Those Crafty Williams Boys...

[pbmax]

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.

Exactly, and that adds a dimension of conflict of interest. While the NFLPA might gain by throwing 26 (approx) sets of State Laws into the CBA's way, the players might themselves have been better served by negotiating. Hopefully, they are fully aware of that.

[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.

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.

Thunder, the owners and NFLPA couldn't give less of a damn what a GB player might feel about that. Not sure how familiar you are with labor talks but if it is determined that per federal labor law state laws must be obsevred, the union is the one to exploit this in negotiation. Let me say this....good luck "demanding" shit in a negotiation. That always flies well.

[SnakeLH2006]

Jesus, just suspend those 2 bastards so we beat those ViQueen bastards. No?

[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.

Thunder, the owners and NFLPA couldn't give less of a damn what a GB player might feel about that. Not sure how familiar you are with labor talks but if it is determined that per federal labor law state laws must be obsevred, the union is the one to exploit this in negotiation. Let me say this....good luck "demanding" shit in a negotiation. That always flies well.

Aparently you don't know about collaborative mediation. If both parties really have the best interest of the game/business in mind amazing things can happen. I've done enough divorce/labor negotiations/buy outs for clients to know the process pretty well.

Since Minnesota has one team and the other states have 31 teams the Minnesota players may very well be in the minority not the majority. If the NFLPA is a "good" body it should damn care what every member thinks.

[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.

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.

Thunder, the owners and NFLPA couldn't give less of a damn what a GB player might feel about that. Not sure how familiar you are with labor talks but if it is determined that per federal labor law state laws must be obsevred, the union is the one to exploit this in negotiation. Let me say this....good luck "demanding" shit in a negotiation. That always flies well.

Aparently you don't know about collaborative mediation. If both parties really have the best interest of the game/business in mind amazing things can happen. I've done enough divorce/labor negotiations/buy outs for clients to know the process pretty well.

Since Minnesota has one team and the other states have 31 teams the Minnesota players may very well be in the minority not the majority. If the NFLPA is a "good" body it should damn care what every member thinks.

NFLPA wants the best deal it can get and if you think De Smith hands over anything without a tradeback you are in fantasy land. You do understand as far as the union is concerned there isn't "Green Bay" players and "Minnesota" players....there are just players. It is one big group and it's the NFL that really wants the drug testing policy. I think the players "should" want it because it can be dangerous to the union members health but since it's the NFL that wants it most, it's merely a bargining chip for the union.

If the NFL wants to include language to waive states employee rights, they gotta pay with something. If they want to expand the schedule, they have to pay with something. Even of it were a giveback by the union, it would be a reduction of said giveback as payment for a concession on the points mentioned.

I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this Thunder....I am trying to understand your position but am having some trouble making real world sense.

[pbmax]

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.

The players will probably agree, but its going to cost the owners something at the bargaining table.

I think the players can easily see the benefit of this (possible) development in negotiations and look beyond their narrower individual interest. Players, for instance, have never sought to have the league increase compensation to players who play in States that have income taxes to level the field with players in Texas or Florida.

And for someone who is so familiar with collaborative mediation, you don't apparently understand the nature of the two laws in front of the State Court. Neither law makes it legal to use steroids or marijuana, nor does it make it illegal to test for them. Nor do the laws in question proscribe penalties for failing the tests.

[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.

The players will probably agree, but its going to cost the owners something at the bargaining table.

I think the players can easily see the benefit of this (possible) development in negotiations and look beyond their narrower individual interest. Players, for instance, have never sought to have the league increase compensation to players who play in States that have income taxes to level the field with players in Texas or Florida.

And for someone who is so familiar with collaborative mediation, you don't apparently understand the nature of the two laws in front of the State Court. Neither law makes it legal to use steroids or marijuana, nor does it make it illegal to test for them. Nor do the laws in question proscribe penalties for failing the tests.

I guess you missed my point.

By the way.

The issues at hand are:
1. Drug testing of Workers in Minn
2. The use of legal drugs during off hour times

1. If Minnesota law states that you can only test your employees once every 6 months (or whatever it is) after a player is clean for his test he can run at least one cycle of steriod and be clean before his next drug test. If WI players can be check randomly numerous times they can't take the risk of taking illegal drugs for fear of a random test.

2. The drug the Williams' tested positive for is an illegal substance without a perscription. So they were using an illegal drug in the first place. Now some people are going to say the product was labeled incorrectly but hey if I snort a white powder and I don't know what it is and someone says hey its not blow and I test positive for coke that isn't a defense.

The NFLPA wants equal drug testing for every player.

And what don't I understand about collaborative mediation. Once a case is in court and already tried in front of a judge there isn't going to be a collaborative mediation, it's opposite of the principals of the mediation.

The parties settle the issues together and than petition a judge to accept their mediation and make it binding. Once its to a judge you can't have collaborative mediation.

The collaborative mediation I was talking about was for the next CBA not this case its already at trial.

[ThunderDan]

NFLPA wants the best deal it can get and if you think De Smith hands over anything without a tradeback you are in fantasy land. You do understand as far as the union is concerned there isn't "Green Bay" players and "Minnesota" players....there are just players. It is one big group and it's the NFL that really wants the drug testing policy. I think the players "should" want it because it can be dangerous to the union members health but since it's the NFL that wants it most, it's merely a bargining chip for the union.

If the NFL wants to include language to waive states employee rights, they gotta pay with something. If they want to expand the schedule, they have to pay with something. Even of it were a giveback by the union, it would be a reduction of said giveback as payment for a concession on the points mentioned.

I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this Thunder....I am trying to understand your position but am having some trouble making real world sense.

The athletes want drug testing. They want a level playing field for all players.

Do athletes want to have to take steriods to be a top athlete at their position to get the biggest contract possible? Do athletes want to risk their post-career health?

As much as you want to believe its only the owners that want drug testing that isn't reality. I am sure owners want bigger faster stronger athletes to sell tickets and merchandise.

[Rastak]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

[Fritz]

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.

I see a country song shaping up here, Swede. You play guitar?

[ThunderDan]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

Rastak-

Starcaps is an illegal drug without a perscription.

Some how they got around FDA testing/labeling, or more likely the FDA just believed them that it was an "all natural" product, but the product contains a drug you can only use with doctor approval.

Labeling or not, for sale as an "all natural" product or not, it is illegal. End of story.

[Rastak]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

Rastak-

Starcaps is an illegal drug without a perscription.

Some how they got around FDA testing/labeling, or more likely the FDA just believed them that it was an "all natural" product, but the product contains a drug you can only use with doctor approval.

Labeling or not, for sale as an "all natural" product or not, it is illegal. End of story.

Wrong. Starcaps isn't a drug. It is/was an over the counter weight loss product.

How can you require a prescription for a supplement that lists all legal ingredients? The company pulled the product when it was revealed what they were putting in it.

In other words, Starcaps could not legally contain the drug, therefore no store in the United States was going to require a prescription to dispense it. None. The FDA does not regulate over the counter supplements, therefore they do not test them. It is illegal to put prescription drugs in them.


Let me put it to you this way. If you walked into a doctors office and stated you'd like a prescription for Starcaps, the doctor would look at the bottle and inform you that you don't need a prescription.

[sharpe1027]

One correction Thunder. Starcaps was not illegal without a prescription. It was perfectly legal. The fact the maker spiked it with an FDA regulated drug was the illegal act in this episode. The fact the NFL knew this an didn't tell either the players or the FDA is the only thing that even makes this story even debatable.

For sure it drives a wedge between the parties as they negotiate. I'm sure the players feel they can't trust the NFL to act in good faith after this stunt.

Rastak-

Starcaps is an illegal drug without a perscription.

Some how they got around FDA testing/labeling, or more likely the FDA just believed them that it was an "all natural" product, but the product contains a drug you can only use with doctor approval.

Labeling or not, for sale as an "all natural" product or not, it is illegal. End of story.

Wrong. Starcaps isn't a drug. It is/was an over the counter weight loss product.

How can you require a prescription for a supplement that lists all legal ingredients? The company pulled the product when it was revealed what they were putting in it.

In other words, Starcaps could not legally contain the drug, therefore no store in the United States was going to require a prescription to dispense it. None. The FDA does not regulate over the counter supplements, therefore they do not test them. It is illegal to put prescription drugs in them.


Let me put it to you this way. If you walked into a doctors office and stated you'd like a prescription for Starcaps, the doctor would look at the bottle and inform you that you don't need a prescription.

The NFL does not test for Starcaps, they test for a prescription drug. Whatever excuse the players try to make for how the prescription drug got in their system doesn't change that it is a prescription drug.

[pbmax]

The NFL does not test for Starcaps, they test for a prescription drug. Whatever excuse the players try to make for how the prescription drug got in their system doesn't change that it is a prescription drug.

Why is this so contentious? Starcaps are not a controlled substance, they are (or were) a legal supplement. Bumetanide is a controlled substance, and requires a prescription to legally acquire it.

Bumetanide is also a prohibited substance according to the NFL Drug Control Policy.

No one, not law enforcement or the NFL, is claiming the players or other purchasers of Star Caps were in possession of illegal substances, certainly not in any criminal way. The fault for this lies with the manufacturer.

The players were at fault for taking a supplement that was not from the approved manufacturer (EAS) and from the strict liability clause in the CBA/Drug policy. They took a risk and it backfired bigtime.

If the whole kerfluffle was about illegal possession of controlled substances, this would be in state court with the players fending off criminal charges, not suspensions from the Drug Policy and CBA of the NFLPA/NFL.

The NFL screwed up by not covering their legal behind for state laws that run counter to the CBA. Also they look stupid for forgiving earlier violations of the same policy by other players once they determined the source of the bumetanide to be Star Caps. Both the NFL and the NFLPA screwed up in not passing this information along quickly and forcefully once it was learned. The NFL would not even disclose what it knew on its toll free question line. The NFLPA did receive a warning beyond the listing of the manufacturer as a Do Not Endorse entity, but somehow this info never made it through to the players.

[ThunderDan]

Wrong. Starcaps isn't a drug. It is/was an over the counter weight loss product.

How can you require a prescription for a supplement that lists all legal ingredients? The company pulled the product when it was revealed what they were putting in it.

In other words, Starcaps could not legally contain the drug, therefore no store in the United States was going to require a prescription to dispense it. None. The FDA does not regulate over the counter supplements, therefore they do not test them. It is illegal to put prescription drugs in them.


Let me put it to you this way. If you walked into a doctors office and stated you'd like a prescription for Starcaps, the doctor would look at the bottle and inform you that you don't need a prescription.

The drug, that the manufacture of Starcaps illegally put in their product, made it only legally available by perscription. At least that is how it should have been made available if the manufactures would have been honest about the true composition of their product.

Once again, the FDA blew it by letting this get to market without testing the actual content of the supplement.

Answer this, if it isn't a drug(legal or illegal, natural or manmade) what are you ingesting that makes you loose weight quicker than not taking it?