http://broncotalk.net/
"Travis Henry is facing a one-year suspension for violating the league’s substance abuse policy for a third time, after he tested positive for marijuana. We’ve already discussed the idiocy of the timing of this violation (a week or two later and Henry would have been rotated out of the program entirely, cleaning his slate completely), but there is still the entire legal and financial issues that warrant discussing. If Henry wins his legal case, reports indicate that he would likely remain a Denver Bronco, at least in the short term, whether the team wants him or not.
Henry is suing the NFL, and has already won a temporary restraining order against the league, over a technicality in the testing process. He is attempting to have his B Sample removed from evidence in his case because one of his experts was not present during the procedure. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) gives the player the right to have at least one of his experts present, and so the state court granted Henry his request some time after September 20.
The league, however, has already taken the order to court and has had it vacated. The CBA clearly states that the expert Henry is allowed to have present must be independent, and not from another lab. Henry’s expert was from such a lab, which is why he/she was not allowed to be present during the testing procedure. Reports indicate the league even gave Henry a list of 10 such experts that would qualify as independent.
Because the league feels interpretation of the CBA is necessary to cut through all the legal red tape, the case is going to federal labor courts, who seem best fit to deal with such matters. The results of this hearing will have a huge effect on Henry’s future as a Bronco and in the NFL.
While the case is pending, Henry is free to play. If he sits out this weekend against the Chargers, it would be more due to injury and not due to suspension. The team couldn’t suspend Henry while the case is pending - they wouldn’t have a legal leg on which to stand.
If Henry loses his case, he would be suspended for 1 year per the league’s substance abuse policy, effective immediately. I would expect the Denver Broncos would release him. The Broncos would then go after the signing bonus portion of his salary they have already paid, which amounts to approximately $2 million of the $12 million agreed to in his contract. Any other moneys Henry has already received would remain with him, but the Broncos would owe him nothing further and would have no hit on the 2008 salary cap.
If Henry wins his case, the B Sample that tested positive would be removed from evidence. Further samples would likely be taken to confirm the original sample, and if Henry passes that test he would be completely in the clear. Therefore the NFL, and the Denver Broncos, could take no action on the basis of a drug violation.
This means that the Broncos would not be able to attempt to recoup any of Henry’s signing bonus he has already received. It also means, if the team were to release Henry, they wouldn’t have the drug violation to use as basis for breaking that clause. In other words, it’s as if the drug violation never occurred, and the Broncos would still owe Henry a lot of money.
Would the Broncos be willing to cut ties with Henry and simply eat the costs of cutting him in that case? I doubt it. It would be much more sensible for the team to release or trade Henry before his scheduled roster bonus early next year, but after he played for the team this season and “earned” the paycheck we owe him.
On another note, some Broncos fans have been posting questions comparing this case to Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman’s suspension this year. The two really have nothing to do with one another. Merriman was suspended for steroids, which is handled very differently from marijuana, and warrants an immediate four-game suspension after the initial violation, as opposed to a warning.
The bottom line - only if the federal court sides with the NFL will Henry be suspended. If/when that never happens, Henry will remain active and will avoid the suspension and any other drug-related repercussions completely."
] or would it be a hostile reception since he hasn't been a Bronco long enough to offset anger that he would be so dumb and put the success of the team at risk?
] or would it be a hostile reception since he hasn't been a Bronco long enough to offset anger that he would be so dumb and put the success of the team at risk?
] or would it be a hostile reception since he hasn't been a Bronco long enough to offset anger that he would be so dumb and put the success of the team at risk?
but this is running a ball, not rocket science. 
Duggy
