Vet Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I agree with you DMD! Who cares anyway? I think one other point that must be considered is the amount of children that look up to these players. If they see their favortie NFL players smoking Josh Gordon without some sort of penalty, why should they think it would be any different for them? Matters like that have a big influence on kids. 826309[/snapback] How would kids see their favorite players smoking Josh Gordon? Are they travelling in the same circles as Ricky Williams and Onterrio Smith? Do your kids hang out with these guys during the offseason? Or, are the players doing bong hits on national TV? I always thought those were oxygen tanks on the sidelines! The only reason we (and kids) know that these guys are smoking Josh Gordon is that the league tests them and then "leaks" what are supposed to be confidential results to the press, who obviously have a field day with it. Then the kids think to themselves - wow, these guys smoke dope and they're successful athletes and millionaires - and they're given many chances to come back and play after they've been caught. It's really an asinine system when you think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 How would kids see their favorite players smoking Josh Gordon? Are they travelling in the same circles as Ricky Williams and Onterrio Smith? Do your kids hang out with these guys during the offseason? Or, are the players doing bong hits on national TV? I always thought those were oxygen tanks on the sidelines! The only reason we (and kids) know that these guys are smoking Josh Gordon is that the league tests them and then "leaks" what are supposed to be confidential results to the press, who obviously have a field day with it. Then the kids think to themselves - wow, these guys smoke dope and they're successful athletes and millionaires - and they're given many chances to come back and play after they've been caught. It's really an asinine system when you think about it. 826956[/snapback] I guess you've never hung out in Passaic NJ and snorted a few lines with Mr. Taylor. There was no shortage of kids there, believe me. Oh ya, forgot to mention, while this was taking place I was playing in a PBA softball tourny at the time. With the celebrity that surrounds our pro athletes and the huge salaries they get, it's like a 23yr. old winning the lottery. They feel their above the law and can do anything, the testing is as much for themselves as it is for the league and fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 They feel their above the law and can do anything, the testing is as much for themselves as it is for the league and fans. 827040[/snapback] There is no doubt that some of these guys getting into the NFL are morans. But are they so childlike that we need to protect them from themselves? Next thing you know, the teams will write clauses into the players contracts that forbids them from any dangerous activity, like riding motorcycles.. I dont believe drug testing for Josh Gordon is in place to protect the players at all. For one thing, the negative side of effects of Josh Gordon arent that great that people need protection from it. And secondly, testing enfringes on their constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seirsure, to protect the league itself, not the players. This is all about the league, its image, etc. My thought is that nobody would even know these guys were blazing if they werent tested. Testing hurts the league's image because it exposes the drug users. And pot is so begnin that it shouldnt be tested for in the first place. They attempts to protect the league image by testing for Josh Gordon, actually winds up hurting the very image they are trying to protect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 There is no doubt that some of these guys getting into the NFL are morans. But are they so childlike that we need to protect them from themselves? Next thing you know, the teams will write clauses into the players contracts that forbids them from any dangerous activity, like riding motorcycles.. I dont believe drug testing for Josh Gordon is in place to protect the players at all. 827109[/snapback] Well, you're right about that. Josh Gordon testing is in place to protect the image of the league. But I disagree that exposing drug users by suspending them is bad for the league's image. Pot is in such widespread use that when kids who see players who are "down" with the hip hop culture, they will probably (stereotypically) assume that they DO smoke pot. IMO, league-mandated suspensions show children that (1) illicit drug use is not acceptable and (2) there are consequences for breaking the rules. I like that option better than sweeping the problems under the rug. I'll go out on a limb and say that the NFL sets a better example for children than, say, Columbia records does by ignoring the rampant drug use of its employees. And secondly, testing enfringes on their constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seirsure, to protect the league itself, not the players. The Supreme Court believes otherwise. Companies subject their employees to random drug tests all of the time. The NFL is no different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I smoke a lot of pot. It is really the only think keeping me out of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stimer Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I smoke a lot of pot. It is really the only think keeping me out of the league. 827197[/snapback] That and the outfit ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Spain, We have pre-employment drug tests, and random drug tests throughout the year, as do most construction companies that I know of. There are several reasons why the NFL has drug testing. 1. It is illegal. 2. When someone gets arrested for it, it is bad publicity, thus affecting the sales of product, such a jersey's. 3. Owners have large investments in these players. If a player gets high and does something like drives their Hummer into a VW bug on the highway, the teams are without their players, because the player is in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I see this issue a little differently. Obviously Josh Gordon doesn't have the effects of many "hard core" drugs, nor does it have the impact steriods does. Most people won't argue about this. I see it as an issue of where do you draw the line. So let's say the NFL says okay fine, we won't test for Josh Gordon but we'll test for all other drugs and steriods. Well then other information comes out about some other drug to say that it's also not performance enhancing and thus shouldn't bet tested either. We'll here we go and where does it stop. It just makes things easier if the NFL tests for all illegal substances and steriods than separating them out. I actually think it makes the NFL image look better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 What about a tiered penalty structure based on the category of drug like the legal system does. Obviously, pot shouldnt have as severe a penalty as say heroine or steroids. Why not make the punishment fit the crime instead of making the same penalty regardless of the substance found in one's system. For a Josh Gordon violation, they could certainly lessen the punishment.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I smoke a lot of pot. It is really the only think keeping me out of the league. 827197[/snapback] LMFAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 And pot is so begnin that it shouldnt be tested for in the first place. 827109[/snapback] I don't get it espana ...... you bash the hell outta me a while back because I smoke spleef ( I know you remember that conversation )....... and here you are defending the NFL players because Josh Gordon shouldn't be tested for seeing as it's such a mild drug. Maybe you just got your zebco reel out with some 20 lb. test line... I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Maybe you just got your zebco reel out with some 20 lb. test line... I dunno. 827252[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) What about a tiered penalty structure based on the category of drug like the legal system does. Obviously, pot shouldnt have as severe a penalty as say heroine or steroids. Why not make the punishment fit the crime instead of making the same penalty regardless of the substance found in one's system. For a Josh Gordon violation, they could certainly lessen the punishment.. 827235[/snapback] Sounds good to me. However, don't the players just get a warning the first time, a fine the second time, and the violation isn't even disclosed to the public until the third time (when they're suspended)? They've got it easy already, IMO. Onterrio Smith violated the substance abuse policy SEVERAL times, not just once. EDIT: The fine system is a slap on the wrist the first time (and it's confidential), a four-game suspension the second time, and a year-long suspension the third time. Still a very lax policy, IMO. Edited May 31, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) I don't get it espana ...... you bash the hell outta me a while back because I smoke spleef ( I know you remember that conversation )....... and here you are defending the NFL players because Josh Gordon shouldn't be tested for seeing as it's such a mild drug. Maybe you just got your zebco reel out with some 20 lb. test line... I dunno. 827252[/snapback] If you recall I bashed you not because you were smoking Josh Gordon, but because you are a pothead and have children in your home. That is ALOT different than some jackass like Ricky who wants to act like an 18 year old kid and just blaze out. Since drugs are illegal, you are jeopardizing your childrens right to have a father as they will take your immature sorry ass to jail for smoking herb. Plus, if you get reported to childrens services that you are using illegal drugs in the house with kids, you could have your kids taken from you and placed in state custody. And eventually into some foster care. I am not kidding. If you dont have kids, who cares what you do? You throw some little ankle bitters into the equation, then you arent only being immature and wreckless, you are being an irresponsible parent. Totally different issue than drug testing guys who play a childs game.. Edited May 31, 2005 by spain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down Goes Frazia Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 If you recall I bashed you not because you were smoking Josh Gordon, but because you are a pothead and have children in your home. That is ALOT different than some jackass like Ricky who wants to act like an 18 year old kid and just blaze out. Since drugs are illegal, you are jeopardizing your childrens right to have a father as they will take your immature sorry ass to jail for smoking herb. Plus, if you get reported to childrens services that you are using illegal drugs in the house with kids, you could have your kids taken from you. I am not kidding. If you dont have kids, who cares what you do? You throw some little ankle bitters into the equation, then you arent only being immature and wreckless, you are being an irresponsible parent. Totally different issue than drug testing guys who play a childs game.. 827294[/snapback] look spain....... there are plenty of Josh Gordon smokers in the league or sports for that matter who have kids. So your double standard just applies to athletes who are single.... not with families ? don't get me started here. And for the record Nancy Grace...... just because I partake from time to time doesn't mean I've got cannibus growing in my basement. there ain't even a seed in my house.... much less a bud. For someone with the track record that you sport..... you're being pretty F'n righteous here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 If you recall I bashed you not because you were smoking Josh Gordon, but because you are a pothead and have children in your home. That is ALOT different than some jackass like Ricky who wants to act like an 18 year old kid and just blaze out. Since drugs are illegal, you are jeopardizing your childrens right to have a father as they will take your immature sorry ass to jail for smoking herb. Plus, if you get reported to childrens services that you are using illegal drugs in the house with kids, you could have your kids taken from you and placed in state custody. And eventually into some foster care. I am not kidding. If you dont have kids, who cares what you do? You throw some little ankle bitters into the equation, then you arent only being immature and wreckless, you are being an irresponsible parent. Totally different issue than drug testing guys who play a childs game.. 827294[/snapback] How is it a totally different issue? If the guy goes to jail, the owners of these teams are out a whole lot of money. Besides, how many of these athletes don't have 1 or 3 legitimate children, and 10 illegitimate ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 What about a tiered penalty structure based on the category of drug like the legal system does. Obviously, pot shouldnt have as severe a penalty as say heroine or steroids. Why not make the punishment fit the crime instead of making the same penalty regardless of the substance found in one's system. For a Josh Gordon violation, they could certainly lessen the punishment.. 827235[/snapback] I think the same thing applies to a tiered penalty. Where do you draw the line? It just seems to me that if it's illegal, then it's illegal, and if it's going to improve your performance on the field then that should be banned as well. Keep it simple. You play, you pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 If you recall I bashed you not because you were smoking Josh Gordon, but because you are a pothead and have children in your home.827294[/snapback] There are nfl players without 3 kids? Oh... oh... in their home. Those kids all live with their varied mothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 How is it a totally different issue? If the guy goes to jail, the owners of these teams are out a whole lot of money. Besides, how many of these athletes don't have 1 or 3 legitimate children, and 10 illegitimate ones? 827309[/snapback] NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, and teams can sue for a refund of the signing bonus based on inapproriate conduct - so the owners aren't out alot of money. Nice try though. Not to mention the owners are billionaires and don't give a hoot about a couple of million here and there. If you want to randomly drug test UPS drivers or bus drivers or truck drivers or airline pilots or anyone else who could injure the general public, so be it - I'm all for it. To randomly drug test football players serves only one purpose and that is to publicize and sensationalize drug use. If you follow that logic - actors, singers, etc. should all be randomly tested and have thier results splashed all over the media. Not to mention baseball players. The only reason NFL players get tested for pot and have their results publicized is because they have an incredibly weak union. Gene Upshaw is in bed with the owners. Unless you want people coming to your house and testing your pee, there is no reason you should want them testing NFL players. It's a needless violation of rights (that the NFL players union somehow agreed to!). And if you don't mind them testing your pee, then I'm sure you'll have no problem with them searching your closets, attic, garage, car, shed, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, and teams can sue for a refund of the signing bonus based on inapproriate conduct - so the owners aren't out alot of money. Nice try though. Not to mention the owners are billionaires and don't give a hoot about a couple of million here and there. If you want to randomly drug test UPS drivers or bus drivers or truck drivers or airline pilots or anyone else who could injure the general public, so be it - I'm all for it. To randomly drug test football players serves only one purpose and that is to publicize and sensationalize drug use. If you follow that logic - actors, singers, etc. should all be randomly tested and have thier results splashed all over the media. Not to mention baseball players. The only reason NFL players get tested for pot and have their results publicized is because they have an incredibly weak union. Gene Upshaw is in bed with the owners. Unless you want people coming to your house and testing your pee, there is no reason you should want them testing NFL players. It's a needless violation of rights (that the NFL players union somehow agreed to!). And if you don't mind them testing your pee, then I'm sure you'll have no problem with them searching your closets, attic, garage, car, shed, etc. 827392[/snapback] Yes the owners are in large part billionaires. So, what! I would imagine most of them got there by protecting their asses, uh I mean assets. Testing makes good business sense. Why do so many people hate those that bust their ass to get ahead? Uh, didn't the players know that there piss was going to be tested, when they took the job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Unless you want people coming to your house and testing your pee, there is no reason you should want them testing NFL players. It's a needless violation of rights (that the NFL players union somehow agreed to!). And if you don't mind them testing your pee, then I'm sure you'll have no problem with them searching your closets, attic, garage, car, shed, etc. 827392[/snapback] You're dead wrong that random drug testing is a violation of one's rights. Employers are legally allowed to subject employees to random drug tests. And if employees don't like taking these tests, they're welcome to quit and work somewhere else. The NFL is no different. NFL players with grade-school-level educations have significantly higher salaries than than medical doctors, Ph.D. scientists, pilots, astronauts, professors, lawyers, Congressmen, etc. Unlike people who've actually had to work hard to earn advanced degrees in their profession, future NFL players are treated like royalty the minute that they set foot onto a college campus (free cars, free money, they don't have to actually work for their degrees, etc.). They have an outstanding benefits package and, once they retire from the NFL, have a fantastic pension plan. They're given everything on a silver platter at age 18. I think that being asked to give up illicit drugs and pee in a cup every once in a while is a very small price to pay for being financially set for the rest of one's life. BTW, did it ever occur to you that the NFLPA may have agreed to Josh Gordon and narcotics testing because, not only is it good for the league's image, but that it's also good for the health of the players as well? The music industry is a perfect example of what happens when employers allow drug use to run rampant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Yes the owners are in large part billionaires. So, what! I would imagine most of them got there by protecting their asses, uh I mean assets. Testing makes good business sense. Why do so many people hate those that bust their ass to get ahead? Uh, didn't the players know that there piss was going to be tested, when they took the job? 827463[/snapback] Believe me, I'm as big a capitalist as there is out there - so spare me the "poor owners busting their asses to buy a team" crap. Work your ass off for the next 50 years and see if you gather enough money to buy an NFL franchise. I'll say you don't. And, yes, the players knew that they were subject to random testing when they signed. My original post was in response to a message that basically said "My poor kids are being negatively influenced by these irresposible athletes that smoke pot!" To which I essentially said "Your kids would never even know these guys were smoking pot unless the NFL publicized it. And the fact that the NFL publicized their positive tests, then allows them to come back after a game, four games, a year...whatever - all while making them millionaires - is not in my opinion a great message to kids." As far as randomly drug testing idividuals at work - I'm not sure about the laws, but I'll assume that the preachers here are right and that people can be tested at work. (Although, I've worked for several large corporations and none of then have ever subjected employees to random drug tests.) However, when you're part of a union, such as the NFLPA, your union representatives are supposed to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that pretects its members. Neither the MLBPA or the NBAPA have agreed to random testing for Josh Gordon. Nor, to my knowlege, have any other major national unions. (Perhaps the Teamsters and Air Traffic Controllers have since their members could directly jeopardize lives, but you get my point.) The point of my second post was that football players don't have life or death jobs like truck drivers, pilots, or air traffic controllers. Personally, I don't think they should be subject to random tesiting foor Josh Gordon since it is not a performance enhancing drug. If they give their employer reason to test them - like missing practice, or showing up stoned, that's one thing. But, I'm just saying they shouldn't be subject to any more stringent testing than the rest of us and certainly not more stringent than the other major sports. The NFLPA is a joke. Think about it - football is the most dangerous sport out there to an athlete, yet these guys don't have guaranteed contracts! Jason Giambi can pump up on steroids and get a $182 million contract that the Yankees can't get out of, yet Terell Davis - one of the best RBs in football, is uncerimoniously cut and the rest of his contract voided because he hurt his knee. My second post was not advocating Josh Gordon use, just indiciting the NFLPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 (edited) My original post was in response to a message that basically said "My poor kids are being negatively influenced by these irresposible athletes that smoke pot!" To which I essentially said "Your kids would never even know these guys were smoking pot unless the NFL publicized it. 827579[/snapback] Not until they're arrested on drug charges , end up in rehab, or die of overdoses when they move to heroin. Record labels don't test their rock stars for drugs, yet we constantly hear about their drug use in the news. And the fact that the NFL publicized their positive tests, then allows them to come back after a game, four games, a year...whatever - all while making them millionaires - is not in my opinion a great message to kids." At the very least, it shows that there's consequences for their actions (fines for the first offense and, afterwards, significant losses of money and falling out of favor with their coaches). That's a much better message to give children than the one where the player is arrested on a DUI and comes back to work the next day to continue making millions. The NFLPA is a joke. Think about it - football is the most dangerous sport out there to an athlete, yet these guys don't have guaranteed contracts! Jason Giambi can pump up on steroids and get a $182 million contract that the Yankees can't get out of Unlike the MLBPA, the NFLPA actually watches out for the welfare of their players, rather than just worrying about padding their pockets or increasing their union's leverage. The MLBPA is despicable for taking a hard-line stance on steroid issues... and Bud Selig is just as bad for looking the other way to allow more revenue to fill the owners' pockets. It is the MLBPA, not the NFLPA, that is a joke. And the proof of that is that, even with the Mark, Sammy, and Barry's steroid-induced cheating, MLB is still a distant second to the NFL in the hearts and minds of America's sports fans. Edited May 31, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Not until they're arrested on drug charges , end up in rehab, or die of overdoses when they move to heroin. Record labels don't test their rock stars for drugs, yet we constantly hear about their drug use in the news.At the very least, it shows that there's consequences for their actions (fines for the first offense and, afterwards, significant losses of money and falling out of favor with their coaches). That's a much better message to give children than the one where the player is arrested on a DUI and comes back to work the next day to continue making millions. Unlike the MLBPA, the NFLPA actually watches out for the welfare of their players, rather than just worrying about padding their pockets or increasing their union's leverage. The MLBPA is despicable for taking a hard-line stance on steroid issues... and Bud Selig is just as bad for looking the other way to allow more revenue to fill the owners' pockets. It is the MLBPA, not the NFLPA, that is a joke. And the proof of that is that, even with the Mark, Sammy, and Barry's steroid-induced cheating, MLB is still a distant second to the NFL in the hearts and minds of America's sports fans. 827636[/snapback] Millions of people smoke pot and live to tell about it. One loser in a couple of hundred thousand moves on to heroin and one loser in a million kills himself by ODing on heroin. I've yet to hear about a player suspended for heroin use. I've yet to hear about a player arrested for heroin use. I've yet to hear about a player dying from a heroin overdose. Stupid analogy by Swerski - to no one's surprise. The NFLPA is a joke. Ask the Webster family how well the NFLPA looks out for the welfare of it's players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Millions of people smoke pot and live to tell about it. One loser in a couple of hundred thousand moves on to heroin and one loser in a million kills himself by ODing on heroin. I've yet to hear about a player suspended for heroin use. I've yet to hear about a player arrested for heroin use. I've yet to hear about a player dying from a heroin overdose. Stupid analogy by Swerski - to no one's surprise. The NFLPA is a joke. Ask the Webster family how well the NFLPA looks out for the welfare of it's players. 827762[/snapback] Dexter Manley ring a bell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.