- Thread starter
- #1
DunceKaep
Trolling 45, it's EASY.
Yup, thoughts
Yup, thoughts
Did he actually test positive or did he miss a mandatory meeting from a previous failed test?
The thing that is bizarre to me is that the NFL somehow has authority over someone even when they don't work for them? That seems a bit odd. Let's say you work at Microsoft and they require drug testing, which you do but then you either decide you want to go to work for Apple or are fired and have to work for Apple, why would Microsoft still be able to DEMAND you undertake drug testing? If Browner wasn't employed by the NFL then how on earth could they still expect to make demands on him? Not only that but if the NFL (for some odd reason wanted to keep tabs on potential future employees) shouldn't the onus be on the NFL to make sure the mail is delivered to the right address and the recipient actually gets the requests?
I don't know. I think Browner might have a case and that is probably why the league offered him a reduced suspension in the first place.
On a side note; I'm not sure if I'd even want Browner back at this point. Lane and Maxwell (and Thurmond when he's back) have played as good or better and they don't take near as many penalties.
The "Lawsuit" will be about contact or not. Rapoport says that the league TOLD Browner what stage he was on, right or wrong. The NFL did their job of reporting or DID they not?? We have no idea.
In the Lawyers hands, no matter what WE say.
I'm glad it is done for this season, BB done, let Maxwell, Lane, and Thurmond play. That is pretty good, IMO, even better than BB. Sorry BB.
Goodell is a strict prick. He loves to show his power and weight and Seahawk fans feel he is not a big fan of our team.
If the NFL had proof BB was informed why would they barter from a 1 year suspension down to a 9 monther?
This isn't over…. Browner is gonna fight back on this one… NFL is being a little ridiculous under the circumstance…