The NFL Tried To Drug Test Chris Borland A Month After He Retired From The League

[Battlelyon]

Stocko Wrongo, what does this have to do with Tom Brady.

 

[Southieinnc]

Just an observation. Many of you (maybe younger guys) are giving away your rights.
I remember when this would have started demonstrations.
Little by little you are watching your rights get plundered.
You know how to cook a frog?
If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, the frog will jump out every time.
But if you put the frog in cool water and let it warm up a little at a time - he'll just sit there and cook.....

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Volition.

I promise I'm not usually that grammar Nazi guy, but this one bugged me inordinately for some reason.

And I'm not the guy to bitch at you for the correction...that was butchered.

 

[DutchBird]

Take the silly test like you agreed to.

Why are we even discussing this?

Except for one thing:

NOWHERE is it stated that one has to take tests AFTER retirement, which happened here. A retirement which in his case - at least - was pretty clear. So far nobody has provided any evidence for the existence of such a clause that would make testing after retirement legal. And to my knowledge that is the case in just about every other sport. So your argument seems to be nonsense - or this provision should be fought in court if it actually exists - and without any legal bases.

As soon as Borland retired (which he made obvious in numerous ways), he should be free to eat everything he likes, and take any medicine or supplement he needs: two things clearly NOT possible under the NFL substance/PED policies.

My guess is that - if it is indeed correct that Jeff George has yet to retire - the NFL should have him pee in a cup as well.

The retire/unretire loophole is easy to close - and has been closed in a number of sports: by stating that from the moment one has the intention to return one is - again - liable to drug testing, and that between that moment and the active participation in competition there is a certain period (3 or 6 months or so).


In many ways this seems either bureaucratic stupidity and bullying by the NFL, or an obvious case of harassment and trying to get out of legal obligations/hope for a smearing opportunity by the NFL and/or the Niners.

 

[NEhomer]

If you leave your own fruition at work you might get fired!

My only question is how prominently this course of action is outlined for the players and to what degree this guy's at fault for not factoring this in with his decision.

 

[gohusk]

How stupid is this. How long does the NFL own a guy anyway? If a guy isn't on a team roster then this really isn't any of the league's business. f the guy shows up somewhere then test away. Why not give fans drug tests as well? Maybe some day one of them will be on a roster! Maybe the NFL should own us all!

 

[gohusk]

Wonder if they're showing up at visitor hours trying to test Aaron Hernandez?

 

[Manster7588]

How stupid is this. How long does the NFL own a guy anyway? If a guy isn't on a team roster then this really isn't any of the league's business. f the guy shows up somewhere then test away. Why not give fans drug tests as well? Maybe some day one of them will be on a roster! Maybe the NFL should own us all!

Let them pay me league minimum, and they can test away. But no check means no test.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's a weak argument at best, but perfectly within their rights.

Let's say a player is dirty and does try to retire to avoid a test. How long does it take to get totally clean? They lose all of that game time/pay and have to be clean to come back. Given how often they are tested to begin with, what exactly is this preventing? Someone taking a substance one time, playing in a big game, and then retiring for months to avoid being caught? That has to be nearly a non issue.

The league still had the right to request it. And the player had the right to deny it. The article made it sound as if he only two options were to comply or look like he has something to hide. He had a third option which was to have an independent test done and release those results along with his own views of the request. He did have that separate test done anyway because of his distrust. Why take the league test along with it if you really intend to stay retired?

 

[Manster7588]

It's a weak argument at best, but perfectly within their rights.

Let's say a player is dirty and does try to retire to avoid a test. How long does it take to get totally clean? They lose all of that game time/pay and have to be clean to come back. Given how often they are tested to begin with, what exactly is this preventing? Someone taking a substance one time, playing in a big game, and then retiring for months to avoid being caught? That has to be nearly a non issue.

The league still had the right to request it. And the player had the right to deny it. The article made it sound as if he only two options were to comply or look like he has something to hide. He had a third option which was to have an independent test done and release those results along with his own views of the request. He did have that separate test done anyway because of his distrust. Why take the league test along with it if you really intend to stay retired?

Per the article he did have an independent test done. Both tests came back negative.

I can understand the whole avoiding tests issue but I've never heard of a retired player being tested before, maybe it's been done and it never became a media story.

 

[WizardHawk]

Per the article he did have an independent test done. Both tests came back negative.

I can understand the whole avoiding tests issue but I've never heard of a retired player being tested before, maybe it's been done and it never became a media story.

I said that. What I said was he could have ONLY done the independent test and said no to the league mandated one. It was an option outside of take their test or be slandered for not doing so.

 

[Center Ice]

I tend to expect pointless news from ESPN and they sure didn't disappoint. When you agree to a contract, you agree to all it contains and that includes what Borland may think is a pointless post retirement drug test. What he did was unusual for the NFL and has so few precedents that I suppose it raised a red flag. OK, that being said, if Borland thought something didn't pass the smell test, he was more than within his rights to have a duplicate test. I do however, tip my hat to him for being brave enough to leave.

Thanks ESPN <crickets>

 

[NinerSickness]

So does the NFL have any legal leverage to use in order to get him to take the drug test or penalize him for not taking it? I know they sometimes sue players to get part of a signing bonus back for various reasons. Like with Aaron Hernandez if memory serves?

 

[redseat]

I'm shocked Rock hasn't made a convoluted comparison of this horrible persecution and that of Tom Brady.

The NFL is so mean.

I think he was expecting/wanting you to do it...

 

[Manster7588]

I said that. What I said was he could have ONLY done the independent test and said no to the league mandated one. It was an option outside of take their test or be slandered for not doing so.

Sorry I missed that. I can't answer for him, but I know I wouldn't have taken it, even if I thought I may come back.

 

[GNG]

Why? He no longer works for the league?

You leave your place of work on your own fruition...a month later they want you piss in a cup? Go f-off. He has no pension, a partial signing bonus (which they tried to go after I think).

Rules are rules.

 

[DutchBird]

I said that. What I said was he could have ONLY done the independent test and said no to the league mandated one. It was an option outside of take their test or be slandered for not doing so.

Most likely that would have invited trouble big time, and one way or another be seen as a missed test = guilt. That is the way PED drug-testing works to this day in just about every other sport. Your best bet is to have another institution do a 2nd test on the same sample (and hope it is certified to do that testing - and even then if it ends up in a legal case (different results), the NFL will argue that the lab might not be recognized by them, and that therefore the competing test results are invalid); but I would guess there is no way to not have the NFL lab do the test and not be declared a PED user by default. Doesn't work that way in other sports, and I am extremeley doubtful it does work that way in the NFL.

 

[DutchBird]

Rules are rules.

Except that - so far - nobody has shown that it is within the rules that the NFL can test after retirement. And as stated before, that would be an extremely odd clause anyway, since retirement invalidates the obligation to stay clear from anything on the banned substances list - and any test after retirement could therefore result in a positive based on the ingestion of a banned substance after retirement. Something which could be anything: meat bought in the supermarket, doctor's prescription, poppy-seed sprinkled bagels, a joint, the wrong toothpaste or supplement and so on.

 

[GNG]

Except that - so far - nobody has shown that it is within the rules that the NFL can test after retirement. And as stated before, that would be an extremely odd clause anyway, since retirement invalidates the obligation to stay clear from anything on the banned substances list - and any test after retirement could therefore result in a positive based on the ingestion of a banned substance after retirement. Something which could be anything: meat bought in the supermarket, doctor's prescription, poppy-seed sprinkled bagels, a joint, the wrong toothpaste or supplement and so on.

Shit happens.

 

[DutchBird]

I tend to expect pointless news from ESPN and they sure didn't disappoint. When you agree to a contract, you agree to all it contains and that includes what Borland may think is a pointless post retirement drug test. What he did was unusual for the NFL and has so few precedents that I suppose it raised a red flag. OK, that being said, if Borland thought something didn't pass the smell test, he was more than within his rights to have a duplicate test. I do however, tip my hat to him for being brave enough to leave.

Thanks ESPN <crickets>

Ahum,

has anyone actually - so far - shown proof that the NFL has the right to conduct a post retirement drug test? Apart from the host of problems that brings with it:

- For how long does the NFL have the right to test players.
- How to prove that any positive result is in fact related to PEF/banned susbstance use before the player's retirement? Or rather the opposite - guilty by default.