Browner Suspended as we thought

[Cloud]

Here's my take on this....

If you had the chance to make millions of dollars in a short amount of time and one of the stipulations is that you can NOT take ANY of the banned substances that the NFL has listed, would you comply with that? I know I damned well would.

Exactly and it was nothing more than a selfish act by Browner and Thurmond.
The leaders of this team said it best, they're in for something big, if they're not on the same boat, then you're off it.

 

[Cloud]

No, it's not. You have read the policy haven't you? It is clearly there in plain language. They have nothing to justify. He had a contract with the league and violated it.

There is zero chance he gets out of this. Absolute zero. They will have to change the language of that section if people agree it is unfair so that future players won't fall under it. As of now they did exactly what that bylaw dictated.

I said when this came down that there is no way the league could set this aside or they risk every player ever punished under that policy to fight it. They simply can't let him off.

Was he still under contract when he was out of the NFL? Because I'm not sure if he was.

 

[WizardHawk]

I think the NFL is clearly targeting Browner. In one of the articles I read a few weeks ago, Browner had been subjected to some 200+ drug tests since he came back into the league in 2011. I'm not defending BB by any means because it was selfish of him. But the double standards in the NFL is quite astonishing.

Example: Why isn't the NFL taking a harder stance on a guy like Aldon Smith? It was nothing more than:

"Oh, you got drunk and got into an accident? No problem! Take some time off to get right, then come back whenever you feel like it."

This year isn't exactly the first time that Smith got into trouble for substance abuse!

I haven't read enough to Smith to say for sure, but it is my understanding his legal issues are still pending and it is normal for the league to wait for their response until that is complete. Maybe a 9'er fan can shed some light on that, but this is what I thought was happening.

Targeting him? Did they force feed him adderall? Did they force him to get high earlier this year?

I believe the number of tests is written in the policy and is based on what stage you are in. This is further proof he knew he was a stage 3 member. He was taking 10 tests a month which is consistent with that policy. How is that targeting? He was a known drug user and landed in stage 3 because he ignored requests for his cooperation and then did drugs knowing he was being tested that often.

Why aren't any of you asking if he was being tested 10 times a month why is he such a total and complete dumb fuck for even risking taking adderall or pot or whatever he has been busted with? Why isn't this more of the focus? This douche bag fucked his team and let all of us down and did it KNOWING he was being tested 10 times a month. Why aren't ANY of you keying in on that?

 

[WizardHawk]

Was he still under contract when he was out of the NFL? Because I'm not sure if he was.

Yes, because there is no language allowing for deviation from the contract. He didn't have to take drug tests while out of the league, but not doing so meant they could very much still hold him accountable if he decided to return.

I know we have some people around here with various amounts of legal backgrounds. Won't any of you step up here and speak to the simplicity of the interpretation of these policies?

I can guarantee you all that Browner is not going to see another down of football for at least a full calendar year and even then isn't likely to ever see a full contract again as any further violations would see him banned for life and the team without their player.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Was he still under contract when he was out of the NFL? Because I'm not sure if he was.

This is what Browner's lawyers will focus on I think. I know people are arguing that Browner had a "contract" with the NFL and he broke that contract. Fair enough. Except that contracts in the NFL aren't guaranteed. Teams routinely cut players or waive players and do not have to honor the contracts. That is why so many NFL agents demand money up front in the form of signing bonuses. Lots of contracts are back-loaded because teams know full well they can cut a player and never have to pay that big money. So if teams are saying that once a player is cut or waived they no longer have to honor that contract, it stands to reason that the player should also not have to honor that contract once he is let go by the team.

I think lawyers are going to have a field day with this. Browner will likely never play another game with Seattle but I think he does have a legitimate case to argue in front of a judge.

 

[Cloud]

I haven't read enough to Smith to say for sure, but it is my understanding his legal issues are still pending and it is normal for the league to wait for their response until that is complete. Maybe a 9'er fan can shed some light on that, but this is what I thought was happening.

Targeting him? Did they force feed him adderall? Did they force him to get high earlier this year?

I believe the number of tests is written in the policy and is based on what stage you are in. This is further proof he knew he was a stage 3 member. He was taking 10 tests a month which is consistent with that policy. How is that targeting? He was a known drug user and landed in stage 3 because he ignored requests for his cooperation and then did drugs knowing he was being tested that often.

Why aren't any of you asking if he was being tested 10 times a month why is he such a total and complete dumb fuck for even risking taking adderall or pot or whatever he has been busted with? Why isn't this more of the focus? This douche bag fucked his team and let all of us down and did it KNOWING he was being tested 10 times a month. Why aren't ANY of you keying in on that?

Why you gotta be so emotional about it bro? It's my opinion on how the NFL is probably unfairly targetting Browner nothing more.

I already said he's stupid and dumb.. sheesh.

 

[Cloud]

This is what Browner's lawyers will focus on I think. I know people are arguing that Browner had a "contract" with the NFL and he broke that contract. Fair enough. Except that contracts in the NFL aren't guaranteed. Teams routinely cut players or waive players and do not have to honor the contracts. That is why so many NFL agents demand money up front in the form of signing bonuses. Lots of contracts are back-loaded because teams know full well they can cut a player and never have to pay that big money. So if teams are saying that once a player is cut or waived they no longer have to honor that contract, it stands to reason that the player should also not have to honor that contract once he is let go by the team.

I think lawyers are going to have a field day with this. Browner will likely never play another game with Seattle but I think he does have a legitimate case to argue in front of a judge.

That's exactly what I was thinking. There has to be some kind of basis for Browner and his lawyers to go on to even consider suing the NFL.

Let's face it, since Goodell took over, there has been some strict shit going on, but at the same time. It seems over the edge as well and could be seen as "unfair"

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Yes, because there is no language allowing for deviation from the contract. He didn't have to take drug tests while out of the league, but not doing so meant they could very much still hold him accountable if he decided to return.

I know we have some people around here with various amounts of legal backgrounds. Won't any of you step up here and speak to the simplicity of the interpretation of these policies?

I can guarantee you all that Browner is not going to see another down of football for at least a full calendar year and even then isn't likely to ever see a full contract again as any further violations would see him banned for life and the team without their player.

His career may be over, but winning a lawsuit is not out of the question in the least. None of us are lawyers (at least I don't think any of are, I could be wrong) but NFL contracts , as noted by dkmightyhammer, are voidable, really not worth anything pass guaranteed money, also keep in mind Browner entered the program voluntarly, not due to a failed test.

You make a good point about how stupid you need to be take PED or smoking weed when your getting tested that often. I still think the NFL is on shaky ground and they are being stubborn because of Sherman beating the charges last year. Won't look good to have a Seahawk skate once again.

It will take a long time for this to shake out, because the legal system moves slowly. Time will tell.

 

[WizardHawk]

I give up. Keep up the good fight. Just hope none of you are getting your hopes up too high. This dirt bag isn't worth it IMO.

 

[Cloud]

I give up. Keep up the good fight. Just hope none of you are getting your hopes up too high. This dirt bag isn't worth it IMO.

I think everyone in their right minds know that his career as a Seahawk is over, maybe even his NFL career,sSo what's there to get our hopes up about considering the depth at secondary that this team has?

However, if there's any cause for him and his legal team to fight, then why shouldn't he?

If anything he's fighting for his playing career. I think you're being a bit too judgmental for someone you just watch on TV every Sundays. But it's all good, that's your opinion.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

No, it's not. You have read the policy haven't you? It is clearly there in plain language. They have nothing to justify. He had a contract with the league and violated it.

There is zero chance he gets out of this. Absolute zero. They will have to change the language of that section if people agree it is unfair so that future players won't fall under it. As of now they did exactly what that bylaw dictated.

I said when this came down that there is no way the league could set this aside or they risk every player ever punished under that policy to fight it. They simply can't let him off.

Wizard I just heard on sports radio that Browner can in-fact win a lawsuit… He's most likely done as a Seahawks but they brought up the same point I'm trying to make… HE WAS IN CANADA so why on gods green earth can the NFL give him a strike for not taking a drug test when he's not even in the league.. There case has holes in it and it's gonna possibly go in Browner's favor… NFL is just taking a tough stance right now because he turned down the plea … BUT WHY are they even attempting a plea? Because there case is weak that's why… Browner was dumb we all know that, but the NFL is gonna end up either backing off on the suspension time or end up in court…

 

[Cloud]

Wizard I just heard on sports radio that Browner can in-fact win a lawsuit… He's most likely done as a Seahawks but they brought up the same point I'm trying to make… HE WAS IN CANADA so why on gods green earth can the NFL give him a strike for not taking a drug test when he's not even in the league.. There case has holes in it and it's gonna possibly go in Browner's favor… NFL is just taking a tough stance right now because he turned down the plea … BUT WHY are they even attempting a plea? Because there case is weak that's why… Browner was dumb we all know that, but the NFL is gonna end up either backing off on the suspension time or end up in court…

Exactly, the NFL can just go straight out and ban him for the year. Instead they tried to cut him a plea that would've shorten the suspension by 3 months. That in itself means the NFL knows something and the reason for the deal.

Of course since Browner didn't accept it, he's getting the year, but there'll be a lawsuit in regards to what happened.

If I worked for a company and I'm out of it for a while, I don't think I should be subjected to the company's policies while I'm away. This can be taken to court.

However, if Browner KNEW about this, then he's going to have a tough time winning.

 

[WizardHawk]

I know Clayton reported that there was an attempt at a deal, but can any of you show me where that was confirmed? I mean why would the offer him 4 games and a couple of weeks later give him a full year?

You are all too hung up on the fact he was in Canada and out of the league. The language doesn't account for any type of exception. NONE... EVER... They do have legal ground to stand on as his civil liberties weren't violated or anything. He was told he would have to face a life time stage 3 when he returned and took drugs anyway. He accepted it for the last two years, until he got busted again. That kills anything he can bring up in court. He will not win.

I know if this was a 49'er that none of you would be this sympathetic. All I'm doing is taking off my homer blinders and calling things as I see them. When you do that this case becomes very clear.

 

[Cloud]

I know Clayton reported that there was an attempt at a deal, but can any of you show me where that was confirmed? I mean why would the offer him 4 games and a couple of weeks later give him a full year?

You are all too hung up on the fact he was in Canada and out of the league. The language doesn't account for any type of exception. NONE... EVER... They do have legal ground to stand on as his civil liberties weren't violated or anything. He was told he would have to face a life time stage 3 when he returned and took drugs anyway. He accepted it for the last two years, until he got busted again. That kills anything he can bring up in court. He will not win.

I know if this was a 49'er that none of you would be this sympathetic. All I'm doing is taking off my homer blinders and calling things as I see them. When you do that this case becomes very clear.

Again, you didn't answer my question in regards to the fact that if Browner and his legal team feels like they should at least try to fight for his playing career.

Are we so quick to be so judgmental and hang him for the mistakes (albeit numerous) that he should not even attempt to fight?

Are you telling me that he should just give up and accept his fate without even trying to fight? It is his JOB and CAREER that he's fighting for.

This has nothing about having homer blinders on, it's about a system that he VOLUNTARILY entered to begin with.

Be critical of him if you want, but don't fault him for attempting to fight to keep his career afloat.

 

[Cloud]

Also, if you want confirmation that a deal was in fact in placed, then Browner rejecting it. Here it is.

A nearly three-month reduction from what's supposed to be a one-year ban for violating the NFL's substance-abuse policy was not a sweet enough deal for Seattle Seahawks cornerback Brandon Browner, who recently turned down the offer and will continue his appeal, sources told FOX Sports.

Seattle Seahawks' cornerback Brandon Browner nixes deal to shorten his substance-abuse suspension, will continue appeal - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Heck Wizard, most of us except that he's done as a Seahawk and most likely as a player in the NFL. Most of us except he was dumb as a rock and selfish, , self indulgent, add your own favorite verb.
However, what some of feel is for an employer to demand compliance even after your not an employee is wrong and unenforceable. Also why count a voluntary entrance to a drug program as a strike? Would that not discourage players to seek help?

Your right about one thing for sure , if he wasn't a Seahawk, I wouldn't pay any attention to it at all. It just would not concern me. Most of us have our own problems, right?

 

[WizardHawk]

"sources told fox news" is not a confirmation. That is an unconfirmed report by definition.

If he wanted to keep his career afloat all he had to do was not keep taking drugs once a year. Seemed like an easy way to avoid this.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Heck Wizard, most of us except that he's done as a Seahawk and most likely as a player in the NFL. Most of us except he was dumb as a rock and selfish, , self indulgent, add your own favorite verb.
However, what some of feel is for an employer to demand compliance even after your not an employee is wrong and unenforceable. Also why count a voluntary entrance to a drug program as a strike? Would that not discourage players to seek help?

Your right about one thing for sure , if he wasn't a Seahawk, I wouldn't pay any attention to it at all. It just would not concern me. Most of us have our own problems, right?

I didn't word that well. He went to get help with a problem, but had never failed anything in the NFL, yet the NFL is treating him as if he did. That's is why IMO the NFL has a problem.

 

[Cloud]

"sources told fox news" is not a confirmation. That is an unconfirmed report by definition.

If he wanted to keep his career afloat all he had to do was not keep taking drugs once a year. Seemed like an easy way to avoid this.

His life, his choices, his mistakes. Now he has to deal with the consequences.
Difference is that I won't waste my time being so judgmental of him because I know that his career is probably over. That in end is the ultimate price he's going to have to pay. What you said about him being a "dirt bag" that's outside of the football talks and mumble jumble.

He can fight it is if he want if he thinks it can give him a chance at playing again. But that'll be the end of it.

Simple fact is, if he didn't play for the Seahawks, I wouldn't care about this crap.

 

[WizardHawk]

I didn't word that well. He went to get help with a problem, but had never failed anything in the NFL, yet the NFL is treating him as if he did. That's is why IMO the NFL has a problem.

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.