Browner Suspended as we thought

[HaroldSeattle]

I can see why one might think that, but if you seek help from the league you are admitting you have done drugs and isn't that as guilty as failing a drug test? I mean in a perfect world the penalty for admitting you have a problem and seeking help would be less than coming up dirty on a test, but the wording in their agreement doesn't distinguish between them and it still shows drug use which warrants entering into a more monitored stage.

Really? Even when your no longer employed there and moved to another country? The legal system does have a concept of fairness( hard to believe , I know), Browner has a case, time well tell, whether he wins it or not.

 

[WizardHawk]

Really? Even when your no longer employed there and moved to another country? The legal system does have a concept of fairness( hard to believe , I know), Browner has a case, time well tell, whether he wins it or not.

ok, now you are jumping around. I was responding to your post about his first offense being a voluntary submission under the drug policy, not the ongoing efforts from that.

But still, yes they can require you to still submit if you ever want to come back. They don't chase every player who comes in and out of the league, only those already known to be involved in drug use and it is very explicitly spelled out in the policy on substance abuse as ratified by both the players association and the league.

At worst this unfortunate situation ends in them making changes to the policy so that it won't effect those out of the league moving forward, or having some extra requirements for those rejoining the league over those who still complied while out of it.

 

[jakedog56]

ok, now you are jumping around. I was responding to your post about his first offense being a voluntary submission under the drug policy, not the ongoing efforts from that.

But still, yes they can require you to still submit if you ever want to come back. They don't chase every player who comes in and out of the league, only those already known to be involved in drug use and it is very explicitly spelled out in the policy on substance abuse as ratified by both the players association and the league.

At worst this unfortunate situation ends in them making changes to the policy so that it won't effect those out of the league moving forward, or having some extra requirements for those rejoining the league over those who still complied while out of it.

It certainly does nt help Browner's case that this rule is explicitly spelled out in the policy and that the NFLPA has signed off on it, but that does not make it legal persay.

There are higher courts than the NFL. I would view this rule as a violation of individual rights and I agree that Browner does have a case. As stated in the other thread, if I were him I would worry about it harming his long-term career in the NFL via blacklist.

 

[Podunkparte]

I do think it's dumb when players get caught for crap like this but I certainly don't have any negative feelings for BB. Personally I think pot should be legal outright and if anything it's a performance inhibiting substance. I'm not a pot user, by the way.

More than anything I feel bad for BB because I really think he was on track to getting a nice payday after the track he's been on through the CFL and all. I also think it's ridiculous to expect a guy who doesn't work for your organization (NFL) to take drug tests or have any other contractual obligations with you during that time.

After seeing Maxwell perform, I do think this is a bit of a blessing in disguise moving forward. We won't be the ones giving BB a payday, plus Maxwell looks like the more complete back to me since he can be physical yet not get burned by those little speedy guys like BB was prone to.

Overall I wish him luck and I hope he can continue his career. He was definitely one of the diamonds in the rough for this organization and he has a hand in changing a lot of the feelings toward CBs throughout the league.

 

[Cloud]

I do think it's dumb when players get caught for crap like this but I certainly don't have any negative feelings for BB. Personally I think pot should be legal outright and if anything it's a performance inhibiting substance. I'm not a pot user, by the way.

More than anything I feel bad for BB because I really think he was on track to getting a nice payday after the track he's been on through the CFL and all. I also think it's ridiculous to expect a guy who doesn't work for your organization (NFL) to take drug tests or have any other contractual obligations with you during that time.

After seeing Maxwell perform, I do think this is a bit of a blessing in disguise moving forward. We won't be the ones giving BB a payday, plus Maxwell looks like the more complete back to me since he can be physical yet not get burned by those little speedy guys like BB was prone to.

Overall I wish him luck and I hope he can continue his career. He was definitely one of the diamonds in the rough for this organization and he has a hand in changing a lot of the feelings toward CBs throughout the league.

Great post and I agree 100%!

 

[dude82]

I've mentioned this before, but I think it's possible that Browner could have still been considered "in the league", and thus still in the drug testing program even if he didn't have a contract with a specific team, if he didn't officially file retirement papers or did file them and then applied for reinstatement after taking time off.

The closest situation to this that I can remember was with Ricky Williams. He was in the program, tested positive a couple times and decided to "retire" when faced with a 4-game suspension. After being away from the game for a year, he came back to the league and served the 4-game suspension he would have served the year before had he not "retired". His "retirement", even if it was an official retirement, didn't wipe away his suspension or his status in the program. In fact, about 7 months after his return to the league, he was suspended again for another positive test, this time for a year. He ended up playing in the CFL during that year-long suspension and came back again in 2007. At one point he was being tested several times a week.

It seems to me that the only way to truly get out of having to follow the protocols laid out in the drug policy is to officially retire and never play again. It's certainly possible that the league failed to communicate that to him when he left initially, but it's also possible that Browner was told what needed to happen if he ever wanted to play in the league again and he just decided that he wouldn't worry about it until the very real possibility of not playing another down of NFL football hit him after this latest violation.

 

[Cloud]

I've mentioned this before, but I think it's possible that Browner could have still been considered "in the league", and thus still in the drug testing program even if he didn't have a contract with a specific team, if he didn't officially file retirement papers or did file them and then applied for reinstatement after taking time off.

The closest situation to this that I can remember was with Ricky Williams. He was in the program, tested positive a couple times and decided to "retire" when faced with a 4-game suspension. After being away from the game for a year, he came back to the league and served the 4-game suspension he would have served the year before had he not "retired". His "retirement", even if it was an official retirement, didn't wipe away his suspension or his status in the program. In fact, about 7 months after his return to the league, he was suspended again for another positive test, this time for a year. He ended up playing in the CFL during that year-long suspension and came back again in 2007. At one point he was being tested several times a week.

It seems to me that the only way to truly get out of having to follow the protocols laid out in the drug policy is to officially retire and never play again. It's certainly possible that the league failed to communicate that to him when he left initially, but it's also possible that Browner was told what needed to happen if he ever wanted to play in the league again and he just decided that he wouldn't worry about it until the very real possibility of not playing another down of NFL football hit him after this latest violation.

LOL.. What? That is ridiculous, if the NFL consider him to still "be in the league" then don't allow him to go to the CFL then. If they do allow him or any other players to go to the CFL then they are no longer consider to be in league.

That's pretty ludicrous if that's how the NFL operates.

 

[WizardHawk]

I've mentioned this before, but I think it's possible that Browner could have still been considered "in the league", and thus still in the drug testing program even if he didn't have a contract with a specific team, if he didn't officially file retirement papers or did file them and then applied for reinstatement after taking time off.

The closest situation to this that I can remember was with Ricky Williams. He was in the program, tested positive a couple times and decided to "retire" when faced with a 4-game suspension. After being away from the game for a year, he came back to the league and served the 4-game suspension he would have served the year before had he not "retired". His "retirement", even if it was an official retirement, didn't wipe away his suspension or his status in the program. In fact, about 7 months after his return to the league, he was suspended again for another positive test, this time for a year. He ended up playing in the CFL during that year-long suspension and came back again in 2007. At one point he was being tested several times a week.

It seems to me that the only way to truly get out of having to follow the protocols laid out in the drug policy is to officially retire and never play again. It's certainly possible that the league failed to communicate that to him when he left initially, but it's also possible that Browner was told what needed to happen if he ever wanted to play in the league again and he just decided that he wouldn't worry about it until the very real possibility of not playing another down of NFL football hit him after this latest violation.

You are wasting your time here. Some of these people cannot be reasoned with. They are willing to back up BB no matter what. I agree with you fully and so does the league, but a few of our fans up here have their heads too far buried in the sand to see it.

The other point they aren't seeing is the time to argue over the fairness of his being in stage 3 isn't after he was busted under it, but after he rejoined the league and became aware he was at that stage and was now required to take 10 tests a month. Had he fought it then he might have had a case to move himself back to a lower stage. Waiting until after his second violation (one under each protocol) after coming back means he accepted their findings until there was a penalty and under the law that is going to kill any chance he might have had to fight it. It really is going to mean he is out for a year.

Browner said he has taken over 200 drug tests since rejoining the league which means he knew he was in stage 3 protocol testing of no less than 10 times per month all year round. He took all of those tests and still did at least two substances against the rules in back to back years. Guys, he fully deserves what he is getting if for no other reason than he is a total and complete dumb ass for taking drugs while doing piss tests on average of every 3 days. That is epic fail right there. And he did it twice.

 

[dude82]

LOL.. What? That is ridiculous, if the NFL consider him to still "be in the league" then don't allow him to go to the CFL then. If they do allow him or any other players to go to the CFL then they are no longer consider to be in league.

That's pretty ludicrous if that's how the NFL operates.

I don't think it's that ridiculous. Any player that isn't officially retired, but isn't with a team, is considered a free agent, right? Some players are just free agents for a longer period of time than others and end up playing in other leagues until another NFL team comes calling. These players never officially left the league, there just wasn't a team that wanted them for a certain period of time. I don't think that playing in the CFL nullifies your NFL free agent status.

 

[Cloud]

You are wasting your time here. Some of these people cannot be reasoned with. They are willing to back up BB no matter what. I agree with you fully and so does the league, but a few of our fans up here have their heads too far buried in the sand to see it.

The other point they aren't seeing is the time to argue over the fairness of his being in stage 3 isn't after he was busted under it, but after he rejoined the league and became aware he was at that stage and was now required to take 10 tests a month. Had he fought it then he might have had a case to move himself back to a lower stage. Waiting until after his second violation (one under each protocol) after coming back means he accepted their findings until there was a penalty and under the law that is going to kill any chance he might have had to fight it. It really is going to mean he is out for a year.

Browner said he has taken over 200 drug tests since rejoining the league which means he knew he was in stage 3 protocol testing of no less than 10 times per month all year round. He took all of those tests and still did at least two substances against the rules in back to back years. Guys, he fully deserves what he is getting if for no other reason than he is a total and complete dumb ass for taking drugs while doing piss tests on average of every 3 days. That is epic fail right there. And he did it twice.

LOL. All of a sudden it's time wasting and can't be reasoned with because some of us are seemingly having good debates going on regarding the status of Browner. It wouldn't be time wasting if some just jump on board with what you've been saying?

You take this a bit too seriously bro.

 

[Cloud]

I don't think it's that ridiculous. Any player that isn't officially retired, but isn't with a team, is considered a free agent, right? Some players are just free agents for a longer period of time than others and end up playing in other leagues until another NFL team comes calling. These players never officially left the league, there just wasn't a team that wanted them for a certain period of time. I don't think that playing in the CFL nullifies your NFL free agent status.

That is a fair assessment, of course I think the basis of lawsuit will still be the fact that
1) He was in the CFL
2) The NFL didn't exactly notified him that he was being moved to stage 3. The fact that he entered the program voluntarily may or may not have any relevance because he's in it regardless, but the NFL needed to notify him.

Either way, I'm done with this thread because it seems like it's going nowhere now. His career here is done anyway. We'll see how it play out for Browner and best of luck to him if he can get a chance to play football again.

 

[dude82]

That is a fair assessment, of course I think the basis of lawsuit will still be the fact that
1) He was in the CFL
2) The NFL didn't exactly notified him that he was being moved to stage 3. The fact that he entered the program voluntarily may or may not have any relevance because he's in it regardless, but the NFL needed to notify him.

Either way, I'm done with this thread because it seems like it's going nowhere now. His career here is done anyway. We'll see how it play out for Browner and best of luck to him if he can get a chance to play football again.

I don't think we know for sure whether they did or not. I guess I just find it hard to believe that not one person, not a league official, not his agent, not someone from the players association, bothered to notify him of his status upon his return so that he could challenge it then. How could that many people have (pardon the pun) dropped the ball on this?

 

[WizardHawk]

That is a fair assessment, of course I think the basis of lawsuit will still be the fact that
1) He was in the CFL
2) The NFL didn't exactly notified him that he was being moved to stage 3. The fact that he entered the program voluntarily may or may not have any relevance because he's in it regardless, but the NFL needed to notify him.

Either way, I'm done with this thread because it seems like it's going nowhere now. His career here is done anyway. We'll see how it play out for Browner and best of luck to him if he can get a chance to play football again.

1) doesn't change the fact he was a free agent under the NFL view of players.
2) That was widely reported, even by John Clayton, but didn't they say in the reports that came out this week that that was refuted and proven false by the league in this case? Maybe I'm wrong, but I swear I read that he had indeed been notified and responded to that notification. I'll certainly accept being corrected if I am wrong on that. When he came back and was facing up to 10 unannounced tests per month, even over the off season, he knew he was in the stages. They don't test them that often until they are at least stage 2. He can't claim he didn't know he was at that level. Just not reasonable to believe it.

 

[Screamin12th]

first of all. BB failed a drug test in Denver and that was his first strike. He opted into treatment and was then released by Denver. His missed testing while in the CFL very well could not have been enforced like it is but he himself had opted into a treatment program through the NFL that i would assume stated he had to be tested for completion of the program. He missed the tests so by their law that is failing to pass.

This is why BB really doesn't have a lot of say in the whole thing. Fair or not it is what it is and the Hawks were moving on with out him anyway. I feel bad for Browner as many of you also do but he only has himself to blame. No one put the pot pipe in his mouth and forced him to inhale. He knew he was on a short list of players that get tested more than most and he took that chance and got burned.

I wish BB well and hope his career is not over but as far as i am concerned he was a sub par CB that played very well in press coverage but struggled in most all other area's. Yes he was a great run stuffing CB and hit like a safety but he was slow and once WR got off the press he was a liability.

His days were numbered anyway as i did not see them bringing him back and was actually shocked he made the team this season in the first place.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

first of all. BB failed a drug test in Denver and that was his first strike. He opted into treatment and was then released by Denver. His missed testing while in the CFL very well could not have been enforced like it is but he himself had opted into a treatment program through the NFL that i would assume stated he had to be tested for completion of the program. He missed the tests so by their law that is failing to pass.

This is why BB really doesn't have a lot of say in the whole thing. Fair or not it is what it is and the Hawks were moving on with out him anyway. I feel bad for Browner as many of you also do but he only has himself to blame. No one put the pot pipe in his mouth and forced him to inhale. He knew he was on a short list of players that get tested more than most and he took that chance and got burned.

I wish BB well and hope his career is not over but as far as i am concerned he was a sub par CB that played very well in press coverage but struggled in most all other area's. Yes he was a great run stuffing CB and hit like a safety but he was slow and once WR got off the press he was a liability.

His days were numbered anyway as i did not see them bringing him back and was actually shocked he made the team this season in the first place.

Link? I ask because my understanding is he entered the program, not because he failed a test , but he realized he may need help with a drug problem. Totally voluntary. If I'm mis informed , please show me a link.

 

[jakedog56]

You are wasting your time here. Some of these people cannot be reasoned with. They are willing to back up BB no matter what. I agree with you fully and so does the league, but a few of our fans up here have their heads too far buried in the sand to see it.

Wizard-

This has nothing to do with the NFL or with the fact that BB screwed up AGAIN. We are all very much aware of all of this.

This has to do with a possible violation of individual rights. A corporation or employeeing entity has no right to dictate a persons life when they are no longer an employed by the company. I don't care if it was clearly written out or explained or not.

I fully agree that BB deserves punishment. It is just that his punishment should be decided according to the rules minus the level 3 status that dictates one year. It should be dictated by whatever the situation minus any supposed infractions while he was outside of the league.

No reason to insult those who disagree with you. I could just as easily make the same "can not be reasoned with" and "head buried in the sand" comments about you with your stubborn refusal to see the points being made that oppose your views.

I think that the outcome of the case could go either way. I just think that BB has a valid complaint. If I was in a similar situation in the private sector, I would definately sue.

 

[Screamin12th]

Link? I ask because my understanding is he entered the program, not because he failed a test , but he realized he may need help with a drug problem. Totally voluntary. If I'm mis informed , please show me a link.

Seahawks CB Brandon Browner suspended indefinitely for violations of the NFL?s drug*policy | Audibles - SI.com

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2417865/F...or-Brandon-Browner-dishes-on-NFL-drug-testing

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/2013/12/18/report-browner-suspended-indefinitely/

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2022493245_seahawksnotebook20xml.html

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20131218/BLOG06/131219848

Need more? they are easy to find and his failed test in 2005 isn't a unknown issue

 

[WizardHawk]

Wizard-

This has nothing to do with the NFL or with the fact that BB screwed up AGAIN. We are all very much aware of all of this.

This has to do with a possible violation of individual rights. A corporation or employeeing entity has no right to dictate a persons life when they are no longer an employed by the company. I don't care if it was clearly written out or explained or not.

I fully agree that BB deserves punishment. It is just that his punishment should be decided according to the rules minus the level 3 status that dictates one year. It should be dictated by whatever the situation minus any supposed infractions while he was outside of the league.

No reason to insult those who disagree with you. I could just as easily make the same "can not be reasoned with" and "head buried in the sand" comments about you with your stubborn refusal to see the points being made that oppose your views.

I think that the outcome of the case could go either way. I just think that BB has a valid complaint. If I was in a similar situation in the private sector, I would definately sue.

If you take those two statements as insults I'm not sure that online posting is really something for you. I've read far far worse things even on this sub board and even when it is directed at me personally I'm not outraged by it. Have some thicker skin man.

As to making those observations about my views? Um, no. I've been responding directly to that and have many times. I do not have my head in the sand at all. I simply think most of you have been hoodwinked by his lawyers attempts to create doubt where there is none.

You do know there are jobs in this country where you can be denied if you have EVER taken drugs at any point of your life right? Do employers have the right to decide whether or not you may be employed based on actions prior to your being employed with them? Yes they do and it is well established case law. So then your question is does an employer have any legal right to require drug testing while you are not actually collecting a check from them. I believe the answer is yes they do. This is more like employees who belong to a union and are seeking active union employment, but are not currently collecting a check and if you look around the country there are plenty of such unions that have requirements of their members whether or not they are actually working in a union job.

BB was an active member of the NFLPA during his hiatus in Canada and was still seeking employment with an NFL team. Under the terms of his contract with that union he was required to participate in the substance abuse policy intervention program because of violations he had while an active member of the union.

If you throw this out because of questions about their rights to have these requirements you probably cause a chain reaction around many other unions. Even the federal government has some very tight requirements of members whether they are actively working or not.

So, with that well thought out response how can it be said that I am either keeping my head in the sand or being unwilling to listen? I haven't read anything from anyone up here that presents a good legal argument for why his union requirements were unconstitutional while he was not actively working under that union. I'd be more than willing to discuss any such arguments when presented.

 

[jakedog56]

I think that you have very valid points. I also think that there are valid points on thr "other side of the coin" that could stand up in a court of law.

Couple of notes:
*I am not all worked up and upset over what you wrote. I just thought that it was uncalled for and a little close-minded.

*Good luck trying to deny me (or anyone else) employment based on long-term past drug history via testing. There is no method of proving anything longer than 90 days (hair folicle). And even if you do have a large drug history, unless you have an arrest record then there is no trail of evidence.

The truth is that any employer can deny a person employment based on basically anything. If they don't like the tie you wear to the interview or your accent or any other tiny detail about you they can deny you a job with no explanation whatsoever. This fact however has little bearing on the current situation with BB.

We don't really know all of the details either. If there was a small descripancy in the way that BB was informed of his testing requirements (if he was at all), it could cause the league to automatically lose the case. There are many scenerios where I could see BB winning this. The difference between your view and mine is that as an outsider without full knowledge of the details of the situation, you have already stated that he has no chance at all of winning while I admit that he could easily lose but also acknowledge that there seems to be a valid arguement to be made that he could also win. I fail to see how I am the "close-minded" one when you are the one whose mind does not appear to be open to possibilities.