Von Miller suspended

[woolybug25]

I was thinking a gram a day. I don't really have time to look up information on how marijuana effects your physical and cognitive functions and explain how over time that would have a negative impact on athlete performance because I have to go to practice, but I really thought this was common sense.

I think when you do have time to research it, you will see that you are way overestimating the effects of it's use. It's common misconception, not common sense.

 

[woolybug25]

Ok, I'm not as old as OMM, or dshans, but I'm no spring chicken, either. But isn't "a molly" some kind of drug? And he is quoted as saying that he took one? If so, please explain to me just how he is going to win an appeal? If "a molly" is not some kind of drug, then I admit that we have to wait until all of the evidence is in.

I'm pretty sure that the "poppin molly" comment above was a joke, not a quote from Miller. As I have said before, turn on a clip of Miller speaking, he isn't like that. When I looked it up, all it said that it was a banned substance, not one drug in particular.

The irony of this whole conversation is that I highly doubt that it was marijuana that he tested positive for. Also... Molly isn't marijuana either.

 

[kmoose]

I'm pretty sure that the "poppin molly" comment above was a joke, not a quote from Miller. As I have said before, turn on a clip of Miller speaking, he isn't like that. When I looked it up, it said that it was a banned substance.

The irony of this whole conversation is that I highly doubt that it was marijuana that he tested positive for. Also... Molly isn't marijuana either.

I looked it up............ molly is ecstacy. So is rumored to have failed a drug test, in an era when fans are absolutely fed up with athletes and drugs, and he tweets a joke about taking drugs?


What more evidence do you need, that marijuana makes you stupid?

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Can't be true, he wears glasses, just like another great LB. Guys who wear glasses (that are prescription for poor vision, not prescription for being a hipster douchebag) are infallible. Maybe he has glaucoma???:

 

[woolybug25]

I looked it up............ molly is ecstacy. So is rumored to have failed a drug test, in an era when fans are absolutely fed up with athletes and drugs, and he tweets a joke about taking drugs?


What more evidence do you need, that marijuana makes you stupid?

The Molly quote in the first post was a joke. haha. Von Miller didn't say that.


Alcohol makes people WAAAY more stupid than dope. That is a scientific fact. What I meant about the "evidence" was that if you actually look at the scientific research done on the negative effects of marijuana, it is significantly smaller that mainstream narcotics, alcohal and even some over-the-counter prescriptions.

 

[irishog77]

I... am... pleased...

Whenever I picture Tom Skerritt now, I can't help but think of him in "Poison Ivy II." This haunts me evermore.

 

[NDdomer2]

the joke you keep referring to was not real it was in italics.

the actual tweet above he is dead serious in his denial

 

[NDdomer2]

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.

In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.

The marijuana users in those 15 studies -- which lasted between three months to more than 13 years -- had smoked marijuana several times a week or month or daily. Still, researchers say impairments were less than what is typically found from using alcohol or other drugs.

 

[woolybug25]

For crying out loud... he probably tested for PED's not dope. lol

 

[NDdomer2]

For crying out loud... he probably tested for PED's not dope. lol

this. there is no official report on what the failed test is for. if i had to guess it's amphetamines.

he also is appealing meaning the outcome could be no failed test.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I don't even understand why the word thug was thrown around.

 

[TCramer]

2011 Drug Test...
Report: Von Miller tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana in 2011 | ProFootballTalk

This is the most recent "The Fan" is reporting the failed test is for Molly (ecstasy) and Weed
Reports: Von Miller Positive Drug Test for Weed and “Molly”; Previously Tested Positive for Amphetamines and Marijuana in 2011 | The Big Lead

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As I said on <a href="https://twitter.com/SportsCenter">@SportsCenter</a>, a source close to Von that I trust said he was busted for both weed & "Molly" a form of MDMA</p>— Brandon Krisztal (@BK1043) <a href="https://twitter.com/BK1043/statuses/359347853367328769">July 22, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NDdomer2]

2011 Drug Test...
Report: Von Miller tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana in 2011 | ProFootballTalk

This is the most recent "The Fan" is reporting the failed test is for Molly (ecstasy) and Weed
Reports: Von Miller Positive Drug Test for Weed and “Molly”; Previously Tested Positive for Amphetamines and Marijuana in 2011 | The Big Lead

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As I said on <a href="https://twitter.com/SportsCenter">@SportsCenter</a>, a source close to Von that I trust said he was busted for both weed & "Molly" a form of MDMA</p>— Brandon Krisztal (@BK1043) <a href="https://twitter.com/BK1043/statuses/359347853367328769">July 22, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

thanks for posting Cramer, first official reports i have seen.

 

[NDWorld247]

I think when you do have time to research it, you will see that you are way overestimating the effects of it's use. It's common misconception, not common sense.

I haven't overestimated anything. All I've said it has a negative effect and that's true. To say otherwise is really foolish.

Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain

Many of the effects are short-term, which for a NFL player using during the off-season would have a negative impact on their training for the upcoming season. Let's not forget that we're talking about a sport where the difference between a starter and reserve player, or a reserve player and someone that's cut in training camp, is minimal. It absolutely has a negative impact.

ESPN.com - SPECIAL - Marijuana

What are the effects of marijuana on performance?


•Impairs skills requiring eye-hand coordination and a fast reaction time
•Reduces motor coordination, tracking ability and perceptual accuracy
•Impairs concentration, and time appears to move more slowly
•Skill impairment may last up to 24 to 36 hours after usage
•Reduces maximal exercise capacity resulting in increased fatiguability
•Marijuana has no performance-enhancing potential

Because marijuana is stored in the body fat, its effects may be long-lasting. "It has been shown that performance skills can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after marijuana usage," says Wadler, "which casts doubt on the commonly held belief that the social use of marijuana the evening prior to an athletic event will not affect performance."

 

[woolybug25]

I haven't overestimated anything. All I've said it has a negative effect and that's true. To say otherwise is really foolish.



Many of the effects are short-term, which for a NFL player using during the off-season would have a negative impact on their training for the upcoming season. Let's not forget that we're talking about a sport where the difference between a starter and reserve player, or a reserve player and someone that's cut in training camp, is minimal. It absolutely has a negative impact.

ESPN.com - SPECIAL - Marijuana

What are the effects of marijuana on performance?


•Impairs skills requiring eye-hand coordination and a fast reaction time
•Reduces motor coordination, tracking ability and perceptual accuracy
•Impairs concentration, and time appears to move more slowly
•Skill impairment may last up to 24 to 36 hours after usage
•Reduces maximal exercise capacity resulting in increased fatiguability
•Marijuana has no performance-enhancing potential

Because marijuana is stored in the body fat, its effects may be long-lasting. "It has been shown that performance skills can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after marijuana usage," says Wadler, "which casts doubt on the commonly held belief that the social use of marijuana the evening prior to an athletic event will not affect performance."

The same stuff can be said about chewing tobacco, champaigne and cough syrup. Seriously... don't use an ESPN espose on athletes using dope as your "proof". There is more scientific research done on this subject than maybe ever in the history of time. All of the stuff you bullet pointed is true, WHEN YOU ARE USING IT. Of course you get high, why do you think people use it? The reality is that the people they are talking about it effecting got effected physically because they were sitting around not doing anything but burning doobies and playing video games, not because their is some magical elixer in marijuana that makes it degenerate people's body. (unlike alcohol)

Somebody has watched Reefer Madness too many times. Betcha you think it causes people to rape, eh? lol

 

[chubler]

To be fair, the amount of good science out there is minimal, especially compared to the amount of good science on alcohol. Most "weed studies" are correlational, use smaller sample sizes and gather data over relatively short periods of time, give it 10-15 years and they'll have some real evidence. Note that this could end up vindicating either side of the debate- because weed is illegal, it's hard to find trustworthy subjects to study, and even harder to ensure those subjects aren't tainted/affected by use of harder drugs. As far as the science is concerned, many of the effects of marijuana positive and negative are very much an open question.

 

[woolybug25]

To be fair, the amount of good science out there is minimal, especially compared to the amount of good science on alcohol. Most "weed studies" are correlational, use smaller sample sizes and gather data over relatively short periods of time, give it 10-15 years and they'll have some real evidence. Note that this could end up vindicating either side of the debate- because weed is illegal, it's hard to find trustworthy subjects to study, and even harder to ensure those subjects aren't tainted/affected by use of harder drugs. As far as the science is concerned, many of the effects of marijuana positive and negative are very much an open question.

Look harder, there have been studies that span 50 years on the effects of marijuana. I'm on my work cpu, so i'm not going to do a search on the topic, but you're crazy if you think that they don't have massive amounts of data on the subject going back decades. How is 10-15 years going to show "real evidence". Do you think they just started gathering info on it? That's ridiculous.

Furthermore, it is not going to be illegal soon. In states that have legalized it, they will not be superceded by the federal government per the recent supreme court ruling. It will be completely legal in those states like CA, CO and MI. You do know that, correct?

 

[NDWorld247]

The same stuff can be said about chewing tobacco, champaigne and cough syrup. Seriously... don't use an ESPN espose on athletes using dope as your "proof". There is more scientific research done on this subject than maybe ever in the history of time. All of the stuff you bullet pointed is true, WHEN YOU ARE USING IT. Of course you get high, why do you think people use it? The reality is that the people they are talking about it effecting got effected physically because they were sitting around not doing anything but burning doobies and playing video games, not because their is some magical elixer in marijuana that makes it degenerate people's body. (unlike alcohol)

I'm really not interested in combing the internet for scientific research you find acceptable. I thought this research would be more applicable to what we're talking about since it discusses the effects on athletes and not gamers sitting in their parent's basement.

My main argument is this...offseason marijuana use will negatively impact performance by negatively impacting training regiments designed to prepare athletes for the season. This is so obvious to me I will not waste any more time proving this point.

Somebody has watched Reefer Madness too many times. Betcha you think it causes people to rape, eh? lol

I've never watched it, but I have no negative perceptions of people that smoke marijuana (except maybe pro athletes that are risking far more than you or I by smoking). However, I'm starting to believe it causes people to deny its negative effects to help them justify their own use. The only research I have on this is observational (i.e. this thread).

 

[NDdomer2]

i wish i would have kept the book but my girlfriend was a psych major and one class was chemical dependency. the book was written by x # of doctors.

the marijuana section noted studies lasting several years that supported both sides.

the one that really stuck out to me was the study of pregnant women in Jamaica. some smoked habitually and while prego, others not at all and the results were no difference in the children.

on the other hand heroin is ****ed up

 

[NDdomer2]

I'm really not interested in combing the internet for scientific research you find acceptable. I thought this research would be more applicable to what we're talking about since it discusses the effects on athletes and not gamers sitting in their parent's basement.

My main argument is this...offseason marijuana use will negatively impact performance by negatively impacting training regiments designed to prepare athletes for the season. This is so obvious to me I will not waste any more time proving this point.



I've never watched it, but I have no negative perceptions of people that smoke marijuana (except maybe pro athletes that are risking far more than you or I by smoking). However, I'm starting to believe it causes people to deny its negative effects to help them justify their own use. The only research I have on this is observational (i.e. this thread).

haha no one is denying it has effects but they aren't as glaring a you make them.

you are talking about the best athletes the world has to offer. if it's effects are minimal on john doe playing sports they are even more minimalized to the best the world has to offer.

i don't know why anyone here would have to justify their own use. what would be the point?

but i guess since your own point of view is so obvious to you then everyone should agree.

 

[chubler]

Look harder, there have been studies that span 50 years on the effects of marijuana. I'm on my work cpu, so i'm not going to do a search on the topic, but you're crazy if you think that they don't have massive amounts of data on the subject going back decades. How is 10-15 years going to show "real evidence". Do you think they just started gathering info on it? That's ridiculous.

Furthermore, it is not going to be illegal soon. In states that have legalized it, they will not be superceded by the federal government per the recent supreme court ruling. It will be completely legal in those states like CA, CO and MI. You do know that, correct?

Hey, relax. I'm not trying to say it's good or bad. I'm just trying to put a hold on anyone claiming good or bad health effects of marijuana. The studies simply are not there. There are a few, but as i said earlier, they are small, and don't even come close to eliminating confounding factors. A single study that says marijuana has or doesn't have a certain effect means almost nothing to a scientific or medical professional, especially with a small sample size. There is a relatively small amount of research out there on the general health effects of marijuana, but it is dwarfed by the amount of research on alcohol and narcotics. If you get out there and read the articles themselves, the authors universally admit the severe limitations of their work (as is expected within scientific convention).

If you back up and look at it from an unbiased, empirical perspective, the fact that marijuana is currently illegal in the US and most of Europe means that almost any study conducted up to this point is rife with confounding factors. Once it is legalized on a large scale, as is about to happen in a few states across the nation (no i don't live under a rock), there will not only be a large, uncorrupted pool of subjects to study, but also large-scale public interest in the actual health benefits of marijuana, which means funding and legitimacy for a researcher attempting to study the issue. This is the type of research we need, not small-scale inquiries by curious professors. Your supposed "massive" amounts of data on the physiological impact of marijuana use simply does not exist. Good data is even more scarce.

I will admit, however, that there is strong scientific evidence for the effectiveness of marijuana to treat Multiple Sclerosis and chronic pain. Because of the lack of FDA oversight, however, this research comes with little emphasis on safety and side effects.

Finally, I'd encourage you to take a closer look at the ESPN link NDworld provider earlier. It's excellent, from a factual and scientific perspective, and was written with the input of possibly the world's foremost expert on drug use and sports. You'll notice that while the short-term effects on health and performance are quite well known, the discussion of the long-term effects of marijuana use, including something as basic as addictiveness, are framed in terms such as "indicates" and "suggests". Clearly, even the experts in the field consider the evidence to be far from convincing.

 

[NDWorld247]

haha once a day everyday is not going to have an effect bro thats like a beer or two at night

haha no one is denying it has effects but they aren't as glaring a you make them.

Really? Tell me more...

And what have I said other than it has a negative effect? How have I exaggerated the effects?

you are talking about the best athletes the world has to offer. if it's effects are minimal on john doe playing sports they are even more minimalized to the best the world has to offer.

So now you agree it has a negative effect? As I said before, the margin between players that make a roster and players that don't is so small that even a minimal negative effect on a pro athlete makes a difference.

i don't know why anyone here would have to justify their own use. what would be the point?

I meant justify to themselves, not anyone here. I smoke. Other people don't need to justify their own actions to me, but I'm also not going to sit here and tell you it doesn't have a negative effect.

but i guess since your own point of view is so obvious to you then everyone should agree.

Yes. Now you're getting it...

 

[NDdomer2]

everything has an effect even if only a minute, if it didn't get you high why do it

but one gram an evening for life is not going to effect an elite athletes career.

it is by far less dangerous to their career than football itself is.

the exaggeration comes from your "offseason training regimen" talk

 

[chubler]

one gram an evening for life is not going to effect an elite athletes career.

you (or i guess woolly technically but regardless) were presented with credible evidence that directly contradicts that point by NDworld just a few posts ago. Are you just going to overlook it?

the exaggeration comes from your "offseason training regimen" talk

you don't think "increased fatiguability" resulting in "reduced maximal exercise capacity" would have a negative impact on offseason conditioning and strength training?

 

[ND NYC]

when the NFL spends a pittance of its billions to have an Olympics style anti doping regimen (read: PEDs, roids, HGH, etc) in place then ill take anything they do as far as a "drug policy" seriously.

does anyone really believe these 325#ers running 4.4 40's are doing it naturally?

these guys are monsters. physical specmens. great for the brand.

You may all have your own views on this but ill always be convinced these NFLers arent doing it all naturally. theres just no way in my book.

 

[NDdomer2]

you (or i guess woolly technically but regardless) were presented with credible evidence that directly contradicts that point by NDworld just a few posts ago. Are you just going to overlook it?



you don't think "increased fatiguability" resulting in "reduced maximal exercise capacity" would have a negative impact on offseason conditioning and strength training?

i posted an article from actual doctors, not espn, before that that says opposite. are you going to overlook that?

the reason marijuana is so widely debated is because there are tons of experiments that were done to support the researchers philosophy.

the nfl men in question are putting more into their body than just thc, so any study done on effects of thc on an nfl athlete is null and void to me as the total chemical combination has to be asinine

i just felt ndworld was over estimating the effects.

these guys are freaks and there are many things higher on the list of career altering than smoking a little weed.

 

[NDWorld247]

when the NFL spends a pittance of its billions to have an Olympics style anti doping regimen (read: PEDs, roids, HGH, etc) in place then ill take anything they do as far as a "drug policy" seriously.

NEVER going to happen. There's zero incentive for the NFL or NFLPA to push for, or agree to, WADA rules/testing. I thought the HGH testing was a big step forward but even that has taken two years to materialize. As soon as they agree on how to conduct HGH tests, we will officially be in the "HGH" era of the National Football League. It's going to be ugly.

 

[NDdomer2]

NEVER going to happen. There's zero incentive for the NFL or NFLPA to push for, or agree to, WADA rules/testing. I thought the HGH testing was a big step forward but even that has taken two years to materialize. As soon as they agree on how to conduct HGH tests, we will officially be in the "HGH" era of the National Football League. It's going to be ugly.

i guess i never thought of it like this.

players discover the testing regimen so know how to get around it.

yikes could get ugly for sure

 

[chubler]

i posted an article from actual doctors, not espn, before that that says opposite. are you going to overlook that?

the reason marijuana is so widely debated is because there are tons of experiments that were done to support the researchers philosophy.

the nfl men in question are putting more into their body than just thc, so any study done on effects of thc on an nfl athlete is null and void to me as the total chemical combination has to be asinine

i just felt ndworld was over estimating the effects.

these guys are freaks and there are many things higher on the list of career altering than smoking a little weed.

No doubt there's a LOT of things that will have a more severe impact. You need to go read the "espn" article you're disparaging. it's an overview of the effects of marijuana on athlete performance by probably the world's foremost expert. ESPN happened to run it. It's far, far more credible than the web MD (really??) news article by "sid kirchenmier" that starts with the line "doesn't APPEAR to cause" long term brain damage. Additionally, that article is about the brain, and those 'experts' are concerned with cognitive function, as opposed to physiological functions. In addition, if i read it right the total number of subjects involved was about 700 smokers and 480 nonsmokers. Much larger cohorts over a longer time period are required to make conclusive judgements, as the article you cite makes clear.

In short, consider your sources- just because you like what they say doesn't make them credible. We know, from a scientific perspective, that marijuana use decreases your athletic abilities in the short term. Whether that affects an athlete's career over a span of years is unclear. It could go either way. That's all i want to say. Have a good night!

 

[NDdomer2]

you don't think an ex athlete smoker read an article about smoking and athletics?

again consider the source, is espn easily going to put out an article that says "we find marijuana has no effects on athletes" children of the world go smoke yourselves silly and be an all pro.