Browners Case

[boogiewithstu2007]

So the NFL did not let him know that he still needed to comply with the testings despite being out of the league. FAIL on their part.

Browner does not deserve a one year ban. If we can get him back for the playoffs, it is going to be huge.

200 tests since 2011.... that is mind boggling.

That does seem excessive doesn't it…. MAN …

 

[Cloud]

That does seem excessive doesn't it…. MAN …

200 tests in 2 years should be enough to sample size to remove the player from the substance abuse program. That is the NFL rules, 2 full seasons or 24 months. Because he was unfairly moved to stage 3, they didn't do it.

Browner should definitely fight this... if anything his latest positive test should just put him back into the program and a fine at worst.

Man, the treatment the NFL give to some of their players is unbelievable.

 

[WizardHawk]

Problem is what they did was actually within the rules as agreed by the players association. As flawed as it may be, as dumb as it is, it was technically the rule. Should they have given him what was required of him in writing to make it clear? Probably, but it isn't in the agreement.

So even if they agree that it is shitty, if they simply dismiss it and move him out of stage 3 it opens the door for others to challenge current, future, and even past actions whether directly related or not.

This is a worst cluster fuck than the Sherman test case and no matter what happens it won't end with an ideal situation for all involved.

Just because Browner and his lawyers believe he can get off with nothing but a loss of 4 games pay doesn't mean that will be the outcome. It's a place to bargain from. Might end up with something somewhere between whatever the league already offered and that.

 

[Cloud]

Problem is what they did was actually within the rules as agreed by the players association. As flawed as it may be, as dumb as it is, it was technically the rule. Should they have given him what was required of him in writing to make it clear? Probably, but it isn't in the agreement.

So even if they agree that it is shitty, if they simply dismiss it and move him out of stage 3 it opens the door for others to challenge current, future, and even past actions whether directly related or not.

This is a worst cluster fuck than the Sherman test case and no matter what happens it won't end with an ideal situation for all involved.

Just because Browner and his lawyers believe he can get off with nothing but a loss of 4 games pay doesn't mean that will be the outcome. It's a place to bargain from. Might end up with something somewhere between whatever the league already offered and that.

Even if this was the case, shouldn't the NFL made it clear to the Seahawks anyway? In one of the articles posted in this thread, the Seahawks were not made aware of Browner's situations when he came here in 2011.

The Seahawks did not know of his status in the program either, upon signing him, sources said, nor did any of the handful of teams who brought Browner in for tryouts prior to him signing in Seattle. Only in August of 2011 did Browner receive a letter from the league notifying him that he was in fact in Stage 3

 

[Kyle]

 

[WizardHawk]

Even if this was the case, shouldn't the NFL made it clear to the Seahawks anyway? In one of the articles posted in this thread, the Seahawks were not made aware of Browner's situations when he came here in 2011.

The Seahawks did not know of his status in the program either, upon signing him, sources said, nor did any of the handful of teams who brought Browner in for tryouts prior to him signing in Seattle. Only in August of 2011 did Browner receive a letter from the league notifying him that he was in fact in Stage 3

So again the only question is did the league violate any of the existing agreement? If not then it is still shitty, but the problem is the wording in the agreement and thus not likely he will come away with no suspension.

I don't question whether or not any of it is fair, I just question was anything done against the current agreement and how willing should the NFL be to dismiss something that was done to the letter of that agreement considering what implications it could have on other cases both past, and future.

 

[Judge Fudge]

View attachment 7688

and that is what i don't get?

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

View attachment 7688

That is a good debate right there…

 

[BeastHawk]

Looks to me like the league knows that it doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of when it comes to the legality of the matter. The league can't claim jurisdiction over someone who isn't even part of the league. And when Browner left to play in the CFL, he signed a contract with whatever team signed him along with a contract with that league. My impression is that the league sees this fiasco as a threat to their CBA and are looking for a way out without losing too much face in the world of professional sports.

 

[dredinis21]

That is a good debate right there…

The difference in the memes is that one scenario already played itself out. Browner had cloudy piss and the NFL is raining down on him for his second failed test in as many years.

The stuff with Aldon will play out in court and after it does, I fully expect the NFL to rain fury on him as well. That is the precedent that the league set in legal matters when it doesn't pertain to habitual offenders like PacMan, the late Chris Henry, etc.

It's really not a debate until the Aldon stuff is done and the NFL shows their hand, i.e. officially suspends/fines (or not) Aldon.

 

[octagondd]

The difference in the memes is that one scenario already played itself out. Browner had cloudy piss and the NFL is raining down on him for his second failed test in as many years.

The stuff with Aldon will play out in court and after it does, I fully expect the NFL to rain fury on him as well. That is the precedent that the league set in legal matters when it doesn't pertain to habitual offenders like PacMan, the late Chris Henry, etc.

It's really not a debate until the Aldon stuff is done and the NFL shows their hand, i.e. officially suspends/fines (or not) Aldon.

Wrong. And this is why he needs to sue the NFL and Silver. The PED and substance abuse policies are two seperate processes. One has nothing to do with the other as far as I know.

 

[dredinis21]

Wrong. And this is why he needs to sue the NFL and Silver. The PED and substance abuse policies are two seperate processes. One has nothing to do with the other as far as I know.

What is wrong about my statement? They may be two separate policies but he has tested positive twice for two different substances within the last year...is that statement wrong? Whether the punishment will be 4 games or a yr is somewhat irrelevant, isn't it? The point of the meme was one person is punished while the other isn't. That is what I am addressing.

If you want to break down the CBA and its PED policies vs Non-PED policies, go right ahead and knock yourself out. Ultimately, this will go ahead and streamline the drug testing policies either way it falls.

Browner sues the shit out of the NFL for this? Great, the NFL then demands that the NFLPA step up and help reform the drug policies. If the NFLPA doesn't, they look like assholes with something to hide and the NFL comes out smelling like roses...and most likely with a more stringent, streamlined drug policy that is all-encompassing and doesn't differentiate between PEDs and Non-PEDs.

Browner doesn't sue but gets his suspension reduced/lifted, people will cry foul and the NFL will not want to be put in this predicament again, thus pushing for less gray area in the drug testing policies all in the name of "cleaning up the game", where Browner will be a poster child.

Knowing what you know about Goodell and how he botches/handles these situations, doesn't either of these options seem the most plausible given the current tangled web he is currently in?

 

[dredinis21]

Looks to me like the league knows that it doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of when it comes to the legality of the matter. The league can't claim jurisdiction over someone who isn't even part of the league. And when Browner left to play in the CFL, he signed a contract with whatever team signed him along with a contract with that league. My impression is that the league sees this fiasco as a threat to their CBA and are looking for a way out without losing too much face in the world of professional sports.

I see what you did there.

 

[#1BostonFan]

I'm reading this is most likely for weed. It's really a shame smoking weed will get you suspended for a whole year.

 

[octagondd]

I'm reading this is most likely for weed. It's really a shame smoking weed will get you suspended for a whole year.

You might want to read this thread again. It is not really about smoking weed. It is about the NFL substance abuse policy and how it affects players who are released and their continued testing.

 

[WizardHawk]

What is wrong about my statement? They may be two separate policies but he has tested positive twice for two different substances within the last year...is that statement wrong? Whether the punishment will be 4 games or a yr is somewhat irrelevant, isn't it? The point of the meme was one person is punished while the other isn't. That is what I am addressing.

If you want to break down the CBA and its PED policies vs Non-PED policies, go right ahead and knock yourself out. Ultimately, this will go ahead and streamline the drug testing policies either way it falls.

Browner sues the shit out of the NFL for this? Great, the NFL then demands that the NFLPA step up and help reform the drug policies. If the NFLPA doesn't, they look like assholes with something to hide and the NFL comes out smelling like roses...and most likely with a more stringent, streamlined drug policy that is all-encompassing and doesn't differentiate between PEDs and Non-PEDs.

Browner doesn't sue but gets his suspension reduced/lifted, people will cry foul and the NFL will not want to be put in this predicament again, thus pushing for less gray area in the drug testing policies all in the name of "cleaning up the game", where Browner will be a poster child.

Knowing what you know about Goodell and how he botches/handles these situations, doesn't either of these options seem the most plausible given the current tangled web he is currently in?

I don't blame you for not reading the full stories on this, but it was reported that he started stage 1 of the substance abuse policy when he sought help while with the Broncos. He wasn't there that long and bounced out of the league and into the CFL. The NFL is saying he was still required to take drug tests while not in the NFL or else be automatically moved to being a stage 3 abuser and be on stage 3 for the rest of his career and one mess up and its a year ban.

According to the Seattle Times story the PED and Substance policies are not related and his being banned for a year has nothing to do at all with the PED thing. He is being punished for not taking piss tests while not even in the country for several years and it was all triggered when he sought their help while a rookie.

Now the questions being addressed in this thread are should he be still in this boat when it appears the NFL didn't notify him that he was still supposed to take his regular piss tests while in Canada? He also wasn't informed he was in Stage 3 until August of this year. Likely that was around the time he took the piss test as it seems to take the league months to process these for whatever reason.

If the league tries to ban him for a year are the opening up another nightmare media storm? If they let him slide are the at risk for losing other valid cases?

They apparently already offered him a reduction which he turned down so they are trying to deal with it without having it go to court.

 

[octagondd]

What is wrong about my statement? They may be two separate policies but he has tested positive twice for two different substances within the last year...is that statement wrong? Whether the punishment will be 4 games or a yr is somewhat irrelevant, isn't it? The point of the meme was one person is punished while the other isn't. That is what I am addressing.

If you want to break down the CBA and its PED policies vs Non-PED policies, go right ahead and knock yourself out. Ultimately, this will go ahead and streamline the drug testing policies either way it falls.

Browner sues the shit out of the NFL for this? Great, the NFL then demands that the NFLPA step up and help reform the drug policies. If the NFLPA doesn't, they look like assholes with something to hide and the NFL comes out smelling like roses...and most likely with a more stringent, streamlined drug policy that is all-encompassing and doesn't differentiate between PEDs and Non-PEDs.

Browner doesn't sue but gets his suspension reduced/lifted, people will cry foul and the NFL will not want to be put in this predicament again, thus pushing for less gray area in the drug testing policies all in the name of "cleaning up the game", where Browner will be a poster child.

Knowing what you know about Goodell and how he botches/handles these situations, doesn't either of these options seem the most plausible given the current tangled web he is currently in?

I think Wizard nailed most of this as far as Browner is concerned. I will address your issue with Goodell. It may seem like Goodell just imposes random penalties, and as far as fines are concerned, he has a wider range of power there, but when it comes to the substance abuse and PED policies, it is all in black and white. There is no fudging with the game ban penalties.

As far as the general disgust for Goodell due to the change of rules, he is only doing what is required of any CEO to protect the assets of the corporation. In fact, it is the ex-players, the ones we watched deliver and receive all those great hits in the 80s and 90s, who are to blame for the current rules, not Goodell. These same players may end up being the ones to blame if a major lawsuit is filed on behalf of NCAA players with similar issues. The college and high school game could be destroyed as they do not have the billions to pay out for the much larger group of athletes affected.

 

[FirebreathingMonkey]

Well it sounds like the NFL wanted to lower his ban down by 3 months and he said no according to ESPN.

Here's the link
Brandon Browner of Seattle Seahawks turns down deal to have suspension reduced - ESPN

and another take on the story

Brandon Browner reportedly rejected NFL deal, seeking to have suspension reduced to a fine - Field Gulls

 

[WizardHawk]

I would imagine the sticking point here is are they willing to remove the lifetime stage 3 classification. I think that is bigger than whether or not he gets 4 games suspended or no games like they are talking about being the center of this. A 4 game wouldn't mean that much to his free agency compared to the stigma of being on a lifetime stage 3 cliff. What team is going to give him top dollar knowing he is one fuck up away from a full year off?

He had over 200 clean drug tests since returning to the Seahawks and one failed test where he had a small amount of pot in his system. Had they not put him on stage 3 he wouldn't have had any suspension nor public disclosure of this failed test. He would have been triggered into stage 1.

 

[fastforward]

Take the deal Brandon. Tell all and testify against the Seahawks! The Rog will reward you.

Seriously though he shouldn't be suspended. Browner case