I don't see why this decision is being embraced.
Whenever I see Jolly play, he makes a key deflection. He has a nose for that, you can't teach that, and I see nobody else on our defensive line that does that.
Losing Jolly means we lost much needed depth. Gloat on Neal and Wilson all you want, but we don't know what they offer.
"dfosterf" wrote:
I can only speak for me, but I also happen to know that many of our fellow members on this site feel pretty much the same as I do.
My fandom does not include rooting for players that evidence serious character flaws. From what I have read, Mr. Jolly was rather heavily involved with the whole sizzurp/purple drank culture...
Some might say his whole deal was an accepted way to roll from whence he came in Texas.
You do the crime, you do the time- period. I don't care if it's Jolly, Aaron- whoEVER. If I want to root for thugs and assholes, I'll become a Vikings fan.
"blueleopard" wrote:
I find myself of two minds. And when I find myself of two minds, I find I must take great care as to which mind I listen to.
One mind says I have no problem with the suspension. One mind says I have a profound problem.
One mind says Jolly is a moron and good riddance. The other says innocent until proven guilty.
One mind says that an employer should be able to associate (or refuse to associate) with whoever it wishes. The other says that the employer should stick to "performance-based" criteria and what the employee does on the job.
I admit it, I have trouble with drug testing in general. I've never worked for an employer who tests its employees for drugs and hope that I never do. I think testing should be the exception rather than the rule, and used only when there is a clear connection between the drug being tested for and a distortion of performance: e.g., the air traffic controller who needs all faculties, the athlete who takes steroids to enhance performance. Places where the consequences of drug use (avoidable plane crashes, the "integrity of the game") are real and substantial.
But too much drug testing, it seems to me, goes well beyond this, to busybodiness and moralism about what the employee should do in their non-work time. When it comes to "off work," my feeling is that the better employer is the one that follows "innocent until proven guilty in court".
Come back to Mr. Jolly. There are two possible reasons for his suspension here -- one is possible criminal involvement in his non-work activity; the other is multiple failures of drug tests of one kind or another.
Case one: criminal activity.
My understanding is that, at least officially, this was *not* the grounds for his suspension. (I say "officially" because this is where the "two minds" problem can easily creap in: because of our unconscious willingness to convict before the court does, we often try to find other reasons (see case 2) to justify what we want to do because we think the person a thug/criminal. I do, I know, and I'm betting the PR-driven Goodell does, too.)
IMO, a suspension based in any way on the former ought to wait until conviction unless it is a case of true thuggishness. A good rule of thumb for me would be "is the action in question a tort as well as a cime": the employee who beats his wife is not just committing a crime (for which the employer should wait until the court has determined), but also the tort of assault (for which the employer need not wait, since tort liability is not based on either innocence or guilt).
In Jolly's case, ISTM, there is no obvious tort involved. Drinking the wrong substance may be stupidity personified, but nothing I have heard has shown someone other than Jolly being harmed as a result. You can't have a self-inflicted tort. So the only question is whether he committed a "crime", and therefore Goodell, et al, should wait however long it takes for conviction.
Case 2: failing drug tests.
IMO, the timing of the tests and the substances found is key to me here. Especially the substances. Steroids are the easy case: if the athlete is found to having used steroids a la McGwire, I'd throw him out. Probably forever, but at least for a year: he's messed with the integrity of the results of the game in a real way.
If he's found to have been under the influence of marijuana on game day, AND I believe it affected how he did his job, then I'd throw him out for that, too.
But I don't believe an employer should be testing for marijuana in the "offseason". If the employer can't assess the player's "committment" to team excellence without a drug test, the employer isn't doing its job. Because not everyone who does marijuana is a Cheech and Chong stoner.
If the employee thinks his employee is lazy or not working hard enough, the employer shouldn't need a drug test to fire the employee's ass if the employer is so inclined.
Yes, marijuana use is a crime (most places). But the imposition of sanctions for "crime" is *not* the job of private citizens. Perhaps it should be -- many anarchists would say so, but far as I know I'm the only one on this board who thinks anarchism is a good idea. But it isn't. The law may be an ass, but when it comes to crime, we've collectively committed to letting the state decide when criminal sanctions are given.
So where does this all leave me in my two minds?
1. If Goodell wants to punish Jolly for his purple-dranking, he should have held off for now.
2. If Goodell is punishing Jolly for failed drug tests, it depends. If the failed tests were "in season", or if they were "performance altering", I have no problem with throwing the book.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)