faba Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 y Gregg Rosenthal Around The League Editor Published: May 16, 2014 at 04:51 p.m. Updated: May 16, 2014 at 05:03 p.m. The evolution of the NFL: Take a look at how the NFL has evolved from its humble roots, and the efforts being made to ensure it continues to grow. The NFL and the Colts announced Friday that outside linebacker Robert Mathis was suspended four games for violating the league's performance-enhancing drug policy. "We recognize the extreme seriousness of this matter and will honor the confidentiality requirements of the League's program. We nevertheless wish to assure Robert and our fans that he remains an honored and cherished member of the Colts family and that we support him as he deals with this difficult challenge," the team said in a statement. Mathis will be eligible to return to the team's active roster on Monday, September 29 after the team'sWeek 4 game against Tennessee. Mathis will miss the season opener against the Denver Broncos, a rematch against his old teammate Peyton Manning. (Mathis delivered the game-changing sack of Manning in last year's upset against Denver.) Mathis will also miss games against the Philadelphia Eagles and Jacksonville Jaguars. The Colts' defense had plenty of questions even before this news. They have struggled to find a secondary pass rusher behind Mathis, and gave up 87 points in two playoff games last year. The latest "Around The League Podcast" breaks down the latest news and predicts the 2014 seasonfor top rookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 19.5 sacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faba Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 Another sack champion with an asterisk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 33 year D.E/OLB tweener who was listed in the 230's most of his career takes performance enhancing drugs shock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 can we get coples a case of that sh*t ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Mostro Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 He claimed he was taking medication so he could impregnate his wife. A cheat and a blank shooting limp dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Robert Mathis gets a 4 game suspension for using substances that will directly influence his level of play on the field (he's allegedly cheating). Josh Gordon will probably be suspended for 1 year because he smoked weed, which lends itself no special edge to his play on the field (he allegedly smoked pot). Thank you commissioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New York Mick Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 can we get coples a case of that sh*t ?what he said. At this point I don't care how we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Robert Mathis gets a 4 game suspension for using substances that will directly influence his level of play on the field (he's allegedly cheating). Josh Gordon will probably be suspended for 1 year because he smoked weed, which lends itself no special edge to his play on the field (he allegedly smoked pot). Thank you commissioner. gordon was third strike I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 gordon was third strike I believe The amount of times isn't my concern, the rule is. Gordon isn't hurting the team or the game, the rule is hurting the team. Meanwhile, we got guys purposely cheating only getting suspended for a few games. The excuse for Mathis is that it was probably his first time which is looked at as some sort of difference. Gordon just want to smoke his weed. To suspend a guy for a year for such a thing is just ridiculous, no matter how many times he was caught because there's no impact on the game by his recreational use. We can't say the same about Mathis drug use. Edit: And for the record, I don't advocate the use of marijuana, but I seriously don't support the rule even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 The amount of times isn't my concern, the rule is. Gordon isn't hurting the team or the game, the rule is hurting the team. Meanwhile, we got guys purposely cheating only getting suspended for a few games. The excuse for Mathis is that it was probably his first time which is looked at as some sort of difference. Gordon just want to smoke his weed. To suspend a guy for a year for such a thing is just ridiculous, no matter how many times he was caught because there's no impact on the game by his recreational use. We can't say the same about Mathis drug use. Edit: And for the record, I don't advocate the use of marijuana, but I seriously don't support the rule even more so. I get that, but if the NFL allows it (still illegal in every state under federal law) or turns a blind eye to it, they open themselves up to trouble they just don't want the players may force a "pain killer" exception, but that is sticky for the league to enforce I don't see the policy changing until the feds de-criminalize it, and that won't happen for another generation imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I get that, but if the NFL allows it (still illegal in every state under federal law) or turns a blind eye to it, they open themselves up to trouble they just don't want the players may force a "pain killer" exception, but that is sticky for the league to enforce I don't see the policy changing until the feds de-criminalize it, and that won't happen for another generation imho This isn't true. The NFL can't be accountable for what players do during their private time away from the NFL. Thats like saying that every company in america is forced to piss test their employees. My company isn't turning a blind eye to marijuana simply because they don't test for the use of an illegal drug. Which calling something natural "illegal" is like trying to patent something natural....the thought itself is ridiculous. Its not like the feds are going to shut my company down because they happened to have employed cheech and chong and turned a blind eye to their private habits because they don't test for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I always get a chuckle out of the NFL suspending a dude for PED use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 This isn't true. The NFL can't be accountable for what players do during their private time away from the NFL. Thats like saying that every company in america is forced to piss test their employees. My company isn't turning a blind eye to marijuana simply because they don't test for the use of an illegal drug. Which calling something natural "illegal" is like trying to patent something natural....the thought itself is ridiculous. Its not like the feds are going to shut my company down because they happened to have employed cheech and chong and turned a blind eye to their private habits because they don't test for it. 24/7/365 media coverage and TV advertisers paying billions of dollars to the NFL make it true, and a unique business where tolerance is permission, permission is approval on sports radio and behind the lines they just don't need the headache of being seen as a pot head frat house to the suits at ford and pepsi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 24/7/365 media coverage and TV advertisers paying billions of dollars to the NFL make it true, and a unique business where tolerance is permission, permission is approval on sports radio and behind the lines they just don't need the headache of being seen as a pot head frat house to the suits at ford and pepsi Sure it does, unless you're an owner. Then the situation is "different". Like I said, the rule is stupid because depending on who you are, illegal drug use is tolerated. Now watch us hear for the next 12 months about how Gordon is a pot head frat boy so the NFL can coddle up to the suits at Pepsi and "Budweiser" yet watch how you'll hear every excuse in the world for an NFL suit and the situation will be swept under the rug in less than a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Sure it does, unless you're an owner. Then the situation is "different". Like I said, the rule is stupid because depending on who you are, illegal drug use is tolerated. Now watch us hear for the next 12 months about how Gordon is a pot head frat boy so the NFL can coddle up to the suits at Pepsi and "Budweiser" yet watch how you'll hear every excuse in the world for an NFL suit and the situation will be swept under the rug in less than a month. it's in the CBA. It's illegal under federal law in every state. Gordon is a repeat offender he's not a smart man. he knows the rules and breaks them. You get put in a random testing plan after strike 1, and he kept smoking weed. duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh maybe he needs to invest in a whizzonator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 it's in the CBA. It's illegal under federal law in every state. Gordon is a repeat offender he's not a smart man. he knows the rules and breaks them. You get put in a random testing plan after strike 1, and he kept smoking weed. duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh maybe he needs to invest in a whizzonator Yet he's not getting arrested. Look, this conversation is going left field. The rule is bullsh*t because Irsay can do what he wants recklessly while being caught in the act and it be hushed up yet Gordon can be thrown all over the sport news world for a test that isn't even 100% accurate and wasn't caught in the act. A rule isn't a law and can certainly be changed. The man didn't cheat the game and what he's doing doesn't affect the game in any way, or at least in a way that someone has been able to iterate to me. In other words, its useless. This isn't about a federal law, its about an NFL rule. The feds aren't arresting him for this failed test because the feds know the ways in order to engage such a situation, and arresting him isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I always get a chuckle out of the NFL suspending a dude for PED use. Do you mean because you're opposed to PED bans generally, or because enforcement is such that they're only able to catch a fraction of a percent of offenders? Intellectually I accept the arguments of Dr. Berri and others with regard to the economics of the issue but it's just a bridge too far for me. The incentives to push the envelope are always going to be there, and it will always just plain seem wrong on a gut level in a way that a fancy wetsuit doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Yet he's not getting arrested. Look, this conversation is going left field. The rule is bullsh*t because Irsay can do what he wants recklessly while being caught in the act and it be hushed up yet Gordon can be thrown all over the sport news world for a test that isn't even 100% accurate and wasn't caught in the act. A rule isn't a law and can certainly be changed. The man didn't cheat the game and what he's doing doesn't affect the game in any way, or at least in a way that someone has been able to iterate to me. In other words, its useless. This isn't about a federal law, its about an NFL rule. The feds aren't arresting him for this failed test because the feds know the ways in order to engage such a situation, and arresting him isn't one of them. the reason it's an NFL rule is largely due to it being an illegal activity. The NFL is a funny place full of many contradictions and hypocrises, we agree there. I was just trying to point out the difference between the 2 suspensions was due to gordon being a repeat offender. he did his 4 game stint last season for being dumb enough to have a job where you get drug tested and smoking weed and what, no love for the whizzonator ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 the reason it's an NFL rule is largely due to it being an illegal activity. The NFL is a funny place full of many contradictions and hypocrises, we agree there. I was just trying to point out the difference between the 2 suspensions was due to gordon being a repeat offender. he did his 4 game stint last season for being dumb enough to have a job where you get drug tested and smoking weed and what, no love for the whizzonator ? lol they probably sit in front of you, cuff your sack and watch you piss. I understood the point you were making and I understand how its based on him being a repeat offender. My thing is this, the rule doesn't apply to every employee of the NFL. It only applies to the players. That shows right there that it isn't largely due to it being an illegal activity because if it did it would be a rule across the board. I doubt the commish gets a piss check. My point is that the rule isn't influenced by the type of impact on the game. The rule doesn't make the game safer or fair if you will. Keeping steroids out is a rule I can understand because there's something more tangible there. There's a law on speeding, should the NFL make a rule on speeding by putting a box in your car and checking it to see how fast you were going and where? More importantly, does it keep the game safer and fair? See where I'm going with that? Just because its "the law" doesn't mean that the NFL needs to make it a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 lol they probably sit in front of you, cuff your sack and watch you piss. I understood the point you were making and I understand how its based on him being a repeat offender. My thing is this, the rule doesn't apply to every employee of the NFL. It only applies to the players. That shows right there that it isn't largely due to it being an illegal activity because if it did it would be a rule across the board. I doubt the commish gets a piss check. My point is that the rule isn't influenced by the type of impact on the game. The rule doesn't make the game safer or fair if you will. Keeping steroids out is a rule I can understand because there's something more tangible there. There's a law on speeding, should the NFL make a rule on speeding by putting a box in your car and checking it to see how fast you were going and where? More importantly, does it keep the game safer and fair? See where I'm going with that? Just because its "the law" doesn't mean that the NFL needs to make it a rule. airline pilots have to piss in a cup, the airline CEO doesn't. that's how it works. The NFL policy has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with keeping advertisers happy. the advertising company CEO and Irsay have a good laugh on the golf course about how the rules don't apply to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 airline pilots have to piss in a cup, the airline CEO doesn't. that's how it works. The NFL policy has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with keeping advertisers happy. the advertising company CEO and Irsay have a good laugh on the golf course about how the rules don't apply to them Then don't use the federal law as "largely the reason" because that obviously isn't it the case. To conclude, the rule is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Then don't use the federal law as "largely the reason" because that obviously isn't it the case. To conclude, the rule is stupid. the reason they want to keep the advertisers happy is because molly house wife doesn't want her boys watching "role models" who are a bunch of illegal drug takers. the rule is smart because it keeps the billions rolling in with no static from protesters who demonstrate "don't let your boys grow up to play bongball" did you see how swiftly that dolphin was punished for expressing an opinion about sam ? that violated his right to free speech, but the NFL is more concerned with it's public image to any group that might boycott any NFL sponsor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 the reason they want to keep the advertisers happy is because molly house wife doesn't want her boys watching "role models" who are a bunch of illegal drug takers. the rule is smart because it keeps the billions rolling in with no static from protesters who demonstrate "don't let your boys grow up to play bongball" did you see how swiftly that dolphin was punished for expressing an opinion about sam ? that violated his right to free speech, but the NFL is more concerned with it's public image to any group that might boycott any NFL sponsor You know, I think I'm approaching this wrong. Most of what you've said during this convo is correct. Im not refuting that. The bottom-line is that most of these "role models" aren't worth the energy because if they didnt abuse drugs they abuse women or circumstance. Its all a facade. They're not role models, they're football players. Most of these guys would probably be locked up behind bars if it wasn't for their talent that a group of wealthy people could exploit. Look at Pacman Jones or Bill Romanowski for example. Many of the alleged role models are a bunch of legal drug takers already, all bent on prescriptions...prescriptions that kill more people per year than most illegal drugs, and Marijuana has yet to kill anyone. So, I don't want you to think that my position is based on disagreeing with you. We both know its a facade. I'm simply saying that the rule is stupid, I'm not saying that I don't understand why the rule is there. But when I see a situation like Gordon's I have no choice but to disagree because no matter the reason, the reason doesn't change the stupidity behind the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 the reason they want to keep the advertisers happy is because molly house wife doesn't want her boys watching "role models" who are a bunch of illegal drug takers. the rule is smart because it keeps the billions rolling in with no static from protesters who demonstrate "don't let your boys grow up to play bongball" did you see how swiftly that dolphin was punished for expressing an opinion about sam ? that violated his right to free speech, but the NFL is more concerned with it's public image to any group that might boycott any NFL sponsor It didn't violate his free speech rights. Throwing him in jail as punishment would have violated his free speech rights. It's part of what they accept by taking this job; they're in the public eye and as such have certain off-field responsibilities that other, more-anonymous people have. But to your other point, forget the owners, since they're not really part of the team. Maybe someone like Jones, who stupidly acts as his own GM or whatever title he's given himself. And other than the rare Irsay crap, which was hilarious, they don't typically get into drug trouble (publicly). It's a contradiction still. But they don't test the coaches (as far as I know), and that is a bigger contradiction. Truth is they probably should only be testing for PEDs and the rest of it is the job of the police to do the policing. Indirectly, they may save some lives, though. Weed certainly isn't going to kill you, but driving high can. And these guys make enough coin to afford some serious intoxicants at an age when many - maybe most - are probably too young to handle it. Now that is certainly not the league's job, but I'm sure more players would have ended up in jail or in a coffin if not for the drug testing. And I guess this is the way the league views it. It's not good for business if their highest-profile people are high when crashing their cars, or ending up in the morgue for direct or indirect drug-related tragedies. Also they get to look like they give a crap and are doing their part to help or something. Oh, and Gordon must have an IQ lower than bong resin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Oh, and Gordon must have an IQ lower than bong resin. That's really the crux of it. The guy is in position to make eight figures, and he risks losing that for weed? I had to quit 20 years ago for the pleasure of making <1% of his income potential. A guy can get by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 That's really the crux of it. The guy is in position to make eight figures, and he risks losing that for weed? I had to quit 20 years ago for the pleasure of making <1% of his income potential. A guy can get by. It's not like this was some surprise and he's the one guy who gets blindsided by the league making an example out of him. He got suspended 2 games last year I think for being a repeat offender, and they told him next offense you might get suspended for the whole year. And this is what he does with that slap on the wrist 3rd chance? He musta got manure for brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 The amount of times isn't my concern, the rule is. Gordon isn't hurting the team or the game, the rule is hurting the team. Meanwhile, we got guys purposely cheating only getting suspended for a few games. The excuse for Mathis is that it was probably his first time which is looked at as some sort of difference. Gordon just want to smoke his weed. To suspend a guy for a year for such a thing is just ridiculous, no matter how many times he was caught because there's no impact on the game by his recreational use. We can't say the same about Mathis drug use. Edit: And for the record, I don't advocate the use of marijuana, but I seriously don't support the rule even more so. It's still very much illegal for the vast majority of people in most of the country. Meanwhile, you have no idea if what Mathis was busted for is actually at all illegal. After all, it's been long since established there are a number of legal supplements that are on the NFL's banned substance list. If he can't handle not being a burnout for a few years while he's getting paid tens of millions of dollars, then he's a complete moron who can go find himself a different job that lets him do whatever he wants and pays him less than 1% of what he gets to play a game. And as was already pointed out to you, it's his third strike. It takes a real special kind of stupid for it to get to this point and there is absolutely no one to blame for this but him. By the same kind of logic, Mathis should be left alone because he claims he was just trying to knock his wife up. Or they could both accept the fact that the money for they get paid to play a game, they can either follow the rules or pay the consequences for failing to do so. Can you imagine that, people actually being held responsible for their actions? What a concept, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 It's still very much illegal for the vast majority of people in most of the country. Meanwhile, you have no idea if what Mathis was busted for is actually at all illegal. After all, it's been long since established there are a number of legal supplements that are on the NFL's banned substance list. If he can't handle not being a burnout for a few years while he's getting paid tens of millions of dollars, then he's a complete moron who can go find himself a different job that lets him do whatever he wants and pays him less than 1% of what he gets to play a game. And as was already pointed out to you, it's his third strike. It takes a real special kind of stupid for it to get to this point and there is absolutely no one to blame for this but him. By the same kind of logic, Mathis should be left alone because he claims he was just trying to knock his wife up. Or they could both accept the fact that the money for they get paid to play a game, they can either follow the rules or pay the consequences for failing to do so. Can you imagine that, people actually being held responsible for their actions? What a concept, huh? The NFL isn't the law. Whats legal or illegal isn't the point here. The rule, or the stupidity of the rule is the point here. Whatever Mathis did, it being legal or illegal isn't the point either. Mathis broke a rule, and that rule protects the integrity of the game by making sure that there is no artificial enhancements. This is a rule that is understandable and necessary for the game, though it maya not be illegal by law. So as you can see, the law has nothing to do with what I'm talking about which is the NFL rules. Gordon is also not getting paid tens of millions of dollars, his salary is about 15% of that. That aside, your "financial" approach to the subject doesn't all of a sudden make the rule un-stupid. And the logic isn't the same when you view Mathis situation. One person broke a rule that essentially holds no sort of value when it comes to maintaining the fairness and integrity of the game, another person broke a rule that directly prevents having an unfair advantage on the field which upholds the integrity of the game. Those two don't correlate. The rule is stupid. If people can't understand that I neither advocated the use of drugs or the breaking any rule agreed upon simply because I said that an agreed upon rule is still a stupid one because it serves no actual value to the game itself then I can't help those people. 99% of the people know the rule is stupid because their approach isn't expressing the validity of such stupid rule, but to approach the stupid rule like a money prostitute; "well if he's getting paid TEN'S OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR (which he's getting a nothing even remotely close to that fraction) then you'd be a moron not to do it". So an "amount of money" can dictate whether 2+2=4 or not is basically what I hear from people. Yet these are the people will bring up the word logic....lol. I guess Ted Dibiase was right.....everybody's got a price. And I expect a 23 year old superstar millionaire to do some moronic things. He's still a child, that doesn't take away the fact that this particular rule is stupid. And I can say "stupid" with confidence because if you took away the rule the integrity of the game would not change a bit. The rule is useless. Gordon should be suspended for a year because he agreed to the rule, not because the rule actually makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 It didn't violate his free speech rights. Throwing him in jail as punishment would have violated his free speech rights. It's part of what they accept by taking this job; they're in the public eye and as such have certain off-field responsibilities that other, more-anonymous people have. But to your other point, forget the owners, since they're not really part of the team. Maybe someone like Jones, who stupidly acts as his own GM or whatever title he's given himself. And other than the rare Irsay crap, which was hilarious, they don't typically get into drug trouble (publicly). It's a contradiction still. But they don't test the coaches (as far as I know), and that is a bigger contradiction. Truth is they probably should only be testing for PEDs and the rest of it is the job of the police to do the policing. Indirectly, they may save some lives, though. Weed certainly isn't going to kill you, but driving high can. And these guys make enough coin to afford some serious intoxicants at an age when many - maybe most - are probably too young to handle it. Now that is certainly not the league's job, but I'm sure more players would have ended up in jail or in a coffin if not for the drug testing. And I guess this is the way the league views it. It's not good for business if their highest-profile people are high when crashing their cars, or ending up in the morgue for direct or indirect drug-related tragedies. Also they get to look like they give a crap and are doing their part to help or something. Oh, and Gordon must have an IQ lower than bong resin. Seems like the NFL needs to concentrate more on "Player character over talent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Seems like the NFL needs to concentrate more on "Player character over talent". The league does a lot of things we don't like or agree with, and I totally get where you're coming from. It seems silly if you look at the rules that way. That they should only exist to protect the game from cheating (competitive edge, whatever). But they also exist to protect the league from bad PR, rightly or wrongly. Ultimately the league is doing what it feels is in its best interest. If there was no fear of backlash or turning people off from it, what would be their incentive for testing for this? Some owners are going to lose some talented players for a game, a couple of games, a season, or more. So it's not in their interest to kick a player out, especially not one as talented as Gordon, yet they're doing this anyway. I guess they feel the negative PR that would come from not testing - and not holding players accountable should they test positive - is worth losing a few players over here or there. That as long as they're testing for PEDs, that same sample can be used to test for weed or worse. Or maybe they just feel they'll get a better product on the field if the players aren't high (or recovering from being high the day/night before when they were "off the clock"). In this instance, with Gordon, it clearly looks ridiculous if he tested positive in the off-season. All I can say - which slats hit on as well - is that if refraining from smoking weed is too much of a burden for him, then he doesn't have to play. But it's not like he wasn't given multiple warnings that this could (and would) happen. Lots of companies have "drug-free" environments and do drug testing. The NFL is merely one of them. It's just more than a bit hypocritical when they don't test the coaches for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 The NFL isn't the law. Whats legal or illegal isn't the point here. The rule, or the stupidity of the rule is the point here. Whatever Mathis did, it being legal or illegal isn't the point either. Mathis broke a rule, and that rule protects the integrity of the game by making sure that there is no artificial enhancements. This is a rule that is understandable and necessary for the game, though it maya not be illegal by law. So as you can see, the law has nothing to do with what I'm talking about which is the NFL rules. Gordon is also not getting paid tens of millions of dollars, his salary is about 15% of that. That aside, your "financial" approach to the subject doesn't all of a sudden make the rule un-stupid. And the logic isn't the same when you view Mathis situation. One person broke a rule that essentially holds no sort of value when it comes to maintaining the fairness and integrity of the game, another person broke a rule that directly prevents having an unfair advantage on the field which upholds the integrity of the game. Those two don't correlate. The rule is stupid. If people can't understand that I neither advocated the use of drugs or the breaking any rule agreed upon simply because I said that an agreed upon rule is still a stupid one because it serves no actual value to the game itself then I can't help those people. 99% of the people know the rule is stupid because their approach isn't expressing the validity of such stupid rule, but to approach the stupid rule like a money prostitute; "well if he's getting paid TEN'S OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR (which he's getting a nothing even remotely close to that fraction) then you'd be a moron not to do it". So an "amount of money" can dictate whether 2+2=4 or not is basically what I hear from people. Yet these are the people will bring up the word logic....lol. I guess Ted Dibiase was right.....everybody's got a price. And I expect a 23 year old superstar millionaire to do some moronic things. He's still a child, that doesn't take away the fact that this particular rule is stupid. And I can say "stupid" with confidence because if you took away the rule the integrity of the game would not change a bit. The rule is useless. Gordon should be suspended for a year because he agreed to the rule, not because the rule actually makes any sense. Gordon's current contract is for over $5M, so you are certainly correct that his deal is not for tens of millions, but there are a great many who are and even still, I'm not feeling bad for the guy over his "lowly" $5M. Oh, and I never said anything about how much he was getting paid per year, but nice try. As far as ignoring legality, the NFL opts to hold their players to a standard of obeying the law. There have been plenty of suspensions handed down over the years due to players breaking other various laws related to things other than drugs. And again, it's an NFL rule, the players are made very well aware of it, and this complete moron still violated it over and over and over again. It takes a special kind of stupid to do that, and attempting to paint him as some sort of innocent victim is ridiculous. It's an interesting philosophy that apparently it's ok to break laws just as long as the police don't catch you in the act. Maybe they should just have an automated message for all 911 calls that says, "Sorry, but if none of our officers saw this happen, we're not going to do anything about it. Better luck next time." After all, given that you have made it clear that you are in favor of the NFL doing drug testing for certain drugs, you are suggesting that they should be actively ignoring positive test results for illegal drugs if they aren't the ones you deem to be an issue. After all, that would be the only way for the rules to be implemented in the way you suggest, and also the exact reason why that will never happen. There are plenty of other companies out there who drug test their employees, and everyone is made aware of this heading into it. The NFL is one of those and if someone doesn't like that, then they can find themselves another job, although they might get paid a little less. I'm curious, do you think an NFL player should be thrown out of the league for taking a swing at another player on the field? After all, in the real working world, such a person would be immediately fired, possibly charged with a crime, and would likely have a difficult time finding themselves another job worth a damn. In the NFL, that results in as little as a 15-yard penalty (or if you're the Patriots, only penalties against the other team). It's awfully convenient to cry foul about certain rules that don't put NFL players up on a pedestal while ignoring the benefits or how much they still manage to get away with. Just like every job in the world, there's a give and take, and one of the things these players are told from day one is that they need to give up their so-called "right" to be unpunished for breaking the law as they see fit. And I'm sorry, but for you of all people to be standing on your soapbox about what NFL players should be allowed to do is just a tad hypocritical considering some of the positions you've previously taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 can we get coples a case of that sh*t ? Will that sh*t turn Jane into Tarzan. If yes then dooo it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Gordon's current contract is for over $5M, so you are certainly correct that his deal is not for tens of millions, but there are a great many who are and even still, I'm not feeling bad for the guy over his "lowly" $5M. I never said that you had to feel bad for anyone. I said the rule was stupid. I guess the rule is only stupid when its a 30K a year job in your eyes because you're still talking about millions that have nothing to do with the stupidity of the rule itself. As far as ignoring legality, the NFL opts to hold their players to a standard of obeying the law. There have been plenty of suspensions handed down over the years due to players breaking other various laws related to things other than drugs. And again, it's an NFL rule, the players are made very well aware of it, and this complete moron still violated it over and over and over again. It takes a special kind of stupid to do that, and attempting to paint him as some sort of innocent victim is ridiculous. The NFL opts to hold their players to a standard, just not the rest of their employees. Yes there's been plenty of suspensions, some I've agreed with, some I haven't. It does take a complete moron to violate a rule that you've agreed to over and over again. However, what you're doing here is presenting your personal feelings on Gordon's alleged activity, I'm strictly talked about the stupidity of a rule. You say Im making him look like a victim then quote me and show me where I said he's a victim. My prior response to you even said that "He should be suspended for a year because he agreed to the rule, not because the rule makes sense". You see, I never once pretended like the rule doesn't have validity because at the end of the day the player agreed to it. However, as an outsider who hasn't agreed to anything I can certainly criticize something that overall doesn't make sense, such as the rule that I'm talking about. The rule has validity based on a players agreement, not because it provides good or prevents harm to the game itself. <<<<No one has yet to talk about my position on the rule, you just keep running off at the mouth about the law & cops and not feeling bad for people because they're rich and you're not. It's an interesting philosophy that apparently it's ok to break laws just as long as the police don't catch you in the act. Well, most of the alleged laws that the cops enforce aren't actually laws at all. The issue is that Cops don't know the laws themselves, they simply know their assignment. Sovereign's of this particular land went to public school so they also don't know the law because they are never taught it. So the cops deal with people given their assignment and not necessarily the law, and sovereign's take the role of citizens (with a small case "c") and waive their rights in court once they give power of attorney to a Lawyer, an individual who's taken an oath that their allegiance is first and foremost to the court and not who they represent in court. But apparently your philosophy is that the situation I just placed in front of you is okay. Maybe they should just have an automated message for all 911 calls that says, "Sorry, but if none of our officers saw this happen, we're not going to do anything about it. I don't know, maybe. Maybe if people started practicing some sort of self autonomy then not only would people be able to protect themselves but they'd be able to protect themselves legally because they would know the law based on taking responsibility to know the law. I don't know....maybe thats a stupid point. After all, given that you have made it clear that you are in favor of the NFL doing drug testing for certain drugs, you are suggesting that they should be actively ignoring positive test results for illegal drugs if they aren't the ones you deem to be an issue. After all, that would be the only way for the rules to be implemented in the way you suggest, and also the exact reason why that will never happen. They wouldn't be actively ignoring positive test results for illegal drugs that they're not looking for. If I test you for HGH my test shouldn't come up positive or negative for weed. It should come up positive or negative for HGH, because after all, HGH taints the game directly. Also, you need to understand something, you should not be able to make a plant illegal. This is why when a test comes up positive for the drug the cops don't come and arrest you. Also, to make it illegal to be in possession of is also a poor law. If you ever researched why the law was put in place to begin with then you would know that it was for an economic advantage for some, and those few used the position of it getting your children high as a tool to get it done. Im not going to go all left field with you here but I hate when people talk about laws as if they not laws of men, as if man can't question them....especially if they're stupid laws, or in the case of the NFL a stupid rule, albeit a stupid rule that Gordon agreed to. There are plenty of other companies out there who drug test their employees, and everyone is made aware of this heading into it. The NFL is one of those and if someone doesn't like that, then they can find themselves another job, although they might get paid a little less. I'm curious, do you think an NFL player should be thrown out of the league for taking a swing at another player on the field? After all, in the real working world, such a person would be immediately fired, possibly charged with a crime, and would likely have a difficult time finding themselves another job worth a damn. In the NFL, that results in as little as a 15-yard penalty (or if you're the Patriots, only penalties against the other team). It's awfully convenient to cry foul about certain rules that don't put NFL players up on a pedestal while ignoring the benefits or how much they still manage to get away with. Just like every job in the world, there's a give and take, and one of the things these players are told from day one is that they need to give up their so-called "right" to be unpunished for breaking the law as they see fit. And I'm sorry, but for you of all people to be standing on your soapbox about what NFL players should be allowed to do is just a tad hypocritical considering some of the positions you've previously taken. There are plenty of jobs who drug test their employees. And as i've said before, if you agree to it then adhere to the rule. This doesn't change the fact that a person who didnt agree to the rule such as myself thinks that the rule is stupid. And if the real world, a person testing positive for weed would probably be fired for breaking the law, but won't be arrested for breaking the law. So the job will take action for the use but the cops won't....they'll only take action if you're in the possession of generally speaking. Thats stupid lol. This is a baited question but I'll answer anyway. Generally I dont think that a player should be thrown out of the NFL for taking a swing at another player. The NFL has these guys high strung and uber aggressive. That situation can be very hard to manage, yet that responsibility is 100% on the player while the league gets billions from that situation and if that player has a lapse and swings then the repercussions is also 100% on the player but not on the league that organized such an environment that could have contributed to that outcome to begin with. Yet the player gets kicked out of the league and the NFL plugs in another player, keeps whatever money that the fired player generated for the league and the league takes no responsibility for that situation whatsoever. Its like the league always has clean hands no matter what. Now in the real world you would most likely get charged with a crime, but it depends on the type of job. If you're a paper pusher for some public relations company then yeah, you're probably going to jail. If you're a boxer, an MMA fighter or a football player then the situation could and should be different given the environment. And dont twist my words. I'm not saying that its cool for players to swing on other players. Im saying that the environment plays a major role in that particular situation. A public relations company doesn't perpetuate and thrive on high strung ruthless aggression like the way the NFL does. Now on to the last part of your statement, how am I a hypocrite because of my position on this subject in relation to what I've said about a different subject in the past. And what soap box are you talking about. It seems when a person takes a stance on something then all of a sudden they're on some soap box. If thats the case then maybe people need to start dusting off their soap boxes, grab their set thats between their legs and say what they honestly feel....even if its wrong. If your intent is good and you're willing to change and be changed for the betterment of yourself and others then its good to be on that soap box. People love to bring up forefathers and other that they look up to....well let me tell you, they stood on a soap box and they preached, and they spoke and they were passionate. And all the haters did was hate from the sideline and conspire. Not calling you a hater, just saying that I rather be called a hypocrite than a person thats afraid to stand on a soap box and give an opinion on something that I feel should change or at least be looked at for reconsideration. Don't disrespect my soapbox again lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.02d5a086ca7ed80fc66faf3bb6f878c7.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.