WR Josh Gordon, KC (1 Viewer)

[Kevrunner]

I am sure one of the only things that we (at least I did) learned in the past week is that the Commish Goodell cannot just pick any arbitrator that he wanted to, the NFLPA had to agree on the pool of arbitrators to select from.

I'm trying to acquire Gordon in all of my leagues, really don't think he plays this year, but I am betting that he will straighten up after this.

 

[Bayhawks]

Read what I posted a few times

Ask someone for help afterwards if you still cannot grasp it

Done conversing w you. You have no agenda except to come in and slam me while having. apparently, a serious reading comprehension issue.

Take care

Maybe you should try to keep track of all the crap you are throwing into this thread. I'm no longer asking about the rumors that you made up heard.

I'm asking you to provide the link that you said you would in this post:

Soulfly3, on 01 Aug 2014 - 8:30 PM, said:

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.

Souflly...did you ever find that link???? This is potentially critical info. I would like to see the source so we can see who said it, just in case it is from a credible source versus some ######## blogger or clown making up stuff on a message board

Im on my cell, but Im pretty sure its on one of the previous pages... I think I posted it. If not, ill find it when I get home

To clarify (because you seem to have the reading comprehension problem; either that or you are ignoring the question), please provide the link to the "information" that Gordon has previously had his A and B samples show different THC levels. This news that "you" claimed to have linked previously (you haven't), and that you said you'd provide after you got home. News that can't be found anywhere, as far as I can tell, and news that only you and oojays (who are 2 different people ) seem to have read/seen/heard anywhere.

If this link actually exists, it provides (IMO) a glimmer of hope for us Gordon owners. Perhaps his lawyers can argue that there is a pattern, or somehow challenge the validity of the tests on those grounds. That is why many of us come to this thread, to find actual news, not to hear unsubstantiated pieces of information (that may or may not be true). So please provide it; you said you had it, share it with us.

 

[DropKick]

One sample, split in half.

Two different results ruins the legitimacy of the testing process.

Result should be null and void.

It's not like he knocked his girlfriend unconscious.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!!!

Are they really two different results? 16.0 and 13.8 are pretty close and small variations are likely inherent in the testing process. I suspect the reason they do two tests is to ensure a mistake isn't made. These numbers are close enough (to me) to suggest his level was in twhe neighborhood of the legal limit.

Hypothetically, what if the results were 15.1 and 14.9? Far closer but still right on the bubble...

He fails If 15 is the limit. "Just" missing is still missing... I'm sure that being so close to passing is frustrating for him and FF owners (myself included) but, ultimately, he let himself be in that position.

Listening to Goodell talk on the NFL radio yesterday, he distinguished between Rice's 2 game suspension and Big Ben's 4 gamer. He made a point about first offense and patterns of behavior. In Gordon's case, there is a clear and length pattern. I am not optimistic about Gordon's chances.

To make matters worse if the samples were taken in the opposite order (the 13.8 first), he wouldn't have failed. There is a good write up on it on Grantland. The NFL definitely seems to be wrong in this instance.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/josh-gordon-and-the-nfls-drug-problem/

I understand the "bad luck" of the sampling process... Point being Gordon shouldn't have put himself in that position.

Soulfly posted some detail about the testing process. Allegedly, the second test is more precise. Will this be a factor? Who can say? We'll find out soon.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

People and articles seem to keep missing the test where he tested a 38 when lower than a 20 was needed.

It wasn't just a sample A and sample B test. This reverse order of testing the samples is a BS argument. Two different methods of testing was performed.

 

[Steed]

Can someone tell me why one of my posts in this thread that wasn't inflammatory in any way got erased?

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

"But using Gordons past to justify the future penalties is a pretty lazy way to rationalize whats happening here. Suspending Gordon for a year changes his entire career. Its a stigma thatll never disappear, all because of a test that doesnt really prove anything conclusively."

Have to say I agree with this.

 

[Childress]

Andrew Brandt believes they will find a negotiated settlement today and as a Gordon owner that's the best piece of info I've heard.

 

[Bayhawks]

Andrew Brandt believes they will find a negotiated settlement today and as a Gordon owner that's the best piece of info I've heard.

Agreed. Anything less than 1 year is a bonus, based on the facts as we (think we) know them. I can't help but be selfish & hope for just 8 games; that would make him valuable for the stretch run & FF playoffs.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

thought it was all or nothing?

 

[GregR]

Read what I posted a few times

Ask someone for help afterwards if you still cannot grasp it

Done conversing w you. You have no agenda except to come in and slam me while having. apparently, a serious reading comprehension issue.

Take care

Bayhawks is correct. I'm guessing you're maybe getting confused when what you posted is talking about "splitting the sample In half".

The NFL takes a sample and splits it into A and B. That isn't the sample splitting the article refers to. That is still to come.

The A sample is sent to the lab and subjected to the two step test. The A sample is split in half at the lab and the first half has the the immunoassay test done on it. For Gordon that was a fail with a 38 when the threshold was 20. Then the second test is done on the other half of the A sample and the 16 was returned, over the threshold of 15.

That is the process outlined in your post. In addition to the testing guidelines in your post, for a failed testthe NFL will also, at the player's request, send the B sample to have confirmed it shows any evidence of THC. It isn't a failed test until both steps are done. That means sample B never comes into play until after the two step test is finished and was a failure. The NFL testing policy does not require the B sample to be over the threshold.

This is pretty much all a repeat of my post recapping for someone what tests were done. Only thing added here is I highlighted that the two step test was performed on sample A. It did not have half of it performed on A and half on B. The two step test was conducted and judged a failure and Gordon informed. After that, Gordon has to request that the B Sample have the test done on it or it is never tested.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Read what I posted a few times

Ask someone for help afterwards if you still cannot grasp it

Done conversing w you. You have no agenda except to come in and slam me while having. apparently, a serious reading comprehension issue.

Take care

Bayhawks is correct. I'm guessing you're maybe getting confused when what you posted is talking about "splitting the sample In half".

The NFL takes a sample and splits it into A and B. That isn't the sample splitting the article refers to. That is still to come.

The A sample is sent to the lab and subjected to the two step test. The A sample is split in half at the lab and the first half has the the immunoassay test done on it. For Gordon that was a fail with a 38 when the threshold was 20. Then the second test is done on the other half of the A sample and the 16 was returned, over the threshold of 15.

That is the process outlined in your post. In addition to the testing guidelines in your post, for a failed testthe NFL will also, at the player's request, send the B sample to have confirmed it shows any evidence of THC. It isn't a failed test until both steps are done. That means sample B never comes into play until after the two step test is finished and was a failure. The NFL testing policy does not require the B sample to be over the threshold.

This is pretty much all a repeat of my post recapping for someone what tests were done. Only thing added here is I highlighted that the two step test was performed on sample A. It did not have half of it performed on A and half on B. The two step test was conducted and judged a failure and Gordon informed. After that, Gordon has to request that the B Sample have the test done on it or it is never tested.

In addition to this, the B sample is tested sometimes weeks after sample A and it is realistic that the potency will be less because of the time lapse.

 

[Dismattle]

Read what I posted a few times

Ask someone for help afterwards if you still cannot grasp it

Done conversing w you. You have no agenda except to come in and slam me while having. apparently, a serious reading comprehension issue.

Take care

Bayhawks is correct. I'm guessing you're maybe getting confused when what you posted is talking about "splitting the sample In half".

The NFL takes a sample and splits it into A and B. That isn't the sample splitting the article refers to. That is still to come.

The A sample is sent to the lab and subjected to the two step test. The A sample is split in half at the lab and the first half has the the immunoassay test done on it. For Gordon that was a fail with a 38 when the threshold was 20. Then the second test is done on the other half of the A sample and the 16 was returned, over the threshold of 15.

That is the process outlined in your post. In addition to the testing guidelines in your post, for a failed testthe NFL will also, at the player's request, send the B sample to have confirmed it shows any evidence of THC. It isn't a failed test until both steps are done. That means sample B never comes into play until after the two step test is finished and was a failure. The NFL testing policy does not require the B sample to be over the threshold.

This is pretty much all a repeat of my post recapping for someone what tests were done. Only thing added here is I highlighted that the two step test was performed on sample A. It did not have half of it performed on A and half on B. The two step test was conducted and judged a failure and Gordon informed. After that, Gordon has to request that the B Sample have the test done on it or it is never tested.

Did you see a tweet showing 38?

Im not exactly sure your quite right with the explanation of three or more testing specimens.. I really believe its one that is split into two bottles.

I appreciate the info none the less..

p.s. Lets not continue asking or baiting Soul for a link ex. If you do not have a 38 link No biggie (fwiw Some appreciate inside info w/o a link)

 

[GregR]

Read what I posted a few times

Ask someone for help afterwards if you still cannot grasp it

Done conversing w you. You have no agenda except to come in and slam me while having. apparently, a serious reading comprehension issue.

Take care

Bayhawks is correct. I'm guessing you're maybe getting confused when what you posted is talking about "splitting the sample In half".

The NFL takes a sample and splits it into A and B. That isn't the sample splitting the article refers to. That is still to come.

The A sample is sent to the lab and subjected to the two step test. The A sample is split in half at the lab and the first half has the the immunoassay test done on it. For Gordon that was a fail with a 38 when the threshold was 20. Then the second test is done on the other half of the A sample and the 16 was returned, over the threshold of 15.

That is the process outlined in your post. In addition to the testing guidelines in your post, for a failed testthe NFL will also, at the player's request, send the B sample to have confirmed it shows any evidence of THC. It isn't a failed test until both steps are done. That means sample B never comes into play until after the two step test is finished and was a failure. The NFL testing policy does not require the B sample to be over the threshold.

This is pretty much all a repeat of my post recapping for someone what tests were done. Only thing added here is I highlighted that the two step test was performed on sample A. It did not have half of it performed on A and half on B. The two step test was conducted and judged a failure and Gordon informed. After that, Gordon has to request that the B Sample have the test done on it or it is never tested.

Did you see a tweet showing 38?

Im not exactly sure your quite right with the explanation of three or more testing specimens.. I really believe its one that is split into two bottles.

I appreciate the info none the less..

p.s. Lets not continue asking or baiting Soul for a link ex. If you do not have a 38 link No biggie (fwiw Some appreciate inside info w/o a link)

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/07/post_186.html

When players in the NFL are drug-screened, two different tests are used. Gordon measured 38 nanograms per milliliter of THC on the immunoassay test, above the NFL's threshold of 20, the source said.

 

[GregR]

By the way, the section below that quote in that link is wrong. It talks about there being two samples in the second part of the test, the A and B sample.

Only the A sample is in the second test, just as it was the only sample in the first test. As others have mentioned, the NFL's test policy (which has been posted here) is the player gets the results from those first 2 tests, and then if he requests it, they send the B sample to be tested but only for whether there is THC present. The B sample test won't ever take place unless the player requests it. The beat writer's article makes it sound like it's a standard part of the process to test it along with the A sample.

 

[Ojaays]

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.

Souflly...did you ever find that link???? This is potentially critical info. I would like to see the source so we can see who said it, just in case it is from a credible source versus some ######## blogger or clown making up stuff on a message board

Im on my cell, but Im pretty sure its on one of the previous pages... I think I posted it. If not, ill find it when I get home

Was that a Freudian slip? I thought Ojaays was not Soulfly3

Yet when Soulfly was asked for a link from a post from Ojaays it was in fact Soulfly who responded

Haha... Not that it matters as most of us suspected it anyway and actually it's kinda fun to keep with the ruse

Stop the crap guys

We are NOT. The same.

I'm posting from Florida, no idea where soul dude is from, but it's just stupid to even bring it up.

Oh and Bzinga dude, did somebody tell you that those close to the case said it was "compelling " and not a slam dunk?

What was that? 8 hrs yesterday and continuing Monday? Yeah, in sure it's a slam dunk for the league.

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[Steed]

Bzinga had a post where he chastised another poster for being too slow to keep up with Gordon's multiple offenses. That one got erased too. What gives?

 

[Bayhawks]

Read what I posted a few times

Ask someone for help afterwards if you still cannot grasp it

Done conversing w you. You have no agenda except to come in and slam me while having. apparently, a serious reading comprehension issue.

Take care

Bayhawks is correct. I'm guessing you're maybe getting confused when what you posted is talking about "splitting the sample In half".

The NFL takes a sample and splits it into A and B. That isn't the sample splitting the article refers to. That is still to come.

The A sample is sent to the lab and subjected to the two step test. The A sample is split in half at the lab and the first half has the the immunoassay test done on it. For Gordon that was a fail with a 38 when the threshold was 20. Then the second test is done on the other half of the A sample and the 16 was returned, over the threshold of 15.

That is the process outlined in your post. In addition to the testing guidelines in your post, for a failed testthe NFL will also, at the player's request, send the B sample to have confirmed it shows any evidence of THC. It isn't a failed test until both steps are done. That means sample B never comes into play until after the two step test is finished and was a failure. The NFL testing policy does not require the B sample to be over the threshold.

This is pretty much all a repeat of my post recapping for someone what tests were done. Only thing added here is I highlighted that the two step test was performed on sample A. It did not have half of it performed on A and half on B. The two step test was conducted and judged a failure and Gordon informed. After that, Gordon has to request that the B Sample have the test done on it or it is never tested.

Did you see a tweet showing 38?

Im not exactly sure your quite right with the explanation of three or more testing specimens.. I really believe its one that is split into two bottles.

I appreciate the info none the less..

p.s. Lets not continue asking or baiting Soul for a link ex. If you do not have a 38 link No biggie (fwiw Some appreciate inside info w/o a link)

Not a tweet, but the link was provided in post #5311. Insider information without a link can be helpful, however when the individual in question rarely (if ever) provides a link, and the "insider information" he shares is wrong more often than not, calling for a link is perfectly justified, and in fact, helps prevent misinformation from being spread. (unless that individual is just purposely providing mis-information).

 

[Bayhawks]

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.

Souflly...did you ever find that link???? This is potentially critical info. I would like to see the source so we can see who said it, just in case it is from a credible source versus some ######## blogger or clown making up stuff on a message board

Im on my cell, but Im pretty sure its on one of the previous pages... I think I posted it. If not, ill find it when I get home

Was that a Freudian slip? I thought Ojaays was not Soulfly3

Yet when Soulfly was asked for a link from a post from Ojaays it was in fact Soulfly who responded

Haha... Not that it matters as most of us suspected it anyway and actually it's kinda fun to keep with the ruse

Stop the crap guys

We are NOT. The same.

I'm posting from Florida, no idea where soul dude is from, but it's just stupid to even bring it up.

Oh and Bzinga dude, did somebody tell you that those close to the case said it was "compelling " and not a slam dunk?

What was that? 8 hrs yesterday and continuing Monday? Yeah, in sure it's a slam dunk for the league.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Well then it must be true. Because you've never provided information in this thread that is false, right? Like the NFL mis-communicating with Gordon, or Marshawn Lynch never being suspended for his legal issues?

 

[massraider]

Please stop making this about various posters. I don't really care about being excellent to each other, but it's boring.

 

[DansRams]

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.

Souflly...did you ever find that link???? This is potentially critical info. I would like to see the source so we can see who said it, just in case it is from a credible source versus some ######## blogger or clown making up stuff on a message board

Im on my cell, but Im pretty sure its on one of the previous pages... I think I posted it. If not, ill find it when I get home

Was that a Freudian slip? I thought Ojaays was not Soulfly3

Yet when Soulfly was asked for a link from a post from Ojaays it was in fact Soulfly who responded

Haha... Not that it matters as most of us suspected it anyway and actually it's kinda fun to keep with the ruse

Stop the crap guys

We are NOT. The same.

I'm posting from Florida, no idea where soul dude is from, but it's just stupid to even bring it up.

Oh and Bzinga dude, did somebody tell you that those close to the case said it was "compelling " and not a slam dunk?

What was that? 8 hrs yesterday and continuing Monday? Yeah, in sure it's a slam dunk for the league.

Nothing to see here, move along.

All Bazinga did is ask for a link. Did you or Soulfy ever post it? I won't read all of the thread to try and find it. It will give me a headache.

He makes a good point. If the link comes from a credible source that can validate those "close to the source" as credible, this would be valuable info to those of us considering trying to acquire Gordon

 

[FBG Moderator]

Can someone tell me why one of my posts in this thread that wasn't inflammatory in any way got erased?

Because inflammatory posts were being deleted, and you were quoting those posts.

 

[FBG Moderator]

Reaching zero tolerance for this thread. We can't seem to go more than a page without the insults and bickering returning.

Expect even less leeway. Don't insult others, question their identity, jump on every post they make, call them a troll, say they are full of crap, or question their intelligence or their reading comprehension. Veiled insults and insinuations won't be tolerated any more than overt insults.

If you can't be civil you're going to get a long break from the board. For any who already have crossed the line in this thread, it will be even longer.

 

[Chaka]

There seems to be way to much disagreement about the actual testing procedures and what Gordon's results were for me to have much confidence in what anyone is saying in here. Can we just lock this down until we get some definitive news on Monday?

 

[Quez]

#TeamSoulfly3

 

[amnesiac]

there's also no guarantee that we will have a resolution on Monday.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

There seems to be way to much disagreement about the actual testing procedures and what Gordon's results were for me to have much confidence in what anyone is saying in here. Can we just lock this down until we get some definitive news on Monday?

Agree.

I see it more as people trying to understand and interpret exactly what the testing procedures are. We've had multiple segmants quoted straight from the CBA then we've had this writeup on standard testing procedures http://www.norchemlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/marijuana.pdf which has helped both with understanding the methodology but also provide arguments against the way the NFL goes about it.

 

[The Man With No Name]

One sample, split in half.

Two different results ruins the legitimacy of the testing process.

Result should be null and void.

It's not like he knocked his girlfriend unconscious.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!!!

Are they really two different results? 16.0 and 13.8 are pretty close and small variations are likely inherent in the testing process. I suspect the reason they do two tests is to ensure a mistake isn't made. These numbers are close enough (to me) to suggest his level was in the neighborhood of the legal limit.

Hypothetically, what if the results were 15.1 and 14.9? Far closer but still right on the bubble...

He fails If 15 is the limit. "Just" missing is still missing... I'm sure that being so close to passing is frustrating for him and FF owners (myself included) but, ultimately, he let himself be in that position.

Listening to Goodell talk on the NFL radio yesterday, he distinguished between Rice's 2 game suspension and Big Ben's 4 gamer. He made a point about first offense and patterns of behavior. In Gordon's case, there is a clear and length pattern. I am not optimistic about Gordon's chances.

First off, I believe he should be suspended. He had it in his system. Period.

Those 2 results are not close at all. Well over a 10% difference, which is huge.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

One sample, split in half.

Two different results ruins the legitimacy of the testing process.

Result should be null and void.

It's not like he knocked his girlfriend unconscious.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!!!

Are they really two different results? 16.0 and 13.8 are pretty close and small variations are likely inherent in the testing process. I suspect the reason they do two tests is to ensure a mistake isn't made. These numbers are close enough (to me) to suggest his level was in the neighborhood of the legal limit.

Hypothetically, what if the results were 15.1 and 14.9? Far closer but still right on the bubble...

He fails If 15 is the limit. "Just" missing is still missing... I'm sure that being so close to passing is frustrating for him and FF owners (myself included) but, ultimately, he let himself be in that position.

Listening to Goodell talk on the NFL radio yesterday, he distinguished between Rice's 2 game suspension and Big Ben's 4 gamer. He made a point about first offense and patterns of behavior. In Gordon's case, there is a clear and length pattern. I am not optimistic about Gordon's chances.

First off, I believe he should be suspended. He had it in his system. Period.

Those 2 results are not close at all. Well over a 10% difference, which is huge.

Is that what is making people more upset? is this the "I'd rather my team lose by a blowout versus a field goal as time expires" type thing?

and the other part is that we're not talking about percentages but ng/ml and the link above specifies that +/-3ng/ml is normal in the second test. 10% doesn't come into play

 

[georg013]

Really hoping a deal is struck. Would be nice to have Gordon available this season, even if it is on a limited basis. Just last month we were talking about him never playing a down and needing an intervention. Now there is hope. Even if he is suspended for the year it has been an interesting ride. Not at all worried about the DWI.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Florio...

There’s no middle ground; under the substance-abuse policy, a positive test occurring for a player in Stage III of the program results in a mandatory one-year suspension.

But if Gordon ends up being suspended for a full year, the blame won’t fall on lawyer Maurice Suh for anything he did or didn’t do during the course of the hearing. Gordon’s fate already was sealed at the bargaining table between the NFL and the NFL Players Association.

Every provision, aspect, and wrinkle of the substance-abuse policy flows from negotiations between the league and the union. A violation for a player in Stage III triggers a one-year suspension because the NFLPA agreed to that sanction. The limit for marijuana metabolites is 15 ng/ml (an order of magnitude lower than the WADA limit of 150) because the NFLPA agreed to that amount. The inherently unfair “A” bottle/”B” bottle procedure, which allows the “B” bottle to confirm a positive test without actually being positive itself, exists due to the outcome of arm’s-length negotiations between management and labor.

 

[Steed]

There's no middle ground.... till there is

 

[georg013]

There's no middle ground.... till there is

#truth

 

[Chaka]

There seems to be way to much disagreement about the actual testing procedures and what Gordon's results were for me to have much confidence in what anyone is saying in here. Can we just lock this down until we get some definitive news on Monday?

Agree.

I see it more as people trying to understand and interpret exactly what the testing procedures are. We've had multiple segmants quoted straight from the CBA then we've had this writeup on standard testing procedures http://www.norchemlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/marijuana.pdf which has helped both with understanding the methodology but also provide arguments against the way the NFL goes about it.

That's nice but there is also the matter of the leaked results, particularly the 38 ng/dl immunoassay which was linked above but the link only said the info came from "a source". For all we know that source could have been Bazinga!

The bottom line is that this thread has provided no consensus or clarity on the situation.

 

[Chaka]

There seems to be way to much disagreement about the actual testing procedures and what Gordon's results were for me to have much confidence in what anyone is saying in here. Can we just lock this down until we get some definitive news on Monday?

Agree.

I see it more as people trying to understand and interpret exactly what the testing procedures are. We've had multiple segmants quoted straight from the CBA then we've had this writeup on standard testing procedures http://www.norchemlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/marijuana.pdf which has helped both with understanding the methodology but also provide arguments against the way the NFL goes about it.

I am sure the NFLPA drug policy has been linked in here but in case it hasn't you can find it here (here is a direct link to the pdf, yes I know it is a 2010 document), it states pretty clearly that there is a 15 ng/dl threshold but Bayhawks said it is 20 for the immunoassay (and the exact testing procedures are not outlined in that document).

All I know is that Mary Kay Cabot's source told her that the immunoassay test has a threshold of 20 ng/dl for the immunoassay but the NFLPA only mentions a 15 ng/dl threshold and nothing about the specific tests. So if the source is wrong about the threshold, or if the NFLPA document is listing the wrong threshold, then all we know is someone is wrong and we have no idea what the heck is really going on.

I am not calling anyone out but it just seems that we don't really know anything and many people in here are speaking as if they do and are really just making speculations about their own personal beliefs. I know that I can just stay out of this thread if it bothers me so much but this seems like the place to be to discuss the ramifications when the real info actually breaks so maybe people can tone it down just a tad until that actually happens. It will make life easier on all of us.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

there's also no guarantee that we will have a resolution on Monday.

Josh Gordon Friday was already a disappointment. Don't kick me while I'm down!

 

[Bayhawks]

There seems to be way to much disagreement about the actual testing procedures and what Gordon's results were for me to have much confidence in what anyone is saying in here. Can we just lock this down until we get some definitive news on Monday?

Agree.

I see it more as people trying to understand and interpret exactly what the testing procedures are. We've had multiple segmants quoted straight from the CBA then we've had this writeup on standard testing procedures http://www.norchemlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/marijuana.pdf which has helped both with understanding the methodology but also provide arguments against the way the NFL goes about it.

I am sure the NFLPA drug policy has been linked in here but in case it hasn't you can find it here (here is a direct link to the pdf, yes I know it is a 2010 document), it states pretty clearly that there is a 15 ng/dl threshold but Bayhawks said it is 20 for the immunoassay (and the exact testing procedures are not outlined in that document).

All I know is that Mary Kay Cabot's source told her that the immunoassay test has a threshold of 20 ng/dl for the immunoassay but the NFLPA only mentions a 15 ng/dl threshold and nothing about the specific tests. So if the source is wrong about the threshold, or if the NFLPA document is listing the wrong threshold, then all we know is someone is wrong and we have no idea what the heck is really going on.

I am not calling anyone out but it just seems that we don't really know anything and many people in here are speaking as if they do and are really just making speculations about their own personal beliefs. I know that I can just stay out of this thread if it bothers me so much but this seems like the place to be to discuss the ramifications when the real info actually breaks so maybe people can tone it down just a tad until that actually happens. It will make life easier on all of us.

I will endeavor to do just as you suggest in the last paragraph. I apologize for any of my posts that hijacked the thread.

 

[Dismattle]

• http://www.bigdetox.com/urine-testing.html

An enzyme is used to detect drugs or their metabolites. However it is the easiest to fail. It doesn’t always give accurate information giving a 4-34% false positive rate.

Now I did read the link provided earlier which is much appreciated. It almost makes sense in that some are reporting biased info ie. Lets not go over the X amt initial test

I know its kinda sketchy source here What I suggest is searching " drug testing for antibodies in urine "

 

[jdswan922]

People and articles seem to keep missing the test where he tested a 38 when lower than a 20 was needed.

It wasn't just a sample A and sample B test. This reverse order of testing the samples is a BS argument. Two different methods of testing was performed.

I have only seen that test referred to in one article. It is not consistent with what the drug policy calls for, so I would be interested where that writer got that info. The drug policy only has one threshold for THC, which is 15 ng. It only refers to the split sample testing and no reference to a 3rd test.

 

[Bayhawks]

People and articles seem to keep missing the test where he tested a 38 when lower than a 20 was needed.

It wasn't just a sample A and sample B test. This reverse order of testing the samples is a BS argument. Two different methods of testing was performed.

I have only seen that test referred to in one article. It is not consistent with what the drug policy calls for, so I would be interested where that writer got that info. The drug policy only has one threshold for THC, which is 15 ng. It only refers to the split sample testing and no reference to a 3rd test.

From what I understand, an immunoassay test is a cheap, quick drug test. It is often used by employers as a preliminary drug screening. Since it's results aren't as accurate as other tests, it isn't used as the actual method of determining whether drugs are in the system. It, however, seems to be the "1st step" in many cases. If a subject "fails" the immunoassay test, then his/her urine is subjected to the more accurate tests.

If this is how the NFL works, the immunoassay test would be the "preliminary" test. If Gordon's urine had showed less than the 20, the NFL might not have spent the money for the more expensive, more accurate testing of specimens A and B. Since, as it was reported, Gordon's immunoassay test showed 38ng/ml, and the NFL cutoff was 20 ng/ml, they tested specimen A, which showed 16ng/ml, over the NFL cutoff. His B specimen, when Gordon asked that it be tested, showed 13.63 ng/ml, over the NFL cutoff of zero ng/ml. According to the CBA, he is subjected to an automatic 1-year (indefinite) suspension. I don't see how the NFL can "cut a deal" without facing other players who were suspended for the year crying foul, filing lawsuits, complaining to the NFLPA, etc. Hopefully, Gordon's lawyers can find a loophole to reduce/eliminate his suspension.

**note-what is in red in the 2nd paragraph is my interpretation of how the NFL operates, based on articles & reports about the NFL's policy, and drug testing in general in places of employment. It may not be correct, but it makes sense to me. The rest of the paragraph is fact, based on the reports of Gordon's tests, the NFL's CBA, and the NFL's drug testing policy**

 

[KellysHeroes]

The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.

 

[Dismattle]

People and articles seem to keep missing the test where he tested a 38 when lower than a 20 was needed.

It wasn't just a sample A and sample B test. This reverse order of testing the samples is a BS argument. Two different methods of testing was performed.

I have only seen that test referred to in one article. It is not consistent with what the drug policy calls for, so I would be interested where that writer got that info. The drug policy only has one threshold for THC, which is 15 ng. It only refers to the split sample testing and no reference to a 3rd test.

I believe that an initial go/ no go gauge is used to determine if "testing" is needed. I also believe this test has up too a 34% false positive rate. The test thinks your body is cleansing itself of ie. (something is going on) Drugs << I believe that is what was explained to me 30 some yrs ago. Im sure there is plenty to read about what can cause false positives..

So anyway it appears after this "test" is performed, then we see this part A and B Test. If bottle B had been tested, there would be nothing to see. (testing below the threshold)

(imho) Now this actually makes sense, and some reporters just may not know much about testing ie. Whoever asked the Commish about a yr long susp. obviously didn't appear to know about the four "incidents" prior rule and/or sure didn't appear to have a good response.

 

[RBM]

I can't ####### believe you guys are still posting about this.

 

[Sabertooth]

I can't ####### believe you guys are still posting about this.

No ####. I come in here just hoping for something, anything other than testing protocols and lawyers ####. Sheesh.

 

[ghostguy123]

Gordon will be suspended, and probably should be based on the rules. They are VERY stupid rules, but they are the rules.

the rules regarding weed in the NFL are idiotic and make less sense than anything, ever. I work in a hospital and am in charge of taking care of people's children, and I haven't been drug tested in 10 years. Gordon has been tested what, 70 times in less than 2 years??

Hoping for the best as a Browns fan. As a fantasy fan, well, I don't own Gordon in any league, so a suspension only helps me. Pretty sure I rather see him not suspended though. He is a S-T-U-D

This thread really did take a turn down boring lane with all this lawyer/lab talk. Get back to the namecalling already.

 

[Dismattle]

I can't ####### believe you guys are still posting about this.

Im just enjoying reading what I believe to be the facts as some real football fans know em to be..

I will be honest and admit I have had a few, and or own a few Studs in my Dynasty Leagues...

However the difference is I believe this guy could be Number One overall (ex. NFL records in his 2nd Season). I also hope to see the best players on the Field (least ones free to roam the streets)

The real fact is there will probably be another post entirely in regards to the results (similar to the "poll" posts) This post appears to be anything Josh, aside from being a do***he..

Be honest now Did you know that if a Rookie is suspended for something besides performance enhancing drugs (ie. Weed) that he has already had four previous "incidents" I believe that's something worth knowing, especially if the guy had no priors in College (None reported/recorded)

p.s. It could be worse, this could be a post about utilizing NBA players in the Olympics (like the other Countries) prior to the "Jordan Dream Team" Depending upon how long ago it was that I heard some sports announcer say " These young men are the best of the best" I might have add a few choice words for amateur hour believers..

/End

Back to the Jordan Gordon watch! Anybody got a best guess where News may break first? Im thinking Twitter

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 1m

Confirming #Browns WR Josh Gordon is here and will practice. No news however on appeal of suspension.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

According to local radio, hearing will resume in NY around noon.

 

[False Start]

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 1m

Confirming #Browns WR Josh Gordon is here and will practice. No news however on appeal of suspension.

According to local radio, hearing will resume in NY around noon.

So is the continuation of his appeal going to be heard with out him or is he going to fly back to NY?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

nothing will be done today

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Tony Grossi ‏@TonyGrossi 1m

Confirming #Browns WR Josh Gordon is here and will practice. No news however on appeal of suspension.

According to local radio, hearing will resume in NY around noon.

So is the continuation of his appeal going to be heard with out him or is he going to fly back to NY?

If he is needed it will be via teleconference according to Grossi on the radio.

ETA practice ends at noon