Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

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

They can police anything they want, but that doesn't make it logical or morally just for them to do so.

And weed isn't ruing his life at all. It's not the substance that is keeping him from playing football at an all-pro level. It's the NFL stance and the rule itself.

For all we know, there are countless NFL players who would be in Gordon's shoes if the NFL tested for porn or sex.

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.

1 is the hardest to argue, by far, IMO.

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.

Where is this language? Everything posted here on a Stage 3 suspensions says it's entirely up to the commissioner's discretion.

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

What!?! Bad relationships don't ruin a career? Rice's relationship set off a change in policy. Ray Carruth ended up in prison. Andre Rison was never the same after the Left Eye situation. Don't agree at all. Put me down as one who doesn't buy into the governemental spin machine that weed is this big bag addictive entity. Having said that, as a Gordon owner, I don't want to see this thing prolonged. We lost. I'm ready to face the music and get him back on the field in 2015. He is comfortably on IR and I am treating this like an ACL tear minus the rehab and ligament damage. I'm over it.

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.

How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.

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

Yeah, I don't think the NFL is terrified at the thought of Gordon on TV in front of a microphone. Besides, this is going to be a footnote once the season starts, IMO.

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.

Where is this language? Everything posted here on a Stage 3 suspensions says it's entirely up to the commissioner's discretion.

Yes, it is up to the commissioner, but if the player meets the other criteria he would still need reasons to hang his hat on . . . I am not sure if a "because I said so" would fly with the NFLPA.

Criteria: After the completion of the one-year banishment

period, the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, will

determine if and when the player will be allowed to return

to the NFL. A player’s failure to adhere to his Treatment

Plan during his banishment will be a significant

consideration in the Commissioner’s decision of whether to

reinstate a player. A player seeking reinstatement must

meet certain clinical requirements as determined by the

Medical Director and other requirements as set forth in

Appendix B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

They can police anything they want, but that doesn't make it logical or morally just for them to do so.

And weed isn't ruing his life at all. It's not the substance that is keeping him from playing football at an all-pro level. It's the NFL stance and the rule itself.

For all we know, there are countless NFL players who would be in Gordon's shoes if the NFL tested for porn or sex.

Maybe this debate would be bet better suited to the thread about whether the NFL should be testing for marijuana or not.

I think most people are coming here looking for info on Gordon's future and fantasy outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this debate would be bet better suited to the thread about whether the NFL should be testing for marijuana or not.

I think most people are coming here looking for info on Gordon's future and fantasy outlook.

I don't think it qualifies as off-topic, especially in the context of this thread. It's not my intention to prevent you or anyone else from getting information from the thread, but I'm personally not going to resurrect a dead thread to discuss the non-news portions of the story.

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.

Where is this language? Everything posted here on a Stage 3 suspensions says it's entirely up to the commissioner's discretion.

Yes, it is up to the commissioner, but if the player meets the other criteria he would still need reasons to hang his hat on . . . I am not sure if a "because I said so" would fly with the NFLPA.

Criteria: After the completion of the one-year banishment

period, the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, will

determine if and when the player will be allowed to return

to the NFL. A players failure to adhere to his Treatment

Plan during his banishment will be a significant

consideration in the Commissioners decision of whether to

reinstate a player. A player seeking reinstatement must

meet certain clinical requirements as determined by the

Medical Director and other requirements as set forth in

Appendix B.

Yeah to me, nowhere does that say that Goodell MUST reinstate him as long as he doesn't fail another test. It points out that that will be a major factor in his thinking, but there's nothing there to suggest he would be compelled to reinstate him based only on that.

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.

How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.

He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm. Edited by Dr. Octopus

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.
How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.
He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm.

I understand what he is saying. However monetary and contractual interests are quite reparable. He can win that exact amount of money (or more) from the NFL in a future lawsuit. He could also be granted one additional year towards free agency if he were to win the lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have four questions

1. Didn't Soulfy say he would apologize to everyone if he was wrong?

2. Did he?

3. Are all of the Gordon supporters (owners) on drugs?

4. If they aren't, why in the world are they still trying to defend his position/creating new false hope about a lawsuit that has no fn chance

:doh:

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 trade him away for a 2015 first in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have four questions

1. Didn't Soulfy say he would apologize to everyone if he was wrong?

2. Did he?

4. If they aren't, why in the world are they still trying to defend his position/creating new false hope about a lawsuit that has no fn chance

He's waiting to see what happens with the lawsuit. In his paraphrased words: This isn't over.

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.
How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.
He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm.

I understand what he is saying. However monetary and contractual interests are quite reparable. He can win that exact amount of money (or more) from the NFL in a future lawsuit. He could also be granted one additional year towards free agency if he were to win the lawsuit.
Correct. It's not the salary loss that's irreparable. It's the lost playing time, which causes unquantifiable damage to Gordon's future earnings -- both salary and endorsements.

See http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/News/Orders/Williams_v_NFL_(TRO)_filed_7-9-09_Judge_Larson_.pdf

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.
How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.
He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm.

I understand what he is saying. However monetary and contractual interests are quite reparable. He can win that exact amount of money (or more) from the NFL in a future lawsuit. He could also be granted one additional year towards free agency if he were to win the lawsuit.
Correct. It's not the salary loss that's irreparable. It's the lost playing time, which causes unquantifiable damage to Gordon's future earnings -- both salary and endorsements.

See http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/News/Orders/Williams_v_NFL_(TRO)_filed_7-9-09_Judge_Larson_.pdf

Interesting, thanks for the link. I am surprised that McCann (Si's legal expert) didn't appear to be familiar with this in the Gordon article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

Hell yes.

Okay. I haven't opened it yet & I won't have time tonight, but I will do so soon (probably tomorrow), and post anything I find significant in a new thread, unless FBG says I shouldn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, thanks for the link. I am surprised that McCann (Si's legal expert) didn't appear to be familiar with this in the Gordon article.

To be fair, I was grossly exaggerating how easy it would be to show irreparable harm. But I still think it would be quite easy.

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 trade him away for a 2015 first in a heartbeat.

I would say that is is his value because while he has more value than most 2015 rookies are likely to ever have, IF he doesn't play again, or if he has another drug test failure, he is worthless. So, he has tremendous future upside but great risk. His value is like a highly skilled player who has chronic injury problems--valuable but you can't count on him.

Guy in my league is still dreaming and wanted Cobb and two 2015 first round picks for him. I LOL'd that.

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 trade him away for a 2015 first in a heartbeat.

I would say that is is his value because while he has more value than most 2015 rookies are likely to ever have, IF he doesn't play again, or if he has another drug test failure, he is worthless. So, he has tremendous future upside but great risk. His value is like a highly skilled player who has chronic injury problems--valuable but you can't count on him.

Guy in my league is still dreaming and wanted Cobb and two 2015 first round picks for him. I LOL'd that.

I'd actually say his value is closer to that of a guy with an injury whose out for the year and it's not yet known if it's a career ender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

Very much so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

sure

Please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

Hell yes.

Okay. I haven't opened it yet & I won't have time tonight, but I will do so soon (probably tomorrow), and post anything I find significant in a new thread, unless FBG says I shouldn't.

you must be unbelievably busy.
  • 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.

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.
How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.
He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm.

I understand what he is saying. However monetary and contractual interests are quite reparable. He can win that exact amount of money (or more) from the NFL in a future lawsuit. He could also be granted one additional year towards free agency if he were to win the lawsuit.
Correct. It's not the salary loss that's irreparable. It's the lost playing time, which causes unquantifiable damage to Gordon's future earnings -- both salary and endorsements.

See http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/News/Orders/Williams_v_NFL_(TRO)_filed_7-9-09_Judge_Larson_.pdf

Interesting, thanks for the link. I am surprised that McCann (Si's legal expert) didn't appear to be familiar with this in the Gordon article.

MT had also posted a great link a few pages back that discussed the judge's decision to grant the TRO in the Starcaps case. It gave some really good insight and they basically said that irreparable harm is pretty much automatic when it comes to sports cases and suspensions since it can affect the teams ability to make the playoffs, etc. You could repay the salary, but you can never go back and replay the games.

Of course, one could argue that its the Browns and they aren't making the playoffs with or without Gordon. :lol:

Judge Magnuson explicitly (without explanation) departed from the first of the 8th Circuit's test, likelihood of success on the merits. He concluded that the second test - irreparable harm - is always met in sports cases whenever a suspension could jeopardize the player's team's chances for the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intersting article about his legal options. (Written by an attorney)

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options

Josh Gordon could soon petition an Ohio court to intercept the NFL’s one-year suspension of the Cleveland Browns’ Pro Bowl wide receiver. Gordon, suspended for a repeat violation of the league’s collectively bargained substance-abuse policy, is poised to argue that the NFL violated Ohio law in suspending him. He could demand an injunction from a judge that would postpone his suspension until a trial. Such a trial would likely not occur until well after the 2014 NFL season, meaning Gordon would be able to play all season.

Edited by damageinc

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.

:lmao: You're a riot with these little jabs. Are you kidding? Is the NFL worth more than Disney? I'm not sure but the NFL will make life miserable for ESPN and that's why the majority of the time ESPN has their nose stuck up the NFL's sunshine box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

Very

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody about 100 pages back called this exactly as it went down. Basically, he goes easy on Rice and goes hard on Gordon, knowing there will be a backlash and planning all along to come out with this hardened stance on domestic violence afterwards to cover his butt and come out of it all smelling like a rat....I mean...rose. What a sleazy, slimy little bastard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody about 100 pages back called this exactly as it went down. Basically, he goes easy on Rice and goes hard on Gordon, knowing there will be a backlash and planning all along to come out with this hardened stance on domestic violence afterwards to cover his butt and come out of it all smelling like a rat....I mean...rose. What a sleazy, slimy little bastard.

You should come by my office and we can discuss this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in the NFL concussion settlement docs? They mailed me one by mistake.

Very

Okay. Opened it up. Essentially, not much to see.

What they sent me was the "long form" of the class-action settlement. This is publicly viewable at https://www.nflconcussionsettlement.com/

FWIW, max compensation (for a diagnosis of ALS) is $5 million, but there are factors that reduce that, such as number of seasons played, diagnosis, and age when the diagnosis was made.

Edited by daveR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have four questions

1. Didn't Soulfy say he would apologize to everyone if he was wrong?

2. Did he?

3. Are all of the Gordon supporters (owners) on drugs?

4. If they aren't, why in the world are they still trying to defend his position/creating new false hope about a lawsuit that has no fn chance

:doh:

Seems like common sense doesnt it? Makes you wonder why so many on a site about football would get something so wrong when so many were trying to tell them.

The problem with a site like this is that some Joe Schmoes on this site do know stuff and others discount them because their name is not Adam Schefter, Sigmund Bloom, Dodds or they dont work for ESPN or the NFL network. So others think people opinions are worthless.

Quite simple, he failed a test, he was in stage 3, he was getting a full year, he appealed and lost. People were trying to make it sound more difficult because they were Gordon fans and he was a superstar. The writing was on the wall here, how can anyone with football knowledge not see it? If you were following the right people on twitter this was common knowledge. Just because ESPN and NFL Network wanted to keep it a story, so they talked about the "what ifs", and because Soulfly wanted to show us how much he really didnt know about this topic by arguing unreasonably. Doesnt mean this wasnt cut and dry. Just because he argued .01 ml or that it was second hand smoke does not mean it wasnt cut and dry.

I'm learning more and more each day, twitter is the way to go to get info. I repost stuff on twitter from the people in the real know before it even hits mainstream.

Edited by False Start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still holding Gordon until the season starts. I have a sneaking suspicion that super agent/egomaniac Drew Rosenhaus isn't going to let this rest and will try and force the NFL's hand and try and sue. If Gordon were not at least looking at legal options his team would have issued a statement by now in essence saying he was going to play nice with the NFL. That statement has not come. In fact in the only statement officially released Gordon took a shot at the NFL and it's ruling.

Will Gordon win? Probably not, but I don't care. If he gets an injunction Gordon could play the entire season, thus be the steal of the draft. I say pick him up off the ww if you have the room until opening day. If he moves forward with this legal action you have a 1st rnd pick at the expense of some scrub wr who won't make your lineup anyway. If he takes no action you just pick up that same scrub wr off the ww. Still worth the flyer.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options

Edited by Saboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still holding Gordon until the season starts. I have a sneaking suspicion that super agent/egomaniac Drew Rosenhaus isn't going to let this rest and will try and force the NFL's hand and try and sue. If Gordon were not at least looking at legal options his team would have issued a statement by now in essence saying he was going to play nice with the NFL. That statement has not come. In fact the only statement officially released Gordon took a shot at the NFL and it's ruling.

Will Gordon win? Probably not, but I don't care. If he gets an injunction Gordon could play the entire season, thus be the steal of the draft. I say pick him up off the ww if you have the room until opening day. If he moves forward with this legal action you have a 1st rnd pick at the expense of some scrub wr who won't make your lineup anyway. If he takes no action you just pick up that same scrub wr off the ww. Still worth the flyer.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options

That's exactly the way I'm going. If I can get a guy of his talent as late as I drafted him, I'll take it any day and will probably have a good shot at winning my league.

eta* I forgot to qualify that by beginning that statement with a statement to the effect of "even if it's a complete long shot..."

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how many people in this thread "know" all the details of this situation when the info is confidential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how many people in this thread "know" all the details of this situation when the info is confidential.

At this point I don't think there is anything to know or not know. Your simply rolling the dice (I fully admit its a long shot + I'm simply playing a hunch) that his legal team moves ahead and sues the NFL. Again, he doesn't have to win. All he has to do is create enough legal red tape to get on the field. Isn't it worth dropping the last guy on your bench in hopes that Gordon goes after the NFL and plays?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it earlier in the his huge thread but I don't understand what grounds they would sue on. I realize all the controversy around pot and such but in the end this seems pretty cut and dry to me. The nfl has rules, how those rules are enforced and he broke those rules and they were enforced on him the same way they should have been. Seems pretty cut and dry

On the other side, does a guy like Gordon have the money to spend on a huge lawsuit against the nfl. That could backfire quick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy blazes a bowl and get a 1 year ban.... While Baby Dr Dre aka Ray Rice knocks a chick out and gets 2 games!!!

Land of the Free of Baby!

Gordon should sue the NFL and force them to take Marijuana testing off the program

The entire country is starting to embrace cannabis... Fossils in the NFL need to catch up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy blazes a bowl and get a 1 year ban.... While Baby Dr Dre aka Ray Rice knocks a chick out and gets 2 games!!!

Land of the Free of Baby!

Gordon should sue the NFL and force them to take Marijuana testing off the program

The entire country is starting to embrace cannabis... Fossils in the NFL need to catch up

He didn't 'blaze a bowl' The levels he got popped at were from second hand smoke.

Also, NFL is in talks to raise the marijuana test levels. Do some research before posting.

Edited by zandbak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it earlier in the his huge thread but I don't understand what grounds they would sue on. I realize all the controversy around pot and such but in the end this seems pretty cut and dry to me. The nfl has rules, how those rules are enforced and he broke those rules and they were enforced on him the same way they should have been. Seems pretty cut and dry

On the other side, does a guy like Gordon have the money to spend on a huge lawsuit against the nfl. That could backfire quick

There's an article that's been posted or quoted twice in the last 30 or so posts that spells them out fairly well.

Though I think he's making the same mistake about which test applies to which part of the Ohio law that the other lawyer-blogger made. Tweeted the SI author with a link to the article giving all 3 of Gordon's test results, interested to see if he replies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy blazes a bowl and get a 1 year ban.... While Baby Dr Dre aka Ray Rice knocks a chick out and gets 2 games!!!

Land of the Free of Baby!

Gordon should sue the NFL and force them to take Marijuana testing off the program

The entire country is starting to embrace cannabis... Fossils in the NFL need to catch up

He didn't 'blaze a bowl' The levels he got popped at were from second hand smoke.

Also, NFL is in talks to raise the marijuana test levels. Do some research before posting.

You couldn't get high off a 2nd hand smoke once you've reached passing out in taco bells drive though... do some more research yourself

Edited by oswizzle

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.