Antonio Bryant - still smokin' (1 Viewer)

[Beaumont]

NFL | A. Bryant files lawsuit against NFL

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:22:31 -0700

The Associated Press reports former San Francisco 49ers WR Antonio Bryant filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Oct. 17, against the NFL. Bryant is trying to stop the league from requiring him to submit to drug testing, arguing the league's policy no longer applies to him. The lawsuit states the 49ers terminated Bryant's contract March 1, meaning: "Antonio Bryant is not a 'player,' not an employee or not under contract to the Defendants in any form or fashion." Letters sent to Bryant by the NFL show the league asked him to submit to urinalysis on Sept. 6, 13 and 18 and threatened him with discipline equivalent to a positive test if he did not cooperate.

 

[H.K.]

NFL | A. Bryant files lawsuit against NFLWed, 17 Oct 2007 22:22:31 -0700The Associated Press reports former San Francisco 49ers WR Antonio Bryant filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Oct. 17, against the NFL. Bryant is trying to stop the league from requiring him to submit to drug testing, arguing the league's policy no longer applies to him. The lawsuit states the 49ers terminated Bryant's contract March 1, meaning: "Antonio Bryant is not a 'player,' not an employee or not under contract to the Defendants in any form or fashion." Letters sent to Bryant by the NFL show the league asked him to submit to urinalysis on Sept. 6, 13 and 18 and threatened him with discipline equivalent to a positive test if he did not cooperate.

There has to be more to this than what is provided in the above blurb. How can a former employer demand a drug test?

 

[FunkyPlutos]

NFL | A. Bryant files lawsuit against NFLWed, 17 Oct 2007 22:22:31 -0700The Associated Press reports former San Francisco 49ers WR Antonio Bryant filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Oct. 17, against the NFL. Bryant is trying to stop the league from requiring him to submit to drug testing, arguing the league's policy no longer applies to him. The lawsuit states the 49ers terminated Bryant's contract March 1, meaning: "Antonio Bryant is not a 'player,' not an employee or not under contract to the Defendants in any form or fashion." Letters sent to Bryant by the NFL show the league asked him to submit to urinalysis on Sept. 6, 13 and 18 and threatened him with discipline equivalent to a positive test if he did not cooperate.

There has to be more to this than what is provided in the above blurb. How can a former employer demand a drug test?

I thought the same thing when I read this. Granted, you want to stay in good standing in the hopes of getting a job somewhere, but how can they demand him to take a test when he isn't even employed?

 

[H.K.]

NFL | A. Bryant files lawsuit against NFLWed, 17 Oct 2007 22:22:31 -0700The Associated Press reports former San Francisco 49ers WR Antonio Bryant filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Oct. 17, against the NFL. Bryant is trying to stop the league from requiring him to submit to drug testing, arguing the league's policy no longer applies to him. The lawsuit states the 49ers terminated Bryant's contract March 1, meaning: "Antonio Bryant is not a 'player,' not an employee or not under contract to the Defendants in any form or fashion." Letters sent to Bryant by the NFL show the league asked him to submit to urinalysis on Sept. 6, 13 and 18 and threatened him with discipline equivalent to a positive test if he did not cooperate.

There has to be more to this than what is provided in the above blurb. How can a former employer demand a drug test?

I thought the same thing when I read this. Granted, you want to stay in good standing in the hopes of getting a job somewhere, but how can they demand him to take a test when he isn't even employed?

Maybe the NFL has players sign agreements each year which states that they can be tested even if they are no longer in the league....fringe players get dropped and picked up all the time due to injuries, maybe that's why they do it? I just get the feeling something is missing from this article.

 

[identikit]

NFL | A. Bryant files lawsuit against NFLWed, 17 Oct 2007 22:22:31 -0700The Associated Press reports former San Francisco 49ers WR Antonio Bryant filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Oct. 17, against the NFL. Bryant is trying to stop the league from requiring him to submit to drug testing, arguing the league's policy no longer applies to him. The lawsuit states the 49ers terminated Bryant's contract March 1, meaning: "Antonio Bryant is not a 'player,' not an employee or not under contract to the Defendants in any form or fashion." Letters sent to Bryant by the NFL show the league asked him to submit to urinalysis on Sept. 6, 13 and 18 and threatened him with discipline equivalent to a positive test if he did not cooperate.

Out here in the non-NFL world, employers can ask for a drug test as a condition of employment for prospective employees. Non-compliance would mean no job. As for the discipline aspect of the above blurb, a company can (as a result of refusal to submit to the test) decide not to hire the person (for a period of time, until test is passed, indefinitely etc). If that what this means by 'discipline equivalent to a positive test' then I think the NFL is well within their rights.Just my Id

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If he hasn't filed retirement paperwork, the NFL would still consider him a player and trying to come back.

 

[jturner01]

If he did not want to possibly come back and play what would it matter to him?

 

[identikit]

If he hasn't filed retirement paperwork, the NFL would still consider him a player and trying to come back.

Good point...Id

 

[fsufan]

Out here in the non-NFL world, employers can ask for a drug test as a condition of employment for prospective employees. Non-compliance would mean no job.

the company I work for drug test before they will hire you. if you do not take it no job

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

 

[Sabertooth]

Oh the humanity. And they say pot isn't addictive.

 

[pizzatyme]

Where does it say he is trying to be employed by a team?

 

[Sabertooth]

What can the NFL do to him other than withhold employment?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

 

[maxwell1295]

They can't make him take (and pass) a drug test, but they sure as hell won't let him sign with anyone until he does. Refusing to do take the test will only dig a deeper hole with the league. If he wants to toke the wacky weed, then he just needs to go ahead and retire....

 

[pizzatyme]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

I'd say a pothead out running routes no as crisply as he should or could, would have a direct effect on the QBs ability to get rid of the ball. If the QB is waiting on him, and gets sacked, that seems like his safety is in question, no?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

 

[FavreCo]

Bryant is a genius. This is a sure fire way to never get another opportunity in the NFL. It's kinda like admitting guilt. There is not a team in the league that is going to go near this bum. Dude sucked anyway.

 

[dotman]

I love how everyone just assumes he wants to smoke weed.

If he's not being tested he could just as easily be taking steroids too.

 

[ukshane]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.

ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all

random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

I have a "right" to privately commit crimes?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.

ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all

random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

I have a "right" to privately commit crimes?

What crime is that? Having illegal drugs in your body is not a crime and this conversation is just not that simple. Technically employers in 40 some states have the right to check your sytem for just about anything they want and if you don't consent, you're gone. That is an illegal search and an invasion of personal privacy.

 

[bulldog_guy]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.

ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all

random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

I have a "right" to privately commit crimes?

No, but you do have a right to not succumb to a test to determine whether or not you committed a crime without any proof in one direction or another.

 

[Sabertooth]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

I'd say a pothead out running routes no as crisply as he should or could, would have a direct effect on the QBs ability to get rid of the ball. If the QB is waiting on him, and gets sacked, that seems like his safety is in question, no?

Not to mention the liability of the team if he gets injured or somebody gets hurt because of him.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

A private company should be able to hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they choose. And yes, I think that should apply even to racist/sexist reasons as well. The NFL can't FORCE Bryant to take a test, but they can certainly tell him that if he doesn't, then he isn't allowed back into the NFL.Let's not forget that he wouldn't even need to take any tests if he hadn't violated the NFL's drug policy already.

 

[Bojang0301]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.

ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all

random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

A private company should be able to hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they choose. And yes, I think that should apply even to racist/sexist reasons as well. The NFL can't FORCE Bryant to take a test, but they can certainly tell him that if he doesn't, then he isn't allowed back into the NFL.Let's not forget that he wouldn't even need to take any tests if he hadn't violated the NFL's drug policy already.

Ok, why?

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?

I'm not a fan of employer drug tests (nor am I a frequent drug user), but the constitution in general (and the fourth amendment in particular) is generally about restricting what the government can do, not what individuals and private companies can do. This isn't a technicality--it is a crucial aspect of the constitution, and of the American system of justice in general.For example, I believe that most restrictions on private discrimination (employment, housing, etc.) come from federal statute, not the constitution.Besides--"search without consent"? You consent as a condition of employment.

 

[pizzatyme]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

A private company should be able to hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they choose. And yes, I think that should apply even to racist/sexist reasons as well. The NFL can't FORCE Bryant to take a test, but they can certainly tell him that if he doesn't, then he isn't allowed back into the NFL.Let's not forget that he wouldn't even need to take any tests if he hadn't violated the NFL's drug policy already.

Grove, please don't go there! As a white male, I can't even begin to imagine a society where a company can go all white men if they choose.Jeez, that thought doesn't belong in the Shark Pool IMO.

 

[rct]

A private company should be able to hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they choose. And yes, I think that should apply even to racist/sexist reasons as well.

In other words it should be OK to say "Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Women need not apply".

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I must be missing something.

Either Bryant wants to be an NFL player or he doesn't. If he does, he needs to comply with the league's requirements. If he doesn't, the league can't force him to do anything at all, so he can smoke to his heart's content and all is well. Simple right?

I don't get the suit, and I don't get the outrage here on the board. Seems like Bryant wants to have his cake and smoke it too. Good luck.

 

[mad sweeney]

DENVER (AP) -- Former San Francisco receiver Antonio Bryant filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to stop the NFL from requiring him to submit to drug testing, arguing the league's policy doesn't apply to him anymore.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court states the 49ers terminated Bryant's contract March 1, meaning: "Antonio Bryant is not a `player,' not an employee or not under contract to the Defendants in any form or fashion."

Letters sent to Bryant by the NFL, which were part of court documents filed Wednesday, show the NFL asked him to submit to a urinalysis on Sept. 6, 13, and 18 and threatened him with discipline equivalent to a positive test if he didn't cooperate.

Bryant's agent and attorney, Peter Schaffer, said his client had been randomly tested since he left the 49ers, but decided he was under no obligation to take them.

"It doesn't make any sense at all," Schaffer said of the NFL's testing of Bryant.

Bryant's lawsuit asks a judge for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order prohibiting the NFL from administering tests or sharing the results of those tests. It also asks the court to prohibit the NFL from telling teams that Bryant faces suspension should they decide to sign him.

As for what teams Bryant might be considering or whether he would play in the NFL again, Schaffer said his client is keeping his options open.

A message left after business hours for NFL spokesman Greg Aiello was not returned. A phone number listed for Bryant, who lives in Coppell, Texas, was inoperable.

The lawsuit was filed in Colorado because Schaffer is based in the state.

Bryant was released in March, just one season after he signed a four-year contract with the 49ers worth $14 million.

Bryant caught 40 passes last season for a team-leading 733 yards. But he repeatedly clashed with coach Mike Nolan and was suspended four games for violating the NFL's substance-abuse policy.

Bryant won the Biletnikoff Award as the NCAA's best receiver as a sophomore at Pitt. He played for Dallas and Cleveland before joining the 49ers.

In May, Bryant pleaded no contest to reckless driving and was sentenced to a year's probation for going more than 100 mph through San Mateo, Calif.

Didn't see if anyone posted this but here's an expanded artivle from Yahoo.Yo Antonio, I think they already know this.

 

[BigJim®]

It probably comes down to whether "prospective NFL players" are in the players association union or not. If he's in the union, he's probably subject to testing. However, I don;t quite get how that would function. John Doe might be a former college player who has never been on an NFL team but has perhpas tried out. The question in my mind is whether this is a rule that can be universally applied, since I doubt anyone whose never made a team could qualify to be in the union (or be expected to pay union dues, to the extent they are imposed). Another factor is there may be a different standard for those who were in the drug program when playing, who are no longer playing. If there is any chance of a return to the NFL they may remain under the program. Good legal fodder.

 

[GroveDiesel]

A private company should be able to hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they choose. And yes, I think that should apply even to racist/sexist reasons as well.

In other words it should be OK to say "Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Women need not apply".

No, it should NOT be ok. But it SHOULD be legal. There's a difference. Sorry, but I believe in things like individual freedom, even if it's the freedom to be an idiot and say and believe vile things. Just because some people think that we can legislate thought doesn't mean that it's possible or right to do so. But that's beyond the realm of football discussion. My apologies for broadening the scope of my statement. From here on out we should probably just stick to whether or not a private employer should have the legal right to penalize an ex and potential future employee for not doing something while that individual is no longer employed by that employer.

 

[CowboyFan]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

What a sad statement on the status of civil liberties in this country.

 

[strong]

Drug tests for the purpose of employment should be unconstitutional in jobs that don't directly effect the safety of others (operating construction equipment, bus driver, etc.).

On what grounds?

It invades people's right to privacy and it also is essentially a search without consent. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense so why should private companies or government agencies be allowed to bypass this to test employees?There are several open state and federal cases on mandatory drug testing. In the next few years this will come to a boil and hopefully they will be determined illegal as we see employers now testing for things like alcohol use, cigarette use, and cholesterol levels as a term of employment and or health benefits.

ETA:

Seven states have enacted protective legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all

random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers' otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

-ACLU

A private company should be able to hire or not hire someone for whatever reason they choose. And yes, I think that should apply even to racist/sexist reasons as well. The NFL can't FORCE Bryant to take a test, but they can certainly tell him that if he doesn't, then he isn't allowed back into the NFL.Let's not forget that he wouldn't even need to take any tests if he hadn't violated the NFL's drug policy already.

Just out of curiosity: Are you a white male?