Replies

"Where in the constitution does it say he has the right to earn a living any way he chooses? Go back to DU." I think that an arbitrary rule that a monopolistic organization(proven in court in the USFL lawsuit) enforces has a damn good chance of not hold up to scrutiny. You are looking at it from the "God's given right to do whatever we want" point of view, where I am looking at it from the "Our constitution that has been screwed up by liberal judges for decades". Just because I can look at something from a different point of view doesn't mean I'm a DU'er - So get bent dimwit.

You are the one who made the statment that he has the rightto earn a living. In the above paragraph, you apparently try to modify that statment, but you did say that he had the right to earn a living. To me, you were saying that he had the right to earn a living any way he chose. That is typical liberal socialist thinking. That is why I decided you must be from DU. Now, you try to modify your statment and call me a dimwit. Actually, I think you cannot defend your original statement and are using name calling to deflect criticism.

You are the one who started slinging mud by accusing me of being from DU. I can't think of a worse insult. My position is that the courts will say that Clarrett has the right to ATTEMPT to earn a living as a player in the NFL. He DOES NOT have an inalienable right to a position, but I believe he will be given a chance by order of the courts.

I believe the confusion lies in that I am assuming that he would make it on a team in the NFL. Many "pro" analysts believe he would be a first round selection(some say early first round) if he were available in next years draft. So given this assumption, he is being denied the right to work in the NFL. If you do not assume this(like you and others apparently are) then he is being denied the right to attempt to earn a position as a player in the NFL. Is this second statement make more, less, or no difference to your opposition?

Clarrett isn't allowed to seek a position as a player in the NFL. Why not? Safety concerns? No way. Is he too physically small for his own safety? I seem to recall a Cornerback(Mark McMillen??) who played for the Eagles and the Broncos who was something like 5'8" and 160 lbs. So physical size isn't an issue. OK, what about physical maturity? I used to(and would love to be again) study Brazilian Jujitsu. There were some physical conditions you had to meet in order to train. One of them was that you had to be 16 years old, because of the extreem pressure placed on the bodies bones while sparring - The thinking was that it was better to break the bone than to warp it out of shape(since yoounger bones are more malleable). So is Clarrett in undo danger becasue of his young age? Hardly. Mental maturity? Doesn't seem to be a problem for high school kids to walk right onto an NBA court. Didn't Kerry Wood tie the record for strikouts in a 9 inning game at the age of 20? The same age Clarrett would be playing if he were in the 2004 NFL draft? So what is the reason? The reason is that the NFL, NFLPA and NCAA have a nice ting going, and they don't want to give it up.