Rumor Confirmed: Josh Gordon suspended 2 games (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Octopus]

Not even football?

I don't watch TV at all

 

[Shutout]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level.

Great post.

This is from the "General Policy" section of the NFL Policy and Program for Substances of Abuse. The first two sentences really say everything you need to know and why.

Substance abuse can lead to on-the-field injuries, to alienation of the fans, to diminished job performance, and to personal hardship. The deaths of several NFL players have demonstrated the potentially tragic consequences of substance abuse. NFL players should not by their conduct suggest that substance abuse is either acceptable or safe.The NFL and the National Football League Players Association ("NFLPA") have maintained policies and programs regarding substance abuse. In Article XLIV, Section 6(a) of the 1993 NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (the "1993 CBA"), the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA (hereinafter referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties") reaffirmed that "substance abuse is unacceptable within the NFL, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to deter and detect substance abuse ... and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation and support to players who have substance abuse problems." Accordingly, in fulfillment of this provision of the 1993 CBA, the Parties have agreed upon the following terms of a policy regarding substance abuse in the NFL (hereinafter referred to as the "Policy").

The NFL has it right. They ban these things because of the dangers to the person or others, not under a blanket policy of "performance enhancing". The vast majority of what we call performance enhancers are looked at by the NFL because of their dangerous effects, first and foremost, not because it improves the person. If a miracle shot came out tomorrow that completely protected a person from concussions and made humans smarter and had no detrimental side effects, the NFL would accept it. If a shot came out tomorrow that did those things but was shown to cause crippling damage to the nervous system over time, the NFL would ban it. Its pretty simple; it is about safety and image and maybe not in that order. The NFL doesn't want a closet of Lyle Alzado and Don'te Stallworth Stories.

Contact lenses are not performance enhancing, they are corrective. They improve eyesight back to where the baseline for a human is determined to be for normal humans. Improving eyesight improves their safety (whey the drive, when they walk, when something gets thrown at them...). If you look at it like that, then it becomes pretty simple, IMO.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Um, months ago a tweet from Gordon's account showed a guy with a hoodie on bending over a bong, his face was obscured but it came from GORDON'S Twitter account so you do the math.

Then Josh Gordon tweeted about how much he liked a TV show called WEEDS.

I don't watch TV at all but I can bet what the primary subject of a TV program called WEEDS is supposed to revolve around.

Then I saw rumors of a 'major' Browns player who was up for suspension.

Ahhh, I think Joshy has some growing up to do.

Not sure of the NFL by-laws on suspension or if they first get a warning shot accross the bow but the kid needs a wake-up call.

This might be it.

Weeds is about a suburban housewife with no real marketable skills who is forced to sell pot to maintain her standard of living after her husband dies. For the most part (and especially in the early seasons), it's far more social commentary than stoner-bait. It takes on hypocrisy and gender roles and consumerism, it challenges stereotypes and questions cultural mores. Then in later seasons it descends into absurdity and becomes an unwatchable farce. I'm sure a lot of stoners like it because it has a lot of pot, but I wouldn't make the intuitive leap that someone is a stoner just because they enjoy(ed) Weeds.

 

[Shutout]

For the people showing frustration or wanting to discount the rumor's validity based on that it wasn't confirmed in just a few hours, have patience. It MAY be nothing but a rumor but IF the process is working as it is supposed to, we AREN'T supposed to know about this until the corrective action is issued.

All this really tells me, based on Gordon and Hayden in the past is that the people in Cleveland do a lot better job of protecting privacy than the guys in cities where we know about it way before it becomes official do.

 

[Bamac]

Then Josh Gordon tweeted about how much he liked a TV show called WEEDS. I don't watch TV at all but I can bet what the primary subject of a TV program called WEEDS is supposed to revolve around.

Weeds is about a suburban housewife with no real marketable skills who is forced to sell pot to maintain her standard of living after her husband dies. For the most part (and especially in the early seasons), it's far more social commentary than stoner-bait. It takes on hypocrisy and gender roles and consumerism, it challenges stereotypes and questions cultural mores. Then in later seasons it descends into absurdity and becomes an unwatchable farce. I'm sure a lot of stoners like it because it has a lot of pot, but I wouldn't make the intuitive leap that someone is a stoner just because they enjoy(ed) Weeds.

Spot on.

 

[MAC_32]

Um, months ago a tweet from Gordon's account showed a guy with a hoodie on bending over a bong, his face was obscured but it came from GORDON'S Twitter account so you do the math.

Then Josh Gordon tweeted about how much he liked a TV show called WEEDS.

I don't watch TV at all but I can bet what the primary subject of a TV program called WEEDS is supposed to revolve around.

Then I saw rumors of a 'major' Browns player who was up for suspension.

Ahhh, I think Joshy has some growing up to do.

Not sure of the NFL by-laws on suspension or if they first get a warning shot accross the bow but the kid needs a wake-up call.

This might be it.

Oh, he absolutely still does his thing recreationally. Buddy of mine has ran into him at certain...establishments...multiple times and has commented that he's...oh, on a different planet? Yeah, that works. Just like the many others in the league that do it he just can't get caught.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level.

Great post.

This is from the "General Policy" section of the NFL Policy and Program for Substances of Abuse. The first two sentences really say everything you need to know and why.

Substance abuse can lead to on-the-field injuries, to alienation of the fans, to diminished job performance, and to personal hardship. The deaths of several NFL players have demonstrated the potentially tragic consequences of substance abuse. NFL players should not by their conduct suggest that substance abuse is either acceptable or safe.

The NFL and the National Football League Players Association ("NFLPA") have maintained policies and programs regarding substance abuse. In Article XLIV, Section 6(a) of the 1993 NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (the "1993 CBA"), the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA (hereinafter referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties") reaffirmed that "substance abuse is unacceptable within the NFL, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to deter and detect substance abuse ... and to offer programs of intervention, rehabilitation and support to players who have substance abuse problems." Accordingly, in fulfillment of this provision of the 1993 CBA, the Parties have agreed upon the following terms of a policy regarding substance abuse in the NFL (hereinafter referred to as the "Policy").

The NFL has it right. They ban these things because of the dangers to the person or others, not under a blanket policy of "performance enhancing". The vast majority of what we call performance enhancers are looked at by the NFL because of their dangerous effects, first and foremost, not because it improves the person. If a miracle shot came out tomorrow that completely protected a person from concussions and made humans smarter and had no detrimental side effects, the NFL would accept it. If a shot came out tomorrow that did those things but was shown to cause crippling damage to the nervous system over time, the NFL would ban it. Its pretty simple; it is about safety and image and maybe not in that order. The NFL doesn't want a closet of Lyle Alzado and Don'te Stallworth Stories.

Contact lenses are not performance enhancing, they are corrective. They improve eyesight back to where the baseline for a human is determined to be for normal humans. Improving eyesight improves their safety (whey the drive, when they walk, when something gets thrown at them...). If you look at it like that, then it becomes pretty simple, IMO.

Thanks for the reference, Shutout. I guess I'm a bit more cynical; I'm generally suspicious that the league's motivations are the same as the rhetoric they use to explain their motivations. Witness, for example, their constant chest-thumping about their "commitment to player safety above all else", and then contrast that with their constant efforts to expand the season, with their refusal to mandate independent medical specialists on the sidelines, and their efforts over the last two decades to suppress scientific findings on concussions (for instance, witness their disgraceful and ongoing efforts to discredit Dr. Bennett Omalu).

That said, I agree that the substance abuse policy as currently worded sounds like it is right on the money, and if I were less cynical, I would have a lot more praise for it.

 

[B-Deep]

Um, months ago a tweet from Gordon's account showed a guy with a hoodie on bending over a bong, his face was obscured but it came from GORDON'S Twitter account so you do the math.

Then Josh Gordon tweeted about how much he liked a TV show called WEEDS.

I don't watch TV at all but I can bet what the primary subject of a TV program called WEEDS is supposed to revolve around.

Then I saw rumors of a 'major' Browns player who was up for suspension.

Ahhh, I think Joshy has some growing up to do.

Not sure of the NFL by-laws on suspension or if they first get a warning shot accross the bow but the kid needs a wake-up call.

This might be it.

Oh, he absolutely still does his thing recreationally. Buddy of mine has ran into him at certain...establishments...multiple times and has commented that he's...oh, on a different planet? Yeah, that works. Just like the many others in the league that do it he just can't get caught.

his history makes me doubt his ability to avoid getting caught

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Not even football?

I don't watch TV at all

With that lone expection.

 

[JamesTheScot]

To get a 4 gamer, wouldn't he have to be a repeat offender since entering the NFL?

 

[ghostguy123]

To get a 4 gamer, wouldn't he have to be a repeat offender since entering the NFL?

Not for PEDs

 

[Shawn]

drugs are bad mmmmmk

It really will be nice when the entire country (then hopefully the NFL) legalizes Marijuana. Let a doper dope. Let a puffer puff. It's not performance enhancing, and it's less harmful to your body than almost all prescribed medications (assuming you smoke with a vaporizer).

Oh well, until then, I expect several weed suspensions every year.

I couldn't agree more, and if you eat it/vaporize it, all you are doing is ingesting a plant that is GOOD FOR YOU! Smoking is bad but eating/vaporizing?? nah...

 

[Shawn]

To get a 4 gamer, wouldn't he have to be a repeat offender since entering the NFL?

Not for PEDs

Wait, people are saying he has a drug problem, why would you assume that it is a PED? I would assume it is whatever he was on when he failed tests at Baylor...

 

[ghostguy123]

To get a 4 gamer, wouldn't he have to be a repeat offender since entering the NFL?

Not for PEDs

Wait, people are saying he has a drug problem, why would you assume that it is a PED? I would assume it is whatever he was on when he failed tests at Baylor...

I am not assuming anything, I am answering the question that I quoted. I am under the impression that recreational drugs do NOT get you a 4 game suspension unless you are a repeat offender in the NFL.

I am also under the impression if he ever got caught in college it is not counted towards what happens for the NFL.

 

[menobrown]

Maybe he does have a looming suspension but if anyone is basing it on Grossi's comment that's a reach. Basically every time he projects Gordon's season in 2013 he adds a disclaimer.

Go to Grossi's twitter feed and do a search for Gordon. Multiple times in the past month he's referenced Gordon's as the teams #1 WR which should be pretty obvious. 3 times I saw in the month of May up until today when he referenced projections for Gordon and he put some kind of disclaimer in the comment each time.

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 2 May

"@SunBearKoontz bigger year next season, T-rich or Gordon? // If healthy, both over 1200 yds.


Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 9 May "@CinEsq How many catches for Josh Gordon this year? // 16 games -- 70+.

And the one that touched this off:

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 2 Jun

"@Doug_Horner Josh Gordon has a 1000+ yard season with 8+ td’s.. Realistic? // If he's active for 16 games, sure.

I did not cherry pick his tweets. That's every tweet he made on Gordon with the exception of one's when he answered questions saying who was the #1 WR on the team.

As you can see in every response he projects Gordon he makes some kind of disclaimer.

I'm certainly not ruling out a young man with a drug history getting an NFL suspension but what I am saying is it's a stretch to base it on Grossi's tweets.

 

[Slider]

Maybe he does have a looming suspension but if anyone is basing it on Grossi's comment that's a reach. Basically every time he projects Gordon's season in 2013 he adds a disclaimer.

Go to Grossi's twitter feed and do a search for Gordon. Multiple times in the past month he's referenced Gordon's as the teams #1 WR which should be pretty obvious. 3 times I saw in the month of May up until today when he referenced projections for Gordon and he put some kind of disclaimer in the comment each time.

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 2 May

"@SunBearKoontz bigger year next season, T-rich or Gordon? // If healthy, both over 1200 yds.

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 9 May

"@CinEsq How many catches for Josh Gordon this year? // 16 games -- 70+.

And the one that touched this off:

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 2 Jun

"@Doug_Horner Josh Gordon has a 1000+ yard season with 8+ td’s.. Realistic? // If he's active for 16 games, sure.

I did not cherry pick his tweets. That's every tweet he made on Gordon with the exception of one's when he answered questions saying who was the #1 WR on the team.

As you can see in every response he projects Gordon he makes some kind of disclaimer.

I'm certainly not ruling out a young man with a drug history getting an NFL suspension but what I am saying is it's a stretch to base it on Grossi's tweets.

Maybe he's just qualifying it for injuries.

 

[amnesiac]

maybe Grossi is an idiot AND Gordon is a pot head.

 

[DropKick]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

Your way to hung up on semantics. Just because roids, HGH, etc. are labeled "performance enhancers", it is a major (and poor) leap to compare them to coffee or contact lenses because those benign things "enhance performance".

 

[ConnSKINS26]

And you can bet that if there were a pair of contact lenses that could improve human vision to an unnatural level that gave a competitive advantage over everyone else, they would be banned as well.

 

[domvin]

And you can bet that if there were a pair of contact lenses that could improve human vision to an unnatural level that gave a competitive advantage over everyone else, they would be banned as well.

Like David Bostons?

And you can bet that if there were a pair of contact lenses that could improve human vision to an unnatural level that gave a competitive advantage over everyone else, they would be banned as well.

 

[ghostguy123]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level.

Great post.

Agree with what?? That everyone should be allowed to take steroids so we have a bunch of 300 pound super quick cat-like players who run 4.2's and end up killing each other (literally) due to their size/speed and collisions??

I would understand the entertainment value of a bunch of roided out freaks as much as anyone, but for football using a little common sense should tell you that this thought process is really stupid.

COmparing caffeine to HG and roids?? May as well compare advil to crack. Both are "drugs", right?

Sleep is also performance enhancing. So is proper nutrition. So is taking antibiotics when you are sick. So is working out. So is reading the playbook. So is practice.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there has to be a cutoff point, and pretty sure there is a well defined line between caffeine and steroids, and between contact lenses and a running back pulling out a gun and shooting defenders all the way to the endzone.

 

[cobalt_27]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive. Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level. Great post.

Agree with what?? That everyone should be allowed to take steroids so we have a bunch of 300 pound super quick cat-like players who run 4.2's and end up killing each other (literally) due to their size/speed and collisions?? I would understand the entertainment value of a bunch of roided out freaks as much as anyone, but for football using a little common sense should tell you that this thought process is really stupid. COmparing caffeine to HG and roids?? May as well compare advil to crack. Both are "drugs", right? Sleep is also performance enhancing. So is proper nutrition. So is taking antibiotics when you are sick. So is working out. So is reading the playbook. So is practice. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there has to be a cutoff point, and pretty sure there is a well defined line between caffeine and steroids, and between contact lenses and a running back pulling out a gun and shooting defenders all the way to the endzone.

Maybe you only read one or two sentences and skipped to Reply Mode before reading further. Here is a sizable chunk of what you might have missed in Adam's post:

The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids)

I think Adam made it pretty clear he thinks the NFL would be wise to ban steroids and shooting defenders who are in the way of a touchdown.

 

[tdmills]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level.

Great post.

Agree with what?? That everyone should be allowed to take steroids so we have a bunch of 300 pound super quick cat-like players who run 4.2's and end up killing each other (literally) due to their size/speed and collisions??

I would understand the entertainment value of a bunch of roided out freaks as much as anyone, but for football using a little common sense should tell you that this thought process is really stupid.

COmparing caffeine to HG and roids?? May as well compare advil to crack. Both are "drugs", right?

Sleep is also performance enhancing. So is proper nutrition. So is taking antibiotics when you are sick. So is working out. So is reading the playbook. So is practice.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there has to be a cutoff point, and pretty sure there is a well defined line between caffeine and steroids, and between contact lenses and a running back pulling out a gun and shooting defenders all the way to the endzone.

I know this is a serious discussion, but I couldn't stop laughing when I read this. This fall the headline says "Shonn Greene caps off a Titans win with a 90 yard touchdown run thanks to his 6 shooter" lol

 

[treat88]

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level.

Great post.

Agree with what?? That everyone should be allowed to take steroids so we have a bunch of 300 pound super quick cat-like players who run 4.2's and end up killing each other (literally) due to their size/speed and collisions??

I would understand the entertainment value of a bunch of roided out freaks as much as anyone, but for football using a little common sense should tell you that this thought process is really stupid.

COmparing caffeine to HG and roids?? May as well compare advil to crack. Both are "drugs", right?

Sleep is also performance enhancing. So is proper nutrition. So is taking antibiotics when you are sick. So is working out. So is reading the playbook. So is practice.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there has to be a cutoff point, and pretty sure there is a well defined line between caffeine and steroids, and between contact lenses and a running back pulling out a gun and shooting defenders all the way to the endzone.

I agreed with Adam based on his distinction that the dividing line between banned and not banned substances is the impact on a players health and associated legality, or lack thereof, not the performance enhancing qualities of a substance.

I'm not at all sure you really followed the point of his post if your above comment is what you took from it.

He never argued that steroids should be common practice or legal. In fact, he didn't say anything close to that....just the opposite actually.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I know this is a serious discussion, but I couldn't stop laughing when I read this. This fall the headline says "Shonn Greene caps off a Titans win with a 90 yard touchdown run thanks to his 6 shooter" lol

Worked in "The Last Boy Scout." It can work for Shonn.

 

[msommer]

Technically it didn't work out so well for the RB in "The Last Boy Scout"

 

[Adam Harstad]

And you can bet that if there were a pair of contact lenses that could improve human vision to an unnatural level that gave a competitive advantage over everyone else, they would be banned as well.

Should they be? If so, why? If medicine invented a miracle pill with no negative side effects whatsoever that boosted injury recovery rates to the point where anyone who took it was basically Wolverine, would that be banned? Should it? When last I checked, improving performance was considered a good thing, even if it improves that performance above some arbitrary baseline. Modern medicine has improved our lifespan well beyond the historical baseline. It has reduced the chances of women dying in childbirth well below historical baselines. Even the concept of surgery improves human performance well beyond what is natural or normal. I would argue that all of these improvements have been analloyed goods and should be celebrated, not denigrated. Likewise, if modern medicine could raise the baseline of human performance without imposing any negative externalities or risks, that is an unalloyed good that should be embraced and celebrated, regardless of how "performance enhancing" it is. That's what's wrong with the whole "performance enhancing" focus- enhancing performance is a good thing that humans have been striving for for millennia. We shouldn't be demonizing "performance enhancements", we should be demonizing the negative costs that sometimes accompany that enhanced performance. If we can get the enhancements without the costs, then we should embrace those enhancements, regardless of the source.

Are the Broncos and Seahawks allowed to toke? Can an employer legally test for and tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes?

The NFL already issued a statement that marijuana was still banned, even in states where it was legal. That's not unprecedented- there are several supplements and ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy over-the-counter but which will trigger a suspension from the NFL if you test positive.

Granted, those supplements are banned under the reasoning that they're "performance enhancing", which marijuana clearly is not. Really, though, the entire "performance enhancing" boogeyman is stupid and needs to be discarded. Contact lenses are performance enhancing; they improve your eyesight from your natural god-given levels. The NFL doesn't have problem with players who wear contacts. Nor should they. If someone takes Ginko to help them remember the playbook, that's performance enhancing. All of those painkilling shots every player takes before games are performance enhancers. Coffee is a performance enhancing drug if it helps you be present and alert during morning meetings. I fail to see how enhancing someone's performance is a bad thing- I take steps to enhance my performance, and I'm sure my various employers have appreciated those steps. The NFL shouldn't be banning things under the reasoning that they make people better at their jobs. They should be banning things that are illegal, dangerous, or both. Steroids aren't bad because they enhance your performance, they're bad because if you overdo it they will cause long-term health problems and even death. It's important for the league to step in and regulate them so that the game doesn't devolve into an arms race where everyone is taking more and more steroids and the choice becomes either sacrificing your future health (because you're doing unhealthy levels of steroids) or your current career (because you can't compete against the people who choose to do unhealthy levels of steroids).

100% agreed on every level.

Great post.

Agree with what?? That everyone should be allowed to take steroids so we have a bunch of 300 pound super quick cat-like players who run 4.2's and end up killing each other (literally) due to their size/speed and collisions??

I would understand the entertainment value of a bunch of roided out freaks as much as anyone, but for football using a little common sense should tell you that this thought process is really stupid.

COmparing caffeine to HG and roids?? May as well compare advil to crack. Both are "drugs", right?

Sleep is also performance enhancing. So is proper nutrition. So is taking antibiotics when you are sick. So is working out. So is reading the playbook. So is practice.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize there has to be a cutoff point, and pretty sure there is a well defined line between caffeine and steroids, and between contact lenses and a running back pulling out a gun and shooting defenders all the way to the endzone.

I agreed with Adam based on his distinction that the dividing line between banned and not banned substances is the impact on a players health and associated legality, or lack thereof, not the performance enhancing qualities of a substance.

I'm not at all sure you really followed the point of his post if your above comment is what you took from it.

He never argued that steroids should be common practice or legal. In fact, he didn't say anything close to that....just the opposite actually.

Thanks, Treat. Actually, though, I've heard some medical research that suggests that a low-dose steroid can increase recovery time without negative side effects. I've seen doctors suggest that perhaps everyone could benefit from a very low-dose steroid taken sort of like a daily vitamin. If that was the case- if further research suggested that steroids use could reduce the instance of injury and hasten recovery without imposing negative costs to outweigh the gains- then I would absolutely be in favor of steroids becoming both legal and common practice.

The goal isn't to demonize "artificial" vs. "natural", it's not to demonize "performance enhancing" vs. "baseline restoring". The goal is to implement a commonsense policy that bans anything whose negative costs outweigh its positive gains, and to allow anything whose positive gains outweigh its negative costs. If a contact lens was invented that could double visual acuity without costs, then I would be all in favor of every NFL player using it. If a low-dose steroid regimen could improve player health and safety (while at the same time also improving speed and strength), then the NFL would be fools not to adopt it. Meanwhile, the NFL says it is opposed to players taking any chemical substance that puts their health at risk, and yet before every game every single team doctor is administrating chemicals that do exactly that- they numb pain and "enhance performance" far above what that player's natural baseline really is.

Everyone should read this article about Jason Taylor's weekly routine and tell me that his team doctor was not routinely administering a performance enhancing drug to him, and that that drug wasn't putting his future health in jeopardy. This is why I'm so cynical that, despite all that fancy high-minded rhetoric in the player's handbook about the substance abuse rules being in place to protect the players, the reality is that the NFL's only interest is protecting the league's image.

 

[Donnybrook]

And you can bet that if there were a pair of contact lenses that could improve human vision to an unnatural level that gave a competitive advantage over everyone else, they would be banned as well.

Where can a buy a set of these?Sincerely, Troy Williamson

 

[ghostguy123]

Regarding my reply to an above post, I think I misread something somewhere, lol. My bad.

Yes, that WAS a Last Boyscout reference though, and I truly think it's only a matter of time............

 

[LawFitz]

[No message]

 

[10tihwj]

Rumor Update: Gordon was referencing drag racing on his twitter account yesterday and there is growing speculation around here that he got ticketed for engaging in that activity. Could be in lieu of, or in addition to, any possible drug issues as they still have not been confirmed/denied/put to rest.

If he got busted doing 150 in a 55 mph zone, for instance, it would be something serious enough to likely mandate a court date and appearance but I doubt causes him any loss of games.

 

[MAC_32]

If he got busted doing 150 in a 55 mph zone, for instance, it would be something serious enough to likely mandate a court date and appearance but I doubt causes him any loss of games.

It would not.

 

[Two Deep]

Rather him be speeding than smoking dope.

 

[msommer]

So still nothing solid?

Could be much ado about nothing.

 

[Bamac]

Rather him be speeding than smoking dope.

Man, the NFL's priorities are effed when smoking pot warrants a suspension but drag racing on public streets does not.

 

[dickey moe]

Rather him be speeding than smoking dope.

Man, the NFL's priorities are effed when smoking pot warrants a suspension but drag racing on public streets does not.

Seriously -- what's more dangerous in terms of a career (let alone, public safety).

 

[Plaid Boxer]

BREAKING: #Browns WR Josh Gordon will be suspended 2 games and docked 4 games pay for NFL substance abuse violation. More to come!

Here it is from @tonygrossi

 

[cstu]

I Googled this "rumor" a bit ago and found not one word anywhere except what's being blathered in this thread. Lots about the past of course, but nothing suggesting any suspension is coming down now. So if some guy in a bar overheard someone's cousin's girlfriend say something, great. I'm not losing any sleep over it. And if "if he plays 16 games" is to be construed as a veiled reference to a suspension, I've been guilty of that rumor 50 times.

Grossi hasn't bothered to clarify himself.

 

[dewmass]

As someone who has tried to build teams around a Blackmon, Gordon, Harvin WR corps I look forward to some news about Harvin for the trifecta

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

this thread is ######ed, anyone taking it serious is ######ed.

Update?

 

[beer 302]

this thread is ######ed, anyone taking it serious is ######ed.

Update?

He was wrong

 

[Black]

Browns | Josh Gordon suspended Fri Jun 7, 04:04 PM

Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon has been suspended two games for an NFL substance abuse violation. Gordon will also be fined four games pay.

https://twitter.com/TonyGrossi/status/343096239174328321

 

[KellysHeroes]

is this strike 1 or strike 2 under the NFL policy?

 

[ghostguy123]

As someone who has tried to build teams around a Blackmon, Gordon, Harvin WR corps I look forward to some news about Harvin for the trifecta

I may have you beat.

I traded pick 2 for Blackmon (though I would still do the same right now), traded Stewart for Gordon (would still also do that right now), and I already had Britt. Only a matter of minutes before Britt gets jealous that Gordon is in the news and he goes out and does something really stupid for the trifecta.

At least I have Maclin and Steve Johnson to plug in for a month

 

[ghostguy123]

is this strike 1 or strike 2 under the NFL policy?

Has to be strike one right? I don't remember of any other instances, and I don't think college carries over, does it?

 

[Khy]

I'm liking this in redraft leagues, his value should fall a decent amount for this. He could end up being a steal for people who are paying attention.

 

[werdnoynek]

A couple people on twitter are saying Gordon released a statement -

Josh Gordon statement: He failed test based on prescription medicine to get over strep throat. Notes NFL did not impose maximum punishment

Gordon also says NFL didn't impose "maximum punishment in light of the facts" and he chose "to be immediately accountable"

 

[Dr. Octopus]

A couple people on twitter are saying Gordon released a statement -

Josh Gordon statement: He failed test based on prescription medicine to get over strep throat. Notes NFL did not impose maximum punishment

medicinal marijuana

 

[ghostguy123]

A couple people on twitter are saying Gordon released a statement -

Josh Gordon statement: He failed test based on prescription medicine to get over strep throat. Notes NFL did not impose maximum punishment

This would be real dumb if true on a lot of levels. More than I care to explain. Most notably though, nothing that is banned by the NFL would be necessary to get over strep throat.

 

[ghostguy123]

read this on Browns forum

"Josh Gordon releases statement saying had strep in Feb, took cough medicine he did not realize contained codeine. Bad start w/new regime"

level of idiocy increases by a billion.

Any doctor prescribing that would likely tell him that is has codeine and would be banned. You would figure the Dr knows he is an athlete, right?? Hell, he probably goes to the TEAM doctor.

So yeah, he is lying if he actually said that.