New York Times article explains why Goodell may not be able to suspend Smith, Grant (1 Viewer)

[Broad St. Saint]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/sports/football/19doping.html?_r=1&hp

Points that many will be familiar with, and that Goodell talked about on NFL Network this week, but basically a pretty good explanation of how the ruling creates uneveness by putting drug policy enforcement potentially at the state level, meaning that if the NFL enforced its policies, they might wind up having different bite in different states -- and Goodell says he won't have a drug policy that affects different teams differently.

 

[longtime lurker]

A very informative read....it'll be interesting to see how this ends up changing the leagues policies.

 

[Merl]

A very informative read....it'll be interesting to see how this ends up changing the leagues policies.

The league will be working hard to get this issue fixed in the new CBA so that it can't happen again.

 

[Saint Jeremy]

If the league had been upfront about Star Caps, none of this would have happened.

 

[RobG]

If the league had been upfront about Star Caps, none of this would have happened.

lus-un2: They definitely created this mess!

 

[superchuck500]

The league will be working hard to get this issue fixed in the new CBA so that it can't happen again.

The problem is that the Minnesota law says that it applies even if there's a CBA. It is considered a "minimum guarantee" that all employers must follow, whether there's a CBA or not. A CBA is free to provide more guarantees, it just can't go less than the law allows.

But I totally disagree with the general premise of this article and those who act like this is so monumental a challenge to an effective drug program. All the Minnesota law said was that you can't discipline an employee for a first time failed drug test without a confirming test - even if using the same sample. How hard is that? What's the big problem that is keeping the NFL from being compliant with that? It doesn't seem that unusual or difficult to comply with.

The bigger question is, what other laws may be out there that could come into play? That question should also be easily answered. States typically don't enact crazy laws (apart from Louisiana - ha!), there are just minor differences, nuances. And, more importantly, not every state law will preempt a CBA. The NFL could somewhat easily find out where there may be local variances that it needs to comply with - and then just comply with those variances!

This is something that every other multi-state employer has to deal with (including those with CBAs) and the NFL should be no different. Compliance with local law shouldn't be such an unusual concept as the league is making it out to be. Especially given the league's choice to remain an unincorporated entity that simply is the collection of teams, which themselves are local entities and local employers.

 

[bergeaux]

In that article Jeff Pash (NFL counsel) said:

The state law issue has cast a needless cloud of uncertainty over... for the first time, we have an effort to attack the program through the vehicle of one's state law

This all boils down to the NFL pursuing a suspension on a case that they are partially responsible in causing.

The main reason all of these players are fighting so hard is because the NFL is refusing to acknowledge and deal with their own culpability in this case.

Now they are dealing with some unintended consequences that could effect their ability to continue the anti-doping policy.

I don't think any of these players would be fighting so hard if it weren't this particular case.

I'm glad to see Goodell struggle with one of his bad decisions.