Any effort to \u2026 manipulate a test to evade detection will be considered a violation of the Policy and likely will result in more severe discipline than would have been imposed for a positive test<\/em>.”\u00a0 Indeed, whereas a player that produces a positive test receives a 4-game suspension, a player that manipulates a test receives a 6-game suspension.<\/p>\nWilliams and McBean appealed their suspensions and NFL executive Harold Henderson presided over the arbitration.\u00a0 The players argued for reversal of their suspensions because alleged errors in the specimen collection process and gaps in the chain of custody undermined the integrity of the tests.\u00a0 Specifically, Williams claimed the following violations:\u00a0 his sample was not sealed in his presence, the actual time in which his sample was collected was not documented, his sample’s seal was not initialed, and a three-hour gap in custody appeared on the documentation.\u00a0 McBean argued that he did not observe the collector seal two of the four samples and also that the documentation showing the arrival of his sample to the laboratory contained conflicting dates.\u00a0 The players also highlighted the fact that the specimen collector was subsequently fired by the independent collection company for not following its own internal collection protocols.<\/p>\n
Henderson found these arguments unpersuasive and upheld the players’ suspensions.\u00a0 He noted that while nobody else involved in the process had a motive to manipulate their samples, the players were in the accelerated stages of the league’s substance abuse program \u2014 where a positive test would result in discipline.\u00a0 Henderson also cited past attempts by Williams to manipulate the drug test.\u00a0 In the end, Henderson concluded that any departure from the Steroid Policy did not materially affect the validity of the test.<\/p>\n
In March, the players responded by filing a lawsuit seeking to preliminarily enjoin (i.e.<\/em>, block) imposition of the suspensions until the case is heard, and vacate (i.e.<\/em>, overturn) the arbitrator’s decision.\u00a0 Williams and McBean argue that Henderson: (1) exceeded his powers by rendering a decision that conflicts with the NFL’s Steroid Policy; (2) prejudiced the players by failing to issue a ruling within the required 5-day time period and also by having impermissible conversations with the NFL’s general counsel, Jeff Pash, after the arbitration hearings; (3) disregarded the law by affirming suspensions despite facts that could not establish a valid collection process and chain of custody; and (4) was not impartial because he has served as an NFL executive for twenty years.<\/p>\nThis week, the NFL filed its brief opposing the injunction and also moved for summary judgment.\u00a0 The league argues that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the court from issuing an injunction because this case grows out of a labor dispute.\u00a0 Alternatively, the NFL contends that the players do not meet the legal standard for an injunction.<\/p>\n
In its motion for summary judgment, the NFL emphasizes that an arbitrator’s decision may be overturned “only in extraordinary circumstances,” which are not present here.\u00a0 The NFL argues that: (1) Henderson’s decision draws its essence from the Steroid Policy and cannot be second-guessed by a court; (2) the players \u2014 through the NFLPA \u2014 collectively bargained for the Steroid Policy and were fully aware of Henderson’s employment with the NFL; (3) the delay in rendering the decision was due to the NFL and NFLPA discussing possible solutions to the dispute; (4) the players waived their right to contest Henderson’s conversations with Pash, and even if they had not, those conversations do not warrant overturning the decision; and (5) the players have not demonstrated that Henderson knew the law and explicitly disregarded it.<\/p>\n
For various reasons, Williams and McBean will probably not enjoy the same success that Braun had in defeating his suspension.<\/p>\n
While Braun won his direct appeal in the context of the MLB’s internal arbitration procedure \u2014 the three-member panel to which he appealed included the MLBPA’s Executive Director and an independent arbitrator \u2014 Henderson, the sole arbitrator in this case, has already ruled adversely against Williams and McBean.\u00a0 Thus, they face an uphill battle, as courts typically eschew meddling in the arbitration process, absent flagrant violations by the arbitrator.\u00a0 An arbitrator’s ruling is typically final and binding.\u00a0 Second, Braun was able to establish a clear departure from the collection process delineated by the MLB’s drug program.\u00a0 Here, it appears that the NFL substantially complied with the procedure established by the collectively bargained Steroid Policy; Williams and McBean take umbrage with the fact that the specific protocols of the independent collection agency were not followed.\u00a0 Finally, the gap in the chain of custody of Braun’s sample lasted 48 hours.\u00a0 In this case, Williams sample had a gap of three hours at most, and this break in time is probably not enough to undermine the validity of the lab test.<\/p>\n
Although the NFL is likely to prevail, we await the court’s ruling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
UPDATED: June 21, 2012 Today’s guest post is by Eric Sable. Although the following article is not related to concussions, it is an intriguing lawsuit against the NFL that deserves coverage . Eric is a third-year law student at Widener University in Wilmington, Delaware. \u00a0He spent this past school year as a Wolcott Fellow at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=527"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":876,"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527\/revisions\/876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nflconcussionlitigation.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}