John Clayton says Browner could win his appeal

[drdiags]

What? How could he allow himself to slip up .05% of the time? Well, it's called, shit happens. What if he was in a car with an old friend while the old friend lit up a cig that had some weed mixed in? What if he was using an electronic cigarrete from a friend, who had previously used it for smoking Marijuana oil, and some got mixed in? What if he was walking on the sidewalk, and someone blew it in his face? What if he is at a party and accidentally had a brownie which had weed baked in? What if he is drinking pop at a party and some guy mixed in weed pop as a joke? There could literally be a thousand reasons how it could "just happen" .05% of the time.

Zero tolerance means exactly that. Maybe for a couple million you talk to the old friend over the phone and that is it. When shit happens and you are subject to random testing, you have buzzard's luck. Not trying to make the man a bad guy but "shit happens" is not going to fly. Not sure what you are aiming for with your point but I am not buying it. Feel free to minimize issues if you like. The way you make things sound, it is a miracle the NFL doesn't have 100% of its players in stage 1 or higher testing.

 

[themunn]

Some technicality. He should never have been in that program in the first place. And to expect a person to keep testing when they're not even in the league is asinine.

Why shouldn't he have been in the program in the first place? Browner didn't get put in the program in 2005 for no reason, he obviously got caught for something.

I get what his lawyers are saying, he SHOULD have been notified. But that doesn't take away the fact that he violated the illegal substance rule.

Because after 2 years in phase 2 it rests and drops off your record. He was out of the NFL for longer than 2 years. He shouldn't have even been in phase 1.

Devil's advocate - surely you suspend the time in the stage until he's back in the league?
Even still, that would mean he was clean for 2 years by around March this year.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Some technicality. He should never have been in that program in the first place. And to expect a person to keep testing when they're not even in the league is asinine.

Why shouldn't he have been in the program in the first place? Browner didn't get put in the program in 2005 for no reason, he obviously got caught for something.

I get what his lawyers are saying, he SHOULD have been notified. But that doesn't take away the fact that he violated the illegal substance rule.

Because after 2 years in phase 2 it rests and drops off your record. He was out of the NFL for longer than 2 years. He shouldn't have even been in phase 1.

Not sure that's how it works. My guess if you said this to the league offices, they'd say he has to be two years clean in the NFL because he wasn't tested in the CFL, nor do the NFL and CFL has a reciprocal agreement where they share testing information.

 

[Laloosh]

Some technicality. He should never have been in that program in the first place. And to expect a person to keep testing when they're not even in the league is asinine.

Why shouldn't he have been in the program in the first place? Browner didn't get put in the program in 2005 for no reason, he obviously got caught for something.

I get what his lawyers are saying, he SHOULD have been notified. But that doesn't take away the fact that he violated the illegal substance rule.

Because after 2 years in phase 2 it rests and drops off your record. He was out of the NFL for longer than 2 years. He shouldn't have even been in phase 1.

Not sure that's how it works. My guess if you said this to the league offices, they'd say he has to be two years clean in the NFL because he wasn't tested in the CFL, nor do the NFL and CFL has a reciprocal agreement where they share testing information.

When he actually returned to the NFL, he did test clean for 2 years...

 

[Snakeeyes007]

Seems like a stretch. Why did he have to wait until he was suspended to bring this issue up. It is like a renter vacating the premises and says to the landlord that hole in the wall was there since the beginning. If there was a long standing issue, you can't wait until it is a problem to first mention it. Takes away all your credibility.

The reason he has a chance of winning his appeal is that he claims he was not informed that he was still in the league's substance abuse program after being released from the Broncos. The onus will/should be on the league to prove they did their due diligence in pursuing a player no longer in the league to tell him he was still in the leagues substance abuse program and therefore still responsible for maintaining the rigid testing schedule. If they can't prove that, he should have his suspension reduced to match the violation schedule.

Correcting your analogy to match this circumstance; a renter puts a hole in the wall, gets dinged by the landlord for it, then vacates the premises thinking he's paid for the damages. After a few years, he moves back in, puts another hole in the wall, and gets dinged more than twice as much. The landlord tells him the 1st hole was never fixed properly after he moved out and he's still responsible for both.

Now you can see why this particular renter has been smoking pot. This living situation is stressful!

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

Yeah, not a technicality.

One can argue if the rules are stupid or not (they're stupid) or reasonable or not (they are unreasonable) but if you just look at the actual rules, the NFL failed on many levels.

They failed to notify the Seahawks of what phase BB was in before he was signed, this is a big one actually, as it points to the NFL being totally confused and incompetent. NFL teams expect the league to notify them of these things timely so they don't give big contracts to people without knowing what kinds of things might happen if there are violations.

They failed to notify Browner of the missed tests.

They failed to count weeks and years properly, it sounds like he's been clean for two seasons plus, no violations the entire time he's been with the Seahawks, so he should have been reset to phase one.

They took tests of BB that were excessive and wrong and probably violated his privacy i.e. if he was phase one, they get one test a year, between April and August, and it's pretty clear the failed test came more recently and they were testing him as if he was phase three, which he was in error.

None of this is technicality.

I also think it's almost certainly illegal and wrong for them to attempt to hold BB to a CBA when he is employed by someone else and not even part of the union anymore. His time in Canada and out of the NFL should absolutely count to reset him to phase one. His time with the Seahawks the last couple of years should reset him to phase one. The positive test should have never happened.

The stuff with NFL.com leaking information is a violation of federal employment law and is also libel and slander. It also makes the NFL look bad. Silver was also wrong about Winfield. The NFL should not have an anti trust exemption and own NFL.com and NFL Network and run NFL Mobile for phones and so on. If the NFL is just an organization that helps the 32 teams coordinate then anti trust makes sense given that the players have a union. If the NFL is a vertically integrated conglomerate then it should be subject to all the same laws of any other huge for profit corporation.

If I was the NFL, I'd attempt to save face. I'd announce a four game suspension, but date it starting when the test was revealed i.e. give BB credit for time served, he was injured anyway. I'd also agree to put him in phase one, quietly, and hope that doesn't leak. If I was BB, I'd accept that as a compromise, probably. He could make a crapload out of suing Silver and making him give up his sources, given that he's an NFL employee writing on an NFL web site, there's no way he'd be allowed to protect his sources, and that would truly screw the NFL.

Beautiful post.

 

[dontbelikethat]

Because after 2 years in phase 2 it rests and drops off your record. He was out of the NFL for longer than 2 years. He shouldn't have even been in phase 1.

Not sure that's how it works. My guess if you said this to the league offices, they'd say he has to be two years clean in the NFL because he wasn't tested in the CFL, nor do the NFL and CFL has a reciprocal agreement where they share testing information.

When he actually returned to the NFL, he did test clean for 2 years...

But that was after he's already been in stage 3 due to the missed test. Once you're in stage 3, you can't leave stage 3. This is pretty much what he's trying to argue, in that he shouldn't of been in stage 3 due to missing test while he was in the CFL because although the NFL requires testing, it's a hard request to always complete due to his other priorities and the time it takes and that he wasn't notified properly due to the NFL sending notifications to an address he was no longer at and also that he didn't have a phone to get in constant contact.

 

[12thManHawkFan]

What? How could he allow himself to slip up .05% of the time? Well, it's called, shit happens. What if he was in a car with an old friend while the old friend lit up a cig that had some weed mixed in? What if he was using an electronic cigarrete from a friend, who had previously used it for smoking Marijuana oil, and some got mixed in? What if he was walking on the sidewalk, and someone blew it in his face? What if he is at a party and accidentally had a brownie which had weed baked in? What if he is drinking pop at a party and some guy mixed in weed pop as a joke? There could literally be a thousand reasons how it could "just happen" .05% of the time.

Zero tolerance means exactly that. Maybe for a couple million you talk to the old friend over the phone and that is it. When shit happens and you are subject to random testing, you have buzzard's luck. Not trying to make the man a bad guy but "shit happens" is not going to fly. Not sure what you are aiming for with your point but I am not buying it. Feel free to minimize issues if you like. The way you make things sound, it is a miracle the NFL doesn't have 100% of its players in stage 1 or higher testing.

I'm not trying to minimize doing drugs, but I don't really know what you are talking about " zero tolerance" for, because it's not. The first failure you get put on phase 1 with no repercussions other than being subject to further testing. After two years clean then you come off the program back to phase zero. The fact is browner probably should have been phase zero and this would be his first offense. That would make him subject to two years worth of testing, not a year long suspension, completely destroying his career. Not to mention being forced to mAke this information public knowledge thereby destroying his reputation.

We shouldn't even really be so quick to jump to judgement in my opinion, we have no idea how many of these kids are in the system, and from the sounds of it, this could be Browners first actual offense in the league EVER. Does the guy really deserve to be sacrificed over a first offense? If the system were fair he wouldn't.

 

[mirrikat45]

Thanks for the link. That was a surprisingly quick read....hmmm.
To directly address the article, I think it's pretty silly to expect someone who's unsigned to have to show up for pee tests, it's not like someone who literally signs their freedom away like people in the service.....the US government literally OWNS their rear-ends, but that's not the case in the NFL, a little too intrusive in my opinion, especially expecting someone who's not being paid to have to do that.

Well, my quick :twocents: anyways.

I think that it's a good idea to test players who aren't currently signed. The reason for this is, that players who don't get signed may feel like it would be safe to take PEDs to improve themselves so they can get signed in the future. However it's also unfair for players who leave the country or retire from the NFL (rather or not it's their choice) to be bound by these rules. It makes more sense for a balanced approach. Don't test players who aren't NFL players anymore, but test them to allow them back into the NFL. I'm not sure if that would work, but it seems much more balanced.

 

[Dtowers]

Thanks for the link. That was a surprisingly quick read....hmmm.
To directly address the article, I think it's pretty silly to expect someone who's unsigned to have to show up for pee tests, it's not like someone who literally signs their freedom away like people in the service.....the US government literally OWNS their rear-ends, but that's not the case in the NFL, a little too intrusive in my opinion, especially expecting someone who's not being paid to have to do that.

Well, my quick :twocents: anyways.

I think that it's a good idea to test players who aren't currently signed. The reason for this is, that players who don't get signed may feel like it would be safe to take PEDs to improve themselves so they can get signed in the future. However it's also unfair for players who leave the country or retire from the NFL (rather or not it's their choice) to be bound by these rules. It makes more sense for a balanced approach. Don't test players who aren't NFL players anymore, but test them to allow them back into the NFL. I'm not sure if that would work, but it seems much more balanced.

Aren't we talking about substance abuse program? PEDs are not the problem here.

 

[Sac]

Thanks for the link. That was a surprisingly quick read....hmmm.
To directly address the article, I think it's pretty silly to expect someone who's unsigned to have to show up for pee tests, it's not like someone who literally signs their freedom away like people in the service.....the US government literally OWNS their rear-ends, but that's not the case in the NFL, a little too intrusive in my opinion, especially expecting someone who's not being paid to have to do that.

Well, my quick :twocents: anyways.

I think that it's a good idea to test players who aren't currently signed. The reason for this is, that players who don't get signed may feel like it would be safe to take PEDs to improve themselves so they can get signed in the future. However it's also unfair for players who leave the country or retire from the NFL (rather or not it's their choice) to be bound by these rules. It makes more sense for a balanced approach. Don't test players who aren't NFL players anymore, but test them to allow them back into the NFL. I'm not sure if that would work, but it seems much more balanced.

Aren't we talking about substance abuse program? PEDs are not the problem here.

Some people don't understand the difference.

 

[-The Glove-]

Thanks for the link. That was a surprisingly quick read....hmmm.
To directly address the article, I think it's pretty silly to expect someone who's unsigned to have to show up for pee tests, it's not like someone who literally signs their freedom away like people in the service.....the US government literally OWNS their rear-ends, but that's not the case in the NFL, a little too intrusive in my opinion, especially expecting someone who's not being paid to have to do that.

Well, my quick :twocents: anyways.

I think that it's a good idea to test players who aren't currently signed. The reason for this is, that players who don't get signed may feel like it would be safe to take PEDs to improve themselves so they can get signed in the future. However it's also unfair for players who leave the country or retire from the NFL (rather or not it's their choice) to be bound by these rules. It makes more sense for a balanced approach. Don't test players who aren't NFL players anymore, but test them to allow them back into the NFL. I'm not sure if that would work, but it seems much more balanced.

Aren't we talking about substance abuse program? PEDs are not the problem here.

Some people don't understand the difference.

But I thought weed was a PED?:?

 

[HawkFan72]

 

[Dtowers]

I think that it's a good idea to test players who aren't currently signed. The reason for this is, that players who don't get signed may feel like it would be safe to take PEDs to improve themselves so they can get signed in the future. However it's also unfair for players who leave the country or retire from the NFL (rather or not it's their choice) to be bound by these rules. It makes more sense for a balanced approach. Don't test players who aren't NFL players anymore, but test them to allow them back into the NFL. I'm not sure if that would work, but it seems much more balanced.

Aren't we talking about substance abuse program? PEDs are not the problem here.

Some people don't understand the difference.

But I thought weed was a PED?:?

Party enhancement drug.

 

[Laloosh]

But that was after he's already been in stage 3 due to the missed test. Once you're in stage 3, you can't leave stage 3. This is pretty much what he's trying to argue, in that he shouldn't of been in stage 3 due to missing test while he was in the CFL because although the NFL requires testing, it's a hard request to always complete due to his other priorities and the time it takes and that he wasn't notified properly due to the NFL sending notifications to an address he was no longer at and also that he didn't have a phone to get in constant contact.

I'm aware of how stage 3 works and what his argument is. What I'm not clear on, is the argument that you're making.

I think that it's a good idea to test players who aren't currently signed. The reason for this is, that players who don't get signed may feel like it would be safe to take PEDs to improve themselves so they can get signed in the future. However it's also unfair for players who leave the country or retire from the NFL (rather or not it's their choice) to be bound by these rules. It makes more sense for a balanced approach. Don't test players who aren't NFL players anymore, but test them to allow them back into the NFL. I'm not sure if that would work, but it seems much more balanced.

You mean they should be able to test applicants and current employees like every other employer? Naw, makes more sense to test the people that you fired years ago, while they're out of the country.

 

[danbogart]

Party enhancement drug.

You just won the internet.

 

[drdiags]

We shouldn't even really be so quick to jump to judgement in my opinion, we have no idea how many of these kids are in the system, and from the sounds of it, this could be Browners first actual offense in the league EVER. Does the guy really deserve to be sacrificed over a first offense? If the system were fair he wouldn't.

Zero tolerance to me means that if you fail a random test, how you failed it is of no concern to the league. So Mr. Plyka's examples of how the drug got detected in Browner's system may be true but the league does not care. I am speaking from the league's point of view. Not mine. I do not care and am not judging anyone. If I remember correctly all I stated was how could he put himself into this position after going through 200 successful tests.

And that was more a musing of mine and not a indictment. I guess I was trying to project myself into the circumstance. At this point it seems as though folks are accusing me of being anti-Browner or something. No, you will not see me sending F-bombs to his twitter account or saying good riddance. I just stated for him and his family it is tragic. Others are trying to make me out to be something I am not, but that is how things tend to go in these type of conversations.

 

[dontbelikethat]

But that was after he's already been in stage 3 due to the missed test. Once you're in stage 3, you can't leave stage 3. This is pretty much what he's trying to argue, in that he shouldn't of been in stage 3 due to missing test while he was in the CFL because although the NFL requires testing, it's a hard request to always complete due to his other priorities and the time it takes and that he wasn't notified properly due to the NFL sending notifications to an address he was no longer at and also that he didn't have a phone to get in constant contact.

I'm aware of how stage 3 works and what his argument is. What I'm not clear on, is the argument that you're making.

Thought you were trying to say that since he was clean for 2 years after returning to the NFL that he should've been put back to stage 1 or removed from the program and I was just stating why that would not happen. :3

 

[Laloosh]

But that was after he's already been in stage 3 due to the missed test. Once you're in stage 3, you can't leave stage 3. This is pretty much what he's trying to argue, in that he shouldn't of been in stage 3 due to missing test while he was in the CFL because although the NFL requires testing, it's a hard request to always complete due to his other priorities and the time it takes and that he wasn't notified properly due to the NFL sending notifications to an address he was no longer at and also that he didn't have a phone to get in constant contact.

I'm aware of how stage 3 works and what his argument is. What I'm not clear on, is the argument that you're making.

Thought you were trying to say that since he was clean for 2 years after returning to the NFL that he should've been put back to stage 1 and I was just stating why that would not happen. :3

I was saying that he never should have been escalated to stage 2. It's unclear as to whether he was in the program due to a failed test at the pro level or due to concerns from the team that drafted him out of college.

Were the NFL to operate like every other employer (can't require former employees to submit to drug tests), he wouldn't have even been in the program when he returned to the NFL in 2011 and none of us would even be aware of his recently failed test.

Even if they simply carried his level 1 status over to when he re-signed in 2011, he'd have been out of the program after 2 years of clean tests. A failed test at this point would have simply gotten him back into stage 1.

 

[dontbelikethat]

Yup, the rules are pretty unfair. What I'm still trying to figure out is was he in stage 2 while with the Broncos? I don't think there has been any definitive indication to say that he was or wasn't, but I'm unsure. Could be the difference between a 4 game suspension and no suspension at all if the NFL sees the unfairness in their testing policies and reduces the initial sentencing.