Random Commanders Thoughts

[servumtuum]

fair enough serv....the question remains though. Do we want the courts sua sponte taking the NFL to task for Cousins whizzing in a cup at grandmas? And if the courts won't who should?

For the record, my answers are no and nobody.

Forgive me for lacking clarity, Om, and for apparently misunderstanding your statement. I wasn't suggesting the courts take action without a complainant but just making note of their jurisdictional authority in a matter of this nature.

Where fansince and I apparently share a position is in the perspective that there are reasons to believe that such a complaint may be justifiable.

 

[Boone]

For the record, I stand ready to pee for or on any of you at anytime. Just in case anyone was wondering.

 

[Goaldeje]

Uh... I feel fairly confident in saying we weren't.

But thanks.

 

[Elephant]

Yeah, Boone showed up at my photo shoot at the Mayor of Sykesville, MD's house last week to administer my random test!

 

[Neophyte]

For the record, I stand ready to pee for or on any of you at anytime. Just in case anyone was wondering.

I'll remember that next time Goal is on fire.

 

[fansince62]

I have no issues with you wanting Al's Rules of Order installed as the universal constant.

I'm just saying that's not what the parties in question agreed to. I see no injured party here.

I'm also asking if you think some outside entity 'should' force change upon the parties?

Brotha OM....I understand full well you are adopting a legalistic approach to the whole matter.

What I have been communicating, rather unsuccessfully, is that I see this as an abuse of power by the NFL. It's wrong.

There are laws all over the place, he said as a layman, that constrain the set of relationships that can exist between parties to an agreement. you know that better than I.

 

[fansince62]

Where fansince and I apparently share a position is in the perspective that there are reasons to believe that such a complaint may be justifiable.

correct. again...I'm not a lawyer (we all have standards afterall....I kid...I kid). but.....I am not familiar with many other, if any, professions in which drug testing occurs outside the workplace in actual private residences! let's explore this a bit further: the drug tester de jours shows up at your house unannounced and demands entry to administer a test. what happens if you refuse and instead state "I will travel with you to an NFL facility for administration of the test." Does the tester have the right to demand entry into the private residence? no warrant, no circumstantial evidence, etc.,.....it is, after all, a random test....and it is private property. I would assert (intuitively), as a layman, that there are some restrictions in play here.

I'll leave the Latin to you bedda educated folk!

 

[tshile]

i begged for years for the redskins to stop making big splash free agency moves.

years

now they don't and i feel weird.

 

[tshile]

re: the drug testing thing isn't new
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...-Adventures-in-NFL-drug-testing?urn=nfl,81183

cooley at the borgota, cartwright at a casino in new york, portis at a party at his mothers house, there's more interesting stuff in the post by Cooley.

When a player is drawn for a random drug test it must happen within 24 hours. It doesn't matter where that player is, the NFL will have someone track him down. If a player cannot give a sample of urine, it is counted as an automatic fail. Thus the uncomfortable situations.

the NFL wanted tests within 24 hours of drawing a name
the NFLPA didn't want players to have to up and head to NFL facilities within 24 hours out of the blue, especially during the offseason.

they compromised - the NFL will send someone to where the players are, players will give a sample within 24 hours.

seems sensible to me.

 

[CounterTrey]

FWIW pro cycling has been doing this for years, random times and places, most especially in your home.

 

[Om]

Al and serv,

I didn't make my point very well, so let me try again. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of my logic here.

Whether or not we all agree that testing Cousins in grandma's bathroom is an abuse of power, or rife with chain of custody flaws, or any other negative possibility, as far as we know the reality of the moment is that the NFL and the NFLPA signed off on it.

As a result, under the current CBA, the only way there is going to be a change in the current arrangement is if it is imposed from without.

My question is, do we, as fans and citizens, want the courts and/or our government stepping in on this very specific issue and trying to force the change?

 

[Snydershrugged]

cryptic tweet from PG. Probably means nothing but hey, ya never know...

Pierre Garçon ‏@PierreGarcon
Count them up

 

[fansince62]

Al and serv,

I didn't make my point very well, so let me try again. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of my logic here.

Whether or not we all agree that testing Cousins in grandma's bathroom is an abuse of power, or rife with chain of custody flaws, or any other negative possibility, as far as we know the reality of the moment is that the NFL and the NFLPA signed off on it.

As a result, under the current CBA, the only way there is going to be a change in the current arrangement is if it is imposed from without.

My question is, do we, as fans and citizens, want the courts and/or our government stepping in on this very specific issue and trying to force the change?

I view it just as I do the non-sense with the Skins cap: it can be challenged from within. One person has to be pissed off enough and have the *alls to challenge the system in court. there will be plenty of other organizations who jump on board once the chum is in the water - it is, after all, a monopoly that enjoys all sorts of privileged status and, often, taxpayer funded sweetheart financing deals.. the NFL is an abusive system that has morphed over the years into having one over-riding objective: making money (+ squeezing the fans either directly or indirectly). it doesn't get challenged because all parties, at the end of the day, are about the benjamins.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

correct. again...I'm not a lawyer (we all have standards afterall....I kid...I kid). but.....I am not familiar with many other, if any, professions in which drug testing occurs outside the workplace in actual private residences! let's explore this a bit further: the drug tester de jours shows up at your house unannounced and demands entry to administer a test. what happens if you refuse and instead state "I will travel with you to an NFL facility for administration of the test." Does the tester have the right to demand entry into the private residence? no warrant, no circumstantial evidence, etc.,.....it is, after all, a random test....and it is private property. I would assert (intuitively), as a layman, that there are some restrictions in play here.

I'll leave the Latin to you bedda educated folk!

As t points out - you can absolutely refuse to let them into your grandmother's house; but if you wait longer than 24 hours, you fail the drug test.

 

[Dead Money]

re: the drug testing thing isn't new
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...-Adventures-in-NFL-drug-testing?urn=nfl,81183

cooley at the borgota, cartwright at a casino in new york, portis at a party at his mothers house, there's more interesting stuff in the post by Cooley.



the NFL wanted tests within 24 hours of drawing a name
the NFLPA didn't want players to have to up and head to NFL facilities within 24 hours out of the blue, especially during the offseason.

they compromised - the NFL will send someone to where the players are, players will give a sample within 24 hours.

seems sensible to me.

I just don't see this as a big deal. Thinking the offseason rears its ugly head here with the keystrokes dedicated to this subject. I'm held to a similar standard drug test wise, and having had to report for a test while in another country, I would have appreciated them coming to me.

 

[TomE]

I'm held to a similar standard drug test wise, and having had to report for a test while in another country, I would have appreciated them coming to me.

...... and I bet you don't get paid millions per year either.

 

[Bulldog]

There is a cause of action here. Just because the union signed off on the testing regime as constituted doesn't mean it is necessarily enforceable if you look to individual states' constitution protections of privacy.

 

[Fear The Spear]

One thing I've noticed recently, is that our good friend and valuable co-member of this site, "Ax", seems to be in a much better mood in the offseason, than he is, during the regular season

I wonder why that is ?

 

[Dead Money]

You'd win that bet. I'm definitely responsible for 10's of millions (mostly liability) in many situations. Not sure where you were going with the $ reference though.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[fansince62]

As t points out - you can absolutely refuse to let them into your grandmother's house; but if you wait longer than 24 hours, you fail the drug test.

good!

then the point is established that there are restrictions on what can and cannot be enforced. I bet this bears further/deeper inspection.