Pat and Kevin Williams Will Play All of 2009

by Gonzo on Sep 11, 2009 5:49 PM CDT in Vikings Comment 36 comments

The WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHmbulences are being dispatched to Chicago and Green Bay as we speak. (The completely brain-dead whining in the Green Bay link is especially choice. Somehow, the most bitter tears always taste the sweetest.)

Yes, this afternoon the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit made the ruling that the National Football League could not suspend Vikings' defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams for violating the league's substance abuse policy. While the whole 35-page ruling makes for some decent reading, the nub of it is that the court determined that the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement doesn't overrule the rights of employees in the state of Minnesota. Minnesota has some of the strictest labor laws in the nation, and if not for those laws, it's possible that they may have already been suspended.

The news, unfortunately, is not as good for Charles Grant and Will Smith of the New Orleans Saints. Louisiana has no such law like the one that protects Minnesota employees, and as a result their suspensions are still valid and will likely start being served in Week 2.

But let's take a closer look at the Minnesota side of the case. . .mainly about how it's been viewed by a lot of folks thus far.

The biggest whine I've heard from folks that are calling for Pat and Kevin Williams to be drawn and quartered is that they should have to face their suspensions "like men." I don't really know what sort of garbage that is, but the fact that the Williams Wall looked at a league that was attempting to screw them over and say, "Nope, not this time" frankly makes me proud to be a fan of both guys. As we've detailed numerous times on this site, the league was attempting to nail Pat and Kevin Williams for taking bumetanide that a supplement they had been taking. . .a supplement that the NFL had deemed illegal because it can be used to mask steroid use (correction from the earlier version). . .in order to cut weight. The makers of StarCaps, the supplement in question, put the bumetanide into the pills without putting it on the label, and subsequently got themselves into relatively deep fecal matter with the Food and Drug Administration as a result. See, bumetanide is generally available by prescription only, and I guess the makers of StarCaps couldn't really come up with a feasible excuse for putting it into a substance that was readily available over the counter.

(Well, used to be available over the counter, anyway. . .it doesn't appear that StarCaps is available anywhere any more at this point.)

But the NFL and Roger Goodell, having never been wrong about anything in the course of history, didn't want to hear anything about it. Never mind the fact that the NFL apparently knew that StarCaps contained the illegal substance and didn't bother to actually let anybody know. After the Korey Stringer incident, for the NFL to not tell teams that a substance contains a diuretic for the sole purpose of being able to scream "GOTCHA" at people that might take it is ignorant at best. . .and could have been deadly at worst. The NFL should consider themselves fortunate that this is all they have to deal with and not a REAL inconvenience like. . .I don't know. . .a wrongful death lawsuit or something.

Which moves us on to the legal process itself. The original ruling in this case was handed down by District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson. Now, a lot of people seemed to have had a problem with this, because by all accounts Magnuson is a life long fan of the Minnesota Vikings (as well as the Minnesota Twins), having grown up in South Dakota and spending his entire legal career in Minnesota. The word has even gone around that Magnuson is a Vikings' season ticket holder. All fine and dandy, mind you, and if you're wearing a tin foil hat or are afraid that there are black helicopters circling your house, it might even make sense. However. . .let me ask you one teeny, tiny, minor little question:

Do you honestly think for one second that a man that has been in the legal profession for over 45 years, has busted his tail for all those years to achieve the status he currently has, and currently has a wonderful job with a great pension attached. . .is going to even contemplate throwing all of that away OVER A FOOTBALL TEAM?

Because if you do, here's my advice:

1) Stand up out of your chair
2) Grab your earlobes
3) Pull downwards until you hear a loud popping noise.

There. . .you've finally managed to dislodge your head from your ass. Congratulations.

Since many of the people that want to whine and complain about Judge Magnuson being a "homer" can't differentiate between legal briefs and boxer briefs, that minor little detail probably won't matter to them. So, that moves us on to the Court of Appeals that I mentioned at the beginning. The three judges on the panel that issued the Williams Wall ruling?

The Honorable Diana E. Murphy, Minneapolis, MN (HOLY CRAP, ANOTHER VIKINGS HOMER!!)
The Honorable Duane Benton, Kansas City, MO (Well. . .ummmm. . .hey, he could be a Viking fan!)
The Honorable Bobby E. Shepard, Benton, AR (Damn. . .this whole "homer judge" thing is losing a lot of steam)

I would put the odds of all three of these judges being Vikings' season ticket holders or "Vikings homers" at somewhere between slim and none. . .and I believe I just heard Slim say "Check, please!"

So, if you actually believe this cockamaime theory about how the Williams Wall got favorable rulings from homer judges. . .please feel free to point out where, as it applies to the laws of the state of Minnesota, Judge Magnuson or any of the Appeals Court judges did anything illegal or incorrect. We'll be listening.

In the meantime, the best run defense in the NFL is going to have its core all year, and probably beyond. And there's not a damn thing that anybody can do about it.

Bring on the Browns, and bring on the 2009 NFL season!

0 recs | Comment 36 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

R U Ready 4 Some Football?

by Elgar on Sep 11, 2009 6:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

People think they were taking Roids

That’s why they’re mad. They don’t realize they were taking star-caps so they could lose weight. They don’t realize that 340lb D-Linemen don’t need to take steroids.

Many people don’t know that Star-Caps didn’t put the illegal ingredient “Bumetanide” on it’s label….How is that not against the laws of the FDA?…Star-Caps is lucky someone didn’t die.

Many people don’t know that the NFL knew Star-Caps was illegal, but still didn’t put it on the “Banned Substance list”.

It has come to my attention that many people are fucking stupid…lol.
I hate it when people allow the media to make their opinions for them.

It’s completely obvious that the Williams were getting screwed. Why/how other people don’t see that is beyond me.
How can the rule “You’re responsible for what you put in your body” come in affect when all the ingredients aren’t on the label. Or when the NFL knows the product is illegal, but doesn’t put it on the banned substance’s list? ….Sounds like a trap to me!

by chaosg on Sep 11, 2009 6:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

BINGO!

chaosg nailed it…

I’m a Viking fan from good ol New York. Today my co-workers and I went to a sports bar for lunch. While at lunch we were watching ESPN and they started talking about the Williams ordeal. The talking head on TV mentioned that starcaps “can be used to mask steroids…”.

My colleague sitting next to me said “yea right… like they weren’t using roids, look at them!”

I responded by politely by telling him to STFU and then had to explain to all of them that:
- There are no alligations of steriod use.
- The banned substance was not listed on the diuretic they were taking, FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
- And finally that Roger Goodell and the NFL are simply trying to screw these players out of 4 paychecks with this assinine policy that attempts to punish players even if they clearly had no idea they were consuming a banned substance AND clearly had NO INTENT to mask steroids.

I think that when most outsiders hear or read “…can mask steroids…” that is mentioned in every dam article about this situation, that’s all they focus on. Unfortunately the USA is a place where an accusation is taken as proof of guilt.

by EasternVike on Sep 11, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your colleague must have failed to see Phat Pat Williams…the man is a beast playing football but certainly doesn’t look like he is on steroids.

by cutlassbob on Sep 11, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Star Caps are not monitored by the FDA

And neither are any other supplements. This is a little known fact. They are ruled to be neither drugs, nor food. The FDA does not test them for their contents or their effectiveness. So next time you take your “muscle powder” or “miracle supplement A” consider what you may be putting in your body that’s not on the label.

It takes a lot of deaths before the FDA can actually step in to ban a supplement substance.

by Cobra312004 on Sep 13, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to an Associated Press story

“Goodell said the NFL was considering its next step, which could include an appeal, a trial in state court, or taking the issue to Congress.”

Good luck with that Congress thing, Roger. I presume you know that it would require a Constitutional amendment in order to change what you are trying to change and that this particular Congress can’t even agree on how to keep people healthy, which is something your steroids policy only allegedly protects. How about telling people the NFL knew that an over-the-counter pill actually contained something illegal that was a health risk? Do you think that has nothing to do with protecting health?

Self-serving )(*(&(^$^@@$!!!!

by Elgar on Sep 11, 2009 6:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ummm, no

No constitutional amendment. Just a federal law enforcing a CBA provision re drug testing, which would then pre-empt contrary state laws under the Supremacy Clause.

Go back to law school. Do no t pass Go. Do not collect $200.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Law School

Have you ever heard of State Rights?

by BigSkyViking on Sep 12, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have you ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? The Commerce Clause?

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

where is the union

the union is suppose to protect and stand up for their players is the nfl really that strong.pat and kevin get murdered in the media and where are they sitting on there thumbs,hope they do better in labor negotiations.let’s play ball and kill the browns!!

by clinton p on Sep 11, 2009 9:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Williams Wall

Please Mr. Madden, could you help Goodell get a grip on his ear lobes and help him pull his head outa hiz ars?

by BigSkyViking on Sep 11, 2009 10:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Star Caps

What about all the kids taking Star Caps who were put at risk by the prescription medicine in an over the counter pill and the league said nothing? Do they not have a brain at NFL headquarters? They should drop to their knees, thank God noone got killed, set up a league pharmacy and move on.

by BigSkyViking on Sep 11, 2009 10:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Quote...

under the picture of the Williams Wall reminds me of the old original “Fat Albert” television special. After Albert rejoined his football team and was rallying it to victory, the other team was begging their coach not to put them back in the game. They then ran for their lives to avoid the onslaught. I can see that playing out this season. LOL

by purplegrey on Sep 12, 2009 6:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

How much "Due Diligence" do players need to exercise?

If the NFL didn’t have StarCaps on their banned list. If the NFL Hotline didn’t tell the players that StarCaps were banned. If the banned ingredient was not listed on the StarCaps box. How much more “Due Diligence” do the players need to exercise? Do they need to send every diet pill to an independent laboratory to have them tested, at their own expense? Shouldn’t the NFL acknowledge a little bit of responsibility, here? If not for deliberately misleading the players then, at least, for giving tacit approval to StarCaps?

by aladdinwa on Sep 12, 2009 7:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

+100

The NFL is at fault here and are trying to use the media to make it seem like the Williams’ were trying to hide steriod use.

Unless you keep up with this story you wouldn’t know that for the next 4-6 weeks after the failed test. The NFL were testing Pat and Kevin sometimes 3-5x a wek that is a violation of Minnisota Law and thats why the NFL is whining. The NFL got caught being shady but since no one is attacking them monetarily they feel they have the upper hand and must be just.

by midnightwonder on Sep 12, 2009 9:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Tough issue

Yes, the NFL execs have acted like indignant Jack-Asses on this case from the outset. The persecution of the Williamses for asserting their legal rights — rights that a US Federal Court of Appeals has now re-affirmed — is idiotic, cruel, and probably counterproductive to the NFL’s long term goals. Trying to paint the Williamses as bad guys in this fiasco ~~- and constantly re-testing them with what appears to be vindictive malice~~-is just stupid decisionmaking borne of ego, akin to wat you wopuld expect from the Nixon or Bush administrations. The NFL needs wiser lawyers.

Having said that, the broader legal issue is really tough. The ultimate issue is who should bear the risk of an ingested product containing secret (and illegal) drugs or masking agents— the players or the League? (i.e., who shold have to all that lab testing — the players or the league?) The theory behind the NFL’s CBA is that the player should bear that risk, because otherwise, players determined to violate the drug policy could take the products with the “secret” ingredient (word travels fast, after all) and then, when caught, could simply say, “I didn’t know it was in there.” The NFL would have no way of proving otherwise. In short, to prevent widespread gaming of the system, and thus the integrity of the sport, the parties — both the League AND the players, via their union representatives, agreed to put the risk (of banned substances as secret ingredients in a product) on the players, not the league.

One can reasonably disagree with that choice as a fairness matter. But the issue really is whether the league and the players union should have the right to make that choice, or whether instead one state legislature should have the right effectively to impose its own choice on the entire league. Whether the Williamses were innocent victims or not is simply irrelevant to this fundamental legal and policy issue.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 10:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks TiggerSr

It sounds like you studied law, I appreciate the clarification. But what is a player to do? From what i gathered you said its really a Union vs League issue that just happened to be named Williams’ caught using banned substance.

If the substance is banned by the league and they new it was in StarCapps why didn’t they just put StarCapps on the list? I’m confused on this as a player and wanted to take supplements to improve myself I would look at a product see if its on the list and see if any of its ingredients were on the banned list.

Is the NFL asking players to send supplements to labs to determine if whats on the label is whats in the bottle? I thought that was what the FADA was doing. But if players are going to be required to doing this then a see a lot more money being asked for in contracts, ticket prices going up and black outs maybe happening more frequently. That would just suck…well you know.

by midnightwonder on Sep 12, 2009 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know WHY the NFL did not put StarCapps on the banned product list. There has never been a cogent explanation offered by the NFL for this as far as I have seen so far. We can speculate — perhaps the NFL officials responsible for such decisions screwed up, perhaps they did not want to risk litigation with Star Capps, perhaps they wanted to do further testing (i.e., if it is not listed, perhaps it is not in every bottle…). I dunno. I cannot think of any valid reason for the NFL failing to list the product as banned, once it determined that it contained the masking agent.

Having said that, I do understand why the NFL:says that this issue does not matter. As I uinderstand the League’s argument — based on a quick persual of one of its briefs filed last year — the NFL does not want to take the responsibility for determining whether any product is okay or not. In other words, while placing a product on the banned list may be helpful to the players, that does NOT mean that products that are NOT on thebanned list have been approved by the league and can be ingested without risk of sanction if they turn out to have banned ingredients in them. The CBA did not place that burden on the League, and the League does not want to accept that burden. That means that, based on the CBA that the players agreed to, no player can defend a violation by saying the NFL faled to put the product on the banned list.

As I understand it, te NFL has been sustained on this argument. The Federal District Coiurt judge ruled that the suspensions were authorized by the CBA and rejected the Williamses’ argument that the CBA did not permit the suspensions because the NFL inentionally did not put Star Capps on the banned product list when it should have. The 8th Circuit affirmed thir ruling!

The state law claim is NOT based on the League’s failure to put the product oin the banned list when it knew that the product had secret ingredients that were banned substances.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks again

for the knowledge. This is going to be something in the making for years to come. Like I read somewhere else Pat will probably be retired by the time this is settled.

by midnightwonder on Sep 12, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was wrong

All your questions are addressed in the 8th Circuit opinion, which can be read at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opns/opFrame.html

Apparently, in December 2006, the NFL Management COuncil sent a memorandum to the President, GM and head trainer of all NFL teams informing that Balanced Health Products (the distributor of StarCaps) had been added to the list of companies with which a player is prohibited from having any business relationship with, including endorsements. It did not disclose that any products distributed by that company contained banned substances. TRhe Union then sent a memo to all the players’ agents that referred to the NFLMC memo and said that players are prohiited from endorsing any such products “or using any of their products.”

The District Court and the 8th Circuit held that the NFL had no duty to specifically inform the players when a dietary supplement was found to contain a banned substance.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 13, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still Wrong

they were not prohibited from using the any of their products, just from endorsing them…should have been a red flag, but not specifically prohibited from using.

by BigSkyViking on Sep 13, 2009 1:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read the opinion

I quoted from the Union memo: it expressly prohibited the players from “using” the products distributed by this company, and therefore prohibited the Williamses from using StarCaps. You can call me wrong, but the fact is that is what the union memo says. It was the NFLMC memo that simply barred the players from having any business relatinshp with the company. The union memo went further and barred use of the company’s products. Read the opinion. it quotes the union memo. I am not wrong.

Having said that, I am unclear what authority the Union, as opposed to the NFL, had to order the players not to “use” the products distributed by this company, and the fact that the Union issued this directive to its players was not cited by the NFL as an independent ground for suspending them under the NF: drug policy.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 13, 2009 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have to ask yourself:

WHY did StarCapps contain the masking agent bumetanide?? Why did it put that ingredient in there? Does it help with weight loss? If not, then why did the sellers put it in here?

Hmmm. Was it to tap into a market where a class of consumers wanted to buy bumetanide without admitting they were doing so? Who would want to do that?

Hmmm.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you know what a diuretic even is?

And why it would be in a weight loss supplement?

by ckb on Sep 12, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is bumetanide a diuretic? I did not know that.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bumetanide

Bumetanide is the masking agent. StarCaps is a diuretic…..makes you lose water weight. They didn’t need bumetanide to make starcaps a diuretic. Since this product was on the store shelves, all high school and college players were at risk. Recently, a high school player near to where I live died on the football practice field. Was he taking Starcaps? Wrestlers often try to lose water weight to make their weight class. I reckon many of them were taking an over the counter water weight lose pill. The FDA should be all over this. The league should be ashamed of themselves.

by BigSkyViking on Sep 12, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

FYI

Bumetanide is a potent diuretic (water pill) that causes a profound increase in urine output (diuresis) by preventing the kidney from retaining fluid. (Specifically, it blocks the reabsorption of sodium and fluid from the kidney’s tubules.) It is in a class of diuretics called “loop” diuretics which also includes furosemide (Lasix) and torsemide (Demadex). One mg of bumetanide is approximately equivalent to 10-20 mg of torsemide and 40 mg of furosemide. The potent diuretic effect of bumetanide can cause the loss of large amounts of body water leading to dehydration as well as the loss of electrolytes (e.g., sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium. Therefore, careful medical supervision is necessary during treatment. Bumetanide was approved for use by the FDA in 1983.

http://www.medicinenet.com/bumetanide/article.htm

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Sep 12, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

You’re more knowledgeable on the science than I am but everyone knows the ingredients need to be on the label. Approved by the FDA doesn’t mean you can put it in a sport drink for everyone to use and not even put it on the label. Supposedly it is for prescription use, so why is it in an over the counter pill?

by BigSkyViking on Sep 12, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh before crediting me with being "more knowledgeable on the science"

This was simply a cut and paste from the link I posted. Just trying to share some facts. StarCaps in question was marketed as a dietary weight loss supplement. Because of this it does not fall under the same restrictions as a prescribed medicine, however the manufacturer, who by the way is in Peru, was required by law to list all of the ingredients on the label. Also, I do not believe bumetanide falls under the category of a “supplement”. This probably explains there lack of providing this as an ingredient.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Sep 12, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that would explain why the mafr put it surreptitiously in what was supposed to be an over-the-counter product. Sounds like criminal conduct by the mfr to me.

I would think some rather sizeable punitive damages might be awarded in players’ lawsuit against mfr of StarCaps. Anyone know the status of that lawsuit?

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Sep 12, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven’t seen anything lately on the Grady Jackson lawsuit aginst Nikki Haskell. She of course is the one that unfortunately endorsed the “supplement”.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Sep 12, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two Points

One if Bumetanide masks steriods from a pee test, why don’t the just require a hair or blood test. Arn’t steriods the issue. My wife is head of blood bank for a hospital, and while she does not know if there is a specific blood or hair test, she bet’s there is.

Two, four games for a potential masking agent is rediculous. Goodell only suspended Vick who is a liar and a felon two games and yet he wants to suspend the Williams wall for 4 for taking a legal product that might mask steriods. How about some reasonableness about fines and suspensions.

by SouthernNorseman on Sep 12, 2009 2:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs