BB Suspended Indefinitely

[Laloosh]

What I find interesting is that until the suspension was officially issued, the league is required to maintain confidentiality on the subject. I understand if a random reporter gets info, he is not held to that standard, but I would think the leagues own media site would have to adhere to said rules.

Is NFL.com (and the nfl in general) not held liable for reporting on such issues prior to them being officially released?

Even if the two entities are separate and the reporting arm cannot be held accountable, the information being reported on, which it would seem to me is PHI (PHI is any information held by a covered entity which concerns health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to an individual) and it's a big no no to share (or inadvertently expose) PHI.

Do we have any attorneys in the house that can speak to this? It's a stretch for me to speak to this so I should tread lightly.

 

[Polaris]

Bring in the lawyers, this is goona get ugly.

Not for the Seahawks--Browner's irrelevent to us now.

Not completely. If the NFL determines that the Seahawks as a team are being "insufficiently vigilant" at enforcing the rules, they can fine the team (I believe that's already happened) and may even forfeit draft picks. If Browner can beat this, it helps the Seahawks.

 

[hawk45]

I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling.

The part I can't get behind is when the league is painted as if they're violating basic human rights for drug testing for weed. Come on, an employer can fire you if you don't wear a blue polo to work if it's the company uniform and it's in the contract. You sign what you sign. If it violates your moral code that your workplace drug tests you, stay unemployed.

yeah, they're violating our basic human rights. How about if they say in the contract that we get fired if we don't sacrifice our first born on Winter Solstice?

I mean IT'S IN THE FREAKING CONTRACT RIGHT?!?

It's illegal to take away people's rights they are legally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. So it's one thing when a guy agrees to wear a polo shirt, but to make demands on how they live their lives outside of the workplace is totalitarian and onerous and just because they have economic leverage - go unemployed and starve if you don't agree to it - does not make it right. It's still a violation of our basic rights.

It's clearly not illegal to restrict out-of-work activities. You feel it is immoral or unethical, but your personal feelings do not signify in matters of legality. Going to the extreme end of child sacrifice hurts your argument more than it helps for anyone able to distinguish between emotionally-driven hyperbole in an appeal-to-emotion type of argument and an actual legitimate and relevant counterexample.

Especially in public-facing professions, many times people are let go when they have publicly transgressed in a way that might hurt the image of the company. Expansive morals clauses (those that disallow even lawful scandalous action) frequently appear in contracts for entertainment-based professions. NFL teams know their athletes already face a perception problem, they don't want to be perceived like the "Jailblazers" were some years ago.

 

[hawk45]

I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling.

The part I can't get behind is when the league is painted as if they're violating basic human rights for drug testing for weed. Come on, an employer can fire you if you don't wear a blue polo to work if it's the company uniform and it's in the contract. You sign what you sign. If it violates your moral code that your workplace drug tests you, stay unemployed.

Drug testing for weed isn't the issue. The issue is the requirement that you be yield to drug tests while not employed by the any team in the NFL and not living nor employed in this country and failing to do so yields discipline. Separately that the league claims these tests remain confidential, yet the league itself spreads false and malicious reports through their own media outlet about PED usage that they knew to be false.

If you expect 100% compliance from the player, the league must be held to the same 100% standard. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the same argument Richard Sherman used to successfully overturn his suspension.

Basis, I agree with everything you mentioned concerning how the league mishandled the testing, the process, the public disclosures, all of it. I thought I made that clear when I said "I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling."

 

[Polaris]

There is a difference between activities that are out-of-work, but might negatively affect your work related activities or image, and activities that you do when you are not even employed by the entity in question.

The NFL would have us believe that their rules are enforceable on people that don't even work for them any more. I don't buy it.

 

[hawk45]

There is a difference between activities that are out-of-work, but might negatively affect your work related activities or image, and activities that you do when you are not even employed by the entity in question.

The NFL would have us believe that their rules are enforceable on people that don't even work for them any more. I don't buy it.

Absolutely, which is why I draw a distinction between the 2 issues.

Issue 1: Browner being penalized for actions occurring when he was not employed by the NFL. In this, the NFL seems to be totally in the wrong.

Issue 2: The idea that drug-testing of any athlete, period, violates a basic human right. On a personal level, I disagree with this idea. Current law also disagrees.

 

[Basis4day]

I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling.

The part I can't get behind is when the league is painted as if they're violating basic human rights for drug testing for weed. Come on, an employer can fire you if you don't wear a blue polo to work if it's the company uniform and it's in the contract. You sign what you sign. If it violates your moral code that your workplace drug tests you, stay unemployed.

Drug testing for weed isn't the issue. The issue is the requirement that you be yield to drug tests while not employed by the any team in the NFL and not living nor employed in this country and failing to do so yields discipline. Separately that the league claims these tests remain confidential, yet the league itself spreads false and malicious reports through their own media outlet about PED usage that they knew to be false.

If you expect 100% compliance from the player, the league must be held to the same 100% standard. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the same argument Richard Sherman used to successfully overturn his suspension.

Basis, I agree with everything you mentioned concerning how the league mishandled the testing, the process, the public disclosures, all of it. I thought I made that clear when I said "I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling."

My apologies. I guess i just really want to hammer home the legal issue as it relates to BB to as many browsers/.net'ers as possible.

 

[hawk45]

I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling.

The part I can't get behind is when the league is painted as if they're violating basic human rights for drug testing for weed. Come on, an employer can fire you if you don't wear a blue polo to work if it's the company uniform and it's in the contract. You sign what you sign. If it violates your moral code that your workplace drug tests you, stay unemployed.

Drug testing for weed isn't the issue. The issue is the requirement that you be yield to drug tests while not employed by the any team in the NFL and not living nor employed in this country and failing to do so yields discipline. Separately that the league claims these tests remain confidential, yet the league itself spreads false and malicious reports through their own media outlet about PED usage that they knew to be false.

If you expect 100% compliance from the player, the league must be held to the same 100% standard. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the same argument Richard Sherman used to successfully overturn his suspension.

Basis, I agree with everything you mentioned concerning how the league mishandled the testing, the process, the public disclosures, all of it. I thought I made that clear when I said "I'm totally behind suing and embarrassing the league over this stage 1 vs stage 3 mishandling."

My apologies. I guess i just really want to hammer home the legal issue as it relates to BB to as many browsers/.net'ers as possible.

Hey that's a worthy goal. The NFL has a lot of egg on their face surrounding this, and it has the potential to basically end BB's career. That is total crap.

As you say, if you're going force players to live with the (very very large) consequences of a signed contract, you should damned well live up to every word in there as well.

I hope the NFL gets trucked by BB's attorneys and have to pay for damage done to his image with the false reports and checks he's missing, the whole ball of wax.

At some point there may come a settlement offer, I almost hope BB says no thanks, I want to see a judgment that the NFL really effed this up.

 

[Basis4day]

There is a difference between activities that are out-of-work, but might negatively affect your work related activities or image, and activities that you do when you are not even employed by the entity in question.

The NFL would have us believe that their rules are enforceable on people that don't even work for them any more. I don't buy it.

Absolutely, which is why I draw a distinction between the 2 issues.

Issue 1: Browner being penalized for actions occurring when he was not employed by the NFL. In this, the NFL seems to be totally in the wrong.

Issue 2: The idea that drug-testing of any athlete, period, violates a basic human right. On a personal level, I disagree with this idea. Current law also disagrees.

The idea of drug testing is fully within the rights of a corporation doing business across multiple states as the NFL does. The manner in which they implement their drug testing protocol is absurd. I'd actually really prefer the players be allowed access to medical marijuana for pain management purposes, rather than subject them opiates like Vicodin and Percocet.

 

[BocciHawk]

"The idea of drug testing is fully within the rights of a corporation doing business across multiple states as the NFL does."

Sure, but can they require this of ex employees? What about people who aren't even in the United States? More to the point, what about ex employees who aren't even in the United States and aren't even members of the NFLPA which is where these rules are written down?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Sure, but can they require this of ex employees? What about people who aren't even in the United States? More to the point, what about ex employees who aren't even in the United States and aren't even members of the NFLPA which is where these rules are written down?

While I agree this doesn't sound fair, everything I've read says that the league makes it very clear to players going off to Canada that they still have to test while away from the NFL to stay in good standing with the drug program............and they league says Browner WAS notified in writing of this...............and they say they have proof..........thus the suspension being upheld.

Either way Browner's still an idiot in my book for even flirting being in stage 2 or stage 3, whichever he thought he was in. He just cost him and his family MILLIONS of dollars. He might come back, but he isn't going to get paid like he was about to get paid this off season. Now he gets to go back to Canada and make 200k.

 

[Hawkstorian]

People keep weighing in on what's "right" or "wrong" or even "legal". It has nothing to do with any of those things.

It has to do with the terms of a collectively bargained agreement. That is why the NFL is not going to give in a single millimeter.

 

[Polaris]

While I agree this doesn't sound fair, everything I've read says that the league makes it very clear to players going off to Canada that they still have to test while away from the NFL to stay in good standing with the drug program............and they league says Browner WAS notified in writing of this...............and they say they have proof..........thus the suspension being upheld.

Not only does it not sound fair, I don't believe (caveat: IANAL) it is fair under the fair labour laws of this country. You can not be bound to a term in any contract that violates your rights. That is what Browner's case revolves around IMHO.

Just because you agree to it in a contract does not mean the any term in said contract is enforceable.

 

[Polaris]

People keep weighing in on what's "right" or "wrong" or even "legal". It has nothing to do with any of those things.

It has to do with the terms of a collectively bargained agreement. That is why the NFL is not going to give in a single millimeter.

Except the NFL is playing with fire. If it's determined by a Federal Judge that one or more terms in the CBA (or a signed contract) violate a worker's rights, then that term of the CBA is void. You can not be held (even by a CBA or contract) to an unfair labour practice....and Browner's case sure looks like an unfair labour practice.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

While I agree this doesn't sound fair, everything I've read says that the league makes it very clear to players going off to Canada that they still have to test while away from the NFL to stay in good standing with the drug program............and they league says Browner WAS notified in writing of this...............and they say they have proof..........thus the suspension being upheld.

Not only does it not sound fair, I don't believe (caveat: IANAL) it is fair under the fair labour laws of this country. You can not be bound to a term in any contract that violates your rights. That is what Browner's case revolves around IMHO.

Just because you agree to it in a contract does not mean the any term in said contract is enforceable.

I'm no labor union expert, but isn't that why individual workers collectively appoint and pay lawyers and union chiefs? To negotiate and write up the legal binding documents that they have to abide while working? If the player's union agreed to this verbage and notification process in their CBA, then I don't see how it CANNOT be legal and binding.

Now maybe Browner and his lawyer can fight the whole "we weren't notified correctly" or "tainted sample" complaints. But as far as what you're saying? They don't have a leg to stand on if all that is truly in the CBA, which the league just proved it was this week.

 

[Hawkstorian]

[Except the NFL is playing with fire. If it's determined by a Federal Judge that one or more terms in the CBA (or a signed contract) violate a worker's rights, then that term of the CBA is void. You can not be held (even by a CBA or contract) to an unfair labour practice....and Browner's case sure looks like an unfair labour practice.

You may be right, but the NFL is run by a lawyer and has I imagine a zillion or so lawyer's working strictly on labor relations, and evidently that's a fight they believe they will win.

 

[Basis4day]

While I agree this doesn't sound fair, everything I've read says that the league makes it very clear to players going off to Canada that they still have to test while away from the NFL to stay in good standing with the drug program............and they league says Browner WAS notified in writing of this...............and they say they have proof..........thus the suspension being upheld.

Not only does it not sound fair, I don't believe (caveat: IANAL) it is fair under the fair labour laws of this country. You can not be bound to a term in any contract that violates your rights. That is what Browner's case revolves around IMHO.

Just because you agree to it in a contract does not mean the any term in said contract is enforceable.

I'm no labor union expert, but isn't that why individual workers collectively appoint and pay lawyers and union chiefs? To negotiate and write up the legal binding documents that they have to abide while working? If the player's union agreed to this verbage and notification process in their CBA, then I don't see how it CANNOT be legal and binding.

Now maybe Browner and his lawyer can fight the whole "we weren't notified correctly" or "tainted sample" complaints. But as far as what you're saying? They don't have a leg to stand on if all that is truly in the CBA, which the league just proved it was this week.

The idea idea is that you can't enforce provisions in the CBA that are unlawful, even if you fully agree to them. Say for example it stated in the CBA that as a term of employment you must convert to Christianity or commit a murder. Even if the players and the league agreed to do so in the CBA, the courts could rule that that is an unlawful provision of employment and is therefore void. Now obviously those are absurd examples, but the law is a question of degree. Do you see how hypothetical provisions in a CBA could be unenforceable? That is what Browner will be asking the courts to decide. Is it a violation of employment law and an unreasonable term of employment to require players to submit to drug testing provisions when they are no longer an employee of any team and not even employed in this country?

So Browner potentially will file a lawsuit based on unfair labor practices. The courts will decide if the provision he is alleged to have violated in the CBA is inherently unlawful, even if he agreed to them. He still can lose that argument and the provision be valid, but that is what he is asking the court to decide.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The idea idea is that you can't enforce provisions in the CBA that are unlawful, even if you fully agree to them. Say for example it stated in the CBA that as a term of employment you must convert to Christianity or commit a murder. Even if the players and the league agreed to do so in the CBA, the courts could rule that that is an unlawful provision of employment and is therefore void. Now obviously those are absurd examples, but the law is a question of degree. Do you see how hypothetical provisions in a CBA could be unenforceable? That is what Browner will be asking the courts to decide. Is it a violation of employment law and an unreasonable term of employment to require players to submit to drug testing provisions when they are no longer an employee of any team and not even employed in this country?

So Browner potentially will file a lawsuit based on unfair labor practices. The courts will decide if the provision he is alleged to have violated in the CBA is inherently unlawful, even if he agreed to them. He still can lose that argument and the provision be valid, but that is what he is asking the court to decide.

Well now you're talking Supreme Court type arguments. If that's the case, see ya in 2037 Brandon when this is finally settled.

 

[mikeak]

People keep weighing in on what's "right" or "wrong" or even "legal". It has nothing to do with any of those things.

It has to do with the terms of a collectively bargained agreement. That is why the NFL is not going to give in a single millimeter.

Except the NFL is playing with fire. If it's determined by a Federal Judge that one or more terms in the CBA (or a signed contract) violate a worker's rights, then that term of the CBA is void. You can not be held (even by a CBA or contract) to an unfair labour practice....and Browner's case sure looks like an unfair labour practice.

BUT there is nothing in the CBA that should apply to Browner. The issue is that the CBA is misapplied not that it should be voided. Browner won't win a suit based on CBA being unfair. He will win based on not following the CBA

 

[Basis4day]

The idea idea is that you can't enforce provisions in the CBA that are unlawful, even if you fully agree to them. Say for example it stated in the CBA that as a term of employment you must convert to Christianity or commit a murder. Even if the players and the league agreed to do so in the CBA, the courts could rule that that is an unlawful provision of employment and is therefore void. Now obviously those are absurd examples, but the law is a question of degree. Do you see how hypothetical provisions in a CBA could be unenforceable? That is what Browner will be asking the courts to decide. Is it a violation of employment law and an unreasonable term of employment to require players to submit to drug testing provisions when they are no longer an employee of any team and not even employed in this country?

So Browner potentially will file a lawsuit based on unfair labor practices. The courts will decide if the provision he is alleged to have violated in the CBA is inherently unlawful, even if he agreed to them. He still can lose that argument and the provision be valid, but that is what he is asking the court to decide.

Well now you're talking Supreme Court type arguments. If that's the case, see ya in 2037 Brandon when this is finally settled.

Potentially, yes. But any legal case has that potential if the question is important enough. It doesn't need to get that far if one of the two sides backs down in Federal Court or Appellate Court.