ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
What's absolutely hilarious is that all these reports are coming out about number of games, and we still don't know JACK about the suspension! Speculations galore!
Last edited by a moderator:
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)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
CentralPA
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Bamac
Footballguy
He'll take any deal that allows him to advance a year toward free agency. (I assume a full-year suspension wouldn't.)
MattFancy
Footballguy
Has any news story been all over the place like the Gordon situation? It's gone from he's gone for a year, to he could possibly get off, to no one has ever won an appeal with that defense, to well maybe he could take a deal to get less time. Does anyone really have any idea how long he will be out for?
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
No. This is clearly speculation and attempting to make the news instead of just reporting it. The "news" that has come out of this in the last few days is pitiful from a journalistic reporting point of view. It is completely unsubstantiated. Everyone has "sources" and been told by "people who know" but the actual info is nothing more than what you or I could put together on any topic a person mentioned.
THe USA has nuked Korea. Reports say they all died. Wait. Reports say the nuke missed and nobody died. Wait, it looks like there is a chance that it hit and some people died. Wait. That number could be 50%. Wait, a source close to the story says it could be 80%. Sound familiar?
CentralPA
Footballguy
"You're responsible for what goes into your body"
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2146811-josh-gordon-needs-to-take-responsibility-and-get-clean-not-make-excuses
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2146811-josh-gordon-needs-to-take-responsibility-and-get-clean-not-make-excuses
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Josh Gordon needs to get clean?
Yeah that .15 whatever of thc is probably driving him to refer madness. You are responsible for what is in your body. Unless you are Richard Sherman, Kevin Williams, Pat Williams, .....whatever. The Gordon case is less cut and dried, and a bit more compelling than some here want to believe.
There was more than one occasion where Gordon's A and B sample were substantially different in the lab world.
Those close to the case are calling it rather compelling, take it for what it's worth.
Could he still be gone for the year, yes. However, it is not the slam dunk some are making it out to be, and he may get, nothing.
There was more than one occasion where Gordon's A and B sample were substantially different in the lab world.
Those close to the case are calling it rather compelling, take it for what it's worth.
Could he still be gone for the year, yes. However, it is not the slam dunk some are making it out to be, and he may get, nothing.
lod01
Footballguy
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I'm taking the "He's a great player. Great players often have funny things happen on their way to suspensions" arguement.
None of the other stuff matters. If the league can find a way to get him on the field this year, they will.
None of the other stuff matters. If the league can find a way to get him on the field this year, they will.
Old Smiley
Footballguy
Ross Tucker @RossTuckerNFL 2h
I'm no expert but it's a crazy low threshold if J. Gordon peed in 1 cup that was poured into 2 & only one was over limit, right?
I'm no expert but it's a crazy low threshold if J. Gordon peed in 1 cup that was poured into 2 & only one was over limit, right?
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
Soulfly3
Footballguy
doesn't need to be an expert to know that a 96% accurate test was a fail and a 99.999% accurate test was a pass.
that's just.... you know... basic common sense to see that this is a disaster for the NFL and the lab.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
A disaster? Pretty sure the NFL will be juuuuust fine with or without Josh Gordon. Again, typical non--FF crazed fans outside of Cleveland don't even know who he is.
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
Meaning hes no expert on the testing protocol. (I understand its a figure of speech...)
Where are these percentages coming from? Why do we keep referring to 99% accuracy of the test. Isn't it common knowledge by now that all sample B is for is to corroborate sample A with a +/-3 differential possibility. If its 99.99% accurate and it falls within that +/-3 from sample A doesn't that hurt your guys argument?
Adam Harstad
Moderator
The 99.999% test was not a pass. The threshold for the 99.999% accurate test is not 15 ng/ml. That's the threshold for the 96% accurate test- presumably because the 15 ng/ml threshold takes into account the potential error bars around the measurement. Without those error bars, a different threshold could (and likely would) be used.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
If a test is 99.999% accurate (which it is, it's been posted here several times) and the test number was 13.whatever... that means that ACTUAL RESULT of the test was a pass.
Regardless of what's written in the CBA, he literally actually passed.
the NFL can go by their definition, and whatever... stupid, but that's their right. But based on the most accurate possible test they can do, he pissed a pass
False Start
Footballguy
Dismattle
Footballguy
If I understand you correctly, it is fine with you to switch the positions of the two bottles?
Basically Bottle B is to be used for testing, which results in a pass, and both bottles can be dumped..
Sabertooth
Footballguy
If they are different, I don't understand how you can trust the validity of either.
Dismattle
Footballguy
Im thinking that it may either be the length of time to test (settling or something) or possibly the storage conditions.
As mentioned earlier I believe, it could be something as simple as the amts in each bottle. (not exactly sure how)
It could be the testors just looking and saying "oh yeah, here its showing X" and not waiting for a higher reading..
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
No clue what your saying here. All I meant was that the test was accurate and it falls within the range. If it was less accurate and also fell close to the lower limit of the +/-3 range then that would be a bigger concern from a testing protocol standpoint. Hope that makes sense.
I'm not trying to defend the NFL, only trying to understand the facts and base then off the rules in place.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
You have it backwards. If they were the same you couldn't trust the validity of either. Variability is normal. If two different samples return the exact same result, that's one of the biggest indicators of tampering.
Dismattle
Footballguy
This sure sounds like an outstanding wakeup call! A lot of Football stars talk about supporting their Mom etc. (Josh almost lost that) Now Josh is pretty close to his older brother, so Im feeling a bit more positive tbh I believe being around family that hears everything being said/told,should have a positive effect on Josh
Lets save this discussion, because it may be too soon too.
But yeah, its probably playing w Fire, just like We all knew from the start..
Soulfly3
Footballguy
For starters, the two samples are measured using two completely different methods
Method A - has a 96% accuracy
Method B - has a 99.9999% accuracy.
They are not the same test. At all. In any regard. Except that it's the same urine.
So yes... variability between results SHOULD happen here. You're correct. But one method is giving you a true and as ACCURATE a reading as scientifically possible. And that test, was a pass
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
How long after testing Sample A was Sample B tested? I'm assuming once the samples are collected they are sealed and hopefully aren't affected but this indicates that it's normal for the values to decrease (although I'm guessing that means within a persons body).
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Dismattle
Footballguy
thank you for explaining!
Q. Is Bottle A tested w the quick n dirty method per say? Im thinking that this is the cheaper/quicker method
That doesn't seem right. There's only one sample of urine taken. It's split into 2 cups and two different tests are applied. If there's a large amount of variability, that would indicate testing error and should not be expected. A small amount of variation, yes, because one test is more accurate than the other. If both hit the same number, its more unlikely due to the difference in accuracy of the tests, but not sure how that would indicate anything, especially if both essentially test "clean".
amnesiac
beer is good
are you suggesting we should subtract 4% from the A test?
Dismattle
Footballguy
yeah We all should consider using links more Personally I do not recall seeing or hearing of any test recorded at 39. Do you recall where you came across that info?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'm not sure where you're getting that 99.9999% thing, but assuming it's true it's X% accurate within some range. Which is why the two different readings (separated by less than the +/- 3 ng) are most likely not unusual.Read Adam's post above (that I quoted) if you decide you'd actually like to understand this stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
amnesiac
beer is good
by my math i think that still equates to a positive test.
Clifford
Footballguy
This. The outcome of this May be that the testing regimen is so unreliable as to be unenforcible.
amnesiac
beer is good
so the testing protocol has always been unreliable?if that is true, i see a lot of lawsuits in the NFL's future for lost wages from past suspensions.
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
So would they amend the CBA if they go with this line of thinking (despite the testing procedures being clearly outlined and agreed upon)? Has an amendment ever happened before?
Clifford
Footballguy
Bronx Bomber
Footballguy
This is like when you hear a judge tell the jury to disregard what they heard. Does that ever work? He failed the A sample, it's random chance maybe but it happened do we really think the league office will pretend it didn't just because it could have gone the other way?
