Lions WR Charles Rogers admitted testing positive for marijuana

Yeagermeister

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,629
Reaction score
117
joseephuss;1071498 said:
Why wasn't he suspended for the year? Isn't that the progresson? First you get fined, then you get the 4 game suspension, then you get the year long suspension. Not two 4 game suspensions. Did the Lions cut him knowing he failed a test, a la the Cowboys and Carter?

Also, I don't understand when players aren't on any team, how they are fulfilling the suspension. If they get signed again, then the suspension should start taking place. It is the sacrice the team should be taking for signing that player. If he isn't good enough to be on a roster, then how can you say that he is meeting the suspension requirements. I am not good enough to be on a roster, does that count toward my suspension.

If a player gets suspended they have to serve that suspension with any new team before they can play again. That's one of the reasons Larrimore has never been signed by an NFL team. He would have to serve his suspension first.
 

Waffle

Not Just For Breakfast Anymore
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
1
Yeagermeister;1071528 said:
If a player gets suspended they have to serve that suspension with any new team before they can play again. That's one of the reasons Larrimore has never been signed by an NFL team. He would have to serve his suspension first.

There have been conflicting reports, but isn't this essentially the same situation with Quincy Carter?
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
Yeagermeister;1071528 said:
If a player gets suspended they have to serve that suspension with any new team before they can play again. That's one of the reasons Larrimore has never been signed by an NFL team. He would have to serve his suspension first.

I was thinking of the Ricky Williams situation. He retired for a year and that also counted as his suspension.
 

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,403
Reaction score
7,928
Tuna Helper;1071293 said:
I'd rather make millions than smoke weed. I don't understand how someone who has so much can flush it all down the drain to smoke some leaves.

because you think you can get away with it. it's not a choice of one or the other at first - only when caught. if you think it's hard to get away with - stepnoski. smoked his entire career but was just smart about it.

and no, it's not addictive. people who are ******** like to say doing pot leads to doing harder drugs, but the desire to do drugs leads to doing drugs.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
Hostile;1071463 said:
First of all because those things are legal.

I don't understand how an athlete can abuse any of the 3. It's stupid to jeopardize your career with any of them, IMO. Feeling a buzz just isn't that damned important.

Anyone who thinks it's no big deal that these guys do a little weed is simply delusional. It's easy for some to say it's no big deal. We aren't gambling with millions of dollars. It's fine for an office or construction worker to risk his job on a high. Quite another thing for an athlete who makes millions. Just plain ignorance.

We've argued this before -- the pain killer issue especially. Pain killers are legal but if you obtain them without a prescription they are illegal - players who abuse them get them from multiple sources and this really is not covered in testing.

Also, in many states, you can legally obtain marijuana for a variety of physical problems. So, in those states, the drug has a medical status that is similar to pain killers.
 

superpunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
75
abersonc;1071365 said:
I just don't understand why the league cares so much about marijuana but so little about alcohol or pain killers.

Or stepping on people's faces.

Hmmmmm.....what should be the far harsher punishment? Something that affects yourself? Or assault on the playing field?

Who knows?
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
abersonc;1071365 said:
I just don't understand why the league cares so much about marijuana but so little about alcohol or pain killers.
Beer companies are the league's biggest sponsors. Pain killers make it possible for players to play through injuries. They keep the elite players on the field, keeping the game more exciting.

Pot does not make money for the NFL.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
percyhoward;1071659 said:
Beer companies are the league's biggest sponsors. Pain killers make it possible for players to play through injuries. They keep the elite players on the field, keeping the game more exciting.

Pot does not make money for the NFL.

Gambling makes money for the NFL. People who aren't football fans may have an interest in the game due to bets. Just a small portion of people, but there are some. With the new legislation about not being able to pay off shore internet gambling sites with credit cards, it may make a minor dent in NFL money. That legislation was a rider on a security bill, which I found interesting.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
percyhoward;1071659 said:
Beer companies are the league's biggest sponsors. Pain killers make it possible for players to play through injuries. They keep the elite players on the field, keeping the game more exciting.

Pot does not make money for the NFL.

Players generally don't see the field with pain killers in their system. You take a few vicodan and it seriously impacts your cognitive capacity. That player would be a liability. Players would be far more likely to see the field with a numbing shot in the area of concern - and that isn't a painkiller, in fact it usually is a substance closely related to cocaine in chemical structure.

On the topic of marijuana, try going to a Raider game. Lots of fans get high in the parking lot. I believe this actually helps to have a safer game - when the thugs get high they are less likely to cause trouble.
 

manimal

Member
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/columnists/20021206cook3.asp

Cook: Former Cowboy still takes a stand


Friday, December 06, 2002







At first glance, it's easy to dismiss Mark Stepnoski as another whacked-out football player who took one too many shots to the head or, in his case, perhaps smoked one too many reefers. Why else would he risk smearing his good name and limiting his future earnings by becoming an officer, activist and high-profile spokesman for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws?
"I've been reading about this issue for years," Stepnoski said from his home in Dallas this week. "I firmly believe in their cause."
Anyone who knows Stepnoski can't possibly be surprised. He was one of the brightest athletes to play at Pitt, a two-time Academic All-American in the late-1980s. He's also never been afraid to go after what he wants. For 13 years with the Dallas Cowboys and Houston/Tennessee Oilers, until his retirement in January, he did it in the NFL as an overachieving, 265-pound offensive lineman who made five Pro Bowls and the All-Decade team of the 1990s. Now, he's doing it by leading the fight to decriminalize and, ultimately, legalize the use of marijuana.
This is not a man who is going to be frightened off of an unpopular point of view.
That's admirable, whether you like his position or not.
"I'm sure a lot of people are going to be critical of me," Stepnoski said. "What are you going to do? This doesn't change who I am as a person. This is the way I've always been. I'm not going to be deterred. I know I have the truth on my side."
It's probably still a good thing Stepnoski made enough money as a player that he doesn't need a new full-time job. Companies usually don't like to be associated with illegal drugs. Stepnoski knows. He joined NORML and became a financial contributor in 1998 but had to keep his membership his dirty little secret from the image-conscious NFL. It was only after he retired that he went public.
Can you say hypocrisy and NFL in the same sentence? Stepnoski, a confirmed smoker who said he never tested positive for marijuana during his career, has no trouble doing it.
"There were times I had to take shots of painkillers to play. Those are powerful drugs. They are synthetic opiates. There's a high potential for addiction there. Marijuana is non-toxic. It's non-addictive. It doesn't lead to other drugs. You can't overdose on it. No one has ever died from it. In many ways, it's safer than prescription drugs."
The legalization argument is for another day, Stepnoski said. "That's clearly the best way to go because prohibition doesn't work." Now, NORML's battle is for decriminalization.
"Our main concern is getting the government to stop throwing marijuana smokers in jail," Stepnoski said. "We're trying to make the penalties less severe for possession. The punishment just doesn't fit the crime. It destroys lives -- not just the lives of the people who are incarcerated, but the lives of their families. It doesn't reduce the demand for marijuana. It doesn't make it less available. It's just a waste of taxpayers' dollars. We'd be a lot better served by focusing our priorities elsewhere ...
"All of Western Europe has decriminalized, Canada, Australia. Just about all of the industrialized world. We're falling behind in so many areas. We need to catch up."
Stepnoski said he plans to devote more time to the cause and against "all of the misinformation that's out there, because people have been bombarded with propaganda for so long." Earlier this year, he agreed to become president of the Texas chapter of NORML, which is based in Washington D.C. He also joined its advisory board.
Stepnoski's visibility as a former athlete already has brought NORML much welcome attention. It's not every week you pick up Sports Illustrated, see a picture of a player of his caliber in his Cowboys uniform and read him say: "After a game you hurt so much, you need something to relax. I'd rather smoke than take painkillers."
NFL people must have about died when they saw that in this week's issue.
"Most of the feedback I've received so far has been very positive, but I know the NFL isn't going to like it," Stepnoski said. "But you know what? I'm not employed by the league anymore."
Nor does he have any plans to coach. That's probably just as well.
:hammer:
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
abersonc;1071617 said:
We've argued this before -- the pain killer issue especially. Pain killers are legal but if you obtain them without a prescription they are illegal - players who abuse them get them from multiple sources and this really is not covered in testing.

Also, in many states, you can legally obtain marijuana for a variety of physical problems. So, in those states, the drug has a medical status that is similar to pain killers.
We have? I honestly don't remember.

So, you're telling me Charles Rogers has either Glaucoma of is undergoing chemotherapy huh? Or that he obtained his through a prescription for it at the very least. That's your stance?

If not, then why not just admit what we both know is the truth, he's abusing the drug contrary to the laws of this country. This isn't about should the laws be changed. It's about they are what they are and he has millions of dollars riding upon what he does.

The drugs are more important to him. I get it. Personally I think that's stupid as hell. For anyone, not just a millionaire. When the buzz is more important than something that affects how you will care for your family, then I'm sorry but you're a blithering idiot. Note: I am not meaning you personally by using that pronoun. It is a statement in general without specifying anyone.

I have no idea who you are claiming obtained pain killers without a prescription, but it's irrelevant because I agree, if you do that it is against the law and is therefore equal to the use of grass illegally.

Alcohol is legal unless you are operating a vehicle. I won't deny it does more harm, but it is legal because we as a country want it to be legal. Personally I think Koren Robinson is just as stupid to drink his career away. The same as I would anyone in any job.

There is such a thing as responsible drinking and following a Drs. orders on taking prescription drugs. The same cannot be said for the illegal use of marijuana. That's just a fact.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
percyhoward;1071659 said:
Beer companies are the league's biggest sponsors. Pain killers make it possible for players to play through injuries. They keep the elite players on the field, keeping the game more exciting.

Pot does not make money for the NFL.
Outstanding points.

joseephuss;1071678 said:
Gambling makes money for the NFL. People who aren't football fans may have an interest in the game due to bets. Just a small portion of people, but there are some. With the new legislation about not being able to pay off shore internet gambling sites with credit cards, it may make a minor dent in NFL money. That legislation was a rider on a security bill, which I found interesting.
Gambling doesn't make money for the NFL. Gambling makes money for gamblers. A lot of money to be sure, but the NFL has no piece of the gambling pie.
 

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,403
Reaction score
7,928
abersonc;1071695 said:
Players generally don't see the field with pain killers in their system. You take a few vicodan and it seriously impacts your cognitive capacity. That player would be a liability. Players would be far more likely to see the field with a numbing shot in the area of concern - and that isn't a painkiller, in fact it usually is a substance closely related to cocaine in chemical structure.

On the topic of marijuana, try going to a Raider game. Lots of fans get high in the parking lot. I believe this actually helps to have a safer game - when the thugs get high they are less likely to cause trouble.

very true. if alcohol fights are probably a lot more likely. if pot, all that's gonna happen is they go raid someone elses tailgate party if they run out. barring that they'll hit a 7-11 and grab all those burreto's at the back of the fridge. fighting is the last thing on their mind.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
abersonc;1071695 said:
Players generally don't see the field with pain killers in their system. You take a few vicodan and it seriously impacts your cognitive capacity. That player would be a liability. Players would be far more likely to see the field with a numbing shot in the area of concern - and that isn't a painkiller, in fact it usually is a substance closely related to cocaine in chemical structure.

On the topic of marijuana, try going to a Raider game. Lots of fans get high in the parking lot. I believe this actually helps to have a safer game - when the thugs get high they are less likely to cause trouble.
So you're saying no one who is high on grass ever gets in a fight?

I doubt that very seriously given that I know my 2 brothers personally. Idiots are idiots even when they are mellow.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
Hostile;1071715 said:
Outstanding points.

Gambling doesn't make money for the NFL. Gambling makes money for gamblers. A lot of money to be sure, but the NFL has no piece of the gambling pie.

I disagree. It is indirect revenue. Gamblers watch the games because they have money riding on it. They view the advertising and advertising is a major source of revenue. Like I said, it is a only a small portion of gamblers, but there are some that would have no interest in football if there wasn't any money riding on it. In the great scheme, this small amount of people doesn't account for much in the NFL revenues, but they do play a part.
 

superpunk

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
75
Hostile;1071715 said:
Outstanding points.

Gambling doesn't make money for the NFL. Gambling makes money for gamblers. A lot of money to be sure, but the NFL has no piece of the gambling pie.

Maybe gamblers would tune in regardless, but I'm sure there is some portion of the population that watches these games because they've got some action.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
joseephuss;1071725 said:
I disagree. It is indirect revenue. Gamblers watch the games because they have money riding on it. They view the advertising and advertising is a major source of revenue. Like I said, it is a only a small portion of gamblers, but there are some that would have no interest in football if there wasn't any money riding on it. In the great scheme, this small amount of people doesn't account for much in the NFL revenues, but they do play a part.

superpunk;1071730 said:
Maybe gamblers would tune in regardless, but I'm sure there is some portion of the population that watches these games because they've got some action.
Just my opinion guys but you're pushing that rationalization a little. Them tuning in is nowhere near the millions of dollars spent by beer companies to advertise. That was the original point.
 
Top