Re: Webber's agent spins

[William Lee <leew@wadsworth.org>]

At 01:30 PM 8/19/98 -0700, Jim wrote:

>That's fine, but the ban on pot has nothing to do with affecting 
>performance.  A player could smoke on off days or after games and still 
>get in trouble, so don't use that as justification for the ban.  As far 
>as alcohol, I really doubt that if you showed up drunk at work that you 
>would keep your job for very long.  Don't you understand that there is a 
>difference between saying that an employee can not do something while on 
>the clock and that they can not do it at all.  A lot of people work in 
>places where you can't smoke cigarettes, and they are completely legal.  
>
>This is not about whether players should be allowed to smoke pot.  They 
>are not.  There are laws against it and they can be arrested for it, 
>just like everyone else.  This is about whether there is a need to 
>monitor people to see if they are breaking a law when there is no 
>evidence to suggest that they have done so (random testing).  
>
>Jim
>

But isn't the NBA through (hah) CBA allowed to place additional strictures
on things they believe to put the game (or image of the game) at risk?
Isn't drug (recreational, steroid, etc) testing one of those things?
(Where are you Roy Tarpley)? The question to me is that once you open the
can it's strange that marijuana is not included.  It kind of mocks the
whole sincerity of the rule.

Bill