I was fine with them all being suspended or NOT suspended until I heard it was being addressed by a court, the federal court was it? Either way, now seeing that they suspended, appealed and lost and now are able to play I want them gone for the entire year, including playoffs. I really hate sniffling whiners who can't simply accept their punishment and move on.

Seems they are to play this weekend, fine. I hope they do then get suspended for four games. The last three of this year and the season opener for next year. Do they realize that fighting this is costing them a lot more than they realize?

---

Then quit whining.

So, having an opinion a subject = whining? Riiiight, no. Thanks though, come again.

---

Gotcha!

That was my "How would Z2C respond to a post" impression.

Bustin' your chops once and awhile gives some minor satisfaction! :icon_smile:

Evul little gnome.

I still think this whole thing shouldn't even be possible. How can a league not suspend it's own players, that just seems idiotic to me, really.

The only thing I can blame the league for is that they told the players it was legal. But still, why on earth do you take these things anyway? If you look at the ingredients, it's all just useless craps for the things they where supposed to do. I'm pretty sure someone told them that, with the training staff etc. that they have.

Honestly, having looked into this matter far deeper than any Viking fan apparently cares to, I think the most likely scenario is for them to be allowed to play the remainder of the year, as the issues are not likely to get resolved in court anytime soon if both sides stick to their guns.

The danger from the player's perspective is that they may get called to testify by the NFL. If they were taking the Starcaps as a masking agent, (and imo quite likely, as explained in previous posts) they would have to lie about it. I think it will be quite easy to do so, but they better make damn sure there is no avenue to catch them in the lie. I am sorry to be so hyper-critical of these two, because in comparison to some on that team, I would have to say that these two guys are high character individuals. I just keep coming back to the overwhelming evidence that these pills were well-known in the steroid user underground as masking agents.

On the NFL side, I would say they have two problems with this case. They are both related. One is the failure (ostensibly) to provide actual notice in the legal sense, and I'm not going to bore everyone by explaining all the details except to say that there are some real issues regarding notice to players in this case, especially when you take into account that the steroid testing policy is not inclusive to the CBA, but rather an adjunct/result of that agreement. The issues are; Actual Notice versus Constructive Notice, Was there an Acknowledgement by the players (this is a legally defined term for a signing) and was an Acknowledgement needed in a situation that is again, outside the CBA. Was the league obligated to give even constructive notice to the players when they learned for themselves that StarCaps contained a banned substance? Were they required to give actual notice? (This is different than the argument regarding the banning of the pills themselves) Was the fellow in the NFL that knew about the banned substance negligent by failing to disclose the ingredient, or further, did he? I could go on and on and on about this= It is not as simple as everyone seems to want to characterize it, it would have been if they had "eaten" the suspension, but they didn't.

Short-term, good for the Vikes, good for the Williams' boys.

Long term, dependent upon how vigorously the NFL decides to defend the suspensions, a most likely outcome is no suspension at all. The problem the Vikes and Williams' boys might have is that while defending their position the NFL were to discover exactly the how and why behind the Williams' boys taking these pills in the first place. If that were to occur, and they were taking them as a masking agent and then lie about it, well, the penalty for perjury in a Federal court is 5 years imprisonment.

I'm not a Vikes fan, but I think I can speak for them when I say that would suck.

lol I was figuring that, but wasn't sure. And I don't reply like that!

---

we are at least guaranteed to have them for the season , (however long that last) and i don't think they'll miss anytime next year either reading this , just like i first hoped when this came out ............it'll be nice to goodell end up with egg on his face over this



December 12, 2008

In all the fervor over a federal judge's ruling extending Kevin and Pat Williams' playing time, an important point may have been overlooked: The Williams Wall and the NFL Players Association just might win this thing.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson issued an order extending the time for both sides to present their case. That ruling followed Magnuson's move last week barring the league from enforcing four-game suspensions on the Williamses -- star defensive tackles for the Vikings -- and three New Orleans Saints. Testing showed they had used a banned diuretic that was present -- but not a listed ingredient -- in a weight-loss supplement they had taken.

Before handing down that order, Magnuson chided league officials for not giving him enough time to review the complex issues in the case. Included are two key questions:

Did league officials, who knew that the supplement contained the diuretic two years before the Williams' drug tests, have a legal obligation to tell the players? And was the arbitrator who upheld the players' suspensions, Jeffrey Pash, biased because people who work for him made the decision not to tell players about the drug?

NFL officials argued that they have no obligation to warn players about what their supplements contain. And the NFL insists that the players union agreed to the arbitration process, including Pash's role as arbitrator.

Magnuson's Thursday ruling leaves little doubt what he thinks.

On Pash, he wrote: "It is plain that the involvement of Mr. Pash's office and [Adolpho] Birch, Mr. Pash's subordinate, in the alleged conduct rendered Mr. Pash a partial arbitrator."

He continued: "Although Mr. Pash's decisions are well-reasoned, he glossed over the rather shocking allegations that the NFLPA makes... Such testimony calls into question the very basis of the NFL's position on banned substances."

Regarding league officials knowing that the supplement StarCaps contained the diuretic bumetanide but did not warn the players, Magnuson said that the players' union "has at least raised a substantial question as to whether the NFL" and its officials had such a duty.

And, he wrote, "The NFLPA has established that a substantial question exists as to whether the [suspensions] violate public policy."

In giving the league, the players and the union more time to define their cases, Magnuson also urged them to use this time to find a solution outside his courtroom.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello was asked if the judge's ruling points to him ruling in favor of the players. In an e-mail response Friday, Aiello wrote: "The only comment we are offering on yesterday's ruling is the following: This is consistent with the approach the judge has taken in giving careful consideration to these issues, which we fully respect."

But two Twin Cities employment attorneys say the language of the ruling should serve as a signal to the league that, ultimately, things may not go its way.

Marshall Tanick, who has represented players in drug testing matters, said of Magnuson: "He came out pretty strong on this one. This looks like, at the end of the day, the scoreboard is going to be in favor of the players."

John Klassen, an attorney who does much of his work in federal court, said Magnuson's language about Pash's partiality and the league's obligation to warn players is a clear signal that the tide may have turned against the NFL.

"It is no longer about the players' conduct," Klassen said. "It is about the NFL's conduct, which would be a surprise turn that the NFL didn't expect when they stepped into this."

After all, it was the NFL that moved to shift the Williams' case from state court -- where they had obtained a temporary restraining order two weeks ago -- to federal court.

"It's the old lesson," Klassen said. "Be careful what door you open and what arena you walk into. And the NFL may come to regret that

---

This will be interesting.

Too bad, we'll probably never know the whole truth on this issue. I feel that because of that, both the players' and the league will have tarnish on the reputations. And I believe that said tarnish would be questionable, because we'll never know the truth.

---

Update:

This should be resolved prior to opening day. I readily admit that the first thing I looked at when the schedule was released was, "Would we be playing the Vikings within the first 4 weeks of the season?" question. We are, week 4.

Williams wall legal update