Seattle could face fines by the NFL for multiple PEDs

[volsunghawk]

There is no honor winning like this, absolutely none

I heard somewhere that if you don't win the SB with enough honor, they really smudge up the Lombardi trophy before they give it to you. Like, Terry Bradshaw eats a bunch of fried chicken and then wipes his face all over it before the team is anointed champions.

 

[Giedi]

They can bench guys for violating team rules. There may be some other actions they can take as well. Not sure what the CBA does or doesn't allow. Can the team do (additional) testing beyond what the NFL requires? If so, that's another option. And they can increase education, though that won't do much unless guys decide to actually heed what is learned.

The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.

Simple solution. Front offices that are concerned about PED's and rules enforcement on PED's simply have to write it in the players contract. For Example: A violation of the NFL's PED rules is punishable by death (obvious exaggeration here but you get my point) and that's allowed under the CBA. I'm assuming since (I think) about half of the 'Hawk players that have had PED violations haven't really suffered any terminations and are still on the team - makes me think the Front office who's writing the players contracts fell asleep at the wheel when writing them. Or, what could be a better reason, is that they were not concerned about it in the first place and hence didn't attach a punishment clause to a PED violation in the player contract.

 

[kidhawk]

They can bench guys for violating team rules. There may be some other actions they can take as well. Not sure what the CBA does or doesn't allow. Can the team do (additional) testing beyond what the NFL requires? If so, that's another option. And they can increase education, though that won't do much unless guys decide to actually heed what is learned.

The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.

Simple solution. Front offices that are concerned about PED's and rules enforcement on PED's simply have to write it in the players contract. For Example: A violation of the NFL's PED rules is punishable by death (obvious exaggeration here but you get my point) and that's allowed under the CBA. I'm assuming since (I think) about half of the 'Hawk players that have had PED violations haven't really suffered any terminations and are still on the team - makes me think the Front office who's writing the players contracts fell asleep at the wheel when writing them. Or, what could be a better reason, is that they were not concerned about it in the first place and hence didn't attach a punishment clause to a PED violation in the player contract.

Actually as written, the NFL would reject that contract (even with a less harsh punishment). It's still punishment for a future offense that is already covered in the CBA. You can always cut a player; that is not out of the team's realm of possibility, but they cannot enforce extra punishment above the agreed upon amount. Now, if a player has previous issues, then they can put financial clauses in the contract, but most of these players wouldn't have fit under that since most were/are first time offenders of the policy.

 

[Giedi]

The CBA has guidelines for punishments allowed under it for specific offenses. Drug testing and failed test punishments are all covered under the agreement. Teams cannot further punish a player beyond whatever the league deems appropriate under the CBA guidelines. As far as benching goes, a player could be benched for basically no reason so that could be possible, but I believe if they were inactive and it affected their check, they'd likely appeal it and the team would probably get in trouble for that. With the CBA, teams have to walk a fine line between what they can and cannot do to enforce, since it's mostly left to a league level. This is why I think it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the team can put into place regarding these suspensions.

Simple solution. Front offices that are concerned about PED's and rules enforcement on PED's simply have to write it in the players contract. For Example: A violation of the NFL's PED rules is punishable by death (obvious exaggeration here but you get my point) and that's allowed under the CBA. I'm assuming since (I think) about half of the 'Hawk players that have had PED violations haven't really suffered any terminations and are still on the team - makes me think the Front office who's writing the players contracts fell asleep at the wheel when writing them. Or, what could be a better reason, is that they were not concerned about it in the first place and hence didn't attach a punishment clause to a PED violation in the player contract.

Actually as written, the NFL would reject that contract (even with a less harsh punishment). It's still punishment for a future offense that is already covered in the CBA. You can always cut a player; that is not out of the team's realm of possibility, but they cannot enforce extra punishment above the agreed upon amount. Now, if a player has previous issues, then they can put financial clauses in the contract, but most of these players wouldn't have fit under that since most were/are first time offenders of the policy.

I don't see how the CBA limits punishment when the words clearly state that termination of the players contract *is* an allowable punishment if it's written in the contract, **and** conduct detrimental to the team is punishable by fines and deduction of salary - up to 4 weeks.

(xv) Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct

[...]
Section 6. NFL Drug and Steroid Policies: No Club may impose any discipline against a player, including but not limited to terminating the player’s Player Contract, as a result of that Player’s violation of the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Sub-stances or the NFL Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse, or for failing any drug test, provided, however, that the fact that a player has violated the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances or the NFL Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse, or has failed a drug test will not preclude the termination of his Player Contract if such termination is otherwise expressly permissible under this Agreement or the player’s Player Contract.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/201 ... 1-2020.pdf

 

[BlueTalon]

Do we know that as fact yet? He could have tested positive during the post-season for all we know. Unless I missed some news.

Exactly.

Can we definitively say we have 100% of the facts regarding when, what, (et. al.)? Until then it is probably really good advice to take a chill pill and avoid any assumptions. Media reports are spotty, at best, and full of speculation.

I'm tabling this issue in my mind.

A wise decision IMO. Back when I actually cared about the news, I made it a point to ignore everything until about a week or so after something happened -- because it seemed like nobody really knew anything for sure until that much time had gone by.

 

[Sonichellboy]

There is no honor winning like this, absolutely none

I heard somewhere that if you don't win the SB with enough honor, they really smudge up the Lombardi trophy before they give it to you. Like, Terry Bradshaw eats a bunch of fried chicken and then wipes his face all over it before the team is anointed champions.

Well played, sir.

 

[Seeker]

"So then then, I tell the guy, fine me? i'm paul @#$@#$ing allen"