Maxwell Janes...not rowing with the team anymore

[caliGopher]

Is it fun living in the cookie cutter box that society tells you that you're supposed to?

Wow. Just wow. People make their own choices. You can expand your mind without doing drugs. Suggesting everyone should do drugs is a cookie cutter box that society tells you you shouldn’t be in. Either way your in a cookie cutter box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

Wow. Just wow. People make their own choices. You can expand your mind without doing drugs. Suggesting everyone should do drugs is a cookie cutter box that society tells you you shouldn’t be in. Either way your in a cookie cutter box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, he made it clear that he doesn’t endorse meth. Just other drugs. Seems pretty reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Opioid use is present because of self-medication of symptoms.

Sociopathic behavior may or may not be higher, but it can be more evident.

The whole mental health vs CTE issue does not disqualify one or the other as being of lesser importance. CTE is damage to the physical structures in the brain, the neurological and biochemical pathways. Mental health is currently viewed as recurring behaviors and thoughts that are harmful or limiting to the patient.

Think of it as not being able to stand on your leg. That is a recurring limiting situation. The reason you can't stand on your leg could be one of several physical reasons from a broken bone or torn ligaments to amputation.
Mental health is the ability to use your cognitive skills and CTE may have created physical reasons that prevent your biochemical or neurological processes from engaging your cognitive skills.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You’re avoiding the argument. Nobody has ever argued CTE isn’t a distinct entity. The argument is over how common it is, significance of physical markers, etc. You said young players may exhibit signs of clinical CTE which is is extremely unlikely when there are other reasons that are much, much more likely.

 

[NotAFanOfBecky]

CTE is interesting because it can't definitively be diagnosed until post mortum. I know they are working on some new tests and they now have concussion lab testing with one of them measuring tau proteins which are hallmark to both Alzheimer's and CTE. There is a reason they now do so much testing right after a potential concussion because research shows it's not only the cumulative concussions but the timing of concussions with those being close together causing the most damage. Of course all this is moot if the player hides his concussion or if the staff is not on board with player safety as we have read in a number of articles regarding coaches in recent years. It's hard to say if these are poor decisions based upon CTE, alcohol, or as writergoph says "expanding of the mind" with mind altering chemicals. It certainly could be any and all at the same time, who knows?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

CTE is interesting because it can't definitively be diagnosed until post mortum. I know they are working on some new tests and they now have concussion lab testing with one of them measuring tau proteins which are hallmark to both Alzheimer's and CTE. There is a reason they now do so much testing right after a potential concussion because research shows it's not only the cumulative concussions but the timing of concussions with those being close together causing the most damage. Of course all this is moot if the player hides his concussion or if the staff is not on board with player safety as we have read in a number of articles regarding coaches in recent years. It's hard to say if these are poor decisions based upon CTE, alcohol, or as writergoph says "expanding of the mind" with mind altering chemicals. It certainly could be any and all at the same time, who knows?

Suffering one concussions or multiple concussions does not mean an individual will develop CTE. Clinically significant CTE appears to be extremely rare in former high school and college players.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

If anyone is surprised or shocked that a D1 college FB team and coach might - I say might - treat a star player differently than a walk-on, then you have led a very sheltered life.

But, just to play devil's advocate - the Brooks incident - providing it happened as 007 says - is not on the same level as a physical altercation with a police officer. If Brooks was drunk and got into a fracas with a cop, I believe he would be off the team, too.

as far as allegations of drinking and drug use by FB players - again, if you think the entire Gopher FB team is a bunch of choir boys who spend their free nights going to bible study, you have led a very sheltered life. I am NOT suggesting the Gophers are any better, or worse, or different than any other D1 team. take a group of 100 to 120 college age men, and the odds are extremely high that some of them will drink - that some of them will drink too much on occasion, and that some of them might smoke pot or use other recreational drugs.

There may be no other incidents involving Gopher FB players - or there may have been incidents that the public will never know about, because they were handled internally. Doesn't mean the Gophers have a problem. Doesn't mean Fleck isn't sincere about what he says. Just the facts of life when dealing with college kids.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Isn't it common sense that punching a cop is a more serious offense than punching your male roommate?

I think most of us on here have gotten into physical altercations with our friends, I doubt many of the posters in this board have punched a cop.

 

[BroncoRedux]

Isn't it common sense that punching a cop is a more serious offense than punching your male roommate?

I think most of us on here have gotten into physical altercations with our friends, I doubt many of the posters in this board have punched a cop.

A voice of reason.

 

[Spoofin]

Isn't it common sense that punching a cop is a more serious offense than punching your male roommate?

I think most of us on here have gotten into physical altercations with our friends, I doubt many of the posters in this board have punched a cop.

Is the punishment if convicted of assault different if you are convicted of assaulting a police officer versus convicted of assaulting a non-police officer? Honest question - I’ve never had to know before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Word]

Is the punishment if convicted of assault different if you are convicted of assaulting a police officer versus convicted of assaulting a non-police officer? Honest question - I’ve never had to know before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am fairly certain the consequences for assaulting a cop are worse. Not a lawyer though so I could be wrong.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk

 

[Gopho Sapiens]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have the interwebs...

Fourth degree assault is generally reserved for assaulting a cop, EMT, fireman, probation officer,etc. while performing their duty.

Ranges from spitting at them to causing physical damage.

Can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending upon the severity.

Deadly force against an officer is first degree assault.

 

[WriterGoph]

Is the punishment if convicted of assault different if you are convicted of assaulting a police officer versus convicted of assaulting a non-police officer? Honest question - I’ve never had to know before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's literally in the article and the original post. That's why there is a completely different charge called "assaulting a peace officer". There wouldn't be a different charge if it was the same punishment.

http://m.startribune.com/gophers-fo...ged-with-assaulting-police-officer/505918182/

But I guess when all the blood leaves your brain for your other organ because you're so excited you've found an opportunity to call out the culture and the coach, it does make it awfully hard to read.

 

[Dano564]

So I think we established punching a police officer is more substantial of an offense than slapping the eye glasses off of another Gopherholer.

 

[PMWinSTP]

If anyone is surprised or shocked that a D1 college FB team and coach might - I say might - treat a star player differently than a walk-on, then you have led a very sheltered life.

But, just to play devil's advocate - the Brooks incident - providing it happened as 007 says - is not on the same level as a physical altercation with a police officer. If Brooks was drunk and got into a fracas with a cop, I believe he would be off the team, too.

as far as allegations of drinking and drug use by FB players - again, if you think the entire Gopher FB team is a bunch of choir boys who spend their free nights going to bible study, you have led a very sheltered life. I am NOT suggesting the Gophers are any better, or worse, or different than any other D1 team. take a group of 100 to 120 college age men, and the odds are extremely high that some of them will drink - that some of them will drink too much on occasion, and that some of them might smoke pot or use other recreational drugs.

There may be no other incidents involving Gopher FB players - or there may have been incidents that the public will never know about, because they were handled internally. Doesn't mean the Gophers have a problem. Doesn't mean Fleck isn't sincere about what he says. Just the facts of life when dealing with college kids.

I posted this when the incident with the players happened in 2016...pull together any 120 adults, randomly or hand pick them, and the probability is very high that 5-7% of them will either be bad apples or do something really, really stupid. No different here.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Why is PJ issuing statements on this? I thought it was team policy not to do so?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He changed his best.

 

[Spoofin]

It's literally in the article and the original post. That's why there is a completely different charge called "assaulting a peace officer". There wouldn't be a different charge if it was the same punishment.

http://m.startribune.com/gophers-fo...ged-with-assaulting-police-officer/505918182/

But I guess when all the blood leaves your brain for your other organ because you're so excited you've found an opportunity to call out the culture and the coach, it does make it awfully hard to read.

I literally asked a lawyer (Bob) for details. If I wanted penis jokes I would have gone straight to someone that has clearly “expanded his mind”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WriterGoph]

I literally asked a lawyer (Bob) for details. If I wanted penis jokes I would have gone straight to someone that has clearly “expanded his mind”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd rather have exposed myself to your drug jokes than be a simpleton one-trick pony on a message board.

 

[Gopho Sapiens]

I posted this when the incident with the players happened in 2016...pull together any 120 adults, randomly or hand pick them, and the probability is very high that 5-7% of them will either be bad apples or do something really, really stupid. No different here.

I call it the 2% rule.

Any group- drivers, cops, parents, priests, posters, teachers, neighbors, athletes, whatever - cause 98% of the problems.

Find any mile long logjam of traffic, there's a 2 percenter at the fromt of it.

Most of the PC culture, 2 percenters.

Don't be a 2 per center.

 

[Spoofin]

I'd rather have exposed myself to your drug jokes than be a simpleton one-trick pony on a message board.

Right, you have both penis jokes and a strong stance against meth. Give this simpleton some time, I’ll get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PMWinSTP]

I call it the 2% rule.

Any group- drivers, cops, parents, priests, posters, teachers, neighbors, athletes, whatever - cause 98% of the problems.

Find any mile long logjam of traffic, there's a 2 percenter at the fromt of it.

Most of the PC culture, 2 percenters.

Don't be a 2 per center.

In HR it's commonly 5%. I often ask if it makes sense to write a policy that punishes the 95% to address the 5% with bad behaviors.

 

[WriterGoph]

Right, you have both penis jokes and a strong stance against meth. Give this simpleton some time, I’ll get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On a serious note, if you want to see how the US drug policies - specifically the "War on Drugs" - have ruined peoples' lives, greatly impacted the minority population in this country, wasted tax dollars and given us the largest prison population in the world by far - with no progress on drug addiction or use, you should watch a couple documentaries: "The 13th" and "The Culture High".

I think most reasonable people would have a hard time supporting drug laws in their current state after seeing those. So yes, I react strongly when someone uses the argument that "this guy is bad because he does drugs" and "the government says drugs are illegal".

 

[Gopho Sapiens]

In HR it's commonly 5%. I often ask if it makes sense to write a policy that punishes the 95% to address the 5% with bad behaviors.

I agree, writing an employee handbook is the equivalent of thirty back-to-back root canals because of the few percent.

It shouldn't be that hard for anybody to fit in.

Sorry, back to topic...

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

On a serious note, if you want to see how the US drug policies - specifically the "War on Drugs" - have ruined peoples' lives, greatly impacted the minority population in this country, wasted tax dollars and given us the largest prison population in the world by far - with no progress on drug addiction or use, you should watch a couple documentaries: "The 13th" and "The Culture High".

I think most reasonable people would have a hard time supporting drug laws in their current state after seeing those. So yes, I react strongly when someone uses the argument that "this guy is bad because he does drugs" and "the government says drugs are illegal".

I don't think anyone is mocking you because they believe the drug laws in the US are reasonable. I think it was more to do with the fact that you called a bunch of people unoriginal because they don't smoke weed/expand their mind.

"All drugs are bad, mmmkay?" is a trope. But it's no less of a trope than "don't be a square, expand your mind man".

 

[short ornery norwegian]

As more states legalize recreational pot use, it's going to become more challenging for businesses - and I suppose, for college FB teams - to figure out how to deal with it.

Let's say MN legalizes recreational pot. that does not pre-empt a business from having its own policies involving drug use/drug testing. Likewise for a football team.

Booze is legal - but if you show up for work under the influence, there will be consequences. Same thing if pot becomes legal.

The kicker is that it's relatively simple to test someone and determine their level of alcohol intoxication. No so much for pot. If someone can invent a quick, simple way to tell how high someone is, that person will be really bleepin' rich.

 

[Word]

As more states legalize recreational pot use, it's going to become more challenging for businesses - and I suppose, for college FB teams - to figure out how to deal with it.

Let's say MN legalizes recreational pot. that does not pre-empt a business from having its own policies involving drug use/drug testing. Likewise for a football team.

Booze is legal - but if you show up for work under the influence, there will be consequences. Same thing if pot becomes legal.

The kicker is that it's relatively simple to test someone and determine their level of alcohol intoxication. No so much for pot. If someone can invent a quick, simple way to tell how high someone is, that person will be really bleepin' rich.

Same thing for DWI. Currently a lot harder to tell quantitatively when someone is high vs drunk. They will need to get it figured out quickly.

 

[WriterGoph]

I don't think anyone is mocking you because they believe the drug laws in the US are reasonable. I think it was more to do with the fact that you called a bunch of people unoriginal because they don't smoke weed/expand their mind.

"All drugs are bad, mmmkay?" is a trope. But it's no less of a trope than "don't be a square, expand your mind man".

I get it. I took an extreme approach and pushed some buttons on purpose. However, there were a number of posts that said "it's illegal until it's legal". I do think that's cookie cutter thinking. Following everything the government says to a T is on its way to "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451".

Nobody has to do drugs, obviously. But to say they're bad because the government decided they were illegal is lacking individual thought. Furthermore, trying to convince a message board that such and such player you got in a fight with is clearly a really bad person because he also does drugs comes off even worse.

 

[Gopho Sapiens]

If someone can invent a quick, simple way to tell how high someone is, that person will be really bleepin' rich.

Nacho Doritos. <drop mike>

College students in general are faced with a Pandora's Box of opportunities and peer pressures of a magnitude they haven't faced prior to college that they're not generally prepared to face.

Then throw in a cultish following of sports fans it's really surprising there isn't more of this type of thing.

I feel bad for Janes, I can only imagine waking up to the level of "****, what have I done?" he must be facing.

Knowing it would suck. Having it splattered across the media would be inescapable.

we all make choices, but you can't help but wonder if this is a case of 'good riddance' or just a good kid who momentarily lost touch with reality.

 

[WoodburyTim]

Is it fun living in the cookie cutter box that society tells you that you're supposed to?

Ahhhh Writer, I wrote the same things under my senior picture in my high school yearbook as you are espousing here. Rebelling against the man and the square rules of common society. Trying so hard for the world and the cool kids to view me as different, unique, and counterculture. Of course I grew up, realized as I moved through college and early 20's that most drug use is not mind expanding, but a way to fit in, feel accepted and compensate for a yet to be developed emotional and intellectual identity.

Understanding with age and knowledge that if I needed drugs to expand my mind that meant my mind was lacking something essential in a non-altered state. Whether that be confidence, intelligence, or happiness, most find those things in relationships or from strength within. At some point experimentation gives way to inadequacy and dependency. At best, you sound like someone that needs to find those things and at this point it probably isn't going to be in a chemical. At worse, you are The Fonz. An adult hoping that he can be thought of as cool by young adults, someone that feels he has stayed true to rebellion and side stepped growing up. Either way it is a sad look, not a cool one. Good Luck man.

 

[WriterGoph]

Ahhhh Writer, I wrote the same things under my senior picture in my high school yearbook as you are espousing here. Rebelling against the man and the square rules of common society. Trying so hard for the world and the cool kids to view me as different, unique, and counterculture. Of course I grew up, realized as I moved through college and early 20's that most drug use is not mind expanding, but a way to fit in, feel accepted and compensate for a yet to be developed emotional and intellectual identity.

Understanding with age and knowledge that if I needed drugs to expand my mind that meant my mind was lacking something essential in a non-altered state. Whether that be confidence, intelligence, or happiness, most find those things in relationships or from strength within. At some point experimentation gives way to inadequacy and dependency. At best, you sound like someone that needs to find those things and at this point it probably isn't going to be in a chemical. At worse, you are The Fonz. An adult hoping that he can be thought of as cool by young adults, someone that feels he has stayed true to rebellion and side stepped growing up. Either way it is a sad look, not a cool one. Good Luck man.

Tim, we all have our own experiences. I'm glad you have everything figured out and have reached true spiritual enlightenment. My arguments on a freaking message board have zero to do with what I "need to find". If you think Shannon Brooks is a bad guy because some guy on the internet says he does drugs - which is really the whole point of my entire extreme stance, then I feel sorry for you and 007. Good luck to you, man.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I get it. I took an extreme approach and pushed some buttons on purpose. However, there were a number of posts that said "it's illegal until it's legal". I do think that's cookie cutter thinking. Following everything the government says to a T is on its way to "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451".

Nobody has to do drugs, obviously. But to say they're bad because the government decided they were illegal is lacking individual thought. Furthermore, trying to convince a message board that such and such player you got in a fight with is clearly a really bad person because he also does drugs comes off even worse.

Alcohol, heroin and other opioids, cocaine, amphetamines are all bad in the sense they can cause addiction and/or death if used improperly. This is an off topic board thread but the question moreso is whether enforcement is worth the cost, whether it fuels criminal syndicates and corruption in law enforcement, the corrections industry, etc. There is no question unregulated and unsupervised recreational use is “bad”. The question and what I agree with you on is whether we can or should outlaw the 20 percent or so of society (rear end statistic) that desperately wants and needs one or more of these substances from getting them.