Weed, ESPN, and Dave Brandon
David Brandon pops in with his opinion on this front page ESPN piece about weed.
Most interesting paragraph:
"Wolverines are now suspended for 10 percent of their team's competitions after the first positive drug test and 33 percent of competitions after a second, and they receive a one-year suspension from all activities after a third positive result. "I think it's a competitive disadvantage to have a program where there is drug usage as part of the culture," Brandon says. "I don't look at it as a competitive disadvantage if we have to suspend a student-athlete from time to time to make a point.""
Discuss.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:48 AM ^
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7819621/ncf-oregon-ducks…
The Oregon article is pretty interesting as well.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
"It's the weed capital of the world. Long dreads. Girls with hairy armpits. Where there's hippies, there's weed." -- Former Oregon Duck Reuben Droughns
April 18th, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
This is a solid move. The penalties for failed drug tests have been a bit weak ever since the Carr days.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
Given that it's probably hard to focus on both football and school while also being a stoner, I think it's a good move.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^
and I made it to most of the 330 games
and I was totally stoned the whole time
April 18th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
he's off the weed now...
April 18th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
My opinion? Smoking weed should be treated the same as drinking alcohol. Do as much of it as you want, as long as it isn't affecting other aspects of your life.
If a player isn't putting in the work he should because he's getting stoned - that's a problem. If he's showing up to any team event stoned - that's a huge problem. If he's done with his stuff for the day and wants to smoke a bowl while watching TV or playing video games before bed - or if he wants to spend his Saturday night smoking on the porch instead of hitting up Skeepers? I'm perfectly OK with that.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^
Perfectly solid opinion. The law disagrees with you.
It also disagrees with you regarding alcohol (when it comes to your age, getting in a car, being out in public while drunk, etc.)
April 18th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
I never made any claims about being drunk and doing any of the things that you mentioned. So the law doesn't disagree with me there.
But if we're going strictly by the law, then an underage player who gets an MIP should get the same punishment as one who tests positive for weed, since they are basically equivalent offenses. Same with any other law breaking. If "the law" is what we're going by for our athletes, then it needs to be the same across the board.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^
I just kind of assumed MIPs were encompassed in this rule described above. I agree with you it should be the same if it isn't.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:21 PM ^
April 18th, 2012 at 12:34 PM ^
Yeah, I have to agree that the illegal substance abuse is going to be harsher than abuse of a legal substance just because it is two infractions versus one, but that also feels like semantics. Personally, I agree that weed might as well be treated as alcohol in terms of infractions, but then you'd have to legalize weed in the process.
Weed in Oregon is treated as a lesser offense in some instances in Oregon. Getting caught with less than one oz. of weed in Oregon is simply a violation of the law. I believe it is a Class A Violation which carries a fine of $435, same as driving while suspended or not stopping for a school bus. The joke around police departments in Oregon is that weed is "legal" due to the leniency in penalty/ fact that anyone can get a medical card for anything.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^
Since your opinion arguably rests on a technicality (marijuana is illegal, alcohol isn't), shouldn't the fact that weed is treated the same as under age drinking in Ann Arbor matter?
Getting caught on campus subjects you to the harsher state laws.
I believe in many cities (ie: A2 & EL) the punishment for possession of marijuana (personal use amounts) is actually less than the punishment for underage drinking.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
or if anyone does, but if you are a Michigan resident, and also a college student athlete, and paid your $100, errr...got a prescription for a medical marijuana card (say you have Crohn's disease or something), would the NCAA just not test you for pot, or ignore the pot because you are legally allowed to partake, or is there something in NCAA bylaws that says something to the effect that "we dont care about local laws, if you want to be a scholarship athlete under the regulations of the NCAA then we say you cant, no matter what"?
I'm curious more than anything. Any insight is appreciated
April 18th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^
I don't think the NCAA conducts drug tests. It's the individual schools that do.
They pick a certain number of random schools out of a hat, and then pick random sports at those schools. They also test randomly at championship events.
That being said, I doubt they catch 1/10 of what the schools themselves do; usually the schools catch any infractions.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:04 PM ^
I think the main thing to be worried about here is the munchies though. As bad as having a player suspended is, putting on all the bad weight due to late night runs for Funions, Cheetos, and Doritos would be the real dowside to weed use
April 18th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
a jack and coke still has 120 calories. A beer has 120 or so. As much as it would take to get some of these football players drunk, they'd be consuming a lot of liquid calories.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^
They're man enough, they don't need.
Still outselling Responsibilityuns
April 18th, 2012 at 12:05 PM ^
Full disclosure - I've never smoked, but I have a lot of friends who did/do. and I try not to judge. And I'm not asking this rhetorically:
Wouldn't weed be more likely to negatively affect a player's performance though? Just the whole smoke/lungs/running/athlete thing? While alcohol will cloud judgement and dehydrate, couldn't the means of intake (smoking vs. drinking) make it even more detrimental?
April 18th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
Nah, you could always use a vaporizer. Then it's no smoke. I think there's also been studies that showed no long term lung damage from smoking weed like there is from tobacco. I don't have any links, nor am I a smoker, just relating what I've been told and read.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
In the article it talks about how players don't want to use anything like vaporizers or bongs because it leaves evidence. So instead most players smoke the pot out of joints, which I'm pretty sure have some detrimental effects on the lungs.
A bong would be similar in its health effects as smoking a joint, FYI. Both involve the combustion of the marijuana plant which is the process that introduces carcinogens. As opposed to the vaporizer, which extracts the THC from the plant by superheating the plant itself, rather than burning it.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
Depends on the manner of intake. Sure, smoking a joint would be more or less like a cigarette (actually probably more tar) and would have adverse effects. However, using a vaporizer that actually cools the smoke and mixes it with water vapor would have much less of an effect.
Of course, if you wanted zero lung guilt and all of the high, they could always go with edibles, which would just be like eating a brownie or a sucker.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
I've known a bunch of good athletes who smoke, and it doesn't seem to do much damage to athletic performance. The biggest impact I've seen is lack of desire and focus.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
The biggest impact I've seen is lack of desire and focus.Seems to me like the correlation between 'lack of desire and focus' and 'lack of playing time' is likely to be high, particularly while Hoke is the sheriff.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^
April 18th, 2012 at 10:43 PM ^
I've smoked a pretty fair amount of pot while training for half-marathons or being on three recreational soccer teams and two ultimate frisbee teams. I'm not an elite runner, but I managed some really good times. So, no... doesn't have much of an affect.
Also, don't confuse smoking cigarettes with smoking marijuana. They are entirely different substances with vastly different chemicals so they'll affect your body differently. You're going to have to dig pretty hard to find any study of any repute that concludes pot has any long-term effects on your health or body.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
I agree with him. I have no problem with weed, and think it should be legalized in general, but even then I think athletic programs should have the ability to make rules against weed, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Not for moral reasons, but because these are all things that can hurt their performance. Why would a team allow that?
April 18th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^
Furthermore, you can't allow kids to break any law based on your opinion of that law. As long as it is illegal, it must be held as a serious offense. What type of message does it send when some laws are ok to break or preferentially (un)enforced?
April 18th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think there's a lot of merit to this: (Note: In class right now and cannot listen to what this clip says, so I'm just guessing that it's the right one. It looks right.)
April 18th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^
Love the clip! I just watched that episode not too long ago...Season 3: Hamsterdam
However, I just started Season 4 and this has always been the best season in my opinion.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
I know this is blasphemous, but I didn't enjoy most of The Wire except seasons 3 and 4. Those two were excellent. It's hard to choose one over the other.
Loved Season 3 - my favorite. Season 4 depresses me. Haven't watched Season 5 yet.
My wife and I have been working our way through The Wire and are about to finish Season 5. Sad to say, but Season 5 is a disappointment. Which is a shame, because we both thought the first 4 seasons were some of the best TV we've ever seen. I don't want spoil anything for those of you haven't seen Season 5, but there are some unrealistic plot developments that kind of ruin the whole season. Of course, we'll finish it out (3 episodes to go!), but that's only because the first 4 seasons were so good.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:53 AM ^
So is the university at a competitive disadvantage for being so weed friendly? I think the track record shows otherwise... DB makes a valid point that sitting kids puts them at a disadvantage, but it is due to the punishment not due to the drug use.
April 18th, 2012 at 11:53 AM ^
Dave Brandon just continues to prove why he is in the position he is. We don't need athletes around the program that want to partake in illegal activities. If that happens and nothing is done about it, then we become Florida.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^
Drinking underage is "illegal," and most of the team is underage. You think even half of the underage football players at Michigan don't drink?
Not arguing your point about DB, just saying that they can actually get in more legal trouble for drinking underage (MIP, other illegal actions that being drunk can cause) than smoking weed ($25 fine, slap on wrist).
Most of them participate in an illegal activity or another, some are just more acceptable than others as your comment suggests.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^
April 18th, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^
like Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama
The most succesful Olympian in history.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
I'm all for following the law. I'm only commenting on the general acceptance of underage drinking compared to the disapproval smoking of weed. Especially when often the only argument for those who disapprove of smoking weed is that it's illegal. Underage drinking is illegal too but that's OK when you're in college, right?
as long as you get your class work done, and don't do anything stupid like DUI ... but maybe that was the 80's