Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

Mentioned this before, but why is Charles Grant getting his suspension blocked? If I understand it correctly, he can serve his while on IR for these last four games. I guess maybe he hopes he'll keep his game checks, because if they end up having to serve the any of the 4 game suspensions NEXT YEAR, he'll feel really stupid for being suspended for a game he can actually PLAY in.

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to take the suspensions now. If they're ultimately upheld, these guys will miss playoff games. Of course, the Vikings aren't going to the playoffs without the Williamses, so I guess it's a Catch-22.

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

Yeah, having the Williamses eligible to play in January isn't much good if the Vikings are no longer eligible. I suspect the Williamses and the Vikings are trying to have the matter litigated in the off-season, and if they lose, to serve the suspensions at the beginning of next year. It's a lot easier to work around supsensions when there is eight months to prepare for them.

I haven't read any arguments, of course, so this is again purely speculative, but I wonder if the big fellas' argument revolves around the fact that it was a doctor paid by the NFL who did not fully disclose that Starcaps had included the diuretic in their product, when the product was tested. No, the CBA didn't require the NFL to make such a disclosure, but a doctor's professional responsibiliy is not obviated by a CBA. Perhaps the argument is that a doctor is required to fully disclose all pertinent information that could affect a player's health, and since the doctor is an agent or employee of the NFL, the NFL is just as liable as the players.

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

Supposedly he did know though. I think he is the guy in charge of finding out what is in stuff.

The thing that may just save the William's Wall, and Vikes fan's bacon is MN state law. The judge has to decide whether that state law or the CBA matters. Anyone in the other 49 states would likely be screwed. But with the state law....guess we will see.

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

Mike Florio just recapped a conversation attorney David Cornwell had with John Riggins on Sirius Radio. Apparently:

1. In Nov. 2006 an NFL player tests positive for Buteminenide or whatever it is. The player tells the NFL that he only took StarCaps, and that the chemical isn't on the ingredient list.
2. The NFL tested StarCaps, found that it DID contain the ingredient, and subsequently did not suspend the NFL player.
3. The NFL doctor knew that StarCaps contained this "dangerous" ingredient, but did not alert the players to that fact.
4. Florio thinks the players may have a case against the NFL and the doctor for not informing players of what was known about StarCaps.

Florio and others have guessed that the NFL is pushing this case so that the players will complain to the union about discipline being handed down from the league, rather than by a neutral 3rd party (Switzerland?). As part of the next CBA, the union will have to ask for this "3rd party decision" right to be returned, and the league will ask for something else (and get it).

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

If the suspensions stand, I wonder whether the Vikings will face any censure from the leauge. The impression I get, though I could be wrong, is that the team has assisted in their players efforts to fight the suspensions and therefore gone against the NFL of which they are a part. The end result could be a shambles of a substance policy and a neutered commissioner in terms of discipline...which of course could lead to rampant substance use by players. As far as I know, this is the first time a team has fought the commissioners discipline and its not like these are the first marquee players to get suspended by the league from a playoff team (see Shawne Merriman and Rodney Harrison offhand)

Also, this wouldn't be the first time the Viking have gone 'rogue' on the league. I know the owners and GMs were very unhappy with the 'poison pill' the Vikings used to acquire Steve Hutchinson which, while technically valid, rendered the 'transition tag' useless and with it took away one of the measures teams had bargained to retain their players and control salaries.

Could the Vikings lose a draft pick or something if the suspensions stand? If they are overturned, obviously the commish would not have a leg to stand on.

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

If Goodell complained to Wilf about his team's conduct, and if I were Wilf, I'd reply something along the lines of, "Tell ya' what Goody ol' pal; you let me know when you have risked several hundred million dollars, which represents a very large percentage of your family's fortune, a fortune which took decades to build, to own an NFL team which has the lowest revenues in the league, and then I'll be interested in your opinion regarding what legal means I should or shouldn't pursue to increase my odds of my team making the playoffs, thus increasing my chances of gaining subsidies for a new stadium. Until then, however, why don't you just sip a big, hot, steaming mug of STFU?

Goodell needs to successfully negotiate a new CBA soon. He has no room to take an aggressive position against any owner at this time.

Re: Judge Blocks StarCaps Suspensions

Well, in the example I posted above, the Vikings neutered a section of the CBA for their gain at the expense of all the other owners by making the transition tag unusable. They also drove up the price of guards by a considerable margin so I expect alot of crocodile tears from Gooddell and many other owners if they are crying poor and demanding a new small-market friendly CBA. Or maybe they should propose a new parity measure whereby small-market teams make up their financial shortfall by allowing their players to use performance enhancing drugs while same P.E.Ds are not allowed for big market players.