The Williams Wall is back! (1 Viewer)

[Primetime304]

Just saw it on the local news. A judge in Minneapolis has blocked the suspension pending a full hearing next week.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I guess the Lions will have to wait for GB to see if they can catch a win this year.

 

[Sundog]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

Any thoughts on how this would impact the other suspended players (Pierre Thomas owner)?

 

[Primetime304]

Just saw it on the local news. A judge in Minneapolis has blocked the suspension pending a full hearing next week.

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S688982.shtml?cat=1

 

[BigJim®]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

This is exactly right. As I posted in the other thread though, I see no way a judge can conclude they were likely to win based on my understanding of the policy. The policy was approved by the player's association and absolutely does not require the NFL to list prohibited "brands" nor to alert players beyond the general rule that they are responsible for whatever they put into their body in the event they are found to have injested a banned substance. They list approved brands, and this one was not on it. Looks like they found a judge who's a Viking fan...

 

[ceo3west]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

Any thoughts on how this would impact the other suspended players (Pierre Thomas owner)?

Good question, I'd like to know this as well. If I had to guess, I'd say that the other 4 suspended players will follow suit unfortunately (also a Thomas owner).

 

[T Bell]

The judge is obviously facing Kevin Smith this week in his first round playoff game.

 

[BigJim®]

Hold up. You should really change the title of this thread. The Star Tribune is not saying they can play next week. It says the judge is giving the NFL the option to appear at a hearing as early as this Thursday, which would presumably allow for a decree on the petition before the Detroit game. Only if the NFL chooses to have the hearing next week would the Williams be a certainty for this week.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/...L7PQLanchO7DiUs

 

[harryhood]

so does this just mean that next week the judge will look at everything and then decide if it will hold up? And if things look air tight then they have to serve their suspension and the judge will dismiss the injunction? That would mean last 3 weeks plus their first playoff game?(if they make it)

I hope they know what they are doing cause there could be a lot of pissed off people if this just delays the suspension for 1 week(against the lions none the less)

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

I don't think the standard is "more likely than not"; I think it's "strong possibility of success" which is slightly less onerous. But then I'm not a lawyer.

 

[BigJim®]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

I don't think the standard is "more likely than not"; I think it's "strong possibility of success" which is slightly less onerous. But then I'm not a lawyer.

I think you have it backwards as "more likely than not" would be a 51% standard whereas "strong possibility" would presumably be higher than that IMHO. Anyway, the actual standard for granting an injunction under Minnesota law is "The likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits, when the facts are viewed in light of established precedents." I understand "likelihood" is considered a higher standard than merely 51/49, and another tricky point is whether there are any precedents which support the Williams fact pattern. If not, it could work against them.

 

[FUBAR]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

I don't think the standard is "more likely than not"; I think it's "strong possibility of success" which is slightly less onerous. But then I'm not a lawyer.

I think you have it backwards as "more likely than not" would be a 51% standard whereas "strong possibility" would presumably be higher than that IMHO. Anyway, the actual standard for granting an injunction under Minnesota law is "The likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits, when the facts are viewed in light of established precedents." I understand "likelihood" is considered a higher standard than merely 51/49, and another tricky point is whether there are any precedents which support the Williams fact pattern. If not, it could work against them.

I always believed the term "likelihood" to be rather discretionary, whereas "preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not" indicate 51%. Also, "strong possibility" doesn't necessarily = "probability" . The irreparable harm portion is easy enough.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Lay the points for MIN before it goes up..... -7.5 looks like a steal...

 

[Primetime304]

Hold up. You should really change the title of this thread. The Star Tribune is not saying they can play next week. It says the judge is giving the NFL the option to appear at a hearing as early as this Thursday, which would presumably allow for a decree on the petition before the Detroit game. Only if the NFL chooses to have the hearing next week would the Williams be a certainty for this week.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/...L7PQLanchO7DiUs

The NFL wanted the hearing tomorrow but the judge is busy until Dec. 10. From RotoworldPat Williams-DL-Vikings Dec. 3 - 7:42 pm et

Vikings DTs Pat and Kevin Williams have reportedly been granted a temporary restraining order against the NFL from a judge that may allow their four-game suspensions to be delayed.

The judge called this one of the most difficult rulings he's ever made, and reinstated the Williamses to practice only because "he's not familiar with the situation" between them and the league. The NFL asked for an immediate hearing, but the judge refused because he's tied up until December 10. That means the Williamses have a real chance to play on December 7 against Detroit. Stay tuned, but this would be awful news for Kevin Smith's matchup.

Source: KARE - Twin Cities

Related: Kevin Williams, Kevin Smith

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

Any thoughts on how this would impact the other suspended players (Pierre Thomas owner)?

Good question, I'd like to know this as well. If I had to guess, I'd say that the other 4 suspended players will follow suit unfortunately (also a Thomas owner).

I'm very surprised we haven't heard from Deuce's side - this could very well be his final season, so any suspension could be moot if in 2009.

 

[Bad_Mo]

I wonder how this judge would have ruled in the Vick case? What a joke.

Serve the games now or later...which is better?

 

[uconnalum]

I guarantee the Willams will face the wrath from the NFL trying to circumvent there punishment. I hope the NFL suspends them for the playoffs also just to prove a point.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I guarantee the Willams will face the wrath from the NFL trying to circumvent there punishment. I hope the NFL suspends them for the playoffs also just to prove a point.

Yeah, hanging's too good for them. Not knowing the unlisted ingredients of an over-the-counter supplement. They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

 

[David Yudkin]

In one of the links, it said that the NFL could go to a higher court or federal court today or tomorrow if the judge making the ruling was not available. I have not seen anywhere what the NFL is planning on doing on their side.

 

[Franknbeans]

Can any practicing lawyers in the Shark Pool answer this question -- my memory from law school (a couple of decades ago) is that this kind of emergency relief is only granted upon a showing of irreparable harm, and that the applicant is "more likely than not" to prevail when the issue comes to trial. Is that correct? If so,the Vikes may be "more likely than not" to have the Williams boys through the rest of season.

Any thoughts on how this would impact the other suspended players (Pierre Thomas owner)?

Good question, I'd like to know this as well. If I had to guess, I'd say that the other 4 suspended players will follow suit unfortunately (also a Thomas owner).

I'm very surprised we haven't heard from Deuce's side - this could very well be his final season, so any suspension could be moot if in 2009.

deuce has already come out and said he wants to play in 2009

 

[PeaceBringer]

From what I have heard, NFLPA is taking issue to Federal Court.

Also there is some legal precedente for Courts getting suspensions thrown out. I think it was Richard Dent or someone similar who got one thrown out in Chicago. Travis Henry got his suspension tossed out, yet he still couldn't stay away from the drugs.

 

[David Yudkin]

From what I have heard, NFLPA is taking issue to Federal Court.Also there is some legal precedente for Courts getting suspensions thrown out. I think it was Richard Dent or someone similar who got one thrown out in Chicago. Travis Henry got his suspension tossed out, yet he still couldn't stay away from the drugs.

I don't remember the Dent one, but Henry's got tossed because he tested positive through an outside source not the NFL random drug sampling process. So procedurally IIRC the court ruled that the NFL did not follow the guidelines that it and the NFLPA had agreed to.In the current case, IMO the integrity of the process was followed so I suspect that there would not be wiggle room on a technicality.In a somewhat strange tangent, it's a lot like marriage vows. Infifelity is not allowed. But honey, you didn't specifically say that Jessica Alba was on the no not fornicate list.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ultimately the Vikings are going nowhere this year. I believe they would be better served by just getting these suspensions behind them. It having been a while since the team has had anything to crow about I guess their fans are starved for a playoff game, but really, what likelihood is there of playoff success?

As a Packer fan I have written this year off. I am looking to next year. I would be pleased if the Vikes had a lower draft choice this spring and if the Williams had to serve their suspensions next season crippling the Vikings chances that year and paving the way for the Packers.

 

[bcr8f]

The NFL will probably find another judge to reverse this today. As they said the players agreed to the rules and then violated them.

 

[NJ]

In a somewhat strange tangent, it's a lot like marriage vows. Infifelity is not allowed. But honey, you didn't specifically say that Jessica Alba was on the no not fornicate list.

Actually a better example would be if your wife knew that Jessica Alba was naked in the next room and wanted to #### you but your wife says nothing to you, lets you walk into the room, and then blames you for what happens next.

 

[Dash]

This is an easy court case because of one simple matter: either the NFL informed teams and the NFLPA in 2006 of StarCaps being on the prohibited list or they didn't. If they did, suspensions will be served. If they didn't the injunction will stand.

 

[ourmanflint]

This is an easy court case because of one simple matter: either the NFL informed teams and the NFLPA in 2006 of StarCaps being on the prohibited list or they didn't. If they did, suspensions will be served. If they didn't the injunction will stand.

I don't understand that statement. Why should it matter if the NFL knew and did or did not inform the players?Does this action override the clearly stated policy that it's the player's responsibility to know what they are taking?Does the policy state that it's the NFL's responsibility to inform players of known banned substances in certain supplements? It is my knowledge that it does not.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This is an easy court case because of one simple matter: either the NFL informed teams and the NFLPA in 2006 of StarCaps being on the prohibited list or they didn't. If they did, suspensions will be served. If they didn't the injunction will stand.

I don't understand that statement. Why should it matter if the NFL knew and did or did not inform the players?Does this action override the clearly stated policy that it's the player's responsibility to know what they are taking?Does the policy state that it's the NFL's responsibility to inform players of known banned substances in certain supplements? It is my knowledge that it does not.

the NFL knowing a possibly harmful substance is contained in a product through their own testing, and then not releasing that information would pretty much seal the deal. Whether the policy states it or not is irrelevant. the league has a responsibility for the safety of its players to release such information. I dont know if they released it or not, but if they didnt, then these suspensions will be overturned. Look at it this way...If the NFL independently tested the water in an NFL stadium and found high levels of mercury and then didnt notify anybody, what do you think would happen? I would bet that there is no policy in place regarding mercury levels in the water of an nfl stadium. It falls under a different umbrella.

 

[BigJim®]

the NFL knowing a possibly harmful substance is contained in a product through their own testing, and then not releasing that information would pretty much seal the deal.

Whether the policy states it or not is irrelevant. the league has a responsibility for the safety of its players to release such information.

I dont know if they released it or not, but if they didnt, then these suspensions will be overturned.

Look at it this way...If the NFL independently tested the water in an NFL stadium and found high levels of mercury and then didnt notify anybody, what do you think would happen? I would bet that there is no policy in place regarding mercury levels in the water of an nfl stadium. It falls under a different umbrella.

Oh really? You realize a judge's job will be to interpret the CBA and ignore anything not contained in the agreement, right? If the policy agreed upon by the NFLPA reads "you are at risk when taking any brand not listed in the safe list" and this one was not on the safe list, that seems pretty open/shut to me. The rest is noise that might confuse a jury, but should not confuse a judge.

 

[GroveDiesel]

In one of the links, it said that the NFL could go to a higher court or federal court today or tomorrow if the judge making the ruling was not available. I have not seen anywhere what the NFL is planning on doing on their side.

Apparently the problem for the NFL is that the federal district that would hear their case would be with a judge that the NFL believes to be biased against them. LINKAlthough they've gone ahead and gotten moved to federal court anyway. LINK

 

[parasaurolophus]

the NFL knowing a possibly harmful substance is contained in a product through their own testing, and then not releasing that information would pretty much seal the deal.

Whether the policy states it or not is irrelevant. the league has a responsibility for the safety of its players to release such information.

I dont know if they released it or not, but if they didnt, then these suspensions will be overturned.

Look at it this way...If the NFL independently tested the water in an NFL stadium and found high levels of mercury and then didnt notify anybody, what do you think would happen? I would bet that there is no policy in place regarding mercury levels in the water of an nfl stadium. It falls under a different umbrella.

Oh really? You realize a judge's job will be to interpret the CBA and ignore anything not contained in the agreement, right? If the policy agreed upon by the NFLPA reads "you are at risk when taking any brand not listed in the safe list" and this one was not on the safe list, that seems pretty open/shut to me. The rest is noise that might confuse a jury, but should not confuse a judge.

the NFL did their own independent study of this very product and found that it did in fact contain a substance. Had they not done a study, then what you are mentioning above would seem valid.

I read the documents for the case filed on behalf of the williams boys, it would seem that the NFL did in fact notify teams, but they claim that they should have sent a memo to the players and most importantly the trainers.

It seems there is also a hotline they could call, but they claim that it was a waste of time to call that hotline.

 

[GroveDiesel]

the NFL knowing a possibly harmful substance is contained in a product through their own testing, and then not releasing that information would pretty much seal the deal.

Whether the policy states it or not is irrelevant. the league has a responsibility for the safety of its players to release such information.

I dont know if they released it or not, but if they didnt, then these suspensions will be overturned.

Look at it this way...If the NFL independently tested the water in an NFL stadium and found high levels of mercury and then didnt notify anybody, what do you think would happen? I would bet that there is no policy in place regarding mercury levels in the water of an nfl stadium. It falls under a different umbrella.

Oh really? You realize a judge's job will be to interpret the CBA and ignore anything not contained in the agreement, right? If the policy agreed upon by the NFLPA reads "you are at risk when taking any brand not listed in the safe list" and this one was not on the safe list, that seems pretty open/shut to me. The rest is noise that might confuse a jury, but should not confuse a judge.

the NFL did their own independent study of this very product and found that it did in fact contain a substance. Had they not done a study, then what you are mentioning above would seem valid.

I read the documents for the case filed on behalf of the williams boys, it would seem that the NFL did in fact notify teams, but they claim that they should have sent a memo to the players and most importantly the trainers.

It seems there is also a hotline they could call, but they claim that it was a waste of time to call that hotline.

A memo was also sent to the NFLPA's steroid policy rep, not just to the teams. If the NFLPA had it, all of the players should have received it from the NFLPA. It's not the NFL's job to mail every player a copy of the memo. Both the team and the union had the information. Both of them had a duty to inform their players. If they want to sue their team or sue the NFLPA I think they may have a case. But they have absolutely zero case against the NFL IMO.

 

[ourmanflint]

the NFL knowing a possibly harmful substance is contained in a product through their own testing, and then not releasing that information would pretty much seal the deal.

Whether the policy states it or not is irrelevant. the league has a responsibility for the safety of its players to release such information.

I dont know if they released it or not, but if they didnt, then these suspensions will be overturned.

Look at it this way...If the NFL independently tested the water in an NFL stadium and found high levels of mercury and then didnt notify anybody, what do you think would happen? I would bet that there is no policy in place regarding mercury levels in the water of an nfl stadium. It falls under a different umbrella.

Oh really? You realize a judge's job will be to interpret the CBA and ignore anything not contained in the agreement, right? If the policy agreed upon by the NFLPA reads "you are at risk when taking any brand not listed in the safe list" and this one was not on the safe list, that seems pretty open/shut to me. The rest is noise that might confuse a jury, but should not confuse a judge.

the NFL did their own independent study of this very product and found that it did in fact contain a substance. Had they not done a study, then what you are mentioning above would seem valid.

I read the documents for the case filed on behalf of the williams boys, it would seem that the NFL did in fact notify teams, but they claim that they should have sent a memo to the players and most importantly the trainers.

It seems there is also a hotline they could call, but they claim that it was a waste of time to call that hotline.

Yes you do have a point here and this is at the heart of the question.I don't think it's cut and dry though and I think it's really anybody's guess what a judge will do. I don't think the NFL's actions regarding StarCaps, whatever they were, are necessarily a reason to issue a restraining order. There seems to be a lot of doubt about that. But it certainly seems reasonable that it could.

There is absolutely a chance that Lombardo's actions will cause a judge to block the suspensions until the case can be heard in court which would, in all likelihood, allow the players to finish out the year and the playoffs if their teams make it.

It really isn't clear what Lombardo did though. We're hearing the NFL did notify the teams and trainers but not the players. Then we hear they did notify the players but not the trainers. This is confusing and I guess they'll get to the bottom of it in the hearing.

Also confusing that Lombardo tested StarCaps in 2006 and found the banned substance but Deuce has been taking them for 4 years and never tested positive for it. He also sent a sample of it to the NFL for testing and it came back negative for banned substances?

The rabbit hole goes even deeper...

 

[GroveDiesel]

the NFL knowing a possibly harmful substance is contained in a product through their own testing, and then not releasing that information would pretty much seal the deal.

Whether the policy states it or not is irrelevant. the league has a responsibility for the safety of its players to release such information.

I dont know if they released it or not, but if they didnt, then these suspensions will be overturned.

Look at it this way...If the NFL independently tested the water in an NFL stadium and found high levels of mercury and then didnt notify anybody, what do you think would happen? I would bet that there is no policy in place regarding mercury levels in the water of an nfl stadium. It falls under a different umbrella.

Oh really? You realize a judge's job will be to interpret the CBA and ignore anything not contained in the agreement, right? If the policy agreed upon by the NFLPA reads "you are at risk when taking any brand not listed in the safe list" and this one was not on the safe list, that seems pretty open/shut to me. The rest is noise that might confuse a jury, but should not confuse a judge.

the NFL did their own independent study of this very product and found that it did in fact contain a substance. Had they not done a study, then what you are mentioning above would seem valid.

I read the documents for the case filed on behalf of the williams boys, it would seem that the NFL did in fact notify teams, but they claim that they should have sent a memo to the players and most importantly the trainers.

It seems there is also a hotline they could call, but they claim that it was a waste of time to call that hotline.

Yes you do have a point here and this is at the heart of the question.I don't think it's cut and dry though and I think it's really anybody's guess what a judge will do. I don't think the NFL's actions regarding StarCaps, whatever they were, are necessarily a reason to issue a restraining order. There seems to be a lot of doubt about that. But it certainly seems reasonable that it could.

There is absolutely a chance that Lombardo's actions will cause a judge to block the suspensions until the case can be heard in court which would, in all likelihood, allow the players to finish out the year and the playoffs if their teams make it.

It really isn't clear what Lombardo did though. We're hearing the NFL did notify the teams and trainers but not the players. Then we hear they did notify the players but not the trainers. This is confusing and I guess they'll get to the bottom of it in the hearing.

Also confusing that Lombardo tested StarCaps in 2006 and found the banned substance but Deuce has been taking them for 4 years and never tested positive for it. He also sent a sample of it to the NFL for testing and it came back negative for banned substances?

The rabbit hole goes even deeper...

One of the problems with taking a non-approved supplement (this goes for NFL players as well as anyone else) is that supplements aren't regulated in any way. So the production facilities aren't always the best and you can't trust that you're going to get the exact same thing in your supplement everytime. That's exactly why the NFL created a partnership with EAS to INSURE that the players had access to safe supplements.

 

[BigJim®]

Hold up. You should really change the title of this thread. The Star Tribune is not saying they can play next week. It says the judge is giving the NFL the option to appear at a hearing as early as this Thursday, which would presumably allow for a decree on the petition before the Detroit game. Only if the NFL chooses to have the hearing next week would the Williams be a certainty for this week.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/...L7PQLanchO7DiUs

The NFL wanted the hearing tomorrow but the judge is busy until Dec. 10. From RotoworldPat Williams-DL-Vikings Dec. 3 - 7:42 pm et

Vikings DTs Pat and Kevin Williams have reportedly been granted a temporary restraining order against the NFL from a judge that may allow their four-game suspensions to be delayed.

The judge called this one of the most difficult rulings he's ever made, and reinstated the Williamses to practice only because "he's not familiar with the situation" between them and the league. The NFL asked for an immediate hearing, but the judge refused because he's tied up until December 10. That means the Williamses have a real chance to play on December 7 against Detroit. Stay tuned, but this would be awful news for Kevin Smith's matchup.

Source: KARE - Twin Cities

Related: Kevin Williams, Kevin Smith

The NFL moved it to federal court and the new Judge has scheduled a hearing for Friday AM. http://www.startribune.com/local/35540029....QL7PQLanchO7DiU

 

[jonessed]

Seems they would want to start the suspension sooner rather than later. If they play the Detroit game they are going to end up missing a possible playoff game.

 

[acme]

I guarantee the Willams will face the wrath from the NFL trying to circumvent there punishment. I hope the NFL suspends them for the playoffs also just to prove a point.

Yeah, hanging's too good for them. Not knowing the unlisted ingredients of an over-the-counter supplement. They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

Burn the witch... BURN HER!(yes... but what ELSE floats in water?)

 

[bcr8f]

Just saw it on the local news. A judge in Minneapolis has blocked the suspension pending a full hearing next week.

So the Williams boys want to play against Detroit so if they get in the playoffs they miss the first playoff game.Now that's smart.

 

[blend]

Seems they would want to start the suspension sooner rather than later. If they play the Detroit game they are going to end up missing a possible playoff game.

I will laugh my head off if this is the case and the Vikes get into the playoffs but lose in the first round because of this.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Seems they would want to start the suspension sooner rather than later. If they play the Detroit game they are going to end up missing a possible playoff game.

I will laugh my head off if this is the case and the Vikes get into the playoffs but lose in the first round because of this.

they need to get into the playoffs to lose in the playoffs.they barely beat detroit earlier this year and division/conference games are very important for tiebreaking. If they beat detroit they would pretty much just need to win one more game this year and hope that GB beats the bears.

 

[Oh Yes!]

I guarantee the Willams will face the wrath from the NFL trying to circumvent there punishment. I hope the NFL suspends them for the playoffs also just to prove a point.

Yeah, hanging's too good for them. Not knowing the unlisted ingredients of an over-the-counter supplement. They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

Burn the witch... BURN HER!(yes... but what ELSE floats in water?)

a duck

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Todays athletes are incredibly knowledgable about what they put in their bodies. I don't see d-linemen having a legitimate reason for taking diuretics as they would be risking dibilitating muscles pulls by doing so. They need a reason for what they were doing. I don't buy that they were trying to make weight. They were masking their roid abuse. Now true I don't have any proof, but their story does not pass the sniff test.

Information on things like Starcaps spreads like wildfire through pro training rooms. These guys knew what they were doing and were doing it for a reason.

I would be very surprised if they prevail in Federal Court today. I don't see where they can carry their legal burden here. This opinion is wholly seperate from my speculation above as their behavior and the reasons for it are not relevant to the issue before the court.

 

[blend]

Seems they would want to start the suspension sooner rather than later. If they play the Detroit game they are going to end up missing a possible playoff game.

I will laugh my head off if this is the case and the Vikes get into the playoffs but lose in the first round because of this.

they need to get into the playoffs to lose in the playoffs.they barely beat detroit earlier this year and division/conference games are very important for tiebreaking. If they beat detroit they would pretty much just need to win one more game this year and hope that GB beats the bears.

That is true, but I'm beginning to think that with the Lie-Down defense that ADP would still get 150 and 2tds behind the Eden Prairie High School O-Line. They should have zero problems with the Lions this week.

 

[Kuz]

Just saw it on the local news. A judge in Minneapolis has blocked the suspension pending a full hearing next week.

So the Williams boys want to play against Detroit so if they get in the playoffs they miss the first playoff game.Now that's smart.

As a fan it doesn't look like the smart thing.. But Pat Williams will lose almost 235K or something like that if he misses a regular season game. If he ends up missing a playoff game then he'll miss like 12K.. Not saying I like that way of thinking from a fan's viewpoint but from his.. that is an awful lot of money..

 

[mbuehner]

I guarantee the Willams will face the wrath from the NFL trying to circumvent there punishment. I hope the NFL suspends them for the playoffs also just to prove a point.

Yeah, hanging's too good for them. Not knowing the unlisted ingredients of an over-the-counter supplement. They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

Burn the witch... BURN HER!(yes... but what ELSE floats in water?)

a duck

Apples?! Churches!!! Very small rocks!!

 

[FFdork]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but I don't think they're taking it to court so they can delay their suspension by a week. They're going to court b/c they feel like they have a legit case for a lesser suspension or no suspension at all. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but that's the goal here. If the ruling goes against them & they do play this week it certainly will backfire for the Vikings.

Also, I appreciate the cynicism from Ditkaless, but I disagree on the sniff test. On the surface it looks like a bunch of bigger guys trying to make weight. Plus, I've yet to see any smoke about steroids in the Starcaps cases other than the fact that the unlisted diuretic can be used to mask them. Do we even know if there was enough of that ingredient in the pills to successfully mask anything?

 

[mbuehner]

Do we even know if there was enough of that ingredient in the pills to successfully mask anything?

Its immaterial. The NFL policy isn't you can't take steroids. The NFL policy is you can't take any of the substances on the list, period. Intent is not an issue. The players have ample tools to distinguish what are allowed supplements and what aren't.Moreover, the whole point of a masking agent is that it masks something else. If the mask turns up in your bloodstream there is no way to tell if it came from Starcaps or something else (IE, the starcaps could be the mask for a more powerful masking agent). Its a never ending rabbit hole, which is why the NFL just wisely made it simple and said don't take anything with ingredients on this list, and if you have a question submit the supplement for testing with the NFL before use. Anything else and every case would be argued as an exception to the rule. Of course this is happening anyway, so maybe they failed on that count, but chalk that one up to the lawyers.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but I don't think they're taking it to court so they can delay their suspension by a week. They're going to court b/c they feel like they have a legit case for a lesser suspension or no suspension at all. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but that's the goal here. If the ruling goes against them & they do play this week it certainly will backfire for the Vikings.Also, I appreciate the cynicism from Ditkaless, but I disagree on the sniff test. On the surface it looks like a bunch of bigger guys trying to make weight. Plus, I've yet to see any smoke about steroids in the Starcaps cases other than the fact that the unlisted diuretic can be used to mask them. Do we even know if there was enough of that ingredient in the pills to successfully mask anything?

I freely admit mine is wild speculation only. That said it is inconcievable to me that one can be trained to their level of fitness absent being very well informed on all aspects of training. for some reason we like to pretend that athletes can be innocent dupes in these matters, but this is their life. Now the Willims' are not Grady Jackson or Gilbert Brown, fat asses that have to make weight to make the roster. These are very fit men. They seem to have no real weight concerns, at least to me. When I couple this with the Vikings tragic history with Cory Stringer I cannot believe that the team was pressuring them to lose weight, nor that diuretics were in the plan if they had since these tend to be responsible for all sorts or training strains. There is but one reason I can see for having taken them. Still, as yoo suggest this is nothing more than speculation on my part and I freely admit that.

 

[FFdork]

Do we even know if there was enough of that ingredient in the pills to successfully mask anything?

Its immaterial. The NFL policy isn't you can't take steroids. The NFL policy is you can't take any of the substances on the list, period. Intent is not an issue. The players have ample tools to distinguish what are allowed supplements and what aren't.

You are correct in terms of the NFL policy, but that's not why I was asking. I was addressing Ditkaless's idea that they were probably using it to mask steroid use.ETA in terms of the "ample tools": there has been a lot of discussion that communication between the NFL and players has NOT been good. Players not getting calls to the league about supplements returned. The NFL choosing not to inform players that the banned diuretic was in the pills and so forth. However, I will say that it's pretty short-sighted for players to take anything they're not sure about.