Originally Posted by traderumor
I guess what I was saying more than anything is that if the NFL wants to send something other than a message of hypocrisy, quit filling the league coffers with money derived from the primary sponsors, who are sellers of alcoholic beverages. It is about like telling the workers at an Anheuser Busch plant not to abuse alcohol.
So if the NFL had no income from any sponsor of alcoholic beverages these guys wouldn't have chosen to drive impared? I serriously doubt these guys would have ever thought to themselves, "we can't go party wildly the NFL doesn't sponsor booze!".
There's nothing wrong with the NFL taking sponsership revenue from the alcoholic bevergage companies because it is legal to consume alcohol (above 21 of course). There is nothing wrong with Chris Henry and company having a few beers because it's legal to consume alcohol.
The problem starts when OT chooses to gets behind the wheel and drives impared which is not legal. It's a choice he made and whether or not the NFL sponsors Budwiser is pretty irrlevant.
You know, if NFL doesn't allow booze sponsorships there is still the problem that it's available in stores. If OT stumbles into a BP gas station and sees a point of purchase display of Coors Lite he may lose all controll and go on a 3 day bender. [end sarcasim]