The appeal Process doesn't look good | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The appeal Process doesn't look good

Y

Yettyskills

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
Age
50
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/content/sports/epaper/2006/02/22/a1c_dolphins_0222.html

......"You have to understand, the player has to go in front of the same people that just found him in violation and convince him that they're wrong," said Michael Baird, a Chicago-based attorney who estimates that less than 10 percent of the league's appeals have been successful. "You have to convince them that they made a mistake. That's never easy to do with anyone."
Unlike Philadelphia receiver Terrell Owens, who was reinstated after being suspended by the Eagles for detrimental conduct, Williams will not plead his case to neutral arbitrators. Instead, Baird said, he will face the same league drug board members and medical adviser who determined that he failed his most recent test.....
 
were not gonna know for a while the appeal procees is gonna happen in about a month and since rickys in india maybe even longer
 
Whatever the case, Williams and his agent, Leigh Steinberg, must persuade the NFL that he is the victim of a faulty test, Baird said. Based on the league's drug policy, Baird said, unknowingly ingesting a banned substance or supplement is not a plausible excuse.
"The bottom line is, even if the player was unaware they've been given the drug, the test doesn't require intent," said Baird, who does not know the specifics of Williams' appeal. "The standard is so strict, if the NFL wants to enforce it strictly, you're basically sunk."
Steinberg has declined to discuss the appeal.
Baird said his successful appeals were based on one of two factors  a faulty testing procedure or false-positive results. He said he has never won a case because a legal substance was mistaken for an illegal one  like an herb testing positive for a banned substance.

This is not good news...
 
That's no new information. It's still reliant on what caused the postive.

False positives happen all the time, in every test, HIV, drug tests, whatever. It's actually good for Ricky, in a way. Since they don't test the B sample until the appeals process, a flase positive hasn't been ruled out.

As well as the fact a more rigorous test could further identify whether what he took was, in fact, a masking agent or just something that shows up on a test as a masking agent.
 
The fact confidentiality was broken won't mean anything? I'm not too sure how this whole thing goes. But he can't win the appeal on that and that alone?
 
I could've written that article in two words:

Ricky's screwed.
 
Yettyskills said:
This is not good news...
Click to expand...

It's not good news if Ricky was trying to fake out the test or taking something specifically prohibited.

But if his mother and agent are right, and it's something that is showing up as a positive for a banned substance, but isn't - it is good news.

The appeals process as described works in ricky's favor IF he didn't intentionally or carelessly violate the drug ban.
 
nopony said:
It's not good news if Ricky was trying to fake out the test or taking something specifically prohibited.

But if his mother and agent are right, and it's something that is showing up as a positive for a banned substance, but isn't - it is good news.

The appeals process as described works in ricky's favor IF he didn't intentionally or carelessly violate the drug ban.
Click to expand...

Pony...re-read the article, it's not saying that at all...

"Based on the league's drug policy, Baird said, unknowingly ingesting a banned substance or supplement is not a plausible excuse.
"The bottom line is, even if the player was unaware they've been given the drug, the test doesn't require intent," said Baird"
 
.. Just further supporting the argument that the leagues governing system is rediculous. That might be the only thing that anyone has agreed on the past few days.
 
Yettyskills said:
Pony...re-read the article, it's not saying that at all...

"Based on the league's drug policy, Baird said, unknowingly ingesting a banned substance or supplement is not a plausible excuse.
"The bottom line is, even if the player was unaware they've been given the drug, the test doesn't require intent," said Baird"
Click to expand...

Re-read my two posts.

If something Ricky took that was NOT on the list of banned substances, the more thorough test could clear him.

And the fact, again, that they don't test the B sample until the appeal is very good news. It means they don't already know it wasn't a false postive.
 
regarless of what happens now I don't see us being able to trade him this year cos this whole thing will probably take about 2 months and by then the draft will be over.

Ozzy rules!!
 
"The appeals process as described works in ricky's favor IF he didn't intentionally or carelessly violate the drug ban."

Pony...IF he did or didn't carelessly or intentionally violate the drug ban doesn't make a difference.
That is what he is getting at...suggesting the only thing that may save Ricky is that 2nd sample.

And I tell ya, the fact that this much time has gone by and neither Ricky or his agent have floated the idea of something easy to explain...something trivial... any type of PR campaign, kinda freaks me out. Almost as if they found something bad and they are praying on that 2nd sample. I mean, if Ricky knows it is a load, or his agent knows this is a crock, why not share it?
The only thing I can think of is really bad news.
 
Yettyskills said:
"The appeals process as described works in ricky's favor IF he didn't intentionally or carelessly violate the drug ban."

Pony...IF he did or didn't carelessly or intentionally violate the drug ban doesn't make a difference.
That is what he is getting at...suggesting the only thing that may save Ricky is that 2nd sample.

And I tell ya, the fact that this much time has gone by and neither Ricky or his agent have floated the idea of something easy to explain...something trivial... any type of PR campaign, kinda freaks me out. Almost as if they found something bad and they are praying on that 2nd sample. I mean, if Ricky knows it is a load, or his agent knows this is a crock, why not share it?
The only thing I can think of is really bad news.
Click to expand...

No, you're not following me. What I'm saying is that substances that are NOT on the list will sometimes show up as things ON the list. the fact that they didn't yet test the B sample can only be good news for the process. Also the fact that they do a more thorough test could distinguish between legal substances that are tripping the test and illegal substances.

And don't read too much into what his agent is or is not saying. They're like lawyers... unless you are sure it help you to talk... don't. And he will make no friends in the NFL office by talking... and that could hurt him. Right now his verbal focus is on the leak... since the NFL will also be pissed about that.
 
nopony said:
No, you're not following me. What I'm saying is that substances that are NOT on the list will sometimes show up as things ON the list. the fact that they didn't yet test the B sample can only be good news for the process. Also the fact that they do a more thorough test could distinguish between legal substances that are tripping the test and illegal substances.

And don't read too much into what his agent is or is not saying. They're like lawyers... unless you are sure it help you to talk... don't. And he will make no friends in the NFL office by talking... and that could hurt him. Right now his verbal focus is on the leak... since the NFL will also be pissed about that.
Click to expand...

LOL, ummm The NFL is the one that should be Worried, they are the source of the leak. And all that lawyer talk is all fine and good, it is assumed, I've moved beyond that. It cannot hurt to talk... if you are positive the test is wrong. The NFL leaked the info, Ricky has every right to say whatever he chooses, and sure he has the right to say nothing...
But a innocent man 99% of the time will let the court of public opinion knows as such. I'm not hearing it anywhere yet, and the longer it takes the more suspect I will get that this isn't a simple "whoops". If it was a "whoops" in Ricky and his agents eyes...why haven't they said as such?
The only thing you are saying is the NFL boogy man will punish him for defending himself, offering a explanation of what may have happen, or simply talking about what is his own business?

And it's plain and simple where the misunderstanding lies, I quoted your exact words, I'm not talking about the second test, you said...again...

"The appeals process as described works in ricky's favor IF he didn't intentionally or carelessly violate the drug ban."

and again your reply is talking about something else...
If your reply was, it works in his favor IF he is clean, because the 2nd sample. But you said something to the effect about how Ricky generated the positive test, whether or not it was intentional or careless.

The point is...it does not matter either way.
It is all about that 2nd test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom