Jarret Stoll Discussion II (Warning in Post #1)

[KINGS17]

Am I the only one that finds this line absolutely ****ing ridiculous? Celebrating what?

Don't you know that these guys have been under a lot of stress the last 3 seasons and played way too much hockey? They need that partying in Las Vegas to relieve all of the tension and stress that comes from being a professional athlete.

They were celebrating no post season.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Great, now TMZ is sniffing around the Kings. They won't stop until a bigger, better story comes along. These guys better get their noses clean and keep them that way until all of this blows over.

Yeah, I see what you did there!

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Am I the only one that finds this line absolutely ****ing ridiculous? Celebrating what?

Off-Topic: Yeah, I had mixed-feelings about that aspect, too; on the one hand, what those guys went through really was (and, always is, no matter how bad the team is/how futile the season ends up being) a grind, and it's easy to sit here in a leather chair/air-conditioned office and say, "You're partying on behalf of THAT season?!?"...but, on the other hand, "They're partying on behalf of THAT season?!?!?"

Back to Stoll: Prior to this incident, I wouldn'tve minded him back at a one-year/ballpark-1M deal (not that he necessarily would've taken that prior to this incident), but after this, it's probably best that he's done as a King, since the less distractions going into next season, the better...

 

[Buddy The Elf]

I'd be outright shocked if Stoll is brought back unless there is some explanation for this. Even if he were a mule and not planning to participate (which seems unlikely to me), that is still very poor judgement for a guy who is/was supposed to be one of the character guys on the team.

It always baffles me that stuff like this happens. They could've rented a house out and had a pool party at it. They could've invited all the girls in the world and done as much coke and molly as they wanted and flown completely under the radar. But they have to go and do it in public.

 

[YP44]

Don't you know that these guys have been under a lot of stress the last 3 seasons and played way too much hockey? They need that partying in Las Vegas to relieve all of the tension and stress that comes from being a professional athlete.

They were celebrating no post season.

The end of the season is like the company christmas party. Was it a successful year, no, but that does not mean they should not be able to do some LEGAL celebrating.

 

[KINGS17]

The end of the season is like the company christmas party. Was it a successful year, no, but that does not mean they should not be able to do some LEGAL celebrating.

I agree, that's fine. Just don't make an ass clown out of yourself and embarrass the company.

 

[HeadInjury]

Regarding the "celebrating", this is a tight knit group and there are going to be changes this summer, with some guys being gone. They are all aware of this. Seems perfectly okay to get together to celebrate what they've accomplished together over the years. It's been a hell of a ride.

None of this explains why Stoll decided to go to the pool with all the drugs in his pocket.

 

[Deleted member 93010]

Sure it is. You negotiate a deal with the NHLPA that includes unlimited random drug testing throughout the calendar year and you clean up the league. Simple as that. Two-test limit; what a joke. It's like admitting that players will use drugs after the two tests and everyone turns a blind eye.

This would certainly work if you wanted to catch PEDs, but I seriously doubt many people would test positive for cocaine even with unlimited random drug tests. Cocaine leaves the system very quickly. You would pretty much have to test people every week if you wanted to put an end to cocaine use.

 

[Ron*]

This would certainly work if you wanted to catch PEDs, but I seriously doubt many people would test positive for cocaine even with unlimited random drug tests. Cocaine leaves the system very quickly. You would pretty much have to test people every week if you wanted to put an end to cocaine use.

"Unlimited random drug testing" pretty much means exactly that.

Now I don't advocate going to extreme knee-jerk measures just because one idiot got loose. However, if the players knew it was in the owners' arsenal to do that, they would probably clean themselves up on their own.

 

[Ron*]

Regarding the "celebrating", this is a tight knit group and there are going to be changes this summer, with some guys being gone. They are all aware of this. Seems perfectly okay to get together to celebrate what they've accomplished together over the years. It's been a hell of a ride.

None of this explains why Stoll decided to go to the pool with all the drugs in his pocket.

How about: Because Stoll is a moron. (?)

 

[Deleted member 93010]

"Unlimited random drug testing" pretty much means exactly that.

Now I don't advocate going to extreme knee-jerk measures just because one idiot got loose. However, if the players knew it was in the owners' arsenal to do that, they would probably clean themselves up on their own.

The NHL will never perform that many drug tests, it just costs too much money. Even the UFC doesn't test that much and they have fewer athletes to test and a much more public PED problem.

 

[YP44]

I agree, that's fine. Just don't make an ass clown out of yourself and embarrass the company.

agreed. People get fired for making being inappropriate at christmas parties all the time.

 

[YP44]

How about: Because Stoll is a moron. (?)

it's the best explanation so far.

 

[redcard]

The NHL will never perform that many drug tests, it just costs too much money. Even the UFC doesn't test that much and they have fewer athletes to test and a much more public PED problem.

I believe the limit itself is Ron's issue, meaning a guy can be tested in October and March and know he's got his 2 tests in and can't be checked again until the following season. So the threat of drug tests is no longer preventing him from using until he's eligible for another one. Even if the league never actually tests a third time, having the possibility of doing so is an additional deterrent.

 

[Ron*]

I believe the limit itself is Ron's issue, meaning a guy can be tested in October and March and know he's got his 2 tests in and can't be checked again until the following season. So the threat of drug tests is no longer preventing him from using until he's eligible for another one. Even if the league never actually tests a third time, having the possibility of doing so is an additional deterrent.

Thanks for making my point better than I did.

 

[Deleted member 93010]

I believe the limit itself is Ron's issue, meaning a guy can be tested in October and March and know he's got his 2 tests in and can't be checked again until the following season. So the threat of drug tests is no longer preventing him from using until he's eligible for another one. Even if the league never actually tests a third time, having the possibility of doing so is an additional deterrent.

I get that. My point is that the limit isn't what's enabling people to get high on cocaine without getting caught. Cocaine is just not a good drug to test for because it leaves the system within a few days. It's actually a popular drug in the military for this exact reason. Almost impossible to get caught.

EDIT: I should probably point out that I agree with getting rid of the limit. It just won't do anything to stop players from using cocaine.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

The only drug that drug tests are really effective at catching is marijuana since the metabolites stay in your waste for so long. Companies waste lots of money every year testing for pre-employment so much so that I know a lot of companies have stopped. Aside from the cost, you are also pissing off the large (majority) portion of your player pool who do not use drugs. You're asking them to constantly submit to drug tests when they've done nothing to be suspicious. The NHLPA will fight any sort of change to that. To be honest, I kind of agree with them. I think I read somewhere or heard that MLB only tests if they suspect somebody based on evidence (such as an arrest).

 

[Quattro]

It's interesting that people want pro athletes to voluntarily sign up for something (unlimited random drug testing - lol) that society in general would never stand for and is probably unconstitutional.

 

[YP44]

It's interesting that people want pro athletes to voluntarily sign up for something (unlimited random drug testing - lol) that society in general would never stand for and is probably unconstitutional

There are lot of jobs that require drug testing. I worked up in the oil sands for a while and there is a lot of drug testing do to the use of heavy equipment.

 

[Quattro]

There are lot of jobs that require drug testing. I worked up in the oil sands for a while and there is a lot of drug testing do to the use of heavy equipment.

You'd have a hard time making the safety argument here.

 

[Deleted member 93010]

It's interesting that people want pro athletes to voluntarily sign up for something (unlimited random drug testing - lol) that society in general would never stand for and is probably unconstitutional

It's definitely not unconstitutional. And really the clean players should support unlimited random tests. I know if I was a natural athlete I wouldn't want some roided out monster out on the ice with the legal right to physically assault me.

 

[Jason Squirties]

You can remove the word theory

and my

 

[Ron*]

It's interesting that people want pro athletes to voluntarily sign up for something (unlimited random drug testing - lol) that society in general would never stand for and is probably unconstitutional

You really should know more about the law before blurting something out without understanding.

Employers can do all kinds of things that "society in general" wouldn't allow. Employment is not a right, it is a privilege, and employers can write up a contract pretty much detailing what their employees can do and cannot due while on the job and even in their personal life if it affects the viability of the company.

When I stated "unlimited random drug testing" it was more of an example of how to clean up the league. Of course a team wouldn't do that, without suspicion. However, if there is suspicious behavior, then the team should be allowed to test a player more often.

Finances are at stake. I'm not the only one considering downsizing my season tickets next season, or chucking them altogether. I've already made my concerns known to my STH rep. I am not the only one. The owner gets enough of these negative inquiries and he is going to want to do something about it. Spending a small fortune on season tickets, then parking, then driving great distances just to see mediocre play isn't going to cut it for me, or most people, for that matter. The teams are going to get the message and the trickle-down is going to be felt in the owners' pocketbooks.

When I worked for the government, I was subject to unlimited random drug testing. As a frontline manager, many of my employees were tested. No one liked it, but we all understood it was a condition of our continuing employment.

So, since our own federal government employed unlimited random drug testing, my guess is that you are wrong. It is not "unconstitutional."

 

[Captain Mittens*]

You really should know more about the law before blurting something out without understanding.

Employers can do all kinds of things that "society in general" wouldn't allow. Employment is not a right, it is a privilege, and employers can write up a contract pretty much detailing what their employees can do and cannot due while on the job and even in their personal life if it affects the viability of the company.

When I stated "unlimited random drug testing" it was more of an example of how to clean up the league. Of course a team wouldn't do that, without suspicion. However, if there is suspicious behavior, then the team should be allowed to test a player more often.

Finances are at stake. I'm not the only one considering downsizing my season tickets next season, or chucking them altogether. I've already made my concerns known to my STH rep. I am not the only one. The owner gets enough of these negative inquiries and he is going to want to do something about it. Spending a small fortune on season tickets, then parking, then driving great distances just to see mediocre play isn't going to cut it for me, or most people, for that matter. The teams are going to get the message and the trickle-down is going to be felt in the owners' pocketbooks.

When I worked for the government, I was subject to unlimited random drug testing. As a frontline manager, many of my employees were tested. No one liked it, but we all understood it was a condition of our continuing employment.

So, since our own federal government employed unlimited random drug testing, my guess is that you are wrong. It is not "unconstitutional."

to add to this
The only law requiring drug testing of employees is that drug testing is a condition of employment.
Meaning that drug testing rules have to exist at the time of hire and they can't be introduced later. Collective bargaining would be exempt from this since they "renegotiate" the rules of employment each time the CBA is up. It could however, be allowed in at any time if both sides agree to the terms.

 

[Ron*]

to add to this
The only law requiring drug testing of employees is that drug testing is a condition of employment.
Meaning that drug testing rules have to exist at the time of hire and they can't be introduced later. Collective bargaining would be exempt from this since they "renegotiate" the rules of employment each time the CBA is up. It could however, be allowed in at any time if both sides agree to the terms.

That might be California law, but the feds are a whole different world.

They use the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution to skirt state laws. So, for example, even though I live in California, I am subject to federal law, rules, and regulations as an employee of the federal government. Hence, drug testing actually came in in 1989, even after I had been employed there 8 years. I will subject to ongoing drug testing; there was no "grandfather" clause.

P.S. I don't want to go to far afield here, just explaining the different approaches when it comes to application of drug testing under different jurisdictions.

Edit: Agree with collective bargaining types of employment. It is up to the NHL and NHLPA on how they want to proceed.