ShareThis Page
Starkey: Stupid Steelers |

Starkey: Stupid Steelers

Joe Starkey
| Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:00 p.m
Chaz Palla | Trib Total Media
Steelers running back Le'Veon Bell runs against the Giants on Saturday, Aug. 9, 2014, in East Rutherford, N.J.
Chaz Palla | Trib Total Media
Steelers running back LeGarrette Blount runs against the Giants on Saturday, Aug. 9, 2014, in East Rutherford, N.J.

Maybe Ryan Clark was right about some former Steelers teammates smoking pot.

I arrived at PNC Park on Wednesday prepared to write about the Pirates going down in flames. The topic quickly turned to the Steelers going up in smoke.

Rather than chronicling Pirates pitcher (Le)Gerrit Cole, I quickly moved to Steelers running backs LeGarrette “Roll me Another” Blount and Le’Veon Bell, who went all Cheech and Chong before a team trip to Philadelphia.

How incredible is that?

How stupid and disturbingly unprofessional are these guys if all of this is true?

At 2:35 p.m., the Steelers, clearly unaware that their running game had possibly gone to pot, tweeted a photo of newly signed defensive end Brett Keisel making his way through airport security. Good times!

About an hour earlier, though, a Ross traffic officer on motorcycle detected smoke coming from a black Camaro that Bell was driving, with Blount in the passenger seat and a female passenger in the back.

Police say they found 20 grams of pot in the car. They plan to charge Bell and Blount by mail with possession of marijuana. They also said they plan to charge Bell with DUI for driving under the influence of marijuana. Police said Bell, Blount and the woman claimed ownership of the pot.

At first blush, this might not seem like a huge deal (unless, of course, your children were playing in the vicinity of a man possibly driving stoned). And it probably won’t be a big deal from a disciplinary perspective. Possession and DUI charges are misdemeanors. The NFL might levy some fines.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin must do more than that.

Bell is his guy, his draft pick. This is a slap in Tomlin’s face if true. It’s a massive embarrassment. Tomlin also has to wonder if Blount, 27, is a bad influence on the 22-year-old Bell.

Do you still want Blount around, or do you want to give him the Jose Tabata treatment and move him away from younger players for fear of poisoning them?

There is precedent with Tomlin regarding this kind of case. He suspended receiver Santonio Holmes for a regular-season game against the New York Giants in 2008 after police charged Holmes with possessing a small amount of marijuana (Holmes helpfully told the officers that he’d smoked pot in the vehicle the day before).

One difference is that Holmes, unlike Bell or Blount, had been through previous legal issues as a member of the Steelers.

Still, if the charges are true, the two showed an incredible lack of respect to Tomlin and the organization.

As such, Tomlin should suspend Bell and Blount for the season opener against the Cleveland Browns, at the very least.

Meanwhile, all of this occurs against the backdrop of the State Attorney’s Office in Florida still examining evidence to determine whether it should charge Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey with misdemeanor battery. Pouncey is accused of punching a woman in the face in an alleged altercation at a Miami nightclub.

More information is needed on all fronts, but you have to be wondering if the Steelers might have a severe character problem.

The night at PNC Park, by the way, ended with a dramatic comeback win. No victory cigars, though.

Joe Starkey co-hosts a show 2 to 6 p.m. weekdays on 93.7 FM. Reach him at

Categories: Steelers
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.