NFL Suspends 6 for Starcaps

[cpk1994]

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

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

The NFL doesn't have a list of approved over the counter supplements. It endorses a line of safe EAS supplements from that company in Colorado. Its entirely possible that weight loss supplements are not part of that agreement.

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

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

NFL Weight Reduction Products Letter
ESPN Supplement Story

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

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

Nope they are not. And ESPN doesn't claim they are either.

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

3. Did you test positive? Yes.

Done deal.



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

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

Nope they are not. And ESPN doesn't claim they are either.

Good catch, both of you. That explains some of my confusion. Has anyone seen the contents of the Dec 19th, 2006 letter anywhere?

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

[pbmax]

2. Did the maker of the suppliment lie to you about what was in it? YES, but the NFL does not trust it and you take it at your own risk...

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

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

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

[denverYooper]

2. Did the maker of the suppliment lie to you about what was in it? YES, but the NFL does not trust it and you take it at your own risk...

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

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

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

The facts on the notifications are not very clear. The article you posted above -- "NFL suspends six for violations of steroid policy" -- mentions that the NFL mailed out those letters in 2006 and notified the FDA. The lawyer's claim is that the league consciously suppressed information. But that's not the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RashanGary]

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

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

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

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

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

[denverYooper]

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

[Freak Out]

Collective Bargaining Agreement.

[Zool]

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

[pbmax]

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

Then this goes to the heart of the matter that David Cornwell is talking about.

from PFT:

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

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

The investigation revealed that StarCaps contains Bumetanide.

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

Yes and No. After re-reading everything and yoopers posts, it seems that the NFL has a banned companies list, to avoid teams or players becoming involved endorsing a company that has been shown to use substances that land players in violation of the Steroids policy. But it is not a banned products list. See the PFT quote from me earlier for a possible explanation why such a list doesn't exist.

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

[Rastak]

It is pretty convoluted pb.


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