Rams linebacker Vobora wins $5.4 million judgment against supplement company


It’s become a cliche by now:  Pro athlete fails a steroid test, and he blames the supplement company.

In the case of Rams linebacker David Vobora, he was telling the truth.

Vobora won a $5.4 million judgment against a supplement provider on Monday in a St. Louis court.  U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel gave the amount for Vobora’s missed four game checks and endorsement opportunities as “Mr. Irrelevant.”

“The court heard testimony that the positive drug test and resulting suspension made Mr. Vobora less marketable than other similarly situated players who have not been suspended,” Sippel wrote, via CourtHouseNews.com.

The supplement company — S.W.A.T.S — was found to have sold a product that contained a banned substance methyl testosterone.  The NFL told Hue Jackson to stop associating with the company in January.  Players like Ray Lewis and safety Roy Williams have a relationship with the company.

Vobora followed NFL protocol before taking the substance, including calling the league’s drug hotline.

“This monumental judgment cleared my family’s name.  We stuck together through threats, ridicule, and unfair stigma,” Vobora said in a statement sent to PFT by the Spence Law Firm. “Finally vindicated, I’m relieved that I can refocus on football and help the St. Louis Rams get back to the playoffs when the lockout ends.  I’m grateful the Rams organization believed in my character through this trying process.”

Vobora has started 16 games in three seasons, including five last year. We congratulate him on winning a deserved judgment, and in becoming the first player in memory to prove it actually was the supplement company’s fault.

18 responses to “Rams linebacker Vobora wins $5.4 million judgment against supplement company

  1. He will not see a dime of that judgement, but good for him…one last thought.

    Endorsement opportunities as “Mr. Irrelevant?”

    Worth 5.4 million???

  2. Don’t think it is money for nothing. The supplement company had a substance in it that was not listed as an ingredient. Think of it like this, say you take an over the counter sleeping supplement. Your work randomly drug tests you and you come back positive for benzodiazepines (Xanax, Valium, etc.). You know you haven’t taken any so you are confused and upset about being fired. On a whim you get the supplement tested and low and behold it contains a controlled substance. There has to be some type of compensation because the supplement company has knowingly put an illicit ingredient into its product.

  3. duanethomas says:
    Jun 20, 2011 10:46 AM
    He will not see a dime of that judgement, but good for him…one last thought.

    Endorsement opportunities as “Mr. Irrelevant?”

    Worth 5.4 million???
    I think that also includes the amount owed to him by missing the 4 games. Still seems a bit high though.

  4. I just checked out S.W.A.T.S website and it’s probably the sketchiest website I’ve ever seen. Why would NFL players be buying from companies like this anyway? Seems a little weird to me.

  5. Congrats to Vobora.

    The excuse “my supplement caused me to fail the drug test” has really become the NFL equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”.

    Cynical writers, cynical bloggers, and cynical fans owe this guy an apology.

  6. Judgement / Judgment are two accepted alternate spellings of the same word. “Judgment” is more common in the USA thanks to Mr. Webster, but in England and other English speaking countries it is more common to use “judgement.” But my point is that neither are incorrect, they are variants.

    I am American but I use “judgement.” The “e” makes the “g” soft.

    You don’t see a “judg” working in court, and you don’t drive over a “bridg.” Phonetically “judgement” just looks better, and as long as the dictionaries accept it as a correct alternate, I will take pride in using it.

  7. spencer, I hope you are a fan of one of the other NFC west teams. Next 10 years or so will be great times for Rams fans.

  8. I’m glad it worked out for him. His backup excuse was going to be “over training”

  9. There is an I in their but not there, which is the there that should be used when commenting whether there should be a letter there or not.

Leave a Reply

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