• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2014 NFL draft and offseason thread: your mock draft, team wish list, and more

Page 57 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think the NFL should just drop all drug testing for non-PEDs.

Let the police deal with the rest. If the player gets arrested and convicted then punish them for law breaking.

IMO, pot testing is particularly stupid since it's been legalized in some states.

Fern
 
I think the NFL should just drop all drug testing for non-PEDs.

Let the police deal with the rest. If the player gets arrested and convicted then punish them for law breaking.

IMO, pot testing is particularly stupid since it's been legalized in some states.

Fern


I think the only time pot should come into the equation is if it affects your job, and your ability to perform your job at the highest level you can.

As long as you aren't high on the job, then I think it should be left alone.
 
I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't do anything about certain rule violations, as i never directly addressed that.

But, how about this: 2 games for the reefer, a year susension for uh, I don't know, violent crimes?

You know, come to think about it...I hear ya man. I guess it falls under the umbrella of "substance abuse", and we have to remember that a kicker just got suspended for alcohol abuse.

To a degree, I understand the "Shield" and the standards the NFL wants to pride itself on. I mean, as a business, they don't want people getting in trouble for off-the-field incidents involving drugs and alcohol.

If I were an employer, I'd not legislate that, but I'd make my workers aware that repeated run-ins involving drugs etc are fireable offenses if they happen more than a reasonable amount of times.
 
Seems Bill went up to Mankins and said we really need you to take a pay cut. Mankins said he enjoyed what he was being paid so Bill said we hope you enjoy Florida during summer too.

Supposedly little Tommy not happy about the transfer.
 
I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't do anything about certain rule violations, as i never directly addressed that.

But, how about this: 2 games for the reefer, a year susension for uh, I don't know, violent crimes?

Here is your problem: 1, marijuana is still illegal, regardless of what state laws says. It is illegal under federal law and that trumps all state laws. People who smoke in Colorado and Washington are still breaking the law. It just isn't being enforced in those states. 2, This isn't Gordon's first offense. This is his THIRD. If he was suspended for a year on his first offense, okay, that might be a bit stupid. But, similar to Ricky Williams, he would rather smoke weed than play in the NFL.

The punishment of other players should play zero into the punishment of Ray Rice, except to set a precedent, which isn't the end all. Whatever Ray Rice said during this appeal, obviously moved someone. Perhaps, I don't know, he showed genuine remorse. I am not excusing his actions, as they were disgusting. However, the NFL can't say "well, we suspended someone on their third offense of an entirely different issue, so we are going to suspend you for that long as well!" That makes zero sense.
 
Okay... so we have this going on with the NFL and Josh Gordon.

- Gordon Suspended for 1 year for pot (repeat offense)
- Gordon appeals suspension
- Appeal upheld by arbitrator
- Gordon looks to play in CFL for the season instead
- NFL & CFL both say no because he's under contract with the Browns

Now... as a parallel...

- LaVon Brazill Suspended for 1 year for pot (repeat offense)
- Colts release Brazill
- Brazill signs with the Toronto Argonauts

lol
 
Okay... so we have this going on with the NFL and Josh Gordon.

- Gordon Suspended for 1 year for pot (repeat offense)
- Gordon appeals suspension
- Appeal upheld by arbitrator
- Gordon looks to play in CFL for the season instead
- NFL & CFL both say no because he's under contract with the Browns

Now... as a parallel...

- LaVon Brazill Suspended for 1 year for pot (repeat offense)
- Colts release Brazill
- Brazill signs with the Toronto Argonauts

lol

Could he not sue under antitrust laws? Only way he could not is if he was still getting paid but I doubt that will be happening.
 
Here is your problem: 1, marijuana is still illegal, regardless of what state laws says. It is illegal under federal law and that trumps all state laws. People who smoke in Colorado and Washington are still breaking the law. It just isn't being enforced in those states. 2, This isn't Gordon's first offense. This is his THIRD. If he was suspended for a year on his first offense, okay, that might be a bit stupid. But, similar to Ricky Williams, he would rather smoke weed than play in the NFL.

The punishment of other players should play zero into the punishment of Ray Rice, except to set a precedent, which isn't the end all. Whatever Ray Rice said during this appeal, obviously moved someone. Perhaps, I don't know, he showed genuine remorse. I am not excusing his actions, as they were disgusting. However, the NFL can't say "well, we suspended someone on their third offense of an entirely different issue, so we are going to suspend you for that long as well!" That makes zero sense.

It's also worth noting that susbtance abuse and the penalties were collectively bargained, and domestic violence was not.

Perhaps during the new CBA meeting(s), these can be addressed. As of now, Ray Rice cannot be compared to Gordon...period.
 
It's also worth noting that susbtance abuse and the penalties were collectively bargained, and domestic violence was not.

Perhaps during the new CBA meeting(s), these can be addressed. As of now, Ray Rice cannot be compared to Gordon...period.

Which makes Rice's suspension even worse since the league was not beholden to the CBA in that case.

KT
 
Could he not sue under antitrust laws? Only way he could not is if he was still getting paid but I doubt that will be happening.

No. After Ricky Williams did this, they added verbage into contracts and rules into the NFL to prevent players from doing this. The CFL agreed to those terms. LaVon Brazil, however, was released from his contract, allowing him to play in other leagues. Should he return to the NFL, he would have to complete his suspension. Gordon, as of right now, is still under contract with the Browns, even if he isn't getting paid this season.
 
No. After Ricky Williams did this, they added verbage into contracts and rules into the NFL to prevent players from doing this. The CFL agreed to those terms. LaVon Brazil, however, was released from his contract, allowing him to play in other leagues. Should he return to the NFL, he would have to complete his suspension. Gordon, as of right now, is still under contract with the Browns, even if he isn't getting paid this season.


That's pretty much a antitrust issue right there if they worked together to keep someone from playing in their field.

Its the same thing as my larger welding shop saying you can't hire my people if I fire or suspended them without pay to smaller shops near me.
 
My understanding is the CFL just said they would honour the suspensions the NFL implemented, so he could go up there, but he would still be suspended for the year.

KT
 
That's pretty much a antitrust issue right there if they worked together to keep someone from playing in their field.

Its the same thing as my larger welding shop saying you can't hire my people if I fire or suspended them without pay to smaller shops near me.

If you fire them, they are free to go. However, if they are merely suspended, yet still under contract to not compete, why would that be okay for them to work somewhere else? And how would that be an anti trust violation? Josh Gordon wasn't fired or banned from the league. He was given a suspension for breaking league rules for the third time.
 
If you fire them, they are free to go. However, if they are merely suspended, yet still under contract to not compete, why would that be okay for them to work somewhere else? And how would that be an anti trust violation? Josh Gordon wasn't fired or banned from the league. He was given a suspension for breaking league rules for the third time.

Courts look at it as a pay issue. Same reason most non-compete clauses never hold up in court is you are keeping someone from making a living.

If he was still being paid then yea no case, but no pay AND not being allowed to work is the issue.
The only problem is the NFL could drag this out till a year+ has run its course.

I understand what you are saying but I would like to see a court look at this, esp if the CFL and NFL worked together on this at all.
 
Last edited:
No. After Ricky Williams did this, they added verbage into contracts and rules into the NFL to prevent players from doing this. The CFL agreed to those terms. LaVon Brazil, however, was released from his contract, allowing him to play in other leagues. Should he return to the NFL, he would have to complete his suspension. Gordon, as of right now, is still under contract with the Browns, even if he isn't getting paid this season.

Which begs the question - imagine a two-sport athlete a la Bo Jackson. Say he or she was suspended in sport #1 for reason A, which isn't an offense in sport #2. According to this logic that the NFL is weaving, sport #2 would be obligated to suspend said athlete?

At what point is enough enough?
 
Which begs the question - imagine a two-sport athlete a la Bo Jackson. Say he or she was suspended in sport #1 for reason A, which isn't an offense in sport #2. According to this logic that the NFL is weaving, sport #2 would be obligated to suspend said athlete?

At what point is enough enough?

Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders both had special contracts to allow this type of thing. I am not sure how suspensions would hold up, but I know there won't be any more dual sport athletes. The risks far outweigh the rewards. Look at Bo Jackson. A freak injury (and by freak, I mean if he wasn't such a freak it wouldn't have happened... so strong you pop your own hip out of socket, what kind of shit is that?) ended his football career and significantly impacted his baseball career. No team is going to agree with that.
 


ah yes. we're such idiots. Why should we expect these guys to conduct themselves in a non-criminal, non-abusive manner? The defense of punishing for pot: "Well, they are role models."

OK, fine. I can buy that.

....but wait, now we're idiots for hoping at least some sensible punishment for beating your spouse? Oh right--domestic abuse and criminal activity does not fall under the role model category. They just can't help themselves, I guess.

Anyway, good on Goodell. At least he isn't as blind to the absurdity as some people are.
 
ah yes. we're such idiots. Why should we expect these guys to conduct themselves in a non-criminal, non-abusive manner? The defense of punishing for pot: "Well, they are role models."

OK, fine. I can buy that.

....but wait, now we're idiots for hoping at least some sensible punishment for beating your spouse? Oh right--domestic abuse and criminal activity does not fall under the role model category. They just can't help themselves, I guess.

Anyway, good on Goodell. At least he isn't as blind to the absurdity as some people are.

Or enough people bitched at him.
 
ah yes. we're such idiots. Why should we expect these guys to conduct themselves in a non-criminal, non-abusive manner? The defense of punishing for pot: "Well, they are role models."

OK, fine. I can buy that.

....but wait, now we're idiots for hoping at least some sensible punishment for beating your spouse? Oh right--domestic abuse and criminal activity does not fall under the role model category. They just can't help themselves, I guess.

Anyway, good on Goodell. At least he isn't as blind to the absurdity as some people are.

see now this is you just being a schmuck again, the pot punishment is because it's what the players agreed to. the nfl can do no more or no less which is why for such an absurdly low "positive" he was still suspended for the full year.
 
see now this is you just being a schmuck again, the pot punishment is because it's what the players agreed to. the nfl can do no more or no less which is why for such an absurdly low "positive" he was still suspended for the full year.

stop putting me under this tent that says I don't think he should have been punished for violating his agreement. I never said that

you're the one being the schmuck because you use this contract to cop out of admitting that the punishment system, as it exists, is absurd. Violent crimes aren't in the contracts because the NFL never did anything about it. If they don't bring it up, do you think the players union is going to bring it up for them, and demand it is in here?

No!

Just man-up and admit that it was a stupid contract that, in no way, reflects a good-will recognition of criminal punishment. Goodell seems to be doing that, regardless of what brought him to that position. Or are you just mad that after pointing out the absurdity, something was actually done about it?

I mean, I guess you guys can't tell me to "Go complain to the NFL!" now. Is that what actually annoys you? 😀
 
see now this is you just being a schmuck again, the pot punishment is because it's what the players agreed to. the nfl can do no more or no less which is why for such an absurdly low "positive" he was still suspended for the full year.

Don't be silly.

The agreement can be changed. It's not like the players are begging for pot drug testing and punishment. The NFL could change the pot punishment if they wanted.
 
violent crimes always been in the cba, just not listed by type under the personal conduct policy, so try again.
 
Back
Top