Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

Just saw on rotoworld... They are referencing espn.com

NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith confirmed the union will seek to reverse suspensions that occurred this year as part of a potential new deal with the league on performance-enhancing drugs.

"We don't want players to suffer because the union and league couldn't get it done before the league year," Smith said. He's essentially referring to Josh Gordon, who is suspended indefinitely for failed drug tests, and Wes Welker, who is suspended four games for amphetamines. It's a glimmer of hope for both players, but it's small part of a much larger negotiation with tons of moving parts as the two sides try to revamp the overall policy. The talks have been described as "fragile." At this point, Gordon remains a stash-and-pray kind of fantasy option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually picked him up in a couple of leagues early this AM. I hope he gets back in this year, but he's still a moron.

Nothing wrong with that statement AT ALL. However, I couldn't care less if the guy ever faced discipline. It in no way affects me or my family. I am sure there is far worse #### going on behind closed doors with other players than a guy smoking a plant that is soon to be served at a pharmacy near you. I don't know Gordon as a person (and don't really care to). I just want the guy to score me lots of fantasy points. I would imagine the only reason anyone would make a fuss over his life decisions is because they have Gordon envy.

Edited by georg013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually picked him up in a couple of leagues early this AM. I hope he gets back in this year, but he's still a moron.

Nothing wrong with that statement AT ALL. However, I couldn't care less if the guy ever faced discipline. It in no way affects me or my family. I am sure there is far worse #### going on behind closed doors with other players than a guy smoking a plant that is soon to be served at a pharmacy near you. I don't know Gordon as a person (and don't really care to). I just want the guy to score me lots of fantasy points. I would imagine the only reason anyone would make a fuss over his life decisions is because they have Gordon envy.

and have to play against him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i am reading this PFT report correctly (and it is early AM) It looks like the hold up is Roger Goodell's MPE (Massive Petrified Ego)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/05/nflpa-rebuffed-hgh-offer-while-gordon-appeal-was-pending/


Per a league source, the NFL broached the idea of wiping out Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s one-season suspension while his appeal was pending, in exchange for a final agreement on HGH testing. By raising the permissible level of marijuana metabolites from 15 ng/ml to the Olympic standard of 150 ng/ml under a new drug policy, Gordon’s most recent positive test actually would have been a negative.

As to HGH, the players believe that Commissioner Roger Goodell should be willing to sacrifice final say over violations arising from something other than a positive test. The logic is simple; if his decision is fair, a third-party arbitrator will agree.

Edited by Class Dismissed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This feels like much more than a long shot, people who think otherwise I believe are upset that they didn't have the foresight to grab him in the last round of a draft over someone like a bum in Eddie Royal or Aaron Dobson, whom you could have picked up on any day this season right off the waiver wire. The NFL realizes how ridiculous these suspensions have been, and want to do the right thing, just like the Ray Rice aftermath. I said weeks ago I would be shocked if this suspension lasted the season, and I haven't felt stronger about saying that than this morning. Everything is working out perfectly. He might be playing by week 2. The #1 WR PPG that was available for a last round pick might be available for 15 of 16 regular season games. Sounds like a steal to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropped my kicker for Gordon until I hear more tomorrow(saturday, late night for me), second time he's been on my roster this year. Let's hope it's worth the ride this time. I'm full of optimism but deep down I only feel doubt on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this seems to be trending in the right direction for Gordon owners....

Care to unpack this? Because this is the situation as I see it:

1-Suspended for a year

2-Report that the NFL and NFLPA are working on a new drug policy

3-Speculation that new drug policy will include the unprecedented action of being retroactive

4-Report that if the speculation is accurate, the deal would need to be complete by this Sunday

5-DeMaurice Smith says on a radio show "If we get a deal done that covers players in this league year, I don't like that we punish players under a deal active in the old league year." Gordon's suspension wasn't from this league year.

6-Gordon decides not to file suit against the NFL

So basically, there MIGHT be a new NFL drug policy enacted soon, and there was/is speculation that this policy could be applied retroactively, it's reported that in order for this retroactive policy to take effect, it will need to take place by Sunday, DeMaurice Smith makes a vague comment about a deal that covers player in this league year, Gordon's suspension wasn't from this league year, the deal doesn't happen by the "deadline," Gordon decides not to file suit, and he is still suspended.

How, exactly is this trending in the right direction for Gordon owners? Because I'm a Gordon owner, and I'm not feeling as good today as I did last night.

are you feeling better about it today than you were a week ago? It might still be a longshot--but it's at least a shot--no?
I feel more optimism today than I did on wednesday. But less than I did yesterday.

The most recent "news" hasn"r been good for Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw on rotoworld... They are referencing espn.com

NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith confirmed the union will seek to reverse suspensions that occurred this year as part of a potential new deal with the league on performance-enhancing drugs.

"We don't want players to suffer because the union and league couldn't get it done before the league year," Smith said. He's essentially referring to Josh Gordon, who is suspended indefinitely for failed drug tests, and Wes Welker, who is suspended four games for amphetamines. It's a glimmer of hope for both players, but it's small part of a much larger negotiation with tons of moving parts as the two sides try to revamp the overall policy. The talks have been described as "fragile." At this point, Gordon remains a stash-and-pray kind of fantasy option.

Again, they may be mis-interesting his (vague) quote. He referenced players "this league" year. Gordon's suspension wasn't from this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw on rotoworld... They are referencing espn.com

NFLPA chief DeMaurice Smith confirmed the union will seek to reverse suspensions that occurred this year as part of a potential new deal with the league on performance-enhancing drugs.

Maybe this was covered already, but was Gordon's suspension in the current league year or last year? I thought the test was from last December or early this year? At least I remember that being trotted out when everyone was complaining about how long the process was taking. So is it the date of the failed test, when he was suspended or when his appeal was denied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his "failed test" was from league yr 2013 (January 2014) but his suspension was originally from 2014 league yr in may... I don't know that we know for sure which yr that will be considered to be as most appeals are also not leaked... Do we know for sure when welkers test was failed? His test was also apparently appealed (according to one of the million posts I read in here) although it didn't get near the attention that Gordon's appeal got

When was the Kentucky derby? I can't remember what time of yr that was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Florio's report is true, timing is irrelevant -- the league has already brought up the idea to wipe Gordon's suspension (in exchange for agreement on HGH testing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys if the rule gets rolled back Gordon and Welker are playing. If it doesn't, they're not.

You don't need to try and be internet Matlock and attempt to figure out the date he toked up. Nobody cares. They're not going to catch him on a technicality because the NFL is using it as a bargaining chip.

If you have any further questions, see the first sentence in this post.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys if the rule gets rolled back Gordon and Welker are playing. If it doesn't, they're not.

You don't need to try and be internet Matlock and attempt to figure out the date he toked up. Nobody cares. They're not going to catch him on a technicality because the NFL is using it as a bargaining chip.

If you have any further questions, see the first sentence in this post.

Yeah. NFLPA isn't taking this up as a a negotiating point to not get Gordon and Welker reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a contractual negotiation. They can agree on whatever terms they want.

If they want to agree to wipeout 2014 tests, they can. If they want to agree to wipe out 2013 tests, they can. If they want to agree to anything within their realm of control, they can. That is the essence of a contract. Private parties can agree to anything that is not against state or federal law, and that is within their possession and control.

So, all this talk, about which year, is irrelevant ... to the extent that they CAN do anything regarding the NFL's past tests. Now, the NFL may not want to wipe out prior results.

The reports are mixed, at best, regarding what they are actually contemplating ... So we will all have to see. But, they do have the power to wipe out these suspensions if they agree to it on both sides.

Edited by Papa John's
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see how, from a public relations standpoint, the NFL and NFLPA would only undo Welker's suspension. The NFL got a black eye when people compared Gordon's suspension to Rice's. They don't need people comparing the similarities and differences between Gordon and Welker and their respective conduct. Any attempt by the NFL to differentiate them would be viewed as pretext.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting like a kid on Christmas morning for news about Gordon's suspension being overturned. But I could be disappointed when I find out I didn't get what I wanted.

Edited by ponchsox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see how, from a public relations standpoint, the NFL and NFLPA would only undo Welker's suspension. The NFL got a black eye when people compared Gordon's suspension to Rice's. They don't need people comparing the similarities and differences between Gordon and Welker and their respective conduct. Any attempt by the NFL to differentiate them would be viewed as pretext.

Because, from a legal standpoint, they have to have a hard "cut-off" for these retro-active suspension erasures. If they arbitrarily let Gordon off, but not all other players who meet their criteria (because of "public relations"), they open themselves up to lawsuits from other players who didn't get their suspensions reversed as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally that argument sounds good but it won't happen. They'll figure out a way to justify it. The NFL is getting a lot of bad press and doesn't need any more. The average person won't understand the nuances between Welker and Gordon.

Also in the background is the NFLPA election. Undoing Welker's suspension but not Gordon's won't win DeMo many votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally that argument sounds good but it won't happen. They'll figure out a way to justify it. The NFL is getting a lot of bad press and doesn't need any more. The average person won't understand the nuances between Welker and Gordon.

Also in the background is the NFLPA election. Undoing Welker's suspension but not Gordon's won't win DeMo many votes.

It is the easiest way to "justify it." The league operates under a league year, not calendar year. Saying the new policy starts in 2014 league year is the easiest way to say "players suspended for 2014 offenses under the old penalty will have those suspensions lifted" is justifiable.

Saying Josh Gordon is a high profile black athlete and Wes Welker is a high profile white athlete, so we'll let them both off and call it even" isn't legally justifiable.

If you think they'll be able to justify it, explain how, but I don't see it.

ETA-the "NFL doesn't want bad press" argument has been used, and dis-proved a number of times in this thread. They didn't care that they gave Rice only 2 games & a full year for Gordon would look bad for them; they didn't care that Smith faced numerous gun, bomb threat, and other charges, they gave him "only" 9 games even though Gordon got a full year. They aren't going to "go easy" on Gordon b/c of other issues. That's a weak argument.

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a contractual negotiation. They can agree on whatever terms they want.

If they want to agree to wipeout 2014 tests, they can. If they want to agree to wipe out 2013 tests, they can. If they want to agree to anything within their realm of control, they can. That is the essence of a contract. Private parties can agree to anything that is not against state or federal law, and that is within their possession and control.

So, all this talk, about which year, is irrelevant ... to the extent that they CAN do anything regarding the NFL's past tests. Now, the NFL may not want to wipe out prior results.

The reports are mixed, at best, regarding what they are actually contemplating ... So we will all have to see. But, they do have the power to wipe out these suspensions if they agree to it on both sides.

:goodposting:

All this talk about "legally" justifying it is perplexing....this is not a criminal code they are adjusting, the two parties can get together and agree on just about anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a contractual negotiation. They can agree on whatever terms they want.

If they want to agree to wipeout 2014 tests, they can. If they want to agree to wipe out 2013 tests, they can. If they want to agree to anything within their realm of control, they can. That is the essence of a contract. Private parties can agree to anything that is not against state or federal law, and that is within their possession and control.

So, all this talk, about which year, is irrelevant ... to the extent that they CAN do anything regarding the NFL's past tests. Now, the NFL may not want to wipe out prior results.

The reports are mixed, at best, regarding what they are actually contemplating ... So we will all have to see. But, they do have the power to wipe out these suspensions if they agree to it on both sides.

:goodposting:

All this talk about "legally" justifying it is perplexing....this is not a criminal code they are adjusting, the two parties can get together and agree on just about anything.

I am kind of shocked that some people are missing this point, especially after the recent lockout, but this thread has so many haters in either direction it is hard to sift through it to find actual discussion points so many could be missing the actual useful posts in this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually picked him up in a couple of leagues early this AM. I hope he gets back in this year, but he's still a moron.

Nothing wrong with that statement AT ALL. However, I couldn't care less if the guy ever faced discipline. It in no way affects me or my family. I am sure there is far worse #### going on behind closed doors with other players than a guy smoking a plant that is soon to be served at a pharmacy near you. I don't know Gordon as a person (and don't really care to). I just want the guy to score me lots of fantasy points. I would imagine the only reason anyone would make a fuss over his life decisions is because they have Gordon envy.

and have to play against him

This, and this.

Couldn't have said it any better.

Don't worry , the stench of Gordon hate will dissipate quickly once he is reinstated and flashing across our screens again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you don't agree with my viewpoint but I don't need to win an Internet forum debate. We will check back and see what happens. None of us know what will happen so we are all guessing at this point.

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

All agreements are drafted to accomplish a goal. Once that goal had been identified attorneys create the language to implement it. If any agreement is reached here, the attorneys will address any perceived inconsistencies.

As for Welker and Gordon, it is not simply a black and white issue although that would get a lot of press. For example, molly is not legal in any states. Weed is legal in 10 percent of the states where the nfl plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gone from, "this may help currently suspended players." to, "they are crossing the t's and dotting the i's."

It would be myopic of the league to make any quick decisions or concessions regarding hgh testing and arbitration ruling to help a relatively few currently suspended players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irsay is a bad example for you. He was busted this league year. I'll check back when there's an answer and respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gone from, "this may help currently suspended players." to, "they are crossing the t's and dotting the i's."

It would be myopic of the league to make any quick decisions or concessions regarding hgh testing and arbitration ruling to help a relatively few currently suspended players.

There is nothing quick here at all, they have been negotiating the details for 3 years. The two sides agreed on HGH testing in the last CBA, and they have been trying to work out the details since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

I haven't seen anything about suspensions arising from arrests. Irsay and Blackmon were suspended for legal issues. Do we know what Mathis tested positive for or if it was his first offense? Welker would be off the hook with it being his first offense and Gordon for his result being under the new threshold for a positive for weed. They are different than the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

Again, there is nothing in play about removing all suspensions. It's about the suspensions that would not be suspensions under the new rules they negotiate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

I haven't seen anything about suspensions arising from arrests. Irsay and Blackmon were suspended for legal issues. Do we know what Mathis tested positive for or if it was his first offense? Welker would be off the hook with it being his first offense and Gordon for his result being under the new threshold for a positive for weed. They are different than the others.

I understand that. The post I responded to said "it's simple, just vacate ALL current suspensions.". My point was that it's not as simple as he thinks/wants it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gone from, "this may help currently suspended players." to, "they are crossing the t's and dotting the i's."

It would be myopic of the league to make any quick decisions or concessions regarding hgh testing and arbitration ruling to help a relatively few currently suspended players.

There is nothing quick here at all, they have been negotiating the details for 3 years. The two sides agreed on HGH testing in the last CBA, and they have been trying to work out the details since then.

I thought that was common knowledge already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

Again, there is nothing in play about removing all suspensions. It's about the suspensions that would not be suspensions under the new rules they negotiate.

Looks like we just want to find a way to make this dream a nightmare. Some guys probably got popped with more smoke in their system than a chimney. Gordon's case is unique because he barely registered. Got to believe things are looking up. Not certain but definitely hopeful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gone from, "this may help currently suspended players." to, "they are crossing the t's and dotting the i's."

It would be myopic of the league to make any quick decisions or concessions regarding hgh testing and arbitration ruling to help a relatively few currently suspended players.

This is why the elect a President and player reps, if they dont like what the President or the Player reps are doing, vote on new ones. Smith wouldnt be doing this without backing by the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

I haven't seen anything about suspensions arising from arrests. Irsay and Blackmon were suspended for legal issues. Do we know what Mathis tested positive for or if it was his first offense? Welker would be off the hook with it being his first offense and Gordon for his result being under the new threshold for a positive for weed. They are different than the others.

I understand that. The post I responded to said "it's simple, just vacate ALL current suspensions.". My point was that it's not as simple as he thinks/wants it to be.

That's not what he said. And you're being obtuse, so I'm going to stop now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

I haven't seen anything about suspensions arising from arrests. Irsay and Blackmon were suspended for legal issues. Do we know what Mathis tested positive for or if it was his first offense? Welker would be off the hook with it being his first offense and Gordon for his result being under the new threshold for a positive for weed. They are different than the others.

I understand that. The post I responded to said "it's simple, just vacate ALL current suspensions.". My point was that it's not as simple as he thinks/wants it to be.

Bay, it seems like you are just trying to argue with no real point. I know Wake didn't specifically say suspension related to this policy change but you and everyone here understood what he was saying. It's arguments like yours that make it tough to get any real information from this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go real slow for Bay. First i gave one example of what lawyers could do if the desired result was to vacate the stay for Welker and Gordon. There are other options. This was all in response to Bay implying that there was no possible way to tailor a policy that would vacate Gordon's suspension without going back to every prior suspension.

Second i said that lawyers would draft the agreement to get the desired result so your floodgates argument is without merit. The document would not be signed until both the NFL and the NFLPA knew what would happen.

Third, in the example I said they could look at all unserved suspensions and see if the result would be the same under the new policy. If so, the suspension remains. If not, the suspension would be modified accordingly. I never said vacate all suspensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are missing the fact that suspensions would only be overturned for players that would not have failed a test under the proposed new rules. Welker would get to play because they would transfer his failed test from the failed PED category (mandatory 4 game suspension) to his first strike under the substance abuse policy (by reclassifying amphetamines to a substance abuse drug). If the marijuana pass/fail threshold is raised from 15 ng to 150 ng, Gordon would be under the threshold and (theoretically) would have passed under the new rules.

Players suspended for other drugs or PEDs would remain suspended. And guys that got suspended for marijuana use would remain suspended if their test result was still above the newly agreed upon limit.

I suspect the hurdle will be guys that just accepted their suspensions in lieu of appealing them who then lost game checks because of it. My guess would be that they would have to have a uniform policy for what suspensions got overturned. It would be unfair if Gordon's suspension got lifted and he never lost any pay while another player tht already served his suspension for failing a drug test at the same time didnot get paid. Maybe the league bites the bullet on that and pays back pay to the handful of players that fall into that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio reports a "tentative agreement" over the use of third-party arbitration for appeals of PED and HGH violations that were not caused by a positive test has been reached.



In other words, Roger Goodell would give up the power to unilaterally rule on suspension appeals related to situations like the BALCO or Biogenesis cases. Though this agreement clears one major hurdle in the negotiation process, the two sides still need to hash out how to deal with players charged with but not convicted of DUIs. Even though obstacles remain, the general feel is a deal is close, with one source telling Pro Football Talk, "I'm expecting an announcement at any time."

Edited by georg013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio reports a "tentative agreement" over the use of third-party arbitration for appeals of PED and HGH violations that were not caused by a positive test has been reached.

In other words, Roger Goodell would give up the power to unilaterally rule on suspension appeals related to situations like the BALCO or Biogenesis cases. Though this agreement clears one major hurdle in the negotiation process, the two sides still need to hash out how to deal with players charged with but not convicted of DUIs. Even though obstacles remain, the general feel is a deal is close, with one source telling Pro Football Talk, "I'm expecting an announcement at any time."

What about the weed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Florio also just tweeted that it would be smart to grab Josh Gordon for your Fantasy team. While he said he does not know if the agreement will ultimatly affect Gordon he is expecting an announment soon on a tentative agreement.

Edited by damageinc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: New Drug Testing Policy Due Any Time

We could be moments away from the NFL and its players agreeing to a new policy on drug testing.

A league source tells PFT that momentum keeps building for the new policy to get done. The source added, “I’m expecting an announcement at any time.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/06/new-nfl-drug-testing-policy-could-come-at-any-time/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the best of threads, it was the worst of threads, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, FREE JOSH GORDON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as legally defensible arguments to support vacating both suspensions, it's as simple as providing that all unserved suspensions shall be treated as if they occurred under the new policy and modified accordingly. Not that though really.

Simple? So they will "free" Blackmon? Irsay? Mathis? EVERY player currently suspended? I don't see the league doing that.

I haven't seen anything about suspensions arising from arrests. Irsay and Blackmon were suspended for legal issues. Do we know what Mathis tested positive for or if it was his first offense? Welker would be off the hook with it being his first offense and Gordon for his result being under the new threshold for a positive for weed. They are different than the others.

I understand that. The post I responded to said "it's simple, just vacate ALL current suspensions.". My point was that it's not as simple as he thinks/wants it to be.

That's not what he said. And you're being obtuse, so I'm going to stop now.

Really? It's right there in the first quoted post.

It's not as simple as he makes it sound. If you vacate suspensions for some players, other players have a legitimate (and perhaps legal) grounds to object. The league can't just pick some guys to "let off," while maintaining punishments for others.

Based on DeMaurice Smith's quote, they are looking at players being suspended during the current league year being "freed" if they were suspended under the old policy (assuming a new one gets done). Gordon's failed test occured during the previous league year; so there's a question there. IF the change goes through, and IF Smith's quote is accurate about how these retroactive lifting of suspension would occur, Gordon might not get off. If the league just decided to say, we'll let him off too, that would cause problems for them.

So, either the league would have to find another way to include Gordon without just "adding him in," or he wouldn't be helped by a new policy. And just letting all currently suspended players off isn't (IMO) a viable option.

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.