Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43
  1. #11
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    NodakPaul wrote:
    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.
    AND they did it to beat a weigh-in for a bonus clause in their contracts. Let's not forget that bit.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  2. #12
    raptorman is offline Starter
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    208

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    Here's my problem with the way the NFL handled the whole thing. Yes they did warn the players about Balance Health products. But in the past when they knew a product contained a banned substance they named the product and the substance. The one that comes to mind is Ephedra. Had they done that, then the players would not have had a leg to stand on. At what point does the NFL take responsibility for informing the players about everything they know? What if the illegal substance was something more harmful? Would they have mentioned it? What if it had caused a players death and the NFL never mentioned it? This has to go both ways. The way it is now is to one sided.

    And my other problem is if the NFL has a zero tolerance policy why have we heard of no one else being suspended for it in the past? They had to have popped someone or else they never would have tested it in the first place.

    They may take it to the Supreme Court, but they have to remember the Justice's on the court will ask tough questions that they better have answers to.

  3. #13
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    raptorman wrote:
    Here's my problem with the way the NFL handled the whole thing. Yes they did warn the players about Balance Health products. But in the past when they knew a product contained a banned substance they named the product and the substance. The one that comes to mind is Ephedra. Had they done that, then the players would not have had a leg to stand on. At what point does the NFL take responsibility for informing the players about everything they know? What if the illegal substance was something more harmful? Would they have mentioned it? What if it had caused a players death and the NFL never mentioned it? This has to go both ways. The way it is now is to one sided.

    And my other problem is if the NFL has a zero tolerance policy why have we heard of no one else being suspended for it in the past? They had to have popped someone or else they never would have tested it in the first place.

    They may take it to the Supreme Court, but they have to remember the Justice's on the court will ask tough questions that they better have answers to.
    Playing the What If game doesn't work - mainly because it was NOT a more harmful substance, and it did NOT pose any additional risk to players (other than the normal risk that a diruetic causes, and since they were taking star caps AS a diruretic, the illegal ingredient would simply make it work as advertised).

    I agree that the NFL handled it poorly. However, they did everything that was required of them by the CBA, and then some.

    If this goes to the Supreme Court, the NFL isn't going to have to worry about questions of culpability. People seem to forget that the NFL WON the original case regarding the NFL's responsibility and culpability in the case. Only one part of the case was remanded back to the state, and that is the part regarding the application of the Minnesota State Law regarding punishment for a first offense. The basis of appeal has nothing to do with assigning additional blame on the NFL - it has everything to do with jurisdiction and resolving conflict between the federal labor laws and the laws of a state.
    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=

  4. #14
    XTAP59's Avatar
    XTAP59 is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    777

    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.
    My take. Average Joe citizen is driving down th highway. He is going 50 miles per hour. The state Highway patrol pulls average Joe over and tells him he was speeding as the road he was driving on has a speed limit of 45.

    Average Joe plea's that there were no speed limit signs posted on this highway.

    The officer replies, well, since you are driving on the highway, you should know the speed limit.

    There is no right answer in this case.

    LURKING ON THE GRASSY KNOLL
    http://lotgk.wordpress.com

  5. #15
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    XTAP59 wrote:
    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.
    My take. Average Joe citizen is driving down th highway. He is going 50 miles per hour. The state Highway patrol pulls average Joe over and tells him he was speeding as the road he was driving on has a speed limit of 45.

    Average Joe plea's that there were no speed limit signs posted on this highway.

    The officer replies, well, since you are driving on the highway, you should know the speed limit.

    There is no right answer in this case.
    Not even close to the same. You are forgetting the part about the players being told specifically NOT to take products made by Balanced Health Products.

    Maybe if you added this part in your scenario:
    Prior to Average Joe getting in the car and heading down the highway, he was told by two different sources that all state highways have a speed limit of 45.

    Was average Joe told specifically about the highway he was on? No, he was told that it applied to all state highways. Did he know why the speed limit was 45? No, but it didn't change the fact that he knew that he should be driving 45 and chose to drive 50 instead.

    Vikings fans conviently forget that they were warned not to take the product.
    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=

  6. #16
    raptorman is offline Starter
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    208

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    First let me say that I wanted them to serve the suspension last year and get it over with.

    To me something just does not sit right with the way the NFL handled it. They claim they don't normally test products. So why test this one? Did someone pop positive and use it as an excuse? If so why was that player(s) not suspended? Zero tolerance.

    The policy is supposed to be for the "Health and well being of the players" not my words, those come from the CBA. If the NFL is going to administer it then they have to truly have the players health as a concern. In doing so, you don't withhold information.

    This all could have been avoided had the NFL put one sentence in their warning about Balanced Health products. But the Doctor in charge was more concerned about being sued.

    It also could have been avoided if the players had heeded the warnings about diuretics.

  7. #17
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    raptorman wrote:
    First let me say that I wanted them to serve the suspension last year and get it over with.

    To me something just does not sit right with the way the NFL handled it. They claim they don't normally test products. So why test this one? Did someone pop positive and use it as an excuse? If so why was that player(s) not suspended? Zero tolerance.

    The policy is supposed to be for the "Health and well being of the players" not my words, those come from the CBA. If the NFL is going to administer it then they have to truly have the players health as a concern. In doing so, you don't withhold information.

    This all could have been avoided had the NFL put one sentence in their warning about Balanced Health products. But the Doctor in charge was more concerned about being sued.

    It also could have been avoided if the players had heeded the warnings about diuretics.
    So you are saying that the NFL is in the wrong because the memo they sent out said "Do not use any products made by Balanced Health Products" instead of "Do not use any products made by Balanced Health Products because they contain a banned substance"?

    The why shouldn't matter. The NFL wasn't even required to send out the memo according to the CBA. They did so as a service to the players.

    The NFL could have definately handled it better, but they at least acted within policy. The players absolutely did NOT. This is why the only two players that were not subject to suspension are the two who played for the Vikings. Every other player was (even though the league postponed the suspensions of the NO players until this is resolved, to be fair).
    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. #18
    XTAP59's Avatar
    XTAP59 is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    777

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    NodakPaul wrote:
    XTAP59 wrote:
    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.
    My take. Average Joe citizen is driving down th highway. He is going 50 miles per hour. The state Highway patrol pulls average Joe over and tells him he was speeding as the road he was driving on has a speed limit of 45.

    Average Joe plea's that there were no speed limit signs posted on this highway.

    The officer replies, well, since you are driving on the highway, you should know the speed limit.

    There is no right answer in this case.
    Not even close to the same. You are forgetting the part about the players being told specifically NOT to take products made by Balanced Health Products.

    Maybe if you added this part in your scenario:
    Prior to Average Joe getting in the car and heading down the highway, he was told by two different sources that all state highways have a speed limit of 45.

    Was average Joe told specifically about the highway he was on? No, he was told that it applied to all state highways. Did he know why the speed limit was 45? No, but it didn't change the fact that he knew that he should be driving 45 and chose to drive 50 instead.

    Vikings fans conviently forget that they were warned not to take the product.
    Not even a little close to the same?
    Really!
    What if the speed limit was 50 last week and just changed the day average Joe was driving. He thought it was safe, but he failed to call the state highway patrol before driving on that road to ask if perchance the speed limit was altered. Who's at fault? IMO, they both are, Joe and the state. Joe for not knowing, and the state for not properly informing him.

    And that is what this case is all about. Misinformation. The Williams believed what they were taking was acceptable, (under the speed limit.) The state, in its failure to adequately display the warnings about Star Caps, (failing to post the speed limit)still prosecute.

    LURKING ON THE GRASSY KNOLL
    http://lotgk.wordpress.com

  9. #19
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,605
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    XTAP59 wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    XTAP59 wrote:
    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.
    My take. Average Joe citizen is driving down th highway. He is going 50 miles per hour. The state Highway patrol pulls average Joe over and tells him he was speeding as the road he was driving on has a speed limit of 45.

    Average Joe plea's that there were no speed limit signs posted on this highway.

    The officer replies, well, since you are driving on the highway, you should know the speed limit.

    There is no right answer in this case.
    Not even close to the same. You are forgetting the part about the players being told specifically NOT to take products made by Balanced Health Products.

    Maybe if you added this part in your scenario:
    Prior to Average Joe getting in the car and heading down the highway, he was told by two different sources that all state highways have a speed limit of 45.

    Was average Joe told specifically about the highway he was on? No, he was told that it applied to all state highways. Did he know why the speed limit was 45? No, but it didn't change the fact that he knew that he should be driving 45 and chose to drive 50 instead.

    Vikings fans conviently forget that they were warned not to take the product.
    Not even a little close to the same?
    Really!
    What if the speed limit was 50 last week and just changed the day average Joe was driving. He thought it was safe, but he failed to call the state highway patrol before driving on that road to ask if perchance the speed limit was altered. Who's at fault? IMO, they both are, Joe and the state. Joe for not knowing, and the state for not properly informing him.

    And that is what this case is all about. Misinformation. The Williams believed what they were taking was acceptable, (under the speed limit.) The state, in its failure to adequately display the warnings about Star Caps, (failing to post the speed limit)still prosecute.
    The part in red is where we disagree.

    First, this case is NOT about misinformation. The original one was, but EVERY COURT HAS FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE NFL IN THIS REGARD. This case is about jurisdiction and whether or not federal labor laws trump state laws. Under the federal labor laws, the league will win because the league acted within the confines of the mutually agreed upon CBA. Under the state laws, the Williamses win - not because they didn't do anything wrong, but because Minnesota law prohibits employers from taking punitive action on an employee for a first failed drug test.

    Second, you fault the NFL for failure to adequately warn players. Two memos, one to the NFLPA, and one to the trainer on every single NFL team went out. These memos specifically told players that they were NOT allowed to use any products made by Balanced Health Products. In your scenario, this is why I added "Prior to Average Joe getting in the car and heading down the highway, he was told by two different sources that all state highways have a speed limit of 45." The Williamses were told via two different sources that they could not use that diuretic. And they chose to 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=

  10. #20
    XTAP59's Avatar
    XTAP59 is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    777

    Re:Appeals court declines to rehear Williamses case

    NodakPaul wrote:
    XTAP59 wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    XTAP59 wrote:
    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.
    My take. Average Joe citizen is driving down th highway. He is going 50 miles per hour. The state Highway patrol pulls average Joe over and tells him he was speeding as the road he was driving on has a speed limit of 45.

    Average Joe plea's that there were no speed limit signs posted on this highway.

    The officer replies, well, since you are driving on the highway, you should know the speed limit.

    There is no right answer in this case.
    Not even close to the same. You are forgetting the part about the players being told specifically NOT to take products made by Balanced Health Products.

    Maybe if you added this part in your scenario:
    Prior to Average Joe getting in the car and heading down the highway, he was told by two different sources that all state highways have a speed limit of 45.

    Was average Joe told specifically about the highway he was on? No, he was told that it applied to all state highways. Did he know why the speed limit was 45? No, but it didn't change the fact that he knew that he should be driving 45 and chose to drive 50 instead.

    Vikings fans conviently forget that they were warned not to take the product.
    Not even a little close to the same?
    Really!
    What if the speed limit was 50 last week and just changed the day average Joe was driving. He thought it was safe, but he failed to call the state highway patrol before driving on that road to ask if perchance the speed limit was altered. Who's at fault? IMO, they both are, Joe and the state. Joe for not knowing, and the state for not properly informing him.

    And that is what this case is all about. Misinformation. The Williams believed what they were taking was acceptable, (under the speed limit.) The state, in its failure to adequately display the warnings about Star Caps, (failing to post the speed limit)still prosecute.
    The part in red is where we disagree.

    First, this case is NOT about misinformation. The original one was, but EVERY COURT HAS FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE NFL IN THIS REGARD. This case is about jurisdiction and whether or not federal labor laws trump state laws. Under the federal labor laws, the league will win because the league acted within the confines of the mutually agreed upon CBA. Under the state laws, the Williamses win - not because they didn't do anything wrong, but because Minnesota law prohibits employers from taking punitive action on an employee for a first failed drug test.

    Second, you fault the NFL for failure to adequately warn players. Two memos, one to the NFLPA, and one to the trainer on every single NFL team went out. These memos specifically told players that they were NOT allowed to use any products made by Balanced Health Products. In your scenario, this is why I added "Prior to Average Joe getting in the car and heading down the highway, he was told by two different sources that all state highways have a speed limit of 45." The Williamses were told via two different sources that they could not use that diuretic. And they chose to anyway.
    Then I guess there is no pleasing you then....
    (Dr. evil, Austin Powers movie)

    You are taking this way over the line IMO. My original post stated that IMO both were in the wrong. That is why they are in court and that is why the NFL has not yet won and that is why the Williams have not won yet. Because there is gray area.

    I thought the Willaims claimed that Star caps failed to list accurate ingredients, and that is why they got in trouble. The NFL sent messages to stay away from certain supplements with certain chemicals. Since Star Caps did not have those certain chemicals, the Williams felt they were safe.

    Perhaps they should have hired a chemist and average Joe should have taken a taxi instead.

    Again, I'm not for or against the NFL in what they perceive as the truth, I'm merely stating there are two sides and that it is always not cut and dry, right or wrong.

    Perhaps the NFL should give a little, show some good faith, meet them half way, as well as the Willaims should meet half way. Perhaps donate two game checks to charity and the NFL matches it.
    Everybody wins.

    LURKING ON THE GRASSY KNOLL
    http://lotgk.wordpress.com

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •