Chalmers, Arthur caught with marijuana at rookie camp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

It's not a matter of legality. It's a matter of stupidity.

In this rookie program, multiple days are set aside to talk about the drug policy, drug use and the such. To listen to that and go back to a room and get your W on is pretty damn dumb. Especially since they have a policy where the program directors have free range to go into the hotel rooms and even conduct drug tests if they are suspicious.

---

That is exactly what I referred to. I said it was an error in judgment, which implies stupidity. My reference to it being better/worse than drinking was only to say that whether weed is illegal and drinking legal, that they both are frowned upon if you do it at the wrong time. Hence, when I said it would be just as bad if they were caught in the club getting wasted while at the meeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

The rookie transition program is like 10 days.. they couldn't even hold out til it was over. :lol

---

I can barely hold out until getting home tonight. I have half a mind to bring a j to work to smoke in the parking garage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koriwhat

to be honest with ya...i doubt anyone gives a damn as it is anyhow except the media.

i would lay odds that more then 1/2 the league burns during the season and off season. who gives a shit if they smoke herb? as long as they don't smoke while theyre at practice, during games, or at special events then why should it matter? they don't get handed suspensions for drinking and we all know ballers love to club it up. such hypocrisy in this bs democracy.

you can have a coke head in the white house who drives drunk but you can't have a baller who gets his hops by smoking a little bud. our society is a bunch of pussies!

---

That's the problem with this, they got caught at a special event.

I don't get society's hang ups over marijuana. I don't mean to turn this into a pro-legalization thread, but they're not hurting anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koriwhat

to be honest with ya...i doubt anyone gives a damn as it is anyhow except the media.

---

I meant that people on here jumping to the conclusion that R.C. did not draft him because he knew he smoked is just weird. If Chalmers turns out to be a stud and Hill is a bust, then everyone will forget the weed, bust a u-turn and rip R.C. a new one.

I still think that it's impossible that R.C. Buford didn't visit with Bill Self (Kansas basketball coach) about players like Chalmers and Arthur before the draft. I think there's some pretty good chance that Self offered Buford some pretty significant concerns about Chalmers and Arthur -- the sort of criticism that a college coach would know about and the sort of things he might only share with a good friend. And, after all, Self and Buford are good friends; so close that Self gave Buford's son a preferred walk-on spot at KU.

For all of the criticisms about missing on Chalmers and Arthur -- and those may still prove to be valid -- the Spurs aren't an organization that skips too many steps and due diligence would seem to be a big part of their processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Ya, I already said it was an error in judgment. I did not say it was not worse. I said society has this view that drinking is ok and smoking is not. Obviously a dumb decision, but in MY eyes going out and drinking is just as bad, especially to your employer. If you go to a business lunch with your boss and start throwing down shots of Patron, even though it is legal, it can put your career at risk.

---

It's different here though because Chalmers and Arthur's employers are now likely to temporarily lose the services of their players because of something stupid they did, irregardless of any feeling over the dangers of pot compared to the dangers of alcohol. I agree with you that in the grand scheme of life this isn't a big deal. If neither guy gets caught again in the future this incident is probably forgotten by the allstar break, if not sooner. But, if you're a GM who's investing lots of money into Chalmers, Arthur, or any other player who likes to smoke pot, this is a big deal because that player smoking pot is putting that investment at risk.

Quote:

---

Also, this really does not put their careers in jeopardy. Plenty of people get caught and still play. People can go into the stands and beat the crap out of fans and they still play. People can fire guns into crowds at night clubs and still play.

---

No doubt, that's true. As long as you have game, you'll have another chance waiting for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's different here though because Chalmers and Arthur's employers are now likely to temporarily lose the services of their players because of something stupid they did, irregardless of any feeling over the dangers of pot compared to the dangers of alcohol. I agree with you that in the grand scheme of life this isn't a big deal. If neither guy gets caught again in the future this incident is probably forgotten by the allstar break, if not sooner. But, if you're a GM who's investing lots of money into Chalmers, Arthur, or any other player who likes to smoke pot, this is a big deal because that player smoking pot is putting that investment at risk.



No doubt, that's true. As long as you have game, you'll have another chance waiting for you.

---

Which is kind of sad.. But I get what you are saying now. It is different being a superstar that is proven and messing up. You probably won't endanger your career. But to be a rookie who has not played a single minute, that is a much larger risk.

Due-diligence, my friends. Due-diligence.

BAMA's members will now say "Spurs should have drafted Donté Greene".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I still think that it's impossible that R.C. Buford didn't visit with Bill Self (Kansas basketball coach) about players like Chalmers and Arthur before the draft. I think there's some pretty good chance that Self offered Buford some pretty significant concerns about Chalmers and Arthur -- the sort of criticism that a college coach would know about and the sort of things he might only share with a good friend. And, after all, Self and Buford are good friends; so close that Self gave Buford's son a preferred walk-on spot at KU.

For all of the criticisms about missing on Chalmers and Arthur -- and those may still prove to be valid -- the Spurs aren't an organization that skips too many steps and due diligence would seem to be a big part of their processes.

---

I agree. I am not saying that R.C. did not put in the time for proper due diligence, I am just saying if the kid was really good I do not think they would have passed because of this. They must of really liked Hill to take him. I do not think they picked Hill over Chalmers or Arthur because of attitude, just because they liked him, thats all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

BAMA's members will now say "Spurs should have drafted Donté Greene".

---

Donte Greene has Lamar Odom written all over him. Which would not be a bad haul from the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I still think that it's impossible that R.C. Buford didn't visit with Bill Self (Kansas basketball coach) about players like Chalmers and Arthur before the draft. I think there's some pretty good chance that Self offered Buford some pretty significant concerns about Chalmers and Arthur -- the sort of criticism that a college coach would know about and the sort of things he might only share with a good friend. And, after all, Self and Buford are good friends; so close that Self gave Buford's son a preferred walk-on spot at KU.

For all of the criticisms about missing on Chalmers and Arthur -- and those may still prove to be valid -- the Spurs aren't an organization that skips too many steps and due diligence would seem to be a big part of their processes.

---

I would say that the evidence over the last 6 or 7 years would argue otherwise. If they are so into due diligence you would think that they could have drafted somebody that could contribute to the team.

At one point I was a bigger weed head than everybody in this place and I don't think there is anything wrong with burning but I was never offered a multimillion dollar contract to play a game. If I had been an athlete and about to get paid millions, I would gladly put away the sack for a good decade to earn my pay and do what it takes to be the best. Smoking weed at a rookie camp is just stupid and just shows bad character.

This is hilarious. Now they will have to attend the session again next season. What a brilliant policy -- the guys who violate the rules at a seminar about the dangers of drugs and women in the NBA life are immediately sent home and denied the counseling that they obviously are in need of most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tlongII

I would say that the evidence over the last 6 or 7 years would argue otherwise. If they are so into due diligence you would think that they could have drafted somebody that could contribute to the team.

---

How are you supposed to just pull rabbits out of a hat? When your team is constantly picking in the end of the 1st and the second rounds there is not much there. Odds are against what you are saying because the vast majority of picks in that region only last in the league for 3 years or less. That is not much contribution.

The Spurs have draft picks that take time and will/have helped. They are forced to do much of their player additions through free agency. The players they draft do help in many ways and they way the go about the draft has helped them win. They have a combination of players who come in and help win titles (Manu, Tim, Robinson, Parker), they have players they draft that can fill in later down the road (Splitter, Mahinmi) and they develop them in Europe so they do not take up roster spots, which frees them up to sign the crucial FA's that help them win titles.

How did they know they had bud?? Did they show up to camp smelling like weed and with their eyes red as the devils dick? Pendejos! George Hill probably snitched them out..:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

And this news doesn't change that if Hill sucks, he would have been a bad draft pick.

---

Read: Why didn't they go for CDR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

People who smoke weed are not bad people. They showed an obvious error in judgment, but they will learn. It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

And I do not even smoke or advocate it; just makes no sense.

---

:tu +1

They weren't drafted high in the traditional sense of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

It would be no worse than seeing them at the club drinking in the same time frame. It is just a weird sense of drinking being ok and smoking not.

---

Weed is against the law and against the rules of the league. Drinking isn't. That's the difference.

I'm not saying weed should or shouldn't be legal. I'm saying currently it's illegal and currently it's against the rules of the league. So it's not the same as being seen at a club drinking, (except Arthur who I don't think is 21 yet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

Weed is against the law and against the rules of the league. Drinking isn't. That's the difference.

I'm not saying weed should or shouldn't be legal. I'm saying currently it's illegal and currently it's against the rules of the league. So it's not the same as being seen at a club drinking, (except Arthur who I don't think is 21 yet).

---

It is not the same in a legal sense, but it is in the eye's of an employer. Do you think that if reports came out that they were drinking during the seminar in their rooms right before the meetings and showing up drunk that people would not care because it is legal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

It is not the same in a legal sense, but it is in the eye's of an employer. Do you think that if reports came out that they were drinking during the seminar in their rooms right before the meetings and showing up drunk that people would not care because it is legal?

---

Showed up drunk to meetings? Or were seen at a club drinking? That's a big difference.

Your first post said it's the same as beeing seen at a club drinking. Now you are changing the scenario. Being seen at a night club drinking in the evening - I don't think anyone cares. Drinking in their hotel room and coming to a seminar drunk - yes, I think people care.

When millions of dollars are at stake and you are attending the first orientation session of your NBA career, taking doobage* with you is just stupid, legal or not.

*Yes, I'm that old, and yes it's been that long.