NFP»Columns»The Busine$$ of Football
RSS

Williamses’ case remains unresolved

Suspensions are on hold, but NFL is going back to court. Andrew Brandt

Bookmark and Share Print This Send This July 10, 2009, 11:04 AM EST
33 Comments

There was some stunning news out of Minnesota on Thursday regarding the Vikings (and it had nothing to do with quarterbacks): The pendulum balancing the NFL’s four-game suspensions of defensive tackles Pat and Kevin Williams, which had recently swung in favor of the league, swung back in favor of the players. The suspensions that were supposed to occur during the 2008 season and didn’t are now uncertain again for the 2009 season.

Kevin WilliamsAPKevin Williams

This is a fascinating (I know that’s a relative term when it comes to complex legal matters beyond the game) intersection between federal law, state law, the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and labor and employment law policies on the state and federal level. All of the above are relevant and connected to a saga that still has no discernible conclusion.

What happened?

The Williamses were suspended four games last season after testing positive for Bumetanide, a diuretic. The drug is not a steroid; it is, in fact, quite the opposite, an ingredient that masks the presence of steroids in a specimen. It was found in the weight-loss supplement StarCaps, which did not disclose the ingredient on the label.

The StarCaps case set off suspensions, grievances, lawsuits, accusations of nondisclosure by the league and the union and even a lawsuit against the supplement’s manufacturer by Jamar Nesbit, a Saints player who served a four-game suspension for a positive test.

On Dec. 11, after the Williamses’ case passed through arbitration to state court to federal court, a federal judge lifted the league suspensions and allowed the players to complete the 2008 season, a victory for them.

Aren’t players responsible for what’s in their bodies?

Yes, and that has been the NFL’s argument all along. Whether a player is taking a cold medication, a weight-loss pill or anything else, he is subject to strict liability for what is in his system and faces penalties for positive tests.

Pat WilliamsAPPat Williams

In May, a federal judge in Minnesota agreed with the strict liability mandate to the NFL testing procedures and ruled that the NFL did not violate the CBA by suspending the players, a victory for the league.

However, that victory was tempered by the fact that the judge said the Williamses' state claims were not pre-empted by the CBA and sent the case back to the state judge. Now that state judge has blocked the suspensions once again due to state laws.

What about the Minnesota state laws is different than the NFL testing policies?

The Drug Testing in the Workplace Act in the state of Minnesota has rigid guidelines and procedures as to how and when employers can test employees, standards that are tougher for employers than the NFL requires in its Policy for Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances. The state judge has now blocked the NFL from subjecting the Williamses to reasonable-cause drug testing, which the league can do – according to the policy – on a random basis up to six times in the offseason.

Can states’ drug-testing procedures trump that of the NFL?

That’s the question. The position of the NFL would certainly not allow for that, creating a system of anarchy in which the NFL would have to somehow be in compliance with state laws governing testing of employees in the 21 states where there are teams. The league has to have a uniform system of operating in order to consistently apply its rules and regulations. Without it, every Vikings player, and ultimately every player in the league, can look to state law if it’s more favorable to employees than the league policy. Anarchy indeed.

What happens now?

The NFL has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to hopefully have a definitive and declaratory ruling that the labor laws and policies of the collectively bargained NFL-NFLPA drug policies take precedence over any state ruling. The league has had previous success in federal court rulings that collectively bargained agreements should not be disturbed. In my opinion, the federal labor policy deferring to such agreements should be paramount.

Can the Williamses play for the Vikings on opening day Sept. 13 at Cleveland?

As of today, yes. But also as of today, their quarterback for that game is either Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels. The next hearing is set for July 22. Stay tuned.

Comments

Add a Comment
Randal67
Jul 10, 2009
01:46 PM

The league should use some commen sense on this issue. There was no competive advantage to taking a diet supplement. Plus they were at fault for not fully disclosing and having a drug hotline that did not function effectively.

Players with DUI's and woman abuse get 0 or 1 game suspensions and for this it is a 4 game suspension?

I think they should try to come to a reduced penalty agreement before the State ruling.

dan
Jul 10, 2009
01:50 PM

Thanks for the excellent explanation of the situation Andrew. This case makes me angry for some reason. I'm not sure whether it's because the meddling Minnesota judges are biased or activist. One way or the other, though, they took a banned substance. They should be suspended. End of story.

Professor
Jul 10, 2009
02:02 PM

Great article Andrew. I have one question. Isn't it true that when a player joins the union, they agree to abide by the policies agreed upon by the union and the league? I don't understand how these players can argue against the rules they agreed to follow when joining the league. I have to believe the league is going to win this one.

The players have a great case against StarCaps for not providing a full list of ingredients on the bottle. And I agree with the players unhappiness with the league for not being proactive in regards to notifying players when they found that Bumetanide is an ingredient in StarCaps and that it is a banned substance. But if the players are allowed to get out of these suspensions, this will create major problems. Players are well aware that they are supposed to check with the league before taking any forgien substance. Had these guys taken the responsibility to do so, this would have never happened.

HammerNH
Jul 10, 2009
02:14 PM

...an ingredient that masks the presence of steroids in a specimen...
That is all you need to know. Everyone in all our prisons is innocent (see 'The Shawshank Redemption')

I sincerely hope the suspensions are delayed until week 4 or 5. That would poke a much deserved hole in the 'Queens schedule.
Then Judge Crossdresser-in-Pigtails can see the harm he has done by being a homer.

mike jolly
Jul 10, 2009
02:39 PM

Dan must be a Packer fan...... Are players not supposed to be able to trust what is listed as the ingredients in something they ingest or must they hire independent labs to test everything for them? Wouldn't that border on the absurd? I'm sure the players in question tested for something that is banned but what is the reasonable threshold of a player's accountability - in this case it seems that the manufacturer of StarCaps is the guilty party because they did not list the ingredient on their packaging. I just don't see a "Balco" like situation here with an over the counter item. The NFL needs to move on.

Andrew Brandt
Jul 10, 2009
03:10 PM
Andrew Brandt

Professor-
You are certainly correct; by becoming a member of the union the players are bound to collectively-bargained rules. This was some creative -- and successful -- lawyering for these players being able to take advantage of employee-favorable drug testing laws in Minn..

Mr Walker
Jul 10, 2009
03:19 PM

@Randal - the difference is that performance enhancing drugs speak to the fairness of the game. People might not like players who drive drunk or threaten their girlfriends, but that doesn't impact whether the games are honest and fair. If the NFL were to lose the faith (and I think it is faith, i.e. not founded in fact) of their viewers that the league had taken care of its steroid problem it would be in serious trouble. So for the CBA steroids are a bigger deal than DUIs at least from the perspective of the NFL.

Good article Andrew, as always.

MkePackFan
Jul 10, 2009
03:29 PM

Jack Ikegwuonu thinks this Starcaps case is taking a long time.

Professor
Jul 10, 2009
04:05 PM

Thanks for the response Andrew.

I think one issue people are over-looking is that it is possible the Williamses took StarCaps to cover up possible steroid use. That is why they are facing a four game suspension. I know they said they didn't know Bumetanide was in StarCaps and they only took them to loose weight. But can anyone honestly tell me there is now way they are lying.

The NFL absolutely has to protect itself from steroids. That's why I agree with Walker. An NFL franchise is the most expensive type of sports organization to operate in the counrty. Baseball lost a lot of money because of steroids. If that happened to football, we would literally see some franchises possibly go under.

Bob
Jul 10, 2009
04:07 PM

This is the same thing that happened prior. The Minnesota judge is a Queens ticket holder, and would rather be disbarred than suspend his beloved fat boys, the Williams. This will head to federal court, and we all know the chances of the judges there being a Queens fan is worse than if the case was presented in Guam.

Want to cut some weight? In the future rely less on pills, and just simply have one helping of scalloped potatoes, and not 15. Also, 15 helpings of scalloped potatoes is not a balanced dinner.

retiredgrampa
Jul 10, 2009
04:57 PM

Even Abe Lincoln back in the 1860s knew how much lawyers were screwing up the justice system, hence his remark. If he had been able to visualize our system today, he would have been much more pointed in his remarks. If the courts are going to usurp the authority of the NFL, the result will be chaos. Justice delayed is justice denied, ALWAYS.

StudentofTheGame
Jul 10, 2009
05:25 PM

Andrew, what type of union is the player's union? Is it an open shop, closed shop, agency shop...?

Next 1 - 12 of 33 Prev COMMENTS

Add a Comment

* Required - Keep track of your comments Login or Register with NFP
(will not be published)