NFL Suspends 6 for Starcaps

[pbmax]

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

They can ask for anything they like, but that doesn't mean they are going to get it. On the other side, its very clear what they stand to lose. If the league feels like the Williams are costing them money by doing something illegal, they can counter sue.

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

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

[pbmax]

One last series of questions:

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

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

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

[Lurker64]

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

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

[Rastak]

Pbmax,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

Pbmax,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Night and day.

[denverYooper]

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

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

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

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

[Rastak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[denverYooper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rastak]

LOL....true dat.

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

[KYPack]

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

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

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

Then there is this Minn ruling.

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

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rastak]

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

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

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

Then there is this Minn ruling.

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

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

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


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

[RashanGary]

How about this analogy.

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

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

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

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

[KYPack]

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

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

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

Then there is this Minn ruling.

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

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

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


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

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

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

We got a beer on this one, me boyo.

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

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

[Rastak]

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

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


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