Bewerben zum clanbeitritt » se.The team also points out that the governmen

Philadelphia Eagles?offensive tackle Lane Johnson has filed charges against the NFL and NFL Players Association with the National Labor Relations Board, his attorney Steve Zashin confirmed in a statement to ESPNs Adam Caplan.Lane also filed a complaint against the NFLPA with the Department of Labor (DOL) under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, the statement reads.During Lanes appeal, it became apparent that the written words in the collectively bargained Performance-Enhancing Substances (PES) Policy, under which Lane was disciplined, are meaningless.The PES Policy, as written, guarantees rights, protections and due process to players in recognition of the enormous consequences of discipline,?the statement continues.The NFL and the NFLPA have undermined these protections, leaving the players -- including Lane -- with a hollowed-out process devoid of any protections. The actions of the NFL and NFLPA violate federal law.Lane trusts that he can get a fair hearing with the NLRB and the DOL.Johnson is currently serving a 10-game suspension for violating the leagues performance-enhancing drugs policy for a second time. He believes the positive test was the result of taking an amino acid he purchased online that was contaminated. Johnson said at the time that he checked the contents on the label with an app provided by the NFLPA.I feel like the players have no rights. The supplement industry is not regulated, so you do not know whats in it. Thats hard to believe, coming from a second-time offender, but I want that to be clear -- that the NFLPA does not stand up for players, Johnson said in August. They dont check the supplements. They give us an app. Then if you call and ask them if you test positive for something they approve, it doesnt matter.Johnson began serving the suspension in mid-October, after losing the appeals process, which he described as eight hours of bickering back and forth and discussing league policy.It just felt good going in there and taking it head on. It was mainly just a conversation on the policy [the NFL has] in place. It didnt have to do with any substances, mainly just changing the testing procedures, he said.Man, the thing was, just face it head on. We werent going to be intimidated by the NFL.Johnson has four games remaining on his suspension and is eligible to return for the Eagles second-to-last game against the New York Giants.The lawsuit was first reported by MMQBs Albert Breer.Georges-Kevin NKoudou Hotspur Jersey .C. -- Glenn Howard needed an extra end to move into the Masters Grand Slam of Curling final. Serge Aurier Hotspur Jersey . The visitors took a deserved lead in the 16th minute with midfielder Yohan Cabaye curling the ball beyond Adrian from inside the penalty area. http://www.footballhotspurstore.com/Women-Mousa-Dembele-Tottenham-Hotspur-Jersey/ . After Mondays hard-fought loss, the wait seemed longer than usual. Getting set to go their separate ways for a short Christmas break, the Raptors coach credited his team for their effort on a seemingly impossible three-game road trip, urging them to build on that success when they get back to work at the end of the week. Harry Winks Jersey . Perez, 35, posted a 1-2 record with a 3.69 earned-run average in 19 relief appearances last season. His season ended Aug. 9 due to a torn ligament in his left elbow. Perez joins infielder Andy LaRoche and catcher Mike Nickeas with minor-league agreements for 2014 that include invitations to attend spring training. Mousa Dembele Hotspur Jersey . After Martin Skrtel put the Reds in front from close range at Stamford Bridge after only four minutes, Hazard hit back in the 17th with a superb strike. Etoo gave Jose Mourinhos team a decisive lead from Oscars back pass in the 34th.WASHINGTON -- Simon Tam has openly criticized the Washington Redskins team name as a racist slur that demeans Native Americans.But Tam and his Asian-American rock band, The Slants, find themselves on the same side as the NFL franchise in a First Amendment legal battle over trademark protection for names that some consider offensive.The Supreme Court could decide as early as this month whether to hear the dispute involving the Portland, Oregon-area band. And if the football team has its way, the justices could hear both cases in its new term.At issue is a constitutional challenge to a law barring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from registering trademarks that disparage minority groups. The office denied a trademark to the Slants in 2011 after finding the name disparaged people of Asian descent.The Slants say their goal was not to offend anyone, but to transform a derisive term about the shape of Asian eyes into a statement of ethnic and cultural pride. The band won a major victory last year when a divided federal appeals court in the District of Columbia ruled the law prohibiting offensive trademarks violates free-speech rights. The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.The Redskins, too, say their team name is meant to honor American Indians. But the team has faced years of legal challenges, and a testy public relations fight, from members of the very group they claim to salute. The Redskins case involves the trademark offices move last year to cancel the team trademark that was first registered in 1967. A federal judge has agreed with that decision.A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, has not yet considered the teams appeal, but the Redskins are urging the Supreme Court not to wait. If the high court agrees to hear the Slants case, the team wants the justices to hear both disputes at the same time. Such requests to leapfrog lower courts are rarely granted.Tam, in a legal brief, says if the court decides to hear the cases together, the justices should do so now rather than waiting for the appeals court to rule in the Redskins case. Otherwise, he says, a future ruling against the Redskins could end up affecting the bands status.Anyone who has visited The Slants website will find the band members are certainly no fans of the team. One section has a lengthy list of reasons why the cases are different. No. 1 is unlike REDSKINS, THE SLANTS is not an inherent racial slur.The website says the word Redskin has a long history of oppression and the football team treats the people as mascots. By contrast, The Slants breaks stereotypes about Asian-Americans, especially in the entertainment industry.Tam does not mention those distinctions in his brief to the court, and he deeclined to be interviewed.ddddddddddddIn The Slants case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in December that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities.The First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others, Judge Kimberly Moore said for the majority.The administration argues that the law does not restrict speech because the band is still free to use the name even without trademark protection. The law simply reflects Congress judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of racial slurs and other disparaging terms by granting the benefits of registration, the government said.Jeremy Sheff, a professor at St. Johns University School of Law who specializes in intellectual property, said the Supreme Court could be interested in the cases because it has been pretty aggressive in protecting First Amendment speech -- even remarks considered highly offensive.The knock on the law is that nobody knows what disparagement means, he said. That is a concern.The Redskins claim their case is a better vehicle than Tams for the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the trademark law. The team says the effect of canceling a trademark is more harmful because it has been relying on the laws financial protections for nearly 50 years. Without trademark protection, the team could lose millions if it cant block the sale of counterfeit merchandise.The team also points out that the government over the years has registered dozens of companies with names that could be considered offensive. Among those: Baked By A Negro bakery products, Midget Man condoms, Dago Swagg clothing and the rock band White Trash Cowboys.The American Civil Liberties Union has sided with the Redskins free-speech claims, even as the group has publicly called on the team to change the name because it is offensive.The government doesnt get to withhold a benefit because it disagrees with the content of someones speech, said ACLU national legal director Steve Shapiro.The Redskins have come under increasing pressure in recent years to change the team name. Even President Barack Obama has said he would think about changing it if he owned the team. Owner Dan Snyder has said hed never change the name and that it represents honor, respect and pride.--This story corrects a description of the bands legal argument. The Slants say if the Supreme Court wants to hear the cases together, it should do so now rather than waiting for lower court to rule in Redskins case. ' ' '