- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Suspensions (if any) not to be known till game?
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:14 am to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:14 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
It’s such a shitty policy
I agree, weed should be legalized. However, if the rule’s in place, and you break it, you deserve all the punishment coming your way.
quote:
Rules should reflect team values and if you poll that locker room, you’d find overwhelming support for mj use
Yeahhhh...that’s not how this works.
1
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:14 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Someone fill me in...
He said a handful of players (with one being a starter) would likely be suspended for a couple of games. He also implied that it's not a huge issue according to the people he has spoken to. As far as I know this "6-game" thing is a function of the rumor mill and did not come from the (apparently) reliable VT.
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:18 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:15 am to LouisianaLonghorn
Yea if it’s LSU compliance then it shouldn’t be that hard to just bench a guy for scrub games
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:15 am to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:
That's an LSU compliance policy and not an NCAA policy, correct? If so, I think that Woodward needs to get a handle on this ASAP. Isn't a six game suspension especially severe, unless it's a recurring issue? Depending on who the player is, it could derail the entire season.
The guy had multiple chances to get right so I agree it is on him.
I just hate the rule. Give me one reason why a football player should be banned from smoking marijuana. Better yet give me one reason why a football player should be tested for smoking marijuana. If they show up to practice baked out of the minds then that’s one thing but what they do on their own time is their business.
And forget the “it’s the law argument“. Do we really want private employers or schools testing every one of their people to see if they’ve broken any laws? What makes marijuana use any worse than Breaking other laws which there currently is no test?
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:18 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:18 am to TigerBert
They shouldn't even be required to go to school to play football in college. There's so much money involved now these kids are go through the ringer to have to concentrate on academics and football. School should be a voluntary option
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:19 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:18 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
I just hate the rule.
I do too, and I hate the laws on it as well.
quote:
Give me one reason why a football player should be banned from smoking marijuana. Better yet give me one reason why a football player should be tested for smoking marijuana.
Again, I personally agree with you. But these are the rules set in place by the school, the SEC, and the NCAA. He knew the consequences of his actions and did it anyway. He deserves the punishment. Especially if this is a multiple occurrence thing for him.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:19 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Yeahhhh...that’s not how this works.
But why not?
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:21 am to Guava Jelly
quote:Agreed. There is an issue with complying with law
This is a compliance issue.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:23 am to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:
That's an LSU compliance policy and not an NCAA policy, correct?
Six game suspension is an NCAA policy, not LSU. If they pop you, you lose half a season.
Bama has players who tested positive for mj before the playoffs who still have 4 more games to serve this season.
If the suspensions are for fewer games, then they likely failed a school mandated test.
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:26 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:24 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
But why not?
Because player disciplinary policy reflects NCAA and institutional values, not "team" values. Those policies are set by the AD and enforced by compliance. Players do not, and should not, have input on the rules to which they're bound. This ain't a democracy.
Having said that, the policy is going to look awful stupid after federal prohibition is lifted.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:25 am to Nughuffer
quote:
Agreed. There is an issue with complying with law
What makes this law any more significant than other laws? Why should a non-govt organization that does not deal in hazardous work care about mj use?
The only answer is that in previous generations there was a negative stigma about having too many smokers on your team. I believe that stigma has become irrelevant. Especially within the African-American community
I am not excusing his behavior. He obviously broke the rules he needs to be held accountable. I just believe that the rules should be reviewed periodically and altered to reflect the changing cultural norms
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:27 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:30 am to SoloTiger
quote:
can't recall if a 6 game suspension is due to 3 or only 2 failed tests
6 can be for a 3rd failed drug test inside of a 6 month period or 1 failed PED test.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:30 am to Nughuffer
quote:
Agreed. There is an issue with complying with law
There has been no mention of player arrest. The only thing involved here is a player allegedly popping a drug test. We do not have sufficient facts necessary to determine (1) whether a player has actually popped a drug test; (2) what substance the supposedly failed drug test(s) detected; or (3) where or how those substances are consumed.
If there is a player suspended for popping a drug test, it is an with compliance with institutional and NCAA policy. It is not an issue with violation of the "law."
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:33 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:32 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:So this would only apply to people who sit in an office all day and do not drive on public roads serving any function on behalf of the company.
Why should a non-govt organization that does not deal in hazardous work care about mj use?
I'll agree a secretary probably doesn't need to be drug tested, but if you do anything exposing you to the public or could have risk of injury, allowing drug use is going to get any organization destroyed in court.
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 10:33 am
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:41 am to Nughuffer
quote:
allowing drug use is going to get any organization destroyed in court.
There's a fundamental distinction between not having policies in place to ensure that employees are not intoxicated while at work and a policy that dictates employees' out-of-work conduct. Latent metabolic markers for cannabis use can remain in a person's urine for several days and tests often do not distinguish between the "type" of product consumed.
So, an organization that does not have a zero tolerance policy for out-of-work cannabis use would not on its own be enough for it to be "destroyed" in court.
This post was edited on 8/28/19 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:42 am to TigerBert
If I remember correctly from previous openers under O. They are not made public until day of.
That was the case for Miami last year and BYU
That was the case for Miami last year and BYU
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:43 am to Guava Jelly
quote:How would you be able to prove the employee wasn't high when the accident occurred?
Latent metabolic markers for cannabis use can remain in a person's urine for several days and tests often do not distinguish between the "type" of product consumed.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:47 am to Nughuffer
quote:
How would you be able to prove the employee wasn't high when the accident occurred?
The fun thing about tort law is that it's the plaintiff's burden to prove that the defendant was high at the time of an accident, not the defendant's responsibility to prove that he wasn't.
Also, saliva tests are the general mode of drug testing for accidents in the legal context. Saliva (like blood) is a much more reliable indicator of whether a person is presently intoxicated. I would bet my last dime that, if this is a drug testing issue, a urinalysis was used.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 10:50 am to TigerBert
In past year no announcement was made for these types of infractions because they aren’t ever made public. They won’t be dressed out though and then word of mouth will spread quickly.
Posted on 8/28/19 at 11:06 am to Tigeralum2008
Its not a bad policy. Theyre trying to make these kids responsible, dependable adults. If theyve grown up smoking, they had bad parenting. PERIOD.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News