Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
They can police anything they want, but that doesn't make it logical or morally just for them to do so.
Where is this language? Everything posted here on a Stage 3 suspensions says it's entirely up to the commissioner's discretion.
What!?! Bad relationships don't ruin a career? Rice's relationship set off a change in policy. Ray Carruth ended up in prison. Andre Rison was never the same after the Left Eye situation. Don't agree at all. Put me down as one who doesn't buy into the governemental spin machine that weed is this big bag addictive entity. Having said that, as a Gordon owner, I don't want to see this thing prolonged. We lost. I'm ready to face the music and get him back on the field in 2015. He is comfortably on IR and I am treating this like an ACL tear minus the rehab and ligament damage. I'm over it.
How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.
Yeah, I don't think the NFL is terrified at the thought of Gordon on TV in front of a microphone. Besides, this is going to be a footnote once the season starts, IMO.
Yes, it is up to the commissioner, but if the player meets the other criteria he would still need reasons to hang his hat on . . . I am not sure if a "because I said so" would fly with the NFLPA.
Maybe this debate would be bet better suited to the thread about whether the NFL should be testing for marijuana or not.
I don't think it qualifies as off-topic, especially in the context of this thread. It's not my intention to prevent you or anyone else from getting information from the thread, but I'm personally not going to resurrect a dead thread to discuss the non-news portions of the story.
Yeah to me, nowhere does that say that Goodell MUST reinstate him as long as he doesn't fail another test. It points out that that will be a major factor in his thinking, but there's nothing there to suggest he would be compelled to reinstate him based only on that.
He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm.
I understand what he is saying. However monetary and contractual interests are quite reparable. He can win that exact amount of money (or more) from the NFL in a future lawsuit. He could also be granted one additional year towards free agency if he were to win the lawsuit.
He's waiting to see what happens with the lawsuit. In his paraphrased words: This isn't over.
Correct. It's not the salary loss that's irreparable. It's the lost playing time, which causes unquantifiable damage to Gordon's future earnings -- both salary and endorsements. See http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/News/Orders/Williams_v_NFL_(TRO)_filed_7-9-09_Judge_Larson_.pdf
Interesting, thanks for the link. I am surprised that McCann (Si's legal expert) didn't appear to be familiar with this in the Gordon article.
Okay. I haven't opened it yet & I won't have time tonight, but I will do so soon (probably tomorrow), and post anything I find significant in a new thread, unless FBG says I shouldn't.
To be fair, I was grossly exaggerating how easy it would be to show irreparable harm. But I still think it would be quite easy.
I would say that is is his value because while he has more value than most 2015 rookies are likely to ever have, IF he doesn't play again, or if he has another drug test failure, he is worthless. So, he has tremendous future upside but great risk. His value is like a highly skilled player who has chronic injury problems--valuable but you can't count on him.
I'd actually say his value is closer to that of a guy with an injury whose out for the year and it's not yet known if it's a career ender.
you must be unbelievably busy.
MT had also posted a great link a few pages back that discussed the judge's decision to grant the TRO in the Starcaps case. It gave some really good insight and they basically said that irreparable harm is pretty much automatic when it comes to sports cases and suspensions since it can affect the teams ability to make the playoffs, etc. You could repay the salary, but you can never go back and replay the games.
You're a riot with these little jabs. Are you kidding? Is the NFL worth more than Disney? I'm not sure but the NFL will make life miserable for ESPN and that's why the majority of the time ESPN has their nose stuck up the NFL's sunshine box.
Okay. Opened it up. Essentially, not much to see.Henry Ford said:
Seems like common sense doesnt it? Makes you wonder why so many on a site about football would get something so wrong when so many were trying to tell them.DansRams said:I have four questions
1. Didn't Soulfy say he would apologize to everyone if he was wrong?
2. Did he?
3. Are all of the Gordon supporters (owners) on drugs?
4. If they aren't, why in the world are they still trying to defend his position/creating new false hope about a lawsuit that has no fn chance
That's exactly the way I'm going. If I can get a guy of his talent as late as I drafted him, I'll take it any day and will probably have a good shot at winning my league.
At this point I don't think there is anything to know or not know. Your simply rolling the dice (I fully admit its a long shot + I'm simply playing a hunch) that his legal team moves ahead and sues the NFL. Again, he doesn't have to win. All he has to do is create enough legal red tape to get on the field. Isn't it worth dropping the last guy on your bench in hopes that Gordon goes after the NFL and plays?
He didn't 'blaze a bowl' The levels he got popped at were from second hand smoke.
There's an article that's been posted or quoted twice in the last 30 or so posts that spells them out fairly well.
