Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
CrappiesNCats

The "Grey" Area in the Williams' Suspension Case

6 posts in this topic

from the pioneer press:

First, there cannot be discipline for testing positive for a drug not outlined by the state, he said.

"They can ban it in 49 states, but they can't ban it in Minnesota," said Kenas, noting that Bumetanide, which is contained in the banned diuretic taken by the Williamses, may be on the NFL's banned list but not on Minnesota's.

Second, there cannot be disciplinary action on a first positive test, and an employee must be given an opportunity to seek treatment if he is using illegal drugs without significant discipline or loss of his job, he said, referring to the Smokers' Rights Statute.

The core challenge will be getting a judge to put the employee's rights above the collective bargaining agreement.

"The issue is, can the union and the league negotiate a prohibition on activities and products that are otherwise protected by state law?" Tanick said. "That's a fuzzy and unresolved area of the law."

__________________________________________________________

there is obviously no question they failed a test (although if the CBA was the say all-end all, should have taken place the first four games of the season). This is the reason the issue is not cut and dry. its not because of labeling on the Starcaps, or because the NFL told McCallister that he could take it.

its pretty shady because under this law a state like Wisconsin could legalize roids and then the Packers players could take them which doesn't make any sense.

I don't think this will stand at all, but it is something the judge has to look at and see if the CBA is above state's rights. A reason we may not find a ruling until after the season is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's crazy. I don't agree with that long of susspension, but if you sign a contract and you take something that you aren't supposed to, shouldn't the contract you signed be above all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's crazy. I don't agree with that long of susspension, but if you sign a contract and you take something that you aren't supposed to, shouldn't the contract you signed be above all?

thats the question. does the contract and the CBA mean you give up your rights under MN law? thats what the judge has to decide, not about labeling on starcaps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its pretty shady because under this law a state like Wisconsin could legalize roids and then the Packers players could take them which doesn't make any sense.

You mean that would put them on an even playing field with the Vikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought of it as being particularly clever but I suppose it would seem that way to the average Vikings fan. grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0