BigO wrote:old skool wrote:It doesn't matter if 25 is ridiculous. If two sides agree to a contract provision that is collectively bargained, neither side can wave or modify that provision. It's a binding contract. It would be an unfair labor practice if the NBA reduced Portis' suspension because 25 games was "too much" punishment. The Collective Bargaining Agreement dictates the penalty. The NBA has no discretion to modify the penalty for a violation.Jez2983 wrote:
You are the biggest conspiracy theorist on this board![]()
In Australian sports, a lot of the time 'mental health issues' were used as code for when a player failed an illicit drug test. These aren't performance enhancing but as the employer the Aussie sports didn't want their employees taking them.
25 for tramadol is ridiculous. Even if he did something bad, the Draymond comparisons are apt.
The CBA likely does not address separate penalties for each drug. More likely, the CBA cites penalties for any improper drug deemed to be in a certain classification by an authority like the World Anti-Doping Agency. Both sides would want the threshold for "guilt" and the resulting penalty to be cut and dried. Thus the NBA CBA.
Any labor lawyers out there are welcome to correct any errors in my take.
Send me the contract language and then we will have a better idea how rigid the language is. And yes, both sides can agree to waive language in certain circumstances.
Tramadol was added to the banned list last spring, so I guess after last NBA season.
So if he took this 12 months ago he'd have been fine.
I definitely take exception to the fact that the NBA is far harder on someone taking a tablet accidentally (even if it wasn't) versus a player who seemingly is willingly prepared to injure his fellow employees.