Sac
Active member
Clayton said you could fail 4 test before a suspension is ever levied. Browner could not face suspension at all.
It's the puppy trapped inside that Turducken abomination that has me worried.SacHawk2.0":2lw3dr25 said:You don't like turkey?
KCHawkGirl":214cf47u said:It's the puppy trapped inside that Turducken abomination that has me worried.SacHawk2.0":214cf47u said:You don't like turkey?
KCHawkGirl":2e7ij6t1 said:Failing; one substance abuse text doesn't equal any type of suspension. Thank God the truth is coming out (a witchhunt on Browner). I request a seat on the bus Bob.mikeak":2e7ij6t1 said:A positive test is a positive test. If it gets thrown out fine if not guilty and should get suspended.
BUT I agree 4 games not season
SacHawk2.0":3n08b4lc said:You don't like turkey?
So if he is found to be innocent and there is no suspension, you don't want him back? That's very open mined of you. Court systems should work that way, even if found innocent, execute them anyway...KARAVARUS":1igd2d7y said:This is about to get shacked or locked.... Either way, on topic, suspension or no, I don't want BB back anymore.
chris98251":tlhdvyfh said:He has such a big case against the NFL, the confidientiality policy, a false accusation, he says he didn't take anything or fail anything. There is smoke here and I am betting fire, the NFL is jumping all over to try to cover tracks etc and then there is Browners appeal hearing we are now waiting on. This is possibly why he is not offcially IR'ed yet, movement to this and then a retraction or reversal of the NFL could lock us into a situation still.
From what I understand it's his first offense and that he voluntarily joined the drug program to help his draft status. Also he was put in stage 3 for missing tests while playing in the CFL when he was obviously not employed by the NFL.Saints33":jt7v5074 said:Guess I'm gonna go on and ask a non football question about this. First off, is this his first offense? If so, yeah, this is BS. I understand that even if your state legalizes it, your employer may not and you can still get in trouble by them. I'm assuming this is just the case. I think its dumb they check for weed in NFL test. My question is, has there been any numbers on how much it has helped Washington's economy, jobs, gang levels going down, etc? I've never understood why it is illegal and wish Louisiana would legalize, though as a o :49ersmall: fireman I still wouldn't be able to smoke it. And, I am correct on it being Washington and maybe Oregon that legalized it? Or Wyoming,Colorado, somewhere around ya'll, haha?
KCHawkGirl":zot90ll7 said:From what I understand it's his first offense and that he voluntarily joined the drug program to help his draft status. Also he was put in stage 3 for missing tests while playing in the CFL when he was obviously not employed by the NFL.Saints33":zot90ll7 said:Guess I'm gonna go on and ask a non football question about this. First off, is this his first offense? If so, yeah, this is BS. I understand that even if your state legalizes it, your employer may not and you can still get in trouble by them. I'm assuming this is just the case. I think its dumb they check for weed in NFL test. My question is, has there been any numbers on how much it has helped Washington's economy, jobs, gang levels going down, etc? I've never understood why it is illegal and wish Louisiana would legalize, though as a o :49ersmall: fireman I still wouldn't be able to smoke it. And, I am correct on it being Washington and maybe Oregon that legalized it? Or Wyoming,Colorado, somewhere around ya'll, haha?
Washington and Colorado are the states that legalized marijuana.
KARAVARUS":uqeopm47 said:This is about to get shacked or locked.... Either way, on topic, suspension or no, I don't want BB back anymore.
mikeak":39u86zu0 said:My understanding is that he was put in as stage 1 due to perceived college issues. If that is the case why wouldn't a positive test suspend him 4 games?
I get the whole Clayton says etc but stage 1 to 2 is one failed test and would equal 4 games.
Not arguing what is right / wrong just trying to understand why people think he will get less than 4
ChiefHawk":c24p2i71 said:Who paid for the drug test? If the NFL did, they could be a Heath Insurance Portability and Privacy Act (HIPPA) covered party, and if the NFL released the results, as a HIPPA covered entity, they could have compromised Private Health Information (PHI), and would be in violation of the HIPPA act for doing so.
It is possible that the players agreed to the NFL Substance Abuse programs in their contract, which may be construed as providing permission for the release under HIPPA, but if the NFL did not follow thier own policy, and are a covered entity in this case, then they violated HIPPA.
V/r
Guy who knows Privacy Law.