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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Soulfly3
- Start date
DallasDMac
Footballguy
Because that's when he figures he'll finally be tired of trolling everyone with this horrible schtick.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
So you have been pimping Gordon as a top 3 dynasty asset. yet, EVERYTHING changes for you if he isn't playing at the start of this season?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Like he's going to get through next Wednesday clean.
matttyl
Footballguy
I don't mean to be a #### about this, but this situation honestly intrigues me, partially due to my job (explained above).
What you quoted is correct (pursuant to Appendix A, paragraphs 1 and 3 concerning "Limits of Detection" in the NFL Drug policy), but doesn't really matter as the dilute sample itself (no matter if it has trace substances or not) constitutes a positive test, right? So I'm not sure why it's any different if there are trace amounts found or not, as the entire sample was considered "dilute", and thus a positive test.
Found in paragraph 1.3.3 - "In addition, a "dilute specimen" - a urine specimen that has a specific gravity value less than 1.003 and a creatinine concentration of less than 20 mg/dL - shall be deemed positive."
So, since he was in in state three as you mentioned, and had a positive test of any kind, wouldn't section 1.5.3 "Section Three" paragraphs (c) and (b) apply (and were already applied to him properly in 2014 (10 games) and 2015 (season long ban))?
Paragraph (b) of that section "A Player who:fails to cooperate with testing, treatment, evaluation or other requirements imposed on him by this Policy or fails to comply with his Treatment Plan, both as determined by the Medical Director;or who has a Positive Test Result,will be banished from the NFL for a minimum period of one(1) calendar year."
That's exactly what happened with Gordon in 2014 and 2015. He was suspended for 10 games in 2014, was in stage 3, tested positive for alcohol and was suspended for at least one year. The news this week was that he failed another drug test (tested positive for dilute while in stage 3, with or without trace amounts of anything) - so shouldn't he be suspended again for a minimum of one year? Why the news that he can reapply again in ~100 days? Is this a special circumstance for Josh, or is something else in play here?
The policy isn't clear: it says if a player has a violation in stage 3, he will be suspended indefinitely & can apply for reinstatement after 1 year. It doesn't specifically say what will happen if a player has another violation while indefinitely suspended.
The reasonable assumption would be that he automatically starts the clock again & must wait another year before applying for reinstatement again, but it doesn't specifically say that.
It also says that the Commish has "sole discretion" to determine "if and when" he will be allowed to return to the NFL.
Logic says he has to wait another year, but the policy doesn't specify that.
Policy; pertinent information is on pages 18-19
massraider
Footballguy
I think it's one of two things:
1. It is a special circumstance for Josh. Because his sample was technically diluted, and not a full-on positive, they want to avoid the headache they had last time. Lawsuits, the courts, etc. If he gives another bad sample before August 1st, his people, and the public won't be have a leg to stand on with the #FreeJoshGordon movement. If it goes to court, they'll have two bad samples to point to (''Yer honor, we gave Smokey Robinson over there another chance, and he blew it''). If he is clean between now and then, the NFL can say, thank god, let this idiot play, and let's move on. I don't believe for a second the NFL wants to bust Gordon. But if they ever buried a positive test, and allowed him back in, and word got out, it would be a nightmare.
But I don't really think that's what's going on. I think it is:
2. They are continuing his indefinite suspension. One clarification which is important: He was not suspended for a year. He was suspended indefinitely, with ability to apply after one year. He applied, it was denied. He is still suspended indefinitely. If his application was denied, where is it written he has to wait another year to re-apply? Maybe the NFL just said, hey, you are denied at the moment, and we will allow you to re-apply in a few months. Maybe there is a bylaw discussing when re-application is allowed, or maybe it is at the discretion of the league, depending on whether or not they feel the player has made strides.
I know the anti-Soulfly3 crew wants to declare victory, but there is still a window here to save his season.
What I keep thinking is that he isn't playing the game correctly. Maybe it's Rosenhaus' fault, maybe it's his. But it seems like the NFL let it be known that clean tests aren't enough. Play the game, Josh!!! Go to high schools, with a reporter in tow. Give speeches about wasted promise, gateway drugs, and running with the wrong crowd. Do a big ESPN feature, showing you at soup kitchens, and having deep conversations about your tough childhood, hopefully with some old lady in the story (''This is Mama Bee, she raised me from the time I was 4 years old'').
Lose Manziel's number, whether or not it should matter is a ######ed semantics argument. Assume it does. Don't go to Vegas. Go on a freaking charity mission to Liberia. 4 months of PR, like you running for office.
matttyl
Footballguy
I believe it does, though. Paragraph (c) of section 1.5.3 (Stage 3) says that "any" subsequent positive test after the 10-game suspension for weed is that paragraph (b) applies - which I quoted above. This is what happened with Josh lat year - a positive test for alcohol, and was suspended for at least one year (making him wait till February of this year before applying for reinstatement, which was denied due to another failed test). Again, "any subsequent" positive test, not just the first one.
I just like things to be black and white - so if the NFL is saying he can try again in like ~100 days (which is still before the start of the regular season) I have no idea why that would be.
matttyl
Footballguy
I believe in section 1.5.3 paragraphs c and b of the drug code (linked above). It's not the denial that means he has to wait another year to reapply, it's the "positive test" which apparently happened last month. The last sentence of your first paragraph above may be exactly what's going on here. Again, the "source" here is still unnamed, and we have no idea of the levels of anything in his sample - but a positive is a positive.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Nothing will happen that day? He's allowed to apply for reinstatement but I'm guessing Goodell isn't going to have a decision by the end of the day.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
No, but before the season begins isn't unlikely.
Schef and company said the Commish wanted to see 90 days of "clean pissing" - 90 days will have been done and dusted by Aug 1. The entire "portfolio" will have been created and submitted.
1 month to read a case and make a decision is plenty of time... For a normal individual. For Roger... We'll see.
steelers1080
Footballguy
Goodell will take his full 60+ days to review. Gordon probably wouldn't be back before October at the earliest. That will be 3 offseasons in a row he's missed. So even if he plays, he still won't know how to read a defense and make route adjustments. And even though he played with RG3 in college, that was years ago, so that timing is shot. The odds he does well, even if he plays this year, are now pretty much 0.
Also, it looks like the Browns are done with him, can they trade him while he's suspended?
Also, it looks like the Browns are done with him, can they trade him while he's suspended?
massraider
Footballguy
I think pinning hopes on not missing a game is silly. If he gets back on the field anytime in September, it's great.
There's plenty of time for Gordon owners to complian about speed of NFL process in August, let's not do it now.
squistion
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
Man, this is such a great point.
The excuse (pardon me, the reason) given for Josh's sluggishness last time was lack of game shape. What's the difference going to be this time? Shouldn't we expect the same result? I mean, how rusty can a guy be?
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Every poster in this thread has already put more effort into Gordon's life then the man himself.
zamboni
Footballguy
It probably was mentioned in this never ending thread, but one has to think that the Browns will be targeting one of the top WRs in the upcoming draft. So even if Gordon does get reinstated in August, is in great shape, and comes back this year, his window of opportunity as the go-to option in the passing game - when you also consider Barnidge - likely has come and gone in Cleveland. Will another team take a shot on him? Sure, but maybe as a complementary piece of the puzzle with little risk assumed.
matttyl
Footballguy
Cleveland was going to get a WR (or two or three) in this draft even if Gordon was reinstated last month and was living in a convent. His being reinstated or not, or in good shape or not, had no effect on them being in dire need of more WRs. I'm not sure, though, that some rookie WR would take over as the "go to" from day 1. No matter who the QB is this season, all the WRs in Cleveland will be new to them.
matttyl
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It sucks he will not be able to work out with the team beforehand though. Obviously him coming back the day before the season is better than not at all, but he may get off to a real slow start until he gets his feet under him and on page with RGIII or a rookie (yes, I know he played at Baylor with RGIII but still).
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Did Gordon ever play with RGIII?
IIRC, Gordon got suspended for, shocking I know, a failed drug test. He also got suspended for falling asleep in a Taco bell drive through.
zamboni
Footballguy
Agreed. The main point I guess is that back in 2013 the other WRs were Davone Bess and Greg Little. With Barnidge and another rookie WR, that may limit Gordon's upside in this offense when you factor in the rust involved even if he's reinstated on August 1.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
That's stage 3, though. According to the policy, he might not TECHNICALLY be in stage 3 at this moment.
From 1.5.3.e (bold & underline emphasis added by me)
If he is RETURNED to stage 3 if/when he gets reinstated, that would suggest that he is not currently in Stage 3. It seems that the indefinite suspension is a "stage" of its' own. Or at least, that's an argument that a lawyer might be able to make.
I thought he was allowed to be at Browns' facilities during his suspension (as a result of the new policy).
matttyl
Footballguy
That's pretty much what I did (and I was the Gordon buyer). Traded the #21 rookie pick for Gordon and the #29. No roster limit till week 1.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
matttyl
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I have already indicated that my opinion is the league is run pretty poorly, especially in this case, and their policies are at best inconsistent, and at worst blatantly unfair. I concur that what has gone on with Gordon is pretty stupid and pretty uncalled for (ie, file it under over hyped and mostly noise that could and should have played out differently).
That being said, Gordon has been his own worst enemy. I appreciate that you want Gordon to get a fair shake in all this, but the reality is he doesn't deserve it (and will be why he won't get it now either).
In the eyes of both the NCAA and NFL, he has been a multi, multi time offender. He got bounced out of one college program and could never suit up for another. He hasn't had a year in the NFL where he HASN'T been suspended. While I agree that taken individually, his urinalysis readings have not exactly been overwhelmingly bad, and people might be able to overlook a one time failure . . . but not multiple failures. But there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant.
The bottom line is, Gordon has wore out his welcome and burned through his favors long ago. I do not for one second think the league is going to expedite a review of his case, and for good reason. For years, Gordon has had the ability to stop his partying and conform but chose not to. Sure, he has the right to live his life how he wants to. But his employer says he has to do certain things, and he has gone out of his way not to conform to the terms of his employment.
As was mentioned pages and pages ago, Gordon STILL wants to push the limits of how he acts, where he goes, who he hangs out with, etc. He could be training hard and in the best shape of his life (life every other NFL at this point in the preseason), and the cold hard truth is that that side of things is mostly irrelevant, All he needed to do at any point was make changes and be a good soldier. But he did not do that across the board.
The longer things drag out, IMO, the longer the league will take to investigate his situation and make him suffer more for not complying with their policies and requirements, Put another way, in a court of law, how much leeway would a judge give to essentially a six time offender? Pretty much none. That's the situation Gordon finds himself in. He is essentially at the mercy of the court, and it is very unlikely that Goodell is going to rush through another investigation because he can't wait to see Gordon on the field again as soon as possible. Sadly, Gordon has not earned the right to have an expedited review of his case and has not comported himself to illustrate that he has complied, and will continue to comply, with league policies.
We don't have to debate whether this is fair or unfair, as the whole situation has escalated and spiraled in the wrong direction. But Gordon has to own up to his actions and act differently in order to be on the field again as an NFL player. To date, his track record has shown that he has struggled to behave and to be incident free for years and years.
So there are basically several ways this can go. 1) Gordon changes his ways and sticks to that (gets reinstated and has no more issues), 2) the league changes its policy or starts ignoring marijuana in testing (probably unlikely), or 3) Gordon continues doing what he has been doing (and like every other season, ends up missing small chunks of time or entire seasons like he has been). The third one appears to be the odds on favorite at the moment, unless Gordon can convince the league that his stuff don't stink or that they should change their drug policies (both of which I think are long shots as of today).
A somewhat similar situation (not drug related) happened with one of my kids recently at school. Twice he earned detention for leaving the classroom and being outside on school grounds. He was told he could not leave the classroom and be outside. The following week, he earned more detention because he was outside the classroom he was supposed to be in and was wondering around in the hallway. His argument was that he did what he was told . . . he didn't go outside.
Al the little things Gordon is doing is only illustrating that he really hasn't matured and changed his ways. All it reflects is a half-hearted attempt to somewhat comply with or circumvent the rules. If he acted like 1,500 other NFL did, he wouldn't be in this situation. Gordon playing the victim card got a lot of play back in the day, but that is wearing thin. Just do what you are told (at a minimum until you get reinstated) and keep your mouth shut and keep a low profile. But for whatever reason, he seems incapable of even doing that. It's not rocket science. All he needed to do was be a ghost, stay out of the limelight, stop partying for awhile, and then get reinstated. But it appears that that hasn't been the case.
I would be SHOCKED if he is allowed to suit up for Week 1. I expect the next investigation to take longer than the one that was just completed.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Just out of idle curiosity, if nothing else bad happens (ie, more failed drug tests or run ins with the authorities), how many games to you envision Gordon playing in this season based on the situation as of today?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll take a shot:
If Gordon actually makes it looks like he wants to "get in line," i.e.-rehab, no more pics in Vegas/tattoo parlors, distances himself from "bad influences" (Manziel), I'd expect him to play in 8-12 games (barring injury and any failed tests after reinstatement)
If there is no more news (good OR bad), I'd say around 6.
If there continues to be what we saw for the last few months (prior to the news of the diluted test), I don't think he'll get reinstated.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
If Rosenhaus gets in his ear he'll do whatever it takes to (be able to) play at least 6 games this season so that his rookie deal doesn't toll for yet another year.
matttyl
Footballguy
Just curious, but what do you base that on? I mean, if the NFL came out and said that he can apply for reinstatement on August 1st, and I believe in the CBA it states that a determination has to be made within 60 days - wouldn't that be ~October 1st? That's somewhere around week 3 or 4. Could Godell say "you're reinstated, in another 60 days" at that point?
Catbird
Footballguy
I think its pretty clear that Goodell wants to reinstate him, if only Gordon will give him a chance to. This blown test was enough to keep Gordon out for this season or even for life, but Goodell didn't take that route at all. He had to something punitive for a blown drug test, but saying, 'Stay clean for 60 days and I'll let you back in' - which is how I see the league statement - is more in keeping with the league wanting another star to be back stirring up fans (and maybe making CLE slightly more competitive). I think he'll decide very shortly after the 8/1 date and either extend the ban if there is new bad news and reinstate if there isn't.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I think people are adding spin and reading what they want to believe, which may not be how things are.
For starters, there is no "requirement" for a decision to be made in 60 days. IIRC, the CBA says an effort shall be made to complete an investigation in a timely manner and within 60 days if possible. But I can't think of a single case where a player was reinstated within 60 days (late alone any earlier). The onus is on the suspended player to prove that he should be reinstated, not on the league to have to reinstate a player at all or within a certain time frame.
Also, we have no idea that Goodell "wants" Gordon reinstated. IMO, that's the spin and the bias of the reporters and has nothing at all to do with any opinion that the league has. The headlines read that Gordon only has to be clean until August 1 to be reinstated. Technically that COULD happen, but that's what people want to happen. I have not seen any quote from the commissioner saying that he can't wait to have Gordon back, that they will expedite his petition for reinstatement, that they think his recent test was no big deal, etc. The league has gone out of their way NOT to comment.
And to reiterate, the more problems Gordon has over time, IMO, the LESS likely the league is to jump just because Gordon or his agent says so. I think the opposite will be true . . . that they will make him go through more vetting and more hoops, not less.
For starters, there is no "requirement" for a decision to be made in 60 days. IIRC, the CBA says an effort shall be made to complete an investigation in a timely manner and within 60 days if possible. But I can't think of a single case where a player was reinstated within 60 days (late alone any earlier). The onus is on the suspended player to prove that he should be reinstated, not on the league to have to reinstate a player at all or within a certain time frame.
Also, we have no idea that Goodell "wants" Gordon reinstated. IMO, that's the spin and the bias of the reporters and has nothing at all to do with any opinion that the league has. The headlines read that Gordon only has to be clean until August 1 to be reinstated. Technically that COULD happen, but that's what people want to happen. I have not seen any quote from the commissioner saying that he can't wait to have Gordon back, that they will expedite his petition for reinstatement, that they think his recent test was no big deal, etc. The league has gone out of their way NOT to comment.
And to reiterate, the more problems Gordon has over time, IMO, the LESS likely the league is to jump just because Gordon or his agent says so. I think the opposite will be true . . . that they will make him go through more vetting and more hoops, not less.
The CBA doesn't state that (or more accurately, the policy doesn't state that).
It was reported that they'd make that decision in 60 days, and the NFL never bothered to refute it, until after the 60 days had passed; then when asked about it, they said (paraphrasing), "there's no 60 day deadline."
I think, as Anarchy posted earlier, that a big part of the hold-up is that Gordon isn't doing what the NFL wants him to do. They want him to stay off drugs & alcohol, but they also want him to stop being a distraction. Stop going to Vegas (or at least, don't post about it on social media), stop hanging out with Johnny Manziel, act like you are sorry that you screwed up, not just that you got caught, etc.
If he "makes it right" (similar to what Vick did after his suspension-working with animal shelters, being sincerely sorry, etc), I think they'll be more inclined to reinstate him, and he will only miss a few games. If he doesn't do what they want him to do, but stops failing drug tests, and doesn't have any other negative news about him, they will reinstate him, but not as soon (I do think it will be soon enough to get 6 games in, b/c Rosenhaus might be inclined to enter the courts if they to reinstate him for fewer than 6).
Obviously, if he keeps screwing up, I don't expect him to be reinstated.
BTW-this is all based on my personal opinion/view, etc-it's not based on any insider info, or anything that I know that no one else does.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
The contract doesn't toll unless he's suspended the entire year. If he is eligible at all the contact year is fulfilled, but he would only have 2 accrued seasons and be an ERFA, which is even worse because they can offer him a 1 year garbage deal and he can't even go get competitive offers for them to match.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Thanks. I know for a holdout the player only has to come back for the last six games to accrue a season - but I guess the rules are different for a suspension.
matttyl
Footballguy
The drug policy (sorta) does.Bayhawks said:
page 30 - discussing reinstatement from stage 3 - "All individuals involved in the process will take steps to enable the Commissioner to render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the application."
Now, maybe the decision can be "you're done for the first 4 or 6 games of this year, then you can play," but I read the above to mean that if the player does everything the NFL asks, a decision will be made within 60 days of the receipt of the application.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The league has already covered the 60 day thing and their track record has shown that 60 days is not a practical reality. They have not stuck to 60 days for anyone (as far as I can tell). People can try to convince themselves that a decision will be made in 60 days from when a reinstatement petition is filed, but that's not how it works in the NFL.
"Enabling the commissioner to render a decision within 60 days" does not equate to "a decision must be made within 60 days."
"Enabling the commissioner to render a decision within 60 days" does not equate to "a decision must be made within 60 days."
If it (sorta) says that, by definition that means it (sorta) doesn't say it, as well.
Last edited by a moderator: