Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

Hopefully he gets help for his addiction and the league stops policing what natural plants--less harmful to self and others than alcohol--a player can invite into his body in his free time.

I'm pretty sure Baby Jesus said to never smoke pot in the 15 Commandments

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am very disappointed that the NFL and its hearing office didn't exercise better discretion and judgment in my case."

An absolute idiot, with absolute idiots looking out for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think he's getting a very raw deal. He very likely had only a 2nd hand exposure.

When I compare this with the Ray Rice thing, I feel a sense of injustice.

:wall:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

Curious about this part. What harm is a person more likely to do, to self or others, while high on marijuana?

one time in college we busted into our suitemates room through his window and ate a whole can of his pringles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am very disappointed that the NFL and its hearing office didn't exercise better discretion and judgment in my case."

An absolute idiot, with absolute idiots looking out for him.

What's interesting about that statement is that I very much doubt he wrote it. It's his attorney that is being foolish this time out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

Curious about this part. What harm is a person more likely to do, to self or others, while high on marijuana?

one time in college we busted into our suitemates room through his window and ate a whole can of his pringles.

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just landed in Seattle, cross country flight that got me up way to early. Gonna finish up a bit of work, get a light workout in, pickup some stuff to grill and then decide if I want to smoke a bowl or have a bourbon.

Sometimes it must suck to play in the NFL.

If you're not a moron who gets into the substance abuse program then you can do blow in Vegas bathrooms and get caught doing it.

I don't have to hide getting caught doing anything I'm doing.

Totally Gordon's fault. He f'ed up, just saying it sucks that in a few years none of his "crimes" would matter.

Employers from truck drivers to police departments to accountants will continue to test for it or prohibit it as a matter of personal conduct for years to come.

That's true. They should in many jobs.

Playing wide receiver probably isn't one of them where it is as important.

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

AND REMEMEBER

the NFLPA is holding on for its own HGH baseline testing to try and get higher legal levels than WADA, but it was fine signing off on weed levels that are 1/10th of the WADA levels.

priorities...the NFLPA was fine with bashing weed users and even drinkers, but draws the line at HGH

so if the Gordon suspension is messed up, don't point only at the NFL, point at the NFLPA as well

Look at it from the NFLPA's angle. Why would the NFLPA care about drug testing? The suspensions affect less than 1% of the players in the NFL, and the other 99% who are smart enough or clean would rather have the NFLPA spend money and time on issues that matter. AS well, the 99% actually benefit from these 1%. You really think Andrew Hawkins, Miles Austin, Charles Johnson and the other players who will make the team or see the field care about Josh Gordon being suspended? They are probably elated.

In my opinion, it is the NFL owners who will want the testing levels changed because players like Josh Gordon and the 1% are giving the appearance that the NFL is a bunch of druggies. Stop testing for marijuana or increase the limit and this never hits the news (e.g. NBA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is complete bulls$#t... Way to go NFL suspending someone over a plant that in no way improves their performance on the field. A plant! While Ray Rice can hit a woman so hard she gets knocked out and only miss 2 games. I'm sorry but we live in one hell of a f$#ked up world.

Edited by Shawn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for dynasty owners out there: Is Gordon a drop or will you burn a roster spot for the season?

deep dynasty maybe.

limited keeper he's a drop, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told FOX Sports that Gordon's camp is considering a lawsuit against the league that would include seeking an injunction to put the suspension for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy on hold while the legal process plays out.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/suspended-josh-gordon-can-sue-nfl-to-stay-on-field-but-should-he-082714

ooooooooooooo lawd, this thread would EXPLODE

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am very disappointed that the NFL and its hearing office didn't exercise better discretion and judgment in my case."

An absolute idiot, with absolute idiots looking out for him.

What's interesting about that statement is that I very much doubt he wrote it. It's his attorney that is being foolish this time out.

That was kind of my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

Curious about this part. What harm is a person more likely to do, to self or others, while high on marijuana?

one time in college we busted into our suitemates room through his window and ate a whole can of his pringles.

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

and to rub salt in the wound, we filled the can up with rocks and put it back in his closet. we thought were pretty funny, until he came into our room on Monday and offered us some pringles - then we felt kind of bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for dynasty owners out there: Is Gordon a drop or will you burn a roster spot for the season?

He's a drop for me (8th rd keeper). Now if he is there in the 14th round I might re-pick him up. Also not sold on him keeping his nose clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am very disappointed that the NFL and its hearing office didn't exercise better discretion and judgment in my case."

An absolute idiot, with absolute idiots looking out for him.

What's interesting about that statement is that I very much doubt he wrote it.

Ya don't say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told FOX Sports that Gordon's camp is considering a lawsuit against the league that would include seeking an injunction to put the suspension for violating the leagues substance-abuse policy on hold while the legal process plays out.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/suspended-josh-gordon-can-sue-nfl-to-stay-on-field-but-should-he-082714

Always suspicious of "a source". But I'm not sure that it's sound judgment to tangle with the NFL's legal team on what seems to be a well defined contractual issue that coincidentally involves partaking in what is Federally defined as a criminal behavior.

Interested to hear what kind of strength Gordon's case would have according to our legal guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told FOX Sports that Gordon's camp is considering a lawsuit against the league that would include seeking an injunction to put the suspension for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy on hold while the legal process plays out.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/suspended-josh-gordon-can-sue-nfl-to-stay-on-field-but-should-he-082714

ooooooooooooo lawd, this thread would EXPLODE

Not sure why a judge would look at it again. Was a third party arbitrator used? Yes...ok, then get lost. Don't come crying to mommy now that daddy has said no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and to rub salt in the wound, we filled the can up with rocks and put it back in his closet. we thought were pretty funny, until he came into our room on Monday and offered us some pringles - then we felt kind of bad.

When I was in..."college"...I used to smoke it to help me sleep. Today, I know better. I use one of the more dangerous--but legal!--alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just landed in Seattle, cross country flight that got me up way to early. Gonna finish up a bit of work, get a light workout in, pickup some stuff to grill and then decide if I want to smoke a bowl or have a bourbon.

Sometimes it must suck to play in the NFL.

If you're not a moron who gets into the substance abuse program then you can do blow in Vegas bathrooms and get caught doing it.

I don't have to hide getting caught doing anything I'm doing.

Totally Gordon's fault. He f'ed up, just saying it sucks that in a few years none of his "crimes" would matter.

Employers from truck drivers to police departments to accountants will continue to test for it or prohibit it as a matter of personal conduct for years to come.

That's true. They should in many jobs.

Playing wide receiver probably isn't one of them where it is as important.

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

AND REMEMEBER

the NFLPA is holding on for its own HGH baseline testing to try and get higher legal levels than WADA, but it was fine signing off on weed levels that are 1/10th of the WADA levels.

priorities...the NFLPA was fine with bashing weed users and even drinkers, but draws the line at HGH

so if the Gordon suspension is messed up, don't point only at the NFL, point at the NFLPA as well

Look at it from the NFLPA's angle. Why would the NFLPA care about drug testing? The suspensions affect less than 1% of the players in the NFL, and the other 99% who are smart enough or clean would rather have the NFLPA spend money and time on issues that matter. AS well, the 99% actually benefit from these 1%. You really think Andrew Hawkins, Miles Austin, Charles Johnson and the other players who will make the team or see the field care about Josh Gordon being suspended? They are probably elated.

In my opinion, it is the NFL owners who will want the testing levels changed because players like Josh Gordon and the 1% are giving the appearance that the NFL is a bunch of druggies. Stop testing for marijuana or increase the limit and this never hits the news (e.g. NBA).

if the NFLPA does not care there's your issue. the people speaking for the players are fine with this policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0.01 nanograms per milliliter is what he failed by....that is not a lot for you non-scientists.

Doesn't matter if it was 0.01 or 100,000,000, he failed, broke the rules and got his punishment. In most workplaces you fail a drug test your done for life with that firm, no one year lay off

NFL isn't most work places....he has god given talent which few do. I wouldn't compare to "most workplaces". I would also say it does matter because if it was 100,000,000 ng/ml he would be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0.01 nanograms per milliliter is what he failed by....that is not a lot for you non-scientists.

Doesn't matter if it was 0.01 or 100,000,000, he failed, broke the rules and got his punishment. In most workplaces you fail a drug test your done for life with that firm, no one year lay off

NFL isn't most work places....he has god given talent which few do. I wouldn't compare to "most workplaces". I would also say it does matter because if it was 100,000,000 ng/ml he would be dead.

so really the nfl is trying to keep him alive!

lololol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told FOX Sports that Gordon's camp is considering a lawsuit against the league that would include seeking an injunction to put the suspension for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy on hold while the legal process plays out.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/suspended-josh-gordon-can-sue-nfl-to-stay-on-field-but-should-he-082714

ooooooooooooo lawd, this thread would EXPLODE

Not sure why a judge would look at it again. Was a third party arbitrator used? Yes...ok, then get lost. Don't come crying to mommy now that daddy has said no.

This process has been used before and the player was able to stay on the field for nearly a year until it was resolved. The NFL's decision isn't legally binding... it doesn't matter if they used a 3rd party arbitrator unless Gordon specifically signed something saying he would legally abide by the ruling. I don't think they even used a 3rd party. It was just the NFL front office.

The basis of the argument will be something like the NFL unjustly preventing him from earning a living, or grossly/detrimentally affecting his earning potential for the rest of his life, since it doesn't just impact this year (contract extension would be bigger if he played well again, etc.). This could be very interesting. I think there's still a good chance he plays this year.

Edited by Phenomena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I legitimately feel bad for the kid. I call it addiction, but the noun doesn't matter. Call it dumb, stupid, or whatever makes you feel better. But nobody signs up to be addicted (or dumb). His life's dream is in serious danger because, at one point it history, it was politically beneficial for a natural growing plant to be outlawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just landed in Seattle, cross country flight that got me up way to early. Gonna finish up a bit of work, get a light workout in, pickup some stuff to grill and then decide if I want to smoke a bowl or have a bourbon.

Sometimes it must suck to play in the NFL.

If you're not a moron who gets into the substance abuse program then you can do blow in Vegas bathrooms and get caught doing it.

I don't have to hide getting caught doing anything I'm doing.

Totally Gordon's fault. He f'ed up, just saying it sucks that in a few years none of his "crimes" would matter.

Employers from truck drivers to police departments to accountants will continue to test for it or prohibit it as a matter of personal conduct for years to come.

That's true. They should in many jobs.

Playing wide receiver probably isn't one of them where it is as important.

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

AND REMEMEBER

the NFLPA is holding on for its own HGH baseline testing to try and get higher legal levels than WADA, but it was fine signing off on weed levels that are 1/10th of the WADA levels.

priorities...the NFLPA was fine with bashing weed users and even drinkers, but draws the line at HGH

so if the Gordon suspension is messed up, don't point only at the NFL, point at the NFLPA as well

Look at it from the NFLPA's angle. Why would the NFLPA care about drug testing? The suspensions affect less than 1% of the players in the NFL, and the other 99% who are smart enough or clean would rather have the NFLPA spend money and time on issues that matter. AS well, the 99% actually benefit from these 1%. You really think Andrew Hawkins, Miles Austin, Charles Johnson and the other players who will make the team or see the field care about Josh Gordon being suspended? They are probably elated.

In my opinion, it is the NFL owners who will want the testing levels changed because players like Josh Gordon and the 1% are giving the appearance that the NFL is a bunch of druggies. Stop testing for marijuana or increase the limit and this never hits the news (e.g. NBA).

if the NFLPA does not care there's your issue. the people speaking for the players are fine with this policy.

If I were running the NFLPA, I'd be more concerned about long term physical and financial health of my players and use those as negotiation points. I wouldn't want to use their marijuana policy as a negotiation point despite my beliefs. I'd try to pressure them in other ways to change that policy, if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Gordon is going to play Week 1 regardless of this?

yeah

while the team struggles with a crappy QB and a young possibly crappy QB, and next season when they hopefully have settled on a cpaible QB he'll miss the year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told FOX Sports that Gordon's camp is considering a lawsuit against the league that would include seeking an injunction to put the suspension for violating the leagues substance-abuse policy on hold while the legal process plays out.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/suspended-josh-gordon-can-sue-nfl-to-stay-on-field-but-should-he-082714

ooooooooooooo lawd, this thread would EXPLODE

Not sure why a judge would look at it again. Was a third party arbitrator used? Yes...ok, then get lost. Don't come crying to mommy now that daddy has said no.

This process has been used before and the player was able to stay on the field for nearly a year until it was resolved. The NFL's decision isn't legally binding... it doesn't matter if they used a 3rd party arbitrator unless Gordon specifically signed something saying he would legally abide by the ruling. I don't think they even used a 3rd party. It was just the NFL front office.

The basis of the argument will be something like the NFL unjustly preventing him from earning a living. This could be very interesting. I think there's still a good chance he plays this year.

:lmao:

Right. Because this wouldn't happen with every suspension ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just landed in Seattle, cross country flight that got me up way to early. Gonna finish up a bit of work, get a light workout in, pickup some stuff to grill and then decide if I want to smoke a bowl or have a bourbon.

Sometimes it must suck to play in the NFL.

If you're not a moron who gets into the substance abuse program then you can do blow in Vegas bathrooms and get caught doing it.

I don't have to hide getting caught doing anything I'm doing.

Totally Gordon's fault. He f'ed up, just saying it sucks that in a few years none of his "crimes" would matter.

Employers from truck drivers to police departments to accountants will continue to test for it or prohibit it as a matter of personal conduct for years to come.

That's true. They should in many jobs.

Playing wide receiver probably isn't one of them where it is as important.

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

AND REMEMEBER

the NFLPA is holding on for its own HGH baseline testing to try and get higher legal levels than WADA, but it was fine signing off on weed levels that are 1/10th of the WADA levels.

priorities...the NFLPA was fine with bashing weed users and even drinkers, but draws the line at HGH

so if the Gordon suspension is messed up, don't point only at the NFL, point at the NFLPA as well

Look at it from the NFLPA's angle. Why would the NFLPA care about drug testing? The suspensions affect less than 1% of the players in the NFL, and the other 99% who are smart enough or clean would rather have the NFLPA spend money and time on issues that matter. AS well, the 99% actually benefit from these 1%. You really think Andrew Hawkins, Miles Austin, Charles Johnson and the other players who will make the team or see the field care about Josh Gordon being suspended? They are probably elated.

In my opinion, it is the NFL owners who will want the testing levels changed because players like Josh Gordon and the 1% are giving the appearance that the NFL is a bunch of druggies. Stop testing for marijuana or increase the limit and this never hits the news (e.g. NBA).

if the NFLPA does not care there's your issue. the people speaking for the players are fine with this policy.

If I were running the NFLPA, I'd be more concerned about long term physical and financial health of my players and use those as negotiation points. I wouldn't want to use their marijuana policy as a negotiation point despite my beliefs. I'd try to pressure them in other ways to change that policy, if possible.

it's in the CBA, that's how you change it is bargaining it

I have no problem with what you are saying, but what you are saying is let Prater and Gordon get screwed we have more important issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts love arbitration and other ADR options, because it cuts down on judges' insane workload. There's a strong policy against interfering with arbitration decisions. And for a preliminary injunction, Gordon would have to convince a judge that he's likely to succeed on the merits.

I'd be surprised if they file a lawsuit, and shocked if they actually get a preliminary injunction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to believe that IF Gordon's team is taking this to court, it's already been worked on for weeks now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A source told FOX Sports that Gordon's camp is considering a lawsuit against the league that would include seeking an injunction to put the suspension for violating the leagues substance-abuse policy on hold while the legal process plays out.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/suspended-josh-gordon-can-sue-nfl-to-stay-on-field-but-should-he-082714

ooooooooooooo lawd, this thread would EXPLODE

Not sure why a judge would look at it again. Was a third party arbitrator used? Yes...ok, then get lost. Don't come crying to mommy now that daddy has said no.

This process has been used before and the player was able to stay on the field for nearly a year until it was resolved. The NFL's decision isn't legally binding... it doesn't matter if they used a 3rd party arbitrator unless Gordon specifically signed something saying he would legally abide by the ruling. I don't think they even used a 3rd party. It was just the NFL front office.

The basis of the argument will be something like the NFL unjustly preventing him from earning a living. This could be very interesting. I think there's still a good chance he plays this year.

:lmao:

Right. Because this wouldn't happen with every suspension ever.

I'm not saying it's an easy argument. But it has been done before. I will find the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just landed in Seattle, cross country flight that got me up way to early. Gonna finish up a bit of work, get a light workout in, pickup some stuff to grill and then decide if I want to smoke a bowl or have a bourbon.

Sometimes it must suck to play in the NFL.

If you're not a moron who gets into the substance abuse program then you can do blow in Vegas bathrooms and get caught doing it.

I don't have to hide getting caught doing anything I'm doing.

Totally Gordon's fault. He f'ed up, just saying it sucks that in a few years none of his "crimes" would matter.

Employers from truck drivers to police departments to accountants will continue to test for it or prohibit it as a matter of personal conduct for years to come.

That's true. They should in many jobs.

Playing wide receiver probably isn't one of them where it is as important.

Sure, but that's up to the NFL decide, and they just might conclude that it is worth testing for years to come. There are 32 conservative billionaires plus Mr. 'no proof needed' Goodell, plus some serious workplace liability issues.

AND REMEMEBER

the NFLPA is holding on for its own HGH baseline testing to try and get higher legal levels than WADA, but it was fine signing off on weed levels that are 1/10th of the WADA levels.

priorities...the NFLPA was fine with bashing weed users and even drinkers, but draws the line at HGH

so if the Gordon suspension is messed up, don't point only at the NFL, point at the NFLPA as well

Look at it from the NFLPA's angle. Why would the NFLPA care about drug testing? The suspensions affect less than 1% of the players in the NFL, and the other 99% who are smart enough or clean would rather have the NFLPA spend money and time on issues that matter. AS well, the 99% actually benefit from these 1%. You really think Andrew Hawkins, Miles Austin, Charles Johnson and the other players who will make the team or see the field care about Josh Gordon being suspended? They are probably elated.

In my opinion, it is the NFL owners who will want the testing levels changed because players like Josh Gordon and the 1% are giving the appearance that the NFL is a bunch of druggies. Stop testing for marijuana or increase the limit and this never hits the news (e.g. NBA).

if the NFLPA does not care there's your issue. the people speaking for the players are fine with this policy.

I don't think it's an issue of not caring. The policy has been in place for quite some time. In order to change it the NFL would ask the NFLPA for substantial concessions as a matter of leverage.

The fact that most players are able to beat the "random" once a year test and never enter into the program in the first place makes it not worth the other concessions the players would have to make.

But it's still a draconian and illogical policy, especially considering what the medical data shows about marijuana use versus the use of many of the prescription drugs that team doctors push on players for pain management. I hope that the league comes to their senses and realize that changing the policy is in their, and the player's, best interests. But I won't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo #LawyerZone up in here now!!!!

This thread is just getting started, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you in keeper and dynasty leagues trying to assess Gordon's long term value, I want to emphasize a couple of points.

First, there is no guarantee that Gordon will be allowed back into the NFL immediately when he applies for reinstatement before next season. Tanard Jackson applied for reinstatement from his indefinite suspension after one year, yet was not reinstated until after missing TWO FULL SEASONS.

Second, I am not aware of any NFL player who has successfully returned from an indefinite suspension to have a productive career in the NFL. Those players will be tested up the wazoo for the rest of their careers and the risk that they will fail again is too high for any NFL team to invest much money or planning on those players.

As an aside, when I looked up Tanard Jackson's reinstatement, which just happened this past Spring, I found an announcement from last month that he had yet again failed a test and has now been suspended indefinitely AGAIN. I guess that suggests there isn't an automatic perma-ban, but it also illustrates how hard it is for these guys to walk the straight and narrow path.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000364087/article/tanard-jackson-suspended-indefinitely-by-nfl

Edited by bumpman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL's decision isn't legally binding... it doesn't matter if they used a 3rd party arbitrator unless Gordon specifically signed something saying he would legally abide by the ruling.

He signed his contract, consenting to the terms of the CBA and the league's drug policy, which allow him to appeal his suspension to binding arbitration with no further appeal.

I don't think they even used a 3rd party. It was just the NFL front office.

The arbitrator was Harold Henderson. He's a former employee of the league. I don't think he currently is, but I'm having a hard time finding the answer with Google.

Goodell appointed him to hear Gordon's appeal. I had been under the impression that the NFLPA had to sign off on the arbitrators used in these cases, but a quick Google search hasn't confirmed that. If the NFLPA didn't approve Henderson, but it was strictly Goodell's decision, Gordon might have a good case that the normal rules about a court not reviewing the decision of a neutral arbitrator should not apply.

The basis of the argument will be something like the NFL unjustly preventing him from earning a living.

I doubt he's going to challenge the drug policy. He'd probably argue that he didn't fail the test, and that the arbitrator's ruling to the contrary deserves no deference because the arbitrator is not neutral. In that case, if he can succeed in arguing that the arbitartor was not neutral, he might have a decent shot for an injunction even if he ultimately loses -- similar to the StarCaps/Williams situation.

IMO, it would make more sense for Gordon to accept a shorter suspension (say, ten months instead of the full year) in return for not filing a lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Not sure why a judge would look at it again. Was a third party arbitrator used? Yes...ok, then get lost. Don't come crying to mommy now that daddy has said no.

This process has been used before and the player was able to stay on the field for nearly a year until it was resolved. The NFL's decision isn't legally binding... it doesn't matter if they used a 3rd party arbitrator unless Gordon specifically signed something saying he would legally abide by the ruling. I don't think they even used a 3rd party. It was just the NFL front office.

The basis of the argument will be something like the NFL unjustly preventing him from earning a living, or grossly/detrimentally affecting his earning potential for the rest of his life, since it doesn't just impact this year (contract extension would be bigger if he played well again, etc.). This could be very interesting. I think there's still a good chance he plays this year.

The process has also been used before and the courts summarily dismissed the case.

I think the same situation exists here that existed with expectation of the arbitrator's verdict. If we go based on what we know, and we don't let things like "I would like Josh Gordon to not be suspended" color our judgment, there was good reason to expect the 16 games would be upheld. That doesn't mean Gordon couldn't have won the appeal on something we didn't know about. Just that what we did know about, there wasn't much reason to actually believe he'd win beyond someone wanting him to win.

The same is true here. Yes he can file a case. And what we know, at present about what that case might entail, there is good reason to think he won't win a court case. Yes there might be some angle we don't know about yet that he could use where he would win. But so far one doesn't seem to have been presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for dynasty owners out there: Is Gordon a drop or will you burn a roster spot for the season?

deep dynasty maybe.

limited keeper he's a drop, imo.

Just traded Roddy White for him in a 12 team ppr with 40 man rosters. I can afford to burn the spot, why not for a potential top 10 in 2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to believe that IF Gordon's team is taking this to court, it's already been worked on for weeks now...

which gives them an advantage over the NFL, who will likely be caught with their pants down. Litigation has never been their strong suit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I legitimately feel bad for the kid. I call it addiction, but the noun doesn't matter. Call it dumb, stupid, or whatever makes you feel better. But nobody signs up to be addicted (or dumb). His life's dream is in serious danger because, at one point it history, it was politically beneficial for a natural growing plant to be outlawed.

Aren't all plants "natural growing?" Tobacco? Coca? Heroin poppy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I legitimately feel bad for the kid. I call it addiction, but the noun doesn't matter. Call it dumb, stupid, or whatever makes you feel better. But nobody signs up to be addicted (or dumb). His life's dream is in serious danger because, at one point it history, it was politically beneficial for a natural growing plant to be outlawed.

Aren't all plants "natural growing?" Tobacco? Coca? Heroin poppy?

Hemlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I legitimately feel bad for the kid. I call it addiction, but the noun doesn't matter. Call it dumb, stupid, or whatever makes you feel better. But nobody signs up to be addicted (or dumb). His life's dream is in serious danger because, at one point it history, it was politically beneficial for a natural growing plant to be outlawed.

Aren't all plants "natural growing?" Tobacco? Coca? Heroin poppy?

Not the ones you find at most grocery stores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I legitimately feel bad for the kid. I call it addiction, but the noun doesn't matter. Call it dumb, stupid, or whatever makes you feel better. But nobody signs up to be addicted (or dumb). His life's dream is in serious danger because, at one point it history, it was politically beneficial for a natural growing plant to be outlawed.

Aren't all plants "natural growing?" Tobacco? Coca? Heroin poppy?

Everything is natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0.01 nanograms per milliliter is what he failed by....that is not a lot for you non-scientists.

Doesn't matter if it was 0.01 or 100,000,000, he failed, broke the rules and got his punishment. In most workplaces you fail a drug test your done for life with that firm, no one year lay off

NFL isn't most work places....he has god given talent which few do. I wouldn't compare to "most workplaces". I would also say it does matter because if it was 100,000,000 ng/ml he would be dead.

Completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.