MikesVikes Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) The Williams Wall stands up in the NFL. link Edited September 11, 2009 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 The Williamses' lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, said today's decision was a "win for Kevin and Pat, and importantly it's a win for all unionized employees. For the fifth time now the NFL has been told that notwithstanding its $8 billion profit, it has no right to ignore the liberty and safety and health protections of its employees." Ginsberg said he has up to a dozen violations of Minnesota labor law that he will argue at trial. "The NFL has to abide by the law like every other employer and citizen of the United States," he said. "By now, hopefully the NFL has gotten that message." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 This is the key and it comes right at the end: The Williamses argued that Minnesota law gives employees an opportunity to explain the innocent use of an otherwise banned product, but the NFL didn't allow them to explain their use of StarCaps. Why doesn't the NFL allow this? This case also goes to the heart of the question as to whether the NFL is one entity or 32. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadman Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 ...and liberty, and justice, for all (of us Vikings fans). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Freakin unions . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 This sends a lousy message to kids and parents. The NFL needs to clean this up but so do athletes. They did get away with taking drugs they thought gave them an advantage over other athletes. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 One less excuse they have to use when the Packers beat them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 This sends a lousy message to kids and parents. Assume that things you buy over contain illegal drugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 One less excuse they have to use when the Packers beat them. I was in a Madison Mall last weekend. I was shocked to see a kiosk selling Purple Favre t-shirts that say "Temporary Viking Fan" on them. I'm assuming you and Randall didn't get one of those. Seriously, I was a little surprised that the dude wasn't run out of town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 Btw, this ruling did not save the Saints players from suspension. They took the same exact product as the Williams Wall but they will be suspended. Sound fair? Charles Grant and Will Smith will be suspended for testing positive for the same substance Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 I was in a Madison Mall last weekend. I was shocked to see a kiosk selling Purple Favre t-shirts that say "Temporary Viking Fan" on them. I'm assuming you and Randall didn't get one of those. Seriously, I was a little surprised that the dude wasn't run out of town. I live in NY, so I'm not immersed in the Favre thing like the fans in Wisconsin and Minnesota. History will treat him a lot better after he finally retires and I still have his jersey on my wall, but as long as he wears purple, he's a traitor and the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Why doesn't the NFL allow this? This case also goes to the heart of the question as to whether the NFL is one entity or 32.I wonder though that while Minnesota law gives employees a right to explain the innocent use of a banned substance, does the law also require the employer to accept the excuse? My view of it is that the NFL didn't really care one way or another if the banned substance was being used to mask steroids or if was a hidden ingredient of another product. It was still in their system. Yes it's a crappy thing for the two players because they didn't knowingly take the substance, and if I was in their shoes I would be doing exactly the same thing they are doing, but the rules are the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 I live in NY, so I'm not immersed in the Favre thing like the fans in Wisconsin and Minnesota. History will treat him a lot better after he finally retires and I still have his jersey on my wall, but as long as he wears purple, he's a traitor and the enemy. Enemy, I understand. Traitor? He tried to go back to the Packers. They traded him. You can't call playing for another team betrayal when the Packers sent him packing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 I wonder though that while Minnesota law gives employees a right to explain the innocent use of a banned substance, does the law also require the employer to accept the excuse? My view of it is that the NFL didn't really care one way or another if the banned substance was being used to mask steroids or if was a hidden ingredient of another product. It was still in their system. Yes it's a crappy thing for the two players because they didn't knowingly take the substance, and if I was in their shoes I would be doing exactly the same thing they are doing, but the rules are the rules. Why should the NFL take the time to test products and distribute lists of NFL approved products to each and every team in the league? Then, when their own approved lists are not accurate it becomes the responsibility of the players. Why distribute a list at all if that is their position. Why place themselves in the position of being the expert in the eyes of the teams/players. Why when they cannot possibly maintain the integrity of such a list believe they can still hold the players responsible? Seems to me they want it both ways and the little prairie lawyer and judge are having a heyday with the 800 lb gorilla that is currently the NFL. It was not a performance enhancing drug they tested for. It was an ingredient that can be used as a masking agent and added by the manufacturer to an NFL approved water/weight reduction product after the NFL approved the product for consumption. The manufacturer effectively slipped them a “Mickey” The way I see the NFL getting out of this in the future is officially licensing these products (stamp of approval) and holding the manufactures of said products responsible. Limited products, revenue generating – everything the NFL believes in and the public will purchase product as well since -------- well, the NFL said it is good, then it must be so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystykoekaki Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 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.