spider321
Footballguy
He is suspended indefinitely.
He will continue to be suspended indefinitely.
10 years from now, he will still be suspended indefinitely because he's a moron.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Josh Gordon - August 1, 2016 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Soulfly3
- Start date
He will continue to be suspended indefinitely.
10 years from now, he will still be suspended indefinitely because he's a moron.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
(in the terms we're talking about here) - Not permanent.
Since 2000 - Michael Vick, Richie Incognito, Don Jones, Martellus Bennett, Ray Rice, Derrick Shelby, Adrian Peterson, Derrick Coleman, Dale Carter (x2), Larry Webster, Travis Henry, Johnny Jolly, Tanard Jackson (x2), and Fred Davis were all "indefinitely" suspended, only to later be reinstated. Reinstatement has by far been the likeliest outcome for anyone ever suspended "indefinitely" by the league.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Will you give me 100:1 odds on that, for the next 365 days? Serious question (winnings simply go to charity).
Ok, but would you have different opinions if Snoop Dog tested positive, albeit below the threshold, or if Betty White did?
spider321
Footballguy
100 to 1? No, of course not. There is a zero percent chance that a Gordon plays this coming season, but what's the point of $1 going to charity?
Now, if you want to make a $50 1:1 bet on that, sure.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Well of course I'd have different opinions as they are different people. That said, both could be there from the same thing - as if both had been at the same "A list" party or something. Where did they each test in your example? If both were at 49.5 np/ml I'd say both were shooting up (likely him due to his past, her likely for pain management at her age - I've seen that in my line of work). If both were at the 2-5 np/ml range, I'd likely think both were at some party the night before or something. The amount tells us a lot.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
I never said it had to be only $1 at 100:1 odds, did I? If you truly were 100% convinced at the underlined, you would have jumped on it. There is still a shot he's reinstated this year, or for part of it. Remember, reinstatement =/= playing this year. He could be reinstated next month, and then suspended again the following (serious possibility with this guy).
spider321
Footballguy
Not true.
I would not bet $100, if you're only giving me 100:1 odds, that Jesus Christ himself won't come back to Earth and by some miracle reinstate Gordon.
Therefore, your end of the bet could not be more than $1 at 100:1 odds.
...and as I said, what's the point of $1 to charity.
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Honestly interesting read on the subject here, from pro football talk.
Gordon looking to go after the league for this leak. It also states quite emphatically that it was "necessarily negative for marijuana ". Being that the sample was under the threshold for a positive test, no one should have been told that there was any weed found in the sample at all. He's got a point there.
Gordon looking to go after the league for this leak. It also states quite emphatically that it was "necessarily negative for marijuana ". Being that the sample was under the threshold for a positive test, no one should have been told that there was any weed found in the sample at all. He's got a point there.
steelers1080
Footballguy
This is interesting. I wonder if that could be used as leverage to get him reinstated.
And if there's no "red flag" tests within the next 60-90 days then he "might" be reinstated. So, no positive tests and no diluted tests.
Not sure what there is to talk about for the next 60-90 days but I'm sure this will be discussed anyways.
matttyl
Footballguy
This is the part that honestly bugs me a bit, if true as written. There is some semi arbitrary timeline, to a possible reinstatement - and he has to have no "red flags" (what the hell constitutes a "red flag"?). There is nothing definitive in that statement at all. I mean, does he have a different threshold for a positive test? Is a 40 ng/ml reading an "orange flag" while a 45 reading is a "red" one?
Jello_Biafra
Footballguy
That stuff doesn't work. The only way to beat a drug test is to sub. i highly recommend QuickFix 6.1.massraider said:
Hankmoody
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Well, the technical definition you're likely searching for is "for an unlimited or unspecified period of time." So even using that definition, it isn't permanent. Looks like I'm not the one who's not understanding "indefinitely" after all, huh?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Why post this?
People here already have Gordon dead to rights, regardless of whether or not they have the facts.
You're not changing their opinion, just as they wont change mine
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Look at the players recently suspended indefinitely related to substance abuse and/or where the NFL wasn't forced by the NFLPA or a judge to reinstate.
Justin Blackmon - has not been reinstated
Daryl Washington - still no news of him being denied reinstatement and hasn't played for a couple years now
Tanard Jackson - missed two years under indefinite suspension
Fred Davis - reinstated
Josh Gordon - ???
Soulfly3
Footballguy
But the samples weren’t “positive for marijuana.” The amount of marijuana in the samples was below the 35 ng/ml minimum, making them necessarily negative for marijuana. This distinction makes the confidentiality breach more troubling; no one ever should have known that marijuana was found in Gordon’s sample, given that it was below the 35 ng/ml limit.
Likewise, a dilute specimen is technically positive for nothing. The term means that the specimen has a specific gravity value less than 1.003 and a creatinine concentration of less than 20 mg/dL. The NFL’s policy deems the same under these circumstances to be a positive test, even though it’s technically positive for nothing.
On Tuesday, someone leaked to ESPN that the NFL wants to see Gordon get through the next two or three months without another positive test before reinstating him.
Taken together, these reports explain the NFL’s ongoing failure to act on Gordon’s reinstatement application. However, they also constitute separate and clear violations of the confidentiality provision.
If the confidentiality provision is going to be ignored, the league should just get rid of it. Otherwise, it becomes yet another standard that the league enforces only when it wants to, not when it should.
Likewise, a dilute specimen is technically positive for nothing. The term means that the specimen has a specific gravity value less than 1.003 and a creatinine concentration of less than 20 mg/dL. The NFL’s policy deems the same under these circumstances to be a positive test, even though it’s technically positive for nothing.
On Tuesday, someone leaked to ESPN that the NFL wants to see Gordon get through the next two or three months without another positive test before reinstating him.
Taken together, these reports explain the NFL’s ongoing failure to act on Gordon’s reinstatement application. However, they also constitute separate and clear violations of the confidentiality provision.
If the confidentiality provision is going to be ignored, the league should just get rid of it. Otherwise, it becomes yet another standard that the league enforces only when it wants to, not when it should.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
The samples weren't positive...but these circumstances deem them to be a positive test by NFL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
and yet in 60 days he'll be catching passes from RG3.The samples weren't positive...but these circumstances deem them to be a positive test by NFL.
Go figure.
Between RG3's little girl legs and Gordon's life choices, I put the odds at about 20:1 that would happen for any amount of time.
matttyl
Footballguy
In reverse order...
Prior to Gordon's 2015 suspension, he was previously suspended for the entire 2014 season and had that overturned to 10 games (NFL didn't need to do that).
Fred Davis - reinstated
Tanard Jackson - previously had TWO DIFFERENT indefinite suspensions both overturned and he was reinstated both times.
Washington - had other, very serious, situations after initial drug suspension (so he was then both drug and personal conduct/legal situation)
Blackmon - was denied suspension, which isn't the case here (yet). In fact, news came out just today of a direct (and fairly short) path to his reinstatement.
What about Peterson, or Derrick Colman who I believe was the most recent "indefinite" suspension? He was "indefinitely" suspended mid-season, and missed a grand total of 1 game.
matttyl
Footballguy
How much of each? Also, the original source of this information is still unknown.
If you were so sure of the part you put in all caps, you'd have happily taken me up on my offer above.
spider321
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
At the risk of breaking the internet with this thread, what happened with Blackmon?
I thought his last DUI put him out for good?
matttyl
Footballguy
He applied for reinstatement to the league, and the league denied that application. The league has not denied any reinstatement application for Gordon (yet), and may not at all.
As far as I know, nothing it stopping him from eventually applying again.
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321
Footballguy
You're a genius, kid.
I'm !00% positive Gordon will never play again, but it's not worth it to keep up with and TRY to make you pay $1 to charity a year from now.
Understand? ...or are you still sounding out the letters?
Tell you what, I bet you at 100:1 odds that I can prove I'm really your daddy in the next 365 days. Money can go to charity.
You game?
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
Sorry, should have said "Gordon" there. Blackmon tried to get back in, and was denied. Actually, his last DUI came after the denial. I think if he wanted to he still could apply to be reinstated, but I doubt it would do any good.
For what it's worth Travis Henry was reinstated to the league 4 years after his indefinite suspension. Lots of good that did him.
matttyl
Footballguy
Again, just because it's 100:1 odds doesn't mean it's a $1 bet, or did you not see that above? Not sure you what don't get about that.
As for your offer, sure - what about. Just give some money to your local Salvation Army and we'll call it even, mmmkay?
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Peterson was reinstated because a judge forced the NFL. Peterson also got paid for the games he missed.
Derrick Coleman was suspended due to a traffic incident (not drugs) by the Seattle Seahawks, not the NFL.
Anymore softballs?
Last edited by a moderator:
spider321
Footballguy
Ok. Let's say you want my end to be $10. That makes your end $1,000.
Since I don't trust you, at all, please send your part of the bet to me to hold till next year.
...or you could research a reliable 3rd party to hold the $1,010.
Looking forward to it, son.
Is there something you don't get about that?
Oh, and tell your mom I said "Hey babe!"
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl
Footballguy
I was making the point that every case is different. This one is as well. If this were truly a "failed test", then what in the world is this 60-90 days clean thing all about?
I was simply pulling names off this wiki list of suspended players, didn't mention if the suspensions were from the league or team. You mentioned T Jackson, though - you realize he was himself reinstated twice from "indefinite" suspensions. Again, more often than not a player "indefinitely suspended" since 2000 has been reinstated.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
One of Tanard's suspension was also for 2 years. Not just one year.
As for the 60-90 day timeline, I think that is just a timeline for the next time the NFL will look at Josh Gordon's reinstatment application. After that it will be another 60-90 days, and then another 60-90 days after that. He is suspended indefinitely and the NFL will always be reviewing his ongoing suspension.
The NFL is just saying...."He failed a test, so he is not bring reinstated at this time and as normal protocol we will revisit his suspension in 2-3 months to see where we're at."
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
You two are lowering the level of discourse in this thread.
THIS thread. Think about that for a minute.
spider321
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Ok, you've taken this stupid "I'm your daddy" bit a bit too far here, settle. I was just trying to make the point that you can not say definitely that Gordon will not play this year. As I said earlier, just today the direct path to his playing again was laid out.
matttyl
Footballguy
Thanks for pointing that out. I was trying to keep it civil with him. It was rather tough after that last part.
matttyl
Footballguy
Exactly my point. They are all different. And the majority end with a reinstatement. Tanard himself at this point is 2 for 3 on them.
massraider
Footballguy
Not the most interesting Tweet you'll ever read, but hey.
spider321
Footballguy
Now you know why someone would not make a 100:1 bet, even when they are absolutely certain they are correct.
You learned something today! YAY!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
