Skip to content

Vikings win, Saints lose StarCaps appeal

A ruling was expected before the start of the 2009 football season.  As to the teams involved, the expectations were accurate. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed in all respects the decision of District Judge Paul Magnuson in the so-called StarCaps case.  (Thanks to Sean Jensen of the St. Paul Pioneer press for pointing out to us that the decision has been posted on the Eighth Circuit’s web site.)

The short answer to the obvious question of “What the hell does that mean?” is that Vikings defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams will not be suspended four games after testing positive in 2008 for a prescription diuretic that also is a banned substance, and that Saints defensive ends Charles Grant and Will Smith will be suspended for testing positive for the same substance, which secretly had been added to an over-the-counter weight-loss supplement known as StarCaps.

Both Grant and Smith will play this week against the Lions, since the decision came after Tuesday.  The suspensions, barring something incredibly unforeseen, will start next week.

There has been talk that the league might allow the Saints to implement the suspensions consecutively, so that they aren’t without both players for four games.  Instead, they’d be missing one of them for eight games.

If Grant and Smith serve their suspensions concurrently, the delay will mean that, instead of missing the Lions game in Week One and being available to play against the Giants, the players will be on the field against Detroit but not able when the Giants come to town for the fifth game of the year.

Also, they’d be suspended for the bye week, which lands a week before the Giants game.

Permalink 76 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Legal, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
76 Responses to “Vikings win, Saints lose StarCaps appeal”
  1. FidoMcCokefiend says: Sep 11, 2009 11:27 AM

    This is fair and has nothing to do with the NFL protecting it’s meal ticket and Favre.
    wait, what?

  2. purple haze harvin says: Sep 11, 2009 11:29 AM

    SKOL VIKES! Mission Miami!!!

  3. Bill In DC says: Sep 11, 2009 11:30 AM

    Somehow that seems wacked. That two guys get nothing and two other guys get a four game suspension for doing the exact same thing.
    cue the ‘and Justice for all’ clip

  4. dldove77 says: Sep 11, 2009 11:31 AM

    What a bunch of BS. Hey Merriman…if you’re interested in not getting suspended for steroids, go play in Minnesota. The league can’t suspend you there.

  5. pkrjones says: Sep 11, 2009 11:32 AM

    So, 4 players in exactly the same situation, but 2 in Minnesota are NOT penalized, while 2 in Louisiana ARE penalized? I’m a common sense guy (engineer), NOT a lawyer (common sense? what’s that?) – please explain the different rulings.
    Would this “loop-hole” be why stupidity is rewarded in Minnesota (Al Franken, Chilly)?

  6. Outsyder says: Sep 11, 2009 11:33 AM

    The Saints play the Eagles next week.

  7. RagnartheViking says: Sep 11, 2009 11:33 AM

    Here comes the corrupt judge comments.
    Well, that’s one less piece of track missing for the ” inevitable trainwreck” that will be the Vikings season.
    The posts on this thread should be stunning. Filled with packer/bears fans crying.
    It’s going to be an AWESOME Friday!!

  8. SuCkEr FrEe516 says: Sep 11, 2009 11:34 AM

    VICCCCCCCCCCCCTORY!!!!!!!!!

  9. Bun McSticky says: Sep 11, 2009 11:35 AM

    Love it. Stick that in your pipe, Goodell. The rest of the NFCN just peed a little in their pants. The Williams’ Wall will bring the pain unencumbered.

  10. MNRunLeft says: Sep 11, 2009 11:36 AM

    Happy as a Vikings fan that the Williams Wall wasn’t suspended, but in fairness I believe the NFL should lift the suspension on Grant and Smith as well. Has there even been resolution in the Grady Jackson case? If some players are not going to be suspended, none of them should be imo.

  11. HAUS says: Sep 11, 2009 11:37 AM

    The NFL should hold off on all the suspensions until things get settled up in Minnesota. I would think there could be a discrimination issue if some players get suspended and others don’t for the same thing.

  12. TiceWasBetter says: Sep 11, 2009 11:38 AM

    HaHa to all you Packer luvin Viking hating assholes. Looking forward to Oct. 5th when the Vikings destroy the Queen Gay Phackers on Monday Night Football.
    We’re staying in Minnesota and we’re going to beat your ass any chance we get.
    It’ll be sweeter now too that we have your golden boy on our side to break your hearts over and over again while hosting Lombardi trophy in Miami.

  13. belicheck's cheat codes says: Sep 11, 2009 11:39 AM

    ri-diculous. so 2 guys get suspended for taking substance X and another 2 guys (in the same league, with the same set of rules) don’t. way to go, NotFairLeague

  14. dawk20db says: Sep 11, 2009 11:40 AM

    Can you explain the difference here? Maybe you already have, but I really don’t understand how the same case can produce two different outcomes. Is there a variable here that i’m missing?
    The good news is the Eagles will face a short-handed Saints D…as if there is any other kind.

  15. Twiz says: Sep 11, 2009 11:44 AM

    I am 100% a Vikings fan. While I am happy the Williams bros will not be suspended, I don’t see how this ruling is fair. You either suspend everyone, or noone.
    I will never say I know everything bout football, but there must be something missing as to why two get to play, two don’t………..

  16. daffy87 says: Sep 11, 2009 11:45 AM

    Good, I want Beebop and Rocksteady to play so they have no excuses when my Browns beat them.

  17. SaintMichael says: Sep 11, 2009 11:48 AM

    This is incredibly unfair.
    So the Saints now won’t have their starting DE’s in Week 5 against the physical Giants.
    The Saints should demand that Smith and Grant be able to start serving this week v’s Detroit.

  18. Adept says: Sep 11, 2009 11:50 AM

    Here’s the key difference in the two cases. The Williams Wall filed for an injunction in state court under Minnesota’s labor laws which in essence prohibit an employer from disciplining for ingesting legal substances. (this is the short short version). The NFL successfully removed the case to Federal court which the Williams’ appealed based on the fact that State law should apply. I haven’t read anything other than this update but it appears as though the federal judge agrees.

  19. DCViking says: Sep 11, 2009 11:51 AM

    Before all the whining begins about how the Williams should take their punishment like men, blah, blah…
    Let’s be clear: if there is a legal action taken against you, and you can beat it. You beat it.
    If your arrested for a crime you committed after the statute of limitations runs out, you (or your lawyer) point that out. The bottom line (within the context of the law) is you do what you need to do to avoid penalty if you can.
    Nobody pays a traffic or parking ticket if they have a reasonable defense.
    It’s the same thing here.
    Ultimately, I’m surprised that the NFL doesn’t have something in the contract which indicates that the players would allow the contract to be binding above state law (I believe Florio said this common for these types of contracts).

  20. Vikefanman says: Sep 11, 2009 11:51 AM

    This whole process has been ridiculous…..how about all the guys that tested positive the year before….that used the same product….but the NFL decided to just ignore those test results….that certainly doesn’t sound like a consistant program either.
    Give all the players involved a pass (like you did the year before) and INFORM the players of the known ingredients in StarCaps. Is that so hard?
    Happy for the Williams….but it is bullshit if the NFL still suspends the NO players.

  21. DonSilvestre says: Sep 11, 2009 11:52 AM

    For all the nimrods whining about the NFL wanting to protect the Vikings and Favre – don’t be a moron. The NFL is trying desperately to get the Williams’ suspended. They will likely appeal this even higher up in hoping that eventually they have to serve the four games. This could actually seriously (hopefully) hurt the Vikings if the ruling comes down later this season and they need to miss games down the stretch or (again hopefully) the playoffs.

  22. Fidelito says: Sep 11, 2009 11:52 AM

    A lot of people here don’t seem to see the differences in law between Louisiana and Minnesota. There’s not a Favrian conspiracy going on.

  23. TheHydra says: Sep 11, 2009 11:53 AM

    How is this fair? Maybe I missed a important fact. Someone please explain this if you would.

  24. Tjackfan says: Sep 11, 2009 11:53 AM

    It goes both ways.
    When Korey Stringer’s widow sued the Vikings and the National Football League for “Wrongful Death”, she lost the lawsuit because the case was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Minnesota Workers Compensation laws, making her lawsuit moot.
    Pat William and Kevin Williams won their lawsuit because of Minnesota Employee Drug Testing Policies.
    It goes both ways.

  25. falstaff1962 says: Sep 11, 2009 11:54 AM

    Sorry- I’m a Vikings guy, but Kevin and Pat should be suspended. They fished around for a technicality because they screwed up and got caught at it. Man up guys. You did the crime, now do the time. But instead of doing that, lets waste tons of the taxpayers dollars on an issue that should have never gotten to this point.

  26. RagnartheViking says: Sep 11, 2009 11:55 AM

    The difference is in State laws.
    Florio has covered this before on this site.
    The Vikings lawyers exercised this loophole.
    I agree with the poster who said lift the ban on the others. This was a conviluted mess from the beginning.

  27. SlipperyPete says: Sep 11, 2009 11:55 AM

    I love how Vikings fans (like Fagnar and Sticky Bum) think they were just one over-the-hill QB away from a Super Bowl. Did they even watch the Philly playoff game last year? As long as Chilly is making the calls, the Vikes don’t stand a chance.

  28. SidHartman says: Sep 11, 2009 11:57 AM

    Per my brother who is an attorney here in Minny. The Williams boys fought the NFL and were smart enough to file their lawsuit in Minnesota which in essence protects them from this sort of thing. The Saints dudes did not. It has nothing to do with them playing for the Vikes – it has everything to do with the state where they actually file the suit. It may not be the end of the appeal but they are probably safe for all of the 2009 season.

  29. TheHydra says: Sep 11, 2009 11:57 AM

    Stickybuns,
    As a packer fan I want the vikings to be at full strength when we play them. The point is this isnt fair.

  30. SaintMichael says: Sep 11, 2009 11:57 AM

    The Saints are going to shock the Eagles with our without our overrated DE’s.

  31. Milhouse says: Sep 11, 2009 11:58 AM

    Making it that much easier for Wilf to move the Vikings to LA because the state of Minnesota has laws that are incompatible with the established rules of the NFL.
    Sorry Minnesota football fans.

  32. footballisfun says: Sep 11, 2009 11:59 AM

    Excellent news.

  33. deucebot says: Sep 11, 2009 12:01 PM

    The difference in simple – this case was predicated on Minnesota law, and the Saints players weren’t part of it. The Court of Appeals wasn’t ruling on the Saints.
    There should be no implication here that the NFL is trying to “protect” the Vikings of Favre. The NFL was the one opposite the Vikings in the case.

  34. gdog97 says: Sep 11, 2009 12:01 PM

    First of all, it’s not a steroid. StarCaps is a diuretic, so we can stop saying that the guys who were usuing it were on roids. They were chubby DL’s and RB’s who were trying to cut weight.
    I still don’t understand or think it’s fair for the Saints players. But I also don’t care. I’m a Vikings fan so as long as my guys get to play, the rest is somoene else’s problem. Fair or unfair.

  35. jz0717 says: Sep 11, 2009 12:01 PM

    It’s based on the state’s employment laws. Minnesota allows its employees the opportunity to explain the results of the tests. Louisiana must not.

  36. norseman69 says: Sep 11, 2009 12:02 PM

    State law superceeds any agreement between contracted services and or labor agreements (unless federal law overides it)…
    Unions can not knowingly enter into any agreement that takes away the rights of individual’s residing in a state where law and or statue provides them equal protection.
    let’s say you work for IBM or Ford and they have an agreement which states that random drug testing is allowed and if you fail it you are fired. Well let’s say you took Nyquill and a a few dozen poppy seed bagel ‘s and your drug test said you were on booze and coke… hmmm now they fire or suspend you without pay, but the state law says they can’t do that they have to follow certain laws which were voted and passed to protect the states workers… would it be fair to say screw the state law they agreed to follow any rules of their employer’s even if it is wrong and illegal…
    This matter needs to be reconsidered during the new labor contract with the NFL and a compromise negotiated.

  37. StevieMo says: Sep 11, 2009 12:03 PM

    Ok, so the judge is a Vikings season ticket holder.
    Next case….

  38. footballrulz says: Sep 11, 2009 12:04 PM

    Ragnar (whom I have respect for) & the rest of you Vikidiots ranting about how you’re gonna “beat your ass any chance we get.
    It’ll be sweeter now too that we have your golden boy on our side to break your hearts over and over again while hosting Lombardi trophy in Miami.” @Tice was better
    Be assured there’s no fear in Green Bay. We always knew that little loophole would save the Williams Wall. The game still has to be played dude. Ragnar’s right, one piece of that trainwreck track has been removed (which kinda sucks if one happens to be a Saint’s fan) but what else can be expected when Ventura/Franken are/were part of your legislature.
    Actually, from all the whinings Favre’s been doing lately I just hope he sticks it out until week 4 & certainly until week 8. I know you guys think he’s your saviour but something tells me that by about week 12 or 13 your’e going to think he’s the antichrist

  39. LionsFan says: Sep 11, 2009 12:07 PM

    Great.
    So, the two dominant defensive tackles in the NFC North get to play all season AND New Orleans’ starting defensive ends will be suspended immediately AFTER playing against the Lions.
    Enough already. Why must people continue to pile on the Lions? When are they going to get a break?
    This is all crap.

  40. bang2gongs says: Sep 11, 2009 12:08 PM

    dawk20db says:
    September 11, 2009 11:40 AM
    ” Can you explain the difference here? Maybe you already have, but I really don’t understand how the same case can produce two different outcomes. Is there a variable here that i’m missing? ”
    I believe this has to do with the differing state laws in regards to union labor, right to work, etc.
    This , IMO .. is exactly how a state representative federal republic is suppossed to work. Nothing wrong here.
    Louisiana say’s … geaux saints!

  41. swede700 says: Sep 11, 2009 12:11 PM

    The difference is that the appeals court stated that the lower-court judge was correct in his assessment that the suspensions did not violate the CBA. This means that the suspensions of all the players fall within the CBA and are legal. However, the Williams’ are also claiming that the drug-testing violates Minnesota state-workplace laws (which is separate from the suspension arguement) and therefore, if it does, they can’t be suspended for violating the substance policy. The judge will not be taking up that portion until after the season, therefore, their suspensions are stayed until then.

  42. marcduke says: Sep 11, 2009 12:12 PM

    Folks this has little to do with what the NFL wants. This has everything to do with the ultra-liberal justice system we have in “Many-snow-days”. Just another reason why this state sucks and is quickly becoming the California of the Mid-West.
    I can’t fire or suspend someone for a drug charge? No wonder our light rail trains, that were forced upon the taxpayers, keep killing bike riders….

  43. jimicos says: Sep 11, 2009 12:15 PM

    If Mike Vick only got a 2 game suspension for testing positive for banned substances, operating an illegal gambling ring, killing dogs, etc, etc, then I guess this punishment of the fat Williamses is consistent.

  44. SaintMichael says: Sep 11, 2009 12:15 PM

    Grant and Smith almost certainly WON’T have to serve.
    Think about it : If the NFL was prepared to spend the Saints but not the Vikings than why did the Saints’ suspensions get held up simply while we were waiting on the Minn. Federal case?
    Obviously the league will not give different treatments to players for the same offenses. The NFLPA would go apeshit.

  45. jbwbubba says: Sep 11, 2009 12:21 PM

    Goodell should come and announce theVikings nor any team in MN is in the NFL

  46. Fan_Of_ Four says: Sep 11, 2009 12:22 PM

    Grant & Smith get the boot for an illegal diet pill, Pat and Kevin Williams get a pass for the same diet pill and Michael Vick gets to play after he was involved in illegal gambling and the destruction of multiple animals.
    Yup, makes sense to me.
    Goodell for President !

  47. Peoria Viking says: Sep 11, 2009 12:25 PM

    Dear pkrjones:
    Here is your” common sense” explanation:
    The sovereign State of Minnesota has enacted a state law that provides additional protections to it’s employees for drug testing.
    The sovereign State of Louisiana either has not, or the Saint’s players have not alleged them.
    End of explanation.

  48. SaintMichael says: Sep 11, 2009 12:27 PM

    deucebot – of course there is a connection moron.
    Florio is dead wrong on this I promise you. Saints won’t be suspended.

  49. bills9951 says: Sep 11, 2009 12:28 PM

    Daffy87:
    LMAO….hahaha. but the browns suck

  50. Tjackfan says: Sep 11, 2009 12:32 PM

    LMAO StevieMo!!!!

  51. CutlerISaPussy says: Sep 11, 2009 12:34 PM

    All the bs about being able to explain you self got thrown out. The part that is still being considered (and will be upheld) is that in Minnesota 1) you can’t be suspended from work for taking a legal substance off the work site and 2) you can’t be suspended from work for your first violation for substance abuse. Both work in the favor of the Williams Walls

  52. goodjuan says: Sep 11, 2009 12:34 PM

    if the vikings move from minnesota, don’t expect to get another team in any circumstances.

  53. Nevisyakker says: Sep 11, 2009 12:35 PM

    For those with short memories…An NFL employee whose job it is to inform and watch over the banned substance issue knew that the diuretic in question secretely contained the banned substance but CHOSE NOT TO INFORM NFL PLAYERS. The NFL was concerned that some players may use the substance because it also may have the effect of flushing the system of steroid evidence. The state of MN, which is a very labor friendy state, says that the decision of the NFL to hold players respoonsible even though the NFL decided not to properly inform them is unjust and unfair to the workers, in this case the Williams’.
    There is no grand consiracy, no judge with a Vikings bumper sticker. It is simply the law, and quite frankly the NFL should be held accountable for their conduct in this entire mess.

  54. zygi milf says: Sep 11, 2009 12:36 PM

    The State of Minnesota protects it’s citizens.
    Louisiana sends them back into a below-sea-level swamp after a disaster.

  55. Kidekk says: Sep 11, 2009 12:37 PM

    falstaff1962 says:
    September 11, 2009 11:54 AM
    Sorry- I’m a Vikings guy, but Kevin and Pat should be suspended. They fished around for a technicality because they screwed up and got caught at it. Man up guys. You did the crime, now do the time. But instead of doing that, lets waste tons of the taxpayers dollars on an issue that should have never gotten to this point.
    ————
    Man up and take the penalty. I love this rhetoric. So if you ever get arrested or someone is going to sue you for something, don’t hire a lawyer.
    Everyone hires lawyers to protect themselves. If you don’t, you’re dumb. No one wants to take their punishment in full, which is why there are plea deals and trials. If you can find something that works out in your advantage, you do it. There are laws people, read up and understand the story and what is going on. It’s not as cut and dry as fair and not fair. The state law protects them, it’s the NFL’s fault they didn’t cover it in the CBA. If anything, the NFL should “man up” and take the loss instead of wasting tons of taxpayers dollars on an issue that should have never gotten to this point.

  56. sand0 says: Sep 11, 2009 12:43 PM

    Minnesota State law allows for employees that fail a drug test the chance to explain themselves and how perhaps the failure was accidental or drugs were medicinal or whatever.
    This is a perfect instance of this. The Williamses unknowingly ingested a banned substance and now have the opportunity to explain their case in court. If they win then the NFL does not have the legal right to suspend them so long as they are employed in Minnesota.
    Unfortunately for the Saints players their state does not offer this protection to employees.
    This is a fair outcome in that the law was followed. You can argue that the laws are wrong or that Minnesota should not protect its employees in this way but you really can’t argue against the ruling unless you have spent hours and hours looking through all the laws and have a law degree. (i.e. if you are a packers fan you can’t just say “this is bs unfair”.)
    Like it or not, The Wall stands tall.

  57. darth_vincent says: Sep 11, 2009 12:44 PM

    the NFL did not need to inform the players about Starcaps… it was NEVER on an NFL approved substance list at anytime. The NFLPA is the one’s who blew it, they needed to remind their members that Starcaps was a product that no player in the NFL could endorse… get it!!!! Vikings cheat worse than Belichek… and now cheating is officially approved by the Justice Dept. in Minnesota.

  58. Bob Nelson says: Sep 11, 2009 12:50 PM

    Reading the Appeals Court document, it seems to me that the Court indicates if the sample were tested twice or if the players were able to have independent testing done on the sample the suspensions would be valid under Minnesota law.
    It appears the NFL did not test the sample again or did not preserve the sample for independent testing. That would be the second test.
    That should be standard with any testing program.
    The portion regarding use of legal products during nonworking hours was screwed up because the NFL “failed to define nonworking hours during training camp.” The court scoffed at the notion that the players had no nonworking hours.
    The ingestion of the steroid masking agent is a violation of the CBA regardless of what hour of the day it occurred!!
    If the NFL had just double tested the samples of the fat lazy flabby lazy cheating immoral viking players, their suspensions would have been over long ago.

  59. marcduke says: Sep 11, 2009 1:05 PM

    Man up and take the penalty. I love this rhetoric. So if you ever get arrested or someone is going to sue you for something, don’t hire a lawyer.
    Everyone hires lawyers to protect themselves. If you don’t, you’re dumb. No one wants to take their punishment in full, which is why there are plea deals and trials. If you can find something that works out in your advantage, you do it. There are laws people, read up and understand the story and what is going on. It’s not as cut and dry as fair and not fair. The state law protects them, it’s the NFL’s fault they didn’t cover it in the CBA. If anything, the NFL should “man up” and take the loss instead of wasting tons of taxpayers dollars on an issue that should have never gotten to this point.
    ___________________________________
    And that pile of garbage you just typed is what’s wrong with this country. No accountability and self entitlement – we are heading down the road of the Romans, folks.

  60. Anarcho Purplism says: Sep 11, 2009 1:12 PM

    This case was BS from the beginning.
    These fat guys took a diuretic to hide their 4th meal fetish. This substance is NOT steriods & allegedly “masks” steroid use. They purchased this OVER THE COUNTER.
    These players were not informed by the regulatory body that manages banned/okay products. The NFL should have side stepped this early on due to the misunderstanding nature. Maybe fined them $5,000 a piece for being annoying & looking like some punishment was laid down then move on.
    So now we learn labor laws in MN on this issue are “more fair” than those of Louisiana.
    The NFL should have seen this outlook months ago. Now, they look even more stupid with half of the parties guilty & the other half not guilty due to differences in state law.
    ***NEWSFLASH***
    The common man cannot speak legalese. This situation does not help the game at all.
    Saints players should be let off the hook.
    BTW….This was HILARIOUS
    zygi milf says: September 11, 2009 12:36 PM
    The State of Minnesota protects it’s citizens.
    Louisiana sends them back into a below-sea-level swamp after a disaster.

  61. CutlerISaPussy says: Sep 11, 2009 1:22 PM

    Hey Darth Vincent- First, you are a giant douchebag, second, this was decided on by FEDERAL judges. Like I said, clean the Sh!t out of your ears and listen up. Or actually read the articles- notice they keep saying US Court of Appeals and stuff like ‘federal appeals court’, ‘panel of judges’, etc. Vikings cheat b/c state laws are upheld by federal courts. Yeah.

  62. Jabberwocky says: Sep 11, 2009 1:24 PM

    Adept- so what you’re saying is that there are a lot of “high” Minnesota employees screwing around at work?

  63. Kidekk says: Sep 11, 2009 1:28 PM

    And that pile of garbage you just typed is what’s wrong with this country. No accountability and self entitlement – we are heading down the road of the Romans, folks.
    —————–
    Yeah, you’re right. No one looks out for #1. Miranda Rights even tell you that if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Who wants to go to prison? A lot of people on this site like to make themselves out to be holier-than-thou, but if you’re in a situation where you need to defend yourself and get out from under it, you do it. If you’re child were to be arrested for something, would you not hire a lawyer and fall on the mercy of the court or would you do whatever it takes to try and have them receive the best possible outcome? Get off of your high horse.
    Laws are challenged all of the time for the benefit of individuals. It has nothing to do with accountability or self entitlement. The law was put in place for a reason and it protects them. The NFL is challenging that law. Why should they waive their right to be protected by the law for the sake of the NFL, when the law is stating that the NFL is in the wrong in this instance? You need a reality check.

  64. CutlerISaPussy says: Sep 11, 2009 1:30 PM

    Hey Darth Vincent- First, you are a giant douchebag, second, this was decided on by FEDERAL judges. Like I said, clean the Sh!t out of your ears and listen up. Or actually read the articles- notice they keep saying US Court of Appeals and stuff like ‘federal appeals court’, ‘panel of judges’, etc. Vikings cheat b/c state laws are upheld by federal courts. Yeah.

  65. thecrazytomato says: Sep 11, 2009 1:40 PM

    Wow you guys are funny. Most of you it seems dont’t know anything about about our legal system.
    Let me give you a crash course here.
    There are Federal Laws. In which our House of Rep. and Senate create and pass. In which the president either signs or Veto’s. These laws are trump.
    There are State laws. Like Federal laws they are created as per above and signed by the Gov and/or voted on by the people. Only Federal Law trumps these.
    Then there are city/local laws.
    Then there are judges.
    Judges don’t make laws. Judges interprete the law.
    The issue here in fact is a State Law. The State of Min. decided that do to one reason or another, the Williams’ were not at fault, thus the suspension by the NFL was innapropriate.
    Louisianna State Law says they are in fact responsible. So the two DE’s are held accountable and will serve there punishment.
    This is not the fault of the NFL, “in legal terms, but in a code of morals it is” nor is it the fault of the Justice system. This is the kind of things that will happen when you have a “League” of teams with so many states involved, I am surprised none of this has happen before.
    You cant expect the States to change laws because of the NFL “Even though they are giving it a run in Delaware” These laws are design to help out the Average Joe, but I expect that most of the people that sound like they don’t know what they are talking about are Packer fans that are just angry, cause there most hated team just secured their defensive Anchors.

  66. stanjam says: Sep 11, 2009 1:45 PM

    Welcome to the modern Goodell NFL area those of you JUST waking up. This is the Goodell “We punish who we want, when we want, and how much we want” NFL. Arbitrary punishments and decisions, and a blind eye to others. SUCKS and is ruining this game, not helping it!

  67. jimicos says: Sep 11, 2009 1:47 PM

    Nevisyakker says:
    September 11, 2009 12:35 PM
    For those with short memories…An NFL employee whose job it is to inform and watch over the banned substance issue knew that the diuretic in question secretely contained the banned substance but CHOSE NOT TO INFORM NFL PLAYERS.
    —————————-
    For those with short memories… The NFL IS NOT REQUIRED TO INFORM NFL PLAYERS of any product containing banned substances.
    The league office did not in any way violate the CBA by not communicating the spiking of Star Caps with Bumetanide. The only parties guilty of breaking any rules are the player in question.
    That fact is not disputed.

  68. Skeety says: Sep 11, 2009 3:25 PM

    its simple: the vikings are the only ones that fought the ruling, the saints did not.. just like OJ got lawyers and fought, the vikings did the same and got away with it too. the saints were stupid or just didn’t care i guess.

  69. CutlerISaPussy says: Sep 11, 2009 3:34 PM

    Apparently Jimicos is not getting it- the NFL TRIED to suspend them. The law said no. How does this equate to the NFL protecting the Vikings. They WANT to suspend them.

  70. CutlerISaPussy says: Sep 11, 2009 3:37 PM

    Apparently Jimicos is not getting it- the NFL TRIED to suspend them. The law said no. How does this equate to the NFL protecting the Vikings. They WANT to suspend them.

  71. jimicos says: Sep 11, 2009 4:05 PM

    CutlerISaPussy says:
    September 11, 2009 3:37 PM
    Apparently Jimicos is not getting it- the NFL TRIED to suspend them. The law said no. How does this equate to the NFL protecting the Vikings. They WANT to suspend them.
    ——————————
    Apparently CutlerISaPussy is not getting it. I didn’t say the NFL is protecting the Vikings. I said the NFL is not required to inform the players of products containing banned substances.

  72. jimicos says: Sep 11, 2009 4:07 PM

    Skeety says:
    September 11, 2009 3:25 PM
    its simple: the vikings are the only ones that fought the ruling, the saints did not.. just like OJ got lawyers and fought, the vikings did the same and got away with it too. the saints were stupid or just didn’t care i guess.
    ——————————-
    No, the Vikings are the only ones who play in Minnesota. Minnesota is the difference. The Saints DID fight the ruling, but they did not have the benefit of Minnesota labor laws. Go figure.

  73. RagnartheViking says: Sep 11, 2009 4:08 PM

    Excuse Jimicos, CIP.
    He has about as much IQ as the keyboard you are typing on.
    In other words, your average Packer fan.

  74. jimicos says: Sep 11, 2009 4:59 PM

    RagnartheViking says:
    September 11, 2009 4:08 PM
    Excuse Jimicos, CIP.
    He has about as much IQ as the keyboard you are typing on.
    In other words, your average Packer fan.
    ——————————
    Once again, unable to bring any valid points to the table or successfully argue against logic, reason and facts FagRagtheViking resorts to idiocy. It was as original as it was unexpected. As usual.

  75. duffsbeer says: Sep 11, 2009 5:13 PM

    I have negotiated multi-state labour contracts and the first thing we do is review the state law for each state involved. Minnesota is not the only state that has this law, a lot of states actually do. So for Goodell to state that this is unfair to the other teams is not correct, the 49ers, the Chargers, the Raiders, the Texans, the Cowboys, and the Bears are all protected by almost identical laws to the one in question in Minnesota. There could be more teams that are protected but I have only dealt with Texas, Kansas, Colorado, California, Illinois, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Dakota state laws. Merriman should have fought his suspension and any Bear should have fought as California and Illinois have the most worker friendly laws in the US.

  76. RagnartheViking says: Sep 12, 2009 5:27 PM

    Jimi:
    You can’t use logic with a Packer fan.
    You also can’t “argue/ debate” with a Packer fan as you yourself have oriven time and again. if a Packer fan is losing aan arguement, thier tact is not to admit defeat, it is to change the arguement slightly.
    I guess my comment hit a little close to home.
    I’m sorry.
    I really shouldn’t try to have a battle of wits with someone is obviously unarmed.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!