Either way this isn't something that will bump them into the drug program.

 

You've already been shown that it can.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I know this is extremely nit-picky but the USA Today article didn't state that she actually saw any of the players hit the bong. Just that she was told to hit it.


Could be none of them did, or only one of them did - who knows?

I know, but it is pretty obvious that they were probably all smoking. It isnt definite, but most likely.

---

You've already been shown that it can.

You haven't shown anything of substance as usual.

---

I know, but it is pretty obvious that they were probably all smoking. It isnt definite, but most likely.

If what she says is true.

---

I know, but it is pretty obvious that they were probably all smoking. It isnt definite, but most likely.

 

I agree, I'm sure we all do, but isn't this a "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove" type of thing? Something like that, anyway.

---

Good reason isn't someone that doesn't work for you claiming the employee was doing drugs off the job.

 

Yes, it certainly is.

 

He's no stock boy at the local grocer.  He's a multi millionaire football player who's going to have a tough time selling the team on a big extension now.  The Steelers came within a hair fiber of cutting bait with their QB over off-the-job "allegations."  In fact, he was suspended without even being convicted of a crime.

 

Here's an introduction for you to the rule:

 

"Behavior, including but not limited to an arrest related to an alleged misuse of substances of abuse, which, in the judgment of the Medical Director, exhibits physical, behavioral, or psychological signs or symptoms of misuse of substances of abuse."

 

It will be the Medical Director's discretion what happens.  Not yours or mine.

 

Being in the presence of a bong full of marijuana certainly fits the bill.  Certainly enough to be suspicious behavior.  So again, we'll see.  At best, he's put himself in a bad position and postponed any momentum he may have had towards a contract extension.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

You haven't shown anything of substance as usual.

No, unfortunately that's your run for the hills strategy.  Even when proven flat wrong.  Need we go over the list again, again...?  You'll only continue to deny.  It's all you've got.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Yes, it certainly is.

 

He's no stock boy at the local grocer.  He's a multi millionaire football player who's going to have a tough time selling the team on a big extension now.  The Steelers came within a hair fiber of cutting bait with their QB over off-the-job "allegations."  In fact, he was suspended without even being convicted of a crime.

 

Here's an introduction for you to the rule:

 

"Behavior, including but not limited to an arrest related to an alleged misuse of substances of abuse, which, in the judgment of the Medical Director, exhibits physical, behavioral, or psychological signs or symptoms of misuse of substances of abuse."

 

It will be the Medical Director's discretion what happens.  Not yours or mine.

 

Being in the presence of a bong full of marijuana certainly fits the bill.  Certainly enough to be suspicious behavior.  So again, we'll see.  At best, he's put himself in a bad position and postponed any momentum he may have had towards a contract extension.

Someone making an allegation isn't the same as "exhibits physical, behavioral, or psychological signs or symptoms of misuse of substances of abuse."

 

Unless, of course, they were the Medical Director which I am pretty sure she isn't.

---

No, unfortunately that's your run for the hills strategy.  Even when proven flat wrong.  Need we go over the list again, again...?  You'll only continue to deny.  It's all you've got.

 


Kind of like your straw man argument where you throw out what happened to Roethlisberger as if it has any bearing on whether or not someone gets put into the NFL drug program because you lack anything of substance in your argument.

 


 

---

Someone making an allegation isn't the same as "exhibits physical, behavioral, or psychological signs or symptoms of misuse of substances of abuse."

 

Unless, of course, they were the Medical Director which I am pretty sure she isn't.

 

Just like the pesky witnesses who made allegations against Roethlisberger, the pesky witnesses who were with and around Hernandez, and the pesky witnesses around Marcus Vick.

 

I have to hand it to you.  You really do never give up even when obviously defeated.

 

Simply being around a bong full of marijuana is plenty enough to show suspicion of behavioral signs or symptoms of misuse of substances of abuse.  Any potential use is deemed a misuse, as they aren't supposed to be around it at all.

 

Nah.  They just keep 'em lit just in case the guests are interested.  You're like the kid who has crumbs all over his face, hand in the jar, and denies eating a cookie.

 

He's going under the microscope by the team, whether on or off the program, and he should.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

 

Kind of like your straw man argument where you throw out what happened to Roethlisberger as if it has any bearing on whether or not someone gets put into the NFL drug program because you lack anything of substance in your argument.

 

 
 

 

It's no strawman.  It did happen.  It's about conduct, and yes... once again, the language clearly states it's the discretion of the NFL whether or not he goes into the program.  Spin all you like, it's an exercise in futility.  You'll never admit being wrong.  Never have.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I always knew this would happen

---

Just like the pesky witnesses who made allegations against Roethlisberger, the pesky witnesses who were with and around Hernandez, and the pesky witnesses around Marcus Vick.

 

I have to hand it to you.  You really do never give up even when obviously defeated.

 

Simply being around a bong full of marijuana is plenty enough to show suspicion of behavioral signs or symptoms of misuse of substances of abuse.  Any potential use is deemed a misuse, as they aren't supposed to be around it at all.

 

Nah.  They just keep 'em lit just in case the guests are interested.  You're like the kid who has crumbs all over his face, hand in the jar, and denies eating a cookie.

 

He's going under the microscope by the team, whether on or off the program, and he should.

None of your examples has anything to do with the NFL's substance abuse policy.

 

How can you possibly win an argument when you can't even back up your discussion with relevant facts?

 

So someone of dubious credibility says he is around a bong and that is him showing behavioral signs? All that shows is maybe she has been spending too much time around a bong.

---

It's no strawman.  It did happen.  It's about conduct, and yes... once again, the language clearly states it's the discretion of the NFL whether or not he goes into the program.  Spin all you like, it's an exercise in futility.  You'll never admit being wrong.  Never have.

It's a strawman because I have already said that if he gets in trouble with the league it will be based on the assault charges not because of drug use.

 

He's not going into the drug program for someone saying he was around drugs. Heck, Martin, Pouncey, and Incognito didn't get put into the drug program and they had text implicating themselves for drug use.

---

How dumb do you have to be to read this article and get fixed on whether or not these guys will get into the drug program.

 

If she turns out to be a credible witness, as your pea-brain seems to already determined, then drug programs will be the least of their problems.

---

It's a strawman because I have already said that if he gets in trouble with the league it will be based on the assault charges not because of drug use.

 

He's not going into the drug program for someone saying he was around drugs. Heck, Martin, Pouncey, and Incognito didn't get put into the drug program and they had text implicating themselves for drug use.

 

You don't know they aren't in the program.  You won't unless there's a follow up violation.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

You don't know they aren't in the program.  You won't unless there's a follow up violation.

Well obviously, according to your vast brilliance, they would have to be.

---

How dumb do you have to be to read this article and get fixed on whether or not these guys will get into the drug program.

 

If she turns out to be a credible witness, as your pea-brain seems to already determined, then drug programs will be the least of their problems.

 

Aww.. I see the butthurt has arrived... being around drugs is the immediate, low hanging fruit of the entire story so far.  If you weren't dim you would have immediately caught that.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

None of your examples has anything to do with the NFL's substance abuse policy.

 

It has to do with the conduct policy, which is directly related to the substance abuse policy ("behavior" being the common link.)

 

There is league discretion when it comes to conduct, both in substance abuse and general behavior policies and it doesn't require charges or conviction for teams or the league to take action they deem appropriate.  You've been trying to weasel your way out of the truth all along, but that's the bottom line.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Aww.. I see the butthurt has arrived... being around drugs is the immediate, low hanging fruit of the entire story so far.  If you weren't dim you would have immediately caught that.

What is this? An "I know you are but what am I"?

 

You always fall back on that every time I rip you a new one.

 

Heck, with all the new ones as I have ripped you, awww don't look so sad.

---