Blog Entry

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

Posted on: March 3, 2011 3:55 pm
Edited on: March 3, 2011 4:51 pm
 
Posted by Will Brinson

So here's a fun twist to the crazy reports that are swinging the NFL labor mood on the final -- barring an extension -- day of the current CBA: if the union decertifies and files an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL owners (a very real possibility), then Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Tom Brady are willing to play the role of lead plaintiffs.

This report is currently percolating around NFL circles -- Jim Trotter of Sports Illustrated and Albert Breer of the NFL Network first reported it -- and it's pretty huge news.

Why? Well, think about any time you've ever seen a high-profile court case. You identify, whether you know it or not, with one of the sides. And the way you perceive the sides a lot of times depends on not just what you know about that side, but who is representing the respective interests.

Put a better way, when the words "players versus the owners" get thrown around, everyone immediately thinks "millionaires fighting with billionaires."

But if Manning, Brees and Brady -- three immensely popular and likable guys -- are suddenly against the owners, it changes the public perception completely.

The obvious counterargument to that point is that no one makes more money than that trio of quarterbacks. My response: except the owners.

Look, find someone who knows nothing about sports, and that person can probably still identify all three quarterbacks we're talking about.

They're not poor peasants toiling against "the man," but they are tremendously popular and likable celebrities with the benefit of having never engaged in any sort of behavior that gives the public any reason to hate them.

Outside of winning a bunch of Super Bowls anyway.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 9, 2012 7:43 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

As good as gain gonna this website when, this may be attained ended up the seasons if you ask me. Efficiently it disclosing which usually patient patiently waited in support of and so comprehensive.


hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 7, 2011 9:39 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Mar 1, 2007
Posted on: March 7, 2011 9:21 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

    

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

As a pharmacist, I can tell you that the human body can not process more than 4000mg of Acetaminophen per day without sustaining severe liver damage. 1000 vicodin in a month is more than 16000 mg of Acetaminophen per day. There is no way he is taking this much.


   

Reputation: 85
Level: All-Star
Since: Dec 21, 2008
Posted on: March 4, 2011 10:26 amScore: 59 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

As a pharmacist, I can tell you that the human body can not process more than 4000mg of Acetaminophen per day without sustaining severe liver damage. 1000 vicodin in a month is more than 16000 mg of Acetaminophen per day. There is no way he is taking this much.


     In response to above by RrAeVaEgNaSn,


      
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp;    Are you on the pipe?  As a pharmacist, I have to say that I am embarrassed that you say you are a pharmacist and then spouted that the human liver can only process 4 grams of acetaminophen/ day.

   If you were a pharmacist, for real and not a 1st year student, you would know that acute fulminant hepatic failure due to acetaminophen toxicity is generally hit and miss at 150mg to 200 mg/ kg. For you Americans who don't know anything about the rest of the planet and the metric system, that is approx. 70 mg/ lb. Chronic acetaminophen toxicity can develop at 75 mg/ kg/ day or about 30 mg/ lb/ day over time. So if you have an idea that you are dealing with an acetaminophen overdose and you want to jam some acetylcysteine up in them, you would be calculating how much the dude or dudette weighs, how many extra strength acetaminophen tablets they took, and then calculating for IV acetylcysteine at 150 mg/ kg in 200 mls of 5% D5W infused over 15-30 min. If trying to give it orally, the it's 150mg/ kg to load and 75 mg/ kg thereafter for 4 more doses.

  For shame grasshopper, for shame. You must be a grocery store pharmacist or a Wal-Mar.....tee pharmacist to talk that nonsense. That's OK, because it pays the bills for you, many people will overlook the quality of an independent pharmacist so they can penny pinch a few dolars, and if a few people die or tox out with permanent damage, oh well, give the family a coupon and they will probably come back, and maybe interrupt you while you stock shelves. Is there an icon for puking? There should be.



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: March 5, 2011 2:37 am
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

As a pharmacist, I can tell you that the human body can not process more than 4000mg of Acetaminophen per day without sustaining severe liver damage.

Well, you must be a pretty crappy pharmacist.  4000mg was the FDA's recommendation for a maximum safe limit, not the threshold at which serious harm takes place (...the FDA is stupid, but isn't stupid enough to recommend a maximum limit that can actually hurt you).  It usually takes 10,000 to 15,000 to do serious harm to the liver.



Since: Feb 16, 2011
Posted on: March 4, 2011 1:36 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

This is just irritating.  The owners of all companies are the risk takers.  They or their ancesters invested their $ to start a business.  The owner is supposed to make more then their employees.  That is our capitalistic way.  Unions did great things for the working class people in history.  The biggest was bringing the lower class into the middle class.  Here, we are not talking about less fortunate people.  We are talking about a bunch of employees that make more per game then I will make in a year or lifetime depending on the player.  These employees are wanting to run the company, then start your own company.  Become an owner Mr. Manning.  Then you can pay your buddies whatever you want.  Boo Hoo...sorry, it is hard to side with billionairs, but that is the RIGHT thing to do.



Since: Sep 4, 2006
Posted on: March 4, 2011 1:13 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

Sorry dude but you do not know a thing about economics. Unions are not destroying this country, the lack of organized labor in the private sector serving as a counter force to industry is what is destroying it. Unions built this country into the power that it is today and not only saved democracy but created the first true free market economy. The forces of industry have been pushing back ever since redistributing wealth up the ladder to the point where the middle class (created entirely on the backs of union labor) can no longer support the nation through periods of economic turbulance. Look at the gini coefficient. It is not possible to support capitalism long term without an even (not equal) distribution of wealth. Right now the distribution looks like that of a thrid world dictatorship. Unless a force is created to push back against business and industry to fight for fair labor practices, this nation will further decent into plutocracy. The free market has already died at the hands of business and the every increasing demands for higher margins. Like it or not, Unions are the foremost defenders of the free market in all developed countries which is why industry is so hostile. The free market it anti-thetical to enterprise. Always has been, always will be.



Since: Jul 12, 2007
Posted on: March 4, 2011 12:52 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

Couldn't agree more. My grandfather was a copper miner in Jerome and Bisbee, Arizona for the Phillips-Dodge Co. Arizona at that time was one of the largest copper producing industrial sectors in the world (hence the term "Copper State"). Wages were low, work was hard, and the hours were long and tedious. At that time our country was going through a progressive movement similiar like todays. My grandfather and some of his co-workers organized a union so they can set better wages for themselves and hopefully have a better livelihood. My grandfather had six daughters he had to feed, and nobody was going to give him a break. Back then people had too much pride to accept any handout; however they did want better wages and benifits. Years of bidder dispute, and argument from both sides resulted in the Phillips-Dodge Co. moving out of Arizona and going to a small providence in Rhodesia what is now formally known as Zimbabwe. We lost thousands of American jobs to foreigners because Unions spent more time bickering than getting the job done.

In the end nobody ever wins in a union. Companies will say, "hell, you don't want to work. We'll find someone who will.." and its not like we can stop them from going someplace else, because that contradicts our consititution, and what we believe in. These companies are free to do whatever they want, just like you and I. If they want to go to some 3rd world country for cheap labor who is going to stop them? Truth is we can't do it. As must as it would be nice forcing companies to stay in America, we cannot do that because it infringes on their freedom. The best thing that our government can do to salvage jobs, is making it more appealling to companies to come back to the United States. How do we do that? By lowering corporate property taxes which cost companies millions sometimes even billions. If you don't like your wages or how a company is treating you, simply leave; that's all there is to it. You have a right to be happy too. If you think you think you can do something else and get more money at the same time; why on earth would you be willing to stick around? This is America... You get what you earn.   

What many people fail to understand is that these owners invest millions of their own money they assume most of the risk if their product isn't selling. They deserve most of the reward when things are going right. It is their investment, not the players. I still think though that the NFL would be alot better off compensating the retired vets with medical problems, than the players who are already millions and just want more.

In this competative job market, people cannot be too choosy in how much they are getting back. They should just count their blessings they even have a job that will support there families.  



Since: Jul 12, 2007
Posted on: March 4, 2011 12:27 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

THe Unions Have Destroyed This Country  !!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't agree more. My grandfather was a copper miner in Jerome and Bisbee, Arizona for the Phillips-Dodge Co. Arizona at that time was one of the largest copper producing industrial sectors in the world (hence the term "Copper State"). Wages were low, work was hard, and the hours were long and tedious. At that time our country was going through a progressive movement similiar like todays. My grandfather and some of his co-workers organized a union so they can set better wages for themselves and hopefully have a better livelihood. My grandfather had six daughters he had to feed, and nobody was going to give him a break. Back then people had too much pride to accept any handout; however they did want better wages and benifits. Years of bidder dispute, and argument from both sides resulted in the Phillips-Dodge Co. moving out of Arizona and going to a small providence in Rhodesia what is now formally known as Zimbabwe. We lost thousands of American jobs to foreigners because Unions spent more time bickering than getting the job done.

In the end nobody ever wins in a union. Companies will say, "hell, you don't want to work. We'll find someone who will.." and its not like we can stop them from going someplace else, because that contradicts our consititution, and what we believe in. These companies are free to do whatever they want, just like you and I. If they want to go to some 3rd world country for cheap labor who is going to stop them? Truth is we can't do it. As must as it would be nice forcing companies to stay in America, we cannot do that because it infringes on their freedom. The best thing that our government can do to salvage jobs, is making it more appealling to companies to come back to the United States. How do we do that? By lowering corporate property taxes which cost companies millions sometimes even billions. If you don't like your wages or how a company is treating you, simply leave; that's all there is to it. You have a right to be happy too. If you think you think you can do something else and get more money at the same time; why on earth would you be willing to stick around? This is America... You get what you earn.   

What many people fail to understand is that these owners invest millions of their own money they assume most of the risk if their product isn't selling. They deserve most of the reward when things are going right. It is their investment, not the players. I still think though that the NFL would be alot better off compensating the retired vets with medical problems, than the players who are already millions and just want more.

In this competative job market, people cannot be too choosy in how much they are getting back. They should just count their blessings they even have a job that will support there families.  



Since: May 7, 2009
Posted on: March 4, 2011 12:25 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

kj- you couldn't be more wrong.  The TRULY wealthy owners like Jerry Jones want this thing to go away.  They could care less about that extra chunk of revenue, which is a drop in the bucket.  If the season is delayed or cancelled, how much return on investment would Jerry get on his new stadium this season?  It is the lesser-financed owners of smaller market teams that want this deal.   The negotiations are on behalf of the owners of the Panthers, Bills, Browns, Jags, etc.

Don't get me wrong.  Jones will certainly be siding with his peers, and he'll take the money, but trust me it isn't guys like Jones who are pushing for a lockout. 



Since: Apr 17, 2008
Posted on: March 4, 2011 12:25 pm
 

Top QBs to be plaintiffs in any antitrust suit?

With the richest of the players filing suit I have just swung my opinion to the owners and how out of control things have gotten with the players.  When players making upwards of 20 million/yr are filing suit then to me that is a clear indication that the owners have to do something to get things under control and reasonable and I will be behind the owners.  Until now I have leaned towards the players, thinking the players take the risks and they should get the big piece of the pie.  But if $20 MILLION/YR is not enough then to heck with them - give the owners a chance to get things under control because the players are certainly out of control.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com