This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4464771
How is justice served when the Saints players are suspended for the same thing?
Because the Saints are in our division???
Did they pursue their case in court and appeal if they lost? I don't know the details of their case. If they did then I am sorry for them but the important thing is the precedent this sets: namely, the league has a responsibility to notify players of what is banned.
Pat Williams is what, 37? Hes almost there
. They won't get another year out of this- it will be settled next offseason.
I thought that the Saints' DEs already won on (separate) appeal, and are starting this weekend?
They have a reprieve but not clear if it is permanent or temporary:http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2009/...ive_ends_w.html
Because they don't live in Mineesota (case decided under state law)
The players took an over the counter substance. The league KNEW that the substance had a banned drug in it, but did not notify players. I think the league needs to be crystal clear about what is and is not allowed if they are going to ban players, especially since they did know.That is not what this case is about at all
And see above: the Saint's players have not served a suspension yet. Their case is still pending.
Honestly I have no clue. NO is in Louisiana and the are on a weird law system. (google "naploeonic code" and Louisiana) Every other state (and territory) in the US is based on "common law" (law of england) while Louisiana is based on Napoleonic code (laws of france) so I have no clue what this means there.
Um yes it is. But please don't blow up my mailbox.That is not what this case is about at all
It was a federal court ruling.
We do live in a country where state law is respected. So if the law is different in LA that will affect the outcome of the two states. Is it just? Depends on whether or not you think state's should have the right to make their own laws. For example, there are a couple of states where gays can marry. Other states they can get domestic partnerships. Most states they can't get either. What domestic partnerships means, legally, is different by state. Is that just? In any case, I think the Williams' case will force the NFL to be more clear about all products that are forbidden, which is only fair. And in the long run, this will benefit players in all states.Honestly I have no clue. NO is in Louisiana and the are on a weird law system. (google "naploeonic code" and Louisiana) Every other state (and territory) in the US is based on "common law" (law of england) while Louisiana is based on Napoleonic code (laws of france) so I have no clue what this means there.
The NFL chose not to enforce the suspensions pending the outcome of all appeals in the Minnesota case.There were three (3) appeals:1 - The NFL appealed the decision that the Minnesota state law claims (related to work place drug testing) were not pre-empted by the CBA2 - The Williams' appealed the decision that other common law claims were preempted by the CBA (i.e they can no longer pursue those claims)3 - The Union appealed the decision that the NFL acted within the scope of the CBA when they suspended the players (This was teh claim that the NFL shoudl have disclosed that they knew of the banned substance in the StarCaps)The Appellate court affirmed the lower court in each case, which means:1 - The CBA does not pre-empt Minnesota state laws related to work-place drug testing - those claims will now proceed in the Minnesota state court. To prevail, the Williams will have to establish the drug testing policy violated Minnesota state law - no determination on that has been made at any level.2. The Williams' remaining claims have been decided against them - the lowere court had granted summary judgemt to the NFL on that issue - effectively dismissing those claims.3. The lower court had granted summary judgment to the NFL on the issue of how the policy was applied - in terms of notice to players, compliance with the CBA, and the CBA mandated appeal process. This was the only defense raised by the Saints' players - and they lost this at the trial court level, and again on appeal.So, in a nutshell - The NFL acted appropriately as it relates to the CBA. The only remaining issue is whether the drug policy in the CBA meets the requirements of the Minnesota state work-place drug testing laws. If it does not, the Williams will never be suspended. If it does meet the requirements, the Williams will be suspended.Can't make that promise - but I will send advance notice.Um yes it is. But please don't blow up my mailbox.That is not what this case is about at all
But it was a federal court ruling whether the State or federal law was controlling. Minnesotas state law is obviously favorable to their case, but who knows whether or not the same is true for Louisiana, or any other NFL teams state in the future. (I bet for e.g that GA law on this might go the other way as businesses have been paying off the legislature for years)
I'm definately not a lawyer- but if I recall and understand correctly the decision was weather or not the NFL- as an organization not based in MIN had to obey Min state laws for Min players. That was why it was decided in a federal court system because there were jurisdictional issues involved not just straight legal issues. I could well be wrong on this one though as I am not often the sharpest in interpreting the law.
The one thing that is troubling is that Minnesota players are being held to a different standard (lesser) than the other players; that is just wrong
The failing is in the CBA, and the loophole should have been accounted for ahead of time. Time for the NFL to go
It is a loophole, but the NFL was in the wrong to try and suspend these guys anyway. The NO guys are the ones who're going to suffer for it, sadly, when they were as unjustly targeted as well.Every employee (player) in a different state has different standards. Whether it is income taxes, labor laws, whatever.There is nothing "wrong" with it, just "different". Different states, different laws.
The league is "crystal clear". THe league publishes a list of all approved substances and products. Players who take products not on the list do so at their own risk -- (well until now and unless they play for the Vikings). THe substance that the players took was banned and was on the banned list because it is a masking agent for steroids. They claim it was in an over the counter product that they took and they didn't know. BUT the product was not on the league approved list -- so they took it at their own risk. The league operates a hotline that players can call if they want to take a product but are unsure. While the league suspected that StarCaps contained an illegal masking agent, the list of ingredients published by the manufacturer did not include the banned substance. The NFL was likely in a situation where they risked litigation if they "outed StarCaps". So instead, it was not listed on the approved product list - which was supposed to be the safer way to elimintate the use by players.The players took an over the counter substance. The league KNEW that the substance had a banned drug in it, but did not notify players. I think the league needs to be crystal clear about what is and is not allowed if they are going to ban players, especially since they did know.That is not what this case is about at all
So the league considered it banned but was afraid to ban it, and they want the players held responsible for this?
T Man, Fatness is pointing out something important -- your post seems to contradict itself....
would have saved you some effort. 
