Handling of Randy Gregory Looks Bad on NFL, NFLPA

[RamziD]

Did they or did they not reach a settlement???

Don't hurt yourself moving those goal posts

 

[irishline]

First, if the majority of the people were for legalization, marijuana would be legal. Unless, of course, people are too stupid to understand the system in which we live and how laws are enacted in our democratic society.

Not that I necessarily have a favorable opinion on this but... Gallup has been polling the US on the public's opinion for almost 40 years. Just because the public wants something doesn't necessarily mean the government agrees. Here is their last poll from October:

Support for Legal Marijuana Use Up to 60% in U.S.

When Gallup first asked this question in 1969, 12% of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana use. In the late 1970s, support rose to 28% but began to retreat in the 1980s during the era of the "Just Say No" to drugs campaign. Support stayed in the 25% range through 1995, but increased to 31% in 2000 and has continued climbing since then.

In 2013, support for legalization reached a majority for the first time after Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Since then, a majority of Americans have continued to say they think the use of marijuana should be made legal.

Today's 60% is statistically similar to the previous high of 58% reached in 2013 and 2015, so it is unclear whether support has stabilized or is continuing to inch higher.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx

 

[BourbonBalz]

Yeah, well all the polls also said Hildebeast would be the next President too. How'd that work out? LOL

 

[Nightman]

Not only that but they cut a deal so that his next failed test is still only a 4 game suspension when it should be 1 year like Gregory just got. Since they kept reducing his suspensions, he hasn't hit the 4 game level yet. Something just isn't right with that situation. Maybe we don't know all the facts.

The first time Bell was arrested was Aug 2014 for DUI of marijuana and possession...he was driving and LBlount was with him.......the NFL waited for the courts and in March of 2015 Bell got 3 games(1 for the arrest and 2 for the DUI) and Blount got 1 for the arrest......they were both placed in the Drug Program Stage One

Bell appealed because when he was arrested the rule was 1 game for a DUI.....the league changed it to 2 games in Sept of 2014....so they charged him under the new rules instead of the rules in place when he committed the crime.......so on appeal they reduced it one game to 2 games total

When first placed in the Drug Program, if a player stays clean for 90 days they are reset back to zero as if it never happened.......so Bell was still in the Stage One of the drug program when he was suspended in Sept 2015.......after 90 days he would go back to zero but he didn't......he misses a test in Dec that put him to Stage 2 with a 2 game fine......the next miss/fail would be a 4 game fine(Jan) ...a third miss/fail would be a 4 game suspension(April)......his first two misses were a travel issue and his April miss was a pure oversleep

But Bell appealed again and offered a settlement..... he would plead guilty if he got 3 games instead of 4 and stayed at Stage Two.....knowing he might win the whole appeal since he couldn't drive after knee surgery the NFL took the deal......all the while his teammate Martavis Bryant failed a couple more tests and got banished for a year just like Gregory ....so the idea of favoritism for the Steelers is out the window

 

[Nightman]

Don't hurt yourself moving those goal posts

What an original response........ and no one was talking to you

 

[irishline]

Yeah, well all the polls also said Hildebeast would be the next President too. How'd that work out? LOL

Again, I didn't say I agree with it, nor did I say it was accurate; polls can be incorrect, I just posted it. Nothing short of a US referendum on the subject would tell you for sure, which is never going happen. However 8 out of 9 states that voted on its legalization of one type or another voted yes in November. Which lends credence to the poll.

Polling for the same topic using the same sample and questions shows a trend. That trend, with over 40 years of data, does exist, whether you want to believe it or not. That and final polls for the previous 60 years of presidential elections were correct (the last one being off was 1946 Dewey vs. Truman). But hey one was wrong so they must all be wrong? Correct?

 

[Plankton]

I don't know about that. Haven't employees come to work drunk and have been fired? I assume they would have to undergo some type testing to verify they were under the influence of alcohol.

Furthermore, I can imagine the NFL crafting an argument that because of the growing awareness and concern for brain trauma, it's in the best interest of their employees to be free from any mind-altering substances that could make them more susceptible to injury. And since marijuana lingers in one's system and we can't be certain when consumption occurred, it is in the best interest of the NFL to ban its use as a grounds for employment in its league.

Health/Safety is a legitimate reason to ban certain substances as the basis for employment.

Maurice Clarett was cut by the Broncos in large part due to the fact that he was drunk while at their complex.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did they or did they not reach a settlement???

What were the precursors and conditions?

You like telling people that they are operating out of ignorance but you don't eat your feedback.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is off football and you and the other 42% of uneducated individuals are losing your hold on prohibition. Sorry, you're wrong.

But we haven't as of yet. So you can stew because you're the only one who is angry.

Let's talk football on a football forum. But hey, you seem to not be able to let it go.. so I'll be the bigger man here and move on.

Gee, I thought we were having a conversation. In a conversation, there's this dynamic called give-and-take. Shrug.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't read no good either....I said they reached a deal that reduced his punishment to avoid an all or nothing verdict... they must have been a little nervous about their "facts"

I just don't buy that Gregory got treated poorly........if you want to write a poem for him and put in under your pillow than knock yourself out

Write one for Bell's teammate Martavis Bryant that also got banished

I read just fine. You included a clause that began with the verb "due." You conveniently left that part out. That is specifically what I was speaking to. You either are being intentionally obtuse or struggle reading critically.

They "must have" done nothing. Fact is we don't know the nature of the agreement in really any way shape or form other than part of the outcome. I know you want to backdoor your preferred belief but you have zero support for your position beyond wishing real hard

I could care less if you have no sympathy. It has zero bearing on the reality of the situation. Really all that tells anyone is that you have an emotional investment in the punitive action going through.

While that doesn't have any bearing on the cases in question is does explain the wishcasting.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, well all the polls also said Hildebeast would be the next President too. How'd that work out? LOL

The polls in the days before the election had them is a statistical dead heat. Polls were fine.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not that I necessarily have a favorable opinion on this but... Gallup has been polling the US on the public's opinion for almost 40 years. Just because the public wants something doesn't necessarily mean the government agrees. Here is their last poll from October:

Support for Legal Marijuana Use Up to 60% in U.S.

When Gallup first asked this question in 1969, 12% of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana use. In the late 1970s, support rose to 28% but began to retreat in the 1980s during the era of the "Just Say No" to drugs campaign. Support stayed in the 25% range through 1995, but increased to 31% in 2000 and has continued climbing since then.

In 2013, support for legalization reached a majority for the first time after Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Since then, a majority of Americans have continued to say they think the use of marijuana should be made legal.

Today's 60% is statistically similar to the previous high of 58% reached in 2013 and 2015, so it is unclear whether support has stabilized or is continuing to inch higher.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx

First, thanks for the link.

Second, who is the government? The government, in this case, are elected officials who represent the people. And the people, by in large, are not advocating for the legalization of marijuana. I think what you see reflected in the polls is more a response to "personal freedom" than "legalization of marijuana". What I mean is that people appear to be in favor of many activities in our society when actually they're more for the right to choose. It's the same with the abortion issue. Gallup polls say more Americans are pro-choice but if you delve deeper into the responses, you'll find that many aren't for abortion, they just believe in the right to choose.

Be that as it may, though I will personally never support recreational use of drugs - marijuana or otherwise - I understand that the tide is turning and eventually marijuana use will be decriminalized.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What an original response........ and no one was talking to you

This is a public forum not a private chat. If you don't want random responses then do not post.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Some worker of the world got the justice they collectively negotiated but here comes Fuzzy anyways to save the damsels in distress......like a true Internet White Knight would do

You can posture all you like but if they can be shown to be treating workers differently for the same infractions there is legal recourse. The CBA gave broad power but not that specific power.

I do like how you paint men as women as if that is insulting and allude to women being helpless in the face of trouble as if they need a man to come save them. If you want to drop your pants in an attempt to insult me, that works for me.

 

[fishspill]

When we putting this thread to death?

 

[Nightman]

What were the precursors and conditions?

You like telling people that they are operating out of ignorance but you don't eat your feedback.

And you can't answer a simple question when proven wrong.......was there a settlement or not?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you can't answer a simple question when proven wrong.......was there a settlement or not?

It's not a simple question. It is a question that is besides the point and to answer in the affirmative gives the appearance of my agreeing with you. It's cheap argumentation. CLaiming that you have proven anything is rich.

Frankly, this is not cross examination and I am not required to answer your questions. IF you want to make an argument then do so. I am not playing along.

 

[Nightman]

You can posture all you like but if they can be shown to be treating workers differently for the same infractions there is legal recourse. The CBA gave broad power but not that specific power.

I do like how you paint men as women as if that is insulting and allude to women being helpless in the face of trouble as if they need a man to come save them. If you want to drop your pants in an attempt to insult me, that works for me.

I bet it does

 

[Nightman]

It's not a simple question. It is a question that is besides the point and to answer in the affirmative gives the appearance of my agreeing with you. It's cheap argumentation.

Frankly, this is not cross examination and I am not required to answer your questions. IF you want to make an argument then do so. I am not playing along.

Dodge and retreat

 

[Nightman]

It's not a simple question. It is a question that is besides the point and to answer in the affirmative gives the appearance of my agreeing with you. It's cheap argumentation. CLaiming that you have proven anything is rich.

Frankly, this is not cross examination and I am not required to answer your questions. IF you want to make an argument then do so. I am not playing along.

you started it by saying I was wishcasting about a settlement.......there being a settlement and it's outcome are the only facts we know

but as usual you ran your mouth before you knew what was even being discussed