Browner 1 year suspension is for substance abuse per NFL

[HansGruber]

Wow, that's huge news. If it's true, perhaps it will be reduced upon appeal. That's the purpose of an appeal - to reduce the impact of odd rules and regulations that result in unfair punishment.

Although, it really doesn't matter. Browner is gone after this season. We already knew the team was going to move on, but this suspension and the injuries just further cemented the inevitable. Too bad though, BB was one of my all-time favorite Seahawks. This is the dude that brought the initial swagger to the Legion of Boom. He was the fore-runner. It's sad to see so many fans turning on him like this.

 

[Coug_Hawk08]

Wow, that's huge news. If it's true, perhaps it will be reduced upon appeal. That's the purpose of an appeal - to reduce the impact of odd rules and regulations that result in unfair punishment.

Although, it really doesn't matter. Browner is gone after this season. We already knew the team was going to move on, but this suspension and the injuries just further cemented the inevitable. Too bad though, BB was one of my all-time favorite Seahawks. This is the dude that brought the initial swagger to the Legion of Boom. He was the fore-runner. It's sad to see so many fans turning on him like this.

Clayton was talking about it on 710 and seemed to think he has zero chance of reducing the ban.

Bums me out too, BB was man.

 

[morgulon1]

Interesting take: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...air-implementation-of-substance-abuse-policy/

If this is true, then holy shit what a railroad job. I hope he sues the testicles off of everyone... start with Mike Silver for libel.

FREE BROWNER!

I am hoping this is true .

 

[hawks4thewin]

Have we any proof yet that this is indeed happening (browner getting suspended)? if there is any truth to that Little clause from when he went to the CFL I would bet any cheep lawyer could win that suit, NFLPA contract or not. I'm sure there are some good lawyers on here that could weigh In. Anyhow if that's the case everyone should get off browners back and support him.... if its not the case, then he can just have fun in cananada

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

The latest information sure does illuminate just how unfair the substance abuse rules are.

 

[Cartire]

Interesting take: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...air-implementation-of-substance-abuse-policy/

Huh, I had actually considered something like that but it seemed too far fetched to be real. I guess it's a really uncommon thing but it seems like the NFLPA would be all over this.

It was agreed to in the CBA, why would the NFLPA be all over it? Its a seemingly unfair practice, but one the Browner willingly signed up for.

That's what I'm saying, it's rare enough that they probably conceeded the point when they agreed to the CBA. I've certainly never heard of this happening.

The CBA is to players what iTunes user agreement is to us. Browner hardly "willingly" signed up for such and arbitrary rule. He clicked yes like the rest of us do because these things are written in a way that most people cant understand.

This defiantly seems like something that can be appealed and at least reduced do to the rare circumstance.

 

[brettb3]

No, he hasn't been suspended yet.

 

[plyka]

I'm with you, plyka.

This is horse**** really. That's a huge penalty for a relatively minor crime in the grand scheme of life... and I really feel for Browner and his family.

He made a mistake, he knew he was making a mistake, and there is no denying it, but...just, it's sad. Really sad.

Im with you. Its almost as if there is no common sense in the nfl at all. It reminds me of the three strike rule in California where you can get three nonviolent drug charges which end up as felonies and be put away for life. For freaking life! While a child molestor gets 10years? How does this make sense. It would make more sense to hang the child molestor after a single offense and not even worry about non violent drug offenses.

I do feel bad for browner if this costs him his big contract. For smoking some weed?? Ive never heard of destroying someones life for smoking weed before.

 

[Coug_Hawk08]

The CBA is to players what iTunes user agreement is to us. Browner hardly "willingly" signed up for such and arbitrary rule. He clicked yes like the rest of us do because these things are written in a way that most people cant understand.

This defiantly seems like something that can be appealed and at least reduced do to the rare circumstance.

No its not. Its closer to their constitution. Players help write/build it, they approved it, they follow it.

Either way he signed it. . . so whether he read the need to know info or not, he is subject to everything written there. I hope his agent made him aware of all the details. . . pretty sure he entered the NFL in the program.

How does the rarity of the situation change the fact that he violated NFL policy that he agreed to?

 

[HansGruber]

Zero chance he can sue and win. Courts won't touch a CBA. That's part of being a union member. Unfortunate the NFLPA hasn't stepped up but they're bound by the same CBA so nothing they can do.

It was a dumb move by Browner. Love the guy, but that was just stupid.

 

[Cartire]

The CBA is to players what iTunes user agreement is to us. Browner hardly "willingly" signed up for such and arbitrary rule. He clicked yes like the rest of us do because these things are written in a way that most people cant understand.

This defiantly seems like something that can be appealed and at least reduced do to the rare circumstance.

No its not. Its closer to their constitution. Players help write/build it, they approved it, they follow it.

Either way he signed it. . . so whether he read the need to know info or not, he is subject to everything written there. I hope his agent made him aware of all the details. . . pretty sure he entered the NFL in the program.

How does the rarity of the situation change the fact that he violated NFL policy that he agreed to?

The constitution? What a comparison.

You do realize that the players themselves don't sit in and negotiate the CBA? It's the NFLPA which is a few past players and a bunch of lawyers. Each team has a few reps of active players. They don't do much but attend some meetings and relay info. 1000+ players don't have a single say in the negotiations and it seems kinda ridiculous to think that anymore then maybe ten of them were aware of such a broken rule.

Legally, your right. He broke the rules. But that doesn't mean the rules are right. And sometimes proper precedence can be created with these types of rare situations.

 

[Greenhell]

The CBA is to players what iTunes user agreement is to us. Browner hardly "willingly" signed up for such and arbitrary rule. He clicked yes like the rest of us do because these things are written in a way that most people cant understand.

This defiantly seems like something that can be appealed and at least reduced do to the rare circumstance.

No its not. Its closer to their constitution. Players help write/build it, they approved it, they follow it.

Either way he signed it. . . so whether he read the need to know info or not, he is subject to everything written there. I hope his agent made him aware of all the details. . . pretty sure he entered the NFL in the program.

How does the rarity of the situation change the fact that he violated NFL policy that he agreed to?

I'm not defending BB but what group of players decided to write such bullshit? Let alone agree to pass/agree upon it? Seriously? If your employment ceases to exist as an Nfl player you can still be subject to random drug tests and failure to show up to take said test results in a failure and in no way can this failed test be removed from record. It sounds asinine.

 

[Tech Worlds]

The point still remains had he not drugged up this season he would not be in this pickle.

 

[BullHawk33]

I can see how this rule would come about, especially in an occupation as transient as a football player. Between the ProFootball Talk article and the other article about the Stage 1 protocols, I have a tough time thinking anyone will emerge from the program, especially given the comments in the Stage 1 article that there aren't any clear cut milestones to get out of stage 1 successfully, in fact it seems that most roads lead to stage two.

That said, Browner would have known he was in Stage 3 and how tight those protocols are. Not knowing what caused the failure, it is hard to judge one way or another. Even during this 1 year suspension (actually written as banishment in the rules), he'll still be required to participate in the stage 3 program, just like was expected when he went to the CFL. Additionally, it isn't automatic that he is re-instated immediately after the year, it is at the discretion of the league.

Since the league holds the keys to Browner coming back, he may be inclined to stay very quiet if he thinks a comeback is possible. Additionally, he would be eligible to keep any post season compensation he may have earned had the banishment not been issued. If we go to the Superbowl, Browner will still make money. Either way, I wouldn't expect to hear too much from him.

Yes, the next man is up. I do appreciate a lot of what Browner did though and I'll probably go out and buy one of those Legion of Boom shirts with his name on it, just because I doubt they will be around much longer. We're going places this year. This is just a speed bump and I wish the best for Browner.

 

[Greenhell]

The point still remains had he not drugged up this season he would not be in this pickle.

Possibly but we don't know about priors. Did he, in fact, fail or was simply not aware or could not show up to take the test during the time he wasn't in the NFL?

 

[Bigpumpkin]

The point still remains had he not drugged up this season he would not be in this pickle.

Possibly but we don't know about priors. Did he, in fact, fail or was simply not aware or could not show up to take the test during the time he wasn't in the NFL?

Are you implying that the NFL did not try to contact him (or his agent) and remind him that he was "required" to still test? The NFL have a host of attorneys that advise them of every requirement of the player's agreement( CBA).

 

[-The Glove-]

The point still remains had he not drugged up this season he would not be in this pickle.

But now, it might just be a cucumber.


Sorry horrible joke

 

[HawkFan72]

Browner has not been suspended.

In fact, if he was healthy he would be in line to play Sunday since his case is still being reviewed.

But this unfair penalty is unlikely to be reduced. And even if it was, he'd be out for 4 games like Thurmond once his appeal has been ruled upon.

He does deserve a 4 game suspension at least. It just sucks for him that he is going to have to sit out a whole year, and possible forever, because of this loophole rule.

 

[Greenhell]

The point still remains had he not drugged up this season he would not be in this pickle.

Possibly but we don't know about priors. Did he, in fact, fail or was simply not aware or could not show up to take the test during the time he wasn't in the NFL?

Are you implying that the NFL did not try to contact him (or his agent) and remind him that he was "required" to still test? The NFL have a host of attorneys that advise them of every requirement of the player's agreement( CBA).

I'm not implying anything. Maybe he was/wasn't informed. Who's to say? The only ones who know are Browner and the NFL. And neither are saying a word right now regarding this new info.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Browner would have known he was in Stage 3 and how tight those protocols are.

Donovan McNabb didn't even know the rules of overtime or that games could end in a tie. Work out, study your position, work out some more, practice, go to meetings, study tape, oh, and don't forget to bone up on obscure league rules involving the punishment of substance abuse violators who took a hiatus to the CFL during their careers.

Sure, I think everyone agrees it was boneheaded to smoke a joint, or whatever he did to violate rules. Plenty of folks go far longer periods not smoking joints because their job or career demands it, but to castigate him over not knowing the fine print of obscure rules clauses is a bit harsh, don't you think? And to shrug it off 'cause he should have known the rules anyways is about as fair as shrugging off incarceration of someone for a speeding ticket because they shouldn't have been speeding in the first place.

A lotta high horses around here. A lot of puritan grannies for being the Pacific Northwest.