MyFairLady
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,434
- Reaction score
- 6,582
Randy would be a hall of famer if it wasn't for everyone else but him.
anyone still waiting on Gregory is what we with some street smarts call a fool and a mark.
A fancy way of saying we were wrong, but will hold you to that dated standard...mainly just because we can? 5 strikes for a rule that no longer exists because it never really should have?Gee it used to be you could just get arrested for DWI, driving while intoxicated but now you can also get arrested for DUI, driving while under the influence of drugs including weed. We see ads all the time on TV about not drinking and driving and use a designated driver, but to tell people that they should not have a beer because you have a problem with players who got suspended repeatedly for using weed is foolish at best. If people do drive while drunk or on weed and get caught they pay the price.
Lets look at the entire weed issue prior to the new CBA. The first failed drug test the player got a fine and was ordered into the random drug testing program for 2 years that went on all year not just during the season. If he failed a test again he got a 4 game suspension and the drug test program was exteded to be for 5 years. If he failed another test he was suspended for 10 games and another failure was for an undetermined length that could be end up being for life and that is where Gregory is at. The new CBA DOES NOT wipe away ANY suspension that has handed down prior to this new CBA only how they are handle from now on. Gregory failed his first drug test before he was even drafted and that wasn't held against him when he was drafted. So it boils down to he used up 5 strikes other than old saying of 3 strikes and your out.
.
.
Go on...what you’re claiming is nothing but a myth. I can think of two cases, zeke and brown, to help support your bogus accusation and I have many more examples to prove you wrong.
Let’s dance, whatchya got?
Once bitten twice shy.I see no one gushing about how Gregory has changed his life (ie like Aldon Smith agent and trainers).
A fancy way of saying we were wrong, but will hold you to that dated standard...mainly just because we can? 5 strikes for a rule that no longer exists because it never really should have?
Does admitting "fault by way of reinstatement" take anything away from those suspensions he served? Just a far fetched hypothetical, if he goes on a tear, would the league want him promoted for Comeback player of the year
All new players won't be suspended for weed, but see you're not new...got ya? That is ridiculously stupid. Really just a spiteful way to get back at someone. Sounds like...
I would’ve done the same thing
I understand the guy has made a mistake i get that. But cmon now, dont let the guy stay in limbo......
suspend me for the season fine but give me a return date like week 7 of next year
Its really unprofessional on the leagues part
Even the nfl knows that "falling off the wagon" happens. The whole point of the testing originally was too help these guys or so the claim was to help them. But that was before Goddell took over for Tagliabue.
How did Aldon Smith do it?
I’m curious to hear more about the how the Mara’s are “all over that league office” or if you were just being sarcastic.Huh?
Agree to disagree on this topic. When a rule doesn't make any sense, it's hard to give it credibility. When rules follow a logical application, they are generally respected and adhered to. You prefer the umbrella, well it's in the rule book, doesn't have to make sense.I see you're another one that thinks you can decide what rules should be enforced and which ones shouldn't. Whether you or anyone else doesn't like what the drug testing was like and punishment was given out prior to the current CBA, it was the rules then and EVERY player knew what they were. The current CBA does not wash away any suspension for drugs that was given prior to this CBA being signed. THOSE ARE THE RULES, but you think that's a rule you can just ignore because you don't like it. For some reason you think that professional athletes shouldn't have to worry about the consequences that regular people have to face in the real world. Most companies today require a drug test as a condition of being hired. Failing it results in not getting hired. Many of those same companies have annual or random test also. I worked for a company that I had to do the drug test to get hired and then either the month before, the month of or the month after the anniversary I was hired I got my notice to go do my drug test. All the employees know that a failed test can and did result in their termination. They have a zero tolerance for drug test failure.
Again you don't want anyone to follow the rules that you don't like You think that the progressive punishment for players to break the rules they knew about was wrong. The strikes shouldn't have been counted. Here's what you just don't get. Gregory is still sitting out there because he couldn't or wouldn't follow the rules at the time. So now they may be saying that Gregory couldn't comply with that rule and was a repeated offender so what makes us think that if reinstated he decides he needs PED's to be able to compete and this still can be suspended in this CBA. They are taking into consideration his history of not following the rules repeatedly. It's rules not necessarily that rule.
I could be wrong but I doubt that even if Gregory was reinstated and had a really good season that he would get honored for that season because he miss all those games because of multiple suspensions. That would be awarding him for repeatedly breaking league rules. Maybe in your mind were you think there shouldn't have been suspensions for smoking weed that makes sense, but I don't see it.
.
.
I’m curious to hear more about the how the Mara’s are “all over that league office” or if you were just being sarcastic.
Agree to disagree on this topic. When a rule doesn't make any sense, it's hard to give it credibility. When rules follow a logical application, they are generally respected and adhered to. You prefer the umbrella, well it's in the rule book, doesn't have to make sense.
We used to have laws outlawing alcohol until we realized that rule doesn't make any sense. Now we are doing the same for weed but you want to punish those before the law or policy has changed? "Because you can" is not a great argument either...