Browner to sue the NFL next week

[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?

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?

I suspect the Lawyers would need to know the exact wording as a missed test and a positive test is different from 2 missed tests.
Legal technicalities and loopholes are how Lawyers make their reputations.
It will certainly be interesting to see what evidence their case contains - if we ever get to see it.

[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?

I suspect the Lawyers would need to know the exact wording as a missed test and a positive test is different from 2 missed tests.
Legal technicalities and loopholes are how Lawyers make their reputations.
It will certainly be interesting to see what evidence their case contains - if we ever get to see it.

I know that at my place of employment, refusing to take a drug test is treated exactly the same as testing positive. It's possible that the league has a similar philosophy regarding missing tests.

I'm still betting that the league wins this case, but then again, I'm the same guy that said that Sherman didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of overturning his suspension for PED's, so what do I know.

[NorthHawk]

Fine print in a legal document.

The next issue is what we discussed earlier - namely is the NFL permitted to require testing if the player is working for another employer.
I'm sure the Lawyers are looking at or have looked at that angle, too.

[Eaglehawk]

I'm still betting that the league wins this case, but then again, I'm the same guy that said that Sherman didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of overturning his suspension for PED's, so what do I know.

RD,

I am with you, but then we are in a vacuum unfortunately. Your analysis of the Sherman's case was actually not too far off given what we all knew at the start of the case. Its just that, through discovery you find out things that people would never have found out prior to filing the case. Like people screwing up protocol.

This is no slam dunk for Browner but his lawyers might be able to find out some information that proves their theory of the case. I really wish him the best. And I hope his lawyers leave no stone unturned.

[HumanCockroach]

I think the NFL's biggest hurdle in winning the case is proving that they followed the same protocol for punishment that they have with every player being handed out this punishment, and simply put, they didn't. Not sure how they get around that fact. It would be like your work requiring a certain criteria, and then skipping steps 2-4 for one and only one employee, just wouldn't fly should that employee decide for litigation.

They skipped 2 known steps in the punishment process. Doesn't work in the real world, not sure it will work in the "bubble" the NFL exists in.

Even IF the NFL wins, they are going to have egg on their face on this one in the court of public opinion. Browner didn't know he was in stage three, the Hawks didn't know he was in stage three, and they skipped steps in the process. Maybe they will be able to find a loop hole in court, but just don't see how that will work outside of it.

[RiverDog]

I think the NFL's biggest hurdle in winning the case is proving that they followed the same protocol for punishment that they have with every player being handed out this punishment, and simply put, they didn't. Not sure how they get around that fact. It would be like your work requiring a certain criteria, and then skipping steps 2-4 for one and only one employee, just wouldn't fly should that employee decide for litigation.

They skipped 2 known steps in the punishment process. Doesn't work in the real world, not sure it will work in the "bubble" the NFL exists in.

Even IF the NFL wins, they are going to have egg on their face on this one in the court of public opinion. Browner didn't know he was in stage three, the Hawks didn't know he was in stage three, and they skipped steps in the process. Maybe they will be able to find a loop hole in court, but just don't see how that will work outside of it.

Honest question: How many players have gotten to this level (Stage 3)? It can't be very many as the CBA has only been in effect for 1.5 years. This could be a test case for their policy.

[Anthony]

Biggest issue they will have is explaining how Browner was able to play for over a year plus without the Hawks and Browner being notified he was in stage 3. That is a huge issue the NFL cannot get around. and will impact the case big time.

[NorthHawk]

We are only assuming that he or the team didn't know he was in step 3. These things often have a different result when all of the facts are laid out.
I doubt we will see all the facts, but I would think we will be at least a little surprised at what is revealed one way or another - if anything is revealed at all.
I hope he wins big time. Careers are too short as it is to be docked pay and opportunity to get to Free Agency without a black mark against you.

It might end up being an Out of Court settlement and we might never know what actually happened. I hope not because it would be interesting to know how events actually unfolded and what the rules are.

[HumanCockroach]

I think the NFL's biggest hurdle in winning the case is proving that they followed the same protocol for punishment that they have with every player being handed out this punishment, and simply put, they didn't. Not sure how they get around that fact. It would be like your work requiring a certain criteria, and then skipping steps 2-4 for one and only one employee, just wouldn't fly should that employee decide for litigation.

They skipped 2 known steps in the punishment process. Doesn't work in the real world, not sure it will work in the "bubble" the NFL exists in.

Even IF the NFL wins, they are going to have egg on their face on this one in the court of public opinion. Browner didn't know he was in stage three, the Hawks didn't know he was in stage three, and they skipped steps in the process. Maybe they will be able to find a loop hole in court, but just don't see how that will work outside of it.

Honest question: How many players have gotten to this level (Stage 3)? It can't be very many as the CBA has only been in effect for 1.5 years. This could be a test case for their policy.

I don't have a clue how many are in it, but there has been a pretty long list of players that have gotten the punishments in stage two ( 4 game fines, and then 4 or 6 game suspensions w/ fines) in the last 5 years alone. Just not sure how the NFL can wash those penalties for stage 2. They can say he skipped the fines/suspension stage because he wasn't in the league, but IMO that just highlights that he wasn't an employee, and they were docking him even though they weren't notifying him, and he wasn't employed by the league. Really, I think that is the "crux" of the case, whether the court believes punishing a non employee for actions is justifiable.

I know Ricky Williams spent a year in some foreign country not playing football before coming back, and I doubt he was adhering to the testing policy, did he get moved up in the program? Did he simply not pay into the NFLPA ? I am pretty sure if a player doesn't he loses any benefits he may have had, lots of questions about it.

Not sure if that absolves the league, but IMHO it is important.

[RiverDog]

I think the NFL's biggest hurdle in winning the case is proving that they followed the same protocol for punishment that they have with every player being handed out this punishment, and simply put, they didn't. Not sure how they get around that fact. It would be like your work requiring a certain criteria, and then skipping steps 2-4 for one and only one employee, just wouldn't fly should that employee decide for litigation.

They skipped 2 known steps in the punishment process. Doesn't work in the real world, not sure it will work in the "bubble" the NFL exists in.

Even IF the NFL wins, they are going to have egg on their face on this one in the court of public opinion. Browner didn't know he was in stage three, the Hawks didn't know he was in stage three, and they skipped steps in the process. Maybe they will be able to find a loop hole in court, but just don't see how that will work outside of it.

Honest question: How many players have gotten to this level (Stage 3)? It can't be very many as the CBA has only been in effect for 1.5 years. This could be a test case for their policy.

I don't have a clue how many are in it, but there has been a pretty long list of players that have gotten the punishments in stage two ( 4 game fines, and then 4 or 6 game suspensions w/ fines) in the last 5 years alone. Just not sure how the NFL can wash those penalties for stage 2. They can say he skipped the fines/suspension stage because he wasn't in the league, but IMO that just highlights that he wasn't an employee, and they were docking him even though they weren't notifying him, and he wasn't employed by the league. Really, I think that is the "crux" of the case, whether the court believes punishing a non employee for actions is justifiable.

I know Ricky Williams spent a year in some foreign country not playing football before coming back, and I doubt he was adhering to the testing policy, did he get moved up in the program? Did he simply not pay into the NFLPA ? I am pretty sure if a player doesn't he loses any benefits he may have had, lots of questions about it.

Not sure if that absolves the league, but IMHO it is important.

How long has the current substance abuse policy been in effect? Was it not created or modified in the CBA that was ratified in August 2012? I doubt that they'll go that far back looking for precedents if there was significant changes to the substance abuse policy in the new CBA.

[HumanCockroach]

I doubt it has changed much but who knows. Not a lawyer. I know that the suspensions have been consistent for years, and has not changed, whether that means a stricter or more lenient policy, I haven't the foggiest, however the fines and suspensions are consistent.

[RiverDog]

I found a copy of the NFL's substance abuse policy. I'll post it whenever I get back to my desktop.

In it, it answers some questions some of us had posed, one of them that was raised by North Hawk. It says that it applies to all players that have not formally retired from the NFL, which would explain why Browner was still subject to it even though he no longer employed by a team in the NFL. When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense as players are quite frequently getting cut, signed, cut again, then signed again so often that the policy almost has to be a continuous process to insure a clean pool of players. It certainly differs from the real world as you don't often get hired, fired, rehired, fired again within short spans of time like players in the NFL do.

It also says that it supersedes a 1997 version. I don't know how much difference there is between the '97 version and the '12 version, but it would seem to me that the court would only go back as far as the newly ratified policy in looking for presidents, but what do I know. Like HC, I ain't no lawyer, and even if I were, that doesn't guarantee that one knows what a judge would decide.

[FolkCrusader]

The NFL caved anyway and reinstated Browner today. Remains to be seen under what conditions but for now he is a free agent.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n8f7qo