Via Adam Schefter Twitter: Fred Davis, Trent Williams among 11 players facing discipline for testing positive

[Commander PK]

there are ways around drug tests, which they didnt even attempt to utilize.

Why not just don't smoke? Then you don't have to worry about "getting around" the tests. I mean, as an NFL player you get to live a life very few people ever get to, and most can only dream of. You are paid very well to entertain the paying public by playing a child's game.

is it really too much to ask that you don't smoke weed? It's not like they don't have other options. Get natural highs. During the off-season... travel...see the world. Do the things your means will allow you to do. Just follow the rules.

[Mr. Nostril]

is it really too much to ask that you don't smoke weed? It's not like they don't have other options. Get natural highs. During the off-season... travel...see the world. Do the things your means will allow you to do. Just follow the rules.

It's not a matter of "is it too much to ask." The NFL has no business asking this at all. They're not the DEA, and I don't know why they would make it their little project to go on this witch hunt.

If a player can't perform, and it's suspected that the reason why is because he uses drugs, then just cut him. It's none of the league's business to confirm their suspicion. If a player can perform, and it's suspected that he's also using weed, then keep him. If he can play he can play, and it doesn't matter what he's doing in the privacy of his home.

If a player's not performing up his potential because he's using drugs, then that sucks for the player, but the league doesn't owe him a training program for living up to his potential. That's on the player. JaMarcus Russell was never suspended for laziness.

[sacase]

It's not a matter of "is it too much to ask." The NFL has no business asking this at all. They're not the DEA, and I don't know why they would make it their little project to go on this witch hunt.

If a player can't perform, and it's suspected that the reason why is because he uses drugs, then just cut him. It's none of the league's business to confirm their suspicion. If a player can perform, and it's suspected that he's also using weed, then keep him. If he can play he can play, and it doesn't matter what he's doing in the privacy of his home.

If a player's not performing up his potential because he's using drugs, then that sucks for the player, but the league doesn't owe him a training program for living up to his potential. That's on the player. JaMarcus Russell was never suspended for laziness.

They have every right to ask this because it is an illegal substance. Whether you like it or not, there are millions of kids who look up to NFL players and the NFL is managing its image, it is a condition to playing in the NFL. There are millions of parents who don't want their kids looking up to players who are smoking weed.

Heck the NFL even bans supplements that are LEGAL.

Fact, weed is illegal and banned in the NFL. If you want to smoke weed, then don't play in the NFL. Just like if you want to smoke weed don't do it in the military or in government service. Its really very simple.

[Mr. Nostril]

They have every right to ask this because it is an illegal substance. Whether you like it or not, there are millions of kids who look up to NFL players and the NFL is managing its image, it is a condition to playing in the NFL. There are millions of parents who don't want their kids looking up to players who are smoking weed.

Heck the NFL even bans supplements that are LEGAL.

Fact, weed is illegal and banned in the NFL. If you want to smoke weed, then don't play in the NFL. Just like if you want to smoke weed don't do it in the military or in government service. Its really very simple.

First, I think that based on the system surrounding the players, and the amount of money they stand to make in the league, any cost benefit analysis would conclude that it's pretty stupid use weed while playing in the NFL. Hell, I think that it's pretty stupid to use weed under any circumstances.

But the fact that it's a stupid decision doesn't change the fact that investigations into the matter by employers should be illegal. The 4th amendment grants all US citizens protection from unreasonable searches with the promise that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. However, it's perfectly ok for employers, who's job has nothing to do with law enforcement, to require random drug tests (and "random" things are, by definition, without reason or "unreasonable") of their employees, with no warrant and no burden to show probable cause for their suspicion?

[Commander PK]

Alcohol is legal. However, I can't touch a drop within 8 hours of the beginning of my shift.

Let's say one night I'm out with some friends. The clock just passed the 8 hour mark before I'm due to report...and people are offering me drinks. That cold draft beer looks DAMN tempting. I get to thinking...the alcohol will probably be out of my system by the start of my shift...IF I have only a couple drinks......do I chance it? I mean what the **** right? Live a little.

...but then I remember that I knew when I took the job that testing positive for alcohol or other substances could cause me to lose my job. The agency does random testing and today could be the day my number is pulled. Hell no I don't chance it.

that is what these two guys should have done. Not taken the chance. Like me they stand to lose their jobs. For them if you test positive enough times, that is what can happen. Why would you put yourself in such a predicament?

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 02:45 AM ----------

But the fact that this system exists doesn't change the fact that investigations into the matter by employers should be illegal. The 4th amendment grants all US citizens protection from unreasonable searches with the promise that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. However, it's perfectly ok for employers, who's job has nothing to do with law enforcement, to require random drug tests (and "random" things are, by definition, without reason or "unreasonable") of their employees, with no warrant and no burden to show probable cause for their suspicion?

The fact that it is random makes it legal. No one individual is being singled out. The reason they do this is simple, and it's a very good one. Your decision making and effectiveness as an employee may be impaired if you drink or use. Like it or not, your employer has a right to know if you are ****ing drug addict. Well, it's only weed, it doesn't really mess people up. If that is true, then why smoke it at all? If it does nothing to your mental state, then just leave it alone. The truth is we all know it does. It only takes one time out of a hundred for something to happen.

Do you want some trucker who is high out of his mind driving a eighteen wheeler down the highway? Do you want a cop responding to a bank robbery in progress drunk? Let's say one or the other hits a family of 4 on the way killing them. If you were a family member would you want to hear. "Well, we used to do random testing for drugs and alcohol, but somebody decided the 4th amendment applies here and we can't. Maybe if he knew there was a chance he'd get caught, he wouldn't have drank or smoked before work. Sorry your family's dead. Please don't sue us for our employee's culpability."

Let's see you stand by your 4th amendment argument then.

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 02:51 AM ----------

and a piss test is not an "unreasonable search"

Your number gets pulled. You go to the lab. You pee into a cup. They tell you don't turn on the water, and don't flush the toilet. Then they run the sample through a machine that tells them if you have something in your system or not.

Your person is not being violated. Your property is not being rummaged through. A swat team didn't kick in your door, and tear your house apart.

[Mr. Nostril]

The fact that it is random makes it legal. No one individual is being singled out. The reason they do this is simple, and it's a very good one. Your decision making and effectiveness as an employee may be impaired if you drink or use. Like it or not, your employer has a right to know if you are ****ing drug addict. Well, it's only weed, it doesn't really mess people up. If that is true, then why smoke it at all? If it does nothing to your mental state, then just leave it alone. The truth is we all know it does. It only takes one time out of a hundred for something to happen.

Do you want some trucker who is high out of his mind driving a eighteen wheeler down the highway? Do you want a cop responding to a bank robbery in progress drunk? Let's say one or the other hits a family of 4 on the way killing them. If you were a family member would you want to hear. "Well, we used to do random testing for drugs and alcohol, but somebody decided the 4th amendment applies here and we can't. Maybe if he knew there was a chance he'd get caught, he wouldn't have drank or smoked before work. Sorry your family's dead. Please don't sue us for our employee's culpability."

Let's see you stand by your 4th amendment argument then.

1. I'm sure that some rhetoric along the line's of "randomness makes it legal, because no one is singled out" is the type argument that powerful organizations like the military and the NFL used when they set up systems that made them exempt from the law and constitution in certain areas, but I'm not buying it.

2. I never said that drugs even weed don't impair your judgement. They do, but I don't agree that your employer has any right to know if you're a drug addict. Or they do, only inasmuch as they affect your ability to perform your job and contribute to the success of the company. Things which can be determined on the job site.

3. Your second paragraph is a bat**** insane false dichotomy. If you're to be believed, either we randomly drug test people, or we have high truckers, drunk police officers, and a dead family of 4. If I believed that, I would be all for random drug testing as well. The danger you're trying to avoid can be prevented by regular performance evaluations. People don't just one day get super drunk or high on the job, and then start acting dangerously. People act dangerous habitually, and then one day this results in a dead family of 4. A good safety program, and safety evaluations, and safety training prevent this.

4. So, yes I do stand behind the 4th amendment on this one. If the situation you brought up happened, and a high out of his mind trucker killed a family of four, I would acknowledge that it was a tragedy, and I would at first be suspicious of the trucking company. But, if the fact's showed that the trucker was subject to evaluations, and his superiors never saw any reason to suspect him of being anything other than a law abiding citizen with a good driving record, I couldn't blame the trucking company. I would also be comforted to know that the the law would dictate that the trucker, if he survived, is going to jail for vehicular manslaughter, and he will never be able to get a job driving again. A thing that's interesting about the 4th amendment is, who does it protect? It's not law abiding citizens, because why would they be against searches, they have nothing to hide? The 4th amendment is there to protect law breakers who are also productive members of society and cause no harm to no one but themself. That's right, written into the bill of rights is a protection that says, go ahead and break the law, just don't give anyone a reason to believe you're doing it. So, if a person is using illegal drugs, and that isn't clear by their behavior in public, then no one has the right to search you for it. As long as you're keeping it to yourself, and not hurting anyone, the law doesn't care. However, if you commit a crime, then a search is warranted, and if anything is found then you're in even more trouble than you were.

5. I only bring this up because both painkiller and sacase used this phrase. But don't say, "whether you like it or not." I realize that my level of personal satisfaction with an argument doesn't affect it's truth value, and there's really no reason to specify this.

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 03:39 AM ----------

and a piss test is not an "unreasonable search"

Well, we have a difference of opinion here. I think anyone who has an active interest in what's going on with my piss is unreasonable. And I think I'm being very reasonable to not want to have to offer it up for testing. If entering my house and searching without a warrant is unreasonable search, then how is accessing fluids inside my body not?

Look at the definitions of the words from miriam webster:

Unreasonable - Not acting or governed according to reason

Random - Without definite aim, direction, rule or method

So, how is something random not unreasonable?

[Commander PK]

2. I never said that drugs even weed don't impair your judgement. They do, but I don't agree that your employer has any right to know if you're a drug addict. Or they do, only inasmuch as they affect your ability to perform your job and contribute to the success of the company. Things which can be determined on the job site.

3. Your second paragraph is a bat**** insane false dichotomy. If you're to be believed, either we randomly drug test people, or we have high truckers, drunk police officers, and a dead family of 4. If I believed that, I would be all for random drug testing as well. The danger you're trying to avoid can be prevented by regular performance evaluations. People don't just one day get super drunk or high on the job, and then start acting dangerously. People act dangerous habitually, and then one day this results in a dead family of 4. A good safety program, and safety evaluations, and safety training prevent this.

it's not an either/or...it's about taking common sense precautions. If people hadn't won law suits against companies for what their employees have done while working...things like "random drug testing" wouldn't exist in the first place. A performance evaluation is not going to pick up everything. What if you didn't start using until after you started working? What if you have been a model employee and then all of a sudden your performance just isn't what it used to be. Not so bad you should be fired...but clearly you are missing a step. Your employer has no right to ask why? Your employer has no right to look into the situation?

4. So, yes I do stand behind the 4th amendment on this one. If the situation you brought up happened, and a high out of his mind trucker killed a family of four, I would acknowledge that it was a tragedy, and I would be suspicious of the trucking company. But, if the fact's showed that he was subject to evaluations, and his superiors never saw any reason to suspect him of being anything but a law abiding citizen with a good driving record, I wouldn't be upset with the trucking company over it. I would also be comforted to that the trucker, if he survived, is going to jail for vehicular manslaughter, and he will never be able to get a job driving again. A thing that's interesting about the 4th amendment is, who does it protect? It's not law abiding citizens, because why would they be against searches, they have nothing to hide? The 4th amendment is there to protect law breakers who are also productive members of society and cause no harm to no one but themself. That's right, written into the bill of rights is a protection that says, go ahead and break the law, just don't give anyone a reason to believe you're doing it. So, if a person is using illegal drugs, and that isn't clear by their behavior in public, then no one has the right to search you for it. As long as you're keeping it to yourself, and not hurting anyone, the law doesn't care. However, if you commit a crime, then a search is warranted, and if anything is found then you're in even more trouble than you were.

Well, it's fair to say that we are so far from the realm of being on the same page, there really is no point in continuing to debate. I've never heard a more ass-backwards interpretation of the 4th amendment that the one you just provided. The 4th amendment does not say "go ahead and break the law just don't get caught." It's there to protect law-abiding citizens from a tyrannical government.

I don't believe that requiring random drug tests of employees is even in the same hemisphere as what the intent of the amendment was.

Thankfully, most people agree.

[Commander PK]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/33595/what-do-skins-do-with-these-two-dummies

Graziano's take, and as usual it's a good one. The last paragraph is particularly good.

Argue all you want about the merits of what Williams and Davis actually did to get themselves in trouble. Experience tells me that you will, and colorfully so, in the comments. But the fact is, whether you agree with the law or the NFL's rules, Williams and Davis knew the law and knew the rules and presumably knew what would happen to them if they kept getting caught. And they kept doing the drugs anyway. Which either means they don't care about being suspended and disappearing for months at a time when their teammates need them, or that they're too dumb to comprehend the consequences of their actions. Whichever it is, it's an issue for a Redskins team that's trying to build something sustainable and reliable and doesn't need new question marks popping up in places where they thought they had their problems solved.

[Slateman]

Every player in the NFL gets tested. Only the ones that failed get tested again.

[Skinsfan4life83]

Let's be fair here--in no way can failing three different drug tests be explained away as silly youthful mistakes, right? Eventually you learn your lesson and grow up, or you're a dumbass. I guess there could be a middle ground, but that seems unlikely.

It depends when the tests were taken. I just don't personally have anything against marijuana. I would rather have him test positive for that then get drunk, drive and kill somebody.

But my personal opinion aside it is kinda stupid bit with that kinda money on the line he has to step up. I have faith he will.

[Waldo da Magnificent]

4. So, yes I do stand behind the 4th amendment on this one. If the situation you brought up happened, and a high out of his mind trucker killed a family of four, I would acknowledge that it was a tragedy, and I would at first be suspicious of the trucking company. But, if the fact's showed that the trucker was subject to evaluations, and his superiors never saw any reason to suspect him of being anything other than a law abiding citizen with a good driving record, I couldn't blame the trucking company. I would also be comforted to know that the the law would dictate that the trucker, if he survived, is going to jail for vehicular manslaughter, and he will never be able to get a job driving again. A thing that's interesting about the 4th amendment is, who does it protect? It's not law abiding citizens, because why would they be against searches, they have nothing to hide? The 4th amendment is there to protect law breakers who are also productive members of society and cause no harm to no one but themself. That's right, written into the bill of rights is a protection that says, go ahead and break the law, just don't give anyone a reason to believe you're doing it. So, if a person is using illegal drugs, and that isn't clear by their behavior in public, then no one has the right to search you for it. As long as you're keeping it to yourself, and not hurting anyone, the law doesn't care. However, if you commit a crime, then a search is warranted, and if anything is found then you're in even more trouble than you were.

---------- Post added December-6th-2011 at 03:39 AM ----------

So, how is something random not unreasonable?

It is not unreasonable because the 4th Amendment does not apply if both parties to a contract agree to waive the protections. If the player, via NFLPA negotiations, agrees to random testing, the 4th Amendment does not apply to that agreement. You're entire argument is bogus, because the player agreed to the testing.

[Mr. Nostril]

It is not unreasonable because the 4th Amendment does not apply if both parties to a contract agree to waive the protections. If the player, via NFLPA negotiations, agrees to random testing, the 4th Amendment does not apply to that agreement. You're entire argument is bogus, because the player agreed to the testing.

You're right. I was actually going to respond to this with an update that was followed by a little research. 4th amendment only applies to the government, and can be waived by the consent of the person to be searched.

This doesn't really change anything about the fact that enforcement of random drug testing is invasive, unnecessary and manipulative. But the 4th amendment doesn't prohibit private companies from requesting people agree to unreasonable searches.

[Slateman]

It depends when the tests were taken. I just don't personally have anything against marijuana. I would rather have him test positive for that then get drunk, drive and kill somebody.

But my personal opinion aside it is kinda stupid bit with that kinda money on the line he has to step up. I have faith he will.

Don't know when the first positive test was. His second came from when he came to training camp. The third is believed to be sometime in late September or early October. That's what makes this so baffling. Within three months, he was doing pot again. Unbefreakinglievable.

[jaybrant]

If you're to be believed, either we randomly drug test people, or we have high truckers, drunk police officers, and a dead family of 4. If I believed that, I would be all for random drug testing as well.

Maybe you should believe this

I have been with our County Transit (paratransit) for almost ten years where we have random drug testing. I have lost co-workers only to death, retirement, or advancement to a better career. There has not been one person fired since I've been there. We have had a few that come on and have been let go immediately because they failed their drug test.

I also work part time for my family run pizza shop as a delivery driver, where there is no drug testing at all. I haven't worked with the pizza shop as long but I've been around it for about the same amount of time. I can't even count the number of employees that were fired because of drug use, selling on the job, trouble with the police, stealing from the company, stealing from each other, etc. We lost two employees to overdoses in three years. And this doesn't even include the "inside workers", I am just counting the delivery drivers. I have had drivers ask me about transit and won't even think twice about putting in an application after our conversation about it.

The jobs aren't that different. One delivers pizza, and the other delivers people. The pizza guy makes less than minimum wage (plus tips), the van driver almost doubles that. The pizza guy gets no health insurance at all, and the van driver receives full benefits.

So, why wouldn't some of these guys/girls even think about getting a job that's basically just as easy, doubles their salary, and gives them (and their family if they have one) full health benefits??? Because of the random drug tests.

[Mr. Nostril]

Maybe you should believe this

I have been with our County Transit (paratransit) for almost ten years where we have random drug testing. I have lost co-workers only to death, retirement, or advancement to a better career. There has not been one person fired since I've been there. We have had a few that come on and have been let go immediately because they failed their drug test.

I also work part time for my family run pizza shop as a delivery driver, where there is no drug testing at all. I haven't worked with the pizza shop as long but I've been around it for about the same amount of time. I can't even count the number of employees that were fired because of drug use, selling on the job, trouble with the police, stealing from the company, stealing from each other, etc. We lost two employees to overdoses in three years. And this doesn't even include the "inside workers", I am just counting the delivery drivers. I have had drivers ask me about transit and won't even think twice about putting in an application after our conversation about it.

The jobs aren't that different. One delivers pizza, and the other delivers people. The pizza guy makes less than minimum wage (plus tips), the van driver almost doubles that. The pizza guy gets no health insurance at all, and the van driver receives full benefits.

So, why wouldn't some of these guys/girls even think about getting a job that's basically just as easy, doubles their salary, and gives them (and their family if they have one) full health benefits??? Because of the random drug tests.

Without knowing the specifics of the 2 businesses, I would argue that the reason for the transit company's better record of retaining employees and not losing them due to legal issues or ODs has more to do with the higher pay, benefits, and size of the company. By making the job more desirable, through higher pay and benefits, the transit company is allowed to be more selective in their hiring process. The pizza place has to accept a lower standard for their employee. Also, I have to imagine the county transit is much larger than the pizza place, which usually means they're more concerned about liability issues. This, in turn, usually means they're more likely invest in a good safety program, proper maintenance of equipment, and providing their employees with important information.

In my life, I've worked for both a large international company, and, of all things a pizza place. And I will say the larger, better paying company was much better at retaining their employees, and none of their employees, to my knowledge, had legal problems. The large company technically had "random" drug testing, but in my years there they never used it. In one of my conversations with the district manager he said the company only ever used the random drug testing if someone was injured in an accident, in order to limit their liability. (i.e. they can say, "his working conditions weren't responsible for this accident, he was on drugs.") This isn't random at all, but that's beside the point. However, they did have a strong safety program, made people renew their certifications to drive the forklift yearly, bought steel toed shoes for employees, and replaced them whenever they were significantly worn. I once saw an employee suspended for 2 days without pay because he used a box cutter without wearing safety gloves.

And as far as drug use went, I'm sure we weren't without it (and I would highly suspect that the county transit you work for is not entirely "drug free" as well), but if someone starts to make a habit of showing up to work appearing hung over or high, they would be talked to. Not in a don't do drugs or don't drink sort of way. But in a, "you can't show up at work like this. Either figure out a way to show up ready to work, or you won't have a job." It didn't happen often, but it did the trick.

Point being drug testing is unnecessary.

[wilco_holland]

Just a question.

Let´s say I´m a NFL player and druning bye week, offseason I go home. It´s legal here to smoke the stuff, so I smoke some. They test me and I´m positief...what happens then?

Do I get suspended? Because then the NFL would say, I don't care that it is legal in the Netherlands....you play in our league, under our rules. Take it or leave it.

I could see a higher judge agree with me that that doesn't make sence. It doesn't effect my play on the field and it is totally legal.

Getting caught that many times is just stupid. Like you don't care that you get caught...they let there teammates down.

[justice98]

2. I never said that drugs even weed don't impair your judgement. They do, but I don't agree that your employer has any right to know if you're a drug addict. Or they do, only inasmuch as they affect your ability to perform your job and contribute to the success of the company. Things which can be determined on the job site.

People lose their jobs for far lesser reasons than being an addict. As an employer, I can fire you for almost anything I want, with a few exceptions, and drug use on your own time isn't one of them. You're a representative of my company, if you're doing something on your own time that I feel could negatively impact my company's reputation, or ability to conduct business effectively, I can hold it against you. You're basically saying that anything you do on your own time should never affect your employment, which is faulty reasoning. What if you get arrested for drug possession, your employer can only reprimand or fire you if it impacts your ability to do your job?

If I run a company, and we make it clear our feelings on drug use and we support anti-drug causes and such, and I find out you're a druggie, you're fired.

[GaryGreenMonk]

This doesn't really change anything about the fact that enforcement of random drug testing is invasive, unnecessary and manipulative. But the 4th amendment doesn't prohibit private companies from requesting people agree to unreasonable searches.

Doesn't matter if it is or isnt. The fact is they are being paid millions to be part of a private organization that has rules. They agreed to the rules and get paid.

You don't like their rules or procedures.. then you can quit and leave.

Your argument is not much different than players claiming they are "slaves." with the whole owner argument thing. It doesn't matter what the rules are.. because you can quit and leave and not accept them. They are only being forced upon you if you want to continue making tons of money and be a part of the NFL.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Cops come and try to snatch my crops.

(Seriously, did this thread really devolve into a debate on legalization?)

[NavyDave]

First, I think that based on the system surrounding the players, and the amount of money they stand to make in the league, any cost benefit analysis would conclude that it's pretty stupid use weed while playing in the NFL. Hell, I think that it's pretty stupid to use weed under any circumstances.

But the fact that it's a stupid decision doesn't change the fact that investigations into the matter by employers should be illegal. The 4th amendment grants all US citizens protection from unreasonable searches with the promise that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. However, it's perfectly ok for employers, who's job has nothing to do with law enforcement, to require random drug tests (and "random" things are, by definition, without reason or "unreasonable") of their employees, with no warrant and no burden to show probable cause for their suspicion?

So when the employees injure or kill someone driving a schoolbus, water taxi, tug boat,metrobus, cough subway train "cough" on the Redline or Green line or truck while high on weed, the employer aka Business should not be held liable for the employees negligent behaviour, right?

I do not care if the the stupid kill themselves with drugs including alcohol or harm themselves physically as long as the tax payers are not on the hook for their foolish choices.

But then we would be labelled as cold hearted and not having compassion for the ignorant, selfish types.

[Commander PK]

Cops come and try to snatch my crops.

(Seriously' date=' did this thread really devolve into a debate on legalization?)[/quote']

No

it devolved into a debate about whether or not "random drug tests" violate the 4th amendment.

Like I said earlier, I don't care one way or the other if marijuana is legal. Makes no difference to me, because I won't smoke it regardless. One day it will probably be legal. Public opinion about marijuana seems to be shifting. However, it's not legal yet, and Williams and Davis knew when they signed on the dotted line to play in the NFL what the deal was. They made the choice to smoke up anyway.

Now they and the team have to pay for their poor decisions.

[Rickc402]

I guess all those people posting that Cooley is a goner can take their jersey's off ebay. We can't get rid of a teamplayer thats not a piss test away from being suspended for a year.

---------- Post added December-8th-2011 at 07:46 AM ----------

Dude get with the program, drug testing has been going on for decades and is becoming more and more widely used. Don't use drugs and don't drink alcohol it's a simple as that. I enjoy a beer every now and then, but damn it's all about self control. These two don't get it. I wish we could trade them both. After all the struggles the Redskins brand has endured in regards to Dexter Manly, this can't have come to these two college grads as a bolt from the blue! Besides they were even warned my the NFL once already! My Union won't give me a warning, I'll lose my job, period.