In response to the decision to refrain from suspending the Saints players who were slated to sit out four games after taking StarCaps, the players have expressed gratitude for their outcome — and their lawyer has exercised restraint.
Attorney David Cornwell has issued a statement on behalf of Charles Grant, Will Smith, and Deuce McAllister, who as a practical matter will be permitted to play unless and until the litigation filed by Vikings defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams is resolved against them. (McAllister currently is a free agent; the Saints cut him during the 2009 offseason.)
“Deuce, Will, and Charles appreciate Commissioner Goodell’s decision not to suspend
them for unknowingly ingesting a banned diuretic,” Cornwell said. “We are particularly grateful for the Commissioner’s sensitivity to the fairness issue.
“This has been a challenging process for everyone. While the NFLPA and the NFL must
now work together to resolve the unintended, broader issue of conflicting state laws,
DeMaurice Smith’s support for Deuce, Will, and Charles was invaluable and is greatly
appreciated.”
What Cornwell didn’t address — and what the NFLPA should tackle once again — is the portion of the league’s statement criticizing the union for joining in the attack against the anti-doping policy.
But here’s the reality. If the league wants the union to behave as a partner when it comes to the enforcement of the rules regarding steroids and other banned substances, then the NFL needs to behave like a partner, not an adversary. So when, for example, the league becomes aware that an over-the-counter substance has been secretly and deliberately spiked with a federally-regulated prescription drug that has significant possible side effects, the league needs to tell the union about it in unambiguous terms, and not simply by adding the company that makes the substance to the list of companies that players are prohibited from endorsing.
During the appeal process administered by the league, Cornwell developed evidence supporting the notion that the league was more concerned about catching players who had banned substances in their bodies than it was about ensuring that players have the best information available to them regarding potentially serious health risks.
That’s not partnership; that’s gamesmanship. So if the league truly wants to move forward in a cooperative way, the league needs to do the right thing and rescind the suspensions.
who cares about this?
What about the “other guy” who already served his suspension for the same thing??
I forget his name, but seem to recall there was a 6th player who went ahead & served his suspension.
Am I remembering wrong??
They should thank the MN judge who didn’t want to his season tickets go to waste so he ruled in favor of the Williams sisters. If it weren’t for that, the Saints players would have been suspended.
No they don’t have to rescind the suspensions. That’s just silly. The suspensions existed because of a policy, albeit flawed, which the PA agreed to. So rescinding them is akin to saying “well we’ll let the PA flipflop on this one and take all the heat”. That’s not partnership, that’s rolling over. The rules exist for a reason, namely the spirit of preventing a competitive advantage. And this concept is a noble one which is to the players advantage as well as to the league brand. Instead of a blanket cop out the right thing to do is examine each case individually and try to make a decision about whether the players took these substances to get a competitive advantage on a case by case basis. That means more legwork, which of course lazy people don’t like. But it’s the right thing to do.
Cornwell’s statement, btw, is an example of how you do it. He’s being polite and straight up. Of course the players appreciate the actions of the league. And it’s good of him to say so.
What’s quite irritating about this PA vs league nonsense is that both sides are forgetting the principles that matter. In the case of the drug policy the principle should be “prevent drug use leading to competitive advantage”. This is good for both sides. It’s good for the players, allowing the best talent to succeed and removing the pressure on players to take shortcuts which often cause disability after the fact. And it’s good for the league because it ensures an ethical stance which reflects the integrity of the game, and the fact that they care about the players. That’s true partnership.
Finally the only drug policy which is effective is more testing. The players should realize it. The PA should realize it. And the league shouldn’t be so cheap.
I’m full of ideas like this btw. The CBA problem is a piece of cake.
Yea, an OL from Saints, Jamar Nesbit.
Of course there are also all the players from 2006 that were allowed to skate scot free……
WHOA! Gamesmanship in the NFL? The Hoodie is stunned at your surprise, Florio. Not to mention everyone else who’s ever read up on the history of the game.
Truly shocking stuff here, Florio. Keep finding those scandals. I bet some team even waters the grass too much this week to slow down their opponent.
A thorough reading of the facts of the case presented in the opinion reveals that the League didn’t simply prohibit players from endorsing StarCaps. In the same letter sent to all NFL Player Agents, the League also prohibited players from using any products from StarCaps. Makes it a little bit harder to make the insinuation that the League was trying to trap its players.
I am guessing JimmySmith isn’t paying attention to the makeup of the FEDERAL appeals court.
I guess research is alot to ask before blurting crap out in a public forum.
crc49,
After giving it some thought, does the CBA actually give the NFL the right to tell players what companies that sell legal products (according to the ingredient labels) they can use?
If this is the case, the union are idiots for allowing this. They can just send an F’ing letter saying “from now on you can’t use any products from Bayer or Pepsi”.
That is outright insane. Boy, I’d sure like to work somewhere that they sent out memos indicating I can’t use some companies products anymore without an F’ing peep about why. That’s classic.
I think from the player standpoint, the damge has been done. The league has shown that it wants to play a cat and mouse game and find players who are using.
It would be nice for the league to back off now. But the only thing the players will remember is that the league did so only when I Minnesota judge stood up and leveled the playing field.
While its true that the league was smart to stay the punishment for the Saints players, that decision has nothing to do with partnership with the players, it has more to do with an overall sense of fairplay in the league from owner to owner.
“During the appeal process administered by the league, Cornwell developed evidence supporting the notion that the league was more concerned about catching players who had banned substances in their bodies than it was about ensuring that players have the best information available to them regarding potentially serious health risks.”
Why is this the first time this has been mentioned in the media? You’d think, in the wake of Korey Stringer’s death, the players, their lawyer, the NFLPA would be trumpeting the fact that the league knew that the StarCaps contained, not just a banned substance, but a substance that could potentially endanger the lives of players who took it unknowingly.
Not a huge chance, true, but if this were a personal injury lawsuit against the league from the family of one of these players who died, I can’t imagine it would take much for a jury to conclude the league was negligent in not informing players of the presence of bumetanide.
cr49, the league didn’t say players were prohibited from taking it, just that the substance was put on the not recommended list (or removed from the “OK” list, I forget which). They didn’t put StarCaps on the banned list, which they should have done when the first player tested positive for bumetanide while taking it (over a year before these players tested positive). Or at least notified players of what it contained.
# TMI says: September 15, 2009 8:43 PM
What about the “other guy” who already served his suspension for the same thing??
I forget his name, but seem to recall there was a 6th player who went ahead & served his suspension.
Am I remembering wrong??
——————
No, I think you are correct. I believe it was Bryan Pittman, long snapper for the Houston Texans at the time, who served the suspension.
Your last three paragraphs are spot-on, and pretty much some up a rational viewpoint, which the NFL did not adopt.
Samira – I’m just going off of what is in the record. Page six of the decision cites a memorandum sent to all NFL Player Agents entered into evidence during the proceedings that states:
“Please be advised that effective immediately Balandec Health Products, which distributes StarCaps, has been added to the list of prohibted dietary supplement companies. Players are prohibited from participating in any endorsement aggreements with this company or *using any of their products*.”
I agree this is different than the memo sent to the presidents, GMs and athletic trainers (quoted earlier in the decision on pp.5-6), and that clearly is an issue there. My point is that, if the NFL sends out a memo saying that the supplement I use is no longer acceptable, I’m asking some questions. True, the NFL did the minimum when it came to alerting players to the dangers of StarCaps, but everyone seemed content with the lack of information until after the fact. There are missteps in responsibility from both sides.