Williamses sue NFL for 10 mil (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A federal judge has set a June 15 trial date for Vikings stars Kevin and Pat Williams in their banned substance case.

The defensive tackles were suspended by the NFL for four games late last year for using a banned diuretic. But the Williamses got an injunction in mid-December and were able to play in the postseason.

That means the suspensions would begin next season if the NFL is upheld.

Attorney Peter Ginsberg says the players are seeking up to $10 million in damages in addition to having their suspensions overturned. The players’ union says the NFL didn’t properly inform players about the diuretic, which wasn’t listed as an ingredient in a supplement they used.

 

[porkins]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[womb]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

That totally depends on how well a top paid attorney presents the case in question.

 

[Smeagol]

What damages?

 

[BigJim®]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Problem is not all parties to this matter were ignorant. The ones who run the program were informed, but chose not to inform players. The NFL could be in a tough spot if any evidence is introduced that there are health implications from taking the substance. That would mean the NFL prioritized catching wrongdoers over the health of ignorant players, and it won't play well IMHO.

 

[az_prof]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Problem is not all parties to this matter were ignorant. The ones who run the program were informed, but chose not to inform players. The NFL could be in a tough spot if any evidence is introduced that there are health implications from taking the substance. That would mean the NFL prioritized catching wrongdoers over the health of ignorant players, and it won't play well IMHO.

I am signing you to represent me if I get indicted! Seriously, you make a very good point. Where do these phrases like "ignorance is no excuse" come from? Doesn't the league have a responsibility to tell them what is permitted and what isn't?

 

[Christo]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Actually, in this case there's a good argument that it is. The NFL has chosen to ban a substance that is legal for the rest of us. Therefore, the presumption of legality is in the players' favor. If the NFL wants to keep players from using substances that can be legally obtained then it has a duty to inform the players. Especially if the substance is contained in other legal items but not listed.

 

[BigJim®]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Problem is not all parties to this matter were ignorant. The ones who run the program were informed, but chose not to inform players. The NFL could be in a tough spot if any evidence is introduced that there are health implications from taking the substance. That would mean the NFL prioritized catching wrongdoers over the health of ignorant players, and it won't play well IMHO.

I am signing you to represent me if I get indicted! Seriously, you make a very good point. Where do these phrases like "ignorance is no excuse" come from? Doesn't the league have a responsibility to tell them what is permitted and what isn't?

Generally the rule does provide that players are responsible for whatever they put into their body if the product is not listed on the "safe product" list. Since this one was not, presumably they were taking a chance. But there are some very ugly facts in this case. Reportedly, a full year prior to these test failures, another player failed a test for this same product. At that time, the NFL confirmed the unlisted ingredient through its own testing, chose not to suspend the player, and chose not to inform other players who may have benefited by this discovery. Given the secrecy of the situation, the manufacturer may have been unaware of the mislabeling, and perpetuated production of a risky product. So basically, you have issues like inconsistent application of the "at your own risk" policy, the NFL keeping secrets from players under the policy, etc. Underlying this all, within the NFL's steroid policy is the following "primary" factors for the policy:

Second, the League is concerned with the adverse health effects of using Prohibited

Substances. Although research is continuing, steroid use has been linked to a number of

physiological, psychological, orthopedic, reproductive, and other serious health problems,

including heart disease, liver cancer, musculoskeletal growth defects, strokes, and

infertility.

Third, the use of Prohibited Substances by NFL players sends the wrong message to

young people who may be tempted to use them. High school and college students are

using these substances with increasing frequency, and NFL players should not by their

own conduct suggest that such use is either acceptable or safe, whether in the context of

sports or otherwise.

I've heard or read the players intend to argue the league policy is in part based on a stated objective of protecting player's health, and that may have created a duty/obligation to inform players of a known mislabeled product. The NFL's position on this is reportedly that they did not want to publically acknowledge the mislabeling of this product because players who failed would simply claim they took this product. However, it's difficult for the NFL to take that position if a fact finder concludes the NFL owed a duty to its players based on a stated health objective of the policy. In fact, by appearance the league is more concerned with trying to trip players up. As I understand, another facet to the lawsuit is one questioning the integrity of the negotiated process. The same NFL individuals who decided not to publicize the mislabeled product were the ones who ruled on the appeal, and there is some question about whether that is a fair process since the players had negotiated the right to appeal under the CBA, presumably one which would give a fair hearing. There was no chance the NFL personnel would reverse their own decision.

On the question of what their damages are, I would imagine the players are going to say their reputations are shot as a result of the NFL's handling of this, and that endorsements and even future contracts will be impacted.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I really hope the players win. As much as I applaud the NFL's efforts to clean up their sport, their behavior here just seems ridiculous. The knew the players were told the stuff was OK at one point and then it changed without being properly labeled and they don't inform the players? How does playing that kind of gotcha help them achieve the real goal?