Outshined Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Kevin, Pat Williams can play, Minnesota judge rules The Vikings defensive tackles can play the entire season unless a federal court claims jurisdiction over their lawsuit challenging the NFL's drug-testing procedures and their suspensions, a judge ruled this morning. By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune Last update: August 5, 2009 - 9:28 AM Minnesota Vikings Kevin and Pat Williams can play the entire season unless a federal court claims jurisdiction over their lawsuit challenging the NFL's drug-testing procedures, Hennepin County District Court Judge Gary Larson ruled today. Larson stayed action in his courtroom until the U.S. District Court determines whether it has jurisdiction on some of the players' claims. Federal Judge Paul Magnuson said the court does not, but a three-judge panel is hearing an appeal of his ruling in St. Paul on Aug. 18. If the federal court determines the case should be conducted in state court, Larson wrote "it is not likely that the (Hennepin County) court would, or could force (the players into trial during the middle of a playing season, based on the court's schedule." The Pro Bowl defensive tackles sued last year after they were found to have taken a banned substance -- unwittingly, they say -- and suspended for four games. The NFL wanted Larson to delay state court proceedings on the matter until the 8th U.S. District Court of Appeals rules. Larson agreed to do so. "To proceed in both the Eighth Circuit and this court on such similar issues at the exact same time and then to reach conflicting results would be a colossal waste of limited resources," the judge wrote. The players asked to proceed immediately in state court with a trial before the season begins. Absent a trial next month, the players asked that Larson let them take the field and conduct a trial after the season - which he agreed to do. The Williamses filed a lawsuit in state court contending that the NFL's drug-testing procedures violate state workplace laws, and they asked that a judge void their suspensions. The players argue that Minnesota law gives employees an opportunity to explain use of a product innocently used but otherwise banned, but the NFL didn't allow the Williamses to explain their use of the over-the-counter supplement StarCaps. The supplement was found to contain the banned diuretic bumetanide, which can mask steroid use but was not listed as an ingredient on the label. Meanwhile, the NFL Players Association filed suit in federal court on the players' behalf. As part of that suit, NFL attorneys argued that federal court had jurisdiction over the labor laws that govern its drug-testing program and that the state claims should be dismissed. Magnuson dismissed the union's claims that the suspensions violated the players' collective bargaining agreement. But he sent the Williamses' claims under state law back to state court, saying they were not pre-empted by the union agreement as the NFL had argued. Both sides have appealed parts of Magnuson's rulings. Rochelle Olson • 612-673-1747 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 If it is not on the label I do not see how the NFL can take the stance they've taken. Do they want the players to hire labs and gave every thing they ingest tested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted August 5, 2009 Author Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) If it is not on the label I do not see how the NFL can take the stance they've taken. Do they want the players to hire labs and gave every thing they ingest tested? The NFL already won that part because the Federal Judge already ruled the players are at fault. That Federal judge sent some parts of the case back to state court in which the NFL is appealing. Here is another article that might explain it better: Understanding today's Williams Wall ruling August 5, 2009 12:26 PM Posted by ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert I'll do my best to distill the latest legal turn in Minnesota's Williams Wall case. As you might recall, the lawsuit of Kevin Williams and Pat Williams has been sidetracked by the question of whether it belongs in state or federal court. The players want it to be heard in state court, where they would claim the NFL's steroid testing policy violated Minnesota labor laws. The NFL -- along with the rest of this country's professional sports leagues -- believe federal laws take priority. A federal judge in Minnesota already has ruled that the case could be heard in state court, but the NFL appealed. Wednesday, a Minnesota judge delayed the state case until the NFL's appeal can be heard Aug. 18 in St. Paul. A ruling is expected before the regular season begins. If the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds the decision to allow a lawsuit in state court, the state trial won't occur until after the 2009 season, according to Rochelle Olson of the Star Tribune. Hennepin County District Judge Gary Larson ensured that in a court order Wednesday. But if the appeals court overturns that decision and prevents the case from going to state court, the players could be suspended for the first four games of the season. To maintain their eligibility, writes Brian Murphy of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, they might have to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully that makes some sense. See you on Aug. 18. Edited August 5, 2009 by Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted August 5, 2009 Author Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) I think if the court of appeals overturns the Judges ruling that it is a federal case, I think the Williams's will be suspended. Edited August 5, 2009 by Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 One league-wide drug policy would be a nightmare to enforce if they had to abide by individual state laws at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) The NFL already won that part because the Federal Judge already ruled the players are at fault. That Federal judge sent some parts of the case back to state court in which the NFL is appealing. Still total BS in my eyes. You buy something, check the label...a banned substance is not on the label, so you feel safe in taking it. Then you get in trouble because the product contains a banned substance but the company that produces the product does NOT list it on a label...and somehow YOU'RE at fault?? Screw that...where is any common sense in all this? This seems like a no-brainer in favor of the players that I think I have to be missing something, anything. A very large component here. Am I? Otherwise, the league looks like a total ass in this case. Edited August 5, 2009 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Still total BS in my eyes. You buy something, check the label...a banned substance is not on the label, so you feel safe in taking it. Then you get in trouble because the product contains a banned substance but the company that produces the product does NOT list it on a label...and somehow YOU'RE at fault?? Screw that...where is any common sense in all this? This seems like a no-brainer in favor of the players that I think I have to be missing something, anything. A very large component here. Am I? Otherwise, the league looks like a total ass in this case. At the end of the day, they still have a banned substance in their body. If they knew what they were taking or not, it's still a banned substance, and it still went in their body. The league IMO is looking out for the guys who are still pissing clean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 One league-wide drug policy would be a nightmare to enforce if they had to abide by individual state laws at the same time. Yep, the Williams's could screw up the league with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) Still total BS in my eyes. You buy something, check the label...a banned substance is not on the label, so you feel safe in taking it. Then you get in trouble because the product contains a banned substance but the company that produces the product does NOT list it on a label...and somehow YOU'RE at fault?? Screw that...where is any common sense in all this? This seems like a no-brainer in favor of the players that I think I have to be missing something, anything. A very large component here. Am I? Otherwise, the league looks like a total ass in this case. Not only that, but the product had been previously tested by the league to be free of any banned substance. It was after that testing when Starcaps started adding the banned substance. Edited August 5, 2009 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystykoekaki Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Good news indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2009/...eek_for_ne.html Will Smith and Charles Grant WILL PLAY week 1 vs Lions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 If it is not on the label I do not see how the NFL can take the stance they've taken. Do they want the players to hire labs and gave every thing they ingest tested? No just stop taking drugs they think will sneak past NFL rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) No just stop taking drugs they think will sneak past NFL rules. see but that is the problem with the star caps case...they were on an approved NFL list and thenthe maker of starcaps added a banned substance to them thus making them illegal and in doing so they never put the banned substance on the ingredients list...imo, the NFL has to show some leeway when an item is on their approved list(or was it that it was tested and approved at an earlier date, something like that) and then is illegally altered by its source Edited September 9, 2009 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 The NFL is testing for substances, then sending out memo's on what is approved to the entire league - Then the NFL has responsibility to maintain/update the list constantly, not half hearted. Get into the drug testing business or get someone else to do it at all times. NFL seems just cheap IMHO and everything went FUBAR on this one - hope the players win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) No just stop taking drugs they think will sneak past NFL rules. Your company gives you a drug test and finds cocaine in your system then forces you into a substance abuse program or lose your job even though you know you never used it. Then a month later it is found out that some punk working at a restaurant you ate at was doping the cannoli just for kicks. But your company doesn't care because it was in your system & still makes you continue in the substance abuse program and will keep the fact that you were tested positive on your permanent record. Please explain to me how your company has a leg to stand on & how this is fair to you. Edited September 9, 2009 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.