Lavon Brazill Suspended for First 4 Games

[amfootball]

You know he was making fun of Hernandez right lol?

And yet it so aptly applies to the Colts. How about that?

[BrentMc11]

Six pages says you do care and the other thread is at 8.

 

You mistake me my friend. The comparison is not the crimes but the irony of those gloating over AH and the Pats. Does not take long for things to come around.  

I have not seen anyone gloating over Hernandez.  I have tried to make light of it at times.

 

Truth is, the NFL has some serious issues that cast an enormous cumulonimbus cloud over the league no matter what the issue: Drugs, firearms, domestic violence, and yes murder.

 

I am not surprised Brazill may have wanted to 'enhance' himself...he may not have even made the team if you listen to some people.  Lefeged......flat out stupid in any circles.

 

I think we all tend to think about the players and the teams, when we really should be focussing on the victims of more serious crimes.  Josh Brent of the Cowboys, for example....makes me nauseous!!

[amfootball]

I have not seen anyone gloating over Hernandez.  I have tried to make light of it at times.

 

Truth is, the NFL has some serious issues that cast an enormous cumulonimbus cloud over the league no matter what the issue: Drugs, firearms, domestic violence, and yes murder.

 

I am not surprised Brazill may have wanted to 'enhance' himself...he may not have even made the team if you listen to some people.  Lefeged......flat out stupid in any circles.

 

I think we all tend to think about the players and the teams, when we really should be focussing on the victims of more serious crimes.  Josh Brent of the Cowboys, for example....makes me nauseous!!

Hi Brent,

 

Gloating, making light, all the same thing. I think humor is important to be honest to help us all get through. Good natured ribbing is expected.

 

I agree though about the seriousness of it all. At some point Goodell has to suspend players for life not just for a few games. The owners wil hate it but the deterrent has to be much stronger.

[BrentMc11]

Hi Brent,

 

Gloating, making light, all the same thing. I think humor is important to be honest to help us all get through. Good natured ribbing is expected.

 

I agree though about the seriousness of it all. At some point Goodell has to suspend players for life not just for a few games. The owners wil hate it but the deterrent has to be much stronger.

Brent would be a nice opportunity to suspend for life after a fatal crash and another offense.....

 

If it make ya feel any better I am an equal opportunity smart ___!!!  Lefeged and Brazill got just as much 'light' made of with me as Hernandez!  

[House]

And yet it so aptly applies to the Colts. How about that?

I think the post was designed around the bolded words lol.

[Superman]

Hi Brent,

 

Gloating, making light, all the same thing. I think humor is important to be honest to help us all get through. Good natured ribbing is expected.

 

I agree though about the seriousness of it all. At some point Goodell has to suspend players for life not just for a few games. The owners wil hate it but the deterrent has to be much stronger.

 

Gloating and making light is not the same thing.

 

There are plenty of jokes over there at Hernandez's expense. Those are making light of the situation. None of them are gloating over the Patriots' loss.

 

There is a more pointed thread over there regarding how this loss will affect their football team, in addition to the other injuries and defections they've had this season. And there, where you might expect some gloating, there's only discussion about whether the Patriots will be able to adjust. And the overwhelming sentiment is that they'll be fine.

 

I think you see anything that's not positively pro-Patriots as anti-Patriots, and that's not the case. Some Colts fans might dislike the Pats, but they are still more objective about them than you are.

[amfootball]

Gloating and making light is not the same thing.

 

There are plenty of jokes over there at Hernandez's expense. Those are making light of the situation. None of them are gloating over the Patriots' loss.

 

There is a more pointed thread over there regarding how this loss will affect their football team, in addition to the other injuries and defections they've had this season. And there, where you might expect some gloating, there's only discussion about whether the Patriots will be able to adjust. And the overwhelming sentiment is that they'll be fine.

 

I think you see anything that's not positively pro-Patriots as anti-Patriots, and that's not the case. Some Colts fans might dislike the Pats, but they are still more objective about them than you are.

lol, man. You could not be more wrong. There is plenty of gloating, joking, and even ribbing. Don't act like fans here are all on the up and up. They aren't.

 

And please don't talk about objectivity. Colts fans are often the least objective about their own team. Luckily there are those of us to provide some balance ... lol.

[House]

lol, man. You could not be more wrong. There is plenty of gloating, joking, and even ribbing. Don't act like fans here are all on the up and up. They aren't.

And please don't talk about objectivity. Colts fans are often the least objective about their own team. Luckily there are those of us to provide some balance ... lol.

Pot. This is kettle. Kettle this is pot. Word on the street is you two have a lot in common.

[amfootball]

Pot. This is kettle. Kettle this is pot. Word on the street is you two have a lot in common.

I don't disagree. But to insinuate that Colts fans are objective is laughable ...

[House]

I don't disagree. But to insinuate that Colts fans are objective is laughable ...

To insinuate that they are any less objective than any other fan base, including yours, is even more laughable.

[chrisfarley]

Hi Brent,

 

Gloating, making light, all the same thing. I think humor is important to be honest to help us all get through. Good natured ribbing is expected.

 

I agree though about the seriousness of it all. At some point Goodell has to suspend players for life not just for a few games. The owners wil hate it but the deterrent has to be much stronger.

I am surprised that they are talking about suspensions for Brazil without knowing all the facts.  i'm sure they are fact finding.  I doubt he gets suspended.

[Superman]

I am surprised that they are talking about suspensions for Brazil without knowing all the facts.  i'm sure they are fact finding.  I doubt he gets suspended.

 

Brazill? He's suspended, definitely, for the first four games of the season.

 

Lefeged? Nothing from the team or the league just yet.

[Superman]

I don't disagree. But to insinuate that Colts fans are objective is laughable ...

 

I didn't say Colts fans are objective, as if they have no preference in any matter, one way or the other. I said Colts fans are typically more objective with regard to the Patriots than you are. And that's because you're a Patriots fan.

 

Bottom line is you came in this thread throwing dirt, and it's absolutely ludicrous that you would do so. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

I have to admit though, since the Hernandez thing, people have been taking a lot of shots at the Patriots. Though it should be expected because of the huge target on their backs. Colts fans should be reluctant to pull the trigger though, because we would need a cleaning crew to get rid of the stains from our organization. It's not like we have a squeaky clean org. either. ;)

Even though we feel disrespected. 

[amfootball]

I didn't say Colts fans are objective, as if they have no preference in any matter, one way or the other. I said Colts fans are typically more objective with regard to the Patriots than you are. And that's because you're a Patriots fan.

 

Bottom line is you came in this thread throwing dirt, and it's absolutely ludicrous that you would do so. 

You must have never read Locke Down's posts on the Pats ... lol

[Crunked]

I have not seen anyone gloating over Hernandez.  I have tried to make light of it at times.

 

Truth is, the NFL has some serious issues that cast an enormous cumulonimbus cloud over the league no matter what the issue: Drugs, firearms, domestic violence, and yes murder.

 

I am not surprised Brazill may have wanted to 'enhance' himself...he may not have even made the team if you listen to some people.  Lefeged......flat out stupid in any circles.

 

I think we all tend to think about the players and the teams, when we really should be focussing on the victims of more serious crimes.  Josh Brent of the Cowboys, for example....makes me nauseous!!

I gotta admit most of this post turned into Charlie Brown's teacher....you had me at "cumulonimbus" ....lol too funny~

[Jay Kirk]

Brent would be a nice opportunity to suspend for life after a fatal crash and another offense.....

 

If it make ya feel any better I am an equal opportunity smart ___!!!  Lefeged and Brazill got just as much 'light' made of with me as Hernandez!  

Got to back you on this Brother,no one is more unhappy over these 2 than us,but you have made humor from it,and that's good,but you also know the serious side as well.Im not sure as an owner if I would tolerate the infractions.Case in point Substance abuse,if I were to flunk a drug test at work,what would happen ?Would they forgive 1rst offense or put my butt to the curb ?Im all for forgiving but should we the common worker be held to a higher standard than these professional athletes just because they make big money?

[Superman]

Got to back you on this Brother,no one is more unhappy over these 2 than us,but you have made humor from it,and that's good,but you also know the serious side as well.Im not sure as an owner if I would tolerate the infractions.Case in point Substance abuse,if I were to flunk a drug test at work,what would happen ?Would they forgive 1rst offense or put my butt to the curb ?Im all for forgiving but should we the common worker be held to a higher standard than these professional athletes just because they make big money?

 

Are you part of a union? Are the terms of your employment partially determined by a collectively bargained labor agreement?

 

To be clear, teams can release players for whatever they want, including a failed drug test. If the Colts wanted to release Brazill because of this, they could. But the first offense/second offense stuff is determined by the NFL's substance abuse policy, and that was collectively bargained by the NFLPA. Don't conflate two separate issues.

[Jay Kirk]

Yes sure am.Fully aware of NFLPA substance abuse language ,sense I just posted it in a thread yesterday.Also aware the Colts could cut anyone at anytime.However I really don't understand where your coming from.Myself giving an opinion ,called free speech ,if you don't like it ignore it.Simply stating a point of view.Dont see that I said anything you need to correct .

[Superman]

Yes sure am.Fully aware of NFLPA substance abuse language ,sense I just posted it in a thread yesterday.Also aware the Colts could cut anyone at anytime.However I really don't understand where your coming from.Myself giving an opinion ,called free speech ,if you don't like it ignore it.Simply stating a point of view.Dont see that I said anything you need to correct .

 

So your opinion is "free speech," but I can't give my opinion? I can't disagree with you?

 

I wasn't correcting you. It might be true that you would be fired from your job if you failed a drug test, but that's between you and your employer, based on the terms of employment that you agreed to. Per the terms of an NFL player's employment, they are not automatically fired for failing a drug test. Those rights are collectively bargained. You're not necessarily held to a higher standard, it's just a different standard.

 

And separate from that is the player's individual contract, which can be terminated at any time. So maybe an individual team has a zero tolerance policy, and will release a player for a first offense. That's up to that team. The player isn't protected from that, unless there are guarantees in the contract (and even then, sometimes those guarantees can be voided due to failed drug tests, like Justin Blackmon). Like I said, I think it's a mistake to combine all these issues into one, and then say "if I fail a drug test at work, I get fired." You evidently have different terms of employment. I've never had to take a drug test for work, and a lot of people can say the same, so for us, it's a lower standard than an NFL player.

 

But if you were an NFL owner and decided to implement a zero tolerance policy, that would be your right. It might even contribute to fewer violations from your players. It's not a bad idea. I just don't think that has anything to do with "the common worker."

[Jay Kirk]

So your opinion is "free speech," but I can't give my opinion? I can't disagree with you?

 

I wasn't correcting you. It might be true that you would be fired from your job if you failed a drug test, but that's between you and your employer, based on the terms of employment that you agreed to. Per the terms of an NFL player's employment, they are not automatically fired for failing a drug test. Those rights are collectively bargained. You're not necessarily held to a higher standard, it's just a different standard.

 

And separate from that is the player's individual contract, which can be terminated at any time. So maybe an individual team has a zero tolerance policy, and will release a player for a first offense. That's up to that team. The player isn't protected from that, unless there are guarantees in the contract (and even then, sometimes those guarantees can be voided due to failed drug tests, like Justin Blackmon). Like I said, I think it's a mistake to combine all these issues into one, and then say "if I fail a drug test at work, I get fired." You evidently have different terms of employment. I've never had to take a drug test for work, and a lot of people can say the same, so for us, it's a lower standard than an NFL player.

 

But if you were an NFL owner and decided to implement a zero tolerance policy, that would be your right. It might even contribute to fewer violations from your players. It's not a bad idea. I just don't think that has anything to do with "the common worker."

That's really the point I was trying to make,all though I wouldn't go 0 tolerance in all honesty,Brazils case ive not heard enough info to really judge on it.We do have a problem in the NFL with players thinking they can do anything and get by with it.Im not sure what the answer is but the ship does need to be tightened up.As far as the bargaining unit thing ,mine is not much different,if they have reasonable suspicion they can require testing,difference is if I flunked I would be fired,not nessicaraly the case in the NFL.Reason I say im being held to higher standard.In Brazils case I think we don't know everything,I do trust the management of the Colts to make right decisions,they have in the past  you are entitled to your opinion, just felt like you were trying to correct mine,after all an opinion or more hypotheticaly theory

[Superman]

That's really the point I was trying to make,all though I wouldn't go 0 tolerance in all honesty,Brazils case ive not heard enough info to really judge on it.We do have a problem in the NFL with players thinking they can do anything and get by with it.Im not sure what the answer is but the ship does need to be tightened up.As far as the bargaining unit thing ,mine is not much different,if they have reasonable suspicion they can require testing,difference is if I flunked I would be fired,not nessicaraly the case in the NFL.Reason I say im being held to higher standard.In Brazils case I think we don't know everything,I do trust the management of the Colts to make right decisions,they have in the past  you are entitled to your opinion, just felt like you were trying to correct mine,after all an opinion or more hypotheticaly theory

 

I get why you say it's a higher standard. But in the NFL, they can release a player without a failed drug test, at the discretion of the team. So while the substance abuse policy seems a bit more liberal, that doesn't prevent a player from losing his job. That's why I say it's a different standard.

 

I agree that we don't really know a lot about Brazill's situation. I'm not sure this is a recent event; it could be something that goes back months. And depending on what he tested positive for, it could be a minor thing or a serious thing. Over the counter pseudoephedrine is banned by the NFL, which I think is pretty ridiculous. Just giving a first year player the benefit of the doubt, he could have taken some cold medicine and then had a test. Of course, this is a second offense, so it's more serious than that. Either way, it's irresponsible on his part. But I don't think rushing to judgment is beneficial for anyone.

[BrentMc11]

Are you part of a union? Are the terms of your employment partially determined by a collectively bargained labor agreement?

 

To be clear, teams can release players for whatever they want, including a failed drug test. If the Colts wanted to release Brazill because of this, they could. But the first offense/second offense stuff is determined by the NFL's substance abuse policy, and that was collectively bargained by the NFLPA. Don't conflate two separate issues.

I worked in a union atmosphere for 22 years, and with rehab came many changes in our atmosphere.  For example, in 1987 you smelled alcohol on an employee....they had to get tested and more than likely would be fired on the spot.  If they refused....fired.

 

Most union shops (depending on local and national contracts) today allow the employee rehab. and an opportunity to come back to work.  The employee can still be fired for refusal to take test.

 

You may have known this already, but some might not.  Fire arms offenses are known as 'cardinal sins' which are 'firing' offenses. (Guns, fighting, vandalism/destruction of property etc)

[BrentMc11]

Good debate Jay and Superman...that is what makes this forum great!!  I had to put likes on both....both make valid points...enjoyed them!!  

[Jay Kirk]

I get why you say it's a higher standard. But in the NFL, they can release a player without a failed drug test, at the discretion of the team. So while the substance abuse policy seems a bit more liberal, that doesn't prevent a player from losing his job. That's why I say it's a different standard.

 

I agree that we don't really know a lot about Brazill's situation. I'm not sure this is a recent event; it could be something that goes back months. And depending on what he tested positive for, it could be a minor thing or a serious thing. Over the counter pseudoephedrine is banned by the NFL, which I think is pretty ridiculous. Just giving a first year player the benefit of the doubt, he could have taken some cold medicine and then had a test. Of course, this is a second offense, so it's more serious than that. Either way, it's irresponsible on his part. But I don't think rushing to judgment is beneficial for anyone.

I agree ,I have to take the pseudoephedrine on a fairly regular basis for my sinus,in all honesty when im having problems with them nothing else works,and ive tried all the prescription stuff.It just doesn't cut it 

[krunk]

Admittedly, what Lefeged did was far more dangerous than what Brazill did, which, sources tell me, was testing positive for smoking marijuana. Lefeged’s indiscretion involved drinking, drugs and guns. Brazill was only guilty of doing what millions of Americans do on a semi-regular basis.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130703/SPORTS15/307030054/Kravitz-Colts-should-wait-Lefeged-s-fate-cut-Brazill?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

So it appears Brazil is likely guilty of toking Mary Jane. AKA The Chronic. I figured as much.

[Superman]

Admittedly, what Lefeged did was far more dangerous than what Brazill did, which, sources tell me, was testing positive for smoking marijuana. Lefeged’s indiscretion involved drinking, drugs and guns. Brazill was only guilty of doing what millions of Americans do on a semi-regular basis.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130703/SPORTS15/307030054/Kravitz-Colts-should-wait-Lefeged-s-fate-cut-Brazill?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

So it appears Brazil is likely guilty of toking Mary Jane. AKA The Chronic. I figured as much.

 

Lefeged may have been smoking as well. Officers said they smelled weed in the car. Might be nonsense, since they didn't find any evidence of it, and they were driving a convertible.