- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sam Montgomery Passes Drug Test
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:11 am to RollTigers
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:11 am to RollTigers
quote:So is an ESPN report or Houston justifying releasing a player who has been hurt most of this season.
Drug tests for marijuana have almost zero informational value if they come back negative. The shampoo is too easy to get, piss is easy to get, etc. I neither believe nor disbelieve Sam, but that drug test is meaningless.
Questionable Drug Test >>>>> ESPN
0
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:11 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Average cost of house in the neighborhood is maybe $350k.
hmmmmm....that's ballin for a state worker
I honestly don't know why they are so pissed at you.
ETA: its obvious they cut Sam due to poor work ethic/performance. I don't fault them, but a court of law and the NFLPA will torch them due to the manner in which they did it.
Did Sam smoke or not is actually moot at this point because "testing" says no.
This post was edited on 10/24/13 at 10:13 am
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:28 am to CharlesLSU
I sense that Saul Goodman may have played a part in this.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:32 am to pensacola
Did they test Sam for Ho-Ho's?
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:33 am to cafeaulait19
Have you seen the type of journalism that ESPN puts out? It's sensationalist to the max. They catch something downwind and run with it.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:34 am to CharlesLSU
quote:Since its an "independent" test and not sactioned by the NFL or NFLPA Im assuming it wont be considered. But admittedly, Im just talking out of my arse.
Did Sam smoke or not is actually moot at this point because "testing" says no.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:44 am to The Mick
I assure you if it was an nfl drug test there is no bringing a bottle of piss trickery. They make you drop em to the ankles and watch the stream come out of your penis.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:46 am to The Mick
Jumpin' in here late. Couple of things about drug tests. The pros are subject to the 360, knees to nipples with a bend. The collector stands no less than 10 feet from the donor. Face to face.
360 = complete turn
Nipples to knees = Naked from your nipples to your knees.
Now how do you beat these tests?
Whoever said tests other than league sanctioned is correct.
Finally, the old adage in drug testing is "Never test someone twice" That means, if you see someone smoking weed, don't bother testing him.
Regards
360 = complete turn
Nipples to knees = Naked from your nipples to your knees.
Now how do you beat these tests?
Whoever said tests other than league sanctioned is correct.
Finally, the old adage in drug testing is "Never test someone twice" That means, if you see someone smoking weed, don't bother testing him.
Regards
Posted on 10/24/13 at 10:54 am to Texas ellessu
This post has been marked unreadable!
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:09 am to Texas ellessu
quote:WTF is this supposed to mean?
Finally, the old adage in drug testing is "Never test someone twice" That means, if you see someone smoking weed, don't bother testing him.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:09 am to Sid in Lakeshore
Hair test. Not "folical" is below skin surface. They don't pluck, just snip or shave. BTW, when it comes to THC, hair testing results are suspect.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:12 am to The Mick
simple, if you see someone smoking dope, why waste money on test. Saw a principal screw up by suggesting mom get kid tested. THC wasn't present in urine. Principal looked stupid. (THC not present in urine for about 6 hours) Principal shouldn't have "tested" the kid twice. Once (with eyes) was enough. Whey test Sam later? What's that gonna prove?
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:15 am to Texas ellessu
Can you relay this to Sam's case specifically. Im still not following you. (unless you're saying Sam ran to the lab and got tested before the 6-hour timeframe elapsed ??)
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:22 am to The Mick
Yes, When people get in trouble with an employer's substance abuse policy, they often run out and get their own test to show they are not violating the policy. Employers almost always ignore them. The PA and the Owners agree to certain testing procedures. Anything else is only good for publicity. I don't think they wasted the time to test Sam and the others. I'm guessing they weren't smoking Arturo Fuentes. Probably some swisher sweets with the hole. Again, visual was a test. They failed, why complicate matters with a urine test?
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:33 am to The Mick
If you saw them smoking it is clear that he was using drugs.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:34 am to Texas ellessu
interesting
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:48 am to The Mick
I don't know why he been witch hunt.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:48 am to The Mick
RE: If you saw them smoking it is clear that he was using drugs.
Yes, of course it was clear. Unless you want me to be naïve.
Yes, of course it was clear. Unless you want me to be naïve.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:52 am to The Mick
quote:
Since its an "independent" test and not sactioned by the NFL or NFLPA Im assuming it wont be considered.
...that's the rub.....they'll dismiss it.
Posted on 10/24/13 at 11:54 am to CharlesLSU
Even if he wanted to take an official one, since he wasnt actually caught via the agreed upon testing policy, the NFLPA wouldnt let him take another test (I wouldnt think).
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News