UK_Seahawk":3bu5fjm9 said:
jdblack":3bu5fjm9 said:
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 ?
