Guest Post: Contested Chain of Custody: McBean/Williams v. NFL

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.  He spent this past school year as a Wolcott Fellow at the Delaware Supreme Court and also served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law.  Eric has his sights on breaking into the sports and entertainment industry.  You can follow him on twitter @EricSable.

UPDATE: D.J. Williams’ lawsuit seeking to overturn his suspension was dismissed today, as Judge Christine Arguello granted the NFL’s motion for summary judgment.  He’ll be forced to serve his 6 game suspension at the start of the regular season.  You can read the Judge’s Order: here.

Ryan McBean — now of the Baltimore Ravens — had previously settled his claims with the NFL, in exchange for a reduction in his suspension from 6 to 3 games.

UPDATE:  McBean and the NFL have agreed to resolve his claims outside of court, so his claims are dismissed from this case.  D.J. Williams is now the only remaining plaintiff in this matter.

For those who followed the Ryan Braun suspension and successful appeal, a similar but distinct development is now taking place in the NFL.

In November 2011, D.J. Williams and Ryan McBean were suspended 6 games by the NFL after their urine tests revealed no endogenous steroids — substances which are naturally produced by healthy males.  The NFL’s Policy on Anabolic Steroids (the “Steroid Policy”) clearly provides that “Any effort to … 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.”  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.

Williams and McBean appealed their suspensions and NFL executive Harold Henderson presided over the arbitration.  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.  Specifically, Williams claimed the following violations:  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.  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.  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.

Henderson found these arguments unpersuasive and upheld the players’ suspensions.  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 — where a positive test would result in discipline.  Henderson also cited past attempts by Williams to manipulate the drug test.  In the end, Henderson concluded that any departure from the Steroid Policy did not materially affect the validity of the test.

In March, the players responded by filing a lawsuit seeking to preliminarily enjoin (i.e., block) imposition of the suspensions until the case is heard, and vacate (i.e., overturn) the arbitrator’s decision.  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.

This week, the NFL filed its brief opposing the injunction and also moved for summary judgment.  The league argues that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the court from issuing an injunction because this case grows out of a labor dispute.  Alternatively, the NFL contends that the players do not meet the legal standard for an injunction.

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.  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 — through the NFLPA — 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.

For various reasons, Williams and McBean will probably not enjoy the same success that Braun had in defeating his suspension.

While Braun won his direct appeal in the context of the MLB’s internal arbitration procedure — the three-member panel to which he appealed included the MLBPA’s Executive Director and an independent arbitrator — Henderson, the sole arbitrator in this case, has already ruled adversely against Williams and McBean.  Thus, they face an uphill battle, as courts typically eschew meddling in the arbitration process, absent flagrant violations by the arbitrator.  An arbitrator’s ruling is typically final and binding.  Second, Braun was able to establish a clear departure from the collection process delineated by the MLB’s drug program.  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.  Finally, the gap in the chain of custody of Braun’s sample lasted 48 hours.  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.

Although the NFL is likely to prevail, we await the court’s ruling.