PDA

View Full Version : KWILL AND PWILL SUSPENSIONS BLOCKED



nephilimstorm
07-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Judge Gary blocks suspensions in MN Court

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflsuspensions&prov=ap&type=lgns

SharperImage
07-09-2009, 11:37 AM
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Json
07-09-2009, 11:40 AM
Does this just delay the inevitable?
I mean for crying out loud it's taking forever just to come up with a decision.
I guess that's the court system for ya.

skol_vikes!
07-09-2009, 11:40 AM
BOUT TIME!!!!!

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 11:44 AM
means dick all.
The case is still on.
I'd rather they not block the suspensions and they serve them weeks 1-4 than blocking them untill week 6 and having them midseason when we need them the most.

VikingMike
07-09-2009, 11:48 AM
Yeah, agreed...until the case it closed by the NFL (Roger the Dodger), we just have to wait and see. I hate having this hanging over their heads.

Zeus
07-09-2009, 11:51 AM
"Nephilim" wrote:


Judge Gary blocks suspensions in MN Court

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflsuspensions&prov=ap&type=lgns


Given the season schedule for 2009, I'd rather they miss games 1-4 than any other block of 4 games.

=Z=

kevoncox
07-09-2009, 11:55 AM
Their agents should be trying to find an offical settlment. WTF happened to that deal that was in place that carried a fine. Can't Vikes step in and pay that for them? I don't like not having these guys for any 4 games but the fact that the target 4 games keep on moving is the scary part. What if we miss them for PITTS and RAVENS??? :-[

PurpleTide
07-09-2009, 12:12 PM
"kevoncox" wrote:


Their agents should be trying to find an offical settlment. WTF happened to that deal that was in place that carried a fine. Can't Vikes step in and pay that for them? I don't like not having these guys for any 4 games but the fact that the target 4 games keep on moving is the scary part. What if we miss them for PITTS and RAVENS??? :-[


Totally agree with you Kevon..I want to know what's next, how long is this going to be hung over their heads, a late season reversal could be a disaster. If we had a choice and had to miss 4 games, I'd rather it was the first four, not later in the season as our schedule gets tougher, our aspirations would surely suffer in criticle late season games with the WW suspended.

NodakPaul
07-09-2009, 12:15 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Nephilim" wrote:


Judge Gary blocks suspensions in MN Court

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflsuspensions&prov=ap&type=lgns


Given the season schedule for 2009, I'd rather they miss games 1-4 than any other block of 4 games.

=Z=


Agreed.

kspurplepride
07-09-2009, 12:29 PM
"VikingMike" wrote:


Yeah, agreed...until the case it closed by the NFL (Roger the Dodger), we just have to wait and see. I hate having this hanging over their heads.


not true, it all comes down to what they rule in state court since it was thrown out in federal. If the judge decides to rule in favor of the Williams wall Roger will be pressed to drop it

happy camper
07-09-2009, 12:31 PM
I don't think they should be suspended at all. So every delay is a little victory, IMO. Hopefully it culminates into a total victory.

Mark_The_Viking
07-09-2009, 12:37 PM
This is begginning to make Goodell look bad. For crying out loud eithe drop it or suspend them. This is becoming a mockery of a travesty

C Mac D
07-09-2009, 12:39 PM
"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


This is begginning to make Goodell look bad. For crying out loud eithe drop it or suspend them. This is becoming a mockery of a travesty


Goodell already issued the suspensions. The Williams Wall appealed.

Mark_The_Viking
07-09-2009, 12:48 PM
"C" wrote:


"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


This is begginning to make Goodell look bad. For crying out loud eithe drop it or suspend them. This is becoming a mockery of a travesty


Goodell already issued the suspensions. The Williams Wall appealed.


Thats what I'm saying Goodell has been defeated
<<< DROP IT >>>

gagarr
07-09-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm glad they can continue to play, but I'm also sick of it.
Let's just get it over with.

IMO, I think the NFL is just trying to wear down K&P.
The NFL has MUCH deeper pockets.
I hope K&P has
"defamation of character" as part of the suit, because most people think they were busted for roids or drugs, not a weight loss substance the contained a unlisted drug that could be used for masking the use of another drug.
When I tell them that, they are like "WHAT... that's just stupid".

Zeus
07-09-2009, 01:02 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


I'm glad they can continue to play, but I'm also sick of it.
Let's just get it over with.

IMO, I think the NFL is just trying to wear down K&P.
The NFL has MUCH deeper pockets.
I hope K&P has
"defamation of character" as part of the suit, because most people think they were busted for roids or drugs, not a weight loss substance the contained a unlisted drug that could be used for masking the use of another drug.
When I tell them that, they are like "WHAT... that's just stupid".


I believe the "defamation of character" bit was part of the lawsuit that Pat & Kevin brought against the NFL and which was already dismissed.

=Z=

V4L
07-09-2009, 01:11 PM
They will get suspended

jmcdon00
07-09-2009, 01:20 PM
I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.

V4L
07-09-2009, 01:22 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.



I was kinda thinking that too

I don't think we need them for the first 4 weeks

But if we play well and get a good lead we can do without them for 4

Idk I feel they will get screwed and get suspended.. But it don't really matter to me where they go

VikingMike
07-09-2009, 01:23 PM
"kspurplepride" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Yeah, agreed...until the case it closed by the NFL (Roger the Dodger), we just have to wait and see. I hate having this hanging over their heads.


not true, it all comes down to what they rule in state court since it was thrown out in federal. If the judge decides to rule in favor of the Williams wall Roger will be pressed to drop it



I doubt that Goodell would let it drop...he'd probably appeal the ruling by the state court. He's a man who can't be made to look bad. And as long as it goes on, their heads are on the block.

VikingMike
07-09-2009, 01:26 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.



I agree 100% with that...although unethical in theory, IMO it is definitely sitting right there in Goodell's mind.

nephilimstorm
07-09-2009, 01:27 PM
I am sorry to say this:

Goodell has been acting like a communist dictator since he took on the NFL.

That's how I feel: Fine after fine, BS after BS.

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 01:34 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.

V4L
07-09-2009, 01:35 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 01:40 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 01:41 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


also, don't forget

6-0 start, 9-7 finish
5-1 start, 8-8 finish
2-0 start, 6-10 finish

V4L
07-09-2009, 01:50 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win

V4L
07-09-2009, 01:53 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


also, don't forget

6-0 start, 9-7 finish
5-1 start, 8-8 finish
2-0 start, 6-10 finish



Much different teams

And new coach.. Well atleast for 1 of the years

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 01:53 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like shit, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.

V4L
07-09-2009, 01:55 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:




I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like shit, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.




Just debunking your start off strong and end like shit theory

Much different teams.. New coach besides one of the years.. And our most recent year we didn't start off strong or finish like shit

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 01:58 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:






I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like shit the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like shit 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like shit, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.




Just debunking your start off strong and end like shit theory

Much different teams.. New coach besides one of the years.. And our most recent year we didn't start off strong or finish like shit




I'd just rather play the odds on this.
Odds are, we'll beat the Browns, 9ers and lions.
Packers are the only team that might pose a problem.
We can beat the first 3 without teh Williamses.
Against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, etc.
who like to play physical football, I don't know we can hold them without our two best defenders.
Those would be very important wins if we can pull them off.
I have us going 11-5, while losing to both of those teams.
If we can win them, that gives us more breathing room.

Prophet
07-09-2009, 01:59 PM
Rock on Wall!

jkjuggalo
07-09-2009, 02:00 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:








I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like pooh the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like pooh 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like pooh, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.




Just debunking your start off strong and end like pooh theory

Much different teams.. New coach besides one of the years.. And our most recent year we didn't start off strong or finish like pooh




I'd just rather play the odds on this.
Odds are, we'll beat the Browns, 9ers and lions.
Packers are the only team that might pose a problem.
We can beat the first 3 without teh Williamses.
Against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, etc.
who like to play physical football, I don't know we can hold them without our two best defenders.
Those would be very important wins if we can pull them off.
I have us going 11-5, while losing to both of those teams.
If we can win them, that gives us more breathing room.


+1

Even if they are in the right, they should just pay up during that easy stretch of regular season and get retribution through the courts later.


Maybe it would get us some calls come playoff time. :)

NodakPaul
07-09-2009, 02:51 PM
I honestly no longer think that they are in the right.
I think that there are mitigating circumstances, and the NFL handled it poorly, but in the end the players were wrong.

The NFL offered a settlement in which there was a fine but no suspension.
I honestly think that was a fair thing to do, and I am disappointed in the Williams's (or more appropriately their lawyer) for not taking it.

jmcdon00
07-09-2009, 03:56 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:








I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like pooh the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like pooh 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like pooh, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.




Just debunking your start off strong and end like pooh theory

Much different teams.. New coach besides one of the years.. And our most recent year we didn't start off strong or finish like pooh




I'd just rather play the odds on this.
Odds are, we'll beat the Browns, 9ers and lions.
Packers are the only team that might pose a problem.
We can beat the first 3 without teh Williamses.
Against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, etc.
who like to play physical football, I don't know we can hold them without our two best defenders.
Those would be very important wins if we can pull them off.
I have us going 11-5, while losing to both of those teams.
If we can win them, that gives us more breathing room.

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.

i_bleed_purple
07-09-2009, 04:01 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:










I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like pooh the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like pooh 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like pooh, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.




Just debunking your start off strong and end like pooh theory

Much different teams.. New coach besides one of the years.. And our most recent year we didn't start off strong or finish like pooh




I'd just rather play the odds on this.
Odds are, we'll beat the Browns, 9ers and lions.
Packers are the only team that might pose a problem.
We can beat the first 3 without teh Williamses.
Against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, etc.
who like to play physical football, I don't know we can hold them without our two best defenders.
Those would be very important wins if we can pull them off.
I have us going 11-5, while losing to both of those teams.
If we can win them, that gives us more breathing room.

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.


yes, often you can predict though..
49ers might be pretty good, hard to say.
Browns aren't making any progress.

NodakPaul
07-09-2009, 04:11 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.


That's one of the things I love about the NFL actually.
Few teams remain dominent or horrible for too long.
Except the Lions.

VikingMike
07-09-2009, 04:13 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.


That's one of the things I love about the NFL actually.
Few teams remain dominent or horrible for too long.
Except the Lions.



And while this is going on, Goodell is scaling Mt. Rainier.

Spent Roger Goodell speechless, teary-eyed at having conquered Mt. Rainier (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50384942.html)

jmcdon00
07-09-2009, 04:46 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:












I think Kevin and Pat both have to be very careful on and off the field. Give the league a different reason to suspend them, and they probably will. My guess is the league is pissed about the whole thing. The league made the ruling and then Kevin and Pat went outside the league to the courts.

I am in the minority that I would rather see them suspended later in the season, if at all. The Vikings have a recent history of starting slow and they need a good start this year, because the schedule gets tough. Anytime we play the Packers it has extra importance, because they are our biggest rival. This year it's gonna be more important than ever because Favre is here, playing at home on Monday night with the whole country watching is gonna be big. I'm sure for the coaches a win is a win but for me, I'd trade 2 losses to the afc for 1 win against the packers.

Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


Your forgetting our second most recent trend of starting strong and playing like pooh the rest of the season.
Without P&K in there, thats a very real possiblilty again.



What about last year? Starting off like pooh 0-2.. ALMOST 0-3

And finishing strong

Even without Pat


Last year we finished with the Cards, Falcons, Lions and Giants backups.
We squeaked out wins from the Lions and Giants, threw away the Falcons game and smoked the Cards.
I woudln't call that finishing strong, thats getting lucky.

This season we finish against the Bengals, Panthers Bears and Giants.
I'd expect the Bears to play us very tough, Giants might be a repeat of last season, Panthers will probably be playing for a playoff spot and who knows about the Bengals.
We could go 4-0 then, but just as easilly go 0-4.
I'm not comfortable at all going into that game without at least one of them.

Which leads me to my next though.. what if Kevin accepted his suspension now, while Pat fought his, and once Kevin's done, pat accepts his suspension, that way we don't miss both at the same time, just one at a time.



What about the 0-2 start?

And getting lucky to get the first win


what about it?
We started weak, the team didn't show up, we did well midseason, although inconsistent.
We finished decently, despite some weak team efforts.
I'd much rather pull a NYG, start out like pooh, then get hot right in time for playoffs and win the superbowl, than a NE Pats, go 16-0 and choke at the end.




Just debunking your start off strong and end like pooh theory

Much different teams.. New coach besides one of the years.. And our most recent year we didn't start off strong or finish like pooh




I'd just rather play the odds on this.
Odds are, we'll beat the Browns, 9ers and lions.
Packers are the only team that might pose a problem.
We can beat the first 3 without teh Williamses.
Against teams like the Ravens, Steelers, etc.
who like to play physical football, I don't know we can hold them without our two best defenders.
Those would be very important wins if we can pull them off.
I have us going 11-5, while losing to both of those teams.
If we can win them, that gives us more breathing room.

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.


yes, often you can predict though..
49ers might be pretty good, hard to say.
Browns aren't making any progress.


I don't think anyone saw the Dolphins getting that much better. Many thought the Lions could contend for the division. In the NFC south the team that finished last one year has finished first the following for 5 years in a row, until last year(though Atlanta who finished last in 07 still made the playoffs).Everyone thinks they know, but you don't know.

Tad7
07-09-2009, 04:54 PM
I'm sure it's been said 100 times but I won't get excited until it's all over. If their appeal is officially denied in mid or late season, I'm gonna feel even worse about it.

BloodyHorns82
07-09-2009, 05:02 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.


That's one of the things I love about the NFL actually.
Few teams remain dominent or horrible for too long.
Except the Lions.


I remember posting something last offseason thinking they'd be decent in 2008 - Ooops.
;D

jmcdon00
07-09-2009, 05:11 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:

Odds are we don't know who the good teams will be in 2009.Worst to first and first to worst has been fairly common the last couple of years.


That's one of the things I love about the NFL actually.
Few teams remain dominent or horrible for too long.
Except the Lions.

Even the Lions could surprise us. They started 2007 at 6-2, they could do that again. Even with Kevin and Pat playing last year the Lions were only 1 play away from beating us in each game last year.

midgensa
07-09-2009, 05:16 PM
This is great news yet again.
Closer and closer to this ordeal being over and us being whole from start to finish next season!

marstc09
07-09-2009, 08:04 PM
"Json" wrote:


Does this just delay the inevitable?
I mean for crying out loud it's taking forever just to come up with a decision.
I guess that's the court system for ya.


I think the NFL should just give up.

marstc09
07-09-2009, 08:07 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


Another reason I would rather have suspensions later is that the Williamson should be 100% ready to go week one, by week 8 they will probably be tired and dinged up. They can use the suspension to get back to 100%. If we can get to week 12 or so with the division lead and then we get 2 dominate players at the same time both well rested and 100% it could give us a lot of confidence heading into the playoffs.


+1 Nice post.

marstc09
07-09-2009, 08:09 PM
"VikingMike" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Yeah, agreed...until the case it closed by the NFL (Roger the Dodger), we just have to wait and see. I hate having this hanging over their heads.


not true, it all comes down to what they rule in state court since it was thrown out in federal. If the judge decides to rule in favor of the Williams wall Roger will be pressed to drop it



I doubt that Goodell would let it drop...he'd probably appeal the ruling by the state court. He's a man who can't be made to look bad. And as long as it goes on, their heads are on the block.


I don't understand how he could appeal it again. Didn't he already do that? It got appealed to Federal right? I could be wrong. Didn't Federal dismiss it back to State? It is all confusing to me but this sounds like a good thing.

NodakPaul
07-09-2009, 08:12 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


"kspurplepride" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Yeah, agreed...until the case it closed by the NFL (Roger the Dodger), we just have to wait and see. I hate having this hanging over their heads.


not true, it all comes down to what they rule in state court since it was thrown out in federal. If the judge decides to rule in favor of the Williams wall Roger will be pressed to drop it



I doubt that Goodell would let it drop...he'd probably appeal the ruling by the state court. He's a man who can't be made to look bad. And as long as it goes on, their heads are on the block.


I don't understand how he could appeal it again. Didn't he already do that? It got appealed to Federal right? I could be wrong. Didn't Federal dismiss it back to State? It is all confusing to me but this sounds like a good thing.


No, when Federal dismissed all of the player's suit except for one part, that was the original trial.
And to be honest it was more of a victory for the NFL than the players when it happened.
As far as the appeal, the NFL is appealing the decision to return the single claim back to the state court. In their eyes, all of the claims should have been dismissed.

marstc09
07-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Here is a statement issued by the league: “Today’s decision, which effectively exempts two players from the NFL-NFLPA collectively bargained program, further illustrates the critical importance of a uniform policy for all teams in the league and why this matter should be governed exclusively by federal law. The Court’s interim decision regarding the suspensions has no immediate practical
impact since the suspensions will not take effect until the beginning of the regular season in September. In the meantime, our appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, which argues that the players’ state claims are barred by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, should be resolved before the start of the season.”

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=3026

marstc09
07-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Judge: Minnesota Vikings' Kevin and Pat Williams can't be suspended — for now, at least
By Brian Murphy
brianmurphy@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 07/09/2009 04:30:11 PM CDT

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_12793969?source=rss

Good article.

so-cal vike
07-09-2009, 08:48 PM
Another slap in the face to the fuhrer Goodell.
I love it.
:D

MVIKING7
07-11-2009, 07:02 AM
Now I feel much better.......if I can only get rid this nagging Favreitis rash I have

BleedinPandG
07-11-2009, 04:09 PM
My understanding is that the Williams' are prepared to go to court over this matter.
From what I read, the lawyer believed it was impractical to have a court case ongoing during the middle of the football season, essentially pushing the court case to 2010.
This injunction blocks the suspension until that court case is resolved given the judge believed they had a "reasonable chance of winning".
Based on that, it would seem a good lawyer would create a situation where the risk is the 2010 season and the Williams' will play the entire 09 season pending the court case early next year.

With the "win now" attitude of so many on this site lately, you'd think this would be universally considered good news.

kevoncox
07-11-2009, 04:13 PM
"BleedinPandG" wrote:


My understanding is that the Williams' are prepared to go to court over this matter.
From what I read, the lawyer believed it was impractical to have a court case ongoing during the middle of the football season, essentially pushing the court case to 2010.
This injunction blocks the suspension until that court case is resolved given the judge believed they had a "reasonable chance of winning".
Based on that, it would seem a good lawyer would create a situation where the risk is the 2010 season and the Williams' will play the entire 09 season pending the court case early next year.

With the "win now" attitude of so many on this site lately, you'd think this would be universally considered good news.


Well according to a report, the NFL believes this issue will be wrapped up in the upcoming weeks. Good news would be a plea deal being reached.

snowinapril
07-11-2009, 06:56 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Json" wrote:


Does this just delay the inevitable?
I mean for crying out loud it's taking forever just to come up with a decision.
I guess that's the court system for ya.


I think the NFL should just give up.


Hope in one hand and pooh in....

Ya, as Viking fans we all wish that.
I think the collective bargaining agreement will eventually be seen as the end all and be all.
The NFL will not admit to being wrong about the product and the ability of the players to access the info about the product on the list.
They can't and won't admit to being at fault.
I am not sure they were, we only know what both sides are trying to portray.

I tend to agree that they might as well get it over with now at the beginning of the season than be kicked in the butt at the end of the season near the playoffs.
If the William Bros (& lawyers) think they can win, I will support them on drawing this out.


The League isn't going to back down on this because there are players on other teams and in other states that will want the same treatment but can't get it.
The League needs to be able to apply this to all the teams in all the states.
The League can not back down!

Goodell and his iron fist will not back down, it would damage his fist.

Vikes
07-11-2009, 09:56 PM
This case will be a landmark in a lot of doping cases.

First the Player association come collective barging time will get this stuff cleared up.

BloodyHorns82
07-12-2009, 03:54 AM
Goodell has a cucumber jammed way up his ass.
Take it easy on the poor guy.

VikingMike
07-14-2009, 08:40 AM
Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.

snowinapril
07-14-2009, 09:46 AM
"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.

jmcdon00
07-14-2009, 10:30 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.


The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.

Zeus
07-14-2009, 10:38 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.

Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.

=Z=

NodakPaul
07-14-2009, 10:51 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"BleedinPandG" wrote:


My understanding is that the Williams' are prepared to go to court over this matter.
From what I read, the lawyer believed it was impractical to have a court case ongoing during the middle of the football season, essentially pushing the court case to 2010.
This injunction blocks the suspension until that court case is resolved given the judge believed they had a "reasonable chance of winning".
Based on that, it would seem a good lawyer would create a situation where the risk is the 2010 season and the Williams' will play the entire 09 season pending the court case early next year.

With the "win now" attitude of so many on this site lately, you'd think this would be universally considered good news.


Well according to a report, the NFL believes this issue will be wrapped up in the upcoming weeks. Good news would be a plea deal being reached.


Well, it wouldn't be a plea per se - this isn't a criminal trial - but the NFL did offer them a settlement.
No suspension but still had to pay the fines.
The Williams borthers declined.
Apparently they think that they can beat this, but to what end?
I think that a Williams victory will be even more determental to the CBA than the Goodell was with his refusal to let the circumstances mitigiate the punishment.

I think that the NFL has acted deplorably.
I think that they used the testing policy as a means to catch people using steroids, not as a means to prevent streroid use.
And I think that the refusal to grant appeals to several players when the reasons for use were so evident. But deplorable or not, the NFL was acting 100% with the CBA.
They even warned players specifically NOT to use Starcaps or related products.
The memo didn't just tell them not to endorse it as originally thought, but literally told them not to use it.

This is why the case was disissed in Federal court.
The players honestly didn't have a leg to stand on.
The only reason a part of it has been remitted to the state court is because Minnesota has a state law that says that a
person cannot be punished for their first failed drug test, regardless of prior argreement by employeer and employee.
Because the Williams brothers are employed by a Minnesota franchise, they are Minnesota employees, andthe law applies to them.
The NFL is arguing that because the CBA is a multi state ageement among unionized players, the more stringent rules of the CBA should be applied everly accross all states, and be subject to Federal Union laws, not state ones.

So to sum it up, the Williams's will almost certainly win at the state level, while the NFL would almost certainly win at the federal level.
I am personally hoping that the NFL wins.
The players need to be subject to the same rules equally IMHO.

dfosterf
07-14-2009, 11:06 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.


The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


The law is the law.
The question is purple law or Federal law (Green and Gold intrepatation, lol). Judge Magnuson, as in lifetime Vikings fan, as in presiding in a courtroom 9.29 miles from the metrodome, has some doubts. He remanded the statutory claims made by the Williams' wall back to Judge Gary in state court.
All common law claims by both the NFLPA and the Williams' wall were denied by "your" judge, plan "a".


There were 14 claims in total.
One by the NFLPA , 13 by the Williams' wall. 13 were denied in whole, one remains in part. The one that remains was also a denial of sorts to the Williams' claims.
They had requested that he (Judge Magnuson) rule on the merits of their claim (as amended) as to the supremecy of purple law vs. Federal law when in statutory conflict.
He could have, but decided not to.
He remanded to the state instead. His ruling is not nearly as positive for the Williams' wall as some would lead you to believe. (Can anyone say Minneapolis Star-Tribune?)

The stakes are high for the NFL if they were to lose, that is true. On July 22, your state Judge is expected to rule on the TRO and if the merits of their statutory claims should be heard in the 8th district Federal venue.

If the Williams' wall wins something on the merits someday, a reasonable assumption is that the NFL just might want to see this case brought before a judge that doesn't happen to reside in Minneapolis or St. Paul.

So far, other than the TRO's, that has been mostly irrelevant.

Williams' lost on the whole specific liability issue, as did the NFLPA.

They have a couple of legal obstacles to win this thing. So does Judge Gary, if so inclined.

Article 6, clause 2 U.S. Constitution

The principle of Federal preemption, specifically, the Garmon preemption.

The National Labor Relations Act.

Like it was stated, the law is the law.

We will see. ::)

josdin00
07-14-2009, 12:38 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"kevoncox" wrote:


"BleedinPandG" wrote:


My understanding is that the Williams' are prepared to go to court over this matter.
From what I read, the lawyer believed it was impractical to have a court case ongoing during the middle of the football season, essentially pushing the court case to 2010.
This injunction blocks the suspension until that court case is resolved given the judge believed they had a "reasonable chance of winning".
Based on that, it would seem a good lawyer would create a situation where the risk is the 2010 season and the Williams' will play the entire 09 season pending the court case early next year.

With the "win now" attitude of so many on this site lately, you'd think this would be universally considered good news.


Well according to a report, the NFL believes this issue will be wrapped up in the upcoming weeks. Good news would be a plea deal being reached.


Well, it wouldn't be a plea per se - this isn't a criminal trial - but the NFL did offer them a settlement.
No suspension but still had to pay the fines.
The Williams borthers declined.
Apparently they think that they can beat this, but to what end?
I think that a Williams victory will be even more determental to the CBA than the Goodell was with his refusal to let the circumstances mitigiate the punishment.

I think that the NFL has acted deplorably.
I think that they used the testing policy as a means to catch people using steroids, not as a means to prevent streroid use.
And I think that the refusal to grant appeals to several players when the reasons for use were so evident. But deplorable or not, the NFL was acting 100% with the CBA.
They even warned players specifically NOT to use Starcaps or related products.
The memo didn't just tell them not to endorse it as originally thought, but literally told them not to use it.

This is why the case was disissed in Federal court.
The players honestly didn't have a leg to stand on.
The only reason a part of it has been remitted to the state court is because Minnesota has a state law that says that a
person cannot be punished for their first failed drug test, regardless of prior argreement by employeer and employee.
Because the Williams brothers are employed by a Minnesota franchise, they are Minnesota employees, andthe law applies to them.
The NFL is arguing that because the CBA is a multi state ageement among unionized players, the more stringent rules of the CBA should be applied everly accross all states, and be subject to Federal Union laws, not state ones.

So to sum it up, the Williams's will almost certainly win at the state level, while the NFL would almost certainly win at the federal level.
I am personally hoping that the NFL wins.
The players need to be subject to the same rules equally IMHO.


My understanding is that there are two parts of Minnesota law that are involved. One is the statute that you mentioned. There is another that says that Minnesota employees cannot be punnished by their employer for using anything that they can purchace legally if it is used away from the workplace. Therefore, since Starcaps was still sold legally over the counter, and assuming that the Williamses took it on their own time, they couldn't be punished at all for taking starcaps (or any other suppliment, no matter what it contained, as long as it was legally sold to them).

I also hadn't heard that "regardless of prior argreement by employeer and employee" part previously. Can you point me to where you saw that? My interpretation of the events is that the NFL would have to modify their drug testing program to include waivers of the various state statutes that conflict with their drug program. Since any modifications to the drug testing program would have to be handled via the CBA negotiations, the NFLPA might be pushing this lawsuit to help them get other consessions at the negotiating table.

I have no real evidence of this. It's my own personal C mac D style conspiracy theory.

Zeus
07-14-2009, 05:25 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


Nice to be right.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50732702.html


Other leagues support NFL in 2 Vikings' case
By JEFF BAENEN , Associated Press
Last update: July 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - U.S. Olympic officials, Major League Baseball and other professional sports organizations are getting into the NFL's fight with two Minnesota Vikings linemen who face four-game suspensions for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

MLB, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League asked Monday for permission to file paperwork in federal court in support of the NFL, which wants to suspend the players at the beginning of the upcoming season. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a similar motion on its own.

=Z=

C Mac D
07-14-2009, 06:03 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


Nice to be right.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50732702.html


Other leagues support NFL in 2 Vikings' case
By JEFF BAENEN , Associated Press
Last update: July 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - U.S. Olympic officials, Major League Baseball and other professional sports organizations are getting into the NFL's fight with two Minnesota Vikings linemen who face four-game suspensions for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

MLB, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League asked Monday for permission to file paperwork in federal court in support of the NFL, which wants to suspend the players at the beginning of the upcoming season. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a similar motion on its own.

=Z=


Good call... I also agree that we should just get the suspensions over with during the first 4 games of the season.

i_bleed_purple
07-14-2009, 06:36 PM
"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


Nice to be right.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50732702.html


Other leagues support NFL in 2 Vikings' case
By JEFF BAENEN , Associated Press
Last update: July 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - U.S. Olympic officials, Major League Baseball and other professional sports organizations are getting into the NFL's fight with two Minnesota Vikings linemen who face four-game suspensions for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

MLB, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League asked Monday for permission to file paperwork in federal court in support of the NFL, which wants to suspend the players at the beginning of the upcoming season. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a similar motion on its own.

=Z=


Good call... I also agree that we should just get the suspensions over with during the first 4 games of the season.


Although I agree with the NFL here, that last bit might hurt us the most.

It will b ehard to pin the NFL as the assholes in this situation when all the othe rmajor sports leagues back them.

Zeus
07-14-2009, 10:12 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


Nice to be right.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50732702.html


Other leagues support NFL in 2 Vikings' case
By JEFF BAENEN , Associated Press
Last update: July 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - U.S. Olympic officials, Major League Baseball and other professional sports organizations are getting into the NFL's fight with two Minnesota Vikings linemen who face four-game suspensions for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

MLB, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League asked Monday for permission to file paperwork in federal court in support of the NFL, which wants to suspend the players at the beginning of the upcoming season. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a similar motion on its own.


Good call... I also agree that we should just get the suspensions over with during the first 4 games of the season.


Although I agree with the NFL here, that last bit might hurt us the most.


It will b ehard to pin the NFL as the assholes in this situation when all the othe rmajor sports leagues back them.


I can't imagine how difficult it would be to design a comprehensive drug policy that covers all the state laws that provide worker protection in the US.


And think about this - what if, in the course of random testing, a Viking player was tested in, say, Georgia the night before the Vikings played the Falcons?
Is he then covered by the worker privacy/protection of Minnesota or Georgia?
I'm pretty sure the player has to pay state income taxes to Georgia for the paycheck earned in that game, so why would this be any different?

=Z=

Purple Floyd
07-14-2009, 10:32 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


Nice to be right.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50732702.html


Other leagues support NFL in 2 Vikings' case
By JEFF BAENEN , Associated Press
Last update: July 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - U.S. Olympic officials, Major League Baseball and other professional sports organizations are getting into the NFL's fight with two Minnesota Vikings linemen who face four-game suspensions for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

MLB, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League asked Monday for permission to file paperwork in federal court in support of the NFL, which wants to suspend the players at the beginning of the upcoming season. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a similar motion on its own.


Good call... I also agree that we should just get the suspensions over with during the first 4 games of the season.


Although I agree with the NFL here, that last bit might hurt us the most.

It will b ehard to pin the NFL as the assholes in this situation when all the othe rmajor sports leagues back them.


I can't imagine how difficult it would be to design a comprehensive drug policy that covers all the state laws that provide worker protection in the US.


And think about this - what if, in the course of random testing, a Viking player was tested in, say, Georgia the night before the Vikings played the Falcons?
Is he then covered by the worker privacy/protection of Minnesota or Georgia?
I'm pretty sure the player has to pay state income taxes to Georgia for the paycheck earned in that game, so why would this be any different?

=Z=


Or we could just say fuck it and have fun when things like this happen



http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-all-drug-olympics (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-all-drug-olympics)

<iframe src='http://www.fancast.com/tv/Saturday-Night-Live/10009/606780792/Weekend-Update%3A-All-Drug-Olympics/embed?skipTo=0' width='420' height='382' scrolling='no' frameborder='0'></iframe>



http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23764633

DeathtoDenny
07-14-2009, 10:42 PM
The MLB can go fuck itself. Everyone is on steroids or HGH yet they can butt their heads into the NFL's business about some diuretics?

NaughtyWord
07-14-2009, 11:24 PM
"Json" wrote:


Does this just delay the inevitable?
I mean for crying out loud it's taking forever just to come up with a decision.
I guess that's the court system for ya.




If the Wall is going to get suspended, I'd rather it be in our first four games considering who we play.





-NW

snowinapril
07-14-2009, 11:46 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.

Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.

=Z=


"Zeus" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


Nice to be right.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/50732702.html


Other leagues support NFL in 2 Vikings' case
By JEFF BAENEN , Associated Press
Last update: July 14, 2009 - 2:23 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - U.S. Olympic officials, Major League Baseball and other professional sports organizations are getting into the NFL's fight with two Minnesota Vikings linemen who face four-game suspensions for violating the league's anti-doping policy.

MLB, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League asked Monday for permission to file paperwork in federal court in support of the NFL, which wants to suspend the players at the beginning of the upcoming season. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a similar motion on its own.

=Z=


Come on Z.......

It was reported in the article that says NATIONAL EYES....... other leagues.......


Brian Murphy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press continued his excellent reporting on the case with this story: The NFL, NHL, NBA, Major League Baseball and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency filed a joint motion Monday asking the Eighth District Court to consider their objection to the players' lawsuit. Like the NFL, the other leagues are asking that drug testing not be subject to state law.

I don't think you can claim to be the new Nostradamus on this one.

singersp
07-19-2009, 12:03 PM
NFL: Lawsuit brought by Vikings' players in drug case could have far-reaching implications (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090719/BREAKING02/90719006/NFL++Lawsuit+brought+by+Vikings’+players+in+drug+case+could+have+far-reaching+implications)

Posted at 12:26 a.m., Sunday, July 19, 2009

By John Jeansonne
Newsday


Drug-testing policies throughout the world of sports could be jeopardized if a suit filed by two Minnesota Vikings defensive linemen, attempting to overturn an NFL doping suspension based on state law, is successful, legal experts agree....

gagarr
07-19-2009, 12:18 PM
"singersp" wrote:


NFL: Lawsuit brought by Vikings' players in drug case could have far-reaching implications (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090719/BREAKING02/90719006/NFL++Lawsuit+brought+by+Vikings’+players+in+drug+case+could+have+far-reaching+implications)

Posted at 12:26 a.m., Sunday, July 19, 2009

By John Jeansonne
Newsday


Drug-testing policies throughout the world of sports could be jeopardized if a suit filed by two Minnesota Vikings defensive linemen, attempting to overturn an NFL doping suspension based on state law, is successful, legal experts agree....




The Honolulu Advertiser?
Where do you find this stuff?
Good article though

singersp
07-19-2009, 12:32 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


NFL: Lawsuit brought by Vikings' players in drug case could have far-reaching implications (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090719/BREAKING02/90719006/NFL++Lawsuit+brought+by+Vikings’+players+in+drug+case+could+have+far-reaching+implications)

Posted at 12:26 a.m., Sunday, July 19, 2009

By John Jeansonne
Newsday


Drug-testing policies throughout the world of sports could be jeopardized if a suit filed by two Minnesota Vikings defensive linemen, attempting to overturn an NFL doping suspension based on state law, is successful, legal experts agree....




The Honolulu Advertiser?
Where do you find this stuff?
Good article though


A good Newshound doesn't reveal his sources that lead him to the articles.
;)

Bkfldviking
07-20-2009, 04:00 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20090720/ltm090720.gif

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 11:24 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/22/nfl-finagles-expedited-hearing-in-appeal-of-starcaps-rulings/


NFL finagles expedited hearing in appeal of StarCaps rulings
Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2009 8:30 AM ET

...

Per Murphy, the United State Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments regarding the review of the May 22 decision preserving the Williamses' state-law claims for August 18, which is part of a schedule aimed at producing a ruling before Week One of the 2009 season.

...

Bottom line?
The league has scored a coup in this regard, persuading the appeals court to alter its normal schedule for the convenience of the parties.
And as a result we'll all known before the ball kicks off on the Sunday after Labor Day whether the Vikings will have two of the best run stuffers in the game.


IMHO this is good news.
I think the the Williams brothers will win in state court, but lose in federal court.
I was hoping that any federal review would come before the season start, because if we DO lose the Williams's I would prefer it be the first four games.

Looks like it will be the first four games or nothing.

i_bleed_purple
07-22-2009, 11:25 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/22/nfl-finagles-expedited-hearing-in-appeal-of-starcaps-rulings/


NFL finagles expedited hearing in appeal of StarCaps rulings
Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2009 8:30 AM ET

...

Per Murphy, the United State Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has scheduled oral arguments regarding the review of the May 22 decision preserving the Williamses' state-law claims for August 18, which is part of a schedule aimed at producing a ruling before Week One of the 2009 season.

...

Bottom line?
The league has scored a coup in this regard, persuading the appeals court to alter its normal schedule for the convenience of the parties.
And as a result we'll all known before the ball kicks off on the Sunday after Labor Day whether the Vikings will have two of the best run stuffers in the game.


IMHO this is good news.
I think the the Williams brothers will win in state court, but lose in federal court.
I was hoping that any federal review would come before the season start, because if we DO lose the Williams's I would prefer it be the first four games.

Looks like it will be the first four games or nothing.


best news I"ve heard all day.

mountainviking
07-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Not looking good IMHO.
But, I will agree, better vs. DET, CLE, SF, and GB than vs. Ravens, Pitt etc!!

I still think it stinks of entrapment....the fact that the NFL knew and did not educate.
But, with all the major sports leagues and any other CBAs on the line, state law most likely won't trump, unless they decide this particular situation just stinks!

jmcdon00
07-22-2009, 11:41 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.

=Z=

The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.

Zeus
07-22-2009, 11:49 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
Damn - this shit should have been over by now!

=Z=

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 11:56 AM
"mountainviking" wrote:


Not looking good IMHO.
But, I will agree, better vs. DET, CLE, SF, and GB than vs. Ravens, Pitt etc!!

I still think it stinks of entrapment....the fact that the NFL knew and did not educate.
But, with all the major sports leagues and any other CBAs on the line, state law most likely won't trump, unless they decide this particular situation just stinks!


But they DID educate.
All players were informed through both the NFLPA as well as organization trainers that they were not to endorse or use any products made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps).
No, they didn't go so far as to tell anyone (including the FDA) that it illegally contained Bumetanide, but they DID tell the players not to use it.

I agree that the league abused the substance abuse policy - they were using it to catch people using banned substances, not prevent prople from using them.
But what they did was always within the letter of the law and the CBA, and the players messed up.
I don't think for an instant that they were using steroids, but they were not careful enough with that they put in their bodies and this mess resulted.

gagarr
07-22-2009, 12:13 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:




Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=


Just curious...


Does the CBA have anything that specifies legal jursidiction for any claims?
It must not, or this would have never went to the state.


For example:
Take a company like IBM that has offices in all 50 states.
IBM has a employee policy agree to by all employees in their employment contract
Let's say IBM's contract doesn't specify legal jursidiction for disputes (which it does).
Would that mean that all legal disputes would automatically become a federal issue?
I think not.
If I am correct, employment issues, that are not federal goverment employees, are the jurisdiction of the state.

The feds should only get involved on appeal from the State Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court.

So given our legal system, if the Williams continue to win in MN, it would probably take the NFL 10 years to get it heard by the US Supreme court, if at all.

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 12:26 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:






Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=


Just curious...


Does the CBA have anything that specifies legal jursidiction for any claims?
It must not, or this would have never went to the state.


For example:
Take a company like IBM that has offices in all 50 states.
IBM has a employee policy agree to by all employees in their employment contract
Let's say IBM's contract doesn't specify legal jursidiction for disputes (which it does).
Would that mean that all legal disputes would automatically become a federal issue?
I think not.
If I am correct, employment issues, that are not federal goverment employees, are the jurisdiction of the state.

The feds should only get involved on appeal from the State Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court.

So given our legal system, if the Williams continue to win in MN, it would probably take the NFL 10 years to get it heard by the US Supreme court, if at all.


Actually, I believe it does, which is the basis of the NFL's appeal in federal court.
They feel that the Federal Judge errored in remitting that point back to state court.

jmcdon00
07-22-2009, 12:41 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:




Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=

It may create an unlevel playing field but so what, an NFL rule does not supercede
the state of Minnesota courts. The un-level playing field based on the state is always gonna be there. Different states have different tax laws which create an un level playing field too.

Taking a legal supplement to lose weight is illegal? Doesn't make sense to me.

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 12:46 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:






Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=

It may create an unlevel playing field but so what, an NFL rule does not supercede
the state of Minnesota courts. The un-level playing field based on the state is always gonna be there. Different states have different tax laws which create an un level playing field too.

Taking a legal supplement to lose weight is illegal? Doesn't make sense to me.


FYI, the supplement was illegally available to the public.

Also, it isn't the NFL rule that would supercede the Minnesota law.
It is the Federal laws that apply the rules of the CBA (and every other union) that would supercede the Minnesota law.

gagarr
07-22-2009, 12:55 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:








Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=

It may create an unlevel playing field but so what, an NFL rule does not supercede
the state of Minnesota courts. The un-level playing field based on the state is always gonna be there. Different states have different tax laws which create an un level playing field too.

Taking a legal supplement to lose weight is illegal? Doesn't make sense to me.


FYI, the supplement was illegally available to the public.

Also, it isn't the NFL rule that would supercede the Minnesota law.
It is the Federal laws that apply the rules of the CBA (and every other union) that would supercede the Minnesota law.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think the labor union federal jurisdiction is when it's a battle between the labor union and the management, thus when the NFLPA filed suit for the NO players, it was in fed court.

Here it's a private citizen (that happens to be part of a union) sueing management.
For example, if I belong to a union and get sexually harrassed at work and the union doesn't want to bring suit for me, I then must take my suit to federal court?
Although, they are violating a state law?

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 01:59 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:










Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=

It may create an unlevel playing field but so what, an NFL rule does not supercede
the state of Minnesota courts. The un-level playing field based on the state is always gonna be there. Different states have different tax laws which create an un level playing field too.

Taking a legal supplement to lose weight is illegal? Doesn't make sense to me.


FYI, the supplement was illegally available to the public.

Also, it isn't the NFL rule that would supercede the Minnesota law.
It is the Federal laws that apply the rules of the CBA (and every other union) that would supercede the Minnesota law.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think the labor union federal jurisdiction is when it's a battle between the labor union and the management, thus when the NFLPA filed suit for the NO players, it was in fed court.

Here it's a private citizen (that happens to be part of a union) sueing management.
For example, if I belong to a union and get sexually harrassed at work and the union doesn't want to bring suit for me, I then must take my suit to federal court?
Although, they are violating a state law?


That is a good point, and I believe you are correct in that the federal jurisdiction lies the dispute between the labor union and the management.
But I also believe that it applies to the negotiated contract between the labor union and the management.
The testing and discipline is outlined by policy in the CBA - a contract neogitated between the NFLPA and the league, and by such is subject to federal labor guidelines.
The Williams's want to keep in it state court because they have a much stronger case under Minnesota law.
The league feels that it should have been subject to the same federal laws that all of the other points in the case were subject to (and failed) because the league has a much stronger case in federal court.

Unlinke the sexual harassment exaple, this has nothing to do with the legality of any action - most of the things not allowed under the CBA are legal supplements.
This has to do with the application of the CBA to the players in different states.

gagarr
07-22-2009, 03:09 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:












Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.



The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


No, the Law is not the Law.
There are local, state and Federal laws that sometimes contradict.
The NFL (nor any other national sports league) should not (IMHO) be forced to make up any policies that must abide by the state laws of the individual states where teams are located.
That's just asking for trouble and more loopholes.
Fact is (which everyone seems to forget) is that Pat and Kevin were taking something to get bonus money (not rich enough, eh?) for making a weight clause in their contracts.
Why aren't more people upset with these millionaire athletes cheating for some extra cash?

I absolutely understand why the NFL is doing this.
And I'm sure that the commissioners of the other sports leagues (MLB, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, etc. etc. etc.) have all put in calls to the NFL offices to express their support.


The Minnesota Vikings should not have to follow state labor law? That is crazy. I'm sure it is a pain in the butt, but everyone has to deal with it. I'm sure Wal-mart would love to throw out all state labor laws too, but it doesn't work that way. All the other unions have to follow the laws of the state they operate in too.

I might be confused but I thought the supplement they were taking was believed to be legal? Wasn't there an ingrediant that wasn't on the label? I'm certainly not mad at them for trying to make weight, they get a bonus for a reason, the coaches and staff want them at a certain weight. Nothing wrong with trying to do everything in your power to please the coaches.


The Minnesota Vikings are part of a larger organization and do not exist in a stand-alone environment.
That's the point.
It would introduce (perhaps) an unfair advantage for the Vikings if they alone were covered by the state drug-testing laws of Minnesota vs. a looser set of laws someplace else.
Just an example.

As to the StarCaps - whether or not it was a legal supplement, using it to lose weight to achieve a bonus clause in the contract was not legal (as I recall) under the CBA.


It's been so long ago that my mind might be fuzzy on that one.
gol 'darnit - this pooh should have been over by now!

=Z=

It may create an unlevel playing field but so what, an NFL rule does not supercede
the state of Minnesota courts. The un-level playing field based on the state is always gonna be there. Different states have different tax laws which create an un level playing field too.

Taking a legal supplement to lose weight is illegal? Doesn't make sense to me.


FYI, the supplement was illegally available to the public.

Also, it isn't the NFL rule that would supercede the Minnesota law.
It is the Federal laws that apply the rules of the CBA (and every other union) that would supercede the Minnesota law.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think the labor union federal jurisdiction is when it's a battle between the labor union and the management, thus when the NFLPA filed suit for the NO players, it was in fed court.

Here it's a private citizen (that happens to be part of a union) sueing management.
For example, if I belong to a union and get sexually harrassed at work and the union doesn't want to bring suit for me, I then must take my suit to federal court?
Although, they are violating a state law?


That is a good point, and I believe you are correct in that the federal jurisdiction lies the dispute between the labor union and the management.
But I also believe that it applies to the negotiated contract between the labor union and the management.
The testing and discipline is outlined by policy in the CBA - a contract neogitated between the NFLPA and the league, and by such is subject to federal labor guidelines.
The Williams's want to keep in it state court because they have a much stronger case under Minnesota law.
The league feels that it should have been subject to the same federal laws that all of the other points in the case were subject to (and failed) because the league has a much stronger case in federal court.

Unlinke the sexual harassment exaple, this has nothing to do with the legality of any action - most of the things not allowed under the CBA are legal supplements.
This has to do with the application of the CBA to the players in different states.



"testing and discipline" are outlined, I don't think the Williams are arguing the NFL's rights to test or discipline, it's more of an issue of the player's intent, negligence of the NFL to inform, and where the jurisdiction lies.

Of course the Wall wants it in state court, home field advantage is always better.

Sexual harrassment was a quick example.
Let's go with "dress code" instead.
I wore tennis shoes because my feet hurt, but was reprimanded and docked pay because it violated company dress code.
Union saw it as a losing battle, so I decided to sue myself.
State or Fed court?

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 03:22 PM
"gagarr" wrote:

"testing and discipline" are outlined, I don't think the Williams are arguing the NFL's rights to test or discipline, it's more of an issue of the player's intent, negligence of the NFL to inform, and where the jurisdiction lies.

Of course the Wall wants it in state court, home field advantage is always better.

Sexual harrassment was a quick example.
Let's go with "dress code" instead.
I wore tennis shoes because my feet hurt, but was reprimanded and docked pay because it violated company dress code.
Union saw it as a losing battle, so I decided to sue myself.
State or Fed court?


Is there a specific reason that tennis shoes were prohibited as outlined by the federally regulated CBA?
For instance, my brother-in-law cannot wear tennis shoes to work.
He is a lineman and they must wear steel toed shoes.
Does wear tennis shoes give you an unfair advantage over other coworkers?
Also, is there a state law preventing discipline for dress code violations?
In Minnesota, there is a law prohibiting discipline for a first failed drug test (which is the law that the Williams's are trying to exploit).

In the end, all of that does not matter, it just goes to show that you cannot use common anologies for an uncommon situation.


What does matter is that there is a clear difference between state and federal law - the state of Minnesota does not allow a business to punish an employee for a first failed drug test, while federal law makes no such stipulation.
The CBA, which IS subject to and was negotiated under federal labor laws, outlines a very specific disipline hierarchy for failed drug tests.

The question simply comes down to jurisdiction.
Is this a state matter or federal matter?
This is unique in itself because we have a franchised organization with unionized employees employed by several different franchises in several different states - not a common occurance.
I honestly think that the federal courts should have jurisdiction.

gagarr
07-22-2009, 03:58 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:

"testing and discipline" are outlined, I don't think the Williams are arguing the NFL's rights to test or discipline, it's more of an issue of the player's intent, negligence of the NFL to inform, and where the jurisdiction lies.

Of course the Wall wants it in state court, home field advantage is always better.

Sexual harrassment was a quick example.
Let's go with "dress code" instead.
I wore tennis shoes because my feet hurt, but was reprimanded and docked pay because it violated company dress code.
Union saw it as a losing battle, so I decided to sue myself.
State or Fed court?


Is there a specific reason that tennis shoes were prohibited as outlined by the federally regulated CBA?
For instance, my brother-in-law cannot wear tennis shoes to work.
He is a lineman and they must wear steel toed shoes.
Does wear tennis shoes give you an unfair advantage over other coworkers?
Also, is there a state law preventing discipline for dress code violations?
In Minnesota, there is a law prohibiting discipline for a first failed drug test (which is the law that the Williams's are trying to exploit).

In the end, all of that does not matter, it just goes to show that you cannot use common anologies for an uncommon situation.


What does matter is that there is a clear difference between state and federal law - the state of Minnesota does not allow a business to punish an employee for a first failed drug test, while federal law makes no such stipulation.
The CBA, which IS subject to and was negotiated under federal labor laws, outlines a very specific disipline hierarchy for failed drug tests.

The question simply comes down to jurisdiction.
Is this a state matter or federal matter?
This is unique in itself because we have a franchised organization with unionized employees employed by several different franchises in several different states - not a common occurance.
I honestly think that the federal courts should have jurisdiction.


Abandoning the analogy, although I have lots more rebuttal agruments.

I totally agree that disputes between the NFLPA (and it's members) with the NFL or any of the franchises, should be under federal jurisdiction.
But the members of the NFLPA, were not required to sign an agreement requiring them to bring any suit to federal court.
Thus, there is nothing barring them from suing in state court.

It is the fault of the NFLPA and NFL for not covering this in the CBA.
Thus, K&P are within their rights at this time.

The NFL should not be allowed to move it to a more favorable jurisdiction because it is better for all sport franchises to have a common set of laws.
I'm sure if the state law was better for the NFL, it would want it in that jurisdiction.

jmcdon00
07-22-2009, 04:40 PM
I think the players should have all the rights of any other employee under state law. If the MN laws says that an employee can't be punished for a first failed drug test then any employee in MN should not be punished for a first failed drug test, that is the law of the land.

How about this analogy. I start a painting company and hire workers at the federal minimum wage of 6.55/hour. I have employees in several states including Washington which has a minimum wage of 8.55 an hour. All my employees sign contracts agreeing to the 6.55 an hour rate. Wouldn't an employee in the state of Washington have a case to sue in state court? Of course because the law in Washington was broken, even if a federal law wasn't.

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 04:51 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:

"testing and discipline" are outlined, I don't think the Williams are arguing the NFL's rights to test or discipline, it's more of an issue of the player's intent, negligence of the NFL to inform, and where the jurisdiction lies.

Of course the Wall wants it in state court, home field advantage is always better.

Sexual harrassment was a quick example.
Let's go with "dress code" instead.
I wore tennis shoes because my feet hurt, but was reprimanded and docked pay because it violated company dress code.
Union saw it as a losing battle, so I decided to sue myself.
State or Fed court?


Is there a specific reason that tennis shoes were prohibited as outlined by the federally regulated CBA?
For instance, my brother-in-law cannot wear tennis shoes to work.
He is a lineman and they must wear steel toed shoes.
Does wear tennis shoes give you an unfair advantage over other coworkers?
Also, is there a state law preventing discipline for dress code violations?
In Minnesota, there is a law prohibiting discipline for a first failed drug test (which is the law that the Williams's are trying to exploit).

In the end, all of that does not matter, it just goes to show that you cannot use common anologies for an uncommon situation.


What does matter is that there is a clear difference between state and federal law - the state of Minnesota does not allow a business to punish an employee for a first failed drug test, while federal law makes no such stipulation.
The CBA, which IS subject to and was negotiated under federal labor laws, outlines a very specific disipline hierarchy for failed drug tests.

The question simply comes down to jurisdiction.
Is this a state matter or federal matter?
This is unique in itself because we have a franchised organization with unionized employees employed by several different franchises in several different states - not a common occurance.
I honestly think that the federal courts should have jurisdiction.


Abandoning the analogy, although I have lots more rebuttal agruments.

I totally agree that disputes between the NFLPA (and it's members) with the NFL or any of the franchises, should be under federal jurisdiction.
But the members of the NFLPA, were not required to sign an agreement requiring them to bring any suit to federal court.
Thus, there is nothing barring them from suing in state court.

It is the fault of the NFLPA and NFL for not covering this in the CBA.
Thus, K&P are within their rights at this time.

The NFL should not be allowed to move it to a more favorable jurisdiction because it is better for all sport franchises to have a common set of laws.
I'm sure if the state law was better for the NFL, it would want it in that jurisdiction.


I agree with you.
There is nothing barring the Williams's from suing in state court.
And there is also nothing preventing the NFL from petitioning to get it removed to federal court under the labor laws, which is exactly what happened.
In this case, the federal judge then ruled in favor of the NFL on all counts except for one, which he remanded back to the state court.

The NFL appealed the decision, saying that the federal judge erred in remanding the single count back to the state, because it was covered specifically under the CBA, and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction.

And technically, there is a clause in the CBA that states that all discipline by the commissioner is final.
Article XI, Section 1, paragraph 3 states:

As soon as practicable following the conclusion of such hearing, the Commissioner will render a written decision which will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s) and Club(s) involved and the parties to this Agreement with respect to that dispute.

The very act of suing the NFL, in any court, is contrary to the CBA, and this was one of the points mentioned by the federal judge in his decision.
It is dangerous territory for the Williams brothers, as this could be seen as breach of contract, and move them outside the protection of the CBA in other areas as well.

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 05:09 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think the players should have all the rights of any other employee under state law. If the MN laws says that an employee can't be punished for a first failed drug test then any employee in MN should not be punished for a first failed drug test, that is the law of the land.

How about this analogy. I start a painting company and hire workers at the federal minimum wage of 6.55/hour. I have employees in several states including Washington which has a minimum wage of 8.55 an hour. All my employees sign contracts agreeing to the 6.55 an hour rate. Wouldn't an employee in the state of Washington have a case to sue in state court? Of course because the law in Washington was broken, even if a federal law wasn't.


That is a very good example, and I believe the exact argument that the Williams' attorney is trying to take.

BloodyHorns82
07-22-2009, 05:16 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


I think the players should have all the rights of any other employee under state law. If the MN laws says that an employee can't be punished for a first failed drug test then any employee in MN should not be punished for a first failed drug test, that is the law of the land.

How about this analogy. I start a painting company and hire workers at the federal minimum wage of 6.55/hour. I have employees in several states including Washington which has a minimum wage of 8.55 an hour. All my employees sign contracts agreeing to the 6.55 an hour rate. Wouldn't an employee in the state of Washington have a case to sue in state court? Of course because the law in Washington was broken, even if a federal law wasn't.


That is a very good example, and I believe the exact argument that the Williams' attorney is trying to take.



Yeah, from my understanding to date - that is THE argument.

Mr Anderson
07-22-2009, 05:19 PM
This shit is fucking retarded.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an asshole. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his ass and let him off?

NodakPaul
07-22-2009, 05:38 PM
"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.

Bkfldviking
07-22-2009, 05:44 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


Letter of the law versus spirit of the law. ::)
No wonder lawyers are rich.

gagarr
07-22-2009, 06:25 PM
"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



Myself I'm all in favor of spiking the Cowboy's water at TC with a diuretic and see if Goodell is ready to suspend "America's team" for 4 games.
I'll even put in micro small print on the water cooler "Contains bumetanide" so they have no excuses.
Just kidding of course, not that I wouldn't LOL if someone else did it.

But the point is that things aren't just cut and dry in all cases, reasonable discretion needs to be applied.
Obviously Goodell doesn't want to seem lax, which I respect, but this case isn't normal.

Freya
07-22-2009, 06:29 PM
The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.

Purple Floyd
07-22-2009, 07:17 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



Myself I'm all in favor of spiking the Cowboy's water at TC with a diuretic and see if Goodell is ready to suspend "America's team" for 4 games.
I'll even put in micro small print on the water cooler "Contains bumetanide" so they have no excuses.
Just kidding of course, not that I wouldn't LOL if someone else did it.

But the point is that things aren't just cut and dry in all cases, reasonable discretion needs to be applied.
Obviously Goodell doesn't want to seem lax, which I respect, but this case isn't normal.






"Contains bumetanide"

Print it.

singersp
07-23-2009, 06:05 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.

singersp
07-23-2009, 06:09 AM
"Freya" wrote:


The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.

ejmat
07-23-2009, 07:14 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"snowinapril" wrote:


"VikingMike" wrote:


Now all of the leagues are interested in how this case plays out.

National eyes on Wall case (http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-12-166/Black-and-Blue-all-over--National-eyes-on-Wall-case.html)


If they can get to state court, even if they ultimately lose the case, the precedent could force sports leagues to change their policies to be in compliance with state laws in every state they have a team.


I know we all want our players to come out of this without a suspension but isn't this going to keep the league from enforcing a drug policy that needs to be enforced to protect some of the players from themselves, ie casual drugs and real steroids.

Loop Hole!

I don't think that Pat and Kevin need to be suspended for 4 games.
It is extreme for a weight loss item.
The NFL is going to be hand cuffed if they win.


The law is the law, it definetly supercedes the NFL. The NFL will have to adjust their practice if Pat and Kevin win. Just have to have a little faith in the courts to reach a fair conclusion. I don't understand exactly what the problem is.


My take on this is if the NFL has that clause that you are responsible for everything you put in your body and that is what they can use to enforce the rule then the players can use any rule that can help them out too.


Don't get me wrong I don't condone the use of drugs or enhancing supplements at all and the Williams' should be held to the same standard as everyone else. However just as they have their clauses in the contract they weren't detailed enough to check state laws and that is on them.
There was also a disconnect somewhere in the communication process since 8 people tested positive at the same time.
That is a red flag to me in which the NFL should take in consideration.
I don't expect the NFL to drop the case because it will open up an even bigger can of worms later on.
But if they can use their loop hole there is no reason why the players can't use theirs.

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 07:52 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.

singersp
07-23-2009, 08:05 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.


I understood that to mean they informed the team, who in turn may or may not have informed the players. The NFL should have, IMO, informed the players directly, which they did not.

"Well we told someone to tell the players....."

i_bleed_purple
07-23-2009, 08:08 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.


I understood that to mean they informed the team, who in turn may or may not have informed the players. The NFL should have, IMO, informed the players directly, which they did not.

"Well we told someone to tell the players....."


how would they do that?
They're not going to call each player at home and say "Don't take starcaps, they may or may not have banned substances in them".
They give the teams and NFLPA the message, who are supposed to forward the message on.

Its like working at an office.
If the CEO makes a decision that effects everyone, sometimes there will be a big general meeting to tell everyone, but if its a minor issue (this is) they'll tell the 3 or 4 people under them, who in turn will tell the department managers, etc... it will work its way down the heirarchy.

singersp
07-23-2009, 08:33 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.


I understood that to mean they informed the team, who in turn may or may not have informed the players. The NFL should have, IMO, informed the players directly, which they did not.

"Well we told someone to tell the players....."


how would they do that?
They're not going to call each player at home and say "Don't take starcaps, they may or may not have banned substances in them".
They give the teams and NFLPA the message, who are supposed to forward the message on.

Its like working at an office.
If the CEO makes a decision that effects everyone, sometimes there will be a big general meeting to tell everyone, but if its a minor issue (this is) they'll tell the 3 or 4 people under them, who in turn will tell the department managers, etc... it will work its way down the heirarchy.


E-mail or general mail come to mind.

i_bleed_purple
07-23-2009, 08:49 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.


I understood that to mean they informed the team, who in turn may or may not have informed the players. The NFL should have, IMO, informed the players directly, which they did not.

"Well we told someone to tell the players....."


how would they do that?
They're not going to call each player at home and say "Don't take starcaps, they may or may not have banned substances in them".
They give the teams and NFLPA the message, who are supposed to forward the message on.

Its like working at an office.
If the CEO makes a decision that effects everyone, sometimes there will be a big general meeting to tell everyone, but if its a minor issue (this is) they'll tell the 3 or 4 people under them, who in turn will tell the department managers, etc... it will work its way down the heirarchy.


E-mail or general mail come to mind.


not everyone is on email.
For example, I work for my cities Hydro utility.
If something changes, the president will tell HR, HR will send out emails to everyone with email, and the department managers will be responsible for posting it for those without email.

In the NFL, its impossible to have a general meeting with all employees(players), and the NFL isn't going to call each and every player.
IMO, if anything, the Williams's should be suing the Vikings if they were indeed withholding information like that from the players.
They'd never do that, since suing your boss isn't often a good idea if you want to keep your job

Freya
07-23-2009, 10:19 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.


Truth. And well said.

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 10:33 AM
"Freya" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.


Truth. And well said.


They signed contracts developed under the guidelines of the NFLPA and subject to the CBA negotiated between the NFL and the NFLPA.
And the Vikings are a franchise, not a sole entity.
The Vikings themselves, and all of their employees, and under contract with the NFL.

gagarr
07-23-2009, 10:51 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.
If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


Did the NFL provide an explanation as to why they were not to endorse or use?
In other words did they clearly say "Starcaps contains a banned substance per the CBA"?
If they didn't, what stops the NFL from saying "You can no longer use or endorse Bayer asprin or Aleve", with no clear explanation to why.

i_bleed_purple
07-23-2009, 11:02 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.
If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


Did the NFL provide an explanation as to why they were not to endorse or use?
In other words did they clearly say "Starcaps contains a banned substance per the CBA"?
If they didn't, what stops the NFL from saying "You can no longer use or endorse Bayer asprin or Aleve", with no clear explanation to why.


does it matter?
If the nfl says don't use something, its probably a good idea not to use it.

Freya
07-23-2009, 11:08 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.

Freya
07-23-2009, 11:18 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.


Truth. And well said.


They signed contracts developed under the guidelines of the NFLPA and subject to the CBA negotiated between the NFL and the NFLPA.
And the Vikings are a franchise, not a sole entity.
The Vikings themselves, and all of their employees, and under contract with the NFL.


This is also true, to a point. Beyond that point it does not in any way change the fact that while doing business in the state of MN (franchise or otherwise) the laws of the state must be adhered to. This is true for KFC, McDonalds, BK, Target, Walmart...........etc. The only exception would be in an instance where federal laws preempt. A CBA can be questioned as can the head of a franchise for practices that constitute a deviation from the governing law.
In addition, hostile and/or harmful "rules" can be called into question (established by unions or in this case the CBA) and are indeed a factor in this case.

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 11:24 AM
"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.


Your bottom line is exactly right.

I personally think that any collectively bargained agreement negotiated under federal guidelines between management and a union that represents multiple states should be the final say.
If we allow the state to trump the CBA in this case, it turns out well for the players, but could have major impact on federal labor laws in the long run - impact that affects more than just professional football.

The federal labor laws are in place to protect employees.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad.
In this case, the Williams brothers fucked up.
Trying to exploit a state law is simply looking for a loophole.

Prophet
07-23-2009, 11:25 AM
I don't want to be married to Freya, she would beat me in every argument.
Wait, that already happens.

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 11:26 AM
"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.


Truth. And well said.


They signed contracts developed under the guidelines of the NFLPA and subject to the CBA negotiated between the NFL and the NFLPA.
And the Vikings are a franchise, not a sole entity.
The Vikings themselves, and all of their employees, and under contract with the NFL.


This is also true, to a point. Beyond that point it does not in any way change the fact that while doing business in the state of MN (franchise or otherwise) the laws of the state must be adhered to. This is true for KFC, McDonalds, BK, Target, Walmart...........etc. The only exception would be in an instance where federal laws preempt. A CBA can be questioned as can the head of a franchise for practices that constitute a deviation from the governing law.
In addition, hostile and/or harmful "rules" can be called into question (established by unions or in this case the CBA) and are indeed a factor in this case.


Correct, but the CBA substance abuse policy isn't hostile or harmful.
In fact, it can likely be argued the other way - that it exists for the benefit and health of the players.

Look at it this way.
If we were talking about two packer players instead of the Williams wall, would you feel as strongly that a state loophole should be exploited?

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 11:27 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


I don't want to be married to Freya, she would beat me in every argument.
Wait, that already happens.


Yeah, I don't hold much expectation of winning this one.
But it is fun to discuss... ;)

jmcdon00
07-23-2009, 11:52 AM
Anyone have a link to the article about the plea deal they were offered? I can't seem to find it.

raptorman
07-23-2009, 11:54 AM
A couple of things. The players are signed by the Vikings not the NFL.
The Vikings are a franchise.
The players and employees are all payed by, and employed by the Vikings. The Vikings pay all the taxes, state and federal.
Not the NFL.
The NFL cannot fire or hire anyone for the Vikings.
Think McDonalds.


Franchise:
2 a: a special privilege granted to an individual or group ; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation
(1): the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory ; also : a business granted such a right or license (2): the territory involved in such a right.


Which means they are a stand alone company
in the state of MN, that is part of a larger group. Again, think McDonalds.
They have to follow state laws as well as federal laws.
The Franchisee, in this case the NFL cannot make rules that override state laws.
Now, does the CBA allow them to do this under federal law?
That is the true question.
That is what we will find out.

Second. This statement is true and yet not.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

The NFL told the players they could not endorse products from Balanced Health Systems. They also warned the players about taking over the counter products, which are not tested, and could result in a positive test.
Which begs the question to me, since they, the NFL, had tested StarCaps, why did they withhold the information?
(Dr. Lomardo’s excuse to me is pretty lame) And along those lines, what kind of drug would have spurred the NFL to inform the players and the FDA that there was an illegal substance in StarCaps.
If they had found cocaine in it would they have said something?


To me there are two groups in the wrong here. The player’s contract’s prohibited them from taking products to lose weight to make weight. So in that aspect they are in the wrong.

The NFL. For me, there is no way they can stand there and say the Drug program is for “The health and well being” of the players. And yet not inform the players when they find a dangerous drug in a product that they knew players had been taking.
And, they claim they have a zero tolerance policy. If so, why did the first player, the one that keyed the NFL in testing StarCaps in the first place, why did he not get suspended?
And you know he is out there, I just wonder how long it will be before we find out who it is.

snowinapril
07-23-2009, 12:01 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:




The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.


Truth. And well said.


They signed contracts developed under the guidelines of the NFLPA and subject to the CBA negotiated between the NFL and the NFLPA.
And the Vikings are a franchise, not a sole entity.
The Vikings themselves, and all of their employees, and under contract with the NFL.


This is also true, to a point. Beyond that point it does not in any way change the fact that while doing business in the state of MN (franchise or otherwise) the laws of the state must be adhered to. This is true for KFC, McDonalds, BK, Target, Walmart...........etc. The only exception would be in an instance where federal laws preempt. A CBA can be questioned as can the head of a franchise for practices that constitute a deviation from the governing law.
In addition, hostile and/or harmful "rules" can be called into question (established by unions or in this case the CBA) and are indeed a factor in this case.


Correct, but the CBA substance abuse policy isn't hostile or harmful.
In fact, it can likely be argued the other way - that it exists for the benefit and health of the players.

Look at it this way.
If we were talking about two packer players instead of the Williams wall, would you feel as strongly that a state loophole should be exploited?


I know that employers do get by with kicking laws to the side under certain circumstances.
I work at a
residential (24hr) facility and we don't get automatic 15 minute breaks every 4 hours. Go figure!


I don't know how they do it, but they do.
I was told that we signed an acknowledgment upon taking the job.
I don't feel the need to complain.
We get paid to eat.
All I am trying to say is that if they acknowledged that they were going to abide by the CBA and that is part of playing in the NFL, they may be screwed.
What is the CBA if they can't enforce it.
It would flip the sports leagues on their heads.
How about international laws in the NHL, MLB and NBA?

We don't know, we will have to wait for the judge to decide.
Heck, it is one guy deciding this, it depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on and what point he feels is most important.

Freya
07-23-2009, 12:09 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.


Your bottom line is exactly right.

I personally think that any collectively bargained agreement negotiated under federal guidelines between management and a union that represents multiple states should be the final say.
If we allow the state to trump the CBA in this case, it turns out well for the players, but could have major impact on federal labor laws in the long run - impact that affects more than just professional football.

The federal labor laws are in place to protect employees.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad.
In this case, the Williams brothers ~messed up~ up.
Trying to exploit a state law is simply looking for a loophole.


It does not appear as though the NFLPA is trying to prove an issue with the CBA per se. Mostly that the NFL breached their fiduciary duty to inform players of banned substances. By name when such knowledge exists.

As far as the union issue is concerned......I believe that it is possible for a union to be in concert with both federal and state law. It must. Ultimately, the loophole only exists because the union chose to ignore it or failed to consider potential state jurisdiction in constructing their own rules. As such, I wouldn't call the use of this an exploitation.......but more of a proof of discrepancy on the part of the CBA for the benefit of the finder. LOL

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 12:10 PM
"raptorman" wrote:


A couple of things. The players are signed by the Vikings not the NFL.
The Vikings are a franchise.
The players and employees are all payed by, and employed by the Vikings. The Vikings pay all the taxes, state and federal.
Not the NFL.
The NFL cannot fire or hire anyone for the Vikings.
Think McDonalds.


Franchise:
2 a: a special privilege granted to an individual or group ; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation
(1): the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory ; also : a business granted such a right or license (2): the territory involved in such a right.


Which means they are a stand alone company
in the state of MN, that is part of a larger group. Again, think McDonalds.
They have to follow state laws as well as federal laws.
The Franchisee, in this case the NFL cannot make rules that override state laws.
Now, does the CBA allow them to do this under federal law?
That is the true question.
That is what we will find out.

Second. This statement is true and yet not.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

The NFL told the players they could not endorse products from Balanced Health Systems. They also warned the players about taking over the counter products, which are not tested, and could result in a positive test.
Which begs the question to me, since they, the NFL, had tested StarCaps, why did they withhold the information?
(Dr. Lomardo’s excuse to me is pretty lame) And along those lines, what kind of drug would have spurred the NFL to inform the players and the FDA that there was an illegal substance in StarCaps.
If they had found cocaine in it would they have said something?


To me there are two groups in the wrong here. The player’s contract’s prohibited them from taking products to lose weight to make weight. So in that aspect they are in the wrong.

The NFL. For me, there is no way they can stand there and say the Drug program is for “The health and well being” of the players. And yet not inform the players when they find a dangerous drug in a product that they knew players had been taking.
And, they claim they have a zero tolerance policy. If so, why did the first player, the one that keyed the NFL in testing StarCaps in the first place, why did he not get suspended?
And you know he is out there, I just wonder how long it will be before we find out who it is.




A quick correction.
The memo said not to endorse OR USE any products from Balanced Health Products.
That was made public in the first federal case. Initially I thought it was just not to endorse as well.

I agree that the NFL acted poorly.
But unfortunately they also acted legally and within the scope of the CBA.

Freya
07-23-2009, 12:13 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


I don't want to be married to Freya, she would beat me in every argument.
Wait, that already happens.


LOL.......but darlin, the benefits of being beat are sooooooooooooo great. I promise.
;)

NodakPaul
07-23-2009, 12:14 PM
"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:






This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.


Your bottom line is exactly right.

I personally think that any collectively bargained agreement negotiated under federal guidelines between management and a union that represents multiple states should be the final say.
If we allow the state to trump the CBA in this case, it turns out well for the players, but could have major impact on federal labor laws in the long run - impact that affects more than just professional football.

The federal labor laws are in place to protect employees.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad.
In this case, the Williams brothers ~messed up~ up.
Trying to exploit a state law is simply looking for a loophole.


It does not appear as though the NFLPA is trying to prove an issue with the CBA per se. Mostly that the NFL breached their fiduciary duty to inform players of banned substances. By name when such knowledge exists.

As far as the union issue is concerned......I believe that it is possible for a union to be in concert with both federal and state law. It must. Ultimately, the loophole only exists because the union chose to ignore it or failed to consider potential state jurisdiction in constructing their own rules. As such, I wouldn't call the use of this an exploitation.......but more of a proof of discrepancy on the part of the CBA for the benefit of the finder. LOL


The was the NFLPA's claim, and they lost in federal court because the NFL was able to provide documents that showed that they specifically told players (through the NFLPA and the clubs) not to endorse or use any products from Balanced Health Products.

The only count that didn't depend on the NFL's responsibility to inform the players was Kevin and Pat's claim that the Minnesota law superseded the CBA.
The federal judge agreed that the state had jurisdiction, and this is why he remanded it back to state court.
The NFL is maintaining that the CBA and the federal labor laws supersede the state laws, hence the appeal.
It is a very real possibility that the NFL could win this case, and then nothing short of a US Supreme court review (not likely) would change it. And IMHO, if the NFL wins, it will be better for the NFL, all pro sports, and organized unions in general.

snowinapril
07-23-2009, 12:20 PM
Collective Bargaining Agreement

Players give and the Owners give, hence bargain to agree.

I wish that PW and KW could get out of this scott-free but I just have a hard time believing they will.
This would (or should) have been challenged before this if it was not legal for them to enforce.

Good luck KW and PW!

Freya
07-23-2009, 12:20 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:




The MINNESOTA Vikings do business in the state of MN. Simply put, they must abide by the laws of this state. The same goes for any other business as well, including internet businesses.
Some business' are bound by Federal law when in comes to employees however, it is important to note that state law trumps federal laws under certain circumstances. One of those instances may be when a union is involved. STill.......As far as I know, it is impossible for a union, doing business in a state to make it's own laws under any circumstance, for any reason.
The information I found regarding the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL was vague at best regarding the evidence of drugs in a players system.
Which brings us back to the governing laws and again I say that the state wins. No contest.
It may be different than the laws in other states, but that isn't the problem of the Vikings or their players.




+1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pat & Kevin signed contracts with the Minnesota Vikings & not the NFL.


Truth. And well said.


They signed contracts developed under the guidelines of the NFLPA and subject to the CBA negotiated between the NFL and the NFLPA.
And the Vikings are a franchise, not a sole entity.
The Vikings themselves, and all of their employees, and under contract with the NFL.


This is also true, to a point. Beyond that point it does not in any way change the fact that while doing business in the state of MN (franchise or otherwise) the laws of the state must be adhered to. This is true for KFC, McDonalds, BK, Target, Walmart...........etc. The only exception would be in an instance where federal laws preempt. A CBA can be questioned as can the head of a franchise for practices that constitute a deviation from the governing law.
In addition, hostile and/or harmful "rules" can be called into question (established by unions or in this case the CBA) and are indeed a factor in this case.


Correct, but the CBA substance abuse policy isn't hostile or harmful.
In fact, it can likely be argued the other way - that it exists for the benefit and health of the players.

Look at it this way.
If we were talking about two packer players instead of the Williams wall, would you feel as strongly that a state loophole should be exploited?


Ooooooo, unfair question! ;D
Truthfully, I would feel the same way if laws or fiduciary duties were being neglected. Regarless of who the players were or what state they were in. Although equally, I probably wouldn't spend as much time researching, posting and venting over the matter. LOL

The NFLPA is citing that the harm comes from the suspensions making them ineligible for things like the pro bowl etc., thereby harming them financially, professionally and so on.

Freya
07-23-2009, 12:28 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:








This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.


Your bottom line is exactly right.

I personally think that any collectively bargained agreement negotiated under federal guidelines between management and a union that represents multiple states should be the final say.
If we allow the state to trump the CBA in this case, it turns out well for the players, but could have major impact on federal labor laws in the long run - impact that affects more than just professional football.

The federal labor laws are in place to protect employees.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad.
In this case, the Williams brothers ~messed up~ up.
Trying to exploit a state law is simply looking for a loophole.


It does not appear as though the NFLPA is trying to prove an issue with the CBA per se. Mostly that the NFL breached their fiduciary duty to inform players of banned substances. By name when such knowledge exists.

As far as the union issue is concerned......I believe that it is possible for a union to be in concert with both federal and state law. It must. Ultimately, the loophole only exists because the union chose to ignore it or failed to consider potential state jurisdiction in constructing their own rules. As such, I wouldn't call the use of this an exploitation.......but more of a proof of discrepancy on the part of the CBA for the benefit of the finder. LOL


The was the NFLPA's claim, and they lost in federal court because the NFL was able to provide documents that showed that they specifically told players (through the NFLPA and the clubs) not to endorse or use any products from Balanced Health Products.

The only count that didn't depend on the NFL's responsibility to inform the players was Kevin and Pat's claim that the Minnesota law superseded the CBA.
The federal judge agreed that the state had jurisdiction, and this is why he remanded it back to state court.
The NFL is maintaining that the CBA and the federal labor laws supersede the state laws, hence the appeal.
It is a very real possibility that the NFL could win this case, and then nothing short of a US Supreme court review (not likely) would change it. And IMHO, if the NFL wins, it will be better for the NFL, all pro sports, and organized unions in general.


I feel that a flaw has been exposed. As a result, things must be modified, appropriately. If, for no other reason, I hope that K & P win this case. If the NFL wins, that is more than likely not to happen. I see that as a problem because I do feel strongly that the NFL should be required to inform, BY SPECIFIC NAME, products that are added to their banned substance list. It, quite simply, is the right thing to do.

Zeus
07-23-2009, 01:07 PM
"gagarr" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.
If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


Did the NFL provide an explanation as to why they were not to endorse or use?
In other words did they clearly say "Starcaps contains a banned substance per the CBA"?
If they didn't, what stops the NFL from saying "You can no longer use or endorse Bayer asprin or Aleve", with no clear explanation to why.


As I recall, Starcaps were NOT banned because of the bumentinide (sp?).
They were banned because of a general ban on diuretics.

=Z=

Zeus
07-23-2009, 01:09 PM
"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:










This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.


Your bottom line is exactly right.

I personally think that any collectively bargained agreement negotiated under federal guidelines between management and a union that represents multiple states should be the final say.
If we allow the state to trump the CBA in this case, it turns out well for the players, but could have major impact on federal labor laws in the long run - impact that affects more than just professional football.

The federal labor laws are in place to protect employees.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad.
In this case, the Williams brothers ~messed up~ up.
Trying to exploit a state law is simply looking for a loophole.


It does not appear as though the NFLPA is trying to prove an issue with the CBA per se. Mostly that the NFL breached their fiduciary duty to inform players of banned substances. By name when such knowledge exists.

As far as the union issue is concerned......I believe that it is possible for a union to be in concert with both federal and state law. It must. Ultimately, the loophole only exists because the union chose to ignore it or failed to consider potential state jurisdiction in constructing their own rules. As such, I wouldn't call the use of this an exploitation.......but more of a proof of discrepancy on the part of the CBA for the benefit of the finder. LOL


The was the NFLPA's claim, and they lost in federal court because the NFL was able to provide documents that showed that they specifically told players (through the NFLPA and the clubs) not to endorse or use any products from Balanced Health Products.

The only count that didn't depend on the NFL's responsibility to inform the players was Kevin and Pat's claim that the Minnesota law superseded the CBA.
The federal judge agreed that the state had jurisdiction, and this is why he remanded it back to state court.
The NFL is maintaining that the CBA and the federal labor laws supersede the state laws, hence the appeal.
It is a very real possibility that the NFL could win this case, and then nothing short of a US Supreme court review (not likely) would change it. And IMHO, if the NFL wins, it will be better for the NFL, all pro sports, and organized unions in general.


I feel that a flaw has been exposed. As a result, things must be modified, appropriately. If, for no other reason, I hope that K & P win this case. If the NFL wins, that is more than likely not to happen. I see that as a problem because I do feel strongly that the NFL should be required to inform, BY SPECIFIC NAME, products that are added to their banned substance list. It, quite simply, is the right thing to do.


They did inform - BY SPECIFIC NAME - that Starcaps was on the list of banned products.
There is a list that every player has access to which shows those products that the NFL has tested and approved.

=Z=

Freya
07-23-2009, 06:22 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:












This pooh is fricken Challenged Hillbilly Lover'd.


Seriously.


Every punishment should be discretionary. Goodell is an donkey butt. It's dumb that this has come so far.


The company added an ingredient to an NFL approved supplement. That ingredient made it illegal in the NFL. The label was not changed. The players had no way of knowing. The NFL did not know the drug was added. If the players and the organization thought they players were taking an approved drug, the only people that should be in question is the manufacturer.

No discretion only causes problems. It's like mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, it gives way too much power to those doling out punishments.


So if Pat Williams' uncle is angry that Pat didn't hook him up with some pro-bowl tickets and injected him with steroids in his sleep, Pat would be suspended? Or would Goodell be a good guy and realize they had no way of knowing?

If Kevin Williams' sister in law was upset that Kevin wouldn't front her the money for her new business and sprinkled Kevin's Captain Crunch with cocaine, and he tested positive for it, he would be suspended? Or would Goodell take his head out of his jiggly butt and let him off?



There is no question that the NFL acted poorly, but there are a couple of important things you are forgetting.

1) The NFL offered Pat and Kevin a settlement that included a fine and NO SUSPENSION.
The Williams's declined.
2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.

If the NFL knew that Kevin's Cap'n Cruch was laced and they specifically told Kevin not to eat any cereals made by Quaker but Kevin did anyway, a good amount of blame lies with Kevin himself.

The NFL should have informed both the FDA and the players WHY they were banning Balanced Health Products.
But they were under no legal obligation to do so.


The problem though, from what I've read, is that the NFL didn't tell Kevin specifically not to eat any cereals made by Quaker, even though they knew that Kevin's Cap'n Crunch was laced and cited it was Kevin's responsibility to check with the NFL every morning before he ate breakfast, to see if the cereal he has been eating legally every morning in the past, was now illegal this particular morning because the NFL discovered it had been illegally laced.


Originally that is what I thought as well.
But when the federal judge made his decision, it was disclosed that the NFL did tell the players not to use Balanced Health Products.


2) The NFL told all of its players, through both the NFLPA and the clubs, NOT TO USE OR ENDORSE ANY PRODUCT made by Balanced Health Products (the manufacturer of StarCaps.)

When I heard that, the Williams's lost my support.



But apparently they didn't disclose all of the information to the NFLPA:

“We challenged the suspensions in this case because we did not believe the league acted properly when it withheld important information from the players about Star Caps," NFLPA Acting Executive Director Richard Berthelsen said. "The league doctors under the program tested Star Caps, knew they contained a prohibited substance, but deliberately failed to inform the NFLPA or the players of that fact. So far our effort has been a successful one and we are pleased that these players can continue to help their teams make the playoffs.”

http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=2619&type=n&weigh=443,0,2619,n#

According to court documents, it was the Kevin and Pat who filed against the NFL citing a violation of STATE laws and the NFLPA who filed against the NFL citing a violation of FEDERAL laws.

In addition, it is evident (to the courts) that the arbitrator did a questionable job in that he failed to take potentially critical testimony into consideration when he made his decision.

Bottom line: it is unclear whether federal law preempts state laws in this case AND how absolute the CBA is AND how much the jurisdiction the court has.


Your bottom line is exactly right.

I personally think that any collectively bargained agreement negotiated under federal guidelines between management and a union that represents multiple states should be the final say.
If we allow the state to trump the CBA in this case, it turns out well for the players, but could have major impact on federal labor laws in the long run - impact that affects more than just professional football.

The federal labor laws are in place to protect employees.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad.
In this case, the Williams brothers ~messed up~ up.
Trying to exploit a state law is simply looking for a loophole.


It does not appear as though the NFLPA is trying to prove an issue with the CBA per se. Mostly that the NFL breached their fiduciary duty to inform players of banned substances. By name when such knowledge exists.

As far as the union issue is concerned......I believe that it is possible for a union to be in concert with both federal and state law. It must. Ultimately, the loophole only exists because the union chose to ignore it or failed to consider potential state jurisdiction in constructing their own rules. As such, I wouldn't call the use of this an exploitation.......but more of a proof of discrepancy on the part of the CBA for the benefit of the finder. LOL


The was the NFLPA's claim, and they lost in federal court because the NFL was able to provide documents that showed that they specifically told players (through the NFLPA and the clubs) not to endorse or use any products from Balanced Health Products.

The only count that didn't depend on the NFL's responsibility to inform the players was Kevin and Pat's claim that the Minnesota law superseded the CBA.
The federal judge agreed that the state had jurisdiction, and this is why he remanded it back to state court.
The NFL is maintaining that the CBA and the federal labor laws supersede the state laws, hence the appeal.
It is a very real possibility that the NFL could win this case, and then nothing short of a US Supreme court review (not likely) would change it. And IMHO, if the NFL wins, it will be better for the NFL, all pro sports, and organized unions in general.


I feel that a flaw has been exposed. As a result, things must be modified, appropriately. If, for no other reason, I hope that K & P win this case. If the NFL wins, that is more than likely not to happen. I see that as a problem because I do feel strongly that the NFL should be required to inform, BY SPECIFIC NAME, products that are added to their banned substance list. It, quite simply, is the right thing to do.


They did inform - BY SPECIFIC NAME - that Starcaps was on the list of banned products.
There is a list that every player has access to which shows those products that the NFL has tested and approved.

=Z=


Apparently not, Zeus. Read up to maroon quote by the NFLPA acting director. Fact is; the NFL knew that StarCaps contained the famed banned substance, as far back as 2006 AND in addition to that was aware that it was not listed on the product label. The NFLPA's position, in part, is that the NFL breached it's fiduciary duty in not specifically naming this product by name, in any format, INCLUDING on their hotline.

"the NFL contends that they had no duty to warn players specifically about StarCaps, because the policy provides that players are responsible for what is in their own bodies and also warns about using over-the-counter products."

At least one of the players said his representative was told BY THE HOTLINE that StarCaps contained no banned substances.

"notably, Lombardo did not testify that he would have told the player that StarCaps contained a banned substance."
So what would he have told them?!? And does this validate what at least one player said about not being told that StarCaps contained a banned substance??? (see above)

IMO, it is ridiculous to make a blanket statement with regards to a manufacturer. The fact is that products such as this are bought and sold every day to other companies who, more than likely would retain the StarCap label for name recognition. It would be marketing suicide to do otherwise. Unless the NFL plays market watch regarding this kind of thing, it would take a while to catch up to any such activities. And while this may be far fetched it is none the less possible. Enough so that I wonder what the NFL's point was to not reveal what they knew about this product BY NAME. Which they didn't.

http://nowner.phpwebhosting.com/archives/nflpa.6.reasons.injunction.pdf

Zeus
07-24-2009, 09:43 AM
"Freya" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Freya" wrote:


I feel that a flaw has been exposed. As a result, things must be modified, appropriately. If, for no other reason, I hope that K & P win this case. If the NFL wins, that is more than likely not to happen. I see that as a problem because I do feel strongly that the NFL should be required to inform, BY SPECIFIC NAME, products that are added to their banned substance list. It, quite simply, is the right thing to do.


They did inform - BY SPECIFIC NAME - that Starcaps was on the list of banned products.
There is a list that every player has access to which shows those products that the NFL has tested and approved.


Apparently not, Zeus. Read up to maroon quote by the NFLPA acting director. Fact is; the NFL knew that StarCaps contained the famed banned substance, as far back as 2006 AND in addition to that was aware that it was not listed on the product label. The NFLPA's position, in part, is that the NFL breached it's fiduciary duty in not specifically naming this product by name, in any format, INCLUDING on their hotline.

"the NFL contends that they had no duty to warn players specifically about StarCaps, because the policy provides that players are responsible for what is in their own bodies and also warns about using over-the-counter products."

At least one of the players said his representative was told BY THE HOTLINE that StarCaps contained no banned substances.

"notably, Lombardo did not testify that he would have told the player that StarCaps contained a banned substance."
So what would he have told them?!? And does this validate what at least one player said about not being told that StarCaps contained a banned substance??? (see above)

IMO, it is ridiculous to make a blanket statement with regards to a manufacturer. The fact is that products such as this are bought and sold every day to other companies who, more than likely would retain the StarCap label for name recognition. It would be marketing suicide to do otherwise. Unless the NFL plays market watch regarding this kind of thing, it would take a while to catch up to any such activities. And while this may be far fetched it is none the less possible. Enough so that I wonder what the NFL's point was to not reveal what they knew about this product BY NAME. Which they didn't.

http://nowner.phpwebhosting.com/archives/nflpa.6.reasons.injunction.pdf


I believe I mis-remembered - but it doesn't change my point.
The NFL lists what IS approved.
Anything else, you take your chances.

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=48758.msg861013#msg861013

=Z=

dfosterf
07-24-2009, 10:46 AM
Good news for Mr. Z. - imo

While there might be some misremembering going on, the bottom line is that you were right.

How the heck do I know that?

One HAS to
read what the judge said...

Not what someone else said he said, or what he said prior to saying what he said the last time he said it, see?

The long story is that it was discovered in discovery that what the NFLPA said was said isn't really what was said by the NFL, see?

Do you know why I see what was said?
I see it. All 23 pages.


The actual court order, not what others say was said, especially the NFLPA.

See what I'm saying?


No?

See this, then.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15976006/NFL-Players-vs-NFL-D-Minn-Ruling-on-Cross-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment

;D

raptorman
07-24-2009, 10:59 AM
There is one thing that still bothers me in this whole case.
Why did the NFL test StarCaps in the first place?
There are only two possible reasons.
One, they suspected it contained something. Two, someone tested positive.
If the second one is true, then the question comes to mind as to why that player was not banned for 4 games.
Since the NFL claim’s a zero tolerance policy is in place according to the CBA.
If they did have someone that tested positive and did not ban them for it then I would think the players currently being put on a 4 game suspension would have a valid claim of discrimination.
This would be based on the fact the first player/players found to test positive under StarCaps were not subject to penalties per the CBA.
This goes back to something I read in the submission by the NFLPA to the court back on 12-4-08.
In testimony that Dr. Finkle provided, during the appeal hearing in NY, about a discussion he had with Dr. Lombardo after the tests and results came back in 2006-07. He states:
After that I think there was additional discussion, the last discussion perhaps with Dr. Lombardo,
in the context of what,
just this first positive.
Now am I reading that last part right, just the first positive? So if that is what I think it is, then the first player that tested positive under StarCaps was the reason the NFL tested them. So under the zero tolerance policy, why was he not banned for 4 games?
Or am I just barking up the wrong tree here? Has anyone heard of a valid reason the NFL tested StarCaps in the first place. We know they don’t have a testing program in place to test all products. But they do test some for some reasons.

singersp
08-05-2009, 08:48 AM
Vikings tackles staying focused on field (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-8YMsHNK81fhrBon7pd18XJUZmAD99SB8U00)

By DAVE CAMPBELL (AP) – 14 hours ago


MANKATO, Minn. — If the waiting is the hardest part, Kevin Williams and Pat Williams haven't shown it.

marstc09
08-05-2009, 11:04 AM
Williams Wall gets clearance to play from state court
Posted by Mike Florio on August 5, 2009 10:35 AM ET


An oral argument in the federal appeals court is set for August 18, and a ruling is expected before Week One.

So, basically, if Kevin and Pat Williams clear this one final hurdle in the federal appeals court, they'll be available for all of the 2009 season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/05/williams-wall-gets-clearance-to-play-from-state-court/

PurpleTide
08-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 11:19 AM
"PurpleTide" wrote:



Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.


unless it gets overturned, then we get screwed hard.

kirbyfan
08-05-2009, 11:57 AM
I really wish they would just decide this and not leave us hanging until right before the opener.

V4L
08-05-2009, 12:06 PM
Good news thus far!

marstc09
08-05-2009, 02:50 PM
NFL responds to Williams Wall ruling
Posted by Mike Florio on August 5, 2009 1:43 PM ET

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/05/nfl-responds-to-williams-wall-ruling/

V4L
08-05-2009, 03:08 PM
Fuck Roger Goodell.. POS!

josdin00
08-05-2009, 04:27 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.


unless it gets overturned, then we get screwed hard.


Actually, I'd really like this news, either way. If the federal ruling that remanded the case back to state court get's upheld, which I think it will because of this article (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/26/leagues-confidence-in-starcaps-defense-might-be-misplaced/), then we don't have to worry about it all season. If the ruling is reversed, then we miss those guys for four games, but it's during the easiest streak of four games we have on the schedule.

Either way, the issue won't affect us later in the season when we're playing the tougher games on the schedule, when it could really hurt us.

Vikes_King
08-05-2009, 04:35 PM
"josdin00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.


unless it gets overturned, then we get screwed hard.


Actually, I'd really like this news, either way. If the federal ruling that remanded the case back to state court get's upheld, which I think it will because of this article (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/26/leagues-confidence-in-starcaps-defense-might-be-misplaced/), then we don't have to worry about it all season. If the ruling is reversed, then we miss those guys for four games, but it's during the easiest streak of four games we have on the schedule.

Either way, the issue won't affect us later in the season when we're playing the tougher games on the schedule, when it could really hurt us.


Exactly.
If they do get suspended, I want it to be right away, not down the stretch.
People underestimate our DT depth.
Yes, losing two Pro Bowl DT's will hurt - but we could live for a couple games with Fred Evans and Jimmy Kenney/Letroy Guion in there.
A lot of people forget, Jimmy Kennedy is a 7 year vet and has a bigger frame than Pat Williams (6' 5", 320lbs), having the opportunity to work with Karl Dunbar and learn from the Williamses, he could be a huge asset for us.

Vikes_King
08-05-2009, 04:41 PM
btw josdin, loved that article you posted


Our suggestion?
The union should offer to include moving forward all relevant statutory claims within the scope of the CBA's arbitration provision, in exchange for an agreement to abandon the suspensions of Kevin and Pat Williams, Saints defensive ends Charles Grant and Will Smith, free-agent running back Deuce McAllister, and Lions defensive tackle Grady Jackson.

Of course, such an outcome makes way too much sense to ever happen.

Maybe someone should pass that along lol

V4L
08-05-2009, 04:44 PM
"Vikes_King" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.


unless it gets overturned, then we get screwed hard.


Actually, I'd really like this news, either way. If the federal ruling that remanded the case back to state court get's upheld, which I think it will because of this article (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/26/leagues-confidence-in-starcaps-defense-might-be-misplaced/), then we don't have to worry about it all season. If the ruling is reversed, then we miss those guys for four games, but it's during the easiest streak of four games we have on the schedule.

Either way, the issue won't affect us later in the season when we're playing the tougher games on the schedule, when it could really hurt us.


Exactly.
If they do get suspended, I want it to be right away, not down the stretch.
People underestimate our DT depth.
Yes, losing two Pro Bowl DT's will hurt - but we could live for a couple games with Fred Evans and Jimmy Kenney/Letroy Guion in there.

A lot of people forget, Jimmy Kennedy is a 7 year vet and has a bigger frame than Pat Williams (6' 5", 320lbs), having the opportunity to work with Karl Dunbar and learn from the Williamses, he could be a huge asset for us.


+1

Imma huge Kennedy fan.. I think he is a decent NT.. Awesome back up

Hope he starts working hard and lives up to his 1st round talent

Mark_The_Viking
08-05-2009, 04:53 PM
All I know is the Williams wall will be there MNF and I get to see them ;D ;D ;D ;D That's right I'm cheesin

jmcdon00
08-05-2009, 04:54 PM
"Mark_The_Viking" wrote:


All I know is the Williams wall will be there MNF and I get to see them ;D ;D ;D ;D That's right I'm cheesin

Umm, we don't know that. They could still be suspended.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 05:06 PM
"V4L" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.


unless it gets overturned, then we get screwed hard.


Actually, I'd really like this news, either way. If the federal ruling that remanded the case back to state court get's upheld, which I think it will because of this article (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/26/leagues-confidence-in-starcaps-defense-might-be-misplaced/), then we don't have to worry about it all season. If the ruling is reversed, then we miss those guys for four games, but it's during the easiest streak of four games we have on the schedule.

Either way, the issue won't affect us later in the season when we're playing the tougher games on the schedule, when it could really hurt us.


Exactly.
If they do get suspended, I want it to be right away, not down the stretch.
People underestimate our DT depth.
Yes, losing two Pro Bowl DT's will hurt - but we could live for a couple games with Fred Evans and Jimmy Kenney/Letroy Guion in there.

A lot of people forget, Jimmy Kennedy is a 7 year vet and has a bigger frame than Pat Williams (6' 5", 320lbs), having the opportunity to work with Karl Dunbar and learn from the Williamses, he could be a huge asset for us.


+1

Imma huge Kennedy fan.. I think he is a decent NT.. Awesome back up

Hope he starts working hard and lives up to his 1st round talent


wow, I hope so.
If so, we got an absolute steal in him.

V4L
08-05-2009, 05:43 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"V4L" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"josdin00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:





Good news, now they can get this behind them, and concentrate on football.


unless it gets overturned, then we get screwed hard.


Actually, I'd really like this news, either way. If the federal ruling that remanded the case back to state court get's upheld, which I think it will because of this article (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/05/26/leagues-confidence-in-starcaps-defense-might-be-misplaced/), then we don't have to worry about it all season. If the ruling is reversed, then we miss those guys for four games, but it's during the easiest streak of four games we have on the schedule.

Either way, the issue won't affect us later in the season when we're playing the tougher games on the schedule, when it could really hurt us.


Exactly.
If they do get suspended, I want it to be right away, not down the stretch.
People underestimate our DT depth.
Yes, losing two Pro Bowl DT's will hurt - but we could live for a couple games with Fred Evans and Jimmy Kenney/Letroy Guion in there.

A lot of people forget, Jimmy Kennedy is a 7 year vet and has a bigger frame than Pat Williams (6' 5", 320lbs), having the opportunity to work with Karl Dunbar and learn from the Williamses, he could be a huge asset for us.


+1

Imma huge Kennedy fan.. I think he is a decent NT.. Awesome back up

Hope he starts working hard and lives up to his 1st round talent


wow, I hope so.
If so, we got an absolute steal in him.



Hope hes a cast away that we stole and can say fuck u for@!