Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

What's in this rule for the CFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

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.

Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more dynasty value opinions out there?

Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

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.

Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?

it is a CFL rule not an nfl rule

the CFL put it in after ricky played up there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

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.

Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?

it is a CFL rule not an nfl rule

the CFL put it in after ricky played up there

Why on earth would they do that? What do they benefit from this rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Road games in BC might not be the best idea...

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

I don't think there will be any lawsuit.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

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.

Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?

it is a CFL rule not an nfl rule

the CFL put it in after ricky played up there

Why on earth would they do that? What do they benefit from this rule?

oh i am sure they put the rule in to not piss off the nfl, or at the nfl's behest

if there is a CFLPA they'd prolly be in support of it, not wanting nfl players to come up for limited stints and take canadian jobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

He can play in the CFL if he retires from the NFL first, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

I don't think there will be any lawsuit.

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.

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.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

He can play in the CFL if he retires from the NFL first, I think.

correct, or if the browns cut him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

I don't think there will be any lawsuit.

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.

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.

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.

Good point, avoiding delays in getting to free agency would be a consideration.

Assuming he doesn't end up with further suspensions that essentially end his career completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

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.

Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?

Basketball and soccer leagues have similar agreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

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.

Whoah - that's quite a non-compete clause. How is that enforceable?

Because he's still under contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by damageinc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If he's allowed to play while this case is pending that DUI will get expedited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If he's allowed to play while this case is pending that DUI will get expedited

I believe the DUI court case is set for end of November , dont think they move it up because of this.

I woudlnt sue if i was Gordon, he loses and the suspension goes into middle of next season etc. Get the ban over with. But I definetly could see Gordon going to court. he loses alot with this ban. He loses a year and will not be a free agent until 2016.
Edited by damageinc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

IIRC, he had already failed a test when he was giving those interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon would be best served by taking his punishment and not make waves. If he sues, the NFL will punish him severely on any future episode. You can pretty much bet that Gordon wills crew up again down the road. The NFL could easily deny re-instatement, screwing him over for suing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. If it helps you sleep at night, that's fine.

That's one of it's many health benefits

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.

.The practice is stupid. Josh Gordon is an addict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is some ####### horrible reporting/lawyering/whatever.

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.

Edited by wdcrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly dont like Kaplans reporting ad I think he over embellishes his reports. But we all know he may sue so that really is not a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Edited by lod01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let'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.

Edited by andyk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man he should've hired Ryan Braun's lawyer. That guy would have found some technicality with the guy handling Gordon's sample. Not only would Gordon be free, but the person handling the sample would have gotten fired!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

I love how you have two sources that both differ, yet you pick the one that fits your argument. Derp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. If it helps you sleep at night, that's fine.

That's one of it's many health benefits

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.

.The practice is stupid. Josh Gordon is an addict.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 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.

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 interest

the nfl is not the least bit afraid of Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has all the makings of a guy who will never play again

Huge red flag IMO:

"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."

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.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let'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.

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 bolted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 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.

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 interest

the nfl is not the least bit afraid of Gordon

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 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.

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 interest

the nfl is not the least bit afraid of Gordon

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.

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.

Listen, if you think he can take down the NFL where concussions have not and rpaists have not and suicides have not and domestic abuse has not and drunk drivers killing people and Ray Lewis killing people have not that's your opinion. I think he'll lose that battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I missing here. He just got handed a season long suspension (which was appealed and upheld) for the failed drug test.

From what I read, after the season ends, he can apply for re-instatement to the league. That's another decisions that I assume Goodell will make; and I assume can also be appealed if Gordon is denied.

However, he still has the DUI to deal with, which I assume will have come to some sort of conclusion by the time he applies for re-instatement. Won't that be a factor; and a pretty big one IMO. Couldn't the NFL (Goodell) basically say he was given the 2014 suspension solely on the basis on the failed drug test and his previous failed tests/status in the NFL drug program. Now, while serving that suspension, he gets convicted of DUI or pleads to some type of lesser, but related charge. Couldn't that be basically another personal conduct/drug program violation that would give the NFL a valid reason for further prolonging his suspension or even a lifetime ban.

The legal aspects of this are way too complicated for me, but I'd think the best course of action would be to accept the 2014 suspension, get clean, and focus with his legal team on minimizing what comes of the DUI. Seems if he continues to shed blame and if he were to pursue the 2014 suspension in the courts, he's just adding fuel to the fire he'll never play again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more dynasty value opinions out there?

Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)

I would take a 1st for Gordon. I would not give a 1st for Gordon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more dynasty value opinions out there?

Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)

I would take a 1st for Gordon. I would not give a 1st for Gordon.

thanks for your opinion. I value it very highly, as I do the others who have chosen to respond to the dynasty value question.

back to the legal talk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is some ####### horrible reporting/lawyering/whatever.

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.

Didn't he fail by less than 1ng/ml? Thats well within the margin of error.

Presumably the failure threshold was selected with the margin of error in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Thanks. The most important part of that opinion, IMO, is this:

We reiterate, however, that a court's role in these types of arbitration cases is simply to determine whether the arbitrator strayed from the collective-bargaining agreement and "effectively dispense[d] his own brand of industrial justice." Major League Baseball Players ###'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude, for substantially the same reasons announced in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order granting summary judgment, that Mr. Williams has failed to show such a wholesale abandonment of the collective-bargaining agreement.

So even though the "arbitrator" was not neutral, the appellate court confirmed that the standard for setting aside the arbitrator's decision is stringent. The court will not reverse the arbitrator simply because it thinks the arbitrator was wrong: it has to believe that he was ignoring the CBA (in this case, the drug policy) and dispensing his own brand of justice.

I think it's very unlikely that Herndon's decision in the Gordon case didn't purport to be based on the NFL's drug policy. Depending on where Gordon files suit, that's going to make it pretty difficult for Gordon to get an injunction. My impression was that players generally liked to sue in Minnesota because that's where they believed they'd get the most favorable ruling. But any federal district-court judge in Minnesota's circuit (and the NFL will remove to federal court) is going to be bound to follow that language above about the court's role being simply to determine whether the arbitrator dispensed his own brand of justice. That probably takes Minnesota out of contention, as Gordon's lawyers will look for circuits without that kind of precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

10 teams 17 rounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Gordon isn't even the top story now. It is fricken Manziel (which is ridiculous).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, domestic abuse now gets punished harder than weed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 that.

the nfl is welcome to police anything they and the players agree on

if the players sign off on a 3 year ban for big macs and then Raji gets suspended for plowing a Big Mac he has no right to complain

i am just saying the penalties are harsh, too harsh, but weed is destroying this man's career. I've not seen shopping or bad relationships do it to an nfl player, maybe food. it's hard to argue josh should be let free because it is just weed when he seems literally incapable of living without this drug. To him,. at least, weed is not harmless it is devastating

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   1 member