WR Josh Gordon, KC (8 Viewers)

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

Sure but also: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6443091

The case established that the NFL is bound by Minnesota laws on drug testing in the workplace, he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

cdubz said:

Khy said:

Bayhawks said:

Bamac said:

Khy said:

State law states that Josh Gordon tested negative for Marijuana usage, therefore he tested negative.

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. State law says both tests have to be positive, but the NFL may be free to set the threshold for a "positive" B-sample test as low as it likes. I haven't see anything solid on this either way.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a state law that says that anyway. The code referenced in the article is part of the OAC (Ohio administrative code), and it is a section dealing with the Human Resources department. It looks to be Ohio's policy for drug testing of state employees. The Browns aren't owned by the state of Ohio, so that code wouldn't pertain to Josh Gordon.

Click to expand...

This is most certainly not just Ohio's policy for state employees. It's just Ohio's Administrative Code and the Human Resources section is from what I can gather just the area that sets state guidelines for employment in general.

Click to expand...

The links that guy was providing came from a chapter entitled "Chapter 123:1-76 Drug-Free Workplace Program"

When you go to this link: http://das.ohio.gov/Divisions/HumanResources/HROperations/DrugFreeWorkPlace.aspx

You find this:

"The Drug-Free Workplace Services Program is in charge of planning, coordinating, and evaluating Ohio's Drug-Free Workplace Program, including state and federal testing programs, developed for state employees, and coordinating compliance with provisions of the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, any other federal and state laws, regulations, polices and collective bargaining agreements requiring substance abuse testing."

I am open to the idea that this is more broadly applicable, but no one has shown me any evidence that it is.

Click to expand...

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

FBG Moderator said:

This isn't an easy topic for anyone to be fully correct on. Appreciate the information that's being shared here and those who are keeping an open mind that there are plenty of things we don't know. When even the media accounts we're getting are sometimes contradictory, it is difficult to know what is correct.

Since the posting that going forward there's going to be zero tolerance for insults in this thread, overt or insinuated, things have improved a little bit. Which is also greatly appreciated. Josh Gordon is an important fantasy player and we need a place where people can check for information on his situation without having to wade through a lot of noise.

Click to expand...

az_prof said:

It is amazing how much false information is perpetuated and repeated in this thread. I find it almost comical how people pretend to know what Gordon and his lawyer's are arguing when we haven't heard any of their arguments, and people speaking about Ohio law as if they know what it says on this matter.

Click to expand...

Dismattle said:

How about we discuss this perceived "blowing of smoke" or "second-hand smoke" Id venture to say its possible at the levels noted. But who would Gordon possibly not shrug off so easily? I would think most wouldn't think to blow smoke in his face, much less be very successful.

Click to expand...

Ditka Butkus said:

So....is he going to be suspended or not...

Click to expand...

Ojaays said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

Yes, and it was pointed out in the article that Gordon is Not arguing the same thing the Williams' were.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

"The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law."

Two important things to take from the Starcaps case,

1. The league LOST the argument that the CBA rules over state laws.

It was ruled the players state laws will prevail.

2. NOTHING happened to the Williams' for 2 years.

That's a lot of FF.

Let's not forget, the lawyer writing the article thinks Gordon is walking scot free, so do I.

Click to expand...

Kool-Aid Larry said:

FBG Moderator said:

This isn't an easy topic for anyone to be fully correct on. Appreciate the information that's being shared here and those who are keeping an open mind that there are plenty of things we don't know. When even the media accounts we're getting are sometimes contradictory, it is difficult to know what is correct.

Since the posting that going forward there's going to be zero tolerance for insults in this thread, overt or insinuated, things have improved a little bit. Which is also greatly appreciated. Josh Gordon is an important fantasy player and we need a place where people can check for information on his situation without having to wade through a lot of noise.

Click to expand...

rotoworld's good for that

Click to expand...

SCT said:

Is it true that before the hearing JG was practicing with the 3rd string an after the hearing he was practicing with the 1st string? If so, that seems a but telling. No?

Click to expand...

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

Sure but also: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6443091

The case established that the NFL is bound by Minnesota laws on drug testing in the workplace, he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

Sure but also: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6443091

The case established that the NFL is bound by Minnesota laws on drug testing in the workplace, he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

if that was true then they wouldn't have been suspended

Click to expand...

Holy Schneikes said:

Here's a thought:

What if we KNEW (this is a hypo, not knowledge) that a legal suit would be filed and accepted and would need to be resolved b4 a suspension could be put in place. Most likely scenario is that he is NOT suspended this year, but could be later (ala the Williams' suit). What does that do to his dynasty value?

His dynasty value dropped a lot due to the fact that many believed/believe he would never play again, especially this year. But what if you were "guaranteed" a year of production b4 the swan song. I'm not saying "what if he wins the suit", I'm saying what if the league has to wait to enforce the suspension, whether he wins or not? What's that worth?

Click to expand...

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

Sure but also: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6443091

The case established that the NFL is bound by Minnesota laws on drug testing in the workplace, he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

if that was true then they wouldn't have been suspended

Click to expand...

Well, Kevin dropped the suit out of being tired of litegation and Pat Williams was never signed again. They stopped the suspension from happening for 3 years. I'm going to have to assume you arn't reading the links and other information people have posted confirming what I stated and will ignore any further retorts.

Click to expand...

Khy said:

Holy Schneikes said:

Here's a thought:

What if we KNEW (this is a hypo, not knowledge) that a legal suit would be filed and accepted and would need to be resolved b4 a suspension could be put in place. Most likely scenario is that he is NOT suspended this year, but could be later (ala the Williams' suit). What does that do to his dynasty value?

His dynasty value dropped a lot due to the fact that many believed/believe he would never play again, especially this year. But what if you were "guaranteed" a year of production b4 the swan song. I'm not saying "what if he wins the suit", I'm saying what if the league has to wait to enforce the suspension, whether he wins or not? What's that worth?

Click to expand...

Were this the case, I think he jumps back up significantly. Not into the top 1-3 start up picks like he was prior to all this going down late last season/early offseason. But probably Top 15 with ease, because then there still becomes the case that he could win out and never be suspended in the end. If he drags this out through the legal system and gets to play for 1 or 2 seasons similar to the Williams brothers? And say he actually managed to stay clean during this period? He could very easily beat the case in court.

Again, my view is that they come to some kind of settlement agreement of something in the range of a 2-4 game suspension and that the NFLPA begins negotiations into changing the NFLs rules on drug abuse. As the fact that he would've tested negative by Olympic standards (or any other sport/job in the world for that matter) is ridiculous. The NFLs 'standard' for what is positive and what's negative is far too low. And in close cases like Gordon's creates way to much doubt in whether the test results are accurate, considering from what I've understood via all the links and research and stuff posted here and around the web these tests can fluctuate a LOT. And apparently it's not even remotely out of the question for Gordon to test at a level of 15ng/ml via second hand smoke. That aside, the fact that these tests can have a +/- 5ng/ml and still be considered within the realm of acceptable error is ridiculous considering the NFL considers 15 to be the limit. Meaning, your real level could be 11 but the machine wasn't calibrated for a day or two and now it comes up as 16ng/ml then the next day when they reach for the other sample, after someone re calibrated the machines you come in at an 11.3ng/ml? Well tough, shame... if only that guy calibrated the machines you'd be able to play football.

I mean, for christs sake the US Military has a limit of 50 ng/ml are we really going to say.

Again, if Ray Rice got just 2 games for abusing his fiance with 100% hard evidence that it happened? Than Gordon should walk scott free because in the entire country, the only people who would consider him having failed this test is the NFL. Every other sports organization in the world would see this as a negative result.

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bojang0301 said:

KellysHeroes said:

Bracie Smathers said:

Pertinent information from the previously linked but not copied article.

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/246-what-to-expect-if-josh-gordon-loses-his-appeal.html.

Ohio’s Drug-Testing Laws Applied To Gordon’s Case

The strongest claim Gordon will argue is that under Ohio law (but using the NFL’s cutoff levels) he did not test positive for marijuana or, more accurately, THC metabolites.

As I’m sure you know by now, the NFL divides a player’s urine into two bottles: bottles “A” and “B.” If bottle “A” is positive for the THC metabolite, then bottle “B” is used to confirm what was in bottle "A."

According to Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as long as bottle “B” contains the THC metabolite (at any level), then the sample is considered positive and the player is subject to the league’s discipline.

Ohio law differs.

Under Ohio law (Ohio Code 123:1-76-07), only “specimens which test negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as negative.” If the NFL is bound by Ohio law, Gordon’s confirmatory test was negative. Hence, he did not test positive for marijuana as claimed by the NFL.

But the NFL's Substance Abuse Policy, as written, does not mirror Ohio law. More specifically, Section I©(3)(e) of the NFL policy states that "the "B" bottle Test need only show that the substance, revealed in the "A" bottle Test, is evident to the "limits of detection" to confirm the results of the "A" bottle Test."

Again, Ohio law says that both the initial drug test and the confirmation test must be positive. Or, as Ohio wrote its law, if either of the specimens are negative then the employer is obligated to report the result as negative.

The NFL will attempt to circumvent Ohio law by arguing only federal law applies to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Substance Abuse Policy. This is a preemption doctrine that will effectively wipe out Gordon's state-law claims. The NFL attempted this argument against Kevin and Pat Williams in the StarCaps case and lost.

Federal courts have already found that the NFL is an employer of each NFL player and therefore is bound by the state laws where that player is employed. So Ohio courts should ultimately decide the case and Ohio law should control the outcome of the case.

And in Gordon’s case, once the confirmation test showed Gordon was under his employer’s threshold amount for marijuana, the test was “negative” under state law. The NFL found otherwise, contradicting state law.

The difference between the StarCaps case and Gordon’s case is critical.

The Williamses argued that Minnesota state law precluded the NFL from disciplining them for violations of the NFL’s Substance Abuse Policy. In other words, the Williamses were taking the position that Vikings players were only subject to discipline under state law, not the NFL.

That’s not Gordon’s claim.

Gordon isn’t asserting he is immune from the NFL’s discipline for violations of the policy. He’s arguing (or should be) there simply was no violation.

As shown above, Gordon’s drug test, carried out to its completion, did not meet the definition of “positive drug result,” under Ohio law. The secondary claim for Gordon would then be that the NFL’s drug-testing policy, as implemented, violates Ohio state law.

...Agreement Not To Sue

Salfino also asked about the agreement between the NFLPA and NFL not to sue each other. That agreement is contained in Article III, Section 2 of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The agreement not to sue is an agreement about issues arising out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, not the Substance Abuse Policy. In fact, Section 2 of the CBA lists the terms of the agreement that they won’t sue each other over—the Substance Abuse Policy is not listed.

What is mentioned, however, is that the players retain the right to enforce labor laws. And those laws are what Gordon will use to attack the NFL’s finding that his drug test was positive—or at least he should.

Because Gordon has such a solid case against the NFL based on the Ohio drug-testing laws, I believe his TRO will be granted and he will play in the 2014 season. This is all assuming he loses his appeal, which he shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

too bad their not using the state's law

Click to expand...

It was already ruled that the NFL would default to state law and not federal law in the Pat and Kevin Williams law suit. This has been posted multiple times. So, technically, yes the NFL could rule by federal law but then they may subject themselves to a lawsuit from Gordon where he will ask for an injuction to the suspension and has a high probability of it being in effect if all the details as presented are correct. This could drag out even longer and the O/U on this thread would be 5 million pages and 120 board suspensions.

Click to expand...

the Williams lost that case and was suspended

Click to expand...

Sure but also: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6443091

The case established that the NFL is bound by Minnesota laws on drug testing in the workplace, he said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

if that was true then they wouldn't have been suspended

Click to expand...

Well, Kevin dropped the suit out of being tired of litegation and Pat Williams was never signed again. They stopped the suspension from happening for 3 years. I'm going to have to assume you arn't reading the links and other information people have posted confirming what I stated and will ignore any further retorts.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that you're reading them right?

The Minnesota Supreme Court REFUSED to hear the Williams' appeal. Meaning the Williams' either had to accept the suspensions or appeal to the United States Supreme Court. So yes, they did drop the litigation, but only AFTER they were told by the Supreme Court of Minnesota that they had no grounds for appeal. That doesn't sound like it says the NFL is bound by Minnesota state laws. In those links, I can't find anything from the Minnesota Supreme Court that says that. The only quote that says that came from Williams lawyer AFTER he had lost. It's equivalent to the Broncos saying "I think we were the better team," after their SB loss in February. Saying it doesn't make it true.

Click to expand...

biju said:

Dismattle said:

How about we discuss this perceived "blowing of smoke" or "second-hand smoke" Id venture to say its possible at the levels noted. But who would Gordon possibly not shrug off so easily? I would think most wouldn't think to blow smoke in his face, much less be very successful.

Click to expand...

The issue with the "second hand smoke" argument is the CBA notes the player is responsible for anything in his body. This includes breathing second hand smoke as a consequence of being around people smoking pot. To me, this is a losing argument.

Plus, does anybody not know about second hand smoke and its effects these days? Gordon is really stupid for even being around someone smoking pot--I don't care if they are your "friend". (Side note: my friends would know they could derail my high paying career and wouldn't touch the stuff around me.)

Click to expand...

Dismattle said:

Im still interested to know who the "witness" called were..

Click to expand...

Dismattle said:

Plus, does anybody not know

I believe you are correct on every point! However (perception is reality) "second -hand smoke, "could" be something that effects possible DUI related hearings.

Im still interested to know who the "witness" called were..

Click to expand...

ROYALWITCHEESE said:

Dismattle said:

I believe you are correct on every point! However (perception is reality) "second -hand smoke, "could" be something that effects possible DUI related hearings.

Im still interested to know who the "witness" called were..

Click to expand...

Top. Men.

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Dismattle said:

Im still interested to know who the "witness" called were..

Click to expand...

We'll probably never know, but I'd speculate they were scientific experts who showed data that suggested that Gordon's THC level could be due to second-hand smoke, and possibly some people who claimed they smoked around him, but he didn't partake.

Click to expand...

GoodLloydHaveMercy said:

DansRams said:

Ojaays said:

Ditka Butkus said:

So....is he going to be suspended or not...

Click to expand...

Nope

Click to expand...

Yep

Click to expand...

Are you Yepping his Nope or Yepping that he will be suspended?

Click to expand...

Insein said:

Please people, if a quote has 3 or more larges quotes in it, don't quote the whole thing. Killing us mobile users.

Click to expand...

Insein said:

Please people, if a quote has 3 or more larges quotes in it, don't quote the whole thing. Killing us mobile users.

Click to expand...

Insein said:

Please people, if a quote has 3 or more larges quotes in it, don't quote the whole thing. Killing us mobile users.

Click to expand...

Ojaays said:

This guy is the reason Gordon will play in 2014.

Whoever is helping Gordon on his choice of legal team for his defense got him the best money can buy.

http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/msuh

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-los-angeles-deputy-mayor-maurice-suh-joins-gibson-dunn-56438357.html

http://www.bestlawyers.com/Search/LawyerProfile.aspx?lawyer_id=95673

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2012/12/27/richard-sherman-wins-appeal-of-ped-suspension/

Click to expand...

Ojaays said:

This guy is the reason Gordon will play in 2014.

Click to expand...

treat88 said:

Ojaays said:

This guy is the reason Gordon will play in 2014.

Click to expand...

Out of all the various bits of information that have come out about this case, Suh as his attorney is the single, most convincing factor in my mind that leads me to think Gordon will play in 2014.

Lawyers certainly are interested in the dollars (as is everyone) but I don't think this guy takes the case unless he feels like he's got a better than fighting chance of prevailing.

Click to expand...

Pumpnick said:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the Browns are "hoping for" a settlement in the Josh Gordon case, but are still expecting "at least" an eight-game suspension.
A source considers an eight-game ban the "best-case scenario." Per reporter Mary Kay Cabot, the Browns "certainly aren't counting on it." Absent a settlement, Gordon will be barred for at least one year if he loses his appeal. A decision is expected in 1-3 weeks.
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Aug 5 - 10:03 PM

Click to expand...

DansRams said:

Pumpnick said:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the Browns are "hoping for" a settlement in the Josh Gordon case, but are still expecting "at least" an eight-game suspension.
A source considers an eight-game ban the "best-case scenario." Per reporter Mary Kay Cabot, the Browns "certainly aren't counting on it." Absent a settlement, Gordon will be barred for at least one year if he loses his appeal. A decision is expected in 1-3 weeks.
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Aug 5 - 10:03 PM

Click to expand...

Doesn't look good for the Gordon backers....hope for 8 = gone for 16

Click to expand...

werdnoynek said:

DansRams said:

Pumpnick said:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the Browns are "hoping for" a settlement in the Josh Gordon case, but are still expecting "at least" an eight-game suspension.
A source considers an eight-game ban the "best-case scenario." Per reporter Mary Kay Cabot, the Browns "certainly aren't counting on it." Absent a settlement, Gordon will be barred for at least one year if he loses his appeal. A decision is expected in 1-3 weeks.
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Aug 5 - 10:03 PM

Click to expand...

Doesn't look good for the Gordon backers....hope for 8 = gone for 16

Click to expand...

Doesn't look like anything right now. It hasn't looked like anything since this suspension talk started back in May.

The Plain Dealer doesn't know anything. No one knows anything. Everyone is just speculating right now to keep the kettle boiling. It'll boil over in a week probably, but for now they're trying to keep it rolling... with speculation.

Click to expand...

DansRams said:

werdnoynek said:

DansRams said:

Pumpnick said:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the Browns are "hoping for" a settlement in the Josh Gordon case, but are still expecting "at least" an eight-game suspension.
A source considers an eight-game ban the "best-case scenario." Per reporter Mary Kay Cabot, the Browns "certainly aren't counting on it." Absent a settlement, Gordon will be barred for at least one year if he loses his appeal. A decision is expected in 1-3 weeks.
Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer
Aug 5 - 10:03 PM

Click to expand...

Doesn't look good for the Gordon backers....hope for 8 = gone for 16

Click to expand...

Doesn't look like anything right now. It hasn't looked like anything since this suspension talk started back in May.

The Plain Dealer doesn't know anything. No one knows anything. Everyone is just speculating right now to keep the kettle boiling. It'll boil over in a week probably, but for now they're trying to keep it rolling... with speculation.

Click to expand...

Disagree...it has looked like gone for 16 for a while now...some just don't want to believe it

Click to expand...

Dismattle said:

treat88 said:

Ojaays said:

This guy is the reason Gordon will play in 2014.

Click to expand...

Out of all the various bits of information that have come out about this case, Suh as his attorney is the single, most convincing factor in my mind that leads me to think Gordon will play in 2014.

Lawyers certainly are interested in the dollars (as is everyone) but I don't think this guy takes the case unless he feels like he's got a better than fighting chance of prevailing.

Click to expand...

yeah while, Its also possible Josh Gordon's agent called and discussed the case somewhat openly and honestly.. Basically explaining his innocence per-say

This could also be along the lines of "friend of a friend" For example the car's owner, whose car he was in when ticketed for DUI.

Suh afaik may still not have a name for himself A successful "high profile" case similar to the past, adds more stock (I know, I make it sound like any fight can be Won) Anyone ever told you "it cant be done?"

Money is the root of all evil though..

Click to expand...

FBG Moderator said:

Reaching zero tolerance for this thread. We can't seem to go more than a page without the insults and bickering returning.

Expect even less leeway. Don't insult others, question their identity, jump on every post they make, call them a troll, say they are full of crap, or question their intelligence or their reading comprehension. Veiled insults and insinuations won't be tolerated any more than overt insults.

If you can't be civil you're going to get a long break from the board. For any who already have crossed the line in this thread, it will be even longer.

Click to expand...

Ditka Butkus said:

1-3 weeks to make a decision is a joke....

Click to expand...

BustedKnuckles said:

Ditka Butkus said:

1-3 weeks to make a decision is a joke....

Click to expand...

Ya ....they are really turning this thing into a fiasco

Click to expand...

Ojaays said:

Dismantle, no offense was taken, but slakjawed was correct, it's " the love of money" not money itself, that is the root of all evil, because money can be used for the greater good, like freeing Josh Gordon, I kid, I kid.

As for Suh taking the case to Try and become the "go to guy" for such things, Suh already IS the go to guy for such cases.

Treat88 had it correct, guys like Suh don't take this case unless they can win.

Suh defended Landis in his doping case and blew holes a mile wide in the prosecutions case and lost a 2-1 decision with the arbitrators.

Suh was incensed with the loss , getting the arbitrators to admit there were errors made by the lab and that they would probably handle things differently in the future, but , they weren't overturning the Landis decision.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3030956

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/sports/othersports/24landis.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Ojaays said:

Dismantle, no offense was taken, but slakjawed was correct, it's " the love of money" not money itself, that is the root of all evil, because money can be used for the greater good, like freeing Josh Gordon, I kid, I kid.

As for Suh taking the case to Try and become the "go to guy" for such things, Suh already IS the go to guy for such cases.

Treat88 had it correct, guys like Suh don't take this case unless they can win.

Suh defended Landis in his doping case and blew holes a mile wide in the prosecutions case and lost a 2-1 decision with the arbitrators.

Suh was incensed with the loss , getting the arbitrators to admit there were errors made by the lab and that they would probably handle things differently in the future, but , they weren't overturning the Landis decision.http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3030956http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/sports/othersports/24landis.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

These articles actually make it more doubtful that Gordon will get his suspension lifted altogether. Just like in the Sherman case, Suh was arguing that Landis' positive test should be overturned based on lab issues. According to the articles, Suh showed that the lab that tested Landis' sample made mistakes, but they still voted 2-1 to uphold the positive test.They aren't arguing lab mistakes with regards to Gordon, they are arguing about the cutoff levels being too low, and that the B sample was below the cutoff level. But both of those things are factored into the wording of the NFL's drug policy. Even though the cutoff levels are too low, that's what the NFL wanted. Even though sample B was below the 15 ng/ml threshold, that was accounted for in the wording of the NFL's policy.

I don't see where, legally, Suh has much basis. Hopefully, there's something else, or the NFL is willing to just negotiate a settlement in the hope of making this "go away." If they do that, though, they open themselves up to problems with players who test positive in the future.

Click to expand...

Bamac said:

BustedKnuckles said:

Ditka Butkus said:

1-3 weeks to make a decision is a joke....

Click to expand...

Ya ....they are really turning this thing into a fiasco

Click to expand...

The arbitrator has to do quite a bit of technical and legal reading, make a decision, and (likely) write an opinion that will be heavily scrutinized. 1-3 weeks seems like an appropriate timetable, even if it sucks for us.

Click to expand...

Ojaays said:

"These people are not legislators," Suh said. "They're not here to set policy about what should happen as a matter of course over time. They're there to listen to the case set before them."

Click to expand...

Ditka Butkus said:

1-3 weeks to make a decision is a joke....

Click to expand...