Browner Files Second Appeal

[Polaris]

Why not file a lawsuit now to get an injunction on the indefinite suspension? It certainly appears they have grounds to do so, though I'm not sure if there's a precedent for this sort of thing.

So when he does file a lawsuit, he can say that he exhausted all options provided by the league via the existing process (according to his agent).

This makes sense. It also makes it far more likely that Browner would get an injunction in his favor. The Williams did this to the NFL in the StarCaps case.

 

[HansGruber]

The problem with if his second appeal is rejected is how long before he goes to court, I have a hard time thinking the league will lift his suspension while it's being litigated. I also heard that the Seahawks will support him through out the process as a person, part of Petes taking care of our own, Sherman said a simular thing in his interview about Idiots.

If the NFL strings it out and he can't get back on the feild next season at his age the skill set can erode quickly if not keeping in playing shape and challanged by NFL players everyday.

If he sues, his lawyer would first file for an injuction, which would prevent the NFL from suspending him without pay until the resolution of the lawsuit. Since there is the issue of paychecks involved, it's about 99.99% likely that the court would grant the injuction.

This is where it makes sense for Browner to file for a lawsuit, regardless of the outcome. It is unlikely that the case would be resolved in a year or less, opening up his eligibility for at least the next year or so. By the time there was a final judgement on the case, he might already be retired.

So really, it's a no-lose proposition for Browner. Outside of whatever money the lawsuit will cost, it would be a win just to get the injuction so he can get paid. He'd likely get $5-10m in guaranteed money in free agency, which would cover his legal costs - which would be recouped if he won, anyway (as well as another fat paycheck).

He is smart to stick to his guns. Surely, his agent has introduced him to an attorney that has already explained to him that the BEST thing he can do right now is file a lawsuit. That's also why Browner's letting the world know his plan is to sue. The NFL's attorneys are just as aware, after Starcaps, of what will happen once he does.

As to how the NFL appears, they already look bad enough after Starcaps and Bountygate that this will not really matter. However, they are VERY likely to settle with Browner on favorable terms to avoid the cost and potential problems raised by a lawsuit.

 

[Laloosh]

The problem with if his second appeal is rejected is how long before he goes to court, I have a hard time thinking the league will lift his suspension while it's being litigated. I also heard that the Seahawks will support him through out the process as a person, part of Petes taking care of our own, Sherman said a simular thing in his interview about Idiots.

If the NFL strings it out and he can't get back on the feild next season at his age the skill set can erode quickly if not keeping in playing shape and challanged by NFL players everyday.

If he sues, his lawyer would first file for an injuction, which would prevent the NFL from suspending him without pay until the resolution of the lawsuit. Since there is the issue of paychecks involved, it's about 99.99% likely that the court would grant the injuction.

This is where it makes sense for Browner to file for a lawsuit, regardless of the outcome. It is unlikely that the case would be resolved in a year or less, opening up his eligibility for at least the next year or so. By the time there was a final judgement on the case, he might already be retired.

So really, it's a no-lose proposition for Browner. Outside of whatever money the lawsuit will cost, it would be a win just to get the injuction so he can get paid. He'd likely get $5-10m in guaranteed money in free agency, which would cover his legal costs - which would be recouped if he won, anyway (as well as another fat paycheck).

He is smart to stick to his guns. Surely, his agent has introduced him to an attorney that has already explained to him that the BEST thing he can do right now is file a lawsuit. That's also why Browner's letting the world know his plan is to sue. The NFL's attorneys are just as aware, after Starcaps, of what will happen once he does.

As to how the NFL appears, they already look bad enough after Starcaps and Bountygate that this will not really matter. However, they are VERY likely to settle with Browner on favorable terms to avoid the cost and potential problems raised by a lawsuit.

Based on your last paragraph, do you find it just as likely that they'd simply use the second appeal (the appeal to argue process, treatment, etc.) to simply nullify the disciplinary appeal and be on about their business or would that be conceding whereas settling out of court provides more cover with regard to other players who might have had a similar path through the league's substance abuse program?

 

[Seeker]

Not only was he suspended for smoking weed, but he was suspended for smoking weed while not in the NFL or in America.
People seemed to think this was over our bye week when he was caught up, this was years ago. its pretty clear the NFL is thumbing through any loophole they can to keep the hawks out of the big game.

 

[HansGruber]

Based on your last paragraph, do you find it just as likely that they'd simply use the second appeal (the appeal to argue process, treatment, etc.) to simply nullify the disciplinary appeal and be on about their business or would that be conceding whereas settling out of court provides more cover with regard to other players who might have had a similar path through the league's substance abuse program?

Hard to say what the NFL's going to do, but if I had to guess (and if it was my billions at stake), the best thing would probably be to reduce the suspension to 4 games, and escalate Browner officially into the Phase 3 program. The NFL saves face, and the punishment is "fair" - which handicaps any potential lawsuit.

But would Browner accept that? Odds are, with his age and history of suspensions, other teams would be nervous about him getting suspended for a full season in the future. And surely that would impact his value in free agency.

But really, that scenario seems like the best win for both sides. Browner would still find someone willing to pay him to play in the NFL, for a lot more than he's seen to this point in his life, and enough to set him up for retirement.

If the rumors are true, and he's looking for the NFL to drop the suspension entirely, he needs to get a good attorney and a better agent. Does anyone really believe the NFL would do that? They're not going to be scared of the defamation lawsuit, those are practically impossible to win. If Browner refuses an offer of a 4-game suspension, maybe the judge doesn't view his case favorably, and maybe he loses the injuction (as well as still facing the 1-year suspension instead of 4 games).

If he's offered a 4-game suspension, he needs to take it.

 

[HansGruber]

Not only was he suspended for smoking weed, but he was suspended for smoking weed while not in the NFL or in America.
People seemed to think this was over our bye week when he was caught up, this was years ago. its pretty clear the NFL is thumbing through any loophole they can to keep the hawks out of the big game.

I think you're confused about what happened. He was caught with a bad urine test earlier this season, not years ago. Browner's argument is that he shouldn't have been escalated into Stage 3 of the drug program for missing a test when he was playing in Canada. But he still had a dirty test this season, and that's why he's being suspended (and why it's unlikely the NFL will drop that suspension).

And I don't buy for a second that the NFL wants to keep the Seahawks out of the Superbowl. Even the slightest, tiniest hint of impropriety by the NFL regarding the playoffs or championship would be vastly more damaging to the league than any monetary gains that could be achieved by influencing the playoffs. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business, and is run by people who are way too smart to do something that stupid.

 

[Polaris]

If the rumors are true, and he's looking for the NFL to drop the suspension entirely, he needs to get a good attorney and a better agent. Does anyone really believe the NFL would do that? They're not going to be scared of the defamation lawsuit, those are practically impossible to win. If Browner refuses an offer of a 4-game suspension, maybe the judge doesn't view his case favorably, and maybe he loses the injuction (as well as still facing the 1-year suspension instead of 4 games).

Actually Browner has the league by the short and curlies on the issue of defamation. His story was broken by an NFL employee working directly for the NFL in violation of the CBA. The fact it was also wrong (claiming to be for PEDs) when the NFL as an organization knew better makes it malicious. Browner may or may not win his suit on grounds of being out of the country (although I think he has a strong case), but defamation is almost open-and-shut.

The only hope the NFL has is to somehow convince a judge that the NFL Network somehow isn't really part of the NFL. Good luck with that.

 

[HansGruber]

If the rumors are true, and he's looking for the NFL to drop the suspension entirely, he needs to get a good attorney and a better agent. Does anyone really believe the NFL would do that? They're not going to be scared of the defamation lawsuit, those are practically impossible to win. If Browner refuses an offer of a 4-game suspension, maybe the judge doesn't view his case favorably, and maybe he loses the injuction (as well as still facing the 1-year suspension instead of 4 games).

Actually Browner has the league by the short and curlies on the issue of defamation. His story was broken by an NFL employee working directly for the NFL in violation of the CBA. The fact it was also wrong (claiming to be for PEDs) when the NFL as an organization knew better makes it malicious. Browner may or may not win his suit on grounds of being out of the country (although I think he has a strong case), but defamation is almost open-and-shut.

The only hope the NFL has is to somehow convince a judge that the NFL Network somehow isn't really part of the NFL. Good luck with that.

Nah. John Clayton was on ESPN talking about it, and said the same thing my attorney friend said when we were talking about it:

A mistake is not malice. In a defamation suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with intent to harm the plaintiff.

Most defamation suits (like 99.999% of them) fail for this reason. It is nearly impossible to prove that someone took an action specifically to harm you. The fact that the NFL corrected the error within an hour of it being published proves their acknowledgement of an error, and also that they were not acting maliciously, but merely trying to report news.

Browner doesn't stand a chance on the defamation thing.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I'm done with Browner. His backups are better.

 

[chris98251]

I'm done with Browner. His backups are better.

If your not going to add to the discussion maybe you should stay out of it, this is a good thread and I will not let it get derailed with one liners that are designed to start a flame fest.

 

[vin.couve12]

I'm done with Browner. His backups are better.

If your not going to add to the discussion maybe you should stay out of it, this is a good thread and I will not let it get derailed with one liners that are designed to start a flame fest.

You can't stop that nor should you. Fascism runs too rampant here...even with some of the mods.

Let people speak, lest you not speak yourself.

 

[vin.couve12]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious...

...do you guys think he still has a future in Seattle? In the NFL?

He was busted for smoking weed...something that is completely legal in our state. It's not like he stayed up all night drinking, hit a tree in a residential neighborhood on his way to work in the morning and was found in his car passed out with his foot on the accelerator with weed and prescription drugs that weren't his...(hypothetical situation of course).

Is he a dumb arse for risking it....yes. Does Seattle have depth to not bring him back....yes. Would another NFL team want to take a chance with a player of his caliber for what will most likely be a lowered salary due to the suspension....yes.

Seems like a level headed response. In the end it will be a judgement call by the front office. Do they make an example of him? Do they bring him back at a low salary?

Tough to say.

 

[morgulon1]

Not only was he suspended for smoking weed, but he was suspended for smoking weed while not in the NFL or in America.
People seemed to think this was over our bye week when he was caught up, this was years ago. its pretty clear the NFL is thumbing through any loophole they can to keep the hawks out of the big game.

I think you're confused about what happened. He was caught with a bad urine test earlier this season, not years ago. Browner's argument is that he shouldn't have been escalated into Stage 3 of the drug program for missing a test when he was playing in Canada. But he still had a dirty test this season, and that's why he's being suspended (and why it's unlikely the NFL will drop that suspension).

And I don't buy for a second that the NFL wants to keep the Seahawks out of the Superbowl. Even the slightest, tiniest hint of impropriety by the NFL regarding the playoffs or championship would be vastly more damaging to the league than any monetary gains that could be achieved by influencing the playoffs. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business, and is run by people who are way too smart to do something that stupid.

Please see Super Bowl XL

 

[Polaris]

If the rumors are true, and he's looking for the NFL to drop the suspension entirely, he needs to get a good attorney and a better agent. Does anyone really believe the NFL would do that? They're not going to be scared of the defamation lawsuit, those are practically impossible to win. If Browner refuses an offer of a 4-game suspension, maybe the judge doesn't view his case favorably, and maybe he loses the injuction (as well as still facing the 1-year suspension instead of 4 games).

Actually Browner has the league by the short and curlies on the issue of defamation. His story was broken by an NFL employee working directly for the NFL in violation of the CBA. The fact it was also wrong (claiming to be for PEDs) when the NFL as an organization knew better makes it malicious. Browner may or may not win his suit on grounds of being out of the country (although I think he has a strong case), but defamation is almost open-and-shut.

The only hope the NFL has is to somehow convince a judge that the NFL Network somehow isn't really part of the NFL. Good luck with that.

Nah. John Clayton was on ESPN talking about it, and said the same thing my attorney friend said when we were talking about it:

A mistake is not malice. In a defamation suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with intent to harm the plaintiff.

Most defamation suits (like 99.999% of them) fail for this reason. It is nearly impossible to prove that someone took an action specifically to harm you. The fact that the NFL corrected the error within an hour of it being published proves their acknowledgement of an error, and also that they were not acting maliciously, but merely trying to report news.

Browner doesn't stand a chance on the defamation thing.

I don't see it that way, and I am pretty sure a judge won't either. If Silver were a reporter for ESPN or some other network, then sure, I'd agree with you completely.

But he wasn't. Silver is an employee of the NFL. The NFL has a binding agreement NOT to report any such thing (even if the story were true which it wasn't), and Silver as an NFL employee willfully and knowingly violated that agreement in full knowledge of what it could do to Browner.

Seem like malice to me.

 

[HansGruber]

If the rumors are true, and he's looking for the NFL to drop the suspension entirely, he needs to get a good attorney and a better agent. Does anyone really believe the NFL would do that? They're not going to be scared of the defamation lawsuit, those are practically impossible to win. If Browner refuses an offer of a 4-game suspension, maybe the judge doesn't view his case favorably, and maybe he loses the injuction (as well as still facing the 1-year suspension instead of 4 games).

Actually Browner has the league by the short and curlies on the issue of defamation. His story was broken by an NFL employee working directly for the NFL in violation of the CBA. The fact it was also wrong (claiming to be for PEDs) when the NFL as an organization knew better makes it malicious. Browner may or may not win his suit on grounds of being out of the country (although I think he has a strong case), but defamation is almost open-and-shut.

The only hope the NFL has is to somehow convince a judge that the NFL Network somehow isn't really part of the NFL. Good luck with that.

Nah. John Clayton was on ESPN talking about it, and said the same thing my attorney friend said when we were talking about it:

A mistake is not malice. In a defamation suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with intent to harm the plaintiff.

Most defamation suits (like 99.999% of them) fail for this reason. It is nearly impossible to prove that someone took an action specifically to harm you. The fact that the NFL corrected the error within an hour of it being published proves their acknowledgement of an error, and also that they were not acting maliciously, but merely trying to report news.

Browner doesn't stand a chance on the defamation thing.

I don't see it that way, and I am pretty sure a judge won't either. If Silver were a reporter for ESPN or some other network, then sure, I'd agree with you completely.

But he wasn't. Silver is an employee of the NFL. The NFL has a binding agreement NOT to report any such thing (even if the story were true which it wasn't), and Silver as an NFL employee willfully and knowingly violated that agreement in full knowledge of what it could do to Browner.

Seem like malice to me.

Then you should look up the meaning of malice. In a court, malice has a clear definition. It is the intent to injure. Defamation requires the proof of malicious intent as well as significant quantitative harm. Harm that can be summed up in dollars and cents.

Did the NFL violate the drug testing program policy and potentially the CBA? Yes. That much is clear, and that is what you're talking about. But that is not defamation.

The court will make a distinction between an act that violates the CBA and the separate act of defamation. Any violation of the CBA should be handled by the NFLPA, and according to provisions that should exist within the CBA. Trying to classify a violation of the CBA as defamation is probably doomed to failure.

And the fact that the NFLPA has not yet chosen to defend Browner speaks pretty loudly. If the NFLPA felt that Browner had a legitimate grievance regarding the drug test false report, they'd already be taking action or have announced the intent to do so. It's possible that they're waiting to see how the second appeal turns out, but it's worth noting that they've made no statement to this point.

But make no mistake. Defamation is a fool's claim. It is nearly impossible to prove, and extremely few claims succeed. As my lawyer buddy would tell you, attorneys hate defamation claims and won't handle them without full payment up front. They're worse than malpractice suits, which also fail over 90% of the time.

It's my strong belief that any lawsuit from Browner would be mostly focused on the improper requirement that he continue testing while not employed with the NFL. That would be the only way to get an injunction on the suspension. Any defamation claim would be there as a way for his lawyer to satiate BB's thirst for blood and justice, with the attorneys on both sides knowing full well that it is doomed to fail. The NFL's attorneys would have that defamation claim dismissed within a week.

 

[HansGruber]

For further evidence on my point, see Jonathon Vilma's defamation claim against the NFL. Didn't even make it through discovery. Doomed from the get go, but there's always an attorney willing to take the check.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I'm done with Browner. His backups are better.

Chances are he doesn't take another snap anyway. He's still better for specific matchups. Sure would like to have him on Boldin if the 9ers make it back to C-link, but oh well. No way Boldin would've got 90+yds on us if BB was healthy for Candlestick. The catch Boldin got on Sherm was purely because of body size and control. He prolly wouldn't have even released against BB.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

If the rumors are true, and he's looking for the NFL to drop the suspension entirely, he needs to get a good attorney and a better agent. Does anyone really believe the NFL would do that? They're not going to be scared of the defamation lawsuit, those are practically impossible to win. If Browner refuses an offer of a 4-game suspension, maybe the judge doesn't view his case favorably, and maybe he loses the injuction (as well as still facing the 1-year suspension instead of 4 games).

Actually Browner has the league by the short and curlies on the issue of defamation. His story was broken by an NFL employee working directly for the NFL in violation of the CBA. The fact it was also wrong (claiming to be for PEDs) when the NFL as an organization knew better makes it malicious. Browner may or may not win his suit on grounds of being out of the country (although I think he has a strong case), but defamation is almost open-and-shut.

The only hope the NFL has is to somehow convince a judge that the NFL Network somehow isn't really part of the NFL. Good luck with that.

Nah. John Clayton was on ESPN talking about it, and said the same thing my attorney friend said when we were talking about it:

A mistake is not malice. In a defamation suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with intent to harm the plaintiff.

Most defamation suits (like 99.999% of them) fail for this reason. It is nearly impossible to prove that someone took an action specifically to harm you. The fact that the NFL corrected the error within an hour of it being published proves their acknowledgement of an error, and also that they were not acting maliciously, but merely trying to report news.

Browner doesn't stand a chance on the defamation thing.

I don't see it that way, and I am pretty sure a judge won't either. If Silver were a reporter for ESPN or some other network, then sure, I'd agree with you completely.

But he wasn't. Silver is an employee of the NFL. The NFL has a binding agreement NOT to report any such thing (even if the story were true which it wasn't), and Silver as an NFL employee willfully and knowingly violated that agreement in full knowledge of what it could do to Browner.

Seem like malice to me.

Then you should look up the meaning of malice. In a court, malice has a clear definition. It is the intent to injure. Defamation requires the proof of malicious intent as well as significant quantitative harm. Harm that can be summed up in dollars and cents.

Did the NFL violate the drug testing program policy and potentially the CBA? Yes. That much is clear, and that is what you're talking about. But that is not defamation.

The court will make a distinction between an act that violates the CBA and the separate act of defamation. Any violation of the CBA should be handled by the NFLPA, and according to provisions that should exist within the CBA. Trying to classify a violation of the CBA as defamation is probably doomed to failure.

And the fact that the NFLPA has not yet chosen to defend Browner speaks pretty loudly. If the NFLPA felt that Browner had a legitimate grievance regarding the drug test false report, they'd already be taking action or have announced the intent to do so. It's possible that they're waiting to see how the second appeal turns out, but it's worth noting that they've made no statement to this point.

But make no mistake. Defamation is a fool's claim. It is nearly impossible to prove, and extremely few claims succeed. As my lawyer buddy would tell you, attorneys hate defamation claims and won't handle them without full payment up front. They're worse than malpractice suits, which also fail over 90% of the time.

It's my strong belief that any lawsuit from Browner would be mostly focused on the improper requirement that he continue testing while not employed with the NFL. That would be the only way to get an injunction on the suspension. Any defamation claim would be there as a way for his lawyer to satiate BB's thirst for blood and justice, with the attorneys on both sides knowing full well that it is doomed to fail. The NFL's attorneys would have that defamation claim dismissed within a week.

Good point about the NFLPA keeping its distance. Could be that they are waiting for him to exhaust all options within the NFL system first...or maybe they feel he doesn't have much of a case.
What bothers me is why the NFL chose to take advantage of what appears a technicality in raising him to level 3 while he was with the CFL.

That's so ridiculous, and now they are saving face because they haven't kept their drug testing arm in check.

 

[dradee]

This is BB`s first time offense for non-ped`s and should have been treated as such. Why the NFL escalated him to stage 3 is the question for the court and in escalating him to stage 3 the NFL has damaged BB in a few ways, stopped his wage earning, ruined his reputation not to mention the undo stress etc....

Not the right way to treat an employee.

 

[HansGruber]

This is BB`s first time offense for non-ped`s and should have been treated as such. Why the NFL escalated him to stage 3 is the question for the court and in escalating him to stage 3 the NFL has damaged BB in a few ways, stopped his wage earning, ruined his reputation not to mention the undo stress etc....

Not the right way to treat an employee.

No it's his second time. He had a dirty test in Denver in 2005. That put him in Stage 2.

Then he got cut, went to the CFL and missed a mandatory test which put him in Stage 3.

His argument is that he shouldn't have been escalated from Stage 2 to 3 when not employed by the NFL, and that's where he might have a valid claim. Nobody knows what would happen in court, but it's possible he could win. That's what gave him leverage in the first appeal and why the NFL offered a lower suspension.

One of Browner's family members is saying he wants the suspension dropped completely, which is stupid because he still failed a second test under the CBA, which requires a 4-game suspension.

And that's where we stand now. BB has his second appeal in a week(?), but is suspended indefinitely until then.

The NFL actually did the Seahawks a favor with that move. It's possible that his suspension could be reduced to 4 games in the second appeal, which would make him available for the SuperBowl.