Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veering off topic here for a moment, there are professions where pre-employment drug screening and periodic random testing is appropriate.  Public safety and public safety-related occupations, heavy equipment operation, transportation to name just a few.  In Connecticut an employer needs specific written authorization to conduct random testing, the testing must be position-specific and detailed justification for the testing is required.  The nature of procedural randomness is rather stringent as well.

    In the Browner case, we are talking about technical violations not test-postive violations that is decidedly not a distinction without a difference (pardon the double negative).  I am not at all concerned about him.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, in these highly public positions where safety is paramount, drug testing, with all parties aware that is part of the job requirements, is important.

    In my situation, as a small business, the rates offered by the insurers was huge with the drug testing clause. While the testing was random, every employee was aware that it was part of their contract of employ. 

    Surely, every insurance company or business owner will tell you the rate of theft or fraud is astronomically higher if drug use is involved....

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veering off topic here for a moment, there are professions where pre-employment drug screening and periodic random testing is appropriate.  Public safety and public safety-related occupations, heavy equipment operation, transportation to name just a few.  In Connecticut an employer needs specific written authorization to conduct random testing, the testing must be position-specific and detailed justification for the testing is required.  The nature of procedural randomness is rather stringently controlled as well.

    In the Browner case, we are talking about technical violations not test-postive violations that is decidedly not a distinction without a difference (pardon the double negative).  I am not at all concerned about him.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree as well, I am not particularly worried about Browners drug use. As for the technicality, one must draw the conclusion a missed drug test is due to the fact that the testee would have failed the test, hence he decides to miss it.

    i would be more concerned with Browners stupidity after being told he was in stage 3, that he continued to smoke weed and was caught...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    RKarp, as dreighver asked, did you read the article? It contradicts what you're saying. So, you know something LaCanfora doesn't, or you're saying he's outright lying. It has to be one or the other.

    Quote from the article: "Browner was advanced to Stage 3 of the program for “failure to cooperate,” according to a source with knowledge of the situation, for missing a series of drug tests back in 2006 and 2007, when he was in fact out of the league."

    He did not test positive for anything, until November of 2013 when he tested positive for marijuana. 

    If you have better info than LaCanfora, please do share.

    [/QUOTE]

    Browner was with the Broncos from August of 2005 to July of 2006. He was on IR, but was still an employee of the broncos, and league rules applied. He missed 2 tests during that time period, resulting in 2 "failed test" scores...

    Browner, upon re entering the NFL in 2011 was notified that he was at that time in the 3rd stage of the NFL drug program, and another missed or failing test would result in suspension per the agreement in the CBA.

    Browner did fail another test, actually failed, not missed, and was suspended. the Seahawks did not appeal. Browner appealed not that he failed a test, but he appealed that he was unaware it was a 3rd failing. 

    He appealed his suspension, but has dropped it and is accepting the 4 games. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, he failed in November 2013. That was it, that was the only test he actually failed. He missed tests when he was out of the league, passed 200 tests when he was back in the league, until that failed test 5 months ago.

    We get he's at stage 3 and that he tested positive for weed, the only point is he got to stage 3 based on missing tests that were scheduled after he left the Broncos, not while he was on their roster. If you have information different than that, please provide a source.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I heard this story the other day on either the radio or an internet podcast, and the thing I find crazy is the NFL said they sent Browner notices of the test, Browner said he never received notices.  Wouldn't you think these notices would have been sent via certified mail?  Where are the signed proof of delivery? 

    [/QUOTE]

    They do it all the time in all kinds of businesses...In MA. , for example, municipalities send out tax bills for many things - auto and trucks, homes, business real property - and the state rule, that has been adjudicated in court, states that they cannot be held responsible for the mails getting to a specific person, that it's up tothe US Postal service, and that they can't be held responsible for the US Postal service's performance...and the US Postal service is covered by the US Constitution, and you can't sue the US Governement unless you can prove that an official was doing something on purpose to hurt you - that's also been adjudicated.

    Yeah, it seems like a violation of due process, but I bet Browner decided not to sue because it would take a long time to settle out and he'd lose even more money than by just taking the NFL punishment.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Wow, good read. Thanks.

    [/QUOTE]

    And now do you see how this red flag is different?

    [/QUOTE]

    You are so 2 sided man. If Brandon Browner gets caught with some weed this season or something of the sort, you would be the 1st guy on here condeming BB for paying a "red flag player". 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Muzz,

    this zero tolerance for missed tests is pretty standard in the business community as it also allows for lowered loss insurance and health insurance rates for said business...

    a missed test is a false test...

    seems that Browner accepting the 4 games, he is not completely without wrong doing...but the situation comes with whispers that the offense was pot a couple of times and the missed tests are the reason for suspension....

    if you call, the initial account indicated PED use, but that was later recanted by the league

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you read the article? I mean no malice, I'm genuinely curious. If you did indeed read it, you'd see that Browner was out of the NFL, in the CFL, and the letters notifying him of missed tests weren't sent to his current address at that time. 

    Do you really think someone who wasn't employed with a business has any reason to continue taking the aforementioned business's drug tests? That seems absurd, and it sure seems like Browner did no wrong. Would seem he tested positive once, and it was for a small amount of pot, which about as benign as it gets. 

    I don't see how anyone could read this and continue to have any ill-will toward Browner. 

    [/QUOTE]


    You kidding me? RKarp will beat this like a dead horse. Doesn't matter if Browner was out of the league when he was supposed to be tested. Doesn't matter if the league agreed with his lawyer that him being in Stage three because of missed tests while he played in the CFL was ludicrous. He broke a rule.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    RKarp, as dreighver asked, did you read the article? It contradicts what you're saying. So, you know something LaCanfora doesn't, or you're saying he's outright lying. It has to be one or the other.

    Quote from the article: "Browner was advanced to Stage 3 of the program for “failure to cooperate,” according to a source with knowledge of the situation, for missing a series of drug tests back in 2006 and 2007, when he was in fact out of the league."

    He did not test positive for anything, until November of 2013 when he tested positive for marijuana. 

    If you have better info than LaCanfora, please do share.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's obvious he did not read the article.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For those who may be concerned he's a bad guy. If this has already been posted, pardon the redundancy, but I know I hadn't seen it. The article is from December 2013. Anyway, seems he got a raw deal.

    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24310101/the-curious-case-of-brandon-browners-suspension

    Seahawks corner Brandon Browner, a potential unrestricted free agent, is facing a one-year suspension for violating the NFL's substance-abuse policy, and the result of his appeal could pave the way for more widespread litigation against the league.

    Browner was advanced to Stage 3 of the program for “failure to cooperate,” according to a source with knowledge of the situation, for missing a series of drug tests back in 2006 and 2007, when he was in fact out of the league. Sources say Browner claimed he never received any letters notifying him of the missed tests, and, was unaware that he was responsible to continue taking drug tests long after being released by the Broncos and through his time in CFL.

    Browner was unaware of the requests for further tests, but it was those missed tests that advanced him deep into the program to the point where he was facing more lengthy suspensions. Browner faced a four-game suspension back in 2007 (he was released by Denver in July of 2006) but many of the letters and other communication were sent to an old address of a former girlfriend.

    Browner ended up back in the NFL in January of 2011, unaware he was in an advance stage of the drug program, and, according to his official NFL player transaction page, there are no suspensions recorded from his time in Denver. The Seahawks did not know of his status in the program either, upon signing him, sources said, nor did any of the handful of teams who brought Browner in for tryouts prior to him signing in Seattle. Only in August of 2011 did Browner receive a letter from the league notifying him that he was in fact in Stage 3.

    Browner was tested roughly 200 times while back in the league, but did not have a positive result until very recently, when he had a small amount of marijuana in his system, according to a source. However, had he not been escalated to Stage 3 for his missed tests when out of the NFL -- if he was in Stage 2, for instance -- two years of clean tests would have be enough to get him out of the program entirely.

    Will Brandon Browner be suspended for anything?

    Brandon Browner's suspension is tied to drug tests he missed when he was out of football.

    After reviewing the NFL's drug policy, which is available to the public, there are questions as to how the “Continuing Participation” rules in the document would even apply to Browner, given his unique roster circumstances more than seven years ago when his status in the program was being determined as he was released by the Broncos. Browner never played a game for the Broncos after signing as an undrafted free agent in April of 2005, and was placed on IR in 2005 prior to the team cutting down to 65 players. He was then was activated to the roster in February of 2006, for offseason participation, and then waived that July.

    According to the “Continued Participation” section of the NFL/NFLPA drug policy: “A player who enters the Intervention Stages will remain in the Intervention Stages until the player is dismissed or released in accordance with the terms set forth herein. All such players must continue to comply with the conditions of the Intervention Program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (1) a player who is released and who has not been on a club roster for more than six consecutive regular or post season games (“Never-Rostered Player”) is not required to comply with the terms of his Treatment Plan, if any, or submit himself for Testing until he resigns with a club; and (2) a veteran who is not under contract with a club (“Non-Contract Veteran”) must comply with the conditions of the Intervention Program for a year after the expiration of his last contract or receipt by the Administrator of written notification of his retirement, whichever is sooner. After six months as a Non-Contract Veteran, testing shall cease unless the Medical Director or the Medical Advisor requests that testing be continued. After a veteran who is under contract with a Club (“Contract Veteran”) or a Non-Contract Veteran notifies the Administrator of his retirement from football, he does not have to comply with the terms of his Treatment Plan.”

    Browner's lawyers could argue that he should be considered a “Never-Rostered Player” since he was never on the Broncos roster as anything other than an IR player. And, even if considered a “Non-Contract Veteran,” sources said Browner never received any communications from the league seeking further testing, and according to sources, the NFL's Medical Director does not believe that six-month provision applied to Browner (and unemployed players) in these circumstances. That could be the crux of one of the many legal battles complicating this suspension.

    Browner is fighting his one-year suspension vigorously and with his future earning potential as the top corner available in free agency greatly impacted by any suspension, is prepared to sue the league for its handling of how it notifies and handles a player's drug status once he is terminated. That could have potentially huge ramifications for any other players who have experienced a similar set of circumstances while out of the league and failing to miss tests they were unaware of. Many players might naturally assume that once out of the league, they would no longer be subject to testing from a past employer.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    seems like over policing to me...similar to a guy coming to the NFL and being penalized for something he did in the CFL or college...it seems like a typical Roger Goodell overreaction

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Wow, good read. Thanks.



    And now do you see how this red flag is different?

    [/QUOTE]

    You are so 2 sided man. If Brandon Browner gets caught with some weed this season or something of the sort, you would be the 1st guy on here condeming BB for paying a "red flag player". 

    [/QUOTE]

    nope not two sided at all, because as I've pointed out before:

    This isn't a character concern issue, it's not a injury concern issue, and we aren't counting on him to produce or be a productive starter it's just icing if he is. As I've told you time and time again you can take on some red flags you just have to pick and chose your red flags (not all red flags are the same) and you can't load up your starters with red flags players that you have to rely on every game. If you do have red flags you have to have contingency plans and for Browner we have Ryan and Dennard.

    I won't make 1 peep if he's banned for life True I promise. 

    Edit: and the Pats protected themselves by only guaranteeing $1mil with no signing bonus. So if something should happen they basically owe nothing in dead money. This is exactly the type of red flag I described to you that you can take a chance on. It's actually a prime example of what I was talking about that you kept saying all red flags are the same when clearly this case is vastly different from other ones. You think they learned a little from Lloyd and Amendola when putting this contract together?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    I'm just hoping he repeatedly tests positive for defending passes and knocking guys down.  

    IF he is what he is supposed to be (and I'd guess if the Hawks were playing their second string guy from then on he MUST BE) and Revis still is most of what Revis was (looks like it) then we can lock down the crazy passing that has been killing us.  3rd and long wing and a prayer kind of stuff. Helmet catches.  Etc.  I was mad about losing Talib until his replacement showed up, and now Browner looks like an upgrade over Dennard once he gets into the lineup.  Now we need to move on the the next problem... Wilfork.  I don't see them just releasing him, I think they will find a trade partner.  SOMEBODY will take him.  Or just let him play out the contract, but I honestly don't see the value or the point in that.  Time to move on, I think.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    RKarp, as dreighver asked, did you read the article? It contradicts what you're saying. So, you know something LaCanfora doesn't, or you're saying he's outright lying. It has to be one or the other.

    Quote from the article: "Browner was advanced to Stage 3 of the program for “failure to cooperate,” according to a source with knowledge of the situation, for missing a series of drug tests back in 2006 and 2007, when he was in fact out of the league."

    He did not test positive for anything, until November of 2013 when he tested positive for marijuana. 

    If you have better info than LaCanfora, please do share.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's obvious he did not read the article.

    [/QUOTE]

    Does this part of the article mean anything to you? The missed tests, seen by most as an admission of guilt, and accepted by the league as positive tests, are valid for 1 year after employment ceased, or more than 1 year

    veteran who is not under contract with a club (“Non-Contract Veteran”) must comply with the conditions of the Intervention Program for a year after the expiration of his last contract or receipt by the Administrator of written notification of his retirement, whichever is sooner. After six months as a Non-Contract Veteran, testing shall cease unless the Medical Director or the Medical Advisor requests that testing be continued. After a veteran who is under contract with a Club (“Contract Veteran”) or a Non-Contract Veteran notifies the Administrator of his retirement from football, he does not have to comply with the terms of his Treatment Plan.”

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It's obvious he did not read the article.



    Does this part of the article mean anything to you? The missed tests, seen by most as an admission of guilt, and accepted by the league as positive tests, are valid for 1 year after employment ceased, or more than 1 year

    veteran who is not under contract with a club (“Non-Contract Veteran”) must comply with the conditions of the Intervention Program for a year after the expiration of his last contract or receipt by the Administrator of written notification of his retirement, whichever is sooner. After six months as a Non-Contract Veteran, testing shall cease unless the Medical Director or the Medical Advisor requests that testing be continued. After a veteran who is under contract with a Club (“Contract Veteran”) or a Non-Contract Veteran notifies the Administrator of his retirement from football, he does not have to comply with the terms of his Treatment Plan.”

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, it means he committed a technical violation of the dope policy. That's what it means. I guess that means he's a problem child. Probably should be banned for life. Hide the women and children. 

    Seriously, the WHOLE POINT here is that he was in stage 3 because of this stupid rule, not because of anything he actually did, like taking drugs or testing positive. If it wasn't for this stupid rule, the positive test for matijuana last November would have resulted in a slap on wrist. Instead, because of this stupid rule, he got suspended and his career is in jeopardy.

    You seem to think he's a bad guy. Fine, that's your call. I don't see anything he's done to make me think that. He smoked a little weed. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjbag. Show jjbag's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    I'm interested in the league response this year to the Colorado and Washington issue, where weed will be legal to use. Based off Browner's suspension for minute amount in his system and where weed stays in your body for upto 60 days, how do you suspend anyone who went to either of these states and legally partakes in smoking.

    If they start suspending players for it this year, i'm seeing a whole lot of lawsuits. Losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing something legal in states on the face just seems wrong, kind of like gettins suspended for going to Vegas and playing blackjack.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    He was punish because him and Sherman got off on last year. They made him pay this time.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    He was punish because him and Sherman got off on last year. They made him pay this time.

    [/QUOTE]

    What are you talking about?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to jjbag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm interested in the league response this year to the Colorado and Washington issue, where weed will be legal to use. Based off Browner's suspension for minute amount in his system and where weed stays in your body for upto 60 days, how do you suspend anyone who went to either of these states and legally partakes in smoking.

    If they start suspending players for it this year, i'm seeing a whole lot of lawsuits. Losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing something legal in states on the face just seems wrong, kind of like gettins suspended for going to Vegas and playing blackjack.

    [/QUOTE]

    There are many things that are legal, like for example HGH, Aderrall, certain steroids, etc., or legal gambling on NFL games in Vegas, that will get a football player suspended. Weed is just another banned substance in that regard. If you work in a drug free workplace, you can be fired (or disciplined according to the policy) if you test positive for a banned substance, whether it's legal in your state or not.

    It's kind of like free speech, you're free to say whatever you want, you can't be arrested. But your employer can fire you for it if they don't like it.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from CubanPete. Show CubanPete's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    Sans the wall of text, Browner (and Irsay) can be summed up with this one statement.

    END THE WAR ON DRUGS!

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    So when he played for Seattle so many people here didn't take the time to look for any information, they just screamed roids without having a clue. Now that he's here he is clean.

    LOL talk about a 180

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    Zero tolerance means absolute zero down at NFL headquarters.  No druggies!  Apparently 31 teams didn't do their due diligence on this guy.  Nor, it seems, did anyone perform due diligence on NFL HQ's paraphernalia.

    As a bonus, Browner's particular four game suspension means that he sneaks by the critical 53 man limit on September 1.  Remember how Marcus Cannon was drafted while undergoing chemo so that he landed on the PUP squad, didn't count against the 53 man limit and eventually started?  Well, Browner also gets a bit of extra time to learn the playbook and BB gets an extra quality player past the 53 limit.  This team plays more games per season than most, and so they might as well get extra players.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Veering off topic here for a moment, there are professions where pre-employment drug screening and periodic random testing is appropriate.  Public safety and public safety-related occupations, heavy equipment operation, transportation to name just a few.  In Connecticut an employer needs specific written authorization to conduct random testing, the testing must be position-specific and detailed justification for the testing is required.  The nature of procedural randomness is rather stringently controlled as well.

    In the Browner case, we are talking about technical violations not test-postive violations that is decidedly not a distinction without a difference (pardon the double negative).  I am not at all concerned about him.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree as well, I am not particularly worried about Browners drug use. As for the technicality, one must draw the conclusion a missed drug test is due to the fact that the testee would have failed the test, hence he decides to miss it.

    i would be more concerned with Browners stupidity after being told he was in stage 3, that he continued to smoke weed and was caught...

    [/QUOTE]


     

    If every NFL player who smoked a little weed was suspended, there would be no league.  It's the NFL that is stupid about this. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So when he played for Seattle so many people here didn't take the time to look for any information, they just screamed roids without having a clue. Now that he's here he is clean.

    LOL talk about a 180

    [/QUOTE]


    of course but they will never admit it

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to jjbag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm interested in the league response this year to the Colorado and Washington issue, where weed will be legal to use. Based off Browner's suspension for minute amount in his system and where weed stays in your body for upto 60 days, how do you suspend anyone who went to either of these states and legally partakes in smoking.

    If they start suspending players for it this year, i'm seeing a whole lot of lawsuits. Losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing something legal in states on the face just seems wrong, kind of like gettins suspended for going to Vegas and playing blackjack.

    [/QUOTE]

    Drinking is legal and you can lose your job over that. In other countries some drugs are illegal but that wouldn't get you out of anything.  I think they would just have to renegotiate the CBA if they wanted to change anything.  At the end of the day they agreed to not do certain drugs, doesn't matter if they agreed not to chew gum.  The punishment isn't for breaking the law, it's for breaking an agreement. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jjbag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm interested in the league response this year to the Colorado and Washington issue, where weed will be legal to use. Based off Browner's suspension for minute amount in his system and where weed stays in your body for upto 60 days, how do you suspend anyone who went to either of these states and legally partakes in smoking.

    If they start suspending players for it this year, i'm seeing a whole lot of lawsuits. Losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing something legal in states on the face just seems wrong, kind of like gettins suspended for going to Vegas and playing blackjack.

    [/QUOTE]

    Drinking is legal and you can lose your job over that. In other countries some drugs are illegal but that wouldn't get you out of anything.  I think they would just have to renegotiate the CBA if they wanted to change anything.  At the end of the day they agreed to not do certain drugs, doesn't matter if they agreed not to chew gum.  The punishment isn't for breaking the law, it's for breaking an agreement. 

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and the punishment is stupid and excessive.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    And if I recall correctly, the NFL saw the error of it's ways and reinstated him.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from CubanPete. Show CubanPete's posts

    Re: Curious Case of Browner's Suspension

    Interesting that BB grabs Revis and Browner after reaching for Logan Ryan in the 3rd round.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share