Now Subway is dropping Phelps over the bong photo too!

[Free libertarian]

 Mommy if I smoke pot can I grow up and swim fast too? 

[SpeedPhreak]

do you think the contracts he signed w/those sponsors included an agreement to not do drugs, drink, etc...?

he could have breached a contract he agreed to.  at the very least he breached a contract w/the USOC, USA Swimming, & USADA (US Anti Doping Agency)... thus (possibly) making him inelidgeable to compete for x amount of time therefore (possibly) breaching his contract with his sponsors.

at 1 time I worked for a sports organization that was the equivelant to USA Swimming for another sport.  Athletes who made it on the US Team had to sign contracts that gave them curfews at certain times (primarily at events), banned drugs, etc.. They also have random drug tests as well as mandatory after competition.  This is a requirement by the USOC (actually USADA but because the USOC requires an athlete to sign the USADA contract it is really the USOC).  An athlete from another country was booted from a tour, kicked of his countries national team, & lost all his sponsors for this exact reason - not mary jane - another substance though. 

I don't know the status of his contracts at the time of the picture - but he very easily could have breached more than 1 contract with his actions assuming they were all still valid.

I spose one could argue the contracts should be null & void as he was "required" to sign them to fulfill a life long dream/goal - however he did agree to them & he could have chose not to compete in the olympics.

[thinkliberty]

do you think the contracts he signed w/those sponsors included an agreement to not do drugs, drink, etc...?

he could have breached a contract he agreed to.  at the very least he breached a contract w/the USOC, USA Swimming, & USADA (US Anti Doping Agency)... thus (possibly) making him inelidgeable to compete for x amount of time therefore (possibly) breaching his contract with his sponsors.

at 1 time I worked for a sports organization that was the equivelant to USA Swimming for another sport.  Athletes who made it on the US Team had to sign contracts that gave them curfews at certain times (primarily at events), banned drugs, etc.. They also have random drug tests as well as mandatory after competition.  This is a requirement by the USOC (actually USADA but because the USOC requires an athlete to sign the USADA contract it is really the USOC).  An athlete from another country was booted from a tour, kicked of his countries national team, & lost all his sponsors for this exact reason - not mary jane - another substance though. 

I don't know the status of his contracts at the time of the picture - but he very easily could have breached more than 1 contract with his actions assuming they were all still valid.

I spose one could argue the contracts should be null & void as he was "required" to sign them to fulfill a life long dream/goal - however he did agree to them & he could have chose not to compete in the olympics.

I don't understand your point.

No one is asking the government to force Subway to pay Phelps.

What I care about is not supporting companies that support marijuana prohibition. If Subway is going to drop support for Phelps or anyone else over marijuana I am going to drop my support of Subway.

[SpeedPhreak]

I understand that - & sympathize.. I don't eat subway often, however I am not so sure I will go so far as to boycott them because he probably breached a contract... thus he is at fault.

My point is I can almost gaurantee he breached his contract regarding his athletic career & that almost gaurantee's he breached his contract with his sponsors.  Phelps had to know this could be a consequence of his actions & chose to smoke any way.  As a spokes person he is a face for his sponsor & they get to choose what that face looks like - he agreed in one form or another (whether it was to stay competitive via his competitive status, to not smoke, or both either through USOC contracts, Sponsor contracts, or combonations) not to smoke weed.

The original sin here is the contract(s) that binds him not to do "drugs" (for sure USADA pobably also his sponorship contract(s)). Because by signing the contract he voluntarily agreed NOT to do "drugs".  The argument that marijuana should or shouldn't be legal isn't what is at the fore front here.  Though it would be a great win for the "legalization" fight to have someone like him promoting it.

Even if "drugs" were legal, international sports organizations (ie IOC) would still likely choose to ban them in their events - so he would still more than likely have breached a contract & lost his sponsorships via not being able to compete.

[thinkliberty]

I understand that - & sympathize.. I don't eat subway often, however I am not so sure I will go so far as to boycott them because he probably breached a contract... thus he is at fault.

My point is I can almost gaurantee he breached his contract regarding his athletic career & that almost gaurantee's he breached his contract with his sponsors.  Phelps had to know this could be a consequence of his actions & chose to smoke any way.  As a spokes person he is a face for his sponsor & they get to choose what that face looks like - he agreed in one form or another (whether it was to stay competitive via his competitive status, to not smoke, or both either through USOC contracts, Sponsor contracts, or combonations) not to smoke weed.

The original sin here is the contract(s) that binds him not to do "drugs" (for sure USADA pobably also his sponorship contract(s)). Because by signing the contract he voluntarily agreed NOT to do "drugs".  The argument that marijuana should or shouldn't be legal isn't what is at the fore front here.  Though it would be a great win for the "legalization" fight to have someone like him promoting it.

Even if "drugs" were legal, international sports organizations (ie IOC) would still likely choose to ban them in their events - so he would still more than likely have breached a contract & lost his sponsorships via not being able to compete.

OK, So don't boycott a company that supports marijuana prohibition, that is your choice. Just like it's my choice to not support Subway any more for dropping Phelps over a bong photo.

Marijuana should be legal like alcohol, Subway signed a contract with Phelps even though he has a 2004 DUI conviction. If there were a picture of Phelps holding a glass of champagne, would Subway be dropping their sponsorship? I don't think so.

It's time for marijuana prohibition to end and I won't spend a penny of my money supporting a company that thinks otherwise. 

[SpeedPhreak]

& I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott them - or any other company, thats your prerogative.  I'm simply saying that he is a big boy & knew the ramifications per his contractoral obligations regardless of message, law, standard, or morals.  I think he pussied out by not standing by his decision to smoke as mentioned by someone earlier.

his DUI was before any contract & both parties were privy to the information & made decisions based on the information at hand.

absolutely its time for marijuana prohibition to end - as is all drug laws (IMO this includes but not limited to - coke, crack, LSD, meth, acid, steroids, growth hormone, EPO, insulin, pain killers, muscle relaxers, etc, etc) should be abolished... along with many many many other laws/prohibitions/restrictions/mandates/etc.  A private contract could still stand regardless of legality... I.E. Major League Baseball could still prohibit steroids, airlines could prohibit pilots but not ticket takers from using LSD, & movie studios could prohibit coke & hookers (doubtful though)... you know that though.

My argument for subway is that (without proof but with some experience myself & a person very close to me who actually writes similar contracts in the same business) somewhere Phelps broke a contract & he is now paying the price.  Maybe that contract could have been broken if he was seen eating at McDonald's (more unhealthy that the pot he smoked) - & thus fired.  Would you be as equally upset then?  Would anyone boycott subway then?

[neggy]

any endorsement deal has a moral turpitude clause so that is how they get out of the contract when the celeb turns up with negative press.

I had lunch at Subway today.. first time in 10 years probably. They are the only sub shop within miles of the radio station studio. Looks like it is back to Au Bon Pain..

Who do you want for a spokesperson for a food place.. a pot smoker.

Hey guys... when I get the munchies after a good blunt, I walk on over to Subway for one of their 6 inch low fat sandwiches!

Kelloggs dumped him too.... Good thing I like GrapeNuts

[thinkliberty]

  I'm simply saying that he is a big boy & knew the ramifications per his contractoral obligations regardless of message, law, standard, or morals.  I think he pussied out by not standing by his decision to smoke as mentioned by someone earlier.

his DUI was before any contract & both parties were privy to the information & made decisions based on the information at hand.

Just like the 2 free staters that did not take off their hats for the court during the Barskey arraignment. They knew the court would not look kindly on them for it and there were ramifications for it per courtroom rules.

I guess you can say they "pussied out," if they show up for their court dates or that Barskey "pussied out" by posting bail. -- But not me I will support them no matter what they decide to do about getting busted -- Just like I support Michael Phelps.

Posting bail to get out of jail is not wrong. Wearing your hat in a courtroom is not wrong. Smoking pot is not wrong and I will not spend money at any business that says otherwise.

[SpeedPhreak]

Just like the 2 free staters that did not take off their hats for the court during the Barskey arraignment. They knew the court would not look kindly on them for it and there were ramifications for it per courtroom rules.

I guess you can say they "pussied out," if they show up for their court dates or that Barskey "pussied out" by posting bail. -- But not me I will support them no matter what they decide to do about getting busted -- Just like I support Michael Phelps.

Completely different - those free staters were there for the purpose of fullfilling a contract they voluntarily agreed too.  Barskey did what was right for Barskey - I think no more or no less of him - especially since I don't know him on a personal level at all.  The obvious here is that when dealing w/the "courts" they are forcing upon someone else - & that someone else needs to decide for themselves if that force is or is not justified & if they will comply with that force for what ever reason they choose.  How many inmates truly think they deserve to be where they are?  How many inmates do we think should be where they are?

That is an apples to oranges comparison.

Posting bail to get out of jail is not wrong. Wearing your hat in a courtroom is not wrong. Smoking pot is not wrong

no argument there

and I will not spend money at any business that says otherwise.

again - i'm not trying to say you have to.  I may or may not join you & the other boycotters... I don't eat there often as is & I'm not convinced subway is in the wrong.

I am not (or didn't have the intention of) making this a debate on a personal level with you & your decision.  Simply, most coins have 2 sides & I am exploring the other side & attemptind to do so using the basis of volunterism... ie he voluntarily broke a contract he voluntarily entered into & he is receiving the ramifications.  Again I ask if he broke his contract doing something "legal" would anyone be as upset?  Take the marijuana out of the picture.  IE the McDonalds example - if his contract stated that he can not eat at McDonalds because subway believes it to be un-healthy as well as McDonalds is a competitor, & he was photographed eating at McDonalds & subsequently dropped...? ? ? what then?

[thinkliberty]

  Take the marijuana out of the picture.  IE the McDonalds example - if his contract stated that he can not eat at McDonalds because subway believes it to be un-healthy as well as McDonalds is a competitor, & he was photographed eating at McDonalds & subsequently dropped...? ? ? what then?

Mcdonalds is not a good example. No one is arrested in America for eating at McDonalds and McDonalds is a direct competitor to Subway, marijuana is not.  There is a huge leap from Marijuana to Mcdonalds.   

I don't understand where you are going with this

[SpeedPhreak]

What I am saying is that there was a contract.  I can be 99% certain that this contract in at least 1 way prohibited him from smoking marijuana - but I am 99% sure there were 2 ways that prohibited him from smoking marijuana.  This is a contract he voluntarily entered into & agreed to & voluntarily broke... he is responsible for his actions regardless of any other circumstance.

  Take the marijuana out of the picture.  IE the McDonalds example - if his contract stated that he can not eat at McDonalds because subway believes it to be un-healthy as well as McDonalds is a competitor, & he was photographed eating at McDonalds & subsequently dropped...? ? ? what then?

Mcdonalds is not a good example. No one is arrested in America for eating at McDonalds and McDonalds is a direct competitor to Subway, marijuana is not.  There is a huge leap from Marijuana to Mcdonalds.   

I don't understand where you are going with this

McDonalds is a perfect example - it is a legal example to replace marijuana with... maybe not even replace... we can include it as "in addition too".  It is also legitimate because it is well accepted it is un-healthy and they are a competitior.  It would be perfectly acceptable to assume that he was in fact prohibited from eating McDonalds per his voluntary contract with subway.

Assuming the above - if he was photographed eating at McDonalds instead of hitting a bong - & was subsequintly released of his sponsorship by subway (due to the eating of McDonalds) - would you (or anyone else) be upset & boycotting subway?

I am saying he violated a voluntary contract - regardless of the vehicle... Marijuana, McDonalds, whatever - the vehicle doesn't matter... it's the journey.  The journey in this case is he violated his voluntary contract thus giving the other party (subway) a legitimate reason to void the contract if they choose & they did.

[dalebert]

It's been dugg finally. This post generated a HUGE spike in traffic for AIYH and over 20 comments now.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Shame_On_You_Michael_Phelps

[thinkliberty]

McDonalds is a perfect example - it is a legal example to replace marijuana with... maybe not even replace... we can include it as "in addition too".  It is also legitimate because it is well accepted it is un-healthy and they are a competitior.  It would be perfectly acceptable to assume that he was in fact prohibited from eating McDonalds per his voluntary contract with subway.

Assuming the above - if he was photographed eating at McDonalds instead of hitting a bong - & was subsequintly released of his sponsorship by subway (due to the eating of McDonalds) - would you (or anyone else) be upset & boycotting subway?

I am saying he violated a voluntary contract - regardless of the vehicle... Marijuana, McDonalds, whatever - the vehicle doesn't matter... it's the journey.  The journey in this case is he violated his voluntary contract thus giving the other party (subway) a legitimate reason to void the contract if they choose & they did.

McDonalds is not illegal. marijuana is.

McDonalds is a competitor to Subway, Marijuana is not.  

McDonalds is not a good example.

Lets pick something that does not compete with subway directly, but is legal:

If Phelps had in his contract that he could not be seen in public romantically with a asian woman and a company was stupid enough to enforce the contract and dropped Phelps from his contract, because there are pictures of him holding hands or kissing an asian girl I would boycott Subway over it.

[SpeedPhreak]

sweet dale.
------------

lol - ok I think mcdonalds is perfect... but we will go w/your example... because if it is written & agreed to in a voluntary contract it doesn't matter.

If it was written in his contract that he couldn't be seen w/an asian woman & was then he broke that contract & they have every right to & he should expect that - they withdraw from their end of the contract.  I would agree it is bull crap, however I would realize there was a set of terms he agreed to & broke.  Of course they could always forgive the incident &/or re-negotiate the contract.

If you & I contract for anything what so ever & I don't hold up to my end of the deal - you would more than likely not hold up to your end.  It could be labor for shire silver or it could be a renter agreement.

----------

I may have no leg to stand on in my argument regarding all this (yet my position on voluntary contracts will remain the same) -

I just read that USA Swimming suspended Phelps for 3 months & claims it is NOT an anti-doping issue... knowing what I know from my source (even previous to this thread & 1 conversation directly regarding this thread) & my own previous experience this is probably not true.  However, if true there would still be the question of obligations to USA Swimming itself as well as the specific contract btwn subway (&/or any other sponsor) & Phelps.  One could also assume that this was written in the specific subway/phelps contract otherwise subway would not be able to break their contract with him.

[thinkliberty]

I may have no leg to stand on in my argument regarding all this (yet my position on voluntary contracts will remain the same) -

No one here has suggested that you can't cancel a contract after it has been broken. Yes it is legal, but not ethical for Subway to cancel Phelps contract.

If corporations or people are not ethical in their dealings or contracts with other people there are social repercussions.