Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
From what was reported however, the incredible trace amount that was measured apparently is not much. Again, as I have posted previously, I do not dispute the desire on the NFL to administer discipline in line with what the players and league agreed to under current CBA or even that it makes sense to implement action in support of the current rules. It just seems that it is counterproductive to what seems to be needed for achieving compliance. Does the punishment fit the crime? It appears that the law that designates an action as being a crime, is unreasonable. The conduct being regulated while not in line with current expectations of the law, is gaining more and more acceptability - likely giving the league and players union a reason to loosen the screws when it comes to recreational pot use. The Gordon case is going to be feedback in the policymaking process that results in this type of 3 strikes approach to zero tolerance a thing of the past on the next go round of the CBA.
The threshold is the amount that the Mayo Clinic and the World Anti-Doping Association list as being indicative of marijuana use. It isn't some arbitrary amount.
It feels like people are just throwing small sounding adjectives on to the amount to try to make it sound trivial.
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
From what was reported however, the incredible trace amount that was measured apparently is not much. Again, as I have posted previously, I do not dispute the desire on the NFL to administer discipline in line with what the players and league agreed to under current CBA or even that it makes sense to implement action in support of the current rules. It just seems that it is counterproductive to what seems to be needed for achieving compliance. Does the punishment fit the crime? It appears that the law that designates an action as being a crime, is unreasonable. The conduct being regulated while not in line with current expectations of the law, is gaining more and more acceptability - likely giving the league and players union a reason to loosen the screws when it comes to recreational pot use. The Gordon case is going to be feedback in the policymaking process that results in this type of 3 strikes approach to zero tolerance a thing of the past on the next go round of the CBA.
The threshold is the amount that the Mayo Clinic and the World Anti-Doping Association list as being indicative of marijuana use. It isn't some arbitrary amount.
It feels like people are just throwing small sounding adjectives on to the amount to try to make it sound trivial.
I am not intending to label it as arbitrary but rather trying call to light that it may benefit the league if it considered making it more realistic tolerance level. What is the goal of the current policy? Does pot use affect game play? No. So it is more likely related to image, which indicates a purely punitive mentality towards compliance with behavioral norms. Suspending some of its best players for what amounts to small infrequent use of grass is foolhardy and damaging to the product.
The WADA is looking into whether or not the 15 ng/dl level is overly strict.
page 8 of 39
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/About_WADA/FoundationBoard_Minutes/FB%20May%202013%20Minutes_FINAL.pdf
Related to these proceedings, here is additional insight on the decision of WADA to consider raising the threshold of urine THC to more realistic levels.
http://golfweek.com/news/2013/may/14/tour-mum-wada-softens-stance-marijuana/
“We wanted to focus on the athletes that abuse the substance in competition,” said Julie Masse, WADA’s director of communications, from her office in Montreal. “This should exclude cases where marijuana is not used in competition.”
Marijuana and cannabis have been deemed prohibited substances by WADA since the agency’s original list, in 2003. According to Richard Pound, an attorney who was WADA’s initial chief and still serves on the Foundation Board, the U.S. historically has regarded marijuana as an entry-level drug and not considered to be performance-enhancing. American sports officials lobbied hard for the drug’s ban in athletics.
“From a sports perspective, I was rather ambivalent (toward marijuana),” Pound said. “As we morphed into WADA, the USA was very keen to have it included.”
Under the former threshold, Pound said that an athlete who used marijuana a month before competition was likely to be detected, as was someone exposed to second-hand marijuana smoke two weeks before an event.
“The 150 threshold number seemed to satisfy the scientific community,” Pound said.
Perhaps you were running with the wrong group of friends. I know this much, if I had tens of millions of dollars at stake, I would choose my friends more wisely. And nothing cures the urge to wake and bake like tens of millions of dollars at stake.
