Those Crafty Williams Boys...

[MOBB DEEP]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

[swede]

Sotomayor?

[Freak Out]

Sotomayor?

She's a Vikings fan?

[ThunderDan]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.

[SMACKTALKIE]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.


Absurd, uninformed, and negligent post TD. The legal system is in charge of this matter right now, not Goodell. And as far as moving, even a Packer fan should be against that.

This horse has been dead for some time now. :beat:

[ThunderDan]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.


Absurd, uninformed, and negligent post TD. The legal system is in charge of this matter right now, not Goodell. And as far as moving, even a Packer fan should be against that.



Why is that negligent?? or uninformed???

The Williams boys knew they were taking a product not on the approved list period!!! Just because the NFL had knowledge that it contained a banned substance and hadn't told the league doesn't take the responsibilty from the players. There are numerous weightloss pills they could have taken that were approved.

As for the second part of the post I said if I was Goodell not I as the Packer fan ThunderDan. Maybe you should read what was actually written. NFL wants a franchise in LA and you have a team running to a judge to protect players who broke the conduct policy.

[ThunderDan]

I guess that should be the NFLPA. Right?

[SMACKTALKIE]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.


Absurd, uninformed, and negligent post TD. The legal system is in charge of this matter right now, not Goodell. And as far as moving, even a Packer fan should be against that.



Why is that negligent?? or uninformed???

The Williams boys knew they were taking a product not on the approved list period!!! Just because the NFL had knowledge that it contained a banned substance and hadn't told the league doesn't take the responsibilty from the players. There are numerous weightloss pills they could have taken that were approved.

As for the second part of the post I said if I was Goodell not I as the Packer fan ThunderDan. Maybe you should read what was actually written. NFL wants a franchise in LA and you have a team running to a judge to protect players who broke the conduct policy.

The player are "running to a judge," not the team. Seeking legal help in a case they feel is unfair is their right. It should have no bearing on the team.

As far as everything else, refer to the 7 page discussion on page 4 of the Green Bay Packers forum index.

[Gunakor]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.


Absurd, uninformed, and negligent post TD. The legal system is in charge of this matter right now, not Goodell. And as far as moving, even a Packer fan should be against that.

This horse has been dead for some time now. :beat:

That's the problem. The legal system is in charge, not Goodell. Problem is, it's not the legal system's league. Goodell makes the rules, not the legal system. There is nothing illegal about Goodell's rule stating that players in HIS league must abide by HIS code.

Think of it in terms of you growing up, having your parents tell you not to leave the yard. It is not illegal to leave the yard, but your parents can still punish you for doing so. Because your parents set the rules, not the legal system.

Or are you arguing that it is illegal for your parents to tell you not to leave the yard (or illegal for Goodell to restrict what supplements a player can or can't take by issuing a list of approved supplements)?

The Williams situation should be left out of the legal system, because no laws were broken. They violated NFL rules that exclusively apply to NFL players - it should be handled exclusively by the NFL. The justice system is meddling where they shouldn't be. It's not their business.

It's too late now, of course, because now they're already involved. But can you imagine the consequences of the legal system ruling in favor of the Williamses in this matter? The horrible precedent that would set? Imagine the scores of players who have been or will be caught in violation of league rules that will be running to a judge to stay or overturn their suspensions. Goodell will no longer have control over his own league, and neither will any subsequent commissioner. The NFL will be run by the local courts. It's ludicrous.

[hoosier]

Poetic justice: the case gets tied up in the courts until week 5, when the suspensions are finally confirmed and immediately enfored starting with the Rams game. The Vikings proceed to lose four straight and plummet to the bottom of the NFC North.

[SMACKTALKIE]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.


Absurd, uninformed, and negligent post TD. The legal system is in charge of this matter right now, not Goodell. And as far as moving, even a Packer fan should be against that.

This horse has been dead for some time now. :beat:

That's the problem. The legal system is in charge, not Goodell. Problem is, it's not the legal system's league. Goodell makes the rules, not the legal system. There is nothing illegal about Goodell's rule stating that players in HIS league must abide by HIS code.

Think of it in terms of you growing up, having your parents tell you not to leave the yard. It is not illegal to leave the yard, but your parents can still punish you for doing so. Because your parents set the rules, not the legal system.

Or are you arguing that it is illegal for your parents to tell you not to leave the yard (or illegal for Goodell to restrict what supplements a player can or can't take by issuing a list of approved supplements)?

The Williams situation should be left out of the legal system, because no laws were broken. They violated NFL rules that exclusively apply to NFL players - it should be handled exclusively by the NFL. The justice system is meddling where they shouldn't be. It's not their business.

It's too late now, of course, because now they're already involved. But can you imagine the consequences of the legal system ruling in favor of the Williamses in this matter? The horrible precedent that would set? Imagine the scores of players who have been or will be caught in violation of league rules that will be running to a judge to stay or overturn their suspensions. Goodell will no longer have control over his own league, and neither will any subsequent commissioner. The NFL will be run by the local courts. It's ludicrous.

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

[ThunderDan]

according to st. paul pioneer press: Judge has blocked nfl plans to suspend the stellar DTs

thus, both vikes and pack should be undefeated for mnf showdown

LETS GOOOOOOO.....

This is so ridiuculus. Suspend them and move on. Take responsibilty for your action Williams, you got caught with your hand on the cookie jar and just because someone else was in the cookie jar and not punished doesn't mean taking the cookies was right.

If I was Goodell I would be pissed at the judge and offer Ziggy help in moving Minn to LA.


Absurd, uninformed, and negligent post TD. The legal system is in charge of this matter right now, not Goodell. And as far as moving, even a Packer fan should be against that.



Why is that negligent?? or uninformed???

The Williams boys knew they were taking a product not on the approved list period!!! Just because the NFL had knowledge that it contained a banned substance and hadn't told the league doesn't take the responsibilty from the players. There are numerous weightloss pills they could have taken that were approved.

As for the second part of the post I said if I was Goodell not I as the Packer fan ThunderDan. Maybe you should read what was actually written. NFL wants a franchise in LA and you have a team running to a judge to protect players who broke the conduct policy.

The player are "running to a judge," not the team. Seeking legal help in a case they feel is unfair is their right. It should have no bearing on the team.

As far as everything else, refer to the 7 page discussion on page 4 of the Green Bay Packers forum index.

I already read that thread, thank you.

What they did was wrong, plain and simple. Now they are asking for the legal system to step in for them and excuse their mistake. I'm absolutely positive in thier contracts they agreed to follow the players conduct set by the league.

[Gunakor]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.


I know you want this to be "very, very simple," but your problem is that this issue is anything but.

Otherwise it would not be in court.

It is not cut and dried, it is not simple, it is not fair...... it is in the court system because of these factors.

There is a banned substance list. Starcaps was not on it.

[KYPack]

Lawsuit time. Those boys that sat their suspensions have a case and their agents will make damned sure they file for equal treatment.

I'd don't like those two whales, They were smart to take the action they did. But I really feel it's the NFL that scewed the pooch big time on this whole deal.

[ThunderDan]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.


I know you want this to be "very, very simple," but your problem is that this issue is anything but.

Otherwise it would not be in court.

It is not cut and dried, it is not simple, it is not fair...... it is in the court system because of these factors.

There is a banned substance list. Starcaps was not on it.

Here is the NFL rule agree to by the league and union:
Strict liability drug policy, which renders players responsible for what they put in their bodies.

This says any substance is the players responsibilty and the union agreed. Now the Williams test positive for the substance and don't think they should be held responsible.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.


http://www.prostaronline.com/bannedsubstances.html

[Gunakor]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.


I know you want this to be "very, very simple," but your problem is that this issue is anything but.

Otherwise it would not be in court.

It is not cut and dried, it is not simple, it is not fair...... it is in the court system because of these factors.

There is a banned substance list. Starcaps was not on it.

Hmm. I was under the impression that there was also an approved supplements list. If I understand that incorrectly, that changes things a great deal. Everything I've read suggest that an approved list does in fact exist and is issued prior to every NFL season to it's teams.

Here's how you simplify this. Don't read the banned list. Read the approved list. If it's only 10 supplements long, those are the 10 supplements you are allowed to take. Any supplement that is not included in that list should be considered banned, even if there's a chance that no banned substances are contained in that supplement. If it's approved, you're good. So Starcaps weren't on the banned list. Were they on the approved list? If not, then Starcaps should have been considered banned, whether they were on the banned list or not. That's pretty simple, and very logical. Why is it so hard for the Williamses to grasp such a simple concept?

[ThunderDan]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.


http://www.prostaronline.com/bannedsubstances.html

Sure looks like Bumetanide is under the banned diuretics list. That's what they tested positive for.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I think the issue is more about the NFL's responsibility to the players. They knew about the substance in the starcaps and said nothing to the players, except don't endorse it.

No Smack, the issue is the supplement they used was not on the officially approved list of supplements they could take. Instead of trying to skirt around that list by trying to gain approval for a supplement that was not on the list, they could have just taken something else that was in fact listed as an approved supplement. Make this very, very simple. Was Starcaps on the list of approved supplements? No? Then the Williamses fucked up by taking it. No more discussion is required. Goodell gives a list of things you CAN take, not a list of things you CAN'T take. So just assume that if it isn't listed as okay, that means it's not okay. Everything is so much simpler that way, and you don't risk getting caught in violation of league rules. The Williamses took a chance and lost. Now here come the local courts to save the day for the local team. Embarrassing.


I know you want this to be "very, very simple," but your problem is that this issue is anything but.

Otherwise it would not be in court.

It is not cut and dried, it is not simple, it is not fair...... it is in the court system because of these factors.

There is a banned substance list. Starcaps was not on it.

Hmm. I was under the impression that there was also an approved supplements list. If I understand that incorrectly, that changes things a great deal. Everything I've read suggest that an approved list does in fact exist and is issued prior to every NFL season to it's teams.

Here's how you simplify this. Don't read the banned list. Read the approved list. If it's only 10 supplements long, those are the 10 supplements you are allowed to take. Any supplement that is not included in that list should be considered banned, even if there's a chance that no banned substances are contained in that supplement. If it's approved, you're good. So Starcaps weren't on the banned list. Were they on the approved list? If not, then Starcaps should have been considered banned, whether they were on the banned list or not. That's pretty simple, and very logical. Why is it so hard for the Williamses to grasp such a simple concept?

Is Tylenol on the approved list? If not can they still take it for headaches?

[Gunakor]

Hmm. I was under the impression that there was also an approved supplements list. If I understand that incorrectly, that changes things a great deal. Everything I've read suggest that an approved list does in fact exist and is issued prior to every NFL season to it's teams.

Here's how you simplify this. Don't read the banned list. Read the approved list. If it's only 10 supplements long, those are the 10 supplements you are allowed to take. Any supplement that is not included in that list should be considered banned, even if there's a chance that no banned substances are contained in that supplement. If it's approved, you're good. So Starcaps weren't on the banned list. Were they on the approved list? If not, then Starcaps should have been considered banned, whether they were on the banned list or not. That's pretty simple, and very logical. Why is it so hard for the Williamses to grasp such a simple concept?

Is Tylenol on the approved list? If not can they still take it for headaches?

Tylenol is a medication, not a nutritional supplement. What would Tylenol be doing on a list of approved supplements?

[SMACKTALKIE]

Hmm. I was under the impression that there was also an approved supplements list. If I understand that incorrectly, that changes things a great deal. Everything I've read suggest that an approved list does in fact exist and is issued prior to every NFL season to it's teams.

Here's how you simplify this. Don't read the banned list. Read the approved list. If it's only 10 supplements long, those are the 10 supplements you are allowed to take. Any supplement that is not included in that list should be considered banned, even if there's a chance that no banned substances are contained in that supplement. If it's approved, you're good. So Starcaps weren't on the banned list. Were they on the approved list? If not, then Starcaps should have been considered banned, whether they were on the banned list or not. That's pretty simple, and very logical. Why is it so hard for the Williamses to grasp such a simple concept?

Is Tylenol on the approved list? If not can they still take it for headaches?

Tylenol is a medication, not a nutritional supplement. What would Tylenol be doing on a list of approved supplements?


My point is that there are supplements that are not on the approved list that are still safe to take. That was the understanding in the Williams case, Starcaps was wrongly labled as all natural. The NFL knew it was not and failed to tell the players.

The NFL is lucky nobody died because of their lack of response in this matter. Korey Stringer died in part because of diuretics. Imagime the outrage if someone had died as a result of the NFL not telling the NFLPA about this finding. Instead they were too concerned about covering their asses.

That did'nt happen but it does not make the NFL's actions (or inactions) acceptable.

[ThunderDan]

Sure looks like Bumetanide is under the banned diuretics list. That's what they tested positive for.

So the NFL is now responsible for testing every supplement for content and labeling errors?

[ThunderDan]

The NFL is lucky nobody died because of their lack of response in this matter. Korey Stringer died in part because of diuretics. Imagime the outrage if someone had died as a result of the NFL not telling the NFLPA about this finding. Instead they were too concerned about covering their asses.

That did'nt happen but it does not make the NFL's actions (or inactions) acceptable.

Don't blow this out of proportion.

The copmany that produces StarCaps is lucky no one died from using their incorrectly labeled supplement.

[Rastak]

Sure looks like Bumetanide is under the banned diuretics list. That's what they tested positive for.

So the NFL is now responsible for testing every supplement for content and labeling errors?


Thunder:

No but when they do find something they should inform the players, and they probably should explain why the first players that tested positive were not suspended and why they even bothered testing starcaps themselves to find out it was in there if there was a strict liability policy. Their own actions create a sense of uneven enforcement which is hardly a good faith action in a collectively bargined contract.


Kypack,

The really did screw the pooch on this one. They held kind of a sham appeal which is going to look bad in court and my understanding of federal labor law (which is limited to what I read) indicates state court DOES trump a CBA unless there is verbiage in there to specifically address this, which there isn't from what I understand. They have to fix that in the next CBA.


That is what I read at least.

[Scott Campbell]

Man, the Vikings are really good at cheating.

[ThunderDan]

The NFL is lucky nobody died because of their lack of response in this matter. Korey Stringer died in part because of diuretics. Imagime the outrage if someone had died as a result of the NFL not telling the NFLPA about this finding. Instead they were too concerned about covering their asses.

That did'nt happen but it does not make the NFL's actions (or inactions) acceptable.

Don't blow this out of proportion.

The copmany that produces StarCaps is lucky no one died from using their incorrectly labeled supplement.

Also, diuretics are in almost every weightloss medication or supplement. So the majority of approved weightloss medications would have had a diuretic in it. It just that Bumetanide, the diuretic in Starcaps, is also a masking agent for other illegal drugs.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Sure looks like Bumetanide is under the banned diuretics list. That's what they tested positive for.

So the NFL is now responsible for testing every supplement for content and labeling errors?

No. But if they find untrue labeling, do they have the responsibility to report that information to the players? And if not, why?

Did they put players at risk by not reporting this information?

Is it fair to suspend players based on information the NFL was unwilling to share with the NFLPA?

Put Woodson and Harris in this position (I say this because they are some of your best players on D) and see how you feel. It's a complicated question of fairness.

I'm not saying they should not be suspended, the CBA is what it is. I'm simply saying there is more to this situation than meets the eye. It affects all players.

[ThunderDan]

Sure looks like Bumetanide is under the banned diuretics list. That's what they tested positive for.

So the NFL is now responsible for testing every supplement for content and labeling errors?


Thunder:

No but when they do find something they should inform the players, and they probably should explain why the first players that tested positive were not suspended and why they even bothered testing starcaps themselves to find out it was in there if there was a strict liability policy. Their own actions create a sense of uneven enforcement which is hardly a good faith action in a collectively bargined contract.




Yes they should have told the players but that doesn't make it legal by not telling them. If I am a multimillion dollar athlete there is no way I don't take any supplement that I know is safe before taking it. It's not like Starcaps is the only weightloss supplement out there.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Gotta love home town judicial cooking. Haven't seen as good of one as this since Chewy.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The NFL is lucky nobody died because of their lack of response in this matter. Korey Stringer died in part because of diuretics. Imagime the outrage if someone had died as a result of the NFL not telling the NFLPA about this finding. Instead they were too concerned about covering their asses.

That did'nt happen but it does not make the NFL's actions (or inactions) acceptable.

Don't blow this out of proportion.

The copmany that produces StarCaps is lucky no one died from using their incorrectly labeled supplement.

Also, diuretics are in almost every weightloss medication or supplement. So the majority of approved weightloss medications would have had a diuretic in it. It just that Bumetanide, the diuretic in Starcaps, is also a masking agent for other illegal drugs.

Are said wieght loss medications labled "all natural?"

If the NFL knows this should they inform the NFLPA?

If the NFL knows this, fails to inform the NFLPA, and suspends a player for taking said weight loss medications, is that fair?

[ThunderDan]

Sure looks like Bumetanide is under the banned diuretics list. That's what they tested positive for.

So the NFL is now responsible for testing every supplement for content and labeling errors?

No. But if they find untrue labeling, do they have the responsibility to report that information to the players? And if not, why?

Did they put players at risk by not reporting this information?

Is it fair to suspend players based on information the NFL was unwilling to share with the NFLPA?

Put Woodson and Harris in this position (I say this because they are some of your best players on D) and see how you feel. It's a complicated question of fairness.

I'm not saying they should not be suspended, the CBA is what it is. I'm simply saying there is more to this situation than meets the eye. It affects all players.

If Harris and Woodson had banned substances, declared by the NFL, in their systems I would want them suspended.

I would be absolutely furious at Harris, Woodson and the Packers for allowing this to happen. I wouldn't blame the NFL. I'd be pissed at the NFL but a banned drug is a banned drug. You have to have some sort of a level playing field for all teams and players.

[hoosier]

Man, the Vikings are really good at cheating.

Either that or their players are really, really stupid. Imagine putting your professional livelihood by taking weight loss pills that are marketed by the "diet queen to the stars."

[ThunderDan]

The NFL is lucky nobody died because of their lack of response in this matter. Korey Stringer died in part because of diuretics. Imagime the outrage if someone had died as a result of the NFL not telling the NFLPA about this finding. Instead they were too concerned about covering their asses.

That did'nt happen but it does not make the NFL's actions (or inactions) acceptable.

Don't blow this out of proportion.

The copmany that produces StarCaps is lucky no one died from using their incorrectly labeled supplement.

Also, diuretics are in almost every weightloss medication or supplement. So the majority of approved weightloss medications would have had a diuretic in it. It just that Bumetanide, the diuretic in Starcaps, is also a masking agent for other illegal drugs.

Are said wieght loss medications labled "all natural?"

If the NFL knows this should they inform the NFLPA?

If the NFL knows this, fails to inform the NFLPA, and suspends a player for taking said weight loss medications, is that fair?

Who labeled it? Who is to say bumentanide is not natural? (I am just asking this because I don't know if it occurs naturally in the environment or if it is manmade) What does the players conduct code say on this matter?

[Gunakor]

My point is that there are supplements that are not on the approved list that are still safe to take.

I understand this, but if you take those you do so at your own risk. And if that risk backfires, you can't blame the other guy. I don't know how much more clearly I can make this - if the specific supplement you are taking is not on the approved list, you shouldn't be taking it. You can, but you shouldn't. If it's not on the approved list, players should smartly consider it banned just in case something happens like what happened to the Williamses. Failing to do so only puts themselves at risk. In this case the risk backfired. How is this the NFL's fault? They didn't force the Williamses to take that particular supplement in the first place. They did however offer a list of alternative supplements that were approved for use, thus carrying no risk to their league eligibility whatsoever.

And in answer to your previous question, if Tylenol were a supplement that was not on the approved list, then absolutely I'd advise players not to take Tylenol. Nobody said you could, why would you think you could? Again, this isn't laws I'm talking about here, it's policy. You could take Tylenol, just find another job. That's well within the laws too.

We all make choices. If the Williamses valued playing football in the NFL so highly, they should have picked a different supplement, one that the NFL specifically told each and every club that it's players were allowed to take. Maybe a good question to ask is why they didn't do that, instead choosing a non-approved supplement, putting themselves at risk of league discipline. The next question I'd like to ask is why some people feel as if they are above league discipline for taking a non-approved supplement that contained a previously disclosed banned diuretic. Sorry, but I simply cannot paint a picture of the Williamses as the victims here. If they are victims, they are victims of their own personal choices and deserve to be disciplined anyway.

[SMACKTALKIE]

My point is that there are supplements that are not on the approved list that are still safe to take.

I understand this, but if you take those you do so at your own risk. And if that risk backfires, you can't blame the other guy. I don't know how much more clearly I can make this - if the specific supplement you are taking is not on the approved list, you shouldn't be taking it. You can, but you shouldn't. If it's not on the approved list, players should smartly consider it banned just in case something happens like what happened to the Williamses. Failing to do so only puts themselves at risk. In this case the risk backfired. How is this the NFL's fault? They didn't force the Williamses to take that particular supplement in the first place. They did however offer a list of alternative supplements that were approved for use, thus carrying no risk to their league eligibility whatsoever.

And in answer to your previous question, if Tylenol were a supplement that was not on the approved list, then absolutely I'd advise players not to take Tylenol. Nobody said you could, why would you think you could? Again, this isn't laws I'm talking about here, it's policy. You could take Tylenol, just find another job. That's well within the laws too.

We all make choices. If the Williamses valued playing football in the NFL so highly, they should have picked a different supplement, one that the NFL specifically told each and every club that it's players were allowed to take. Maybe a good question to ask is why they didn't do that, instead choosing a non-approved supplement, putting themselves at risk of league discipline. The next question I'd like to ask is why some people feel as if they are above league discipline for taking a non-approved supplement that contained a previously disclosed banned diuretic. Sorry, but I simply cannot paint a picture of the Williamses as the victims here. If they are victims, they are victims of their own personal choices and deserve to be disciplined anyway.

I'm not saying they're victims. And I am pissed at them, how stupid.

I'm just saying there is a bigger issue at hand. The NFL and NFLPA are not working together and it is happening at the players expense. And also at the fans expense. If this needs to be dealt with in the courts than so be it. Unfortunately for the Williams brothers this comes as the current CBA is about to expire.

No matter the outcome of this case, these issues will be addressed in the new CBA. I see that as a measure of how unbalanced this case is.

(Sorry about the edit. Stupid spelling.)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gotta love home town judicial cooking. Haven't seen as good of one as this since Chewy.

Chewy was innocent. OJ was innocent. The Williams boys are innocent.

[sharpe1027]

No. But if they find untrue labeling, do they have the responsibility to report that information to the players? And if not, why?

Morally, yes. Legally, probalby not based on the rulings so far (Appeal to come).



Did they put players at risk by not reporting this information?


Yes. Although they did warn generally about weight loss supplements.



Is it fair to suspend players based on information the NFL was unwilling to share with the NFLPA?


They were suspend based on information from a negative test result, which was shared the NFLPA.



Put Woodson and Harris in this position (I say this because they are some of your best players on D) and see how you feel. It's a complicated question of fairness.


That would suck, but it is what it is.



I'm not saying they should not be suspended, the CBA is what it is. I'm simply saying there is more to this situation than meets the eye. It affects all players.


Not really.

The players tested positive for banned substance. They alleged, after-the-fact, that they took Star Caps, which is clearly not an excuse under the CBA. Suspend them.

The NFL failed to warn players about Star Caps. It was a dangerous and stupid move.

Pretty clear to me.

[cpk1994]

Gotta love home town judicial cooking. Haven't seen as good of one as this since Chewy.Chewy didn't have home town judicial cooking. HE benefited from a prosecutor who tried a weak case as a re-election ploy.

[Fritz]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought the Williamses were making and selling pot holders and costume jewelry at weekend craft shows.

I'm disappointed.

[swede]

Gotta love home town judicial cooking. Haven't seen as good of one as this since Chewy.Chewy didn't have home town judicial cooking. HE benefited from a prosecutor who tried a weak case as a re-election ploy.

Agreed. Every piece of evidence in that case was exculpatory except for one resounding fact:Chewie was a moron for jumping into a hot tub and drinking with 18 year old neighbor girls with mental health issues.

He didn't boink the winkie, but he was sure a stupid man.

[cpk1994]

Gotta love home town judicial cooking. Haven't seen as good of one as this since Chewy.Chewy didn't have home town judicial cooking. HE benefited from a prosecutor who tried a weak case as a re-election ploy.

Agreed. Every piece of evidence in that case was exculpatory except for one resounding fact:Chewie was a moron for jumping into a hot tub and drinking with 18 year old neighbor girls with mental health issues.

He didn't boink the winkie, but he was sure a stupid man. As Tom Cruise said in "A Few Good Men", "My client is a moron. That's not against the law."

[pbmax]

The Federal Appeals Court will get a crack at this, but it is far from certain that the CBA is immune to Minnesota State Law. Florio did a post on this at the time the first Federal ruling was made; the CBA contains no specific language that exempts the CBA from these State Laws:


In this case, the Minnesota claims would have been overcome if the CBA between the NFL and the players' union had specifically listed claims arising under the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act and the Consumable Products Act as being subject to the arbitration procedure.

Such an approach would not have extinguished those rights -- instead, it would have required the question of whether those rights were violated to be addressed by the Commissioner or his designee as part of the arbitration procedure. But it would have blocked a separate lawsuit, forcing the players to rely upon the forum that necessarily is favorable to the league because it is run by the league.

Moving forward, then, the league needs to identify every potentially applicable state and federal drug-testing statute, and the league needs to include claims arising under those statutes within the scope of the claims that players are required to arbitrate. The league also would be wise to ensure that the drug-testing policies and procedures take into account the requirements of the statutes of the various states in which NFL teams are headquartered.
His reading is that recent precedent runs against the NFL's position that the Williams' State claims must be resolved under the CBA.

[Rastak]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

[ThunderDan]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

I think you are wrong on this issue. The owners if the NFL loses this case will demand the language be in the CBA and the players wll agree.

How would a player in GB feel knowing the players in MN and Chicago can use steriods or mary jane but they can't? The players want a level playing field also.

[pbmax]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.
Exactly, and that adds a dimension of conflict of interest. While the NFLPA might gain by throwing 26 (approx) sets of State Laws into the CBA's way, the players might themselves have been better served by negotiating. Hopefully, they are fully aware of that.

[Rastak]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

I think you are wrong on this issue. The owners if the NFL loses this case will demand the language be in the CBA and the players wll agree.

How would a player in GB feel knowing the players in MN and Chicago can use steriods or mary jane but they can't? The players want a level playing field also.


Thunder, the owners and NFLPA couldn't give less of a damn what a GB player might feel about that. Not sure how familiar you are with labor talks but if it is determined that per federal labor law state laws must be obsevred, the union is the one to exploit this in negotiation. Let me say this....good luck "demanding" shit in a negotiation. That always flies well.

[SnakeLH2006]

Jesus, just suspend those 2 bastards so we beat those ViQueen bastards. No?

[ThunderDan]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

I think you are wrong on this issue. The owners if the NFL loses this case will demand the language be in the CBA and the players wll agree.

How would a player in GB feel knowing the players in MN and Chicago can use steriods or mary jane but they can't? The players want a level playing field also.


Thunder, the owners and NFLPA couldn't give less of a damn what a GB player might feel about that. Not sure how familiar you are with labor talks but if it is determined that per federal labor law state laws must be obsevred, the union is the one to exploit this in negotiation. Let me say this....good luck "demanding" shit in a negotiation. That always flies well.

Aparently you don't know about collaborative mediation. If both parties really have the best interest of the game/business in mind amazing things can happen. I've done enough divorce/labor negotiations/buy outs for clients to know the process pretty well.

Since Minnesota has one team and the other states have 31 teams the Minnesota players may very well be in the minority not the majority. If the NFLPA is a "good" body it should damn care what every member thinks.

[Rastak]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

I think you are wrong on this issue. The owners if the NFL loses this case will demand the language be in the CBA and the players wll agree.

How would a player in GB feel knowing the players in MN and Chicago can use steriods or mary jane but they can't? The players want a level playing field also.


Thunder, the owners and NFLPA couldn't give less of a damn what a GB player might feel about that. Not sure how familiar you are with labor talks but if it is determined that per federal labor law state laws must be obsevred, the union is the one to exploit this in negotiation. Let me say this....good luck "demanding" shit in a negotiation. That always flies well.

Aparently you don't know about collaborative mediation. If both parties really have the best interest of the game/business in mind amazing things can happen. I've done enough divorce/labor negotiations/buy outs for clients to know the process pretty well.

Since Minnesota has one team and the other states have 31 teams the Minnesota players may very well be in the minority not the majority. If the NFLPA is a "good" body it should damn care what every member thinks.


NFLPA wants the best deal it can get and if you think De Smith hands over anything without a tradeback you are in fantasy land. You do understand as far as the union is concerned there isn't "Green Bay" players and "Minnesota" players....there are just players. It is one big group and it's the NFL that really wants the drug testing policy. I think the players "should" want it because it can be dangerous to the union members health but since it's the NFL that wants it most, it's merely a bargining chip for the union.

If the NFL wants to include language to waive states employee rights, they gotta pay with something. If they want to expand the schedule, they have to pay with something. Even of it were a giveback by the union, it would be a reduction of said giveback as payment for a concession on the points mentioned.

I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this Thunder....I am trying to understand your position but am having some trouble making real world sense.

[pbmax]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

I think you are wrong on this issue. The owners if the NFL loses this case will demand the language be in the CBA and the players wll agree.

How would a player in GB feel knowing the players in MN and Chicago can use steriods or mary jane but they can't? The players want a level playing field also.
The players will probably agree, but its going to cost the owners something at the bargaining table.

I think the players can easily see the benefit of this (possible) development in negotiations and look beyond their narrower individual interest. Players, for instance, have never sought to have the league increase compensation to players who play in States that have income taxes to level the field with players in Texas or Florida.

And for someone who is so familiar with collaborative mediation, you don't apparently understand the nature of the two laws in front of the State Court. Neither law makes it legal to use steroids or marijuana, nor does it make it illegal to test for them. Nor do the laws in question proscribe penalties for failing the tests.

[ThunderDan]

PB,

I think one of Florio's other takes is interesting also. If it is determined that the CBA contains no such waver over this state law, the players will have a bargining chip to use in labor negotiations. Such a waver would have to be negotiated with the union to be part of the CBA. To agree to this the players will certainly want something substantial back. The NFL, should it lose this case, will absolutely have to negotiate such a waver to continue to have a solid drug testing policy.

I think you are wrong on this issue. The owners if the NFL loses this case will demand the language be in the CBA and the players wll agree.

How would a player in GB feel knowing the players in MN and Chicago can use steriods or mary jane but they can't? The players want a level playing field also.
The players will probably agree, but its going to cost the owners something at the bargaining table.

I think the players can easily see the benefit of this (possible) development in negotiations and look beyond their narrower individual interest. Players, for instance, have never sought to have the league increase compensation to players who play in States that have income taxes to level the field with players in Texas or Florida.

And for someone who is so familiar with collaborative mediation, you don't apparently understand the nature of the two laws in front of the State Court. Neither law makes it legal to use steroids or marijuana, nor does it make it illegal to test for them. Nor do the laws in question proscribe penalties for failing the tests.

I guess you missed my point.

By the way.

The issues at hand are:
1. Drug testing of Workers in Minn
2. The use of legal drugs during off hour times

1. If Minnesota law states that you can only test your employees once every 6 months (or whatever it is) after a player is clean for his test he can run at least one cycle of steriod and be clean before his next drug test. If WI players can be check randomly numerous times they can't take the risk of taking illegal drugs for fear of a random test.

2. The drug the Williams' tested positive for is an illegal substance without a perscription. So they were using an illegal drug in the first place. Now some people are going to say the product was labeled incorrectly but hey if I snort a white powder and I don't know what it is and someone says hey its not blow and I test positive for coke that isn't a defense.

The NFLPA wants equal drug testing for every player.

And what don't I understand about collaborative mediation. Once a case is in court and already tried in front of a judge there isn't going to be a collaborative mediation, it's opposite of the principals of the mediation.

The parties settle the issues together and than petition a judge to accept their mediation and make it binding. Once its to a judge you can't have collaborative mediation.

The collaborative mediation I was talking about was for the next CBA not this case its already at trial.

[ThunderDan]

NFLPA wants the best deal it can get and if you think De Smith hands over anything without a tradeback you are in fantasy land. You do understand as far as the union is concerned there isn't "Green Bay" players and "Minnesota" players....there are just players. It is one big group and it's the NFL that really wants the drug testing policy. I think the players "should" want it because it can be dangerous to the union members health but since it's the NFL that wants it most, it's merely a bargining chip for the union.

If the NFL wants to include language to waive states employee rights, they gotta pay with something. If they want to expand the schedule, they have to pay with something. Even of it were a giveback by the union, it would be a reduction of said giveback as payment for a concession on the points mentioned.

I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this Thunder....I am trying to understand your position but am having some trouble making real world sense.

The athletes want drug testing. They want a level playing field for all players.

Do athletes want to have to take steriods to be a top athlete at their position to get the biggest contract possible? Do athletes want to risk their post-career health?

As much as you want to believe its only the owners that want drug testing that isn't reality. I am sure owners want bigger faster stronger athletes to sell tickets and merchandise.

[Rastak]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

[Fritz]

Gotta love home town judicial cooking. Haven't seen as good of one as this since Chewy.Chewy didn't have home town judicial cooking. HE benefited from a prosecutor who tried a weak case as a re-election ploy.

Agreed. Every piece of evidence in that case was exculpatory except for one resounding fact:Chewie was a moron for jumping into a hot tub and drinking with 18 year old neighbor girls with mental health issues.

He didn't boink the winkie, but he was sure a stupid man.


I see a country song shaping up here, Swede. You play guitar?

[ThunderDan]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

Rastak-

Starcaps is an illegal drug without a perscription.

Some how they got around FDA testing/labeling, or more likely the FDA just believed them that it was an "all natural" product, but the product contains a drug you can only use with doctor approval.

Labeling or not, for sale as an "all natural" product or not, it is illegal. End of story.

[Rastak]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

Rastak-

Starcaps is an illegal drug without a perscription.

Some how they got around FDA testing/labeling, or more likely the FDA just believed them that it was an "all natural" product, but the product contains a drug you can only use with doctor approval.

Labeling or not, for sale as an "all natural" product or not, it is illegal. End of story.



Wrong. Starcaps isn't a drug. It is/was an over the counter weight loss product.

How can you require a prescription for a supplement that lists all legal ingredients? The company pulled the product when it was revealed what they were putting in it.

In other words, Starcaps could not legally contain the drug, therefore no store in the United States was going to require a prescription to dispense it. None. The FDA does not regulate over the counter supplements, therefore they do not test them. It is illegal to put prescription drugs in them.


Let me put it to you this way. If you walked into a doctors office and stated you'd like a prescription for Starcaps, the doctor would look at the bottle and inform you that you don't need a prescription.

[sharpe1027]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

Rastak-

Starcaps is an illegal drug without a perscription.

Some how they got around FDA testing/labeling, or more likely the FDA just believed them that it was an "all natural" product, but the product contains a drug you can only use with doctor approval.

Labeling or not, for sale as an "all natural" product or not, it is illegal. End of story.



Wrong. Starcaps isn't a drug. It is/was an over the counter weight loss product.

How can you require a prescription for a supplement that lists all legal ingredients? The company pulled the product when it was revealed what they were putting in it.

In other words, Starcaps could not legally contain the drug, therefore no store in the United States was going to require a prescription to dispense it. None. The FDA does not regulate over the counter supplements, therefore they do not test them. It is illegal to put prescription drugs in them.


Let me put it to you this way. If you walked into a doctors office and stated you'd like a prescription for Starcaps, the doctor would look at the bottle and inform you that you don't need a prescription.

The NFL does not test for Starcaps, they test for a prescription drug. Whatever excuse the players try to make for how the prescription drug got in their system doesn't change that it is a prescription drug.

[pbmax]

The NFL does not test for Starcaps, they test for a prescription drug. Whatever excuse the players try to make for how the prescription drug got in their system doesn't change that it is a prescription drug.
Why is this so contentious? Starcaps are not a controlled substance, they are (or were) a legal supplement. Bumetanide is a controlled substance, and requires a prescription to legally acquire it.

Bumetanide is also a prohibited substance according to the NFL Drug Control Policy.

No one, not law enforcement or the NFL, is claiming the players or other purchasers of Star Caps were in possession of illegal substances, certainly not in any criminal way. The fault for this lies with the manufacturer.

The players were at fault for taking a supplement that was not from the approved manufacturer (EAS) and from the strict liability clause in the CBA/Drug policy. They took a risk and it backfired bigtime.

If the whole kerfluffle was about illegal possession of controlled substances, this would be in state court with the players fending off criminal charges, not suspensions from the Drug Policy and CBA of the NFLPA/NFL.

The NFL screwed up by not covering their legal behind for state laws that run counter to the CBA. Also they look stupid for forgiving earlier violations of the same policy by other players once they determined the source of the bumetanide to be Star Caps. Both the NFL and the NFLPA screwed up in not passing this information along quickly and forcefully once it was learned. The NFL would not even disclose what it knew on its toll free question line. The NFLPA did receive a warning beyond the listing of the manufacturer as a Do Not Endorse entity, but somehow this info never made it through to the players.

[ThunderDan]

Wrong. Starcaps isn't a drug. It is/was an over the counter weight loss product.

How can you require a prescription for a supplement that lists all legal ingredients? The company pulled the product when it was revealed what they were putting in it.

In other words, Starcaps could not legally contain the drug, therefore no store in the United States was going to require a prescription to dispense it. None. The FDA does not regulate over the counter supplements, therefore they do not test them. It is illegal to put prescription drugs in them.


Let me put it to you this way. If you walked into a doctors office and stated you'd like a prescription for Starcaps, the doctor would look at the bottle and inform you that you don't need a prescription.

The drug, that the manufacture of Starcaps illegally put in their product, made it only legally available by perscription. At least that is how it should have been made available if the manufactures would have been honest about the true composition of their product.

Once again, the FDA blew it by letting this get to market without testing the actual content of the supplement.

Answer this, if it isn't a drug(legal or illegal, natural or manmade) what are you ingesting that makes you loose weight quicker than not taking it?

[sharpe1027]

The drug, that the manufacture of Starcaps illegally put in their product, made it only legally available by perscription. At least that is how it should have been made available if the manufactures would have been honest about the true composition of their product.

Once again, the FDA blew it by letting this get to market without testing the actual content of the supplement.

Answer this, if it isn't a drug(legal or illegal, natural or manmade) what are you ingesting that makes you loose weight quicker than not taking it?

I think Ras explained that the FDA does not test over-the-counter supplements, since they do not regulate them as prescription drugs.

Still, it doesn't matter to the issue at hand. The players had a prescription drug in the system, they had no prescription for it. Maybe it was due to starcaps (maybe they just used it as an excuse), but it doesn't matter, not one bit. The CBA does not require that the players knowingly take a banned substance to be fined/suspended.

[NewsBruin]

Per the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/default.htm):


FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.

FDA's post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising.

*Domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture/process, pack, or hold food for human or animal consumption in the United States are required to register their facility with the FDA. For more information, see Registration of Food Facilities.

I was wrong in thinking that there was not an approved supplements list. There is a lab (http://www.nsf.org/business/nfl_nflpa/index.asp?program=NFLPA)that tests for/approves supplements. The only supplements on the list (http://www.nsf.org/Certified/Common/nflCertlink.asp) are Myoplex, which is a partner with the NFL Network's reality Draft Pick show.

There is a Do Not Endorse list submitted to the NFLPA, and it included StarCaps, but the NFL's doctor and lawyer never told the union, teams, or players that Bumetadine was found in StarCaps. I think there was a big dereliction of medical ethics and deserved loss of trust there.

I agree with the posters that the NFLPA will hold something above the NFL for waiving the Minnesota laws in future Collective Bargainaing negotiations -- even though most of the league would like for all players to have an equal field. If De Smith is smart, he's going to have all 20 states' laws checked for similar drug-testing statues.

[NewsBruin]

The CBA does not require that the players knowingly take a banned substance to be fined/suspended.

The CBA also never addressed state labor law, and that's going to bite the NFL square in the butt.

[pbmax]

The drug, that the manufacture of Starcaps illegally put in their product, made it only legally available by perscription. At least that is how it should have been made available if the manufactures would have been honest about the true composition of their product.

Once again, the FDA blew it by letting this get to market without testing the actual content of the supplement.

Answer this, if it isn't a drug(legal or illegal, natural or manmade) what are you ingesting that makes you loose weight quicker than not taking it?
All very good points and perhaps the reason supplement manufacturer's should be required to submit their products for testing and regulation. But as of now they are not required to do so.

As for the claims by the makers of Star Caps, the ingredients were supposed to include: Papaya, Garlic, Valerian, Corn Spices, and Papain. Whether any of those can actually cause someone to lose weight, well, papaya can't hurt you, can it? What have you to lose by trying it, other than your job?

[Rastak]

I typed up a great post and it all went away when I hit submit........DAMN IT.


okay, retyped in a shorter form....DAMN IT.


I'm sure you guys are sick of the story but I find it interesting for obvious reasons. Today judge Larson issued a ruling on the state claims.


1) The NFL asked that the state claim be stayed until the appeal is resolved. The judge agreed in that it made no sense to begin a trial when the federal appeals court could claim juristiction and render the state claim moot. (Mute for those dudes that can't understand the difference between moot and mute...aye yi yi).

2) Disgregarded the NFL's completely contradictory request that the state trial begin immediately. (Let's have our cake and eat it too). He indicated any state trial would likely occur in 2010 due to caseload.


Anyway, while bored at lunch I did a bunch of research and found that this is indeed a very complicated question.

The crux is the following: Is section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act applicable in this case? If so, federal district court will have jurisdiction and will undoubtably rule the CBA preempts any state law.


I found the supreme court ruled against catarpiller corp and found the employee claims were prememted by state law (unrelated to drug testing). In a drug testing case I found that due to a bunch of techinical legal points, 301 was not preempted. Florio pointed out a recent (april 2009) supreme court decision casts arbitration decisions or processes as not preempted by state court unless specifically exluded in the CBA language. He seems to think this applies and will be the deciding factor.


I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, so I guess it boils down to this after all my reading....


1) Florio seems to think the April case he references applies. He is a (until very recently)practicing lawyer, while I know jack about law. It doesn't look like it to me but I never attended law school.

2) Judge Magnuson has been on the bench for many many years. He is no dummy. He did not remand this to state court on a whim, not caring if he were over-ruled. He must have a solid legal basis to do so, in which case I must say, "What the hell do I know".

[Fritz]

Let them play. The NFL appears to be making rules and then being rather opaque about informing players exactly what can and can't be had.

[3irty1]

It was my understanding that the NFL had star caps tested years ago when a player wanted to know if it was ok. They informally cleared it for use. Then star caps changed the formula to use an FDA regulated drug which is of course illegal. Then NFL tested it again, found the FDA regulated drug, and neither informed the players or FDA? or am I all wrong?

I only ask because I thought the blame was 99% star caps, 1% nfl, 0% fat queens. If the NFL knew then they are obviously much more at fault and also dicks for not protecting their players.

On a related note, All this wasted time and money over this is terrible. They should have been given the benefit of the doubt from the start when star caps turned out to be selling FDA regulated drugs like it was weight loss candy. I don't care if the Williams sisters were supposed to be smarter. They are big dumb lineman. Outsiders assume that because they play in a league of world class athletes and make millions of dollars that they should be fed sterile, healthy food intravenously by scientists. The reality of it is that they are free human beings who should be able to eat anything I can eat including taco bell, and presumably star caps... unless star caps is slipping roid covering drugs into their pills. The NFL's desired anti-steroid image is screwing its own players. This never should have gone past NFL appeals.

[denverYooper]

I want to care. But I just don't.

[SnakeLH2006]

I want to care. But I just don't.

QFT. Brevity is the soul of wit, Yooper. Agreed.

[ThunderDan]

Bump.

One of the original StarCaps threads.