What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Williams boys OUT for the VIkes...Open Season? (1 Viewer)

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
I don't think the Vikes will be able to win more than 2 games with the Williams Boys gone for the rest of the regular season...can they even win 2 more?

FF perspective: Could we see an uptick in the amount of points the Vikes now need to win? Could Gus, and Berrian be in for a big run the final 4 weeks? Shiancoe value? WR2?...whoever that is. And will Adrian Peterson have to throw it down more the final 4 games?

I'll hang up and listen.

 
If they lose the Williamses it hurts for sure, though I'm not convinced this won't hang up on appeals much like Matt Jones has.

However, I'd be very surprised if they weren't able to win 2 games without them. Detroit should be a cakewalk and the Giants very likely won't be playing for anything in week 17 so there's two games right there.

Which leaves Atlanta and Arizona, I'd say those are probably 60-40 they lose, but I could see them beating both of them. I guess what I'm getting at is even if the Williamses are gone, I'm not expecting Minnesota to fall apart by any means and I think they can win the division without them. Its actually really good timing now that Minnesota is done with their Chicago and Green Bay games.

FF-wise: Obviously it looks a lot better for people who may have been worried about Michael Turner in week 16, but other than that I don't see much of an effect on that end.

On the offensive side, they may need to score more, but again that probably won't matter against Detroit, and they likely would have to score more against the Cardinals , plus the Cardinals can't run anyway. So really the only game this really effects FF-wise is the Atlanta game in my opinion.

I don't want to call it much ado about nothing, but I doubt this will have anywhere near the effect on the Vikings that many would seem to think.

 
FYI...

Here is what Schefter said on his blog:

Just the beginning…

The suspensions that the football world waited for arrived Tuesday, when the league announced six players will be suspended four games for violating the NFL Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances.

The six players — Minnesota’s Kevin Williams and Pat Williams, New Orleans’ Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith, and Houston’s Bryan Pittman — each are suspended for the final four games of the regular season. If the player’s team qualifies for the playoffs, he is eligible to return to the active roster on Monday, December 29.

Moments after the suspensions were announced, one person close to the players fired back a text message that read: “I suspect that ALL will be appealed and ALL will be eligible to play since (Dr. John) Lombardo knew the supplement was tainted and didn’t alert the league or the Players Association.”

The league said the players specifically violated a long standing provision of the policy relating to the use of diuretics and water pills, which serve as masking agents for steroids and are potentially dangerous to the health of players.

The policy states that the use of so-called “blocking” or “masking” agents, including diuretics and water pills, is prohibited and that a positive test will not be excused because it results from the use of a dietary supplement that unknowingly contained a banned substance. Supplements are not regulated or monitored by the government and players have been warned about the risks of supplement use.

“You and you alone are responsible for what goes into your body,” the policy has always stated.

“Claiming that you used only legally available nutritional supplements will not help you in an appeal…Even if they are bought over-the-counter from a known establishment, there is currently no way to be sure that they contain the ingredients listed on the packaging or have not been tainted with prohibited substances…If you take these products, you do so AT YOUR OWN RISK! For your own health and success in the league, we strongly encourage you to avoid the use of supplements altogether, or at the very least to be extremely careful about what you choose to take.”

The NFL fired its shot Tuesday but this story is far from over.
 
If it doesn't get appealed there might be 3 teams in the NFC getting first round byes.

 
If they lose the Williamses it hurts for sure, though I'm not convinced this won't hang up on appeals much like Matt Jones has.However, I'd be very surprised if they weren't able to win 2 games without them. Detroit should be a cakewalk and the Giants very likely won't be playing for anything in week 17 so there's two games right there.Which leaves Atlanta and Arizona, I'd say those are probably 60-40 they lose, but I could see them beating both of them. I guess what I'm getting at is even if the Williamses are gone, I'm not expecting Minnesota to fall apart by any means and I think they can win the division without them. Its actually really good timing now that Minnesota is done with their Chicago and Green Bay games.FF-wise: Obviously it looks a lot better for people who may have been worried about Michael Turner in week 16, but other than that I don't see much of an effect on that end.On the offensive side, they may need to score more, but again that probably won't matter against Detroit, and they likely would have to score more against the Cardinals , plus the Cardinals can't run anyway. So really the only game this really effects FF-wise is the Atlanta game in my opinion.I don't want to call it much ado about nothing, but I doubt this will have anywhere near the effect on the Vikings that many would seem to think.
So you basically have the Vikes who were a below .500 team at different points during the season...you now are making a case for them to run the tables and maybe go 4-0 down the stretch with both of their all world DTs out the final 4 weeks of the season?I'll have what he's having please :mellow:
 
If they lose the Williamses it hurts for sure, though I'm not convinced this won't hang up on appeals much like Matt Jones has.However, I'd be very surprised if they weren't able to win 2 games without them. Detroit should be a cakewalk and the Giants very likely won't be playing for anything in week 17 so there's two games right there.Which leaves Atlanta and Arizona, I'd say those are probably 60-40 they lose, but I could see them beating both of them. I guess what I'm getting at is even if the Williamses are gone, I'm not expecting Minnesota to fall apart by any means and I think they can win the division without them. Its actually really good timing now that Minnesota is done with their Chicago and Green Bay games.FF-wise: Obviously it looks a lot better for people who may have been worried about Michael Turner in week 16, but other than that I don't see much of an effect on that end.On the offensive side, they may need to score more, but again that probably won't matter against Detroit, and they likely would have to score more against the Cardinals , plus the Cardinals can't run anyway. So really the only game this really effects FF-wise is the Atlanta game in my opinion.I don't want to call it much ado about nothing, but I doubt this will have anywhere near the effect on the Vikings that many would seem to think.
So you basically have the Vikes who were a below .500 team at different points during the season...you now are making a case for them to run the tables and maybe go 4-0 down the stretch with both of their all world DTs out the final 4 weeks of the season?I'll have what he's having please :mellow:
I think that he said they only had a 40% chance to win the ATL and ARI games. That does not sound like running the table.
 
If they lose the Williamses it hurts for sure, though I'm not convinced this won't hang up on appeals much like Matt Jones has.However, I'd be very surprised if they weren't able to win 2 games without them. Detroit should be a cakewalk and the Giants very likely won't be playing for anything in week 17 so there's two games right there.Which leaves Atlanta and Arizona, I'd say those are probably 60-40 they lose, but I could see them beating both of them. I guess what I'm getting at is even if the Williamses are gone, I'm not expecting Minnesota to fall apart by any means and I think they can win the division without them. Its actually really good timing now that Minnesota is done with their Chicago and Green Bay games.FF-wise: Obviously it looks a lot better for people who may have been worried about Michael Turner in week 16, but other than that I don't see much of an effect on that end.On the offensive side, they may need to score more, but again that probably won't matter against Detroit, and they likely would have to score more against the Cardinals , plus the Cardinals can't run anyway. So really the only game this really effects FF-wise is the Atlanta game in my opinion.I don't want to call it much ado about nothing, but I doubt this will have anywhere near the effect on the Vikings that many would seem to think.
So you basically have the Vikes who were a below .500 team at different points during the season...you now are making a case for them to run the tables and maybe go 4-0 down the stretch with both of their all world DTs out the final 4 weeks of the season?I'll have what he's having please :confused:
I think that he said they only had a 40% chance to win the ATL and ARI games. That does not sound like running the table.
You can look at it half full or empty, but their is definitely a way where he makes it appear that the Vikes cna run the table the rest of the way...he said he would not be surprised if the VIkes win both the ATL and AZ games, he thinks Det is a cakewalk and the NYG will be ripe for a win in week 17...I didn't say he couldn't have that opinion, but don't make it seem like he didn't at least put it out there. And I'm not picking on him, just liked the way he formulated the debate, it's all good.
 
I thought that the delay was the league hearing all of their appeals in the first place.
Just to clarify, it is a "court injunction" that the players could try at this point...but as John Clayton reports on ESPN this would be a long shot at best. Basically a judge would have to rule that the NFL is being unjust in its enforcement of the steroid policy by suspending these players without pay. The appeals were considered and denied like you said. Adam Schefter should have clarified this, but did not.
 
so are they officially gone or not?

edit to say yea they are screwed it sounds like.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
so are they officially gone or not?edit to say yea they are screwed it sounds like.
No. They are not officially gone.They have been suspended by the NFL. Tomorrow morning their lawyers will file for an injunction which is a court order that can temporarily suspend the suspensions until a court can determine if the players have a legitimate beef in their appeals. If the court issues an injunction they could conceivably play the rest of the year or until the court is able to make a final decision.In other words, the players are taking the NFL to court.
 
so are they officially gone or not?edit to say yea they are screwed it sounds like.
No. They are not officially gone.They have been suspended by the NFL. Tomorrow morning their lawyers will file for an injunction which is a court order that can temporarily suspend the suspensions until a court can determine if the players have a legitimate beef in their appeals. If the court issues an injunction they could conceivably play the rest of the year or until the court is able to make a final decision.In other words, the players are taking the NFL to court.
If they appeal it's just going to set it back. Like mentioned before, 3 NFC teams would get a bye if they were suspended a playoff game.
 
so are they officially gone or not?edit to say yea they are screwed it sounds like.
No. They are not officially gone.They have been suspended by the NFL. Tomorrow morning their lawyers will file for an injunction which is a court order that can temporarily suspend the suspensions until a court can determine if the players have a legitimate beef in their appeals. If the court issues an injunction they could conceivably play the rest of the year or until the court is able to make a final decision.In other words, the players are taking the NFL to court.
If they appeal it's just going to set it back. Like mentioned before, 3 NFC teams would get a bye if they were suspended a playoff game.
Not true. If the court injunction is initially successful and then the players lose a few weeks later and the suspension starts, the suspensions would not continue into the postseason. I am pretty sure the precedent has already been set for the suspensions to be regular season only (but I may be wrong on that). It just doesn't make sense to penalize a team for postseason games, so I would expect any suspension to be regular season games only.
 
so are they officially gone or not?edit to say yea they are screwed it sounds like.
No. They are not officially gone.They have been suspended by the NFL. Tomorrow morning their lawyers will file for an injunction which is a court order that can temporarily suspend the suspensions until a court can determine if the players have a legitimate beef in their appeals. If the court issues an injunction they could conceivably play the rest of the year or until the court is able to make a final decision.In other words, the players are taking the NFL to court.
If they appeal it's just going to set it back. Like mentioned before, 3 NFC teams would get a bye if they were suspended a playoff game.
Maybe. Or maybe it gets pushed into next year. Funnier things have happened. I don't think anyone really knows for sure how this will play out so I wouldn't make any serious moves based on this until its final.John Clayton calls it a "hail mary" but in the same breath he says he doesn't really know how it will play out. Love to hear the Roger Cossack's take on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If they didn't have a strong case and thought they would be suspended anyway, I wish one of them wouldn't have appealed and missed a different four games than the other one!

 
If they didn't have a strong case and thought they would be suspended anyway, I wish one of them wouldn't have appealed and missed a different four games than the other one!
If they file an injunction I think it's a sign that they believe they were wronged in this instance... most NFL Players just man up and take their lumps after a suspension, but this was so large spanning across three different teams and seven players it's clear that something is really amiss here between the NFL and it's policies.
 
Was listening to WFAN in NY on the way home and FWIW they were saying that the Vikes players who have a shot at the playoffs were planning to appeal the suspensions through a court injunction and try to get the case heard in the offseason so they could serve their suspensions the first 4 games of next season should they lose. But the Saints who are pretty much done already planned to just have their players serve their suspensions now.

Apparantly most people feel that they have a pretty good case because it wasn't just that the diarrhetic product they were taking didn't list the banned substance in the ingredients, but rather their complaint is that the NFL knew that this product contained this banned substance and didn't notify the teams of this so they could warn their players to stay away from it.

The NFL has always maintained that players are responsible for what goes into their body and ignorance is not an excuse, but if they (the NFL) knew that this legal product contained this banned substance but didnt' list it in the ingredients, I think they have to bear some responsibility for not even attempting to warn the teams.

 
NJ said:
Was listening to WFAN in NY on the way home and FWIW they were saying that the Vikes players who have a shot at the playoffs were planning to appeal the suspensions through a court injunction and try to get the case heard in the offseason so they could serve their suspensions the first 4 games of next season should they lose. But the Saints who are pretty much done already planned to just have their players serve their suspensions now.Apparantly most people feel that they have a pretty good case because it wasn't just that the diarrhetic product they were taking didn't list the banned substance in the ingredients, but rather their complaint is that the NFL knew that this product contained this banned substance and didn't notify the teams of this so they could warn their players to stay away from it.The NFL has always maintained that players are responsible for what goes into their body and ignorance is not an excuse, but if they (the NFL) knew that this legal product contained this banned substance but didnt' list it in the ingredients, I think they have to bear some responsibility for not even attempting to warn the teams.
ESPN reports that The League made a comment that the players could go the court route if they wished, but were not too concerned about an injuction since the banned substances policy, which puts the responsibility of what goes into their bodies in the players' hands, was agreed upon by the players' union. I think these guys are DONE myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NJ said:
Was listening to WFAN in NY on the way home and FWIW they were saying that the Vikes players who have a shot at the playoffs were planning to appeal the suspensions through a court injunction and try to get the case heard in the offseason so they could serve their suspensions the first 4 games of next season should they lose. But the Saints who are pretty much done already planned to just have their players serve their suspensions now.Apparantly most people feel that they have a pretty good case because it wasn't just that the diarrhetic product they were taking didn't list the banned substance in the ingredients, but rather their complaint is that the NFL knew that this product contained this banned substance and didn't notify the teams of this so they could warn their players to stay away from it.The NFL has always maintained that players are responsible for what goes into their body and ignorance is not an excuse, but if they (the NFL) knew that this legal product contained this banned substance but didnt' list it in the ingredients, I think they have to bear some responsibility for not even attempting to warn the teams.
ESPN reports that The League made a comment that the players could go the court route if they wished, but were not too concerned about an injuction since the banned substances policy, which puts the responsibility of what goes into their bodies in the players' hands, was agreed upon by the players' union. I think these guys are DONE myself.
oh I agree, I think they have a very slim chance at winning here. But if its true that the NFL knew this product contained this banned substance and it didn't list it in the ingredients so the players couldn't have known about it, its almost like they were setting them up. I mean, a simple fax from the NFL to all of the teams warning the players that this product contained this substance could have avoided the entire situation. I very rarely feel sorry for any of these guys that get themselves banned, and in most cases they just serve the suspension because they know they are in the wrong, but in this particular case, I think they have a right to be upset.
 
NJ said:
Was listening to WFAN in NY on the way home and FWIW they were saying that the Vikes players who have a shot at the playoffs were planning to appeal the suspensions through a court injunction and try to get the case heard in the offseason so they could serve their suspensions the first 4 games of next season should they lose. But the Saints who are pretty much done already planned to just have their players serve their suspensions now.

Apparantly most people feel that they have a pretty good case because it wasn't just that the diarrhetic product they were taking didn't list the banned substance in the ingredients, but rather their complaint is that the NFL knew that this product contained this banned substance and didn't notify the teams of this so they could warn their players to stay away from it.

The NFL has always maintained that players are responsible for what goes into their body and ignorance is not an excuse, but if they (the NFL) knew that this legal product contained this banned substance but didnt' list it in the ingredients, I think they have to bear some responsibility for not even attempting to warn the teams.
ESPN reports that The League made a comment that the players could go the court route if they wished, but were not too concerned about an injuction since the banned substances policy, which puts the responsibility of what goes into their bodies in the players' hands, was agreed upon by the players' union. I think these guys are DONE myself.
oh I agree, I think they have a very slim chance at winning here. But if its true that the NFL knew this product contained this banned substance and it didn't list it in the ingredients so the players couldn't have known about it, its almost like they were setting them up. I mean, a simple fax from the NFL to all of the teams warning the players that this product contained this substance could have avoided the entire situation. I very rarely feel sorry for any of these guys that get themselves banned, and in most cases they just serve the suspension because they know they are in the wrong, but in this particular case, I think they have a right to be upset.
Well, firstly, the league is claiming that they provided teams and the NFLPA's steroid policy rep with a specific warning about StarCaps in 2006:
The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 -- one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.
LINKSecondly, the NFL's policy is very clear. They have a list of approved supplements. If you take anything that's not on that list, you put yourself in danger and roll the dice. By not putting StarCaps on the approved list, the NFL already let the players know that they shouldn't be taking it. The players are trying to put the burden on the NFL, but THEY are responsible for what THEY put into their bodies. Period.

 
Secondly, the NFL's policy is very clear. They have a list of approved supplements. If you take anything that's not on that list, you put yourself in danger and roll the dice. By not putting StarCaps on the approved list, the NFL already let the players know that they shouldn't be taking it. The players are trying to put the burden on the NFL, but THEY are responsible for what THEY put into their bodies. Period.
OK, well if that's true, then they should quit whining and serve their suspensions. However, what you are saying here is the exact opposite of what they said on WFAN. On the radio, they said that the NFL provides a list of BANNED substances. Not a list of APPROVED supplements. And that StarCaps did not list any of the banned substances in their ingredients, nor did the NFL notify the teams that StarCaps was banned. So obviously one of the two sides is full of crap. But if its true that the NFL has a list of Banned Supplements and StarCaps is clearly on it as you say, then I don't see why the players would be so pissed off about this decision that they would be taking the NFL to court. It doesn't make any sense. Like has already been stated, normally players just serve their suspension when they get caught, but in this particular case, these players really seem to feel that they have been wronged by the NFL and have a strong enough case to warrant bringing it in front of a judge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Secondly, the NFL's policy is very clear. They have a list of approved supplements. If you take anything that's not on that list, you put yourself in danger and roll the dice. By not putting StarCaps on the approved list, the NFL already let the players know that they shouldn't be taking it. The players are trying to put the burden on the NFL, but THEY are responsible for what THEY put into their bodies. Period.
OK, well if that's true, then they should quit whining and serve their suspensions. However, what you are saying here is the exact opposite of what they said on WFAN. On the radio, they said that the NFL provides a list of BANNED substances. Not a list of APPROVED supplements. And that StarCaps did not list any of the banned substances in their ingredients, nor did the NFL notify the teams that StarCaps was banned. So obviously one of the two sides is full of crap. But if its true that the NFL has a list of Banned Supplements and StarCaps is clearly on it as you say, then I don't see why the players would be so pissed off about this decision that they would be taking the NFL to court. It doesn't make any sense. Like has already been stated, normally players just serve their suspension when they get caught, but in this particular case, these players really seem to feel that they have been wronged by the NFL and have a strong enough case to warrant bringing it in front of a judge.
I believe there is an approved list and a banned list of both products and supplement companies.In any event, I don't think these lists are the final say on the matter. I think they are just an easy way for players to know if a product is approved or banned without having to go through the trouble of having the products tested themselves or taking a risk on it containing a banned substance.The NFL policy is quite clear on what the rules are and it leaves the final responsibility with the player on determining if the product is safe to take or not.Believe me the supplement industry is a joke. Alot of these products come from some pretty shady people. I used to frequent a bodybuilding message board a while back and there were plenty of these so-called supplement makers on there pushing their products. I know first hand that these guys are putting illegal substances in those things.There is no way the NFL can keep up with every single friggin supplement that has junk in it. No way. The players have to take the responsibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess it looks a little bleak for the Vikes...

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=2229

The situation involving Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams, along with the four other players suspended today by the NFL for violating the league’s steroid policy, isn’t over. According to a people with knowledge of the situation, all six will apply for an injunction in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. This action has been expected since news first broke that a group of players faced four-game bans for using a diuretic that can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

This process could move quickly. The Williamses’ request for a preliminary injunction could go before a judge as early as Wednesday afternoon, and a decision could be made in the same day, according to Rick Ross, an employment and labor attorney for Fredrickson and Byron of Minneapolis.

But Ross went on to say that it’s “generally an uphill battle” for employees to gain a preliminary injunction in the federal courts. The primary standard, he said, is that employees have to show irreparable harm, which is difficult.

Other players suspended today included New Orleans’ Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith and Houston’s Bryan Pittman.
 
Anyone have any good scouting information on the Vikings two back DTs, Fred Evans and Ellis Wyms. Does the lack of the Williams' inside automatically make the Vikings a non-startable D/ST going forward?

 
Secondly, the NFL's policy is very clear. They have a list of approved supplements. If you take anything that's not on that list, you put yourself in danger and roll the dice. By not putting StarCaps on the approved list, the NFL already let the players know that they shouldn't be taking it. The players are trying to put the burden on the NFL, but THEY are responsible for what THEY put into their bodies. Period.
OK, well if that's true, then they should quit whining and serve their suspensions. However, what you are saying here is the exact opposite of what they said on WFAN. On the radio, they said that the NFL provides a list of BANNED substances. Not a list of APPROVED supplements. And that StarCaps did not list any of the banned substances in their ingredients, nor did the NFL notify the teams that StarCaps was banned. So obviously one of the two sides is full of crap. But if its true that the NFL has a list of Banned Supplements and StarCaps is clearly on it as you say, then I don't see why the players would be so pissed off about this decision that they would be taking the NFL to court. It doesn't make any sense. Like has already been stated, normally players just serve their suspension when they get caught, but in this particular case, these players really seem to feel that they have been wronged by the NFL and have a strong enough case to warrant bringing it in front of a judge.
WFAN was wrong then. The NFL has a banned substances list that specifically bans specific drugs and masking agents. They do not ban specific brands of supplements.But the NFL does have an agreement with EAS (a supplement manufacturer) that insures that certain specific products from EAS do not contain any of the banned substances. NFL players can take any of those supplements/vitamins on that list and know with 100% certainty that they are taking something that doesn't have a banned substance in it.

Link to EAS's press release about their partnership

Banned Substances List

 
I guess it looks a little bleak for the Vikes...

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=2229

The situation involving Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams, along with the four other players suspended today by the NFL for violating the league’s steroid policy, isn’t over. According to a people with knowledge of the situation, all six will apply for an injunction in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. This action has been expected since news first broke that a group of players faced four-game bans for using a diuretic that can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

This process could move quickly. The Williamses’ request for a preliminary injunction could go before a judge as early as Wednesday afternoon, and a decision could be made in the same day, according to Rick Ross, an employment and labor attorney for Fredrickson and Byron of Minneapolis.

But Ross went on to say that it’s “generally an uphill battle” for employees to gain a preliminary injunction in the federal courts. The primary standard, he said, is that employees have to show irreparable harm, which is difficult.

Other players suspended today included New Orleans’ Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith and Houston’s Bryan Pittman.
ouch!
 
Anyone have any good scouting information on the Vikings two back DTs, Fred Evans and Ellis Wyms. Does the lack of the Williams' inside automatically make the Vikings a non-startable D/ST going forward?
I am a fan of Fred Evans. He plays well and has more quickness than Pat Williams. I am not sure that losing Pat will make that big of a difference (other than goal line type situations) - he hasn't had that good of a year. Wyms is a servicable backup - no where near covering for Kevin Williams. I actually like the way that Letroy Guion (rookie from FSU) played in the preseason and I think he will get some action. He is quick and powerful, but is a little dinged up at the moment. Hopefully he can play this week.

It definitely hurts, but I don't think they will become the worst in the league against the run.

 
Anyone have any good scouting information on the Vikings two back DTs, Fred Evans and Ellis Wyms. Does the lack of the Williams' inside automatically make the Vikings a non-startable D/ST going forward?
I don't see any reason to bench them against Detroit. After that, they weren't really that great of a start even with the Williamses.
 
I was just listening to the four-letter network radio and they had Mort on. He said the smart money was on the judge denying the injunction. As he explained (and a previous poster above) the drug/substance policy was a collectively bargained policy between the Union and the NFL. As such, if by the letter of the law the policy was enforced as such, it will be upheld. My understanding of the policy wording and statement by the NFL yesterday, the policy was enforced according to the letter of the law. So even if the league knew Starcaps contained Bumetanide and surpressed that particular information, it still doesn't negate the policy. But it falls into Union law in the court system.

From the four-letter website which reiterated the section of the policy:

You and you alone are responsible for what goes into your body. Claiming that you used only legally available nutritional supplements will not help you in an appeal. ... Even if they are bought over-the-counter from a known establishment, there is currently no way to be sure that they contain the ingredients listed on the packaging or have not been tainted with prohibited substances ...

"If you take these products, you do so AT YOUR OWN RISK! For your own health and success in the league, we strongly encourage you to avoid the use of supplements altogether, or at the very least to be extremely careful about what you choose to take."

The NFL also said it sent two notifications about StarCaps on Dec. 19, 2006 -- one to NFL club presidents, general managers and head athletic trainers and the second to NFLPA executive Stacy Robinson, who oversees the steroid policy for the union. That letter, according to the league, advised that StarCaps had been added to the list of prohibited dietary supplement companies.

Based on all of this information, I say the Wiliams suspensions will be upheld. Personnally, I think the NFL screwed up here, but is technically following the letter of the law of the collective bargaining agreement. I do think the suit against the Starcaps manufacturer has merit though.

 
So you basically have the Vikes who were a below .500 team at different points during the season...you now are making a case for them to run the tables and maybe go 4-0 down the stretch with both of their all world DTs out the final 4 weeks of the season?I'll have what he's having please :lol:
Thinking you have some biasm against MIN. That's not what he's saying. Keep in mind, the "below.500" team was the likes of losing to GB in GB with a whacky f'd up game (then evening up), then Indy (your #3 AFC seed) by a field goal... in the first 2 weeks. Later, Chicago by a score IN Chicago, and by less than a TD to Tampa Bay IN Tampa Bay. Ten by 13 pts in Ten... fine... last I checked they were the #1 team in football.You are pathetically trying to make them out to be some paper tiger. Last I checked GB in GB, Indy, Chi in Chi, and TB in TB.... Ten in Ten. 4 of the 5 by less than a score... And you are going to tell me they have no shot vs. Detroit then Arizona... Atlanta will run all over them... I'll grant you that. But it's at home... with 3 weeks to adjust defensively.NY Giants sitting 14-1 or 13-2 worse case, resting everyone in Minnesota.2-2 worse case. NYG is a gimmie, then one of the prior three.
 
The other reason I heard why an injunction would be unlikely is that if the case was heard later and the players won, they would recoup the money they were docked by being suspended (just at a later date). So in the Court's eyes they would not suffer financial loss to require the court to intervene immediately.

 
Robison is not going to be helping for a while

From Rotoworld-

Vikings DE Brian Robison underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee Tuesday and is expected to miss "a few weeks."

The Vikings defensive line is suddenly paper thin after the Williams Wall suspensions. Robison injured the knee against the Bears last week and has been declared out for Sunday's game against the Lions.

 
Robison is not going to be helping for a whileFrom Rotoworld-Vikings DE Brian Robison underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee Tuesday and is expected to miss "a few weeks."The Vikings defensive line is suddenly paper thin after the Williams Wall suspensions. Robison injured the knee against the Bears last week and has been declared out for Sunday's game against the Lions.
Well, that sucks. Looks to be a tough situation indeed for the Vikings interior. I wonder if they'll sign any FAs to give them some extra bodies for a few weeks.
 
Whats particularly stupid is that every team has trainers that the players can literally hand their supplements and have them tested to see if they meet NFL policy. There is NO excuse to take an illegal substance, short of someone injecting it in your sleep.

 
encaitar said:
Toolboxx said:
Robison is not going to be helping for a whileFrom Rotoworld-Vikings DE Brian Robison underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee Tuesday and is expected to miss "a few weeks."The Vikings defensive line is suddenly paper thin after the Williams Wall suspensions. Robison injured the knee against the Bears last week and has been declared out for Sunday's game against the Lions.
Well, that sucks. Looks to be a tough situation indeed for the Vikings interior. I wonder if they'll sign any FAs to give them some extra bodies for a few weeks.
I heard this morning that they are not carrying any DTs on the practice squad and are not very high on any free agents. This basically gives them zero depth on the DL. If you own Turner and you made the playoffs, the NFL just gave you an early Christmas present.
 
Toolboxx said:
Robison is not going to be helping for a whileFrom Rotoworld-Vikings DE Brian Robison underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee Tuesday and is expected to miss "a few weeks."The Vikings defensive line is suddenly paper thin after the Williams Wall suspensions. Robison injured the knee against the Bears last week and has been declared out for Sunday's game against the Lions.
:football: just coming to post this; vikings message boards suck, so its tough to get news like this.Atleast Viking fans are use to this. We suffer alot!
 
David Yudkin said:
The other reason I heard why an injunction would be unlikely is that if the case was heard later and the players won, they would recoup the money they were docked by being suspended (just at a later date). So in the Court's eyes they would not suffer financial loss to require the court to intervene immediately.
Do players get extra money for playing and/or winning playoff games? There might be an acute angle there...
 
David Yudkin said:
The other reason I heard why an injunction would be unlikely is that if the case was heard later and the players won, they would recoup the money they were docked by being suspended (just at a later date). So in the Court's eyes they would not suffer financial loss to require the court to intervene immediately.
Do players get extra money for playing and/or winning playoff games? There might be an acute angle there...
If they have some sort of bonus clauses they would. But I don't know if the guys in question here do or not. To extent the legal argument, the court could say that they would be entitled to those bonuses as far as the team got without them. And worst case they could just say that if they won their case that they would be entitled to the highest bonuses in their contract. Usually the bonuses I have seen are pretty small and/or prettty hard to reach . . . like a $200,000 bonus for being named SB MVP. I doubt very much that someone could prove that his team would have made it all the way to the SB, won the SB, and have been named MVP (especially as say a DLman).
 
I guess it looks a little bleak for the Vikes...

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=2229

The situation involving Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams, along with the four other players suspended today by the NFL for violating the league’s steroid policy, isn’t over. According to a people with knowledge of the situation, all six will apply for an injunction in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. This action has been expected since news first broke that a group of players faced four-game bans for using a diuretic that can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

This process could move quickly. The Williamses’ request for a preliminary injunction could go before a judge as early as Wednesday afternoon, and a decision could be made in the same day, according to Rick Ross, an employment and labor attorney for Fredrickson and Byron of Minneapolis.

But Ross went on to say that it’s “generally an uphill battle” for employees to gain a preliminary injunction in the federal courts. The primary standard, he said, is that employees have to show irreparable harm, which is difficult.

Other players suspended today included New Orleans’ Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith and Houston’s Bryan Pittman.
This opinion from a Fredrickson and Byron attorney just floors me. I would say the 'irreperable harm' element of their petition is very easy to meet, since players are being deprived in an ability to play the final 4 games of a season during a playoff drive. That should be a piece of cake to establish. What they won't be able to establish is an entirely different element: Likelihood of success of their case on its merits. There's no way they can meet that. All the good facts they have on their side are basically useless from a legal standpoint. Under the policy a player is strictly liable for taking any product that is not listed on the safe list. Yes, the NFL Dr. probably should have informed the FDA of his findings. Yes, it may have made sense for the league to give a heads up that StarCaps was tainted with a prohibited substance. Those facts are seemeningly irrelevant. The Vikings players will need to prove that the league did something contrary to the collective bargaining agreement in imposing penalty here, and the league apparently did not owe the responsibilities that might have taken the players off the hook for taking the chance they took.As far as impact to the Vikes, I'd predict a 1-3 record over the last 4 games. First off, that's typically how they close a season anyway. Second, even Detroit is no cupcake when they beat Detroit 12-10 earlier this season at full strength, benefitting from a very questionable call. They will get blown out by Atlanta, and will probably lose to Arizona and NY if those teams have eons to pass the ball.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vikings sign Kennedy

December 3rd, 2008 – 2:52 PM by Judd Zulgad

The Vikings signed defensive tackle Jimmy Kennedy to fill one of the roster spots vacated by Pat and Kevin Williams, who have been suspended for four games by the NFL for violating the league’s steroid policy.

Kennedy, 6-4, 320 pounds, had most recently been with the Jacksonville Jaguars. He was released on Nov. 24, a day after the Jaguars lost 30-12 to the Vikings. Kennedy was not active for that game. He entered the NFL as the 12th overall pick of the St. Louis Rams in 2003 and spent four seasons with the team. He had a career-high three sacks in 2005 but has only four for his career.

Kennedy was traded by the Rams to Denver and spent training camp in 2007 with the Broncos. He joined Chicago for the final three games of last season.

 
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3743006

MINNEAPOLIS -- The Minnesota Vikings' Kevin and Pat Williams have gone to court to block their suspensions for violating the NFL's anti-doping policy.

The star defensive tackles are seeking a temporary restraining order in Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis.

The Williamses, who aren't related, were among six players suspended by the NFL on Tuesday. All six were punished for using a diuretic that can serve as a masking agent for steroids.

The Vikings are in first place in the NFC North at 7-5. If the suspensions aren't blocked, they face the rest of the regular season without the anchors of a defense that ranks second against the run.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top