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.