Franknbeans
Footballguy
Cleveland might have a case that this was not a reasonable amount of timeBonka said:
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 (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Would guess "reasonable" isn't tied to the desires of FF players, but might be tied to the quantity of issues in dispute and complexity of the case.
i.e. throw the kitchen sink and the Chewbacca defense at an arbitrator and it could take some time to resolve things.
i.e. throw the kitchen sink and the Chewbacca defense at an arbitrator and it could take some time to resolve things.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Waiting until after fantasy drafts run. They know how to get clicks.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Going to be tough if he's available in the 11th/12th to not take the chance tonight. Was really hoping it would be resolved by now.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
I kept him over LBell, Ball and Allen
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
Round 4 or 5 seems like a high pick to potentially waste.
Round 9 or 10 seems to be the average from my drafts, and what others are posting here.
GoodLloydHaveMercy
Footballguy
..... a high pick .....
I see what you did there... Well played Little Phatty... Well played
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Yeah... Wow that's early for a guy who has very little chance of contributing more than half a season and may not contribute at all. I would have let him have him in the 5th. If go Johnson/Fitz/white etc all over him there...
I think most common adp is ~100th give or take 10-15 picks. You can afford to completely whiff there without too much blowback. Getting a goose-egg on a 4th?! Ouch. I would have to feel pretty "out gunned" to take that gamble.
towney
Footballguy
Another view on why it is taking so long.
http://factoryofsadness.co/2014/08/22/report-josh-gordon-suspension-dragged-super-agent-drew-rosenhaus/
http://factoryofsadness.co/2014/08/22/report-josh-gordon-suspension-dragged-super-agent-drew-rosenhaus/
Gawain
Footballguy
What about salary payments? Football players are paid in 16 game checks, correct? There has to be some per diem payment during training camp though, correct? That payment is separate from what is in a player's contract? So he could get X game checks for 2014 if this goes into the season and then 16-X in 2015? So he'd lose more money? (I assume that he's making more in 2015) What about signing bonus? Does he have to give back that back at a prorated amount to contract games/games suspended? I'm clueless when it comes to the financial side of the suspension.Greg Russell said:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Like always, I am predicting less than 16.
But, I am so good at drafting, even if Gordon gets the 4-6 I projected him to get, Ill still win the league taking him at 1.06
Seriously tho... I never really thought zero was ever an option, unless there was a bombshell we werent aware of. The fact that they cant hand down a suspension before THIS game, makes me think there might be one.
See this is where we differ, I ALWAYS thought it would be 0.
If he didn't decisively fail a test, he won't be suspended, for any length.
Right now Suh is being drafted at 1.01.
GregR
Footballguy
Richard Sherman's appeal hearing appears to have been Dec 14, and the articles he won it came out Dec 27. So 2 weeks.
Sherman's defense was about the chain of custody of his sample. Gordon's has been reported to be more about the two tests having different results. I would assume for Gordon he would need to provide scientific testimony or studies that indicate that shouldn't be the case for this particular test. So it's not unreasonable to think there's more for the arbitrator to digest.
Though the version of events in the article saying the NFL is trying to negotiate and Gordon's camp isn't, and that is the delay, sounds entirely reasonable for being the cause of the delay too. Could be both, even, he needed more time to digest it, and is trying to give both sides more time to negotiate.
cstu
Footballguy
Suh is going to be a very busy man if he accomplishes anything less than 16 games for Gordon.
az_prof
Footballguy
If you spend enough money you can find an "expert" to say anything and create uncertainty and doubt.
Kwai Chang Caine
Footballguy
I got an extra 9th coming tomorrow in my main home league. This is where I'll try for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Careful with that Ax Eugene, with every passing minute that there's no decision, that sound you are hearing is Gordon's ADP rising.
I took Gordon in the 7th in a 16-team league.
From a legal perspective, the NFL must not have much of a leg to stand on given their slow-walking to the podium to announce a result of the appeal.
Either they are waiting and will then announce a change to their drug testing policy (to be more in-line with say, WADA, where you are allowed to smoke out-of-season but remain under 150ng/ml in-season) as it's being drawn up, or will try to drop the hammer on Gordon for a full year and are getting their ducks in a row for a drawn-out legal challenge.
The wait also indicates the NFL is aware the result of this appeal will be challenged under Ohio law, and a judge won't have much difficulty in finding evidence that Gordon has been harmed by the NFL's decision, resulting in the suspension being delayed until after legal resolution (likely after the season).
I think it's been drawn out because the NFL is aware of these 2 potential outcomes (either change drug testing policies and "free Josh Gordon" immediately, or suspend him for a full season/indefinitely) and in the interim has been trying to negotiate with Gordon's camp on a shorter suspension (2-4 games) while they work on drug testing policy revisions without such a time constraint.
Gordon's camp, wisely, has rejected all attempted suspension negotiations, because they know that they have a pretty decent shot at the decision being overturned in an Ohio court and Gordon would at least be allowed to play THIS season.
It makes the NFL look heavy-handed, it makes sympathetic figures out of Gordon and the Browns, and if Gordon had no case not only would the NFL NOT negotiate, but they certainly would have returned a result from the appeal by now.
All things said, it looks pretty rosy for Gordon owners.
I'll go on record as saying he plays 16 games this season. I make no predictions as to the outcome of the court case that will result if the NFL chooses to retain its archaic marijuana policies.
From a legal perspective, the NFL must not have much of a leg to stand on given their slow-walking to the podium to announce a result of the appeal.
Either they are waiting and will then announce a change to their drug testing policy (to be more in-line with say, WADA, where you are allowed to smoke out-of-season but remain under 150ng/ml in-season) as it's being drawn up, or will try to drop the hammer on Gordon for a full year and are getting their ducks in a row for a drawn-out legal challenge.
The wait also indicates the NFL is aware the result of this appeal will be challenged under Ohio law, and a judge won't have much difficulty in finding evidence that Gordon has been harmed by the NFL's decision, resulting in the suspension being delayed until after legal resolution (likely after the season).
I think it's been drawn out because the NFL is aware of these 2 potential outcomes (either change drug testing policies and "free Josh Gordon" immediately, or suspend him for a full season/indefinitely) and in the interim has been trying to negotiate with Gordon's camp on a shorter suspension (2-4 games) while they work on drug testing policy revisions without such a time constraint.
Gordon's camp, wisely, has rejected all attempted suspension negotiations, because they know that they have a pretty decent shot at the decision being overturned in an Ohio court and Gordon would at least be allowed to play THIS season.
It makes the NFL look heavy-handed, it makes sympathetic figures out of Gordon and the Browns, and if Gordon had no case not only would the NFL NOT negotiate, but they certainly would have returned a result from the appeal by now.
All things said, it looks pretty rosy for Gordon owners.
I'll go on record as saying he plays 16 games this season. I make no predictions as to the outcome of the court case that will result if the NFL chooses to retain its archaic marijuana policies.
georg013
Footballguy
Why isn't anyone still talking about Grodon seeking help for his terrible, life threatening, drug addiction that can only, according to Cris Carter, be helped by the Browns cutting him the way Carter was dropped by the Eagles??? The suspension is seconday. We should all pray that Gordon gets the helps he needs. His life is at risk here! 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Is this schtick or is this a keeper league where the draft pool is a bit shallow?
GregR
Footballguy
Since someone was asking my opinion earlier on likely outcomes, figured I'd share my thinking as I just drafted him in a league. I took Gordon at 8.11 in a deep PPR league (2QB, 2RB, 5WR, 2TE). Keep up to 4 at the cost of your earliest picks. No limit on how many times they can be kept and no escalating cost.
I mostly drafted him for the future to replace Foster as one of my keepers next year (and every year thereafter while he's still worth at least a 4th round pick). So in my mind where I took him was more like a dynasty valuation of him.
Also factored in that it's a slow draft and 20 picks until I go again. Figured it'll likely be announced before I pick again, so unless I take him now I probably have no chance of any piece of the upside should he win the appeal or negotiate a reduced suspension.
My biggest worry is he has such a consistent string of drug issues, he is going to have more incidents down the road, regardless of what happens this season.
I mostly drafted him for the future to replace Foster as one of my keepers next year (and every year thereafter while he's still worth at least a 4th round pick). So in my mind where I took him was more like a dynasty valuation of him.
Also factored in that it's a slow draft and 20 picks until I go again. Figured it'll likely be announced before I pick again, so unless I take him now I probably have no chance of any piece of the upside should he win the appeal or negotiate a reduced suspension.
My biggest worry is he has such a consistent string of drug issues, he is going to have more incidents down the road, regardless of what happens this season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
I got him at 11.5 last night in a redraft PPR league. Already had Antonio Brown, Cordarrelle Patterson, Mike Wallace, and Brandon Cooks. Drafted Kenny Britt and Doug Baldwin later. Figured it was worth a shot there, if he gets 16 games, I'll just dump him for roster space, anything less and it's worth an 11th rounder.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
I love the interpretation of everything. "It's taken a long time - obviously the NFL knows they're going to lose under Ohio law!"
buck naked
Footballguy
End of the 1st quarter-Has Gordon been in the game?
Gordon supporters "They know he won the appeal, so they are just resting him."
Gordon haters "They know he lost the appeal, so they are giving PT to other guys."
Truth-who the hell knows?
Let's play a game- I'll give you a couple examples of what I post on this forum (and I rarely post here) and then you can show me some of your pearls of wisdom.
I love the interpretation of everything. "It's taken a long time - obviously the NFL knows they're going to lose under Ohio law!"
This was me when Terrell Owens signed with the Bengals-
Owens' line that season- 72/983/9
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/spotlight.php?yr=2010&id=OwenTe00
This was me last offseason when Matt Forte was being discussed-
Matt Forte's line last season- 1933 total yards and 12 total TDs.
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=674956&page=2
Now, until you can offer something up that should make me consider your comments to be worth more than the scum on the bottom of a good man's shoes, I'll take it with a grain of salt.
Guys like you will continue to pipe up and offer worthless throwaway comments until the exact thing you are mocking ends up happening, and then like a roach with the lights turned on, you scurry into the nearest hole.
Calm down.
It's easy to look backwards and pick out a few random comments you made that turned out to be right. Comments, btw, that are based on football, and weren't really "going out on a limb."
The comments you posted in this thread were innaccurate, with regards to Ohio law. It has been discussed, and links have been provided that show the Ohio code that seems to be the basis of the "Gordon will sue, b/c the NFL CBA doesn't abide by Ohio law," most likely DOES NOT apply to the Gordon case. It is an Ohio administrative code that applies to a drug-free work place program that employers can VOLUNTARILY participate in. There is no evidence that the Browns do so.
So, the basis of your post (unless you are discussing a different Ohio law, in which case, please elaborate) that the NFL believes they have no "legal leg to stand on" is shaky, at best. This is your theory of what is happening, but since the theory is based on faulty grounds, you expect to have that noted, especially since this point has been covered, multiple times in this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who said I wasn't calm?
Sorry but when you start your post with an attempt to de-legitimize the validity of what I say, I don't see the point in engaging in a back-and-forth with you. You're free to check the rest of my post history, which contains more of the same stuff.
I open my mouth when I have something intelligent to say.
If a company drug tests employees in Ohio, it's bound by the drug-free workplace laws of the state.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drug-testing-laws-ohio.html
This is simple- IF a company tests their employees in Ohio, they are bound by Ohio's drug testing laws. Period. If the Browns weren't drug testing employees, they'd be exempt from state law.
The Starcaps case got an injunction on even flimsier grounds. What makes you think Gordon couldn't file a civil suit and get a restraining order and play the entire season?
Love your hedge of "most likely DOES NOT apply to the Gordon case," by all means leave yourself some wiggle room.
If you drug test your employees in Ohio, you are bound by the Ohio drug testing laws. It's as simple as that. Whether you are a voluntary participant in the "Drug Free Workplace" program or not (and why wouldn't the Browns participate in order to gain tax benefits?).
http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/employment/career-opportunities.html
That's as far as I'm willing to go with you, considering you open your posts with a poo-pooing of my post history. My post history which is 100% accurate on all topics.
Watch out for the lights.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Where are the Ohio drug testing laws? Surely you don't think that the voluntary Ohio Drug Free Program is "state law," right? Because you know, state laws are typically not voluntary.
And it's clear that you have zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program. Your evidence is "Why wouldn't they?" which, of course, is not evidence at all. If you'd like an answer to your question though, one reason they wouldn't is that they're part of a national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force.
But hey, you predicted a player's stat line right like in 2009, so you must be an expert on everything under the sun. I'd love to see some other predictions you made about legal issues since, you know, that's what we're talking about. Post it up, Matlock.
1) I already linked the drug testing laws. See the link in my earlier post? Click it. Read it. If you would like another source, here- http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Ohio.htm
Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
2) I have "zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program" huh? Their own website for people applying for jobs states they are a drug free workplace. If they test employees, it's subject to Ohio law. Furthermore, they are required to offer worker's compensation coverage, which the drug free workplace program just happens to provide massive discounts on workers comp premiums. Study up on NFL teams and worker's comp coverage here: http://www.carnlaw.com/workers-compensation-for-nfl-players.html
Do you think those premiums are cheap? So yeah, I have a pretty good idea that the Browns (a business, run by a businessman) aren't leaving money on the table when it comes to workers comp premiums. They'd be stupid not to.
3) Now you want to bring up the NFL's standing as "national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force." Which is all well and good. But it didn't prevent the Williams boys from getting an injunction and playing for quite a while before the Starcaps case was resolved. The NFL is not exempt from state laws.
4) I'll make a prediction on this case, without any "probably most likely" hedging crap that you've thrown out there- Gordon plays 16 games this season. 16 games.
What's your prediction? I'll come back here and laugh in your face when I see the starting lineups for week 1, nutrider.
Last edited by a moderator:
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Just remember this people - in a week when you're asking yourself why you spent a fourth round pick on a player who is and was at the time suspended for the entire season, the answer is "because it took a really long time for his appeal to be rejected and I convinced myself that was an internet Clarence Darrow."
Nutrider? Grow up.
EVERY LINK YOU'VE provided has been brought up. You aren't some genius who found something that everyone else missed. They've all be brought up, and they all show that this Ohio Administrative code only applies to businesses who participate in the Drug-Free workplace policy. Every company in Ohio that drug tests DOES NOT have to follow this code, only those who choose to participate, in order to receive the insurance benefits.
There is no reason to believe that the Browns participate in this program. If you have EVIDENCE (not "they provide insurance, so they must participate") please share it, but don't you think that someone one from ESPN, CBS, Fox, etc would have discovered this legal nugget? You and some random blogger on the Internet are the only people who thought of this? And after that blogger brought it up (almost 3 weeks ago), not one major media outlet or sports reporter thought this would be an important enough story to investigate and follow up on? Really?
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Thanks, I didn't see the link earlier, maybe it was buried in your totally relevant post about predicting Matt Forte's reception total in 2008 or something.
Rather than me spill over the entire Ohio law on the matter, can you just direct me to the part that you think gets Josh Gordon off the hook? I mean, you keep saying that if you drug test in Ohio, you are subject to Ohio state law. I do not disagree. Can you please show me where the Ohio state law conflicts with the NFL drug policy that makes you so certain Gordon skates? I assumed you were talking about the Drug Free Workplace Program, obviously you are not, so there must be something you've found in the actual law, and I would totally be interested in reading it.
And no, you have no evidence that the Browns participate in the voluntary Drug Free Workplace Program. You have evidence that they run a drug free workplace. That's fine, but in no way is that the same thing. And no, I have no idea how expensive that insurance is, or who pays it (Browns themselves, shared with NFL? etc.) so unless you do know something specific about it, I remain comfortable in saying that you have zero evidence that they adhere to the actual program linked earlier in this thread, that this ENTIRE "Gordon's lawyers are going to get this overturned" thing comes from (mistakenly since that program does not apply here).
Oh and my "prediction" is that he's suspended for 16 games this year...mostly because he is.
