Ex-49er in class action lawsuit against NFL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Stranger

How big is infinity?
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
7,182
Name
Hugh
Yes of course they did, they took federally controlled medication without prescriptions.

To me this is as silly as when the Feds bust a "wellness clinic" and the guys running it get huge fines and jail time but the pro athletes spending 20-120K don't even get a lecture when they broke federal laws as well.

Clearly both sides should share the blame IMO. This is something that has to be done on a case by case basis though, not class action. There are WAY to many variables from player to player, injury to injury, contract situations, early in a career versus late and a lot of other things that have to be taken into account. This cannot all be lumped in together.
I need to research this further......

No controlled substance in schedule II, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner.


As far as the civil ramification via class action, it seems obvious to me that the players were harmed by the NFL's action, which the NFL took in order to garner commercial advantage. This seems to me to be a valid civil claim by the players, especially given that the NFL had to break the law to gain this advantage.
 
Last edited:

Stranger

How big is infinity?
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
7,182
Name
Hugh
From the lawsuit....

17. The NFL directly and indirectly supplied players with and encouraged players to
use opioids to manage pain before, during and after games in a manner the NFL knew or should
have known constituted a misuse of the medications and violated Federal drug laws

18. The NFL directly and indirectly administered Toradol on game days to injured
players to mask their pain. Many players received Toradol over multiple games (if not every
game) in a season for several seasons in a row. Toradol should not be used this way.

19. The NFL directly and indirectly supplied players with NSAIDs, and otherwise
encouraged players to rely upon NSAIDs, to manage pain without regard to the players’ medical
history, potentially fatal drug interactions or long-term health consequences of that reliance.

20. The NFL directly and indirectly supplied players with local anesthetic
medications to mask pain and other symptoms stemming from musculoskeletal injury when the
NFL knew that doing so constituted a dangerous misuse of such medications.

21. The NFL sanctioned and/or encouraged the misuse of narcotic pain medications
in combination with NSAIDs, anesthetics and other substances such as alcohol despite clear
evidence of the potentially-fatal interactions of such combinations. NFL doctors travel with their
teams and know that players are being provided with such medications along with alcohol that
the NFL provides on plane trips back from games.

22. With its priority on profit, the NFL places a premium on return to play to the
detriment of a player’s health. The time has come for that to stop

.
.
.

44. Plaintiffs were not warned about the dangers of: (a) cocktailing; (b) ingesting
medication in numbers beyond a recommended dosage; (c) taking medications for periods of
time significantly longer than medically necessary; (d) the potential for addiction associated with
certain medications the League provided them; or (e) the potential for increased frequency and
severity of injuries as a result of taking medications, including but not limited to Toradol, that
masked pain.

45. The NFL fraudulently concealed these dangers from its players to keep them on
the field when they otherwise should not have been, placing profit before player health.

46. Plaintiffs had no good reason to know of these dangers until recently. Often they
were not even told the names of the medications they were being given
. Further,
he NFL kept poor records, to the extent it kept records at all, regarding the medications it
dispensed to its players.

47. Those failures on the part of the NFL constitute substantial factors in causing
Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
nfl-painkillers.jpg

Toby Talbot/AP (Inset: Mark Cunningham/Getty Images)

The Painkiller Problem
Eight retired players are suing the NFL claiming their painkiller addiction was the result of playing pro football. Do they have a case? Here, we break down possible defense strategies and explain why this could lead to marijuana use being condoned by the league
By Michael McCann

As the NFL tries to settle potentially billion-dollar litigation over the long-term neurological effects of concussions, the league has been hit with yet another major lawsuit: eight retired players, including Jim McMahon and Richard Dent, claim the league duped players into becoming addicted to painkillers. Attorneys for the players seek to transform the case into a class action on behalf of potentially thousands of other retired players.

The lawsuit portrays the NFL and its teams as taking extraordinarily unethical steps to suppress players’ pain so they could remain on the field. According to the complaint, team doctors and trainers routinely prescribed medications without prescriptions and without warning players about the risk of addiction and side effects. These allegations, if true, would constitute criminal acts under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Other allegations suggest team physicians and trainers regularly ignored players’ medical histories and disregarded the possibility of fatal interactions due to unique body chemistry.

Overall, the lawsuit depicts the NFL as a greedy enterprise which viewed players as disposable assets and treated them more like thoroughbreds than humans.

The painkiller litigation comes five months after U.S. District Judge Anita Brody rejected a proposed $765 million settlement between the NFL and retired players over concussions. Even if the NFL and retired players reach a new settlement over concussions and have it approved by Brody, some retired players likely would opt out of the settlement (as is their right) and file their own cases against the NFL. The NFL is likely to face player litigation for years to come.

NFL Legal Defenses

The league will answer the painkiller complaint in the coming weeks and ask that it be dismissed. As the litigation plays out, expect the league to offer at least six key defenses.

  1. Preemption
The NFL will argue that painkiller claims brought by the retired players are preempted by federal labor law. The league will insist that collective bargaining agreements between the NFL and NFLPA detail intricate rules for player health and internal grievance procedures for resolving questions about those rules. The NFL will assert that no court should hear a claim that players contractually assented must first be resolved through internal procedures.

A preemption argument will be one of the NFL’s best defense tools. When unions and management agree to procedures to resolve disputes outside of the legal process, courts typically defer to those procedures. The NFL will stress that the league’s duty to players through team physicians and trainers is a matter of interpreting collective bargaining agreements, not applying torts and other areas of law.

To be sure, the NFL is not assured of victory by arguing preemption. The players have alleged fraudulent conduct by the NFL, and such conduct arguably is outside the scope of any collective bargaining agreement. Put another way, players and owners can’t agree to one side committing fraud on the other, and thus a fraud claim might fall beyond the reach of preemption.

Preemption is also a less certain defense for NFL activities that occurred between 1974 and 1977, and again between 1989 and 1993. During these years the league operated without a collective bargaining agreement. The NFLPA was also decertified between 1989 and 1993, meaning players did not negotiate policies with the NFL through a labor relationship. Although the NFL will stress that rules remained in place during periods without a collective bargaining agreement, watch for players to contend preemption does not apply during those periods.

  1. Blame the NFLPA
A related argument to preemption is that the players should place most of the legal blame on their union, not the NFL. Players entrusted the NFLPA with negotiating rules that impacted the diagnosis and treatment of their injuries, including rules for which painkillers could be used and under what circumstances painkillers could be prescribed. Along those lines, concern about NFL players overusing painkillers has been evident for years, without significant action by the NFL or—more importantly—the NFLPA.

As the exclusive bargaining unit for NFL players, the NFLPA has a duty of fair representation, which compels it to negotiate in good faith and competently. A credible argument could be made that, until recent years, the NFLPA prioritized financial compensation over safety in negotiations with the NFL. From the NFL’s vantage point, the health and safety of NFL players is a subject of collective bargaining, and the NFLPA has the primary responsibility to advocate on behalf of those players.

  1. Unreliable evidence and unavailable witnesses
The eight players involved in the lawsuit collectively played from 1969 to 2008. In some cases it might be difficult to corroborate their claims through team records, medical files, letters and memoranda. Documents transmitted on paper rather than through electronic correspondence might no longer be available. Without actual proof, allegations the league illegally dispensed painkillers might remain just that: allegations.

The fact that many of the allegations concern events occurring decades ago also invites questions about memory and recollection. Witnesses who attempt to recall events from decades back often struggle when cross-examined by lawyers, as those witnesses might easily confuse facts or fail to recall crucial details. Will retired players be so sure about their memories of playing days while under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury?

The plaintiffs must also contend with the unavailability of doctors and trainers implicated by the lawsuit. Many of those health care professionals likely have retired or passed away. It could prove challenging, and in some cases impossible, for players’ attorneys to depose individuals who are crucial to the case.

  1. Lack of causation and assumption of risk
jd-hill.jpg

J.D. Hill played seven seasons as a wide receiver for the Bills in the 1970s. (NFL Photos/AP)

A causal link between physical harm and painkillers might not be easily proven. Take allegations by J.D. Hill, one of the eight named plaintiffs. The complaint assigns blame on the NFL for Hill becoming addicted to painkillers, which eventually led to him suffering a weakened immune system, developing an abscess in his lung and becoming homeless. Hill’s account is genuinely tragic, but the NFL will likely argue that the league is not to blame. The league will first stress it acted reasonably. The league will also assert that even if it acted unreasonably, Hill’s harms are too attenuated from any wrongful conduct by the NFL. Other life events and personal choices, the NFL surely will contend, broke any causal nexus between the league and Hill.

The league is also poised to frame players as voluntarily using painkillers and thus providing consent. While the complaint argues NFL players—who unlike many other pro athletes play on non-guaranteed contracts— were aggressively pressured to play hurt, the NFL could reason that players ultimately made the decision to use painkillers. Along those lines, players could have at any point ended their NFL careers and pursued another line of employment. In their complaint, the plaintiffs anticipate this argument by asserting the NFL created and maintained a “culture of drug abuse.” The culture, the players contend, denied players a meaningful choice by denying them the necessary information to provide informed consent.

  1. Team doctors and trainers were independent contractors, not team employees
The employment status of NFL team physicians and trainers has varied over the years and by team, and has been a key issue in malpractice cases against team physicians. Some physicians and trainers have been employees of the team, while others have been independent contractors. Employers generally have higher legal exposure to the wrongful acts of employees than those of independent contractors. Watch for the NFL to argue that the league is less responsible for the actions of physicians and trainers who were independent contractors. Retired players, however, can respond by asserting that teams should not be able to delegate responsibilities of care to physicians and trainers merely through employment classification.

  1. Statute of limitations have expired
The NFL will argue that the retired players’ claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitation. The statute of limitations is a legal device designed to ensure that claims be brought in a timely manner and before evidence and witnesses become unavailable. The players allege theories of negligence and fraud. These types of claims are generally available only for a handful of years following the negligent or fraudulent act. This might prove problematic for the eight named players, as most of their allegations concern events occurring prior to 2000, in some cases well before 2000.

In their complaint, the players recognize the NFL will cite the statute of limitations as a ground for dismissal. The players demand the statute of limitations be tolled (extended) on grounds the players were not warned and had no reason to know they were suffering harm by using painkillers.

Possibility of settlement

In the short-term, the NFL will deny the merits of the claim and try to convince a court to dismiss the lawsuit. But as NFL concussion litigation shows, the league may eventually conclude that settlement is a better strategy than litigation. The NFL is aware that fans, media and members of Congress are closely watching player safety lawsuits. There has been increasing concern in recent years that football is too dangerous and that outside intervention of some form may be warranted. Public perception is thus an important consideration for the NFL as it develops a legal strategy. Indeed, even though NFL attorneys believe lawsuits over player health are unlikely to prevail in court, those lawsuits could play out over years in a high-profile manner.

billboard.jpg

Recreational marijuana is legal in two NFL cities—Denver and Seattle—but the league prohibits its use for players, even for medical purposes. (Ed Andrieski/AP)

Consider some of the possible ramifications of lengthy and public litigations for the NFL. Pretrial discovery, which would involve players’ lawyers deposing league executives and team owners under oath and obtaining records from them, could unveil unflattering facts about the league and its owners. Pretrial discovery could also lead to NFL owners having to reveal closely-guarded financial information. Worse yet, should any of the player safety lawsuits go to trial, league officials would have to uncomfortably watch retired players and families tell jurors about the pain they’ve suffered. To avert these risks, the league might seek out a settlement with attorneys in the painkiller litigation, just as they have done in the concussion litigation.

An opening for marijuana?

The painkiller lawsuit raises serious questions about the health risks of painkillers commonly prescribed to NFL players. Both Robert Klemko (for The MMQB) and I (for SI.com) have written about the impact of marijuana legalization on the NFL. While the health benefits of marijuana remain a divisive topic, its gradual legalization raises the possibility that marijuana might eventually become a viable alternative to suppress pain. As one prominent NFL agent told me, “What is the alternative to marijuana? The alternative sucks. Think about what players take for pain—they take much more serious and much more addictive drugs. Vicodin. Percocet. Oxycodone. These are highly addictive and synthetically manufactured drugs. … They can rip up your insides. I would much rather my guys take natural, less addictive stuff.”

Michael McCann is a legal analyst and writer for Sports Illustrated and SI.com. He is also the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
i dare u to show your post to your wife... I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one :)

So, the argument is that their existing profession and their amount of pay excuses the behavior of the gang rapests?
I gave up daring and being dared when I was 16
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
IMO, the players do get a certain amount of blame, but nowhere near equal to the teams.

As an NFL player, especially a young one, there's a HUGE amount of pressure to go along with the rest of the team and/or do what Coach says. There's also that pressure in wondering how many games difference are there between being someone employed and someone cut due to injuries.

If the ruling ruled that the players were 5% at fault and the coaches 95% at fault, I'd be just fine with that.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
Former Player: ‘The NFL Is A Cult’

478028021-e1400759472338.jpg

Player-turned-actor Terry Crews is leveling the NFL in wake of a prescription drug-related lawsuit filed by former players. (credit: Frazer Harrison/Getty Images)

Crews, who was drafted by the Los Angeles Rams in 1991 and also played for the San Diego Chargers, Washington Redskins and Philadelphia Eagles, says there was “a lot of co-dependency going on” while he was playing.

“Football discipline is not real discipline,” Crews told Sports Illustrated Wednesday. “It’s one of those things where they tell you when to get up, they tell you when to eat, they tell you when to practice and they tell you when to go to sleep.”

Crews added: “When you give your life over to something like that and give your total trust into something like that, it will always disappoint you.”

Crews’ comments come as a lawsuit was filed Tuesday on behalf of more than 600 former players who contend they were abetted by team physicians and trainers across the NFL who routinely — and often illegally — dispensed powerful narcotics and other controlled substances on game days to mask the pain.

Among them were the painkillers Percodan, Percocet and Vicodin, anti-inflammatories such as Toradol, and sleep aids such as Ambien — “handed out like candy at Halloween,” according to lead attorney Steven Silverman.

Sometimes, the lawsuit also charges, the drugs were given in combinations as “cocktails.”

“The stuff works,” Jeremy Newberry, who played seven of his nine seasons in San Francisco before retiring in 2009, told The Associated Press in an interview. “It works like crazy. It really does.”

But only for so long.

Newberry, now 38 and one of the eight plaintiffs so far named in the lawsuit, says that because of the drugs he took while playing, he suffers from kidney failure, high blood pressure and violent headaches. Others — including three members of the NFL champion 1985 Chicago Bears: quarterback Jim McMahon, Hall of Fame defensive end Richard Dent and offensive lineman Keith Van Horne — reported a range of debilitating effects, from chronic muscle and bone ailments to permanent nerve and organ damage to addiction.

“Our attorneys have not seen the lawsuit,” said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, in Atlanta for the league’s spring meetings, “and obviously I have been in meetings all day.”

The lawsuit’s main burden is proving cause and effect — that use of painkillers long ago is responsible for chronic problems the players face now.

The claims are for a wide variety of problems that are common in older people, such as high blood pressure, knee replacements, arthritis, kidney problems, heart attacks and abnormal heart rhythms. The diversity of these problems, affecting so many different parts and body systems, tends to argue against a single cause, such as painkiller use.

The players also would have to show that they are suffering these problems at a greater rate than other people their age, and that it’s not due to other risk factors such as obesity, smoking and family history.

Six of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco, including McMahon and Van Horne, were also parties to the concussion-related class-action lawsuit less than a year ago. The NFL agreed to pay $765 million to settle that case — without acknowledging it concealed the risks of concussions from former players. A federal judge has yet to approve the settlement, expressing concern the amount is too small.

“The difference is that the concussion case claimed the NFL knew or should have known,” Silverman said. “We’re saying this was intentional, putting profits ahead of players’ health — and in violation of federal controlled substance laws, as well as state laws. You don’t order hundreds of narcotic painkillers in their names without telling them.”

The lawsuit covers the years 1968-2008. Silverman said a number of clients reported teams had “tightened up” dispensing procedures since then, including one incident in which a player said a trainer waited until the team plane on a flight home was 10,000 feet in the air before handing over a narcotic “to avoid violating any state laws.”

McMahon and Van Horne were among several players wqho said they were never told about broken bones and fed pills to mask the pain instead. Toradol, which players called a “full-body numb-er” and “the current game-day drug of choice of the NFL” was prevalent enough that Newberry described frequently seeing both teammates and opponents during warm-ups with blood spots on the buttocks of their pants — a telltale sign they’d taken a pre-game injection.

“There was a room set up near the locker room and you got in line,” said Kyle Turley, who played for three NFL teams in an eight-year career. “Obviously, we were grown adults and we had a choice. But when a team doctor is saying this will take the pain away, you trust them.’

Newberry said he regrets that decision now, but never considered not taking the drugs during his career because he feared he’d be out of a job if he didn’t play. After his retirement, a specialist who reviewed his medical records concluded the protein levels in his urine had been elevated — a precursor to kidney problems — for years. Newberry said he got blood work during a team-sponsored physical every year but was never told about any problems.

“They said, ‘You’re good to go, you passed another one. You’re cleared to play,’” he recalled.

Silverman said he planned to serve the NFL with the lawsuit within the next 120 days, after which the league has 30 days to respond. The case could be significantly delayed if there are similar filings and the lawsuits are eventually consolidated into a single class-action.

“We hope this gets to trial,” Silverman said. “I could see a scenario where, if it were to go to discovery, there would be more doctors and trainers taking the Fifth (Amendment) than providing sworn testimony. We think the problem is that profound.”
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
newberry.jpg

Tom Dahlin/Getty Images

Two Sides to the Suit
The NFL has some skeletons in its medical closet, which could be exposed if the recent painkiller lawsuit goes to trial. But there are a few things bothersome about the case. Those issues, plus answering readers’ mailbag questions
By Peter King

If I were an NFL attorney, I’d be concerned with former 49ers center Jeremy Newberry’s claims about routinely getting shot up with the painkiller Toradol—and not being told, according to Newberry, that he risked kidney failure by taking the drug. Newberry has lost much of his kidney function now, and he claims it’s because he took painkillers that were prescribed indiscriminately by team physicians, without regard to what they meant to his long-term health.

That’s a sordid and damaging case, if true and if it can be proven in court. It’s the kind of case the NFL cannot explain away, and there should be some nervous physicians in San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego, where Newberry (pictured above) played from 1998 to 2008.

The other part of the case that should concern the league is the purported systemic use, years ago, of cocktailing drugs to make their effects different than what their individual intentions were meant to be. To mix Toradol with even a minor pain-relief medication like Aleve is dangerous, and if it can be proven players were advised to do this and risk major organ failure … well, that’s a gigantic lawsuit.

I am bothered by a few things in this lawsuit, filed last week by eight former players against the NFL, claiming that teams didn’t properly notify them about the risks of taking painkillers during their careers. The attorneys for the eight players claim they are the name plaintiffs, and they represent 500 other players.

I am bothered that players sued the league rather than individual teams; if it’s team doctors that willy-nilly handed out drugs to keep players on the field, why not name names and sue team doctors? Keith Van Horne, Jim McMahon and Richard Dent are three of the eight plaintiffs, and they played mostly for the Chicago Bears. Why is it the NFL that’s getting served here and not the doctors who handed out the medication?

I also am bothered by the timing of it. I do understand it often takes time for symptoms to emerge in retired players, but 37 years? Plaintiffs J.D. Hill and Ron Pritchard last played 37 years ago. They just got a lawyer now? What should the statute of limitations be for retired players to seek damages against either the NFL or their former teams? I don’t know, but two generations is too long. Way too long. I doubt Keith Van Horne, the former Bears tackle, is just now noticing health problems—21 years after last playing—and a quarter-century after learning he played a season with a broken leg without being told of the consequences. But now is when he’s suing.

Newberry and former offensive lineman Ron Stone stopped playing less than a decade ago, and it seems reasonable to suggest that six and nine years after players stopped playing is a fair window to file a suit. But 37 years?

It’s clear the NFL has some skeletons in its medical closet, and I wish Newberry well in his struggle to be adequately taken care of if it’s proven that drugs were dispensed without regard to his future health. And I also wish that the case won’t be settled with a multimillion-dollar payout. I want to see and hear what really happened in NFL trainers’ rooms, so the game can be sure—similar to bounty payouts—the same stuff never happens again.

But whacking team physicians from the seventies and eighties, which is most of what we’re talking about here … how far back will attorneys go to let the sun shine on bad medical practices? A liberal pill dispenser in the sixties? Some crazy trainer in the fifties? That part of it bugs me, not to be unsympathetic to the cases of Pritchard and Hill. But how are we going to get to the bottom of what happened in a trainers’ room 40 years ago? Who is still alive from then? Who has the memory to determine whether Hill or Pritchard is telling the truth—and how many witnesses can be brought forth to tell the truth about something that happened in 1973, or 1985?

I know there is strength in numbers, but if I were Newberry, I’d have flown solo on this case. I don’t see how massing these cases together helps his cause. I’d have sued the teams and their medics who allegedly gave him Toradol without adequate warning. But however it is done, I hope his testimony illuminates a part of football that needs klieg lights shined on it.

Talkback:

ON RAY RICE. I usually love your column, but I was troubled by the section in today’s MMQB on Ray Rice’s press conference with his wife regarding their infamous Atlantic City elevator incident. Domestic violence against men by women is a huge problem in our society due to our culture of male bravado and toughness leading to most cases going unreported, allowing the violence to continue.

While it’s hard to conceive of a situation in which Rice was justified in knocking Palmer out, it is important to remember that if she was being violent with Rice, his first reaction (as with many people) could have been to fight. If that was the case, that his body’s first reaction to being attacked was to fight back, then it isn’t so hard to picture how he, a top-tier athlete, might have accidentally knocked out his wife before he could stop his initial bodily reaction.

Saying that there is never any excuse to get physical with a woman is exceedingly ignorant and propagates the stereotypes and ideas that make life a living hell for men being abused by their wives or girlfriends. Women are just as capable as men of physically abusing their significant others, and should therefore be under the same scrutiny as men in a situation where both parties seem to be the obvious victim of domestic violence.


—Ben C.

Sorry, Ben. I cannot see the argument the way you see it. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that the woman could have been at partial fault here. However, she was the one who was dragged unconscious out of an elevator by Rice. Are there cases in which females are overly aggressive and hurt males? I am sure there are. But there is absolutely no evidence in this case to suggest that.

ON A TOUGHER DUI SANCTION. While I would commend the players’ union for adding appropriate punishment to the substance abuse policy, a one-game suspension for a DUI conviction is a laughable deterrent. I would suggest at least four games, if not six. Make these coddled players seriously think about what repercussions their actions may cause by getting behind the wheel after a night of drinking.

—Jared, Silver Spring, Md.

Thank you for writing. While I agree with you that drunk driving should be penalized by the NFL more severely than it currently is, I cannot view a first-time DUI offense as being justifiable to miss 25% or 40% of the season. A one-game suspension is a good start and I believe it will be a better deterrent then the current system.

ON DAN SNYDER. Seems to me that the Washington football team’s name issue has been going on for many years and there is always going to be a stalemate because Dan Snyder won’t change the name. Has any thought been given by Roger Goodell and/or the other owners that if/when Snyder sells majority ownership of the team or if ownership is otherwise transferred, that a condition of sale or transfer would be a name change?

Of course, you run the risk of the team not changing hands for years on end, but at some point, Snyder will either sell or pass away (sorry, I know that sounds morbid). In the meantime, hopefully they can negotiate for a name change, but this way, there is a guarantee that it will occur at some time in the future.


—Yatin

That is an interesting concept. But if Dan Snyder owns the team for, say, the next 25 years, and I believe that’s quite possible, this certainly won’t help the situation the league and the team is in now.

MORE ON SNYDER. The fundamental flaw in your Redskins argument is that you assume Daniel Snyder should, or would, do what is in the best interest of the NFL. After the way the team was treated in the salary cap episode, why in the world would he do something that is in the best interest of the league as a whole? At least without massive compensation from the league?

—Stephanie, Evansville, Ind.

The only motivation Snyder has to do something now, other than listening to his conscience, is that he risks the wrath of the other 31 owners by continuing to make this a story for the next two or three years. I am not saying that he will continue to make it a story. The outside world will. But a headline is a headline, regardless of who prompts it.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
"Thank you for writing. While I agree with you that drunk driving should be penalized by the NFL more severely than it currently is, I cannot view a first-time DUI offense as being justifiable to miss 25% or 40% of the season. A one-game suspension is a good start and I believe it will be a better deterrent then the current system."

I strongly disagree with King here. It has to be remembered that only luck separates any DUI from being a case like Leonard Little's. A 1 game suspension isn't a deterrent, especially since players know they can game the system by appealing the case and thus controlling which week the suspension happens in.

With the NFL's "No Questions Asked" ride system in place for players, there's absolutely no excuse for NFL players to get a DUI. It's something that needs to be hammered on.

I'd comment on the Redskins thing too, but that risks violating the no political stuff rule around here, and I'm already on a bit of a tangent.