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!

WR Josh Gordon, KC (1 Viewer)

Good lord the righteous indignation in this thread is hilarious. If I'd have limited my friendships to non-weed smokers when I was 23 I've have had two friends. The potheads were always a lot more fun. And nothing cures a hangover like a little wake and bake.
:rolleyes: Perhaps you were running with the wrong group of friends. I know this much, if I had tens of millions of dollars at stake, I would choose my friends more wisely. And nothing cures the urge to wake and bake like tens of millions of dollars at stake.
Maybe. Awesome guys though. Best time of my life. We didn't have even tens of dollars, let alone tens of millions. Gordon makes more like 1.3 million. But I get your point too.
10 million a year salary should be incentive enough for someone to abide by an agreed upon personal conduct rule. But for Josh Gordon, it obviously was not. But from the looks of what is being reported, he seems to be working hard and trying to make strides in terms of his stemming his personal use. When news reports started surfacing out of Colorado and Washington about the grass users coming out and feeling so unburdened about not having to hide their use, it was interesting to see clearly upstanding professional looking people sharing their story. So what if Josh Gordon were hanging out with Coloradoans or Washingtonians who are professors, or bankers, or other mature tax paying successful people who choose to get high rather than go to the bar at happy hour and suck down beers and shots? It seems to me that the NFL policy makers need to reconsider their current stance on the use of marijuana in light of the changing social climate and state laws that is slowly evolving towards greater acceptance of pot. Otherwise, it risks losing the benefit of marquis players such as Gordon.

 
Yep if he gets his year taken from him, I think it might be just enough that he falls in line for good. Remember he'll be a year older and wiser when he returns. Dez and Brandon Marshall come to mind as player who took a few years to get their #### together.
Dez seems like a reasonable comp but not Marshall. Marshall had/has a legit mental illness that he has since gotten medication for, no?
 
Yep if he gets his year taken from him, I think it might be just enough that he falls in line for good. Remember he'll be a year older and wiser when he returns. Dez and Brandon Marshall come to mind as player who took a few years to get their #### together.
Dez seems like a reasonable comp but not Marshall. Marshall had/has a legit mental illness that he has since gotten medication for, no?
Yeah that sounds right actually. He was a roller coaster ride early on though.

 
Yep if he gets his year taken from him, I think it might be just enough that he falls in line for good. Remember he'll be a year older and wiser when he returns. Dez and Brandon Marshall come to mind as player who took a few years to get their #### together.
Dez seems like a reasonable comp but not Marshall. Marshall had/has a legit mental illness that he has since gotten medication for, no?
Obviously I'm not privy to the particulars of Brandon Marshall's treatment plans, but Borderline Personality Disorder is not typically medicated. BPD often co-occurs with other conditions such as depression, and those other conditions are often medicated, but BPD itself is typically treated with therapy.

 
Yep if he gets his year taken from him, I think it might be just enough that he falls in line for good. Remember he'll be a year older and wiser when he returns. Dez and Brandon Marshall come to mind as player who took a few years to get their #### together.
Dez seems like a reasonable comp but not Marshall. Marshall had/has a legit mental illness that he has since gotten medication for, no?
Obviously I'm not privy to the particulars of Brandon Marshall's treatment plans, but Borderline Personality Disorder is not typically medicated. BPD often co-occurs with other conditions such as depression, and those other conditions are often medicated, but BPD itself is typically treated with therapy.
I was under the impression that he had depression based on chem inbalance... Hence meds to correct. I could be wrong.
 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
and based on a 99.999% accurate test, he's passed 71.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
From what was reported however, the incredible trace amount that was measured apparently is not much. Again, as I have posted previously, I do not dispute the desire on the NFL to administer discipline in line with what the players and league agreed to under current CBA or even that it makes sense to implement action in support of the current rules. It just seems that it is counterproductive to what seems to be needed for achieving compliance. Does the punishment fit the crime? It appears that the law that designates an action as being a crime, is unreasonable. The conduct being regulated while not in line with current expectations of the law, is gaining more and more acceptability - likely giving the league and players union a reason to loosen the screws when it comes to recreational pot use. The Gordon case is going to be feedback in the policymaking process that results in this type of 3 strikes approach to zero tolerance a thing of the past on the next go round of the CBA.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
and based on a 99.999% accurate test, he's passed 71.
Excellent post.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well....it again seems to show the league being what unreasonably heavy handed. As most pundits are now calling to light, it seems all the more imbalanced in light of Ray Rice's 2 games. I get it, I just don't agree with it. It approaches an almost zero tolerance approach that frankly does not look to apply the most appropriate action to the situation. I can see 2-4 games suspension as a reasonable wake-up call, but not a year.
I see a lot of people saying how 1 year is too heavy handed for weed, and I get it, but lets also remember that he's not being suspended for 1 year because of just this one incident where he was barely over the acceptable level, he's being suspended for 1 year because of the totality of all of his violations of the drug policy. If this were his first offense, we wouldn't even have heard about it.

 
Good lord the righteous indignation in this thread is hilarious. If I'd have limited my friendships to non-weed smokers when I was 23 I've have had two friends. The potheads were always a lot more fun. And nothing cures a hangover like a little wake and bake.

I just hope the league sweeps this under the rug like a good professional sports league would. Just to watch the puritans in here self destruct. Here's my prediction on the reaction in this thread:

He skates - (less than a full season suspension)

Owners - :hifive: :excited: :coffee:

Prudes - :grad:

He gets hammered (full season suspension)

Owners - :kicksrock: :coffee:

Prudes - :clyde: :argue: :hifive: :deadhorse: :grad: :lol: :towelwave: :towelwave: :towelwave:
I doubt anyone would be happy to see him suspended. Why would they as football fans? One extra guy on an opponents dynasty team really doesn't worry me and I haven't redrafted yet.

I think most people "arguing" that he will be suspended are merely looking at the facts and debating/speculating.

 
Good lord the righteous indignation in this thread is hilarious. If I'd have limited my friendships to non-weed smokers when I was 23 I've have had two friends. The potheads were always a lot more fun. And nothing cures a hangover like a little wake and bake.

I just hope the league sweeps this under the rug like a good professional sports league would. Just to watch the puritans in here self destruct. Here's my prediction on the reaction in this thread:

He skates - (less than a full season suspension)

Owners - :hifive: :excited: :coffee:

Prudes - :grad:

He gets hammered (full season suspension)

Owners - :kicksrock: :coffee:

Prudes - :clyde: :argue: :hifive: :deadhorse: :grad: :lol: :towelwave: :towelwave: :towelwave:
I doubt anyone would be happy to see him suspended. Why would they as football fans? One extra guy on an opponents dynasty team really doesn't worry me and I haven't redrafted yet.

I think most people "arguing" that he will be suspended are merely looking at the facts and debating/speculating.
You new around here? People cheer on injuries on this board all the time. Why would this be any different. They will gleefully wallow in their schadenfreude. Just watch.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
From what was reported however, the incredible trace amount that was measured apparently is not much. Again, as I have posted previously, I do not dispute the desire on the NFL to administer discipline in line with what the players and league agreed to under current CBA or even that it makes sense to implement action in support of the current rules. It just seems that it is counterproductive to what seems to be needed for achieving compliance. Does the punishment fit the crime? It appears that the law that designates an action as being a crime, is unreasonable. The conduct being regulated while not in line with current expectations of the law, is gaining more and more acceptability - likely giving the league and players union a reason to loosen the screws when it comes to recreational pot use. The Gordon case is going to be feedback in the policymaking process that results in this type of 3 strikes approach to zero tolerance a thing of the past on the next go round of the CBA.
The threshold is the amount that the Mayo Clinic and the World Anti-Doping Association list as being indicative of marijuana use. It isn't some arbitrary amount.

It feels like people are just throwing small sounding adjectives on to the amount to try to make it sound trivial.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
From what was reported however, the incredible trace amount that was measured apparently is not much. Again, as I have posted previously, I do not dispute the desire on the NFL to administer discipline in line with what the players and league agreed to under current CBA or even that it makes sense to implement action in support of the current rules. It just seems that it is counterproductive to what seems to be needed for achieving compliance. Does the punishment fit the crime? It appears that the law that designates an action as being a crime, is unreasonable. The conduct being regulated while not in line with current expectations of the law, is gaining more and more acceptability - likely giving the league and players union a reason to loosen the screws when it comes to recreational pot use. The Gordon case is going to be feedback in the policymaking process that results in this type of 3 strikes approach to zero tolerance a thing of the past on the next go round of the CBA.
The threshold is the amount that the Mayo Clinic and the World Anti-Doping Association list as being indicative of marijuana use. It isn't some arbitrary amount.

It feels like people are just throwing small sounding adjectives on to the amount to try to make it sound trivial.
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
From what was reported however, the incredible trace amount that was measured apparently is not much. Again, as I have posted previously, I do not dispute the desire on the NFL to administer discipline in line with what the players and league agreed to under current CBA or even that it makes sense to implement action in support of the current rules. It just seems that it is counterproductive to what seems to be needed for achieving compliance. Does the punishment fit the crime? It appears that the law that designates an action as being a crime, is unreasonable. The conduct being regulated while not in line with current expectations of the law, is gaining more and more acceptability - likely giving the league and players union a reason to loosen the screws when it comes to recreational pot use. The Gordon case is going to be feedback in the policymaking process that results in this type of 3 strikes approach to zero tolerance a thing of the past on the next go round of the CBA.
The threshold is the amount that the Mayo Clinic and the World Anti-Doping Association list as being indicative of marijuana use. It isn't some arbitrary amount.

It feels like people are just throwing small sounding adjectives on to the amount to try to make it sound trivial.
I am not intending to label it as arbitrary but rather trying call to light that it may benefit the league if it considered making it more realistic tolerance level. What is the goal of the current policy? Does pot use affect game play? No. So it is more likely related to image, which indicates a purely punitive mentality towards compliance with behavioral norms. Suspending some of its best players for what amounts to small infrequent use of grass is foolhardy and damaging to the product.

The WADA is looking into whether or not the 15 ng/dl level is overly strict.

page 8 of 39

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/About_WADA/FoundationBoard_Minutes/FB%20May%202013%20Minutes_FINAL.pdf

Related to these proceedings, here is additional insight on the decision of WADA to consider raising the threshold of urine THC to more realistic levels.

http://golfweek.com/news/2013/may/14/tour-mum-wada-softens-stance-marijuana/

“We wanted to focus on the athletes that abuse the substance in competition,” said Julie Masse, WADA’s director of communications, from her office in Montreal. “This should exclude cases where marijuana is not used in competition.”

Marijuana and cannabis have been deemed prohibited substances by WADA since the agency’s original list, in 2003. According to Richard Pound, an attorney who was WADA’s initial chief and still serves on the Foundation Board, the U.S. historically has regarded marijuana as an entry-level drug and not considered to be performance-enhancing. American sports officials lobbied hard for the drug’s ban in athletics.

“From a sports perspective, I was rather ambivalent (toward marijuana),” Pound said. “As we morphed into WADA, the USA was very keen to have it included.”

Under the former threshold, Pound said that an athlete who used marijuana a month before competition was likely to be detected, as was someone exposed to second-hand marijuana smoke two weeks before an event.

“The 150 threshold number seemed to satisfy the scientific community,” Pound said.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
Right. The number of tests is not nearly as important as the amount of time they spanned.

Would you rather have a guy who got tested once an hour, every hour, and passed 360 consecutive tests, or a guy who got tested once a month, every month, and passed 120 consecutive tests? The first guy managed to stay clean for 15 days, while the second guy managed to stay clean for a decade. The number of tests they passed is completely irrelevant. If a guy can't stay clean for more than 7 months, I'm not asking "well yeah, but how often did he get tested during those 7 months?"

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
and based on a 99.999% accurate test, he's passed 71.
If you had a perfect test run by God the lab tech, you would have a different threshold.

The current test is accurate to +/- 3. You have to give the test subject benefit of the doubt his result might be 3 higher than the "true" answer.

So if we set our test threshold at 15... if we changed to a perfect test the threshold for that perfect test would remove the 3 points of benefit of the doubt. The perfect test threshold would probably be 12.

Since the "true" answer would have to fall within +/- 3 of both 16 and 13.6, it would have to fall between 13 and 16.6. Meaning the perfect test result would have to be over our perfect test threshold of 12.

 
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
Right. The number of tests is not nearly as important as the amount of time they spanned.

Would you rather have a guy who got tested once an hour, every hour, and passed 360 consecutive tests, or a guy who got tested once a month, every month, and passed 120 consecutive tests? The first guy managed to stay clean for 15 days, while the second guy managed to stay clean for a decade. The number of tests they passed is completely irrelevant. If a guy can't stay clean for more than 7 months, I'm not asking "well yeah, but how often did he get tested during those 7 months?"
I agree length of time is far more relevant than number of tests.

Though the relevant spans of time for Gordon's situation that make a difference are either "for the rest of Gordon's career" or "until the NFL and NFLPA change the substance abuse policy".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suh probably doing rips of Bolivian snow all night in preparation of going beast mode tomorrow.

Gonna be a hell of a fight, no matter the outcome

 
The current test is accurate to +/- 3. You have to give the test subject benefit of the doubt his result might be 3 higher than the "true" answer.

So if we set our test threshold at 15... if we changed to a perfect test the threshold for that perfect test would remove the 3 points of benefit of the doubt. The perfect test threshold would probably be 12.

Since the "true" answer would have to fall within +/- 3 of both 16 and 13.6, it would have to fall between 13 and 16.6. Meaning the perfect test result would have to be over our perfect test threshold of 12.
 
Good lord the righteous indignation in this thread is hilarious. If I'd have limited my friendships to non-weed smokers when I was 23 I've have had two friends. The potheads were always a lot more fun. And nothing cures a hangover like a little wake and bake.

I just hope the league sweeps this under the rug like a good professional sports league would. Just to watch the puritans in here self destruct. Here's my prediction on the reaction in this thread:

He skates - (less than a full season suspension)

Owners - :hifive: :excited: :coffee:

Prudes - :grad:

He gets hammered (full season suspension)

Owners - :kicksrock: :coffee:

Prudes - :clyde: :argue: :hifive: :deadhorse: :grad: :lol: :towelwave: :towelwave: :towelwave:
I doubt anyone would be happy to see him suspended. Why would they as football fans? One extra guy on an opponents dynasty team really doesn't worry me and I haven't redrafted yet.

I think most people "arguing" that he will be suspended are merely looking at the facts and debating/speculating.
Why wouldn't everybody look at the facts?......That is what decisions are usually based on.

 
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.

 
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.
Almost 100% certain that Gordon, nor his team have ANY say in who the arbitrator is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.
Almost 100% certain that Gordon, nor his team have ANY say in who the arbitrator is.
I'm saying that the NFL Players Union does, not Gordon, probably there is language in the CBA to cover this. Just did a very quick google search and found this:

Section 6. Arbitration Panel: There will be a panel of four (4) arbitrators, whose ap-pointment must be accepted in writing by the NFLPA and the Management Council. The parties will designate the Notice Arbitrator within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevrunner said:
Soulfly3 said:
Kevrunner said:
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.
Almost 100% certain that Gordon, nor his team have ANY say in who the arbitrator is.
I'm saying that the NFL Players Union does, not Gordon, probably there is language in the CBA to cover this. Just did a very quick google search and found this:

Section 6. Arbitration Panel: There will be a panel of four (4) arbitrators, whose ap-pointment must be accepted in writing by the NFLPA and the Management Council. The parties will designate the Notice Arbitrator within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement.
By the sounds of today's report there is ONE arbitrator (Henderson), and since the NFLPA is part of Gordon's defense team (McPhee), I have trouble believing they'd choose one that is KNOWN for being old school and hardheaded.

 
Kevrunner said:
Soulfly3 said:
Kevrunner said:
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.
Almost 100% certain that Gordon, nor his team have ANY say in who the arbitrator is.
I'm saying that the NFL Players Union does, not Gordon, probably there is language in the CBA to cover this. Just did a very quick google search and found this:

Section 6. Arbitration Panel: There will be a panel of four (4) arbitrators, whose ap-pointment must be accepted in writing by the NFLPA and the Management Council. The parties will designate the Notice Arbitrator within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement.
By the sounds of today's report there is ONE arbitrator (Henderson), and since the NFLPA is part of Gordon's defense team (McPhee), I have trouble believing they'd choose one that is KNOWN for being old school and hardheaded.
Soulfly, there is a pool of arbitrators that Goodell and the NFL can use that the NFLPA has agreed to. You really think the NFLPA would signed off on a contract that gives Goodell the right to choose any arbitrator he wants? Just think about that for a second.

 
Kevrunner said:
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.
Just read this from cleveland.com. http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/07/josh_gordon_may_have_practiced.html

A source told cleveland.com that Henderson will take a hard-line stance on "second-hand smoke'' argument and that Gordon will be hard-pressed to win the appeal. Henderson was appointed by Goodell, who will be in Canton for the Pro Football Hall of Fame ceremonies, to hear the case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevrunner said:
Fun Conspiracy Time:

Goodell purposely hired the most "stringent" arbitrator he could, w a "zero tolerance" on 2nd hand smoke excuses...

so that when Gordon gets off on a prearranged technicality, Roger can say "hey, it mustve been damn convincing if Henderson bought it!!"

Which then leads into fasttracked CBA changes for marijuana.

#EyesOfTheGuru
I would think that both sides would have to agree on the arbritrator, wouldn't think Goodell gets to choose without the NFL Players Union having input.
Just read this from cleveland.com. http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/07/josh_gordon_may_have_practiced.html

A source told cleveland.com that Henderson will take a hard-line stance on "second-hand smoke'' argument and that Gordon will be hard-pressed to win the appeal. Henderson was appointed by Goodell, who will be in Canton for the Pro Football Hall of Fame ceremonies, to hear the case.
I'm sure Henderson was appointed by Goodell, but Goodell chose him from a list that the NFLPA has agreed to. Here is a link the the CBA, I try and see if I can find language that supports my claims, I could be wrong, but I can't for the life of me see where the NFLPA let's Goodell pick any arbitrator that he wants, without the NFLPA having input on the pool of arbitrators.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the language that I cited earlier:

Section 6. Arbitration Panel: There will be a panel of four (4) arbitrators, whose ap-pointment must be accepted in writing by the NFLPA and the Management Council. The parties will designate the Notice Arbitrator within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement.

I believe that this is how the arbitrator is selected. There is a pool of (4) arbitrators that can be used. One of them is "Henderson". Commish Goodell has chosen Henderson. This panel of (4) arbitrators is to be used throughout the length of the CBA. For the Gordon case, the commish selected Henderson (who the NFLPA has agreed to). I just edited and adding this language that I found:

Either party to this Agreement may discharge a member of the arbitration panel by serving written notice upon the arbitrator and the other party to this Agreement from July 10 through July 20 of each year, but at no time shall such discharges result in no arbitrators remaining on the panel.

If you are interested this language is found in "Article 43" of the CBA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the hearing officer assigned to the appeal of Browns receiver Josh Gordons suspension facing an all-or-nothing mandate, the player and the league have extra incentive to try to control the outcome via a negotiated compromise.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, a slight chance of a resolution exists. Any deal presumably would entail a suspension for Gordon that lasts less than a year.

If one side is less inclined to negotiate than the other, its possible that the hearing officer will send signals, indirect or explicit, that it would be wise for that party to be more open-minded. Which could get a deal done during the hearing or after it.

A ruling is expected fairly soon. The substance-abuse policy requires only that the decision be issued with a reasonable time.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/31/slight-chance-of-a-josh-gordon-settlement/

 
Why laugh?

The point of a forum is debate.

If this case was open and shut, there would be no debate, he'd have been serving a year already.

 
unless Gordon has been grasping at straws and dragging out the appeals process.

lots of unknowns in this situation.

hopefully we will know something sooner than later.

 
You're free to call it whatever you like

But Suh and the NFLPA didnt take this case on because it's open and closed that he'll get a year.

If you cant acknowledge that... Well .. Ok

 
Something new every day , guess 10 or 12 games is not out of the question after all but sounding like a suspension is there we just dont know how long.

A source with knowledge of the situation tells Profootballtalk.com there's a "slight chance" Josh Gordon could reach a settlement with the NFL where his one-year suspension is reduced.
Per PFT's Mike Florio, "Any deal presumably would entail a suspension for Gordon that lasts less than a year." This would be much better news for Gordon than the original notion of an "all or nothing" situation in Friday's appeal sitdown with hearing officer Harold Henderson, whereby either the one-year suspension would stand in full, or be erased. (The suspension isn't getting erased, by all accounts.) Florio reports "a ruling is expected fairly soon."
Source: Profootballtalk on NBC Sports
Jul 31 - 11:16 PM

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bazinga! said:
Gordon will be suspended for the year. His defense is weak at best. The only people holding out hope are Gordon Dynasty owners and or Browns fans grasping for any prayer they can hang their hopes on. I don't blame them, I would do the same thing. I will not be happy when it happens as I am a football fan first, but I will be happy to not have to see some of the ridiculous views of some of the delusional pro-Gordon posters...and yes I will be :lol: my ### at them
Weak??

If you mix up all his urine that he wizzed out, it would equal a negative test.

This is certainly not an open and shut case situation. If it was, it would be shut quite a while ago even with appeals. The reason the appeals are taking so long is because they actually have raised a pretty ridiculous amount of doubt about the test, along with the testing procedure, and a bif of an eye opener about how the test is too strict regarding the lab levels.

Who knows what happens. If he somehow manages to get his "failed test" thrown out he won't even be suspended. I mean, if that test is thrown out, there is NOTHING to suspend him for. Can't suspend him for the DUI (not yet anyway). Besides, I highly doubt that DUI even sticks, as the vast majority of people who get a 0.9 (who have never had a DUI) are getting that charge lessened, and those are regular Joes like us, not guys like Gordon with REAL lawyers. You can't suspend him for getting a speeding ticket with someone in the car having weed and claiming it to be their own.

It almost seems like he HAS to be suspended for SOMETHING no matter what happens here, but really, without the failed test, there would be no suspension, so................................this should be interesting

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg Russell said:
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
That is for the people calling him a pothead and an addict.

Those people dont pass 70 drug tests.

 
Soulfly3 said:
Greg Russell said:
Again, I understand the need to enforce established agreements, however in light of him having passed some 70 drug tests already while having a single positive urine result that is below other major competitive sports' governing body thresholds for apparent drug use seems well...
I don't get why people keep going on about passing 70 drug tests. He's supposed to pass every drug test.
and based on a 99.999% accurate test, he's passed 71.
Yeah, true. The totality of his urine from that test would have been a PASSING test.

Technically, he was just unlucky.

 
A source with knowledge of the situation tells Profootballtalk.com there's a "slight chance" Josh Gordon could reach a settlement with the NFL where his one-year suspension is reduced.
Per PFT's Mike Florio, "Any deal presumably would entail a suspension for Gordon that lasts less than a year." This would be much better news for Gordon than the original notion of an "all or nothing" situation in Friday's appeal sitdown with hearing officer Harold Henderson, whereby either the one-year suspension would stand in full, or be erased. (The suspension isn't getting erased, by all accounts.) Florio reports "a ruling is expected fairly soon."
It's Mike Florio so the validity of this report is questionable at best but would not be surprised if he is offered 8 or 12 games that he doesn't take it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top