WR Josh Gordon, KC (2 Viewers)

[Ojaays]

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

The thing that bothers me about the timeframe and the the whole timing of the appeal is whether you think it should or should not be upheld, a worst case scenario is that while this wait takes place, Gordon gets seriously injured while still participating in training camp. If he's suspended, then he can't even get medical care for his injury from the team.

Don't know why this couldn't have taken place in July.

The fact that nothing did happen in July might give some insight into the complexities of the case.

This was never a slam dunk, open and shut case.

The league had plenty of time to drop the hammer if it was.

 

[Bayhawks]

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

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.

Bay hawks, did you see the part where the arbitrators admitted that the mistakes the lab made would cause positive tests to be overturned in the future?

"In the majority opinion, arbitrators wrote that mistakes the lab made could result in a positive test being overturned in the future."

That's the part Suh couldn't get over, he basically made the case, the arbitrators ADMITTED IT, yet still did not overturn, even though they said they would in the future.

To which Suh 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."

Yeah, I saw that, but it's irrelevant. He's not appealing Gordon's case to them, so what they admitted means nothing.

My point is that he argued in that case (successfully, even though they upheld the positive test) and in Sherman's case were lab mistakes. That's why he won Sherman's case & almost won Landis. He isn't arguing that in Gordon's case. He's arguing the threshold is too low & the positive could have been caused by second-hand smoke and that the difference in the results of sample A and B are a problem. The NFL's policy covers both of those situations, so as I said, I don't see where he has a case with either of those 2 arguments.

 

[Ojaays]

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

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.

Bay hawks, did you see the part where the arbitrators admitted that the mistakes the lab made would cause positive tests to be overturned in the future?

"In the majority opinion, arbitrators wrote that mistakes the lab made could result in a positive test being overturned in the future."

That's the part Suh couldn't get over, he basically made the case, the arbitrators ADMITTED IT, yet still did not overturn, even though they said they would in the future.

To which Suh 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."

Yeah, I saw that, but it's irrelevant. He's not appealing Gordon's case to them, so what they admitted means nothing.My point is that he argued in that case (successfully, even though they upheld the positive test) and in Sherman's case were lab mistakes. That's why he won Sherman's case & almost won Landis. He isn't arguing that in Gordon's case. He's arguing the threshold is too low & the positive could have been caused by second-hand smoke and that the difference in the results of sample A and B are a problem. The NFL's policy covers both of those situations, so as I said, I don't see where he has a case with either of those 2 arguments.

Don't be so sure of what Suh is and isn't arguing.

This guy makes a living on exposing lab mistakes, irregularities.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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

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.

Bay hawks, did you see the part where the arbitrators admitted that the mistakes the lab made would cause positive tests to be overturned in the future?

"In the majority opinion, arbitrators wrote that mistakes the lab made could result in a positive test being overturned in the future."

That's the part Suh couldn't get over, he basically made the case, the arbitrators ADMITTED IT, yet still did not overturn, even though they said they would in the future.

To which Suh 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."

Yeah, I saw that, but it's irrelevant. He's not appealing Gordon's case to them, so what they admitted means nothing.

My point is that he argued in that case (successfully, even though they upheld the positive test) and in Sherman's case were lab mistakes. That's why he won Sherman's case & almost won Landis. He isn't arguing that in Gordon's case. He's arguing the threshold is too low & the positive could have been caused by second-hand smoke and that the difference in the results of sample A and B are a problem. The NFL's policy covers both of those situations, so as I said, I don't see where he has a case with either of those 2 arguments.

We really don't know what he argued to be honest.

 

[Bayhawks]

Don't be so sure of what Suh is and isn't arguing.This guy makes a living on exposing lab mistakes, irregularities.

Exactly; and he hasn't done so. Gordon's defense has been pretty well laid out: second hand smoke, difference between sample A and sample B. If there was another argument, why wouldn't it be made public? Why publicize two parts of your argument, but not the 3rd? Why would people reporting on this only discuss those two aspects of the case, but leave out the 3rd, which is, as you stated, where Suh "makes his living?"

They wouldn't. If Suh was arguing that there were lab mistakes or lab irregularities (a la Sherman, Braun, Landis), that would be public info, but it isn't. What is public is that Suh and Gordon's defense is based on the 2nd hand smoke argument and the difference between sample A and sample B, and the language in the NFL's drug policy covers both those issues and says Gordon's test is positive.

 

[Bayhawks]

We really don't know what he argued to be honest.

See previous post. While we can't be 100% sure, it's reasonable to assume that if that argument had been made, it would be public knowledge, like the 2nd-hand smoke and A/B difference arguments are.

I've said numerous times that I hope Suh can find some loophole or technicality to get Gordon off, but based on the information we have, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Ojaays]

We really don't know what he argued to be honest.

See previous post. While we can't be 100% sure, it's reasonable to assume that if that argument had been made, it would be public knowledge, like the 2nd-hand smoke and A/B difference arguments are.I've said numerous times that I hope Suh can find some loophole or technicality to get Gordon off, but based on the information we have, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I will say this about that.

If Suh didn't dig into and present evidence about the level of controls involved in whatever lab did the testing and records of their standards and how their quality control works and records of such within that lab, and quite frankly, Every step of the testing process that led to the result, then Gordon waisted his money on Suh because nobody in the country does that better.

 

[Ojaays]

A quote from Suh in the Landis case,:

“The only thing they want you to see are these results,” Suh said. “They never want you to look behind what supports them".

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

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

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.

Wow I didn't know the actual arguments were known. I just thought it was all speculation and hearsay. "Please tell me they didn't pin his hopes to a phone bill."

 

[Ojaays]

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

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.

Wow I didn't know the actual arguments were known. I just thought it was all speculation and hearsay. Where does one buy tickets to NFL appeal hearings? That's the only way to definitively know what the arguments are/were...actually be there.

"Please tell me they didn't pin his hopes to a phone bill."

I agree, but you can look at the kind of work the lead attorney has done in similar cases to get insight into how he rolls.

 

[Bamac]

I've been an associate in a firm like Suh's. He made every plausible argument he had.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

We really don't know what he argued to be honest.

See previous post. While we can't be 100% sure, it's reasonable to assume that if that argument had been made, it would be public knowledge, like the 2nd-hand smoke and A/B difference arguments are.

I've said numerous times that I hope Suh can find some loophole or technicality to get Gordon off, but based on the information we have, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I agree that the appeal will likely fail based on all of the evidence, but we honestly don't know all the details of his "defense". What was leaked/reported may not tell the whole story.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@MaryKayCabot: AM Repost: #browns bracing themselves for at least 8-game suspension for josh Gordon http://t.co/LAj9A5Oqz6

 

[Bayhawks]

We really don't know what he argued to be honest.

See previous post. While we can't be 100% sure, it's reasonable to assume that if that argument had been made, it would be public knowledge, like the 2nd-hand smoke and A/B difference arguments are.I've said numerous times that I hope Suh can find some loophole or technicality to get Gordon off, but based on the information we have, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I will say this about that.

If Suh didn't dig into and present evidence about the level of controls involved in whatever lab did the testing and records of their standards and how their quality control works and records of such within that lab, and quite frankly, Every step of the testing process that led to the result, then Gordon waisted his money on Suh because nobody in the country does that better.

I'm positive that he (or someone who works for him) did exactly that. What I'm saying is that if he had found anything that would be likely to help Gordon, we'd know about it, now that the appeal hearing is over.

I am willing to acknowledge that there is a chance (cue Lloyd Christmas) that Suh found an error and made this argument, but we don't know about it, but can you reasonably answer these two questions for me?

Why would the defense team divulge the arguments about 2nd-hand smoke and the sample A/B difference, but not divulge an argument about lab errors/testing mistakes?

If a lab error/test mistake argument had been made, why hasn't there been a single report of this; from Cabot, ESPN, Schefter, NFL.com, anyone?

 

[Bayhawks]

I've been an associate in a firm like Suh's. He made every plausible argument he had.

Would it be "normal" for them to have discovered a lab error/mistake, but not make it public knowledge, when other parts of their strategy were made public?

 

[Bayhawks]

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

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.

Wow I didn't know the actual arguments were known. I just thought it was all speculation and hearsay."Please tell me they didn't pin his hopes to a phone bill."

Ever since the leak of Gordon's failed test, this thread has been speculation and hearsay.

But there have been MANY reports of the 2 components of Gordon's defense, and NO MENTION of lab errors/mistakes.

To invert a common saying: "where there's no smoke, there's no fire."

 

[Heatman]

After reading this thread and as much information as I can about the case I would guess he will get anywhere from no suspension to a lifetime ban. Don't ask me why I came to that conclusion, it's just a guess and I may not even be in the ballpark.

 

[werdnoynek]

After reading this thread and as much information as I can about the case I would guess he will get anywhere from no suspension to a lifetime ban. Don't ask me why I came to that conclusion, it's just a guess and I may not even be in the ballpark.

 

[Shutout]

After reading this thread and as much information as I can about the case I would guess he will get anywhere from no suspension to a lifetime ban. Don't ask me why I came to that conclusion, it's just a guess and I may not even be in the ballpark.

Pretty much sums up the thread.

Is Aaron Hernandez involved in this case in any way?

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Report: Browns prepping for 8-game Josh Gordon suspension

by Larry Hartstein | CBSSports.com

(10:59 am ET) The Browns are steeling themselves for star receiver Josh Gordon to receive an eight-game suspension, reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer. That's actually much better than the one-year suspension Gordon long had been expected to receive for his latest failed drug test.

Gordon's appeal hearing concluded Monday, and the arbitrator's decision is expected in one to three weeks. If Gordon gets suspended eight games, he'd be eligible to return Thursday, Nov. 6 against the Bengals.

Sorry. I know it's more of the same.

 

[Dismattle]

Ive seen quite a few comments regarding all the "incidents" Does anyone feel this could be part of his defense? This Josh Gordon kid has been breathing Football since when Highschool? Hes probably been the talk of every single person w a clue about football that hes been around. Sadly theres also probably been some snitch whose been behind "testing" too. In other words, Id say its quite possible some of this "known background of issues" is somewhat blown out of proportion. ex. Did you hear the latest about Josh Gordon? Josh was smoking to "OMG Josh was like toasted"

Basically Josh is being hammered for the very Art that you are profiting

The worst part is I have to admit, Im beginning to believe Baylor failed. A certain QB is on tape stating "Josh can be as good as he wants to be" in so far as playing ball.. Two failed tests and there goes your education? The guy was in some respects risking his career/Life on the field

I know some of ya and/or most of ya wanna defend Baylor so I may not post much on this for awhile!

btw Ojaay "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. Do you feel that corresponds to: Money IS the root of all Evil In other words YES give it away for defense of your brother if not needed? just kidding

 

[Ojaays]

You have to know the Cleveland press folks , but I'm lmao at the "prepping for an 8game suspension" story.

I'll give you this quote bay hawks, " you don't know, what you don't know".

Suh wasn't hired to reduce his suspension, Suh was hired to show he didn't conclusively fail a test.

That would result in 0 games.

 

[Bayhawks]

You have to know the Cleveland press folks , but I'm lmao at the "prepping for an 8game suspension" story.

I'll give you this quote bay hawks, " you don't know, what you don't know".

Suh wasn't hired to reduce his suspension, Suh was hired to show he didn't conclusively fail a test.

That would result in 0 games.

I'll ask again, can you give a reasonable answer for these two questions:

Why would the defense team divulge the arguments about 2nd-hand smoke and the sample A/B difference, but not divulge an argument about lab errors/testing mistakes?

If a lab error/test mistake argument had been made, why hasn't there been a single report of this; from Cabot, ESPN, Schefter, NFL.com, anyone?

They aren't difficult questions to answer, if you are being honest.

 

[Ojaays]

I'll answer by adding that he would also be looking at test protocol and procedure. Again, everything said about, we don't know , is correct , we don't. But one can only surmise, Suh didn't just trot up some of Gordon's crew to the stand to say, yeah, we were smoking and he didn't.

 

[LawFitz]

Why would the defense team divulge the arguments about 2nd-hand smoke and the sample A/B difference, but not divulge an argument about lab errors/testing mistakes?

If a lab error/test mistake argument had been made, why hasn't there been a single report of this; from Cabot, ESPN, Schefter, NFL.com, anyone?

Just because part of their argument strategy was leaked, doesn't necessarily mean all of it was. At this point, I just hope the process lasts until my drafts have concluded, so I can make a late round stab at an otherwise first round talent.

 

[joseph80]

 

[lod01]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

 

[werdnoynek]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

The Manziel & Gordon connection... the new Bad Boys. Forget the Pistons.

 

[Bamac]

I've been an associate in a firm like Suh's. He made every plausible argument he had.

Would it be "normal" for them to have discovered a lab error/mistake, but not make it public knowledge, when other parts of their strategy were made public?

I don't think there is a normal on that tactic. Sometimes lawyers like to litigate in the court of public opinion; sometimes they don't. Note: I never worked on athletes' cases. Gibson Dunn is a full service firm. My experience with litigators like him (ETA: by that I mean good ones) is that they rarely hold back good faith arguments. Even if a particular argument is a legal loser, they'll make it if it paints the client in a more sympathetic light (or the opponent in a less sympathetic one).

 

[Sir Psycho]

FantasyAlarm_NFL ‏@FanAlarm_NFL 3m
#Browns: Josh Gordon-WR: Josh Gordon to play in preseason opener http://bit.ly/1kn2965

 

[bmsarvis]

Hello yeahhhh

 

[fridayfrenzy]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

LOL. The NFL owners would not see any movement in their net income needle regardless if Josh Gordon plays or not.

Peyton Manning missed an entire year. By week 2, everyone forgot and it was business as usual. If you think the owners secretly want Josh Gordon on the field, you are sorely mistaken. These owners are stubborn business men who are incredibly wealthy and they would rather lose millions than let their peons get away with breaking rules they impose.

 

[Captain Hook]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

 

[Anarchy99]

I would be intrigued if the arbitrator levied an 8-game suspension. That's really not one of the options (as discussed already). From what I can tell, his role is to determine if Gordon broke the rules of the CBA and the NFL's drug/PED policies. Thus the all or nothing banter that was going around last week. I do not believe an arbitrator can just come up with a different outcome than the ones outlined in the CBA.

If there is an 8-game suspension outcome, one would think that that came from an agreement between the league and Gordon. It will also be interesting if the league suspends Gordon for 8 games and then in a few weeks suspends him again for his DUI. So he could end up with a yearlong suspension anyway.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'll answer by adding that he would also be looking at test protocol and procedure. Again, everything said about, we don't know , is correct , we don't. But one can only surmise, Suh didn't just trot up some of Gordon's crew to the stand to say, yeah, we were smoking and he didn't.

How do you know?

You suggest that I can't possible know what Suh did/did not do at the appeal hearing, then how can you?

What makes your guesses about what Suh did or what happened, any more reasonable than mine?

And you never did answer the questions.

 

[MattFancy]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

Yup. Even if he does only get 8 games, I could see another 4 possibly for the DUI.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why would the defense team divulge the arguments about 2nd-hand smoke and the sample A/B difference, but not divulge an argument about lab errors/testing mistakes?

If a lab error/test mistake argument had been made, why hasn't there been a single report of this; from Cabot, ESPN, Schefter, NFL.com, anyone?

Just because part of their argument strategy was leaked, doesn't necessarily mean all of it was. At this point, I just hope the process lasts until my drafts have concluded, so I can make a late round stab at an otherwise first round talent.

And just because Suh was able to find lab irregularities in other cases doesn't mean he was able to do so in this one.

We are all speculating here, but some speculation is based on the facts of this particular issue as we know them, and other speculation is based on other, unrelated events.

 

[Bayhawks]

I've been an associate in a firm like Suh's. He made every plausible argument he had.

Would it be "normal" for them to have discovered a lab error/mistake, but not make it public knowledge, when other parts of their strategy were made public?

I don't think there is a normal on that tactic. Sometimes lawyers like to litigate in the court of public opinion; sometimes they don't.Note: I never worked on athletes' cases. Gibson Dunn is a full service firm. My experience with litigators like him (ETA: by that I mean good ones) is that they rarely hold back good faith arguments. Even if a particular argument is a legal loser, they'll make it if it paints the client in a more sympathetic light (or the opponent in a less sympathetic one).

Interesting. Would you characterize either of the arguments that have been reported as a "legal" loser, with regards to what (we think) we know about this case, the CBA, and the NFL drug policy?

 

[Ojaays]

I'll answer by adding that he would also be looking at test protocol and procedure. Again, everything said about, we don't know , is correct , we don't. But one can only surmise, Suh didn't just trot up some of Gordon's crew to the stand to say, yeah, we were smoking and he didn't.

How do you know?You suggest that I can't possible know what Suh did/did not do at the appeal hearing, then how can you?

What makes your guesses about what Suh did or what happened, any more reasonable than mine?

And you never did answer the questions.

Let's run thru this logically?

Do you think Suh eats at McDonalds?

Me neither.

And likewise, his case was a little more , well, a lot more sophisticated that putting Gordon's crew on the stand.

If his defense was more in line with what you say it was, Gordon May as well have hired me to defend him.

 

[Ojaays]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

Yup. Even if he does only get 8 games, I could see another 4 possibly for the DUI.

I know some of you have come in here late, but the DWI charge is not part of this and likely won't even be an issue until next year, if ever.

He has a hearing for it later in the month, lawyer will likely plead not guilty or maybe guilty to a

Lesser charge, just as Lynch did, who got nothing after that, and it was his third occasion of turbulence with trouble.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'll answer by adding that he would also be looking at test protocol and procedure. Again, everything said about, we don't know , is correct , we don't. But one can only surmise, Suh didn't just trot up some of Gordon's crew to the stand to say, yeah, we were smoking and he didn't.

How do you know?You suggest that I can't possible know what Suh did/did not do at the appeal hearing, then how can you?

What makes your guesses about what Suh did or what happened, any more reasonable than mine?

And you never did answer the questions.

Let's run thru this logically?

Do you think Suh eats at McDonalds?

Me neither.

And likewise, his case was a little more , well, a lot more sophisticated that putting Gordon's crew on the stand.

If his defense was more in line with what you say it was, Gordon May as well have hired me to defend him.

Logically?

There has been NO (none, zero, zilch, nada) indication that there was any errors, mistakes, irregularities, etc with the lab that did the test, with the people who handled the sample, or with the process itself.

Yet you are adamant that Suh has the "smoking gun" that's going to get Gordon off, because Suh was able to do so in a completely different case (Sherman), and because he says he did so in another case (Landis).

But me taking the facts that we know, because they've been reported, is not "running through this logically?"

Okay.

 

[MattFancy]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

Yup. Even if he does only get 8 games, I could see another 4 possibly for the DUI.

I know some of you have come in here late, but the DWI charge is not part of this and likely won't even be an issue until next year, if ever.

He has a hearing for it later in the month, lawyer will likely plead not guilty or maybe guilty to a

Lesser charge, just as Lynch did, who got nothing after that, and it was his third occasion of turbulence with trouble.

You don't think his past history will play into it though?

 

[Ojaays]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

Yup. Even if he does only get 8 games, I could see another 4 possibly for the DUI.

I know some of you have come in here late, but the DWI charge is not part of this and likely won't even be an issue until next year, if ever.

He has a hearing for it later in the month, lawyer will likely plead not guilty or maybe guilty to a

Lesser charge, just as Lynch did, who got nothing after that, and it was his third occasion of turbulence with trouble.

You don't think his past history will play into it though?

The only thing being litigated before the arbitrator was, did he fail a test , or not.

 

[Captain Hook]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

Yup. Even if he does only get 8 games, I could see another 4 possibly for the DUI.

I know some of you have come in here late, but the DWI charge is not part of this and likely won't even be an issue until next year, if ever.

He has a hearing for it later in the month, lawyer will likely plead not guilty or maybe guilty to a

Lesser charge, just as Lynch did, who got nothing after that, and it was his third occasion of turbulence with trouble.

You don't think his past history will play into it though?

The only thing being litigated before the arbitrator was, did he fail a test , or not.

LOL Which he DID

Gordon's only argument is how much but the league has already said amount does not matter - still used

 

[MattFancy]

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

That's because secretly the NFL really wants this guy on the field with Johnny Manziel. There problem is that anything less than a 1 year ban is going to open up a big ole can of worms. Heck, they probably gave hints that some lawyer action might 'force' them to drop it to 8 games.

I still think he gets a full year - REMEMBER he still has a DUI case pending from earlier this year and the NFL can't ignore that

Yup. Even if he does only get 8 games, I could see another 4 possibly for the DUI.

I know some of you have come in here late, but the DWI charge is not part of this and likely won't even be an issue until next year, if ever.

He has a hearing for it later in the month, lawyer will likely plead not guilty or maybe guilty to a

Lesser charge, just as Lynch did, who got nothing after that, and it was his third occasion of turbulence with trouble.

You don't think his past history will play into it though?

The only thing being litigated before the arbitrator was, did he fail a test , or not.

Right, but that doesn't mean the league can't suspend him after this case for the DUI. They're 2 seperate incidents.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The real question is : if he does get 8 games, where would you draft him knowing you're going to be carrying dead weight until week 9?

 

[Bayhawks]

The real question is : if he does get 8 games, where would you draft him knowing you're going to be carrying dead weight until week 9?

I can't say where I would draft him, as I already have him in a keeper league. I would definitely keep him, if I knew he would be back the 2nd half of the season.

Essentially, you're looking at "acquiring" a top WR for the stretch run/playoffs. You have to decide if that's worth a 6th round pick? 3rd round pick? 10th round pick?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The real question is : if he does get 8 games, where would you draft him knowing you're going to be carrying dead weight until week 9?

I can't say where I would draft him, as I already have him in a keeper league. I would definitely keep him, if I knew he would be back the 2nd half of the season.

Essentially, you're looking at "acquiring" a top WR for the stretch run/playoffs. You have to decide if that's worth a 6th round pick? 3rd round pick? 10th round pick?

Precisely. That's what I'm trying to gauge here - what people think that's worth. There's no good ADP data on him being drafted with an 8-game suspension handed down.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The real question is : if he does get 8 games, where would you draft him knowing you're going to be carrying dead weight until week 9?

I guess that for some perspective, last year Blackmon's ADP appears to have been 115 (with 4 game suspension) and Harvin was 139 (at least 6 games on PUP).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Right, but that doesn't mean the league can't suspend him after this case for the DUI. They're 2 seperate incidents.

If he doesn't beat the case he probably will be suspended again.

But he'll probably beat the case, and even if he doesn't it could be 2016 or 2017 before it's resolved.