Buffalo Bills 2016

[SwampD]

As someone who bought a ######ton of pot for medical reasons, in a state where it wasn't legal when I was doing so, I'm going to side with the player IF that's the substance and his reason for taking it.

Absolutely, but like nfreeman, I, too, have my doubts.

 

 

 

(that's a whole lotta commas, innit?)

[Samson's Flow]

As someone who bought a ######ton of pot for medical reasons, in a state where it wasn't legal when I was doing so, I'm going to side with the player IF that's the substance and his reason for taking it.

As someone who agrees that a person should be able to do and use whatever is available to treat an illness/improve their situation, I am firmly on the side of the players. The NFL is getting far too focused on being a police force rather than remembering that without the players, there is no game. Especially with the league pushing dangerous pain pills onto players, I am amazed that this hasn't blown up into a bigger deal than it already is. 

 

Nobody is filling up a 70K stadium to watch you and me play football. 

[nfreeman]

It's reportedly among the best ones for many people who suffer from it. That's enough for me.

 

From where I sit, the reason appears to be that the NFL has a dumbass view of its "need" to police marijuana use by its players.

 

Even if pot is among the best treatments, this means that there are other treatments that are presumably equally effective, right? 

 

Here's how I look at it:  regardless of how wrongheaded the NFL's policy on pot may be, Seantrel took millions of dollars from his employer, fully aware that doing so meant that he wasn't allowed to smoke pot, that he would need to treat his Crohns in a different manner, that he would get suspended for smoking pot and that a suspension would hurt his team.  And, like Dareus, he chose to smoke pot anyway.

 

(Again, for the record, this opinion assumes the truthiness of Hoss' report upthread.  FWIW, I generally have a high degree of confidence in Hoss' factual reporting.)

 

Sounds like you've been successful in holding it at bay then

 

Very nice.

As someone who agrees that a person should be able to do and use whatever is available to treat an illness/improve their situation, I am firmly on the side of the players. The NFL is getting far too focused on being a police force rather than remembering that without the players, there is no game. Especially with the league pushing dangerous pain pills onto players, I am amazed that this hasn't blown up into a bigger deal than it already is. 

 

Nobody is filling up a 70K stadium to watch you and me play football. 

 

I don't disagree with any of this -- but again, the point is that Henderson, Dareus and everyone else agreed to a certain set of rules, including the consequences for breaking those rules -- and then broke them anyway because they felt like smoking pot. 

 

If the players' union wants to negotiate different terms on pot, they should do so.  Until then, I don't see a moral high ground here.

[That Aud Smell]

Even if pot is among the best treatments, this means that there are other treatments that are presumably equally effective, right? 

 

In a word: No.

 

There may be people with a disease for whom two or three different treatments could work equally well. For others, only one course of treatment is effective. I have zero interest in the NFL policing its players' recreational use of marijuana; I somehow have even less interest in tongue-clucking at a player for choosing a certain effective course of treatment for a disease.

 

 

Here's how I look at it:  regardless of how wrongheaded the NFL's policy on pot may be, Seantrel took millions of dollars from his employer, fully aware that doing so meant that he wasn't allowed to smoke pot, that he would need to treat his Crohns in a different manner, that he would get suspended for smoking pot and that a suspension would hurt his team.  And, like Dareus, he chose to smoke pot anyway.

 

Christ - I missed this. Dareus has Crohn's?!

 

 

I don't disagree with any of this -- but again, the point is that Henderson, Dareus and everyone else agreed to a certain set of rules, including the consequences for breaking those rules -- and then broke them anyway because they felt like smoking pot. 

 

If the players' union wants to negotiate different terms on pot, they should do so.  Until then, I don't see a moral high ground here.

 

With due respect, it's just such a lame and tired point.

 

The emperor has no clothes.

 

Also, let's stop lumping in a guy who could have a medical reason for using pot with a guy who apparently did not.

[Samson's Flow]

Even if pot is among the best treatments, this means that there are other treatments that are presumably equally effective, right? 

 

Here's how I look at it:  regardless of how wrongheaded the NFL's policy on pot may be, Seantrel took millions of dollars from his employer, fully aware that doing so meant that he wasn't allowed to smoke pot, that he would need to treat his Crohns in a different manner, that he would get suspended for smoking pot and that a suspension would hurt his team.  And, like Dareus, he chose to smoke pot anyway.

 

(Again, for the record, this opinion assumes the truthiness of Hoss' report upthread.  FWIW, I generally have a high degree of confidence in Hoss' factual reporting.)

 

 

Very nice.

 

I don't disagree with any of this -- but again, the point is that Henderson, Dareus and everyone else agreed to a certain set of rules, including the consequences for breaking those rules -- and then broke them anyway because they felt like smoking pot. 

 

If the players' union wants to negotiate different terms on pot, they should do so.  Until then, I don't see a moral high ground here.

I get where you are coming from now.

 

We all seem to want to argue the merits of the rules themselves, with the intent of changing them to better reflect our more progressive times. The rule from my perspective is inherently unfair and should be changed. Viva la Revelucion!

 

Your argument is that no matter what the rules say, it is your job as a professional and an employee to follow them to ensure employment and to avoid punishment. For instance, if there was a rule against walking your dog in public, no matter how silly or unjust you felt it was, if it meant losing your job or facing jail time, you sure as $hit wouldn't walk your dog.

 

Seantrel should have been smarter and followed the fules, or at least reported going against the rules for medical reasons ahead of time. I still think that the rule should be changed and the drug policy to focus more on steriods and PED's like other leagues. 

[Eleven]

If this is Crohn's treatment, and if it's been prescribed by a doctor, I'd love to see Henderson and/or the NFLPA take this one to court.  

[Samson's Flow]

If this is Crohn's treatment, and if it's been prescribed by a doctor, I'd love to see Henderson and/or the NFLPA take this one to court.  

I think that's the logical next step if he has all the proper documentation. Somehow I doubt that though...

 

A decision in favor of the players in court would be a major dagger against the NFL's untouchable status and ham-fisted discipline

[TrueBlueGED]

Do you have any family members that have Crohns disease? I do.

 

Do you think pot is the only medical treatment for Crohns?

 

Do you think there was a reason that Seantrel lasted until the 7th round? In the spirit of avoiding a "zero information" situation, you might check this out: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/5/5/5683022/seantrel-henderson-marijuana-suspensions-nfl-draft

 

I think it's clear who is "bloviating" here.

If by bloviating you mean refusing to dismiss out of hand the potential for mitigating circumstances involved in a medical situation I have zero information on, then yes, guilty as charged. And please direct me to where I said, or even loosely asserted, pot was the only treatment for Crohn's. Should I wait, or shall I begin demolition of your strawman immediately?

 

How much time have you spend talking with Seantrel about his Crohns disease treatments? How many consults with you has his attending physician sought? Don't bother answering, we all know the answer is zero. So unless you're willing to argue that because your family members have not received pot as part of their treatment then it's not a useful treatment for anyone, what exactly does your family have to do with this? Well, other than trying to give yourself some faux authority to take a shot at a GM you want fired, all while passing judgment on the moral fiber of the player. Bloviating indeed.

 

What happened to n "we don't know all the facts" Freeman? Rape? Wait for all the facts! Weed? Low class loser! What a joke.

 

I don't know why he was smoking weed. His history doesn't make it look good, for sure (though I'd also point out he has several pro seasons under his belt without issue...he's not Josh Gordon here). I'm not even arguing he had a justifiable reason. I simply don't know. My issue is entirely with your incredulous dismissal of the mere possibility of a medical reason, and using that to lob a molotov cocktail at the front office. Or maybe you already had the molotov cocktail prepped, and just needed an impetus to knee-jerk into throwing it.

[That Aud Smell]

If this is Crohn's treatment, and if it's been prescribed by a doctor, I'd love to see Henderson and/or the NFLPA take this one to court.  

 

Hell and Yes.

I think that's the logical next step if he has all the proper documentation. Somehow I doubt that though...

 

Schefter (sp?) just Tweeted to the effect that his challenge is based on the fact that he tested positive because of treatment he was receiving for his Crohn's.

 

I'm betting it's all properly documented.

 

DEATH TO GOODELL!

[TrueBlueGED]

If this is Crohn's treatment, and if it's been prescribed by a doctor, I'd love to see Henderson and/or the NFLPA take this one to court.

If that's the truth of it, I can't imagine a scenario where it doesn't go to court.

[Samson's Flow]

Hell and Yes.

 

Schefter (sp?) just Tweeted to the effect that his challenge is based on the fact that he tested positive because of treatment he was receiving for his Crohn's.

 

I'm betting it's all properly documented.

 

DEATH TO GOODELL!

I'm reaaaaally hoping it is all documented and can really hurt the NFL.

[Eleven]

If that's the truth of it, I can't imagine a scenario where it doesn't go to court.

 

It's far from a winner, let's keep in mind.  The federal courts might very well hold that since medicinal marijuana is not permitted under federal law, the ADA doesn't apply.

 

He might do better in state court under state non-discrimination laws.

 

Either way, I would LOVE to see this issue get serious attention.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Eleven

[Drunkard]

I side with nfreeman on this. Regardless of whether it was doctor prescribed or not if it's on the NFL's list of banned substances, he shouldn't be taking it as a condition of his employment and he should have either told his doctor to find an alternative medication not on the banned substance list or he should be ready to accept the consequences for violating the rules or quit football a la Ricky Williams.

 

That being said, it's a stupid rule and I hope it goes to court and they rule against the league. The way the government treats marijuana is ridiculous and I'm glad the tide is starting to turn due to public pressure.

[nfreeman]

If by bloviating you mean refusing to dismiss out of hand the potential for mitigating circumstances involved in a medical situation I have zero information on, then yes, guilty as charged. And please direct me to where I said, or even loosely asserted, pot was the only treatment for Crohn's. Should I wait, or shall I begin demolition of your strawman immediately?

 

How much time have you spend talking with Seantrel about his Crohns disease treatments? How many consults with you has his attending physician sought? Don't bother answering, we all know the answer is zero. So unless you're willing to argue that because your family members have not received pot as part of their treatment then it's not a useful treatment for anyone, what exactly does your family have to do with this? Well, other than trying to give yourself some faux authority to take a shot at a GM you want fired, all while passing judgment on the moral fiber of the player. Bloviating indeed.

 

What happened to n "we don't know all the facts" Freeman? Rape? Wait for all the facts! Weed? Low class loser! What a joke.

 

I don't know why he was smoking weed. His history doesn't make it look good, for sure (though I'd also point out he has several pro seasons under his belt without issue...he's not Josh Gordon here). I'm not even arguing he had a justifiable reason. I simply don't know. My issue is entirely with your incredulous dismissal of the mere possibility of a medical reason, and using that to lob a molotov cocktail at the front office. Or maybe you already had the molotov cocktail prepped, and just needed an impetus to knee-jerk into throwing it.

 

Settle down.

 

Here's what you said:

 

If you want to hang your hat on "rules are rules" then that's your business. But bloviating about a medical situation you have zero information about simply because you want to take a shot at Whaley? That's some incredibly weak sauce right there.

 

 

 

I referenced my family member having Crohn's in response to your assertion that I had zero information -- because I have substantially more than zero information about Crohn's.  Obviously I wasn't in the room when Seantrel met with his doctor (speaking of straw men!) -- but that doesn't mean I have zero information.

 

I didn't say that you claimed that pot is the only treatment for Crohn's.  I simply made the point that it isn't the only treatment.  I don't think that's a controversial statement.

 

As for not knowing the facts -- again, I am relying on Hoss' reporting, which I think is reasonable. 

 

I think the only possible unknown fact that could emerge is that Seantrel's physician is both a good physician and has somehow determined that pot is the only effective treatment for his condition.  I think there is pretty much zero possibility of that being the case, but I'll gladly own up if I'm wrong.

 

As for the Bills' FO -- yes -- I will freely admit that I am inclined to interpret events like this as in keeping with my low opinion of them.  But what's wrong with that?  When EJ Manuel misses an open receiver on 3rd down, am I not allowed to feel that this failure reinforces my low opinion of him as a QB?

[SwampD]

Bloviate is a great word.

 

It's almost onomatopoeia.

[That Aud Smell]

I think the only possible unknown fact that could emerge is that Seantrel's physician is both a good physician and has somehow determined that pot is the only effective treatment for his condition.  I think there is pretty much zero possibility of that being the case, but I'll gladly own up if I'm wrong.

 

what on earth is going on here?

 

it is being widely reported that the player is claiming that his positive test for marijuana is because he was using the drug in order to treat a debilitating chronic disease (one that threatened his playing career). now you're on to presuming that his doctor is a quack who failed to make an informed medical decision on how to treat the guy?

 

dude.

 

edit: maybe you're just saying that you think seantrel self-prescribed. i guess that's possible. but if a doctor is involved, i'm not sure why anyone would presume ill of him/her.

Edited September 7, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[nfreeman]

what on earth is going on here?

 

it is being widely reported that the player is claiming that his positive test for marijuana is because he was using the drug in order to treat a debilitating chronic disease (one that threatened his playing career). now you're on to presuming that his doctor is a quack who failed to make an informed medical decision on how to treat the guy?

 

dude.

 

Yes -- he is claiming that he used pot to treat his illness.  Is he claiming that pot is the only effective treatment?

 

My view is that I am highly skeptical that it is the only effective treatment -- and if there are alternative treatments, it was Seantrel's responsibility to either use one of the alternatives or to get a waiver from the NFL for the pot.

 

I can't tell whether you think that pot is the only effective treatment, or whether you are just GD sick of the hypocritical NFL, or whether you think someone's right to treat his disease in the way he chooses trumps any prior agreement not to use pot, or other.

[That Aud Smell]

Is he claiming that pot is the only effective treatment?

 

No idea. I doubt it. Don't really care. 

 

My view is that I am highly skeptical that it is the only effective treatment -- and if there are alternative treatments, it was Seantrel's responsibility to either use one of the alternatives or to get a waiver from the NFL for the pot.

 

I want no part, at all, zero, of getting into the weeds on whether a player used weed as a treatment of last resort for a diagnosed medical condition. 's sake. Like I said: I find the point on which you're holding the line to be tired and lame.

 

 

I can't tell whether you think that pot is the only effective treatment, 

 

No idea. Don't care. It's an effective treatment. That's what I've read.

 

 

or whether you are just GD sick of the hypocritical NFL, 

 

this is a significant part of it, but not all of it.

 

or whether you think someone's right to treat his disease in the way he chooses trumps any prior agreement not to use pot, or other.

 

this is probably the other significant part of it - although the details would require some fleshing out.

 

i would be intrigued to see how a policy would hold up under these circumstances.

 

and i'm not at all versed in the specifics of how the substance abuse policy gets promulgated and approved under this CBA. i don't think the details are in the CBA -- i think the commish is granted broad discretion to formulate the program. whatever. the substance and rationale and application and upshot of this policy is horse sh1t. if henderson gets 4 games for using a banned substance (one that is NOT a PED) in a medically indicated manner, then, yeah, i think the CBA should cede to what was medically indicated.

[Randall Flagg]

Even if he self-prescribed, I can't be mad at a guy for knowingly violating a substance use rule because he has Crohn's Disease. Like, that sucks. I'd break any rule or law if I was in the middle of a battle with that .

 

If it was self-prescribed and doctors felt no need for it as part of the treatment plan, then I can understand the NFL's decision, though I won't be mad at Seantrel like I was Marcel. And obviously if it was part of the doctor's treatment, the NFL look even more like than usual.

 

Regardless of any of these criteria, the NFL's stance on marijuana is pretty silly, though hardly surprising

Edited September 7, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[Eleven]

Even if he self-prescribed, I can't be mad at a guy for knowingly violating a substance use rule because he has ###### Crohn's Disease. Like, that ###### sucks. I'd break any rule or law if I was in the middle of a battle with that ######.

 

If it was self-prescribed and doctors felt no need for it as part of the treatment plan, then I can understand the NFL's decision, though I won't be mad at Seantrel like I was Marcel. And obviously if it was part of the doctor's treatment, the NFL look even more like ###### than usual.

 

Regardless of any of these criteria, the NFL's stance on marijuana is pretty silly, though hardly surprising

 

Again, follow the money.  They don't make any money from marijuana growers, but they sure make tons from the makers of Percocet, Oxycontin, and the like.

[MattPie]

Again, follow the money.  They don't make any money from marijuana growers, but they sure make tons from the makers of Percocet, Oxycontin, and the like.

 

One perspective on the outlawing of pot in the 1930s was that it was pushed by the alcohol industry. You don't sell as much booze if you can get high from the field behind your house.

[qwksndmonster]

Also, Henderson was a 7th round pick. Pretty weak to attack Whaley for this.

[Randall Flagg]

Dumervil is out.

[nfreeman]

Also, Henderson was a 7th round pick. Pretty weak to attack Whaley for this.

Well, I'm fine with taking a late-round flyer on a guy with character issues. But that was several years ago. The issue now is that the team is constructed to rely on him as a starting tackle.

[Randall Flagg]

FWIW, there seems to be a huge shortage of offensive line talent in the NFL, and our center, LG, and LT range from good to elite. I think I'm willing to let the RT situation slide a little bit. (Was Henderson going to start over Mills in the first place?)