Jim irsay suspended 6 games, and 500k :blessed:

[mr. smoke weed]

Owners part of the team, ay what number is he?
Dude doesn't get on the field, hit his pockets-it affects him more than the team where the draft pick joint affects the team more
But, I don't think a situation will come up like this again, they should make pre-emptive rules in case

 

[FTBS]

You said this wasn't a first offense because he had a history of drug use.

I said this was his first offense in reference to NFL policy/history in which a first offense is an arrest or a failed drug test.

You then said the NFL has suspended players without being arrested.

I then pointed out the NFL has never suspended a player who wasn't arrested/failed a drug test, to my knowledge.

You then accused me of moving the goalposts.



Yes thanks for stating the obvious. My point was taking draft picks hurts/affects other members of the organization more than the person who committed the offense.

Owner don't get tested so they can't fail drug tests. Therefore his only means of getting an first offense is an arrest. How many players are already in the drug program before they get arrested, if they ever get arrested? If players didnt' get tested this recent arrest would be Gordon's first offense. So it's a bad comparison.

How are these other entities affected in a manner that the owner is not? It's his team. His chances of acquiring a face of the franchise type player are limited if you take away picks. The players are gonna play regardless and cash their checks. Coaches are gonna coach regardless and cash their checks. An owner misses out on a potential cash cow and is known as the idiot who cost his team picks because he wanted to get high. If you are about deterring certain types of behavior then deter. If not stop the charade.

 

[FTBS]

Owners part of the team, ay what number is he?
Dude doesn't get on the field, hit his pockets-it affects him more than the team where the draft pick joint affects the team more
But, I don't think a situation will come up like this again, they should make pre-emptive rules in case

If the idea is to stop the behavior then why not do both?

You are right he doesn't get on the field...he just has final say on everything regarding the organization. There is no way that person who owns something could ever be a part of it.

 

[Davin Black]

$500k and six games is bullshyt.

He should've been forced to match the profits from ticket sales out his pocket, and turn over all of that scrilla to some drug abuse charity

 

[ghostwriterx]

Owner don't get tested so they can't fail drug tests. Therefore his only means of getting an first offense is an arrest. How many players are already in the drug program before they get arrested, if they ever get arrested? If players didn't get tested this recent arrest would be Gordon's first offense. So it's a bad comparison.

Players who fail drug tests are placed in the program.

I agree its a bad comparison and its further complicated by the differences in the drug and personal conduct policies. That's why we shouldn't be comparing players to owners at all. The teams/NFL has a vested interest in regulating what players put in their bodies, not so with owners. Irsay wasn't suspended for abusing drugs, he was suspended for getting arrested while abusing drugs. That's an important distinction. Players have checked themselves into rehab for abusing drugs the NFL doesn't test for in the past without being suspended.

How are these other entities affected in a manner that the owner is not? It's his team. His chances of acquiring a face of the franchise type player are limited if you take away picks. The players are gonna play regardless and cash their checks. Coaches are gonna coach regardless and cash their checks. An owner misses out on a potential cash cow and is known as the idiot who cost his team picks because he wanted to get high. If you are about deterring certain types of behavior then deter. If not stop the charade.

You're making an assumption that the penalty and public ridicule Irsay suffered won't deter future behavior. I don't recall a string of owners being arrested for felonies like the one that preceded the league's current policy for players.

 

[FTBS]

Players who fail drug tests are placed in the program.

I agree its a bad comparison and its further complicated by the differences in the drug and personal conduct policies. That's why we shouldn't be comparing players to owners at all. The teams/NFL has a vested interest in regulating what players put in their bodies, not so with owners. Irsay wasn't suspended for abusing drugs, he was suspended for getting arrested while abusing drugs. That's an important distinction. Players have checked themselves into rehab for abusing drugs the NFL doesn't test for in the past without being suspended.



You're making an assumption that the penalty and public ridicule Irsay suffered won't deter future behavior. I don't recall a string of owners being arrested for felonies like the one that preceded the league's current policy for players.

What is the NFL/teams interest in ensuring players don't smoke weed or take any other recreational drugs? Performance enhancers are obvious.
He was suspended for public relations. And why wouldn't you suspend an owner for abusing drugs if that's road you want to go down to begin with?
Why would they suspend players for drugs they don't test for?

Frankly we don't know if it will or won't deter him because none of us are psychic. My only point has been that the punishment for an owner should at the very least be comparable and in all fairness be worse than it is for players. As you said before Irsay was never arrested before yet he has long history with drugs. Pretty sure that wasn't the first time he was in that circumstance. Point is if you are trying to protect the shield and you have made off field behavior your business then go all the way in otherwise just stop the charade.

 

[ghostwriterx]

What is the NFL/teams interest in ensuring players don't smoke weed?

Weed is still illegal most places, so that goes back to personal conduct, but I'm in agreement its complete bs that players get suspended for using it, especially considering its perfectly ok to pump them full of way more dangerous prescription pain killers. The Josh Gordon suspension was a way more egregious example of ridiculous NFL policy.

He was suspended for public relations.

Agreed, that's why this talk of deterrent is irrelevant to me. It's not clear that a deterrent is necessary.

And why wouldn't you suspend an owner for abusing drugs if that's road you want to go down to begin with?
because they don't test owners for drugs, that's never going to happen. How do you craft a policy to punish that behavior without drug testing?

Why would they suspend players for drugs they don't test for?
But you want them to do so for owners?

Frankly we don't know if it will or won't deter him because none of us are psychic. My only point has been that the punishment for an owner to should at the very least be comparable and in all fairness be worse than it is for players. As you said before Irsay was never arrested before and he has long history with drugs. Pretty sure that wasn't the first time he was in that circumstance. Point is if you are trying to protect the shield and you have made off field behavior your business then go all the way in otherwise just stop the charade.

True, but we do know the current NFL personal conduct policy is a direct reaction to a slew of high profile incidents involving players and felony arrests. You're advocating for a hammer approach to a "problem" that doesn't seem to need one.

 

[FTBS]

Weed is still illegal most places, so that goes back to personal conduct, but I'm in agreement its complete bs that players get suspended for using it, especially considering its perfectly ok to pump them full of way more dangerous prescription pain killers. The Josh Gordon suspension was a way more egregious example of ridiculous NFL policy.



Agreed, that's why this talk of deterrent is irrelevant to me. It's not clear that a deterrent is necessary.





True, but we do know the current NFL personal conduct policy is a direct reaction to a slew of high profile incidents involving players and felony arrests. You're advocating for a hammer approach to a "problem" that doesn't seem to need one.

They didn't need the policy in the first place. The whole purpose of the policy is to be a deterrent. As I said in this thread or another one, fans don't give a fukk about guys doing drugs or committing felonies as long as they get their football to drink to and gamble on each week so this idea that the league needed to institute the policy and police player conduct for the sake of their product has no merit. However since you have it everybody should be subject to it...not just the guys that put their bodies and lives on the line every week and have the shortest career shelf life.

 

[ghostwriterx]

They didn't need the policy in the first place. The whole purpose of the policy is to be a deterrent. As I said in this thread or another one, fans don't give a fukk about guys doing drugs or committing felonies as long as they get their football to drink to and gamble on each week so this idea that the league needed to institute the policy and police player conduct for the sake of their product has no merit. However since you have it everybody should be subject to it...not just the guys that put their bodies and lives on the line every week and have the shortest career shelf life.

You're kind of all over the place.

As I said in this thread or another one, fans don't give a fukk about guys doing drugs or committing felonies as long as they get their football to drink to and gamble on each week so this idea that the league needed to institute the policy and police player conduct for the sake of their product has no merit. However since you have it everybody should be subject to it...not just the guys that put their bodies and lives on the line every week and have the shortest career shelf life.

Yet, you're a fan advocating a team lose draft picks because of something an owner got a dui?

If anything you should be against all penalties.

 

[FTBS]

You're kind of all over the place.


Yet, you're a fan advocating a team lose draft picks because of something an owner got a dui?

If anything you should be against all penalties.

I made my stance pretty clear in the throughout the thread. If you are gonna have penalties, penalize everybody commensurate to their position otherwise yes don't have any penalties and get out of people's personal lives.

 

[bnm8907]

I think loosing revenue for the games or taking it and giving it to charity would be the most appropiate from a money standpoint.

 

[J-Fire]

It was just a huge outrage over the Ray Rice incident...it was huge outrage when Dante Stallworth got off for killing someone, then came back to play....hell, going all the way back it was outrage when Ray Lewis played in the Super Bowl despite being implicated in a murder that same weekend.

Talk about promulgating a "bogus myth", dawg.

Anyway....y'all talmbourt they should have taken 1st and 2nd round picks like it ONLY hurts the owner....what about the rest of the team? What about the fans? Would y'all be saying that if it was YOUR team?

Ray Lewis issue was the year before he played in the surberbowl.

 

[Based Lord Zedd]

Wait theres people who believe the colts should lose draft picks over this? Really? Who are you trying to punish?