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'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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
hope you idiots are happy, you got your way.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...dell-apologizes-for-decision-in-ray-rice-case
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.