Your Top 5 Loved and Hated Cowboys?

[Trouty]

Randy is going to great lengths to free himself....

The league needs to free him, is my view. He's done nothing wrong, Silver, other than smoke a plant that the league has deemed an unhealthy and illegal substance is it pertains to their rules.

Rules that are antiquated and need to be changed. And they will be changed. Proably too late for our blue chip RE prospect, tho, unfortunately.

So many great athletes can't play the game because of some bull **** herb.

But hey, shoot 'em up with liquid dilaudid. Want 6cc's? Sure. And here's a slap on the ***, go get 'em tiger.

 

[xwalker]

Randy is going to great lengths to free himself....


You believe what you want to believe. He confessed to touching her genitals.

You can act like a tough guy, but very few people would take the chance on life in prison when no jail time was being offered.

It was in the Colony which is in Denton County which is very conservative. He was a Mexican in 1987 that probably would have gotten a jury of all while conservatives.

 

[Silver Surfer]

The league needs to free him, is my view. He's done nothing wrong.

Nobody snuck up on Randy and made a new set of rules. Its implicit in the terms of the employment contract that he signed. He violated the terms. No different to me than a contract that says "no off season skiing or basketball". Its not illegal to play them, but if your contract says you must abide by these rules and you don't, you should accept the possibility that there will be consequences for your actions.

 

[Silver Surfer]

You can act like a tough guy, but very few people would take the chance on life in prison when no jail time was being offered.

It was in the Colony which is in Denton County which is very conservative. He was a Mexican in 1987 that probably would have gotten a jury of all while conservatives.

Yep, he was the victim because he was Mexican. Got it. Damn those white conservatives. Yawn.....

 

[Trouty]

Nobody snuck up on Randy and made a new set of rules. Its implicit in the terms of the employment contract that he signed. He violated the terms. No different to me than a contract that says "no off season skiing or basketball". Its not illegal to play them, but if your contract says you must abide by these rules and you don't, you should accept the possibility that there will be consequences for your actions.

Meh. It's a bull **** rule held together by Big Pharma and Big Booze. Who gain a ton of revenue from the NFL.

I added more to my post. Don't know if it will make a difference for ya, you're all in on Gregory being El Cucuy.

 

[xwalker]

Yep, he was the victim because he was Mexican. Got it. Damn those white conservatives. Yawn.....

That's not really what I said.

It was his decision and he probably saw it from that perspective.

You would have cried like a baby and offered to sign any statement in order to get a guaranteed get out of jail free card in that situation.

 

[Silver Surfer]

That's not really what I said.

It was his decision and he probably saw it from that perspective.

You would have cried like a baby and offered to sign any statement in order to get a guaranteed get out of jail free card in that situation.

You're frickin' hilarious. Your whole argument has been full of suppositions and now you're gonna tell me what I'd do or not do. Let me fill you in on one thing. Here's one thing I'd NOT do for sure: spend time alone with a 10 year old girl, especially if she's not a relative. Get over yourself.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Meh. It's a bull **** rule held together by Big Pharma and Big Booze. Who gain a ton of revenue from the NFL.

I added more to my post. Don't know if it will make a difference for ya, you're all in on Gregory being El Cucuy.

Trouty, I don't give a flip about Gregory. Don't think about him much at all. He might be a great guy. He sounds like he's a troubled soul.

What I don't get is why we continue to make allowances, bend the rules, or whatever for people because they play sports on a team we root for. Why is that?

Seems like we've got at least two sets of rules in this country. One for the regular guy, and another for the politicians, entertainers, athletes, and the wealthy.

 

[Trouty]

Trouty, I don't give a flip about Gregory. Don't think about him much at all. He might be a great guy. He sounds like he's a troubled soul.

What I don't get is why we continue to make allowances, bend the rules, or whatever for people because they play sports on a team we root for. Why is that?

Seems like we've got at least two sets of rules in this country. One for the regular guy, and another for the politicians, entertainers, athletes, and the wealthy.

My point is, is that the rules are shenanigans, Silver. There should be no bending.

You're last paragraph is true. Regular guy gets to smoke weed (in most states), athlete can't. What rules for Gregory are being bent? They need to legalize it so many players can use it instead of 200mg morphine pills, if they so choose.

But, like I said, Big Pharma ain't havin' that. God forbid a plant that anyone can grow effects their bottom line.

And I don't touch it myself, but I'll be damned if someone is gonna sit here and tell me that Gregory shouldn't be able to play ball (not directed at you, brother) because of some daggon weed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Loved:
Romo
Emmitt
Haley
Troy
L. Allen

Disliked:
Rowdy
Peon Dion
J. Ratliff
M. Irvin
G. Hardy

I forgot about Ratliff. Faking injury to get out of playing is awful.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Subject to federal law, an employer has every right to set the conditions of employment in their business. If the NFL believes that guys getting high hurts it's brand and thereby damages its ability to attract fans, (i.e. future revenues) they can stipulate they don't want it happening. They then have to negotiate that issue with the players' union to get a contract. If the players' union doesn't believe its a big enough issue to hold up a contract, they've effectively agreed to the league's terms. That's between them and the NFL. I don't really care. After the agreement's ratified, its the "law". If players feel strongly enough about it, they should make sure its in the contract. As of yet, they haven't done so.

I also think its a "slippery slope" issue as well. How much weed is too much? What if they're high during the game? If the use is included in the next players' agreement and a coach or GM wants to get rid of a guy because he's screwing up because he's high, will the players' association file an injunction to stop it?

Sorry, but I'm not buying the Big Pharma angle. I think its a brand issue with the NFL. I think they're trying to project a certain image and allowing drug use by their players doesn't support that image. That may change as society at large relaxes its position on it.

 

[Trouty]

Subject to federal law, an employer has every right to set the conditions of employment in their business. If the NFL believes that guys getting high hurts it's brand and thereby damages its ability to attract fans, (i.e. future revenues) they can stipulate they don't want it happening. They then have to negotiate that issue with the players' union to get a contract. If the players' union doesn't believe its a big enough issue to hold up a contract, they've effectively agreed to the league's terms. That's between them and the NFL. I don't really care. After the agreement's ratified, its the "law". If players feel strongly enough about it, they should make sure its in the contract. As of yet, they haven't done so.

Sorry, but I'm not buying the Big Pharma angle. I think its a brand issue with the NFL. I also think its a "slippery slope" issue as well. How much weed is too much? What if they're high during the game? If the use is included in the next players' agreement and a coach or GM wants to get rid of a guy because he's screwing up because he's high, will the players' association file an injunction to stop it?

What if a player is high on opiates during a game? Many get injected with liquid opiates before kickoff.

I knew you, or someone, would use the "employer testing" argument. Employers also test for alcohol, occasionally, for certain jobs. NFL players can drink.

It's an antiquated, Old Boy's rule that is bulljive. Nixon did no one any favors passing this law, and soon it will be eradicated. But not soon enough.

NFL players should be able to medicate with weed if it helps them and they use it responsibly.

 

[Silver Surfer]

What if a player is high on opiates during a game? Many get injected with liquid opiates before kickoff.

I knew you, or someone, would use the "employer testing" argument. Employers also test for alcohol, occasionally, for certain jobs. NFL players can drink.

It's an antiquated old boys rule that is bulljive. Nixon did no one any favors passing this law, and soon it will be eradicated. But not soon enough.

NFL players should be able to medicate with weed if it helps them and they use it responsibly.

Does the NFL openly condone injecting opiates during a game? Is it characterized as such? Does the NFL condone players being drunk during a game? Define "responsibly", because once you let the camel put his nose in the tent, there's no way you're keeping him out.

 

[Trouty]

Does the NFL openly condone injecting opiates during a game? Is it characterized as such? Does the NFL condone players being drunk during a game? Define "responsibly", because once you let the camel put his nose in the tent, there's no way you're keeping him out.

Yes, the NFL condones such practices, re: opiates. It trickles from the top (allowing it) down (the doctors administering it). Anything to get the players on the field. While still making the open hands (Pharma) happy.

No, I'm certain the NFL doesn't condone players being drunk. I never said that, or insinuated that in the slightest, and fail to see your point there, my frere. I never sad players should be allowed to smoke weed on gameday/be high while playing. Nothing remotely close.

"Responsibly" shouldn't need to be defined for someone as intelligent as yourself, I'm sure you can decipher what I mean, Silver. But if I must, I can define it for you.

 

[Trouty]

In case you were gonna ask, Silver, here's one of many accounts from players/former players (and I'm not talking about the taradol injections):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...3009bd3e984_story.html?utm_term=.9b98807060c4

 

[Silver Surfer]

If you're talking about pain medication, that's the way its being characterized.... as a medication to alleviate pain. I'd be interested to know if its being described as an opiate.

My point on alcohol (or any other substance) is that, in the broader sense, I believe the NFL doesn't want to have the public thinking the guys are under the influence of anything while playing. The idea is that affects the "fair play" aspect of the game. There seems to me to be an unspoken pact between the NFL and its fans that the games are contested fairly. If the public starts to believe the games aren't fair, the risk to the NFL is enormous.

My question regarding "responsible" is that what's reasonable and responsible to you, may not be to someone else. Its all subjective. Ultimately, you'll have to rigidly define the amount of substances in a person's body before a contest, like a blood-alcohol test to make sure somebody hasn't exceeded the limit. I don't think that's practical. Its seems easier to me to say "no" to everything so that the fans will believe the players aren't high on the field and the game is being played fairly. You can excuse away the drugs you describe as a temporary means to alleviate pain.

I'm not saying I agree with this. I don't really have a position on it. It just appears to me that the NFL is trying to protect its image (brand) in a practical way without having to introduce a number of complicating factors.

 

[Trouty]

If you're talking about pain medication, that's the way its being characterized.... as a medication to alleviate pain. I'd be interested to know if its being described as an opiate.

My point on alcohol (or any other substance) is that, in the broader sense, I believe the NFL doesn't want to have the public thinking the guys are under the influence of anything while playing. The idea is that affects the "fair play" aspect of the game. There seems to me to be an unspoken pact between the NFL and its fans that the games are contested fairly. If the public starts to believe the games aren't fair, the risk to the NFL is enormous.

My question regarding "responsible" is that what's reasonable and responsible to you, may not be to someone else. Its all subjective. Ultimately, you'll have to rigidly define the amount of substances in a person's body before a contest, like a blood-alcohol test to make sure somebody hasn't exceeded the limit. I don't think that's practical. Its seems easier to me to say "no" to everything so that the fans will believe the players aren't high on the field and the game is being played fairly. You can excuse away the drugs you describe as a temporary means to alleviate pain.

I'm not saying I agree with this. I don't really have a position on it. It just appears to me that the NFL is trying to protect its image (brand) in a practical way without having to introduce a number of complicating factors.

Percocet is an opiate. Prescribed for pain or not, opiates are opiates, and incredibly dangerous.

As for the "responsible" argument. "Responsible" for me, and any rational person, should be the same as it applies to any other controlled, legal substance. Treat it as alcohol is treated. Pretty simple.

It just seems like we're going around in circles, now, Silver.

Weed should be allowed, Gregory should be playing.

 

[haleyrules]

Percocet is an opiate. Prescribed for pain or not, opiates are opiates, and incredibly dangerous.

As for the "responsible" argument. "Responsible" for me, and any rational person, should be the same as it applies to any other controlled, legal substance. Treat it as alcohol is treated. Pretty simple.

It just seems like we're going around in circles, now, Silver. Weed should be allowed, Gregory should be playing.

Amen. Its a crying shame he isn't and probably never will.

 

[Trouty]

Amen. Its a crying shame he isn't and probably never will.

It really is, Boxer.

We have a very unpopular opinion on this subject within this site. Ah well, we'll live

 

[Silver Surfer]

Percocet is an opiate. Prescribed for pain or not, opiates are opiates, and incredibly dangerous.


Weed should be allowed, Gregory should be playing.

Until it is, he should be sitting.