Correct me if I am wrong...
Rule is test-positive 1st time you go into their rehab program (or similar) if test positive after that it triggers the 4 game...But Miller went to 6 games for switching his ****
So can Guion's case be compared to Miller's?
Yes, that's the basic outline of the policy.
I brought up the Miller case simply to illustrate that what's legal or illegal in the law is independent of what the league considers acceptable or unacceptable.
So far as we know, Guion has not tested positive for anything. Unless a guy is already in the league's remediation program, the testing is only done in a narrow window...mandatory OTAs and/or training camp, I can't recall which.
It's tightly scheduled, not random, for guys who have not been previously caught. Outside the testing window guys can use anything and everything they like, including during the regular season, providing they're not already in the remediation program.
Further, first offenders are on "double secret probation" (a term I'm borrowing from "Animal House"
). Policy says neither the league nor the team is to disclose to anybody when a first time offender enters the program. The player could talk about it, but there's clearly no incentive for him to do so. Nobody knows who or how many are or have been in the program...if they get caught once but not twice nobody knows about it. But I digress.
One consideration: how do we know Guion wasn't already a one-time offender since that status is kept secret?
Regardless of all of the above, an overriding consideration has nothing to do with the drug policy at all...it's the "conduct detrimental to the league" provision which is as broad as it sounds. Decisions on such matters are made by the league office, but they're subject to appeal.
Somehow, the idea of the league letting a guy go scott free without a suspension after driving around with 13 oz. of marijuana, and thereby not considered to be engaging in conduct detrimental, strains credulity . That kinda suggests more than one-time use, wouldn't you say? It would undermine the drug enforcement policy which is paper thin as it is. He's got to get some punishment to have any of these policies make sense.
On a semi-related matter, Demovsky reports that his vehicle and money are
still in impound. He has to go to civil court to argue for getting his stuff back. No mention of the gun; since it's Florida, they may have handed it back with a bow on it.
So far, "no contest" in this version of Southern justice appears to mean "supplementary monetary punishment to be determined."
