The NFL's Enforcement Of The Substance Abuse Policy Is Stupid And Arbitrary

by Christopher Gates on Jun 20, 2011 2:05 PM CDT in NFL

I mean, you knew that already, but let me provide you with another example.

David Vobora is a linebacker that was selected by the St. Louis Rams with the last pick of the 2008 Draft, giving him the "Mr. Irrelevant" title. He managed to make the Rams' roster, and even became the first Mr. Irrelevant to start a game in his rookie season in fourteen years.

In 2009, Vobora was suspended for four games by the National Football League for violating the league's substance abuse policy. Like Pat Williams and Kevin Williams, Vobora claimed that he took a supplement that had been cleared by the NFL that did not list all its ingredients on the label. Like the Williams Wall, the NFL looked at Vobora, extended their middle finger, and said, "Well, it sucks to be you, huh?"

And today, a federal judge ordered the supplement company in question to pay Vobora a $5.4 million settlement after ruling that they had intentionally misrepresented the contents of that supplement.

Of course, the National Football League doesn't care, as they've already issued a statement saying that they won't revisit Vobora's case, despite today's outcome. I mean, why on earth would they? They wouldn't want to have to potentially admit that they were wrong or something, right?

But if you look at the link to ProFootballTalk there, you'll see one other interesting tidbit, and that's the statement from Cincinnati Bengals' safety Roy Williams saying that he took the same supplement as Vobora "two or three times a day."

This begs the question. . .how in the hell, exactly, did Vobora get popped for taking this particular supplement while Williams did not? I'm sure we'll get the same answer to that question as we've continued to get to the question of "Why were certain players allowed to get away with taking StarCaps while Pat and Kevin Williams have to face suspensions for it?" Which is to say that we're not going to get an answer at all.

Vobora's case shows, once again, just how stupid and arbitrary the NFL's selective enforcement of their substance abuse policy is. I mean, we already know that some teams, apparently, feel it's okay to give their players a day's advance notice before they drug test them, in which case you could just as well not even test. Now we have another case of one guy having to serve a suspension for taking a particular substance while another one skates free.

Maybe there will be something in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement that will say that the Substance Abuse Policy should be applied in the same manner to all teams. I assumed that the equal application of the rule would be common sense, but I guess that's just crazy talk from my side of things.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You talk crazy

when you say things like the ‘substance abuse policy should be applied equally’ and ask ree-dam-dickulus questions like Why some guys get suspended for taking starcaps and some guys don’t.

Crazy…CRAZY TALK!!

"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."

The Daily Norseman
Off Tackle Empire
SB Nation Minnesota

by Ted Glover on Jun 20, 2011 2:16 PM CDT reply actions

Sometimes the simple answer is the best

as in, maybe the Williams wall, the rams guy, were actually doping and used this chemical to try and hide it, upon getting caught, they discovered a supplement didnt have that chemical on its ingredients and blamed it on that.

Or the world is out to get the Vikings.

I dislike the way in which the nfl handled the thing, dont get me wrong, but we are taking the williams wall for their word

by redhearring on Jun 20, 2011 3:19 PM CDT reply actions

The Williams are suspended for using Star Caps, not for steroids.

Star Caps is an over the counter pill that is used for weight loss.
Both the Williams are ridiculously HUGE, so i’m guessing they were trying to lose weight, VS trying to disguise steroids.

I agree that we’re taking them for their word, but If the Williams Wall gets suspended for taking a banned supplement, than everybody who uses ’Banned Supplements" should get the same suspension…..imo!

by chaosg on Jun 20, 2011 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

couldn't have said it better myself

“the simple answer” is NOT The WW wanted to use steroid and they had their own set of scientists check the product to find out that it does, in fact, have a steroid masking agent in it even though it’s not on the label. The WW find the perfect cover up to be able to start using steroids?

There’s nothing “simple” about that scenario. I think the “fat guys” trying to cut weight to get their bonuses makes a little more sense, especially considering that the illegal ingredient is not labeled on the bottle.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 20, 2011 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Dont forget...

the main reason the suspension is being argued is:
that the NFL knew that Star Caps contained an ingredient that wasn’t listed on its label and failed (refused) to inform its employees of that fact, but wants to still hold said employees accountable for not finding out themselves about the undisclosed substance.

by midnightwonder on Jun 22, 2011 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions

I would be fine with the NFL and their "decisions"

if they actually explained their rationale. They’re so up-front when it comes to explaining their fines for violent hits, but they can’t explain a simple drug policy? Well, that’s because there’s an all-powerful hand that rules the NFL and it’s judgement will not be questioned. Once again, the NFL assumes the fans are a bunch of dumbasses and cannot connect the dots on things like this. Even though I completely disagree with the ruling, I’m actually fine with Pat and KWills getting suspended if the rest are being suspended along with them. Sure, the NFL knew about StarCaps and they could have saved themselves a lot of headaches by simply banning the product, but I can find a way to rationalize ultimately, the responsibility that is in the player’s court to make sure they know everything about the supplements they are ingesting. But when only a few get punished for this? There’s only one way to explain any of this: favoritism, flawed logic, inconsistency, stupidifimacation. Ooops, I guess there’s a few ways you can explain this situation. I know I’m kind of rambling on this post a little, but there’s so many FAILS in what the NFL is doing right now, it’s unbelievable.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 20, 2011 3:22 PM CDT reply actions

That's how i feel too.

I would be okay with the suspension if Goodell was suspending everybody, but that’s not the case.

The fact that Star Caps wasn’t on the NFL’s “Banned Substance” list, and the fact that Star Caps didn’t even have the “Banned Ingredient” labeled on it’s packaging tells me that the Williams are innocent. Not to mention, Star Caps pulled their product off the shelf after they heard about this…..Like you said, there’s so many fails in Goodells logic, that it’s unbelievable.

by chaosg on Jun 20, 2011 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes the players should be responsable.

But there was NO way they could have know that the banned substance was in that product. It wasn’t listed as an ingredient, and companies don’t usually lie about ingredients because that can get them in massive legal trouble. I really hope the new CBA will fix this problem of all this biased testing. There really isn’t a way to justify what the NFL is doing.

by VikingsForever on Jun 20, 2011 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Does anyone know what the banned ingredient is called?

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill

by Alittlemore_cowbell on Jun 20, 2011 8:40 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Bumetanide

This is the steroid MASKING AGENT that was not listed in the ingredients. It’s similar to a water pill that basically clears your body of water-weight so that you lose a ton of weight without actually losing fat. It dehydrates the crap out of you(not really healthy).

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 20, 2011 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Serious stuff

Bumetanide is prescribed to patients with congestive heart failure. When tested, they found StarCaps not only had bumetanide present, but present in therapeutic levels.

Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
- Paul Gauguin

by Skol Girl on Jun 21, 2011 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions

And that, ladies and gents

Is a controlled substance violation supposedly punishable by law (StarCaps that is).

by Jepp The Viking on Jun 21, 2011 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, and the "some teams give their players a day's notice" on the drug-testing is just ridiculous

#1: The team should not even know about these tests. There should be a rep from the NFL that stops in, unannounced and says “guess what? It’s drug test day!” Then take the tests and move on.

#2: If I was a team owner/coach, I would give my team a heads up. Not to say that I’d necessarily want dopers on my team, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to find out.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 20, 2011 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Another thing

There’s a reason that StarCaps was immediately yanked off the shelves once reviewed by the FDA.

The StarCaps manufacturer advises users to take two pills daily. This amounts to 1.6 mg bumetanide per day. That weight loss occurs as a result is hardly surprising. You urinate more and lose fluid. It’s anything but healthy, and of course you don’t break down fat either.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 20, 2011 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions

“Once again, the NFL assumes the fans are a bunch of dumbasses and cannot connect the dots on things like this”

Despite all its faults, including things like this, we the people keep handing the NFL over 9 BILLION of our hard-earned dollars. So yeah, it easy to see why Roger and the boys might think we’re a bunch of dumbasses.

Roger: “Hey watch this. Let’s do crazy #$%# with the substance abuse policies, lock-out the players, and then find 20 other ways to screw the fans over. Then the poor SOB’s will pay us a gazillion dollars for the priviledge”

At which point Kraft, Wilf and Jones fall out of their chairs and literally ROTFLMAO.

We the people are addicted to the NFL. Roger knows it. The owners know it. No matter what they do to the players, or the game or the fans, we’ll come crawling back with cash in hand like the crack-whores that we are.

by HHoP on Jun 21, 2011 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions

You are right about some things and a little mislead on others

#1: we stick with the NFL because we love the GAME. That’s it. Do you love the NFL because of the NFL’s decisions on its drug policy? no. Do you love the NFL for the inconsistency in handing out those punishments and/or their helmet to helmet policies or any of their policies? No. They create those policies to attempt to keep a level playing field. It has no influence on how much I like the game. The NFL FO is dumb enough to think that the game needs a bunch of changes in order to be the best possible. It doesn’t. The game has been and will continue to be great for a long time w/out any changes. Go back and watch an older(80s/90s) game. You will see some BIG differences in how the officiating and overall gameplay is done.

#2: The lockout and the litigation and all of that garbage IS a slap in the face to the fans so I’m with you 100% on that part.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 21, 2011 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions

OT

Chad Pennington is taking a break from the NFL.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill

by Alittlemore_cowbell on Jun 20, 2011 5:07 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

Your Right

Except when you have a contract that clearly stats that is if ya come dirty means your dirty.I drive Truck and law states I cant drive an 18 wheeler untill 12 hrs of my last drink.Which means if I totally go bonkers and do J.D. backers with 3 buds every hour I can legally drive an 18 wheeler after a 12 hr break.
Dont know about you but can rember a few nights lucky find way home let alone,drive next day b4 sun rose and set again.
But unlike our brethren thou Purple,I dont make a few mill in a year,I would be happy top 75k in a year,but have to abide rules. If I showed Dirty at any weigh station,I look at long hours sitting while waiting tox results ast each w.s. I hit.

Chris if you showed dirty any U.A. you take what happens,you think they take the MCdonalds def or boot ya.We both know they boot ya,and you prove otherwise to their liking and if you know govt findings might be years proving otherwise.

Lov me some Vikes,but not everyone is against the Vikes,though must admit feels that way.

by speedlod on Jun 21, 2011 2:17 AM CDT reply actions

the thing is ...

that while it is true that if you were tested for banned substances at a weigh station, there would be some form of punishment, and the same would be true for military personel, punishments would be doled out in a consistent manor to all those who similarly failed their sobriety tests. that is the issue ted, and meny others here have. that punishment was not consistent across the “offenders” in fact the first player to test positive because of starcaps did so, 1 -2 yearsa before the williams wall did, yet no punishments were handed out until the williamses did. and no warnings were issued to teams or players once the nfl was aware of the fraud being perpetraited by starcaps. this was a classic entrapment scenario, the nfl knew something about a suppliment that know one else could possibly know, but instead of alerting people to the danger, the let players slide with no violations until they “got” the players they wanted and bam! it is in totalitarian societys that the laws are applied with preferential treatment. in fair and democratic societies we apply the law equally to all members.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Jun 21, 2011 9:39 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Thor pretty much makes my point

My stance has never really been that Pat and Kevin Williams shouldn’t be punished, and I would have no problem with them being suspended. . .IF the NFL had been consistent on this all along, which they clearly have not been.

SBNation Minnesota - For the greatest sports fans in the world.
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!

by Christopher Gates on Jun 21, 2011 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions

There have always been a few things that bugged me about the NFL's substance abuse policy.

For example, no game day testings. Allowing teams to give advanced notice. Punishing some players but not others for the same exact offense. Those are really my three key points.

I can understand their policy of ‘you are responsible, period’. It absolves the NFL of liability in a lot of cases, and it also keeps players from using the easiest excuse in the world- “I didn’t know!”. If you allow players to get away with it because something is not on the label, then that excuse could easily go straight to steroids- “I didn’t know what my trainer was injecting in my butt!”. See the Barry Bonds defense. It has far too many places it can go, so I understand the NFL wants to cut things off at the source, so to speak.

That said, there really should be a means to review punishments and results. The UFC, for example, has IMO a GREAT testing policy. They randomly test you and then test you on fight days. And then if you fail, there is a review process, and it is FAR from a way for fighters to ‘get away with it’- see, if you don’t follow the UFC, some articles on the recent Chael Sonnen drug test fail. The UFC is also very consistent- their policies change with time, sure, but when they do change, they change across the board, to everyone- period.

It’s sad to me that the UFC, which is an organization that’s only existed since 1993, and really only in its true form since the early 2000’s, has a superior substance abuse policy to the mighty NFL. While I can again agree with the NFL’s ‘you are responsible for what is in your body and therefore in your urine’ policy, I would still like to see a potential review process opened up, one OUTSIDE of the legal system. If Vobora took a substance that was clearly not listed in the ingredients, when several other key players were also taking it, and taking it for a while, and on top of it all spoke to the NFL’s substance hotline PRIOR to taking the substance (oh, and with an actual US court system ruling in his favor regarding the matter), then there really needs to be a process to exonerate him. Sometimes, draconian rules can have their purpose- but this is one of those instances where they go too far. (And of course, they’re only draconian if the NFL feels like making them draconian- is Ray Lewis going to receive the same punishment as Volbora anytime soon?)

-insert clever signature here- Daily Norseman

by KJSegall on Jun 21, 2011 11:45 AM CDT reply actions

The problem with a lot of the policies is what we're dealing w/ right now

A very strong Union in the NFLPA. The policies have to be agreed upon by the players as well so the NFL can’t hold all the blame. Why doesn’t the NFL just adapt UFC testing rules? Eh, too easy.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Jun 21, 2011 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions

What Union?

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill

by Alittlemore_cowbell on Jun 21, 2011 1:10 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

NFL testing NFL for the benefit of... NFL

I think the problem is that it’s the NFL that’s testing players and it’s the NFL that hands out the penalties, while the very same NFL has an economic interest in not catching anyone in order to increase the credibility and popularity ($$$) of… the NFL. I think that’s why we see such an uneven (and thus unfair) application of the rules.

Leave the testing to an outside agency (WADA, USADA, whatever) and let them handle the technical side of it, then have fixed rules for violations (so we don’t get any nasty surprises from an angry commish) and an open process of verdicts and appeals. Other sports can do it, why not the NFL?

by PurpleX on Jun 22, 2011 1:27 AM CDT reply actions