What's your opinion on this? Anderson suspended for substance abuse

[Hawkeye-X]

DENVER -- Denver Broncos fullback Mike Anderson has been suspended for four games for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy, the league said Tuesday.

Anderson will lose about $317,000 of his $1.35 million salary and won't be eligible to return until after Denver's Dec. 8 game against Kansas City. The NFL did not detail the violation.

Anderson told The Denver Post the positive test was for marijuana, but that he inhaled nothing more than secondhand smoke. He also presented evidence from a toxicologist in an appeal to the NFL.

more

I feel that Anderson has been cheated from the NFL -- secondhand smoke and low toxicology score on MJ is his proof. He has blue-collar work ethics and is from the Marines. It was a surprise to everyone involved with the Broncos team, myself included.

The attorney he picked is one of the best - Harvey Steinberg also defended Bill Romanowski on the pill thing, and won.

He is also my attorney.

Hawkeye-X

[denverbill]

1. Romanowski deserved to be convicted.

This is a tougher call, IMO.

I have no clue what his level was. He shouldn't be banned if he got it via second-hand smoke and the level was consistant with that. Maybe one game max. I agree with you about Anderson. He's a good guy.

[VermontDem2004]

4. I don't think he should be suspended at all

Even if he smoked 3 pounds during the bye week.

[bobja]

2. This doesn't wash

There is not enough THC in second hand marijuana smoke to show up on any test, as far as I know.

[mac56]

12. I agree, bobja.

Second hand THC is a convenient alibi. When I did CD screenings, I heard too many stories to count from people who didn't smoke any weed - - they were just in the van on the way to the concert when the joint was passed around - - - or were in the fish house on the frozen lake, and couldn't step away because it was so cold outside - - Horse hockey.

[short bus president]

13. sure there is

the tests are pure unadulturated crap. The manufacturers know it, the doctors who issue them know it - the only people who don't know it are the ones who make assinine policies based on the meaningless results. This goes for the blood tests and the urine tests - sheer crap. Meaningless.

I've had blood drawn for marijuana testing 15 minutes after polishing off a joint from a bag I'd been smoking for weeks, having not had a day without smoking in years, and came up negative. The tests mean nothing.

[dutchdemocrat]

19. You have not been in a coffee shop

In Holland I take it. I don't smoke and I came out of one ripped out of my head the other day. THC levels are getting out of control and the strong Nederweed is almost like a hard drug now.

If anyone was smoking BC or Washington skunk in a small room he may have gotten high.

[mac56]

20. Catching a buzz from second hand smoke? Possibly.

Spiking a positive test? Highly doubtful.

[VermontDem2004]

3. Even if he smoked it I don't care

He is one of the best fullbacks in the game today and also makes a solid running back, refer to his rookie season for an example. Some of the best players in the league today violated substance abuse policy by smoking marijuana. It is not a performance enhancing drug so I don't see a reason why the NFL cares if it's players are smoking marijuana.

On edit: He is good guy on and off the field despite he may smoke marijuana.

[Catholic Sensation]

8. uh... image?

Player tests positive for marijuana...
NFL says "we don't care"...
Hmmm I wonder what could possibly happen

Should the NFL let people do angle dust as well? That's not a performance enhancer either.

[VermontDem2004]

10. I am saying don't test for Marijuana

Whether someone smokes or not is none of my business and sure as hell not the NFL's business. Angel Dust? What does that have to do with marijuana? Since alcohol is more harmfull the NFL doesn't care whether or not athletes drink.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. OMG Marijuana?

Lock him up! THrow away the key! How dishonest of him! We all know how HARMFUL marijuana is, and how it's a PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drug! He was obviously smoking it (or second-hand smoking it) to better his 40 yard dash and to put on muscle mass. Marijuana is devil-smoke, every molecule has little Satan molecules in it that make the lung-cells pledge allegiance to Satan and his minions.

[VermontDem2004]

7. My thoughts exactly

[mac56]

14. Come on now.

Dude makes a pretty good salary, and knew the terms and conditions of employment before he signed up.

[VermontDem2004]

16. What does that have to do with anything?

[mac56]

18. It means he had reason to anticipate he could be tested.

And that his playing time (and paycheck) depends on a clean result.

If he used, he made that choice with those facts in mind. He obviously decided to risk the consequences.

If you or I had the same rules at our workplace, we'd probably think twice about toking up, especially if our paychecks were the size of his.

See above for my take on "second hand smoke".

[VermontDem2004]

22. Every NFL player knows he will get suspended for testing positive

But that is not my point, he is not running faster in the 40 yard dash, he is not pushing more weights off his chest, etc as a result for smoking marijuana.

[mac56]

26. huh?

Now I get to ask: what does that have to do with anything?

[VermontDem2004]

30. Forget it

Me and you are definately not on the same page.

[amazona]

6. my opinion is it shouldn't matter

Since marijuana is not a performance enhancing drug, it is not like he is somehow cheating his opponents. So I'm not clear on why anyone should be suspended on such an accusation in the first place.

[VermontDem2004]

9. I agree

[Catholic Sensation]

11. Marijuana is an illegal drug

since it's illegal, the NFL can't condone its players using it, this isn't Amsterdam

Once again I pose the question, since Angle Dust isn't a performance enhancer, should they not test for that also?

[VermontDem2004]

15. I am just saying don't test for it

NFL doesn't have to say "I support this athlete smoking it" The NFL won't go to jail if they don't drug test athletes.

[Catholic Sensation]

17. See, Mike Anderson smoking pot affects more than Anderson

if he comes to practice high, he could be disoriented, could get injured, and where's Denver now?

let's say he gets caught with a dime bag, and is arrested. Denver not only has an image problem, but is again, missing their fullback. Where were you people last week when Cleveland suspended William Green by the way?

[VermontDem2004]

21. Huh?

Denver's practices are not even like that, the player gets the ball is just touched with two hands to signal he was down. I used to watch Bronco's practices when I was in Colorado. Plus I never heard of players getting injured in practice due to the fact they were high.

I wouldn't worry too much about image, most teams want to win games and get to the Super Bowl and win that as well too. My problem is no one should be getting arrested for having a dime bag and none of what you said has to do with the NFL substance abuse policy.
Where were you people last week when Cleveland suspended William Green by the way?
I posted the article.

[Catholic Sensation]

24. Marijuana is an illegal drug (again)

The NFL substance abuse policy makes ILLEGAL substances part of what they test. If marijuana isn't illegal, then yes, they shouldn't be testing. But we don't live in Holland, and weed won't be legalized anytime soon, so the NFL is simply doing its job.

[VermontDem2004]

27. I know it's illegal

So don't bold it for me. I am saying the NFL should drug test for performance enhancing drug. I know how the substance abuse policy drug tests for illegal substances, I am suggesting drug test for performance enhancing products only. If you disagree with it fine, but you don't have to bold out illegal.

[Catholic Sensation]

29. that point seems to be eluding you

which is why i put it in bold. The NFL is protecting its players. If the NFL didn't test for illegal drugs, what would stop players from doing cocaine, heroine, crack, and other hardcore narcotics?

[VermontDem2004]

32. Drug testing isn't obviously stopping the players

They have plenty of opportunities to smoke that stuff in the offseason and in the regular season because they randomly drug test which means they don't drug test the same player on a weekly basis. Oh yes the NFL must protect the players from the evil green, it seems like they aren't trying real hard to protect their players from alcohol which is more dangerous then Marijuana.

[Catholic Sensation]

36. And the idiots doing drugs

are getting suspended when they're caught, which is fine with me.

The NFL suspends/fines players who get caught driving drunk, and apparently you forgot about the legal issue, so my putting illegal in bold seems like it was necessary. I think I need to diagram it for you:

Alcohol = not illegal if 21 or older
Driving under the influence or intoxicated = illegal, players are suspended and fined for this

Marijuana = illegal (you seem to be missing this point)
If the NFL suspends and fines players for DUI and DWI, they suspend people for doing marijuana.

You should be mad at Anderson for being stupid enough to get caught.

[VermontDem2004]

40. ugh you are missing my point

I know they suspend players for DUI but they don't test for alcohol usage, it is more deadly then Marijuana, I thought the NFL were protecting it's players.


Marijuana = illegal (you seem to be missing this point)
Marijuana usage is not illegal and especially in the state of Colorado. Possession and distrubution is illegal and in Colorado possession of less the one ounce will get you a small fine. Anderson didn't do anything illegal, usage is not illegal, I can be high as hell in front a cop but he can't do nothing unless I have marijuana on me.

[Catholic Sensation]

42. The NFL doesn't set its rules for each individual state

The NFL goes by federal laws, because it is easier, and according to the country's laws, Marijuana is an illegal substance. How the hell are you going to smoke the drug without possesing it at one point anyway?

[VermontDem2004]

46. That doesn't matter

Possesion is illegal and smoking it isn't. He was suspended 4 games for usage because he tested positive, he was not suspended for possessing it. He may have possessed it at one point but you have to be caught with possession to be arrested for possession.

[Catholic Sensation]

47. before I make this point

is it illegal for someone to use cocaine?

[VermontDem2004]

50. I am not aware what cocaine laws are

Because I am not trying to change them. But marijuana is different the cocaine, cocaine is much more deadly so I don't see your point. But it isn't illegal for someone to use Marijuana but it is illegal for possession.

[Catholic Sensation]

53. my point is though

if it turns out to be illegal for cocaine to be used, the NFL rule can simply be "usage of an illegal substance is punishable by a four game suspension and fine"

[Catholic Sensation]

54. double post

oh fucking piece of shit ie

[Catholic Sensation]

23. not testing for this is saying

"I support this athlete smoking it", because they're allowing their players to commit a crime that could put me behind bars and not punish them.

[VermontDem2004]

25. Alright whatever

Smoking is not a crime anywhere and it isn't in Colorado, it is decriminalized in Colorado. If you have possession less then one ounce he would likely get a small fine and no jail time, usage is only illegal if you do it out in public and caught only doing that will likely be just a warning or a fine. Colorado is one of the best states when it comes to Marijuana laws.

[regularguy]

28. I *DO* support this athlete smoking it.

Anyway this doesn't make sense. Any employer can justify drug testing by this logic. When I smoke pot is my employer "allowing" me to commit a crime. I support anyone who want's to take a toke, no apologies needed. (Don't condone being stoned while driving, while on the job, etc).

[mac56]

31. Even if he voluntarily signed an employment contract -

that said he wouldn't?

[VermontDem2004]

34. Again you are not on the same page

It has nothing to do with employment contracts me and Neo Progessive were talking about. It was whether or not the NFL should drug test for Marijuana.

[mac56]

35. I must disagree.

It has everything to do with employment contracts. Whether the NFL should or should not test for marijuana is irrelevant. The fact is that they do, and players know this going in. This didn't just sneak up on any of them.

I have little sympathy for those who agree to a set of rules, understand the penalty for breaking them, go ahead and break them, and then whine about the penalty. Why, it just sounds so..so..so Republican.

[VermontDem2004]

37. It was relevant to what we(not you) were talking about

[mac56]

39. Oh! Sorry for busting in on your private discussion.

Carry on.

[VermontDem2004]

41. I didn't say it was a private discussion

Again you are missing the point.

[tishaLA]

48. Well, if you are really concerned about whether the NFL

SHOULD test for marijuana, you might want to suggest that the players union not sign contracts approving it. The NBA had that stance for a long time; the NFL never seemed to mind it. It is a stipulation in their contract, and, while many players seem to believe they can renegotiate contracts in midstream with their team, they canno tiwht the league.

I'm not worried that he smoked weed, but the idea that it "shouldn't" matter because it isn't performance enhancing is something the players negotiated away. Big deal.

[regularguy]

56. Yes

.

[mac56]

57. Okay then.

nm

[ProfessorGAC]

33. OK!

I support anybody doing anything in their own home on their own time that doesn't directly negatively impact someone else.

Is that clear enough for you?

BTW: Your position does not accurately reflect your screen name.
The Professor

[Catholic Sensation]

38. Yes, we'll achieve social progress

with people doing drugs. I mean, drugs have improved our inner cities so much since their introduction.

FREE LSD AND ANGEL DUST FOR EVERYONE.

[VermontDem2004]

43. Fine

If Marijuana is illegal then make alcohol and tobacco illegal since they are harmfull then Marijuana. You are confusing the issue, no one is suggesting LSD and angel dust be legal, just marijuana.

[Character Assassin]

44. Having you tried actually thinking about the issue?

I mean, drugs have improved our inner cities so much since their introduction.

Gosh, and they were illegal the whole time as well. Looks like their legal status really had an impact on their distribution, doesn't it?

FREE LSD AND ANGEL DUST FOR EVERYONE.

What an utterly pig-ignorant suggestion.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Thanks, C/A

You added a point i missed in my reply to Neo.
The Professor

[Catholic Sensation]

52. Okay, explain why Marijuana should be legalized

What benefits would even easier access to Marijuana bring? Please enlighten me.

Note: not advocating prison terms for marijuana, since it is harder to kill one's self using pot than coke, simply fine the idiot enough money to make the fucker think that it may not be a good idea to deal or posses the drug.

[VermontDem2004]

55. That's easy

Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful and contribute to more deaths then Marijuana but Marijuana is the illegal drug. It's like Bush's axis of evil, he goes after the less evil dictator then the two more dangerous ones.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Did You Actually Read My Post?

I thought not! And, could you please tell me when the introduction of drugs took place in our inner cities? What a silly reference! They've ALWAYS been there. There is no introduction point in time.

Kneejerk reactions such as yours are not reflective of a truly progressive mindset. You might want to either rethink your position on this, or rethink which side of the social condition you're actually on.
The Professor

[Catholic Sensation]

58. okay

BTW: Your position does not accurately reflect your screen name

So far my position has been Mike Anderson broke a rule I support. Apparently my supporting rules that at least attempt to deter drug use isn't "progressive."

Unless my support for him being punished for him doing something in the privacy of his home/apartment/wherever this jackass did this isn't progressive, which, I'm afraid is stupid, because the rule is explicit apparently: Do drugs, get punished. It doesn't matter where he broke the rule, HE BROKE THE RULE. YOU CAN'T MAKE EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THEY DID THIS PRIVATELY OR PUBLICALLY.

[everythingsxen]

45. Mister Anderson...

Sorry.. I just couldn't help it.. :evilgrin: