TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Show me where he has disciplined a player for hunting, going to the shooting ranger, legally possessed a gun or said said he will do so for the legal use of guns. Until then, I'm "inclined" to believe he is addressing the illegal aspect of gun possession or use by thug athletes.

It's doubtful we'll ever know which of his self-proclaimed rules was/were allegedly violated. I haven't seen any statement about the players who have been kicked off the team or suspected as to which "core value" they violated.

Chas.

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here's a question. Why isn't the "no drugs" part in question too? There are many drugs that are illegal and many that are legal. Do you assume he means no aspirin, tylenol or other legal medicine or just the illegal drugs or illegal use of legal drugs? Do we need to get him to address that he only means the illegal drugs or the illegal use of drugs? It's all about context. Now if there are things being said and written that I have not seen or am not privy to, I may change my opinion. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Whether anyone else does or not it totally up to them.

Here's an article from four years ago. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2010/09/08/athletes-crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think the comparison is apt. "No drugs" is generally understood to refer specifically to illegal drugs. When there is a campaign slogan like "just say no to drugs" they don't modify drugs with "illegal." OTOH, the mayors against "illegal" guns feel compelled for propaganda purposes to misrepresent their actual position because they know calling themselves mayors against guns would be politically unpalatable. People who refer to themselves as "drug free" don't say they're "illegal drug free." OTOH, if someone posts a legally insufficient "no guns" sign, we all know that they don't mean no illegal guns, they mean no guns at all. So, given the larger social context and the fact that he makes no distinction between legal and illegal guns, I'm inclined to take his "no guns" policy at face value.

I agree. While the word "drugs" is broad enough to include both illegal and legal drugs, that's not how it is interpreted in common usage. As VM177 noted, the phrase "drug free" always means one does not use illegal drugs, not that they don't take legal prescription drugs or over the counter drugs like Aspirin. Two of the three items on Strong's "No List" are illegal all the time, so it would be unusual sentence structure to list a legal item like guns without narrowing the rule to "unlawful use of guns."

It's also significant that Strong doesn't want his players to be 1) honest; 2) respectful of women; 3) stay off drugs; and 4) no stealing merely while they are on UT campus. He wants this to be their rules 24 hrs. a day.

I hope Strong means unlawful use of guns, but I see no evidence of such a narrow interpretation. The evidence, meager as it is, leads me to believe he means "no guns" in an anti-gun context. I'd love to be wrong.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:I just received an email from an insurance sales consultant, Randy Schwantz, that had a link to his a video he produced using Charlie Strong's "core values" as an example. You may find it of interest if you can overlook his OK Sooner shirt.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Mr. Schwantz is correct and the so-called "Strong Core Values" include no guns, then it does not appear that he is limiting the guns plank to any particular player with a history of unlawful use of guns. If so, then he does not need to be getting paid with taxpayer dollars at a state supported school. Why not add "No church attendance" or "no voting in elections?" The guns plank is not a "value," it's a bias of Strong's.

Chas.

I would like to know the answer to Hank's question. If Strong has a standing rule against any "use" of firearms, this needs to be addressed in the legislature. If anyone knows, please let me know.

Chas.