Ronald Jones says heart-condition medication triggered PED violation

[DallasEast]

but if hes been taking it since TB and KC why would he get suspended for taking it in Dallas?

there are league wide policies in reference to PEDs not team by team policies

thats an easy appeal and win....and soon as i win my appeal i'd call the league a bunch of goof balls on air and take the fine

It is more likely it will be a difficult appeal and reversal (or reduction) of the suspension. Any standard business policy for drug and/or substance abuse establishes the individual as guilty until proven innocent. In the NFL's case, a player is automatically guilty if a prohibited substance is found in a positive test.

The league's PES policy can be reviewed at this link. Here is a relevant passage found on page 17:

A Player is not in violation of the Policy if the presence of the Prohibited Substance in his test result was due to no fault or negligence on his part (e.g., despite all due care, he was sabotaged by a competitor or was administered a Prohibited Substance during an emergency procedure without the opportunity to give consent). The Player has the burden of establishing this defense and must offer objective evidence in support of his claim. For example, a Player cannot satisfy his burden merely by arguing that he: (i) did not intentionally use a Prohibited Substance; (ii) was given the substance by a Player, doctor, trainer, family member or other representative; (iii) took a mislabeled or contaminated product; or (iv) took steps to investigate whether a product contained a Prohibited Substance.​

Ronald Jones has already stated publicly that he takes heart medication. The policy immediately judged him as guilty if the medication is listed as a prohibited substance. The policy does not care if a prohibited substance is prescribed by a medical professional, with the lone exception of a single stimulant, Pseudoephedrine. Even that lone exception has an added stipulation that it must be prescribed by a team doctor.

Jones' alleged medication is listed in the policy as a masking agent/diuretic, not a stimulant.

This is just my opinion. Jones' best defense will be that he voluntarily disclosed his medically prescribed substance to either his previous teams' doctors or the Cowboys' doctor. Those physicians would have entered that information into his medical records owned by those franchises. That would establish the medical necessity of the prohibited substance officially. The official entry is evidence Jones can argue the prohibited substance was for medically necessary reasons and not for performance enhancing purposes.

Even that will not shorten the arbitration and appeals process much but maybe by a little. He is still guilty according to the policy but his argument is strengthened by proving his health was the only mitigating factor for the positive test.

That would be an objective conclusion and not a subjective one. The league could easily find itself hit with a legal challenge if it enforced discipline or extended discipline while it was knowingly aware that the prohibited substance was approved by a medical professional for health purposes only. That is where the existence of a medical record entry comes into play.

 

[CWR]

It is more likely it will be a difficult appeal and reversal (or reduction) of the suspension. Any standard business policy for drug and/or substance abuse establishes the individual as guilty until proven innocent. In the NFL's case, a player is automatically guilty if a prohibited substance is found in a positive test.

The league's PES policy can be reviewed at this link. Here is a relevant passage found on page 17:

A Player is not in violation of the Policy if the presence of the Prohibited Substance in his test result was due to no fault or negligence on his part (e.g., despite all due care, he was sabotaged by a competitor or was administered a Prohibited Substance during an emergency procedure without the opportunity to give consent). The Player has the burden of establishing this defense and must offer objective evidence in support of his claim. For example, a Player cannot satisfy his burden merely by arguing that he: (i) did not intentionally use a Prohibited Substance; (ii) was given the substance by a Player, doctor, trainer, family member or other representative; (iii) took a mislabeled or contaminated product; or (iv) took steps to investigate whether a product contained a Prohibited Substance.​

Ronald Jones has already stated publicly that he takes heart medication. The policy immediately judged him as guilty if the medication is listed as a prohibited substance. The policy does not care if a prohibited substance is prescribed by a medical professional, with the lone exception of a single stimulant, Pseudoephedrine. Even that lone exception has an added stipulation that it must be prescribed by a team doctor.

Jones' alleged medication is listed in the policy as a masking agent/diuretic, not a stimulant.

This is just my opinion. Jones' best defense will be that he voluntarily disclosed his medically prescribed substance to either his previous teams' doctors or the Cowboys' doctor. Those physicians would have entered that information into his medical records owned by those franchises. That would establish the medical necessity of the prohibited substance officially. The official entry is evidence Jones can argue the prohibited substance was for medically necessary reasons and not for performance enhancing purposes.

Even that will not shorten the arbitration and appeals process much but maybe by a little. He is still guilty according to the policy but his argument is strengthened by proving his health was the only mitigating factor for the positive test.

That would be an objective conclusion and not a subjective one. The league could easily find itself hit with a legal challenge if it enforced discipline or extended discipline while it was knowingly aware that the prohibited substance was approved by a medical professional for health purposes only. That is where the existence of a medical record entry comes into play.

Do you know the name of the medication? I'm wondering if there is a substitute he could have taken.

What the league should do is have players submit their medication to league offices prior to starting them and let league doctors/pharmacist review the meds to make certain they are in compliance. If not, create a dialog between them and the players doc to find an alternative. Obviously players would need to sign off on it due to HIPAA law, but a similar process should help.

If the league needs to over complicate the policy let them assist in keeping the players compliant. If I was Ronald Jones and on the fringe of making the team I'd be upset.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

Probably because he’s lying. How many players admit to cheating when they get busted?

My ex wife still denies it.

 

[DallasEast]

Do you know the name of the medication? I'm wondering if there is a substitute he could have taken.

I *think* it is Hydrochlorothiazide but my assumption may be more of what has been talked about in conversation than officially reported.

Edit: That said, the league policy has a pretty extensive list of diuretics, so I am not sure there would be a substitute he could take IF my assumption is correct.

 

[john van brocklin]

This seems really unfair...
Wonder what the total story is here?
Seems very unreasonable.

 

[CWR]

I *think* it is Hydrochlorothiazide but my assumption may be more of what has been talked about in conversation than officially reported.

Edit: That said, the league policy has a pretty extensive list of diuretics, so I am not sure there would be a substitute he could take IF my assumption is correct.

Interesting, if he's taking if for it's diuretic properties and not to control hypertension or something else he may not have a better option. I dont know if any of the diuretics are able to target specific areas or if it's all the same.

I wonder if he has CHF or something? If that is the case the league has to be open to liability there. There's not a lot of justification for punishment in my opinion.

If he's taking it for hypertension he probably has 1000 other options, but his wording indicated a "heart" problem.

The other question is why now? Supposedly he's been on this medication for several seasons.

 

[BlindFaith]

As crass as this will sound - he doesnt have a right to play in the NFL. If he has a heart condition that requires specific medication that is deemed performance enhancing or could be used to mask other performance enhancing drugs, then he either finds an aprroved alternative or he doesn't play football.

Regardless, Im not buying what hes selling.

This happened last year with KC, according to him. KC didn't play him. Its most likely that the two aren't related, but the possibility exists.

 

[MWH1967]

If 100% legit it should not be an issue.

 

[DallasEast]

Interesting, if he's taking if for it's diuretic properties and not to control hypertension or something else he may not have a better option. I dont know if any of the diuretics are able to target specific areas or if it's all the same.

I wonder if he has CHF or something? If that is the case the league has to be open to liability there. There's not a lot of justification for punishment in my opinion.

If he's taking it for hypertension he probably has 1000 other options, but his wording indicated a "heart" problem.

The other question is why now? Supposedly he's been on this medication for several seasons.

Some people substitute 'heart' and 'blood pressure' together inadvertently. He could mean blood pressure medication instead of heart medication. Hypertension is less prevalent with people in their 20's but not uncommon. And he, and I for that matter, would have a slightly higher risk of hypertension at his age. Mine did not kick in until after I hit 50.

One thing should be taken seriously. Not controlling hypertension can potentially lead to something as severe as congestive heart failure. If Jones is being truthful and it is blood pressure medication, it is vital for his continued good health. Even so, the policy is the policy. He must either accept or fight the suspension but the disciplinary action will not be dismissed without him making a case for its reversal or reduction, regardless if he is 100% in the right.

 

[DallasEast]

If 100% legit it should not be an issue.

That is not how written policies are enforced. The one good thing about cases like Ronald Jones, if he is 100% legit, is that it may force the league to revise its PES policy concerning his specific diuretic--IF it is a diuretic that he's taking.

Companies revise their policies all the time and either remove language or insert exceptions for previous language. The NFL would not be any different.

 

[lostar2009]

Takes a supplement while playing with the Bucs and Chiefs. Zero problems. Takes the same supplement and is suspended as soon as he comes to Dallas. Sounds like business as usual for Goodell.

You know they love to target Cowboys players

 

[BlindFaith]

That is not how written policies are enforced. The one good thing about cases like Ronald Jones, if he is 100% legit, is that it may force the league to revise its PES policy concerning his specific diuretic--IF it is a diuretic that he's taking.

Companies revise their policies all the time and either remove language or insert exceptions for previous language. The NFL would not be any different.

Slippery slope there. If you approve any diuretic, then you open the doors for other players abusing it.

It sucks, but this is a game. I get they want that chance to earn a few million dollars, but its a serious question whether or not he should even be playing.

 

[DallasEast]

Slippery slope there. If you approve any diuretic, then you open the doors for other players abusing it.

You mean like the league 'opening the door' by having 'subject to minimum analytical thresholds as determined by the Parties' and/or 'except as properly prescribed by Club medical personnel' exception provisions for four of the 67 stimulants listed as prohibited substances in the same policy as diuretics identified by the league?

Slippery slope? Sure. Will it happen? Not necessarily. Could the revision be considered and adopted within PES policy after careful consideration despite obvious potential future abuse by players? Of course.

 

[erod]

Does anyone actually believe this BS story he's telling?

 

[CWR]

Some people substitute 'heart' and 'blood pressure' together inadvertently. He could mean blood pressure medication instead of heart medication. Hypertension is less prevalent with people in their 20's but not uncommon. And he, and I for that matter, would have a slightly higher risk of hypertension at his age. Mine did not kick in until after I hit 50.

One thing should be taken seriously. Not controlling hypertension can potentially lead to something as severe as congestive heart failure. If Jones is being truthful and it is blood pressure medication, it is vital for his continued good health. Even so, the policy is the policy. He must either accept or fight the suspension but the disciplinary action will not be dismissed without him making a case for its reversal or reduction, regardless if he is 100% in the right.

My point is there are several different mechanisms for controlling hypertension. From diuretics, to beta blockers to calcium channel blockers etc. If it's only hypertension he could likely find an alternative script. If it is a fluid issue I don't see a way around diuretics. So the league would either have to say he's not physically able to play due to underlying medical problems or work with him.

 

[BlindFaith]

You mean like the league 'opening the door' by having 'subject to minimum analytical thresholds as determined by the Parties' and/or 'except as properly prescribed by Club medical personnel' exception provisions for four of the 67 stimulants listed as prohibited substances in the same policy as diuretics identified by the league?

Slippery slope? Sure. Will it happen? Not necessarily. Could the revision be considered and adopted within PES policy after careful consideration despite obvious potential future abuse by players? Of course.

Uhh, I'll stick with slippery slope. Im not a lawyer, physician, drug manufacturer or players rep.

I haven't read the bylaws, rules, exceptions and detailed process. But it sounds like RJ didnt either.

And Im not a RJ hater. I thought he was a good add. Im questioning that now.

 

[CWR]

Slippery slope there. If you approve any diuretic, then you open the doors for other players abusing it.

It sucks, but this is a game. I get they want that chance to earn a few million dollars, but its a serious question whether or not he should even be playing.

I dont believe it would be a huge problem honestly. First the player needs a script. How many would commit to that long term and be willing to stay up all night having to urinate? I'd make the policy in that the player would need to submit the script to the FO upon acceptance and then test said player. The way they'd use it as a masking agent is only a last resort. I can't imagine feeling 100% confident on any type of masking agent or diuretic. Knowing they are voluntary signing up for further testing may be deterrent enough.

 

[Corso]

I dont believe it would be a huge problem honestly. First the player needs a script. How many would commit to that long term and be willing to stay up all night having to urinate? I'd make the policy in that the player would need to submit the script to the FO upon acceptance and then test said player. The way they'd use it as a masking agent is only a last resort. I can't imagine feeling 100% confident on any type of masking agent or diuretic. Knowing they are voluntary signing up for further testing may be deterrent enough.

Lol, it's not quite like that.
Even I am on it and it's not some extreme urinating stimulant unless prescribed in high amounts and for hypertension it's not.

 

[CWR]

Lol, it's not quite like that.
Even I am on it and it's not some extreme urinating stimulant unless prescribed in high amounts and for hypertension it's not.

I'm sure it differs depending on meds and dose. I'm speaking on what everyone I've spoken with on Lasix complains about. Like the prior poster stated, you could set a threshold. There are ways to not deprive players of the meds they need and still keep the integrity of the policy. Good to hear you aren't up all night pissing though, good buddy.

Also if it's indeed hypertension and not fluid on the heart, just use an alternative script. That part is easy.

 

[Corso]

I'm sure it differs depending on meds and dose. I'm speaking on what everyone I've spoken with on Lasix complains about. Like the prior poster stated, you could set a threshold. There are ways to not deprive players of the meds they need and still keep the integrity of the policy. Good to hear you aren't up all night pissing though, good buddy.

Appreciated.
I get what you're saying. I don't know enough to comment on the subject in that manner so I appreciate you on giving me something to chew on and look into.


Honest Edit: I'm not going to look into it. Not that interested, but you're appreciated all the same still!