Browner to sue the NFL next week

[NorthHawk]

From PFT

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... next-week/

Copying and pasting from the article because I can do that.

"Browner will contend that the NFL continued to subject him to periodic drug testing after he was cut by the Denver Broncos in 2006. Browner also will contend that the NFL notified him of those tests at an address where he no longer resided, and that the NFLPA never informed him of the mounting penalties and suspensions arising from his failure to submit to testing during the five years after he was cut by the Broncos and returned to the NFL with the Seattle Seahawks."

I thought if a player misses a specified number of tests they are automatically suspended. If not, why would they take the tests?
If so, how did he get back into the league?

[mykc14]

From PFT

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... next-week/

Copying and pasting from the article because I can do that.

"Browner will contend that the NFL continued to subject him to periodic drug testing after he was cut by the Denver Broncos in 2006. Browner also will contend that the NFL notified him of those tests at an address where he no longer resided, and that the NFLPA never informed him of the mounting penalties and suspensions arising from his failure to submit to testing during the five years after he was cut by the Broncos and returned to the NFL with the Seattle Seahawks."

I thought if a player misses a specified number of tests they are automatically suspended. If not, why would they take the tests?
If so, how did he get back into the league?

This is why he is suing. Basically neither he nor the Seahawks knew that he should have been suspended upon re-entering the league with the Hawks. The league's inability to do this give Browner a pretty strong legal leg to stand on. Combine that with the fact that there is no way to prove that Browner ever received any of the NFL notifications while he was in the CFL and he has a very strong case, at least at this point.

[monkey]

This should be very interesting.
I think Browner has a very good case, and stands a very good chance to win.
Having said that, be sure the NFL knew full good-and-well that Browner would sue them after his hearing way back when, before the suspension was even handed down.
They knew he had a case, because the NFL has the very best attorneys to advise them, and yet they still moved forward with his suspension.
That tells me that those powerful attorneys assured the NFL they could win, or else the NFL is trying to set a precedent for something. Those guys don't go to wars they know they will lose, so either there is something bigger at stake they are willing to lose over, or else they know they will win.

I'm sure Browner's attorneys feel confident, just based on the little bit I know about the way this whole thing played out, I would think that Browner has an easy case. It sure appears that way to me, but again, at some point in time those powerful NFL attorneys advised the NFL to suspend Browner...

[NorthHawk]

The confusing part is they demanded tests while he was working for another employer (CFL).
I'm not sure how that might stand up in court. Not being a lawyer, common sense would suggest it's not enforceable.
Then again, when has the application of law been about common sense?

[Anthony]

Legally speaking a former employee cannot force an former employee to abide by any rules of employment when they are no longer employed by that company, with the exception of any non disclosure or non compete agreements, however the non compete are only good as long as they do not hinder a former employee form finding employment. Meaning if you worked for a company that does random drug tests, and you no longer work for them they cannot make you continue to take drug tests. The interesting part is going to be how many other former players continued to be asked to take drug tests once they left the NFL. If the answer is anything other than all of them the NFL is screwed. Legally speaking they are screwed anyway, I believe this is all about showing they will defend their rules right or wrong. If all the information available is all that we have been told, the NFL will loose.

[HumanCockroach]

It sounds like the NFL doesn't have a leg to stand on, but I have heard if he was still part of the NFLPA and continued to "seek employment" he was legally obligated to follow the NFL and NFLPA'S rules. However, one of those rules is that the player ( employee) must be served with a written date/ time and location for a drug test to be performed, if NFL was ( as reported) delivering to a residence which Browner no longer resided at, and did not follow it's OWN Protocal to get him to comply, I am unclear why the lawyers for the NFL would think they can win a case of this kind.

The thing I absolutely can't grasp, is WHY the NFLPA and NFL didn't bother to notify him what stage he was in, even after he returned to the league. That is either poor work by one of the two or both. Moving a employee into a suspension stage without, notifying them they are doing so, to the best of my knowledge is common practice from the tiniest to the largest companies in the US, and is expressly done so to AVOID LITIGATION, how they just skipped that step, doesn't seem very smart to me, but I guess what the hell do I know.

[c_hawkbob]

They can drag it out but BB wins a mondo settlement in the end.

[burrrton]

Yeah, I find it hard to believe the NFL would press this unless they were sure of their legal standing, but I sure as h3ll can't understand how that could be, and I've also heard a lot of legal analysts say he has a good chance of winning this.

[Anthony]

They can drag it out but BB wins a mondo settlement in the end.

Yea they will drag it out, BB will win big, but in the end he will never play FB in the NFL again, unless the injunction happens, and even them there is no guarantee any team will give him a chance. To NFL maybe it is a win as long as he does not play.

[Distant Relative]

I wonder if he was still paying NFL union dues while playing in Canada. Also, I wonder if Browner informed that NFL that he no longer lived at that address?

Not sure how it works in the NFL but for my Carpenters union, I can take time off if I wanted to for what ever reason and continue to pay my dues to keep me a "active" member in good standing. For example, if I were fired by a contractor and there was no work for me for what ever reason I could continue to pay my dues to the Carpenters union while working for another company. During that time if my name was drawn for a random drug test by the Carpenters I would have to go take it if I wanted to stay a member in good standing. FYI this never happened to me.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[jshawaii22]

Distant, you maybe on the right track. Union/Employer Labor law seems to trump everything else. This may come down to the language in the Labor Agreement between the NFL and the NLFPA that was in place when he first failed the first test in Denver. If the labor agreement's language put it on the player to notify the NFL if they move and if the labor agreement puts it on the player to keep themselves informed by checking in with the NFL "testing" people, this could be the NFL's out. Was it up to the league to 'find' Brandon or up to Brandon to keep the league informed.

js

[monkey]

They can drag it out but BB wins a mondo settlement in the end.

Yea they will drag it out, BB will win big, but in the end he will never play FB in the NFL again, unless the injunction happens, and even them there is no guarantee any team will give him a chance. To NFL maybe it is a win as long as he does not play.

I suppose that's possible, but for the life of me I cannot see why that would be the case.
There are players on just about every team that have been in far more trouble than Browner, real legal off field trouble, and yet they keep getting jobs.
I just don't see why the NFL would have a personal vendetta against Browner when he hasn't done anything that MANY other players haven't also done, and far far worse.
Personally I think it makes more sense that the NFL is trying to set some kind of precedent here, than to think it's some kind of personal thing against Browner.

[Hawktawk]

I just want to know how Seattle could have 2 DBs suspended during the playoff push 2 years in a row and the gangster from NE never got tested even though it has been reported he was using PCP as well as smoking multiple cigar wraps after games. Oh yeah he also may have killed at least 3 people. This NFL drug witch hunt is a joke. You go Brandon.

[Eaglehawk]

I just want to know how Seattle could have 2 DBs suspended during the playoff push 2 years in a row and the gangster from NE never got tested even though it has been reported he was using PCP as well as smoking multiple cigar wraps after games. Oh yeah he also may have killed at least 3 people. This NFL drug witch hunt is a joke. You go Brandon.

Gangsters respect other gangsters.

Issues in the case:
1. Why was Browner not actively in the NFL required to take drug tests anyway? Were other NFL players who were similarly situated to Browner required to take tests.

2. DId NFL have an affirmative duty to call Browner if his address was incorrect, or was it on Browner? Would the NFL have reason to even know that his address was incorrect. Did they send the mails certified return receipt requested? If so, then who signed? Regular mail for something so important does not cut it in my opinion. (Advantage Browner).

3. Notice. This is probably the most important part of the case. All kinds of notice issues, from informing Browner what level he was on, to warnings issued by mail that he never received, to welcome letters from the NFL and the league that, probably contained no notice as to his precarious position if he reoffended. etc.


Not all inclusive of course, but off the top of my head. Browner has a good case, but its not a slam dunk by any means.

[Anthony]

Distant, you maybe on the right track. Union/Employer Labor law seems to trump everything else. This may come down to the language in the Labor Agreement between the NFL and the NLFPA that was in place when he first failed the first test in Denver. If the labor agreement's language put it on the player to notify the NFL if they move and if the labor agreement puts it on the player to keep themselves informed by checking in with the NFL "testing" people, this could be the NFL's out. Was it up to the league to 'find' Brandon or up to Brandon to keep the league informed.

js

That could be true but regardless it is also on the NFL and NFLPA to let a team know that player is on a list, and is suspended or could be suspended before they are signed and playing. There is lies a bigger issue for the NFL, they failed to notify a team looking to sign the player.

[Anthony]

I just want to know how Seattle could have 2 DBs suspended during the playoff push 2 years in a row and the gangster from NE never got tested even though it has been reported he was using PCP as well as smoking multiple cigar wraps after games. Oh yeah he also may have killed at least 3 people. This NFL drug witch hunt is a joke. You go Brandon.

Gangsters respect other gangsters.

Issues in the case:
1. Why was Browner not actively in the NFL required to take drug tests anyway? Were other NFL players who were similarly situated to Browner required to take tests.

2. DId NFL have an affirmative duty to call Browner if his address was incorrect, or was it on Browner? Would the NFL have reason to even know that his address was incorrect. Did they send the mails certified return receipt requested? If so, then who signed? Regular mail for something so important does not cut it in my opinion. (Advantage Browner).

3. Notice. This is probably the most important part of the case. All kinds of notice issues, from informing Browner what level he was on, to warnings issued by mail that he never received, to welcome letters from the NFL and the league that, probably contained no notice as to his precarious position if he reoffended. etc.


Not all inclusive of course, but off the top of my head. Browner has a good case, but its not a slam dunk by any means.

He was playing in the CFL how hard would it have been to google him? Answer not very, and again if they have not had every player not playing in the NFL any longer submit to drug tests despite not being in the NFL they are screwed. I am betting there have been others that were not contacted. Interestingly if you retire I bet they no longer test you, but you can un retire and then they start testing you again, if true they are screwed. And again why once he was back in the NFl did no one notify him or the Hawks his status? There are way o any questions and way to many dropped balls for the NFL to have a chance.

[HumanCockroach]

One of the most interesting parts of this IMHO is WHY Browner somehow skipped multiple steps in the process. Typically there is a 4 game paycheck fine, followed by a 4 game suspension, followed by the "indefinite" suspension. Browner went from 1 failed test in Denver to "indefinite" suspension for second failed test, skipping everything in between. The "missed" positives are just a piece of the puzzle, why did the NFL not notify the Seahawks when they signed him? Much less Browner, I mean Goodell WORKS for Paul Allen, not the other way around. Something really fishy with this whole deal, and something doesn't seem right. The NFL I don't believe is in the habit of intentionally making themselves look like fools, which it honestly seems they are in the process of doing on this one........

[Eaglehawk]

I just want to know how Seattle could have 2 DBs suspended during the playoff push 2 years in a row and the gangster from NE never got tested even though it has been reported he was using PCP as well as smoking multiple cigar wraps after games. Oh yeah he also may have killed at least 3 people. This NFL drug witch hunt is a joke. You go Brandon.

Gangsters respect other gangsters.

Issues in the case:
1. Why was Browner not actively in the NFL required to take drug tests anyway? Were other NFL players who were similarly situated to Browner required to take tests.

2. DId NFL have an affirmative duty to call Browner if his address was incorrect, or was it on Browner? Would the NFL have reason to even know that his address was incorrect. Did they send the mails certified return receipt requested? If so, then who signed? Regular mail for something so important does not cut it in my opinion. (Advantage Browner).

3. Notice. This is probably the most important part of the case. All kinds of notice issues, from informing Browner what level he was on, to warnings issued by mail that he never received, to welcome letters from the NFL and the league that, probably contained no notice as to his precarious position if he reoffended. etc.


Not all inclusive of course, but off the top of my head. Browner has a good case, but its not a slam dunk by any means.

He was playing in the CFL how hard would it have been to google him? Answer not very, and again if they have not had every player not playing in the NFL any longer submit to drug tests despite not being in the NFL they are screwed. I am betting there have been others that were not contacted. Interestingly if you retire I bet they no longer test you, but you can un retire and then they start testing you again, if true they are screwed. And again why once he was back in the NFl did no one notify him or the Hawks his status? There are way o any questions and way to many dropped balls for the NFL to have a chance.

That's one of the tenets of employment law, you have to create paper before you whack a guy or else it won't work. Here even though the NFL might state he had notice that they sent to him at the old address, it seems to me that procedurally they did not reaffirm this status when he began playing for the Hawks. It would have been easy to do, especially since I assume that not many players would be in that category.

Strange situation here. Browner has a case and I hope he wins.

[kalibane]

The NFL considers his missed tests as fails so even though he wasn't tested he kept getting bumped up in the in the program. The lack of reasonability on the part of the NFL (especially in light of the NFL considering allowance of medical marijuana, and the overall trend towards legalization) is really appalling.

The bad thing is it's not just a question of whether he plays again. Considering his age, this was Browner's only bite at getting a nice contract in the NFL. Even if he gets back into the league he can forget whatever contract he was in line for. He'll be back to playing near the league minimum for the rest of his career. I really hope he wins a nice settlement/judgment because the league office has basically killed his earning potential by 500-1000% over a technicality that by the terms of the CBA never should have been available for public consumption to begin with.

[RiverDog]

I wonder if he was still paying NFL union dues while playing in Canada. Also, I wonder if Browner informed that NFL that he no longer lived at that address?

Not sure how it works in the NFL but for my Carpenters union, I can take time off if I wanted to for what ever reason and continue to pay my dues to keep me a "active" member in good standing. For example, if I were fired by a contractor and there was no work for me for what ever reason I could continue to pay my dues to the Carpenters union while working for another company. During that time if my name was drawn for a random drug test by the Carpenters I would have to go take it if I wanted to stay a member in good standing. FYI this never happened to me.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Nice post, DR. Those are very relevant points. The article noted that courts tend to yield to agreements made in the collective bargaining process. But I don't know why Browner would remain in the NFLPA and continue to pay dues while he was playing in the CFL.

As the article stated, courts have the tendency to side with what ever is outlined in a collective bargaining agreement, so it may not be as much of a slam dunk case for Browner as most are suggesting. I have a hard time believing that the NFL would take such drastic action against Browner if it had any chance of opening themselves up to a mega lawsuit like this.

[Distant Relative]

I wonder if he was still paying NFL union dues while playing in Canada. Also, I wonder if Browner informed that NFL that he no longer lived at that address?

Not sure how it works in the NFL but for my Carpenters union, I can take time off if I wanted to for what ever reason and continue to pay my dues to keep me a "active" member in good standing. For example, if I were fired by a contractor and there was no work for me for what ever reason I could continue to pay my dues to the Carpenters union while working for another company. During that time if my name was drawn for a random drug test by the Carpenters I would have to go take it if I wanted to stay a member in good standing. FYI this never happened to me.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Nice post, DR. Those are very relevant points. The article noted that courts tend to yield to agreements made in the collective bargaining process. But I don't know why Browner would remain in the NFLPA and continue to pay dues while he was playing in the CFL.

As the article stated, courts have the tendency to side with what ever is outlined in a collective bargaining agreement, so it may not be as much of a slam dunk case for Browner as most are suggesting. I have a hard time believing that the NFL would take such drastic action against Browner if it had any chance of opening themselves up to a mega lawsuit like this.

But I don't know why Browner would remain in the NFLPA and continue to pay dues while he was playing in the CFL.

Ya River, I'm not sure how it works for them but like I said, unless you retire or are just done with the union you need to keep paying your dues to stay a member or you would be suspended or expelled for lack of a better term. My monthly dues are only 20.00 a month, I'm sure it's much higher for NFL players. I just can't Imagine why the NFL continued to send Browner drug test request if he was no longer a member. I'm really interested about how this thing turns out.

[NorthHawk]

Regardless of which union he might be in, he had a different employer.
Say he was in the Teamsters Union and moved from one business to another still with the same Union affiliation. Can the former employer continue to demand doping tests?

Somehow I doubt it as they are separate businesses, just like the CFL and NFL.

[Eaglehawk]

Nice post, DR. Those are very relevant points. The article noted that courts tend to yield to agreements made in the collective bargaining process. But I don't know why Browner would remain in the NFLPA and continue to pay dues while he was playing in the CFL.

As the article stated, courts have the tendency to side with what ever is outlined in a collective bargaining agreement, so it may not be as much of a slam dunk case for Browner as most are suggesting. I have a hard time believing that the NFL would take such drastic action against Browner if it had any chance of opening themselves up to a mega lawsuit like this.

As you know, I indicated in my post that this is not a slam dunk for many reasons:

1. Too many unknowns here. We don't know what Browner's CBA actually said. Does it give the NFL the right to demand testing to all players who are members? I doubt it.
2. We also don't know their change of address policy.
3. We don't know what Browner knew and when he knew it. (He is saying stuff now, but does the evidence substantiate this)?
4. Notice issues previously mentioned.


Once case is filed, they will need to do requests for discovery from the NFL I suspect that a portion of that discovery will be requiring the NFL to cough up its policy manuals on drug testing of players in Browners situation.
Then there is the question of emails, related to Browner, etc. Maybe someone knew that the address was not legit and emailed someone? Maybe they tried calling Browner? Again this should have been documented. I have seen cases where addresses have been transposed incorrectly and digits of phone numbers off from what people have given them.

All kinds of scenarios including what was previously mentioned.
Not a slam dunk, but with me not knowing the facts, enough to pass CR Rule 11 muster IMO.

[NorthHawk]

The biggest thing in his favor is they let him play after missing all those tests.
Can any player just miss tests and go to the 3rd stage? If so, why would they ever take the tests?

Clearly something is messed up with the process as it related to him.

[RiverDog]

Regardless of which union he might be in, he had a different employer.
Say he was in the Teamsters Union and moved from one business to another still with the same Union affiliation. Can the former employer continue to demand doping tests?

Somehow I doubt it as they are separate businesses, just like the CFL and NFL.

My guess is that they can. I know that random drug testing is part of the requirements of keeping certain licenses valid, such as a CDL or a nursing license, no matter which employer you're working for or if you're not working at all. DR's electricians union is just one example. I suppose if a player wants to maintain his "license" or elgibility to play NFL football, he has to take the tests.

I'm sure that the NFL has fleshed this thing out pretty well by soliciting opinions from the legal community well before they proposed the policy, and I'm equally sure that the union researched the legality of it as well before they signed off on the agreement. Nothing's for sure when it goes to court, but given that the two parties agreed to this policy, IMO the only question is whether or not Browner violated it. I doubt that he stands much of a chance if he's going to challenge the legality of the policy itself.

[HumanCockroach]

Just not sure how the NFL can justify the fine, and 4 game suspension steps being skipped in Browner and only Browners case. That is the NFL's punishment model and in this case they simply ignored it. Strange, and IMO that could be their biggest hurdle to be successful against Browner.

[NorthHawk]

Regardless of which union he might be in, he had a different employer.
Say he was in the Teamsters Union and moved from one business to another still with the same Union affiliation. Can the former employer continue to demand doping tests?

Somehow I doubt it as they are separate businesses, just like the CFL and NFL.

My guess is that they can. I know that random drug testing is part of the requirements of keeping certain licenses valid, such as a CDL or a nursing license, no matter which employer you're working for or if you're not working at all. DR's electricians union is just one example. I suppose if a player wants to maintain his "license" or elgibility to play NFL football, he has to take the tests.

I'm sure that the NFL has fleshed this thing out pretty well by soliciting opinions from the legal community well before they proposed the policy, and I'm equally sure that the union researched the legality of it as well before they signed off on the agreement. Nothing's for sure when it goes to court, but given that the two parties agreed to this policy, IMO the only question is whether or not Browner violated it. I doubt that he stands much of a chance if he's going to challenge the legality of the policy itself.

But the drug testing would be performed by the new business who now employs him, not the old business which should have no say.
Being part of a Union or Association doesn't give a former employer the right to manage or punish a former employee.

[RiverDog]

Just not sure how the NFL can justify the fine, and 4 game suspension steps being skipped in Browner and only Browners case. That is the NFL's punishment model and in this case they simply ignored it. Strange, and IMO that could be their biggest hurdle to be successful against Browner.

He did get a 4 game suspension, last season. He's been suspended indefinitely. That doesn't necessarily mean permanently, only that they have yet to decide on a length of the suspension.

What's the next step in the substance abuse policy after the 4 game suspension? 8 games? Season long?

[RiverDog]

But the drug testing would be performed by the new business who now employs him, not the old business which should have no say.
Being part of a Union or Association doesn't give a former employer the right to manage or punish a former employee.

I really don't know how the league can justify continuing to test former players. Perhaps former players have an option to be covered by a health care plan sponsored by the league and that as part of that coverage, the player agrees to submit to drug testing in order to maintain their eligibility to play again and teams want some sort of assurance that they're not on drugs when they go to re-sign them.

[NorthHawk]

I suppose that's why Lawyers are involved for looking at the CBA and labor law.

[RiverDog]

I suppose that's why Lawyers are involved for looking at the CBA and labor law.

Yea, no wonder the United States has far more lawyers per capita than any country on the planet.

[Distant Relative]

http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/48 ... awsuit.htm

Shaffer added that he will be filing the claims in Colorado, which is one of the two states who have legalized marijuana for medical and recreational purposes.
Read more at http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/48 ... 66u9cHC.99

Didn't Washington State also legalize marijuana? I don't see the point of filing in Colorado.??

[FolkCrusader]

Just not sure how the NFL can justify the fine, and 4 game suspension steps being skipped in Browner and only Browners case. That is the NFL's punishment model and in this case they simply ignored it. Strange, and IMO that could be their biggest hurdle to be successful against Browner.

He did get a 4 game suspension, last season. He's been suspended indefinitely. That doesn't necessarily mean permanently, only that they have yet to decide on a length of the suspension.

What's the next step in the substance abuse policy after the 4 game suspension? 8 games? Season long?

The 4 game suspension was for performance enhancing drugs RD, two different things, two different disciplinary paths.

[HumanCockroach]

Just not sure how the NFL can justify the fine, and 4 game suspension steps being skipped in Browner and only Browners case. That is the NFL's punishment model and in this case they simply ignored it. Strange, and IMO that could be their biggest hurdle to be successful against Browner.

He did get a 4 game suspension, last season. He's been suspended indefinitely. That doesn't necessarily mean permanently, only that they have yet to decide on a length of the suspension.

What's the next step in the substance abuse policy after the 4 game suspension? 8 games? Season long?

Browners four game suspension was for PED's which is an entirely different program than the substance abuse policy. It should have gone 4 game paycheck FINE ( money only) followed by 4 game suspension ( like Thurmond, games and paychecks) followed by "indefinite" suspension. Problem is in order to even get to the third stage at ALL that 4 game suspeniosn and the 4 game fine occur in the second stage, which in Browners case was completely ignored.

[RiverDog]

I thought PED's were incorporated into the substance abuse policy, but if not, then my bad.

[Eaglehawk]

Browners four game suspension was for PED's which is an entirely different program than the substance abuse policy. It should have gone 4 game paycheck FINE ( money only) followed by 4 game suspension ( like Thurmond, games and paychecks) followed by "indefinite" suspension. Problem is in order to even get to the third stage at ALL that 4 game suspeniosn and the 4 game fine occur in the second stage, which in Browners case was completely ignored.

Wow HC, did not know that. Thanks for that. This info is very enlightening.

[HumanCockroach]

Browners four game suspension was for PED's which is an entirely different program than the substance abuse policy. It should have gone 4 game paycheck FINE ( money only) followed by 4 game suspension ( like Thurmond, games and paychecks) followed by "indefinite" suspension. Problem is in order to even get to the third stage at ALL that 4 game suspeniosn and the 4 game fine occur in the second stage, which in Browners case was completely ignored.

Wow HC, did not know that. Thanks for that. This info is very enlightening.

Wish I didn't know it, as it would mean that in the last two years, I didn't have to learn it, because of the actions of the players on this team, which would have been a-ok with me.....

[Distant Relative]

policies

By Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post

Posted: 07/23/2013 12:01:00 AM MDT4 comments

Updated: 07/23/2013 12:28:51 AM MDT




The NFL has separate policies covering substance abuse and performance-enhancing drugs. The two policies differ in enforcement. A look:

In the PED policy, players are tested at the scouting combine before their rookie seasons. Once they are in the league, players can be tested in the offseason, during the season and in the postseason.

A positive test results in an immediate four-game suspension.

Players can appeal the suspension within five business days of receiving "notice of discipline" from NFL.

The first positive test for a "substance of abuse" results in the player formally entering an enhanced testing/treatment program, where the player is tested more frequently.

A second positive test results in the player entering the "stages of intervention" outlined in the policy. "Stage 1" is the first stage in the policy and includes the player being referred to a "Regional Team" for his treatment. In Stage 1, the player can be tested as many times as the league's "Medical Director" desires to "adequately evaluate the player."

A positive test while in Stage 1 can result in a fine equal to three weeks of a player's pay and results in entrance to Stage 2.

A player remains under Stage 1 guidelines for 90 days, but the league's Medical Director can extend that time up to six months.

In Stage 2, players are subject to unannounced testing up to 10 times a month. A positive test while in Stage 2 or failure to comply with the treatment program results in a fine equal to four game checks and a four-game suspension.

Six-game suspensions are also possible in Stage 2.

Players can appeal the fine and suspension within five business days of receiving the "notice of discipline."

Players remain in Stage 2 for two full seasons or 24 consecutive months, whichever is shorter.

Players move to Stage 3 if they have two positive tests when in Stage 2 or one positive test to go with one instance when the player failed to comply with the program.

Players who are placed into Stage 3 remain in Stage 3 for the remainder of their careers.

The minimum suspension for a violation in Stage 3 is a calendar year.

[NorthHawk]

So do we know if Browner was ever in Stage 2?
Another question is does it say a player missing tests is automatically put in Stage 3?

[RiverDog]

So do we know if Browner was ever in Stage 2?
Another question is does it say a player missing tests is automatically put in Stage 3?

It says they need two positives or one positive and a missed test while they're in Stage 2. I would surmise that missing a test equals a positive test, so if he missed two tests, he would have automatically been put into Stage 3. Does that make sense?

The next question is did he know he was in Stage 3, and if not, why not?