Williamses loom large in debate on Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON - Even if they weren't in the room, Vikings Pro Bowl tackles Kevin and Pat Williams were the center of attention Tuesday in a U.S. House subcommittee hearing, on a case that may turn into a showdown between Minnesota law and the NFL.

At issue is the league's ability to suspend the two players for using a banned diuretic found in StarCaps, an over-the-counter weight loss supplement.

Minnesota's relatively strong worker protection laws allowed the players to block that suspension and on Tuesday, the Williams' case -- representing a classic clash of money, power and egos -- was accompanied by a shot by one committee member about the future of professional football in Minnesota.

"Maybe Minneapolis without the Vikings is the appropriate remedy," said Nebraska Republican Lee Terry.

Far more than money and big-buck reputations are at stake in the case, which may go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

NFL executives, often seconded by members of Congress, contend that professional sports' anti-doping rules could essentially be rendered null and void by a patchwork of state laws such as Minnesota's. In New Orleans, three Saints players tested positive for the same substance -- bumetanide -- but their suspension was delayed pending the outcome of the Minnesota case.

Uneven penalties

California Democrat Henry Waxman noted that depending on where they play, "some players could be penalized for performance-enhancing drug use, while others would get away scot-free."

The drug-testing issue has bedeviled both professional football and baseball in recent years and on Tuesday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell let some of that frustration show. "These players are still on the field," Goodell said. "What message does that send?"

In the Williams' case, a series of lower-court rulings have held that Minnesota workplace drug testing laws may trump the league's attempts to suspend the players for four games.

The initial suspension would have taken the Williamses off the field during last year's playoff games and some have complained that Minnesota gained an unfair advantage by retaining the "Williams Wall."

The NFL wants Congress to enact legislation ensuring that its collectively-bargained steroid-testing policy cannot be pre-empted by state laws.

The players' union Tuesday testified that such a law would be an unwarranted intrusion. They have maintained that the banned substance the Williamses took was not listed on the packaging and had nothing to do with enhancing performance. "It is not a steroid," said DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association. However, bumetanide can mask steroid use.

Outcome in doubt

Some legal observers say the clash may be less legally daunting than it appears. Tulane law professor Gabriel Feldman told the panel that a recent federal appeals court decision in favor of the Williamses did not say that the NFL drug policy violates Minnesota law. Rather, it held that the Williamses may challenge their suspensions in Minnesota courts under state law.

Even if the Williamses prevailed, he said, it would still mean that the NFL policy conflicts with only one state's law. In that case, the NFL could ask the Minnesota Legislature for an exemption.

"This narrow potential problem warrants a very narrow solution," Feldman said. "Many steps should be taken before Congress intervenes."

It remains to be seen, however, if Congress is interested in doing much besides giving the problem a hearing. No members of the Minnesota congressional delegation are on the committee, and none showed up at the hearing.

"We're not anxious for a legislative solution here," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., chairman of the subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection, which conducted Tuesday's hearing. Instead, Rush urged the NFL and its players to come to terms. "You don't want us to get involved," he said.