Related Content: Green Bay Packers
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Location: Wisconsin
Registered: 02-03-2000
Posts: 1209
|
Posted
Ah yes, the Minnesota State Judicial system. At least the Franken-Coleman fiasco was decided in a timely fashion.
 |
 Location: Once you go black METAL, you never go back...
Registered: 01-08-2004
Posts: 2506
|
Posted
Can the NFL test them when they are on the road? If they test positive then, would that hurt them? OF course, they know when they are traveling so they can cycle it, but maybe they could get caught that way.
|
 Location: The planet chickanis
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 18250
|
Posted
Hopefully, Pussell now in effect pushes to have the Vikes moved because of this "state" law since it is circumventing the NFL rules.
The San Antonio Purple Pecker Beaters. |
 Location: Hastings, MN
Registered: 02-03-2000
Posts: 16467
|
Posted
So in essence, the Vikings are playing by different rules than all the other teams in the NFL. Take roids, mask it, profit. Basically that's what they have accomplished here.
|
|
Location: The planet chickanis
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 18250
|
Posted
I really hope the NFL forces the Vikes to suspend the players or move the team. I wonder if the T'Wolves and Twins will have their players start doing 'roids now.
|
 Location: where the climate suits my clothes
Registered: 03-20-2006
Posts: 909
|
Posted
Thats exactly what has happened. A competitive advantage agianst the rest of the league. Basically, with this ruling, the Court is essentially saying, this case needs to be heard in State court. The State Court will decide if the CBA can supercede State Labor Laws. Its about as simple as it gets. The Federal Appeals court said that since the case by the Williamses was brought in State Court and used the State Labor Laws as a reason to overturn the suspensions. The judge will rule if the NFL/CBA can impose sanctions with regard/disregard to State Laws. Crazy! I would think that the NFL will appeal to the Supreme Court, to still get the case thrown out of the state court. |
|
Location: The planet chickanis
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 18250
|
Posted
Better idea. New team in London, the London Losers.
|
|
Location: Hastings, MN
Registered: 02-03-2000
Posts: 16467
|
Posted
If these star caps truly were being hid by the NFL then why did only 5 or 6 guys, out of some 1700 players, get nailed for it? What a load of garbage.
Getting steroids and HGH is legal under prescription, I don't see why the Queen drs couldn't just prescribe everything under the sun to any Queen player that wants it. |
|
Location: The planet chickanis
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 18250
|
Posted
Don't worry. That will be next.
I raised the point when this first came out that how did these few players miss the label when the league has over 1700 players? Amazing that some judge from Minnesota can disregard all the facts in the case and use state law when the NFL has authority from Congress otherwise. I hope both these gomers blow out knees for cheating. |
 Location: Lakeville, MN
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 590
|
Posted
The thing I haven't seen mentioned here and I believe could be extremely relevant is the fact that the CBA expires after this year.
You HAVE to believe that this boondoggle/shennanigans/craptastiscfest is going to majorly affect the renegotiation of the new CBA. I agree with alot has been posted. They have officially circumnavigated the current CBA with some precedent that no matter what the new CBA comes to be, state law could and will always supercede. Yes, the courts did say they would hear it, just on their schedule. I think that plays into the will of the the players. Just as has been mentioned, what would prevent a player from juicing up on a contract year in a state that seems to give them cover legally. The broad-reaching implications of this decision parlayed with the pending CBA negotiations boggles my mind. I used to be somewhat concerned with a "salary-capless-year". It alone had a ton of implications. This piles onto that in a way I don't even like to think about. I'm sickened.  |
 Location: Okinawa Japan
Registered: 06-07-2006
Posts: 4390
|
Posted
I don't want this to sound as if I am condoning the use of steroids or any other PED, but I don't think that either of these guys have ever tested positive for PED's. Yes, the diuretic they were busted for does apparently mask the use of certain PED's......but I can't help but wonder if these guys truly were attempting to cut weight....When Chilly first went to Minnesota he sat Phat Pat out of training camp activities and made him do conditioning drills only for the 1st 10 days because he was over the perscribed weight set by Chilly. That being the case, I can conceivably see that these two may have taken this Starcaps product with the thought that they did in fact need to stay under a certain weight.
Do I expect that to be received in this forum with any support? Nahhhh but if you think about it objectively it is possible....In fact, I'm convinced that every team in the league has players that are on some type of PED's....whether thats Vikings, Bears Lions, Packers or anyone else.....There are no tests that can show a player uses HGH and it is well known that those producing steroids are always ahead of those who are testing for it. Does that make any of this right??? Nope, it sure doesn't......but I'm also not convinced the NFL is any cleaner than baseball, track and field or cycling...... |
 Location: Thanks Ted.
Registered: 10-04-2004
Posts: 12200
|
Posted
Chilli's a hard-ass with rules and if you don't follow them you can't play, who knew? |
|
Location: The planet chickanis
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 18250
|
Posted
So was Favre taking the supplement then?
|
|
Location: Once you go black METAL, you never go back...
Registered: 01-08-2004
Posts: 2506
|
Posted
But Okinawa, the issue is that the StarCaps product was clearly on the banned substance list, so the ignorance excuse should not be a factor. They knew the product they were using was against the rules, PED or not.
As others pointed out, this ruling just opens up a completely new can of worms regarding what players in the state of Minnesota can do. Where does it stop? |
 Location: Atlanta Burbs
Registered: 12-03-2004
Posts: 1510
|
Posted
Because this is the contract that they agreed to be governed by? And something is wrong with your statement. I'm not sure that the NFL is a 'company', but I am sure that players are NOT employees. Regardless, I'd think a player has to give up some 'individual' rights when they agree to be represented by their union, who, of course, negotiate with the owners on their behalf. But the union is negotiating for all players, not for the individual, so any single player shouldn't be allowed to claim an exception to the rules negotiated for all. And the terms of a contract can't change once signed, unless approved by both parties, and we know the NFL (nor the NFLPA!)has not approved any changes to the drug testing policy. |
|
Location: Okinawa Japan
Registered: 06-07-2006
Posts: 4390
|
Posted
I was under the impression that the StarCaps product wasn't on the list....isn't that what the whole law suit is about? It wasn't on the list and whtever ingrediant was in it that masked the PED wasn't listed on the bottle? I think thats the argument the William's are fighting. |
|
Location: Capital - waiting for my 'Bail out' check
Registered: 08-01-2008
Posts: 280
|
Posted
You are absolutely 100% correct, Okinawa. That is their arguement. I find it funny that this thing has morphed into "They were taking steroids", when that is not what was found in the test. It just found this 'ingredient' that apparantely, the NFL banned it, knew it was in the StarCaps, but never said anything that they knew StarCaps had it in it, but never told anyone about it. That is the arguement. Goodell really screwed the pooch on this one. He learned the facts and still sent down suspensions when he knew StarCaps didn't have it listed as an ingredient. Grady Jackson was also one who tested for StarCaps, but Goodell didn't suspend Grady...why? But Goodell suspends the others? So, Goodell starts it with his form of 'selective punishment'? And the CBA has not been circumvented. All the Federal court said was that the case can be heard in State court. |
 Location: Whine Relay for Revis
Registered: 12-17-2006
Posts: 1198
|
Posted
That's right. They have a good case, IMHO. put yourself in their shoes. |
|
Location: Buck Rock Campground
Registered: 06-01-2004
Posts: 3640
|
Posted
Here is the real deal
Supplements are not regulated and neither the supplement company, nor the NFL knows for certain what is in those pills from week to week. Its a crap shoot and the batches change from day to day, week to week and most of it is offshore crapola from China loaded with all kinds of impurities. So, the NFL says, OK, here are the approved manufacturers who do follow regulations and testing protocol ( Good Manufacturing Practices). Choose your supplements from these companies and you are good to go. IF you choose a supplement from another manufacturer, then you are on your own and subject to discipline if you get caught. Very simple stuff The players knew this, the teams knew this, the agents knew this and they still decided to take the huge risk of ingesting a supplement from an unapproved manufacturer when there were plenty of weight loss pills available on the approved list. Why would a player knowingly take on such a huge risk ? We don't know, but stupidity and ignorance are not viable options anymore. They knew the risk, they knew the consequences and they did it anyway All this crap about " the NFL knew and didn't tell them " is a steaming pile of horsecrap. They sent notifications, emails, website links and memos, told the agents told the teams, told the doctors, told the players. Go away from the list, and you are on your own. The Williams sisters took it anyway We can only speculate as to why....but they are not innocent in any way shape or form. They found a lawyers loophole, but at no point in time has anybody successfully argued their innocence. They screwed up and should be suspended for it. karma is a beatch and they will get theirs in the end |
 Location: WI, USA
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 7315
|
Posted
...but there's nothin on the bottle that says it's bad...
|
 Location: TOG who????
Registered: 02-05-2000
Posts: 3181
|
Posted
I would rather beat the vikes with them playing than without...no excuses.
|
 Location: Formerly from the home of your soon to be World Champion Vikings! Secure your spot on the parade route today!
Registered: 08-10-2001
Posts: 19129
|
Posted
The part I am still having some difficulty getting my mind around is how state law can trump collectively bargained rules and procedures. What the season ticket holder (district judge) is saying is that in effect the CBA doesn't matter if it interferes with state laws. That flies against everything I know about labor law.
You see plenty of examples where a CBA supercedes other monetary or non-monetary items- i.e. overtime rules and provisions. Why should or would drug testing rules or procedures be any different? |
|
Location: Lakeville, MN
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 590
|
Posted
This sums it up perfectly. It wasn't on the list! Go off the list at your own risk. They chose to, maybe even knowing that the extra little "bene" of a masking agent was there... But either way, they chose not to follow the recommended supplements and got called out (busted) for not meeting the CBA specified and agreed upon list of legal 'vitamins'. Cheating is cheating is cheating regardless. Although I have to admit, it will be fun to beat them without their ability to supply some kind of excuse or whatnot... |
|
Location: Hastings, MN
Registered: 02-03-2000
Posts: 16467
|
Posted
The NFL wound up having to lift the suspensions of the Saints players due to the ruling on the Queens players. I guess that just means tough luck to the 1 or 2 players who took their lumps and took the suspension last year.
|
 Location: San Diego
Registered: 12-19-2005
Posts: 10573
|
Posted
IIRC, those suspensions also dock you four game checks. If I was one of those players that sat, I'd be suing the league to recapture that money.
Now that I think about it, though, which guys actually sat out? |
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
©2000 - 2009 TimesFour