Again, nobody is forcing anything. A rule is in place, but only becomes relevant if the player decides to do something they shouldn't. It's all up to the player. Your slavery comparison is horrendous. Nobody had the option of becoming a slave, NFL players certainly have the option of ignoring drugs.
They have the option of quitting the league too. If they don't, then yes. Slavery.
At least some of the idiots on this board are idiots on purpose in an attempt to be funny. What's really bad are the idiots that truly don't realize they are idiots.
I'm not sure you recognize the irony of your post.
They have the option of quitting the league too. If they don't, then yes. Slavery.
If only all those slaves knew they had the option of not being slaves, things could have been so different!Your comparison will forever be absurd.
They have the option of quitting the league too. If they don't, then yes. Slavery.
If only all those slaves knew they had the option of not being slaves, things could have been so different!Your comparison will forever be absurd.
Your post is a complete non sequitur.
My post is just fine. You claim to agree with personal accountability, yet I'm not entirely sure you know what it means You keep using the word "force", implying the players have no choice in the matter. That, of course, is total BS. You're attempting to take the responsibility away from the player, and put it on the league...and call it slavery. In other words, you're really in favor of the exact opposite of what you claim to believe in. If something like this were implemented I guarantee drug use around the league would practically disappear. But hey, why solve something when we can come up with petty "programs" that do absolutely nothing? Slavery. Unreal.
I know perfectly well what personal accountability means. I just also know what labor practices are appropriate, acceptable, legal, and would have a chance in hell of getting through collective bargaining.
This sucks...Spence had a good year.
I didn't say it will get implemented, I said it should. And it should. You're against it because you think it's slavery, not because you think it wouldn't pass. Btw, saying the league is "forcing" someone to play without pay is exactly the same as saying the league forced someone to pick up a joint. But again, in this "progressive" liberal society we live in, solving something is never the goal. I'm not real shocked at the responses in this thread, it's just par for the course in this broken country of ours. Hello sir, you've been purchased and are now a slave. Um, I choose to opt out. Okay, you're free to go. LOL
I didn't say it will get implemented, I said it should. And it should. You're against it because you think it's slavery, not because you think it wouldn't pass. Btw, saying the league is "forcing" someone to play without pay is exactly the same as saying the league forced someone to pick up a joint. But again, in this "progressive" liberal society we live in, solving something is never the goal. I'm not real shocked at the responses in this thread, it's just par for the course in this broken country of ours. Hello sir, you've been purchased and are now a slave. Um, I choose to opt out. Okay, you're free to go. LOL
Well, yes, I'm against it because it strikes me as being horribly unethical, but I sincerely don't think that there's a chance that it would pass. I mean, seriously, putting aside the ethical considerations, can you seriously see the NFLPA agreeing to such a thing? And they would definitely have to.And let's be clear, with the last bit, are you saying the player could just quit when the league tried to tell them that they were going to have to play for a year without pay? In that case, I'd actually agree that it's not slavery. I'd still be deeply dubious over its legality and certain that it would never get through collective bargaining, but I'll rescind the slavery comparisons. That is not, however, what you had previously said. You may have meant to imply it, but I was simply taking your "Yep, you have to play for free." at face value.(Edited to add: again, I'll note that I have no inherent problem with the idea of suspension without pay or being fired for drug use/possession. That's what would happen in the "real world" vice the professional sports world. I really don't have issues with personal responsibility. I have issues with people having to work for a year without compensation.)
I didn't say it will get implemented, I said it should. And it should. You're against it because you think it's slavery, not because you think it wouldn't pass. Btw, saying the league is "forcing" someone to play without pay is exactly the same as saying the league forced someone to pick up a joint. But again, in this "progressive" liberal society we live in, solving something is never the goal. I'm not real shocked at the responses in this thread, it's just par for the course in this broken country of ours. Hello sir, you've been purchased and are now a slave. Um, I choose to opt out. Okay, you're free to go. LOL
Well, yes, I'm against it because it strikes me as being horribly unethical, but I sincerely don't think that there's a chance that it would pass. I mean, seriously, putting aside the ethical considerations, can you seriously see the NFLPA agreeing to such a thing? And they would definitely have to.And let's be clear, with the last bit, are you saying the player could just quit when the league tried to tell them that they were going to have to play for a year without pay? In that case, I'd actually agree that it's not slavery. I'd still be deeply dubious over its legality and certain that it would never get through collective bargaining, but I'll rescind the slavery comparisons. That is not, however, what you had previously said. You may have meant to imply it, but I was simply taking your "Yep, you have to play for free." at face value.
If that's the misunderstanding, then I'll apologize for my remarks.Yes, of course the player could quit. I didn't state that because I felt it was obvious, which is why I couldn't believe your responses. If a player chooses to blatantly ignore rules, his (or her, I don't want to offend progressives) only option of staying in the league is to do so unpaid. That's why I initially said they all claim to play for the love of the game...let them prove it. If they want to leave the game, cool. Basically it's smoke pot and play for free/find other work, or don't smoke pot and stay and make lots of money. The system would work, no doubt about it.
Gibson is a free agent and the Bucs have no true nose behind Spence (Landri will fit nicely in the new scheme). It looks like the Bucs are drafting a NT.
Good deal, glad we were able to come to an understanding. I really *did* hate to be That Guy. I normally despise the whole pro-sports-as-slavery comparison, since the players always have the option of putting that college degree they all had the opportunity to use to work and getting an 8-5 like the rest of us schlubs. My apologies.
And to answer your question about it passing or not, of course not. It would never pass. Because the NFL is about money and nothing more. With the number of players that get busted each year smoking pot or using some other drug, they'd run the risk of having star players leave the league. If the goal was to stop drug use, it would pass, but that will never be the ultimate goal.
