Pat and Kevin Williams Likely to Play Entire 2009 Season; Packer Fans, Bear Fans Hardest Hit
by Gonzo on Aug 5, 2009 9:02 PM CDT
in Vikings
21 comments
As we've already heard, the biggest story of the day coming out of Winter Park was that Judge Gary Larson ruled that the state trial of Pat and Kevin Williams in the StarCaps fiasco would be stayed until after the 2009 NFL season. What does this mean for the best defensive tackle duo in the National Football League? It means that, barring one final hurdle, both men will be able to play the entire 2009 season without the threat of a suspension looming over their heads.
The last hurdle is a case that will be heard by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on 18 August. Pro Football Talk puts this better than I could. . .
The league had wanted Judge Larson to stay the case only until a federal appeals court determines whether a federal district judge properly sent the case back to state court based on the conclusion that two claims brought under Minnesota statutory law supersede the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and the NFLPA. The league also wanted Judge Larson to proceed with a trial during the 2009 season, if the federal appeals court rules that the case properly can be pursued in state court.
Larson has opted not to let the NFL have it both ways. Thus, the case won't proceed until after the season.
Then again, if the federal appeals court finds that the federal district judge got it wrong, the state court case won't proceed at all, and the four-game suspensions will be implemented, as required by the CBA.
The federal judge that heard the Williams' case, Judge Magnuson, sent the case back to state court, as Florio says in the above-quoted passage. The trial on the 18th is to determine whether or not the federal law applies to this case, in which case, the suspensions will be upheld and the state case will cease. . .or whether Judge Magnuson did the right thing in deciding that this was a state matter and not a federal one. So, we'll know on 18 August whether the Williams Wall is going to miss the first four games of 2009. . .which, as we've detailed, might not be all that big a tragedy. . .or whether or not they'll play the entire season. There's not going to be any in-between. Why? Because, as Judge Larson said. . .
If the federal court determines the case should be conducted in state court, Larson wrote, "it is not likely that the [Hennepin County] court would, or could force [the players] into trial during the middle of a playing season, based on the court's schedule."
See, as Florio said, the NFL wanted to have it both ways, and Larson told them to bugger off. They wanted the federal appeals court to push this through as fast as possible, and they also wanted the state case to proceed during the 2009 season so that Pat and Kevin Williams would have to deal with it throughout the course of the year. And, quite frankly, it serves them right, considering that the NFL failed to inform their players about a substance that they, from every meaningful account, knew contained an illegal substance.
If it turns out that state law is the applicable law in this case, it's entirely possible that the NFL will have gone from attempting to use Pat and Kevin Williams as the poster boys for their holier-than-thou, completely subjective "substance abuse policy" to being made to look like fools by the court system and two players that actually had the gall to know what their legal rights were and fought to maintain their reputation and their good names. If Judge Magnuson's ruling stands. . .and there's absolutely no reason to think that it shouldn't, from all accounts. . .then the league would be well served to try to work out some sort of settlement with the Irresistible Force and the Immovable Object prior to the state case being heard.
Of course, since Roger Goodell feels that he's above the law, I wouldn't actually expect that to happen. After all, we all know the difference between Roger Goodell and God, right?
God doesn't think he's Roger Goodell.
So, after having a dark cloud hanging over them since the initial StarCaps findings late in the 2008 season, it appears that the sun might be coming out for the best defensive tackle duo in the National Football League. And after sunrise, the defense that's lapped the field compared to every other NFC North defense. . .by a considerable margin, and anyone that disagrees is just fooling themselves. . .will be completely intact and ready to rock on 13 September in Cleveland.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think the federal Gov’t has more important issues to attend to, then solving the crying NFL’s problems. NO WONDER THE COUNTRY’S GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET.
by skolvikes on Aug 5, 2009 9:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
could not say it any better… if the federal gov’t actually takes time to hear a case regarding NFL players taking a diuretic (not steroids… a diuretic) we have a lot to worry about
In Vikings I Trust
I Bleed Purple
by razz54vikes on Aug 5, 2009 10:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
true
It’s sad, isn’t it? We could go on forever about what subjects are more critical for the judges and gov’t to be focused on, yet here we are.
Honestly I think the NFL rules are fair. While they took a diruetic the concern is that it’s a masking agent for steroids.
by ZakInOmaha on Aug 6, 2009 8:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Blame the NFL Then
It’s the NFL that wants to make a federal case out of this thing. The Williamses always wanted their case heard in state court (where the first federal judge that the NFL went to in fact ruled it belongs). If the NFL rules are illegal, it’s their responsisbility. They’ve hired a bunch of lawyers. They should have hired at least one of them who understands the law and listened when they drew up their rules.
by Elgar on Aug 6, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is the beauty of our country
Everyone has the right to be heard in the court.
What are these issues that are so important that aren’t being heard in the federal court?
"American made, White Trash raised, and Bad Ass engraved"
by Viking Frog on Aug 6, 2009 8:33 AM CDT via mobile reply actions 2 recs
Rec for common sense. At this point I just want a verdict so it stops hanging over the their heads.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Aug 6, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL substance policy
…the NFL failed to inform their players about a substance that they, from every meaningful account, knew contained an illegal substance.
Gonzo, you are so much better than that. You understand this situation better than most, so you know that substances can contain anything at all at any given time. The players had been informed about that very explicitly. You know that the NFL can’t begin to endorse or regulate the unregulated supplement market, and you know that the NFL can’t afford lawsuits from supplement manufacturers they dis while posing as the (N)FDA.
For those who have railed against big government and the like on this site before, where are your ideals now? The NFL substance policy is a simple rule: do not use anything on this list, and all supplements are taken at your own risk. <——- Self-governing in that last part there, see? Everyone who is in favor of the Williamses for this reason (they didn’t tell us) is basically appealing to government and employers with a big loud “WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” to act more like grown-ups since the players/employees cannot/should not be expected to do so by following such s clearly explicit set of substance rules.
(Please do not reply if your response is going to be about whether big govt or something closer to libertarianism is better or anything like that. I am not interested in starting that sort of political discussion.)
by KC Viking on Aug 6, 2009 9:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i completely agree. i don’t have a problem at all with them being punished.
except for 2 things:
1. it should be consistent. several players had failed drug tests previously for taking the same product and they weren’t punished. that’s not fair to any of the players not just the williams’s
2. giving all those guys (not just the williams’s) the same punishment as the guy that was caught with crack or ran over someone with their car while drunk or even just a dwi is just plain ridiculous and unfair. they took a diet pill. the nfl has admitted that there is not even suspicion of steroid use. they shouldn’t get the same punishment as someone who committed a criminal act.
basically the nfl has one punishment for a first time offense; the four game suspension. (unless you hurt an animal – killing people is okay) this needs to change.
by iseepurplepeople on Aug 7, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
1. As far as I knew, a Lions player had been fined after testing positive for it in ‘06. I don’t know any details beyond that case, and this point isn’t 100% of how fairness should be judged in this case. The fact that they took a quick weight loss supplement (and they knew it was that, and that was enough to breach the clause about reporting at an authentic weight) already makes punishment fair.
2. All judgments are on a case-by-case basis and always moving forward in time. I don’t understand why they vary so much and so seemingly randomly either; however, since those judgments were bad in the past, all anyone can do is make the right move for now. Maybe this was only a 1-2 game suspension sort of thing, but considering that they were eligible for 4-5 more games last year down the playoff stretch, perhaps they have accrued another game or two of interest.
by KC Viking on Aug 8, 2009 1:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t 3 players on the Saints get suspended last year for this same issue?
by packallday555 on Aug 8, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My hope...
Is that supplement companies be required to list every last ingredient on the label. Regardless of amount. To the last miniscule 0.1%. If GNC could make the companies do so than others would follow.
Bernard, Percy and AP oh my!
by VikesPma on Aug 7, 2009 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But...
…since the supplements are unregulated, what incentive would the supplement manufacturer have to tell the truth about 100% of their recipe? Even when said manufacturer was not aiming to deceive or dodge the law, why give away a recipe/secret ingredient when nobody’s going to inspect or fine? That is just part of the reason that the NFL and any league like it cannot become the other FDA regarding supplements. By definition, they have no integrity, so none should ever be expected.
Even a vitamin which promises 100% USRDA of _ is deceptive since the human body probably doesn’t metabolize 100% of that ingredient, perhaps as little as 20-30% in the case of Vitamin C.
by KC Viking on Aug 8, 2009 1:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
KC Viking
H’ok, here we go…
“You know that the NFL can’t begin to endorse or regulate the unregulated supplement market, and you know that the NFL can’t afford lawsuits from supplement manufacturers they dis while posing as the (N)FDA.”
Well, before this happened, the NFL chose, on their own, to test StarCaps and found it contained the diuretic. Why? They chose not to share this information. Why? I really don’t know. To me, it’s stupid; why even test it to begin with if you weren’t intending on sharing the results, especially if a problem is found? A simple newsletter to the team doctors would suffice; let them distribute the info. Was it possibly an attempt to “endorse…… the unregulated supplement market” that fell through when it tested bad? Again, I just don’t know, but something seems fishy about it…
And what lawsuits could the NFL be afraid of? The court case would consist of: “What happened?” “We said our tests show that the product contains a substance that we’ve banned.” “Does it?” “Yes, here are the test results, run your own.” “Did you tell them the product was bad, unhealthy, illegal, or otherwise defame the product?” “No, we just told them it contained the substance.” “Case dismissed.” Sharing factual information and a “dis” are two completely different things…
And the NFL “can’t afford a lawsuit”?!?! Yeah… they are SO broke… Please… How much is this costing them?
“such s clearly explicit set of substance rules.”
What?!?! “Know what goes into your body”? That’s "clearly explicit "? “Excuse me waiter, could you please have the chef supply me with the ingredients of his Secret Sauce? I want to make sure it’s not banned… Better send it to a lab to make sure…”
“clearly explicit”… right…
by Loki Loves Purple on Aug 6, 2009 11:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
no way
i totally agree with kcviking on this. the nfl can’t and won’t enter into that kind of minefield. do they test these things? yes they have to find the latest masking agents etc.. and to be able to develop their own testing procedures for what they find in all the ‘supplements’.
it is not the nfl’s responsiblity to test all these products. there are thousands and more come out everyday. it’s not feasible and they shouldn’t have to.
should they have told everyone about the starcaps? sure. do they have to no? why? because they basically already did. they told everyone they shouldn’t take any supplement of any kind. this includes star caps. so the williams’s knew beforehand that taking starcaps might possibly be a risk.
as for the waiter thing let’s be real. no one cooks with steriod masking agents or any kind of illegal drug. and if they do, players shouldn’t be eating there. these guys are professional athletes. their bodies are the tools of their trade. you’re damn right they ought to know exactly what goes into their bodies. and if they don’t know? don’t do it.
"Excuse me waiter, could you please have the chef supply me with the ingredients of his Secret Sauce? I want to make sure it’s not banned… What? You can’t give out the secret recipe? Well nevermind then, we’ll go someplace else instead."
they want to whine and complain about it? fine, fork over the $5 million contract and go get a job for your uncle making $10.50/hr.
by iseepurplepeople on Aug 7, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does McDonald's make people fat?
Or are they responsible for what goes into their bodies?
Bear in mind that a restaurant chain (or your waiter reference) is regarding FOOD, which is in fact regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. NFL players can afford their own catering and/or private chefs (and teams actually provide catered spreads at the stadiums/game days). McDonald’s and other restaurants are required to list ingredients accurately, and there is no incentive for the
To suggest that a random restaurant worker may have added bumetamide to the Williamses’ food is baseless and insanely paranoid. What would the restaurant worker gain by spiking the Williamses’ food? Why would the restaurant want negative publicity? Why would the restaurant want to lose famous patrons (and the extra non-famous patrons who come to possibly see famous people) over suspicion of such behaviors? IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE IN THE REAL WORLD.
If the NFL tried to play NFdaL, they would have hundreds of lawsuits from supplement manufacturers to deal with, not just this one. They should be expected to regulate the quality and integrity of football, not to try to impossibly regulate the unregulated supplement market.
by KC Viking on Aug 8, 2009 1:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not all Bears fans will be upset about this.
Whether we sweep the series or get swept, I’d rather do it against your starters. Obviously you take a win any way you can get it, but I’d rather it come against your best with our best. Now Packers fans? Yeah, they’ll probably whine about it.
"The time has come to get deeply into Football. It is the only thing we have left that ain't fixed." - HST
by JerBear50 on Aug 7, 2009 4:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
this is a bears fan i could get along with
nothing wrong with that outlook, very respectable.
What up?
by snakethejake on Aug 8, 2009 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, thank you
"The time has come to get deeply into Football. It is the only thing we have left that ain't fixed." - HST
by JerBear50 on Aug 8, 2009 1:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
still no resolution
Would have thought we have an answer by this point, but it doesn’t seem to me that it’s any sort of foregone conclusion that the Williams won’t be suspended. It actually seems to be dragging out, thus meaning the hammer could drop at any moment, at any time in the season. Any ideas on when this will be resolved??
by wivikesfan on Aug 31, 2009 1:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
