What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Josh Gordon - August 1, 2016 (1 Viewer)

Soulfly3 said:
Huh? No. I'm saying exactly what I was questioning, was what was happening. Schef knew something more than the other guys - all because of taking a deepthroat from Rosenhaus w that Hardy interview.. Hence why he kept his mouth shut yesterday

I absolutely hate Schefter. With a passion. But he knows what's going on
Click to expand...
Schefter didn't say anything, and that's proof that he knew something?  Are you kidding, man?  

By the way, check Twitter.  Schefter is dead as Julius Caesar.  He hasn't broken any stories in a long time.  I don't know why that is, maybe he is resting on his laurels, maybe the agents cut him off after the JPP thing.  

But Rapaport and the rest have been crushing him on breaking news.  It's actually worth a story, I'm surprised we haven't read one on Deadspin or something.

 
massraider said:
Wait, what are you congratulating yourself for here?  I don't get it.
Click to expand...
He's deflecting from the fact that he's been about as a wrong as a person could possibly be about Gordon, his dedication to football, his relationship to Manziel, and his testing clean.  So he wants to talk about his vast knowledge of football reporters instead.

 
Wow, it's like I walked into a thread where the player's reinstatement was refused and his status for the 16/17 season is suspended.

 
It really feels like the NFL is making its' decisions on Gordon based strictly on what will most impact this particular thread.  

 
I didn't feel like searching through 32 pages so, disregard if someone has already posted this. 

A diluted test means that there was too much water (and not enough of everything else) in his urine for them to run their tests. *Ready for the "no #### Sherlock" replies* Gordon as a pro athlete is likely drinking a lot of water. This test result isn't his fault. The tech that took his sample should've told him that it was too diluted and make him sit there and wait until he had to pee again.

I have had to do a lot of urine tests for work and have had two rejected for being too diluted. And they know immediately (I believe they do a PH test as well as a visual). They tell you and then all that happens is they make you sit in the waiting area and give you a small cup of water at timed intervals. Then know how often you can drink water and how much so that you can produce a better sample. I've never failed a test and I've certainly never been told that my diluted sample was a cause for concern. 

It's complete garbage that the NFL can hold this against him. It's basically the same as if the lab were to spill his sample all over then floor and then the NFL blames Gordon for an inconclusive test. If there's some more to the story (which there very well could be) then fine. Kick him out of the league. But to fault him because the person who was in charge of the test said it was a good enough sample, is ridiculous. 

 
Mello said:
Congrats to your friend on being an obedient little slave and thinking bending over to stupid rules (and in his case propaganda against all of us) is somehow virtuous.
Click to expand...
Well..he WAS in the military...you know, keeping us all free and safe and protecting secrets for national security and stuff...so I'm gonna give him a pass for complying to a "stupid rule" here or there. 

And, hey, I'm gonna give you a pass too on this for being upset because you're Gordon ownership is clouding the logic here for you. If an employer (the guy that pays you and offers you the standard of living you have...and in this case offers a VERY generous standard of living) says you need to wear a red vest to represent them then you do it. If they say you can't comingle with rival companies then you do it. If they say you can't participate in illegal drugs then, yeah, you do it. It's really very simple. There are 98% of the NFL's other employees who seem to benefit by working in their structured work environment. Is anyone's job 100% "do what the hell I want all the time?"  No. Nobody gets that.

It is what it is but if you are wanting to be a malcontent on an issue as cut and dry as this, you probably have a hidden agenda.

 
Borden said:
I didn't feel like searching through 32 pages so, disregard if someone has already posted this. 

A diluted test means that there was too much water (and not enough of everything else) in his urine for them to run their tests. *Ready for the "no #### Sherlock" replies* Gordon as a pro athlete is likely drinking a lot of water. This test result isn't his fault. The tech that took his sample should've told him that it was too diluted and make him sit there and wait until he had to pee again.

I have had to do a lot of urine tests for work and have had two rejected for being too diluted. And they know immediately (I believe they do a PH test as well as a visual). They tell you and then all that happens is they make you sit in the waiting area and give you a small cup of water at timed intervals. Then know how often you can drink water and how much so that you can produce a better sample. I've never failed a test and I've certainly never been told that my diluted sample was a cause for concern. 

It's complete garbage that the NFL can hold this against him. It's basically the same as if the lab were to spill his sample all over then floor and then the NFL blames Gordon for an inconclusive test. If there's some more to the story (which there very well could be) then fine. Kick him out of the league. But to fault him because the person who was in charge of the test said it was a good enough sample, is ridiculous. 
Click to expand...
Not one mention of the marijuana found in his urine.  Gordon has been surrounded by apologists and enablers his entire life. That's why he's like he is. Gordon is a massive bonehead. That's why he hasn't been reinstated. You can blame Goodell, the guy at the testing lab, the man in the moon. Makes no difference. Gordon is just another Justin Blackmon and has no one to blame but himself.

 
Borden, according to Ian Rapoport, there was a substance that is used to dilute marijuana in his urine samples.

This was not a case of "too much water".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3 said:
we're exactly where we were the day before yesterday.

and yesterday. 

awaiting a decision.
Click to expand...
I don't think you quite understand.  There isn't an announcement to say that Josh Gordon's reinstatement was denied.  That is not how it works.  The communication from the NFL will be "nothing has changed" until an announcement comes that he has been re-instated. 

The league doesn't announce whether an application has been denied. The announcement only comes with reinstatement.
Click to expand...
http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2015/10/2/9440125/reading-between-the-lines-of-the-daryl-washington-nothingness

 
JuniorNB said:
Not one mention of the marijuana found in his urine.  Gordon has been surrounded by apologists and enablers his entire life. That's why he's like he is. Gordon is a massive bonehead. That's why he hasn't been reinstated. You can blame Goodell, the guy at the testing lab, the man in the moon. Makes no difference. Gordon is just another Justin Blackmon and has no one to blame but himself.
Click to expand...
Relax, Junior. This is the article that I saw:

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/josh-gordon-has-an-easy-path-to-reinstatement--but-can-he-do-it--141349297.html

It says nothing about marijuana. After your fired up reply I followed the trail of links and read the article that talks about the marijuana. I agreed that he should be out of the league. No excuses. 

This thread is seems pretty aggressive. If only there was something that could calm us down. Maybe a field trip to Denver?

 
Borden said:
Relax, Junior. This is the article that I saw:

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/josh-gordon-has-an-easy-path-to-reinstatement--but-can-he-do-it--141349297.html

It says nothing about marijuana. After your fired up reply I followed the trail of links and read the article that talks about the marijuana. I agreed that he should be out of the league. No excuses. 

This thread is seems pretty aggressive. If only there was something that could calm us down. Maybe a field trip to Denver?
Click to expand...
I'll pass thanks.  Because of random drug testing my company does. Apologies if you're not one of the blind Gordon apologists because you've held him in your dynasty league. You should read the thread. It's hilarious how his owners make excuses for the guy.

 
Applies for reinstatement a couple months ago, 1 month later still can't give a clean sample. Lets say he manages to go 90 days and pass whatever tests, how long before he fails another one after that? Too bad, what a waste of talent. :thumbdown:

 
Ive owned gordon since day one.  Held all this time.... this guy is the definition of stupid. If his test was infact for Marijuana and diluted he knew good and well he smoked . Other wise it would not have been diluted. When millions of dollars and record breaking potential is on the line any one with common sense wouldnt even be in the same house/car/building and marijuana let alone the same room. Ill continue to hold but i do not expect another down from gordon.

 
The guy hasn't even been in the league for a full 4 years, but has been traded 6 times in my dynasty league (most recently this morning).

 
Borden said:
I didn't feel like searching through 32 pages so, disregard if someone has already posted this. 

A diluted test means that there was too much water (and not enough of everything else) in his urine for them to run their tests. *Ready for the "no #### Sherlock" replies* Gordon as a pro athlete is likely drinking a lot of water. This test result isn't his fault. The tech that took his sample should've told him that it was too diluted and make him sit there and wait until he had to pee again.

I have had to do a lot of urine tests for work and have had two rejected for being too diluted. And they know immediately (I believe they do a PH test as well as a visual). They tell you and then all that happens is they make you sit in the waiting area and give you a small cup of water at timed intervals. Then know how often you can drink water and how much so that you can produce a better sample. I've never failed a test and I've certainly never been told that my diluted sample was a cause for concern. 

It's complete garbage that the NFL can hold this against him. It's basically the same as if the lab were to spill his sample all over then floor and then the NFL blames Gordon for an inconclusive test. If there's some more to the story (which there very well could be) then fine. Kick him out of the league. But to fault him because the person who was in charge of the test said it was a good enough sample, is ridiculous. 
Click to expand...
You need to pay attention to the facts.  It was positive with dilute.  That doesn't mean it was watered down, there are plenty of substances that are considered dilutants that, if present, would invalidate the sample.

It was also positive.  Dilute or not, dude had weed in his system.  At a time when he's under suspension for marijuana use, and begging for that suspension to be lifted, he tested positive.

 
I'm reading this thread while sipping my morning coffee and smoking my morning bowl... It's a shame that this kid couldn't get his life together.

 
shefter's tweet today makes no sense, so if gordon can pass his piss tests for the next 60-90 days that's good enough for NFL?  even by NFL standards this is one random abritrary way to evaluate the situation  

 
iamkoza said:
shefter's tweet today makes no sense, so if gordon can pass his piss tests for the next 60-90 days that's good enough for NFL?  even by NFL standards this is one random abritrary way to evaluate the situation  
Click to expand...
we've already established that, suddenly, Schefter knows nothing and is just talking for the sake of talking.

 
iamkoza said:
shefter's tweet today makes no sense, so if gordon can pass his piss tests for the next 60-90 days that's good enough for NFL?  even by NFL standards this is one random abritrary way to evaluate the situation  
Click to expand...
Maybe they are giving him the "second-hand" benefit of the doubt?  It's not how I'd do it, but that's kind of the point of "sole discretion".

 
spider321 said:
Please stop pretending that weed was the only substance in his samples.
Click to expand...
you KNOW what was in his samples? was there some sort of release of his documents?

so he pissed dirty, pissed another substance, yet in 60 days he could still be a starting NFL player.

Got it.

 
There was a substance that is used to dilute drugs in urine in his samples.

The idiot smoked weed, tried to dilute it with a banned substance, and pissed both out in his test.

60 days.  600 days.  6,000 days.  The only way he's going to an NFL game is if he buys a ticket.

 
Too bad he is hanging around with Manziel instead of Onterrio Smith.  He could have used that whizzinator back in March for his test. 

 
spider321 said:
There was a substance that is used to dilute drugs in urine in his samples.

The idiot smoked weed, tried to dilute it with a banned substance, and pissed both out in his test.

60 days.  600 days.  6,000 days.  The only way he's going to an NFL game is if he buys a ticket.
Click to expand...
We don't know that to be true.....link

"Investigators affiliated with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration in Rockville, Maryland assessed the likelihood of second-hand smoke exposure triggering a positive urine test under varying environmental conditions.

Six non-users were seated with experienced cannabis smokers in an alternating manner in each of the three study conditions. Non-smoking participants were exposed to second-hand cannabis smoke for a period of one hour.

In session 1, marijuana smokers consumed cannabis of roughly 5 percent THC in a non-ventilated room. In session 2, smokers consumed cannabis consisting of roughly 11 percent THC under similar circumstances. Smokers in session 3 also consumed higher potency cannabis, but did so in a ventilated environment.

Short-term exposure to second-hand smoke of higher potency cannabis in a non-ventilated setting was significantly more likely to produce elevated carboxy-THC levels in non-users compared to exposure in the other conditions. (Carboxy-THC is the primary inert metabolite of THC.) In one subject, exposure in this setting produced carboxy-THC levels above 50ng/ml, the standard cut-off for a presumptive urine screen. Several other session 2 participants tested positive at levels below 50ng/ml but above 20ng/ml, the standard cut-off for a confirmatory drug screen.

Session 2 participants continued to test positive for the presence of carboxy-THC at levels of 10ng/ml some 30 hours post exposure."

So second hand smoke caused positive results for these non-smokers (up to 30 hours later!) in a medical study done by "investigators affiliated with Johns Hopkins", why would we see different results with Gordon?

The results of that test are actually pretty interesting, found here.  One of the non-smoking subjects had a reading of 6.9 ng/ml at one point, and then registered a 27.3 ng/ml an hour later (again, without smoking anything directly).  One to three hours later, again without smoking anything, they registered a 57.5. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
We don't know that to be true.....link

"Investigators affiliated with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration in Rockville, Maryland assessed the likelihood of second-hand smoke exposure triggering a positive urine test under varying environmental conditions.

Six non-users were seated with experienced cannabis smokers in an alternating manner in each of the three study conditions. Non-smoking participants were exposed to second-hand cannabis smoke for a period of one hour.

In session 1, marijuana smokers consumed cannabis of roughly 5 percent THC in a non-ventilated room. In session 2, smokers consumed cannabis consisting of roughly 11 percent THC under similar circumstances. Smokers in session 3 also consumed higher potency cannabis, but did so in a ventilated environment.

Short-term exposure to second-hand smoke of higher potency cannabis in a non-ventilated setting was significantly more likely to produce elevated carboxy-THC levels in non-users compared to exposure in the other conditions. (Carboxy-THC is the primary inert metabolite of THC.) In one subject, exposure in this setting produced carboxy-THC levels above 50ng/ml, the standard cut-off for a presumptive urine screen. Several other session 2 participants tested positive at levels below 50ng/ml but above 20ng/ml, the standard cut-off for a confirmatory drug screen.

Session 2 participants continued to test positive for the presence of carboxy-THC at levels of 10ng/ml some 30 hours post exposure."

So second hand smoke caused positive results for these non-smokers (up to 30 hours later!) in a medical study done by "investigators affiliated with Johns Hopkins", why would we see different results with Gordon?

The results of that test are actually pretty interesting, found here.  One of the non-smoking subjects had a reading of 6.9 ng/ml at one point, and then registered a 27.3 ng/ml an hour later (again, without smoking anything directly).  One to three hours later, again without smoking anything, they registered a 57.5. 
Click to expand...
This would be a better argument if the subject matter wasn't a known weed addict who has failed many tests in the past. There's not one person in the country who believes he tested positive from second hand smoke. Even if a few Browns fans and Gordon owners pretend to.

 
JuniorNB said:
This would be a better argument if the subject matter wasn't a known weed addict who has failed many tests in the past. There's not one person in the country who believes he tested positive from second hand smoke. Even if a few Browns fans and Gordon owners pretend to.
Click to expand...
The test didn't discuss if the "non-smokers" in the study were previous weed addicts like Gordon.  Second hand smoke may react with the body of a former weed addict differently than with someone who's never smoked. 

Also, it wasn't a "positive test" in the eyes of the NFL.  Their threshold is at 35 ng/ml, and he reportedly registered under that.  I haven't seen anywhere (official) stating just how high his level was.

 
spider321 said:
Stop it.  Just stop.
Click to expand...
Thought I would cut out all the middle.  I thought if I said, "you can test positive from second hand smoke" - you'd ask for a reputable study showing that.  I just provided the study from the start.  Have we seen anywhere official just what his "weed reading" was in this failed test. 

Again, it was a failed test, not a positive test (in the eyes of the NFL, which is really all that matters).

 
Even if it is second hand smoke, who cares?  The fact that he is still in the same room as the substance that stands between him and his muli-million dollar job is just ridiculous.  It just comes down to how bad you want one or the other.  Yes it is a difficult task for pot smoking 24 year old to completely avoid his friends and the recreation he enjoys, but many in his shoes have done it.  It's very clear that his top priority is not being a star in the NFL and making money, and that's fine.  Just don't cry about it.  

 
matttyl said:
The test didn't discuss if the "non-smokers" in the study were previous weed addicts like Gordon.  Second hand smoke may react with the body of a former weed addict differently than with someone who's never smoked. 

Also, it wasn't a "positive test" in the eyes of the NFL.  Their threshold is at 35 ng/ml, and he reportedly registered under that.  I haven't seen anywhere (official) stating just how high his level was.
Click to expand...
It WAS a positive test!!!!!

He had a banned diluting substance in both of the samples.  That makes it an automatic fail!!!!!

...and there was weed in BOTH samples!!!!

Are you guys ####### serious with these excuses for the idiot?!

 
spider321 said:
It WAS a positive test!!!!!

He had a banned diluting substance in both of the samples.  That makes it an automatic fail!!!!!

...and there was weed in BOTH samples!!!!

Are you guys ####### serious with these excuses for the idiot?!
Click to expand...
It was positive for dilute, not a positive test for weed.  It was, as you said, a "failed test" regardless.  I just was pointing out that it wasn't a positive test (in the eyes of the NFL) for weed.

Again, have we seen just what his reading was?  If it was up near the 35 ng/ml threshold, I'm right there with you that he's a moron and would have had to have been in the same room as someone smoking within just a few hours of the test being administered.  If it was was around 10 ng/ml or below - you could register that a couple hours after any decent concert these days (and that level wouldn't have even registered as a positive test even before the NFL lessened their stance on weed two years ago).

I'm holding at least a bit of judgement until I see just where he level was (of both weed and dilute). 

 
Good news, guys!

matttyl won't jump to conclusions when he walks in on you giving his old lady the "nude Heimlich maneuver".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it's been a slow offseason - and it looks like Soulfly could use some help.

I was just making the point said perfectly from CBS sports - " The test in question was a diluted sample, not a full-blown positive per the report."

All I'm saying is we don't yet know some key pieces of evidence.  There was a trace amount of weed in one sample from a month ago - that's about all we know on the weed side of it.  How high was the reading? (that is key to me)  Was this the only test that registered any reading from the ~10 or so tests a month that he's taking?

It was also apparently diluted with something.  What?  How much? 

If it was so cut and dry as many are making it out to be, they where did the Schefter story of 60-90 days clean come from?  I mean, wouldn't it just be "he's done for 2016 and he can try again next year?"

I'm going to feel much different about Gordon if his "positive weed test" is at 2 ng/ml than I will if it's at 34.9 ng/ml (though, either reading on it's own would be fine per the NFL).

 
spider321 said:
It WAS a positive test!!!!!

He had a banned diluting substance in both of the samples.  That makes it an automatic fail!!!!!

...and there was weed in BOTH samples!!!!

Are you guys ####### serious with these excuses for the idiot?!
Click to expand...
If it were this cut and dry, he'd be banned for 2016 as well.  Currently he isn't, and that much remained a possibility even yesterday.  No ones making excuses for him.  

 
matttyl said:
It was positive for dilute, not a positive test for weed.  It was, as you said, a "failed test" regardless.  I just was pointing out that it wasn't a positive test (in the eyes of the NFL) for weed.

Again, have we seen just what his reading was?  If it was up near the 35 ng/ml threshold, I'm right there with you that he's a moron and would have had to have been in the same room as someone smoking within just a few hours of the test being administered.  If it was was around 10 ng/ml or below - you could register that a couple hours after any decent concert these days (and that level wouldn't have even registered as a positive test even before the NFL lessened their stance on weed two years ago).

I'm holding at least a bit of judgement until I see just where he level was (of both weed and dilute). 
Click to expand...
Wow dude.  I hope you're just trying to liven the board up by playing devil's advocate. If you're this gullible and naïve, you have major problems.

 
JuniorNB said:
Wow dude.  I hope you're just trying to liven the board up by playing devil's advocate. If you're this gullible and naïve, you have major problems.
Click to expand...
A little bit of both, honestly.  Again as I mentioned earlier, I sell life insurance for a living.  Part of the underwriting on nearly all policies is a blood and urine specimen.  In my nearly 14 years in the business now, I've seen some pretty whacky things.  The one that comes up the most is tobacco (nicotine).  It affects different people different ways.  I have had people have a positive test from second hand smoke (underwriters can't tell me exact readings per HIPAA, but do ask why there would be any present).  I've had people test positive for weed. I don't recall the exact situation offhand, but I had a guy canceled for coverage due to some reading - which was apparently because he drank a whole lot of grape juice (not grape soda, grape juice is super high in something specific) just prior to the test.

Again, all I'm saying is I'd like to know exactly what his reading was.  I'll feel much different from a 2 ng/ml reading than I will with a 34.9 ng/ml one.  I think most in this thread on either side of the "argument" would agree.

 
Hankmoody said:
He sure is.  Unless 2016 is exempt from "indefinitely". 
Click to expand...
No, he isn't "banned" from 2016, either.  He's currently on suspension with apparently a chance at reinstatement before the start of the season still.  People continue to compare him to Blackmon.  Blackmon was denied reinstatement by the NFL.  That hasn't happened (yet) to Gordon.

As far as I know, there are only like 2-3 guys in history to ever be "banned" from the league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Travdogg's positional rankings from week 4 onward
2
Replies
73
Views
4K
stillfeelme
S
T
Travdogg's positional rankings from week 8 onward
Replies
25
Views
2K
travdogg
T
T
Travdogg's positional rankings from week 5 onward
Replies
37
Views
3K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top