OT: Randy Gregory tests positive for marijuana at NFL Combine

Submitted by GoWings2008 on

Did my due dilligence and didn't see it out there, but just found this article.  Randy Gregory, a Nebraska defensive lineman who tallied 17.5 sacks over the last two seasons, tested positive for marijuana at the Combine.

“I blame myself,” Gregory told NFL Media’s Kimberly Jones in an interview. “And I know it sounds cliché, but there’s really no one else I can blame.”

I know its not the first time its happened, nor will it be the last, but a shame for someone to potentially jeopardize their future over something like this.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/randy-gregory-tested-positive-for-marijuana-at-nfl-combine/ar-AAa1cRE

 

Bando Calrissian

March 26th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^

At the same time, the NFL (and other sports) should recognize that while illegal, marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug. But it's a function of the post-1980s "Just Say No" culture of extraordinarily punitive punishments of drug users that makes this a ticker item on ESPN instead of the slap on the wrist it should probably be.

OldDad67

March 26th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^

then be self-employed. I've done both. When I worked for an employer, I followed their rules, whether I liked them or not. When I was self-employed, I made the rules and my employees either followed my rules or found employment elsewhere (or became self-employed themselves). Your choice. 

APBlue

March 26th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^

It really is that easy to say no to the Mary Jane.  Just put the pipe down.  

And this kid does have that option.  He knew the NFL combine was the biggest job interview he would ever have.  He knew they would drug test him while he was there.  He still failed that drug test.  

I think it says more about his intelligence and decision making abilities than anything else.  It was just dumb.  

OldDad67

March 26th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^

But if you want to make millions in the NFL you follow their rules. If not, find work somewhere else. It just amazes me how people feel that because they disagree with a rule, they can do what they please and then, when caught, blame the rule. At least Gregory manned up and said that he has no one to blame but himself. He's right. 

Magnus

March 27th, 2015 at 8:01 AM ^

"Most people don't have that option."

They might not have THAT option, but we all make choices on a daily basis. People generally know the difference between right and wrong (if not morally, then at least legally). The right choices are generally the ones that let you live freely, get the best paying job you can, etc. Ultimately, smoking marijuana is something that most people who do it *want* to do, not something that is suggested/required by medical professionals.

As a professional athlete, people choose to set their alarm for a certain time. They choose to eat grilled chicken and vegetables instead of McDonald's. They choose to drink water instead of Mountain Dew. They choose to run hard in conditioning and not lollygag at the back. Those are the "rules" or at least "expectations" of the profession so they can be responsible professionals and good at their jobs. There's really no reason why they can't choose to avoid smoking weed.

APBlue

March 26th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^

Did he say you're a pleb for doing what you're told???  I agree with you.  I've also been employed and I've also been self-employed.  

OK, kids, pay attention.  If you're going to take the man's money, you've got to take the man's rules.  

If you dont' like it, get the fuck out.  

MaizeNBlu628

March 26th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^

Agreed, a recruiter recently reached out to me to speak about an open position at a large company. Though I'm happy where I am now, I agreed to talk just to keep doors open. When the recruiter told me that they conducted random monthly drug tests, I already knew at the end of the conversation I would tell her I would not wish to pursue the position any further. It's absurd, especially since the company is located at a place where weed is legal.

I honestly feel some companies are losing top talent, especially top young talent, because of things like this. I only smoke once in a while, but it is absurd to me that I would be tested for it randomly and could potentially lose my job to something that would have 0 impact on my performance at work.

Magnus

March 26th, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^

It's not absurd if the employer wants people who are drug-free. Companies can choose how they want to spend their money. Nobody tells you who to hire as a babysitter, lawn care provider, etc. Why should a company be any other way? It's their choice, just like it's yours to turn down their overtures.

In reply to by somewittyname

Magnus

March 26th, 2015 at 11:30 AM ^

I have never seen a law drafted that says, "People have the right to any job they want, or if the rules of that job don't suit them, they can be guaranteed a job at an equivalent company in the same location."

Rules suck sometimes. But you either follow the rule, or you work to change it.

The Mad Hatter

March 26th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

Especially in states where marijuana is legal?  Is it ok to forbid your employees from engaging in other legal activities while they're off the clock?  It is btw, some companies are testing for nicotine usage now.   

I don't like the smell of curry.  Should I be able to ban my employees from eating it at home?

And if we're going down that slippery slope, why stop at ingesting substances?  How about not hiring homosexuals because you find their sexual activities to be distasteful?  

Laws are tilted against employees in this country.  Way worse than in most of the rest of the first world.

Magnus

March 26th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^

I don't know of any laws stopping you from not hiring someone who smells like curry. Personal hygiene, appearance, etc. are relevant to some jobs.

The law says you can't base hiring practices on sexual orientation. So I guess I don't know what your point is. No, we can't do that...and there's a law against it...and nobody in this thread has suggested that we should fire people for homosexuality...so...you win, I guess? Congrats.

The Mad Hatter

March 26th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^

yes, of course they do.  This country has been subjected to anti-drug propaganda for decades.  The minimal research that the government allowed to take place was specifically geared towards finding negative aspects of various drugs, while never being allowed to look for positive benefits.  Now there's a bunch of kids that don't have to have 50 seizures per day thanks to medical marijuana.

Bi-Polar people and sufferers of treatment resistant major depression are finding astonishing relief using Ketamine.  MDMA is being used to treat PTSD.

Should people get high at work?  Probably not.  But 1/2 the workforce used to get drunk every day at lunch and we got by ok.

Magnus

March 26th, 2015 at 1:24 PM ^

I'm not denying that there are positive factors with the use of medical marijuana.

I'm guessing the majority of people using marijuana, however, are not using it as doctor-prescribed medicine.

So you just said people shouldn't be smoking pot at work. Should they be allowed to smoke it on their walk/drive to work? Should they be able to smoke on their 30-minute lunch break? If they shouldn't be smoking at work, I'm assuming you're admitting it could affect your state of mind. So how exactly can you be sure that their mind wouldn't be affected if they smoked five minutes before they walked in and sat down at their desk?

The Mad Hatter

March 26th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^

I'm operating heavy machinery or performing surgery, why do you care?  I work for a mid-major financial institution, and I can guarantee that there are people high on all sorts of things in my building right now.  As long as they can do their jobs, no one cares.

My best friend is pretty high up at Netflix and has worked for major tech companies and government contractors.  He works in IT / IS and tells me that people come to work stoned every day and do just fine.

If Silicon Valley started doing random drug testing the entire tech industry would collapse.

 

And to answer your question there's a new saliva test out that can tell if the THC is active or was from prior use.  If it's not already, it will be used for DUI tests in states that legalize. 

Magnus

March 26th, 2015 at 3:49 PM ^

"And to answer your question there's a new saliva test out that can tell if the THC is active or was from prior use.  If it's not already, it will be used for DUI tests in states that legalize."

I was not aware of this new test, so thanks. That's part of what I was asking, but I had to ask it about five times in this thread before I got an answer.

Anyway, *I* don't care whether you're high or not. But I do think employers have a right to care and hire/fire as they see fit. I'm pretty sure that if I got caught, I would get fired. There are obviously other jobs out there like that, so NFL players should actually feel pretty lucky that their jobs are not tied to stuff like this. Sure, they might get fined or suspended, but they'll only get fired if they make the same mistake over and over again.

However, if you're my taxi driver, my kid's bus driver, my kid's day care provider, the financial planner dealing with my millions of dollars, etc., then I would certainly hope you're not high on the job.

OldDad67

March 26th, 2015 at 4:09 PM ^

that people are working at a mid-major financial institution are high on all sorts of things and I shouldn't care? People come to work stoned every day and do just fine? Sorry, but it sounds like you're stoned right now if you truly believe that. 

The Mad Hatter

March 26th, 2015 at 4:24 PM ^

Seriously, I'm asking.  Because if you think that the people running this country are all sober all the time, you're either very young or very naive.  People take xanex, pain killers, anti-depressants, and a host of other medications that have mind altering side effects.  You really think they only take them at night?

And if you truly are an "old dad" surely you remember the 3 martini lunch.  As that is no longer socially acceptable, many people use pharmaceuticals to get through the day.

EDIT:  You're old enough to remember the 3 martini lunch.  My apologies for the assumption about your age.

 

OldDad67

March 26th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^

During my years at UM (67-71) there was plenty of drugs on campuses.  Just Google the yippee generation. For the record, I have never participated in any use. That said, it really has no bearing on my original point which is that if Mr Gregory, or anyone else, wishes to be hired by an employer, they are subject to the rules of that employer (this, of course, assumes that the rules are not discrimatory). We can argue the merits or non-merits of Marijuana use all day, but until the NFL changes its policy, if you get caught, you are subject to the consequences, whatever those may be. 

My gut feeling is that teams will be much more concerned about his decision making process than the fact that he smoked in the first place. As an aside, after graduation I was a high school teacher and if I smoked Marijuana and was caught, I would have lost my license. Needless to say I was not inclined to take that chance. Of course, students were caught smoking weed all the time and nothing was ever done about it. One of the reasons I left the profession. Which again refers back to my original point - if you don't agree with the rules (or in my case the lack thereof) you can find work somewhere else. 

APBlue

March 26th, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^

I don't do drugs at all, but I understand the employers' point of view.  Many of them, for quality purposes or liability purposes don't want people who use drugs to work at their company.  

They have that right as well.  They're not telling you that you can't smoke pot if you want to.  They're just telling you that they don't want you to work for them - if you're going to smoke pot.  

As a company, don't they have that right?  

Moleskyn

March 26th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^

This may be toeing the line of politics, but if you're using marijuana as an example of how employment laws are tilted in favor of employers, you're making a weak argument. Of all the things that employers could screen employees for, marijuana is way down the list of "oppressive" things. This is a non-issue for a lot of people and makes logical sense. And your examples below of the benefits of marijuana are clearly exceptions to the rule. Most people don't need it for medical reasons. 

Tuebor

March 26th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^

Especially in states where marijuana is legal? Is it ok to forbid your employees from engaging in other legal activities while they're off the clock? It is btw, some companies are testing for nicotine usage now. - It is still illegal on a federal level.  The nicotine testing is probably related to health insurance, you can get a break on health insurance policies if you don't have to cover any smokers. 

I don't like the smell of curry. Should I be able to ban my employees from eating it at home? - You can set hygiene standards.

And if we're going down that slippery slope, why stop at ingesting substances? How about not hiring homosexuals because you find their sexual activities to be distasteful? - There is a difference between smokers of drugs and homosexuals.  Sexual Orientation is a protected class while substance use is not.

Laws are tilted against employees in this country. Way worse than in most of the rest of the first world. - Conversely you could say that laws in the rest of the western world are tilted agianst employers. 

Erik_in_Dayton

March 26th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^

...being something that the law should prohibit.  From a purely medical/job performance standpoint, it's pretty hard to justify firing someone for testing positive for marijuana when that same person likely would have been fine drinking five shots of whiskey per night so long as she did her job well.

I'm not arguing that the law shouldn't allow employers to make decisions based on marijuana use.  I'm simply saying it doesn't make any sense.

And, FWIW, I rarely even drink, so none of this means anything to me personally.

Magnus

March 26th, 2015 at 11:48 AM ^

This is essentially a discussion about supply and demand.

If you want to get a high-paying job in the NFL, you should avoid smoking weed. There are other people in the world who will happily take those millions of dollars and avoid smoking weed.

If I had a job that paid me a lot of money and they said "We do alcohol tests," then I would not drink so I could keep making lots of money. If I had a crappy job that paid me $9 an hour and they did alcohol tests, I would drink if I wanted to. If I lose the job, I can probably find another one that will still give me crappy pay in crappy situations.

We are not guaranteed jobs in this country. We are guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we fail in that pursuit, that's our own damn fault. This isn't Frank Underwood's America Works program where anyone/everyone can get a job if they just sign up for one.

Erik_in_Dayton

March 26th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

My points are only that focusing on marijuana while ignoring alcohol has no basis in science and that this is a different issue than the legality of screening for marijuana use but not alcohol use.  I agree with you that an employer should be allowed to screen for marijuana but not alcohol use, but I also think doing so is dumb.

 

APBlue

March 26th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^

I'm not sure, but this has been my assumption for a long time.  If there were a test that could determine how long that marijuana has been in your system, it would fall in with the use of alcohol.  

Because marijuana stays in your system for 30 days (roughly) and the test can't determine whether it was ingested 3 days or 3 hours ago, it has to be a zero tolerance. 

Or there are newer tests that I'm not aware of that do exactly what I just claimed couldn't be done.  

Who knows.  

MaizeNBlu628

March 26th, 2015 at 2:35 PM ^

Maybe absurd is the wrong word, and I agree they absolutely have the right to choose how/who they hire as employees. The absurd part is just my personal opinion of companies that choose to do so. I think they are limiting their talent pool, and may miss on top quality candidates because of it. The recruiter told me she had trouble finding the right candidates with experience when she reached out to me. 

MaximusBlue

March 26th, 2015 at 11:32 AM ^

It is now 2015. You can't really view weed like you did 20 years ago. Hell you can't even view it like you did 5 years ago. These wheels are moving forward at a good pace as far as weed becoming legal across the US.

I don't live in Michigan, but I know a couple of my buddies have medical Marijuana licenses and they're as healthy as can be. Weed just isn't that serious anymore.

Now getting caught especially when you knew this was coming was just damn stupid and he deserves whatever repercussions come from it. Like I heard Golic say this morning...this kid basically just failed the stupid test.

Like with Mitch, I'm more disappointed he got caught than him smoking in the first place.

Moleskyn

March 26th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

What does this even mean? How is the century we are living in relevant to the argument? Are employers not within their rights to expect their employees to show up to work sober-minded and ready to contribute, regardless of what year it is? As others have said in this thread already, weed impairs your judgment/cognitive ability. From our friend Don, down in this thread:

However, it is an intoxicant. As somebody who smoked a decent amount of it back in the day, I can say from personal experience that anybody who asserts that it has literally no deleterious effect whatsoever on a user is naive.

I don't see what the big deal is with employers having standards and expecting their employees to live up to them.

MaximusBlue

March 26th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^

Some guys can smoke and still be productive. I've seen guys smoke and got to work, the gym, play basketball,etc. Some guys smoke and get happy,giggly,and have the munchies. Other guys smoke and get paranoid, and it messes with their mind. People like that shouldn't be smoking as your body is saying it's not for you. You just have to know yourself.

No problem with employees having standards, but I do feel sometime in my lifetime that a story like this will be irrelevant.