Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 3m
Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However…
ExpandIan Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules don’t allow him to play in CFL. Only if he’s cut.
I wouldn't give a 1st for him, assuming 12 teams (or less). A 2nd? Sure, unless it was hugely likely to be a pretty good 2nd. Personally, I think it's probably fairly close to a coin flip on whether he ever steps on an NFL field again. Doing so will require him staying totally clean for a year. He hasn't been able to do that dating back to college.Any more dynasty value opinions out there?
Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)
it is a CFL rule not an nfl ruleWhoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 3m
Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However…
ExpandIan Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules don’t allow him to play in CFL. Only if he’s cut.
Why on earth would they do that? What do they benefit from this rule?it is a CFL rule not an nfl ruleWhoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 3m
Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However…
ExpandIan Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules don’t allow him to play in CFL. Only if he’s cut.
the CFL put it in after ricky played up there
lolRoad games in BC might not be the best idea...Would be such a sensible thing to do. Get into a structured football environment away from everyone he knows. Go to Alberta or Calgary or Edmonton.
I don't assume he's going to win a lawsuit. But I could see it play out where if they think they have any angle that could possibly win, even if unlikely, they'd pursue it.There was an article written on some random guy's website about the Ohio Drug Free Workplace program. He, and a few posters here, mistook that as a mandatory state law program. It isn't. I've yet to see anything about conflicts with Ohio state law, and frankly can't imagine that being an issue because the whole point of a CBA would be moot if it was subject to the laws of every state with an NFL team.Agree on all points. The only debatable question is whether a state could enforce such a law if it existed. I suspect it could, but it's not obvious.This is tangential, but not irrelevant to Gordon, as some have speculated that state law may offer Gordon protections that the league did not afford him. I'm pretty sure that's a misreading of Ohio law, but I can't say I've done enough research to know.Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.
I don't think there will be any lawsuit.
oh i am sure they put the rule in to not piss off the nfl, or at the nfl's behestWhy on earth would they do that? What do they benefit from this rule?it is a CFL rule not an nfl ruleWhoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 3m
Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However…
ExpandIan Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules don’t allow him to play in CFL. Only if he’s cut.
the CFL put it in after ricky played up there
He can play in the CFL if he retires from the NFL first, I think.His advisers should know that he cannot play in CFL. Sounds like legal ploy. Please grant this TRO the NFL has restricted my ability to earn a living in two countries.
His best case scenario, if he's going to be suspended a year, is to have it run from week 9 of 2014 through week 8 of 2015 (or some other time frame that makes him eligible for at least six weeks in each season). That way he gets credit for two league years.I don't assume he's going to win a lawsuit. But I could see it play out where if they think they have any angle that could possibly win, even if unlikely, they'd pursue it.There was an article written on some random guy's website about the Ohio Drug Free Workplace program. He, and a few posters here, mistook that as a mandatory state law program. It isn't. I've yet to see anything about conflicts with Ohio state law, and frankly can't imagine that being an issue because the whole point of a CBA would be moot if it was subject to the laws of every state with an NFL team.Agree on all points. The only debatable question is whether a state could enforce such a law if it existed. I suspect it could, but it's not obvious.This is tangential, but not irrelevant to Gordon, as some have speculated that state law may offer Gordon protections that the league did not afford him. I'm pretty sure that's a misreading of Ohio law, but I can't say I've done enough research to know.Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.
I don't think there will be any lawsuit.
Though arguing the other side of it... if it's a low shot of actually winning and all it does is get him an injunction that lets him play a few games, you can argue whether it is beneficial to him or not. From the salary loss standpoint, it's worse for him to play a few 2014 games and then lose the case and have his suspension run into 2015, because those 2015 games would cost him more salary than the 2014 games would. Plus it might mean less likely to be allowed to participate in camp next year if his suspension runs into the 2015 season.
Countering that counter-argument... if Gordon isn't going to stay clean and he's going to end up getting an indefinite ban before the season suspension is done, then he would be better off having had the TRO and getting a few more game checks out of the NFL as those might be the last NFL money he gets for the rest of his life. Somehow I don't think Gordon has shown the good judgment to consider that as a likely outcome though where it would decide matters for him on a lawsuit, though.
correct, or if the browns cut himHe can play in the CFL if he retires from the NFL first, I think.His advisers should know that he cannot play in CFL. Sounds like legal ploy. Please grant this TRO the NFL has restricted my ability to earn a living in two countries.
Good point, avoiding delays in getting to free agency would be a consideration.His best case scenario, if he's going to be suspended a year, is to have it run from week 9 of 2014 through week 8 of 2015 (or some other time frame that makes him eligible for at least six weeks in each season). That way he gets credit for two league years.I don't assume he's going to win a lawsuit. But I could see it play out where if they think they have any angle that could possibly win, even if unlikely, they'd pursue it.There was an article written on some random guy's website about the Ohio Drug Free Workplace program. He, and a few posters here, mistook that as a mandatory state law program. It isn't. I've yet to see anything about conflicts with Ohio state law, and frankly can't imagine that being an issue because the whole point of a CBA would be moot if it was subject to the laws of every state with an NFL team.Agree on all points. The only debatable question is whether a state could enforce such a law if it existed. I suspect it could, but it's not obvious.This is tangential, but not irrelevant to Gordon, as some have speculated that state law may offer Gordon protections that the league did not afford him. I'm pretty sure that's a misreading of Ohio law, but I can't say I've done enough research to know.Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.
I don't think there will be any lawsuit.
Though arguing the other side of it... if it's a low shot of actually winning and all it does is get him an injunction that lets him play a few games, you can argue whether it is beneficial to him or not. From the salary loss standpoint, it's worse for him to play a few 2014 games and then lose the case and have his suspension run into 2015, because those 2015 games would cost him more salary than the 2014 games would. Plus it might mean less likely to be allowed to participate in camp next year if his suspension runs into the 2015 season.
Countering that counter-argument... if Gordon isn't going to stay clean and he's going to end up getting an indefinite ban before the season suspension is done, then he would be better off having had the TRO and getting a few more game checks out of the NFL as those might be the last NFL money he gets for the rest of his life. Somehow I don't think Gordon has shown the good judgment to consider that as a likely outcome though where it would decide matters for him on a lawsuit, though.
Basketball and soccer leagues have similar agreements.Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 3m
Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However…
ExpandIan Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules don’t allow him to play in CFL. Only if he’s cut.
Because he's still under contract?<p>
Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 3m
Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However
Expand
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 2m
Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules dont allow him to play in CFL. Only if hes cut.
If he's allowed to play while this case is pending that DUI will get expeditedAdam Kaplan was just on ESPN and said Gordon will probably sue and possibly get an injunction so he can play while the lawsuit is ongoing and that (in Kaplans opinion) he had a good case and Kaplan said if he was Gordon he would sue as the discrepancy in the two samples is a good enough issue to sue over. He explains that the NFL never explained why two samples of the same urine could be different. Guess dropping him might not be a good idea until this is settled.
I believe the DUI court case is set for end of November , dont think they move it up because of this.If he's allowed to play while this case is pending that DUI will get expeditedAdam Kaplan was just on ESPN and said Gordon will probably sue and possibly get an injunction so he can play while the lawsuit is ongoing and that (in Kaplans opinion) he had a good case and Kaplan said if he was Gordon he would sue as the discrepancy in the two samples is a good enough issue to sue over. He explains that the NFL never explained why two samples of the same urine could be different. Guess dropping him might not be a good idea until this is settled.
IIRC, he had already failed a test when he was giving those interviews.I wonder if the switch will ever go on in Gordon's head. He continually says that being on the football field is his home, or that it feels like joke or whatever. But he continues to do dumb #### that keeps him off the field.
This is probably his last shot to make it right and I hope this time it hits him. With no reduced suspension, no TRO, no CFL. Just living with the suspension.
I always felt in interviews last year that he was fairly well-spoken and seemed much smarter than his actions has indicated thus far in his career.
Oh well we will see..
That's one of it's many health benefitsSure. If it helps you sleep at night, that's fine.
.The practice is stupid. Josh Gordon is an addict.Seems to me, however, that the bigger issue here isn't the merits of the policy, which are clearly debatable (this coming from an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization), but rather that we have an adult who gets all the hints, nudges, counsel, and resources you can possibly imagine to know he absolutely cannot under any circumstances be around a specific substance, knowing the catastrophic consequences that would result if he is tested positive (yet again) for said substance, but voluntarily chooses to go ahead and do it anyway. It is the mind-boggling stupidity of this choice over and over, time and time again that, in my mind, trumps any stupidity stemming from a league policy agreed upon by suits and players alike.
This is some ####### horrible reporting/lawyering/whatever.Adam Kaplan was just on ESPN and said Gordon will probably sue and possibly get an injunction so he can play while the lawsuit is ongoing and that (in Kaplans opinion) he had a good case and Kaplan said if he was Gordon he would sue as the discrepancy in the two samples is a good enough issue to sue over. He explains that the NFL never explained why two samples of the same urine could be different. Guess dropping him might not be a good idea until this is settled.
It appears the NFL is not scared.Adam Kaplan was just on ESPN and said Gordon will probably sue and possibly get an injunction so he can play while the lawsuit is ongoing and that (in Kaplans opinion) he had a good case and Kaplan said if he was Gordon he would sue as the discrepancy in the two samples is a good enough issue to sue over. He explains that the NFL never explained why two samples of the same urine could be different. Guess dropping him might not be a good idea until this is settled.
I love how you have two sources that both differ, yet you pick the one that fits your argument. Derp.It appears the NFL is not scared.Adam Kaplan was just on ESPN and said Gordon will probably sue and possibly get an injunction so he can play while the lawsuit is ongoing and that (in Kaplans opinion) he had a good case and Kaplan said if he was Gordon he would sue as the discrepancy in the two samples is a good enough issue to sue over. He explains that the NFL never explained why two samples of the same urine could be different. Guess dropping him might not be a good idea until this is settled.
Another source told the Plain Dealer Gordon is pursuing all of his legal options, but a league source familiar with NFL cases like Gordon's stated "he has no shot of having the suspension overturned in court. It's over." It's believed the CBA will "trump any involvement" from the courts.
See ya all in August 2015.
if gordon is an addict, and addiction to weed can cause someone to just piss their life's dream and life's work away for a smoke, maybe it is not so harmlessThat's one of it's many health benefitsSure. If it helps you sleep at night, that's fine.
.The practice is stupid. Josh Gordon is an addict.Seems to me, however, that the bigger issue here isn't the merits of the policy, which are clearly debatable (this coming from an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization), but rather that we have an adult who gets all the hints, nudges, counsel, and resources you can possibly imagine to know he absolutely cannot under any circumstances be around a specific substance, knowing the catastrophic consequences that would result if he is tested positive (yet again) for said substance, but voluntarily chooses to go ahead and do it anyway. It is the mind-boggling stupidity of this choice over and over, time and time again that, in my mind, trumps any stupidity stemming from a league policy agreed upon by suits and players alike.
he also is 100% at the will of goodell now to ever play again, so going on a scorched earth campaign may not be in his best interestJust because Gordon does not have much chance of winning does not automatically mean there is no incentive to go to court. As already mentioned, if he gets a TRO and can get 6 games in before having to serve his yearlong suspension, then he could accrue a year of service time.
Another option is he gets a TRO and then starts making his case not through the courts but through the media. If Gordon started mouthing off about the testing policies, the rules, the light suspensions for batterers and abusers, etc. on a regular basis as his case was heard, the NFL would have an incentive to negotiate a reduced sentence.
If Gordon were to continue to shoot his mouth off and tarnish the NFL's brand, even if the league would ultimately win their court case 100%, they still might be inclined to reduce the suspension just to shut Gordon up. Once the games count for something, I wonder how long the league would want Gordon as the top story on Sports Center over Manning's 6 TD game or Charles 200 yards rushing.
I don't know if a judge could issue a gag order to a player not allowing him to provide an opinion in a public forum or not. That one is out of my league in terms of legal knowledge. If a reporter asked him a question and he answered and it made out to the universe, is that on Gordon or the reporter at that point?
I am not suggesting that Gordon will try any of these things, only that it seems like he can still maneuver his way around some if he wanted to try to.
Huge red flag IMO:He has all the makings of a guy who will never play again
So basically...I'm so, so, sorry...that Goodell is such a jerk and won't cut me some slack. He's failed 6 tests in his life, plus had a DUI, and still isn't taking accountability. Wouldn't surprise me if he pisses dirty again during the suspension. He's got lots of time on his hands."I'd like to apologize to my teammates, coaches, the Cleveland Browns organization and our fans," Gordon said in a statement. "I am very disappointed that the NFL and its hearing office didn't exercise better discretion and judgment in my case. I would like to sincerely thank the people who have been incredibly supportive of me during this challenging time, including my family, my agent, my union, my legal team, and the Cleveland Browns staff."
if this happened and he left the browns it would be awesome., just to see how pissed all the browns fans defending him would be if they got 6 games in each of 2 crappy seasons and he boltedLet's say for the sake of argument that he does sue and gets a TRO. If he can play six games this year before it is thrown out he earns a year toward free agency right? I would think that is a big incentive to try for the restraining order.
Then he serves half of his suspension this year and half next. Boom two years accrued and he is a free agent. I of course could be completely wrong.
Just like his suspension was collectively bargain and outlined in the CBA, so is reinstatement. As long as Gordon complies to the rules of the league's drug policy and reinstatement protocols, Goodell can't just leave him suspended. It is a process, and as long as Gordon complies, he will have to be reinstated based on the provisions of drug rehab. If Gordon holds press conferences, interviews, tweets, etc. without getting personal on Goodell, I don't see that impacting his rights and timeline to be reinstated. If the league then intentionally withheld Gordon's application for reinstatement or they massively delayed him rejoining the league, the NFL would open themselves up to a lawsuit.he also is 100% at the will of goodell now to ever play again, so going on a scorched earth campaign may not be in his best interestJust because Gordon does not have much chance of winning does not automatically mean there is no incentive to go to court. As already mentioned, if he gets a TRO and can get 6 games in before having to serve his yearlong suspension, then he could accrue a year of service time.
Another option is he gets a TRO and then starts making his case not through the courts but through the media. If Gordon started mouthing off about the testing policies, the rules, the light suspensions for batterers and abusers, etc. on a regular basis as his case was heard, the NFL would have an incentive to negotiate a reduced sentence.
If Gordon were to continue to shoot his mouth off and tarnish the NFL's brand, even if the league would ultimately win their court case 100%, they still might be inclined to reduce the suspension just to shut Gordon up. Once the games count for something, I wonder how long the league would want Gordon as the top story on Sports Center over Manning's 6 TD game or Charles 200 yards rushing.
I don't know if a judge could issue a gag order to a player not allowing him to provide an opinion in a public forum or not. That one is out of my league in terms of legal knowledge. If a reporter asked him a question and he answered and it made out to the universe, is that on Gordon or the reporter at that point?
I am not suggesting that Gordon will try any of these things, only that it seems like he can still maneuver his way around some if he wanted to try to.
the nfl is not the least bit afraid of Gordon
I don;t believe this to be true, as I believe he has been suspended indefinitly and can apply for reinstatement after a year. There is nothing in the CBA that says he has to be allowed back.Just like his suspension was collectively bargain and outlined in the CBA, so is reinstatement. As long as Gordon complies to the rules of the league's drug policy and reinstatement protocols, Goodell can't just leave him suspended. It is a process, and as long as Gordon complies, he will have to be reinstated based on the provisions of drug rehab. If Gordon holds press conferences, interviews, tweets, etc. without getting personal on Goodell, I don't see that impacting his rights and timeline to be reinstated. If the league then intentionally withheld Gordon's application for reinstatement or they massively delayed him rejoining the league, the NFL would open themselves up to a lawsuit.he also is 100% at the will of goodell now to ever play again, so going on a scorched earth campaign may not be in his best interestJust because Gordon does not have much chance of winning does not automatically mean there is no incentive to go to court. As already mentioned, if he gets a TRO and can get 6 games in before having to serve his yearlong suspension, then he could accrue a year of service time.
Another option is he gets a TRO and then starts making his case not through the courts but through the media. If Gordon started mouthing off about the testing policies, the rules, the light suspensions for batterers and abusers, etc. on a regular basis as his case was heard, the NFL would have an incentive to negotiate a reduced sentence.
If Gordon were to continue to shoot his mouth off and tarnish the NFL's brand, even if the league would ultimately win their court case 100%, they still might be inclined to reduce the suspension just to shut Gordon up. Once the games count for something, I wonder how long the league would want Gordon as the top story on Sports Center over Manning's 6 TD game or Charles 200 yards rushing.
I don't know if a judge could issue a gag order to a player not allowing him to provide an opinion in a public forum or not. That one is out of my league in terms of legal knowledge. If a reporter asked him a question and he answered and it made out to the universe, is that on Gordon or the reporter at that point?
I am not suggesting that Gordon will try any of these things, only that it seems like he can still maneuver his way around some if he wanted to try to.
the nfl is not the least bit afraid of Gordon
I would take a 1st for Gordon. I would not give a 1st for Gordon.Any more dynasty value opinions out there?
Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)
Once the games count for something and Manning starts throwing for 6 TDs and Charles starts rushing for 200 yards, Gordon will no longer be the top story.Once the games count for something, I wonder how long the league would want Gordon as the top story on Sports Center over Manning's 6 TD game or Charles 200 yards rushing.
thanks for your opinion. I value it very highly, as I do the others who have chosen to respond to the dynasty value question.I would take a 1st for Gordon. I would not give a 1st for Gordon.Any more dynasty value opinions out there?
Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)
Presumably the failure threshold was selected with the margin of error in mind.Didn't he fail by less than 1ng/ml? Thats well within the margin of error.This is some ####### horrible reporting/lawyering/whatever.Adam Kaplan was just on ESPN and said Gordon will probably sue and possibly get an injunction so he can play while the lawsuit is ongoing and that (in Kaplans opinion) he had a good case and Kaplan said if he was Gordon he would sue as the discrepancy in the two samples is a good enough issue to sue over. He explains that the NFL never explained why two samples of the same urine could be different. Guess dropping him might not be a good idea until this is settled.
The samples were different because they were samples and (IIRC) the margin of error is +/- 3 ng/ml. It'd be a much bigger deal if they were the same.
Thanks. The most important part of that opinion, IMO, is this:MT, didn't know if you would find anything interesting in the ruling on the DJ Williams appeal. This was for performance enhancing drugs, not substance abuse if I stated that wrong earlier.
if you mean keep him for "2 more years in addition to this year" (ie. the 2015 and 2016 season), I think I'd spend a 12th or 13th on him in a 12 team league. You're looking for big upside at that range of picks anyway (imo) and who has better upside than Gordon. But my leagues only go 18 rounds or so ymmv.I am still debating on drafting him or not but later in the draft. only because I would be able to keep him for 2 more years. and where I draft him is the same pick for 2 years. say I draft in 15th rnd. next 2 years he is my 15th pick. have some thinking to do. I know he would be dead weight all year.
with that keeper policy would you draft him and if so what round would you target him.. I am thinking around 15-16
10 teams 17 roundsif you mean keep him for "2 more years in addition to this year" (ie. the 2015 and 2016 season), I think I'd spend a 12th or 13th on him in a 12 team league. You're looking for big upside at that range of picks anyway (imo) and who has better upside than Gordon. But my leagues only go 18 rounds or so ymmv.I am still debating on drafting him or not but later in the draft. only because I would be able to keep him for 2 more years. and where I draft him is the same pick for 2 years. say I draft in 15th rnd. next 2 years he is my 15th pick. have some thinking to do. I know he would be dead weight all year.
with that keeper policy would you draft him and if so what round would you target him.. I am thinking around 15-16
Gordon isn't even the top story now. It is fricken Manziel (which is ridiculous).Once the games count for something and Manning starts throwing for 6 TDs and Charles starts rushing for 200 yards, Gordon will no longer be the top story.Once the games count for something, I wonder how long the league would want Gordon as the top story on Sports Center over Manning's 6 TD game or Charles 200 yards rushing.
2 -- assuming it's not conceded -- would be one of the easiest showings ever made in a courtroom. A first-year law student at University of Phoenix Online would have no trouble winning that one.This thread is huge, so apologies if this was already posted:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options
Michael McCann lays out the legal arguments on both sides. He claims "Gordon would need to convince a judge of four basic points, none of which would be easy to show."
Probably win full trial
Suspension would cause irreparable harm
Injunction would not harm NFL more than it helps Gordon
Injunction would advance the public's interest
1 and 2 seem hard to prove. 3 seems hard to prove, but less so than 1 and 2 IMO. Not really sure what would constitute meeting 4.
It's not an addictive substance. It triggers his brain's reward center in a negative way, not everyone's. People are addicted to food, shopping, bad relationships, etc, and I doubt we'd advocate for the NFL policing any of them.if gordon is an addict, and addiction to weed can cause someone to just piss their life's dream and life's work away for a smoke, maybe it is not so harmless
the nfl is welcome to police anything they and the players agree onIt's not an addictive substance. It triggers his brain's reward center in a negative way, not everyone's. People are addicted to food, shopping, bad relationships, etc, and I doubt we'd advocate for the NFL policing that.if gordon is an addict, and addiction to weed can cause someone to just piss their life's dream and life's work away for a smoke, maybe it is not so harmless