I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
bolzano said:
Rick James said:
bolzano said:
The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin
https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760
Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.
I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.
I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.
It isn't a can of worms.
Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.
The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.
It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.
Okay. Then why did those people who were in prison for violating prohibition not immediately freed when it ended? Because they were in prison for breaking a law. Just because the law changed doesn't mean they didn't break it.Gordon broke a rule. He was punished. If the rule changed AFTERWARDS, Marty McFly didn't pull up in his Delorean and go back in time so Gordon never smoked the dope. He still broke the rule that was in place at that time.
If they didn't want to lose the income, they shouldn't have smoked up or taken Molly/amphetamines/adderal, whatever he took.
It isn't illegal to offer retroactive ameliorative relief in the US, generally those convicted would seek a pardon if the Law changed in their favor. While such a relief would not be guaranteed it isn't impossible and in fact, the US is one if the few Nations that doesn't offer guaranteed retroactive ameliorative relief of overturned laws in the world.Just Free Josh Gordon already, there is no retroactive or legal can of worms to do so.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/02/no-relief-convicted
So you cite an article that shows IN THE UNITED STATES, it is not standard practice to forgive people for breaking laws if/when those laws change as support for the idea that Josh Gordon SHOULD BE forgiven for breaking a rule if/when that rule changes? And Josh Gordon does live in the United States, and the NFL is headquartered in the United States? The NFLPA is a labor organization in the United States?Um...what's your point again?
The argument by those who say "if the rule changes, Gordon should automatically get off" is wrong. Can he get off? Sure, the NFL and NFLPA are evidently negotiating about that, but that doesn't mean he DESERVES to get off. There was a rule, he knew what the rule was, he knew what the punishment was, he broke the rule, he was given the agreed upon punishment. IF things change and he gets some/all of that punishment forgiven, he got lucky & good for him, but he DESERVES no forgiveness, despite the policies of other nations (or even the policies of the United States, as this is a matter of labor relations, rather than US law).
In week 2?
miss that one a little
Adam Schefter 
