I'm not buying the analysis from Rosenthal or Breer. If the NFLPA believes that the marijuana policy is unjust, they will be advocating for reinstatement of all players currently suspended who wouldn't have otherwise been. Really, that's the only just outcome if the new drug policy is to be applied retroactively, as time of positive test (e.g. 2/2014 vs. 3/2014) is a morally arbitrary factor.I don't think it answers the question of Josh Gordon specifically, because his positive test (his violation) would be from before this NFL year. Welker will be in decent shape if this goes through, but Gordon is going to be dependent on the language of the agreement.You're right, but hopefully this at least shuts up all the people claiming that a new agreement wouldn't #FreeJoshGordon.My thought is, why would the NFL players NOT agree on raising testing threshold?? Of course they agree on that part....not really a step forward in any direction, more of a given IMO.20 players? Are there even 20 players currently suspended for marijuana that would fallen under the new threshold?Mike Cairns @MikeCairns5 2m
Ed Werder reporting on ESPN that NFL players have agreed on raising testing threshold for pot which would immediately bring 20players back
The key now is actually getting an agreement in place, with sticking points left to hash on:
1. Certain HGH appeals processes;
2. Immediate DUI suspensions.
Both of these seem like major hurdles to me, so this could take weeks, if not all season. But I'll hold on to Josh for as long as I can or until more clarity emerges. So close, and yet so far.
Last thing I'll say is... If you don't own Josh Gordon and are checking this thread repeatedly, or especially if you are posting repeatedly, I feel sorry for you.
Amen, sisterchiefs players should be first voting on whether the minimum touches for charles each game is 20 or 25 so we can avoid last week ever happening again
I believe the "Jim Brown Is Retiring" thread of 1964 was 300 pages.At 182 pages, is this officially the longest Browns thread since Ben Gay?
Let me see if I have this right: NFL players will be voting on whether they can use more pot and less HGH. - Is that about the size of it?@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.Go on, I'm listening. Reprehensible is a strong word.While we all wait on the outcome of this process I figure I will throw this out there for thought.
The NFL's policy on marijuana, coupled with it's fostering of prescription drug abuse and financial partnerships with prescription drug companies, is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. The NFLPA was/is complicit in this and sold out for money over 30 years ago. And now it's a huge bargaining chip that has drastically swayed leverage on the issue in the owners favor.
But to be clear, the policy is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
to be fair, that was 300 sheets of paper, and the only reason it did not have more was because it just got so damn expensive to mail the package on to the next person.I believe the "Jim Brown Is Retiring" thread of 1964 was 300 pages.At 182 pages, is this officially the longest Browns thread since Ben Gay?
This guy also saidJust an opinion from Salfino:
Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfinohttps://twitter.com/MichaelSalfino · 6m
New agreement also is math. Can't remember public negotiations in sports falling apart so close to finish line. But say 1 in 5 do. So, 80%.
Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfinohttps://twitter.com/MichaelSalfino · 5m
Meaning there's a 4 in 5 chance, conservatively, that new policy is quickly agreed to. Gordon reinstatement locked. So you own 80% of Gordon
He's just looking at the reports that are out there and giving his take on them. His take is inaccurate, in many of his tweets.Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfino
You guys can web search where the drug policy talks are as well as me. I'm not reporting anything. This is outsourced.
Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
Why does your link go to this thread?Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
How can he do this if they are still working on the proposal?It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
A blogger from Ohio.Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
Studpidity. I changed link. Try it now, should go to Zac's tweet.Why does your link go to this thread?Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
How can he do this if they are still working on the proposal?It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
"How will you vote?"
"on what-what is the proposal?"
"can't tell you that, how will you vote?"
Zac works for Fox.A blogger from Ohio.Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
Cute.
Questions:Because when they are sued in the future by players that have brain tumors that claimed they took HGH in order to maintain their jobs in the NFL, the league can show the courts they had a testing program in place.Why does the NFL care about HGH testing? HGH makes their league more attractive. Bigger,stronger,faster = better
fake Twitter account, according to the tweets below itStudpidity. I changed link. Try it now, should go to Zac's tweet.Why does your link go to this thread?Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
How can he do this if they are still working on the proposal?It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
"How will you vote?"
"on what-what is the proposal?"
"can't tell you that, how will you vote?"
And?Zac works for Fox.A blogger from Ohio.Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
Cute.
Correct. Real Zac is FSOhioZJacksonfake Twitter account, according to the tweets below itStudpidity. I changed link. Try it now, should go to Zac's tweet.Why does your link go to this thread?Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
How can he do this if they are still working on the proposal?It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
"How will you vote?"
"on what-what is the proposal?"
"can't tell you that, how will you vote?"
Well, laws ARE changing now. 35 states and the District now allow some form of medical marijuana. And speaking of laws the DEA has been quietly investigating the NFL's role in prescription drug abuse. It's pretty evident that the NFL fosters an environment in which team doctors push prescription drugs on players as a form of pain management to get them back on the field as quickly as possible. Players can obtain prescription drugs in high dosages and on pretty much on the spot, which in another context would be illegal. Plus the legal argument has always been a poor one IMO anyway. This country's marijuana laws are also indefensible and morally reprehensible for other reasons. And when did the NFL become a law enforcement agency? In the commonwealth of Virginia it's technically illegal for two adults, including married couples, to perform oral sex on each other. Is the NFL doing it's due diligence on all Redskins players to see if they are breaking this law?Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.Go on, I'm listening. Reprehensible is a strong word.While we all wait on the outcome of this process I figure I will throw this out there for thought.
The NFL's policy on marijuana, coupled with it's fostering of prescription drug abuse and financial partnerships with prescription drug companies, is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. The NFLPA was/is complicit in this and sold out for money over 30 years ago. And now it's a huge bargaining chip that has drastically swayed leverage on the issue in the owners favor.
But to be clear, the policy is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
All valid thoughts. Worthy of a separate thread.Well, laws ARE changing now. 35 states and the District now allow some form of medical marijuana. And speaking of laws the DEA has been quietly investigating the NFL's role in prescription drug abuse. It's pretty evident that the NFL fosters an environment in which team doctors push prescription drugs on players as a form of pain management to get them back on the field as quickly as possible. Players can obtain prescription drugs in high dosages and on pretty much on the spot, which in another context would be illegal. Plus the legal argument has always been a poor one IMO anyway. This country's marijuana laws are also indefensible and morally reprehensible for other reasons. And when did the NFL become a law enforcement agency? In the commonwealth of Virginia it's technically illegal for two adults, including married couples, to perform oral sex on each other. Is the NFL doing it's due diligence on all Redskins players to see if they are breaking this law?Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.Go on, I'm listening. Reprehensible is a strong word.While we all wait on the outcome of this process I figure I will throw this out there for thought.
The NFL's policy on marijuana, coupled with it's fostering of prescription drug abuse and financial partnerships with prescription drug companies, is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. The NFLPA was/is complicit in this and sold out for money over 30 years ago. And now it's a huge bargaining chip that has drastically swayed leverage on the issue in the owners favor.
But to be clear, the policy is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
Back to the topic. Medical marijuana has been proven as a treatment OPTION for many patients who suffer from the sort of ailments that NFL players, by the very nature of their job, suffer from on a daily basis.
So the summary is this. The NFL pushes, and enters into financially beneficial agreements with companies that promote, prescription drug use and what many would consider abuse. Most of these prescription drugs have acknowledged very serious negative side effects in both the short and long term. At the same time the NFL prohibits the use of marijuana which again has been medically proven to offer many of the pain management benefits of the prescription drugs with little to none of the known negative side effects. To the point that a player can be banned from the league for multiple failed testing at a threshold that is 4 times less than air traffic controllers whose jobs are a matter of public safety.
In my view, this is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. You don't have to agree but that's my view and one that I will defend strongly.
It's done sometimes. An up or down on same basic but key issue like HGH testing.Why does your link go to this thread?Don't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
How can he do this if they are still working on the proposal?It sounds like the rep is doing a poll to get a check on how the team will vote when asked.Two minutes later, he said:@TomPelissero: In Kansas City, where we're told #Chiefs players are voting on drug policy.
So, he tweets one thing, then contradicts himself immediately? That's weird.Tom PelisseroVerified account @TomPelissero If #Chiefs indeed are doing anything drug policy-related, it's not on NFLPA orders. Lawyers continuing to go through proposal language today
"How will you vote?"
"on what-what is the proposal?"
"can't tell you that, how will you vote?"
True. Sorry for the hijack.All valid thoughts. Worthy of a separate thread.Well, laws ARE changing now. 35 states and the District now allow some form of medical marijuana. And speaking of laws the DEA has been quietly investigating the NFL's role in prescription drug abuse. It's pretty evident that the NFL fosters an environment in which team doctors push prescription drugs on players as a form of pain management to get them back on the field as quickly as possible. Players can obtain prescription drugs in high dosages and on pretty much on the spot, which in another context would be illegal. Plus the legal argument has always been a poor one IMO anyway. This country's marijuana laws are also indefensible and morally reprehensible for other reasons. And when did the NFL become a law enforcement agency? In the commonwealth of Virginia it's technically illegal for two adults, including married couples, to perform oral sex on each other. Is the NFL doing it's due diligence on all Redskins players to see if they are breaking this law?Summary?It is a strong word, which is why I chose to use it.Go on, I'm listening. Reprehensible is a strong word.While we all wait on the outcome of this process I figure I will throw this out there for thought.
The NFL's policy on marijuana, coupled with it's fostering of prescription drug abuse and financial partnerships with prescription drug companies, is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. The NFLPA was/is complicit in this and sold out for money over 30 years ago. And now it's a huge bargaining chip that has drastically swayed leverage on the issue in the owners favor.
But to be clear, the policy is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible.
Here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-nfls-absurd-marijuana-policy.html?_r=0
I am all for players smoking pot. I don't have any issue with it at all. Not sure I would call it medically indefensible or morally reprehensible to ban it though. I think the NFL is trying to stay in step with societal standards, and despite what I amy want, its still frowned up on most of the red states. As laws are changed, so too will the NFL's stance - but if you don't have anything better - its not morally reprehensible nor is it medically indefensible - there are lots of treatments that do not require marijuana.
Back to the topic. Medical marijuana has been proven as a treatment OPTION for many patients who suffer from the sort of ailments that NFL players, by the very nature of their job, suffer from on a daily basis.
So the summary is this. The NFL pushes, and enters into financially beneficial agreements with companies that promote, prescription drug use and what many would consider abuse. Most of these prescription drugs have acknowledged very serious negative side effects in both the short and long term. At the same time the NFL prohibits the use of marijuana which again has been medically proven to offer many of the pain management benefits of the prescription drugs with little to none of the known negative side effects. To the point that a player can be banned from the league for multiple failed testing at a threshold that is 4 times less than air traffic controllers whose jobs are a matter of public safety.
In my view, this is medically indefensible and morally reprehensible. You don't have to agree but that's my view and one that I will defend strongly.
Constructive response and about what I expected. Some say ignorance is bliss..... so carry on.@ VaTerp
can we ban this kid for giving 500+ men heart attacksDon't know how to embed tweet but Zac Jackson says deal is done. Welcome back Gordon.
https://twitter.com/ZacJacksonFSO/status/509755504756015104
Your avatar is one of the best on these boards. Martin Starr in that awkward-### fake smile is awesome. He was probably the best actor on that show, as far as his character went.Once again I'll claim stupidity. My bad. Carry on.
Yeah he looks out for the best interest of his players. It is not the best interest of his players to reinstate retro if he has no players that are suspended. Again he can achieve the same thing drug policy wise without retro reinstatement.You really don't understand what a player rep does, do you?It also means Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincy will have to face Gordon twice this year same thing for K.C, Oakland, San Diego with Welker. I'm not sure that is in their best interest...Competitive edge and all...They can still get what they want without the reinstatement agreement...My understanding is it takes 17 teams to pass,,,I wonder how many teams would actually get a valued player back if reinstatement is part of the deal.Because it means one of their brothers will get paid.Why would the representatives that are in the AFC North agree to reinstatement. Why would the representatives of the AFC west agree to reinstatement. Why would any team that would not have a player reinstated agree to reinstatement as part of the deal?
There are representatives from all 32 teams......If they can achieve the same thing without retro reinstatement why would all teams vote for reinstatement, if only a few would benefit...If I'm trying to win a championship why would I vote for something that doesn't benefit me but benefits my competitor?Who is "they". Its the players union that is pushing for the reinstatement, not the NFL.You do understand they can pass the same proposed drug agreement without retro reinstatement ..correct.They aren't going to vote down a new drug agreement simply based on the fact that it might help a couple of teams in a couple of games this season. I think you are misjudging the priorities of NFL players.It also means Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincy will have to face Gordon twice this year same thing for K.C, Oakland, San Diego with Welker. I'm not sure that is in their best interest...Competitive edge and all...They can still get what they want without the reinstatement agreement...My understanding is it takes 17 teams to pass,,,I wonder how many teams would actually get a valued player back if reinstatement is part of the deal.Because it means one of their brothers will get paid.Why would the representatives that are in the AFC North agree to reinstatement. Why would the representatives of the AFC west agree to reinstatement. Why would any team that would not have a player reinstated agree to reinstatement as part of the deal?
BECAUSE in the end most of these guys are friends. The NFLPA looks out for the players as individuals. Its the teams owner to look out for best interest of winning.There are representatives from all 32 teams......If they can achieve the same thing without retro reinstatement why would all teams vote for reinstatement, if only a few would benefit...If I'm trying to win a championship why would I vote for something that doesn't benefit me but benefits my competitor?Who is "they". Its the players union that is pushing for the reinstatement, not the NFL.You do understand they can pass the same proposed drug agreement without retro reinstatement ..correct.They aren't going to vote down a new drug agreement simply based on the fact that it might help a couple of teams in a couple of games this season. I think you are misjudging the priorities of NFL players.It also means Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincy will have to face Gordon twice this year same thing for K.C, Oakland, San Diego with Welker. I'm not sure that is in their best interest...Competitive edge and all...They can still get what they want without the reinstatement agreement...My understanding is it takes 17 teams to pass,,,I wonder how many teams would actually get a valued player back if reinstatement is part of the deal.Because it means one of their brothers will get paid.Why would the representatives that are in the AFC North agree to reinstatement. Why would the representatives of the AFC west agree to reinstatement. Why would any team that would not have a player reinstated agree to reinstatement as part of the deal?
Hard as it obviously is for you to believe, there are probably many who view the NFLPA as the "team" in this context and would find it in bad taste to put their own short-term interests ahead of somebody else's employment status.There are representatives from all 32 teams......If they can achieve the same thing without retro reinstatement why would all teams vote for reinstatement, if only a few would benefit...If I'm trying to win a championship why would I vote for something that doesn't benefit me but benefits my competitor?
Your logic is flawed. If they let anyone back in they open the flood gates. Them simply saying 2014 season vs 2014 calander year doesnt change much.If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.
We are getting set up for another disappointment folks.
I don't agree. I think the possible new rule should apply to all suspended in 2014. Gordon was suspended in 2014. I don't have him on any of my teams, but I think that is how they should implement it if something passes making suspended players in 2014 eligible to be reinstated.If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in.
True, but how many players are still suspended from back then?If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.
We are getting set up for another disappointment folks.
From the Plain Dealer:Your logic is flawed. If they let anyone back in they open the flood gates. Them simply saying 2014 season vs 2014 calander year doesnt change much.If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.
We are getting set up for another disappointment folks.
The difference is, other players from 2013 would have already served their suspensions while clearly Gordon has only missed one game. You can't undo the games missed from people that have already served suspensions. I think no matter what they do, players that would have passed drug tests at any point in the current CBA will have a legit gripe to get paid for the games they were suspended. As others have already said, no matter where the line in the sand is drawn in the past, someone will always be on the other side of the line.If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.
We are getting set up for another disappointment folks.