OT: Steelers WR Martavis Bryant facing a year-long suspension

Brady_to_Moss · Mar 12, 2016

His twitter profile says "no regrets" pretty sure he has 1 big one right now

Wordsmyth · Mar 12, 2016

1960Pats said:
This baloney is getting to me. It's all about the arrogance of the owners and, as with the nonsense of defame-gate, having control over the players. It's actually making my decision to dump the NFL a little easier when Brady retires.

I was under a drug policy myself, and because of the danger of the job we were in I understood that, but there's no way in hell that a football player should be banned for anything other than a PED.

It's not just drugs either. Josh Gordon lost a year of his career and millions of dollars for drinking. His fans also lost a year of watching him play, and possibly the rest of his career.

Meanwhile, owners like Irsay and Jones can get as drunk and as doped up as they want and they get to sit on their asses and make decisions that affect players lives.

I used to pay to watch football players (like Gordon and Bryant) play football. The reason is because they're special. I never once paid to see an owner own. Any schmuck with a buck can do that.

Agreed. Any decent organization should enforce its rules from the top down. That puts elitists like Irsay and Jones squarely behind the 8 ball..exactly ball..exactly where they should be.

turkeyneck · Mar 12, 2016

I wonder if the Rooneys are still good with Goodell's arbitrary and capricious disciplinary 'procedures'.

ThatllMoveTheChains!!! · Mar 12, 2016

Username said:
Yep.

How hard is it not to smoke weed?

Have you ever tried not smoking weed... ON WEED!

XLIX · Mar 12, 2016

turkeyneck said:
I wonder if the Rooneys are still good with Goodell's arbitrary and capricious disciplinary 'procedures'.

The funny thing is that while the case can be made that the rules and punishments are too strict, this particular rule is neither arbitrary nor capricious. It was negotiated in the CBA, it is spelled out in clear black and white as far as defining the violation and what the punishments are for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd (etc) offense.

It isn't a situation where one team tampers with balls and gets a letter of warning, another team is accused of tampering with balls and, despite having no real evidence of guilt, they are docked a 1st and a 4th.

IcyPatriot · Mar 12, 2016

............

Patriot Missile · Mar 12, 2016

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
How is Sheldon Richardson these days?

Living under the rug with the crickets the NYJFL provided for him.

DShero · Mar 12, 2016

FreeTedWilliams said:
I prefer that the pilot flying the plane that I'm on, not to be high, call me silly, but that's just me.

But you're okay with him being drunk? Alcohol is legal. Most (all?) work places have rules against drinking at work. And so being high at work would be no different.

WhoaDirty · Mar 12, 2016

DShero said:
But you're okay with him being drunk? Alcohol is legal. Most (all?) work places have rules against drinking at work. And so being high at work would be no different.

Pretty big stretch that you would get he is saying he is OK with the pilot being drunk.

I personally think weed should have the same legality as alcohol, but I don't get why the players don't just follow the rules they agreed to have in place. If someone offered me $10 million dollars to give up my favourite things for 4 years, that'd be an easy choice to make. He has the rest of his life to get high/drunk, you can't take a few years off?

tuckeverlasting · Mar 13, 2016

the owners should suspend goodell for not adhering to the rules as outlined in the cba.

Galeb · Mar 13, 2016

Let's not confuse the argument. This isn't about DUI or operating machinery while intoxicated. This is about surrendering sovereignty over one's own body and consciousness to the government and corporations. Those saying "just don't smoke, duh" either don't truly understand the repercussions of such a surrender or they are not fit to discuss the matter on a meaningful level. So just stop it with the "don't smoke cuz of money bro", and leave the truly important matters to those who understand them.

In the long run, most of what people choose to fight for is meaningless. Sovereignty over one's own mind and body is one of the few things worth dying for. It is truly sad that so many would surrender it so cheaply.

WhoaDirty · Mar 13, 2016

Galeb said:
Let's not confuse the argument. This isn't about DUI or operating machinery while intoxicated. This is about surrendering sovereignty over one's own body and consciousness to the government and corporations. Those saying "just don't smoke, duh" either don't truly understand the repercussions of such a surrender or they are not fit to discuss the matter on a meaningful level. So just stop it with the "don't smoke cuz of money bro", and leave the truly important matters to those who understand them.

In the long run, most of what people choose to fight for is meaningless. Sovereignty over one's own mind and body is on of the few things worth dying for. It is truly sad that so many would surrender it so cheaply.

Wow, condescending much?

Triumph · Mar 13, 2016

Brit patriot said:
Agreed with the points above, but if you are such a moron to be unable or unwilling to stop doing this ****, then my sympathy is somewhat lacking

Pot is a gateway drug.

Galeb · Mar 13, 2016

WhoaDirty said:
Wow, condescending much?

Agreed, I'm just tired of people just accepting what they're taught without any critical thought. I was simply responding in kind. This is a huge issue that plenty in this thread have mocked without truly understanding what is at stake. I didn't see you responding to the condescension for people mocking those who smoke. Try looking past your ego at the core of what I am saying, it's pretty ****ing important.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying people should or shouldn't smoke. What I'm saying is that it is foolish to give up sovereignty over our own minds and bodies for any reason, especially something as trivial as money.

Galeb · Mar 13, 2016

Triumph said:
Pot is a gateway drug.

Although the idea of gateway drugs has been squashed by most serious researchers, if there was one such drug, caffeine would certainly trump weed.

Triumph · Mar 13, 2016

Galeb said:
Although the idea of gateway drugs has been squashed by most serious researchers, if there was one such drug, caffeine would certainly trump weed.

Sure, Chandler Jones is looking for you, but is confused where he is at the moment.

Galeb · Mar 13, 2016

Triumph said:
Sure, Chandler Jones is looking for you, but is confused where he is at the moment.

You realize he didn't smoke weed, right? Take the blinders off.

DaBruinz · Mar 13, 2016

Galeb said:
Agreed, I'm just tired of people just accepting what they're taught without any critical thought. I was simply responding in kind. This is a huge issue that plenty in this thread have mocked without truly understanding what is at stake. I didn't see you responding to the condescension for people mocking those who smoke. Try looking past your ego at the core of what I am saying, it's pretty ****ing important.

Just to be clear. I'm not saying people should or shouldn't smoke. What I'm saying is that it is foolish to give up sovereignty over our own minds and bodies for any reason, especially something as trivial as money.

Last I looked, employers have the right to determine the people who work for them. Part of that determination includes, but is not limited to, appearance, mental stability, and how one conducts oneself. If a company makes it a condition of employment that you not do xyz drugs and you agree to that as a condition of employment, then you can't ***** after the fact that you're being targeted for doing xyz drugs.

The irony of you talking about giving up "soverignty over mind and body" when talking about people doing drugs isn't lost here.

DaBruinz · Mar 13, 2016

BTW, why is it that everyone assumes that Bryant failed his drug tests for smoking weed?

Galeb · Mar 13, 2016

DaBruinz said:
Last I looked, employers have the right to determine the people who work for them. Part of that determination includes, but is not limited to, appearance, mental stability, and how one conducts oneself. If a company makes it a condition of employment that you not do xyz drugs and you agree to that as a condition of employment, then you can't ***** after the fact that you're being targeted for doing xyz drugs.

The irony of you talking about giving up "soverignty over mind and body" when talking about people doing drugs isn't lost here.

I agree that employers should absolutely be able to choose employees based on how they behave and perform AT WORK. Testing to see what people do when not at work does not fall under that category. It's truly scary that an adult could possibly believe that financial organizations should be able to screen what employees do when they're off the clock.

If you look at my later responses, I wasn't saying people should or shouldn't do drugs. What I was saying is that people shouldn't give up fundamental sovereignty over their minds or bodies to any organization. Thinking such a thing is ironic betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. You're usually sharper than this. Try taking a step back and re-evaluating.

OT: Steelers WR Martavis Bryant facing a year-long suspension

28-3....

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Wall of Fame

Pro Bowl Player

On the Game Day Roster

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

Hall of Fame Poster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Hall of Fame Poster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Pats, B's, Sox

Pats, B's, Sox

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Similar threads