Vikings Suspensions Might Get Handed Down Today

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Vikings players may learn their fate today

Vikings Pro Bowl defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams could learn today whether their four-game suspensions for testing positive for a banned diuretic will be upheld at the start of next season. The Williamses have a June 15 court date in their StarCaps case, but a "motion for summary judgment" will be heard today starting at 10:30 a.m. Essentially, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson can make a ruling if he decides there are enough key facts that are not in dispute. The hearing, which was first reported by the website Pro Football Talk, is expected to last several hours. The Williamses, along with three players from the New Orleans Saints, were suspended after testing positive for the banned diuretic bumetanide, which is contained in the supplement StarCaps and can be used as a masking agent for steroids. Bumetanide was not listed as an ingredient on the StarCaps label and the players argue that the NFL did not properly inform players. -- Minneapolis Star Tribune

 

I still don't get how they were able to get the appeal last season.

[defiantgiant]

Unfortunately, this delay could work out great for the Vikings. They have a very easy first four games (Browns, Lions, Niners, Packers) against teams without dominant rushing attacks. They'll probably be fine without the Williamses for those four, and they'll get them back in time for the Ravens, Steelers and both Chicago games.

 

Frank Gore is pretty good, but the Niners were close to the bottom of the league in rushing yards per game and YPC last year. The Browns were arguably worse than the Niners at running the ball, and the Lions were even worse than that (although they did much better after they replaced Rudi Johnson with Kevin Smith.) Smith is kind of a wildcard: he broke one for 50 yards against the Vikings last year, but outside of that carry, he only averaged 3.0 YPC against them last year. I'd bet that the Vikings can contain him handily without the Williamses.

 

The Packers are the only team in their first 4 games with even a passable ground game, but Ryan Grant is wildly inconsistent. He got totally shut down against some very poor run defenses in 2008 (like the first game against Detroit, where he went 15 rushes for 20 yards, with a long of 5) but also did well against some good ones. Depending on which Ryan Grant shows up, the Packers could have a great day running the ball against the Vikings, or they could get stuffed.

 

In any case, it looks like the appeal worked out well for Minnesota. Instead of losing their dominant DT tandem down the stretch last year, they lose them for four extremely winnable games in 2009 then get them back right when they'll need them.

[nfoligno]

As a bear fan, I have no problem if a couple Viqueens are suspended. But taking bias out, I still think this case really makes the league look bad, and shows how stupid the rules can be.

 

If a player takes something which has a listed ingredient which is on the league's banned substance list, then yes. they should get nailed. But in this case, the drug manufactuer left off the banned substance when listing the ingredients. I just do not understand how a player can be held responsible in such a circumstance. Before taking some advil, are they supposed to send the pills to the lab for testing to make sure only listed ingredients are in the pills?

 

Further, I think the league simply looks bad here in that their doctor in charge of this stuff actually knew the pills had a banned substance which was not listed, and took minimal to no action to inform the players. That is a massive red flag IMHO. On one hand, the league talks about all these rules put in place to protect the safety and health of players, but then they have a doctor who does nothing when he finds out a pill is not listing a substance which can be harmful to a player.

 

Again, as a bear fan, I would not bat an eye if suspensions were handed down, but as a football fan, I just really think this is BS.

 

[/b][/i]I still don't get how they were able to get the appeal last season.

[nfoligno]

One point I would make though. How many times do you see players sit out early on, and then come back to play at a high level. Even when they do, it usually takes time for that to happen. A month off is quite a bit of time. I don't think they would enter game 5 in true "football shape".

 

Unfortunately, this delay could work out great for the Vikings. They have a very easy first four games (Browns, Lions, Niners, Packers) against teams without dominant rushing attacks. They'll probably be fine without the Williamses for those four, and they'll get them back in time for the Ravens, Steelers and both Chicago games.

 

Frank Gore is pretty good, but the Niners were close to the bottom of the league in rushing yards per game and YPC last year. The Browns were arguably worse than the Niners at running the ball, and the Lions were even worse than that (although they did much better after they replaced Rudi Johnson with Kevin Smith.) Smith is kind of a wildcard: he broke one for 50 yards against the Vikings last year, but outside of that carry, he only averaged 3.0 YPC against them last year. I'd bet that the Vikings can contain him handily without the Williamses.

 

The Packers are the only team in their first 4 games with even a passable ground game, but Ryan Grant is wildly inconsistent. He got totally shut down against some very poor run defenses in 2008 (like the first game against Detroit, where he went 15 rushes for 20 yards, with a long of 5) but also did well against some good ones. Depending on which Ryan Grant shows up, the Packers could have a great day running the ball against the Vikings, or they could get stuffed.

 

In any case, it looks like the appeal worked out well for Minnesota. Instead of losing their dominant DT tandem down the stretch last year, they lose them for four extremely winnable games in 2009 then get them back right when they'll need them.

[defiantgiant]

One point I would make though. How many times do you see players sit out early on, and then come back to play at a high level. Even when they do, it usually takes time for that to happen. A month off is quite a bit of time. I don't think they would enter game 5 in true "football shape".

 

Well, but they won't be out rehabbing injuries or anything. There's no practical reason why they couldn't stay in shape during their suspensions. Also, Game 5 is against the Rams. They'll have a month off, true, but then they'll have the Rams game to get back up to speed before the really hard matchups come around. Unfortunately, I don't think this suspension will affect the Vikings' season in the least. I think 2009 is likely to be the same story as last year - if anything can tank their season, it'll be poor coaching and quarterbacking. It won't be the defense.

[LT2_3]

If a player takes something which has a listed ingredient which is on the league's banned substance list, then yes. they should get nailed. But in this case, the drug manufactuer left off the banned substance when listing the ingredients. I just do not understand how a player can be held responsible in such a circumstance. Before taking some advil, are they supposed to send the pills to the lab for testing to make sure only listed ingredients are in the pills?

 

I don't like that analogy. What they did is use unregulated diet supplements not something regulated by the FDA like Advil. I remember when those hydroxy-cut ads started on TV. I thought they sounded like somethng cool to try and drop a few pounds. Then my better sense kicked in and I thought "That sounds too easy." Now it's been recalled because it causes kidney damage.

 

The bottom line on this is that it's risky to take ANYTHING to lose weight. If you can't do it by eating less and getting exercise, then there is a price to pay for whatever you take.

 

Further, I think the league simply looks bad here in that their doctor in charge of this stuff actually knew the pills had a banned substance which was not listed, and took minimal to no action to inform the players. That is a massive red flag IMHO. On one hand, the league talks about all these rules put in place to protect the safety and health of players, but then they have a doctor who does nothing when he finds out a pill is not listing a substance which can be harmful to a player.

 

That's totally not what happened. The league sent out a notice saying that Starcaps specifically was not approved by the league. If I tell you not to drive fast on wet roads with cliffs on one side, do I need to tell you why too? Also, bumentanide isn't neccesarily harmful either. It's a banned substance because it can be used as a masking agent.

[LT2_3]

Well, but they won't be out rehabbing injuries or anything. There's no practical reason why they couldn't stay in shape during their suspensions. Also, Game 5 is against the Rams. They'll have a month off, true, but then they'll have the Rams game to get back up to speed before the really hard matchups come around. Unfortunately, I don't think this suspension will affect the Vikings' season in the least. I think 2009 is likely to be the same story as last year - if anything can tank their season, it'll be poor coaching and quarterbacking. It won't be the defense.

 

Color me obtuse, but if these players need to take weight-loss supplements to make game weight while with the team, doesn't it follow that they might struggle to keep excess weight off when left to their own devices for a month?

[madlithuanian]

Actually it's good!

 

The early games have better odds of weaker teams "stealing" a game like we did to Indy last year...

 

Unfortunately, this delay could work out great for the Vikings. They have a very easy first four games (Browns, Lions, Niners, Packers) against teams without dominant rushing attacks. They'll probably be fine without the Williamses for those four, and they'll get them back in time for the Ravens, Steelers and both Chicago games.

 

Frank Gore is pretty good, but the Niners were close to the bottom of the league in rushing yards per game and YPC last year. The Browns were arguably worse than the Niners at running the ball, and the Lions were even worse than that (although they did much better after they replaced Rudi Johnson with Kevin Smith.) Smith is kind of a wildcard: he broke one for 50 yards against the Vikings last year, but outside of that carry, he only averaged 3.0 YPC against them last year. I'd bet that the Vikings can contain him handily without the Williamses.

 

The Packers are the only team in their first 4 games with even a passable ground game, but Ryan Grant is wildly inconsistent. He got totally shut down against some very poor run defenses in 2008 (like the first game against Detroit, where he went 15 rushes for 20 yards, with a long of 5) but also did well against some good ones. Depending on which Ryan Grant shows up, the Packers could have a great day running the ball against the Vikings, or they could get stuffed.

 

In any case, it looks like the appeal worked out well for Minnesota. Instead of losing their dominant DT tandem down the stretch last year, they lose them for four extremely winnable games in 2009 then get them back right when they'll need them.

[madlithuanian]

Point well made!

 

Color me obtuse, but if these players need to take weight-loss supplements to make game weight while with the team, doesn't it follow that they might struggle to keep excess weight off when left to their own devices for a month?

[madlithuanian]

I just look at it as to who is ultimately responsible. And that is the player. If you don't know that it is 100% OK to do, don't do it.

 

I don't like that analogy. What they did is use unregulated diet supplements not something regulated by the FDA like Advil. I remember when those hydroxy-cut ads started on TV. I thought they sounded like somethng cool to try and drop a few pounds. Then my better sense kicked in and I thought "That sounds too easy." Now it's been recalled because it causes kidney damage.

 

The bottom line on this is that it's risky to take ANYTHING to lose weight. If you can't do it by eating less and getting exercise, then there is a price to pay for whatever you take.

 

 

 

That's totally not what happened. The league sent out a notice saying that Starcaps specifically was not approved by the league. If I tell you not to drive fast on wet roads with cliffs on one side, do I need to tell you why too? Also, bumentanide isn't neccesarily harmful either. It's a banned substance because it can be used as a masking agent.

[nfoligno]

I don't like that analogy. What they did is use unregulated diet supplements not something regulated by the FDA like Advil. I remember when those hydroxy-cut ads started on TV. I thought they sounded like somethng cool to try and drop a few pounds. Then my better sense kicked in and I thought "That sounds too easy." Now it's been recalled because it causes kidney damage.

 

Okay, not apples to apples, but I still believe the point is valid. I absolutely understand personal responsibility, and frankly do not believe there is enough of it today. At the same time, when certain parties involved in a situation lie or mislead, I think that puts a different spin on the matter.

 

The bottom line on this is that it's risky to take ANYTHING to lose weight. If you can't do it by eating less and getting exercise, then there is a price to pay for whatever you take.

 

That seems a bit generalized. I believe many, if not most, players take something.

 

Let me ask you this. How about vitamins. Wanna bet many, if not most, players take some sort of vitamin? Are those regulared any different than diet supplements? What happens in the manufactuer lies about what is in the vitamin. Or would you say a player should simply eat more healthy and not need vitamins?

 

That's totally not what happened. The league sent out a notice saying that Starcaps specifically was not approved by the league. If I tell you not to drive fast on wet roads with cliffs on one side, do I need to tell you why too? Also, bumentanide isn't neccesarily harmful either. It's a banned substance because it can be used as a masking agent.

 

First, I am not sure that is accurate, or at least the way you are proposing it. At least not the way I understand the events.

 

The league, at some point, did send out a notice that starcaps was not approved, but that doesn't necessarily mean jack. It wasn't said it was against the rules, but meerly that it was not on the approved list, which may mean nothing more than it hasn't been tested an approved. That is a far cry from saying it wasn't approved in the sense of saying he can't be taken. If the league said Starcaps were against the rules, I would agree w/ you, but I have yet to read that is what happened.

 

Second, reports show some players actually called the NFL hotline to inquire about starcaps, and the answer recieved was that starcaps did not contain any banned substances. So the man in charge for the NFL when it comes to supplements and such knew starcaps had a banned substance, and knew it was not labeled, but not only held the info back from the players, but didn't even have that info available for the league hotline which players are supposed to call.

 

Sorry, but IMHO, this just makes the NFL look very bad. They knew starcaps had the banned substance, and per the League doctor's own testimony, he held back the info because he feared anyone testing positive would claim to have taken starcaps. While the players hold a high level of personal responsibility, I also believe the league owns a level of responsibility in such matters, and holding the info back gives them a huge black eye.

[nfoligno]

One of the top deal breakers for me is some players actually called the league's substance hotline, and asked about Starcaps. Their answer, from the league, was that Starcaps did not contain any banned substances, even though the league knew it did.

 

I just look at it as to who is ultimately responsible. And that is the player. If you don't know that it is 100% OK to do, don't do it.

[Pixote]

Vikings | No ruling made yet in case involving suspended players

Thu, 14 May 2009 12:27:05 -0700

 

Chip Scoggins, of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, reports U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson did not make a ruling Thursday, May 14, regarding the suspensions of Minnesota Vikings DTs Kevin Williams and Pat Williams for testing positive for a banned substance after taking a product called StarCaps. Magnuson did not give a timetable for a ruling but said it will be relatively soon.

[madlithuanian]

If that's the case, then it is on the NFL. But I seem to recall that it was "we don't think there is"...or am I mistaken?

 

One of the top deal breakers for me is some players actually called the league's substance hotline, and asked about Starcaps. Their answer, from the league, was that Starcaps did not contain any banned substances, even though the league knew it did.

[nfoligno]

One, everything I have read says (I believe) 3 of the players tied to this mess called the hotline, and were flat out told Starcaps does not contain any banned substances. Obviously, all the hotline did was look at the listed ingredients. But the point is, the hotline is tied to the league. The players called the hotline to find out if the pills were okay or contained something wrong, and were told there contained nothing wrong.

 

Further, several comments have been made about two memos sent out by the league, but neither really seem to work, at least not for me.

 

One memo, sent after learning of the Starcaps ingredients, simply told players to be careful of dieretic substances, w/o ever mentioning Starcaps specifically. I believe there was a 2nd memo at some point advising players not to be spokemen, or something like that, for Starcaps, but never mentioning why. Due to the league's overall stance on dietary supps, I am not sure much was thought from this.

 

Final point. I read the banned substance is a perscription only substance. Thus players would believe such a substance can only be perscribed by a doctor. Yet Starcaps was on over the counter supplement.

 

At the end of the day, Starcaps illegally added an ingredient to their product, and lied by not listing it. Players, prior to taking the product, called the league set up hotline for advise, and were told (even though the man in charge for the league knew Starcaps contained the banned substance) that no banned substances were in the pills.

 

IMHO, the league should have essentially swept this under the rug and gave the players a pass.

 

If that's the case, then it is on the NFL. But I seem to recall that it was "we don't think there is"...or am I mistaken?

[madlithuanian]

I guess buyer beware...

 

If the letter of the law says, you are are ultimately the one responsible for goes into your body, then that's it. It sucks that the product lied to it's customers, and should be prosecuted justly for such...but the damage is done.

 

I still do have an issue, as you mention, that the league hotline said it's OK. I guess I'd need to know the exact details... ie. What is the hotline's power? Is it just a "reccomendation"? What was exactly stated, etc... Given what you are saying, I'd have no problem letting the 2 fat Viqueen cheaters off on a technicality. But, nor do I have issue with holding them to the letter of the law that they are the one ultimately responsible for goes into their systems.

 

 

 

One, everything I have read says (I believe) 3 of the players tied to this mess called the hotline, and were flat out told Starcaps does not contain any banned substances. Obviously, all the hotline did was look at the listed ingredients. But the point is, the hotline is tied to the league. The players called the hotline to find out if the pills were okay or contained something wrong, and were told there contained nothing wrong.

 

Further, several comments have been made about two memos sent out by the league, but neither really seem to work, at least not for me.

 

One memo, sent after learning of the Starcaps ingredients, simply told players to be careful of dieretic substances, w/o ever mentioning Starcaps specifically. I believe there was a 2nd memo at some point advising players not to be spokemen, or something like that, for Starcaps, but never mentioning why. Due to the league's overall stance on dietary supps, I am not sure much was thought from this.

 

Final point. I read the banned substance is a perscription only substance. Thus players would believe such a substance can only be perscribed by a doctor. Yet Starcaps was on over the counter supplement.

 

At the end of the day, Starcaps illegally added an ingredient to their product, and lied by not listing it. Players, prior to taking the product, called the league set up hotline for advise, and were told (even though the man in charge for the league knew Starcaps contained the banned substance) that no banned substances were in the pills.

 

IMHO, the league should have essentially swept this under the rug and gave the players a pass.

[LT2_3]

I don't like that analogy. What they did is use unregulated diet supplements not something regulated by the FDA like Advil. I remember when those hydroxy-cut ads started on TV. I thought they sounded like somethng cool to try and drop a few pounds. Then my better sense kicked in and I thought "That sounds too easy." Now it's been recalled because it causes kidney damage.

 

Okay, not apples to apples, but I still believe the point is valid. I absolutely understand personal responsibility, and frankly do not believe there is enough of it today. At the same time, when certain parties involved in a situation lie or mislead, I think that puts a different spin on the matter.

 

The bottom line on this is that it's risky to take ANYTHING to lose weight. If you can't do it by eating less and getting exercise, then there is a price to pay for whatever you take.

 

That seems a bit generalized. I believe many, if not most, players take something.

 

Let me ask you this. How about vitamins. Wanna bet many, if not most, players take some sort of vitamin? Are those regulared any different than diet supplements? What happens in the manufactuer lies about what is in the vitamin. Or would you say a player should simply eat more healthy and not need vitamins?

 

You're hitting on a key distinction. I would say that tainted vitamins should get a player a pass. What's the difference? Vitamins don't mess with someone's metabolism to create an abnormal result.

 

That's totally not what happened. The league sent out a notice saying that Starcaps specifically was not approved by the league. If I tell you not to drive fast on wet roads with cliffs on one side, do I need to tell you why too? Also, bumentanide isn't neccesarily harmful either. It's a banned substance because it can be used as a masking agent.

 

First, I am not sure that is accurate, or at least the way you are proposing it. At least not the way I understand the events.

 

The league, at some point, did send out a notice that starcaps was not approved, but that doesn't necessarily mean jack. It wasn't said it was against the rules, but meerly that it was not on the approved list, which may mean nothing more than it hasn't been tested an approved. That is a far cry from saying it wasn't approved in the sense of saying he can't be taken. If the league said Starcaps were against the rules, I would agree w/ you, but I have yet to read that is what happened.

 

The question really boils down to what is the league really responsible for here anyway? Is it the league's job to test every product on the market and deem it good or bad? No. Then what is it's responsibility? There is obviously an "approved" list of supplements. There must be for Starcaps to have been declared not on it. So why would players ever take anything not on the approved list? That's what has me baffled.

 

Second, reports show some players actually called the NFL hotline to inquire about starcaps, and the answer recieved was that starcaps did not contain any banned substances. So the man in charge for the NFL when it comes to supplements and such knew starcaps had a banned substance, and knew it was not labeled, but not only held the info back from the players, but didn't even have that info available for the league hotline which players are supposed to call.

 

I've read where players said they called the hotline and claimed "I did everything I was supposed to. What more could I do?" My answer to that is "Ummmm how about only taking things on the approved list?" As for the hotline issue, it comes down to who knew what and when. So if one guy at the top knew something but didn't tell anyone, do you really expect the guy getting paid to answer a phone knew what was going on? The guy on the phone probably was read the list of ingredients and those were all ok.

 

So again, it comes down to what the league is responsible for anyway. Is the league responsible to tell players about stuff not on their approved list? If you say yes, then how far do they have to take it? Do they need to form a research department and implement a better communication infrastructure to keep players better informed about stuff not on their approved list? How much would THAT cost? Who pays for it?

 

This kinda reminds of an experience I had working in the IT field. Employees were told not to surf for porn on their work computers. There was no policy against it if they were doing it from their home on a laptop so they couldn't neccesarily get fired for it, but they were discouraged against it all the same. Well one guy did it anyway and got his computer so full of spyware amd adware that it was virtually unusable. Because of that, he missed a key deadline and got fired. He tried to blame the IT department because they hadn't kept his computer working right and hadn't told him WHY he shouldn't surf for porn. I was tasked with documenting his surfing habits and my boss wanted to know if the IT department was going to be reimbursed for the time it took to prove that this guy was a doofus. I think the point translates: Who should pay for it when people don't do things the way should?

 

Sorry, but IMHO, this just makes the NFL look very bad. They knew starcaps had the banned substance, and per the League doctor's own testimony, he held back the info because he feared anyone testing positive would claim to have taken starcaps. While the players hold a high level of personal responsibility, I also believe the league owns a level of responsibility in such matters, and holding the info back gives them a huge black eye.

 

I do agree that it makes the league look bad. But so what? A little PR hit is really no big deal. It's not like people are going to stop watching the games over it.

 

My bottom line on the issue is that players shouldn't be using stuff that isn't league approved. I guess some think that the league should act like a Nanny state and the players have no responsibility for taking things not on the approved list.