Settlement had been discussed with suspended players

[Pixote]

This kinda pisses me off. I can not believe the NFL would do this. Since when do they let players get a free ride. I am sory, but a 6 figure fine is nothing for players making the money these guys are, especially when they will probably get paid back under the table.

 

NFL | Settlement had been discussed with suspended players

Sat, 30 May 2009 14:03:31 -0700

 

Jason Cole, of Yahoo! Sports, reports the NFL discussed a settlement with the five players who were suspended for four games after testing positive for a banned substance when they took a supplement called StarCaps, according to sources. The NFL was willing to set aside the suspensions but was asking the players to pay a six-figure fine. The two sides talked as recently as May 22.

[bowlingtwig]

This kinda pisses me off. I can not believe the NFL would do this. Since when do they let players get a free ride. I am sory, but a 6 figure fine is nothing for players making the money these guys are, especially when they will probably get paid back under the table.

That is completely BS, hopefully the suspensions stand.

[lemonej]

That is completely BS, hopefully the suspensions stand.

I agree but hope that the media backlash that will come as a result of this will have a negative affect on that lockerrom.Interviews with teammates about the situation should be similar to when Tank was going through his legal troubles here. Since we have a couple of people who like to make predictions on this board, I'm going to predict that Jared Allen is going to be suspended for a hit on a QB below the knees that gets a lot of media attention.Tha would be just as good as the Williamses going down.

[Wesson44]

I agree but hope that the media backlash that will come as a result of this will have a negative affect on that lockerrom.Interviews with teammates about the situation should be similar to when Tank was going through his legal troubles here. Since we have a couple of people who like to make predictions on this board, I'm going to predict that Jared Allen is going to be suspended for a hit on a QB below the knees that gets a lot of media attention.Tha would be just as good as the Williamses going down.

-It that happens hopefully it will be served during either one of our games with them so he won't be taking cheap shots at Cutler.

[nfoligno]

I've stated my opinion on this before, but putting that aside, a settlement doesn't shock me that much.

 

We can all talk day and night about whether the NFL shares responsibility or whether the responsibility is 100% at the feet of the players, but one thing I do think is hard to argue. This situation is a tad bit unique. Further, from a PR perspective, this is simply not a great situation for the league.

 

A settlement could be considered for the following reasons.

 

One. The league may want to put this behind them. Usually, there is not much reason for a big thing to be made. A player takes an illegal substance, and gets suspended. Due to (a) the league knowing and not sharing info, ( players calling the league set up hotline and not being provided correct info and © the man in charge not even sharing the knowledge w/ the people who answer the hotline, due to all this, there is a greater level of controversey here than in the past. It simply is not as black and white as with other times, and the league may be trying to avoid a bad PR situation.

 

Two. The league and the Players association are trying to workout a new CBA. There is a trust factor at stake here. The longer this drags on, IMHO, the greater the potential for a distrust between the players and league. Simply put, this situation may hurt in the negotiating table.

 

Three. Fear of the precident. If the league was to lose in court, it could spell further legal fights down the road. The league is already not happy in that the players have been able to use the courts rathe than an arbitrator. If this plays out, that could go from being a unique situation to a precident, which is somethig the league would very much like to avoid.

 

As a Bear fan, obviously, I would love to see a pair of Viqueens tossed for 4 games. Putting aside my fanhood, I simply understand why the league may take this action.

 

This kinda pisses me off. I can not believe the NFL would do this. Since when do they let players get a free ride. I am sory, but a 6 figure fine is nothing for players making the money these guys are, especially when they will probably get paid back under the table.

[Pixote]

Three. Fear of the precident. If the league was to lose in court, it could spell further legal fights down the road. The league is already not happy in that the players have been able to use the courts rathe than an arbitrator. If this plays out, that could go from being a unique situation to a precident, which is somethig the league would very much like to avoid.

 

It is a two edge sword. If they allow these players to walk with a slap on the wrist, then it means others in the future who step over the line can use this "negotiated truce" as a precident as well. It would seem so far the courts have been pro NFL in this case. So where do you draw the line?

[balta1701-A]

It is a two edge sword. If they allow these players to walk with a slap on the wrist, then it means others in the future who step over the line can use this "negotiated truce" as a precident as well. It would seem so far the courts have been pro NFL in this case. So where do you draw the line?

I'd take it as a message that you draw the line at a point that involves accountability on the part of both the players and the NFL testing program. The NFL made a mistake here, as did the players, which is why this situation is so unique.

[nfoligno]

First, I would argue the courts even taking up the case is a slap against the league, as they tried to argue the courts have no jurisdiction due to the CBA, arguing this should be decided by an arbitrator. That the courts even took the case was a bit of a hit against the league.

 

Second, it can always be asked, where do you draw the line. It is the slippery slope argument always used. But sometimes you simply have a case that is well outside the norm, and a decision in such a case does not necessarily mean re-create the line.

 

At the end of the day, I do understand the league's position, and the reasoning behind it. They do not want to be the FDA, and put themselves in a position of having to study each and every drug out there, and want to instead put the burden on the players. At the same time, I think they hurt their position when they set up a hotline for the players to use as a tool, and further, tell the players to use such. If you are putting all responsibility on the players, setting up a league run hotline for the players to call to find out whether a drug is legal or not seems counter to their position.

 

It is a two edge sword. If they allow these players to walk with a slap on the wrist, then it means others in the future who step over the line can use this "negotiated truce" as a precident as well. It would seem so far the courts have been pro NFL in this case. So where do you draw the line?