Getty Images

Eagles tackle Lane Johnson took no steps to block his 10-game PED suspension through the legal system. However, he’s now taking full advantage of the available mechanisms for vindicating himself — and for getting back 10 game checks, and more.

Johnson, who filed an unfair labor practice charge against the NFL and the NFL Players Association in November, has now sued both management and labor. His complaint and petition to vacate the arbitration award (in English, a lawsuit aimed at scrapping his suspension) has been filed in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio.

It’s unclear why Johnson’s lawyers selected this specific federal jurisdiction; presumably, they believe that past cases from this district and the appellate circuit governing it will make it easier for Johnson to win. The first skirmish in the case could be an effort by the NFL and/or NFLPA to transfer the case to a federal district with greater connections to the parties and the underlying events (and favorable rulings in past cases), even though Johnson alleges in his complaint that he “worked . . . in Aurora, Ohio” while employed by the Philadelphia Eagles.

I’ve obtained and read the 45-page, 289-paragraph legal document, and somehow stayed awake. Here’s what Johnson claims, via the smallest nutshell into which it would fit.

He claims that the positive PED result arose from improper “reasonable cause” testing, explaining that “reasonable cause” testing may occur for two years after a prior PED violation and that the “reasonable cause” test in his case came after that two-year window had expired.

Johnson claims that three arbitrators were not assigned to handle the appeal, explaining that the policy requires at least three and no more than five.

Johnson alleges that the arbitrator who presided over the appeal, James Carter, has a conflict of interest arising from his association with the law firm of Wilmer Hale, which handled the Ray Rice investigation of the league office and allegedly has performed over work for the NFL and its teams.

Johnson claims that the NFL Management Council exerted undue influence over the supposedly Independent Administrator of the PED testing policy, as evidenced in part by an allegation that the NFLMC cited attorney-client privilege during one of the conference calls preceding the appeal hearing.

Johnson claims that the NFL and NFLPA failed to fill the position of Chief Forensic Toxicologist after the person holding it retired. As alleged at paragraph 91 of the complaint, “[t]he CFT is jointly selected by the NFLMC and the NFLPA, and is responsible . . . for auditing the operation of the testing laboratories, consulting with the Independent Administrator and the specimen Collection Vendor, and reviewing and certifying laboratory results as a condition for discipline.”

Johnson claims that his lawyer was prevented from observing the testing of Johnson’s “B” sample, which occurs after the “A” sample generates a positive outcome. A positive outcome of the “B” sample test locks in the violation.

Johnson claims that the league committed “fraud” on the arbitrator by providing false information about the testing protocols and the information shared with Johnson about it.

As to the NFLPA, Johnson claims that it entered into side agreements not ratified by the membership of the union (including the use of fewer than three arbitrators and the failure to fill the CFT position), that the NFLPA engaged in an improper public dispute with Johnson over his positive test, that the NFLPA misled Johnson about its dealings with the NFLMC, and that the NFLPA failed to properly support him (at paragraph 122, the complaint alleges that “the NFLPA expressed that Johnson appealing any suspension would be like lighting money on fire”).

The complaint asks that the end result of the appeal process be vacated, which would result in among other things the compensation of Johnson for the 10 game checks he missed and the restoration of contractual guarantees. He also seeks certain “declarations” from the court that will clarify the responsibilities of the NFL under the PED policy, and an award of punitive damages.

The detailed, systematic recitations of facts and claims is persuasive on the surface, but as in most civil lawsuits the defendants likely will produce an equally detailed and systematic denial of the charges. Still, Johnson’s ability to point to multiple bright-line problems with the process (such as the use of fewer than three arbitrators and the attempt to conduct “reasonable cause” testing beyond the two-year window following a positive PED result) makes his decision not to immediately seek a preliminary injunction staving off the suspension seem a bit confusing.

Several years ago, former Vikings defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams successfully delayed a suspension under the PED policy even though, ultimately, they lost the lawsuit blocking them. (For Pat Williams, the end result came after he retired.) Given the differences in the Eagles offense with and without Lane Johnson in the lineup, the team arguably would have been playing a game in this weekend’s wild-card round, if it had the benefit of Johnson’s services.