Judge denies most of Vikings' Williamses' claims

[Scott Campbell]

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

Ras;

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

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

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

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

[Rastak]

Ras;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


The next batch of players were suspended.


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


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


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

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

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


My reason's for siding with the players


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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

Did the willliams take the starcaps under rule 303?

[pbmax]

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

The legal discovery during the appeal hearing (possibly the subsequent Minnesota hearings) did turn up a memo from the NFLPA to agents warning them explicitly to be sure their players did not take Star Caps, not just avoid endorsing them.

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

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

[Rastak]

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



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

[Patler]

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

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

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

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.co...ion-arena.html

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

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

[Rastak]

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

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

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

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



edit: Can "Prescription ingredients" mean anything else?

[pbmax]

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

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

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

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.co...ion-arena.html

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

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

Aren't you both saying the same thing, but the subjects of your statements have become confused?

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

http://www.naturalproductsinsider.co...ion-arena.html

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

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

Aren't you both saying the same thing, but the subjects of your statements have become confused?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SMACKTALKIE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

[SMACKTALKIE]

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

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

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

[SMACKTALKIE]

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

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

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