StarCaps: This is the Song That Never Ends

NFL was right it was already ruled they were right…

They were? I’m pretty sure the ruling was that the CBA doesn’t override state law. I’m aware NFL thinks otherwise, but the appeals court obviously didn’t agree. So tell me, how is the NFL right and who ruled they were right?? Please tell…

this is a state issue…

Yep this is a state issue (according to the appeals court ruling). The NFL believes it is a Federal issue hence their reason for appealing again.

So you’ve just contradicted yourself. If the NFL was right, and they were ruled they were right, this would be a federal issue.

and the laws in the state of Minnesota that dont allow punishment from employers over legal substances taken during none working hours.

OK… That is over simplified and only one of the issues being contested, but you at least are somewhat on the right track.

So please know what you are writing about in the future so you are not adding to the confusion of this case. The judges ruled that the collective bargaining agreement holds up, just not in Minnesota. So Pat and Kevin should sit out their 4 games and take responsiblity for their actions.

First, I’d just like to say… you’re a douche. This part of your post is just a troll.

Second, why should they bend over and take it up the ass with a four game unpaid suspension? Their “actions” were that they took a weight loss diuretic that contained more than what was on the label. This nonsense bullshit about the players “being responsible for what goes in their body, no matter what” is a load of crap.

Do you know every single substance you’ve ingested over the past 24 hours? I don’t think so…

These guys are class acts. They haven’t done anything wrong and their intentions were not malicious.

You ever stop to think that perhaps it might be the NFL/Goodell who should “take responsibility for their actions”?

This is not really much in the way of news. Filing a motion for a rehearing en banc by the entire Court of Appeals for a particular federal circuit is standard practic and is rarely ever granted. Now, if the 8th Circuit were to GRANT the motion and agree to have the case heard en banc — ie, by all the judges on the 8th Circuit — THAT would be news, because that would mean that there are several judges that are inclined to disagree with the prior ruling by the 3-judge panel, which would raise the possibility that the en banc court might reverse the district court and rule that the Williams’ state statutory claims are pre-empted by federal statute. That in turn could cause the federal district court to vacate the preliminary injunction now in place that bars the NFL from suspending the Williamses.

The chances of all that occurring are negligible. The chances of all that occuring before February are extremely negligible.

Fisch is correct in saying that the 8th Circuit panel ruled that the suspension did not violate the CBA or federal public policy. Fisch is technically incorrect in asserting that the 8th Circuit ruled that the CBA does not hold up in Minnesota. The 8th Circuit did not rule as to whether the suspensions violated Minnesota statutory provisions. Instead, the 98th Circuit held that such questions are not pre-empoted by federal law and must be resolved by the state court, and the state court has said it won’t try the case until sometime next year at the earliest.

“So please know what you are writing about in the future so you are not adding to the confusion of this case”

Actually, I could understand what Gonzo wrote perfectly. It’s your post that has left me scratching my head. I can’t figure out what you are trying to say; it seems like you contradict yourslef.

I suppose the fact that the NFL had prior knowledge that Starcaps contained Butenamide and did not notify the players of that discovery makes them right,

C’mon guy. The league was wrong in what they did, which is why we have legislation preventing them from doing what they wanted to do.

This is a pretty important case — it affects a large number of people involved in a wide variety of institutions and organizations, including any multi-state employer that has a collective bargaining agreement that deals with drug testing. There have already been many amicus briefs filed in the case — baseball, hockey, the Olympics — and there would be even more filed if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.

The specifics of the Williams case may seem trivial — the legal principles involved are not trivial by any measure.

So you want the NFL to do a character assessment in deciding whether to suspend players for violating a substance abuse policy that was negotiated and agreed to byy the players’ representatives?

The facts here, once you get into the nitty gritty detail, do not bode well for the Williamses. They took a supplement knowing 1) that the NFL had repeatedly advised all players not to take any supplements, precisely because of the risk that the supplemnt may contain unlisted ingredients banned by the NFL drug policy; 2) that the NFL had banned all players from endorsing or having any kind of business relationship with the distributor of the supplement that they chose to take (Gee, why would the NFL do that do you think? Ahh, who cares, I’l take the supplement anyway, there is no risk here, it’s just a weight loss pill….); 3) that the Union had expressly told their agent that the players are prohibited from taking any supplement distributed by the company that distributes StarCaps; and 4) that the CBA drug policy made it cryustal clear to all players that if they tested positive for a banned substance, they would be suspended, regardless of whether they were aware that the product they took contained that the substance or not.

In these circumstances, I don’t care how you characterize the character of these players, their decision was reckless.

To say, OK we caught you this time, don’t do it again — that is a defensible policy. But that is NOT the policy that the Union agreed to and was not the policy that governed at the time these 2 players made the decision to take StarCaps when they did.

What happens next time — when a well-built linebacker that plays the game (and lives life) like Lawrence Taylor tests positive for a steroid masking agent and he says – I didn’t know I took it, it wasnt listed as an ingredient in the supplement I was taking? Do you cut that guy a one-time break/warning, or do you decide to enforce the policy as written because you suspect, but can’t prove, that the reason he took the supplement was to mask steroids in his system?

I think Pat and kevin Williams are class acts. And I am happy they can cotinue to play. But they made some bad choices uinder the circumstances, and I can understand why the NFL would seek to enforce the policy as written.

(Having said that, I think it was inexcusable for the NFL not to inform the players about the existence of the substance in StarCaps once it determined it was there. But the courts have all ruled uniformly that the NFL was not legally obligated by the CBA or public policy to inform the players of this, and what I take to be inexcusable is legally irrelevant to the merits of the players’ remaining state law claims, and to the pre-emption issue.)

The NFL can use judgment, and you and I both think they should. But the fact remains that the policy that the players agreed to does not require the NFL to use such judgment, and I am not sure I would expect the NFL to use such judgment on a case-by-casse basis based on the NFL’s assessment of the “character” of the players involved. The time for using judgment is in setting the policy, not in applying it — otherwise, it can lead to arbitrary and unfair results in its application.

When you say “it is not reasonable for players to test any product they use,” the NFL would say: “Well if you don’t want to test the products that you use to determine if they contain banned substances, don’t use them. The risk is on you player.” In fact, that is what the NFL DID tell the players, repeatedly, and the players agreed to that policy when their reps agreed to the CBA.

If you don’t put the risk on the player, how do you expect the NFL to prove in each case that the player “knew” he was taking a steroid masking agent?

In my judgment, the CBA should be amended to require the NFL to promptly notify all players if the NFL has degtermined that a specific product contains a banned substance. If that had been the policy in 2007, this whole mess never would have happened. It should be amended now to make that change. Whether you make that change “retroactive” to let the Williamses off the hook is a tougher question. That question may never have to be answered, even if the NFL agreed ti change the policy now, because the old policy may have violated Minnesota’s drug testing statute, letting the Williamses off the hook anyway.

You are smart & no one else is. We get it.

when did cleavon little die???? dammit!!!

Q.: How many states have politicians so stupid that they would support a change that makes them less powerful than Roger Goodell?
A.: Not a supermajority of them.

you sure about that?

was how the original discovery and suspensions were handled. By having players test positive and not suspend them plus not inform the players why, the NFL set a precedent for this product. They could have avoided all of this by just saying why and telling the players explicitly (not just implicitly) that all future tests will mean a suspension because you have been warned. As it stands now, the Williams et al are being treated more harshly than the previous transgressors.

IS legally required to list all ingredients. This is why the distributers have pulled the “supplement” from the shelves. Also, because bumetanide is a prescribed drug, it cannot be considered a “supplement”. The manufacturer and the woman who sponsored the product are now facing a lawsuit.

Sorry, meant as a reply to iseepurplepeople.