Does the CBA screw Browner?

[seedhawk]

Really Browner screwed himself.

The plain unvarnished truth!

 

[Laloosh]

Really Browner screwed himself.

The plain unvarnished truth!

Yes, it is true. Doesn't change how absurd some of the policy is. Particularly the part about requiring former employees to submit to testing for substances that don't even fall under the PED policy.

I have asked this before and have not heard a response from any of the Browner detractors... Why should the NFL care what he's smoking if it's not a PED once he's out of the league?

BTW - Here's the actual policy:
http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResou ... Policy.pdf

 

[seedhawk]

EC. It isn't about what he was smoking while out of the league. Since he didn't get the notice, he didn't test! It is all about what he smoked/took recently.

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

EC. It isn't about what he was smoking while out of the league. Since he didn't get the notice, he didn't test! It is all about what he smoked/took recently.

The point is, he is suspended purely because of the tests while he was out of the league. Any player can test positive once with no repercussions. If he had tested positive several times, he might've been elevated to a stage 2 where his 200+ clean tests would've moved him back down to no suspension for another positive test.

 

[Kixkahn]

Have they ever actually came out with what he tested positive for? This whole thing is crap and when he was out of the NFL he should have been left the hell alone by the NFL unless a person wanted to actually talk to him or scout how he plays. This testing him while he isn't even employed is stupid. His only drug test by the NFL should have come when he re-entered. I still find the timing of this suspicious.

 

[Basis4day]

Have they ever actually came out with what he tested positive for? This whole thing is crap and when he was out of the NFL he should have been left the hell alone by the NFL unless a person wanted to actually talk to him or scout how he plays. This testing him while he isn't even employed is stupid. His only drug test by the NFL should have come when he re-entered. I still find the timing of this suspicious.

Since the entire process is supposed to be confidential, it isn't supposed to come out.

The timing isn't suspicious, as Browner freely admitted during the PED news last year that he gets tested quite frequently for being in the substance abuse program. The question here is what stage he was in when he recently provided a positive test non-PEDs.

 

[v1rotv2]

Really Browner screwed himself.

You sir, are correct!
Browner is a basic moron for not understanding that he could be tested at any time and still did the deed.

 

[Basis4day]

Really Browner screwed himself.

You sir, are correct!
Browner is a basic moron for not understanding that he could be tested at any time and still did the deed.

That's not really the issue here. He did understand he could get tested at anytime because he was getting tested frequently. The issues at play are a bit more complicated than that. The NFL through their own rules tolerate drug violations (on your first offense). There is no suspension or fine for your 1st positive test. The NFL doesn't really care if you test positive for pot so long as it only happens once and not is not related to legal charges.

The question becomes whether the NFL followed it's own rules and whether those rules are even enforceable based on Browners unique situation related to his gap in NFL employment and the CFL.

If a player is to be held to an absolute standard than the tester must be held to an absolute standard.

 

[TorontoHawk]

Really Browner screwed himself.

You sir, are correct!
Browner is a basic moron for not understanding that he could be tested at any time and still did the deed.

That's not really the issue here. He did understand he could get tested at anytime because he was getting tested frequently. The issues at play are a bit more complicated than that. The NFL through their own rules tolerate drug violations (on your first offense). There is no suspension or fine for your 1st positive test. The NFL doesn't really care if you test positive for pot so long as it only happens once and not is not related to legal charges.

The question becomes whether the NFL followed it's own rules and whether those rules are even enforceable based on Browners unique situation related to his gap in NFL employment and the CFL.

If a player is to be held to an absolute standard than the tester must be held to an absolute standard.

Browner should have been wise not to use any drugs, he screwed up again and should and will pay for it, he would have had a huge pay day and now he will be lucky to play again, hope the pot was worth it dumbass.

 

[plyka]

Trying not to open old wounds here but I read that some college guy tried the sue the NFL.

In 2004, Ohio State freshman Maurice Clarett sued the NFL over the age limit. Federal courts eventually ruled against him, saying that since the restriction had been collectively bargained between the league and its players, it wasn't subject to judicial review.


I wonder if this type of precedent would hurt Browner moving forward, the players have in effect already agreed to the rules, whether the NFL is completely wrong or actually correct in their ruling.

I'm not overly familiar with American Law but in England employment law is, to an extent, all about what you agreed to do in your contract.

I'm not a lawyer or even a pretending lawyer, but I think the NFL gets the right to run a monopoly from the government. In that agreement they agree to have a player's union. So Browner may have 2 ways to attack this. First claim that the NFL is not upholding the CBA they agreed to with the player's union. Two claim that they are not in agreement with the rules stipulated by the government allowing them to have a monopoly.

We'll see where it goes but my guess is that Browner and the NFL will never get to court and this will all be settled with a settlement.

 

[IndyHawk]

The NFL won in the 2004 case because the NFL was following the CBA.

Browner's situation is different because the CBA was not followed. Completely different.

Browner would have to prove that the NFL wilfully ignored their own rules. Just playing devils advocate here but I can kind of see the NFL's logic. The crux for me will be whether the NFL can make the point that even if Browner had left the NFL he still had to abide by their rules if he ever wanted to return.

I personally think Browner had a duty to work out where he was the SAP on his NFL return. I always find ignorance a very poor defense.

If I was Browner's lawyers, the tact I would take would be simple: my client was not bound by the rules of the CBA, as he was employed eslewhere. Not just unemployed, he was employed by the CFL, which isn't affiliated.

Any argument saying that if Browner ever wanted to get back to the NFL so he needs to follow the CBA is ridiculous. Now you're trying to argue a legal case by saying YOU think that Browner MIGHT be thinking a certain way.

No one knows exactly what Browner was thinking, but there aren't a lot of CFL players that make it back to the NFL. We tried that DE out before Browner, you have Flutie, and maybe another here or there. Browner actually started NFL teams scouting up there more than in the past. Historically, it's highly unlikely he makes it back to the NFL, so failed drug tests and follow up drug tests can't really factor into much.

Here's a list of things, put into perspective, that should show how thin the NFL's case is (if Browner can prove that he never received correspondence from the NFL).

1. Browner is no longer employed by the NFL. At that point he was actuallly employed by an unaffiliated sports league, that can also be looked at as somewhat competitive with the NFL. The language I've heard (3rd part through the news) is confusing, but Browner would've had to be sure that if he failed a drug test, he was required to follow up, even if not in the league. With the reaction of sports news media, all the other teams, and other players on this matter, it's obvious that no one understood he was still in the drug program while out of the NFL. This is in his favor, unless he specifically signed something saying he understood these rules.

2. Browner wasn't even employed in this COUNTRY. He was living in Canada (unless he's living in the US and commuting - highly unlikely). Can you really even enforce CBA rules to someone not even living here ? Think about that for a sec....it brings up a huge slate of issues.

3. Like I mentioned in point 1, there were a few teams looking at Browner besides the Seahawks. Everyone of them has publicy come out (at least to a sports media reporter) and said they had no idea Browner was still in the drug program.

4. There is language stating that if Browner was only in Phase 1 of the program, and he went a certain amount of time without testing positive again, he starts over in the program. The opposite actually happened to him. This also meshes with the fact that most teams trying him out also thought he was completely out of the program.

Personally, I think he wins this one. The facts that he was living in another country and playing in another league make him harder to contact for follow up (refuting the NFL's case that they sent him a letter, so they're exonerated), and employed by another sports league. Think on this: how is the NFL allowed to hold Browner to the CBA when he's not only not employed by the NFL, but employed by another sports league...what if the CFL has language in THEIR CBA that counters language in the NFL's CBA ? How can the NFL expect him to violate rules for a current employer because he worked for them briefly ? Can we not see the arrogance of the NFL here ?

Thats what got me so mad ..He wasn't in NFL for those missed tests.