11/21/24
October 19, 2006
Favre angry that NFL turns its back on Robinson: "I don't like the way the league has, in my mind, turned their back on him," Favre said.
posted by wingnut4life to football at 03:40 AM - 74 comments
I agree with Favre. If it were not for the image problem they already had, I think the Vikings would have loved to have kept Robinson. This man needs help, he needs friends and he needs support. The NFL needs to get of their collective asses and do something to help these guys.
posted by bobrolloff at 10:54 AM on October 19, 2006
Ok if I am working a job and I fail the drug test and enter a rehab program and than fail again would I even still have a job? This guy is able to come back in a year and play again. He is really lucky the league doesn't just say you are done forever. I understand what Favre is saying about the support but the guy needs to get his life together and the other players on the team need to concentrate on winning for their management (and own self fulfillment) not just helping some guy who isn't even playing the game this year. You must do the job you are paid to do not be distracted by someone who isn't even playing right now. The whole idea that the league needs to get this guy some help is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I mean come on, did the league force him to go out and drink? Is there some unwritten rule in the NFL that says you must party? They tried to help him and he again broke the rules. How many chances does a guy get? Even Favre himself (as much as I hate to admit it) did the right thing by not drinking when he was in the rehab program.
posted by skydivemom at 11:08 AM on October 19, 2006
Farve was lucky and could control himself a bit better. Alcoholism is a disease, and if the League intends to "help" Robinson, then turning the cold shoulder is not the way to do it. I, like wingnut, had one hell of a time trying to stop drinking myself. Once you get used to it, and hooked, it is one hell of a thing to stop. I couldn't imagine how much more difficult it is for these players and other stars that are around it all the time to quit. I don't think Favre is asking anybody to hold his hand everyday, just don't ignore the person or the problem he obviously has.
posted by jojomfd1 at 11:30 AM on October 19, 2006
Mom, I totally see your point, and in most cases agree with it, but... With all the money the NFL generates, it should be able to offer such a player more than a cold shoulder. I really don't want to open the athlete-vs-real-job argument, but if you worked in retail, chances are you could go down the street or to another town and get a job doing what you did at a different store. There's only one NFL. Like wingnut says, I'm not advocating what he did, but I think the league can do better.
posted by SummersEve at 11:34 AM on October 19, 2006
So what exactly is the point of not letting him have any contact with the team? It's probably something that's built into their abuse suspension policy, but what does it accomplish?
posted by tron7 at 11:41 AM on October 19, 2006
Favre showed his colors, and I admire him for it. Just 'bout what I would have expected of him, too.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:45 AM on October 19, 2006
I understand SummersEve's points, but I still have to side more with skydivemom. As much money as the NFL generates, it's still just an employer. Just because Robinson doesn't have a chance at ever making as much money elsewhere, because there's only one NFL, doesn't change the fact the league can't be expected to be responsible for Robinson issue after issue after issue. Any person who has constant run-ins with alcohol problems, drug issues, etc., will eventually lose their job, often their ability to make a good living, and also any company-provided insurance that would allow them access to treatment. And why is it so hard to understand an organization would limit or deny Robinson access to the rest of the team? Even a crappy (this year) team like the Packers are expected to maintain their focus on football, and each one of them have jobs and responsibilities to tend to also. I doubt the Packers want to see the next issue with Robinson involve him hanging out a car window puking while a few teammates are driving around with him also drunk, ala the Cincinnati Bengals. Robinson (and his friends and family) should be happy he's had the chance to make huge amounts of money, and should have been able to afford proper treatment even if the NFL turned their backs. All drug policies have to have stipulations in which their responsibility ceases, and Robinson violated those (by drinking). The NFL can't be expected to be responsible for everyone in every situation. Hopefully Robinson has support from others besides a team he's only even been part of (on a very limited basis) for a few months. If not, his life has some even more severe issues. I can understand Brett's concerns, but don't forget his entire life has revolved around the not-quite-real world existence NFL players (as well as other professional athletes) are afforded. People all over the world, dealing with the exact same problems, with far more limited resources, also know the pain of having employers turn their back on their personal problems.
posted by dyams at 12:12 PM on October 19, 2006
Ok if I am working a job and I fail the drug test and enter a rehab program and than fail again would I even still have a job?K You might. If you contact your HR department, they could tell you. If you're represented by a union, you might have some protection there, too. It should come as no surprise to anyone working in the United States that comparing wages, benefits and rights of jobs between different sectors is like comparing apples with panda bears. So maybe Robinson has had some benefits that others haven't (although you'd be surprised at the workplaces that have rehab programs nowadays). I don't see where help for him = less help for the rest of us. And, like others, I am all in favor of helping people to recover, because look at the alternative. The number of people who have recovered from addiction on their own, without any help, is extremely small -- I know one and don't expect to ever meet another. The cutoff point, for me, is where "helping" is enabling rather than truly helping, or where helping costs me more than I can afford. Short of that point, helping is better than not helping.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:17 PM on October 19, 2006
Alcoholism is a disease I disagree with this assesment of drunks. People choose to drink initially. They become alcoholics because of their CHOICE to drink large quantities of alcohol on a daily basis. Nobody chooses to have CANCER or AIDS. A lot of people have a pre-disposition to addictions of all kinds, however choosing to induldge yourself should not be considered a DISEASE. Its just someone making poor decisions with their life, like a thief or a criminal. Calling alcoholism a disease is just an attempt to make people feel sorry for idiots. Its like feeling sorry for one of the guys from Jackass because they have a broken neck. What do you think happens when you intentionally hurt yourself? You get hurt.
posted by SunnySide at 12:28 PM on October 19, 2006
Calling alcoholism a disease is just an attempt to make people feel sorry for idiots. Have that stitched onto a throw pillow. It'll really spruce up the compound.
posted by yerfatma at 12:29 PM on October 19, 2006
Well llb he does still have a job and he just needs to take a year off to get back on the right track. No where in the NFL rules does it say he has to participate in the drinking that other athletes do. If your arguement is to say that he needs to be around his team for support and than you say that he has a harder time than non athletes because he has to be around it all the time, you are contradicting yourself. The whole athlete has a harder time is bogus anyway. When I was in my 20's the whole point of my life was when was I getting off work so I could go party again. It is no different if you are an athlete or not. He is not required or even encouraged to party to have a better chance at making it in his athletic career. The NFL supported him by giving him a rehab program and he blew it. They are giving him another chance by saying he can come back in a year. Let's hope he doesn't blow this one too.
posted by skydivemom at 12:37 PM on October 19, 2006
Apples have a higher sex drive than pandas. And they're easier to eat. Pandas are cuter. They're a bitch to dip in carmel though.
posted by SummersEve at 12:40 PM on October 19, 2006
lbb, Great post. I completely agree with you. We have a responsbility to both ourselves and others, and we must think critically about when we have crossed the line into hindering or enabling. These things aren't cut and dry like most people try to make them sound.
posted by brainofdtrain at 12:41 PM on October 19, 2006
Well llb he does still have a job and he just needs to take a year off to get back on the right track. That's true, but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote (or to what Favre was quoted as saying in the article). No where in the NFL rules does it say he has to participate in the drinking that other athletes do. If your arguement is to say that he needs to be around his team for support and than you say that he has a harder time than non athletes because he has to be around it all the time, you are contradicting yourself. That's two or maybe three strawmen there. I didn't say anything about the NFL making people drink or athletes having it harder or easier than anybody. Back to the article: Favre, who has been there -- that is, in the NFL's substance abuse program -- feels that being able to be in contact with the team can be helpful, and that the league's banning Robinson from contact with the team is arbitrary and serves no purpose. The whole athlete has a harder time is bogus anyway. When I was in my 20's the whole point of my life was when was I getting off work so I could go party again. It is no different if you are an athlete or not. I really wouldn't know, since I haven't ever been a professional athlete. Have you? He is not required or even encouraged to party to have a better chance at making it in his athletic career. And how is it that you can state this so categorically? There's no social drinking in the NFL? There are no venues where drinking is encouraged and where it's helpful to a player's career to be seen? I wouldn't bet on it. The NFL supported him by giving him a rehab program and he blew it. They are giving him another chance by saying he can come back in a year. Let's hope he doesn't blow this one too. On that we can agree. But I think you're falling into that purposeless form of, "I had it tough and he should too," thinking. Any punishment visited on Robinson isn't going to go back into your history and undo your damage, or help anyone else now or in the future. Any goodies or slack or whatever that you perceive he got, and that you didn't, din't come at your expense. I repeat, help for him doesn't mean less help for you or anyone else.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:58 PM on October 19, 2006
In 1956 the American Medical Association classified "alcoholism" as a disease and with good reason, it seems this arguement was settled some 50 years ago sunnyside, I find your attitude deplorably ignorant and your comment be rift of any sense of human compassion or understanding of the subject matter.
posted by skydivedad at 01:06 PM on October 19, 2006
lbb, the only statement I was refering to you was the first one. I am sorry I did not make that clearer. I was also responding to other comments that people have made about it being harder for an athlete. I do not always highlight what I am referencing and that is a fault I have.
posted by skydivemom at 01:07 PM on October 19, 2006
Have that stitched onto a throw pillow. It'll really spruce up the compound. I really like that line. I'm keeping that one. Pandas are cuter. They're a bitch to dip in carmel though. Also a good one. I just don't know if I'll ever witness another "Apples vs. Pandas" comment to use the line on. I honestly have nothing against an individual getting help, I'm just not sure where a company/league/etc.'s responsibility ends for a particular person. Because a person has played football, does that mean the league will be required to assume responsibility for his well-being, decision-making, poor choices forever?
posted by dyams at 01:16 PM on October 19, 2006
For some odd reason this nation has wrapped sports around drinking, ie. Sports Bar. So is it too difficult to imagine that the players would be influenced, encouraged to have a brew after a game, practice whatever? Since every NFL televised game has its share of beer commercials, "The Man Law" being a classic example, I believe that as long as the NFL accepts alcohol revenue, it bears some responsibility for the negative effects on some of its employees. Alcohol is a drug, abeit a legal one, but a drug just the same. I seriously doubt that any addict takes an addictive substance planning on being addicted to it. And since there are so many people who have taken a drink and are not addicted, I can at least fathom why an addict would never believe that it would happen to them.
posted by yzelda4045 at 01:26 PM on October 19, 2006
The federal government doesn't fire its employees for being alcoholics, and believe it or not, your U.S. tax dollars probably pay the salary for some people struggling with alcoholism. Oh, the outrage! I try not to judge people dealing with things like this. I have tried to give up caffeine on numerous occasions and have failed miserably. I can't imagine how hard it would be to give up something even more addicting.
posted by bperk at 01:59 PM on October 19, 2006
I concur with lbb and yzelda. It is a disease and nothing that the NFL does is going to hurt you or take anything from your wallet. Why would you not support a compassionate solution? Sounds a little grudgy to me.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:10 PM on October 19, 2006
I really like that line. I'm keeping that one. It's essentially stolen from Dennis Miller's Off-White Album, so steal away.
posted by yerfatma at 02:15 PM on October 19, 2006
I honestly have nothing against an individual getting help, I'm just not sure where a company/league/etc.'s responsibility ends for a particular person. I'm not taking the "responsible/not responsible" angle -- that's a meaty topic for discussion, but frankly, if you care about solutions it's a bit like talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. There's another approach to dealing with problems of alcoholism -- or any problem, for that matter -- which says that who spilled the milk is not as important as looking at the costs and benefits of doing something about it. When a business offers counseling services to employees, they don't do so after some precise calculus that leads them to conclude, "Yup, we are 100% responsible for these people's mental breakdowns and substance addictions". Instead, they see a set of problems that has many sources, that affects the health of their business, and that they may be able to do something about. If the effort fails, they're out a few bucks, but their employees aren't any crazier than they were before. More often, though, I expect it does some good, since these programs are getting to be common as mice nowadays. Even my crap barely-above-minimum-wage ski instructor job, which has zero zip nada benefits but a lift ticket, has a counseling program -- free, confidential, no questions asked, and they make sure every employee knows about it. So, in summary, I'm not saying anything about responsibility, and I don't think Favre is either. He's talking about what he believes is helpful or not helpful in correcting the problem.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:23 PM on October 19, 2006
I'm just not sure where a company/league/etc.'s responsibility ends for a particular person. In the case of the NFL, it appears that the end is near when a player violates stage three of the substance abuse program. Which, I asssume, is what stage Robinson was in. That seems to be the only place that a 1 year "Bannination," is called for. When a player is banned for a stage three violation, they are not allowed to "participate in any way..." (pg 26) of attached NFL Drug Policy. The policy itself states that it's prime function is to assist in helping players with substance abuse problems. I guess at some point, it has been determined that banning the player is helpful to their rehab. Favre may not like the policy or understand it, but he needs to bitch to Upshaw, not the press.
posted by tselson at 02:26 PM on October 19, 2006
Well I am not harboring any grudges and no it does not affect my wallet for them to support him. Again they did not fire him, they suspended him to give him a chance to clean up his act. Do I think it is harsh to say he can't be a part of the team, sure but if the management thinks it would not help their organization to have him stay in contact then they have the right to do that. I am subject to beer commericials every day and when I worked people were always asking me to go for a beer. Did it advance my career maybe but I don't think it hurt it either if I didn't. These athletes are human first off who live in the USA, to say that they have it harder or easier than me when you don't know me and you don't know them is just as crazy as me saying they don't. Let's just admit that we don't personally know these athletes and their lifestyles or for that matter anyone on sportsfilter. Back on subject I think Brett Favre is an outstanding guy for wanting to stand up for a fellow teammate who is going through something that he has some knowledge in. Do I hope this distracts Brett Favre to the point that their team continues to play terrible - sure after all I am a Bears fan and any time we are better than the Packers it is a great day!
posted by skydivemom at 02:28 PM on October 19, 2006
Favre may not like the policy or understand it, but he needs to bitch to Upshaw, not the press. I find myself wincing lately whenever I hear that Favre said something to the media. This isn't bad but I thought it was going to be when I first saw it.
posted by tron7 at 04:06 PM on October 19, 2006
If the effort fails, they're out a few bucks, but their employees aren't any crazier than they were before. lbb, you nailed it with the comment from which the above is lifted . Most businesses, my employer included, offer extensive counselling programs for substance abuse, mental illness, etc. It is a simple matter of economics. It is a lot cheaper to rehabilitate an employee than it is to hire and train his or her replacement. The more skilled the job, the more obvious the economic benefit becomes. One of the biggest problems in treating substance abusers is getting the patient to understand the nature of his problem and where it will ultimately take him unless he does something about it. Forcing an abuser into a treatment program is usually not effective; rather the patient must first recognize that he has a problem and that he cannot overcome it by himself. Once at that point, treatment will be effective. It appears that the NFL's policy is intended to place increasingly severe consequences upon successive offenses, hoping that sooner, rather than later, the individual will wake up.
posted by Howard_T at 04:13 PM on October 19, 2006
It is a simple matter of economics. It is a lot cheaper to rehabilitate an employee than it is to hire and train his or her replacement. The more skilled the job, the more obvious the economic benefit becomes. One of the biggest problems in treating substance abusers is getting the patient to understand the nature of his problem and where it will ultimately take him unless he does something about it. Forcing an abuser into a treatment program is usually not effective; rather the patient must first recognize that he has a problem and that he cannot overcome it by himself. Once at that point, treatment will be effective All though if you offer and pay for the rehab and the employee doesn't get the help they need because they don't accept it, how many times do you offer? I don't personnally know Robinson but to me it looks like he is not accepting the help of rehab if he is still breaking the rules by drinking.
posted by skydivemom at 04:21 PM on October 19, 2006
Good point, Howard. What you're saying is, if he's out w/o pay for an entire year he'll hopefully realize how bad things have become. When he gets another chance he'll maybe be more appreciative and open to making the necessary changes. I can buy that.
posted by SummersEve at 04:28 PM on October 19, 2006
In 1956 the American Medical Association classified "alcoholism" as a disease and with good reason, it seems this arguement was settled some 50 years ago sunnyside, I find your attitude deplorably ignorant and your comment be rift of any sense of human compassion or understanding of the subject matter. You've obviously never known an Alki. Alcoholism is a choice, not a disease. Just like crack, heroin etc... Should an alcoholic get disability then? What about people who are addicted to cigs? Are they next? Soon everyone will have some type of diagnosed "disease".
posted by SunnySide at 05:43 PM on October 19, 2006
It has been stated here already, but do we know how many times Koren violated the policy? It seems to me that he has repeatedly turned his back on the leagues offer to get help and now the league is reciprocating in kind. I also think that Robinson should fall under the category of HUMAN BEING and not be treated differently because he's a "professional athlete". I'm not saying more or less help is deserved, just that I'm not shedding tears if being a well paid athletic star makes you prone to substance abuse. We all have problems, welcome to the planet. If you need help, take it when it's offered.
posted by THX-1138 at 05:47 PM on October 19, 2006
You've obviously never known an Alki. Alcoholism is a choice, not a disease. Just like crack, heroin etc... Should an alcoholic get disability then? What about people who are addicted to cigs? Are they next? Soon everyone will have some type of diagnosed "disease". You obviously never met a declaritive statement you didn't like. I diagnose your disease as "tete de merde".
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:14 PM on October 19, 2006
Both of you gentlemen might want to read this while you still have a chance to.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:44 PM on October 19, 2006
I think its ironic that a league that gets millions on top of millions every year from alcohol companies,banishes a guy for having a drinking problem.yes I know Robinson could have made better choices,but I think its wrong he is alienated from the team.he should still be able to workout and socialize with his teamates.sell all the beer you can pour in the stands,but if you drink too much as a player,you're gone.what is the message?
posted by mars1 at 08:48 PM on October 19, 2006
Alcoholism is a choice, not a disease. The action of drinking alcohol is a choice. However, nobody chooses to be an alcoholic.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:49 PM on October 19, 2006
SunnySide, there are two things required for a person to become an alcoholic. First, there's the choice to drink. Second, there's generally (though not always) a genetic predisposition toward addiction. Most adults (and an alarming number of teens and even preteens) choose to drink from time to time. Only a portion of them become alcoholics. It's my understanding that the genetic factor is the reason that addiction has come to be considered a disease. Could it be avoided? Sure. So could lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc., etc., etc. With addiction, the onset is the physical dependency itself followed by any number of variations of physical deterioration. With lung cancer, the onset is cellular mutation, again followed by any number of variations of physical deterioration. Seen that way, there's not that much difference. Many people drink their whole lives and never become alcoholics. Others become dependent alarmingly fast. Behavior is a factor, but it doesn't illegitimize the clinical opinions that it is a disease any more than living on cheeseburgers and fried chicken (which is another common behavior) means that your heart disease isn't really a disease.
posted by ctal1999 at 11:41 PM on October 19, 2006
The action of drinking alcohol is a choice. However, nobody chooses to be an alcoholic. Alcoholism is the choice made to drink, over and over. It is not a disease. It is a sequence of choices made by an individual.
posted by xmutex at 12:05 AM on October 20, 2006
Alcoholism is the addiction to alcohol. Once you are addicted the only choice you have left is whether or not you are going to try to stop. Emphasis is on the word try because as anyone who has tried to beat addiction knows, it isn't easy. Addiction is a disease. If you don't like that fact take it up with the AMA.
posted by apoch at 12:50 AM on October 20, 2006
It is not a disease. It is a sequence of choices made by an individual. Then explain the high rates of alcoholism among certain genetically similar groups, e.g., Native Americans.
posted by yerfatma at 06:18 AM on October 20, 2006
Keep your mouth shut, follow the rules and you can be a millionaire. It doesn't get much easier then that but these guys enjoy pushing the boundries. I would think when given the 2nd chance and the only rules you have to follow is 1. no drugs and 2. no alcohol that you can keep making millions I would hire someone to slap me everytime a beer commercial comes on TV or when I drive pass a bar/club. $4 beer or 3 million dollar a year contract to catch a ball... hmm decisions decisions.
posted by warstda at 07:40 AM on October 20, 2006
I really love how these threads bring the mind-readers out of the woodwork. It always adds a special glow to my day to realize how many talented psychics we have among us, able to accurately assess the attitudes, reasoning, thought processes and motivations of people that they will never come closer to than three hours on Sunday via television. And, I must say, it's extra thrilling when we find a (usually new or occasional) SpoFite whose psychic powers extend beyond individuals to entire categories of people! I stand in awe. Well, sit. Really. No, really.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:08 AM on October 20, 2006
lbb, it's not hard. Some groups of people are clearly lazy and shiftless.
posted by yerfatma at 08:51 AM on October 20, 2006
"Alcoholism is a disease" The disease model of alcoholism has a history dating back more than 200 years, and is considered by many to be the dominant paradigm guiding scientific inquiry and treatment approaches for much of the last century. However as early as the 1960's, the disease model came under attack due to the emergence of anamolous scientific and clinical findings. Outside of the United States, the disease model is considered by many to have been discredited, and has long been abandoned in favor of alternative models, such as social learning theory. Yet, in the United States, the disease model and it's primary goal of abstinence continue to over-whelmingly dominate the treatment of alcoholism. Among other explanations, the financial and political motives of the U.S. alcoholism treatment community have been offered to explain why the U.S. continues to lag behind other countries in moving beyond the disease model. (From: Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare) Speaking for myself, I know I was unable to quit drinking until I was forced to make a choice between drinking and losing my livelihood (among other things), and when confronted with those choices, it was relatively easy to stop. I wish Mr. Robinson the same "luck".
posted by mjkredliner at 09:02 AM on October 20, 2006
Thank God it's Friday! Five more hours and I'm liquor store bound.
posted by louisville_slugger at 09:22 AM on October 20, 2006
Ha!
posted by mjkredliner at 09:26 AM on October 20, 2006
For the longest time I assumed incorrectly that calling alcoholism a disease was an attempt to avoid personal responsibility by those who suffered from it. However, the distinction drawn by some of above posters about the difference between taking a drink and alcoholism demonstrates an extremely important point. In Favre's case he took personal responsibility and rehabilitation was successful. Robinson, on other hand, was "forced" into the program. Admitting the problem and accepting personal responsibility appear to be big steps towards recovery. Further, I think most who understand alcoholism as a disease would insist that its cure includes and perhaps even hinges on the person accepting full responsiblity for his or her choice to drink. That said, I also know that focus is placed on "friends" who may be feeding the addiction and the import of severing company from them during rehab. By requiring Robinson to have no contact with his teammates they may very well be excluding not only people who would support him but also individuals who've contributed to the problem. The broad paintbrush approach is rarely the best. And perhaps the policy (if it doesn't already) should contain special provisions allowing contact with designated individuals who are proven to be supportive and helpful.
posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 10:41 AM on October 20, 2006
The broad paintbrush approach is rarely the best. Is this your first visit to the Internets?
posted by yerfatma at 11:16 AM on October 20, 2006
One thing I wonder is whether or not the treatment and/or number of chances a guy like Robinson receives would be different than that a player like Brett Favre would get. Obviously Robinson will never come remotely close to having the impact on the NFL Brett has had, so do guys like Koren get cast aside more easily? If the answer to this is Yes, Favre would probably get more chances, benefit of the doubt, different treatment, whatever, then that's a huge problem. The league better never be seen as saying one life is worth more than another because the one person in question has meant more to the league. Maybe there's no real good way of ever knowing for sure. Also, if having continued access to his team is so important for guys like Robinson, then I can't help wonder if any of those same teammates tried to help him prior to arrests and rehab steps. There's probably just as good a chance the teammates were the ones constantly reinforcing his destructive behaviors. Maybe not being around them will actually help more than it hurts (in some ways).
posted by dyams at 11:42 AM on October 20, 2006
coming from a family with its fair share of Alcholics (father, 2 grandfathers, uncles) I find myself agreeing with Mom and Sunnyside.(not getting the sunny vibe,though.) When all is said and done alcholics make not one but several choices everyday regarding their habit. First it starts with saying "hey, i want a drink." Even though they're still suffering from a hangover. I'm not in favor of calling alcholism a disease either. I know, I know technically speaking it is but I don't know anyone who chooses to get Cancer. Drinking you have a choice. Every single sip is a choice. I somehow feel its wrong to share the same umbrella of terminology with Cancer or some other life threatening disease. Is riding a motorcycle without a helmet a disease? (sarcasm) Koren has plenty of resources to get help. He is owed nothing by the NFL.
posted by calsteeler at 12:09 PM on October 20, 2006
I don't know anyone who chooses to get Cancer You don't know ANY cigarette smokers?
posted by Venicemenace at 12:33 PM on October 20, 2006
I don't know anyone who chooses to get Cancer You don't know ANY cigarette smokers? Good point, venice. Any smoker who gets cancer or emphysema can't really have a disease since he/she made a choice. Or anyone who gets an STD who engaged in high risk behavior doesn't have a disease either. If your own choices contributed to your condition, then you don't have a disease.
posted by bperk at 12:58 PM on October 20, 2006
Maybe not being around them will actually help more than it hurts (in some ways). Except, it's not the same team.
posted by tron7 at 01:05 PM on October 20, 2006
Well, we're going in circles here, which inevitably turns into a vortex much as you find in the average toilet bowl after hitting the flush (and with similar content, too). I'll note in signing off that even if you grant without reservation the assertion made by some that alcoholism or problem drinking is a choice, we seem to be pretty selective in our outrage about the choices that people make. There are a lot of people going around making choices that degrade their own lives and those of people around them, but only some of them seem to trigger the self-righteous kneejerk.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:07 PM on October 20, 2006
Maybe not being around them will actually help more than it hurts (in some ways). Except, it's not the same team. But, just like when a spouse is an alcoholic, if the wife wants him to truly respond to help, she has to avoid drinking, also. How many of the Packers, if they are all as concerned as Favre, were willing to alter their own behaviors in order to benefit him? Were they willing to avoid all getting together after practices or after games and take part in non-drinking, etc. activity in order to help Robinson? Or, did they just keep going on with life-as-usual and expect the help for him to be some outside source? I'm not in a position to know the specifics, but I'm wondering how far the teams true committment to seeing the guy succeed with treatment actually went. And I'm wondering what specifically Favre himself did to help the guy, too, beyond mouthing mere words to the press.
posted by dyams at 01:19 PM on October 20, 2006
Should an alcoholic get disability then? You can go on disability for alcoholism.
posted by fabulon7 at 01:31 PM on October 20, 2006
If your own choices contributed to your condition, then you don't have a disease. Than basically nothing is a disease. Name a condition - there are factors that could be construed as choices. Any disease. Some of you talk a helluva tough game. I don't buy it. It's poorly considered. It's not that black and white - never is, never was, never will be. (Which is a pretty black and white way of looking at black and white thinking.)
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:50 PM on October 20, 2006
When these guys sign on for big bucks there is a certain responsibilty he owes in return to the team, his teamates and the fans. A lot of these guys want the big bucks and the celebrity but they don't want the responsibilty. What happened here is unfortunate but the players must realize his responsibilities and accept them. In this case he chose not to, so he must pay the consequences. I have no pity for him.
posted by The Woj at 02:18 PM on October 20, 2006
I know my posting is a waste of time as it seems none of you are recovering alcoholis and seem to be better then other. I am a recovering (not cured) alcoholic who has been sober 7 years. I don't drink one day at a time. If I pick a beer, it will end up into excess & I will be the horrible creature I was seven years ago. I went through severe detox. Don't any of you martini lunch drinking uninformed soap boxers tell me alcoholism isn't disease. Walk a mile in my shoes. Go to an AA meeting and tell them they don't have a disease. Fools.
posted by Psycho at 02:20 PM on October 20, 2006
When these guys sign on for big bucks there is a certain responsibilty he owes in return to the team, his teamates and the fans. Right. Once you sign a contract for a certain dollar figure, you stop being a human being with problems.
posted by yerfatma at 02:26 PM on October 20, 2006
The dazzling young urbanite from Toronto summed it up rather succinctly, I believe, so I will contribute only a bright green sprig of flat-leaf parsley to augment his perfectly medium-rare 12 oz filet mignon with burgundy reduction, yukon gold mashed potatoes with smoked gouda dressing, and fresh snap beans smothered in bacon viniagrette... To quote Red Foreman: "Dumbasses." Have a great weekend; don't drink and drive. And would it kill you to call your mom this weekend? She misses you, fer chrissakes!
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:24 PM on October 20, 2006
Cancer is a POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECT of smoking. STD's are POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS of having unprotected sex (sometimes protected). Being an alcoholic is only accomplished in one manner. By choosing to dring too much each and every day.
posted by SunnySide at 06:55 PM on October 20, 2006
I definitely have a dringing problem. Each and every day.
posted by dyams at 09:23 PM on October 20, 2006
Alcoholism = Disease SunnySide = Schmuck Of course I write this after consuming an entire bottle of merlot.
posted by willthrill72 at 11:24 PM on October 20, 2006
Alcoholism = Disease SunnySide = Schmuck posted by willthrill72 at 11:24 PM CDT on October 20 From the guidelines: We trust the members of the community to treat others with the respect you would afford yourself. If you’re accustomed to other sports forums, take note: This site is not a place for trash-talking fans to repeatedly proclaim that their team rocks and someone else’s team sucks. New members who post personal attacks and other abusive behavior will be banned. I may be way out of line here but what goes for newbies should also pertain to established members as well. Should'nt it? On topic, as a pot smoking, pill popping, psychedelic shroom consumer I don't think of myself as an addict, but...I cannot drink alcohol. Yes alcoholism is a diagnosed disease as others have pointed out. To say it isn’t simply shows a lack of knowledge of scientific fact.
posted by Folkways at 11:30 AM on October 21, 2006
Not out of line at all folkways. It kind of lessens any weight you may have had in the actual conversation to begin with.
posted by jojomfd1 at 11:46 AM on October 21, 2006
You are absolutely right. I sincerely apologize. I know better.
posted by willthrill72 at 12:17 PM on October 21, 2006
Yo, Wielder of the Banhammer? In the immortal words of Lou Brown, "I think you can go get him now."
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:19 AM on October 22, 2006
Yo, Wielder of the Banhammer? Seconded!
posted by jojomfd1 at 12:32 PM on October 22, 2006
Trying out new and improved banhammer.
posted by justgary at 12:44 PM on October 22, 2006
Sounds like some of you need to spend more time at AA and less time on the computer.
posted by yay-yo at 05:05 PM on October 23, 2006
Sounds like some of you need to spend more time at AA and less time on the computer.
posted by yay-yo at 05:05 PM on October 23, 2006
A little shaky on the button there yay-yo. Maybe you could use some NA yourself, might help with the shakes. Or these may help with the posts.
posted by jojomfd1 at 01:25 AM on October 24, 2006
A little shaky on the button there yay-yo. Maybe you could use some NA yourself, might help with the shakes. Or these may help with the posts. Damn mom, I told you to stay out of my business!
posted by yay-yo at 01:29 PM on October 24, 2006
JoJo everyone double posts from time to time. No need to bother with the guidelines, just straight up draw and quarter them.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:00 PM on October 24, 2006
I don't condone Robinson's actions, but I do agree that he needs some kind of support from the NFL. If alcoholism had a switch, I'm sure that he would have turned it off a while ago. It took me too many years to get over my drinking habit, with a lot of pain and alienation during that time. Some people aren't as lucky as I am, and never get over it.