NFL Suspends 6 for Starcaps

[denverYooper]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/12/02/nfl-suspends-six-players/

It just showed up on NFL.com too. Williams n Williams are among the casualties.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80cfe423&template=without-video&confirm=true

[Rastak]

That was the compromise, the guy who said he'd sue didn't get suspended....LOL.

[Merlin]

Is that the substance they were talking about in the New Orleans game? I seem to recall that the substance was an issue because the players had weight clauses in their contract and that this drug was a part of that. Apparently that's not the case with this drug?

[sharpe1027]

Is that the substance they were talking about in the New Orleans game? I seem to recall that the substance was an issue because the players had weight clauses in their contract and that this drug was a part of that. Apparently that's not the case with this drug?

That was part of their excuse. Of course there are plenty of other diet drugs with the same (legit) ingredients. Those same dugs were offered by companies with proven track records...

[denverYooper]

That was the compromise, the guy who said he'd sue didn't get suspended....LOL.

Yeah, that was interesting.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Alright, the Williams fatties are outta here! Remember this prediction, the Lions beat the Vikings this week, and as the Queens tank, the division deciding game is the Packers @ the Bears.

[Rastak]

Not so quick. I think the NFL has made a mistake here myself. They KNEW about an illegal product and purposely withheld the information.

This one may not be over yet.



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122



EW YORK -- The NFL has suspended six players for four games each for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

The players used a diuretic, which can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

The suspended players are running back Deuce McAllister and defensive linemen Charles Grant and Will Smith of New Orleans; defensive linemen Kevin and Pat Williams of Minnesota; and long snapper Bryan Pittman of Houston.

The punishment is an especially harsh blow to Minnesota, which leads the NFC North and relies heavily on the two Williamses to stop the run game.

A representative for one of the players told ESPN senior analyst Chris Mortensen on Tuesday that there is a plan to file for an injunction in a U.S. District Court Wednesday morning in an attempt to keep the suspended players active for the rest of the 2008 season.

[denverYooper]

Not so quick. I think the NFL has made a mistake here myself. They KNEW about an illegal product and purposely withheld the information.

This one may not be over yet.



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122



EW YORK -- The NFL has suspended six players for four games each for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

The players used a diuretic, which can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

The suspended players are running back Deuce McAllister and defensive linemen Charles Grant and Will Smith of New Orleans; defensive linemen Kevin and Pat Williams of Minnesota; and long snapper Bryan Pittman of Houston.

The punishment is an especially harsh blow to Minnesota, which leads the NFC North and relies heavily on the two Williamses to stop the run game.

A representative for one of the players told ESPN senior analyst Chris Mortensen on Tuesday that there is a plan to file for an injunction in a U.S. District Court Wednesday morning in an attempt to keep the suspended players active for the rest of the 2008 season.

The NFL likely knew this was coming and that was part of the reason it took so long to reach a decision in the first place.

[HarveyWallbangers]

For the Packers, it might be better if they were suspended for the first four games of 2009--rather than the last four games this year.

[Patler]

This is a real interesting situation.

Did the NFL have a duty to tell players about the supplement?
Did the NFL know the content for sure?
What made the players think it was OK to use? The label is not enough, because:
Players are responsible for what they take.
Players are responsible for the the mislabeled content of what they take.
Players are encouraged (on paper at least) to use nothing.

The negativity towards sports because of the drug culture surrounding all sports will work against the players.
The perception of the NFL trying to clean-up the sport will work in favor of the league's position.

[HarveyWallbangers]

But in issuing the suspensions, the league reiterated the section of its policy that reads:

"You and you alone are responsible for what goes into your body. Claiming that you used only legally available nutritional supplements will not help you in an appeal. ... Even if they are bought over-the-counter from a known establishment, there is currently no way to be sure that they contain the ingredients listed on the packaging or have not been tainted with prohibited substances ...

"If you take these products, you do so AT YOUR OWN RISK! For your own health and success in the league, we strongly encourage you to avoid the use of supplements altogether, or at the very least to be extremely careful about what you choose to take."

[TennesseePackerBacker]

For the Packers, it might be better if they were suspended for the first four games of 2009--rather than the last four games this year.


Why? we haven't lost to a team with a losing season all year. The last 4 games are extremely favorable for the Pack, 4-0 or 3-1 and this team could be sitting the in the playoffs. All of this is made much more likely if the Vikings defensive mainstays are suspended.

[pbmax]

Yes, the NFL and the players (I think specifically the Saints players who were initially mentioned) had already done this PR tango and everyone expected a court challenge if they were suspended.

I have a question for sharpe1027. You say "That was part of their excuse. Of course there are plenty of other diet drugs with the same (legit) ingredients. Those same dugs were offered by companies with proven track records..."

This seems to suggest that the players were intentionally avoiding the other products in order, presumably, to get that one particular brand and its unlabeled substance. I haven't read that anywhere, do you have a source for this contention?

[Rastak]

Reading the NFL response, they also bring up good points.


Interesting situation.

[Kiwon]

The "Williams Wall" has crumbled.

If NCAA teams have to forfeit games over ineligible players than why not in the NFL with players who cheat by using illegal substances? It will never happen but think about the effect.

If the league imposed such a rule then the teams would test without mercy and stop steroid use by their players in its tracks, if they seriously wanted to.

BTW, with the Barry Bonds' indictment records being unsealed expect to hear a lot more about steroids in the near future. :shtf:

[HarveyWallbangers]

I must state that it very may well be that the Williams Wall were just unlucky and weren't trying to do anything wrong, but the rules are the rules and it is what it is.

[Patler]

If NCAA teams have to forfeit games over ineligible players than why not in the NFL with players who cheat by using illegal substances? It will never happen but think about the effect.

If the league imposed such a rule then the teams would test without mercy and stop steroid use by their players in its tracks, if they seriously wanted to.


If they did that, most teams would be 0-16! :lol:

[Rastak]

I must state that it very may well be that the Williams Wall were just unlucky and weren't trying to do anything wrong, but the rules are the rules and it is what it is.

I am surprised that the NFL, after finding an illegal substance in a supplement didn't bother to notify the FDA. I guess they feel it's someone else's business to protect the public. I'm not even talking about the players.

[sharpe1027]

I am surprised that the NFL, after finding an illegal substance in a supplement didn't bother to notify the FDA. I guess they feel it's someone else's business to protect the public. I'm not even talking about the players.

It doubt that is illegal. It is just banned by the NFL.

[sharpe1027]

Yes, the NFL and the players (I think specifically the Saints players who were initially mentioned) had already done this PR tango and everyone expected a court challenge if they were suspended.

I have a question for sharpe1027. You say "That was part of their excuse. Of course there are plenty of other diet drugs with the same (legit) ingredients. Those same dugs were offered by companies with proven track records..."

This seems to suggest that the players were intentionally avoiding the other products in order, presumably, to get that one particular brand and its unlabeled substance. I haven't read that anywhere, do you have a source for this contention?

No source, it just make sense. Why would all of these players be taking this dietary substance when they were warned about diet pills specifically, and when the company that provided it did not have good credentials? If they did do it intentionally, they planned to lie about it all along and there would be no source.

This is how I would do it. I would take my steroids and the masking agent. I would also purchase this diet pill because it is mislabeled. I would try to keep my levels of each low enough to maybe not get caught, and/or only take the roids periodically hoping to avoid testing at the wrong time. If I get caught and shazam! I have a plausible defense.

Whether or not this happened, the NFL has to institute a policy that isn't that simple to get around.

[Rastak]

I am surprised that the NFL, after finding an illegal substance in a supplement didn't bother to notify the FDA. I guess they feel it's someone else's business to protect the public. I'm not even talking about the players.

It doubt that is illegal. It is just banned by the NFL.


You are wrong there. It's an FDA regulated drug, why do you think the manufacturer closed up shop when this went public? You can't put FDA regulated drugs in over the counter supplements.

[red]

i think players that file appeals should have to serve double the time if the initial ruling is upheald

take the vikings players fir instance. if they hadn't appealed this then they might not be in first right now, they might even be a game or 2 behind the bears. they have gained because of this appeal. now they are trying to take this thing to court so they can push this back even farther. this would also benefit the teams involved greatly

i think there should be something in place so guys can't pull this sort of stunt. if they appeal and the decision is upheald, then the suspension should be doubled

IMO

i think koren robinson got away with this two a couple years ago, and we benefited from it. a bit

[RashanGary]

I knew this was coming. It was black and white. They have a list of trusted supplements. Players are told if they take anything not on the trusted list that they are doing it at their own risk (whether the ingredients say so or not, the NFL says it's not trusted). Star caps isn't on the trusted list. These players took star caps. Star caps screwed them over but it was not on the list of trusted meds so the NFL has no mercy.

Done deal. I could see how a jury of average retards could misconstrue a black and white case, but this isn't a jury of retards. This is a team of lawyers interpereting very binding language as it was written. Case closed.


In the future if it's not on the list, don't take it you fuckin idiots. That's what it says in the contract. That's what it always has said and now you know that if it's not on the trusted list it can't be trusted because obviously the NFL just saying it wasn't enough for you idiots. This is a good example case. It needed to happen so players got the point.

[sheepshead]

Start printing those 2008 NFC North Division Champ hats in green and gold!!

[Rastak]

I knew this was coming. It was black and white. They have a list of trusted supplements. Players are told if they take anything not on the trusted list that they are doing it at their own risk (whether the ingredients say so or not, the NFL says it's not trusted). Star caps isn't on the trusted list. These players took star caps. Star caps screwed them over but it was not on the list of trusted meds so the NFL has no mercy.

Done deal. I could see how a jury of average retards could misconstrue a black and white case, but this isn't a jury of retards. This is a team of lawyers interpereting very binding language as it was written. Case closed.


In the future if it's not on the list, don't take it you fuckin idiots. That's what it says in the contract. That's what it always has said and now you know that if it's not on the trusted list it can't be trusted because obviously the NFL just saying it wasn't enough for you idiots.


Perhaps you could explain why Grady Jackson didn't get suspended as they wait for "additional information"? Does that sounds real black and white to you?

[Partial]

Its bullshit that these guys got suspended.

[RashanGary]

Maybe Grady never admitted to taking star caps like the rest of them. Maybe he said he took only permitted drugs and is getting off on the possiblity that he was poisoned at star bucks.

These guys admitted to taking a drug that was not on the trusted list and it turned out the non-trusted drug couldn't be trusted (go figure). Done deal.

I'm sure Grady's situation is a little different (in testimony). It's too bad because if he's claiming 100% ignorance, maybe it set a precident for how to get out of this type of situation. Regardless, these guys deserve this. If it was Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings I would say the same thing. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Black and white.

[Rastak]

Maybe Grady never admitted to taking star caps like the rest of them. Maybe he said he took only permitted drugs and is getting off on the possiblity that he was poisoned at star bucks.

These guys admitted to taking a drug that was not on the trusted list and it turned out the non-trusted drug couldn't be trusted (go figure). Done deal.

I'm sure Grady's situation is a little different. It's too bad because if he's claiming 100% ignorance, maybe it set a precident for how to get out of this type of situation. Regardless, these guys deserve this. If it was Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings I would say the same thing. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Black and white.


Huh? He had his hearing. Doesn't black and white mean since he tested positive he's guilty? Apparently it isn't as black and white as you think.

By the way, I know I sound like a homer defending his guys because it'll hurt the team but based on the leaked players side it sounded like they really got the shaft with the NFL purposely withholding information. Reading the NFL side they raise some good points too so now I'm NOT 100% sure.

I do think if the NFL really knew and on purpose didn't list it that's kinda bullshit.


edit: Typo, I meant NOT 100% sure.

[RashanGary]

Huh? He had his hearing. Doesn't black and white mean since he tested positive he's guilty? Apparently it isn't as black and white as you think.
.

With the rule written as it was and these players claiming they took starcaps (and starcaps decieved them) that it was black and white. You take a suppliment off the list and it burns you, that is all on you. That was the way the rule was written, clear as day.

However, there is always the outside chance the Olive Garden is putting star caps in their bread and fat Grady claims it got there by the Olive Garden bread or his drinking water would make it a little less clear. That situation would mean he did not stray from the list (breaking the rule by taking a suppliment before checking if it was on the trusted list), but was the victim of a poisoning that could not have been reasonably prevented (reasonable and demanded as in just checking the nFL's list per the rules guidlines). In this case, Grady did not go against the suppliment rule, but rather was poised in a way that had nothing to do with suppliments he should not have been taking.

[Rastak]

Huh? He had his hearing. Doesn't black and white mean since he tested positive he's guilty? Apparently it isn't as black and white as you think.
.

With the rule written as it was and these players claiming they took starcaps (and starcaps decieved them) that it was black and white. You take a suppliment off the list and it burns you, that is all on you. That was the way the rule was written, clear as day.

However, there is always the outside chance the Olive Garden is putting star caps in their bread and fat Grady claims it got there by the Olive Garden bread or his drinking water would make it a little less clear. That situation would mean he did not stray from the list (breaking the rule by taking a suppliment before checking if it was on the trusted list), but was the victim of an unpreventable poisoning that had nothing to do with taking an untrusted supplement (making it outside the language of the rule as it was written). It's obviously a lie, but a good lie can sometimes get you out of a bad spot.


Ok, you admit it isn't black and white.....LOL....

By the way, what I read about the hotline is pretty interesting. I think a few more facts will come out in court they may convince people to sway their opinion. I may very well side with the NFL depending on the real facts. Up to now all I get is leaked testimony.

[RashanGary]

Whatever, Rastak. I don't sit around here making done deal claims about very many things. I have some strong opinions about Ted Thompson but even then I don't ever say "he's going to win a championship" or anything concrete. I don't think I know very many things, but the way that rule was written and everything that was being said about the star caps being liars and the players not being aware, I knew it was a done deal. That is no excuse. They never should have strayed from the banned list. The NFL has it written black and white.

NOw , if the reports were false (apparently in Grady's case) it's not so black and white. I had no reason to mistrust a bulk of the evidence. All the dots connected on most of it. I can see how it's possible a player or two may not have been under the full umbrella, but in hearing the reports I pretty much knew it was a done deal.

If it was a jury of average retards I would have been much less sure. Because I knew it was going ot be a team of lawyers or a judge, I knew it would not be misunderstood. It was very clear and if The Williams admitted to taking starcaps (as the reports said) then they were done from the get go. If the Williams' never admitted they took starcaps then it's not so black and white but all the reports siad they admitted it (and were claiming starcaps and the NFL mislead them which is no defense at all in the case of this rule). With that in mind, I knew they'd be done. I guess in a round about way I didn't know, but I would have bet on it. I felt very strongly that they would lose.

[KYPack]

These players weren't trying to mask steroid use.

Look at 'em!

Big Kentucky Fried Chicken eating guys (not that there's anything wrong with that ) like Grady & the Williams boys.

They are tubby dudes trying to make weight clauses in their contracts without working out.

The idea that somebody would take a banned substance to mask other masking use is way too stupid.

Jesus Christ, think you guys.

This ain't over. The NFL will get sued on this one and may not win.

The NFL's own 800 line cleared Star Caps for player use. The NFL may need a new boss soon. Goodell is heading for some tall cotton here and it may be over his head.

[Rastak]

These players weren't trying to mask steroid use.

Look at 'em!

Big Kentucky Fried Chicken eating guys (not that there's anything wrong with that ) like Grady & the Williams boys.

They are tubby dudes trying to make weight clauses in their contracts without working out.

The idea that somebody would take a banned substance to mask other masking use is way too stupid.

Jesus Christ, think you guys.

This ain't over. The NFL will get sued on this one and may not win.

The NFL's own 800 line cleared Star Caps for player use. The NFL may need a new boss soon. Goodell is heading for some tall cotton here and it may be over his head.


That is one of the things I heard. Players called in and the NFL dude merely reads the ingredients and cross checks the banned list. I have also heard there was an approved list of supplements, I also heard that was untrue and there was merely banned drugs lists.

Who knows, that's why it would be nice to get all the facts.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Up to this point, all we've heard is the player's side of the story (agents and lawyers). They ain't the most honest.


The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 — one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Start printing those 2008 NFC North Division Champ hats in green and gold!!


CHEERS! I'll drink some of the packer kool-aid along with some maker's mark

[pbmax]

Up to this point, all we've heard is the player's side of the story (agents and lawyers). They ain't the most honest.


The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 — one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.
The NFL doesn't have a list of approved over the counter supplements. It endorses a line of safe EAS supplements from that company in Colorado. Its entirely possible that weight loss supplements are not part of that agreement.

One of the reasons the NFL cannot verify the supplements is that the manufacturers of these items are not under the same regulatory burden (penalties are lower and the burden of proof is higher for the plaintiff) as pharmaceutical companies to list all ingredients and possible side effects. Its common for these products to contain substances that are not on the label.

The NFL has given its version in a phone conference today and documents they have released. I urge you to go to ESPN and look at the two letters the NFL says that they supplied to the league and the union. It does NOT list StarCaps as prohibited, but refers to the general category of weight loss supplements as "predominantly containing stimulants/diuretics" and that those active ingredients may be on the prohibited list. It also warns of the danger of unlisted ingredients.

NFL Weight Reduction Products Letter (http://assets.espn.go.com/media/preview/081202_nfl_policies/nfl_weight_reduction.pdf)
ESPN Supplement Story (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122)

In my view, the NFL has given a misleading impression of its warning about StarCaps, making it seemed they told the union and teams about the Product, but actually warned them about the supplement type in general.

[pbmax]

No source, it just make sense. Why would all of these players be taking this dietary substance when they were warned about diet pills specifically
They were warned about diet and weight loss pills generally. The documents the NFL has furnished as the warning from their independent policy administrator, does not mention StarCaps nor its manufacturer. It warns that this type of supplement can contain unlisted stimulants or diuretics, either of which may be on the banned list. It gives no other details. See the link above for the actual NFL document.

The players were all trying to make weight clauses in their contracts. This is information provided directly by the players. Your position assumes they were also taking steroids and KNEW StarCaps had a diuretic in it. You have no evidence of either. Its possible, but we have no evidence of it.

[Rastak]

Up to this point, all we've heard is the player's side of the story (agents and lawyers). They ain't the most honest.


The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 — one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.
The NFL doesn't have a list of approved over the counter supplements. It endorses a line of safe EAS supplements from that company in Colorado. Its entirely possible that weight loss supplements are not part of that agreement.

One of the reasons the NFL cannot verify the supplements is that the manufacturers of these items are not under the same regulatory burden (penalties are lower and the burden of proof is higher for the plaintiff) as pharmaceutical companies to list all ingredients and possible side effects. Its common for these products to contain substances that are not on the label.

The NFL has given its version in a phone conference today and documents they have released. I urge you to go to ESPN and look at the two letters the NFL says that they supplied to the league and the union. It does NOT list StarCaps as prohibited, but refers to the general category of weight loss supplements as "predominantly containing stimulants/diuretics" and that those active ingredients may be on the prohibited list. It also warns of the danger of unlisted ingredients.

NFL Weight Reduction Products Letter (http://assets.espn.go.com/media/preview/081202_nfl_policies/nfl_weight_reduction.pdf)
ESPN Supplement Story (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122)

In my view, the NFL has given a misleading impression of its warning about StarCaps, making it seemed they told the union and teams about the Product, but actually warned them about the supplement type in general.


Thing I wonder is this, unlisted ingredients I understand but is it unreasonable to assume that one of those would not be an FDA regulated substance? I think it's reasonable to assume this....at least up until now. Makes you wonder us average Joes are ingesting.

[pbmax]

I must state that it very may well be that the Williams Wall were just unlucky and weren't trying to do anything wrong, but the rules are the rules and it is what it is.

I am surprised that the NFL, after finding an illegal substance in a supplement didn't bother to notify the FDA. I guess they feel it's someone else's business to protect the public. I'm not even talking about the players.
A good question. Although the complaint probably starts with law enforcement, since selling a controlled substance is a crime as well as a violation of their industry's regulations.

I also recall that the FDA is limited in what it can do to supplements compared to food additives or pharmaceuticals.

[denverYooper]

Up to this point, all we've heard is the player's side of the story (agents and lawyers). They ain't the most honest.


The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 — one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.
The NFL doesn't have a list of approved over the counter supplements. It endorses a line of safe EAS supplements from that company in Colorado. Its entirely possible that weight loss supplements are not part of that agreement.

One of the reasons the NFL cannot verify the supplements is that the manufacturers of these items are not under the same regulatory burden (penalties are lower and the burden of proof is higher for the plaintiff) as pharmaceutical companies to list all ingredients and possible side effects. Its common for these products to contain substances that are not on the label.

The NFL has given its version in a phone conference today and documents they have released. I urge you to go to ESPN and look at the two letters the NFL says that they supplied to the league and the union. It does NOT list StarCaps as prohibited, but refers to the general category of weight loss supplements as "predominantly containing stimulants/diuretics" and that those active ingredients may be on the prohibited list. It also warns of the danger of unlisted ingredients.

NFL Weight Reduction Products Letter (http://assets.espn.go.com/media/preview/081202_nfl_policies/nfl_weight_reduction.pdf)
ESPN Supplement Story (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122)

In my view, the NFL has given a misleading impression of its warning about StarCaps, making it seemed they told the union and teams about the Product, but actually warned them about the supplement type in general.

I don't think the Dec. 19th, 2006 letter mentioned in the article was the same as those linked from the sidebar. The ones linked from the article are indeed general statements issued at the beginning of each season--the dates are July, 2007 and July, 2008--but those weren't the letters the NFL claimed to have mailed out in 2006.

[pbmax]

Thing I wonder is this, unlisted ingredients I understand but is it unreasonable to assume that one of those would not be an FDA regulated substance? I think it's reasonable to assume this....at least up until now. Makes you wonder us average Joes are ingesting.
If its sold as a dietary supplement, then it cannot contain controlled/prescription substances. Supplement manufacturers enjoy a greater liberty compared to pharma companies or food processors, in that the burden of proof for safety is on FDA, not the manufacturer, once it is on the market.

The standard for getting to market is lower too. The FDA, by law, treats supplements as food and not medicine or drugs. The whole range of regulation and penalties is lower than with other substances the FDA regulates. If you remember the Ephedra problems, it took several public episodes and scares to produce the level of proof for the FDA to step in and force changes.

To directly answer the question, its not an unreasonable assumption, although it may be foolish, long term. Ironically, the manufacturer has a perverse incentive to put unlisted and effective substances in their supplements. StarCaps probably worked better than a truly all natural weight loss supplement, because they actually contained a diuretic that did reduce your weight.

[Rastak]

This is real consistent....from John Clayton's article:

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3740514&searchName=clayton_john&campaign=rsssrch&source=john_clayton


Waiting game: It was interesting that the league deferred judgment in the StarCaps case on Falcons defensive tackle Grady Jackson. Jackson, according to a source, made a compelling argument why he shouldn't have been suspended for four games for having a banned substance in his diet pills.

[]{ilr]3]

These players weren't trying to mask steroid use.

Look at 'em!

Big Kentucky Fried Chicken eating guys (not that there's anything wrong with that ) like Grady & the Williams boys.

They are tubby dudes trying to make weight clauses in their contracts without working out.

The idea that somebody would take a banned substance to mask other masking use is way too stupid.

Jesus Christ, think you guys.

This ain't over. The NFL will get sued on this one and may not win.

The NFL's own 800 line cleared Star Caps for player use. The NFL may need a new boss soon. Goodell is heading for some tall cotton here and it may be over his head.

Actually I would expect the likes of Grady Jackson and his bad knees to be guilty of trying to mask steroid use than I would the Williams boys. What a great opportunity for him. Look like he is trying to cut weight (probably true) and mask steroid use at the same time to stay in the game longer or recover from injury sooner.

[denverYooper]

The rumblings I've heard so far on Grady Jackson are that his supplement use was prescribed for some health problems. So he had doctor's orders.

[3irty1]

The normal side of me was really hoping the NFL would do the right thing and let all of these guys off. The Packer fan side of me is pleased with anything that might help his team.

[cpk1994]

Up to this point, all we've heard is the player's side of the story (agents and lawyers). They ain't the most honest.


The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 — one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.
The NFL doesn't have a list of approved over the counter supplements. It endorses a line of safe EAS supplements from that company in Colorado. Its entirely possible that weight loss supplements are not part of that agreement.

One of the reasons the NFL cannot verify the supplements is that the manufacturers of these items are not under the same regulatory burden (penalties are lower and the burden of proof is higher for the plaintiff) as pharmaceutical companies to list all ingredients and possible side effects. Its common for these products to contain substances that are not on the label.

The NFL has given its version in a phone conference today and documents they have released. I urge you to go to ESPN and look at the two letters the NFL says that they supplied to the league and the union. It does NOT list StarCaps as prohibited, but refers to the general category of weight loss supplements as "predominantly containing stimulants/diuretics" and that those active ingredients may be on the prohibited list. It also warns of the danger of unlisted ingredients.

NFL Weight Reduction Products Letter (http://assets.espn.go.com/media/preview/081202_nfl_policies/nfl_weight_reduction.pdf)
ESPN Supplement Story (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122)

In my view, the NFL has given a misleading impression of its warning about StarCaps, making it seemed they told the union and teams about the Product, but actually warned them about the supplement type in general.

I don't think the Dec. 19th, 2006 letter mentioned in the article was the same as those linked from the sidebar. The ones linked from the article are indeed general statements issued at the beginning of each season--the dates are July, 2007 and July, 2008--but those weren't the letters the NFL claimed to have mailed out in 2006.Nope they are not. And ESPN doesn't claim they are either.

[RashanGary]

I can't believe you are disgussing the merrit of these letters. The rule is that if a supplement that is not on the trusted list is ingested and a test is positive due to the non trusted suppliment (whether the company disclosed to you the ingredients or not), you have broken the policy and are subject to the punishment.

1. Did you ingest a suppliment that was not on the trusted list? YES

2. Did the maker of the suppliment lie to you about what was in it? YES, but the NFL does not trust it and you take it at your own risk so it's a mute point how trusted the maker is because you never should have trusted the maker to begin with. That's why we tell you "take at yoru own risk".

3. Did you test positive? Yes.

Done deal.



They have a point against starcaps but the NFL makes this so very clear. Take the trusted suppliments. Don't take anything else because you cannot be sure what's in it (sometimes shady companies lie, that's why we have a trusted list). It pretty much takes away any excuse that (I didn't know) because all you need to know is it's not on the trusted list. After that, you're takign at your own risk.

This will not get overturned. They patently broke the rule. I can't believe there is any debate. I can't believe there is suprise. I can't believe people think starcaps lying about what is in their pill is an excuse with the way the rule is written. The rule is very, very simple. STick to the list or you're burned. PUre, plain, simple. No wiggle room. (well unless a doctor perscribes apparently)

[sharpe1027]

They were warned about diet and weight loss pills generally. The documents the NFL has furnished as the warning from their independent policy administrator, does not mention StarCaps nor its manufacturer. It warns that this type of supplement can contain unlisted stimulants or diuretics, either of which may be on the banned list. It gives no other details. See the link above for the actual NFL document.

The players were all trying to make weight clauses in their contracts. This is information provided directly by the players. Your position assumes they were also taking steroids and KNEW StarCaps had a diuretic in it. You have no evidence of either. Its possible, but we have no evidence of it.

I agree. I have zero evidence, but the NFL will almost never be able to prove the intent/knowledge of the player. The policy has to prevent this from happening without needing to prove their intent. So in the end, it shouldn't matter whether they knew or not.

[pbmax]

I don't think the Dec. 19th, 2006 letter mentioned in the article was the same as those linked from the sidebar. The ones linked from the article are indeed general statements issued at the beginning of each season--the dates are July, 2007 and July, 2008--but those weren't the letters the NFL claimed to have mailed out in 2006.Nope they are not. And ESPN doesn't claim they are either.
Good catch, both of you. That explains some of my confusion. Has anyone seen the contents of the Dec 19th, 2006 letter anywhere?

I am still confused about the competing claims over that Dec 19th letter. I have read that the NFL and its administrator did not want to get into the business of testing and approving of each and every product (not substance, but product) on the shelf. They don't want that responsibility. But they still claim to have warned the teams and players. What exactly, did they say?

[pbmax]

2. Did the maker of the suppliment lie to you about what was in it? YES, but the NFL does not trust it and you take it at your own risk...
But the NFL committed a lie of omission, did it not, if it knew there was a prescription medication and banned substance in the product and did not tell anyone what product it was?

And why did the NFL not report this violation of law to the authorities?

Its entirely possible, JH, for BOTH parties to have done wrong. One party seems to have erred, but in good faith. The other party seems to have erred but for reasons that are not entirely clear.

[denverYooper]

2. Did the maker of the suppliment lie to you about what was in it? YES, but the NFL does not trust it and you take it at your own risk...
But the NFL committed a lie of omission, did it not, if it knew there was a prescription medication and banned substance in the product and did not tell anyone what product it was?

And why did the NFL not report this violation of law to the authorities?

Its entirely possible, JH, for BOTH parties to have done wrong. One party seems to have erred, but in good faith. The other party seems to have erred but for reasons that are not entirely clear.

The facts on the notifications are not very clear. The article you posted above -- "NFL suspends six for violations of steroid policy" (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122) -- mentions that the NFL mailed out those letters in 2006 and notified the FDA. The lawyer's claim is that the league consciously suppressed information. But that's not the case.

My understanding now is that there is a list of Banned Substances and Banned Companies. The banned companies list states which companies players are forbidden to endorse. So there's truth in the statement:


"What the [NFL] did, in fact, was issue that notification for commercial purposes, telling players not to endorse the manufacturer of StarCaps," Ginsberg told ESPN. "There was absolutely no warning about a non-disclosed banned ingredient."


But the misleading part is that the inference that the NFL used that list to disclose any information about which products were banned for which reasons. The spirit of the BANNED COMPANIES list is not to protect players or level the playing field. It was to protect the NFL from their employees endorsing laced products.

The spirit of the BANNED SUBSTANCES to state which substances and methods the NFL will suspend for and is to directly protect the health of the players as well as to keep the playing field more level. Bumetanide is on the banned substances list. And this is where the part of "players being responsible for what goes into their bodies" comes in -- if anything they take in is on the BANNED SUBSTANCES list, then they can be suspended for a minimum of 4 games.

The very weak linchpin on which the lawyers are basing their case is that the NFL didn't warn those players about Starcaps, as if they had to do so. The other documents -- here (http://assets.espn.go.com/media/preview/081202_nfl_policies/nfl_weight_reduction.pdf) --listed in the ESPN article make it pretty clear that Starcaps was in a supplement class that was of the "TAKE AT YOUR OWN PERIL" variety.

I honestly think now that the lawyers, agents, and players involved are barking a lot in a last ditch attempt to put public pressure on the NFL in hopes that that will change their mind. And that the media is doing a pretty good job of obscuring the facts of the case to make it seem like the players have more of a leg up than they really do.

[RashanGary]

But the NFL committed a lie of omission, did it not, if it knew there was a prescription medication and banned substance in the product and did not tell anyone what product it was?

And why did the NFL not report this violation of law to the authorities?

Its entirely possible, JH, for BOTH parties to have done wrong. One party seems to have erred, but in good faith. The other party seems to have erred but for reasons that are not entirely clear.

As the rule was written, none of this is of any relevance. The question is, "did the test come up postive and why?" The answers are yes and because the player took a drug that was not on teh NFL's trusted list. According to the NFL, any player taking any drug not listed on the trusted list is doing so at their own risk and will be punished if caught.

I understand how it sucks for the players. I understand how they trusted the label even though the NFL did not have it on their trusted list. I understand how it's probably not worthy of a 4 game suspension because it's not a performance enhancer but I also understand that drugs are a major problem in sports and the NFL wants a very strict policy with very little wiggle room. Anyone who read the NFL's rule and has any level of reading comprehension should have no question in their mind that this suspension was coming. I don't mind arguing other points, but the "will they or should they be suspended based on the rule" dicussion, well, there is none. It will not get overturned. They do not stand a chance. It's over. If you can't understand how they broke the rule as it was written and as their storys were told, really that is on you. It's clear.

[denverYooper]

And 4 games suspension is peanuts. Floyd Landis was suspended for 2 years and track and swimming cases usually result in a 2 year suspension for similar violations. Especially in track and swimming, where the pinnacle is the olympics, that can be the equivalent of a lifetime of training wasted.

[Patler]

My understanding is that the NFL has a list of approved products and a list of prohibited substances that may be found in various products? Do they keep a list of prohibited products (as opposed to substances)?

The product was not on the list of approved products, correct?
The substance in the product was on the list of prohibited substances, correct?

If the above are correct, it shouldn't matter if the NFL knew the product contained the substance or not. Am I missing something here?

[Freak Out]

Collective Bargaining Agreement.

[Zool]

I believe the argument is that the substance wasn't known(yeah right) to be in the product at the time. Ignorance is the prevailing excuse.

[pbmax]

The very weak linchpin on which the lawyers are basing their case is that the NFL didn't warn those players about Starcaps, as if they had to do so. The other documents -- listed in the ESPN article make it pretty clear that Starcaps was in a supplement class that was of the "TAKE AT YOUR OWN PERIL" variety.
Then this goes to the heart of the matter that David Cornwell is talking about.

from PFT:
Per a source with knowledge of the arguments, the Saints players have focused primarily on the fact that Dr. John Lombardo, the administrator of the steroids policy, had actual knowledge that StarCaps had been spiked with Bumetanide, a potent medication available only by prescription, and that Dr. Lombardo had failed to warn the league’s players regarding the presence of Bumetanide in StarCaps.

The league learned that StarCaps contained Bumetanide after a player who tested positive for the substance said he had taken StarCaps. Dr. Brian Finkle, the consulting toxicologist for the steroids policy, testified at last month’s hearing that he thereafter requested an investigation into StarCaps.

The investigation revealed that StarCaps contains Bumetanide.

Dr. Finkle also testified that he was concerned about the presence of Bumetanide in StarCaps, and that he had shared his concerns with Dr. Lombardo. Dr. Finkle testified that his final discussion with Dr. Lombardo centered on the best ways for communicating the information to players.

Ultimately, Dr. Lombardo opted to issue a memo to the players warning them generally about weight loss reduction products, without specifically mentioning StarCaps. Dr. Lombardo testified that, if StarCaps had been specifically mentioned, players would later claim that other supplements later determined to contain banned substances should have been mentioned as well.

In this specific case, however, it’s undisputed that Dr. Lombardo knew that StarCaps contains a prescription-only substance that NFL players are prohibited from taking. Surely, the memorandum could have been worded in a way that would have allowed Dr. Lombardo to specifically identify StarCaps as a product that secretly contains a banned substance while explaining generally that there might be other supplements that have been spiked with banned substances about which the league currently isn’t aware.

The Saints players also tackle the notion of “strict liability” as it relates to the presence of banned substances in their bodies. The players claim that the phenomenon is more accurately described as “assumption of the risk,” since the player who takes a product in reliance upon the truthfulness of its label is taking a chance that the product contains something that isn’t listed, and that he’ll bear the consequences via a four-game suspension. In this case, the players claim that the league was in a superior position to apprise them of the true risks they were assuming by taking StarCaps, but failed to do so.

[pbmax]

My understanding is that the NFL has a list of approved products and a list of prohibited substances that may be found in various products? Do they keep a list of prohibited products (as opposed to substances)?

The product was not on the list of approved products, correct?
The substance in the product was on the list of prohibited substances, correct?

If the above are correct, it shouldn't matter if the NFL knew the product contained the substance or not. Am I missing something here?
Yes and No. After re-reading everything and yoopers posts, it seems that the NFL has a banned companies list, to avoid teams or players becoming involved endorsing a company that has been shown to use substances that land players in violation of the Steroids policy. But it is not a banned products list. See the PFT quote from me earlier for a possible explanation why such a list doesn't exist.

Now that presents two questions: One, is the only reason a company can be on that banned list is for Steroid Policy violations? And two, if it just the company listed, how could you know which products caused the problem?

[pbmax]

The logic here has tied itself into knots. The NFL has claimed they informed the FDA. I say claimed because we have one source that would seem to be the league saying yes we called and one player's lawyer denying this. And no independent confirmation yet.

But the same concern that caused the NFL to contact the FDA could not be communicated to the players, because the NFL felt they would be on the hook for testing ALL available supplements and verifying that they contain only what they claim to contain.

While that is a legitimate concern, its also ludicrous that they could not fashion a policy that made this information available to the players. Any information about supplements they gathered while processing player tests would be shared but with the understanding that this list could not possibly be comprehensive.

No testing regimen for supplements could be 100% certain. StarCaps, assuming they were not made before the 1994 change to the law, would have had to provide documentation that the product was safe and legal (no controlled substances) to gain access to market. A legit company (read: not insane) would not want to provide false documents to the feds. After submitting the info, they could then add the diuretic to ensure the product actually did something and pretend they have no idea how this happened. Which means any certification program would have had to test products over and over again over time.

[Rastak]

It is pretty convoluted pb.


Throw in the fact that the policy is black and white supposedly yet there are valid excuses for some makes me shake my head.

[denverYooper]

It is pretty convoluted pb.


Throw in the fact that the policy is black and white supposedly yet there are valid excuses for some makes me shake my head.

It's like real life Law and Order :)

[sharpe1027]

The NFL specifically warned about these types of diet pills. After they found one example of a bad supplement, they had every reason to believe that there could be other bad supplements. Rather than listing one specific pill as bad, they issued a warning that these types of supplements, generally, were problematic. I imagince that if they were to identify specific supplements, a player taking a different laced-drug would probably cobble together an argument that they avoided the identified supplements.

In the end, the NFL never said they were responsible for warning players and there isn't any reason to believe that the players assumed that the NFL was doing so. Also, the NFL can never know whether the players knew the pills had the illegal substance. The NFL policy was explict that ignorance is no excuse, probably for this exact reason. The players took the risk of taking a supplement they had been warned about and lost. Pretty clear-cut, IMO.

Some one mentioned that the "valid" excuse may have been a doctor prescription. If it truly was a health issue, that's a little different than just trying to cut weight to meet your contract clause.

[pbmax]

The NFL specifically warned about these types of diet pills. After they found one example of a bad supplement, they had every reason to believe that there could be other bad supplements. Rather than listing one specific pill as bad, they issued a warning that these types of supplements, generally, were problematic. I imagince that if they were to identify specific supplements, a player taking a different laced-drug would probably cobble together an argument that they avoided the identified supplements.

In the end, the NFL never said they were responsible for warning players and there isn't any reason to believe that the players assumed that the NFL was doing so. Also, the NFL can never know whether the players knew the pills had the illegal substance. The NFL policy was explict that ignorance is no excuse, probably for this exact reason. The players took the risk of taking a supplement they had been warned about and lost. Pretty clear-cut, IMO.

Some one mentioned that the "valid" excuse may have been a doctor prescription. If it truly was a health issue, that's a little different than just trying to cut weight to meet your contract clause.
I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that the players have violated the policy. But by the design of the program, the NFL has put itself in the position of possessing, but being unable to share, information that could help players avoid running afoul of the steroids policy.

In other words, the policy itself causes more positive results. Which is _exactly_ what it is supposed to prevent. That is to say nothing of weight clauses that would seem to be called into question here.

[RashanGary]

In other words, the policy itself causes more positive results. Which is _exactly_ what it is supposed to prevent. That is to say nothing of weight clauses that would seem to be called into question here.

patler summed it up perfectly in three or four sentences. It's a very simple concept. People just can't get to the meaningfull facts because their minds are incapable of separating the meaningless ones.

The policy gives a trusted list and tells players to stick to that list. If a player decides not to and they test positve they are held responsible for not following a suppliment plan that the NFL expects it's employees to follow. Whether you like it or not, whether the players and their agents and lawyers like it or not is not relevant at all. The NFL and the players adopted these rules. They agreed to follow the list of trusted pills or proceed into other suppliments at their own risk. Once you accept that yoru idea of fair is meaningless to this and what the NFL could have done to prevent it is meaningless, I'm sure you'll be able to just accept that the rule as it was written was broken and no team of lawyers or agents can cahnge that. No amount of bitching and writing is going to change it. It's been done. They've been caught and now they're following through with the policy as it was written. Done deal.

[RashanGary]

For the record, I think the NFL did the right thing by not notifying players about star caps. They have a list of trusted pills and that is enough by me. My opinion doesn't matter though. Even if I, and everyone else in this world, felt the NFL was wrong means NOTHING. The rule is there. IT's spelled out. That is all that matters. Now if you want to talk about changing it cuz it's not fair, that is a conversation but whether it was broken or not is not debatable unless you want to get into obscene levels of relativity.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that the players have violated the policy. But by the design of the program, the NFL has put itself in the position of possessing, but being unable to share, information that could help players avoid running afoul of the steroids policy.

In other words, the policy itself causes more positive results. Which is _exactly_ what it is supposed to prevent. That is to say nothing of weight clauses that would seem to be called into question here.

Heh. More positive results when compared to what? Wouldn't warning players not to take these types of pills, generally, reduce the number of positive results?

One could argue that identifying a single bad supplement might encourage more players to take other drugs under a false assumption that the NFL is screening drugs. If it aint on the no-no list then it must be good right?

Also, why would the NFL stick it's neck out and make claims about a supplement. What if they were wrong? They would probably be sued by the supplement maker. The NFL never claimed to be screening supplements and had a clear policy that warned against the exact type of supplements taken. What possible excuse is there for the players actions? Even if the NFL itself added the illegal drug to the supplement, the players would still be in the wrong (of course so would the NFL).

[pbmax]

patler summed it up perfectly in three or four sentences. It's a very simple concept. People just can't get to the meaningfull facts because their minds are incapable of separating the meaningless ones.
Well I am glad Patler satisfied your curiosity :lol:

But while Patler laid a a nice line of reasoning for the players to be punished under the current set of rules, I am discussing something entirely different.

Is the main goal of the Steroid and Drug Policy of the NFL to be logical and internally consistent? If that is the main goal, then they have accomplished it. Congratulations.

But I don't think that is the goal of the program. And I doubt the people who asked for it (some players, public, Congress, health officials, etc.) and those that created it, want that to be the goal. The goal is to remove the influence of steroids, performance enhancing drugs and recreational drugs from the game as much as possible.

In that is the goal, the NFL failed. It took information that could have prevented violations of the policy and withheld it, opening the door for the violations to occur. That specific door will now close, after four teams, six players and an entire league get a black eye for the next two months.

You say the system works. I say its obvious the system can work better.

[pbmax]

For the record, I think the NFL did the right thing by not notifying players about star caps. They have a list of trusted pills and that is enough by me. My opinion doesn't matter though. Even if I, and everyone else in this world, felt the NFL was wrong means NOTHING. The rule is there. IT's spelled out. That is all that matters. Now if you want to talk about changing it cuz it's not fair, that is a conversation but whether it was broken or not is not debatable unless you want to get into obscene levels of relativity.
I also think its a conflict of interest for the NFL to promote and make money off a line of supplements that are approved. The NFL is not willing to test all supplements (and there are practical reasons why such a test would be very difficult) but it is willing to endorse one company's products.

[pbmax]

Heh. More positive results when compared to what? Wouldn't warning players not to take these types of pills, generally, reduce the number of positive results?
If the NFL broadcast the specific product that had tested positive for a prescription drug, then it would have been possible for six fewer positive tests to occur. That's pretty straightforward, no?


One could argue that identifying a single bad supplement might encourage more players to take other drugs under a false assumption that the NFL is screening drugs. If it aint on the no-no list then it must be good right?
Agreed, this is possible. That is why there is communication between the drug policy administrator, the League, teams and the Players Union. To be sure this information gets out repeatedly, from multiple sources, in easy to understand forms. It is not easy, but far more complicated issues of the workplace are communicated daily by thousands of private businesses. I think the NFL can afford to have someone draft a clear letter, very similar to the one that warned of all weight loss supplements. The new letter would have one more example.


Also, why would the NFL stick it's neck out and make claims about a supplement. What if they were wrong? They would probably be sued by the supplement maker. The NFL never claimed to be screening supplements and had a clear policy that warned against the exact type of supplements taken. What possible excuse is there for the players actions? Even if the NFL itself added the illegal drug to the supplement, the players would still be in the wrong (of course so would the NFL).
The NFL has the facts on its side. It has the product, the test and the results. It also probably has a backup test. As long as the NFL doesn't pretend to know more than it does, then they cannot get into trouble. If they don't accuse the company of deliberately placing the substance in StarCaps and they do not claim to know that ALL StarCap capsules are contaminated, then the truth is their defense. They tested a bottle supplied by a player who tested positive for a diuretic. That bottle contained the diuretic. If you don't infer more than the test revealed, then there is no worry.

[sharpe1027]

Well I am glad Patler satisfied your curiosity :lol:

But while Patler laid a a nice line of reasoning for the players to be punished under the current set of rules, I am discussing something entirely different.

Is the main goal of the Steroid and Drug Policy of the NFL to be logical and internally consistent? If that is the main goal, then they have accomplished it. Congratulations.

But I don't think that is the goal of the program. And I doubt the people who asked for it (some players, public, Congress, health officials, etc.) and those that created it, want that to be the goal. The goal is to remove the influence of steroids, performance enhancing drugs and recreational drugs from the game as much as possible.

In that goal, the NFL failed. It took information that could have prevented violations of the policy and withheld it, opening the door for the violations to occur. That specific door will now close, after four teams, six players and an entire league get a black eye for the next two months.

You say the system works. I say its obvious the system can work better.

The NFL discouraged use of these types of diet pills. I think you will agree that these warnings would serve to reduced the number of players and teams affected. A few players disregarding the NFL's clear the warnings does not mean that the NFL policy failed.

Your logic seems to suggest that the the NFL gets into the business of issuing statemtns about specific supplements from specific suppliers. I disagree. It is not the NFL's job nor does it make sense for them to start policing substances. I think that it would be a bad precedent and arugable misleading for them to start issuing statements regarding supplement contents. Not to mention it would open the door for lawsuits by the supplement manufacturer.

The NFL issued a warning designed to inform players of potential issues. A select few players ignored the warning and got burned. The policy is not a failure, IMHO.

[sharpe1027]

The NFL has the facts on its side. It has the product, the test and the results. It also probably has a backup test. As long as the NFL doesn't pretend to know more than it does, then they cannot get into trouble. If they don't accuse the company of deliberately placing the substance in StarCaps and they do not claim to know that ALL StarCap capsules are contaminated, then the truth is their defense. They tested a bottle supplied by a player who tested positive for a diuretic. That bottle contained the diuretic. If you don't infer more than the test revealed, then there is no worry.

In a perfect world, maybe. The legal system doesn't work that smoothly and there is worry.

What if the player provided them with a fake bottle? What if the NFL screwed up it's test? What if the supplement was spiked by a distributer/player/other party and not the manufactuer? Ect....

I don't think the NFL is about to start broad-reaching tests of the product designed to establish the source of the problem. Bottomline, I don't think that the NFL should be policing the manufacturers, it is a whole can of worms that makes little sense (big risk, little reward) to open.

[RashanGary]

Why can't the players just stick to the trusted list? The NFL has it spelled out pretty clearly so nobody will ever have a postive test unless they choose to risk it. It's pretty simple really. It's has nothing to do to them being suspended, but sheesh if you want to go here, how much easier for them can it get? Do they have to buy the supplements for them and bring it to their homes too? Damn these guys are dumb fucks and have no sense of personal reponsiblity. Always blame someone else, right?

And if they want to meet their weight clauses has it ever occured to them to ride the bike a little more and eat a little less ice cream? Shit. They have nothing to do all fruckin day. You'd think they could focus on keeping in shape for their job in the offseason. Good gosh, all of htese expectations. How unfair. IF it's so bad, they don't have to stay in the NFL. They have choices.

[Freak Out]

The NFLPA/Players agreed to all of this in the first place.

[Rastak]

I can't believe you are disgussing the merrit of these letters. The rule is that if a supplement that is not on the trusted list is ingested and a test is positive due to the non trusted suppliment (whether the company disclosed to you the ingredients or not), you have broken the policy and are subject to the punishment.

1. Did you ingest a suppliment that was not on the trusted list? YES

2. Did the maker of the suppliment lie to you about what was in it? YES, but the NFL does not trust it and you take it at your own risk so it's a mute point how trusted the maker is because you never should have trusted the maker to begin with. That's why we tell you "take at yoru own risk".

3. Did you test positive? Yes.

Done deal.



They have a point against starcaps but the NFL makes this so very clear. Take the trusted suppliments. Don't take anything else because you cannot be sure what's in it (sometimes shady companies lie, that's why we have a trusted list). It pretty much takes away any excuse that (I didn't know) because all you need to know is it's not on the trusted list. After that, you're takign at your own risk.

This will not get overturned. They patently broke the rule. I can't believe there is any debate. I can't believe there is suprise. I can't believe people think starcaps lying about what is in their pill is an excuse with the way the rule is written. The rule is very, very simple. STick to the list or you're burned. PUre, plain, simple. No wiggle room. (well unless a doctor perscribes apparently)


Apparently Pittman had it proscribed and he got suspended so what's your latest Grady Jackson theory which fits the black and white done deal view you have? I'm still trying to figure that out. ( I mean for myself ).

[Rastak]

One other thing, apparently the Williams lads are in a Henepin county court right now as I type seeking a temporary restraining order, which I think is stupid as hell.


That only grants you a reprieve until a hearing. I'd go for the whole enchilada and get a stay until litigation is resolved.

[RashanGary]

I don't know what Fat Grady said, but in the case of the Williams', they are said to have admitted to taking starcaps, thinking it was safe based on the label, so they could meet weight. That is black and white. They are done.

As far as Grady's situation, I don't know. When more details come out, I'll tell you if I think he'll be done too. Just read the rule and see if you think it was broken. It's a pretty direct rule with direct language binding it. I guess if you really want to understand, for you, then use your head.

[Rastak]

I don't know what Fat Grady said, but in the case of the Williams', they are said to have admitted to taking starcaps, thinking it was safe based on the label, so they could meet weight. That is black and white. They are done.

As far as Grady's situation, I don't know. When more details come out, I'll tell you if I think he'll be done too. Just read the rule and see if you think it was broken. It's a pretty direct rule with direct language binding it. I guess if you really want to understand, for you, then use your head.

They why isn't Jackson gone? That doesn't seem very fucking direct to me.

We have rules for some guys and not others?

[pbmax]

What if the player provided them with a fake bottle? What if the NFL screwed up it's test? What if the supplement was spiked by a distributer/player/other party and not the manufactuer?\
Why does the NFL have to report who spiked the supplement? The warning just needs to indicate what they found in the sample. If they do not assign blame, then they cannot be proven wrong.

[mngolf19]

One other thing, apparently the Williams lads are in a Henepin county court right now as I type seeking a temporary restraining order, which I think is stupid as hell.


That only grants you a reprieve until a hearing. I'd go for the whole enchilada and get a stay until litigation is resolved.

It might be because the restraining order could last beyond the playoffs. And if they just got an injunction the NFL has said the punishment would extend into the playoffs if necessary.

[pbmax]

Why can't the players just stick to the trusted list? The NFL has it spelled out pretty clearly so nobody will ever have a postive test unless they choose to risk it. It's pretty simple really. It's has nothing to do to them being suspended, but sheesh if you want to go here, how much easier for them can it get?
Clearly not easy enough. But here is the question you should ask yourself: If players are willing to assume this risk to collect the weight bonus money (likely $250,000?), how much more would they be willing to risk to collect a huge signing bonus? The interesting thing about this testing is who it isn't catching. Unless you think society and its gene pool have suddenly developed the ability to produce 300 lb athletes without enhancers in the last 20 years. 300 lbs players used to be considered rare and fat. Not anymore. Not even in college.

[sharpe1027]

Why does the NFL have to report who spiked the supplement? The warning just needs to indicate what they found in the sample. If they do not assign blame, then they cannot be proven wrong.

Even assuming your view on the law is correct, which I have my doubts about, all it takes is a minor (or even a perceived) mistake by the NFL. Then if the company that sees a dip in their sales they will be up in arms with all sorts of claims to damages. Hell, even a threat of a lawsuit (regardless of whether they can or cannot be proven wrong) can cost the NFL a lot of unnecessary damages. It simply is not the NFL's job to police individual suppliers.

The NFL saw a problem and issued a generalized statement that the category of supplements should be avoided and taken at your own risk. Why doesn't the player's association do some research? Probably for the same reasons the NFL doesn't want to get into policing manufacturers.

[denverYooper]

One other thing, apparently the Williams lads are in a Henepin county court right now as I type seeking a temporary restraining order, which I think is stupid as hell.


That only grants you a reprieve until a hearing. I'd go for the whole enchilada and get a stay until litigation is resolved.

It might be because the restraining order could last beyond the playoffs. And if they just got an injunction the NFL has said the punishment would extend into the playoffs if necessary.

Nope, the temporary restraining order only lasts until a ruling can be made on the underlying case they're trying to make.

I'm with Ras, this may not be the smartest move. If it backfires, they could get to keep the Williamses for the Lions game and then have to serve their suspension anyway -- into the playoffs, if that's the case.

They're better off sitting them for the craptacular motor city kitties because that's one they should be ok in without 'em. And their chances of winning the division are still better than anyone else's.

If they have to face a playoff team without them, they're in much more dire straits.

[Rastak]

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/35496664.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs



Vikings' Williamses win restraining order; Sunday's status uncertain


ikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams were granted a temporary restraining order Wednesday evening in Hennepin County District Court that allows them to pick up their playbook and return to team’s practice facility. However, Judge Gary Larson said a more extensive hearing on the players’ status will be scheduled in the near future.

Their status for Sunday’s game at Detroit remains uncertain, depending on when a hearing will take place, or whether the NFL will immediately appeal the decision.

On Tuesday, the NFL suspended the Williamses for the final four games of the regular season without pay for violating the league’s policy on anabolic steroids and related substances.

The Vikings are in first place in the NFC North and play in Detroit against the winless Lions on Sunday. After that game, they play three probable playoff teams. The suspensions were scheduled to take effect Sunday and end Dec. 29, a day after the team’s regular-season finale against the New York Giants.

However, the Williamses applied for an injunction Wednesday in Hennepin County District Court in an attempt to continue playing.
The Williamses are among six NFL players who were suspended Tuesday for using a diuretic that can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

The players took a product known as StarCaps, a weight-loss pill manufactured by California-based Balanced Health Products. An NFL-banned product known as bumetanide was in the pills but not listed as an ingredient.

Pat Williams stands to lose $941,176 of his $4 million in base salary; Kevin Williams would forfeit $235,294 of his $1 million in base salary.

The news of the Williamses’ suspensions first broke on Oct. 26. The two had their appeals hearings at the NFL offices in New York on Nov. 20. The players had separate hearings and were accompanied by team and legal representation that included Wilf and Kevin Warren, the Vikings vice president of legal affairs and chief administrative officer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Shocking that a Minnesota judge would rule in their favor. It seems like the Vikings are getting the benefit of the doubt in everything this year (tampering with Favre, Jared Allen's three illegal hits, this case).

[Rastak]

Shocking that a Minnesota judge would rule in their favor. It seems like the Vikings are getting the benefit of the doubt in everything this year (tampering with Favre, Jared Allen's three illegal hits, this case).


I bet it bugs the piss otta ya too Harv! :lol:

[Rastak]

I was just listening to a podcast with Viking broadcaster and former player Pete Bercich and he's bringing me around to JH's view believe it or not.

The Grady Jackson thing still makes me wonder. I'd still like the facts but the policy is fairly clear and since the FDA doesn't oversee supplements ingredients could regularly change. Interesting stuff at any rate.

[Rastak]

Then I read something like this. If this turns out to be true my opinion will switch again. Yikes.

From pft.com

FIRST STARCAPS VICTIM NOT SUSPENDED?
Posted by Mike Florio on December 4, 2008, 12:33 a.m.

One of the facts that came out in the appeal hearings for the various players who tested positive for Bumetanide after taking StarCaps is that the NFL learned of the possible link between StarCaps and Bumetanide after a player who tested positive for the banned diuretic in 2006 said he had taken the supposedly all-natural StarCaps.

Per a league source, there is growing suspicion — and apparently proof to support it — that the player who helped the league learn about the connection between the two compounds was not subjected to the specific discipline that the plain language of the policy would have required.

So despite the current claims by the NFL of “strict liability,” there very well might be compelling evidence that, for reasons neither known nor apparent, the first guy to fall into the StarCaps trap caught a break of some type.

The difference is that, in 2006, the league didn’t know that StarCaps secretly contains Bumetanide. So there would have been no reason for the player to have received any type of lenience, especially with the league trumpeting the supposedly automatic punishment that flows from having any banned substance in a player’s body.

[denverYooper]

Aaaaaand then it starts getting funky. This is getting out there. John Grisham just got a new book idea.


WILLIAMS LAWSUIT CLAIMS SUSPENSIONS ARE MOTIVATED BY POLITICS
Posted by Mike Florio on December 4, 2008, 1:22 a.m. EST

The lawsuit filed against the NFL and several individuals by Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams claims that the league suspended them in order to placate public officials who might think that the league isn’t doing enough to eliminate the use of performance-enhancing substances.

(Someone sent us a copy of the lawsuit on Wednesday night; ESPN.com has posted the entire legal filing.)

At paragraphs 13 and 14 of the complaint filed on Wednesday, the Williams’ lawyers claim that the NFL chose not to disclose that StarCaps secretly included Bumetanide so that the NFL would be able to catch “violators” of the steroids policy, and thus convince politicans and others that the league has a meaningful program in place for ensuring that steroids users are detected and punished.

The lawsuit seeks more than $10 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages. The bigger prize, of course, is the possible award of a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the suspensions from being implemented during the remainder of the 2008 football season.

The complaint contains various counts — for example, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty — but it does not allege that the NFL violated the terms of the collectively-bargained steroids policy. The problem is that the federal Labor Management Relations Act preempts any state law claims that require interpretation of terms that were generated via collective bargaining.

In other words, one or more of the state-law theories could be dismissed, and the players could ultimately be forced to focus on the narrow question of whether the NFL breached the terms of the steroids policy.

But we’re not so sure that all of the claims will be preempted by federal labor law. If, for example, the players can prove in court with admissible evidence that the NFL opted not to disclose the truth about StarCaps in order to catch players who took it without knowing that it contained Bumetanide, such conduct would be contrary to the league’s stated intention to “protect the health and well being of the NFL players,” and might very well indeed constitute fraud. Such a claim arguably can be resolved without interpreting the terms of the CBA or the steroids policy.

In support of the damages claim, the players cite their lost salary for four games. They also point out that they will be ineligible to participate in the Pro Bowl, and that they will lose contractual incentives tied to qualifying for the league’s annual all-star game.

Despite reports that the union could be sued, the NFLPA is not a defendant to the action. In addition to the league, the suit joins Dr. John Lombardo, Brian Finkle, and Adolpho Birch, based on their alleged roles in failing to warn the players about the presence of Bumetanide in StarCaps.

The NFLPA reportedly will file an action of its own against the league on Thursday.

Come on now... Either these guys are flailing wildly or the NFL is going to have some serious image problems. Either way, it can't be good for these guys.

[Rastak]

And to continue to pile on, it sounds like the NFLPA will file suit related to the collective bargining agreement in their pal judge Doty's courtroom this morning.

From PFT.com



NFLPA FILING STARCAPS SUIT ON THURSDAY
Posted by Mike Florio on December 3, 2008, 11:43 p.m.

ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reports (and we’ve independently learned) that the NFL Players Association will file suit on Thursday in federal court in Minnesota to block the league from suspending the three Saints and two Vikings players who tested positive for Bumetanide after taking the supplement known as StarCaps. (Falcons defensive tackle Grady Jackson tested positive, but his appeal has not yet been resolved.)

Per a league source, the NFLPA plans to pursue the effort within the confines of the broader antitrust suit that was commenced nearly 20 years ago by the late Reggie White and others. The settlement of that lawsuit resulted in the creation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement featuring a salary cap and true free agency rights.

By using the umbrella of the existing action, the union guarantees that the case will be handled by Judge David S. Doty.

If the case were to be filed in state court by the union and then removed to federal court by the NFL, the case could have been assigned to a judge other than Judge Doty.

In a separate proceeding earlier this year, the NFL asked Judge Doty to recuse himself from the entire action based on an alleged perception of favoritism to the union. Judge Doty declined, and at last word the matter was pending on appeal.

And, as we understand it, the case filed by Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams in state court most likely will be combined with the NFLPA’s lawsuit, if the NFL removes the Williams case to federal court, which guarantees that all of the claims will be handled by Judge Doty.

[denverYooper]

i think players that file appeals should have to serve double the time if the initial ruling is upheald

take the vikings players fir instance. if they hadn't appealed this then they might not be in first right now, they might even be a game or 2 behind the bears. they have gained because of this appeal. now they are trying to take this thing to court so they can push this back even farther. this would also benefit the teams involved greatly

i think there should be something in place so guys can't pull this sort of stunt. if they appeal and the decision is upheald, then the suspension should be doubled

IMO


I now think Red's idea was not so bad. Except now that the story has gotten so wild, triple the suspension. I mean, if they win, they're asking for a multiple of their game salaries in restitution. Shouldn't the stakes be the same as if they lose?

[pbmax]

I now think Red's idea was not so bad. Except now that the story has gotten so wild, triple the suspension. I mean, if they win, they're asking for a multiple of their game salaries in restitution. Shouldn't the stakes be the same as if they lose?
They can ask for anything they like, but that doesn't mean they are going to get it. On the other side, its very clear what they stand to lose. If the league feels like the Williams are costing them money by doing something illegal, they can counter sue.

As for the charge of political motivation, that's going to be very hard to prove unless the NFL has no good explanation for its failure to suspend the player previous caught with a diuretic from StarCaps (and that is assuming Florio's info is accurate). But then the matter becomes about consistent application of the policy, regardless of other motivations.

The ridiculous thing? Matt Jones is still playing with a criminal drug charge still hanging over his head.

[pbmax]

One last series of questions:

Why did the NFL test the supplement when the first player tested positive for a diuretic?

If they are not in the business of testing, why test this one?

How many of the companies on the non-business list are there as a result of NFL testing?

[Lurker64]

The amusing thing is that if this court fight gets sufficiently ugly, Goodell is fully within his right to suspend the Williamses under the personal conduct policy for "negatively reflecting on the league" or whatever the language of the policy is. The NFLPA really dropped the ball on the last CBA since the league holds virtually all the cards here.

But the personal conduct policy is written in such a way that Goodell can suspend you if you sneeze in church. How did that ever get approved?

[Rastak]

Pbmax,

I have NFL radio in my car and I heard the Saint's players counsel lay it out.


1) In 2004-2005 3 players called the NFL hotline and were told Starcaps contained no banned substances.

2) In 2006 a player tested positive for the banned drug and claimed he had only been taking Starcaps.

3) The NFL did NOT NOT NOT suspend the player, ignoring it's own black and white rule.

4) They tested the product in the lab and found it contained a prescription only drug, despite it being an over the counter supplement. I think they now claim they notified the FDA but I doubt it.

5) They issued a warning about the company home grown but said nothing of the one product they knew had an issue.

The league doctor claimed he did not want to name the product specifically because other players might claim that is what they were taking and get a free pass and he was afraid of his own liability with the makers of Starcaps.

Seems to me the NFL is picking and choosing how they administer this policy.

[sharpe1027]

Pbmax,

I have NFL radio in my car and I heard the Saint's players counsel lay it out.


1) In 2004-2005 3 players called the NFL hotline and were told Starcaps contained no banned substances.

2) In 2006 a player tested positive for the banned drug and claimed he had only been taking Starcaps.

3) The NFL did NOT NOT NOT suspend the player, ignoring it's own black and white rule.

4) They tested the product in the lab and found it contained a prescription only drug, despite it being an over the counter supplement. I think they now claim they notified the FDA but I doubt it.

5) They issued a warning about the company home grown but said nothing of the one product they knew had an issue.

The league doctor claimed he did not want to name the product specifically because other players might claim that is what they were taking and get a free pass and he was afraid of his own liability with the makers of Starcaps.

Seems to me the NFL is picking and choosing how they administer this policy.

Interesting facts. It all makes more sense now and I don't agree that the NFL is picking and choosing. There are two entirely different cases.

In the first case the NFL told players that it was O.K. to use Starcaps. The NFL tested the Starcaps bottle because the player in question could have easily been lying and they told players it was O.K.. Evidently the supplements were not O.K. The NFL then issued a warning to all players.

In the second case no assurances were given and explict warnings were provided.

Night and day.

[denverYooper]

Seems to me the NFL is picking and choosing how they administer this policy.

2007 is the year the NFL made a statement about how players would be suspended for taking weight loss supplements that are found to have illegal substances. They likely decided on the policy after ponits 1-4 occured, and gave a heads up with #5 -- which I'm guessing is the December 19, 2006 letter. I'm sure the decision to warn against a whole class of supplements after that point was for the sake of flexibility and not malicious.

It's like if I spill some McDonald's coffee on my crotch and burn myself, then I try to sue and make my case using the fact that the cups never had a warning on them in 1992.

The fact of the matter is that they started putting warnings on the cups in 2007 and these guys just got some hot java on their junk.

[Rastak]

Seems to me the NFL is picking and choosing how they administer this policy.

2007 is the year the NFL made a statement about how players would be suspended for taking weight loss supplements that are found to have illegal substances. They likely decided on the policy after ponits 1-4 occured, and gave a heads up with #5 -- which I'm guessing is the December 19, 2006 letter. I'm sure the decision to warn against a whole class of supplements after that point was for the sake of flexibility and not malicious.

It's like if I spill some McDonald's coffee on my crotch and burn myself, then I try to sue and make my case using the fact that the cups never had a warning on them in 1992.

The fact of the matter is that they started putting warnings on the cups in 2007 and these guys just got some hot java on their junk.

Actually a better analogy would be they warned you about McDonalds in general saying nothing about hot coffee.

They sent a warning on the manufacturer Home Grown, not the dangerous product in their line. Let me ask this, is every product made by them laced with prescription only drugs? It seems like a major cop out by the NFL to me to say "just don't use any of them cause we say so" when they really meant don't use this specific one.

[denverYooper]

Seems to me the NFL is picking and choosing how they administer this policy.

2007 is the year the NFL made a statement about how players would be suspended for taking weight loss supplements that are found to have illegal substances. They likely decided on the policy after ponits 1-4 occured, and gave a heads up with #5 -- which I'm guessing is the December 19, 2006 letter. I'm sure the decision to warn against a whole class of supplements after that point was for the sake of flexibility and not malicious.

It's like if I spill some McDonald's coffee on my crotch and burn myself, then I try to sue and make my case using the fact that the cups never had a warning on them in 1992.

The fact of the matter is that they started putting warnings on the cups in 2007 and these guys just got some hot java on their junk.

Actually a better analogy would be they warned you about McDonalds in general saying nothing about hot coffee.

They sent a warning on the manufacturer Home Grown, not the dangerous product in their line. Let me ask this, is every product made by them laced with prescription only drugs? It seems like a major cop out by the NFL to me to say "just don't use any of them cause we say so" when they really meant don't use this specific one.

Maybe if someone would have warned Kevin and Pat Williams about McDonald's in general, they wouldn't be in such a bind. :)

[Rastak]

LOL....true dat.

Ryan Longwell was quoted as saying he was in no danger unless they started spiking Chicken McNuggets.

[KYPack]

A local judge ruling in favor of the home team happens a lot in these kinds of situations:

In the Pete Rose case, a local Cincy judge ruled against baseball in suspending Pete Rose.

In the Black Sox scandal, a Chicago court and judge ruled that the White Sox players were not guilty of throwing the series.

Then there is this Minn ruling.

In the long run, the sports' ruling bodies will have the final say.

The local yokels just make their rulings based on popular opinion for their own political purposes.

[sharpe1027]

Actually a better analogy would be they warned you about McDonalds in general saying nothing about hot coffee.

They sent a warning on the manufacturer Home Grown, not the dangerous product in their line. Let me ask this, is every product made by them laced with prescription only drugs? It seems like a major cop out by the NFL to me to say "just don't use any of them cause we say so" when they really meant don't use this specific one.

No offense but your analogy sucks. :P The warning your propose gives no indication of what the problem was. The NFL stated exactly what the problem was.

A better analogy would be a warning that all hot drinks might burn you and that fast food is particularly dangerous. If you drink coffee, hot-apple cider, tea whatever, you accept the risk of burning your junk. :shock:

Also, the NFL didn't test all of Home grown's stuff, maybe it is all laced.

[Rastak]

A local judge ruling in favor of the home team happens a lot in these kinds of situations:

In the Pete Rose case, a local Cincy judge ruled against baseball in suspending Pete Rose.

In the Black Sox scandal, a Chicago court and judge ruled that the White Sox players were not guilty of throwing the series.

Then there is this Minn ruling.

In the long run, the sports' ruling bodies will have the final say.

The local yokels just make their rulings based on popular opinion for their own political purposes.


Sorry KY, but this simply isn't true. The case was transferred to federal court today and and the court will have the final say on this, either through dismissal after finding the NFL acted properly or finding in the plaintiffs favor. It is out of the NFL's hands now, period. The judge may not grant a stay in which case the players will be suspended but if the NFL were to lose they'd be liable for damages I would guess.


I believe the federal court in question is located in Minnesota if I'm not mistaken. :wink:

[RashanGary]

How about this analogy.

You work under a union agreement. Under said agreement (CBA) you agreed to avoid a rather extensive list of drugs (steroids and masking agents). In this "agreement" you "agreed" that taking drugs from the "trusted list" was OK and no harm would ever come your way. If you decided to stray from said "list" you would be doing so at your own risk as some companies are not as trust worthy as others.

Then, after this agreement these players went out and strayed from the list (right into a clearly spelled out area called "your own f'in risk". Now this is a big suprise to everyone, but this drug that was not on the trusted list is, well, not trust worthy. The NFL followed through by doing exacly what the agreement stated if such an occurance would arise and now that's some how someone elses fault.

Not only is this ludicrous and a pathetic show of "taking zero repsonsiblity for one's own actions", but it's also a patent offense to a very clear rule. A rule, that in it's very verbage, defined this exact circumstance.

This will not get overturned. This is mearly a delaying of the inevitable.

[KYPack]

A local judge ruling in favor of the home team happens a lot in these kinds of situations:

In the Pete Rose case, a local Cincy judge ruled against baseball in suspending Pete Rose.

In the Black Sox scandal, a Chicago court and judge ruled that the White Sox players were not guilty of throwing the series.

Then there is this Minn ruling.

In the long run, the sports' ruling bodies will have the final say.

The local yokels just make their rulings based on popular opinion for their own political purposes.


Sorry KY, but this simply isn't true. The case was transferred to federal court today and and the court will have the final say on this, either through dismissal after finding the NFL acted properly or finding in the plaintiffs favor. It is out of the NFL's hands now, period. The judge may not grant a stay in which case the players will be suspended but if the NFL were to lose they'd be liable for damages I would guess.


I believe the federal court in question is located in Minnesota if I'm not mistaken. :wink:

Ras, people around here told me the same thing when the courts found in favor of Pete.

I know it's a Federal Court. But eventually, this thing will wind up back in the hands of the NFL.

We got a beer on this one, me boyo.

I hope the league gets 'em. I hate to have those be fed by the government. Think of our taxes going up to handle that food bill.

One way or the other, Goodell and the league fucked this deal up and Roger better get his shit together or he may be cashiered over this deal.

[Rastak]

KY, I ain't at all saying the players will winat all, merely that it's out of the NFL's hands now. The NFL will not decide this particular case.

I guess there's a hearing tomorrow at 11:30 EST and the issue of weather the players stay suspended as the case is heard or not should be finalized.


If you haven't noticed, I'm still a little on the fence right now on this.

[Rastak]

How about this analogy.

You work under a union agreement. Under said agreement (CBA) you agreed to avoid a rather extensive list of drugs (steroids and masking agents). In this "agreement" you "agreed" that taking drugs from the "trusted list" was OK and no harm would ever come your way. If you decided to stray from said "list" you would be doing so at your own risk as some companies are not as trust worthy as others.

Then, after this agreement these players went out and strayed from the list (right into a clearly spelled out area called "your own f'in risk". Now this is a big suprise to everyone, but this drug that was not on the trusted list is, well, not trust worthy. The NFL followed through by doing exacly what the agreement stated if such an occurance would arise and now that's some how someone elses fault.

Not only is this ludicrous and a pathetic show of "taking zero repsonsiblity for one's own actions", but it's also a patent offense to a very clear rule. A rule, that in it's very verbage, defined this exact circumstance.

This will not get overturned. This is mearly a delaying of the inevitable.


JH, I heard the reason Grady jackson isn't suspended. He has not had his appeal heard.


But riddle me this JH, why was the first Starcaps player in 2006 not suspended and do you find this consistent with their policy?

[KYPack]

KY, I ain't at all saying the players will winat all, merely that it's out of the NFL's hands now. The NFL will not decide this particular case.

I guess there's a hearing tomorrow at 11:30 EST and the issue of weather the players stay suspended as the case is heard or not should be finalized.


If you haven't noticed, I'm still a little on the fence right now on this.

I'm with ya.

My other post was to state that local courts (acting as politicians really) often stick their noses into these cases to look good to the populace.

The NFL has already screwed up by allowing the NFLPA to get this thing in front of the Fed judge.

As it turns out, Judge Paul Magnuson will take up on Friday not only the request for preliminary relief made by the NFLPA in its action on behalf of the five players who took StarCaps not knowing the product contained a banned substance, but also the pending case filed by Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams.

At 11:30 a.m. EST on Friday, Judge Magnuson will address the actions, and he presumably will issue a ruling on whether the suspensions will be blocked for the Week Fourteen games involving the Vikings and the New Orleans Saints, who have two players (Deuce McAllister and Will Smith) affected by the ruling. (Saints defensive end Charles Grant also was suspended, but he is on injured reserve and would be unavailable even if not suspended.)

The NFLPA action reportedly raises theories similar to those alleged by Pat and Kevin Williams. The gist of the actions is that the suspensions should be blocked because the NFL knew that StarCaps contained Bumetanide, a prescription drug, but did not warn the players about this fact.

I predict the Federal court will punt this case & the league will wind up with making a decision (mebbe a compromise), but I could be wrong.

One way or the other, I think Roger Goodell is in deep yogurt. He has allowed this thing to get out of his (the league's control). The owners hate that shit and will look for a new steward that can keep things more well in check.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

No way the owners get rid of Goddell for this, he has handled every other situation pretty well. I just don't see this getting overturned, and if they do stay the suspension for next weeks game, there is no certainty the players wont be suspended for the final 3 weeks and the first playoff game.

Any playoff team would destroy the Queens without the Williams wall. IMO the Vike's should just sit them now.

[Rastak]

One way or the other, I think Roger Goodell is in deep yogurt. He has allowed this thing to get out of his (the league's control). The owners hate that shit and will look for a new steward that can keep things more well in check.

That's true, first off I bet the NFL wishes this never would have become public at all, since it's supposed to be confidential.


The details already leaked, if true, doesn't make the NFL look all that good. Despite JH's insistence that the policy is black and white, they may be forced to admit they've failed as judge, jury and executioner by allowing the first guy to walk and then have their representative admit under questioning that he was afraid of personal liability and therefore didn;t issue an explicit warning.


I would say there a good chance the judge will punt this case and the guys can take their medicine starting right now. The only chance I see for the players is if the judge sees that the NFL is arbitrary in it's dealings and did not act in good faith in which case this could be overturned or that part of the CBA struck down.

[Rastak]

No way the owners get rid of Goddell for this, he has handled every other situation pretty well. I just don't see this getting overturned, and if they do stay the suspension for next weeks game, there is no certainty the players wont be suspended for the final 3 weeks and the first playoff game.

Any playoff team would destroy the Queens without the Williams wall. IMO the Vike's should just sit them now.


I'm not sure they can just sit them now, a judge has ruled for the moment the NFL can't suspend them. I'm not sure this would count even if they sat them because they will be paid Sunday.

Let's put it this way, if the judge tomorrow grants them a more permanent stay, it's likely it would last for the balance of the litigation which would likely be well after the playoffs. If not, they will miss the last four games.

[denverYooper]

As it turns out, Judge Paul Magnuson will take up on Friday not only the request for preliminary relief made by the NFLPA in its action on behalf of the five players who took StarCaps not knowing the product contained a banned substance, but also the pending case filed by Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams.


Magnuson eh? There's a fine Scandinavian name. His lineage was probably one of the original vikings who sailed their longships to the shores of Newfoundland. Looks like this one's in the in the can.

[sharpe1027]

JH, I heard the reason Grady jackson isn't suspended. He has not had his appeal heard.

But riddle me this JH, why was the first Starcaps player in 2006 not suspended and do you find this consistent with their policy?

Makes sense on Grady, they just haven't heard his appeal...lol.

As to your second point, the first player took Starcaps before the NFL issued the warning and probably called into the NFL to get the go-ahead. I'm sure NFL *could* have suspended the first player too...but since they had said it was O.K. then, but since warned players not to use Home Grown, I think there is a big difference between the situations.

[pbmax]

1) In 2004-2005 3 players called the NFL hotline and were told Starcaps contained no banned substances.

2) In 2006 a player tested positive for the banned drug and claimed he had only been taking Starcaps.
A Saints player was recently quoted as saying the hotline just read the list of ingredients off the bottle and checked them on the list of banned substances. Meaning, no new information could be gleaned from the Hotline, just confirmation. This seems consistent with the current portions of the policy that are online now.

If #1 happened exactly that way, I wonder if there was a time before this that the Hotline tried to be more proactive?

But I am still curious why they tested the product, and if such testing was a mistake in retrospect (or in fact)?

But I am even more interested in knowing how the banned companies list was put together.

The NFL might lose this round if the judge finds they have acted arbitrarily. But I think the larger trouble could be if the NFL is doing independent testing to develop the banned companies list and is not sharing that info with the players either. Then they would not just be acting arbitrarily, but they would be in violation of the intent of the Steroid and Drug Policy as signed by the League and players.

Only then, would the whole enchilada be in jeopardy. And by enchilada I mean the Drug Policy, not the CBA.

[sharpe1027]

But I think the larger trouble could be if the NFL is doing independent testing to develop the banned companies list and is not sharing that info with the players either. Then they would not just be acting arbitrarily, but they would be in violation of the intent of the Steroid and Drug Policy as signed by the League and players.

Only then, would the whole enchilada be in jeopardy. And by enchilada I mean the Drug Policy, not the CBA.

Interesting, I don't think there is any data to back that up yet. All we know is that they knew of Starcaps and warned the players against similiar types of supplements. There would have to be some new developments before the NFL gets into any trouble. Of course, that might just happen the legal battle....

[Rastak]

But I think the larger trouble could be if the NFL is doing independent testing to develop the banned companies list and is not sharing that info with the players either. Then they would not just be acting arbitrarily, but they would be in violation of the intent of the Steroid and Drug Policy as signed by the League and players.

Only then, would the whole enchilada be in jeopardy. And by enchilada I mean the Drug Policy, not the CBA.

Interesting, I don't think there is any data to back that up yet. All we know is that they knew of Starcaps and warned the players against similiar types of supplements. There would have to be some new developments before the NFL gets into any trouble. Of course, that might just happen the legal battle....


Per what I heard on NFL radio the league took samples to their lab and found the drug after a player claimed that's all he was taking.

If the policy was consistently enforced it wouldn't matter since Starcaps wasn't part of the line of supplements they get a kickback on....I mean that is approved.

[RashanGary]

I would say there a good chance the judge will punt this case and the guys can take their medicine starting right now. The only chance I see for the players is if the judge sees that the NFL is arbitrary in it's dealings and did not act in good faith in which case this could be overturned or that part of the CBA struck down.

This is very possible.

[sharpe1027]

Per what I heard on NFL radio the league took samples to their lab and found the drug after a player claimed that's all he was taking.

If the policy was consistently enforced it wouldn't matter since Starcaps wasn't part of the line of supplements they get a kickback on....I mean that is approved.

Well, if by consistent, you mean suspensions without regard for any of the circumstances of the case, then yes. If by consistent, you mean the same facts and the same results, then no. The facts were different in the cases.

Don't you think there is a difference when:

- one player was told the supplement was OK by the NFL and

- when other players were specifically warned about a supplier and a type of supplement and specifically told to only take the supplement at their own risk?

I'm not saying that they couldn't have, or even shouldn't have, suspended the first player, but it seems a logical and reasonable distinction to me... :?

[KYPack]

No way the owners get rid of Goddell for this, he has handled every other situation pretty well. I just don't see this getting overturned, and if they do stay the suspension for next weeks game, there is no certainty the players wont be suspended for the final 3 weeks and the first playoff game.

Any playoff team would destroy the Queens without the Williams wall. IMO the Vike's should just sit them now.

I think there is a real possibility that Goodell may catch a lot of hell for his actions in this case. He's handled it well? NOT REALLY.

A federal judge is now handling the case. No way Tagliabue or Rozelle would have allowed this issue to spin off and be decided by an independent entity. What if the judge makes a ruling that allows further legal action that overturns the CBA? That is the kind of exposure this case subjects the NFL to. I don't think that will happen, but under Goodell's watch that is the situation.

I'm sure there are owners very nervous about Goodell's management of the issue and the exposure the league has in this situation. I don't think he'll be canned, either. But he is now batting with a couple strikes on him. If more issues like this crop up and he bungles them, the owners will find a new man to run their league.

[Rastak]

Per what I heard on NFL radio the league took samples to their lab and found the drug after a player claimed that's all he was taking.

If the policy was consistently enforced it wouldn't matter since Starcaps wasn't part of the line of supplements they get a kickback on....I mean that is approved.

Well, if by consistent, you mean suspensions without regard for any of the circumstances of the case, then yes. If by consistent, you mean the same facts and the same results, then no. The facts were different in the cases.

Don't you think there is a difference when:

- one player was told the supplement was OK by the NFL and

- when other players were specifically warned about a supplier and a type of supplement and specifically told to only take the supplement at their own risk?

I'm not saying that they couldn't have, or even shouldn't have, suspended the first player, but it seems a logical and reasonable distinction to me... :?


I read the section that JH keeps pounding on which states any violation is a mandatory 4 game suspension and players are 100% liable.


JH is right in that the policy leaves no wiggle room, now that I have read for myself the relevent section. That means the NFL CAN'T reverse it unless there was an error in testing. If they let the first guy go then I would say they are acting in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner.

[denverYooper]

Per what I heard on NFL radio the league took samples to their lab and found the drug after a player claimed that's all he was taking.

If the policy was consistently enforced it wouldn't matter since Starcaps wasn't part of the line of supplements they get a kickback on....I mean that is approved.

Well, if by consistent, you mean suspensions without regard for any of the circumstances of the case, then yes. If by consistent, you mean the same facts and the same results, then no. The facts were different in the cases.

Don't you think there is a difference when:

- one player was told the supplement was OK by the NFL and

- when other players were specifically warned about a supplier and a type of supplement and specifically told to only take the supplement at their own risk?

I'm not saying that they couldn't have, or even shouldn't have, suspended the first player, but it seems a logical and reasonable distinction to me... :?


I read the section that JH keeps pounding on which states any violation is a mandatory 4 game suspension and players are 100% liable.


JH is right in that the policy leaves no wiggle room, now that I have read for myself the relevent section. That means the NFL CAN'T reverse it unless there was an error in testing. If they let the first guy go then I would say they are acting in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner.

I understand your frustration Ras. They should have suspended everyone involved. No question. It's really frustrating that 1 guy was not suspended (right now).

My primary sport is swimming, and has the same "responsible for what you put in your body policy". It has been consistently enforced, as long as I can remember. It doesn't matter if it's doctor prescribed or not, if it's banned and in your UA, you're suspended. There are no exceptions. Or if there are, I don't know about them.

My frustration with the NFL case has been that people think anyone should be let off for ignoring the "responsibility for what you take" policy and be able to place the blame on the governing body of the sport. So my take has been annoyance regarding their trying to get out of being punished.

However, I have been foolishly ignoring the exception made for Grady Jackson on the grounds that he has some other excuse. He should be suspended too. Not only would the consistency of enforcement send a better message, it is fair and I have a feeling that the other players would have been more likely to just take the punishment.

[denverYooper]

No way the owners get rid of Goddell for this, he has handled every other situation pretty well. I just don't see this getting overturned, and if they do stay the suspension for next weeks game, there is no certainty the players wont be suspended for the final 3 weeks and the first playoff game.

Any playoff team would destroy the Queens without the Williams wall. IMO the Vike's should just sit them now.

I think there is a real possibility that Goodell may catch a lot of hell for his actions in this case. He's handled it well? NOT REALLY.

A federal judge is now handling the case. No way Tagliabue or Rozelle would have allowed this issue to spin off and be decided by an independent entity. What if the judge makes a ruling that allows further legal action that overturns the CBA? That is the kind of exposure this case subjects the NFL to. I don't think that will happen, but under Goodell's watch that is the situation.

I'm sure there are owners very nervous about Goodell's management of the issue and the exposure the league has in this situation. I don't think he'll be canned, either. But he is now batting with a couple strikes on him. If more issues like this crop up and he bungles them, the owners will find a new man to run their league.

This brings up an interesting question: was the first positive test b/c of Starcaps under Tagliabue's watch, or Goodell's?

Goodell became commish in Sept 1, 2006. The first player tested positive for the diuretic in 2006, but I don't know what the exact date was.

[sharpe1027]

I read the section that JH keeps pounding on which states any violation is a mandatory 4 game suspension and players are 100% liable.

JH is right in that the policy leaves no wiggle room, now that I have read for myself the relevent section. That means the NFL CAN'T reverse it unless there was an error in testing. If they let the first guy go then I would say they are acting in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.

I don't think that coming to different outcomes based upon a differeint facts is arbitrary and inconsistent.

What if a first team had spiked the water bottles or supplements of their division rival? I doubt anybody in their right mind would argue that not suspending the team would be arbitrary and inconsistent.

I agree that it is a grey area, but I don't think that the current suspensions are wrong. I also think that there is a decent argument in support of the decision to not suspend the other player. Either way, the treatment of the first player does not render the current suspensions wrong.

[Gunakor]

The NFLPA action reportedly raises theories similar to those alleged by Pat and Kevin Williams. The gist of the actions is that the suspensions should be blocked because the NFL knew that StarCaps contained Bumetanide, a prescription drug, but did not warn the players about this fact.

My stance is that the NFL should not have had to warn the players about any risk if StarCaps were not on the list of approved supplements. It's very simple. If it's not on the list, don't take them. If it is on the list, you have nothing to worry about. The NFL should not have to babysit players to make sure they are only taking what has already been approved. So I guess the question here is whether or not StarCaps were on the list of NFL approved supplements for players to take. That much is black and white, and can easily be determined. The ruling should focus specifically on that IMO.

If StarCaps were on the list of approved supplements, then the NFL has no case. If they were not, then it is what it is. Players took an unapproved supplement AT THEIR OWN RISK and got caught, and should have to face whatever consequences that are associated with taking that risk. Not only would that be the fairest thing to do given the rules, but would also set solid precedent should a situation like this one arise in the future.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The Feds just blocked their suspensions.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/35614209.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs

[Gunakor]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?

[Rastak]

The Feds just blocked their suspensions.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/35614209.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs


Blocked all 5 players actually but not indefinitely. He wants more time to review the facts.

[PackerTimer]

What a load of junk. The courts shouldn't even be invloved with this. After all, it's not like the NFLPA has already lost on almost these exact same arguments. :roll:

[Rastak]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?


Because it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. The policy is crystal clear yet one player was never suspended. In addition, questions remain. Did the NFL act in bad faith by not telling the players (and the FDA for that matter), instead choosing a more general warning when they has SPECIFIC knowledge?

These are some of the things that will be considered I would guess.


Let me ask you this, if the policy is so crystal clear why did the first player not get suspended?


It's in Federal court because it's labor law and the judge may determine the NFL acted in bad faith in the CBA.

[CaptainKickass]

What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?

That's what I wanna know.

Why are citizens tax dollars being spent to debate a private company policy?

If I fail an employers "Whiz Quiz" and test positive for a drug masking agent - can I get my shit heard in federal court within a couple days too?

- Home of the free.....if you can afford to pay for it.

[SMACKTALKIE]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?


Because it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. The policy is crystal clear yet one player was never suspended. In addition, questions remain. Did the NFL act in bad faith by not telling the players (and the FDA for that matter), instead choosing a more general warning when they has SPECIFIC knowledge?

These are some of the things that will be considered I would guess.


Let me ask you this, if the policy is so crystal clear why did the first player not get suspended?


It's in Federal court because it's labor law and the judge may determine the NFL acted in bad faith in the CBA.


There is no doubt that the NFL requires/deserves the ability to clean its own house, this must be a cloudy issue however to get this far in court.

No federal judge would allow an issue like this to get this far without some merit.

[PackerTimer]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?


Because it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. The policy is crystal clear yet one player was never suspended. In addition, questions remain. Did the NFL act in bad faith by not telling the players (and the FDA for that matter), instead choosing a more general warning when they has SPECIFIC knowledge?

These are some of the things that will be considered I would guess.


Let me ask you this, if the policy is so crystal clear why did the first player not get suspended?


It's in Federal court because it's labor law and the judge may determine the NFL acted in bad faith in the CBA.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act says otherwise.

[Rastak]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?


Because it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. The policy is crystal clear yet one player was never suspended. In addition, questions remain. Did the NFL act in bad faith by not telling the players (and the FDA for that matter), instead choosing a more general warning when they has SPECIFIC knowledge?

These are some of the things that will be considered I would guess.


Let me ask you this, if the policy is so crystal clear why did the first player not get suspended?


It's in Federal court because it's labor law and the judge may determine the NFL acted in bad faith in the CBA.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act says otherwise.


Shoot me a link, I'd like to see that.


edit: Every case the NFLPA has brought against the NFL (that I know of) has been in federal court by the way.

[denverYooper]

Yeah, review the facts. That's it. I doubt he's a Vikings fan. I mean, he's only lived and practiced in St. Paul for what, 30 years? 40? :)

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1461

:whist:

[Rastak]

Yeah, review the facts. That's it. I doubt he's a Vikings fan. I mean, he's only lived and practiced in St. Paul for what, 30 years? 40? :)

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1461

:whist:


Why wouldn't he just issue an immediate injunction then?


Too obvious I suppose.... 8-)

[Gunakor]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?


Because it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. The policy is crystal clear yet one player was never suspended. In addition, questions remain. Did the NFL act in bad faith by not telling the players (and the FDA for that matter), instead choosing a more general warning when they has SPECIFIC knowledge?

These are some of the things that will be considered I would guess.


Let me ask you this, if the policy is so crystal clear why did the first player not get suspended?


It's in Federal court because it's labor law and the judge may determine the NFL acted in bad faith in the CBA.

I asked this earlier, but I'll ask it again. Why should the NFL have to do anything more to inform players what is allowed and not allowed than issue a list of approved supplements for all to read? They are not obligated to go into specifics on each and every supplement that is not on the list. Their obligation ends with compiling a list of acceptable supplements and issuing that list to players. If it isn't on the list, don't take it. Period. As dumb as football players are, I'm sure even they could figure that one out. Believe me, I'd feel the same way if it were Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings, or Al Harris and Charles Woodson under investigation here. If it's not league approved, stay away from it entirely.

Even before the investigation began, the list was out. How exactly is the NFL acting in bad faith if they caught a number of players using unapproved supplements and punish them for it? Again, this should not be a legal matter. The NFL sets the rules for the league, not the federal government. Unless the NFLPA can make a case that these players were being singled out for suspension and that the NFL was motivated by something other than StarCaps for doing so, I still don't think they have a case. StarCaps were not approved by the NFL for player use, end of story. Anyone taking them was doing so at their own risk, per NFL policy that I'm certain they clearly understood while taking StarCaps. They got caught. Am I missing something here?

[denverYooper]

Yeah, review the facts. That's it. I doubt he's a Vikings fan. I mean, he's only lived and practiced in St. Paul for what, 30 years? 40? :)

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1461

:whist:


Why wouldn't he just issue an immediate injunction then?


Too obvious I suppose.... 8-)

Yeah, he's no spring chicken, he's not gonna blow it by doing such a thing :).

[Rastak]

Here's the scoop, I guess he was ripping on both.



A federal judge in St. Paul ruled today that five NFL players--including Minnesota Vikings Pat and Kevin Williams-- can continue practicing and playing.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson is blocking the NFL from suspending the five players for violating league's anti-doping policy. He said he's going to take some time before he issues an order on the broader underlying issues of jurisdiction and the NFL's drug testing procedures.

During the hearing, Magnuson aggressively questioned lawyers for all sides in the dispute over whether the Williamses should be allowed to continue to play despite testing positive for a banned diuretic.

The NFL Players Association and Peter Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Williamses, wanted the players to be allowed to continue to suit up. NFL lawyer Daniel Nash wanted the judge to keep a four-game suspension in place. Lawyers for the Vikings say there is no harm in allowing them to continue to play while a further examination of legal matters plays out in court. But Nash said the NFL followed the rules under the drug policy and the players simply don't like the suspension.

"The fundamental issue is they are disappointed they lost," Nash said.

The NFL sought to dissolve a temporary restraining order obtained Wednesday by the Williamses that allows them to play.

That NFLPA lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Williamses and New Orleans Saints players Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith. The five players took a weight-loss supplement called StarCaps. The supplement contained the banned product bumetanide, which was not listed as an ingredient. The players claim the league has known about the presence of bumetanide in StarCaps since 2006 and failed to warn its players.

The NFL, which maintains a list of approved products, has steadfastly claimed it is not obligated to issue warnings about specific products..

The give-and-take with the judge and the lawyers was aggressive throughout the hearing.
When Magnuson specifically pointed out there is no allegation of steroid use here, Nash balked. "We don't know," Nash said. Magnuson responded firmly, "You know. You know you can't make allegations of use of steroids," he said.

On the issue of warnings, Nash said the NFL didn't tell players about the substance in StarCaps because then players might get the impression another supplement was OK because it isn't on a banned list. He emphasized that the drug policy is "replete with warnings about supplements" and players "are responsible for what's in their body."

Ginsberg, the lawyer for the Williamses, said both players called the NFL hotline to inquire about StarCaps. "They got no answer," he said.

The union lawsuit does not include Houston Texans long snapper Bryan Pittman, who was also suspended Tuesday. David Cornwell, Pittman's lawyer, told the Associated Press that his client isn't included because his circumstances "differ substantially from the men who used StarCaps."

[CaptainKickass]

Every case the NFLPA has brought against the NFL (that I know of) has been in federal court by the way.

I don't even understand how this situation qualifies as a "case".

Policy says "x" players chose "y" = potential suspension.

The reason Gravy hasn't been suspended yet is because he's being lazy. Key word here "yet".

And I further fail to understand how the hell it got to the federal level so quickly. It's not like Joe Schmoe can get a case heard by the feds that fast.

[PackerTimer]

This is so stupid. Why does he need more time to read the list of approved supplements to see if StarCaps are on it or not?

The NFL's fault in the matter is by not specifically telling players that if what they are taking is not on the approved list given by the NFL, and they are caught, they will be suspended regardless of whether it contains a banned ingredient or not. Take ONLY what the NFL says you can take. Eliminate the "take anything else at your own risk" part of it completely and just say that taking anything else is a violation of NFL policy. Leave no gray area whatsoever.

This is should not be a legal matter. The NFL is more strict about what it's players take than the law is about what any joe schmoe can take. The NFL should be able to enforce policy without the federal government intervening. What the hell is this doing in a federal court in the first place?


Because it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it. The policy is crystal clear yet one player was never suspended. In addition, questions remain. Did the NFL act in bad faith by not telling the players (and the FDA for that matter), instead choosing a more general warning when they has SPECIFIC knowledge?

These are some of the things that will be considered I would guess.


Let me ask you this, if the policy is so crystal clear why did the first player not get suspended?


It's in Federal court because it's labor law and the judge may determine the NFL acted in bad faith in the CBA.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act says otherwise.


Shoot me a link, I'd like to see that.


edit: Every case the NFLPA has brought against the NFL (that I know of) has been in federal court by the way.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode29/usc_sec_29_00000101----000-.html

I was having a little fun with you in that other post. There are other circumstances that can make 29 USCA 101 less cut and dry than the language in the above link.

But, I do tend to agree with the NFL on this one, even after taking out the fact that losing the Williams wall sure would help whatever slim chances the Packers have left at the playoffs. :D

[Rastak]

Every case the NFLPA has brought against the NFL (that I know of) has been in federal court by the way.

I don't even understand how this situation qualifies as a "case".

Policy says "x" players chose "y" = potential suspension.

The reason Gravy hasn't been suspended yet is because he's being lazy. Key word here "yet".

And I further fail to understand how the hell it got to the federal level so quickly. It's not like Joe Schmoe can get a case heard by the feds that fast.

When someone feels like they got fucked by their employer they can file a lawsuit and it's then called a "case". If it completely lacks merit it gets immediately tossed.

I guess this does not lack merit to the person that matters most. The federal judge hearing the arguments.


:o

[PackerTimer]

Every case the NFLPA has brought against the NFL (that I know of) has been in federal court by the way.

I don't even understand how this situation qualifies as a "case".

Policy says "x" players chose "y" = potential suspension.

The reason Gravy hasn't been suspended yet is because he's being lazy. Key word here "yet".

And I further fail to understand how the hell it got to the federal level so quickly. It's not like Joe Schmoe can get a case heard by the feds that fast.

When someone feels like they got fucked by their employer they can file a lawsuit and it's then called a "case". If it completely lacks merit it gets immediately tossed.

I guess this does not lack merit to the person that matters most. The federal judge hearing the arguments.


:o

I tend to agree with you. Despite my personal feelings about the law involved a federally appointed judge wouldn't hear a case like this unless he sees some merit in it.

[denverYooper]

Here's the scoop, I guess he was ripping on both.


Oh yah. That's a Magnuson for ya.

(full disclosure: my grandmother was a Magnuson)

[CaptainKickass]

they can file a lawsuit and it's then called a "case"[/quote]

Sorry Ras -

Can you dumb that down for us little people here? I mean, maybe use some laymans terms or perhaps you could use pictures and word bubbles.

Please learn us good.

:)

[Rastak]

Hearing scheduled for later in December....from the Red Star:



Report: Injunction extended
December 11th, 2008 – 4:07 PM by Judd Zulgad

This story just moved on the Associated Press wire. Obviously, Kevin and Pat Williams will continue to play for at least the next two weeks.

Here is the AP story

A Minnesota judge has extended his preliminary injunction against the NFL’s suspension of five players for violating the league’s anti-doping policy. In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson asked both parties to propose a schedule by Dec. 22 to file pleadings in the case. That means the players are cleared to play for at least the next two weeks.

Kevin Williams and Pat Williams of the Vikings and Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith of the New Orleans Saints were suspended last week for four games each. They tested positive for a banned diuretic in the dietary supplement StarCaps. The union argued the NFL didn’t properly inform players about what it knew about the product. The NFL’s attorneys argued that that claim, and others, had been considered and rejected in a process set out by the league’s collective bargaining agreement.

[Freak Out]

Should work out better for the Packers if they were suspended the first four game of next season anyway as Harv pointed out.

[denverYooper]

Should work out better for the Packers if they were suspended the first four game of next season anyway as Harv pointed out.

Yep.

[Rastak]

Should work out better for the Packers if they were suspended the first four game of next season anyway as Harv pointed out.


Two things, I'd say it's 50-50 they ever serve a suspension. Second thing is, it works out 100x better for Minnesota to have it be the first 4 games. They'd have all offseason and all camp to get a plan in place for those first 4 games.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Atleast we only have another 2-3 years of those fat fucks being together.

[Pacopete4]

Should work out better for the Packers if they were suspended the first four game of next season anyway as Harv pointed out.


Two things, I'd say it's 50-50 they ever serve a suspension. Second thing is, it works out 100x better for Minnesota to have it be the first 4 games. They'd have all offseason and all camp to get a plan in place for those first 4 games.


what sort of plan can u possibly have for missing 2 of the best DT's in the game for the first 4 games of the season? It hurts Ras.. trust me as u will be 1 and done this post season if u even get in

[Rastak]

Should work out better for the Packers if they were suspended the first four game of next season anyway as Harv pointed out.


Two things, I'd say it's 50-50 they ever serve a suspension. Second thing is, it works out 100x better for Minnesota to have it be the first 4 games. They'd have all offseason and all camp to get a plan in place for those first 4 games.


what sort of plan can u possibly have for missing 2 of the best DT's in the game for the first 4 games of the season? It hurts Ras.. trust me as u will be 1 and done this post season if u even get in


For one thing you manage your roster based on the fact. In addition, you schedule reps all camp knowing ahead of time what the situation will be.

WAY better than end of year.

[Pacopete4]

Should work out better for the Packers if they were suspended the first four game of next season anyway as Harv pointed out.


Two things, I'd say it's 50-50 they ever serve a suspension. Second thing is, it works out 100x better for Minnesota to have it be the first 4 games. They'd have all offseason and all camp to get a plan in place for those first 4 games.


what sort of plan can u possibly have for missing 2 of the best DT's in the game for the first 4 games of the season? It hurts Ras.. trust me as u will be 1 and done this post season if u even get in


For one thing you manage your roster based on the fact. In addition, you schedule reps all camp knowing ahead of time what the situation will be.

WAY better than end of year.


I guess I just dont buy the 100X better statement.. those 2 are beasts and theres no way to replace them in a game plan.. teams will bury ur ass up the middle the first 4 games of the season next year and douche boy Allen probably wont get a sniff of the QB because people will be keying on him instead of those 2 studs..

but ur probably right.. those cheaters will probably get off clean

[Rastak]

I think you are missing the point entirely. We are not discussing if it's good or bad to get suspended, we are discussing the relative merits of the timing. Or perhaps I'm missing your point here I think.

[Pacopete4]

I think you are missing the point entirely. We are not discussing if it's good or bad to get suspended, we are discussing the relative merits of the timing. Or perhaps I'm missing your point here I think.


well if its a timing thing we're discussing.. do you think ur team woulda been better off sneakin into the playoffs this season without them and gaining them in the post season or starting next season weak and waiting til week 5 for them to be back when in all seriousness.. ur team will most likely have a better chance to win next season because ur QB this season is a joke

[Rastak]

I think it would be best by far at the beginning of the season so roster layout and reps can be determined with the knowledge that you've got a pair of guys missing for the first 4. McKinnie got suspended for the first 4 and they gave his replacement lots of reps leading up to the opener.

[Pacopete4]

agree, to disagree...


i just thought they coulda went 2-2, been in the playoffs, and been at full strength this year and next... but i think those guys are selfish and dont want to see themselves get no paycheck... they arent really thinking team IMO

[Rastak]

agree, to disagree...


i just thought they coulda went 2-2, been in the playoffs, and been at full strength this year and next... but i think those guys are selfish and dont want to see themselves get no paycheck... they arent really thinking team IMO


Yea, I would be too if someone I thought acted in bad faith was gonna screw me out of a million bucks. That's what Phat Pat stands to lose. A million bucks.


You do realize this is their job right? Would take a 25% fine to your yearly income if you thought it unfair just to help out the company? Highly unlikely.

[denverYooper]

I told you Old Judge Magnuson from St. Paul Minnesota knew what he was doing. He's getting some high fives in the Hamelin campus steam room for this bit of work.

:lol:

[Rastak]

:lol:

I can hear him now....


"This could take a while boys".

[Pacopete4]

agree, to disagree...


i just thought they coulda went 2-2, been in the playoffs, and been at full strength this year and next... but i think those guys are selfish and dont want to see themselves get no paycheck... they arent really thinking team IMO


Yea, I would be too if someone I thought acted in bad faith was gonna screw me out of a million bucks. That's what Phat Pat stands to lose. A million bucks.


You do realize this is their job right? Would take a 25% fine to your yearly income if you thought it unfair just to help out the company? Highly unlikely.


if I got caught cheating I'd probably be the bigger man (no pun intended) and say I was wrong and I made a mistake... I mean they did sign the contract right? On any other job they'd be fired for breaking the rules... just because they play in the NFL doesnt put them above the rest of us... rules are rules..

[denverYooper]

Yea, I would be too if someone I thought acted in bad faith was gonna screw me out of a million bucks. That's what Phat Pat stands to lose. A million bucks.

That bad faith line is just something they're using to deny personal accountability. Personally, I think they're probably just probably dumb as rocks and can use their money and connections to cover up their own lack of intelligence.

Every one of 'em needs to be suspended. Gravy Jackson included. I don't care if it's now or next year. Whatever. Grow up and face the consequences.

[Freak Out]

The NFL can always appeal it or ask for it to be moved to another court if they think this Sven loving bastard is trying to extend the Vikings season. :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hearing scheduled for later in December....from the Red Star:

Since the season is over for us, I'm hoping they'll eventually get suspended next year.
:D

[denverYooper]

The Vikings have taken upon themselves to punish the team: it looks like Tavaris is starting on Sunday.

[Rastak]

Yea, I would be too if someone I thought acted in bad faith was gonna screw me out of a million bucks. That's what Phat Pat stands to lose. A million bucks.

That bad faith line is just something they're using to deny personal accountability. Personally, I think they're probably just probably dumb as rocks and can use their money and connections to cover up their own lack of intelligence.

Every one of 'em needs to be suspended. Gravy Jackson included. I don't care if it's now or next year. Whatever. Grow up and face the consequences.

I think that drug is prescription only for a reason. I think the NFL is going to live to regret the way they handled it in 2006, when they let the first player off scot free and then kept quiet (other than banning the maker from being endorsed by NFL players).....Nice.


http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/35993969.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc: aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU



Tennessee lab found Bumetanide for athlete in 2007

By TERESA M. WALKER , Associated Press

Last update: December 11, 2008 - 4:47 PM

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A drug-testing lab in Tennessee confirmed more than a year ago that StarCaps, the over-the-counter weight-loss pill at the center of five NFL player suspensions, contained the banned diuretic Bumetanide, and the toxicologist in charge said athletes using it put themselves at risk of more than just a positive drug test.

"Bumetanide is a potent diuretic for an athlete or someone in a situation where they might become dehydrated," David Black told The Associated Press. "They'd be taking a diuretic without the knowledge of it. That could lead to serious health considerations. That could lead to electrolyte abnormalities, cardiovascular collapse, cardiac arrhythmias, heart attack, stroke and death."

Black, who helped set up and coordinate the NFL's original steroid testing program with then-commissioner Pete Rozelle in the late 1980s, tested StarCaps in 2007 at the request of a professional athlete who tested positive for it. Black would not identify the player.

"It took us a couple of Ph.Ds and a $300,000 piece of equipment to verify that Bumetanide was contained in StarCaps," he said. "How is somebody supposed to know buying it off the shelf or off the Internet what it really contains? We spent an enormous amount of resources trying to understand this product."

Black credited the World Anti-Doping Agency with first confirming Bumetanide was in StarCaps and reporting those findings in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology in the November/December 2007 issue.

The problem? Athletes likely don't read such journals.

The demand for that kind of information has business booming for Black's company, Aegis Sciences Corp, located around the corner from the Tennessee Titans' headquarters in a Nashville business park.
It started in 1986 as a sports doping lab following a steroids scandal on the football team had Vanderbilt University wanting to test all its athletes. The toxicologist didn't want to leave town when the lab closed, so he took it private in 1990 and expanded testing for doctors tracking if patients take their pain medication, employers protecting themselves from employees using drugs, forensic work and sports.

Black estimates he has helped exonerate more than 50 athletes including Olympic sprinter Butch Reynolds in the early 1990s, and his lab tests for about 80 Division I-A universities and NASCAR. His work with the NFL ended in 1990 when then-commissioner Paul Tagliabue moved testing to a lab approved by the International Olympic Committee and named Dr. John Lombardo as the league's adviser on steroids.

Business is so good Black can't meet the demand, despite expanding into a 35,000-square foot building this summer. He has 130 employees, including 65 drug testers, running an average of 3,000 tests each week with fees ranging from as low as $30 to $3,000 per test. He said he expects business to expand by up to 50 percent next year despite the economy.

With researchers developing new medicines daily to treat diseases, Black said there's always something new for athletes trying to find an edge to make themselves better.

"So we always will be one step behind," Black said of the cheaters.

Black confirmed his lab was involved before the news broke in October that up to eight NFL players had tested positive. But he said he could not discuss the StarCaps cases directly or in any detail because of his lab's involvement with NFL players in Bumetanide-related issues.

Kevin Williams and Pat Williams of the Minnesota Vikings and Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith of the New Orleans Saints were suspended last week for four games each.

The five players tested positive in training camp in July and August for the banned diuretic Bumetanide, which can be used as a masking agent for steroids. Diuretics are also used to quickly shed weight. The drug was in the dietary supplement StarCaps even though the label did not list the diuretic as an ingredient.

"It's not there by accident," Black said.

A federal judge last Friday blocked the NFL from suspending the players for violating the league's anti-doping policy while he studies the arguments.The key issue in the case before the federal judge is whether the NFL had any specific obligation to notify players and the union that it had known since at least 2006 that the weight-loss supplement contained the banned diuretic. The NFL, which added StarCaps to its list of prohibited dietary supplement companies in December 2006, says the burden is on players to know what's going into their bodies.

The union had claimed Lombardo, in consultation with the league's attorneys, withheld critical information on StarCaps containing the banned diuretic.

NFL attorney Dan Nash argued Lombardo had made a professional decision to warn players in general about diuretics rather than specifically about StarCaps.

Atlanta's Grady Jackson, identified in media reports as a player who also tested positive for Bumetanide, filed suit against StarCaps in Alameda County Superior Court in California last month, seeking restitution for any lost salary and damages for "false advertising and unfair business practices."

[Rastak]

Hearing scheduled for later in December....from the Red Star:

Since the season is over for us, I'm hoping they'll eventually get suspended next year.
:D


I hope John Jolly gets suspended next year.... :wink:


Now that wasn't nice, was it!


:wink:

Vikes will probably play Green Bay in week 5!

[sharpe1027]

I think that drug is prescription only for a reason. I think the NFL is going to live to regret the way they handled it in 2006, when they let the first player off scot free and then kept quiet (other than banning the maker from being endorsed by NFL players).....Nice.


http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/35993969.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc: aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU


The NFL shared the truth about StarCaps with the league’s 32 teams. I see the Vikings did a nice job of protecting their players.

Unless two wrongs make a right, they should be suspended no matter what the NFL knew or did not know. Maybe the NFL is wrong too, but there is not doubt that the players were in the wrong.

[Rastak]

Yikes......just reading over the judges findings....interesting section and it explains why he continued the injuction.




Federal Arbitration Act provides that a court may vacate an arbitration award “where there
was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator[].” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2).
The NFLPA argues that Mr. Pash was biased because his office was directly
implicated in the NFL’s failure to inform players that StarCaps contained a banned
substance. The NFL responds that because the Policy specifically provides that the
Commissioner or his designee will preside over any arbitration, the NFLPA agreed to Mr.
Pash presiding over the hearing and therefore waived any challenge to Mr. Pash.
In agreeing that the Commissioner or his designee would preside over hearings under
the Policy, the NFLPA agreed to a certain amount of partiality in the arbitrator.3 Thus, “the
award should be confirmed unless the objecting party proves that the arbitrator’s partiality
prejudicially affected the award.” Winfrey v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 495 F.3d 549, 551 (8th
Cir. 2007).
It is plain that the involvement of Mr. Pash’s office and Birch, Mr. Pash’s subordinate,
in the alleged conduct rendered Mr. Pash a partial arbitrator. At the oral arguments on the
pending Motions, counsel for the NFLPA discussed Birch’s arbitration hearing testimony.
Birch was asked whether he reported the information about StarCaps to either Mr. Pash or
the Commissioner. He refused to answer the question, and Mr. Pash upheld his refusal to answer.
This exchange alone casts substantial doubt on Mr. Pash’s neutrality.
The NFLPA has succeeded in establishing that a substantial question exists as to
whether Mr. Pash’s connection to the allegations in this case prejudicially affected the award.
Although Mr. Pash’s decisions are well reasoned, he glossed over the rather shocking
allegations the NFLPA makes. Moreover, he did not take into account Lombardo’s
testimony that, even if asked about StarCaps in particular, he would merely warn the player
away from supplements in general. Such testimony calls into question the very basis of the
NFL’s position on banned substances. The NFL maintains that its strict liability policy is fair
in part because players may contact either Lombardo or the Hotline with questions about
specific supplements If players cannot get answers to their questions, however, they cannot
determine which supplements are permissible and which are not. While it is true that the
NFL discourages the use of all weight-loss supplements, such supplements are not forbidden
and the players reasonably expect to rely on the advice of Lombardo and the Hotline with
respect to such substances. Mr. Pash’s failure to take Lombardo’s testimony into account is
substantial evidence that the arbitration award was prejudiced by Mr. Pash’s partiality. The
NFLPA is entitled to a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo until a full hearing
can be held on the issue of Mr. Pash’s partiality and the effect of any partiality on the
arbitration awards at issue.

[denverYooper]

Oooh, I want to play.



Federal Arbitration Act provides that a court may vacate an arbitration award “where there
was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator[].” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2).
The NFLPA argues that Mr. Pash was biased because his office was directly
implicated in the NFL’s failure to inform players that StarCaps contained a banned
substance. The NFL responds that because the Policy specifically provides that the
Commissioner or his designee will preside over any arbitration, the NFLPA agreed to Mr.
Pash presiding over the hearing and therefore waived any challenge to Mr. Pash.
In agreeing that the Commissioner or his designee would preside over hearings under
the Policy, the NFLPA agreed to a certain amount of partiality in the arbitrator.3 Thus, “the
award should be confirmed unless the objecting party proves that the arbitrator’s partiality
prejudicially affected the award.” Winfrey v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 495 F.3d 549, 551 (8th
Cir. 2007).
It is plain that the involvement of Mr. Pash’s office and Birch, Mr. Pash’s subordinate,
in the alleged conduct rendered Mr. Pash a partial arbitrator. At the oral arguments on the
pending Motions, counsel for the NFLPA discussed Birch’s arbitration hearing testimony.
Birch was asked whether he reported the information about StarCaps to either Mr. Pash or
the Commissioner. He refused to answer the question, and Mr. Pash upheld his refusal to answer.
This exchange alone casts substantial doubt on Mr. Pash’s neutrality.
The NFLPA has succeeded in establishing that a substantial question exists as to
whether Mr. Pash’s connection to the allegations in this case prejudicially affected the award.
Although Mr. Pash’s decisions are well reasoned, he glossed over the rather shocking
allegations the NFLPA makes. Moreover, he did not take into account Lombardo’s
testimony that, even if asked about StarCaps in particular, he would merely warn the player
away from supplements in general. Such testimony calls into question the very basis of the
NFL’s position on banned substances. The NFL maintains that its strict liability policy is fair
in part because players may contact either Lombardo or the Hotline with questions about
specific supplements. If players cannot get answers to their questions, however, they cannot
determine which supplements are permissible and which are not. While it is true that the
NFL discourages the use of all weight-loss supplements, such supplements are not forbidden
and the players reasonably expect to rely on the advice of Lombardo and the Hotline with
respect to such substances. Mr. Pash’s failure to take Lombardo’s testimony into account is
substantial evidence that the arbitration award was prejudiced by Mr. Pash’s partiality. The
NFLPA is entitled to a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo until a full hearing
can be held on the issue of Mr. Pash’s partiality and the effect of any partiality on the
arbitration awards at issue.

I'm calling into question the partiality of Judge Homer Magnuson. "Discourages" is far too soft a word for the language in the letter issued by the NFL. They flat out said that players are completely responsible for what goes into their bodies and that players would be suspended if they chose to take those supplements and they turned out to contain banned substances.

[Rastak]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

[denverYooper]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

Was it before the current administration (Goodell)?

[Rastak]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

Was it before the current administration?


Does the CBA predate the current administration? The terms of the CBA did not change. I should see if I can find the section in that ruling where the NFL detailed the intent of the policy....that was interesting.


edit: Gah, reading legal documents isn't as fun as I thought. Eseentially the NFL claimed players should contact Dr Lombardo or call the suplement hotline yet Lombardo testified if a player had called he wouldn't have told him it contained a prescription only banned drug. With partners like that who need enemies!

[denverYooper]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

Was it before the current administration?


Does the CBA predate the current administration? The terms of the CBA did not change. I should see if I can find the section in that ruling where the NFL detailed the intent of the policy....that was interesting.


edit: Gah, reading legal documents isn't as fun as I thought. Eseentially the NFL claimed players should contact Dr Lombardo or call the suplement hotline yet Lombardo testified if a player had called he wouldn't have told him it contained a prescription only banned drug. With partners like that who need enemies!

My point was that Goodell's been trying to enforce the rules tighter and he came into office in Sept 2006. The first case pre-dated his tenure. Could explain why the first guy wasn't busted.

I don't know about Lombardo's role. He's being made the bad guy by the defense though, that's for sure.

[Rastak]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

Was it before the current administration?


Does the CBA predate the current administration? The terms of the CBA did not change. I should see if I can find the section in that ruling where the NFL detailed the intent of the policy....that was interesting.


edit: Gah, reading legal documents isn't as fun as I thought. Eseentially the NFL claimed players should contact Dr Lombardo or call the suplement hotline yet Lombardo testified if a player had called he wouldn't have told him it contained a prescription only banned drug. With partners like that who need enemies!

My point was that Goodell's been trying to enforce the rules tighter and he came into office in Sept 2006. The first case pre-dated his tenure. Could explain why the first guy wasn't busted.

I don't know about Lombardo's role. He's being made the bad guy by the defense though, that's for sure.

He runs the entire NFL Steroids policy is my understanding. Anyway, I wish this one would show up on courtTV, I find it an interesting case.

[denverYooper]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

Was it before the current administration?


Does the CBA predate the current administration? The terms of the CBA did not change. I should see if I can find the section in that ruling where the NFL detailed the intent of the policy....that was interesting.


edit: Gah, reading legal documents isn't as fun as I thought. Eseentially the NFL claimed players should contact Dr Lombardo or call the suplement hotline yet Lombardo testified if a player had called he wouldn't have told him it contained a prescription only banned drug. With partners like that who need enemies!

My point was that Goodell's been trying to enforce the rules tighter and he came into office in Sept 2006. The first case pre-dated his tenure. Could explain why the first guy wasn't busted.

I don't know about Lombardo's role. He's being made the bad guy by the defense though, that's for sure.

He runs the entire NFL Steroids policy is my understanding. Anyway, I wish this one would show up on courtTV, I find it an interesting case.

Yeah. I'd bet that at the very least this results in the steroids policy being spelled out much better than it apparently has been.

[sharpe1027]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

In the first instance the NFL had specifically told players that starcaps was O.K. via their hotline. The player in question worked with the NFL to help determine how he tested positive for the substance.

Since that time the NFL issued a warning about these types of supplements, changed their stance on Home Grown, notified each of the NFL teams about Star Caps and clarified that taking these types of supplements are "at your own risk."

There is a difference in the situations and the NFL can make a logical case for their actions. Personally, I don't think that the first player should have gotten off.

[Guiness]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

In the first instance the NFL had specifically told players that starcaps was O.K. via their hotline. The player in question worked with the NFL to help determine how he tested positive for the substance.

Since that time the NFL issued a warning about these types of supplements, changed their stance on Home Grown, notified each of the NFL teams about Star Caps and clarified that taking these types of supplements are "at your own risk."

There is a difference in the situations and the NFL can make a logical case for their actions. Personally, I don't think that the first player should have gotten off.

I agree with the interpretation in your first paragraph. The original player got off because he'd been specifically told by the NFL that it was ok to take. And if that was the case, I do think he should've gotten off. I also suspect that's why the NFL no longer has a list of 'approved' supplements. They have some endorsed ones, but not approved, as I understand it.

What about the part I bolded though? They notified each team about Starcaps? Isn't the whole problem that they didn't notify them? The general warning was worded in such a way as to not single out Starcaps.

[pbmax]

The NFL shared the truth about StarCaps with the league’s 32 teams. I see the Vikings did a nice job of protecting their players.
The NFL did not share the "truth" about StarCaps with anyone except, perhaps, itself. Possibly the FDA.

The league put the Manufacturer on the "Do Not Endorse" list. It might be possible for a player to interpret that as a backdoor notice that some of its products may contain prohibited substances, but it is far from clear.

The Do Not Endorse list also might contain companies with legal problems, gambling interests, or questionable associations (pornography, Pete Rose? hopefully not together :lol: ). There are certainly many reasons the League could want its players to not associate with a given company. And due to the complete lack of logic of NFL reporters, I have yet to see anyone ask how a company ends up on this list.

What the league did share was a general warning about supplements and about weight loss products in particular.

[pbmax]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

In the first instance the NFL had specifically told players that starcaps was O.K. via their hotline. The player in question worked with the NFL to help determine how he tested positive for the substance.
The Hotline does not approve products beyond what is on the EAS produced line for the NFL. It reads the labels and cross checks the listed ingredients against the banned substances list.

The Saints players who called were given the same answer that the player from 2006 was given. Nothing on the label is a banned substance.

Its possible the Hotline was changed after the first StarCaps incident, but I have not seen this reported.

[Rastak]

In addition PB, it is my understanding that the players were told they could contact Dr. Lombardo with questions and my understanding is he admitted under questioning he would have only warned them off generally had someone asked specifically about StarCaps.

It just seems to me that the NFL completely fucked this one up. I totally agree with the policy and I'm sure when the players bargained this they likely thought they were partnering with the league since they both have a vested interest. The NFLPA to protect it's members health and the NFL to protect the integrity of the game. It seems the NFL wanted to turn it into some sting operation rather than the stated goals. I could even somewhat understand that if the drug in question had been performance enhancing but I just don't see what the NFL tried to gain in handling things this way. Leverage on the next CBA? It doesn't make sense to me.

[pbmax]

... It seems the NFL wanted to turn it into some sting operation rather than the stated goals.
Perhpas Ras. But the prognosticator in me thinks someone ran a test they never should have run in the first StarCaps case, back in 06. If it didn't matter how it got into the player, then there was no reason for that test.

So either the NFL (or its policy enforcement team) ordered the test because it thought they found a hole in the policy, and needed the test in order to be sure how to close it or they ran the test and from that point forward possessed knowledge they really didn't want.

Or perhaps it was a league icon who tested positive and they were looking for a way to let him off the hook. Someone like Gus Frerotte.

[sharpe1027]

The NFL shared the truth about StarCaps with the league’s 32 teams. I see the Vikings did a nice job of protecting their players.
The NFL did not share the "truth" about StarCaps with anyone except, perhaps, itself. Possibly the FDA.

The league put the Manufacturer on the "Do Not Endorse" list. It might be possible for a player to interpret that as a backdoor notice that some of its products may contain prohibited substances, but it is far from clear.

The Do Not Endorse list also might contain companies with legal problems, gambling interests, or questionable associations (pornography, Pete Rose? hopefully not together :lol: ). There are certainly many reasons the League could want its players to not associate with a given company. And due to the complete lack of logic of NFL reporters, I have yet to see anyone ask how a company ends up on this list.

What the league did share was a general warning about supplements and about weight loss products in particular.

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=492953

[sharpe1027]

Denver, why'd the NFL let the first guy off then?

In the first instance the NFL had specifically told players that starcaps was O.K. via their hotline. The player in question worked with the NFL to help determine how he tested positive for the substance.
The Hotline does not approve products beyond what is on the EAS produced line for the NFL. It reads the labels and cross checks the listed ingredients against the banned substances list.

The Saints players who called were given the same answer that the player from 2006 was given. Nothing on the label is a banned substance.

Its possible the Hotline was changed after the first StarCaps incident, but I have not seen this reported.

Are you arguing that there is no difference in the situations, or just quibbling about minor points in the differences?

The NFL issued specific warnings that diet supplements were problematic and that ingredients on the label were no gurantee.

The siutations are not the same:

If someone tells you that a hotline will verify that all the ingredients on a supplement are O.K., you would probably have a reasonable assurance that it is fine.

If, on the other hand, you have been warned that the labels of a type of supplement are not accurate, you would probably not be reasonably assured after calling the hotline.

That's my point. I still think that the player should not have gotten off.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The NFL shared the truth about StarCaps with the league’s 32 teams. I see the Vikings did a nice job of protecting their players.
The NFL did not share the "truth" about StarCaps with anyone except, perhaps, itself. Possibly the FDA.

The league put the Manufacturer on the "Do Not Endorse" list. It might be possible for a player to interpret that as a backdoor notice that some of its products may contain prohibited substances, but it is far from clear.

The Do Not Endorse list also might contain companies with legal problems, gambling interests, or questionable associations (pornography, Pete Rose? hopefully not together :lol: ). There are certainly many reasons the League could want its players to not associate with a given company. And due to the complete lack of logic of NFL reporters, I have yet to see anyone ask how a company ends up on this list.

What the league did share was a general warning about supplements and about weight loss products in particular.

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=492953


It was my understanding, via radio interviews, that the NFL's specific warning about the company that makes starcaps was a request to not do any endorsement deals. This interwiew made it sound as though that was one of the arguements for the suspended players. Health issues also weigh into this arguement in that the NFL seemed more concerned about public image than player health.

What a f'ing mess.

[pbmax]

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=492953
No. Florio quotes the NFL statement. What Florio doesn't point out is the manner in which the league communicated with the teams. That was the Do Not Endorse list. And that was a warning about the company, not the product. Under questioning, the Doctor stated that even if asked point blank by a player about the ingredients in StarCaps, he would not have shared that information. The warning to teams was not about the diuretic, but about the company. And as I stated previously, you would have to read minds to understand that the reason they were on the Do Not Endorse list was because of unlisted ingredients.

[pbmax]

David Cornwell, who handled part of the arbitration for the Saints players on the NFL's warning to clubs:


As to the vague contention that the NFL notified the union about the problem with StarCaps, Cornwell offered his take on the issue.

“Classic C.Y.A.,” Cornwell said of the letter from the league to the NFLPA. “This is the first time in the 21-year history of the steroid policy where the National Football League has asserted or relied on this type of notice as being sufficient to players. The notice that the management council sent to the union and the clubs identified Balanced Health Products as the manufacturer of StarCaps and as a banned company. Under the policy the significance of banning a company means that a player cannot endorse that company. It does not and has never operated as notice of a specific prohibited substance.”

Responded Riggins, showing that he still has his “loosen up, Sandy baby” fastball despite essentially working for the league: “So basically it is a little bit of subterfuge here, they’re trying to mislead the public?”

“You reached the conclusion as you think is appropriate about their motivation,” Cornwell said. “What I will tell you is Dr. Lombardo sent out notice to players in July of 2007 and he didn’t mention the manufacture of Star Caps nor did he tell the players that StarCaps contained this diuretic. If they were so open and notorious with their notification, why did they withhold it in the actual notice to players?”

[sharpe1027]

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=492953
No. Florio quotes the NFL statement. What Florio doesn't point out is the manner in which the league communicated with the teams. That was the Do Not Endorse list. And that was a warning about the company, not the product. Under questioning, the Doctor stated that even if asked point blank by a player about the ingredients in StarCaps, he would not have shared that information. The warning to teams was not about the diuretic, but about the company. And as I stated previously, you would have to read minds to understand that the reason they were on the Do Not Endorse list was because of unlisted ingredients.

Thanks, I did not realize that the article was omitting those details. Some spin-master was behind the NFL's statements. :roll:

Here is my take:
1.) The NFL did not warn anyone specifically about Star Caps.
2.) There are reasons that the NFL might be concerned with providing specific names.
3.) The NFL still should have warned players about Star Caps.
4.) Proving the NFL was in the wrong does not excuse the players from their mistake.
5.) The previous player's situation was not identical to the present situation.
6.) The main reason for the delay in the player's suspension appears to be related to the arbitrator, not whether the players suspensions are improper.