Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
  On 2/6/2014 at 2:31 AM, Hopeful said:

Testing positive for it is still cause for NFL discipline

That's actually a interesting concept.

If a player lives in a state where it is legal, even if just medically, and it is not considered performance enhancing, should testing positive be a problem anymore?

Posted
  On 2/6/2014 at 2:45 PM, CodeMonkey said:

That's actually a interesting concept.

If a player lives in a state where it is legal, even if just medically, and it is not considered performance enhancing, should testing positive be a problem anymore?

 

It's kinda silly IMO. Weed is the opposite of performance enhancing. If it's legal in that state, it's more of a team issue than a league one.

Posted
  On 2/6/2014 at 3:35 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

It's kinda silly IMO. Weed is the opposite of performance enhancing. If it's legal in that state, it's more of a team issue than a league one.

i disagree. It's neutral in my opinion (assuming you aren't using it during a game or practice ;) ).

But I agree with it becoming a team issue at that point, along with alcohol and any other recreational drug,

Posted
  On 2/6/2014 at 3:38 PM, CodeMonkey said:

 

i disagree. It's neutral in my opinion (assuming you aren't using it during a game or practice ;) ).

But I agree with it becoming a team issue at that point, along with alcohol and any other recreational drug,

 

and the teams have decided to take a collective stance against it currently.

Posted
  On 2/6/2014 at 3:41 PM, NoSaint said:

and the teams have decided to take a collective stance against it currently.

Yeah I imagine they would consider it bad press to have players opening using weed.

Posted
  On 2/6/2014 at 3:35 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

It's kinda silly IMO. Weed is the opposite of performance enhancing. If it's legal in that state, it's more of a team issue than a league one.

It's actually a league issue. They say no, even in legal states. (just like other professions say no)
Posted (edited)
  On 2/6/2014 at 2:31 AM, Hopeful said:

Testing positive for it is still cause for NFL discipline

True, but as I mentioned somewhere here - from the mouth of Chris Cooley on DC radio - The NFL tests once a year and always at the same time. Stop smoking for a month prior to that time and you are good to go for the remainder of the season. Only the dumb dumbs get caught Edited by BillsFan-4-Ever
Posted (edited)
  On 2/3/2014 at 3:07 PM, RyanC883 said:

He was unstoppable inside the 20 when with the Bills. He is a tough guy. Seattle won the Superbowl in large part due to the Bills. Cutting Lynch, and then while needing a QB, passing on Wilson for freaking TJ Graham.

 

Lynch was anything but "unstoppable" as a Bill. In fact Freddy outplayed him. The guy had no motivation to play hard for the Bills. So do we keep him until his next suspendable offense?

 

  On 2/6/2014 at 3:35 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

It's kinda silly IMO. Weed is the opposite of performance enhancing. If it's legal in that state, it's more of a team issue than a league one.

 

A dude who was an NBA ball boy was on the Dan Patrick show today said he knew several times when players played high. How? The players would send him out to their Denalis to retrieve their stash.

 

PTR

Edited by PromoTheRobot
Posted (edited)
  On 2/6/2014 at 3:41 PM, NoSaint said:

and the teams have decided to take a collective stance against it currently.

It's more of a PR stunt than anything. Unless you are in the substance abuse program you are tested once in the beginning of the year. The tests aren't even random, as players know when and where they will occur. So, in order to not get caught all you have to do is not smoke for a month or so out of the year.

Edited by Fingon
×
×
  • Create New...