What's new
By:

Sefolosha suspended for 5 games

Rubashov said:
Wrong. In the case of systemic doping 3 or 4 players on same team or organisation the organisation is supposed to be penalised. Thats what the AFL were **** scared of, would have screwed out of hundreds of millions of dollars on their tv deals
Click to expand...

Id need to check the organisation angle but it was out of the AFLs hands once it reached WADA. Players were definitely liable though.
 
MVP said:
So if he smoked pot while in Denver does that mean NBA laws are above state laws? What will happen when it will be legal in all USA?
Click to expand...
You realize in the states where marijuana has been legalized employers can and do still test for it and deny employment and/or fire people for testing positive?
 
fishonjazz said:
i dont think anyone is trying to say that mj isn't against the rules. We all understand that it is against the rule. I think some people just think its a stupid rule and we sharing our opinion about that.
Click to expand...

People were asking questions...

You dont put question marks on statements.
 
I don't know if national legalization would change employment MJ screening. I think some places would drop it, but many would keep it. Drug screening is driven in large part by workers' comp and liability insurance. They get to deny coverage if the person tests positive and I'm sure MJ is far and away the primary drug they find due to its long dwell time in fatty tissue. I bet it saves them a ton in what are completely legitimate workplace injuries that have nothing to do with drug use.
 
elan_prodigy said:
Id need to check the organisation angle but it was out of the AFLs hands once it reached WADA. Players were definitely liable though.
Click to expand...

Rule designed with the chinese swim team and the east germans in mind. Its all nonsense anyway the Russian shouldnt have been at this winter games or the next summer but i bet you they have dirt on 95 percent of the IOC members.
 
MVP said:
Agree if during work. Not their business if after hours.
Click to expand...
Agree or not that's how it works. They don't care when you smoked MJ, if you pop-positive you're fired. I've never heard of any leniency at all in that regard. Most employers with a drug policy are zero-tolerance. Regardless of state-level legalization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
MVP said:
Agree if during work. Not their business if after hours.
Click to expand...
I've worked for employers that are tobacco free and you can be let go for it. From one perspective they argue the cost of providing insurance. In any case, I lean more libertarian on issues that employers can require whatever silliness they want, and it's up to individuals to choose whether they want to work there or not.
 
infection said:
In any case, I lean more libertarian on issues that employers can require whatever silliness they want, and it's up to individuals to choose whether they want to work there or not.
Click to expand...

Generally I agree with you. Especially about dress code. So much fuss and leftist political correctness about somebody not hiring or letting somebody go because of dress code. If I am a business owner and have no headwear policy at my work place ( be it safety, sterility or whatever reasons) who can tell me that I must let person work with turban or hijab to accommodate their religious beliefs? I should have right to hire whom I want and nobody should scream religious discrimination because of that.
 
MVP said:
Agree if during work. Not their business if after hours.
Click to expand...
How do you determine if it was consumed at work or after hours when someone fails a drug test?
 
fishonjazz said:
How do you determine if it was consumed at work or after hours when someone fails a drug test?
Click to expand...
The same way everyone makes a judgment on why someone died after a toxicology report... "he had ___ in his system."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top