Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    Senate bill introduced to prevent another StarCaps case

    Today, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced the "Clean Sports Protection Act," which would allow drug-testing programs to pre-empt state laws (like the laws in Minnesota that fueled the StarCaps case), if those drug-testing programs are "more likely to detect performance enhancing drugs."

    ...
    Nodaks to the rescue.

    I completely agree with this law. While I certainly wouldn't want the Williams's to be suspended (and this law obviously would only affect future cases), I do believe that they exploited a loophole in MN's drug testing laws that creates an unfair advantage for players in states like MN.

    They have gone from arguing that they didn't take any banned substances to arguing that MN's law doesn't allow punishment for the first failed test. The CBA, which they all agreed to, should take precidence.

    Now before people get all crazy, I do not condone the way the NFL handled this, nor do I think that Kevin or Pat took the StarCaps for any reason other than to drop contract weight, nor do I think they knowingly took a banned substance. But I do think that by the letter of the law they were infact guilty, especially since they were specificly told NOT to use StarCaps BY NAME and they used them 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=

  2. #2
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    I firmly believe the whole thing is a crock of crap.

    Any doping laws need to be there for one thing and one thing only and that is to detect the usage of drugs.
    Now, if those 2 had used drugs and the starcaps was indeed used to mask that usage then I say throw the book at them. OTOH if they were using it to lose weight ans the usage had no correlation to limiting detection of a PED than IMHO whether they use it or not should be irrelevant. And the league telling them they cannot use it when it does not enhance their performance is also wrong.

    The last thing this country needs ( and I will not expand because it will get political) is for the Govt to find more ways to run our lives or tell us what to do.And this bill would take power away from the state and give it to the feds. Not a good thing IMHO.

  3. #3
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Senate bill introduced to prevent another StarCaps case

    Today, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced the "Clean Sports Protection Act," which would allow drug-testing programs to pre-empt state laws (like the laws in Minnesota that fueled the StarCaps case), if those drug-testing programs are "more likely to detect performance enhancing drugs."

    ...
    Nodaks to the rescue.

    I completely agree with this law. While I certainly wouldn't want the Williams's to be suspended (and this law obviously would only affect future cases), I do believe that they exploited a loophole in MN's drug testing laws that creates an unfair advantage for players in states like MN.

    They have gone from arguing that they didn't take any banned substances to arguing that MN's law doesn't allow punishment for the first failed test. The CBA, which they all agreed to, should take precidence.

    Now before people get all crazy, I do not condone the way the NFL handled this, nor do I think that Kevin or Pat took the StarCaps for any reason other than to drop contract weight, nor do I think they knowingly took a banned substance. But I do think that by the letter of the law they were infact guilty, especially since they were specificly told NOT to use StarCaps BY NAME and they used them anyway.
    My understanding of the original case was that Starcaps was NOT specifically restricted or named by the NFL, nor was it originally disclosed that it contained a banned substance. All of that came AFTER the original UA failure.

    What further clouds the issue is that the Williams' were knocked for using a masking agent (Bumetanide - which is a loop diuretic), not for using a performance enhancer. What bumetanide does, in essence, is dilute the urine...because you produce more of it. The fear then is that the UA becomes less effective due to dilution.

    This is easily solved by a blood test.

    Finally, it wasn't the testing policies which originally came under attack, it was the fact that the NFL didn't bother to disclose the fact that they knew Starcaps contained bumnetanide. Why the Lawyer chose to fight it on State grounds versus the non-disclosure aspect, I do not know.

    FWIW, I think they should all submit to regular blood tests. Screw the UA's and screw the random element. Make it mandatory. You want to play in this league? You give blood every other week. We test 'em all. If you pop positive, stand the floop by!!

    Caine

  4. #4
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    Caine wrote:
    NodakPaul wrote:
    Senate bill introduced to prevent another StarCaps case

    Today, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced the "Clean Sports Protection Act," which would allow drug-testing programs to pre-empt state laws (like the laws in Minnesota that fueled the StarCaps case), if those drug-testing programs are "more likely to detect performance enhancing drugs."

    ...
    Nodaks to the rescue.

    I completely agree with this law. While I certainly wouldn't want the Williams's to be suspended (and this law obviously would only affect future cases), I do believe that they exploited a loophole in MN's drug testing laws that creates an unfair advantage for players in states like MN.

    They have gone from arguing that they didn't take any banned substances to arguing that MN's law doesn't allow punishment for the first failed test. The CBA, which they all agreed to, should take precidence.

    Now before people get all crazy, I do not condone the way the NFL handled this, nor do I think that Kevin or Pat took the StarCaps for any reason other than to drop contract weight, nor do I think they knowingly took a banned substance. But I do think that by the letter of the law they were infact guilty, especially since they were specificly told NOT to use StarCaps BY NAME and they used them anyway.
    My understanding of the original case was that Starcaps was NOT specifically restricted or named by the NFL, nor was it originally disclosed that it contained a banned substance. All of that came AFTER the original UA failure.

    What further clouds the issue is that the Williams' were knocked for using a masking agent (Bumetanide - which is a loop diuretic), not for using a performance enhancer. What bumetanide does, in essence, is dilute the urine...because you produce more of it. The fear then is that the UA becomes less effective due to dilution.

    This is easily solved by a blood test.

    Finally, it wasn't the testing policies which originally came under attack, it was the fact that the NFL didn't bother to disclose the fact that they knew Starcaps contained bumnetanide. Why the Lawyer chose to fight it on State grounds versus the non-disclosure aspect, I do not know.

    FWIW, I think they should all submit to regular blood tests. Screw the UA's and screw the random element. Make it mandatory. You want to play in this league? You give blood every other week. We test 'em all. If you pop positive, stand the floop by!!

    Caine
    That is exactly to the point.

    In many, many companies the employees need to take a mandatory urine sample when they are hired and on a regular basis. I think that for pro sports regular blood and or urine sampling is the most legitimate way to administer a policy and to ensure fairness.

    But. I also believe that just finding masking agents without finding elevated levels of hormones or PEDs is no reason to ban a particular player, especially if the product can be used for other reasons that do not impact performance.

  5. #5
    Infidel is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,947

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    Actually, the whole team wouldn't have to do blood tests. Random testing of even five or ten guys every two weeks would probably deter people from using PE drugs.

    The tragic thing (and the real reason this needs to be stamped out is that younger and younger kids are taking drugs that they think will enhance their performance. Tragic results can ensue.
    It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
    --John Wooden

  6. #6
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    Caine wrote:
    My understanding of the original case was that Starcaps was NOT specifically restricted or named by the NFL, nor was it originally disclosed that it contained a banned substance. All of that came AFTER the original UA failure.
    Your understanding of the original case is incorrect.

    Starcaps WAS specifically named by the NFL, in a memo sent to the NFLPA as well as in a memo sent to every team's trainer. They did not disclose why they weren't supposed to use it, but they did very specifically tell all players not to use it.

    I don't agree with the NFL's actions, nor do I think that their tactics are going to prevent substance abuse, nor do I agree with a lack of an arbitration process or appeal process. But that is reason to redo the CBA. Whether we like it or not, the NFL was and is acting within the law. All laws EXCEPT for those in Minnesota that is... And since the CBA doesn't specify jurisdiction, in the end the players will win.

    If the NFL ambushed the players like so many seem to think they did, I would agree that the players should not be suspended. But when you are warned specifically not to do something, and you do it anyway... well, I can't feel sorry for you there.

    If the Williams's played for any other team, I think that 99% of you would agree with me.

    Of course, we don't really need a law for this... a properly negotiated CBA would suffice.
    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=

  7. #7
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    I wonder how much the NFL is paying for this legislation.
    Why would a senator from ND, a state with no proffessional sports teams introduce this legislation?
    Waste of time, IMHO.

  8. #8
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    NodakPaul wrote:
    Caine wrote:
    My understanding of the original case was that Starcaps was NOT specifically restricted or named by the NFL, nor was it originally disclosed that it contained a banned substance. All of that came AFTER the original UA failure.
    Your understanding of the original case is incorrect.

    Starcaps WAS specifically named by the NFL, in a memo sent to the NFLPA as well as in a memo sent to every team's trainer. They did not disclose why they weren't supposed to use it, but they did very specifically tell all players not to use it.

    I don't agree with the NFL's actions, nor do I think that their tactics are going to prevent substance abuse, nor do I agree with a lack of an arbitration process or appeal process. But that is reason to redo the CBA. Whether we like it or not, the NFL was and is acting within the law. All laws EXCEPT for those in Minnesota that is... And since the CBA doesn't specify jurisdiction, in the end the players will win.

    If the NFL ambushed the players like so many seem to think they did, I would agree that the players should not be suspended. But when you are warned specifically not to do something, and you do it anyway... well, I can't feel sorry for you there.

    If the Williams's played for any other team, I think that 99% of you would agree with me.

    Of course, we don't really need a law for this... a properly negotiated CBA would suffice.
    I haven't seen the proposed law (Although I think it's silly), but based upon the articles wording, the new law won't do what they're saying it would.

    The article says the4 law would "allow drug-testing programs to pre-empt state laws (like the laws in Minnesota that fueled the StarCaps case), if those drug-testing programs are "more likely to detect performance enhancing drugs". That means that the drug TEST itself would be more comprehensive. That's not the issue here.

    The William's current case has to do with the RESULTS of the test, and the fact that under Minnesota law they cannot be punished for a first offense.

    Back tracking the source, the article that Florio quoted from states that the intent of the law is to, "permit the professional sports leagues, including the NFL, to consistently apply and enforce their collectively bargained drug testing programs".

    That's a completely different cup of worms.

    The problem here is that this essentially means that an organization can now apply it's internal rules across state lines...

    ...so States that offer fewer workers rights can be used to eliminate workers in more restrictive states based upon "Company Policy".

    This is a VERY BAD IDEA.

    Caine

  9. #9
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    jmcdon00 wrote:
    I wonder how much the NFL is paying for this legislation.
    Why would a senator from ND, a state with no proffessional sports teams introduce this legislation?
    Waste of time, IMHO.

    Hahaha no kidding

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,061

    Re: ND Senator introduced to prevent another StarCaps

    V4L wrote:
    jmcdon00 wrote:
    I wonder how much the NFL is paying for this legislation.
    Why would a senator from ND, a state with no proffessional sports teams introduce this legislation?
    Waste of time, IMHO.

    Hahaha no kidding
    A legislation that gets no opposition, mainly because there are no pro sport teams, but most of the public agrees with.

    Going to look good on the popularity polls.
    "You can look pretty smart if you have a knack for planning ahead. That's Ted. The Packers are in good hands." - Ron Wolf


Similar Threads

  1. Report: StarCaps suspensions could be reduced
    By MulletMullitia in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-24-2011, 04:08 PM
  2. Latest StarCaps ruling could lead to complete vict
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 11:13 AM
  3. How do you prevent the Dome from going "away" ?
    By StillPurple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 06:08 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 06:39 PM
  5. you know i never really introduced myself lol
    By thetrenches68OL in forum Free Beer!
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-23-2006, 06:54 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
  •