The Outfield
New member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 0
What a fricken shame. The NFL sucks so much these days. Penalties, fines, suspensions, commercials, national broadcasts, and touchbacks galore.
BB Suspended Indefinitely
- Thread starter Bprez3
- Start date
HawkFan72
Active member
Njhawkboss":1c3nsrj2 said:
Yeah from a personnel standpoint this doesn't matter. And it might even be a blessing in disguise.
But I do feel bad for Browner. Even though he needs to face some discipline for mistakes, he isn't being faced with a fair slate to begin with. The NFL has put him in a class of his own without reason. And for that, I feel sorry for him.
Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
IF (big if) he tested positive because he lit up, I don't feel that sorry for him.
And yet I still hope he sues the NFL and wins HUGE.
And yet I still hope he sues the NFL and wins HUGE.
HawkFan72":19md62wj said:
I hope he takes the NFL, and several of it's employees by name to the cleaners in court. Goodell and his little goody goodies should be held legaly liable. I really hope it costs them so much, and gets so much negative publicity, that the owners feel the need to replace him.
Typical arrogance by the NFL.
Why even bother to offer a 4 game suspension, then retract and hit him with the full whammy ?
With a good lawyer, that first offer is going to hurt the NFL. If they felt the case was so solid, why did they alter their policy?
I have a feeling BB is going to take them to the cleaners on this one. I wonder what it's worth for damages to the rest of his career and not being able to play in a Superbowl?
Why even bother to offer a 4 game suspension, then retract and hit him with the full whammy ?
With a good lawyer, that first offer is going to hurt the NFL. If they felt the case was so solid, why did they alter their policy?
I have a feeling BB is going to take them to the cleaners on this one. I wonder what it's worth for damages to the rest of his career and not being able to play in a Superbowl?
cdn hawk fan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,080
- Reaction score
- 235
I use the multiple passed tests as I understand the current CBA that after certain passed tests the level 3 is reduced to level 1.... I also understand that the failed test BB had last year should not be linked to this situation.....different policy all together.....
BB may have failed in his entire career in the nfl one pot test and he gets thrown to the wolves.....
The problem is why was he still in stage 3 ? Who is responsible for monitoring that, the union, the league, the Seahawks, browsers agent.....BB I feel is being screwed as a result of this and I hope he uses the league and all involved.....that may include the hawks if so,some dropped the ball....
Yes BB is responsible for being an ass and got caught this one time.....
BB may have failed in his entire career in the nfl one pot test and he gets thrown to the wolves.....
The problem is why was he still in stage 3 ? Who is responsible for monitoring that, the union, the league, the Seahawks, browsers agent.....BB I feel is being screwed as a result of this and I hope he uses the league and all involved.....that may include the hawks if so,some dropped the ball....
Yes BB is responsible for being an ass and got caught this one time.....
The Outfield
New member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 0
Scottemojo":3k2s0vcw said:
But.... it seems if he did light one up, he did it while he was out of the NFL, which seems like major BS to me to get punished for.
Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
Cranking the suspension up to indefinite smacks of a legal tactic to get him to try and take the last offer.
Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
ImTheScientist":1p6hllbr said:
Yep...no offense to BB but I'm over it
dontbelikethat
New member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 0
The Outfield":11n58iaf said:
But the one he is getting in trouble for now happened with the Seahawks while he was in the NFL.
Blitzfan
New member
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
I have been following this story with great interest, not just because I am a Seahawks fan, but because this could become huge and change the way NFL operates.
I will admit to not reading this entire thread, but I am curious of the timeline here. I mean, being a member of a union and taking part in union negotiations and arbitrations many times, I have learned a few things over the years. While I am not a lawyer by any means, my past experiences bring up a few questions & observations regarding this situation...
As long as he was a member of the NFLPA, being represented by this union, he is bound by their agreement with the NFL, regardless of if he is on a teams roster. How long was he a member of the NFLPA after being released by Denver? Are players in the CFL members of the NFLPA? I wouldn't think so, but even if they are I am sure there is a different contractual agreement for that league. Once he is no longer a member of NFLPA, he shouldn't be bound by that agreement any longer. It would seem the NFL wants to control people, even those no longer in their employ.
Whether this goes to court or arbitration, the NFL had better be able to show that it made an exhaustive effort to contact Mr. Browner once he was no longer a member of the Broncos or this will never hold up. But even so, how many of the missed tests were attempted after he was no longer a member of the NFLPA and therefor no longer bound by the language their contract? This is why the timeline here is so important.
As to the information reported today. I am curious what changed from Browner's positive test to his appeal hearing to the appeal decision. I mean, unless he tested positive again since the previous positive test, the NFL would not be able to change anything that is not contractually agreed upon. The change in the wording, if true, is huge. It would mean that Mr. Browner has made further transgressions. Unless of course, the NFL has decided it no longer needs to follow it's contract with the NFLPA and is being very vindictive and a railroading of Mr. Browner.
....and that is very much an injustice.
I have been following this story with great interest, not just because I am a Seahawks fan, but because this could become huge and change the way NFL operates.
I will admit to not reading this entire thread, but I am curious of the timeline here. I mean, being a member of a union and taking part in union negotiations and arbitrations many times, I have learned a few things over the years. While I am not a lawyer by any means, my past experiences bring up a few questions & observations regarding this situation...
As long as he was a member of the NFLPA, being represented by this union, he is bound by their agreement with the NFL, regardless of if he is on a teams roster. How long was he a member of the NFLPA after being released by Denver? Are players in the CFL members of the NFLPA? I wouldn't think so, but even if they are I am sure there is a different contractual agreement for that league. Once he is no longer a member of NFLPA, he shouldn't be bound by that agreement any longer. It would seem the NFL wants to control people, even those no longer in their employ.
Whether this goes to court or arbitration, the NFL had better be able to show that it made an exhaustive effort to contact Mr. Browner once he was no longer a member of the Broncos or this will never hold up. But even so, how many of the missed tests were attempted after he was no longer a member of the NFLPA and therefor no longer bound by the language their contract? This is why the timeline here is so important.
As to the information reported today. I am curious what changed from Browner's positive test to his appeal hearing to the appeal decision. I mean, unless he tested positive again since the previous positive test, the NFL would not be able to change anything that is not contractually agreed upon. The change in the wording, if true, is huge. It would mean that Mr. Browner has made further transgressions. Unless of course, the NFL has decided it no longer needs to follow it's contract with the NFLPA and is being very vindictive and a railroading of Mr. Browner.
....and that is very much an injustice.
chris98251
Well-known member
The fact he has a disagreement about the positive test period and is contesting it is one, he should not have been on stage 3, the Seahawks and the league didn't know he was on stage three when he signed it was so buried and screwed up.
They tried the admit it cause were the NFL and never wrong approach and maybe you get to play next year. Browner said no, so now they want to use a sledge hammer to kill a spider and send a message. Browner has a case, if he wins it and it's not just about the testing it's labor law and a Business using it's monopoly to control a player when he is out of the league.
The NFL does not want to lose it's ability to play God.
They tried the admit it cause were the NFL and never wrong approach and maybe you get to play next year. Browner said no, so now they want to use a sledge hammer to kill a spider and send a message. Browner has a case, if he wins it and it's not just about the testing it's labor law and a Business using it's monopoly to control a player when he is out of the league.
The NFL does not want to lose it's ability to play God.
dontbelikethat
New member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 0
Fighting corporate America one puff at a time!
Link to PFT article on BB's possible legal actions against the NFL
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/18/browner-agent-vow-to-file-suit-against-the-nfl/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/18/browner-agent-vow-to-file-suit-against-the-nfl/
dontbelikethat
New member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 0
GoHawks":18m2samk said:
“We will continue to exhaust all administrative remedies,” Schaffer told PFT by phone. “If not successful, we will sue the living daylights out of the league.”
Nice.
fenderbender123
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 12,567
- Reaction score
- 2,667
I don't understand what kind of statement the NFL is trying to make by insisting on a long-term suspension at the risk of a huge lawsuit. The whole stage 3 thing or whatever is causing the long-term suspension is there to deter repeat offenders (PEDs don't count, if I'm not mistaken), which obviously isn't the case for Browner who on top of that has a very legitimate argument about how that all went down. It's like the NFL doesn't even care about why they created the rules in the first place and is just looking for a reason to screw him over.
hawkfan68
Well-known member
Well when all is said and done, BB has only himself to blame. He chose to smoke weed or whatever during the season. He threw his opportunity away. It comes back to him.
If I'm not mistaken, the punishment has not been upped, as a failed drug test in stage 3 of the substance abuse program leads to an indefinite suspension with the possibility of reinstatement after 1 year (hence the "1-year suspension" he's getting). My reading on this, then, is that the NFL and Browner simply couldn't come to a resolution in the appeals process, so the appeal is over and his "indefinite" suspension is now taking effect. Am I misunderstanding this? Because if not, then yet another NFL.com article is putting out false information, making it seem like Browner is getting an even heftier punishment (and going out of its way, I might add, to denigrate him). It really does seem like someone in the league office has a personal vendetta against Browner. I'm really curious who the "league source" behind all these leaks is, and what the hell his beef is.
