I'm not arguing that he was visibly impaired. But Hunt literally says to him that he would fail a drug test, which to me, is an admission that he is at least to some degree, impaired.
Legally, you're correct. His good fortune in this case from a legal standpoint does not make it any less of a lapse in judgment.
To be clear, I wasn't making any sort of definitive statement or even an assumption that he was doing 3 out of the 4. Just saying there's no way of us knowing for certain, regardless of what the legal record shows. Having some question in your mind about whether or not a guy is impaired when he admits he'd fail a drug test is a lot different than an assumption people are making out of the blue.
We'll see how it plays out, but I'd argue this won't be treated as an individual issue by the NFL given Hunt's history.
The way I see it, the debate here is not about the legality of any of this... it's about Hunt showing horrible judgment here given his specific circumstances.
Except that's not the bottom line. He'll likely be punished by the NFL regardless of the legal outcome. And I would argue he was acting irresponsibly, but agree to disagree on that.
I know you're referring to more than just me here... but to clarify my position, I'm not characterizing the situation the way you're saying, at all. My guess is he was not imbibing the weed while driving, or drinking alcohol while driving. He very well could have partaken in both before he got behind the wheel of the car, but I certainly wouldn't make that assumption either. We'll never know for sure because the cop didn't test him. Either way, he had an open bottle of alcohol and weed in the backseat, and admitted that he would fail a drug test. Those are facts, not a creation in my mind.
Maybe. We'll see how it plays out.
Thank you for your prompt response, I apologize that my post was acting weird, I swear I wrote about the four questions. And I am not pointing fingers at you sir, I am addressing the gallery as well.
I think people need to understand how NFL policy is determined and what courses of action it can take. Despite what people are saying, or assuming, I am telling you that the NFL is highly constrained in what it can do in this instance with Hunt.
Moreover, again, people are using terms like judgement, but you cannot presume a lapse of judgement where there is no violation of law or policy. Again, he didn't get off on a technicality, what he did was completely innocuous.
1) Hunt saying he would fail a drug test is not an admission that he was impaired. Depending on the test, a positive result for cannabis can be earned weeks after the last ingestion. In no way is it an admission to being impaired; he could be referring to a future test that might occur
if he was charged. Or he was just trying to put the screws on the cop, or maybe he was just scared. For those reasons such an admission cannot be used as a confession, nor is it acceptable according to NFL regulations.
As for the 3 of 4, I refer to the same point.
2) My point is the legality has everything to do with it. You cannot be held reponsible for poor judgment when you aren't breaking the law, or NFL policy.
Moreover, and emphatically, the NFL as an organization bound by rules for its treatment of employees, cannot presume guilt in a situation where the evidence, the legal record, is clear that no NFL Policy was violated.
3) As a matter of law, even under the CBA, NFL players are entitled to a form of due process. While there is leeway for the NFL to act where there is no violation of the law, they are very constrained in punishing people, to include suspension and loss of pay, where there is both no legal violation, and no evidence that NFL policy was violated.
4) Tom Brady was suspended for deflating balls. Not illegal, but a violation of NFL policy. Players have been suspended after video surfaced of them assaulting others, even if no charges were filed. However, in such cases there is clear evidence of breaking NFL policy, in the case of assault that being several policies, not least of which is breaking the personal conduct policy.
5) In this instance there is a lack of evidence of both. Not only were there no charges outside of the speeding ticket, but no evidence of a violation of NFL policy.
Whereas cannabis use is a violation of NFL policy, that policy is evidentiary based and requires an NFL administered drug test to trigger the substance policy machinery. Unless they can prove Hunt was using cannabis at that time, in the face of no charge of cannabis possession or use, they cannot, as a matter of policy punish him.
6) As for the "lapse in judgement," aside from what I said above, are we really talking about firing a guy for being sober, having weed and a sealed bottle of booze, in his backpack in the backset of his car?
Is that "repeated lapses if judgement" and "Blowing through chance after chance" to paraphrase others?
Again, that is building a case where there is none, and turning something innocuous into something far more scandalous than it is.
