VA Cowboy
Brand New Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,710
If only there had been some way to see it coming.Another 2nd round pick wasted.
If only there had been some way to see it coming.Another 2nd round pick wasted.
Yep.What I don't understand is why they test for banned substances that have no performance-enhancing effects.
Cocaine, speed... I get it. Pot? Really?
It costs them a ridiculous amount of money in administration costs, lost player development, and a public black eye on top of things.
It is a valid concern.Ian Rappaport brought up a great point that I hadn't thought about.
They were talking about how the legalization of marijuana in certain states has some NFL owners concerned about the differing state laws creating a potential competitive imbalance.
For instance, if a player were pulled over in Seattle and found to be in possession of marijuana nothing would happen to the guy. However if a player in Indianapolis were pulled over and found to be in possession of marijuana that player would be arrested and could face possible suspension from the NFL.
It's a valid concern.
It's the legality of pot that makes them take this position. For now they do not want to be percieved as supporting marajunia because there is still a significant amount of the fan base who are opposed to it.What I don't understand is why they test for banned substances that have no performance-enhancing effects.
Cocaine, speed... I get it. Pot? Really?
It costs them a ridiculous amount of money in administration costs, lost player development, and a public black eye on top of things.
Detection of illegal substances is a concern for law enforcement, not an employer.It's the legality of pot that makes them take this position. For now they do not want to be percieved as supporting marajunia because there is still a significant amount of the fan base who are opposed to it.
I hope you can understand that it is a PR Matter with the league. It's the concern that it might affect revenues. It may not be the approach a lot of people agree with but the owners and the league are acutely attuned to matters that could affect revenues. It is first a business then a sport. And yes it is an employer matter because of the contracts involved.Detection of illegal substances is a concern for law enforcement, not an employer.
Banned or illegal performance-enhancing substances OTOH is definitely something the NFL should be screening for. Their use affects the fairness of the game.
But pot can't make Gregory a better tackler or pass rusher or impervious to pain caused by workouts.
Detecting it can't make playing the game more or less fair-- all it can do is bring bad publicity to the NFL.
So why police it? It's not their job.
Wut[MENTION=3]boozeman[/MENTION]
Very well played.
Oh wait, I agreed with him. Looks like you got two birds with one stone.
I hope the league can understand that none of their customers give a shit.I hope you can understand that it is a PR Matter with the league. It's the concern that it might affect revenues.
I hope you can understand that it is a PR Matter with the league.
Maybe you haven't been exposed to the entire segment of the public.I hope the league can understand that none of their customers give a shit.
I'm not making a determination about whether it is right or wrong. Or whether they should change. I am relating why I think the league is taking the position they are. Why do you think the league is taking this position? All you are saying is that you don't agree with it.But that's exactly why it's so dumb for the league to test for it.
Would you know that Randy Gregory was smoking marijuana if the didn't test for it? No, you wouldn't.
The league is CREATING negative PR for itself.
Because they are way, way, way out of touch.I'm not making a determination about whether it is right or wrong. Or whether they should change. I am relating why I think the league is taking the position they are. Why do you think the league is taking this position? All you are saying is that you don't agree with it.