Those Crafty Williams Boys...

[SMACKTALKIE]

Re: Those Crafty Williams Boys...

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]

Re: Those Crafty Williams Boys...

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]

Re: Those Crafty Williams Boys...

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]

Re: Those Crafty Williams Boys...

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.