Blog Entry

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

Posted on: September 11, 2009 5:50 pm
Edited on: September 11, 2009 5:54 pm
  •  
 
The Minnesota Vikings will have defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams Sunday against Cleveland, and probably will have them the entire season.

The New Orleans Saints will not have defensive ends Will Smith and Charles Grant the first four games.

All four men were expected to be suspended for the first four games of the season, but Williams and Williams were given a reprieve when a Minnesota circuit court ruled they would be eligible to play because of Minnesota laws on drug testing that overrde the CBA rules on testing.

Louisiana doesn't have those laws, so Smith and Grant won't play the first four games for using a banned diuretic, the same substance used by both of the Williamses.

That isn't right.

There is no way there should be a difference. If the Vikings players play, Grant and Smith should play. If they can't, the two Vikings can't.

It's called competitive imbalance.

Balance is the NFL way.

This isn't that. EVen the diehard Vikings fans have to know that it just isn't fair.

Of course come Sunday that will matter little -- if at all.



  •  
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Sep 17, 2006
Posted on: September 14, 2009 9:47 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

"No, you have it wrong. That is why a CBA is determined at the Federal level. It is not a right to be employed in this country. By choosing to play, they agreed to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and decided in doing so they would agree to the rules outlined by it.

Many companies do this, many unions want this.

You have it backwards,"

Read the opinion, genius. The Court cites numerous precedents for interstate corporations having to abide by state laws. This is not a new issue. AND the CBA specifically states that each player is employed by the team to which they are contracted. The Vikings are a Minnesota company and are subject to the state's laws.

I'd love a poll because if you take out the team loyalty issues, I bet the this is split down political lines. I'm also guessing that conservatives would side with the NFL and liberals with the union, which is interestingly backward as conservatives would typically prefer to take power OUT of Federal hands and give it to the States. Kind of funny,.



Since: Sep 17, 2006
Posted on: September 14, 2009 9:38 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

It is astonishing to me how naive some people can be.  These players didn't unintentionally and innocently ingest a banned substance.  First, ignorance should be no excuse. ... Until now, everyone thought it was a very flimsy excuse.  However, the Minnesota state court of appeals apparently buys it.

Packerbull, maybe you should try reading the reason the US DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS (not a state court) has given it's decision. This has nothing to do with Starcaps. It's a labor issue where the NFL is arguing the CBA supercedes state law. The union and apparently the court system to this point agrees. This is not about two players, it's about the right of states to dictate labor laws and it is consistent with other judgements outside the sporting world when corporations tries to enforce CBA provisions inconsistent with state law.

So, before you call people out for being naive, try being a little less-so yourself.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 13, 2009 12:32 am
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

Prisco:

Your idiocy continues to shine. The league errored and failed to recognize and follow the LAW of states where it conducts its business. The law is impartial and the league is not above it.

Get off of your high horse, Lord Farquaad. You can't make up rules as you go.

The only party involved that didn't agree they would be suspended for banned substances by way of drug test is the state law.
The players agreed, the team agreed, the NFL agreed, the Federal Government agreed.

So who is making up rules as they go?

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

On May 11, 1858, Minnesota became the 32nd state admitted into the Union.

In 1876 at the Massasoit convention, the first rules for American football were written. Walter Camp, who would become known as the father of American football, first became involved with the game.

Okay, they got me there......

What about this:


That is from the very law you guys keep talking about. It is in the law. It isn't even far down the page when you view it .

It's a loophole and an excuse.

For an even more comical read than this lawsuit, read about the pre-employment rights.

What they heck is going on in Minnesota, and this helps explain the boat ride.

The Minnesota laws do not apply to anyone who is required to undergo drug testing under certain

federal laws or regulations, or under certain state agency rules that adopt federal regulations.

Minn. Stat. § 181.957.

 




Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 13, 2009 12:08 am
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

Ignore my previous comment, I didn't do enough research myself.  My bad.

Why cave?

Though the NFL pointed out on Tuesday that it shared the truth about StarCaps with the league's 32 teams, there is no evidence that any of the teams provided that information to any of their players.
source:

The Vikings failed to inform them. That's local management. What did the Vikings know about their players that they chose to overlook this important safety information?

PS. Read his Bio.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 11:56 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

You've obviously not done your research.  The league did give a warning about the suppliement back in 2006.

Hush! That kind of talk ruins the excuse.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 11:55 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

Obviously, packerbull, you haven't followed this from the beginning. 

First, the league has NOT historically communicated to the teams that StarCaps contained a banned substance.  It has been stated over and over that the League KNEW that StarCaps had this substance, and DID NOT notify the teams, and DID NOT put StarCaps on their list of banned products.
Second, according to the manufacturer of StarCaps, bumetanide was NOT supposed to be an ingredient.
Third, Deuce McAllister, another player in this same situation, said that, in fact, he HAD sent StarCaps to the league to be tested in the past and the league cleared it.

So, a product that didn't list the banned substance on its label, a manufacturer that says they were unaware that this substance was in their product, and a league that failed to inform its players that this product had a banned substance in it.  Looks like a railroad job to me.

One more thing, let's put this in perspective:  Do you drink Coca-Cola?  Probably have for years, right?  Suppose one day, a Coca-Cola employee adds some cocaine to the syrup.  Next thing you  know,  you test positive for drugs at work because of something you have used for years?  Would you still feel it was your fault?

Yep. That is absolutely beyond doubt the loophole and excuse they are using.
It's so good it could be accused of copy and paste. Outstanding really.

But it is an excuse.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 11:51 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

Of course it isn't fair. Nor is it fair for the NFL to think it can violate state laws. Why should the Williamses have less protection than other employees in the state? Are they not just employees of the Vikings?

So your argument has to be - plain and simple that that Smith and Grant should play. There is no other argument because the law is the law. So for fairness the NFL has to void it stupid "we knew but didn't inform our players" policy.

Okay, so maybe the NFL should get creative in a more positive way.

Maybe they should compromise in this one instance, allow them to be paid, and remain active employees of the Vikings for those 4 games. But as coaching staff, ball washers, put the stickers on the helmets....whatever, but they can't set foot on the playing field if they aren't bringing someone water.

That more than fair to them, it might even prolong their careers from the extra lack of wear and tear.

Hey, the NFL cares.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 11:42 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

Please...have you read the ruling? The NFL looks like complete idiots in their arguments that the CBA preempt state law while doing their own dance around the CBA as it's convenient. Are the players employees of the team per the CBA or of the NFL as they argue?  The NFL has botched these suspensions from the beginning and sitting the Williams' would be AGAINST THE LAW. Their little cloak-and-dagger "it's within our rights NOT to disclose specifics if we don't want" is ridiculous and it looks like in the appeal they threw everything they could against the wall including claiming the supplement was taken on company time and premises because it was during training camp but failing to give the Court sufficient information to define training camp - much less a detailed itinerary of the Williams' during the time in question.

The league came across as pathetic and desperate. And maybe they are because the days of one man arbitrarily meting out punishment may be drawing to an end. Thank God.

So you have a problem with the fact that Minnesota requires a player that tests positive get a response and can be re-tested if they request? Sounds like a reasonable law to me.


Excuses and loopholes, just like what they are doing to back out on the agreement they made.

Like I said, the NFL should get just as creative and suspend them for the first 4 away games, outside of that state's jurisdiction.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 11:38 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

You have this one WRONG!!!!  The NFL wants to have business (teams) in many different states.  It it their responsiblity to write thier rules to COMPLY with the laws in the various states!  Other businesses have to do this too my friend, and the NFL is not different!

No, you have it wrong. That is why a CBA is determined at the Federal level. It is not a right to be employed in this country. By choosing to play, they agreed to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and decided in doing so they would agree to the rules outlined by it.

Many companies do this, many unions want this.

You have it backwards,



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 11:32 pm
 

Willaims Wall should be sidelined

You've got a point there.


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