Browner's year long suspension off the table?
- Thread starter Tech Worlds
- Start date
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
They aren't supposed to announce anything until it's actually done.
SonicHawk":xq03ntnc said:
True, but given he has apparently tested clean over 200 times since re-entering the NFL (ie, an average of 2 tests a week), it also seems unlikely to me that he would somehow think he would get away with taking anything.
He also planned to appeal the suspension last year but decided against it, we still don't know the details surrounding that. I do find the whole situation odd
brimsalabim
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 3
I still don't understand what triggered this all of a sudden? the article that I read indicated that he has never failed a test while in the NFL but was put into the program as a condition of his initial contract because of trouble in college? The stuff from Clayton indicates that he is being punished for not following up with the program since leaving denver? Has he actually failed a test while with the hawks? Has he skipped a test while with the hawks? Did any one contact him when he rejoined the NFL to re establish the program? There is a lot that has been reported but not nearly enough details to know what is going on here.
ivotuk
Well-known member
According to Clayton, he progressed to Level 3 because of him not taking tests after being cut by the Broncos. He was no longer employed by the NFL. Browner is using the fact that he had no way to communicate with the NFL (unemployed, no home address, no phone), and that he spent time in the CFL as a reason he should never have been at Level 3.
Clayton said he's sure that Browner tested positive this fall for "non-PED" substances and that is why he is in trouble. The difference is, if he were at Level 1 (For testing positive in College) like he was in Denver, the positive test this fall would only mean a warning, not a suspension. But, because the NFL shows him at Level 3, the positive test this fall means to them, a year long suspension.
The debate is whether he is at Level 3 or Level 1. By all accounts, Clayton believes he should be at Level 1 because of his financial struggles after being let go by the Broncos. Per Clayton "He was sleeping on a friend's couch, collecting unemployment and had no cell phone."
Clayton said he's sure that Browner tested positive this fall for "non-PED" substances and that is why he is in trouble. The difference is, if he were at Level 1 (For testing positive in College) like he was in Denver, the positive test this fall would only mean a warning, not a suspension. But, because the NFL shows him at Level 3, the positive test this fall means to them, a year long suspension.
The debate is whether he is at Level 3 or Level 1. By all accounts, Clayton believes he should be at Level 1 because of his financial struggles after being let go by the Broncos. Per Clayton "He was sleeping on a friend's couch, collecting unemployment and had no cell phone."
dopeboy206
Active member
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,114
- Reaction score
- 9
Wait so if Browner was only suppose to get warnings then Thurmond tested positive more than once? I'm now curious to know how many times did Von Miller and Ricky Williams tested positive before they got suspended?
ivotuk
Well-known member
P.S. I owe Browner and Thurmond an apology. I was pissed when I found out they got busted for drugs in our Superbowl year and wanted them gone.
I'm still pissed they were selfish enough to risk the season that 50 other players (Bruce Irvin excluded) have worked so hard to get to and that an untold number of fans have waited decades to see.
I find no excuse for that kind of behavior because they put themselves in front of everyone else, but if anyone has benefited from second chances it has been me. So while my initial anger and reaction were just that, an initial reaction, I still love them, especially Browner for the huge hits he has put on people in his time here. But man, can't you wait 12 months for a dream that has taken a lifetime to possibly achieve?
Anyway, I believe Browner is a much better DB than Thurmond and hope he makes it back this year. We need the LOB to be complete. But make no mistake Browner and Thurmond, the LOB will continue to succeed without you...
I'm still pissed they were selfish enough to risk the season that 50 other players (Bruce Irvin excluded) have worked so hard to get to and that an untold number of fans have waited decades to see.
I find no excuse for that kind of behavior because they put themselves in front of everyone else, but if anyone has benefited from second chances it has been me. So while my initial anger and reaction were just that, an initial reaction, I still love them, especially Browner for the huge hits he has put on people in his time here. But man, can't you wait 12 months for a dream that has taken a lifetime to possibly achieve?
Anyway, I believe Browner is a much better DB than Thurmond and hope he makes it back this year. We need the LOB to be complete. But make no mistake Browner and Thurmond, the LOB will continue to succeed without you...
Happypuppy
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,975
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the NFL had to back down for several reasons.
-silvers initial reports were PED later changed. Perhaps slanderous in his contract year. I m not a lawyer
-out of the league when it happened. Was the intent that it casts doubt I. A whole NFL player lifetime ? That makes it harsher than drunk driving
-silvers initial reports were PED later changed. Perhaps slanderous in his contract year. I m not a lawyer
-out of the league when it happened. Was the intent that it casts doubt I. A whole NFL player lifetime ? That makes it harsher than drunk driving
hawksfansinceday1
Active member
That's how it works for us too but only if a Joint Council doesn't resolve it first. The Joint Council is made up of two people chosen by the company and two by the union. Company chosen folks cannot be employed within our plant and union chosen folks cannot be employed within our Local. A co-worker of mine deadlocked in the Joint Council (happens less often than you might think....I won my grievance and was reinstated via Joint Council) and just went through arbitration which is the step after Joint Council. Like your arbitration process, he was represented by a lawyer from the union with other legal support. The company had some of their lawyers rep them.Sports Hernia":1g1b0git said:
hawksfansinceday1
Active member
So it's now Wednesday and nearly 1:00 PM Eastern time. Where the hell is the decision? Man I hope the NFL is running scared.
mikeak
Well-known member
bigcc":wrbphpy4 said:
Everything should have been under wraps until the process is 100% done and the suspension is in effect.
This one had a false leak followed by apparently a correct leak but all before it was in place. Then it was followed by re-posting of the incorrect information on NFL.com.
And the whole time the reasons for the test are in question and the penalty is not in line with what should be handed out......
Separately in regards to Thurmond - I don't see how this isn't his second / third time getting caught if he got the 4 game suspension. So considering his injured past I am not sure why he is being apologized too by some. What did he do that wasn't wrong????????
mikeak":136q01lf said:
I think it's pretty clear cut. Browner was apparently put into the program volunarily as part of his deal with the Denver Broncos. This is per the CBA (and the old CBA) and does not require the failure of a drug test. He then left the Broncos before he would have been released from the program.
He was then UNEMPLOYED by the NFL and was in the CFL for five years. Apparently (and this is where it gets sketchy), the NFL wasn't able to contact Browner, but held him responsible for missing the tests anyway and counted each missed test as a positive test.
It was this that put him into stage three (and some sources say he was in stage four and suspended from the NFL but the NFL never bothered to tell any of their franchises this including but not exclusively the Seahawks).
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
The NFL is probably pushing for a 4 game suspension, starting NEXT week, so that he won't be able to play the first playoff game. Whatever they can do to keep the Hawks down. Doesn't matter, we'll win the whole thing with or without him.
mikeak
Well-known member
Polaris":2o3mztar said:
????? I never questioned anything about Browner - I understand what transpired which is close to what you are saying (I haven't heard anyone say NFL wasn't able to contact him. I heard they sent letters he says he didn't receive them as they went to a ex-gf)
There were posts about Thurmond in this thread and I said for him it must have been a 2nd / 3rd time he got busted
HawkFan72
Active member
dopeboy206":1a3z53v7 said:
Yeah supposedly you have to fail 3 or 4 times before you are suspended.
Which is what makes Thurmond's decisions even more stupid. He was getting caught repeatedly yet refused to change his behavior.
kidhawk
Well-known member
hawksfansinceday1":2ah9c3qa said:
The appeal is done, reports are now that the league and Browner are attempting to negotiate a settlement. Basically the league isn't going to just hand down a suspension in this case, it's going to have to either come to an agreement with Browner or face a possible federal lawsuit....at least that is what the current reports are.
Also, just to add a little more fuel to the speculation....Pete said Browner is healing faster than originally anticipated and he has a CHANCE to practice this week. I'm sure there is still almost no chance of him playing yet, but to know that he's 2 weeks ahead of schedule is interesting. It's even more interesting that it was mentioned at all. I'd think Pete would avoid discussing Browner at all costs until this whole thing is resolved. Makes me wonder what the team knows about the situation that isn't privy to public eyes/ears
mikeak
Well-known member
^ You can push the league towards a settlement by putting Browner in the line-up. They thought they had 4-6 weeks which is an a-hole approach since he could have been suspended while injured not have missed any extra games.
Put him in the line-up and you will push the NFL to make a decision.
Put him in the line-up and you will push the NFL to make a decision.
ivotuk
Well-known member
kidhawk":16mgyh3x said:
From what I understand, for Non-PED suspensions players area allowed to stay with the team during the suspension. I would imagine this includes practicing like a player on the PS would.
The only thing I'm curious about is, IIRC, someone said that a Non-PED suspension can be served at the same time that they are out for injury. If true, that would mean that even with a 4 game suspension he would be allowed to play soon.
Clayton thinks Browner may be angling for no suspension, just lost game checks.
ivotuk":352ce8bn said:
Suspensions do not begin until appeals are done and a final decision reached. Browner would still be playing right now if he wasn't injured. If he does get a 4-game suspension before Sunday, the 1st game would be that Sunday.
At this point the NFL probably doesn't give a @#$& anymore how long Browner is suspended from an NFL/competitiveness viewpoint. However, from a legal standpoint, the more favorable to Browner the settlement is, the easier it will be for him to sue the NFL afterwards for defamation. Just hypothetically, if the NFL completely lets Browner off the hook then they are full-on admitting to defamation of character. I don't know if it's legally possible for the NFL to keep parts of the settlement secret, but if it is then I wouldn't be surprised if there is monetary compensation included paired with a clause that Browner agrees not to sue. Less negative publicity for the NFL that way.
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
As I said before there will be no suspension and if the NFL knows what's good for them they'll settle. And he goes to level 1.kidhawk":y5c46lf5 said:
