Judge denies most of Vikings' Williamses' claims

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vikings/2009-05-23-pat-williams-kevin-williams-lawsuit_N.htm?csp=34

Well, the federal judge rules mostly in the NFL's favor, but two issues will go back to state court. Perhaps the state judge will be transplanted Packers fan.
:D

[Fritz]

This is one of those deals where I just don't care too much. I kinda hope they get to play. What the heck. Let's see how good this team is.

[Rastak]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vikings/2009-05-23-pat-williams-kevin-williams-lawsuit_N.htm?csp=34

Well, the federal judge rules mostly in the NFL's favor, but two issues will go back to state court. Perhaps the state judge will be transplanted Packers fan.
:D


I think they'd appeal it all the way to the Minnesota supreme court and chief justice ALAN PAGE. :lol:

Anyway, Florio's take after reading the entire decision.



The Williams Wall Still Has A Case
Posted by Mike Florio on May 23, 2009, 10:04 a.m. EDT

For a guy who has practiced law nearly 18 years and who has followed the NFL for twice that amount of time, the periodic intersection of the two topics might prompt the question, “Is that a gavel in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”

I’ve read every word of the 23-page opinion filed Friday by Judge Paul Magnuson in the StarCaps case. In lieu of writing one exhaustive post regarding what the opinion says and what it means, I’ll break it into several different blurbs.

Most importantly is the fact that Vikings fans should take heart. Defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams might still be available to play all 16 games this season.

The primary problem with the entire case (as I’ll explain in a subsequent post) is that the NFL Players Association challenged a drug testing program and discipline procedure to which the NFLPA agreed through collective bargaining. And since the program arose from collective bargaining and culminated in an arbitration decision that, as the union and the league agreed, was binding, not many avenues existed for overturning the outcome.

As a result, the league’s statement regarding the outcome is not surprising: “The decision strongly supports the NFL program on performance enhancing substances that protects the health and safety of NFL players and the integrity of our game.”

But the decision doesn’t completely support the league’s program on performance enhancing substances.

Collective bargaining agreements between management and employees supersede most “common-law claims,” which is the name given to legal theories developed and refined by courts through the resolution of specific disputes over a period of many years. However, a CBA cannot overcome clear rights given to employees through statutes enacted by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor.

In Minnesota, Kevin and Pat Williams have two separate statutory claims that will be sent back to Minnesota state court (where the judges are elected by the local citizens, most of whom are Vikings fans).

One claim arises under the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act. As explained by Judge Magnuson, this law confines employee drug testing in Minnesota to the specific procedures permitted by the law itself. In other words, any testing or discipline not permitted by the law is not permitted.

As further explained by Judge Magnuson, the law prohibits employers from imposing discipline based on a single positive test.

Here, Kevin and Pat Williams tested positive only once, and under the league’s policy regarding anabolic steroids and related substances, a four-game suspension arises from that first positive test.

The law also gives employees the right to explain any positive test.

Here, no one has doubted that the players have a pretty good explanation for testing positive for a prescription diuretic that secretly had been added to the supplement known as StarCaps. The players were suspended not because they knowingly ingested a banned substance, but because the strict-liability policy to which their union agreed mandates suspension even if, for example, a closet Packers fan working beverage detail had slipped a banned substance into their Pepsi at a Minneapolis restaurant.

On the surface, then, it appears that the players still have a pretty good argument for avoiding a four-game suspension for an initial positive test.

Also, the Minnesota Consumable Products Act prohibits employers from taking action against employees who have “engaged in the use or enjoyment of lawful consumable products, if the use or enjoyment takes place off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.”

In English, this means that Vikings players are entitled, per Minnesota statutory law, to consume away from the workplace and on their own time any supplements sold legally and lawfully. The fact that the U.S. government has done a traditionally dreadful job of regulating the supplement industry is not something for which Vikings players or other Minnesota employees are responsible. Under the Consumable Products Act, employees are entitled to consume on their own time and off the employer’s premises anything that can be legally purchased.

Although a literal application of this law would cause problems if, while parked on a public street ten minutes before his shift starts, an employee chugs a twelve-pack of beer, no such extreme twist or tweak applies in this case.

Bottom line? The case filed by these two starting defensive tackles for the Vikings will now return to a Minnesota state court for their state-law claims to be resolved. Ultimately, the issue could be decided in part by a former starting defensive tackle for the Vikings who holds a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court: Alan Page.

(Curiously, the lawyer representing Kevin and Pat Williams asked Judge Magnuson to keep the case in federal pursuant to the concept of “supplemental jurisdiction,” even though the lawyer initially filed the case in Minnesota state court. Our guess is that the lawyer was sufficiently confident that Judge Magnuson would have blocked the suspensions pending resolution of the state-law claims — and likely would have ruled in the players’ favor on the merits of the state-law claims.)

The next skirmish in this case likely will involve a request for the same “preliminary injunction” that the federal court imposed in December. This would allow the players to continue to participate in games pending the ultimate outcome of the case.

Of course, the NFL could chose to appeal that specific portion of the ruling and ask that all of the Williamses’ claims be pitched. It will be an uphill battle, however. The principles applied by Judge Magnuson in preserving the state-law claims are generally recognized by federal courts throughout the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, our guess is that the NFL promptly will ask its lawyers to research the employee drug-testing laws for the 20 other states in which NFL teams are headquartered. It’s possible that both the steroids policy and the substance abuse policy ultimately will have to be revised to mesh with any applicable statutes passed by any state in which an NFL team plays its games. Until that happens, there’s a chance that certain players in certain states will have strong arguments to avoid the discipline that the league’s policies mandate.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Anyway, Florio's take after reading the entire decision.

Florio is a Vikings fan. (Yes, I know he'll take pot shots at easy targets like Chilly and TJack.)
:D

[Rastak]

Anyway, Florio's take after reading the entire decision.

Florio is a Vikings fan. (Yes, I know he'll take pot shots at easy targets like Chilly and TJack.)
:D

In other words, if Harvey is a Packers fan I should immediately discount his analysis when it comes to the Packers? :P


Anyway, this legal shit goes way over my head. Let the the chips fall where they may!

[HarveyWallbangers]

In other words, if Harvey is a Packers fan I should immediately discount his analysis when it comes to the Packers? :P

Anyway, this legal shit goes way over my head. Let the the chips fall where they may!

Well, they may have a case, but I don't know that the ruling can be spun positively. They could still wiggle their way out of this, but I think the ruling puts them closer to a suspension. Luckily, the Vikes have three easy games to start the season, so at worst they might lose one game while missing those guys. It might be better for the Vikings if they lost those guys for the first four games over later in the year.

[SMACKTALKIE]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

StarCaps Ruling A Harbinger Of A Work Stoppage?

Here is an interesting tid bit from the article.


“There is no doubt that it would have been preferable for the NFL to communicate with players specifically about the presence of bumetanide in StarCaps,” Judge Magnuson writes at page 18 of his opinion. “The NFL’s failure to do so is baffling, but it is not a breach of the NFL’s duties to its players. It is clear that this situation arose because the parties to these cases do not trust each other. The NFL does not trust the Union or the players. The players and the Union do not trust the NFL. No one believes that the opposing parties have any common interests. The situation is deplorable and leads to suspicion and the sort of no-holds-barred litigation tactics so clearly on view here.”

[HarveyWallbangers]

StarCaps Ruling A Harbinger Of A Work Stoppage

That's a good catch by Florio. I don't know that this ruling is a harbinger to anything though. The NFL and its players union have a long history of contentious negotiations--until Gene Upshaw took over. I suspect we'll see some tough negotiations and a possible work stoppage anyways.

[Tony Oday]

I would rather have Fat Pat and Kevin play...Big men get 4 weeks off at the start of the season against teams not dominate run teams and they will be fresh going into the last half of the season.

[CaptainD]

I don't really give a shit if they are suspended or not, but those Starcaps are known amongst the cognoscenti in weight lifting/'roid world as a semi-decent masking agent for 'roids. They are for women, btw... weight-loss- wise... And almost universally panned as worthless for weight loss. They are also renowned as a good test beater for other substances, specifically POT. It isn't even hard to figure out if you look at ALL of the guys that got busted for having them.

I looked into this heavily last year (It's where I first read about that kid that killed himself while the assholes mocked him) -- that was in a "'roids" section--largely, anyway--- of a fitness forum.

I cannot believe for one second that a professional athlete is unknowingly ingesting those particular pills for the efficacy of weight loss--- The hollywood-types were--but they are morons, imo.

NFL did a poor job in their dissemination of their policy regarding these particular pills. It was somewhat ambiguous. The cynic in me thinks that this very loophole was considered long before a single pill was popped.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I cannot believe for one second that a professional athlete is unknowingly ingesting those particular pills for the efficacy of weight loss

Agreed.

[FlashPack]

These players were in the wrong no matter what team they belong to. For all we know they could have been masking the fact that they are weed junkies. You never know. They took a chance and lost. If other players are using things such as this that are legal and they too an illegal one according to the NFL then they my friend are stupid for doing so. These guys get paid a lot of money to play this game and they should protect themselves from this possibility. They can hire all the dietitians they want to help them out but if big fatty still needs his pills to help make weight then that is a risk he will have to deal with

[RashanGary]

This is exactly what I thought would happen. After seeing the thing keep rolling on, I thought maybe I was wrong and it wasn't so cut and dry.

The NFL has a list of banned substances.
The NFL has a list of products that are guaranteed not to have any banned substances.

If an NFL player wants to avoid a positive test, all he/she has to do is take products on the approved list.


The Williams' went away from the trusted list. Starcaps turns out to be not trustable. If you want to work for the NFL, you agree that what goes in your body is your responsibility regardless of whether you knew what you were taking or not. They help you out by giving you a trusted list so there is never any worry. The Williams' chose to stray from the trusted list and clearly broke the rule (on accident but still preventable by just using the trusted list).

They should be held accountable to the agreement they signed when they said they wanted to play in the NFL. 4 game suspension. Should be a done deal.

[Rastak]

This is exactly what I thought would happen. After seeing the thing keep rolling on, I thought maybe I was wrong and it wasn't so cut and dry.

The NFL has a list of banned substances.
The NFL has a list of products that are guaranteed not to have any banned substances.

If an NFL player wants to avoid a positive test, all he/she has to do is take products on the approved list.


The Williams' went away from the trusted list. Starcaps turns out to be not trustable. If you want to work for the NFL, you agree that what goes in your body is your responsibility regardless of whether you knew what you were taking or not. They help you out by giving you a trusted list so there is never any worry. The Williams' chose to stray from the trusted list and clearly broke the rule (on accident but still preventable by just using the trusted list).

They should be held accountable to the agreement they signed when they said they wanted to play in the NFL. 4 game suspension. Should be a done deal.


There is no "trusted list". They have a marketing agreement with ONE manufacteror. Eight players tested positive before the NFL determined the thing was spiked with an FDA regulated drug. The FDA was not informed nor were the players. It's become clear to me that the NFL and the NFLPA have an extremely acrimonious relationship behind the scenes. I would have thought the entire policy would be more of a cooperative effort since many of these drugs are dangerous.


It's clear to me the appeals process if flawed and justice is meeted out in a fairly haphazard manner which does nothing but undermine the policy. The NFL claimed it wasn't in the least worried it's policy violated Minnesota state law then turned around and appealed, which I thought was rather funny. Never take anything a lawyer says as truth it seems.

[sharpe1027]

There is no "trusted list". They have a marketing agreement with ONE manufacteror. Eight players tested positive before the NFL determined the thing was spiked with an FDA regulated drug. The FDA was not informed nor were the players. It's become clear to me that the NFL and the NFLPA have an extremely acrimonious relationship behind the scenes. I would have thought the entire policy would be more of a cooperative effort since many of these drugs are dangerous.

It's clear to me the appeals process if flawed and justice is meeted out in a fairly haphazard manner which does nothing but undermine the policy. The NFL claimed it wasn't in the least worried it's policy violated Minnesota state law then turned around and appealed, which I thought was rather funny. Never take anything a lawyer says as truth it seems.

Hypothetically speaking, you seem to suggest that if the NFL had no knowledge of Star Caps, then player's identical actions suddenly become wrong?

The NFL's mistakes don't make the players any less responsible. Both should be held accountable.

Frankly, allowing players to use ignorance as an excuse would undermine the policy. Word gets around on products like Star Caps, and there will almost never be a smoking gun. A player intentionally taking something like star caps for the masking effect simply plays dumb and gets off free. I don't think so.

I'm not sure what you think is so flawed and haphazard.

[Rastak]

There is no "trusted list". They have a marketing agreement with ONE manufacteror. Eight players tested positive before the NFL determined the thing was spiked with an FDA regulated drug. The FDA was not informed nor were the players. It's become clear to me that the NFL and the NFLPA have an extremely acrimonious relationship behind the scenes. I would have thought the entire policy would be more of a cooperative effort since many of these drugs are dangerous.

It's clear to me the appeals process if flawed and justice is meeted out in a fairly haphazard manner which does nothing but undermine the policy. The NFL claimed it wasn't in the least worried it's policy violated Minnesota state law then turned around and appealed, which I thought was rather funny. Never take anything a lawyer says as truth it seems.

Hypothetically speaking, you seem to suggest that if the NFL had no knowledge of Star Caps, then player's identical actions suddenly become wrong?

The NFL's mistakes don't make the players any less responsible. Both should be held accountable.

Frankly, allowing players to use ignorance as an excuse would undermine the policy. Word gets around on products like Star Caps, and there will almost never be a smoking gun. A player intentionally taking something like star caps for the masking effect simply plays dumb and gets off free. I don't think so.

I'm not sure what you think is so flawed and haphazard.


Allowing 8-12 players to test positive without incident then suspending the next 5 isn't haphazard?

[sharpe1027]

Allowing 8-12 players to test positive without incident then suspending the next 5 isn't haphazard?

My mistake, I wrongly assumed you were talking about the judge's ruling being haphazard. Sorry, I just read your post incorrectly. :oops:

When were the 8-12 players tested? What were the facts of those players. I hadn't heard about more than one.

From my previous post on this issue:

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.

[RashanGary]

Suspend'em.

[Rastak]

Allowing 8-12 players to test positive without incident then suspending the next 5 isn't haphazard?

My mistake, I wrongly assumed you were talking about the judge's ruling being haphazard. Sorry, I just read your post incorrectly. :oops:

When were the 8-12 players tested? What were the facts of those players. I hadn't heard about more than one.

From my previous post on this issue:

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.


Well, you know the deal with lawyers, I'm never 100% sure but I've heard it during multiple accounts and they did vary from 8-12 that tested positive before the NFL lifted a finger. That was mentioned by Ginsburg (the defense attorney) and discussed on NFL radio several times. The reason the NFL even knew about what was contained in StarCaps was because a player tested positive then said he was only taking StarCaps and the league tested the product. Now riddle me this, if the NFL claims it doesn't matter how a substance got into a player why would they even bother? AND, why was the player not suspended? Because they they seem to be acting in an arbitrary manner. Doing things one way when it suits them and then some other way when it doesn't.

[Rastak]

Suspend'em.


That's a very compelling argument you raise there JH.... :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Allowing 8-12 players to test positive without incident then suspending the next 5 isn't haphazard?

What players are you talking about? I know New Orleans had a linemen suspended before the Williamses got busted and he got a four game suspension--which he served without appealing.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Do you seriously think Pat and Kevin were taking it for weight loss?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

Suspend'em.


That's a very compelling argument you raise there JH.... :lol:



If those two cheaters get off (and that very well could happen), it'll be on a legal technicality.

[Rastak]

Do you seriously think Pat and Kevin were taking it for weight loss?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_04/035ostrich_468x538.jpg


Diet pills for weight loss? Of course not. They were taking them to gain weight.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yeah, its not like players have weight clauses and bonuses tied to their weight.

[Packerarcher]

According to what most of you are saying it's ok for the NFL to be negligent and deceptive,but not the players. That's bull,the the NFL is just as fault here as the players.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:


It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


"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.”

The policy goes on to state "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."

[sharpe1027]

According to what most of you are saying it's ok for the NFL to be negligent and deceptive,but not the players. That's bull,the the NFL is just as fault here as the players.

Not at all. You missed the point entirely. I say F-the league too. They deserve a big smack upside the head.

Still, for all the wrongs that the NFL did, nothing magically makes what the players did right. Everyone agrees that if the NFL knew nothing about Star Caps, the players should have been suspended. Do their actions magically become right because of something the NFL did? No.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Rastak]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:

[quote]It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


It's a substance that legally couldn't contain the banned diuretic that has been used by some in the past as masking agent.It didn't list it as an ingrediant....it was a weight loss product.

You seem to insinuate they were on steroides when there isn;t a shred of evidence to support this fact. If you wanted to take a friggen masking agent you'd just take it directly and not through some OTC supplement that secretly contains it.


Is this not the common sense view?

[]{ilr]3]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:

[quote]It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


It's a substance that legally couldn't contain the banned diuretic that has been used by some in the past as masking agent.It didn't list it as an ingrediant....it was a weight loss product.

You seem to insinuate they were on steroides when there isn;t a shred of evidence to support this fact. If you wanted to take a friggen masking agent you'd just take it directly and not through some OTC supplement that secretly contains it.


Is this not the common sense view?

Not if they were taking it this way so they had an excuse to fall back on if they got caught.

[Patler]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:


It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


It's a substance that legally couldn't contain the banned diuretic that has been used by some in the past as masking agent.It didn't list it as an ingrediant....it was a weight loss product.

You seem to insinuate they were on steroides when there isn;t a shred of evidence to support this fact. If you wanted to take a friggen masking agent you'd just take it directly and not through some OTC supplement that secretly contains it.


Is this not the common sense view?

Can't the same be said for the other side of this debate? If they really wanted to take a weight-loss medication, why take a celebrity-hyped OTC supplement of no proven effectiveness? My understanding is that this was not a supplement commonly taken by 350 pound males. It was a fad or fashionable supplement taken by females, developed by the “Diet Queen to the Stars”. Is Nikki Haskel really someone that pro athletes the caliber of the Williams would turn to for weight loss help, especially in view of the drug testing they are subjected to?

My suspicion is that they really were taking it for its well-known side effect as a masking agent. That actually seems to be the more common sense view, in my opinion. If caught with it they can argue the weight-loss use. If caught with a masking agent in your possession, what argument do you have?

I have a hard time believing that elite NFL players truly interested in only weight control would turn to Star Caps.

[denverYooper]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:


It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


It's a substance that legally couldn't contain the banned diuretic that has been used by some in the past as masking agent.It didn't list it as an ingrediant....it was a weight loss product.

You seem to insinuate they were on steroides when there isn;t a shred of evidence to support this fact. If you wanted to take a friggen masking agent you'd just take it directly and not through some OTC supplement that secretly contains it.

Is this not the common sense view?

You take the OTC supplement so you can use it as an excuse because you know it's an excuse. That's why people who like their opiates will list "Poppyseed cake" and "aspirin" on a pre-employment drug screen.

Anyhow, you left out the second part of his post, which is more important, the personal responsibility part:



"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.”

The policy goes on to state "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."


^^^^ This ^^^^ is the common sense view.

[Fritz]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:


It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


It's a substance that legally couldn't contain the banned diuretic that has been used by some in the past as masking agent.It didn't list it as an ingrediant....it was a weight loss product.

You seem to insinuate they were on steroides when there isn;t a shred of evidence to support this fact. If you wanted to take a friggen masking agent you'd just take it directly and not through some OTC supplement that secretly contains it.


Is this not the common sense view?

Can't the same be said for the other side of this debate? If they really wanted to take a weight-loss medication, why take a celebrity-hyped OTC supplement of no proven effectiveness? My understanding is that this was not a supplement commonly taken by 350 pound males. It was a fad or fashionable supplement taken by females, developed by the “Diet Queen to the Stars”. Is Nikki Haskel really someone that pro athletes the caliber of the Williams would turn to for weight loss help, especially in view of the drug testing they are subjected to?

My suspicion is that they really were taking it for its well-known side effect as a masking agent. That actually seems to be the more common sense view, in my opinion. If caught with it they can argue the weight-loss use. If caught with a masking agent in your possession, what argument do you have?

I have a hard time believing that elite NFL players truly interested in only weight control would turn to Star Caps.

First, I thought "Star Caps" was a Brachs candy from back in the day....

Second, here's the litmus test (see Patler's italicized point above): If the Williamses' reading material comes from the Oprah Book Club, they are innocent. If their reading material comes from their own random choices, they are guilty.

I should the the Commish. Call me Solomon.

[cpk1994]

The only things I know about StarCaps and this case:

[quote]It's a substance that contains a masking agent.


It's a substance that legally couldn't contain the banned diuretic that has been used by some in the past as masking agent.It didn't list it as an ingrediant....it was a weight loss product.

You seem to insinuate they were on steroides when there isn;t a shred of evidence to support this fact. If you wanted to take a friggen masking agent you'd just take it directly and not through some OTC supplement that secretly contains it.


Is this not the common sense view?Steriods has been insinuated. Most people tend to lean towards the masking of weed usage in this case.

[Rastak]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....



I see the NFLPA appealed the judges decision. From what I've read they have ZERO chance.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.

[Rastak]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?

[cpk1994]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?

[Scott Campbell]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


Like the rest of the Vikings, they fail the character test.

[sharpe1027]

Which steroid test did they fail?

Seriously?

There is a direct test for steriods. It well known that certain substances can fool this test.

There is a second test for these certain substances.

They failed this second test. :wink:

p.s., I realize that we can't prove that they took steroids, but being caught having masking substances is a whole different ball-game than unsupported rumors.

[Rastak]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A diuretic, I'm surprised you missed that key point.

[Scott Campbell]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A banned masking agent, I'm surprised you missed that key point.


Fixed.

[Rastak]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A banned masking agent, I'm surprised you missed that key point.


Fixed.


My bosses mother was given a masking agent when she had congestive heard failure.....either that or the drug has multiple uses like drying up water which either clears your lungs or causes you to make weight the day camp opens.


I bow to your medical knowledge of the many uses of diuretics.

[Zool]

Holy shit Ras, if this was anyone but a Viking you would be on the other side.

[Scott Campbell]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A banned masking agent, I'm surprised you missed that key point.


Fixed.


My bosses mother was given a masking agent when she had congestive heard failure.....either that or the drug has multiple uses like drying up water which either clears your lungs or causes you to make weight the day camp opens.


I bow to your medical knowledge of the many uses of diuretics.


So now Doctors are prescribing Star Caps for congestive heart failure? I really have a hard time believing that claim.

If you're going to snivel about something, how about the lack of Viking Lombardi Trophies?

[RashanGary]

Suspend'em

[sharpe1027]

My bosses mother was given a masking agent when she had congestive heard failure.....either that or the drug has multiple uses like drying up water which either clears your lungs or causes you to make weight the day camp opens.

I bow to your medical knowledge of the many uses of diuretics.

I had no idea that the Williams boys both had congestive heard failure. My heart goes out to them. I am surprised that they didn't bring that up in their appeal.

[Scott Campbell]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A banned masking agent, I'm surprised you missed that key point.


Fixed.


My bosses mother was given a masking agent when she had congestive heard failure.....either that or the drug has multiple uses like drying up water which either clears your lungs or causes you to make weight the day camp opens.


I bow to your medical knowledge of the many uses of diuretics.


Children of dwarfs legitimately take HGH, therefore the Williams brothers should not be suspended.

[Scott Campbell]

Holy shit Ras, if this was anyone but a Viking you would be on the other side.



He's in a Purple Haze.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c239/Drinkit/purplehaze.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

My bosses mother was given a masking agent when she had congestive heard failure.....


Would you shoot teens stealing beer?

[cpk1994]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A diuretic, I'm surprised you missed that key point.Also a substance that is used as a masking agent for, amongst other things , steroids and marijuana. I'm suprised you missed that key point.

[Rastak]

Steroids have been insinuated with Clay Matthews also but I hardly think it's fair to him.....I'm just sayin....

He hasn't failed any tests--unlike Pat and Kevin Williams.


Which steroid test did they fail?If they didn't fail a test, what are they in court for?


A banned masking agent, I'm surprised you missed that key point.


Fixed.


My bosses mother was given a masking agent when she had congestive heard failure.....either that or the drug has multiple uses like drying up water which either clears your lungs or causes you to make weight the day camp opens.


I bow to your medical knowledge of the many uses of diuretics.


So now Doctors are prescribing Star Caps for congestive heart failure? I really have a hard time believing that claim.

If you're going to snivel about something, how about the lack of Viking Lombardi Trophies?



Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?



The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.


Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

[cpk1994]

You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.The NFL doesn't have to contend it was bieng used as a masking agent, just that a banned substance was used. But when the drug in question is a drug used mostly by women which is also known to be used as a masking agent for steroids and marijuana, questions arise. The point the NFL is contending is that players should be using drugs on the NFL approved list. If you go outdie that list, you better know what you are doing.

[sharpe1027]

Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

I think the smart assed posts were a two-way street there Ras.

I am not sure how the NFL would ever prove a players intentions, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

If you want to play that type of a game, did the players prove that they didn't intend to use it as a masking agent. Better yet, did the players prove that their positive tests were for sure from Star Caps? For all we know, the Williams boys took the masking agent intentionally and then used Star Caps as a convenient excuse after-the-fact...

[Rastak]

Holy shit Ras, if this was anyone but a Viking you would be on the other side.


Actually Zool, I was on the leagues side when I heard. Because it was the Vikings I read a ton on the facts of the case and it turns out there are quite a few facts that make's me think the NFL did not in the least act in good faith.


Per the Union's complaint, 8 guys were caught and let go while the NFL tested Starcaps. Then they never told anyone of the results they obtained. I have issue how they handled it. Frankly I think it was stupid to take supplements to make weight. Run an extra few laps.

[Rastak]

Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

I think the smart assed posts were a two-way street there Ras.

I am not sure how the NFL would ever prove a players intentions, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

If you want to play that type of a game, did the players prove that they didn't intend to use it as a masking agent. Better yet, did the players prove that their positive tests were for sure from Star Caps? For all we know, the Williams boys took the masking agent intentionally and then used Star Caps as a convenient excuse after-the-fact...



I didn't start it with the mindless smartassed posts.....I find the case to be interesting and it's interesting to debate the facts of the case and how it relates to the CBA.

I understand your last argument for sure, in fact the NFL stated that's why they never told the players because they feared that EXACT thing.

[Scott Campbell]

I didn't start it with the mindless smartassed posts.....



I take exception to the "mindless" characterization.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

I think the smart assed posts were a two-way street there Ras.

I am not sure how the NFL would ever prove a players intentions, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

If you want to play that type of a game, did the players prove that they didn't intend to use it as a masking agent. Better yet, did the players prove that their positive tests were for sure from Star Caps? For all we know, the Williams boys took the masking agent intentionally and then used Star Caps as a convenient excuse after-the-fact...

Has anyone here heard of a contractual weight clause? Money is a great motivator.

[RashanGary]

Has anyone here heard of a contractual weight clause? Money is a great motivator.

Suspend'em :lol:

[cpk1994]

Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

I think the smart assed posts were a two-way street there Ras.

I am not sure how the NFL would ever prove a players intentions, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

If you want to play that type of a game, did the players prove that they didn't intend to use it as a masking agent. Better yet, did the players prove that their positive tests were for sure from Star Caps? For all we know, the Williams boys took the masking agent intentionally and then used Star Caps as a convenient excuse after-the-fact...

Has anyone here heard of a contractual weight clause? Money is a great motivator.. They injested a substance which was illegal and suspendable for. Doens't matter what clause they have in their contracts. There are plenty of NFL approved ways to make weight. You are just making an excuse. I guess I shouldn't expect less from a Viking fan.

[sharpe1027]

Has anyone here heard of a contractual weight clause? Money is a great motivator.

Have you heard of a contractual play-based-performance clauses? Money is a great motivator.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

I think the smart assed posts were a two-way street there Ras.

I am not sure how the NFL would ever prove a players intentions, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

If you want to play that type of a game, did the players prove that they didn't intend to use it as a masking agent. Better yet, did the players prove that their positive tests were for sure from Star Caps? For all we know, the Williams boys took the masking agent intentionally and then used Star Caps as a convenient excuse after-the-fact...

Has anyone here heard of a contractual weight clause? Money is a great motivator.. They injested a substance which was illegal and suspendable for. Doens't matter what clause they have in their contracts. There are plenty of NFL approved ways to make weight. You are just making an excuse. I guess I shouldn't expect less from a Viking fan.

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.

[Zool]

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU

[cpk1994]

Look, do you have to be a fucking dickhead all the time?

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.


Not that having been said, I completely understand the argument for suspending them.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

I think the smart assed posts were a two-way street there Ras.

I am not sure how the NFL would ever prove a players intentions, so I fail to see the point of your argument.

If you want to play that type of a game, did the players prove that they didn't intend to use it as a masking agent. Better yet, did the players prove that their positive tests were for sure from Star Caps? For all we know, the Williams boys took the masking agent intentionally and then used Star Caps as a convenient excuse after-the-fact...

Has anyone here heard of a contractual weight clause? Money is a great motivator.. They injested a substance which was illegal and suspendable for. Doens't matter what clause they have in their contracts. There are plenty of NFL approved ways to make weight. You are just making an excuse. I guess I shouldn't expect less from a Viking fan.

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.But it wan't on the ap[proved list either. If Fat and Kevin would have used substances on the approved list, they aren't in the position they are now, regardless of what the NFL did or did not tell them. Fat and Kevin need to take responsibilty for their actions and not try to blame eveyone else.

[RashanGary]

I agree. Suspend Fat and Kevin for the first 4 games :)

[sharpe1027]

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.

Who is uninformed? Did you bother reading this thread or did you just skip all that pesky reading and decide to add your input since you know more than all Packer fans? Silly troll is silly.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.

Who is uninformed? Did you bother reading this thread or did you just skip all that pesky reading and decide to add your input since you know more than all Packer fans? Silly troll is silly.

Right.... If you read the previous postings you would see that this arguement was initiated by the question of a weight clause.

Using a previously discussed fact to support a new argument is not being a troll.

[cpk1994]

I agree. Suspend Fat and Kevin for the first 4 games :)We know. Just like the last 4 times you posted the exact same thing in this thread. :)

[sharpe1027]

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.

Who is uninformed? Did you bother reading this thread or did you just skip all that pesky reading and decide to add your input since you know more than all Packer fans? Silly troll is silly.

Right.... If you read the previous postings you would see that this arguement was initiated by the question of a weight clause.

Using a previously discussed fact to support a new argument is not being a troll.

Calling someone uniformed and implying that all Packer fans are uniformed is a supporting fact? :roll: This subject was already discussed and frankly weight loss clauses don't give them an excuse to test positive.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.

You are just uninformed. I guess I should'nt expect less from a Packer fan.

Who is uninformed? Did you bother reading this thread or did you just skip all that pesky reading and decide to add your input since you know more than all Packer fans? Silly troll is silly.

Right.... If you read the previous postings you would see that this arguement was initiated by the question of a weight clause.

Using a previously discussed fact to support a new argument is not being a troll.

Calling someone uniformed and implying that all Packer fans are uniformed is a supporting fact? :roll: This subject was already discussed and frankly weight loss clauses don't give them an excuse to test positive.

You are correct... that is a broad and incorrect accusation. I was saying that in response to his broad and incorrect accusation.

I apologize. Never a good option to stoop to the level of ignorance.

[sharpe1027]

You are correct... that is a broad and incorrect accusation. I was saying that in response to his broad and incorrect accusation.

I apologize. Never a good option to stoop to the level of ignorance.

Fair enough. I still say weight loss clauses are no excuse.

[SMACKTALKIE]

You are correct... that is a broad and incorrect accusation. I was saying that in response to his broad and incorrect accusation.

I apologize. Never a good option to stoop to the level of ignorance.

Fair enough. I still say weight loss clauses are no excuse.

But a reason to injest starcaps other than to mask an illegal substance.

I really don't believe they used roids. Viking fan or not.

[sharpe1027]

But a reason to injest starcaps other than to mask an illegal substance.

I really don't believe they used roids. Viking fan or not.

I don't know either way. I suspect that they tested positive because they were trying to mask something. What is was it that they were masking. IDK, probably Mary Jane.

Two players on the same team using a crappy women's weightloss supplement that just happens to be known to have the masking agent? You could be right, but I wouldn't feel too sure aobut it.

Besides, what evidence do you have that the reason they tested positive was actually because of Star Caps? Everyone that tested positive is going to claim they used it once the word got out about it.

[SMACKTALKIE]

But a reason to injest starcaps other than to mask an illegal substance.

I really don't believe they used roids. Viking fan or not.

I don't know either way. I suspect that they tested positive because they were trying to mask something. What is was it that they were masking. IDK, probably Mary Jane.

Two players on the same team using a crappy women's weightloss supplement that just happens to be known to have the masking agent? You could be right, but I wouldn't feel too sure aobut it.

Besides, what evidence do you have that the reason they tested positive was actually because of Star Caps? Everyone that tested positive is going to claim they used it once the word got out about it.


None. I don't know if anyone does. But a good reason for an NFL player to take starcaps is because they were labled "all natural" and did not list bumetanide, or any other banned substance as an ingredient.

Either way, there are enough questionable circumstances to warrant legal attention. Which may be a good reason to think they know it came from StarCaps.

[sharpe1027]

None. I don't know if anyone does. But a good reason for an NFL player to take starcaps is because they were labled "all natural" and did not list bumetanide, or any other banned substance as an ingredient.

Either way, there are enough questionable circumstances to warrant legal attention. Which may be a good reason to think they know it came from StarCaps.

Right or wrong, there is also enough money involved to warrant legal attention. They lost on every argument related to the StarCaps excuse... :)

From the decision:
"The (league's) policy is unequivocal: players are responsible for what is in their bodies, and inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance will not excuse a positive test result."

"Through the hot line, the NFL was attempting to tell players what they already knew: they should not take dietary supplements. NFL players are adults. They are warned repeatedly not to take dietary supplements and that such supplements may cause a positive test for a banned substance"

[Scott Campbell]

Right or wrong, there is also enough money involved to warrant legal attention. They lost on every argument related to the StarCaps excuse...


I think right and wrong never played a part in all these appeals. They're just trying to use a legal technicality to weasel out of a suspension.

[Patler]

The product WASN"T labeled as containing a banned substance and couldn't legally contain it. It's an FDA regulated drug and the company went out of business when it came to light. If you were going to take a masking agent you do that, not a weight loss supplement secretly containing a banned substance. Use some common sense.

Now Scott, can we please discuss the issue without a hundred smart assed posts? You know God damn well that drug has many uses, and even the NFL never contended it was being used as a masking agent in this case, they merely stated it was banned and the players are fully responsible for what they put in their bodies, I guess either on purpose or being spiked with something.

Ras;

Is it an FDA regulated drug? My understanding was that it was not. I thought it was classified as an herbal; which would make the players all the more foolish for taking it because the OTC herbals are not closely regulated. I have a hard time believing that the "Diet Queen for the Stars" went through an FDA regulation study.

I also thought it was well known or rumored that, "whatever it contained", seemed to work as a masking agent. I thought that was "known" for quite some time. This would give some players a reason to use it.

It also had no verifiable studies that proved its effectiveness as a weight-loss aid. In view of questionable legitimate use, strongly rumored use for other things, why would players take the chance, without a good reason?

Am I wrong about these things? I could be, because I have not studied it nearly as much as you probably have. I came to the conclusion that a big time pro athlete in a league that takes drug testing seriously would have had no believable reason to use it except for its reputed effectiveness as a masking agent.

[Rastak]

Ras;

Is it an FDA regulated drug? My understanding was that it was not. I thought it was classified as an herbal; which would make the players all the more foolish for taking it because the OTC herbals are not closely regulated. I have a hard time believing that the "Diet Queen for the Stars" went through an FDA regulation study.


No, it's FDA regulated. Diuretics are used for short term water weight loss. This is mainly useful for people with fluid in their lungs and such but has the side "benefit?" of a short term weight loss via that same fluid loss. I think the reason it's FDA regulated is the fact it's a very powerful diuretic. Starcaps closed up shop when this stuff came to light.

I found several links but here's one.....

"For its part, FDA has sent warning letters to companies whose "products marketed as supplements" have been found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients, such as sibutramine and bumetanide."

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/quality-issues-in-the-sports-nutrition-arena.html







I also thought it was well known or rumored that, "whatever it contained", seemed to work as a masking agent. I thought that was "known" for quite some time. This would give some players a reason to use it.

It also had no verifiable studies that proved its effectiveness as a weight-loss aid. In view of questionable legitimate use, strongly rumored use for other things, why would players take the chance, without a good reason?


Good question Patler! The reason it's really effective is because it's prescription only. It does not surprise me that word of mouth indicated"this stuff works great" Pat Williams indicated when he played with Buffalo a large portion of the team was using the supplement to keep weight in check.....which is EXTREMELY stupid. Childress was pretty testy when it first came to light. He indicated making weight should be done "the right way".

I think these guys should have worked harded and eaten fewer bacon cheeseburgers to make weight myself.




Am I wrong about these things? I could be, because I have not studied it nearly as much as you probably have. I came to the conclusion that a big time pro athlete in a league that takes drug testing seriously would have had no believable reason to use it except for its reputed effectiveness as a masking agent.

Yes, it appears you were wrong about at least one thing....not everything.

People trying to make weight taking a supplement rumored to be very effective is not that far fetched. Pat Williams claimed most of the Buffalo locker room used it (with no suspensions I might add) and likely recommended it to his pal Kevin. (Thanks Pat, I can live with you leaving but Kevin is another matter).


They claim they took the weight loss supplement (and that is exactly what it was marketed as) on training camp weigh in day. Random drug testing occured on the same day. Are they lying? I'd love to say I have information to say they aren't and I'd love to hear anyone else here who might solid evidence they did.


My main issue with this entire thing is this. The players union put forth that 8 players tested positive and all claimed to have been using Starcaps. The NFL tested it, which in and of itself is completely against their policy, and found it did contain a prescription only ingredient banned by the NFL because it can be used as a masking agent. Their testimony is that NOBODY was suspended and they issued their infamously vague warning about supplements which may contain diuretics.


The next batch of players were suspended.


This leads to the hearing in which the NFL conducted a "Breaker Morant" style hearing and declared guilty.


The federal judge that threw this stuff out in a pointed exchange asked if the NFL felt these men were taking steroids. The reply was a subdued "no".
Their case definitely relied on the CBA and it's language which is pretty clear. The cry to "suspend 'em" certainly merits consideration.


I was very torn on the subject and leaning towards the NFL's side until I heard a bunch of things when the case's merits were discussed.

* several players NOT suspended.
* NFL testing the product although they claim they will not do that.
* The NFL knowing damn well the product could be dangerous and would result in players being suspended and still not saying a damn thing is outrageous.

(A previous poster brought up any player could claim they were taking Starcaps anytime they tested positive......true....Unless you issue the forceful statement that as of today, do not take this product as it contains a banned prescription drug. Going forth that excuse is no longer valid.)


My reason's for siding with the players


1) NFL did not act in good faith either in their communication or in their appeal process.
2) Prior actions were completely inconsistent with this action. I don't think the union negotiated this clause with the thought that the NFL would pick and choose when to suspend players for violations.
3) Bias (can't help it, I don't think it's a factor but I bet it is).

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Breaker Morant? Are we gonna execute them? As a Packer fan i'm excited about this possible development.

Should free up some cap space for the Vikes as well....trying to put a good spin on it for you.

You do realize that they KILLED a missionary. While their punishment might have been severe..so was their crime. So, the williams are guilty...good, at least you acknowledge it.

Did the willliams take the starcaps under rule 303?

[pbmax]

Illegal and suspendable but not known to be in starcaps..... except by the NFL who told the NFLPA nothing about it except not to endorse it.
The legal discovery during the appeal hearing (possibly the subsequent Minnesota hearings) did turn up a memo from the NFLPA to agents warning them explicitly to be sure their players did not take Star Caps, not just avoid endorsing them.

The federal judge mentioned that it was clear the two sides clearly do not trust each other so its likely that the NFLPA came to this conclusion either by inference (StarCaps manufacturer on the Do Not Endorse list) or through a leak from the league.

PFT covered this but has not addressed the issue of timing. Did this memo from the NFLPA go out to agents before the Williams were taking the meds?

[Rastak]

Minimum response here. STYLE OF TRIAL.......read it again....this isn't the thread for a discussion of Harry Morant.



edit: sure wish I could spell.....

[Patler]

No, it's FDA regulated. Diuretics are used for short term water weight loss. This is mainly useful for people with fluid in their lungs and such but has the side "benefit?" of a short term weight loss via that same fluid loss. I think the reason it's FDA regulated is the fact it's a very powerful diuretic. Starcaps closed up shop when this stuff came to light.

I found several links but here's one.....

"For its part, FDA has sent warning letters to companies whose "products marketed as supplements" have been found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients, such as sibutramine and bumetanide."

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/quality-issues-in-the-sports-nutrition-arena.html

Actually, I think that shows that it was NOT regulated by the FDA, but should have been because it was later found to contain pharmaceuticals. It was sold as a nonpharmaceutical, and not FDA regulated. The whole OTC/herbal/nonpharmacetical/natural supplement world is a mess. Companies sell things for many implied purposes, some without identifying much of anything in it and that's OK, unless it is found to contain a regulated substance. So long as they do not make a bunch of definitive claims about what it will do, even the FTC stays out of it, viewing claims as "sales puffery"

I still believe, and your link seems to support my belief, that Star Caps was sold as a non FDA regulated herbal supplement. The FDA became involved because it was found to have a component that was FDA regulated. It didn't pass FDA muster and has been pulled from the market.

[Rastak]

Patler, there does seem to be some confusion......can the FDA ban a substance it doesn't regulate? That seems to make zero sense.


2. What action is FDA taking regarding these tainted weight loss products?
FDA is taking action to help ensure that these products and other products containing undeclared prescription ingredients are removed from the marketplace. FDA has inspected a number of firms associated with the sale of these products and is currently seeking recalls of these products. FDA may take additional enforcement steps to include warning letters, seizure, injunction, or criminal charges.



http://www.fda.gov/cder/consumerinfo/weight_loss_products.htm



You will note the weight loss pill "Starcaps" is listed.



edit: Can "Prescription ingredients" mean anything else?

[pbmax]

No, it's FDA regulated. Diuretics are used for short term water weight loss. This is mainly useful for people with fluid in their lungs and such but has the side "benefit?" of a short term weight loss via that same fluid loss. I think the reason it's FDA regulated is the fact it's a very powerful diuretic. Starcaps closed up shop when this stuff came to light.

I found several links but here's one.....

"For its part, FDA has sent warning letters to companies whose "products marketed as supplements" have been found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients, such as sibutramine and bumetanide."

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/quality-issues-in-the-sports-nutrition-arena.html

Actually, I think that shows that it was NOT regulated by the FDA, but should have been because it was later found to contain pharmaceuticals. It was sold as a nonpharmaceutical, and not FDA regulated. The whole OTC/herbal/nonpharmacetical/natural supplement world is a mess. Companies sell things for many implied purposes, some without identifying much of anything in it and that's OK, unless it is found to contain a regulated substance. So long as they do not make a bunch of definitive claims about what it will do, even the FTC stays out of it, viewing claims as "sales puffery"

I still believe, and your link seems to support my belief, that Star Caps was sold as a non FDA regulated herbal supplement. The FDA became involved because it was found to have a component that was FDA regulated. It didn't pass FDA muster and has been pulled from the market.
Aren't you both saying the same thing, but the subjects of your statements have become confused?

Ras: Diuretics such as Bumetanide (the dicey ingredient at the heart of the Williams case) are regulated by the FDA.

Patler: StarCaps as an herbal OTC rememdy is not regulated.

Ras was trying to say that the unlabeled substance in StarCaps (Bumetanide) has caused the issue and this supports the Williams position that they didn't know about the diuretic. The fact that it was in StarCaps has caused the manufacturer to close its doors due to the potential for lawsuits and federal law enforcement involvement.

[pbmax]

But the most important point of this case has been lost. The NFL and NFLPA are not working together to rid the sport of drugs. They distrust one another and neither wants to be put in a position where they must trust the other to be forthcoming.

If the NFL was interested in fewer players on masking agents, then a straightforward and public announcement of its findings (after testing StarCaps) would have been made. Legally, as the judge has ruled, they did not need to act in such a manner.

The NFLPA has signed on to a bad deal and the blame for it rests on them. They have put the NFL in a position where they do not need to disclose all relevant information. They should have held out for independent testing. Even if that meant it was more rigorous and restrictive testing like that used in the Olympics. At least it would have been above board.

Like NASCAR, who by not publishing a list of banned substances can punish whomever they wish, the NFLPA allows the NFL to give a pass to certain players (the ones who had tested positive for Bumetanide before they had tested the StarCaps capsules) and punish those that follow. And they do not need to make this information public.

[Patler]

No, it's FDA regulated. Diuretics are used for short term water weight loss. This is mainly useful for people with fluid in their lungs and such but has the side "benefit?" of a short term weight loss via that same fluid loss. I think the reason it's FDA regulated is the fact it's a very powerful diuretic. Starcaps closed up shop when this stuff came to light.

I found several links but here's one.....

"For its part, FDA has sent warning letters to companies whose "products marketed as supplements" have been found to contain pharmaceutical ingredients, such as sibutramine and bumetanide."

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/articles/quality-issues-in-the-sports-nutrition-arena.html

Actually, I think that shows that it was NOT regulated by the FDA, but should have been because it was later found to contain pharmaceuticals. It was sold as a nonpharmaceutical, and not FDA regulated. The whole OTC/herbal/nonpharmacetical/natural supplement world is a mess. Companies sell things for many implied purposes, some without identifying much of anything in it and that's OK, unless it is found to contain a regulated substance. So long as they do not make a bunch of definitive claims about what it will do, even the FTC stays out of it, viewing claims as "sales puffery"

I still believe, and your link seems to support my belief, that Star Caps was sold as a non FDA regulated herbal supplement. The FDA became involved because it was found to have a component that was FDA regulated. It didn't pass FDA muster and has been pulled from the market.
Aren't you both saying the same thing, but the subjects of your statements have become confused?

Ras: Diuretics such as Bumetanide (the dicey ingredient at the heart of the Williams case) are regulated by the FDA.

Patler: StarCaps as an herbal OTC rememdy is not regulated.

Ras was trying to say that the unlabeled substance in StarCaps (Bumetanide) has caused the issue and this supports the Williams position that they didn't know about the diuretic. The fact that it was in StarCaps has caused the manufacturer to close its doors due to the potential for lawsuits and federal law enforcement involvement.

I think you are right, we are saying the same thing.

My original point was this: When they took it, Star Caps was not FDA regulated or FDA-approved for any purpose at all. That alone mades it very risky. Agents, leagues and teams constantly warn players about taking so called "herbals" simply because you can never be sure what the heck is in it. Just as with StarCaps, it is often found that they contain something not on the label, something that is in fact regulated, and at that point the FDA gets involved.

But again, my point was that when they took it, StarCaps was not being regulated by the FDA. That made it an unknown and very risky. When the league has a "strict liability" policy, taking any unknown that isn't on an approved list is...well...kinda dumb.

[SMACKTALKIE]

None. I don't know if anyone does. But a good reason for an NFL player to take starcaps is because they were labled "all natural" and did not list bumetanide, or any other banned substance as an ingredient.

Either way, there are enough questionable circumstances to warrant legal attention. Which may be a good reason to think they know it came from StarCaps.

Right or wrong, there is also enough money involved to warrant legal attention. They lost on every argument related to the StarCaps excuse... :)

From the decision:
"The (league's) policy is unequivocal: players are responsible for what is in their bodies, and inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance will not excuse a positive test result."

"Through the hot line, the NFL was attempting to tell players what they already knew: they should not take dietary supplements. NFL players are adults. They are warned repeatedly not to take dietary supplements and that such supplements may cause a positive test for a banned substance"

They lost their counter suits. Please remember that a Federal District Court Judge blocked the NFL imposed 4 game suspension. That was and still is a huge victory.

[Patler]

They lost their counter suits. Please remember that a Federal District Court Judge blocked the NFL imposed 4 game suspension. That was and still is a huge victory.

Wasn't that just a temporary injunction to allow the players' counter suits to be heard before any suspension is enforced? I would assume the injunction will be lifted at some time in the near future.

[SMACKTALKIE]

They lost their counter suits. Please remember that a Federal District Court Judge blocked the NFL imposed 4 game suspension. That was and still is a huge victory.

Wasn't that just a temporary injunction to allow the players' counter suits to be heard before any suspension is enforced? I would assume the injunction will be lifted at some time in the near future.

Yes they can, and probably will, still be suspended. It is still a victory. For a judge to see enough questionable material as to block a suspension, temporary or not, is a victory for the players.

[SMACKTALKIE]

They lost their counter suits. Please remember that a Federal District Court Judge blocked the NFL imposed 4 game suspension. That was and still is a huge victory.

Wasn't that just a temporary injunction to allow the players' counter suits to be heard before any suspension is enforced? I would assume the injunction will be lifted at some time in the near future.

It had nothing to do with counter suits. The judge blocked the suspensions and the NFL appealed it. It then went to a higher court, the players and NFLPA added counter suits, and the higher court sent it back to the state courts after throwing out the counter suits.

[Chevelle2]

Ok, without bickering, can someone just tell me where this situation stands? Are they suspended, are they not suspended? When will we know? What are we waiting on? Etc

Thanks

[Patler]

Yes they can, and probably will, still be suspended. It is still a victory. For a judge to see enough questionable material as to block a suspension, temporary or not, is a victory for the players.

Not much of one if they are ultimately suspended. If a player in any league contests any suspension through league channels, the suspension is postponed until the player has a chance to be heard. No different in court, for the same reasons. Since a suspension can never be "undone" all the player needs to show is some reasonable argument, and equities are such as to postpone the suspension.

[Patler]

It had nothing to do with counter suits. The judge blocked the suspensions and the NFL appealed it. It then went to a higher court, the players and NFLPA added counter suits, and the higher court sent it back to the state courts after throwing out the counter suits.

But there is now less that the state court can or will decide. It's arguable how much the players have left to argue in the state court.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Ok, without bickering, can someone just tell me where this situation stands? Are they suspended, are they not suspended? When will we know? What are we waiting on? Etc

Thanks

Not suspended, or suspension blocked so currently not suspended. The injunction was put in place for the judge to review all the material. The judge kicked the case (for the suspensions) down to the state court where the players are hoping to get the suspensions overturned.

Not sure when this will be resolved but hopefully soon.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Yes they can, and probably will, still be suspended. It is still a victory. For a judge to see enough questionable material as to block a suspension, temporary or not, is a victory for the players.

Not much of one if they are ultimately suspended. If a player in any league contests any suspension through league channels, the suspension is postponed until the player has a chance to be heard. No different in court, for the same reasons. Since a suspension can never be "undone" all the player needs to show is some reasonable argument, and equities are such as to postpone the suspension.

Those league channels were applied or taken in this case too. To take an issue governed by something as iron clad as the CBA to court is a victory.

[SMACKTALKIE]

It had nothing to do with counter suits. The judge blocked the suspensions and the NFL appealed it. It then went to a higher court, the players and NFLPA added counter suits, and the higher court sent it back to the state courts after throwing out the counter suits.

But there is now less that the state court can or will decide. It's arguable how much the players have left to argue in the state court.

The core arguement...... that this is unfair and the NFL did not fulfill it's obligation to the players, and then still suspended them, is still intact. The only arguements left are the suspensions, which under Minnesota state law bodes well for the players.

[Patler]

Yes they can, and probably will, still be suspended. It is still a victory. For a judge to see enough questionable material as to block a suspension, temporary or not, is a victory for the players.

Not much of one if they are ultimately suspended. If a player in any league contests any suspension through league channels, the suspension is postponed until the player has a chance to be heard. No different in court, for the same reasons. Since a suspension can never be "undone" all the player needs to show is some reasonable argument, and equities are such as to postpone the suspension.

Those league channels were applied or taken in this case too. To take an issue governed by something as iron clad as the CBA to court is a victory.

You don't really believe that in the US judicial system, do you? Getting into court is a simple thing, just file a complaint. It doesn't take much to avoid being thrown out initially, and that is all the farther this gotten in the state court. We'll see if there really was any "victory" there or not.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Yes they can, and probably will, still be suspended. It is still a victory. For a judge to see enough questionable material as to block a suspension, temporary or not, is a victory for the players.

Not much of one if they are ultimately suspended. If a player in any league contests any suspension through league channels, the suspension is postponed until the player has a chance to be heard. No different in court, for the same reasons. Since a suspension can never be "undone" all the player needs to show is some reasonable argument, and equities are such as to postpone the suspension.

Those league channels were applied or taken in this case too. To take an issue governed by something as iron clad as the CBA to court is a victory.

You don't really believe that in the US judicial system, do you? Getting into court is a simple thing, just file a complaint. It doesn't take much to avoid being thrown out initially, and that is all the farther this gotten in the state court. We'll see if there really was any "victory" there or not.

U.S. District Judges dont review minor or everyday complaints. And you should note that the NFL filed notice that it will appeal the portion of judge Magnuson's order that remanded the two remaining claims by the players to state court because they involve Minnesota laws.

[Patler]

U.S. District Judges dont review minor or everyday complaints. And you should note that the NFL filed notice that it will appeal the portion of judge Magnuson's order that remanded the two remaining claims by the players to state court because they involve Minnesota laws.

They review everything that states a cause of action (not a high standard)and has federal jurisdiction. I doubt either was hard to find in this situation.

[Fritz]

Damnit, all of you are missing the central point:

"Starcaps" are those little chocolatey things you used to buy in the movie theater. They were made by Brachs, they were shaped like stars, and they tasted like wax.

So if these guys were taking some herbal diuretic addictive lethal needle-injecting, masking, just-a-energy drink thing, then give it another name!

[ThunderDan]

None. I don't know if anyone does. But a good reason for an NFL player to take starcaps is because they were labled "all natural" and did not list bumetanide, or any other banned substance as an ingredient.

Either way, there are enough questionable circumstances to warrant legal attention. Which may be a good reason to think they know it came from StarCaps.

Right or wrong, there is also enough money involved to warrant legal attention. They lost on every argument related to the StarCaps excuse... :)

From the decision:
"The (league's) policy is unequivocal: players are responsible for what is in their bodies, and inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance will not excuse a positive test result."

"Through the hot line, the NFL was attempting to tell players what they already knew: they should not take dietary supplements. NFL players are adults. They are warned repeatedly not to take dietary supplements and that such supplements may cause a positive test for a banned substance"

They lost their counter suits. Please remember that a Federal District Court Judge blocked the NFL imposed 4 game suspension. That was and still is a huge victory.

Not for the players. I am sure their 2009 base salaries are higher than their 2008 salaries. The suspension this year will cost them more money.

[Patler]

Damnit, all of you are missing the central point:

"Starcaps" are those little chocolatey things you used to buy in the movie theater. They were made by Brachs, they were shaped like stars, and they tasted like wax.

So if these guys were taking some herbal diuretic addictive lethal needle-injecting, masking, just-a-energy drink thing, then give it another name!

Was there really a candy by that name?

[Fritz]

I actually looked it up. They are actually called "Star Drops."

http://www.candywarehouse.com/chocolatestar.html

Oops. Never mind.

So how 'bout them Williams boys and the court system? How about that stuff, eh?

[sharpe1027]

The core arguement...... that this is unfair and the NFL did not fulfill it's obligation to the players, and then still suspended them, is still intact. The only arguements left are the suspensions, which under Minnesota state law bodes well for the players.

The article said the only issue left was one of procedure about a Minnesota State law (something about whether they could test at all). The "core argument" you mentioned is completely dead (barring an appeal).

Are you suggesting that just by taking time to look a the case, the Judge validated the Williams boy's positions? The Judge blasted them essentially saying they were acting like children and had nothing whatsoever to stand on.

[Rastak]

The core arguement...... that this is unfair and the NFL did not fulfill it's obligation to the players, and then still suspended them, is still intact. The only arguements left are the suspensions, which under Minnesota state law bodes well for the players.

The article said the only issue left was one of procedure about a Minnesota State law (something about whether they could test at all). The "core argument" you mentioned is completely dead (barring an appeal).

Are you suggesting that just by taking time to look a the case, the Judge validated the Williams boy's positions? The Judge blasted them essentially saying they were acting like children and had nothing whatsoever to stand on.


You might want to read the transcript of the first hearing....I read the entire thing and he really laid into the NFL. In his ruling this month he called the NFL's actions baffling but ruled on a point of law and his personal opinions didn't enter into the decision.


There are two Minnesota statutes that the NFL may be violating but I have to say I have to agree if they win it's mostly technicalities. I'm sure the player will put a stop to this in CBA negotiations. I think an independent overseer is needed to run this program and the dissemination of information and a REAL appeal process will be a big part of it. You have to ban things that can be used as masking agents, I certainly agree there but it should be more of a partnership as opposed to this extremely tight lipped adversarial thing they have now.

[sharpe1027]

You might want to read the transcript of the first hearing....I read the entire thing and he really laid into the NFL. In his ruling this month he called the NFL's actions baffling but ruled on a point of law and his personal opinions didn't enter into the decision.

There are two Minnesota statutes that the NFL may be violating but I have to say I have to agree if they win it's mostly technicalities. I'm sure the player will put a stop to this in CBA negotiations. I think an independent overseer is needed to run this program and the dissemination of information and a REAL appeal process will be a big part of it. You have to ban things that can be used as masking agents, I certainly agree there but it should be more of a partnership as opposed to this extremely tight lipped adversarial thing they have now.

I don't doubt that. As I've said all along the NFL was also in the wrong. It just doesn't lend any excuse for the players. It seems like people keep wanting to say that if the NFL was wrong that means the players must be right? That is just not the case.

The players were wrong, and the NFL was wrong too. It is not one or the other.

[Zool]

I actually looked it up. They are actually called "Star Drops."

http://www.candywarehouse.com/chocolatestar.html

Oops. Never mind.

So how 'bout them Williams boys and the court system? How about that stuff, eh?

I know where you got confused Fritz. There were Star Drops as well as SnowCaps.

SnowCaps are awesome.

[RashanGary]

I know where you got confused Fritz. There were Star Drops as well as SnowCaps.

SnowCaps are awesome.

I've never liked Star Drops or SnowCaps. Star Drops are a generic, overly sweet milk chocolate and SnowCaps are marshmellow crap.

I do, however, fully support the suspensions of Fat and Kevin. Get'er done Rog'

[sharpe1027]

I actually looked it up. They are actually called "Star Drops."

http://www.candywarehouse.com/chocolatestar.html

Oops. Never mind.

So how 'bout them Williams boys and the court system? How about that stuff, eh?

I think that their use of Star Drops may have been a contributing factor in them being considered obese by most health scales. Those things have a lot of sugar.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I actually looked it up. They are actually called "Star Drops."

http://www.candywarehouse.com/chocolatestar.html

Oops. Never mind.

So how 'bout them Williams boys and the court system? How about that stuff, eh?

I think that their use of Star Drops may have been a contributing factor in them being considered obese by most health scales. Those things have a lot of sugar.
No kidding, here's a recent picture of them:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/4987/chocolatestars.jpg

[MJZiggy]

I know where you got confused Fritz. There were Star Drops as well as SnowCaps.

SnowCaps are awesome.

I've never liked Star Drops or SnowCaps. Star Drops are a generic, overly sweet milk chocolate and SnowCaps are marshmellow crap.

I do, however, fully support the suspensions of Fat and Kevin. Get'er done Rog'

Snow caps aren't marshmallow.

http://www.magneticframes.com/lytle/images/candy/sno3.jpg

[hoosier]

There are two Minnesota statutes that the NFL may be violating but I have to say I have to agree if they win it's mostly technicalities. I'm sure the player will put a stop to this in CBA negotiations. I think an independent overseer is needed to run this program and the dissemination of information and a REAL appeal process will be a big part of it. You have to ban things that can be used as masking agents, I certainly agree there but it should be more of a partnership as opposed to this extremely tight lipped adversarial thing they have now.

What are the statutes again? I remember reading about that but don't recall the specifics. I also wonder if the NFL might be able to argue that since it has been defined as a sport and not a business for anti-trust purposes, that statutes concerning the workplace (assuming that's what is being referred to) don't necessarily apply to the Vikings. :twisted:

[Rastak]

There are two Minnesota statutes that the NFL may be violating but I have to say I have to agree if they win it's mostly technicalities. I'm sure the player will put a stop to this in CBA negotiations. I think an independent overseer is needed to run this program and the dissemination of information and a REAL appeal process will be a big part of it. You have to ban things that can be used as masking agents, I certainly agree there but it should be more of a partnership as opposed to this extremely tight lipped adversarial thing they have now.

What are the statutes again? I remember reading about that but don't recall the specifics. I also wonder if the NFL might be able to argue that since it has been defined as a sport and not a business for anti-trust purposes, that statutes concerning the workplace (assuming that's what is being referred to) don't necessarily apply to the Vikings. :twisted:

If you believe Florio, he was told by an NFL spokesman that players are indeed employees of their respective teams so they are Minnesota workers (paying Minnesota taxes) so the laws of Minnesota apply unless the statutes were mentioned specifically in the CBA which I highly doubt.

This is starting to turn into Favre Radio for me.....please make it go away......how about some resolution.

[Bretsky]

These guys should be suspended w/o question; lets get on with it.

[packrulz]

The Judge upholds the suspensions: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8109006b&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

[Fritz]

I know where you got confused Fritz. There were Star Drops as well as SnowCaps.

SnowCaps are awesome.

I've never liked Star Drops or SnowCaps. Star Drops are a generic, overly sweet milk chocolate and SnowCaps are marshmellow crap.

I do, however, fully support the suspensions of Fat and Kevin. Get'er done Rog'

Snow caps aren't marshmallow.

http://www.magneticframes.com/lytle/images/candy/sno3.jpg


Oooh. A fact-based burn worthy of Patler or Waldo. Nice work, MJ.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The Judge upholds the suspensions: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8109006b&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Mainstream media off base on StarCaps story

http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/vikings/13984

[Administrator]

The Judge upholds the suspensions: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8109006b&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Wow. They should have taken the rumored deal...

[pbmax]

The state court that this has been thrown back to, can issue an injunction against the league and the suspensions. If I am not mistaken, they already did this once. That became moot when everything was transferred to Federal Court. So we are still in the middle of this dance.

They only thing that has been decided so far is that the players and NFLPA are not going to be able to overturn the agreed to appeals process in the CBA. So the Commish gets to be judge, jury, executioner and appeals court until the CBA gets changed.

[RashanGary]

The state court that this has been thrown back to, can issue an injunction against the league and the suspensions. If I am not mistaken, they already did this once. That became moot when everything was transferred to Federal Court. So we are still in the middle of this dance.

They only thing that has been decided so far is that the players and NFLPA are not going to be able to overturn the agreed to appeals process in the CBA. So the Commish gets to be judge, jury, executioner and appeals court until the CBA gets changed.

If that's the case, it sounds like the Williams' are going to be in for a long, expensive fight. I doubt it's worth their time or money.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It appears that the suspensions are on hold by the NFL.

http://wcco.com/vikings/williams.vikings.nfl.2.1028176.html

[Rastak]

It appears that the suspensions are on hold by the NFL.

http://wcco.com/vikings/williams.vikings.nfl.2.1028176.html


Sort of......the NFL just agreed to delay anything until the briefs are filed in 3 weeks or so I believe. As a practical matter this doesn't mean anything. The suspensions don't take effect until September anyway.