I Am the Stig
Footballguy
I can't disagree with that at all. But it is more likely logistical AND circumstantial more than any legal reason why they can't reinstate more players. Perhaps they are and we just don't know the list.There must be some downside for the NFL if they grant amnesty to 2013 violators. Otherwise, they would grandfather in all players currently being disciplined under the old policy instead of just those who failed tests in 2014.It is simple. There is no legal reason that Gordon's suspension can't be lifted because the law rule changed during his punishment.There is no law against it in the US. It is simply a matter of process. It also doesn't mean that he will be let off the hook either, but stating that the "NFL can't lift his suspension because he smoked in 13 and the rule changed in 14 doesn't affect him" is wrong.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?I Am the Stig said:
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).
They have no legal obligation to lift his suspension but they also have no legal reason to keep him suspended either.
But for people to constantly say that the rule change doesn't or can't be applied to Gordon because he was busted last year I found ludicrous.
And lifting 8 games actually opens the door for Gordon to sue for pay for the other 8 games or fight for earlier reinstatement.
It depends on how things are written but basically, if the rules changed and he is below the punishable threshold and that was enough to lift 8 games then he has a case to be made that all remaining games should be lifted plus pay for the two already served.
Once it was determined that in his case the rule change was significantly in his favor to lift 8 games there really is no reason to even suspend him for the other 8 other than they want the image of remaining tough.
