NFLPA to file grievance on behalf of Quincy

[GrantDawg]

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1853462


ESPN.com news services
The NFL Players Association is expected to file a grievance on behalf of quarterback Quincy Carter, who was unexpectedly released by the Dallas Cowboys on Wednesday amid widespread reports that he failed a drug test.


The Washington Post first reported the story in Friday's editions.

	Sources close to the Cowboys have told ESPN and ESPN.com that Carter tested positive for an illegal substance before being released.

The terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the Players Association prevent a team from releasing a player for a failed test.


Beyond the contentions that the Cowboys might have violated terms of the CBA by releasing Carter because of the failed drug screening, some people close to the quarterback continue to insist it was an illegal test.



Pressed as to whether Carter had ever signed an agreement that permitted the Cowboys to conduct private testing, which is not allowed, one source told ESPN.com: "It's not like he signed anything but, once he found out they were doing it anyway, he basically figured that it was OK. Of course, he was wrong about that."


Some former Cowboys players have also said they suspected the team was conducting private testing on urine or blood samples. But there has been nothing to substantiate those claims and owner Jerry Jones reiterated several times this week that the Cowboys were in compliance with the NFL testing program and did nothing to violate its guidelines.

Carter cleared waivers on Thursday and can sign with any NFL team. He started every game last season, when the Cowboys won 10 games and made the playoffs in Bill Parcells' first year as coach. Just days before Carter was released, Parcells said Carter had a leg up on his competition to be Dallas' No. 1 quarterback.


With Carter's having cleared waivers, the team that might add him now knows that he has failed two drug tests and that the next misstep would result in a four-game suspension (ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli has confirmed that Carter spent time at a drug rehabilitation facility within the past 18 months). League sources said Minnesota Vikings officials have discussed internally the possibility of signing Carter, but have cooled a bit on the idea.

League sources told ESPN.com that despite the positive test, Carter is not under suspension by the league.


The team remained vague Thursday about the reasons for Carter's release. Jones again refused to specifically address the reports, and Parcells said he was focused on a future that includes 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde at the top of the quarterback depth chart.


"I'm not going to talk about this subject anymore. It's not worth it, doesn't really mean anything now," Parcells said. "I want to go where I know I've got to go now."


It was unclear what recourse the Players Association could seek. It's unlikely the union would want Carter on the roster of a team that doesn't want him, but it perhaps could seek compensation from an arbitrator. The union would have to prove Carter was released because of a failed drug test.


Information from ESPN.com NFL senior writer Len Pasquarelli and The Associated Press was used in this report.

[moriarty]

Dang, he sure looks stoned in that picture.

[Noop]

Honestly is he really that good for him to get an article about him?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Dang, he sure looks stoned in that picture.

Haha that is true.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Dang, he sure looks stoned in that picture.

agreed. I wonder if they chose that pic intentionally?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeppers, that really makes me feel good about the NFLPA, never mind that the player
in question is a fucking criminal.

(Yes, that assynes he failed the drug test. But if the NFLPA can assume that's why he was released, then I feel it's fair to make the same assumpton when commenting on their reaction).

[Ksyrup]

I guess that explains why the Cowboys' urinals just happen to be shaped like giant Dixie cups.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess that explains why the Cowboys' urinals just happen to be shaped like giant Dixie cups.

LOL, good shot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Dang, he sure looks stoned in that picture.

Is it just me, or does he look like Snoop Dogg in that pic?

[Eaglesfan27]

Actually, the rumor is that they were running the drug tests on blood that being drawn and told it was for other purposes (such as a basic chemistry, liver function tests, etc.)

However, your reply is much more funny

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeppers, that really makes me feel good about the NFLPA, never mind that the player
in question is a fucking criminal.

(Yes, that assynes he failed the drug test. But if the NFLPA can assume that's why he was released, then I feel it's fair to make the same assumpton when commenting on their reaction).

And the team broke the rules by performing an illegal test. I wouldn't like to see anyone rewarded for a wrong action, so instead of giving QC money (which will most likely be the case) they should fine the Cowboys or take away a pick for violating the CBA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And the team broke the rules by performing an illegal test. I wouldn't like to see anyone rewarded for a wrong action, so instead of giving QC money (which will most likely be the case) they should fine the Cowboys or take away a pick for violating the CBA.

"Illegal" or "improper under the terms of the CBA"?
Are the two things synonymous?

(FTR, I'm asking for real -- is there a law against a private company using a blood sample given voluntarily for one purpose for a different purpose?)

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Illegal" or "improper under the terms of the CBA"?
Are the two things synonymous?

(FTR, I'm asking for real -- is there a law against a private company using a blood sample given voluntarily for one purpose for a different purpose?)

I believe so- but Im not certain- is there a labor law expert around ?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Illegal" or "improper under the terms of the CBA"?
Are the two things synonymous?

(FTR, I'm asking for real -- is there a law against a private company using a blood sample given voluntarily for one purpose for a different purpose?)

I would say yes because anytime I've had test run (medically or for a job) they are always very clear on what they are testing for. As many legal protections there are surrounding medical privacy, I would be shocked if an employer can mis-represent what a blood test is for legally.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

agreed. I wonder if they chose that pic intentionally?

So is ignorance really bliss?

He's listening to fucking music and his eyes happen to be closed. Fucking stupid.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

So is ignorance really bliss?

He's listening to fucking music and his eyes happen to be closed. Fucking stupid.

Geez, way to piss on the birthday cake.

Sorrry we riled you up, jerk.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I will still wait for the official league response because they haven't said anything as yet.

The interesting thing about this is if a league source had not leaked the drug abuse possibility in the first place, followed by the subsequent release of his past problem after 2002, any team that signed Quincy would not have a clue of his past history thanks to the CBA.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

The interesting thing about this is if a league source had not leaked the drug abuse possibility in the first place, followed by the subsequent release of his past problem after 2002, any team that signed Quincy would not have a clue of his past history thanks to the CBA.

That's what I find to be absurd. Even if it's just one instance of drug use, I'd still like to know about it before I plunk down potentially millions of dollars to sign a guy. Even if they want to keep it confidential from the public, I would think the teams still have a right to full disclosure so that they can make the best possible moves for their teams.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Really the whole thing is just weird. Quincy was at the team meeting the night before and had practiced that day. There was even an interview with him on Sunday night and he was talking about being the starter etc. And then BAM. His stuff was still in his locker that morning.

When Tony Banks was here he was gone the night before with his locker cleaned out.

[akw4572]

This reminds me of when I make cuts on the high school baseball team I coach. Cowboys don't want him, plain and simple.

[Tex Schramm]

Teams are not allowed to release players due to league-administered drug-test failures because if they were, it would defeat the purpose of league testing in the first place. The league reserves the right to punish and also to give the player access to help and counseling. If you release a player after his second test failure, you are firing a person based on third-party testing being conducted and processed independent of your organization. You're circumventing the agreement between the NFL and the players' union that gives the league control over illegal substance policy. The league controls testing policy because the players' union makes sure that testing is done fairly and accurately - which is much harder to guarantee if each team is implementing its own policy.

That being said, it's also not really right that an organization would not be legally allowed to terminate an employee who fails two consecutive drug tests. I'm not aware of many jobs where you wouldn't be fired for one failure (assuming your work does testing).

Maybe the right thing to do would have been simply benching Carter and making him the no.3 or 4 QB in camp. Then you would be allowing the league's treatment process to continue, and you would also be administering your own punishment. And you wouldn't have concerns every week about whether your starting QB would be eligible to play the following week.

But I guess Carter just wasn't a good enough player to warrant that. The Cowboys were probably pretty sure that Carter didn't have star-quality potential - so they had no reason to stash him on the bench and wait for him to clean up his act, all the while paying him second-rounder money. What they did might have been against the rules. But I don't see any way that you could legally prove that they definitively got rid of him just for that reason.

[Senator]

Somebody file something for me!

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

So is ignorance really bliss?

He's listening to fucking music and his eyes happen to be closed. Fucking stupid.

Missing: 1 sense of humor, no last known location.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Missing: 1 sense of humor, no last known location.

Geez, I hope this isn't the second coming of "Pot, this is kettle. You're black."

[Tekneek]

Quincy Carter is a criminal? What crime has he committed? If you're talking about this supposed test, then why haven't charges been filed?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Quincy Carter is a criminal? What crime has he committed? If you're talking about this supposed test, then why haven't charges been filed?

-- Flunking a drug test rather implies the presence of drugs in your system -- since I doubt they'd zap him for steroids, that seems to make it likely we're talking about some controlled substance.

-- Possession of a controlled substance, generally, is a criminal act. And if it's in your system, it seems pretty safe to believe that it's been in your possession

-- Charges haven't been filed, presumably, because teams/employers are too fucking stupid and/or too fucking chickenshit and/or prohibited by some law desparately in need of being overturned to turn the results over to the proper authorities.

[Tekneek]

It's too bad that the authorities haven't been sent in to get that horrible man. Quincy Carter is truly a vicious criminal that needs to be taken down.

I'd really like to see the police nail the drunk driver that hit my wife and I (whom I had a complete description of, including the vehicle) before they go after somebody for drug possession. Too bad, eh? Apparently that's not as big of a crime. How about finding the guy who stole my wife's backpack? Police wouldn't even come to the scene of that crime. How about when my father's car was broken into? No, they wouldn't come to that scene either...which was about a quarter of a mile from a police precinct.

I'm not sure why you have such rage directed at some football player who may, or may not, have had any illegal drugs in his system. You seem angry that they are not arresting him for such crimes against society. When I know that the police routinely ignore real crime, it really pisses me off that ANYONE wants somebody arrested for something like this. I put burglary way higher up the list of priorities, and drunks driving into people at red lights a little higher up too. Only when all of those get proper attention should anyone be concerned about somebody like Quincy Carter having "drugs" in his "system."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

... it really pisses me off that ANYONE wants somebody arrested for something like this.

Don't know what to tell you Tek ... If you're pissed that I'd like to see drug criminals arrested, charged, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, well ... tough shit I guess. You know (I think) my position on the subject of drug offenders -- I'd like to see the scum executed publically on their second conviction.

I put burglary way higher up the list of priorities, and drunks driving into people at red lights a little higher up too.

We disagree I guess (at least on the former)

Only when all of those get proper attention

Each of them getting proper attention does not have to be mutually exclusive.

Sounds to me like you've got law enforcement issues in your area ... which has little to nothing to do with whether people who pad the pockets of f'n dealers should be prosecuted.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't know what to tell you Tek ... If you're pissed that I'd like to see drug criminals arrested, charged, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, well ... tough shit I guess.

Yeah, I suppose it is "tough shit." I'd just like to see crimes with real victims addressed way before somebody holding a marijuana joint gets arrested. You prefer to give priority to victimless crimes. We're just different and want our tax money spent differently.

You know (I think) my position on the subject of drug offenders -- I'd like to see the scum executed publically on their second conviction.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Why do you have such a hardline on it? It would only make sense to me if you feel the same way about all criminals. Certainly, everyone who commits a crime that has a real victim should be put to death before somebody who smokes dope on his own time and never puts others at risk. At least, I can't justify putting someone to death for simply having some drugs on them while letting drunk drivers and thieves get away with their lives.

Each of them getting proper attention does not have to be mutually exclusive.

It does not HAVE to be, but it IS. Cops get a hard-on for a drug bust, but have no drive to help when your stuff gets stolen. When that drunk hit us, the cop acted like it was an inconvenience to even show up. I had a full description of the man, the vehicle, and we had a witness to the incident. We had to bug the investigator to even get them to talk to us, and then they acted like we were the bad guys. The police refused to come to the scene when my dad's car was burglarized. They said they would try to recover the stolen goods, but did not want the serial numbers of the items (revealing that they had no intention of even trying to help). Meanwhile, if one adult wanted to buy one joint from another man at a gas station, the police would be willing to turn the place into a shooting range. Do you not see the contradictions there? This is a system that your attitude encourages. Where real crime is neglected in favor of the sensational.

Sounds to me like you've got law enforcement issues in your area ... which has little to nothing to do with whether people who pad the pockets of f'n dealers should be prosecuted.

It has everything to do with it, as stated above. It is not just one area. My complaints deal with three different police departments in the Atlanta area. These are ones that are in the headlines for their elaborate drug busts, massage parlor raids, and so on.

You happen to think that carrying a joint is a bigger crime than a drunk driver doing a hit-and-run out on the roads. You think it's a bigger crime than somebody stealing your property. I don't understand that concept, but obviously we just have a different point of view.

[Anthony]

why do you use the term "carrying a joint", as in that might have been the drug Carter was using, Tek? did Ricky Williams get in trouble for twice failing a drug test due to having marijuana in his system? no.

so the league/teams wag their finger at you for marijuana, he didn't have steroids/banned supplements in his system or else we'd have known that, that only leave one other alternative:

hard core drugs. one can tolerate a pothead, someone dependent on cocaine, heroin or whatever is another story.

lets just all be honest about what happened. he failed the drug test once and they kept it a secret, training camp just started and last week they wanted to see if he was indeed clean before something bad happened (like failing the official drug test a 2nd time midway through the season or he gets arrested for cocaine possession) and they invested a whole camp in him as the starter when they could have given Testeverde the reps and groomed Henson to be the backup.

there is a lot of money being passed around in pro sports - if a team has its suspicions and they turn out to be correct then the team should be allowed to protect their investments. if their suspicions turn out to be wrong then it all gets swept under the table and no harm done. why should someone doing something illegal be protected just cuz the process used to find him guilty is faulty or not according to procedure? under what circumstance would Carter have volunteered to have himself tested for drugs knowing full well he had illgal substances in his system?

[k0ruptr]

really give him a break, he sure as hell didnt deserve to be released, i mean he isnt the greatest player, but he brought them to the playoffs last season. without him no chance they woulda made it, and thats from the biggest cowboy hater in the world. good thing he got off that team, they probably woulda fucked up his future anyway.

[Tekneek]

I think I was using the "carrying a joint" line in reference to the police and what they get gung-ho about. Unless Quincy has been driving or operating any kind of machinery while under the influence of those drugs, or while anyone else was in his care (minors or invalids), then it is not a big deal for me personally. I just don't get all hyped up because the man is doing cocaine (or any other drug) and not endangering anyone else. That's all.

I don't care what the Cowboys release Quincy Carter for, really. They have that power. Rickey Williams had the power to quit when he felt like it and the Cowboys had the power to release Quincy Carter when they felt like it. That's the nature of the business.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It's too bad that the authorities haven't been sent in to get that horrible man. Quincy Carter is truly a vicious criminal that needs to be taken down.

I'd really like to see the police nail the drunk driver that hit my wife and I (whom I had a complete description of, including the vehicle) before they go after somebody for drug possession. Too bad, eh? Apparently that's not as big of a crime. How about finding the guy who stole my wife's backpack? Police wouldn't even come to the scene of that crime. How about when my father's car was broken into? No, they wouldn't come to that scene either...which was about a quarter of a mile from a police precinct.

I'm not sure why you have such rage directed at some football player who may, or may not, have had any illegal drugs in his system. You seem angry that they are not arresting him for such crimes against society. When I know that the police routinely ignore real crime, it really pisses me off that ANYONE wants somebody arrested for something like this. I put burglary way higher up the list of priorities, and drunks driving into people at red lights a little higher up too. Only when all of those get proper attention should anyone be concerned about somebody like Quincy Carter having "drugs" in his "system."

So basically how do you know the driver that hit your wife was drunk? He could have been high...maybe on meth...you dont know. yet I see in you predetermined opinions due to your past experiences. Yes those are bad crimes but you cant let other crimes go just cause there are wrose crimes out there and also...They dont need the serial numbers from your stuff because when they find anything matching the description of your stuff they call you down to come look at it. If some guystole ur wifes backpack what are the cops gunna do? Check everyones house in the state? seriously that crime isnt as big of a deal its just a backpack and maybe some valueables in it...no one got hurt, but if the cops acted the way you portray them as acting then thats wrong but I have never known a cop to be mad at someone for inconviencing them when they got hit by a car. I have more to say but no one wantsto read this much so Im done.

[Tekneek]

Nobody gets hurt when property is stolen? There is a victim, and it is the person who lost their property. If you do not understand that much, then there is nothing to talk about.

The backpack was taken from a car where the window was smashed in. There was blood on the car, presumably from the perpetrator. The police did not come to the scene. They said they would mail out a postcard with the report number, which never showed up. My wife's friend, whose car was busted up, never received a card either. Neither of them were ever able to retrieve the accident report, which apparently was never made. Lucky for my wife's friend her insurance company replaced the window anyway, without the report. Lucky for my wife and I, her identity was not stolen and other than some sentimental items we were able to replace everything else. I left out some details, but this was a clear crime with clear victims and a definite lack of consideration from the police. This is from the Atlanta PD that this year made a BIG deal about how they are impounding vehicles of people soliciting prostitutes. That, to me, means they are much more concerned about adults wishing to sell/buy sex than they are property theft and damage. Can you arrive at some other conclusion? Did I ever say that I wanted them to check every house in the state? No. I did say it was a real crime and they could not be bothered.

As far as being a drunk driver, the only evidence I have to go from was the strong odor of alcohol from him as I had approached him (before he turned the car and sped off, I was close enough to try and grab him) and the witness testimony (the witness had seen him swerving around on the interstate and followed him onto the exit ramp where he hit us). I don't care whether he was drunk or high, because it is still driving under the influence and is a crime. You combine that with a hit-and-run, and it is what I would consider a pretty serious crime. It's too bad the police did not agree. If I had said he was holding a crack pipe maybe they would've been a little more excited about it.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Nobody gets hurt when property is stolen? There is a victim, and it is the person who lost their property. If you do not understand that much, then there is nothing to talk about.

The backpack was taken from a car where the window was smashed in. There was blood on the car, presumably from the perpetrator. The police did not come to the scene. They said they would mail out a postcard with the report number, which never showed up. My wife's friend, whose car was busted up, never received a card either. Neither of them were ever able to retrieve the accident report, which apparently was never made. Lucky for my wife's friend her insurance company replaced the window anyway, without the report. Lucky for my wife and I, her identity was not stolen and other than some sentimental items we were able to replace everything else. I left out some details, but this was a clear crime with clear victims and a definite lack of consideration from the police. This is from the Atlanta PD that this year made a BIG deal about how they are impounding vehicles of people soliciting prostitutes. That, to me, means they are much more concerned about adults wishing to sell/buy sex than they are property theft and damage. Can you arrive at some other conclusion? Did I ever say that I wanted them to check every house in the state? No. I did say it was a real crime and they could not be bothered.

As far as being a drunk driver, the only evidence I have to go from was the strong odor of alcohol from him as I had approached him (before he turned the car and sped off, I was close enough to try and grab him) and the witness testimony (the witness had seen him swerving around on the interstate and followed him onto the exit ramp where he hit us). I don't care whether he was drunk or high, because it is still driving under the influence and is a crime. You combine that with a hit-and-run, and it is what I would consider a pretty serious crime. It's too bad the police did not agree. If I had said he was holding a crack pipe maybe they would've been a little more excited about it.

Hey yeah no one got hurt in the backpack stealing. Also it isnt always the severity of the crime but how easy it is to solve. Now if there was blood in the car you could have run DNA tests and solved it. But it isnt that simple, they cost tons of money plus you would have to find the guy with ur backpack. That would be doubtful. Isnt it easier to see a hooker than it is to find some anonymous guy with a backpack? Think about it. Would it be better to pay police to search around for some backpack or to bust crackheads that have gang fights, and also hookers in cars. Personally I dont know what was going through your head cause im guessing you were freaking out and didnt know what to do but if someone hit my wife with a car I wouldnt have beein in grabbing distance and not punched their face in.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I think I was using the "carrying a joint" line in reference to the police and what they get gung-ho about. Unless Quincy has been driving or operating any kind of machinery while under the influence of those drugs, or while anyone else was in his care (minors or invalids), then it is not a big deal for me personally. I just don't get all hyped up because the man is doing cocaine (or any other drug) and not endangering anyone else. That's all.

I don't care what the Cowboys release Quincy Carter for, really. They have that power. Rickey Williams had the power to quit when he felt like it and the Cowboys had the power to release Quincy Carter when they felt like it. That's the nature of the business.

with your lax attitude concerning drug use - remind me never to have my kids hang out with your kids.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

with your lax attitude concerning drug use - remind me never to have my kids hang out with your kids.

If it bothers you that much and you STILL need a reminder, maybe you have some other problems.

EDIT: apparently the rest of my response did not make it...

I draw the line at minors and adults. Adults, being 18+, who do not live in my house or depend on me for any assistance, are free to do what they wish as long as they do not hurt or endanger others. If you find my belief in individual freedom, liberty, and responsibility unsettling, or frightening, that is fine. I'm not going to remind you to be afraid of it, though.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by nfg22

someone hit my wife with a car I wouldnt have beein in grabbing distance and not punched their face in.

I tried to grab him. Notice, I said I was close enough to TRY to grab him. I used that word for a reason. The meaning is just a little different when you read all of the words.

[nfg22]

You close enough to try and grab him....great thats doesnt mean anything...you could "try" and grab me right now if you think about it that way. Usually when you say it that way it means that you could have if u wanted to. But hey atlantas a small city so why dont we go around looking for car number 10000. becase we can find it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by nfg22

You close enough to try and grab him....great thats doesnt mean anything...you could "try" and grab me right now if you think about it that way. Usually when you say it that way it means that you could have if u wanted to. But hey atlantas a small city so why dont we go around looking for car number 10000. becase we can find it.

You don't have to go around looking for it. You get the name from the registration, and you wait for them to go home and arrest them. They've got all that information. It's the same way they send off the traffic tickets when a camera catches you running a red light.

How do you know what it means when I usually use those words? How often have you read them from me? When I say I was close enough to try and grab the guy, that's literally what I mean. I was close enough to TRY and grab him. I was not able to grab him before he got too far away. I got close enough to smell alcohol and get a very good look at him before he backed up fast and turned down the road. Diving for him and the car accomplished nothing...

I'd love to keep taking this off topic, but I just got a call that my grandfather passed away.

[oykib]

My condolensces, Tekneek. And by the way, I agree with you.

[Chubby]

the "believed" facts are I believe to be that he failed an NFL drug test for the 2nd time, the Cowboys were told to withold 4 weeks of checks from Quincy (standard policy for 2nd failed drug test, same thing Ricky Williams faces if he unretires) so the Cowboys cut him because they supposedly gave Quincy an ultimatum earlier that another failed drug test and he was gone.

Since technically the Cowboys don't know for sure he failed the test (they inferred it from being told to withold checks) they didn't violate that part of the CBA so not much if anything will happen.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

again, rewriting what I said earlier but isn't visible...

the current understanding of what happened with Quincy is that he was given an ultimatum to not get in any more trouble or he'd be cut. The NFL told the Cowboys to withold 4 weeks of checks from Quincy (in accordnace with NFL policy for a 2nd failed drug test, same with Ricky Williams if he unretires) so the Cowboys cut him since Quincy screwed up again.

Since technically the Cowboys never "knew" about the failed test (they inferred it from the NFL request to withold paychecks) they can't have violated the NFLPA rule about cutting a player due to a failed drug test.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Nobody gets hurt when property is stolen? There is a victim, and it is the person who lost their property. If you do not understand that much, then there is nothing to talk about.

When arguing that the police should concentrate on stopping "real crime" perhaps you should choose a crime that is not driven by the rampant drug use in this country. Oh wait, drug use is highly correlated with all kinds of crimes. Never mind.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by The Un-Ghosted Chubby

Since technically the Cowboys never "knew" about the failed test (they inferred it from the NFL request to withold paychecks) they can't have violated the NFLPA rule about cutting a player due to a failed drug test.

I have a very serious doubt that will fly in front of an arbiter. QC will probably end up getting paid.

[moriarty]

I heard on the radio (so take it for what it's worth) that the Cowboys found out about the failed test 4 weeks ago. They basically told Q that they would bring him to training camp and see how he worked out. Because they did not cut him at that time (the time they found out) apparently the Cowboys have a legit case. Their explanation is that he was grumbling and whiney about the Testeverde deal during the training camp and so they cut him for being 'detrimental'. Since they gave him an extra four weeks, they technically did not cut him for the drug offense.

Don't know how you would prove this one way or the other.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Samdari

When arguing that the police should concentrate on stopping "real crime" perhaps you should choose a crime that is not driven by the rampant drug use in this country. Oh wait, drug use is highly correlated with all kinds of crimes. Never mind.

The price of drugs is inflated by the war against them, placing the control in the hands of criminals. If you could buy it at a legitimate business, it would remove the criminal element and standardize the pricing. It would no longer drive the same kind of criminal acts that it currently does.

If there is so much crime being driven by drugs while we are spending billions fighting it, wouldn't it be better to try a different approach for a change?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by oykib

My condolensces, Tekneek. And by the way, I agree with you.

Thank you. It was my first funeral in about 12 years today.

[Fritz]

see, it doesnt matter what starts a thread with drugs in it, they all end like this. Much like anything to do with Iraq, or Politics, or Religion.

[Ksyrup]

Talk about adding insult to injury - Cowboys are asking for $600K back.