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 (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
Mr Non Sequitur
Footballguy
1st of all, I like the post, good summary of where we are at, a nice POV about how you feel as well, the only thing I would like to add or counter is that 50-75% is a bit high and if it is exactly as you say, he is an absolute must grab or steal after the 2nd or 3rd round basically, I cannot imagine that Goodell is gonna back down or off his stance but then again he only suspended Rice for 2 games and I thought there was a chance for the NFL which makes the players wear pink the entire month of October, it gave them a real opportunity to step up and hammer down on this type of behavior, and we all saw how that turned out.
Do we have a Goodell 2.0 version now?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Non Sequitur
Footballguy
Let's just go over the list and correct me where I'm wrong.
-Already on the substance abuse policy/plan even before he was drafted.
-Missed a year in college.
-Has been pulled over with marijauna in the car
-Failed the NFL drug test however you want to slice it.
16 game season? less than 5%
14 game season? less than 10%
10-12 game season? 35%
8 game season or less? 50%
-Already on the substance abuse policy/plan even before he was drafted.
-Missed a year in college.
-Has been pulled over with marijauna in the car
-Failed the NFL drug test however you want to slice it.
16 game season? less than 5%
14 game season? less than 10%
10-12 game season? 35%
8 game season or less? 50%
Clifford
Footballguy
Where you are wrong according to all reports is that there is an option between 0 games suspended and 16. Every single outlet has been in agreement on there being no settlement talks.
So given how long this has been going on...
0 games suspended 10% chance
16 games suspended 90% chance
Legal appeal of arbitrator decision if 16-game suspension - 100%
NFL delaying suspension pending outcome of legal appeal - ???
The last question is really the only question to me. Is there precedent here?
So given how long this has been going on...
0 games suspended 10% chance
16 games suspended 90% chance
Legal appeal of arbitrator decision if 16-game suspension - 100%
NFL delaying suspension pending outcome of legal appeal - ???
The last question is really the only question to me. Is there precedent here?
Last edited by a moderator:
Peak
Footballguy
Updated it for more accuracy. I'm sure others will too. My guess is either an 8 game suspension. If he does get suspended, I agree that Suh and team will take this to state court and likely win, leaving Gordon to play the entire year as there is no way the case will be heard during the 2014-2015 NFL season.
Peak
Footballguy
This is a great question. Granted I haven't studied this as much as others in this thread, but I can't find anything showing an arbitrator taking 3 weeks to make a decision. To go along with this question, I would also like to have an idea of what "a reasonable amount of time" means as that is the duration of time for an arbitrator to make a decision.
Peak
Footballguy
They delayed the enforcement of the suspension, but the decision came down very shortly after the appeal. The delay was due to it going to state/federal court.
This is what I see happening if Gordon is suspended following his appeal.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/02/starcaps-suspensions-finally-are-finalized/
edited to add the blurb/link about suspension delay
Last edited by a moderator:
amnesiac
beer is good
this is the only way he plays imo. people with money can do lots of interesting things utilizing the American court system.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
If true, how is any player suspended, ever. How does any player ever serve a suspension when lawyers can just keep firing stuff at the league.
mvereb
Footballguy
What percentage of players make enough money (or will have the potential to make a lot of money) to support a family AND potentially rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees? 5%? 10%? Plus, what percent of this small sample size of players are actually in trouble where they need top legal protection? Maybe 1%? It's a unique case where top earning players can afford to fight the league.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
I don't know how much can be taken from this as any kind of precedent... but still probably worth the read.
In 2012, DJ Williams filed a lawsuit appealing a 6 game suspension for banned substances. Henderson was the one who heard the appeal. The judge granted the NFL's motion for a summary judgment dismissing the case. Per statements from the player's attorney, "Judge Arguello deferred to the NFL’s in-house review process, explaining that she has no authority to substitute her judgment for the judgment of NFL executive Harold Henderson, who handled the internal appeal. Ginsberg said that Judge Arguello also noted that Williams had received a full and fair hearing."
Also worth mentioning, Williams claimed that Henderson's partiality was undermined by the NFL's general counsel directing him to delay the issuance of the ruling, that (if I understand this right) because the player's counsel wasn't present for that communication that it violated impartiality. The judge rejected both that it was something the player's representation had a right to be present for, and said even if it was, such discussions related to procedural matters that do not adversely affect the outcome of the arbitration are not a basis for vacating the ruling.
As part of that last part, the players contended that the NFL delayed the ruling so they would be more likely to be available for the playoffs (this took place in December) which would be to the NFL's benefit, they said.
There's some common themes in there with a lawsuit to challenge a suspension, and there having been a delay in the appeal ruling being given. But I'd hesitate about trying to apply the outcome to Gordon's situation too much.
In 2012, DJ Williams filed a lawsuit appealing a 6 game suspension for banned substances. Henderson was the one who heard the appeal. The judge granted the NFL's motion for a summary judgment dismissing the case. Per statements from the player's attorney, "Judge Arguello deferred to the NFL’s in-house review process, explaining that she has no authority to substitute her judgment for the judgment of NFL executive Harold Henderson, who handled the internal appeal. Ginsberg said that Judge Arguello also noted that Williams had received a full and fair hearing."
Also worth mentioning, Williams claimed that Henderson's partiality was undermined by the NFL's general counsel directing him to delay the issuance of the ruling, that (if I understand this right) because the player's counsel wasn't present for that communication that it violated impartiality. The judge rejected both that it was something the player's representation had a right to be present for, and said even if it was, such discussions related to procedural matters that do not adversely affect the outcome of the arbitration are not a basis for vacating the ruling.
As part of that last part, the players contended that the NFL delayed the ruling so they would be more likely to be available for the playoffs (this took place in December) which would be to the NFL's benefit, they said.
There's some common themes in there with a lawsuit to challenge a suspension, and there having been a delay in the appeal ruling being given. But I'd hesitate about trying to apply the outcome to Gordon's situation too much.
Last edited by a moderator:
amnesiac
beer is good
not saying it's likely, just that this is the only scenario in which i see Gordon playing this year.
PRoFootballTalk article early this week said don't be surprised if this is decided via a settlement
Khy
Footballguy
They've also (as well as every other insider in the country) said that zero talks have been initiated by either party. As I said in another post earlier today, I wouldn't be shocked if the NFL is delaying the situation hoping that Gordon's attorneys approach them about a reduced settlement. Because they probably don't want to actually suspend him all 16 games, but they also don't want to let him walk scott free. So they're probably praying that Gordon's attorney's come in and say "How about a 4 game ban?" and then they can settle on 6 or 8. That's my personal opinion, not something I read somewhere. It's just something I feel makes a lot of sense for a reason to intentionally delay this whole thing. Otherwise, I really can't find a reasoning for the decision taking this long.
The Dynasty
Footballguy
Gordon's legal case, as I understand it, would be that the NFL's drug testing policies violate Ohio employer law. 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.” As everyone knows, Gordon's A cup tested over the limits, while his B cup tested under. Under Ohio law, this must cause a passing result. Precedence has already been set that the NFL, as the employer of every player, must abide by state laws where each player is employed. Whether or not Gordon can actually win this case is up in the air, but, I think it's strong enough to, at the very least, provide him with an injunction against the league that causes him to suit up. If it takes long enough--the Williams played two years for Minnesota before eventually serving their suspension--he should be able to suit up for all sixteen games.
DISCLAIMER: I picked Gordon in the seventh round of my 16-teamer two weeks ago.
Also, I realized now that I made a typo on my original post. I said I feel it's between fifty and seventy-five percent that he make it through the entire "decision" before it's decided. What I meant to say was that I think it's 50-75% that he makes it through the season. These court battles can potentially drag out for a very long time, a lot longer than the four months the season takes place.
DISCLAIMER: I picked Gordon in the seventh round of my 16-teamer two weeks ago.
Also, I realized now that I made a typo on my original post. I said I feel it's between fifty and seventy-five percent that he make it through the entire "decision" before it's decided. What I meant to say was that I think it's 50-75% that he makes it through the season. These court battles can potentially drag out for a very long time, a lot longer than the four months the season takes place.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
Both specimens did test positive. The 'B' test fell under the NFL's specified limit but it was still positive.
RBM
Footballguy
This is part of the Ohio Administrative code, which are rules and regulations promulgated by the state agencies of Ohio. This particular code deals with state agencies, and businesses who elect to participate in the state's drug-free workplace program; it DOES NOT apply to all businesses/individuals in the state of Ohio.
So unless the Browns voluntarily participated in this DFWP, this code does not apply to Gordon. This particular legal strategy hasn't gotten much play. From what I can find, it has been discussed in only 2 places: the original article, where the author claims it is a foregone conclusion that Gordon won't be suspended, and (according to this thread) from an "insider" site that I don't have access to, who used the original article as it's only source. You would think that if this was a legitimate legal option, two things would have happened by now:
1-Gordon's legal team would have already pursued this course of action. If it is such a slam-dunk that the NFL policy violates Ohio law, why aren't the pursuing (or at least publicizing) this avenue?
2-This would have been discussed by ALL the major sports sites: ESPN, SI, CBS, NFL network, etc.
Also, I'm assuming the precedent you are referring to is the Williams' case? If so, you are mistaken. The state Supreme Court dismissed the Williams' appeal, asserting that they had not grounds on which to appeal the NFL's policy/suspension.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
i just can't see any way he doesn't play every game in 2014.
Khy
Footballguy
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
jurb26
Footballguy
No, the logical inference is that you're fishing.
Keith Lewis
Footballguy
Haven't been here for about a year. Man, I remembered why I was turned off. This whole exchange is garbage. This place has really went down the crapper and has been circling the sewage plant for years. Love the podcasts, the forums are a waste of time!
The Dynasty
Footballguy
I don't want to say you're wrong, but from my understanding, any business in the state pursuing that participates in drug testing is automatically a part of the Ohio Drug Free Workplace Program. I don't believe it is some special, higher-standard program, but a program to set standards for all business drug testing in the state.Bayhawks said:
As for Gordon's legal team not already pursuing this legal action, it would be impossible for them to do so until the NFL hands down a suspension. You can't sue over a suspension that hasn't been ruled; a judge would never allow it.
Also, the Williams' case and Gordon's case are fundamentally different. The Williams were arguing that the NFL lacked the authority to punish them, that only the state possessed that power--if I'm remembering correctly. Gordon would be trying to prove that the NFL drug testing policies actively violate state law, something federal courts have already ruled the are required to abide by. Regardless, it doesn't matter if Gordon wins the case or not. If he files a suit against the NFL, which I believe he will, he plays this year.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
It's not. Go read about it. Pretty obviously something that employers can enroll in as a resource if they want.
https://www.bwc.ohio.gov/downloads/brochureware/publications/DFWPtechmanual.pdf
Read page 4 of that.
You are incorrect, as far as I can tell. Employers in Ohio can choose to participate in the Drug-Free workplace program, they are not required to do so. I seriously doubt that the Browns would be allowed by the NFL to participate in a program that would supersede their CBA.
A judge wouldn't have to allow anything. If this were a viable legal option, Gordon could have chosen not to appeal, then challenge the suspension via the courts, since (if this administrative code actually applied to Gordon), the league couldn't legally suspend him.
If you weren't referring to the Williams' case, I apologize. What "precedent" were you referencing?
The Dynasty
Footballguy
Here's a couple of resources that lead me to believe that all employers drug-testing in Ohio have to follow these regulations.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drug-testing-laws-ohio.html
http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Ohio.htm
But like I said, he doesn't have to win the case. All that needs to happen for him to play this year is a suit be filed.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Your second link includes text about exactly what I'm saying:
If employers want the discount = they implement the Ohio drug free workplace program. If they don't, they don't.
You didn't see in both your links the terms "may," "can," "are able to," etc? Or the multiple times they say employers who CHOOSE to participate in the program can qualify for insurance discounts IF they follow the administrative rules?
Also, your contention that all Gordon has to do is file a lawsuit to play in 2014 is flawed. If his lawsuit has no merit (or if he can't sue, because the CBA says NFL players can't sue the NFL except for under certain circumstances), then the lawsuit would be quickly dismissed.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
All great things must come to an end.
This thread will explode tomorrow, potentially.
In a very pro Soulfly manner.
Now, let's all grab a drink... And relax
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
It's going to be funny when he's suspended tomorrow and the Gordonites start digging up Plessy vs. Ferguson and whatnot looking for more legal ways out.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
You're killing the buzz in here, man
Harshing the flow
We all get along in here now... No need to laugh at anyone regardless of the outcome
GoodLloydHaveMercy
Footballguy
I have 2 drafts in Sunday and if he is suspended I still expect to draft him late in my redraft leagues just in case he skates... In reality we need to know for sure whether this whole ohio working code applies... I'm leaning toward it being voluntary and this not applying in this case (cause I'm guessing browns didn't opt for that program)
But I'm encouraged that Gordon's lawyers reportedly haven't come to the bargaining table which leads me to believe they are planning to fight in the event of an unfavorable decision for Gordon
But I'm encouraged that Gordon's lawyers reportedly haven't come to the bargaining table which leads me to believe they are planning to fight in the event of an unfavorable decision for Gordon
One
Not Allowed In Mexico
LOL. Yeah man, we gotta keep the positive vibes flowing'.
I drafted Gordon the other day so I'm hoping for the best. But if I were one of my league mates, I'd be praying for the perma-ban.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
The Dynasty
Footballguy
The Williamses attempt to sue the league was far more ridiculous than Gordon's potential suit, yet they had no trouble finding a judge that would hear their case. You are correct that the players are not allowed to sue the league over certain issues, but banned substances is not listed among them. I find it difficult to imagine that Gordon's defense team will be unable to find a judge in the entire state that will hear Gordon's case.
The Dynasty
Footballguy
I agree. I think if they had no plans to fight any suspension in court, we wouldn't be hearing reports of the lack of settlement talks, as Gordon's legal team would be trying to reduce the suspension any way possible.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Can you please describe the judge shopping process and how that works with these lawsuits?
Shocking interpretation of the lack of settlement talks.
