BB Suspended Indefinitely

[KK84]

Being held to the CBA while out of the league would be like getting hired by a company you were previously laid off from, but then told you were fired for no shows during the time you were laid off.

 

[-The Glove-]

he did what exactly to himself? Missed a bunch of piss tests while he was employed in Canada for 4 years?

Yup. He should have answered his disconnected phone or read his mail while he was sleeping on his friends' couches

You sound like a bitter one.

Bitter? How'd you get that from that post. Have you read any of your own posts?

That made me hella LOL Glove...

Are you high? Must be that Canadian bud Browner was on

 

[seahawk12thman]

The Aldon Smith argument is irrelevant. He checked himself into rehab and at least put out an image that he needed help and by rule, The Niners had to be put back on their roster. Browner continued to violate the NFL substance abuse policy and did nothing to help his image (IE check into rehap etc). Has it ever occurred to some people that perhaps he didn't show up to the drug tests was because he had weed in his system and didn't want to test positive?? Here is the solution, lay off the weed and you don't have to worry about a positive test.

When he wasn't employed by an NFL team and was playing for the CFL in a different country.

I am sure the NFL would have accommodated Mr. Browner for his cooperation in Canada.

 

[Basis4day]

I know, and I agree; ignorance is not an excuse. Way too many people use it as one.

Do suspended players still get Super Bowl rings if they're still with the team at the time?

Yeah, generally it's everyone who was on the active and reserved roster during the regular season The team votes on special cases . Don't know specifics.

 

[Cartire]

I know, and I agree; ignorance is not an excuse. Way too many people use it as one.

Do suspended players still get Super Bowl rings if they're still with the team at the time?

He would get the ring even if he was cut in the next hour and we won.

 

[Laloosh]

Do you have access to information that we don't? The league offered a reduction which was declined. This was their response. What do you actually know beyond that?

What would you like to know. Here are the facts: Browner smoked an illegal (NFL wise) substance for which he was already on thin ice for previous infractions. Those tests he missed (and I agree it's a bad rule) were because he was already in the program. He was getting tested at least once a week. He knew at a minimum it would be 4 games if he got caught. But here's the ONLY necessary fact: BROWNER SMOKED POT WHEN HE KNEW HE WAS GOIING TO GET TESTED!!!!!! He's an idiot who let his team and fans down and likely cost himself an inordinate amount of money.

You claim to know more than anyone can know w/out first-hand knowledge unless you're relying on the same sources that seem to think he's got a very good case against the league.

I'm aware of all of the reporting. Been following it...

Did he smoke it or was he around someone who was smoking it? Doesn't matter with regard to testing cause/effect but it would make most reasonable human beings question the validity of literally taking a man's livelihood from them over 1 or even 2 failed tests.

I'd also venture a guess that he would be MUCH less likely to make waves with a heavy handed league/commissioner over tests that he was passing weekly if it weren't much of an inconvenience for him. Why bother as long as you're getting your checks, right? I'm not arguing accuracy or inaccuracy, I'm talking about common sense.

We can all make assumptions until the cows come home but if there is any truth to the things that have been reported, I don't care who the player is (or for which team they play)... those are unrealistic expectations to have for former employees.

I'm not all that concerned with BB not being a Seahawk next year but I have a real problem with how the league handles some of these things. If this is truly Browner's 1st (or even 2nd or 3rd failed test), he shouldn't even be suspended... period. That's what a reasonable person would think given how OTHER players have been handled under these policies. Browner is being treated differently.

 

[Basis4day]

Do you have access to information that we don't? The league offered a reduction which was declined. This was their response. What do you actually know beyond that?

What would you like to know. Here are the facts: Browner smoked an illegal (NFL wise) substance for which he was already on thin ice for previous infractions. Those tests he missed (and I agree it's a bad rule) were because he was already in the program. He was getting tested at least once a week. He knew at a minimum it would be 4 games if he got caught. But here's the ONLY necessary fact: BROWNER SMOKED POT WHEN HE KNEW HE WAS GOIING TO GET TESTED!!!!!! He's an idiot who let his team and fans down and likely cost himself an inordinate amount of money.

You claim to know more than anyone can know w/out first-hand knowledge unless you're relying on the same sources that seem to think he's got a very good case against the league.

I'm aware of all of the reporting. Been following it...

Did he smoke it or was he around someone who was smoking it? Doesn't matter with regard to testing cause/effect but it would make most reasonable human beings question the validity of literally taking a man's livelihood from them over 1 or even 2 failed tests.

I'd also venture a guess that he would be MUCH less likely to make waves with a heavy handed league/commissioner over tests that he was passing weekly if it weren't much of an inconvenience for him. Why bother as long as you're getting your checks, right? I'm not arguing accuracy or inaccuracy, I'm talking about common sense.

We can all make assumptions until the cows come home but if there is any truth to the things that have been reported, I don't care who the player is (or for which team they play)... those are unrealistic expectations to have for former employees.

I'm not all that concerned with BB not being a Seahawk next year but I have a real problem with how the league handles some of these things. If this is truly Browner's 1st (or even 2nd or 3rd failed test), he shouldn't even be suspended... period. That's what a reasonable person would think given how OTHER players have been handled under these policies. Browner is being treated differently.

I agree. If you're going to hold the testee to an absolute standard, the tester needs to be held to an absolute standard.

 

[MadSweeney]

Rules involving continued testing and missed tests are very much black and white, it's in the CBA he signed and agreed to. It doesn't matter how many tests he passed, he was still in the program as per the CBA that he signed and agreed to. He's not being made an example, he's getting a by the book enforcement of a rule he needed to know. If I'm getting tested that much and I know I'm looking at the biggest payday of my life as well as a possible SB, I'd be sure to know what I was risking if I decided to risk it all on a blunt.

It doesn't matter if the rules are black an white when it is an inherently unfair business practice to expect someone working in a different country to submit to a weekly drug test when he is living in a different country and not employed by any team in the NFL.

Again, that is something he should've dealt with years ago when he started having to take tests every week, not after he proved himself to be a gigantic idiot and smoked when he knew he was getting tested. You're mixing up two issues, both of which Browner agreed to. the rule about missing tests is dumb and in very rare cases bites the player, but it's still in the CBA that they agreed to. Period. The second issue is him testing positive now 3-4 years later, after 200 tests. Those issues are separate and Browner willingly agreed to partake both of the CBA and the $10M blunt.

 

[GawksAtHawks]

Goodbye BB, It's been a good ride with the hawks, sucks that he wont get a ring if we win one. I really liked his style of play and the way it spread throughout the DB group, but all of this is his fault, he is the one who made all the choices

that have led him to where he is today. To some extent the writing was on the wall. I THINK that when the hawks gave him a pay raise before the start of the season that it was the teams way of thanking him for his play and contribution

in the locker room while also sending a message to the locker room that the team treats its players well even if those players are not in the teams future plans.

 

[Crabhawk]

The Aldon Smith argument is irrelevant. He checked himself into rehab and at least put out an image that he needed help and by rule, The Niners had to be put back on their roster. Browner continued to violate the NFL substance abuse policy and did nothing to help his image (IE check into rehap etc). Has it ever occurred to some people that perhaps he didn't show up to the drug tests was because he had weed in his system and didn't want to test positive?? Here is the solution, lay off the weed and you don't have to worry about a positive test.

When he wasn't employed by an NFL team and was playing for the CFL in a different country.

I am sure the NFL would have accommodated Mr. Browner for his cooperation in Canada.

I'm blanking on the author, but a few weeks back some one on the board linked to an article written by a former NFL player that was in the substance abuse program. The NFL was most certainly not accommodating. You show up when and where they tell you within 4 hours of receiving notice.

As others have pointed out, the question is whether a CBA is enforceable when one is no longer employed by a company, and hasn't been for a number of years, but eventually returns to said employer. I think that and HIPAA violations are probably his strongest case.

As an aside, the suspension may be "fair" by definition, but I think what many are getting at is whether it is just, which, of course, are different concepts. That little sh!t in Texas getting 10 years probation for affluenza may be fair by the law, but it is certainly not just. I'm torn on BB. He was stupid for lighting up, but based on the information that has been released, the punishment does not seem just.

 

[Tical21]

Man, I want to know the bread and butter of the investigation. How clear was it made to Browner once he got into the program that he would have to continue taking the tests? How thorough were the attempts to find him? What was the basis for upholding the suspension? How did that conversation go?

Either way, dude messed up, bad. He's going to have a 6 or 7 year NFL career. And he can't stay off the chron for that long? He's going to probably once be the favorite to win the Super Bowl, and he can't stay off it for that season? One of my favorite players, but I have very little sympathy. The Seahawks decide to take a risk on a guy that was exiled to the CFL, put him in a defense that allowed him to be a pro-bowler, paid him extra this year for no reason at all, and this is how he repays us? Send his ass packing, and take Walter with you.

 

[MadSweeney]

Being held to the CBA while out of the league would be like getting hired by a company you were previously laid off from, but then told you were fired for no shows during the time you were laid off.

Sounds like something a person would take care of when they started back up with the company, not three years later.

PS- equating the NFL to pretty much any other business doesn't work. It's not corporate America.

 

[Basis4day]

Rules involving continued testing and missed tests are very much black and white, it's in the CBA he signed and agreed to. It doesn't matter how many tests he passed, he was still in the program as per the CBA that he signed and agreed to. He's not being made an example, he's getting a by the book enforcement of a rule he needed to know. If I'm getting tested that much and I know I'm looking at the biggest payday of my life as well as a possible SB, I'd be sure to know what I was risking if I decided to risk it all on a blunt.

It doesn't matter if the rules are black an white when it is an inherently unfair business practice to expect someone working in a different country to submit to a weekly drug test when he is living in a different country and not employed by any team in the NFL.

Again, that is something he should've dealt with years ago when he started having to take tests every week, not after he proved himself to be a gigantic idiot and smoked when he knew he was getting tested. You're mixing up two issues, both of which Browner agreed to. the rule about missing tests is dumb and in very rare cases bites the player, but it's still in the CBA that they agreed to. Period. The second issue is him testing positive now 3-4 years later, after 200 tests. Those issues are separate and Browner willingly agreed to partake both of the CBA and the $10M blunt.

No employer can enforce inherently unfair labor practices, even if agreed to, which is exactly what his lawsuit is going to be about.

Do you really think an employer can make ANY labor rules they want and enforce it so long as a player agrees? Really? The courts will be deciding what the league can and can't do.

 

[Basis4day]

Being held to the CBA while out of the league would be like getting hired by a company you were previously laid off from, but then told you were fired for no shows during the time you were laid off.

Sounds like something a person would take care of when they started back up with the company, not three years later.

PS- equating the NFL to pretty much any other business doesn't work. It's not corporate America.

Yes it is. It will require a lawsuit to make that determination. Which is exactly how labor law works here in America.

 

[MadSweeney]

Do you have access to information that we don't? The league offered a reduction which was declined. This was their response. What do you actually know beyond that?

What would you like to know. Here are the facts: Browner smoked an illegal (NFL wise) substance for which he was already on thin ice for previous infractions. Those tests he missed (and I agree it's a bad rule) were because he was already in the program. He was getting tested at least once a week. He knew at a minimum it would be 4 games if he got caught. But here's the ONLY necessary fact: BROWNER SMOKED POT WHEN HE KNEW HE WAS GOIING TO GET TESTED!!!!!! He's an idiot who let his team and fans down and likely cost himself an inordinate amount of money.

You claim to know more than anyone can know w/out first-hand knowledge unless you're relying on the same sources that seem to think he's got a very good case against the league.

I'm aware of all of the reporting. Been following it...

Did he smoke it or was he around someone who was smoking it? Doesn't matter with regard to testing cause/effect but it would make most reasonable human beings question the validity of literally taking a man's livelihood from them over 1 or even 2 failed tests.

I'd also venture a guess that he would be MUCH less likely to make waves with a heavy handed league/commissioner over tests that he was passing weekly if it weren't much of an inconvenience for him. Why bother as long as you're getting your checks, right? I'm not arguing accuracy or inaccuracy, I'm talking about common sense.

We can all make assumptions until the cows come home but if there is any truth to the things that have been reported, I don't care who the player is (or for which team they play)... those are unrealistic expectations to have for former employees.

I'm not all that concerned with BB not being a Seahawk next year but I have a real problem with how the league handles some of these things. If this is truly Browner's 1st (or even 2nd or 3rd failed test), he shouldn't even be suspended... period. That's what a reasonable person would think given how OTHER players have been handled under these policies. Browner is being treated differently.

Are those sources that say he has a case against the league the same sources that said that the yearlong supension was off the table and that he might be available to play in the playoffs? Because I read a lot of stuff like that and it doesn't seem to have worked out that way.

I don't know anything more than anyone else. I just don't rely on inch thick homer glasses and a victim mentality to interpret everything through. I stay mostly objective and try not to let fandom overcome common sense. I'm seeing a lot of the opposite.

Browner is NOT being treated differently. He was in stage 3, he knew it (unless he was ridiculously stupid, which he actually kind of is) and he violated it. This victimhood you guys have is pretty revolting.

 

[MadSweeney]

Rules involving continued testing and missed tests are very much black and white, it's in the CBA he signed and agreed to. It doesn't matter how many tests he passed, he was still in the program as per the CBA that he signed and agreed to. He's not being made an example, he's getting a by the book enforcement of a rule he needed to know. If I'm getting tested that much and I know I'm looking at the biggest payday of my life as well as a possible SB, I'd be sure to know what I was risking if I decided to risk it all on a blunt.

It doesn't matter if the rules are black an white when it is an inherently unfair business practice to expect someone working in a different country to submit to a weekly drug test when he is living in a different country and not employed by any team in the NFL.

Again, that is something he should've dealt with years ago when he started having to take tests every week, not after he proved himself to be a gigantic idiot and smoked when he knew he was getting tested. You're mixing up two issues, both of which Browner agreed to. the rule about missing tests is dumb and in very rare cases bites the player, but it's still in the CBA that they agreed to. Period. The second issue is him testing positive now 3-4 years later, after 200 tests. Those issues are separate and Browner willingly agreed to partake both of the CBA and the $10M blunt.

No employer can enforce inherently unfair labor practices, even if agreed to, which is exactly what his lawsuit is going to be about.

Do you really think an employer can make ANY labor rules they want and enforce it so long as a player agrees? Really? The courts will be deciding what the league can and can't do.

The CBA is hammered out by dozens and dozens of lawyers from both sides. Browner will lose this just like he lost his suspension.

Edited: No personal attacks, you were warned once already.

 

[seahawk12thman]

The Aldon Smith argument is irrelevant. He checked himself into rehab and at least put out an image that he needed help and by rule, The Niners had to be put back on their roster. Browner continued to violate the NFL substance abuse policy and did nothing to help his image (IE check into rehap etc). Has it ever occurred to some people that perhaps he didn't show up to the drug tests was because he had weed in his system and didn't want to test positive?? Here is the solution, lay off the weed and you don't have to worry about a positive test.

When he wasn't employed by an NFL team and was playing for the CFL in a different country.

I am sure the NFL would have accommodated Mr. Browner for his cooperation in Canada.

I'm blanking on the author, but a few weeks back some one on the board linked to an article written by a former NFL player that was in the substance abuse program. The NFL was most certainly not accommodating. You show up when and where they tell you within 4 hours of receiving notice.

As others have pointed out, the question is whether a CBA is enforceable when one is no longer employed by a company, and hasn't been for a number of years, but eventually returns to said employer. I think that and HIPAA violations are probably his strongest case.

As an aside, the suspension may be "fair" by definition, but I think what many are getting at is whether it is just, which, of course, are different concepts. That little sh!t in Texas getting 10 years probation for affluenza may be fair by the law, but it is certainly not just. I'm torn on BB. He was stupid for lighting up, but based on the information that has been released, the punishment does not seem just.

Life isn't fair. I can go along with your argument that he didn't know thus it violated the letter of the law but we don't know if Browner ignored letters and was given a fair opportunity and didn't show up because he had weed in his system or the NFL failed to adequately communicate their transgressions about showing up to drug clinics. What I do know is that they are trying to enforce a drug policy (which is far more lenient for my tastes) and he willfully violated a couple drug policies. Accountability be damned for most but in my book, abstinence is the best policy.

 

[TriCHawk]

Fact is, Browner shouldn't have smoked weed period, and this wouldn't be a thread on this forum. Pisses me off that he didn't have his priorities straight.

 

[Axx]

If it makes you feel any better greg williams' suspension has been lifted by the NFL.

 

[mikeak]

I read the first page and not everything in between. It is possible the league suspended him indefinately isn't a bad thing. He either is still injured and this makes the games count at the same time (really would have been best if it started 3 games ago) or he was coming back so now he earns suspension games now instead of over the full playoffs

I don't think he is suspended for more than four games but this way the NFL announces they are set on him sitting out but they can start the clock immediately. 2 games left on the regular season and either reinstate him after that or reinstate him after Seahawks first playoff game.

You do NOT want to reinstate him for the superbowl which a true 4 game suspension would be