Yeah, I'm not sure the league has guidelines for total pieces of crap, but the guidelines for weed are crystal clear.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
WR Josh Gordon, KC (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
They don't impact each other, really.
As you so repeatedly pointed out, there is a clear set of consequences for violation of the NFL's drug policy. If Gordon was in stage 3, then he will receive a 1-year suspension (indefinite suspension). Most reports (especially recently) are reporting it as such. Whether this is lazy reporting (as has been speculated a few times) or not is unknown.
There is no clear set of consequences for the NFL's conduct policy. To you, me, and probably any sane person, knocking a woman out is far worse than using marijuana, but the reality of the situation is that since there are no written (i.e.-agreed to by the NFL players union) consequences for specific violation of the personal conduct policy, Goodell has to tread lightly.
If you are arguing that Goodell is getting "soft," and therefore might be willing to be more willing to reduce Gordon's suspension upon appeal, I would disagree with you, but you are welcome to that opinion. IMO, getting in trouble with the police TWICE while his appeal was pending would likely make that less likely.
RoosterScott
Footballguy
Let's look at his past:
Gordon entered the NFL in 2012 with a checkered past after failing three marijuana tests in college -- two at Baylor University and one at the University of Utah.
After beginning his second season with a 2-game suspension for codeine usage in 2013, he quickly raised the eyebrows of NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, for all the wrong reasons. Despite receiving word in early May that his 2014 campaign may be cut short before it even starts after failing a drug test for marijuana, it appears that did not shake him up a bit.
The Memorial Day weekend obviously shed light on Gordon’s adrenaline rush for speed, which he was ticketed for, and left the Browns covering their faces.
The league has shown that it will make decisions with an iron hand. The iron will COME DOWN and it will be in the multi YEAR level. Good night Irene. Commish Goodell has SPOKEN! BYE BYE BABY BYE BYE!
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
You should probably read the NFL's substance abuse and personal conduct policies. Or this very thread where they've been discussed in detail for more than 50 pages. The length of Gordon's suspension will depend 100% on which stage of the program he was in at the time of the failed / missed test. It's not a "Commissioner's discretion" issue at all.
RBM
Footballguy
RoosterScott
Footballguy
Wow, I wonder if Gordon was with him. Justin should just move to Colorado and accept the fact.
Essentially, the player is asking for leniency from the commissioner. But the original suspension is determined, not by the commissioner, but by the specifics contained in the policy. Reports say Gordon is facing a 1-year (indefinite) suspension, which would indicate he is in stage 3 of the policy, but there is only evidence/reports of 2 failed tests, which would mean he was in stage 2. If he is in stage 3, he faces the year, if he is "only" in stage 2, he faces 4-6 games. In either event, Gordon is appealing to have the suspension reduced. His two subsequent run-ins with the police that involved drugs and alcohol would (IMO) make leniency unlikely.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Exactly. The Commissioner can't just randomly pull a "x" game suspension out of thin air on drug issues like he can on wife beating because the penalties are written directly into the CBA.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
no, but he can lessen a suspension, even if it's written in the drug policy.
he did it just last year w Gordon.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
From what I gather, that's when they tell him what he gets (how many games). He can then file an appeal and present his argument/evidence. All this "expected to get a full year" talk is still guesswork. We will know at least something Aug 1.
Right, that's the leniency I was referring to.
Again, IMO, having two run-ins with police (that involve drugs and alcohol) while asking for leniency isn't the best idea.
It's like getting grounded when you were a teenager for staying out past your curfew, then begging your parents to end your punishment, and while they are thinking about it, you stay out past curfew again, TWICE.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It doesn't work that way.
It obviously looks bad from a "which is worse" perspective. There's no legit way to argue Gordon is a worse person, but the guidelines for both transactions are designated by the CBA. Gordon has multiple violations and will suffer the consequences that are determined for him to suffer.
It will surely look bad and make no sense intuitively that Rice gets two games and Gordon gets 16, but that is the likely result.
Rice was one of my favorite players, now I hope his career is over and he continues to play poorly. Gordon may not "deserve" such a harsh punishment for his crime, but people will have to hope this wakes him up and he becomes smarter from it.
Maybe. Recent reports had said his appeal was scheduled for "late July," now we are hearing August 1. For all we know, the August 1 date might change again.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Sure, but how likely is that given that they bought his "cough medicine" line last year, and he's had two different substance abuse related incidents since the one he's currently appealing? Seems like a pretty hard sell to me. I'm sure you'll continue to rationalize it all away, but the overall picture has gotten pretty grim for Gordon. At least for those of us looking at the situation without a huge amount of pro-Gordon / Browns bias.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
He could argue many defenses to a failed test, such as "chain of custody", "false positive" etc. He could be asking for some leniency based on circumstances (such as if it truly was a missed test for circumstances beyond his control).
Bottom line is there's an appeal, because Gordon's side exercised their right to seek an appeal. Generally the suspensions are upheld, but some have been over-turned on appeal (recently Sherman's).
Last edited by a moderator:
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Some may have (just accepted the suspension), because they knew they were guilty - some may have appealed and the appeal was denied so the suspension was announced.
The difference here is that somehow the failed test and potential suspension for Gordon was leaked when the others weren't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Smiley
Footballguy
Has the league changed the appeals process, or is it still just a merry-go-round back to Goodell?
Josh Gordon will appeal his one-year suspension in a meeting with the NFL on Aug. 1.
Gordon's appeal doesn't have much teeth. Since the latest failed drug test that triggered Gordon's ban, a "passenger" in his car was cited for marijuana and he was arrested in North Carolina on suspicion of DWI. It would be a shock if the 16-game suspension is reduced. The Browns are just hoping to get Gordon back in 2015.
Gordon's appeal doesn't have much teeth. Since the latest failed drug test that triggered Gordon's ban, a "passenger" in his car was cited for marijuana and he was arrested in North Carolina on suspicion of DWI. It would be a shock if the 16-game suspension is reduced. The Browns are just hoping to get Gordon back in 2015.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus said:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
I just don't get this position. So a guy is man enough to garner massive paychecks - sometimes in the millions per year range, but he requires hand holding and nursing to maintain a modicum of behavior to continue to earn?pghrob said:
When do these "boys" become man enough to have it register what they are placing at risk and taking some personal responsibility? Seems to me that owning the responsibility for one's behavior is necessary for responsible behavior. Enabling the behavior with excuses is the last thing that is going to positively affect these guys.
Players come and go. The game goes on with or without them.
cstu
Footballguy
That's easy to say but many of these guys come from backgrounds where they were never taught things like personal responsibility and some have actual addictions that need to be treated. I think the substance abuse policy should be more about treatment (mandatory rehab/counseling after the first suspension) than about punishment. Both Gordon and Blackmon should have immediately entered rehab when they were first suspended and not allowed back in the NFL until they completed treatment.
pghrob
Hail to the Chief
Good post.
Mine is not really a position. More a statement of fact. By its actions and policies, the NFL appears not to be interested in supporting / accepting players who are regular users of alcohol* and pot. Until such time as the NFL changes its position on this, the game indeed does go on without them. And their place in history will be what could have been.
* Frequent episodes of excessive alcohol consumption usually in conjunction with operating a motor vehicle and getting caught
Chaka
Footballguy
I consider that to be an obtuse conclusion that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the reality of athletes lives before and after they are given millions of dollars.
Old Smiley
Footballguy
I think, given the way the country is and the way race is in the country, a lot of young black men kind of go into rebel mode, and pot use becomes an expression of that. And you don't want to seem traitor to your roots by abandoning that "fight the powa" self identity just because you hit the NFL jackpot.
I'm not saying that it's not a mistake to ruin a chance to escape the poverty and to have your descendants escape the poverty and stuff --- I'm not saying that isn't foolish, but I think it's more complicated than just addiction and the moral failing that implies.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Addiction in and of itself doesn't imply any "moral failing" at all, at least to anyone who knows anything whatsoever about the subject.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
And I consider your position one of well intentioned but thoughtless enabling. I was an athlete and I played with some kids out of very poor and bad backgrounds. Some gratefully took advantage of the opportunity and some simply didn't give a damn. But I never saw one of the kids who didn't give a damn change until they wanted their lives to change, no matter how much coddling and nose wiping was provided for them. And the more those kids were enabled through all the excuse making and protection, the more they expected to get away with continuing with their bad behavior. I understand the desire to try to shift blame away from these guys, but ultimately they are responsible (or irresponsible) to themselves. If they are adult enough to be paid millions, they are adult enough to be treated like adults. That means negative actions result in negative consequences. There has to be an expectation of that to get through to some of these guys.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
FWIW, I concur with your regret and share the feeling of "what might have been". I for one don't want to see any one of these kids squander such a magnificent opportunity.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Absolutely agree with much of this. But -- IMO the NFL is a better league with Gordon / Blackmon / other troubled but hugely talented players in it. If these guys are indeed addicts (which we really have no way of knowing), then treatment-based protocols are far more effective than are punitive measures. The NFL (and in the bigger picture, society as a whole) are better off trying to actually treat the disease as opposed to just punishing the player. It's not like these two are out robbing people to get their next fix -- let the legal system deal with the punishment side if necessary while the league focuses on providing treatment. It's in everyone's best interest to have talent on the field.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Paycheck size has nothing to go with being an adult. Child and teenage entertainers should be treated as adults now? Of course not. Every person on earth has to go through things and mature at some point, some early and some late. The dude is 23 years old. He's got a lot of growing up to do. But to say he should be all grown up because of the amount of money he makes is ridiculous. Money does not make you mature. In fact, many would argue it DELAYS maturity.This
Chaka
Footballguy
Who said anything about enabling or coddling or shifting blame as a solution? In fact those are the problems.
My point is that many athletes, particularly the ones who are good enough to make a career out of it, are surrounded with a sense of invincibility and entitlement. The problem is that many of the people who should be shaping them into responsible adults instead selfishly use them to further their careers while turning a blind eye to their misdeeds. The ones who really struggle likely have additional issues of lack of accountability from their family and friends as well. So having seldom or never been held accountable in their entire lives why would you suddenly expect them to have the ability to do so when they have just been given millions of dollars?
Even the majority of the ones who do take responsibility for their actions, and that is the majority of athletes, end up losing all of their money within a few years after they are no longer getting paid to play. And that relates the system failing to teach them how to deal with a huge windfall and all the pitfalls associated with it.
So just telling them that they need to be accountable and figure it out, which is exactly what the NFL punishment policy endorses, is at best outdated and at worst draconian.
Guys like Blackmon (definitely) and Gordon (possibly) need counseling and education not being shown the door and isolating them from what may be their only true support system (or at least the team should be their support system). There is no reason the NFL cannot provide the help they need during the process of punishing them for their misdeeds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
A 23 year old has enough mental and emotional maturity to understand the difference they can have in their lives with millions of dollars as opposed to living their lives without that money; and then have enough moral maturity to make a decision which life they prefer. Holy crap, we consider 18 year olds (or is it 17 now?) mature enough to make the decision to join the military and potentially place their lives on the line far from home for possibly a reason they don't understand and a dispute they had no part in.Paycheck size has nothing to go with being an adult. Child and teenage entertainers should be treated as adults now? Of course not. Every person on earth has to go through things and mature at some point, some early and some late. The dude is 23 years old. He's got a lot of growing up to do. But to say he should be all grown up because of the amount of money he makes is ridiculous. Money does not make you mature. In fact, many would argue it DELAYS maturity.This
That's a much more dire decision than deciding whether to end some well defined unacceptable behavior in order to get a check with a bunch of zeros after the lead digit and play in front of thousands at the stadium and millions watching on TV. These guys are not babies. Treating them as such will only lead to continued occurrences.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
The system again. It's the system's fault. They have no power to decide for themselves and to learn. The system made them do it. I don't see any one of them being forcibly coerced into this, so that must mean at some point that the person making the decisions must be themselves. And just like with all of us, some of those bad choices have bad endings.Your position implies they have limited or no free will. I reject that argument.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford
Footballguy
On the one hand, there is no basis for his appeal in the first place. He is lucky to only receive a year ban and not an indefinite suspension where he has to apply for reinstatement.
On the other hand, Goodell knows that by about week 8 the Cleveland market #s will be dipping drastically, as Cleveland is going to suck again, and JFF will be just about to get or have gotten the starting nod. Throwing the league's receiving champ into the mix with the cockiest and most polarizing athlete since Deion Sanders is the perfect antidote to the flagging ratings and ticket sales Cleveland will be undoubtedly facing by week 8.
Also, last time I checked all this dude did was get ####ed up. And drove. But really it's all about being stupid and irresponsible.
Ray Rice went Mike Tyson on a woman at a time of heightened focus on leniency towards POS woman-beaters and got two games.
I'm cynical, so I'm betting a reduced sentence citing some BS reasoning and he gets an eight game ban. The League is about money first and everything else a far, far, far distant second. Gordon+JFF = mo money.
This. Drop the chest bump call out stuff here. If you can't do that, do not be surprised when you're not allowed to post any longer.FBG Moderator said:
J
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
2 games for Rice. I don't believe that SHOULD have an impact on ongoing discussions with the league, but I believe that it could. The full year for Gordon at this point is going to have everybody and their mother comparing those 16 games to Rice's 2 and having conniptions. On the surface that just looks horrible.
The truth is, the CBA is in play, and there is significant history behind the Gordon suspension scenario that makes it a very different animal than the Rice scenario. But it still looks bad and you have to wonder if it will have any impact on the league's decisions.
The truth is, the CBA is in play, and there is significant history behind the Gordon suspension scenario that makes it a very different animal than the Rice scenario. But it still looks bad and you have to wonder if it will have any impact on the league's decisions.
Clifford
Footballguy
If the #yesallwomen machine fires up they could get that Rice suspension increased. The Rice suspension is a major PR black eye for the league, and it will be brought up every time any suspension is discussed. 2 games is ridiculous and offensive to women, women the League has been spending tons of dough trying to attract in past years.
/hijack
/hijack
Penguin
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
Balderdash! It implies no such thing and I made no such argument.
Your position implies they could perform neurosurgery without study and training, I reject that implication.
People learn to make good decisions it doesn't just happen spontaneously. For some of these guys the NFL suspension is the first time they have ever faced a serious consequence for their actions so go figure if some of them don't immediately change after years of living a life of limited consequences.
And to be clear I am not suggesting eliminating punishment, hitting them in the wallet is a great way to go about that, but there is no reason they cannot be counseled/educated at the same time because removing access to what is most likely their best support system is draconian.
