Stampeders' Tommie Campbell arrested

Stamps DB Tommie Campbell has been busted on drug charges in suburban Pittsburgh, allegedly selling crack cocaine out of his Mom’s house. Police caught him trying to flee but recovered a team backpack with 180 grams of crack cocaine inside and more than $3,000 in cash.

Kind of sad to see the Stampeders brand sullied in a drug bust, but you can view the backpack at 1:23 of this video.

[url=http://www.wpxi.com/news/former-nfl-player-charged-with-drug-crimes-in-aliquippa/487597546]http://www.wpxi.com/news/former-nfl-pla ... /487597546[/url]

Not sure this has anything to do with the football team. If a guy beats his wife do we say it sullies the football team ???

Cut him loose now.

I do not want this kind of trash on my team.

What are you talking about?? Of course it affects the football team! These guys all represent the logo, on and off the field. Maybe you haven't watched the clip, but there is the Stamps team issued backpack laying on the table at police headquarters along with cocaine and dollar bills laid out. Yea, that's a good image that the club wants to project! :roll:

Not sure if you do HfxTC but the CFL certainly thinks so.

The CFL announced its official policy on Violence Against Women back in August 2015

Read about it at:

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/2015/08/06/cfl-announces-violence-against-women-policy/]http://www.cfl.ca/2015/08/06/cfl-announ ... en-policy/[/url]

"In cases where there are clear and documented cases of violence against women – determined by the police, the courts, or confirmed by the perpetrator – the CFL will impose sanctions.

• These sanctions will range from suspension for single or multiple games to a lifetime ban from the CFL, depending on the severity and number of incidences.

That reflects on the individual not on the team or employer.

Actually it does reflect on the team and employer as well. That is why the CFL [aka employer] metes out sanctions. It happened to Arland Bruce [ex- Montreal player]. He was cut from the team for making what were considered inappropriate comments about gays. It happen to Josh Boden [ ex-Lions]. It recently happened to an Saturday Night Live employee who made an inappropriate remark about Trump's 10 year old son. She was immediately fired. It happened in Vancouver during the Canuck's bid for the Stanley Cup. After losing the 7th game against Boston a few years ago, there were riots in the streets. Many rioters [and looters] were arrested. One particular female caught on video lost her job the next day. She worked for a well known car dealership. The car dealership did not want to be connected with her in anyway and in their words said, " We expect more from our employees".

Professional sports teams have an image to maintain and to protect. Guilt by association may not be fair but it is the reality we live in so yes, how a professional player conducts himself can reflect badly on the image of the team and employer.

YES!!! It does reflect on the team as his employer. Just because the Stamps aren't involved in the drug deals his name is associated with them.
STUPID STUPID FOOL!!!! Some of these guys who come to the CFL from sketchy areas just can't put their old neighbourhood issues in their rear view mirrors. Remember that great BC Lion rb who tossed his career away being caught with major drugs?

FOOL!

I never hold an institution or company responsible for the actions of a human unless they condone the actions of that human. Only then will it reflect on the institution or company.

.....The guy has obviously thrown his career away IF all of this goes to court and is proven...Too bad the guy has real talent and is/was a shut down db...I'd say if he was selling junk out of his mother's house and she was aware of it...I'd say it reflects badly on somebody other than his present team. :frowning:

Wow, selling crack from his Mom's house. Instead of football he can play checkers in the park with Yonus Davis.

You have it somewhat reversed:

The team is holding the PLAYER responsible for their private actions that reflect badly on the public image of the employer, the TEAM in this case.

As a business that deals in public entertainment and perception the private actions of its employees can be a legitimate condition of employment. In fact any business can do this if the can make a case of a bona-fide employment condition (such as a criminal record or pending charge).

While you are entitled to your view it isn’t the general public perception assumed by the league or its member teams.

I do not hold the Calgary Stampeders responsible for Campbell's alleged actions. He did that all by himself. The team and the league did all they could do to make sure this stuff doesn't happen.They can't follow him home. All they can do now is discipline the offender... Does it look bad on the league ? Apparently some people think so.. I won't stop watching because of one bad apple.. Does it look bad on Campbell ? I think so !

You said" The team is holding the PLAYER responsible for their private actions that reflect badly on the public image of the employer, the TEAM in this case." I agree 100% and it's their right and responsibility to do so... TO ME Campbell is the only one responsible for his actions, not where he works. TO ME his actions do not reflect the Calgary Stampeders or the CFL.

Hey Huff,

What is the hold up ? Cut him today. Like now.

Dan,

You had said, " I never hold an institution or company responsible for the actions of a human unless they condone the actions of that human. Only then will it reflect on the institution or company."

I agree but firstly, Rhymes with Orange and others I do not think were saying the Stamps should be held responsible for the guy's misconduct. And secondly, Rhymes with orange did not use the word reflect, he used the word "sullied" which as you know is another word for tarnish or soil or stain.

HfxTC used the word "reflect". I for one assumed HfxTC was using the word reflect as one would use sully. Perhaps he wasn't.

When you say, " TO ME his actions do not reflect the Calgary Stampeders or the CFL." I can only respond by saying that while the guy's actions do not "represent" the standards the Stamps hold for their players, this guy's actions does "reflect" poorly on the team's image.

The CFL or the team taking disciplinary action against any player behaviour that could "reflect" badly on the team's image isn't being taken because the team thinks or feels it is responsible in some way. It is being taken to maintain the high standards the team has as part of an institution.

People get fired from jobs for posting way less serious comments or pictures online personally. So The Stamps will want to distance themselves from Campbell as soon as possible. Obviously the Stamps underestimated his character in a huge way. I'm pretty bummed about this as my wife is from Calgary and a huge Stamps fan and they've become my second favorite team. Sad stuff all in all.

For sure Beagle, but I still do not think any less of the Stamps because of Campbell. That's really my point. The reflection should be on the culprit alone.... One good thing though, there are probably only a handful of people in Aliquippa, let alone Pennsylvania, that know that the logo belongs to Calgary.....If the logo was PEPSI and he worked for them, would the event sully/reflect on Pepsi ?...We all like our privacy and we don't want our workplace to guide our home lives but Campbell does represent the team publicly and should have acted accordingly. He didn't. I blame him solely.

...a lot of people there might be wondering "hey, where did he get his hands on that sweet Southern Methodist University backpack?" :lol:

“For sure Beagle, but I still do not think any less of the Stamps because of Campbell. That’s really my point. The reflection should be on the culprit alone” by Dan38

I don’t think any less of the organization either Dan and I’m sure most people do not look down on the Stamps organization because of this guy’s bad choices. Again it comes down to how we want to use the word “reflect”. A team’s image can be tarnished because of the actions of one or two. This doesn’t mean the whole box is bad because of one or two bad apples but it does mean that the team is expected to take swift action. You raised a good point in your earlier post and that was about a team or employer condoning certain actions or even being perceived as condoning such actions.

If a pro team doesn’t take disciplinary action against a player who is giving the team a bad name then it could be perceived as the team either not thinking the behaviour was all that bad or the team does not hold very high standards…to wit the inaction on the team’s part could be considered by some [many?] as actually condoning the bad behaviour.

Agreed.