Will the "Williams Wall" Case Sack the NFL's Entire Labor Agreement?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/215089-will-the-williams-wall-case-sack-the-nfls-entire-labor-agreement

by Marino Eccher

July 09, 2009


(Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)


A few months ago, the biggest question surrounding the pending suspension of the "Williams Wall" was the blow it could deal to the Vikings' pass rush.

At this point, however, it's time to wonder whether a court victory by Minnesota's two star defensive tackles—whose suspensions were blocked again by a judge today—will land a knockout punch on the league's collective bargaining agreement.

When Pat and Kevin Williams (no relation) first drew four-game bans for testing positive for a banned diuretic last October, along with a handful of other players, the notion of toppling the NFL's doping policy via lawsuit seemed absurd.

After all, the rules were crystal clear: Put a banned substance in your body, and you sit, no matter how it got there or whether it was on the label. The Players' Association signed off on the policy as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

And really, that's just about the only way a drug-testing program can work. You need to leave complaints about tainted supplements, rogue physicians, and other "accidental" ingestion at the door. If you test clean, you're clean; if not, you're suspended.

As Bill Parcells might have put it, "You are what your urine says you are."


FULL story at link.

They asked the league about StarCaps and the league did not respond although they knew a banned diuretic (not steroid) was in the supplement. The Williamses acted in good faith. The NFL did not.

Also, I hope StarCaps has to pay a HUGE settlement to the Williamses. Putting substances in your product and not revealing the fact it is in that product is criminal.

If this is what the fans want, let them have it. Just, please -- don't come back and ask for a new stadium on the taxpayers' backs.