Dear Brendan Browner........

[Judge Fudge]

Please stop

Sincerly

Nathan B. Seahawk fan for like

Seattle Seahawks cornerback Brandon Browner vowed to continue to fight his indefinite suspension for a violation of the league's substance-abuse policy, which was officially announced Wednesday.

The cornerback's agent, Peter Schaffer, told ProFootballTalk.com in a telephone interview that Browner will sue the NFL if other attempts at overturning the suspension are unsuccessful.

"We will continue to exhaust all administrative remedies," Schaffer told the website. "If not successful, we will sue the living daylights out of the league."

Browner, whose suspension is effective immediately and without pay, sent out a lengthy statement through his Twitter account after the suspension was announced, sounding resigned that his career with the Seahawks is over.

Besides thanking the Seahawks organization, Browner maintained his innocence.

"Although I disagree with the circumstances surrounding my suspension, I accept responsibility for all of my actions and I apologize for any that causes any unflattering reflections of my family and the Seahawks," he said in the statement. "I believe in my innocence and will continue to fight with all legal resources available to me to. Go Hawks!!!"

Earlier Wednesday, a league source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that Browner had his appeal of the suspension denied.

Browner turned down an opportunity to reduce the ban by nearly three months, according to multiple reports.

The suspension is the second in two seasons for Browner. He was suspended four games last season for violating the league's policy on performance-enhancing substances. He's the second Seahawks player to be suspended for violating the substance-abuse policy this season. Fellow cornerback Walter Thurmond is serving the final week of a four-game suspension.

Browner was injured against Atlanta on Nov. 10 and hasn't played since.

He is in his third season with the Seahawks. He started all 26 games he has played for the Seahawks and has 19 tackles, one interception and 10 passes defensed this season. He was a Pro Bowl selection in 2011 when he had 23 passes defensed and six interceptions, but had not been able to match those numbers in the subsequent two seasons.

His contract is up after this season, and a lucrative contract could await if he can somehow get the decision overturned

Brandon Browner of Seattle Seahawks vows to sue NFL if ban not dropped - ESPN

 

[YourFriendGannon]

Yeah stop it kid! The NFL's war on drugs is incredible so keep letting those rich white guys stick it to ya.

 

[NinerSickness]

Yeah stop it kid! The NFL's war on drugs is incredible so keep letting those rich white guys stick it to ya.

Dumbest post of the week.

 

[WizardHawk]

The reason Browner should stop is because he is better off saving whatever money he hasn't already spent out of his earnings to date as his last paycheck as an NFL player is likely already in the mail. Why keep giving more money to the bloodsucking lawyers if you have zero chance at overturning it?

 

[Wolverine830872]

I would think he has a much better chance than zero at overturning this ruling. If you sever ties with your job, they should not be allowed to have continued oversight of you, period.

 

[jakedog56]

Wizard seems to be stuck in the mindset that the NFL is infallible and that there is no court that can overturn the rules that they have imposed during the CBA.

Even if the NFLPA has agreed to those rules, the rules themselves can still be ruled as unconstitutional or a violation of individual rights.

I disagree that Browner has no shot at winning this. However if I were him I would be concerned about getting blacklisted by the league. It happened to Sam McCullum after the 1982 players strike.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

We are talking about the United States legal system here folks. Crafty lawyers routinely get around contracts. Ask any rich dude who's ended up paying millions to some gold digger he married after he thought he had an "iron clad" pre-nup.

I can't speak for the US because I'm a Canadian, but up here the new buzz phrase that lawyers have successfully been using is "the spirit of the law". It's used when there appears to be some grey area in any particular part of some legislation. They'll contend that the client may not have literally broke the law but instead they broke the "spirit of the law". A high profile case involved our ruling Conservative party of Canada and some irregularities that occurred during the last general election. The judge ruled the Conservative had "broke the spirit of the law" and then imposed penalties.

Canadian law is not that different from American law and you can bet that these types of rulings have probably caught the eye of many US lawyers. Don't be shocked if this kind of argument is used in Browner's suit. I don't like his odds, but to say Browner has zero chance of winning is far from the truth.

 

[Uhsplit]

I think it would be great for Mr. Allen to have BB's legal bill quietly sent to him. I think BB has a good argument and should get to play again, even for another team.
Punishment doesn't fit the crime in this case and the rule is a bad rule. Bad rules often get corrected through the legal system.
Best of luck to ya BB. I loved your play while you were here.

 

[WizardHawk]

Wizard seems to be stuck in the mindset that the NFL is infallible and that there is no court that can overturn the rules that they have imposed during the CBA.

Even if the NFLPA has agreed to those rules, the rules themselves can still be ruled as unconstitutional or a violation of individual rights.

I disagree that Browner has no shot at winning this. However if I were him I would be concerned about getting blacklisted by the league. It happened to Sam McCullum after the 1982 players strike.

Show me where I have said that. What I said was the league followed the letter of the policy and Browner has no legal leg to stand on to fight it. That is not saying there isn't any circumstance where the league has/or can fail and be help accountable. But I see we are at the stage where people start putting words in my mouth to make it worse than what I am actually saying.

Why are you all so bent on supporting this clown who selfishly left you all high and dry?

The reason he is out in the cold on this is he should have fought this when he was reinstated, not more than two years later after his second drug bust. There are also parts of that policy where it states you have 60 days after being informed of changes to your status to challenge it and it doesn't matter if you believe that he didn't know while he was gone and was only notified after he returned or not. He had a responsibility to fight this after he came back and chose not to do so. There is no room under the law for a challenge of it now. This slim hope of challenging an employers right to make any demands on you while not working for them is entirely moot because of it. That's my point.

Now you can choose not to agree with it, but please stop putting words in my mouth. Not only did I not say the league isn't fallible, but I clearly said the rule as it sits isn't fair. I simply pointed out that the rules should be changed moving forward, but that Browner will still be held to account for his violations under the rules as they stood. How is that supporting the league and their rules?

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Show me where I have said that. What I said was the league followed the letter of the policy and Browner has no legal leg to stand on to fight it. That is not saying there isn't any circumstance where the league has/or can fail and be help accountable. But I see we are at the stage where people start putting words in my mouth to make it worse than what I am actually saying.

Why are you all so bent on supporting this clown who selfishly left you all high and dry?

The reason he is out in the cold on this is he should have fought this when he was reinstated, not more than two years later after his second drug bust. There are also parts of that policy where it states you have 60 days after being informed of changes to your status to challenge it and it doesn't matter if you believe that he didn't know while he was gone and was only notified after he returned or not. He had a responsibility to fight this after he came back and chose not to do so. There is no room under the law for a challenge of it now. This slim hope of challenging an employers right to make any demands on you while not working for them is entirely moot because of it. That's my point.

Now you can choose not to agree with it, but please stop putting words in my mouth. Not only did I not say the league isn't fallible, but I clearly said the rule as it sits isn't fair. I simply pointed out that the rules should be changed moving forward, but that Browner will still be held to account for his violations under the rules as they stood. How is that supporting the league and their rules?

Browner and his lawyers seem to feel they have some legal leg to stand on. Perhaps they know something you don't? I'm sure you've seen a lawyer find a loophole in a contract and wiggle between the grey areas to win a case before. This is no different. If it was so cut and dried there wouldn't be so many writers on several sites discussing the in's and out's of Browner's case. Everyone assumed that Sherman would be suspended too, but he was able to use a very clever, seldom used policy regarding the specimen container (of all things) to win his case. Never say never is all people are saying on here. You're probably right and he'll probably lose but he still has a chance to win. Time will tell.

 

[WizardHawk]

Browner and his lawyers seem to feel they have some legal leg to stand on. Perhaps they know something you don't? I'm sure you've seen a lawyer find a loophole in a contract and wiggle between the grey areas to win a case before. This is no different. If it was so cut and dried there wouldn't be so many writers on several sites discussing the in's and out's of Browner's case. Everyone assumed that Sherman would be suspended too, but he was able to use a very clever, seldom used policy regarding the specimen container (of all things) to win his case. Never say never is all people are saying on here. You're probably right and he'll probably lose but he still has a chance to win. Time will tell.

So you are telling me that every time someone and their lawyer vociferously put forth a defense it is only because they know they are going to win?

There was no doubt they were going to fight this. That is what lawyers do. At this point he probably feels he has nothing left to lose, but I think he is very wrong. He would be better served to drop it and accept his accountability if he ever intends on coaching, broadcasting, or otherwise having the ability to cash in on other areas of football outside of playing. Suing the league will end up blacklisting him and could hurt him even worse. I fear he is getting bad advice from a bunch of bloodsucking attorneys who are going to profit from their case whether they win or not.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

So you are telling me that every time someone and their lawyer vociferously put forth a defense it is only because they know they are going to win?

There was no doubt they were going to fight this. That is what lawyers do. At this point he probably feels he has nothing left to lose, but I think he is very wrong. He would be better served to drop it and accept his accountability if he ever intends on coaching, broadcasting, or otherwise having the ability to cash in on other areas of football outside of playing. Suing the league will end up blacklisting him and could hurt him even worse. I fear he is getting bad advice from a bunch of bloodsucking attorneys who are going to profit from their case whether they win or not.

What if he wins? He has every right to fight this in court if he wants too and feels he has a case. At least one writer agrees the suspension is very odd.

"According to the “Continued Participation” section of the NFL/NFLPA drug policy: “A player who enters the Intervention Stages will remain in the Intervention Stages until the player is dismissed or released in accordance with the terms set forth herein. All such players must continue to comply with the conditions of the Intervention Program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (1) a player who is released and who has not been on a club roster for more than six consecutive regular or post season games (“Never-Rostered Player”) is not required to comply with the terms of his Treatment Plan, if any, or submit himself for Testing until he resigns with a club;......"

The curious case of Brandon Browner's suspension - CBSSports.com


Like I've said, you are probably right and the heavy hand of the NFL wins. But there is a chance he could still win this and continue his career. Why shouldn't he take that chance?

 

[WizardHawk]

And like I said, the reason he should consider not taking that chance is how it could hurt his chances of ever having any other job around the NFL. Playing careers are short, but the payday can continue will into your senior years in jobs around the league. It is very risky to destroy any chance at a future career over what is likely a long shot at best. What we have seen is this player doesn't appear to want to follow logic anyway so why should he start now? I just hope he isn't getting more bad advice from people just looking to make money off of him.

As for any article, they are all written by people with opinions as much as any facts. All of those things were brought up in the appeal and he was denied. They would not have done so if there were not strong evidence to support their use of the policy. Again, he had 60 days from the time of his reinstatement to challenge their placement of him in stage 3 and he didn't exercise that right. This is why he has problems that aren't likely going away.