Tweet
Originally posted by sharpe1027
-
Just to clarify, it's helping 2 players on the Saints right now as well. -
You know, if you just said I am for the Williams because they are Vikings and ready to throw the book at Jolly because he is a Packer you would have a lot more credibility than the what you have been posting for the last couple of pages.Originally posted by SMACKTALKIEBut Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim HarmstonComment
-
Double PostBut Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim HarmstonComment
-
Its a Minnesota state law matter now, at least the current branch of the case. Didn't one of the affected Saints retire? And I think one served the suspension,Originally posted by mngolf19Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
It worries me that the application of State Law is called a technicality. It may be only a technicality that the NFL's labor lawyers blew the language in the CBA, but once in effect, the State Law is perfectly valid.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
Sure it is valid. Pretty much anytime someone gets out of what would otherwise be a valid a contract or crime, it is because of some law. Without getting into semantics of what a "technicality" is or is not, the MN law is a bit of an oddity. It was probably not originally intended to protect people in the situation that the Williams boys are in.Originally posted by pbmax
In the end, the court held that they can still be suspended (pending appeal). So they have effectively been able to delay the suspension based upon a law, that doesn't prevent them from being suspended. Call it what you will, I don't feel sorry for them at all.Comment
-
are you sure? I'm not.Originally posted by ThunderDan
Just purely out of curiosity, do you feel like you've "won" yet? I can't figure that part out yet.Comment
-
Not my understanding. The NFL made a rule, thought they were above the law, and broke a serious one - they didn't notifiy the William's that they'd failed the test within the requisite 3 days. This was their resonponsibility, and they failed to fulfill it.Originally posted by ThunderDan
Someone mentioned the William's should've had the supplements tested, because they were making $6million/yr. I counter with the fact the NFL is trying to run a multi-billion dollar industry, and should have they're lawyer's researching laws to make sure they don't get caught with their pants on the ground.--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...Comment
-
Originally posted by Guiness
Here is the offical ruling:
Hennepin County Judge Gary Larson ruled in April that the NFL violated the three-day notice requirement in a Minnesota law on drug testing. But he said the Williamses had not been harmed by the violation.
Their attorneys say that ruling allows the NFL to benefit from violating the players’ rights.
The Court of Appeals earlier rejected the NFL’s request to expedite the case, so the defensive tackles may get to play the entire 2010 season.
As to your second point, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to a drug policy. The Williams clearly violated the agreement. You are absolutely correct that both the NFL and the NFLPA should have researched the implications on a state-by-state basis or included all inclusive language in the CBA.
The last thing players want to do is have to take drugs to be a top performer in the NFL. They understand that there are serious health risks involved. The players suffer enough damage from the physical contact to have to worry about long-term drug effects also.But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim HarmstonComment
-
I am not sure why you are saying that they thought they were above the law. The NFL and player's association were both responsible for drafting an agreement, so it was a failure on both ends. The agreement needed to be consistent with 20 or so different states. That they they missed one law is unfortunate, but not all that surprising. Going through all the state laws for a single state is difficult enough.Originally posted by GuinessComment
-
PB I think the NFL is holding off suspending the Saints players until the whole Williams thing is finalized.Originally posted by pbmaxComment
-
JSO Blogtacular:
Seems kinda light for a major player in drug trafficking evidence that the prosecutor was planning on bringing to his sentencing hearing.Aug. 3, 2010 11:22 a.m. | Greg Bedard
Green Bay - Suspended Green Bay Packers defensive end Johnny Jolly agreed to a plea deal today in a Houston court that will allow him to have a clean record if he stays out of trouble for one year.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
why the hell is he suspended for the year with that ruling...Originally posted by pbmaxComment
-
That was under the Drug and Alcohol Policy. Jolly failed a test or three, somewhere along the line. Though, my original guess was probably wrong. If he failed the court ordered test, I think he would have suffered more than this. But its hard to be certain.Originally posted by packers11Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
Also, didn't Jolly's attorney swear they were going to go to court and beat the rap because his client was innocent?"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPackComment
Comment