Drug Clauses in Contracts, Does NFL CBA Allow?

[Mike in Horseheads]

There are posters on here that are always blaming (pick one or more) Whaley, Russ, Pegula, Ralph or TBA that they should get fired because they didn't put a performance enhancement or weed clause in players contracts. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement is that even allowed and if so on who and was it invoked?

...On here its usually about Marcel. Ok so what are you going to do cut him, he'd be on another team in a second. I could also see a player think I want out of here so pass the bong, 4 games latter signing where he wants to go.

...So be careful what you ask for.

[BringBackOrton]

There are posters on here that are always blaming (pick one or more) Whaley, Russ, Pegula, Ralph or TBA that they should get fired because they didn't put a performance enhancement or weed clause in players contracts. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement is that even allowed and if so on who and was it invoked?

...On here its usually about Marcel. Ok so what are you going to do cut him, he'd be on another team in a second. I could also see a player think I want out of here so pass the bong, 4 games latter signing where he wants to go.

...So be careful what you ask for.

lol

 

Google Lane Johnson. See ya.

[Mike in Horseheads]

lol

 

Google Lane Johnson. See ya.

OK... He's suspended 10 games now, you did not answer any of the questions in the original post.

[The Wiz]

There are posters on here that are always blaming (pick one or more) Whaley, Russ, Pegula, Ralph or TBA that they should get fired because they didn't put a performance enhancement or weed clause in players contracts. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement is that even allowed and if so on who and was it invoked?

...On here its usually about Marcel. Ok so what are you going to do cut him, he'd be on another team in a second. I could also see a player think I want out of here so pass the bong, 4 games latter signing where he wants to go.

...So be careful what you ask for.

As far as putting in wording about PED's or drug use, yes, they can put that in the contract. In fact I believe the bills did but did the opposite. I believe they put in a clause that they wouldn't punish him if he was caught using. I remember a thread in the past about it but can't find. pretty sure they did it though.

[BringBackOrton]

OK... He's suspended 10 games now, you did not answer any of the questions in the original post.

If you googled his contract, you'd see that they had language in his contract about being able to void all of his guaranteed money with another suspension for substance abuse. He then got nailed again, and here we are.

 

Clearly it's allowed by the CBA. As well as the "be careful what you wish for," doesn't mean a player can smoke a bong and get out of their contract. It would put the power in the hands of the team to be able to void part of their money or cut them without repercussions. No GM (well Whaley excluded) would put language that would let a player decide to walk with a substance abuse suspension. To even suggest that is ludicrous. Then again, from a guy who can't find an answer from Google....

Edited December 16, 2016 by jmc12290

[Mike in Horseheads]

If you googled his contract, you'd see that they had language in his contract about being able to void all of his guaranteed money with another suspension for substance abuse. He then got nailed again, and here we are.

 

Clearly it's allowed by the CBA. As well as the "be careful what you wish for," doesn't mean a player can smoke a bong and get out of their contract. It would put the power in the hands of the team to be able to void part of their money or cut them without repercussions. No GM (well Whaley excluded) would put language that would let a player decide to walk with a substance abuse suspension. To even suggest that is ludicrous. Then again, from a guy who can't find an answer from Google....

Thank you. The knowledge you seem to think you have on every subject is very helpful around here. Have a nice day.

[Augie]

Thank you. The knowledge you seem to think you have on every subject is very helpful around here. Have a nice day.

I am very curious what other "informed" people have to say. I honestly don't know, but I don't care to just take it for granted from people who may just be haters.

[The Wiz]

If you googled his contract, you'd see that they had language in his contract about being able to void all of his guaranteed money with another suspension for substance abuse. He then got nailed again, and here we are.

 

Clearly it's allowed by the CBA. As well as the "be careful what you wish for," doesn't mean a player can smoke a bong and get out of their contract. It would put the power in the hands of the team to be able to void part of their money or cut them without repercussions. No GM (well Whaley excluded) would put language that would let a player decide to walk with a substance abuse suspension. To even suggest that is ludicrous. Then again, from a guy who can't find an answer from Google....

Well there it is. I thought it was the other way around where he kept his guaranteed money if he was hit with a drug suspension.

 

Actually, I was right. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2016/08/19/Buffalo-Bills-struggling-to-keep-patience-with-Marcell-Dareus/1261471583237/

 

 

 

Further, thanks to unique provisions in the contract, Dareus will not lose any of his future guaranteed money because of this incident, an aspect of the deal that has many in the league scratching their heads and wondering why the Bills would have agreed to that stipulation. Ultimately, the suspension will only cost Dareus about $3.3 million.

Edited December 16, 2016 by The Wiz

[Mike in Horseheads]

Well there it is. I thought it was the other way around where he kept his guaranteed money if he was hit with a drug suspension.

 

Actually, I was right. http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2016/08/19/Buffalo-Bills-struggling-to-keep-patience-with-Marcell-Dareus/1261471583237/

 

Thanks Wiz! Thats all I was asking.

[iinii]

If you googled his contract, you'd see that they had language in his contract about being able to void all of his guaranteed money with another suspension for substance abuse. He then got nailed again, and here we are.

 

Clearly it's allowed by the CBA. As well as the "be careful what you wish for," doesn't mean a player can smoke a bong and get out of their contract. It would put the power in the hands of the team to be able to void part of their money or cut them without repercussions. No GM (well Whaley excluded) would put language that would let a player decide to walk with a substance abuse suspension. To even suggest that is ludicrous. Then again, from a guy who can't find an answer from Google....

Whaley is guilty? So it's not so ludicrous? Bing!

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

In the case of Dareus, he was about to become a FA, so much easier for him to dictate the terms. That's the risk you take in not signing earlier when team has more leverage, but the opposite of that is you worry about player regressing after signing (see Trent Edwards and Fitz) So very easy to blame Whaley and point out how other teams were smarter, but depends on how much you value the player and who has the leverage. If the Bills had refused the clause he may have walked.

 

To Wiz's comments "the Bills put in a clause" Highly doubt that was the case, more Dareus demanded the clause and the Bill's a greed or risked losing him. If they'd have known he'd be suspended twice, they likely wouldn't have agreed, but hindsight is easy, particularly around here.

[The Wiz]

In the case of Dareus, he was about to become a FA, so much easier for him to dictate the terms. That's the risk you take in not signing earlier when team has more leverage, but the opposite of that is you worry about player regressing after signing (see Trent Edwards and Fitz) So very easy to blame Whaley and point out how other teams were smarter, but depends on how much you value the player and who has the leverage. If the Bills had refused the clause he may have walked.

 

To Wiz's comments "the Bills put in a clause" Highly doubt that was the case, more Dareus demanded the clause and the Bill's a greed or risked losing him. If they'd have known he'd be suspended twice, they likely wouldn't have agreed, but hindsight is easy, particularly around here.

You're probably right that they did it out of demand, just stating the fact that they did put it in the contract.

[BringBackOrton]

In the case of Dareus, he was about to become a FA, so much easier for him to dictate the terms. That's the risk you take in not signing earlier when team has more leverage, but the opposite of that is you worry about player regressing after signing (see Trent Edwards and Fitz) So very easy to blame Whaley and point out how other teams were smarter, but depends on how much you value the player and who has the leverage. If the Bills had refused the clause he may have walked.

 

To Wiz's comments "the Bills put in a clause" Highly doubt that was the case, more Dareus demanded the clause and the Bill's a greed or risked losing him. If they'd have known he'd be suspended twice, they likely wouldn't have agreed, but hindsight is easy, particularly around here.

Dareus was no different that the hundred's of FA's that came before him. Why was it the first reported time in the NFL there was language like that in? Did he have secret leverage?

[Mike in Horseheads]

In the case of Dareus, he was about to become a FA, so much easier for him to dictate the terms. That's the risk you take in not signing earlier when team has more leverage, but the opposite of that is you worry about player regressing after signing (see Trent Edwards and Fitz) So very easy to blame Whaley and point out how other teams were smarter, but depends on how much you value the player and who has the leverage. If the Bills had refused the clause he may have walked.

 

To Wiz's comments "the Bills put in a clause" Highly doubt that was the case, more Dareus demanded the clause and the Bill's a greed or risked losing him. If they'd have known he'd be suspended twice, they likely wouldn't have agreed, but hindsight is easy, particularly around here.

If we let him walk because of the drug clause this place would have blamed the same people.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

No while not completely unique, he is different in that many FA sign extensions before their present contract runs out and games are still being played, thus the risk on the players side of injury. Or they hit the open market and sign with whoever they want which gives the player advantages to get the best deal, but also gives the team the ability to move on quickly to another option.. Dareus signed after final season, but before the March 1st (or whatever the exact date is) beginning of FA season. In that window if time all the advantage goes to the player as teams can't yet sign other players, but player has option to say yes or no. Just like this past year Glenn signed within that same window of time.

 

So your statement of hundreds that came before him is probably correct over maybe the past 25 years, but dwarfs when compared to the thousands and even tens of thousands who fell into the other two categories that I described. Whether you believe it or not, there's a big difference between who has the leverage in those different situations.

 

 

Dareus was no different that the hundred's of FA's that came before him. Why was it the first reported time in the NFL there was language like that in? Did he have secret leverage?

[BringBackOrton]

No while not completely unique, he is different in that many FA sign extensions before their present contract runs out and games are still being played, thus the risk on the players side of injury. Or they hit the open market and sign with whoever they want which gives the player advantages to get the best deal, but also gives the team the ability to move on quickly to another option.. Dareus signed after final season, but before the March 1st (or whatever the exact date is) beginning of FA season. In that window if time all the advantage goes to the player as teams can't yet sign other players, but player has option to say yes or no. Just like this past year Glenn signed within that same window of time.

 

So your statement of hundreds that came before him is probably correct over maybe the past 25 years, but dwarfs when compared to the thousands and even tens of thousands who fell into the other two categories that I described. Whether you believe it or not, there's a big difference between who has the leverage in those different situations.

 

 

No he didn't. You're confusing him and Glenn. Dareus signed in September of 2015. I think it was week 2 or 3.

Edited December 17, 2016 by jmc12290

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

OK, thought they both signed right before the start of FA. So agree then more a typcial FA signing. But still is a back and forth thing with gives and takes.

 

 

No he didn't. You're confusing him and Glenn. Dareus signed in September of 2015. I think it was week 2 or 3.

[BringBackOrton]

OK, thought they both signed right before the start of FA. So agree then more a typcial FA signing. But still is a back and forth thing with gives and takes.

 

 

Well all negotiations are gives and takes. When compared to the average NFL superstar pending FA, he was the only one to get that clause. With a previous history of suspension. Still unacceptable.