Kevin Faulk officially suspended 1 game, fined [merged]

[OhExaulted1]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

Obviously he's not being suspended for using since he wasn't tested by the league and had his own test done to prove he was not using.

So this is just Commissioner Badass coming down hard on a first offense misdemeanor arrest. Hope the rest of the league is prepared for the same treatment. By mid season we could be playing 40 man rosters...

Don't you see!?! Instead of a farm league like baseball we'll have a prison league. It won't cost the owners a dime.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

HELLO.. Adam Jones was suspended for a full year because of his shannanigans.. Stop acting like he wasn't punished in any way. I don't care for him as a person, but at least be friggin honest.

I was talking about Justin Miller.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

You should get a different job, then, sounds like you work for a jerk-off if you would lose your job over a misdemeanor. Do they fire you for jaywalking too?

You do realize that MOST companies that do random drug testing will fire you on the first offense, yes? Clearly you don't.

Whether its Pot or Crack or Meth, you test positive and your done. That's how most GOOD companies to it.

 

[richpats]

I could be wrong on this......Rich's belief of 'benefit to the nation as a whole is more important than individual rights'.

um, yeah you were wrong. I said that nuclear facilities shouldn't allow people who get busted for possession to work at the plants. I don't know how that leads to supporting the Patriot Act. Geez you guys want to make a bigger issue out of it than it is.

 

[richpats]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

You do realize that MOST companies that do random drug testing will fire you on the first offense, yes? Clearly you don't.

Whether its Pot or Crack or Meth, you test positive and your done. That's how most GOOD companies to it.

OMG a voice of reason.....thank you

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

I own and run my own company. Now, kindly tell me how the circumstances of Faulk's misdemeanor arrest demonstrate any problem on the job.

They don't. But that isn't the point.. Most companies who do random drug testing have a no tolerance policy. Now, in Faulk's cause, he tested negative so nothing would happen other than he'd be put on notice at work.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

no your company sucks. If someone comes to work high, and it affects job performance, obviously that's an issue, but firing people for smoking pot in their personal time is draconian at best.

No its not draconian. Stop trying to sound so smart by using big words. Fact is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a Federal Agency. They don't take kindly to people doing drugs regardless of where it it. If you test positive, you are a liability.

Also, I wish people would stop comparing Faulk wearing someone else's jacket and getting caught with weed, but testing negative for it to random drug testing in the general workplace.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

They don't. But that isn't the point.. Most companies who do random drug testing have a no tolerance policy. Now, in Faulk's cause, he tested negative so nothing would happen other than he'd be put on notice at work.

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. My response was precisely the point. You're taking the question out of context, which is what richpats was doing. A no tolerance policy is not the issue.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

1.) I really don't give a damn what the NRC takes kindly to. Its record of incompetence makes it a terrible example to use.

2.) I have no problem with what an employee does while not on the job. Possession and partaking is no different than drinking, popping prescription medication, or any other habit. As long as the employee's habit does not impact job performance, it's none of my business. Using your logic, it's time to start firing anyone who drinks alcohol, too.

Sorry, but only dumb logic like this would lead to someone being fired for drinking alcohol. Alcohol, last I looked, was illegal only to those under 21 for consumption. Over 21 and its fully legal. Pot isn't legal at any point in time. Apples to oranges.

While you may not care whether your employ is in possession of partaking in drugs, the local governments care. And most drug habits DO impact job performance.

Faulk tested negative for drugs in his system. He was only charged with possession. He was given only a 1 game suspension when it could have been 4.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

No its not draconian. Stop trying to sound so smart by using big words. Fact is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a Federal Agency. They don't take kindly to people doing drugs regardless of where it it. If you test positive, you are a liability.

Also, I wish people would stop comparing Faulk wearing someone else's jacket and getting caught with weed, but testing negative for it to random drug testing in the general workplace.

I don't really feel like re-doing this argument with you, but if you consider "draconian" to be a big word something tells me you don't have a lot to offer.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

Sorry, but only dumb logic like this would lead to someone being fired for drinking alcohol. Alcohol, last I looked, was illegal only to those under 21 for consumption. Over 21 and its fully legal. Pot isn't legal at any point in time. Apples to oranges.

While you may not care whether your employ is in possession of partaking in drugs, the local governments care. And most drug habits DO impact job performance.

Faulk tested negative for drugs in his system. He was only charged with possession. He was given only a 1 game suspension when it could have been 4.

DaBruinz, do me a simple courtesy. Either read the posts I respond to before claiming I'm wrong in some way, or don't respond to my posts. This is the second time on this thread that you've said something wrong because you're not bothering to check the context.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. My response was precisely the point. You're taking the question out of context, which is what richpats was doing. A no tolerance policy is not the issue.

*ROFLMAO* You are the one taking it out of context. I'm the one putting it INTO context. But that is typical of you. You think that you are the only one who knows what the context is. The CONTEXT is what did Kevin Faulk do to earn the suspension. He was caught possessing an illegal substance. He did not test positive for that substance, therefore wasn't using. And the CONTEXT remains that the players, by signing their contracts, agree to the rules and regulations as set by the CBA. Those rules and regulatons ALSO cover the conduct that can be perceived as detrimental to the league. If the commissioner feels they've violated the rules, then he has the right to suspended the players based on what the punishment stipulated by the rules. The player ALSO has the right to appeal the suspension if they so choose. And, Faulk may have done that already, we don't know.

Now, YOU and ZekeMowatt are the ones who chastised Richpats and seem to think that companies who have rules regarding drug testing as a term of employment are "draconian" or "suck." The reality is that many companies have rules that govern your conduct both in and out of work. And many of them cover the use of drugs and its why they make random drug testing a term of your employment. Because DRUGS do impact a person's performance at work. Particularly long term use. And that if you fail the drug test, you are done unless you have a legitimate excuse, such as being on a prescription drug. But you have to tell the tester that you are on a prescripton medication that may test you positive before the test is taken. If you don't you are SOL.

I can follow the conversation just fine. I watched you and others go off on tangents and berate others because they don't agree with your tangents, regardless of whether your tangent really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

*ROFLMAO* You are the one taking it out of context. I'm the one putting it INTO context. But that is typical of you. You think that you are the only one who knows what the context is. The CONTEXT is what did Kevin Faulk do to earn the suspension. He was caught possessing an illegal substance. He did not test positive for that substance, therefore wasn't using. And the CONTEXT remains that the players, by signing their contracts, agree to the rules and regulations as set by the CBA. Those rules and regulatons ALSO cover the conduct that can be perceived as detrimental to the league. If the commissioner feels they've violated the rules, then he has the right to suspended the players based on what the punishment stipulated by the rules. The player ALSO has the right to appeal the suspension if they so choose. And, Faulk may have done that already, we don't know.

Now, YOU and ZekeMowatt are the ones who chastised Richpats and seem to think that companies who have rules regarding drug testing as a term of employment are "draconian" or "suck." The reality is that many companies have rules that govern your conduct both in and out of work. And many of them cover the use of drugs and its why they make random drug testing a term of your employment. Because DRUGS do impact a person's performance at work. Particularly long term use. And that if you fail the drug test, you are done unless you have a legitimate excuse, such as being on a prescription drug. But you have to tell the tester that you are on a prescripton medication that may test you positive before the test is taken. If you don't you are SOL.

I can follow the conversation just fine. I watched you and others go off on tangents and berate others because they don't agree with your tangents, regardless of whether your tangent really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Do you have any evidence for this in regards to marijuana? I personally wouldn't work for a company that is dumb enough to think marijuana use is detrimental to job performance. If there's any words that are too big in here point them out and I'll explain them for you.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

*ROFLMAO* You are the one taking it out of context. I'm the one putting it INTO context. But that is typical of you. You think that you are the only one who knows what the context is. The CONTEXT is what did Kevin Faulk do to earn the suspension. He was caught possessing an illegal substance. He did not test positive for that substance, therefore wasn't using. And the CONTEXT remains that the players, by signing their contracts, agree to the rules and regulations as set by the CBA. Those rules and regulatons ALSO cover the conduct that can be perceived as detrimental to the league. If the commissioner feels they've violated the rules, then he has the right to suspended the players based on what the punishment stipulated by the rules. The player ALSO has the right to appeal the suspension if they so choose. And, Faulk may have done that already, we don't know.

Now, YOU and ZekeMowatt are the ones who chastised Richpats and seem to think that companies who have rules regarding drug testing as a term of employment are "draconian" or "suck." The reality is that many companies have rules that govern your conduct both in and out of work. And many of them cover the use of drugs and its why they make random drug testing a term of your employment. Because DRUGS do impact a person's performance at work. Particularly long term use. And that if you fail the drug test, you are done unless you have a legitimate excuse, such as being on a prescription drug. But you have to tell the tester that you are on a prescripton medication that may test you positive before the test is taken. If you don't you are SOL.

I can follow the conversation just fine. I watched you and others go off on tangents and berate others because they don't agree with your tangents, regardless of whether your tangent really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Let me put this succinctly and politely. Here was the post I responded to:

I am allowed unescorted access into nuclear power facilities - do you really think the NRC takes kindly to known possession-offenders roaming our nation's nuke plants? Would you feel good about it?

Now, whether you like it or not, the question was whether I would feel good about it. I don't need your ok of my equating alcohol to marijuana in order for my response to be logically correct.

The rest of your post here is just irrelevant.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

You do realize that MOST companies that do random drug testing will fire you on the first offense, yes? Clearly you don't.

Whether its Pot or Crack or Meth, you test positive and your done. That's how most GOOD companies to it.

You do realize that MOST companies don't invade their employees privacy?

That's how most GOOD companies do it? What an absolutely asinine statement. I've personally not worked for companies because they test, and at the time I was not at any risk of testing positive. I did it on principle. My opinion is not that they are "Good", it is that they are draconian behemoths who rule our entire country using money and influence to slowly erode our rights. I take pride in the fact that I exert my right not to work for Corporations who think they have more rights than our own government to invade my privacy. But good luck with the gulags, I hear they have great benefits and I promise you'll never be bothered by a pothead loudly munching his cheetos in the corner.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

DaBruinz, do me a simple courtesy. Either read the posts I respond to before claiming I'm wrong in some way, or don't respond to my posts. This is the second time on this thread that you've said something wrong because you're not bothering to check the context.

Deus Irae - If anyone should offer the courtesy of reading posts before they respond, its YOU. First you take offense with your snide sarcastic comment when Richpats says "Some fans think that the organization is above punishment" Then you continued to take offense when he said "That is what most were implying," by claiming you were some of the "MOST." Last I looked, MOST does not refer to EVERYONE. Neither does the word, SOME. Yet you decided to take offense to it. Seems to me that YOU were the problem because you then started attacking Richpats by going off on some tangent about how you, as a suppsosed business owner, don't care what a person does in their private life as long as it doesn't affect the work they do for you.

Unlike you, I read the posts in order and respond to them as I go. So, when I responded to you, I'd already read your blathering replies and had also read the posts you were replying to. That doesn't change anything about what I said.

You clearly didn't read my initial post to you. Let me break it down so you can understand it.

"They don't. This refers to you saying "Now, kindly tell me how the circumstances of Faulk's misdemeanor arrest demonstrate any problem on the job." What I am saying here is that the circumstances of Faulk's misdemeanor arrest do not demonstrate any problem on the job.

But that isn't the point. This refers to the fact that you have gone off topic because the league has rules regarding off-field conduct. Which is a term of the contract that each player signs.

Most companies who do random drug testing have a no tolerance policy. I think this is pretty self-explanatory. Please note the word MOST which implies NOT ALL, but MANY. This differs from the NFL's policy.

Now, in Faulk's cause, he tested negative so nothing would happen other than he'd be put on notice at work. Again, self-explanatory and referring to the idea of Faulk being in a public workplace environment over a private one like the NFL.

How about you stay on topic or learn english or something because its clear that my response was fine and that you just didn't comprehend it. I did try and use small words for you.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

You do realize that MOST companies don't invade their employees privacy?

That's how most GOOD companies do it? What an absolutely asinine statement. I've personally not worked for companies because they test, and at the time I was not at any risk of testing positive. I did it on principle. My opinion is not that they are "Good", it is that they are draconian behemoths who rule our entire country using money and influence to slowly erode our rights. I take pride in the fact that I exert my right not to work for Corporations who think they have more rights than our own government to invade my privacy. But good luck with the gulags, I hear they have great benefits and I promise you'll never be bothered by a pothead loudly munching his cheetos in the corner.

You clearly haven't worked for a good company. I've worked for both good and bad companies. Good companies require people to take random drug tests to protect itself and its other employees. Why? Because the company shouldn't have to be held liable if its employee screws up and kills someone because that person was high on drugs.

Its not an invasion of my privacy. Its a term of employment. You might have a hard time understanding that concept. Yes, you have the right to not subject yourself to it and the company has the right to not hire you as a result. I can guarantee you the places I've worked haven't been gulags and only someone as assinine as yourself would imply such. Hell, you probably don't even understand the concept of a gulag except maybe what you've seen on Hogan Heroes re-runs so, please refrain from more stupid replies like that.

 

[Wildo7]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

You clearly haven't worked for a good company. I've worked for both good and bad companies. Good companies require people to take random drug tests to protect itself and its other employees. Why? Because the company shouldn't have to be held liable if its employee screws up and kills someone because that person was high on drugs.

Its not an invasion of my privacy. Its a term of employment. You might have a hard time understanding that concept. Yes, you have the right to not subject yourself to it and the company has the right to not hire you as a result. I can guarantee you the places I've worked haven't been gulags and only someone as assinine as yourself would imply such. Hell, you probably don't even understand the concept of a gulag except maybe what you've seen on Hogan Heroes re-runs so, please refrain from more stupid replies like that.

This is total bull****.

A) I challenge you to provide me with any statistical correlations between companies that require drug testing and success. I have friends who work for fortune 500 companies that don't get drug tested.

B) The only person who is having a hard time with comprehension is you. The idea that because something is a "term of employment" means it isn't an invasion of personal privacy is just naive and stupid.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

If you were any good at what you did, you would dictate the terms of employment, unless you were too stupid to realize what it was you were doing in allowing your privacy to be invaded. And in the future, if you want to challenge my intelligence, at least be courteous enough to spell the word in question properly, it's not even worth reading if you can't spell "stoopid" or assinine properly.

Regarding gulags, I've spent enough time in the USSR (at the time) studying the culture and history to have a very good idea of exactly what they were and what they entailed. The premise and analogy is related to the loss of liberty, not the literal semantics of what a true gulag was. Only a buffoon would misunderstand that and pretend I was actually suggesting your company was using Stalinist tactics of a labor camp.

You clearly haven't worked for a good company. I've worked for both good and bad companies. Good companies require people to take random drug tests to protect itself and its other employees. Why? Because the company shouldn't have to be held liable if its employee screws up and kills someone because that person was high on drugs.

Its not an invasion of my privacy. Its a term of employment. You might have a hard time understanding that concept. Yes, you have the right to not subject yourself to it and the company has the right to not hire you as a result. I can guarantee you the places I've worked haven't been gulags and only someone as assinine as yourself would imply such. Hell, you probably don't even understand the concept of a gulag except maybe what you've seen on Hogan Heroes re-runs so, please refrain from more stupid replies like that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Kevin Faulk suspended, fined

Another blathering post saying nothing. You went from taking posts out context to this crap. You should have stopped when you were behind. But, since you want to interject your follies into this, so be it:

Deus Irae - If anyone should offer the courtesy of reading posts before they respond, its YOU. First you take offense with your snide sarcastic comment when Richpats says "Some fans think that the organization is above punishment" Then you continued to take offense when he said "That is what most were implying," by claiming you were some of the "MOST." Last I looked, MOST does not refer to EVERYONE. Neither does the word, SOME. Yet you decided to take offense to it.

There were 5 posts prior to richpats comment. Three of us, myself, Pony and Pats726 spoke out against the Ommissioner. Now, are you going to try claiming that his post wasn't directed towards the three of us? Now, remember that MOST (in his response) would require 3 of 5. Shall we continue splitting hairs now?

Seems to me that YOU were the problem because you then started attacking Richpats by going off on some tangent about how you, as a suppsosed business owner, don't care what a person does in their private life as long as it doesn't affect the work they do for you.

Actually, my response about being a business owner was in response to Zeke, and was supportive of his comment which was a response to richpats claim that he'd get fired. Don't let the actual truth of the posts get in the way of your diatribe though.

Unlike you, I read the posts in order and respond to them as I go. So, when I responded to you, I'd already read your blathering replies and had also read the posts you were replying to. That doesn't change anything about what I said.

Obviously you hadn't or you wouldn't have posted the drivel you did. I simply asked that you actually do so after realizing the context, something you clearly were not doing up to that point.