| 0 |
Subject: Take THAT Gooddell! Williams cannot be suspended
Posted by: Seattle Zen
- [238441010] Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 12:17
Pat and Kevin Williams have suspensions overruled by court!
Finally, some common sense rules the day. Never any doubt that neither Williams was using a performance enhancing drug, they were simply drinking something that contained a diuretic not listed on the label. How could anyone get suspended for that? This whole thing is ridiculous, with only 16 games a year, the NFL had better have strong evidence of cheating before imposing dire punishments.
Unless the SCOTUS takes this issue, (can't envision that happening) this is the end of the appeal process. Well, I guess the Federal appellate court could rehear it en banc, but that's unlikely. |
| 1 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 12:26
|
SZ - I don't disagree with the celebration of the Williams' not being suspended. But assuming I am reading your "Take THAT Goodell" headline accurately, are you meaning to imply that Goodell's handling of the NFL's "goody two shoes" Standards of Conduct policy has been too heavy-handed? Too power hungry?
I won't deny that his powers are pretty damned far-reaching, and very "judge, jury and executioner"-like in nature. It very well could be in need of an independent committee or the like (although having more bureaucracy could make the cure that is worse than the ailment).....but at the same time some sort of penalty for personal discretions does seem in order in professional sports.
|
| 2 | dpr
ID: 552411820
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 12:43
|
I feel you should be held responsible for what you put in your body. I am sure these men have been educated to know about the poor regulation of the supplement industry. They certainly have the bankroll to get there products tested.
To look at a similar example in a sport that I compete in: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hardy-advocare-supplements-2433811-usada-information
For this situation this girl lost the chance to compete at the olympics, which while not as high profile as 4 NFL games its a much bigger punishment as it is the super bowl for swimming and only once every 4 years. While the story is not a complete parallel as the company denies intentionally putting the drug in her supplement and it is an isolated case, it still shows that there is a precedent for doing what Goodell did holding people liable for what they put in there body. Sports which have much stricter drug testing protocols already do this.
|
| 3 | Seattle Zen
ID: 238441010
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 12:46
|
The NFL's attorneys argued that the state claims should be dismissed because the federal courts have jurisdiction over the labor laws that govern its drug-testing program. Magnuson and now the appellate court disagreed. Magnuson also dismissed the union's additional claim that the suspensions violated the players' collective bargaining agreement. Shepherd's decision agreed with that ruling also. The appellate court also agreed with Magnuson sent the Williamses' claims under state law belonged in Hennepin County.
NFL attorney Dan Nash argued last month in court that "this case is about two players who want to invalidate the foundational rule of personal responsibility in the NFL's agreement." The Williamses argued that Minnesota law gives employees an opportunity to explain the innocent use of an otherwise banned product, but the NFL didn't allow them to explain their use of the over-the-counter supplement StarCaps.
Players union lawyer Cliff Greene said that the league and the union don't have the ability "to contract for what is unlawful under state law." He also faulted the league for failing to warn players that bumetanide is contained in StarCaps, even though the league knew that in 2006.
Star-Tribune article
Species, my complaint with Gooddell is that he is so very anti-union. The NFLPA was neutered under Gene Upshaw's watch and Goddell has taken advantage of that. I'm hoping that new leadership pushes back.
I'm glad for the Williamses because I agree with the union's claim that suspensions without allowing the players to argue that they unwittingly took a diurectic which in no way enhanced their performance, that process violated state law. The MN court agreed, the Fed appeals court said it was up to the state court, and I am glad.
|
| 4 | Seattle Zen
ID: 238441010
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 12:56
|
dpr - Hardy was tested positive for a banned substance that is performance enhancing, clenbuteral. That helps her swim faster. There is logic behind that punishment.
The Williams tested positive for a diuretic. That makes you piss lots of water, it doesn't make you stronger or faster. They are banned because they can be used to avoid detection of other performance enhancers, but they don't always clear you out enough and it's easy to tell that someone is "peeing clear". The NFL has never said that they suspected the Williamses were trying to mask steroid use, they simply don't want to use any sort of logic or reasoning: if you take a diuretic, you get suspended. Orwellian. Stupid. The Courts have said that state law does not allow employers to do that. NFL loses, it's that simple.
|
| 5 | barilko6
ID: 6841112
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 13:04
|
This whole trial went down in Minnesota. I wonder if the judge is a Vikings season ticket holder!!!
|
| 6 | dpr
ID: 552411820
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 13:05
|
I do realize there is a difference between the drugs they tested positive for. While I don't have examples, I would assume that for sports regulated by USADA you still would be held accountable. The diuretic was still a banned drug.
Are you arguing that diuretics should be allowed? because they arent very effective? Or that only in the case that they are unwillingly ingested should they be allowed?
|
| 7 | Seattle Zen
ID: 238441010
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 13:38
|
I argue that the NFL should have to prove that you used a performance enhancing drug. The mere fact that you used a diuretic does not show that. If you pee clear for a test, and remember, these tests are random, so it's not like you are purposefully taking the diuretic right before the test to avoid detention, you should be ordered to retake the test. Continue to pee clear, then you should be punished.
I also believe that lie detectors should be used in addition to urine testing, but that's a whole different thread.
|
| 8 | dpr
ID: 552411820
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 13:42
|
So you are arguing that the rules should be different. But they are still the rules. And they broke them.
I don't know enough about diuretics to argue over their merits and how easily they can mask an illegal drug.
|
| 9 | Seattle Zen
ID: 238441010
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 13:46
|
dpr - So you are arguing that the rules should be different. But they are still the rules. And they broke them.
Yeah, the rules HAVE to be different because a court has ruled that they violate state law, they are illegal. I completely agree, so no, they are no longer "the rules" and it does not matter that they "broke" these illegal rules.
dpr - you have a rather cavalier attitude towards punishment of athletes. I can think of nothing more tragic than training for your entire life in order to compete in the Olympics only to be banned and ostracized by the IOC because they screwed up and falsely accused you of using a substance you never touched.
You, on the other hand, don't seem to take into account false positives or unwitting use that does not enhance performance, you just use the refrain "personal responsibility" in place of an argument.
|
| 10 | dpr
ID: 552411820
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 13:59
|
I guess I disagree with the courts. And I believe other courts hold the opinion that the rules are valid. Though I know those don't hold weight in Minnesota. And does the ruling allow players to knowingly take diuretics? Or just claim them not liable when they accidentally take them?
I know you are a lawyer so arguing law with you is likely not a situation where I will win.
For the latter part. We have not talked about false positives at all. And that is not the situation that we have here. They did take the drug.
That said to train for something and have it taken away is obviously a very tragic.
|
| 11 | Slizz
ID: 557152814
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 14:00
|
SZ - while i respect the fact you have an affinity for teams that rock purple...at the end of the day the Vikings won't finish ahead of the Bears :) Two words can sum my rationale why: Brad Childress.
|
| 12 | Seattle Zen
ID: 238441010
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 14:14
|
Slizz - wrong.
dpr - I haven't read the rulings, but my understanding is that a policy that does not allow employees to have a hearing regarding the manner that they ingested the banned substance, a "strict liability" policy, is not allowed.
And does the ruling allow players to knowingly take diuretics? Or just claim them not liable when they accidentally take them?
My understanding that the ruling would not allow players to take diuretics, but that they can be held not in violation of the rules when accidentally ingesting them.
|
| 13 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Sep 11, 2009, 14:18
|
While I agree that you are ultimately responsible for what ends up in your body and I like the "heavy hand" in general that Gooddell has taken, The NFL can't be so stupid to think that these players were taking StarCaps for any other reason than they explained. The "illegal" substance was not listed in the product and the product was not specifically banned by the banned drug/product list.
I am sad that this took so long to dismiss but happy that these players did not get suspended for taking this product. Everything can't be black and white when it comes to this situation.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|