NFLPA to file grievance on behalf of Quincy

[GrantDawg]

<NOSCRIPT>Nature of Carter's release questioned
&nbsp
</NOSCRIPT><!-- END HEADLINE SWF FILE -->

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


ESPN.com news services
<!-- template inline -->The NFL Players Association is expected to file a grievance on behalf of quarterback Quincy Carter (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5500), 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.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5 rowSpan=2><SPACER height="1" width="5" type="block"></TD><TD width=195>http://espn.starwave.com/media/nfl/2004/0806/photo/a_carter_i.jpg</TD></TR><TR><TD width=195>Sources close to the Cowboys have told ESPN and ESPN.com that Carter tested positive for an illegal substance before being released.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


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]

Dang, he sure looks stoned in that picture.
Haha that is true.

[cthomer5000]

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]

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

LOL, good shot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/scorecard/08/05/interviews/p1_rose_Stephen_Chernin.jpg

Somebody file something for me!

[EagleFan]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[JAG]

Here's an article giving more of the Cowboys' point of view as to why Carter was released. I didn't know some of the things mentioned within, although I did hear Carter was very pissed, as in kicking lockers mad, when it was announced that the Cowboys signed Vinny.

Analysis: Carter's value had dwindled
Cowboys disappointed with QB's attitude, uninspired performance

12:53 AM CDT on Tuesday, August 10, 2004

By TODD ARCHER / The Dallas Morning News


OXNARD, Calif. – In the end, the Cowboys did not believe Quincy Carter was worth it.

Not worth the attitude. Not worth the ability. Not worth the potential cost. And that is why he is no longer a part of the team, even as the NFL Players Association prepares to file a grievance on Carter's behalf for wrongful termination.

On the first day of training camp, Carter proclaimed he was the starter even though coach Bill Parcells said the quarterback competition was open. Quarterbacks should have that confidence, but then Carter said he was the leader of this team. Leaders do not have to proclaim themselves leaders. Darren Woodson doesn't talk about it. Richie Anderson doesn't talk about it. They do it, which is why they were voted captains last year.

It's about the actions, not words.

Carter said all the right things when the Cowboys traded for Drew Henson in March and, later, when they signed Vinny Testaverde in June. He embraced the competition.

Then training camp began.

Carter complained to an offensive assistant about his lack of work during training camp Aug. 2. Two days before he was waived, he worked with the third team in team drills. The day before he was let go, he sat out team drills. He wondered why Tony Romo and Henson were getting the same amount of practice repetitions he was receiving. That did not sit too well with the coaches or management.

In the off-season, Carter was asked to put on weight so he could withstand the rigors of a 16-game season. He did that. He had encouraging workouts during the June minicamp. He seemed poised to improve on the things Parcells harped on – cutting down the interceptions and throwing on the run.

Through the first eight practices of training camp, Carter did not set himself apart from the quarterback crowd. He wasn't bad, but he wasn't good either, much like his time with the Cowboys. He did not throw many passes down the field, choosing the safe route. Late last season, he did the same thing, looking for Anderson or tight end Jason Witten even though wide receivers were open.

In one team session, Carter completed two passes – a check down to Anderson and a pass in the flat. Testaverde completed deep crosses to wide receivers James Newson and Dedric Ward and another sprint pass to Ward.

The tempo of the practice changed with those completions.

Before arriving in training camp, according to two sources, the Cowboys knew Carter had failed a second drug test and was facing a fine of $107,060, though he was not facing a suspension.

The Cowboys could argue that waiting a month to cut Carter was proof that they did not waive the quarterback solely because of a failed drug test. Under terms of the collective bargaining agreement, a player cannot be released for such a violation.

The Cowboys had reservations about Carter's future for some time even though his contract ran through 2005. He was scheduled to earn $455,000 this season and $540,000 next season with a reporting bonus of $472,100. If Carter developed into a top-flight quarterback, then the Cowboys faced a conundrum: Do they give Carter a large signing bonus even though another failed test would lead to a suspension?

It's a question that does not need to be answered now. Carter is working out in hopes of signing with another team, and the Cowboys have moved on.

When players became aware Carter was gone, they expressed sympathy for the person. They like Carter, and players do not wish ill of another

But none of them expressed any disappointment of losing their starting quarterback, even privately.

That spoke as loudly as anything.

[Ragone]

You know.. Let's treat nfl teams like individual workplaces..

Lets say Joe Blow gets hooked on cocaine(bad pun i know.. but stay with me) and Dola Corp decides he can stay on after serving a 4 week suspension and rehab.. now it should be within dola corp's right to test Joe blow at any point during his employment from that point on.. They are just protecting their business (or in this case.. team)

Like i've mentioned in other thread.. i'm in one of the biggest unions in america, i've seen some corruptness in it. But nothing compaired to the corruptness that i've read and seen from pro player unions.. They basically get away with murder, with some of the stipulations and stuff they get into cba's.. Like the nba refusing to up the age limit.. which is really hurting the older members of their own union more then the owners who want the age limit upped

The facts are this
Quincy has violated league drug policies multiple times
Quincy had a history of problems before even being drafted(which dallas surely knew about)

Something i'd like to know... Do they drug test at the nfl combine?

[clintl]

You know.. Let's treat nfl teams like individual workplaces..

Lets say Joe Blow gets hooked on cocaine(bad pun i know.. but stay with me) and Dola Corp decides he can stay on after serving a 4 week suspension and rehab.. now it should be within dola corp's right to test Joe blow at any point during his employment from that point on.. They are just protecting their business (or in this case.. team)

Like i've mentioned in other thread.. i'm in one of the biggest unions in america, i've seen some corruptness in it. But nothing compaired to the corruptness that i've read and seen from pro player unions.. They basically get away with murder, with some of the stipulations and stuff they get into cba's.. Like the nba refusing to up the age limit.. which is really hurting the older members of their own union more then the owners who want the age limit upped

The facts are this
Quincy has violated league drug policies multiple times
Quincy had a history of problems before even being drafted(which dallas surely knew about)

Something i'd like to know... Do they drug test at the nfl combine?

The rules were negotiated between the two parties, both parties agreed to the rules, and both parties should have to abide by the rules they agreed to. Period. It does not matter what other businesses do.

[Tekneek]

It is very important to note that the collective bargaining agreement was signed by the NFL, meaning that all NFL teams are to abide by the rules in it. If they do not like it, they need to try and amend it or wait until the current one expires. That's simply the way that the business works. If the NFL does not like being bound by a CBA, they can let the current batch of players walk away when the CBA expires and go non-union.

[Ragone]

tekneek..

do you really think the players would walk away from all that obvious money if the nfl went non union.. I do think unions are a good thing.. but in cases of players making millions a year.. i think the union factor is muddied quite a bit..
I think the players would come back.. as long as the rules laid down were within reason(nothing naziesque for instance)

[QuikSand]

Just to point out something of a devil's advocate position...

Is there any grop of employees that has less individual ability to demand standards in workplace environment than big-time athletes?

Say there's no union... and these negotiations are entirely left up to the individual athlete and the professional team. Sure, the superstar player has lots of leverage... but the other 19 out of 20 players are just replaceable parts in the whole machine - we all understand that. Without a union to represent them, what leverage do the rank and file players have? If they stand to make $500,000 playing in the NFL -- do they have a meaningful alternative option? It's not like the usual labor/management battle where the amploee can say "well, if we don't get what we want, we can go work someplace else" -- the NFL would obviously understand that these players have no other option that's anywhere near as attractiove as the NFL -- so why give any broad-based concessions at all? Indeed, why bother with such a hefty minimum salary? I suspect most roster-filler players would be willing to play for $100,000 rather than $300,000 ... and so forth.


On the surface, I'm not wild about a union full of millionaires... but there is some pretty strong rationality behind the idea, at least.

[GrantDawg]

On the surface, I'm not wild about a union full of millionaires... but there is some pretty strong rationality behind the idea, at least.
I agree. The problem is this or any union have to do something every so often for the members so they can justify there existence. That is what leads to problem IMHO.

[sterlingice]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1860507

Associated Press
<!-- template inline --> OXNARD, Calif. -- The NFL Players Association filed a special master proceeding against the Dallas Cowboys (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=dal) on Monday on behalf of quarterback Quincy Carter (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5500), claiming the quarterback was released by the team for reasons not permitted in the NFL collective bargaining agreement.

<!--------------------------START PLAYER CARD------------------> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" hspace="5" vspace="5"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="8">
</td> <td bgcolor="#ecece4" width="200"> <!---------------------HEADSHOT TABLE STARTS HERE---------------------> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td colspan="2"> Quincy Carter (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5500)
Quarterback
Free Agent</td> <td rowspan="2" width="65">http://espn.go.com/i/nfl/profiles/players/statsid/s5500.jpg</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td width="67"> Profile (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5500)
</td> <td width="68">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!---------------------HEADSHOT TABLE ENDS HERE---------------------> </td></tr> <tr valign="top"> <td width="8">
</td> <td bgcolor="#ecece4" width="200"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="4"><tbody><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" width="190"> <tbody><tr align="center" bgcolor="#002175" valign="top"> <td colspan="6"><center>2003 SEASON STATISTICS</center></td></tr> <tr align="right" bgcolor="#bcbcb4"> <td width="17%">Att</td> <td width="17%">Comp</td> <td width="17%">PaTD</td> <td width="17%">RuTD</td> <td width="17%">Int</td> <td width="17%">Rat</td> </tr> <tr align="right" bgcolor="#bcbcb4"> <td>505</td> <td>292</td> <td>17</td> <td>2</td> <td>21</td> <td>71.4</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td></tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!---------------------INLINE MINI-PLAYER CARD ENDS HERE--------------------->

"You don't go from being a starting, playoff quarterback in this league to someone not good enough to make the 80-man roster the next summer," Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said in a statement.

The NFLPA filed for a special master proceeding that would be heard by professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The union said the first step would probably be the taking of depositions from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and coach Bill Parcells.

Carter's agent, Eugene Parker, said his client was approached by the union about filing the grievance. Carter supports the action, but his focus remains on playing.

"It's in the Players Association's hands. They're handling it," Parker said. "It's not on Quincy's mind. His mind is on getting ready mentally and physically to play. He's doing what he can to continue to prepare. ... He's trying to move on. What else can he do?"

Jones wasn't available for comment before the Cowboys practiced Monday afternoon.

Carter, who started all 16 regular season games plus the Cowboys' playoff game last season, was unexpectedly released by the team Aug. 4. That leaves 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=70) as the team's only experienced quarterback.

The team has not given a reason for Carter's release, although there were widespread reports that he had failed a drug test. Parcells and Jones have been vague publicly, but the owner has said he was willing to discuss the reasons with the league or the Players Association.

"We've made a decision to move in a different direction," Jones said when Carter was released. "We're not going to get in a lot of detail on the process."

The CBA does not permit teams to administer drug tests, although if Carter already was in the league's drug program by virtue of a previous positive test, he could be tested by the league.

Parker declined to go into specifics about the case, but like the union would like to know how Carter went from Parcells saying he had a "leg up" on the competition to being off the team a few days later.

Union spokesman Carl Francis said he expects the case to take at least a few weeks.

While he didn't talk about the grievance Monday, Parcells said the Cowboys have adjusted and moved on without Carter.

"I don't there was much of a psychological adjustment," said Parcells, whose team opened the preseason with an 18-0 loss Saturday night at Houston. "When you start training camp, when we started, players were coming and going. I don't think there's much to that."

Carter's agent, Eugene Parker, didn't return messages.

[Blackadar]

"You don't go from being a starting, playoff quarterback in this league to someone not good enough to make the 80-man roster the next summer," Richard Berthelsen, the union's general counsel, said in a statement.


Tell that to Trent Dilfer, who went from winning the Super Bowl to being out of a job. :)

[cthomer5000]

Tell that to Trent Dilfer, who went from winning the Super Bowl to being out of a job. :)
Or how about Kordell Stewart? From Bears starter to "please let me be the 53rd man"