NFL Suspends 6 for Starcaps

[sharpe1027]

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

The NFL did not share the "truth" about StarCaps with anyone except, perhaps, itself. Possibly the FDA.

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

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

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

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

The Hotline does not approve products beyond what is on the EAS produced line for the NFL. It reads the labels and cross checks the listed ingredients against the banned substances list.

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

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

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

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

The siutations are not the same:

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

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

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

[SMACKTALKIE]

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

The NFL did not share the "truth" about StarCaps with anyone except, perhaps, itself. Possibly the FDA.

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

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

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

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

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

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

What a f'ing mess.

[pbmax]

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

The league specifically told teams about Star Caps.

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

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

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

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