Suspended players

[Randall]

Kicking them away from the team completely seems anti-productive. I would rather see some kind of treatment program with some time(a little) working out at the team facilities.

 

 

 

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Brett Favre sharply criticized the way the NFL handles substance abuse problems Wednesday, a day after teammate Koren Robinson was suspended for the season, apparently because of a drunken driving charge.

 

 

"I'm not against banning him for the year. I'd love for him to play, but to boot him out, clean his locker out and say you can't have no contact with this team?"

-- Brett Favre

"I don't like the way the league has, in my mind, turned their back on him," Favre said. "I'm not against banning him for the year. I'd love for him to play, but to boot him out, clean his locker out and say you can't have no contact with this team?"

 

Favre, who entered the NFL's substance abuse program during treatment for an addiction to painkillers in 1996, said it doesn't make sense that the policy bans his teammate from the Packers' facilities "and the support group that can help him."

 

NFL spokesman Michael Signora said the league had no comment.

 

The league's policy includes a stipulation against consuming alcohol while participating in its substance abuse program. Robinson apparently violated that before being arrested Aug. 15, when police said the receiver's blood-alcohol content was 0.11 percent, above the legal limit of 0.08.

 

He pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of drunken driving and fleeing police in a high-speed chase near the south-central Minnesota town of St. Peter.

 

In the eyes of the NFL, the difference between Favre's case and Robinson's was that Favre sought help under the league's substance abuse policy and voluntarily entered a treatment facility after suffering a seizure while in the hospital for ankle surgery.

 

Favre wasn't subject to punishment, only periodic drug testing used for treatment. He also complained after treatment about being banned himself from drinking when he was in the NFL's program, though he made a conscious effort after his treatment to quit drinking to prolong his career and be a good family man.

 

Still, Favre said the league's decision on Robinson doesn't seem to be in anyone's best interest.

 

"I'm no expert, but I would think you would want for people to reach out to him and be within an organization that can help him as opposed to saying, 'You're banned from the building. To make matters worse, we don't even want you over here, so go think about it and deal with it on your own,"' Favre said.

 

Robinson said as recently as Monday he didn't expect to be suspended, but the league moved quickly against him. He did not return a phone call Wednesday.

 

His agent, Alvin Keels, said that Robinson is in a "state of shock" and thought the league would wait to hand down its punishment.

 

Robinson had caught seven passes for 89 yards and averaged 21.1 yards on 12 kickoff returns in four games for the Packers this year. He is eligible to be reinstated no sooner than Sept. 18, 2007.

 

Favre said Robinson told him last week that despite his troubles, he thought he had a lot of years left. Favre responded that he wished he could have played with Robinson earlier in his career.

 

"[He's] really a great guy," Favre said. "It's unfortunate that he has to go through this, but maybe it makes him a better person. Whether or not it makes him a better player remains to be seen I think the most important thing is his health and his family."

 

The suspension leaves the Packers without a proven No. 3 receiver with Ruvell Martin and other players expected to fill in with Robert Ferguson still on crutches after a foot injury.

 

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

Edited October 19, 2006 by Randall

[Hat Trick]

I saw what he had to say......and I agreed with him as well. You'd think that one with his peers could get more support and still feel apart of something...but a little left out in some way....thus helping to motivate said individual to want to be successful and not make the same mistake again. It was a good time to bring it up and also a good spokesman from a player standpoint that chose to speak up for his peers.

[Bronco Billy]

On the surface, what Favre is saying is very reasonable. Kicking the players completely away from the game would only seem to encourage more poor behavior.

 

Then I started thinking about it, and realized that we have adults making outrageous sums of money doing what they love, and then they choose - on their own - to jeopardize their vocation by doing completely stupid things after the league has tried to help them (the NFL has outstanding intervention programs).

 

Take Robinson, for example. As an adult, he had to have known that he had a drinking problem. He had to know that the problem put his earning power & career at risk. He had the financial wherewithall to enter a preventative program, or he could have gone to the league and asked for intervention. So what does he do? Keep repeatedly violating the conditions of his keeping his job.

 

Players know the rules, they are educated constantly, they have a very strong & active support system, and they know the consequences of repeated violations is getting kicked out of the league. If they are stupid enough to risk killing the golden goose with all that laid out in front of them, what would make anyone think that allowing them to stay with the team but not play in games would change their behavior, if the risk of losing their association with the NFL for an extended period doesn't do it?

[driveby]

Koren can afford to buy a support group. He's lucky it's only for a year.

[Big Score 1]

Favre is wrong.

 

Having been around a ton of abusers, both of alchol & drugs, the only way K-Rob straightens up, is if he's bottomed out & wants to. He could be surrounded by a "Support Group" of Green Bay teamates 24 / 7, but if he's not committed to quiting, he won't.

 

It's that simple.

[BillyBalata]

Maybe if they screw up and get a 4 game suspension, I can see them being allowed to still work out with team and whatnot, while on suspension. But when a player receives a year suspension? He has obviously yumped up on several occasions, been given every opportunity to correct his problems but yet kept right on doing what he has been doing to get in trouble.

 

At that point it's time to make some major changes in your life, and not be allowed to continue to do some of the same things you have been doing.

 

And if I was a coach or GM of a team, I would want this player as far away from my team as possible until he has proven he no longer has these problems that could influence anyone else on my team.

Edited October 19, 2006 by BillyBalata

[Randall]

Favre is wrong.

 

Having been around a ton of abusers, both of alchol & drugs, the only way K-Rob straightens up, is if he's bottomed out & wants to. He could be surrounded by a "Support Group" of Green Bay teamates 24 / 7, but if he's not committed to quiting, he won't.

 

It's that simple.

 

 

 

You think he's wrong. I don't.

 

I've been around abusers too and if they do take responsibility teaming them with good people is better than bad people. If he is trying to stay clean providing him with support is important whether it's family or team. Saying get out of here isn't a solution to anything.

 

Unless he isn't serious.

[SNOWBOUND33]

It should be up to the team. No games but let the team decide if they want him around. Too much micro-managing in this world.

[ebartender]

You think he's wrong. I don't.

 

I've been around abusers too and if they do take responsibility teaming them with good people is better than bad people. If he is trying to stay clean providing him with support is important whether it's family or team. Saying get out of here isn't a solution to anything.

 

Unless he isn't serious.

 

 

I disagree. I have a brother with a heroin problem and I have been to countless seminars and meetings. All the experts I have heard have said that there comes a point with repeat users where you just have to completely shut them out and let them hit rock bottom. That is the only way some will ever fully recover. If you keep protecting them by allowing them to live in your house, eat your food, etc. you are being what the call an enabler. It almost makes it seem OK for the users to fall off the wagon because they know they always have a place to go with people that will always take them back. Sometimes they need to realize they have screwed people too many times and evetryone has had enough. It is one of the hardest thing in the world to completely shut out one of your family members like that but you just have to convince yourself it is in theior best interests. It is getting very close to that situation with my brother and I hope I have the strength to follow through if it comes to that.

 

I know that was a little deep for the topic, but it is similar. Robinson has had many chances to clean up his act. Maybe by completely cutting him off from football it will finally sink in and he will turn it around. Once he get on the right track then you slowly bring him back into the fold.

[Randall]

I disagree. I have a brother with a heroin problem and I have been to countless seminars and meetings. All the experts I have heard have said that there comes a point with repeat users where you just have to completely shut them out and let them hit rock bottom.

 

 

If they continue going back I agree. I have a brother who once had the same problem but solved it. It took 10 years.

 

Why not allow limited access only if his sponsor or treatment officer agree and have massive tests? Once he fails he is gone.

 

KRob had a problem he kicked for awhile. Then fell off the wagon. I don't think he's chronic or terminal just yet. If he is I agree. Then he should probably go somewhere and dry out completely, but is he at that point?

 

How long was he dry after the Seahawks? Wasn't he clean for 9 months? Maybe that can be built on. Mayb not, but I think counselors should decide that not the NFL with a blanket no access policy.

[Bronco Billy]

If they continue going back I agree. I have a brother who once had the same problem but solved it. It took 10 years.

 

Why not allow limited access only if his sponsor or treatment officer agree and have massive tests? Once he fails he is gone.

 

KRob had a problem he kicked for awhile. Then fell off the wagon. I don't think he's chronic or terminal just yet. If he is I agree. Then he should probably go somewhere and dry out completely, but is he at that point?

 

How long was he dry after the Seahawks? Wasn't he clean for 9 months? Maybe that can be built on. Mayb not, but I think counselors should decide that not the NFL with a blanket no access policy.

 

 

Sounds like a good policy. My good friend & I wholeheartedly endorse it.

 

Truly,

 

Steve Howe

Dwight Gooden

[thecerwin]

If they continue going back I agree. I have a brother who once had the same problem but solved it. It took 10 years.

 

Why not allow limited access only if his sponsor or treatment officer agree and have massive tests? Once he fails he is gone.

 

KRob had a problem he kicked for awhile. Then fell off the wagon. I don't think he's chronic or terminal just yet. If he is I agree. Then he should probably go somewhere and dry out completely, but is he at that point?

 

How long was he dry after the Seahawks? Wasn't he clean for 9 months? Maybe that can be built on. Mayb not, but I think counselors should decide that not the NFL with a blanket no access policy.

 

Koren has been involved in numerous alcohol related issues. He went been to rehab after both the 2004 season and 2005 season. Even during the preseason THIS season he went to a rehab for a relapse prevention program. Guess what? Only one month later he is drinking and driving and running from cops. If that isn't a chronic problem I don't know what is. The man has millions of dollars invested in him and he still can justify touching booze after all that he has been through.

[Big Score 1]

If they continue going back I agree. I have a brother who once had the same problem but solved it. It took 10 years.

 

Why not allow limited access only if his sponsor or treatment officer agree and have massive tests? Once he fails he is gone.

 

KRob had a problem he kicked for awhile. Then fell off the wagon. I don't think he's chronic or terminal just yet. If he is I agree. Then he should probably go somewhere and dry out completely, but is he at that point?

 

How long was he dry after the Seahawks? Wasn't he clean for 9 months? Maybe that can be built on. Mayb not, but I think counselors should decide that not the NFL with a blanket no access policy.

 

Again, until K-Rob bottoms out and WANTS to quit, he never will.

 

It's not going to matter what support group he's around - be it teammates, family, or professional counselors & support groups (of which he's been involved with a few times now).

 

To think that being around, or not being around, the Green Bay Packers will make a difference, is naive.

 

Every single recovering / recovered Alcoholic or Drug Abuser I know, has always told me that until THEY decided to quit, it wasn't going to happen and it didn't matter who they were with.

[Randall]

Again, until K-Rob bottoms out and WANTS to quit, he never will.

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with that you have to bottom out stuff. You have to want to be clean, but I don't believe you have to hit skid row to do it. He may have to but don't believe everyone with a chronic problem does.

 

I don't know enough about his problems to go further.

[Big Score 1]

I don't agree with that you have to bottom out stuff. You have to want to be clean, but I don't believe you have to hit skid row to do it. He may have to but don't believe everyone with a chronic problem does.

 

I don't know enough about his problems to go further.

 

No, you're right Randall. A person doesn't have to actually "Bottom Out" in the classical sense, before they decide they want to quit.

 

But what you find is that a steady chain of events has occured in their life, that have gotten progressively worse, until suddenly one particular thing happens where that person says "That's it, I've had enough! I would not be doing this except for...." & they go about quitting.

 

What that one instance was / is could be extremely mundane and something that would not fit the classical label of "Bottoming Out" as society has programmed you to understand it, such as losing your family / friends & ending up on Skid Row.

 

But essentially, for that person, the event that triggered their desire to get clean was indeed THEIR "Bottoming Out" even if it doesn't fit society's stereo typical definition of "Bottoming Out".

[xMRogers]

It's funny - when I first heard Favre talking, I thought - 'he's got some good points there'...the more I thought about it though, I have to say that I agree with the policy for a few reasons.

 

- most important is the players overall welfare, and while it's easy to say "don't shut him out of the team", the "team" is very likely part of the problem. Gotta remember that Koren's day to day life, which includes somewhere between a heavy drinking problem and a full on dependency issue, is centered around the team, and with all that support, he's screwed up numerous times. He needs a life change, and part of that is making football and the team not the focus.

 

- yea, i do think there's probably a call for some inbetween full 1 year no contact and still going in every day, but that's a tough judgement call and organizations are usually built around single rules, so see why it is like it is.

 

- i don't know Koren Robinson, but another side to this is that he's a screwup to some extent...there's somethign to be said for the rest of the players, especially the younger ones, to not having him around being a good thing

 

- Also, does anyone think an NFL football team is the best support group for a recovering anything...really?

 

 

I hope he gets things in order, and comes back next year better than ever (might finally justify DMD's ranking of him 3 years ago), but think banning his is better than just saying "no play on Sundays" for his overall well being.

[Crispy]

No, you're right Randall. A person doesn't have to actually "Bottom Out" in the classical sense, before they decide they want to quit.

 

But what you find is that a steady chain of events has occured in their life, that have gotten progressively worse, until suddenly one particular thing happens where that person says "That's it, I've had enough! I would not be doing this except for...." & they go about quitting.

 

What that one instance was / is could be extremely mundane and something that would not fit the classical label of "Bottoming Out" as society has programmed you to understand it, such as losing your family / friends & ending up on Skid Row.

 

But essentially, for that person, the event that triggered their desire to get clean was indeed THEIR "Bottoming Out" even if it doesn't fit society's stereo typical definition of "Bottoming Out".

 

 

 

This is correct. Everyone has a different pain threshold. "The Bottom" is indeed different for everyone and some people end up dying before they hit theirs. And incidently addictions are not "solved" they are permanent and have to be addressed daily. It isn't pretty but neither is the alternative.

[Atlas]

It could simply come down to whether the intention is to "punish" him or "help" him.

If keeping him away is to serve a deterent, so be it. If he's surrounded by teammate enablers it may be the best thing.

 

If keeping him around gets him away from his enablers, then you help him more by surrounding him with support.

I don't see this as black and white. I think its a case by case situation. What might be a positive move for one player may not be the same for another and only those within the organization even have a shot at evaluating this kind of situation.

 

I went thru this many times as a high school coach and school offical and its a tough call and those involved with the individual usually have a very different perspective from those on the outside looking in, right or wrong.

[BeeR]

As an adult, he had to have known that he had a drinking problem. He had to know that the problem put his earning power & career at risk. He had the financial wherewithall to enter a preventative program, or he could have gone to the league and asked for intervention. So what does he do? Keep repeatedly violating the conditions of his keeping his job.

bingo. (I can't wait for someone to call this a "disease" :hurl:)

 

If you keep protecting them by allowing them to live in your house, eat your food, etc. you are being what the call an enabler. It almost makes it seem OK for the users to fall off the wagon because they know they always have a place to go with people that will always take them back. Sometimes they need to realize they have screwed people too many times and evetryone has had enough.

Wow someone else gets it too. I would add not sometime, but every time. Coddling is enabling and while well intended, is counter-productive and friggin stupid.

 

Favre needs to just shut the flip up and pay more attention to not throwing into double-coverage etc. The more time goes on the more I wish he would have retired, and the less I mind GB losing (a team I traditionally have liked).

[Savage Beatings]

In theory I agree with Favre, but I'm not so sure that other immature millionaires are really the support group that Mr. Robinson needs right now.

[THE SIX KINGS]

Sounds like a good policy. My good friend & I wholeheartedly endorse it.

 

Truly,

 

Steve Howe

Dwight Gooden

 

 

Steve Howe is dead