard Sherman never strayed from his steadfast belief that his four-game suspension would be overturned.
As unlikely as it seemed, Sherman was right.
The Seattle Seahawks will now have one of the best young cornerbacks in the NFL available for the playoffs after Sherman won his appeal of a suspension for use of performance enhancing substances on Thursday.
Gone is the lingering question about a possible suspension that hung over Sherman and the Seahawks for more than a month.
“I know what the truth is and anybody else who knows anything knows what the truth is. The truth has been told today,” Sherman said on Thursday. “People can say what they want, there are always naysayers. I have great teammates and great coaches and great fans and that’s all I care about.”
High-fives ensued. Sherman took to Twitter and let his 40,000-plus followers know of his result.
A team already rolling on the field with four straight wins and an offensive output unmatched in the last half-decade of the NFL got even more good news.
“There was obviously a good amount of stress because you just don’t know,” Sherman said. “You know how strong your case is, how strong everything is, but it was just great to get it over with.”
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in an email the league is reviewing the decision, but was declining comment due to confidentiality provisions.
Sherman was steadfast since news broke of his pending suspension that he believed he would win on appeal. Sherman’s appeal was based on errors in the chain of custody of his urine sample and that there were mistakes made by the tester.
His appeal took place late last week in St. Louis.
A copy of Wallace’s decision was obtained by The Associated Press. In his explanation, Wallace writes that the collection process of Sherman’s urine sample on Sept. 17, the day after Seattle beat Dallas in Week 2, was not ordinary.
According to the written decision, Sherman’s sample cup began leaking, to which the tester grabbed another cup and transferred the sample. Documentation of the leaking cup was not originally on the submitted report following the test and only when asked by a supervisor in October did the tester acknowledge the sample being transferred from the original cup.
The tester later gave testimony that he’d never experienced a leaking cup before, yet didn’t feel the situation rose to the level of needing to be included on his report.