Originally Posted by Ltlabner
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]
You have missed the point. Sure, the individual is responsible as I stated
Odell, Henry and all the other foolish behavior is not excused
The hypocrisy is that the NFL is heavily funded by companies that rely on the abuse of alcohol to make millions of dollars in profits, yet they get all indignant when their employees abuse alcohol. Further, there are the indignant fans whereby some of them will be slobbering drunk themselves, drive home impaired after the game, some could probably blow a .17, and yet they are screaming for Odell's head. In other words, fine if you want promote "responsible drinking," but don't send a confusing message by being so dependant on those selling the products that you are trying to control the use of. Basic conflict of interest logic. The NFL has one here.