PDA

View Full Version : Will Henry Play This Week?



BigBroncLove
10-05-2007, 03:26 PM
So here's a big question, and before you respond read the first post, not just the title. The question is, due to the fact that Henry currently has the league tied up with his "B" sample in court, and no suspension has been handed down yet, will Henry play against SD?

The League cannot confirm a positive drug test unless the second sample, or B sample has been also tested positive to ensure there have been no mistakes with the first sample, or A sample. Now I know an appelette court released the B sample, but I believe since Henry can escalate the appealete courtes decision to a higher court, that the NFL cannot take action on that ruling until it is either resolved in a higher court, or the case is moved to a different court (as the NFL is trying to do now).

So, lets weigh in, do you think Henry, at least this week will be able to play due to court proceedures and what appears to be a bit of a loophole with only two days left to resovle it?

Denver Native (Carol)
10-05-2007, 03:30 PM
Guess that's totally up to Shannie, as it does not appear the NFL can stop him.
Mark Schlereth said the appeal process could take up to two weeks, so I would think until the appeal is decided, he can play. The question is, was anyone other than him even practicing the running plays for the game plan this week. If not, that might be a deciding factor.

BigBroncLove
10-05-2007, 03:32 PM
Guess that's totally up to Shannie, as it does not appear the NFL can stop him.
Mark Schlereth said the appeal process could take up to two weeks, so I would think until the appeal is decided, he can play. The question is, was anyone other than him even practicing the running plays for the game plan this week. If not, that might be a deciding factor.

Two weeks, interesting. The Broncos would be smart ,at least for this week to start Henry against SD. It's a matter of putting your best players on the field, unfortunately not your smartest :lol: . Then come the bye week the Broncos can start working toward fitting in Young, Sapp, Hall, and Bell into the position, see who looks the strongest (I'm guess Young and Sapp) and decide where to go from there.

If Henry has the ability to play, I suppose it comes back down to a question of his injury and if it will effect him.

SR
10-05-2007, 03:46 PM
I read that the total process of his supension, etc, could take up to six weeks.

BigBroncLove
10-05-2007, 03:51 PM
I read that the total process of his supension, etc, could take up to six weeks.

Could you post the article?

If that is true... the Broncos won't nearly be in a bind like many are imagining, and the Broncos through that time could hand more balls to Young in the interim to spell Henry and get him the touches he needs to ease into the position.

However I can't imagine the NFL allowing the process to take that long. They have plenty of precedent to ensure that continuences and further delays through the court process are avoided.

pnbronco
10-05-2007, 04:08 PM
I understand he is our best running back at this time. I also understand that the general motto of football has become "winning is the only thing". At what cost to the organization do you let him play? I am a mother and I teach my kids wrong is wrong whether you get caught or not. The league had special meetings this summer to write new off field conduct, Foxworth was in on that. Henry knew that he had been caught before, twice and the Broncos were giving him a chance. He made a choice and broke clearly defined rules. I don't think he should play and it totally stinks for everyone else on the team, the fans and Denver itself.

BigBroncLove
10-05-2007, 04:15 PM
I understand he is our best running back at this time. I also understand that the general motto of football has become "winning is the only thing". At what cost to the organization do you let him play? I am a mother and I teach my kids wrong is wrong whether you get caught or not. The league had special meetings this summer to write new off field conduct, Foxworth was in on that. Henry knew that he had been caught before, twice and the Broncos were giving him a chance. He made a choice and broke clearly defined rules. I don't think he should play and it totally stinks for everyone else on the team, the fans and Denver itself.

Its a really thin line here IMO. If the Broncos take pre-emptive action without the league confirming that the test is positive for drugs, they also send a message, and what I precieve to be a poor message to their players. That this organization will jump the gun on incomplete information. So say a Bronco is falsly accused of some crime, what the Broncos are in effect saying is, we don't care if you actually are guilty or not (Even if it is true) we will take action based upon what WE believe to be true.

The Broncos have to balance this. Take severe action if he does infact test positive (and they have to wait for the test results to do that) but don't jump the gun and show this Broncos team that they are not pro player but pro image. I think the Broncos would be smart not to take any action until the test results are confirmed in my humble opinion.

pnbronco
10-05-2007, 04:27 PM
I hear what you are saying BBL. I can see the organization supporting the player till it is proven one way or another. I just don't want the message to be we knew he was guilty but over looked it because he has the talent we need.

BigBroncLove
10-05-2007, 04:33 PM
I hear what you are saying BBL. I can see the organization supporting the player till it is proven one way or another. I just don't want the message to be we knew he was guilty but over looked it because he has the talent we need.

I agree pnbronco, and at least morally I am in complete agreement with you. Unforunately due to this business nature, and the fact that many players consider the Broncos a classy organization, I think it's important to handle this case with kid gloves.

One thing I do want to see is Young included in the line up with more regularity. What that does IMO is not only allow him to get mroe touches and prepare for the eventuality that Henry will be sidelined, but also sends a psuedo message to Henry that the Bronco organization has less faith in him without actually spitting in his face....

It will be interesting to see how the Broncos choose to handle it.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-05-2007, 04:34 PM
I hear what you are saying BBL. I can see the organization supporting the player till it is proven one way or another. I just don't want the message to be we knew he was guilty but over looked it because he has the talent we need.

I believe the team will stand behind him, until all of the facts are in. If he did test positive, but after his two years was up, then suspension is out, and it is treated as a new case. Shannie has always said he will stand behind his players until everything is decided, and I feel that is the only thing he can do to keep the players confidence in him, as well as the organization.

Astrass
10-05-2007, 06:06 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3050883&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines

Henry will be playing it seems


Proclaiming himself sufficiently recovered from the knee and ankle injuries that kept him out of practice for much of the week, Broncos tailback Travis Henry, who is facing a one-year ban from the league for a repeat violation of the substance abuse policy, said Friday that he intends to play in Sunday's game against the Chargers.

"I'm going to play Sunday," Henry said after Friday's practice, the only session in which he participated all week.

Broncos coach Mike Shanahan also said that, barring any physical setback, Henry will be in the lineup against San Diego.

The NFL's leading rusher through the first four weeks of the season, Henry sprained his right knee and right ankle in last week's loss at Indianapolis.

Both Henry and Shanahan declined to discuss reports that the veteran tailback has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the league from testing a so-called "B" sample that is standard for positive drug tests.

League sources said Friday that it could be two to four weeks before the matter is resolved. During that time, it is expected that Henry will continue playing.



Clayton: Injury updates

Check out John Clayton for the latest news on injuries going into Week 5 of the 2007 NFL season. Injury report

The issue being challenged by Henry is that the NFL would not allow his expert to observe the testing of the "B" sample. Although the collective bargaining agreement permits a player to have an expert present for testing, league vice president Greg Aiello said that expert cannot be affiliated with any laboratory.

The expert presented by Henry, Dr. William Closson of Long Island, N.Y., did have such an affiliation. The league provided Henry with the names of 10 independent experts as reference for his potential use.

In an affidavit filed by Henry on Sept. 18 as part of his court action -- it was obtained by the New York Daily News -- he stated: "There is no valid reason why any unlawful substance would be in my urine. This must be a mistake."

Henry also noted in the affidavit: "If I fail this test, I will be suspended for one year from my employment, and will be obliged to repay all signing bonuses paid to date. ... I will be prejudiced if my expert cannot observe these tests."

Henry, 28, signed a five-year, $22.5 million contract with the Broncos in March, only days after his release by the Tennessee Titans (the Titans did so to avoid paying him an $8 million roster bonus). The deal included a $6 million signing bonus to be paid in three installments and he has received $2 million of that.

A seventh-year veteran, Henry has rushed for 433 yards and one touchdown on 86 carries in the first four games of the season.

For his career, the former University of Tennessee star has carried 1,407 times for 5,828 yards and 35 touchdowns in stints with Buffalo (2001-2003), the Titans (2004-2006) and the Broncos. He was the Bills' second-round choice in the 2001 draft and was traded to the Titans in 2004.

The top backup to Henry, as listed on the Denver depth chart, is rookie Selvin Young, an undrafted free agent who has logged 15 carries for 138 yards. Also on the roster is second-year veteran Mike Bell, who rushed for 677 yards and eight scores in 2006, but who is currently listed as a fullback and who has only five carries in 2007.

While Henry intends to play this week, Shanahan said that wide receiver Javon Walker, who is battling a knee problem, will not play against the Chargers.

rcsodak
10-05-2007, 06:42 PM
Reminds me of my drill sergeant....



...."smoke 'em if you got 'em"....... :cool:

SR
10-05-2007, 07:21 PM
Reminds me of my drill sergeant....



...."smoke 'em if you got 'em"....... :cool:

They still say that today...lol

TXBRONC
10-05-2007, 07:24 PM
Reminds me of my drill sergeant....



...."smoke 'em if you got 'em"....... :cool:

Yeah but did he mean a doobie?

dogfish
10-05-2007, 09:14 PM
BBL, i agree completely-- it's the league's job to mete out justice in these situations, let them do it. . . in the meantime, i would run the wheels off him, and try to at least get a little something back from all the money we invested in him. . . :tsk:

broncosfanscott
10-05-2007, 09:21 PM
BBL, i agree completely-- it's the league's job to mete out justice in these situations, let them do it. . . in the meantime, i would run the wheels off him, and try to at least get a little something back from all the money we invested in him. . . :tsk:


You said it. Let's get what we can out of him before he is gone for a year.

Fan in Exile
10-06-2007, 10:25 AM
As much as I want them to be ready at the running back position for the time when Henry may not be there, I hope that this week they pass more. San Diego's secondary, although better than it has been is pretty weak. It seems to me that now is a good time to get Cutler ready for the load that he's going to have to carry. Let him find a rhythm, working with his receivers and TE's.

BigBroncLove
10-06-2007, 09:13 PM
As much as I want them to be ready at the running back position for the time when Henry may not be there, I hope that this week they pass more. San Diego's secondary, although better than it has been is pretty weak. It seems to me that now is a good time to get Cutler ready for the load that he's going to have to carry. Let him find a rhythm, working with his receivers and TE's.

I agree... this is agame where you play the pass to set up the run, not the other way around. SD's defense weaknesses are so evident, and Henry being banged up, I'm sure the coaching staff will agree :D .


As for an update about Henry. Schefter last night was talking about the time table for Henry's suspension. Depending on how long the court process takes, and Carol was talking about 2 weeks, then there will be likely a four week period after that where the NFL cannot take action. First the results have to be released by the court (2 weeks by Carols estimation), then the NFL front office has to make a ruling (a few days or more), then Henry has 5 days to make an appeal (which he will likely wait till the last day to stretch it out), then that appeal will take two weeks to review and make their decision. Then and only then can the NFL take action and enforce the ruling.

So around 5 - 6 weeks depending on the courts. So looks like seeingred was right!

Joel
10-07-2007, 08:14 AM
So, lemme see if I have this straight: League rules allow a player to have an expert present for evaluation of his "B" test, but only if it's an UNQUALIFIED expert? "You can have a drug test expert present, but not anyone affiliated with any lab". What's the point...?

But I admit I'm a little disappointed in the Leagues priorities generally here; Tank Johnson had to get a federal judges permission to play in the Super Bowl because he wasn't supposed to leave the state after they found a small arsenal in his house; as of week 9, he'll be starting for the Cowboys. Travis Henry and Rickie Williams smoke pot from time to time and their careers are finished. For the record, it's NOT the Leagues job to mete out justice here; we have this thing called "the criminal justice system" that does that; obviously I can understand suspending a guy who's incarcerated, on probation or on parole. What I can't understand is an eight week suspension for a guy who committed a felony and ending the careers of two others who aren't even under investigation or charges. I don't really miss Rickie Williams; he's never been a team player so his decision to pick drugs AND football and demand us all to accept that is unsurprising, but something seems a little out of whack here. I can't wait to reflect on my gratitude the League is so much more concerned about intoxication than gun running as I watch the next Bud Bowl....

Den21vsBal19
10-07-2007, 09:58 AM
My first impression is that Shanny has got to allow the due process to run, and as such Henry is free to play.



The issue being challenged by Henry is that the NFL would not allow his expert to observe the testing of the "B" sample. Although the collective bargaining agreement permits a player to have an expert present for testing, league vice president Greg Aiello said that expert cannot be affiliated with any laboratory.

Surely if he's not affiliated to a lab, then he can't be any kind of expert. :confused:


The expert presented by Henry, Dr. William Closson of Long Island, N.Y., did have such an affiliation. The league provided Henry with the names of 10 independent experts as reference for his potential use.

The League provided!?!?!??!?

Surely that completely nullifies any concept of independance?

Surely it's upto the player involved, with or without the assistance of the PFA as required, to choose anybody with the appropriate qualifications, not to pick an independant from a league approved list.

Don't get me wrong, if and when Henry's proven to have used illegal substances, again, then he should get what's coming to him, but it does seem that the league is skating on the verge of draconionism with some of it's behaviour lately.

Lonestar
10-07-2007, 10:40 AM
So, lemme see if I have this straight: League rules allow a player to have an expert present for evaluation of his "B" test, but only if it's an UNQUALIFIED expert? "You can have a drug test expert present, but not anyone affiliated with any lab". What's the point...?

But I admit I'm a little disappointed in the Leagues priorities generally here; Tank Johnson had to get a federal judges permission to play in the Super Bowl because he wasn't supposed to leave the state after they found a small arsenal in his house; as of week 9, he'll be starting for the Cowboys. Travis Henry and Rickie Williams smoke pot from time to time and their careers are finished. For the record, it's NOT the Leagues job to mete out justice here; we have this thing called "the criminal justice system" that does that; obviously I can understand suspending a guy who's incarcerated, on probation or on parole. What I can't understand is an eight week suspension for a guy who committed a felony and ending the careers of two others who aren't even under investigation or charges. I don't really miss Rickie Williams; he's never been a team player so his decision to pick drugs AND football and demand us all to accept that is unsurprising, but something seems a little out of whack here. I can't wait to reflect on my gratitude the League is so much more concerned about intoxication than gun running as I watch the next Bud Bowl....

But it is their job to make sure that the league is drug free for a multiple of reasons. Safety of said players being on the leading edge. Not to mention the PR and liability of the league and its owners, should one of there players get out on the streets and run into and killing a bus load of budding Micheal Jordan's on their way to a sporting event.

When one signs a contract for services, the employer has the right to make sure they get their moneys worth. They (players) should be able to control their urges, if not then the owner should be compensated for the morons lack of good faith. If one wants to smoke, do drugs or bed any and every moderately warm female body, then they should not sign the contract. IMHO

Lonestar
10-07-2007, 10:47 AM
Why is everyone looking for loopholes for this immoral miscreant to jump through?

If he did it and it certainly appears to be the case then he should pay the price.

It is not like it is the first time and they knew from the first batch there is a problem. Just what difference does it make if they tested the second batch with or without his rep being there?

This moron knew what the rules are/were he chose to ignore them!!

Do the substance abuse rules do not apply to him?

BigBroncLove
10-07-2007, 11:09 AM
Why is everyone looking for loopholes for this immoral miscreant to jump through?

If he did it and it certainly appears to be the case then he should pay the price.

It is not like it is the first time and they knew from the first batch there is a problem. Just what difference does it make if they tested the second batch with or without his rep being there?

This moron knew what the rules are/were he chose to ignore them!!

Do the substance abuse rules do not apply to him?

Who is this everyone :rolleyes:. As far as I can see, only one person in this thread actually says that Henry shouldn't be suspended. The rest of us are wondering when he will be suspended. There's a big difference. But if it's a crime to try and look at the situation soberly and figuer how long Henry has left in the league this year (and we are not to blame for the proceedures with which the league suspends someone, talk to the players association for that), lock me up.

As for Morambars comments, The league explicity does not allow an indiviudal to have an expert present during the drug test that works at the facility he is being tested at. Henry's expert did work at that facility. The league then gave him a list of 10 other experts that work at different facilities for him to call, to which he refused. As Carol (denver Native) posted what Mark Schleareth said, and I agree, "I don't know how he's going to win his appeal."

Lonestar
10-07-2007, 11:32 AM
Who is this everyone :rolleyes:. As far as I can see, only one person in this thread actually says that Henry shouldn't be suspended. The rest of us are wondering when he will be suspended. There's a big difference. But if it's a crime to try and look at the situation soberly and figuer how long Henry has left in the league this year (and we are not to blame for the proceedures with which the league suspends someone, talk to the players association for that), lock me up.

As for Morambars comments, The league explicity does not allow an indiviudal to have an expert present during the drug test that works at the facility he is being tested at. Henry's expert did work at that facility. The league then gave him a list of 10 other experts that work at different facilities for him to call, to which he refused. As Carol (denver Native) posted what Mark Schleareth said, and I agree, "I don't know how he's going to win his appeal."

Perhaps I should have stated it in the terms if he is guilty get it done. That way we can get on with our season and perhaps they can get the money back.

It is gonna happen, now everyone seems to be trying to eek out a couple more games before he is suspended and probably cut from the team.

Quit being jail house lawyers and do it.

If the clown can't even wait a few weeks to get out from under the NFL sanctions what does that tell you about him? It is obvious to most logical folks that this clown has zero on his morality meter. Do we even want the clown on the team?

BigBroncLove
10-07-2007, 11:39 AM
Perhaps I should have stated it in the terms if he is guilty get it done. That way we can get on with our season and perhaps they can get the money back.

It is gonna happen, now everyone seems to be trying to eek out a couple more games before he is suspended. Quit being jail house lawyers and do it.

If the clown can't even wait a few weeks to get out from under the NFL sanctions what does that tell you about him? It is obvious to most logical folks that this clown has zero on his morality meter. Do we even want the clown on the team?

:rolleyes: Wow! :rolleyes: This was talked about at length. Once again, we do not set the precedents with which the league deals with suspensions. There is an appeal process, and Henry has extended that with his trial in U.S. courts. Your implying that people are TRYING to find reasons for him to remain unsuspended shows a lack of reading skills. Almost everyone has said that once his tests come in positive, nail the guy to the wall, but as I said in previous posts that must be balanced with the teams morale.

If hte Broncos take pre-emptive action against Henry they will eb setting an unsettling precedent. That the team will not wait till someone is actually guilty, they will enforce justice based upon incomplete information. In the U.S. a person is innocent until proven guilty, it goes the same for this case. So until it can be proven Henry is guilty, the Broncos organization would be smart not to take any disciplinary action. Once he is though, it would behoove them to take severe action. This seems to fall in line with exactly what the Broncos are doing.

If you have a problem with the process don't get angry at the people anlyzing the process, get angry at those who created the process. PErsonally I think it's fine, and if you should be angry about anything, it should be that HEnry is wasting tax payers dollars to extend his stay in the NFL this season a week or two....

Lonestar
10-07-2007, 11:49 AM
:rolleyes: Wow! :rolleyes: This was talked about at length. Once again, we do not set the precedents with which the league deals with suspensions. There is an appeal process, and Henry has extended that with his trial in U.S. courts. Your implying that people are TRYING to find reasons for him to remain unsuspended shows a lack of reading skills. Almost everyone has said that once his tests come in positive, nail the guy to the wall, but as I said in previous posts that must be balanced with the teams morale.

If hte Broncos take pre-emptive action against Henry they will eb setting an unsettling precedent. That the team will not wait till someone is actually guilty, they will enforce justice based upon incomplete information. In the U.S. a person is innocent until proven guilty, it goes the same for this case. So until it can be proven Henry is guilty, the Broncos organization would be smart not to take any disciplinary action. Once he is though, it would behoove them to take severe action. This seems to fall in line with exactly what the Broncos are doing.

If you have a problem with the process don't get angry at the people anlyzing the process, get angry at those who created the process. PErsonally I think it's fine, and if you should be angry about anything, it should be that HEnry is wasting tax payers dollars to extend his stay in the NFL this season a week or two....


I'd guess my lack of reading comprehension it the issue here so I'll pass on further comments beyond this one.

Mikey's lack in the GM area seems to be the problem, with his inability to NOT gather some talent that has not had character issues again and again.

Every time he has done so and even writing contracts to punish them, these clowns keep bobbing up with more or NEW issues.

I recommend to him to stay as far away from this clowns in the future. Because even though they may get the money back it is still a roster spot that is being lost, as well as a disruption of the teams mental preparations week to week. God only knows this team needs absolutely ZERO disruptions mentally week to week.

topscribe
10-07-2007, 12:05 PM
:rolleyes: Wow! :rolleyes: This was talked about at length. Once again, we do not set the precedents with which the league deals with suspensions. There is an appeal process, and Henry has extended that with his trial in U.S. courts. Your implying that people are TRYING to find reasons for him to remain unsuspended shows a lack of reading skills. Almost everyone has said that once his tests come in positive, nail the guy to the wall, but as I said in previous posts that must be balanced with the teams morale.

If hte Broncos take pre-emptive action against Henry they will eb setting an unsettling precedent. That the team will not wait till someone is actually guilty, they will enforce justice based upon incomplete information. In the U.S. a person is innocent until proven guilty, it goes the same for this case. So until it can be proven Henry is guilty, the Broncos organization would be smart not to take any disciplinary action. Once he is though, it would behoove them to take severe action. This seems to fall in line with exactly what the Broncos are doing.

If you have a problem with the process don't get angry at the people anlyzing the process, get angry at those who created the process. PErsonally I think it's fine, and if you should be angry about anything, it should be that HEnry is wasting tax payers dollars to extend his stay in the NFL this season a week or two....

Let's not talk about people's lack of reading skills. JR, who is a Mod, might
have let that slide, but I won't.

-----

BigBroncLove
10-07-2007, 12:08 PM
Let's not talk about people's lack of reading skills. JR, who is a Mod, might
have let that slide, but I won't.

-----

Fair enough...

Joel
10-14-2007, 06:12 AM
But it is their job to make sure that the league is drug free for a multiple of reasons. Safety of said players being on the leading edge. Not to mention the PR and liability of the league and its owners, should one of there players get out on the streets and run into and killing a bus load of budding Micheal Jordan's on their way to a sporting event.

When one signs a contract for services, the employer has the right to make sure they get their moneys worth. They (players) should be able to control their urges, if not then the owner should be compensated for the morons lack of good faith. If one wants to smoke, do drugs or bed any and every moderately warm female body, then they should not sign the contract. IMHO
Well, I confess this is rather a sore point with me; it's perfectly reasonable for the company--ANY company--to expect employees to come to work stone cold sober and not hung over (though I doubt anyone would get a suspension of any number of weeks for playing hung over, at least not from the League... ) but the company--ANY company--doesn't own me when I'm off the clock. When they're paying me to do a job they have every right to expect their money's worth, and if I'm not delivering that in every sense it's as much as theft, but when they're NOT paying me, when I'm sitting at home in my own living room, about the only thing I owe them is not blabbing trade secrets, putting my feet up on one of their computers or badmouthing them to the media.

As for the particular case of professional sports and drugs, I stand by my previous argument: Tank Johnson could outfit a small army out his home this time last year and got an eight game suspension that didn't even cause him to miss the SB DESPITE the fact he needed permission from a federal judge to attend, since the terms of his felony probation prevented him leaving Illinois. The latest on that is that he and the Cowboys are negotiating with a sympathetic Godell to have his eight game suspension lifted early, after tomorrows game against NE. So, Henry (probably) committed a pair of what, in most states, are Class C misdemeanors, over the course of three years, and his career is probably over; Johnson commits multiple federal felonies and probably won't even finish an eight game suspension. That's before we examine whether and how many murderers are starting for the Ravens....

So let's not talk about the integrity of the League or the need to protect the public from guys who happen to be NFL players when they're not actually on the field. For one thing it brings back some old memories, like when the League told Kevin Mack, in the midst of an AFC Central title race that went down to the wire between Cleveland and Houston (it was decided in week 16, Houston at Cleveland; winner hosted the loser in the wildcard, which meant Houston didn't pack after the game and Cleveland ultimately lost to Denver in the AFCCG) "oh, you got busted for steroids AGAIN? No biggy.... " I'm not saying it's OK to smoke pot, let alone legal (though I'm willing to say the former if you like), I'm just saying it's absurd for a League whose major sponsors are Coors and Bud to slap people on the wrist for buying more guns than small countries, shooting steroids in route to Defensive Player of the Year balloting or (possibly) KILLING A MAN, but end someones career over smoking pot. If they want to do that, fine, but I think conviction for federal felonies should carry at least as stiff a penalty as actions that bring no arrests or charges, let alone a trial or conviction.

If, in fact, the League simply said the players expert observer can't be from the lab conducting the test, rather than barring experts from ANY lab, that is indeed a very different kettle of fish, but that's not how I've seen it reported by any media outlets. If that's the case, at the end of the day he signed an agreement fully aware of the terms (or at least, he SHOULD have been fully aware when he signed, and could certainly afford lawyers to ensure he was). My employer drug tests and, while I disagree with that on principle, they're not obligated to employ me, and if I want to keep my job I won't do drugs. I just wish the League would be a little more even handed in what and how they choose to punish. Call me crazy, but smoking pot doesn't seem any morally worse than murder or gun running (it's certainly not prosecuted as a federal felony) so I don't see why the penalty should be. Makes me so angry I could chug a case of beer; fortunately the NFL will be along in about six hours to suggest various brands.... :rolleyes: