Report: Starcaps Suspensions To Potentially Be Reduced

by Christopher Gates on Aug 23, 2011 5:54 PM CDT in Minnesota Vikings 2011 Season

That's what Brian Murphy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press is reporting, in any case. This means that the suspensions for Kevin Williams, Pat Williams (should he sign anywhere in the near future), and New Orleans Saints' defensive end Will Smith will be cut in half thanks to the still ongoing negotiations in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

At issue for the league is how to discipline the StarCaps players under the new CBA for violating terms of the expired labor agreement. Players who tested positive for banned weight-loss supplements such as StarCaps were suspended four games, the same punishment for players who were caught using steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs.

According to the union official, the NFL and Players Association would distinguish the offenses in the new policy and implement a two-tiered system of discipline - two-game suspensions for testing positive for diuretics; six games for testing positive for steroids.

Reducing Williams and Smith's suspensions to two games would bring their punishment in line with the more nuanced policy.

We've been following this story forever, it seems, and though I'll never be convinced that anything short of the league dropping the whole thing completely is the right thing to do, it appears as though this is probably the best we can hope for.

It is also unlikely that Kevin Williams will be punished before the Vikings open the season against San Diego on September 11, according to Murphy.

Williams will miss the final two games of the pre-season with plantar fasciitis, but all indicators are that he should be ready to give it a go for the season opener.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think that he should just accept it now (even though i do think it is still BS)

Especially because of his injury news. It isn’t serious, but why not take advantage of the ban.

Also in the news, McKinnie is about to sign a 2 year deal with the ravens…..Pending a physical…….

by muffin man on Aug 23, 2011 6:08 PM CDT reply actions

plantar fasciitis is not good...those things can take forever.

If he ends up missing the first few games due to injury, can he use that as his suspension retroactively once they come to a final decision?

You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.

by jcrave24 on Aug 23, 2011 6:13 PM CDT reply actions

doubtful....of course the league wants to make sure he gets "punished" for this

so missing any games while he’s injured won’t count. Unlike the suspension of Vick that was able to run concurrent with his ~~injury~~ ~~vacation~~ incarceration.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Aug 23, 2011 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions

As long as he is not on the pup list and is still active the suspension would start

it doesn’t matter if he is hurt or playing or anything as long as he is on the active roster, the games can count against his suspension.

by viking_#28 on Aug 24, 2011 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Plantar Fasciitis

is a an awful affliction. I have been living with it for the last 15 years. it just never really goes away. if I remember correctly Planter Fasciitis ended the career of a Timberwolves player many years ago. Hopefully KWill heals quickly from this.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Aug 24, 2011 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions

Having K-Will @ San Diego would be great

Though it’s the first game of the season, it’s probably going to be our defense’s biggest test of the year, and having Kevin there would be awesome.

The road to fulfillment in any line of endeavor is always marked by an initial breakthrough; however, that first taste of success needs to be replicated again and again in order for supremacy to be sustained. We are Vikings, and we shall rise again.

by Alittlemore_cowbell on Aug 23, 2011 7:19 PM CDT via mobile reply actions

Good thing SD is a pretty slow starter at the beginning of the season

I would hate playing them after week 5 or 6. But week 1 does not scare me quite so much :)

by viking_#28 on Aug 24, 2011 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Technically, though, there's no real scientific reason to assume they won't play well in the 1st game

There might be some proof in the past years that SD doesn’t start well but realistically speaking, there’s no real factual proof that they can’t play a very good 1st game.

I’m (sadly) worried that we’re going to lose that one by a bit. :( I hope not though!!!

by Wytefang on Aug 24, 2011 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions

don't be AD will have a repeat of his San Diego performance and we can all toast having the best running back in the world.

Childress gone, TJack gone, new stadium on the way: it's like that Christmas when Santa brought prostitutes!

by Grime on Aug 25, 2011 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions

Well you can't really use "Scientific" reasoning for anything other than science.

But in terms of football proof, I would say that they started out 2-5 last year, 2-3 the year before, in 2008 they went 3-5 (going 0-2 in the first 2), and 1-4 in 2007. That is pretty good evidence saying that they have been traditionally slow starters ever since Philip Rivers took over.

by viking_#28 on Aug 25, 2011 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions

Can't believe this StarCaps thing is still going on

Seems like the NFLPA would have insisted it go away in the new CBA and start fresh, with better cooperation from the NFL in identifying problem substances in otherwise legal drugs.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Aug 23, 2011 8:15 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

must....stop...common....sense

Skol!

by DM_Purp on Aug 23, 2011 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Two games

Not too bad. Until you consider what they were being suspended for in the first place.

by Bodysuit Man on Aug 23, 2011 8:54 PM CDT reply actions

Pretty silly, ain't it?

I mean REALLY. Diuretics to help lose weight? How is that a big deal? I see the sense of banning all the junk players are stuffing themselves with to add more pounds of unnatural muscle. But we’re talking about a weight problem here. When a giant lineman with a tragically huge appetite is trying heroically hard to lose a ton of fat in a short time, that just doesn’t sound like an unfair competitive advantage.

I know these drugs can be hard on the body, and they should be monitored by team doctors, but I don’t see why a weight loss supplement like Star Caps are any worse than the other semi-useless crap on the shelves at Wallgreen’s.

by jimbo55403 on Aug 23, 2011 9:29 PM CDT reply actions

one of the ingredients in Star Caps is a known masking agent for steriods

Therefore it is banned by the NFL. That is why they are facing a suspension.

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it."

by NMVike on Aug 23, 2011 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions

yes...

but the problem and reason for the court case was:

the NFL knew that the StarCaps supplement contained the banned ingredient that was not listed by StarCaps.

The affore mentioned players were countersuing the NFL for not releasing information on a product that they knew contained a banned substance.

by midnightwonder on Aug 24, 2011 7:14 AM CDT up reply actions

also,

the players had taken the extra measure to ask the nfl if starcaps contained any banned substances and the nfl responded to the players that it did not, even though they had already tested starcaps and knew it contained a banned substance.

Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?

by the Real Thor on Aug 24, 2011 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions

I know but from jimbo's response

It seems like he thought it was a simple matter over the diuretic itself, when in fact at the end of the day this is about suspected steroid use.

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it."

by NMVike on Aug 24, 2011 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions

You nailed it NMVike. It's about suspected steroid use.

I mean really? Trying to lose weight isn’t the crime here. It’s the fact that it has a masking agent for steroid use and that’s a no no. One guy uses it to lose weight & another uses it to mask steroids. So how do you know which or if any of those guys took it to hide steroid use. The guys that took the stuff new why they were taking it. Hey I know this is all a crock of crap but 2 games is a whole lot better than 4.

by iowaron on Aug 24, 2011 1:33 PM CDT reply actions

I agree

However, the league did come out and say that they know the players were not taking steroids that got into trouble with this. and I would say its pretty easy to tell if someone is on steroids, just look at brian cushing photos from his first and last year in college.

by viking_#28 on Aug 24, 2011 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions