Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43
  1. #1
    Vikes's Avatar
    Vikes is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,733

    Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    Merry Christmas!

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP)A federal appeals court on Monday rejected an NFL request to reconsider its decision in a high-profile sports labor case involving two Minnesota Vikings accused of violating the leagues anti-doping policy.

    In a split decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the NFLs request for a rehearing before either the full appeals court or the same three-judge panel that ruled against the league in September in the case of Kevin Williams(notes) and Pat Williams
    (notes). Four of the courts 11 judges dissented.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflsuspensions&prov=ap&type=lgns

    300

    The rigors of Spartan life. Leonidas is cast out into the wild, and survives the harsh winter to return to his home, when he is crowned King ....a Viking!

    300

  2. #2
    oaklandzoo24's Avatar
    oaklandzoo24 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,897

    Re: Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses ca

    Suck it Goodell.
    "There are 3 things that sell in America:
    Violence, sex, and drugs.
    The only way you are going to make this game more appealing to the public than it was before is if there are on field orgies at halftime and the domes become massive opium dens."

    [img width=450 height=55]http://img216.imageshac

  3. #3
    Texas Viking's Avatar
    Texas Viking is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    204

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case


  4. #4
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    This is great news. F U Goodell.

  5. #5
    BadlandsVikings's Avatar
    BadlandsVikings is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26,567

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    the NFL hates the vikings

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    1,148

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    Exactly who is the "NFL" that they are referring too. Is it really just Goodell? Is it a panel? "The NFL's request for a hearing..." Who is really pushing this. The owners? Seriously, what does that mean, and who is the "NFL?"
    Tuco the world.....

  7. #7
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    I know this doesn't really win me any popularity contests here, but I still agree with the league in this case. Allowing a state loophole to circumvent a nation wide policy that was agreed upon through a collective bargaining process is a shame. It takes away the ability for the NFL to enforce its policy uniformly and fairly.

    If this was any other team other than the Vikings, I would bet that almost every single one of you would agree. But because it is the Vikings, people are crying foul.

    It doesn't surprise me that the appeals court elected not to hear the case. The fact is that the law is on the side of the Williamses. But that doesn't make it right. It is a loophole. It is a law that was set up in Minnesota to protect employees in the state, and it is being exploited for reasons outside its original intent. The fact still remains that the Williamses used a product that they were explicitly warned NOT to take, and now IMHO they should take responsibility for their actions.

    But that won't happen, and in the end the new CBA will have a juristiction clause in it to prevent this from happening in the future. It is a shame that it has to come to this.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  8. #8
    Vikes's Avatar
    Vikes is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,733

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    I understand what you are saying.

    But the fact remains the NFL gets off easy if it just say you are responsible for ANYTHING that is deemed illegal in you're body.

    I'm sorry but they are football players not chemists.

    The bottom line Starcaps did not disclose the information that was illegal on the product.

    How in the HECK are you suppose to screen something if it is not listed on the product??

    I think the Anti-doping rule in the NFL is WAY one sided.

    I agree the loophole is weak, but the real problem is the NFL should have looked at this unique case and treat as such unique.
    300

    The rigors of Spartan life. Leonidas is cast out into the wild, and survives the harsh winter to return to his home, when he is crowned King ....a Viking!

    300

  9. #9
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    Jereamiah wrote:
    Exactly who is the "NFL" that they are referring too. Is it really just Goodell? Is it a panel? "The NFL's request for a hearing..." Who is really pushing this. The owners? Seriously, what does that mean, and who is the "NFL?"
    I would imagine Godell and executives. I doubt the owners care either way (well, the Bears/Packers do, but other than that I be most are tired of hearing about it) I could be wrong, but I don't think they have a say in suspensions/fines.

  10. #10
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    Vikes wrote:
    I understand what you are saying.

    But the fact remains the NFL gets off easy if it just say you are responsible for ANYTHING that is deemed illegal in you're body.

    I'm sorry but they are football players not chemists.

    The bottom line Starcaps did not disclose the information that was illegal on the product.

    How in the HECK are you suppose to screen something if it is not listed on the product??

    I think the Anti-doping rule in the NFL is WAY one sided.

    I agree the loophole is weak, but the real problem is the NFL should have looked at this unique case and treat as such unique.
    I agree that they should have looked at this as a unique case, but the part that really sticks in my mind is the fact that the players were warned through both the team trainers AND the NFLPA not to take any products made by Balanced Health Products. It isn't like the players were taken completely by surprise. They were warned NOT to take the diuretic, and they did anyway.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Williamses are going separate ways in case
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 09:51 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 11:30 AM
  3. Scott Linehan declines O-Coordinator Job with 9ers
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 04:41 PM
  4. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-22-2008, 12:23 AM
  5. Court dismisses case against rude doctor
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-08-2006, 03:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •