Pat Williams says Bills trainer told him 'everything is legal'

[Ramius]

You're not one to let fact get in the way of your conclusions, but consider this:

 

Starcaps is a diuretic and a PED masking substance.

 

All players and their agents were warned against using this product by the NFLPA BEFORE the Williams boys were busted.

 

Regardless, Williams was contractually prohibited (by the Vikings) from using any diuretics, banned or not, to meet his weight requirements.

 

So he willfully did use a diuretic, and instead of using a League legal one chose one that masks steroid use. The only logical conclusion is that he used PEDs.

 

I don't see how the League loses this one.

 

 

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/nf...sts-mar-10-2010

 

Nope. You're dead wrong, as usual. The league is up a creek on this one, because they KNEW that there was an ingredient in StarCaps that was deemed illegal and failed to notify the players about it. Players called the NFL hotline and were told that there was nothing illegal with StarCaps.

 

StarCaps contains bumetanide, which is banned by the NFL. Bumetanide is NOT (or was not) listed as an ingredient in StarCaps. The NFL knew this, and knew that StarCaps contained bumetanide, but failed to properly notify the players. That's negligence on the NFL's part.

[JohnC]

As an athlete subject to random drug testing I can attest to the fact that standards change from year to year. Pseudoephedrine (the active ingredient in the cold medicine Sudafed) used to be on the USADA and WADA banned substance list. Then it was taken off for a few years. Now its back on the prohibited list but only in competition I believe. The point is that the banned substance list for Olympic sports is updated every year based on evidence from years prior. Just because a drug is ok one year doesn't mean that it is ok the next. I'm not sure how often the NFL updates their list but players should be aware at all times what the regulations are when they consume things.

The common advice is that if you even use vitamins it is at your own risk because you are ultimately responsible. If you are at all worried about a substances legality you should not use it plain and simple.

 

Your points are well stated. But if you had doubts and asked a trainer or trainers who are knowledgeable about the legitimacy of a substance then what more can you do. Supposedly, the trainer asked is someone not outside the NFL system but a trainer associated with a team and whose job it is to be aware of what is allowable and what is not allowable.

 

Unintentional mistakes are more likely to be made when the list of banned substances is constantly changing. There are times when special case circumstances should be considered and factored in when deciding the level of punishment. Sometimes a simple black and white ruling is not appropriate when the situation is complex and multicolored. This is a case where a chainsaw ruling was not as appropriate as a scalple ruling. Sometimes a zero tolerance mentality becomes an inflexible display of stupidity.

[Mr. WEO]

Nope. You're dead wrong, as usual. The league is up a creek on this one, because they KNEW that there was an ingredient in StarCaps that was deemed illegal and failed to notify the players about it. Players called the NFL hotline and were told that there was nothing illegal with StarCaps.

 

StarCaps contains bumetanide, which is banned by the NFL. Bumetanide is NOT (or was not) listed as an ingredient in StarCaps. The NFL knew this, and knew that StarCaps contained bumetanide, but failed to properly notify the players. That's negligence on the NFL's part.

Too easy. Read some (from the link):

 

 

The NFL today disclosed evidence that it placed the makers of the weight loss supplement StarCaps on its banned manufacturer list more than a year and a half before Vikings players Kevin and Pat Williams used the product and tested positive for a banned substance.

 

On the witness stand Wednesday morning, Stacey Robinson, Director of Player Development for the NFL Players Association testified that he received a memo from the NFL in December of 2006 that added the maker of StarCaps to the league’s list of banned manufacturers.

The next day Robinson said he notified all player representatives and agents of the decision in his own letter. In the letter he warned them about the company Balanced Health Products which distributed StarCaps.

 

Although the letter did not specifically indicate the ingredients in StarCaps violated the league’s drug policy, Robinson’s letter did advise that, “Players are prohibited from participating in any endorsement agreements with this company or using any of its products.”

 

So, to ReCap: all players were warned not to use ANY products by the company that makes and sells StarCaps. Williams is committing perjury when he says no one ever told him not to take StarCaps, when in fact, his own union told him and his agent not to do so almost 2 years before he did.

He also lied to the court as to who he told about his positive test.

 

Throw in that the mere use of a diuretic makes him willful violator of the contract he signed with his team.

 

That leaves him with zero credibility. And no case.

[JohnC]

Too easy. Read some (from the link):

 

 

 

 

Throw in that the mere use of a diuretic makes him willful violator of the contract he signed with his team.

 

That leaves him with zero credibility. And no case.

 

Just because he is a violator of a contract he signed with his team doesn mean that he is a knowing or as you put it (willful) violator of a league ruling. The team can handle its own dsicipline if it is a team rule.

 

Products are constantly being placed or taken off of the banned list as they are reviewed and tested. If you expect most players are able to keep up with the ever expanding products on the list then you are giving them too much credit. From what I understand Pat Williams asked a NFL trainer if the product he took was acceptable. He was told yes.

 

I'm not saying that the player shouldn't be held responsible in this matter. But what I am saying is that there were extenuating circumstances which should have been factored in when the four game suspension was dispensed as punishment. A blanket zero tolerance without considering the circumstances doesn't seem reasonable to me.

[USA6seat]

Your points are well stated. But if you had doubts and asked a trainer or trainers who are knowledgeable about the legitimacy of a substance then what more can you do. Supposedly, the trainer asked is someone not outside the NFL system but a trainer associated with a team and whose job it is to be aware of what is allowable and what is not allowable.

 

Unintentional mistakes are more likely to be made when the list of banned substances is constantly changing. There are times when special case circumstances should be considered and factored in when deciding the level of punishment. Sometimes a simple black and white ruling is not appropriate when the situation is complex and multicolored. This is a case where a chainsaw ruling was not as appropriate as a scalple ruling. Sometimes a zero tolerance mentality becomes an inflexible display of stupidity.

 

 

I know for them a 4 game suspension may cost them thousands of dollars but in other sports a positive test even for a masking agent will result in a 2 year ban from competition. A second positive test will result in being banned for life.

Given that, I think the Williams got off with a light punishment.

 

In a medical use case such as Pat Williams claims (re: using the diuretic for his gout and joint pain) in international sport there are things called TUE's or Therapeutic Use Exemptions. If he had a medical reason for using it he should have declared it an gotten the equivalent to a TUE. That is a mistake on his part that he has to own up to. I believe a few years back there was a US bobsledder named Zach Lund who tested positive for a masking agent that came to be in his system through his use of Propecia for hair loss. Regardless of why or how he used it, it was in his system and he had to accept a 1 year suspension. 4 games is a slap on the wrist.

[JohnC]

I know for them a 4 game suspension may cost them thousands of dollars but in other sports a positive test even for a masking agent will result in a 2 year ban from competition. A second positive test will result in being banned for life.

Given that, I think the Williams got off with a light punishment.

 

In a medical use case such as Pat Williams claims (re: using the diuretic for his gout and joint pain) in international sport there are things called TUE's or Therapeutic Use Exemptions. If he had a medical reason for using it he should have declared it an gotten the equivalent to a TUE. That is a mistake on his part that he has to own up to. I believe a few years back there was a US bobsledder named Zach Lund who tested positive for a masking agent that came to be in his system through his use of Propecia for hair loss. Regardless of why or how he used it, it was in his system and he had to accept a 1 year suspension. 4 games is a slap on the wrist.

 

I'll go back to my original main point. According to Pat Williams he did seek the advice of an NFL trainer regarding the banned product. The trainer is the person who is the accepted expert players go to regarding this issue. The trainer told him it was acceptable.

 

As I stated in a prior posting that doesn't under the current system exempt him from responsibility for what he takes. But it certainly should be a mitigating factor in the level of punishment. The level of punishment could run in the millions of dollars (not thousands as you stated).

 

Pat Williams believed that the product he took was acceptable. He knew he was going to be tested for banned substances. So why would he ask an NFL trainer about the product if he was trying to hide the fact that he was taking the product? If he took the product before asking the trainer about its legitimacy then I would not support PW's position. But the opposite happened. He sought advice from someone who should know about what is banned or not (NFL trainer) and when told it was acceptable he took the product.

 

In my view there should have been better and more reasonable judgment on the part of the league office. The punishment was excessive and the subsequent legal wrangling could have been avoided with a more flexible interpretation of the facts.

[reddogblitz]

If the Bills trainers had told him to jump off a cliff, would he have done that too?

[....lybob]

If the Bills trainers had told him to jump off a cliff, would he have done that too?

sure, pylo training

[Mr. WEO]

Just because he is a violator of a contract he signed with his team doesn mean that he is a knowing or as you put it (willful) violator of a league ruling. The team can handle its own dsicipline if it is a team rule.

 

Products are constantly being placed or taken off of the banned list as they are reviewed and tested. If you expect most players are able to keep up with the ever expanding products on the list then you are giving them too much credit. From what I understand Pat Williams asked a NFL trainer if the product he took was acceptable. He was told yes.

 

I'm not saying that the player shouldn't be held responsible in this matter. But what I am saying is that there were extenuating circumstances which should have been factored in when the four game suspension was dispensed as punishment. A blanket zero tolerance without considering the circumstances doesn't seem reasonable to me.

It goes to his credibility. He has lied under oath about key aspects of this episode. Has a trainer testified that he recommended StarCaps to Williams, or that he said they were OK?

 

ALL products from the StarCaps manufacturer were banned. Williams was informed by his own union over a year before he took them. Therefore, it shouldn't matter what an obviously uninformed trainer recommended to him (if one did at all).

 

Look, if a players "extenuating circumstance" is, simply, "I didn't know these were illegal" or "I never read mail from the NFLPA", wouldn't EVERY player busted using a masking agent use this argument?

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, bro. And where is Williams doctor claiming that "StarCaps" was his treatment choice for high blood pressure or gout?

[JohnC]

It goes to his credibility. He has lied under oath about key aspects of this episode. Has a trainer testified that he recommended StarCaps to Williams, or that he said they were OK?

 

ALL products from the StarCaps manufacturer were banned. Williams was informed by his own union over a year before he took them. Therefore, it shouldn't matter what an obviously uninformed trainer recommended to him (if one did at all).

 

Look, if a players "extenuating circumstance" is, simply, "I didn't know these were illegal" or "I never read mail from the NFLPA", wouldn't EVERY player busted using a masking agent use this argument?

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, bro. And where is Williams doctor claiming that "StarCaps" was his treatment choice for high blood pressure or gout?

 

Were the products from the StarCaps manufacturer always banned? I don't believe so. The banned list is not a static list. Products are constantly being reviewed and tested. Do you think that it is improbable that a player could have not read the NFLPA directives from more than a year prior or forgotten what was on the list a year prior?

 

If you read what I stated instead of assumed what I stated you would have noted that I said that he is ultimately responsible for consuming the product but that there were mitigating circumstances which should have called for a lesser punishment. As I have already stated if there was a greater degree of flexibility on the part of the league this legal imbroglio could have been avoided with a more reasonable punishment.

[Mr. WEO]

Were the products from the StarCaps manufacturer always banned? I don't believe so. The banned list is not a static list. Products are constantly being reviewed and tested. Do you think that it is improbable that a player could have not read the NFLPA directives from more than a year prior or forgotten what was on the list a year prior?

 

If you read what I stated instead of assumed what I stated you would have noted that I said that he is ultimately responsible for consuming the product but that there were mitigating circumstances which should have called for a lesser punishment. As I have already stated if there was a greater degree of flexibility on the part of the league this legal imbroglio could have been avoided with a more reasonable punishment.

The StarCaps products were banned over a year prior and never taken off the list. So the league actually made it easy for the players regarding this company's products.

 

I did read what you said. There are no mitigating circumstances. StarCaps are not used to treat any chronic and acute disease. No doctor would recommend their use for hypertension or gout.

 

So, again, you are left only with, "hey, I didn't know these supplements were banned". You can't have a rule that can be violated by simple ignorance. Every perp would expect the same pass.

 

Look, if you are an NFL player and you decide you are going to take some nonprescription pills to improve your performance (there is no other reason for taking these products) and you certainly are aware of the existence of a banned product list and the League testing policy---it is completely your responsibility to make sure that the bottle of pills "some dude" in the training room says is "OK", is not on the list. It would take, what, 10 minutes to determine whether a substance is on the banned list? To not do so makes a player lazy, stupid or both.

 

So, again, the mitigating factors you suggest (disease treatment, "changing list") do not exist in this case. That's why the League is pushing this case. It would be a bad precedent if they lost.

[JohnC]

The StarCaps products were banned over a year prior and never taken off the list. So the league actually made it easy for the players regarding this company's products.

 

I did read what you said. There are no mitigating circumstances. StarCaps are not used to treat any chronic and acute disease. No doctor would recommend their use for hypertension or gout.

 

So, again, you are left only with, "hey, I didn't know these supplements were banned". You can't have a rule that can be violated by simple ignorance. Every perp would expect the same pass.

 

Look, if you are an NFL player and you decide you are going to take some nonprescription pills to improve your performance (there is no other reason for taking these products) and you certainly are aware of the existence of a banned product list and the League testing policy---it is completely your responsibility to make sure that the bottle of pills "some dude" in the training room says is "OK", is not on the list. It would take, what, 10 minutes to determine whether a substance is on the banned list? To not do so makes a player lazy, stupid or both.

 

So, again, the mitigating factors you suggest (disease treatment, "changing list") do not exist in this case. That's why the League is pushing this case. It would be a bad precedent if they lost.

 

If the league prevails, which is most likely, I see an appeal. Then the interminable legal battle continues, and continues. What eventually is going to change is the league office will lose their sole authority to adjudicate drug and disciplinary matters. The union is going to fight for a system of an outside arbitrator or having a greater involvement in deciding these cases and administering the punishment.