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!

NFL Drug Policy - The Gordon Files (1 Viewer)

Soulfly3

Footballguy
Credit to RuhhRohh from the Scout forums for this post.

http://i.imgur.com/MgjZqxK.jpg


^ This is the most important part imo that you would want to see with your own eyes.


Ive only skimmed it but a few things that jump out.

stage 1 only lasts 90 days if player is a good boy
stage 3 lasts a lifetime. really really dont want to get there.
It takes 2 infractions to get out of stage 2 and into stage 3.

This infraction most likely takes Josh from stage 1 to stage 2 where he will have 2 chances to avoid stage 3.


I have to dig more to find out whats up with Haden. Any help would be nice. I believe he is in a different class of penalties because his was a performance enhancer while Codeine and Marijuana fall under substances of abuse

Hope this helps a few people sleep better tonight though.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Discuss.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what we have NO idea of.

Did the NFL start him in Stage 1 when he entered in the league due to college misgivings? If so, that's pretty uncool of them.

He's only been suspended ONCE in the NFL, and it was for TWO games, reduced from the 4. (doctors note to cover for the codeine)

If you look at what's written and HOW it's written, Id find it hard to believe he's in Stage 3.

But he very well could be... but I can't see a 2 game jump to a 16 game suspension.

 
Credit to RuhhRohh from the Scout forums for this post.

http://i.imgur.com/MgjZqxK.jpg

^ This is the most important part imo that you would want to see with your own eyes.

Ive only skimmed it but a few things that jump out.

stage 1 only lasts 90 days if player is a good boy

stage 3 lasts a lifetime. really really dont want to get there.

It takes 2 infractions to get out of stage 2 and into stage 3.

This infraction most likely takes Josh from stage 1 to stage 2 where he will have 2 chances to avoid stage 3.

I have to dig more to find out whats up with Haden. Any help would be nice. I believe he is in a different class of penalties because his was a performance enhancer while Codeine and Marijuana fall under substances of abuse

Hope this helps a few people sleep better tonight though.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Discuss.
Why is the link so specific? It starts with (2), then cuts off in the middle of clause (c.2)? Why wouldn't more information be included (like any kind of proof that this is actually the NFL policy)? There's no NFL letterhead, symbol, etc. In fact, there's nothing on that image that says this is an NFL document.

Furthermore, Gordon was suspended for 4 games last year (2 games, plus a fine of 2 additional game checks), which would indicate (IF this document is accurate), that he is facing AT LEAST a 6 game suspension. Since, however, we don't know how legitimate this document is, or what information was conveniently not shared on the image, or what other failed tests, or refusals to comply Gordon was hit with this last year, it doesn't really give any new information. It definitely wouldn't make me sleep better if I were a Browns fan, though.

 
It came w a link, but the link is not working for some reason... but it i from the nfl site it seems.

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/ PDFs/PlayerDevelopment/2010%20Drug%20Policy.pdf

Im trying to find a working link

eta: here's one that seems ot be working

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2011-synopsis-of-the-policies-final-8-19-11-5081.pdf
That isn't the same thing. I just went through it, and the first image isn't in the document from your second link.

Again, a number of sources have reported that Gordon is believed to be in stage 3 of the NFL's policy. We don't know if he is or not, but if he is, he faces a 1 year suspension, and would have to reapply for reinstatement after the year.

Based on Justin Blackmon's suspensions, I'd say Gordon is indeed facing the 1 year suspension. Blackmon was suspended for 4 games in April of 2013, then he was suspended for a year in November of 2013. There was no reports of failed tests in the interim, and he didn't get suspended for a longer period between the 4 game and 1 year suspensions.

I think you are grasping at straws; all reports and most of the information that is available suggests that Gordon will be gone for a year (barring a successful appeal).

 
That's what we have NO idea of.

Did the NFL start him in Stage 1 when he entered in the league due to college misgivings? If so, that's pretty uncool of them.

He's only been suspended ONCE in the NFL, and it was for TWO games, reduced from the 4. (doctors note to cover for the codeine)

If you look at what's written and HOW it's written, Id find it hard to believe he's in Stage 3.

But he very well could be... but I can't see a 2 game jump to a 16 game suspension.
Not really. They can't do anything the players didn't OK in the CBA.

 
I didnt make this post to grasp at anything.

Just putting the drug policy out there and having ppl discuss it.

I just stated he may very well be in stage 3. but judging by his NFL misgivings to date, I dont see how.

But like u said, same w Blackmon

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd assume he entered the league with a strike, he had two incidents in college resulting in a suspension there. He also entered the Sup draft. If he doesn't I'd be shocked.

 
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Wow. :thumbdown:

Anywhooo.

The NFL hasn't suspended a player who beat a woman unconcious but is threatening to do so for someone who tested positive for a natural plant.

THe NFL rules suck warm dog crap thru a straw and they need to be changed because people really don't give a flying F' if someone smokes pot. Who really cares? Beat your wife unconcious, hey come play in the NFL. Accomplice to murder? Here's your HOF pass. You tested positive for a natural plant? The horror, the horror. You might negatively influence our yute who we expose to wife beaters and murders. :whistle:

 
I'd guess (hope) that they change it under the next CBA as far as recreational drugs. I can see keeping it harsh for steroids d/t level playing field and all, but pot? GTFO NFL...

 
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year? Also, the NFL was not enforcing those laws on behalf of police, why must they do it here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a bigot and/or pothead. Whether it's legal or not where you live, it's illegal in the NFL. Many companies drug test employees, including mine. I can't go to Amsterdamn and get high and then come back and say "but it was legal where I did it". Sure, I didn't break a law, but I broke my companies rules. If I don't like my companies rules, nobody is forcing me to follow them, I'll just switch to a different company. Gordon can leave the NFL and move to Denver and work at a 7-eleven and live happily ever after if he chooses.

Whenever the Gordon thing gets brought up, all the potheads flock to the thread and complain about why pot should be legal. Get over it. That's not the topic of this thread and has nothing to do with anything.

And to throw a kink into your argument...I also think pot should be legal even though I don't use it. It's not though and that's why that argument should stop being used. All the hippies and stoners that use it as their fall back argument are only hurting the cause instead of helping it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a bigot and/or pothead. Whether it's legal or not where you live, it's illegal in the NFL. Many companies drug test employees, including mine. I can't go to Amsterdamn and get high and then come back and say "but it was legal where I did it". Sure, I didn't break a law, but I broke my companies rules. If I don't like my companies rules, nobody is forcing me to follow them, I'll just switch to a different company. Gordon can leave the NFL and move to Denver and work at a 7-eleven and live happily ever after if he chooses.

Whenever the Gordon thing gets brought up, all the potheads flock to the thread and complain about why pot should be legal. Get over it. That's not the topic of this thread and has nothing to do with anything.

And to throw a kink into your argument...I also think pot should be legal even though I don't use it. It's not though and that's why that argument should stop being used. All the hippies and stoners that use it as their fall back argument are only hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Instead you prefer to waste your time on fallback argument that it is against the rules. The rules are wrong and deserve to be challenged, whether or not it is illegal. It is not the NFL's job to enforce their morality, particularly when it is done so selectively.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PROPER DRUG POLICY LINK:

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/PlayerDevelopment/2010%20Drug%20Policy.pdf

To be moved into Stage 3 a player MUST have been given two positive tests.

So, in other words, Gordon would have had to started his career in the NFL in STAGE 2 in order to be eligible for a full season suspension.

So that's where all the confusion comes from... We don't know in what Stage the NFL Gordon's career started.
Not really.

The link you posted is the Drug Policy from 2010. The CBA was renegotiated in 2011. Based on the NFL's treatment/suspensions of Justin Blackmon (plus reports about Blackmon, Gordon, and other NFL player's possible suspensions), I'd imagine that the 2010 version is slightly outdated. It seems that instead of 3 failed tests causing a year-long ban, it only takes 2 (or that the 1st one is a "warning," and kept private?).

 
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a bigot and/or pothead. Whether it's legal or not where you live, it's illegal in the NFL. Many companies drug test employees, including mine. I can't go to Amsterdamn and get high and then come back and say "but it was legal where I did it". Sure, I didn't break a law, but I broke my companies rules. If I don't like my companies rules, nobody is forcing me to follow them, I'll just switch to a different company. Gordon can leave the NFL and move to Denver and work at a 7-eleven and live happily ever after if he chooses.

Whenever the Gordon thing gets brought up, all the potheads flock to the thread and complain about why pot should be legal. Get over it. That's not the topic of this thread and has nothing to do with anything.

And to throw a kink into your argument...I also think pot should be legal even though I don't use it. It's not though and that's why that argument should stop being used. All the hippies and stoners that use it as their fall back argument are only hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Instead you prefer to waste your time on fallback argument that it is against the rules. The rules are wrong and deserve to be challenged, whether or not it is illegal. It is not the NFL's job to enforce their morality, particularly when it is done so selectively.
Ok this will be my last response.

Your questions was: If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?

Your answer is: Smoking pot is a federal crime and against the rules in the NFL.

That's not a fallback argument. It's the reason.

 
Not really.

The link you posted is the Drug Policy from 2010. The CBA was renegotiated in 2011. Based on the NFL's treatment/suspensions of Justin Blackmon (plus reports about Blackmon, Gordon, and other NFL player's possible suspensions), I'd imagine that the 2010 version is slightly outdated. It seems that instead of 3 failed tests causing a year-long ban, it only takes 2 (or that the 1st one is a "warning," and kept private?).
The link is DIRECTLY FROM THE NFLPA WEBSITE.

Not only that, the heading is "Please click below to open the latest Drug Policy documentation."

 
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a bigot and/or pothead. Whether it's legal or not where you live, it's illegal in the NFL. Many companies drug test employees, including mine. I can't go to Amsterdamn and get high and then come back and say "but it was legal where I did it". Sure, I didn't break a law, but I broke my companies rules. If I don't like my companies rules, nobody is forcing me to follow them, I'll just switch to a different company. Gordon can leave the NFL and move to Denver and work at a 7-eleven and live happily ever after if he chooses.

Whenever the Gordon thing gets brought up, all the potheads flock to the thread and complain about why pot should be legal. Get over it. That's not the topic of this thread and has nothing to do with anything.

And to throw a kink into your argument...I also think pot should be legal even though I don't use it. It's not though and that's why that argument should stop being used. All the hippies and stoners that use it as their fall back argument are only hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Um, I live in Colorado and I'm not a pot head nor do I recreationally smoke nor have I ever and I don't have the desire but I have no issues with people who are adults and want to. The government shouldn't act like Daddy and tell adults what they can or can't do if it doesn't harm anyone else. They certainly don't with tobacco or achohol and they do more harm.

Just because your company tests you doesn't mean you or your damn company has the right to point to antiquaited laws to say, you better do what we say because its illegal. Come on. Prohibition showed the lunacy of trying to tell adults what they can't do recreationally. The law doesn't reflect the will of the people and the NFL hypocrocy of tring to force young men into following a policy that has no bearing on the league is highlighted by an odious policy that makes them look ridiculous.

 
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a bigot and/or pothead. Whether it's legal or not where you live, it's illegal in the NFL. Many companies drug test employees, including mine. I can't go to Amsterdamn and get high and then come back and say "but it was legal where I did it". Sure, I didn't break a law, but I broke my companies rules. If I don't like my companies rules, nobody is forcing me to follow them, I'll just switch to a different company. Gordon can leave the NFL and move to Denver and work at a 7-eleven and live happily ever after if he chooses.

Whenever the Gordon thing gets brought up, all the potheads flock to the thread and complain about why pot should be legal. Get over it. That's not the topic of this thread and has nothing to do with anything.

And to throw a kink into your argument...I also think pot should be legal even though I don't use it. It's not though and that's why that argument should stop being used. All the hippies and stoners that use it as their fall back argument are only hurting the cause instead of helping it.
Instead you prefer to waste your time on fallback argument that it is against the rules. The rules are wrong and deserve to be challenged, whether or not it is illegal. It is not the NFL's job to enforce their morality, particularly when it is done so selectively.
Ok this will be my last response.

Your questions was: If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?

Your answer is: Smoking pot is a federal crime and against the rules in the NFL.

That's not a fallback argument. It's the reason.
So they can allow it, they just don't want to.

 
Ok, for kicks I sent this to a lawyer friend to try to decipher. (He's also a Browns fan, but he dislikes Gordon.. not hates, but dislikes)

His interpretation is Gordon was brought into the NFL in Stage 2 of the Drug Policy.

His last suspension of 2 games (reduced from 4) was STRIKE ONE of Stage #2.

Whatever this infraction was that came up this week, will be STRIKE TWO in Stage #2, and a mandatory 4-6 games and AUTOMATIC progress into Stage #3 of the Drug Policy (danger zone)

This seems to be best case scenario now, imo. 4-6 games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PROPER DRUG POLICY LINK:

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/PlayerDevelopment/2010%20Drug%20Policy.pdf

To be moved into Stage 3 a player MUST have been given two positive tests.

So, in other words, Gordon would have had to started his career in the NFL in STAGE 2 in order to be eligible for a full season suspension.

So that's where all the confusion comes from... We don't know in what Stage the NFL Gordon's career started.
Not really.

The link you posted is the Drug Policy from 2010. The CBA was renegotiated in 2011. Based on the NFL's treatment/suspensions of Justin Blackmon (plus reports about Blackmon, Gordon, and other NFL player's possible suspensions), I'd imagine that the 2010 version is slightly outdated. It seems that instead of 3 failed tests causing a year-long ban, it only takes 2 (or that the 1st one is a "warning," and kept private?).
My understanding of the substance program is the first failed test remains private, but moves you into stage 1, which subjects you to additional testing. A second failure moves you into stage 2 and gets you a 4-game ban. A third failure moves you into stage 3 and gets you a year off. It's possible to move out of stage 1 and stage 2 after a certain number of clean tests, but anyone in stage 3 remains there for the rest of their NFL career. It's possible that a player can enter the league already in stage 1 of the substance program, although we don't know whether that applies to Josh Gordon (although, given the circumstances surrounding his entry to the league, I'd say it's a good bet). I'm not saying this is gospel, this is just my current understanding of the program, and if anyone has more concrete information I would love to hear it.

Either way, we know that Josh Gordon has had at the BARE MINIMUM four failed drug tests since 2010 (two for sure at Baylor, one last season to get a 4-game suspension, and this most recent one this offseason). This assumes that Gordon was already in stage 1 when he entered the league, otherwise there would have had to been another failed drug test that we never heard about to get him into stage 1. And it's possible that he failed more drug tests at Baylor (in my experience, major college athletes don't get suspended for an entire season for their second failed drug test). And it's likely that he failed at least one test at Utah to explain why he never played there. If so, we're now up to 5 or more failed drug tests in three and a half years. As a result of those failed tests, he got kicked off of one college football team, never played a down for a second one, had his draft position negatively impacted, lost a quarter of last year's salary, and has now placed his future earning potential in serious jeopardy. I don't feel at all hesitant to say that Josh Gordon has a problem, and that I have little reason to trust his ability to remain clean going forward. Also, regardless of what stage he's in, drug suspensions don't get more lenient the more of them you get. If there's discussion that this one is going to be for a full season, then I guarantee you the next will be for sure.

 
The NFL hasn't suspended a player who beat a woman unconcious but is threatening to do so for someone who tested positive for a natural plant.
Why do people keep saying this? If Ray Rice is found guilty, he WILL be suspended by the NFL - and that will be the least of his worries.

Rice has not been found guilty yet (although it looks like he is). Gordon IS guilty (if reports are true) of violating an NFL rule.

 
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year? Also, the NFL was not enforcing those laws on behalf of police, why must they do it here?
Alcohol is legal everywhere in the USA, but it is against my company's policy to have an alcoholic beverage, even during my lunch break.

 
The NFL hasn't suspended a player who beat a woman unconcious but is threatening to do so for someone who tested positive for a natural plant.
Why do people keep saying this? If Ray Rice is found guilty, he WILL be suspended by the NFL - and that will be the least of his worries.

Rice has not been found guilty yet (although it looks like he is). Gordon IS guilty (if reports are true) of violating an NFL rule.
People keep saying this because Roger Goodell had previously set a precedent that guilt is irrelevant when handing out suspensions. There are plenty of other examples of times Goodell declined to let the legal process play out before suspending a player.

Of course, ever since his Bountygate overreach, Goodell has been much more cautious and patient with suspensions. Witness the Marshawn Lynch situation, where punishment is still pending the outcome of a trial over a DUI he got a year and a half ago.

 
IF lesser penalties for recreational drugs is something the players value they can and should negotiate it in the next CBA until then obey the rules and stay off the weed.

if in the next CBA the players put a higher priority on maximum cash and less on administrative issues and they do not fight for changing the recreational drug use policy they'll have to live with it.

MY guess is it is not a priority beacuse most players either do not use or do not use when they are being tested, or they know how to beat the tests. I just don;t think this is a high priority (excuse the pun) to most players or the players union.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the NFL can allow gays, why not potheads?
Because being gay isn't illegal, but doing drugs is. And if I was a mod, you'd be sitting in timeout right now.

Hernandez was just a murderer in his personal life, are you unsure about why he can't play in the NFL?
Pretty sure murder is illegal in more places in the US than smoking pot. Should Denver and Seattle players be able to do it while players in Cleveland get banned for the year? Also, the NFL was not enforcing those laws on behalf of police, why must they do it here?
Alcohol is legal everywhere in the USA, but it is against my company's policy to have an alcoholic beverage, even during my lunch break.
Exactly. Seattle and Denver players can smoke all the pot they want in those states, they just can't work for the NFL if they choose to do that. They'd have to find an employer that allows marijuana use. If smoking pot is more important to them than making 150k a paycheck, then by all means....

 
The NFL hasn't suspended a player who beat a woman unconcious but is threatening to do so for someone who tested positive for a natural plant.
Why do people keep saying this? If Ray Rice is found guilty, he WILL be suspended by the NFL - and that will be the least of his worries.

Rice has not been found guilty yet (although it looks like he is). Gordon IS guilty (if reports are true) of violating an NFL rule.
You say IF Ray Rice is found guilty he WILL be prosectuted and suspended.

You say Josh Gordon IS GUILTY and then say if reports are true.

So Josh IS GUILTY but Ray Rice who was caught ON CAMERA OF BEATING HIS FIANCE UNCONCIOUS isn't till proven guilty.

Hmnnnnn. Maybe if Josh was caught ON CAMERA beating a woman unconcious you'd be more forgiving. I mean gosh if only Johs had beat a woman unconcious everything would be fine. Maybe if he came home covered in blood after his pals stabbed two men to death everything would be honky dory. But alas no. He tested positive for a natural plant. Darn the luck.

 
Everyone who fails a test automatically enters Stage Two after their release from Stage One:

A player who is referred to Stage One by reason of a Positive Test, and who, upon evaluation in Stage One is deemed by the Medical Director not to require specific clinical intervention and/or treatment will advance to Stage Two upon notification to the player by the Medical Director, and will be subject to Stage Two Testing by the Medical Advisor but will not have a Treatment Plan. However, a player who is referred to Stage One by reason of a Positive Test and is deemed by the Medical Director to require specific clinical intervention and/or treatment, will be advanced to Stage Two upon notification to the player by the Medical Director.
You end up in Stage Two for any positive test, one way or another.

It appears that only failure to cooperate gets you suspended for a first offense:

If the Medical Director, after consultation with the Medical Advisor, determines in his discretion that a player in Stage One has failed to cooperate with the evaluation process or fails to comply with his Treatment Plan, both the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA shall be notified and the player will be subject to an immediate fine equal to three-seventeenths (3/17) of the amount in Paragraph 5 of the NFL Player Contract, and he will be placed in Stage Two upon notification by the Medical Director.
Assuming the player makes it out of Stage One without another offense, the punishment for a first offense in Stage Two is only a fine.

Discipline for First Failure to Comply in Stage Two: A player in Stage Two who fails to comply with his Treatment Plan or fails to cooperate with testing, treatment, evaluation or other requirements imposed on him by this Policy, both as determined by the Medical Director, or has a Positive Test will be subject to: (a) A fine of four-seventeenths (4/17) of the amount in Paragraph 5 of the NFL Player Contract if the player has successfully completed Stage One; and

A suspension for the period of time to cover four consecutive regular season and post-season (including Pro Bowl, if selected) games without pay if he did not successfully complete Stage One.
So we don't know whether the first suspension was for his 1st offense in Stage Two (but before he'd been cleared out of Stage One), or his 2nd offense in Stage Two.

Basically the best case here is that Gordon's first suspension was the result of a 2nd offense (his 1st in Stage Two) that happened before he got cleared out of Stage One.

In which case this current situation would only be his 2nd offense in Stage Two. If so, he'll be suspended four or six games, and enter Stage Three.

However, if he made it out of Stage One cleanly before getting dinged again the first suspension would have been the result of two failed tests in Stage Two (his 2nd and 3rd).

If that's the case, he's already in Stage Three and facing the hammer:

(1) Term: A player in Stage Three will remain in Stage Three for the remainder of his NFL career.

(3) Testing: A player in Stage Three will be subject to unannounced Testing. At the sole discretion of the Medical Advisor, a player may or may not be tested; however, if he is tested, he may be tested up to 10 times during any calendar month.

b. Discipline.

(1) Discipline for Failure to Comply in Stage Three: 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
So... the absolute best case for Gordon owners is:

He got kicked out of Baylor for weed.

He failed a test to get into Stage One.

He failed a 2nd test prior to leaving Stage One (i.e. within 90 days) -- his first failure in Stage Two, and was suspended.

He's now failed a 3rd test (his second in Stage Two), will be suspended, will face urine testing up to every three days for at least three years and will be suspended for a year or more if any of them are positive.

Worst case is that he's facing the year long ban right now.

Either way? Barring the availability of a "greater fool" you're most likely holding a worthless asset. There's absolutely zero reason to think he's going to be able to comply with the requirements in front of him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NFL hasn't suspended a player who beat a woman unconcious but is threatening to do so for someone who tested positive for a natural plant.
Why do people keep saying this? If Ray Rice is found guilty, he WILL be suspended by the NFL - and that will be the least of his worries.

Rice has not been found guilty yet (although it looks like he is). Gordon IS guilty (if reports are true) of violating an NFL rule.
You say IF Ray Rice is found guilty he WILL be prosectuted and suspended.

You say Josh Gordon IS GUILTY and then say if reports are true.

So Josh IS GUILTY but Ray Rice who was caught ON CAMERA OF BEATING HIS FIANCE UNCONCIOUS isn't till proven guilty.

Hmnnnnn. Maybe if Josh was caught ON CAMERA beating a woman unconcious you'd be more forgiving. I mean gosh if only Johs had beat a woman unconcious everything would be fine. Maybe if he came home covered in blood after his pals stabbed two men to death everything would be honky dory. But alas no. He tested positive for a natural plant. Darn the luck.
josh was caught by a league mandated test, his legal guilt or innocnce is of no consequence per the CBA.

Ray Rice was arrested and the NFL does not have all the evidence, the outcome of his case and the evidence it reveals are important to the league, which is why it is waiting.

it is an apples to hubcaps comparison

if you are arguing Ray Rice is a worse person fine, but the NFL does not punish people simply for being bad people.

BTW, if we are arguing severity of accused crime should impact punishment and not waiting for the leagl system to work a big argument could be made for the browns owner being on the top of the list. He cheated companies out of millions of dollars and he is running a team while Gordon smoked some pot and is looking at a suspension.

of course that would be a ridiculous position to take

 
IF lesser penalties for recreational drugs is something the players value they can and should negotiate it in the next CBA until then obey the rules and stay off the weed.

if in the next CBA the players put a higher priority on maximum cash and less on administrative issues and they do not fight for changing the recreational drug use policy they'll have to live with it.

MY guess is it is not a priority beacuse most players either do not use or do not use when they are being tested, or they know how to beat the tests. I just don;t think this is a high priority (excuse the pun) to most players or the players union.
Consider how much leverage a young player like Gordon or Blackmon has in negotiating the CBA. Here's a hint: "none." Although the NFLPU purports to represent the players, it also has its own interests. And remember DeMaurice Smith, the guy who represented the union? Former US Attorney and Dept. of Justice.... the same dogs that Obama used to raid physicians' offices and dispensaries and cancer patients in California. I don't think you'll get much sympathy there.

Also, lets avoid the term "use" and "do" when it comes to weed. Do you do beer? No, you do crack. Do you use wine? No, you use heroine. (But you do shots!).

 
IF lesser penalties for recreational drugs is something the players value they can and should negotiate it in the next CBA until then obey the rules and stay off the weed.

if in the next CBA the players put a higher priority on maximum cash and less on administrative issues and they do not fight for changing the recreational drug use policy they'll have to live with it.

MY guess is it is not a priority beacuse most players either do not use or do not use when they are being tested, or they know how to beat the tests. I just don;t think this is a high priority (excuse the pun) to most players or the players union.
Consider how much leverage a young player like Gordon or Blackmon has in negotiating the CBA. Here's a hint: "none." Although the NFLPU purports to represent the players, it also has its own interests. And remember DeMaurice Smith, the guy who represented the union? Former US Attorney and Dept. of Justice.... the same dogs that Obama used to raid physicians' offices and dispensaries and cancer patients in California. I don't think you'll get much sympathy there.

Also, lets avoid the term "use" and "do" when it comes to weed. Do you do beer? No, you do crack. Do you use wine? No, you use heroine. (But you do shots!).
players like them should not have much leverage, a CBA is about the whole, not a small group of potheads who cannot get off the weed

if those players are a majority, they should speak up and be heard.

 
The NFL hasn't suspended a player who beat a woman unconcious but is threatening to do so for someone who tested positive for a natural plant.
Why do people keep saying this? If Ray Rice is found guilty, he WILL be suspended by the NFL - and that will be the least of his worries.

Rice has not been found guilty yet (although it looks like he is). Gordon IS guilty (if reports are true) of violating an NFL rule.
You say IF Ray Rice is found guilty he WILL be prosectuted and suspended.

You say Josh Gordon IS GUILTY and then say if reports are true.

So Josh IS GUILTY but Ray Rice who was caught ON CAMERA OF BEATING HIS FIANCE UNCONCIOUS isn't till proven guilty.

Hmnnnnn. Maybe if Josh was caught ON CAMERA beating a woman unconcious you'd be more forgiving. I mean gosh if only Johs had beat a woman unconcious everything would be fine. Maybe if he came home covered in blood after his pals stabbed two men to death everything would be honky dory. But alas no. He tested positive for a natural plant. Darn the luck.
I'm not being forgiving of Ray Rice at all :lmao:

Has the actual film of the punch been released yet? I've seen the footage of him dragging his girl around, and heard rumors that the footage of the punch exists but not sure if it does yet. Hence why it needs to be proven that he did knock her out. If he did, despite being one of my favorite NFL players, I will hope that he bever plays in the NFL again. As it is, in my court of public opinion, I think he's likely guilty and lost any respect I had for him. He seemed like a nice guy, he obviously isn't or at best made an unforgivable mistake while drunk.

Ok, Gordon hasn't been suspended yet either. If the report is true he is guilty and he will suspended - what is being reported is tha he did fail a drug test. My meaning was fairly obvious, to most I'd guess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan Clark (IRRC) was on the radio earlier this year talking about how lenient the drug testing is.

Basically you get tested once between April 20th and August 9th and if you pass the test, that's it -- go crazy until next year.

So the only guys failing the test are those who can't stay clean for < 3 1/2 months knowing that the test is coming and there are major professional consequences for failing.

 
All of this speculation is pretty meaningless to FF IMO. No matter the length of his currently pending suspension, or what stage he was in prior to this most recent failed test, Gordon is now a guy who has failed at least five drug tests in the past three and a half years, and will be tested every three days moving forward indefinitely. Sell for literally whatever you can get.

 
All of this speculation is pretty meaningless to FF IMO. No matter the length of his currently pending suspension, or what stage he was in prior to this most recent failed test, Gordon is now a guy who has failed at least five drug tests in the past three and a half years, and will be tested every three days moving forward indefinitely. Sell for literally whatever you can get.
but haslam said this, clearly he must know something:

We’re counting on Josh being a good football player for the Browns for a long time to come.

 
Ok, for kicks I sent this to a lawyer friend to try to decipher. (He's also a Browns fan, but he dislikes Gordon.. not hates, but dislikes)

His interpretation is Gordon was brought into the NFL in Stage 2 of the Drug Policy.

His last suspension of 2 games (reduced from 4) was STRIKE ONE of Stage #2.

Whatever this infraction was that came up this week, will be STRIKE TWO in Stage #2, and a mandatory 4-6 games and AUTOMATIC progress into Stage #3 of the Drug Policy (danger zone)

This seems to be best case scenario now, imo. 4-6 games.
Again, you are basing this on (possibly) outdated information. Perhaps your team rooting interest is clouding your judgement?

You've posted (and I'm assuming showed to your lawyer friend) a copy of the NFL's drug policy from 2010. Since the CBA was renegotiated in 2011, it's possible the drug policy changed. Since Justin Blackmon has exactly the same amount of reported failed tests/offenses as Gordon does, and Blackmon was suspended for a year, it's reasonable to assume the policy from 2010 is no longer accurate (as Blackmon shouldn't have been suspended for a year, according to the 2010 policy). It seems the realistic scenario is Gordon will be out for a year, barring a successful appeal

 
Ok, for kicks I sent this to a lawyer friend to try to decipher. (He's also a Browns fan, but he dislikes Gordon.. not hates, but dislikes)

His interpretation is Gordon was brought into the NFL in Stage 2 of the Drug Policy.

His last suspension of 2 games (reduced from 4) was STRIKE ONE of Stage #2.

Whatever this infraction was that came up this week, will be STRIKE TWO in Stage #2, and a mandatory 4-6 games and AUTOMATIC progress into Stage #3 of the Drug Policy (danger zone)

This seems to be best case scenario now, imo. 4-6 games.
Again, you are basing this on (possibly) outdated information. Perhaps your team rooting interest is clouding your judgement?

You've posted (and I'm assuming showed to your lawyer friend) a copy of the NFL's drug policy from 2010. Since the CBA was renegotiated in 2011, it's possible the drug policy changed. Since Justin Blackmon has exactly the same amount of reported failed tests/offenses as Gordon does, and Blackmon was suspended for a year, it's reasonable to assume the policy from 2010 is no longer accurate (as Blackmon shouldn't have been suspended for a year, according to the 2010 policy). It seems the realistic scenario is Gordon will be out for a year, barring a successful appeal
that's possible.

we'll know soon. Im not familiar enough w Blackmon's suspensions to say

 
Ok, for kicks I sent this to a lawyer friend to try to decipher. (He's also a Browns fan, but he dislikes Gordon.. not hates, but dislikes)

His interpretation is Gordon was brought into the NFL in Stage 2 of the Drug Policy.

His last suspension of 2 games (reduced from 4) was STRIKE ONE of Stage #2.

Whatever this infraction was that came up this week, will be STRIKE TWO in Stage #2, and a mandatory 4-6 games and AUTOMATIC progress into Stage #3 of the Drug Policy (danger zone)

This seems to be best case scenario now, imo. 4-6 games.
Again, you are basing this on (possibly) outdated information. Perhaps your team rooting interest is clouding your judgement?

You've posted (and I'm assuming showed to your lawyer friend) a copy of the NFL's drug policy from 2010. Since the CBA was renegotiated in 2011, it's possible the drug policy changed. Since Justin Blackmon has exactly the same amount of reported failed tests/offenses as Gordon does, and Blackmon was suspended for a year, it's reasonable to assume the policy from 2010 is no longer accurate (as Blackmon shouldn't have been suspended for a year, according to the 2010 policy). It seems the realistic scenario is Gordon will be out for a year, barring a successful appeal
that's possible.

we'll know soon. Im not familiar enough w Blackmon's suspensions to say
it seems odd that almost every source is reporting that he faces a year suspension if it is so cut and dried at 4-6 games.

 
it seems odd that almost every source is reporting that he faces a year suspension if it is so cut and dried at 4-6 games.
That's not true. Ive seen 4 games, Ive seen 8 games Ive seen 16 games.
Where have you seen the 4? I've seen the 8 and the 16, although iirc all of the mentions of 8 games talk about Gordon appealing down to that length from the initial 16-game suspension.

 
it seems odd that almost every source is reporting that he faces a year suspension if it is so cut and dried at 4-6 games.
That's not true. Ive seen 4 games, Ive seen 8 games Ive seen 16 games.
Where have you seen the 4? I've seen the 8 and the 16, although iirc all of the mentions of 8 games talk about Gordon appealing down to that length from the initial 16-game suspension.
that's what i have seen

this is the place where i assume he got his info, but no one else seems to agree

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2013/10/29/5041534/josh-gordon-and-the-mythical-season-long-ban

 
B-Deep said:
Coeur de Lion said:
All of this speculation is pretty meaningless to FF IMO. No matter the length of his currently pending suspension, or what stage he was in prior to this most recent failed test, Gordon is now a guy who has failed at least five drug tests in the past three and a half years, and will be tested every three days moving forward indefinitely. Sell for literally whatever you can get.
but haslam said this, clearly he must know something:

We’re counting on Josh being a good football player for the Browns for a long time to come.
Yes I think it's a drastic over-reaction to conclude he's done or to sale at anything resembling a price that is a give-away.

I just viewed a few on-going dynasty drafts. Granted these are minimum 3 start WR leagues, with max of 5 I believe, and I'm seeing him constantly going in the late third/early fourth round range. Again this format is much more WR friendly but in term of his relation to other rookie's he's going third or fourth, always after Watkins and Evans.

Based on what I'm seeing in minimum 3 start WR PPR leagues his value in a startup is late 3rd into possibly the early 5th depending on league settings-but in these leagues I don't think he's actually ever made it into the 5th round. His value in relation to a rookie pick is somewhere in the 1.3-1.4 range in this type of league. Value probably takes a small bump down in minimum 2 WR start leagues but I don't think that drastically.

 
So you think a guy who has failed five tests since fall 2010 will be able to pass 10 tests / month for the next year, to get reinstated, and then also moving forward? Gllllllllll...

 
Rotoworld:

ESPN's Dan Graziano reports the NFL is expected to revamp its marijuana policy in the league's new drug agreement, instituting a higher threshold for positive tests and lessening the penalties.
It's unclear how much the penalties will be lessened, but at the very least, it means players will no longer be subject to a four-game ban for a first-time offense. Per Graziano, only haggling over the arbitration process is delaying the new drug agreement. The move comes too late for Josh Gordon, but it appears marijuana will no longer be treated as a more serious offense than issues like drunk driving and assault.

Source: ESPN.com
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top