WR Josh Gordon, KC (3 Viewers)

[msommer]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

#2 The only argument I can see is the 'slippery slope' one. But that is as stupid as the rule.

ETA: I'm by no means an expert in the phychology and treatment of alcoholics (if that is what that rule is about)

 

[ghostguy123]

#2 The only argument I can see is the 'slippery slope' one. But that is as stupid as the rule.

ETA: I'm by no means an expert in the phychology and treatment of alcoholics (if that is what that rule is about)

An alcoholic has to be 100% free of alcohol or else a relapse is essentially a guarantee.

There is no F'ing way Gordon is an alcoholic based on any actual recognized definition of alcoholism.

The rule has nothing to do with anything regarding alcoholism.

 

[Otis]

Amidst the noise, serious question:

When he returns to the field, will Gordon be football ready and produce as expected? Even though he was facing unknown consequences at the time, Gordon looked bleh during preseason action.

He's always proven to be a responsible individual with good judgment. I don't see what could go wrong.

 

[Catbird]

Assuming you are asking a serious question, the credibility of the league is paramount. People across the country, world, need to know the games are played between teams where there players, if healthy, can play to their abilities. If you bet a hundred dollars on a game and your team's star WR shows up drunk, staggers under the first pass thrown his way, falls to his knees, vomits on the field and staggers to the sidelines, you are going to be pissed off. Even if he shows up drunk and his team notices and can't let him play, the outcomes of games will be changed. If a five hundred people have bet $50,000 on his team, some of them are going to start shaking up the league, its structure, gambling, it would be a disaster the league can't contemplate, let alone allow. If a guy can't control his substance abuse, at some point he's going to show up drunk or stoned where it impacts his play. The league can't afford to wait for this to happen to take action - because by then its already a very expensive public relations disaster. If there are dozens of players out there who can't control their drinking, those disaster incidents would start to happen with some frequency. When league credibility is badly damaged, millions are lost and lots of heads roll.

One way to help protect against that kind of situation is to only allow guys who have demonstrated an inability to control drug or alcohol use, to potentially be on the field if they show they have gotten a handle on it. the players, as a group, not wanting their golden egg to be cracked and fried, have agreed that when one of their own demonstrates they can't control their drug or alcohol use, by warnings and then fines and then short suspensions and then longer suspensions - the players as a group have agreed with the league that enough infractions warrant keeping the player away. Its not punishment for breaking the law - we have courts that do that and those have different goals (and don't come into your house if you are sipping a glass of wine). This, though, is about league rules protecting the integrity of the game. There are a lot of related integrity issues tied up in the issue besides drunk players on the field, but the impact on league credibility of player sobriety is huge in many ways. The rules you say have no point are primarily aimed at integrity of the game and the billions of dollars that depend on that credibility.

I'm not arguing that they are perfect or even the wisest of rules, but just against your contention that they are pointless.

 

[ghostguy123]

Who said they are pointless??

They are just horrible and over the top

 

[12punch]

anway, you maintain the guy has "made mistakes." i dont think hes done anything wrong, or at least done anything worthy of destroying his career.

If he was a regular member of society with any one of 99% of the jobs out there, he would still have a job and likely have received no punishment. In the past year and a half he has passed more drug tests than everyone in my hospital has taken in their entire careers combined (not counting their hire date).

But, alas, he is an NFL employee. A league that has rules incredibly more strict than they need to be given that these guys play a sport. This isn't NASA, the White House, the NSA, brain surgeons...........

I will talk about this more when the time comes, but I bet down the road (maybe 20-30 years) you will see a shift in the pain medication the league prefers their players to use. I will bet they not only allow marijuana in the league, but will encourage it over the more harmful painkillers they allow right now. For another day (and another thread) though.

There is zero reason to test for weed. If you want to suspend them for weed or other drugs (not talking about stuff like crack, meth, heroin....), do so if they actually get caught with them by police, say they use them, show pictures of themselves using them, or one of the other possible ways to show the public you use them. This would punish the people stupid enough to make the league look bad, and not punish the guys who's names otherwise would never have even made it into the media for these drugs in the first place. If the league doesnt like negative attention with the drugs, then get rid of the policy that bring them more negative attention than they need to.

IF another one of you thinks this means I want a free for all, or that a free for all could even happen, wise up.

well, now he's a regular member of society with a job like 99% of the people have, working at a car dealership, and he doesn't have to be bothered with the nfl's strict rules

all he needs to be worried about now is not going past an hour on his lunch break

 

[Banger]

This dummy won't realize what he had until it's gone and that reality is coming closer with each dumb mistake he makes. What a complete waste of talent.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

It is a substance abuse program, so the goal would be to get them to not use substances. And if what is said in that article is true, they are not preventing him from drinking, just from being under the influence when tested. If it's true he only needs to come in at .06 or under, 75% of the legal limit, then he can still drink so long as he isn't getting hammered and showing up still intoxicated.

 

[pizzatyme]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

 

[ghostguy123]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

The league doesnt even know the answer to that, let alone someone on here.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

Yes

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Active%20Players/Drug_SOA_Policy_9-29-14.pdf

(b)
Discipline for Stage Three Violations
Failure to Comply in Stage Three: A Player who: fails to cooperate with testing, treatment, evaluation or other requirements imposed on him by this Policy or fails to comply with his Treatment Plan, both as determined by the Medical Director; or who has a Positive Test Result, will be banished from the NFL for a minimum period of one (1) calendar year.

Banishment: A Player banished from the NFL pursuant to this subsection will be required to adhere to his Treatment Plan and the provisions of this Intervention Program during his banishment. During a Player’s period of banishment, his NFL Player Contract shall be tolled.

 

[KCitons]

Something else that people are forgetting - as fans, we don't know everything that occurred. The CBA protects players from the release of information. Maybe Gordon has a laundry list of things we don't even know about.

could be true.

but some of the rules we do know about are dumb. So is Gordon. Both can be dumb.

I think the seat belt laws are dumb. But I know the law and fully understand that I could be punished if I'm caught. Based on the law. Seat belt use = saved money. Similarly in the NFL. Substance abuse rules = saved money for owners. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. Follow the money and you will have the answers. The league (it's owners) want to protect one thing. Their money. If a player is doing anything that could effect the bottom line, they are going to develop rules to eliminate that problem.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

1.3 Testing for Substances of Abuse

All testing for Substances of Abuse of Players is to be conducted under the direction of the Medical Advisor pursuant to this Intervention Program. Before entering an Intervention Stage, Players shall be tested only for the following substances, which collectively shall be termed the “NFL Drug Panel”

Benzoylecognine (cocaine) ≥ 150 ng/mL

Delta 9 - THC - carboxylic acid (marijuana) ≥ 35 ng/mL

Amphetamine and its analogue s ≥ 300 ng/mL

Opiates (total morphine and codeine) ≥ 300 ng/mL

Opioids (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) ≥ 300 ng/mL

Phencyclidine (PCP) ≥ 25 ng/mL

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”) and its analogues ≥ 200 ng/mL

Alcohol ≥ .06 g/dl (%)

Alcohol is prohibited only if a Player’s Treatment Plan explicitly prohibits alcohol, but all Players in Intervention Stages are tested for alcohol for clinical monitoring purposes. Discipline for alcohol use is imposed only if a Player’s Treatment Plan prohibits alcohol.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He's a moron but this alcohol testing policy is beyond dumb.

You mean the part about where he agreed to lay off the booze and agreed to be tested as part of his reinstatement, with the knowledge that testing >.06 would land him a year suspension?

Not sure what's dumb about it other than the fact that Gordon didn't follow terms of his agreement.

He HAD to sign it or he couldnt play. Doesnt mean the tersm arent dumb.

I would agree suspending guys for alcohol is pretty dumb.

He cant drink because he had the DUI. Maybe they should just suspend him if, ya know, he gets a DUI again.

BUt the fact that he signed an agreement doesnt mean teh agreement isn't ridiculous.

I think we finally peaked at insanity levels in this thread.

Wait until he potentially kills some one and then suspend him. So who cares less about him as a human being the NFL or some fan that doesn't want to see him suspended?

The insanity is the way you interpret my comments.

Didn't realize I should take "I would agree suspending guys for alcohol is pretty dumb. ...Maybe they should just suspend him if, ya know, he gets a DUI again." differently that you saying they should wait until he gets another DUI before suspending him. My bad I guess.

you are advocating penalizing ppl that dont break any laws. its completely absurd. should we start to administer truth serum and lie detector tests to ppl to ascertain if they intend to commit crimes? or how about a psychological exam to see if they even have the mentality and proclivity to commit crimes?

If I had a beer at lunch during a weekday, I could lose my job if some one reported me. Can you tell me what law I'd be breaking (assuming I was driving back to work well under the legal limit)?

 

[ghostguy123]

If I had a beer at lunch during a weekday, I could lose my job if some one reported me. Can you tell me what law I'd be breaking (assuming I was driving back to work well under the legal limit)?

depends what your job is. If I drank at work I would be breaking the law.

Also, I didnt see Gordon bonging any beers on the field.

And it's not really a good example anyway. Andrew Luck could drink beer at halftime and the league isn't going to suspend him whether they know about it or not. The team would discipline him for being an idiot, unless he played lights out then they probably would have him do it every week.

 

[KCitons]

If I had a beer at lunch during a weekday, I could lose my job if some one reported me. Can you tell me what law I'd be breaking (assuming I was driving back to work well under the legal limit)?

depends what your job is. If I drank at work I would be breaking the law.

Also, I didnt see Gordon bonging any beers on the field.

And it's not really a good example anyway. Andrew Luck could drink beer at halftime and the league isn't going to suspend him whether they know about it or not. The team would discipline him for being an idiot, unless he played lights out then they probably would have him do it every week.

If it was Lucks 1st offense, you may be right. If Luck was in the Substance Abuse Program and he had a beer at halftime, he would be suspended.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If I had a beer at lunch during a weekday, I could lose my job if some one reported me. Can you tell me what law I'd be breaking (assuming I was driving back to work well under the legal limit)?

depends what your job is. If I drank at work I would be breaking the law.

Also, I didnt see Gordon bonging any beers on the field.

And it's not really a good example anyway. Andrew Luck could drink beer at halftime and the league isn't going to suspend him whether they know about it or not. The team would discipline him for being an idiot, unless he played lights out then they probably would have him do it every week.

My question was in response to this statement "you are advocating penalizing ppl that dont break any laws."

It's a perfectly good example to address that statement. Also what you fail to acknowledge or realize is that Gordon got a DUI - so part of his penalty process was that he would be tested for alcohol and had to stay under a certain limit. They aren't picking on him - if Luck gets a DUI then he will be subject to the same penalties.

The bottom line is a private employer can set any rules they want (even stupid ones). Gordon didn't "bong any beers on the field" but he obviously showed up to work or testing drunk - so basically the same thing.

The funny thing is that I could get in trouble for drinking a beer at lunch here in the US - but I work for a German company and in the German offices they actually sell beer in their cafeterias located on the premises and can drink at lunch (I'd imagine they can't get drunk). So it may be a "stupid rule" to me, but guess what, if I go out to lunch while at work I don't have a beer - even though I would if it were a weekend or when I'm out to dinner.

 

[cstu]

If I had a beer at lunch during a weekday, I could lose my job if some one reported me. Can you tell me what law I'd be breaking (assuming I was driving back to work well under the legal limit)?

depends what your job is. If I drank at work I would be breaking the law.

Also, I didnt see Gordon bonging any beers on the field.

And it's not really a good example anyway. Andrew Luck could drink beer at halftime and the league isn't going to suspend him whether they know about it or not. The team would discipline him for being an idiot, unless he played lights out then they probably would have him do it every week.

Until they get a DUI or come up positive during testing, players can do anything they want.

See: Manziel, Johnny.

 

[Two Deep]

Barkley: 'Josh Gordon is gonna die if he keeps going on this road'

Good Posting Charles Barkley

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Marcus Mosher @Marcus_Mosher · Jan 25

Drafted in 2012. RT @RapSheet: #Browns WR Josh Gordon will be under contract thru ’16, and he’ll only be a restricted FA after that year
Marcus Mosher @Marcus_Mosher · Jan 25

Gordon won't hit FA until 2018, I believe.

Marcus Mosher @Marcus_Mosher · Jan 25

Josh Gordon is going to play under the longest rookie contract in the history of the NFL.

===================================

The Browns don't have to do anything with Gordon. If he does what everyone anticipates and screws up again he'll never play another NFL game so they won't have to cut him.

If by some miracle he does clean up his act then he won't count against the Browns cap and he won't accrue any time towards becoming an unrestricted free agent until 2018.

Doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do the Browns have no need to cut him and can only benefit if he cleans up his act eventually ALA Justin Blackmon who 'seems' to have gotten a handle on his drinking problem and will get another shot with the Jags.

 

[Banger]

now you see why the Browns were looking to trade him despite his amazing talent. They knew he was a screw up and wanted to pull another Richardson. Could you imagine if they were able to dump Richardson and Gordon?

 

[Bronco Billy]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

I know this won't satisfy your curiosity and you'll likely reject it completely, but the answer is simple.

The NFL is a privately owned entity. Those are the rules it requires players to adhere to in order to play in the NFL.

A player has a choice: comply with the rules and allow the NFL to pay them millions of dollars for playing, or break the rules and risk suffering the consequences if they are caught.

This isn't about any notion of fair or rational, or what you consider to be illogical. It is about following their rules if you want to be employed with them. You don't like it? Work somewhere else.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

I believe so. Given Gordon's history, zero chance it gets reduced. He's done for a while.To ghostguy, the agreement he signed makes sense and is required because the league in which he plays places a high value on deterring its members from engaging in substance abuse activities. There are a host of good reasons for this, but certainly public perception is one of them, if not the main reason. Welcome to the reality of one of the most public enterprises in global history. If you don't believe in enforcing rules to deter behavior, then that's an odd position, but you're totally in your right to hold it. But, I think most people get the idea that you have to enforce rules prohibiting behaviors that compromise the goals mission, values an entity believes to be important. Ask any parent.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

I know this won't satisfy your curiosity and you'll likely reject it completely, but the answer is simple. The NFL is a privately owned entity. Those are the rules it requires players to adhere to in order to play in the NFL.

A player has a choice: comply with the rules and allow the NFL to pay them millions of dollars for playing, or break the rules and risk suffering the consequences if they are caught.

This isn't about any notion of fair or rational, or what you consider to be illogical. It is about following their rules if you want to be employed with them. You don't like it? Work somewhere else.

Sigh......

I know.

 

[ghostguy123]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

I believe so. Given Gordon's history, zero chance it gets reduced. He's done for a while.To ghostguy, the agreement he signed makes sense and is required because the league in which he plays places a high value on deterring its members from engaging in substance abuse activities. There are a host of good reasons for this, but certainly public perception is one of them, if not the main reason. Welcome to the reality of one of the most public enterprises in global history. If you don't believe in enforcing rules to deter behavior, then that's an odd position, but you're totally in your right to hold it. But, I think most people get the idea that you have to enforce rules prohibiting behaviors that compromise the goals mission, values an entity believes to be important. Ask any parent.

Show me where i said they shouldnt enforce the rules.

I said the rules are over the top.

i also ssid gordon got what he deserved to get.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

I believe so. Given Gordon's history, zero chance it gets reduced. He's done for a while.To ghostguy, the agreement he signed makes sense and is required because the league in which he plays places a high value on deterring its members from engaging in substance abuse activities. There are a host of good reasons for this, but certainly public perception is one of them, if not the main reason. Welcome to the reality of one of the most public enterprises in global history. If you don't believe in enforcing rules to deter behavior, then that's an odd position, but you're totally in your right to hold it. But, I think most people get the idea that you have to enforce rules prohibiting behaviors that compromise the goals mission, values an entity believes to be important. Ask any parent.

Show me where i said they shouldnt enforce the rules.

I said the rules are over the top.

i also ssid gordon got what he deserved to get.

Well, it's hard to understand how you arrive to the conclusion that rules established to deter substance abuse are over the top.

Look, you might also be the guy who thinks firing a guy for being late for work is over the top, as well. And, in a vacuum, it probably is (just as it would be suspending an NFL player for drinking booze). But, if you are an employer, and one of your employees is chronically late, you set rules. Specifically, you set rules that he can't be late again or he's going to get docked in pay or put on probation or, worse, fired. This is not an unusual practice. And, yet, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that Gordon's got a ####### issue laying off the weed and the booze. On at least one occasion, he has put people's lives in jeopardy while driving under the influence. The NFL said, look Josh, you can come back and play and make gazillions of dollars, but on the condition that you don't drink and don't smoke week. And, here your problem is with the NFL and its rules? I mean, that's twisted up. You know that, right?

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, it's hard to understand how you arrive to the conclusion that rules established to deter substance abuse are over the top.

Look, you might also be the guy who thinks firing a guy for being late for work is over the top, as well. And, in a vacuum, it probably is (just as it would be suspending an NFL player for drinking booze). But, if you are an employer, and one of your employees is chronically late, you set rules. Specifically, you set rules that he can't be late again or he's going to get docked in pay or put on probation or, worse, fired. This is not an unusual practice. And, yet, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that Gordon's got a ####### issue laying off the weed and the booze. On at least one occasion, he has put people's lives in jeopardy while driving under the influence. The NFL said, look Josh, you can come back and play and make gazillions of dollars, but on the condition that you don't drink and don't smoke week. And, here your problem is with the NFL and its rules? I mean, that's twisted up. You know that, right?

Not "rules", "THEIR rules". Rules to deter substance abuse are fine, but the league's are over the top absurd.

My PROBLEM, as I have stated about 25 times now, is with BOTH Gordon for being an idiot, and the league rules being over the top.

When you say Gordon has a ####### problem laying off the weed, you do know he passed like 75 tests in a row over the course of a a little over a year, and when he finally did get caught the amount in his system was lower than basically 99.9999999% of enterprises test for. Not to mention one cup was under, one was over. Sure, he still screwed up and is an idiot for having ANY weed at all, but those testing limits are absurd.

Once you are in this "program", you essentially have to not ingest anything at all, even some legal substances, while the rest of the league is out doing as they please. I would venture to guess a lot of the guys NOT in the program have a worse substance problem than Gordon, they just happen to not be in the program and don't get random tests on a whim every week for 2 years.

I guess maybe every player should just have to submit to weekly tests.

Also, no idea why you would think i implied people who are late to work a ton of times has anything to do with this. Not sure I compared that to being able to sit at home and have a few beers without having the piss cup police at your door at all random hours of the day all the time.

That might make sense for truck drivers, pilots, or other jobs where it would actually matter. This is football for #### sake.

Hey, if the NFL thinks that all this helps their bottom line, more power to em. I'm not so sure it does though.

Either way, really no more to be said here.

Gordon is stupid and deserves to probably be out of the league based on the rules and breaking them so much.

The league rules are over the top crazy absurd, more strict than all but maybe a few professions out there.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

Well, it's hard to understand how you arrive to the conclusion that rules established to deter substance abuse are over the top.

Look, you might also be the guy who thinks firing a guy for being late for work is over the top, as well. And, in a vacuum, it probably is (just as it would be suspending an NFL player for drinking booze). But, if you are an employer, and one of your employees is chronically late, you set rules. Specifically, you set rules that he can't be late again or he's going to get docked in pay or put on probation or, worse, fired. This is not an unusual practice. And, yet, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that Gordon's got a ####### issue laying off the weed and the booze. On at least one occasion, he has put people's lives in jeopardy while driving under the influence. The NFL said, look Josh, you can come back and play and make gazillions of dollars, but on the condition that you don't drink and don't smoke week. And, here your problem is with the NFL and its rules? I mean, that's twisted up. You know that, right?

Not "rules", "THEIR rules". Rules to deter substance abuse are fine, but the league's are over the top absurd.

My PROBLEM, as I have stated about 25 times now, is with BOTH Gordon for being an idiot, and the league rules being over the top.

When you say Gordon has a ####### problem laying off the weed, you do know he passed like 75 tests in a row over the course of a a little over a year, and when he finally did get caught the amount in his system was lower than basically 99.9999999% of enterprises test for. Not to mention one cup was under, one was over. Sure, he still screwed up and is an idiot for having ANY weed at all, but those testing limits are absurd.

Once you are in this "program", you essentially have to not ingest anything at all, even some legal substances, while the rest of the league is out doing as they please. I would venture to guess a lot of the guys NOT in the program have a worse substance problem than Gordon, they just happen to not be in the program and don't get random tests on a whim every week for 2 years.

I guess maybe every player should just have to submit to weekly tests.

Also, no idea why you would think i implied people who are late to work a ton of times has anything to do with this. Not sure I compared that to being able to sit at home and have a few beers without having the piss cup police at your door at all random hours of the day all the time.

That might make sense for truck drivers, pilots, or other jobs where it would actually matter. This is football for #### sake.

Hey, if the NFL thinks that all this helps their bottom line, more power to em. I'm not so sure it does though.

Either way, really no more to be said here.

Gordon is stupid and deserves to probably be out of the league based on the rules and breaking them so much.

The league rules are over the top crazy absurd, more strict than all but maybe a few professions out there.

So you want rules, just flimsier rules.

The fact that you are puzzled by the "being late" scenario suggests just that. Seems like you have an issue with companies who have and enforce rules against substance use. Which is interesting, but leaving that aside, when considering a rather innocuous scenario of a guy being chronically late, would you not agree that he will be under greater scrutiny by his employer? You might be able to stroll into work 20 minutes late and not get so much as a verbal warning, whereas your colleague, Who repeatedly strolls in 20 minutes late is going to eventually be sanctioned, even fired.

And, say it's a billion dollar industry, one guy being late for work is not, in and of itself, going to negatively impact their bottom line, even if he is a recidivist offender. But, maybe you've never worked in industry or business before, but rules are generally put in place to deter certain behaviors, and if you don't establish expected work times, folks are naturally going to stroll in as they please, and that collectively will impact the bottom line. Same is potentially true for a very public organization that has no deterrents around substance abuse.

And, maybe this is what offends you, having rules against substance use. But, in this discussion, Gordon has proven to be a recidivist offender and, as such, he is going to be sanctioned differently than 99.9% of everyone else...because those folks have been able to re-prioritize and get their #### together.

 

[ghostguy123]

I dont have a problem whatsoever with rules against substance abuse. I dont use anything but drink occasionally which has never affected my job, not that that matters anyway.

I have a problem with super ultra strict substance rules that are stricter than almost anything out there, and these guys play a sport.

I appreciate many of you continuing to try and put words in my mouth,but its not necessary.

I already said countless times that gordon is a bonehead and getting what he deserves.

 

[Sabertooth]

If the NFL rules are so insanely strict... why is it that the majority (vast majority?) of players are able to follow them?

Because a lot of the players are smarter than Gordon and better at decision making.

That still doesn't mean the rules make sense.

Back to the Burger King rule, if they made that rule the vast majority of guys would follow it. It;s still a stupid rule though.

It's also the way they enforce them, just crazy. These aren't secret service agents.

Come on, you have to make the rules so they apply to the dumbest employee. Rules like this are needed because guys like Gordon will push any and every rule they have. He's a ####### idiot. #### him. Sucks. Have a great life Josh. Keep it real.

 

[salmonstud]

I just cannot see around the lenses of my own world paradigm enough to understand what in the blue hell is going on in this mans head.

Im at a total loss.

Only Gordon knows that answer. I'm a therapist specializing in addiction. I have worked with clients that have been arrested 10-15 times for drunk driving and been to prison but continue to make the same mistakes. For some people it's the belief that they can beat the system. For some it's fear of change. Others the fear to succeed. Most people do not have access to the same access to services & excellent help that Gordon does due to his financial status. His refusal to fully quit and change his lifestyle makes me believe that he still doesn't think he has a problem & can beat the system.

 

[ghostguy123]

I just cannot see around the lenses of my own world paradigm enough to understand what in the blue hell is going on in this mans head.

Im at a total loss.

Only Gordon knows that answer. I'm a therapist specializing in addiction. I have worked with clients that have been arrested 10-15 times for drunk driving and been to prison but continue to make the same mistakes. For some people it's the belief that they can beat the system. For some it's fear of change. Others the fear to succeed. Most people do not have access to the same access to services & excellent help that Gordon does due to his financial status. His refusal to fully quit and change his lifestyle makes me believe that he still doesn't think he has a problem & can beat the system.

I cant' even imagine the therapist (if he ever even sees one) that has to try and talk him through losing 50+ million dollars due to these decisions and idiocies.

 

[cvnpoka]

Barkley: 'Josh Gordon is gonna die if he keeps going on this road'

Good Posting Charles Barkley

lol, proly the worst "hot take" ive seen. my god.

 

[cvnpoka]

Is the rule hard and fast for a 1 year suspension? Zero tolerance?

I believe so. Given Gordon's history, zero chance it gets reduced. He's done for a while.To ghostguy, the agreement he signed makes sense and is required because the league in which he plays places a high value on deterring its members from engaging in substance abuse activities. There are a host of good reasons for this, but certainly public perception is one of them, if not the main reason. Welcome to the reality of one of the most public enterprises in global history. If you don't believe in enforcing rules to deter behavior, then that's an odd position, but you're totally in your right to hold it. But, I think most people get the idea that you have to enforce rules prohibiting behaviors that compromise the goals mission, values an entity believes to be important. Ask any parent.

oh jfc, the guy drank a few beers and didnt get in any trouble, didnt cause a scene. its not like he knocked out his gf, or poured bleach on her, or threw her on a bunch of guns, or assraped her.

this is the perfect example of how not to operate. if they dont punish him, then this doesnt get any publicity and the league doesnt look worse. they are creating issues where there arent any and making the league look worse than it would if they didnt have draconian policies.

 

[fredsavage]

I suspect the NFL will alter their policy on marijuana in the coming years. Still, NFL owners have a right to insure the quality of their product as they see fit. Professional football is not slavery, the players choose representatives to negotiate the CBA and know the rules. My guess is that the substance policy was devised to allow players to do what they want more or less on their own time in the offseason as long as it remains out of the sphere of media. It's obvious Gordon and Blackmon have issues that negatively impact their ability to be a member of a pro football team, and the owners wisely protect their investments with a harsh program for repeat offenders.

There is no way I would be where I am professionally if I had gotten kicked out of school for weed, gotten DUIs, failed employer-administered drug tests etc.. Unless you work a drive-thru as Gordon might be in the near future, I would guess the same would apply to you.

 

[ghostguy123]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

 

[ghostguy123]

And why would you get kicked out of school for weed?? Dont see them testing regular students.

 

[KCitons]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

But since you asked. Yes.

 

[FlapJacks]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

I know this won't satisfy your curiosity and you'll likely reject it completely, but the answer is simple.

The NFL is a privately owned entity. Those are the rules it requires players to adhere to in order to play in the NFL.

A player has a choice: comply with the rules and allow the NFL to pay them millions of dollars for playing, or break the rules and risk suffering the consequences if they are caught.

This isn't about any notion of fair or rational, or what you consider to be illogical. It is about following their rules if you want to be employed with them. You don't like it? Work somewhere else.

Actually the NFL is group of businesses that are privately owned and the teams, collectively, agree to rules set forth in an agreement with the players union. This agreement sets the rules. Any analogies to what private companies do is wildly incorrect...

 

[Bronco Billy]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

If someone were willing to pay me millions of dollars to play a game, I think I could find it within me to abide by their rules. That's what this all comes down to. He can't take the pay and then expect to not have to comply with the conditions of his employment. Why would you think otherwise? It's such an odd stance.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

I know this won't satisfy your curiosity and you'll likely reject it completely, but the answer is simple.The NFL is a privately owned entity. Those are the rules it requires players to adhere to in order to play in the NFL.

A player has a choice: comply with the rules and allow the NFL to pay them millions of dollars for playing, or break the rules and risk suffering the consequences if they are caught.

This isn't about any notion of fair or rational, or what you consider to be illogical. It is about following their rules if you want to be employed with them. You don't like it? Work somewhere else.

Actually the NFL is group of businesses that are privately owned and the teams, collectively, agree to rules set forth in an agreement with the players union. This agreement sets the rules. Any analogies to what private companies do is wildly incorrect...

So the NFL is not a privately held entity? BTW - GB is not privately held.

You may want to revisit the lesson you tried to teach us.

 

[Warrior]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

No. Other professions don't have employees in the public spotlight, making millions each year to play a game. NFL players are held to a higher standard for a reason. Not sure why you can't seem to comprehend this, it's very simple.

In fact, you're displaying a similar difficulty to accept/understand a simple concept as Josh Gordon has displayed.

 

[ghostguy123]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

If someone were willing to pay me millions of dollars to play a game, I think I could find it within me to abide by their rules. That's what this all comes down to. He can't take the pay and then expect to not have to comply with the conditions of his employment. Why would you think otherwise? It's such an odd stance.

Thats not my stance in the slightest

 

[ghostguy123]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

No. Other professions don't have employees in the public spotlight, making millions each year to play a game. NFL players are held to a higher standard for a reason. Not sure why you can't seem to comprehend this, it's very simple.

In fact, you're displaying a similar difficulty to accept/understand a simple concept as Josh Gordon has displayed.

No, other professions are only directly responsible for the safety of other people.

Football players play football. I guess thats more important. Ur right. I cant grasp that concept.

 

[massraider]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

No. Other professions don't have employees in the public spotlight, making millions each year to play a game. NFL players are held to a higher standard for a reason. Not sure why you can't seem to comprehend this, it's very simple.

In fact, you're displaying a similar difficulty to accept/understand a simple concept as Josh Gordon has displayed.

No, other professions are only directly responsible for the safety of other people. Football players play football. I guess thats more important. Ur right. I cant grasp that concept.

Worst straw man ever.

 

[fredsavage]

And why would you get kicked out of school for weed?? Dont see them testing regular students.

I got caught smoking in my dorm my junior year. I had to take two drug tests and have several drug counseling sessions. If I had failed one of the two tests or failed to attend counseling I could have been subject to expulsion. I kept my nose clean, and *gasp* there weren't even millions of dollars on the line!

These policies are not exclusive to the NFL and though I think most people could care less if college kids are getting high, it's up to the institution to decide what they will and won't tolerate. Don't like it? Don't go to college or play in the NFL.

 

[FlapJacks]

I think he's full of it....

say here in the article

Alcohol metabolizes out of your body at a steady rate, at about one drink per hour. You have to be actively intoxicated to test positive. There are also tests which can detect the presence of alcohol in someone's body in the last few days, but the NFL's policy indicates they don't test for abstinence. Rather, they set the limit at .06 g/dl -- 3/4 of the typical legal limit for a DUI -- so unless Prater had agreed to some sort of additional no-alcohol policy, it seems unlikely they'd use those tests.

Another question. Why on Earth (unless mandated legally by the court system) would the NFL completely disallow some of the players (like Gordon/Blackmon) from drinking in the first place???

That is a totally absurd thing to have NFL players do. Totally absurd. That is just one part of the substance abuse program that is totally idiotic.

Forget that GOrdon/Prater broke those rules. They knew the rules and broke them. That's on them. That is conversation #1.

Conversation #2, WHY in HELL does that rule make any sense? And why would you possibly agree that rule is just fine and dandy for them to make?

I know this won't satisfy your curiosity and you'll likely reject it completely, but the answer is simple.The NFL is a privately owned entity. Those are the rules it requires players to adhere to in order to play in the NFL.

A player has a choice: comply with the rules and allow the NFL to pay them millions of dollars for playing, or break the rules and risk suffering the consequences if they are caught.

This isn't about any notion of fair or rational, or what you consider to be illogical. It is about following their rules if you want to be employed with them. You don't like it? Work somewhere else.

Actually the NFL is group of businesses that are privately owned and the teams, collectively, agree to rules set forth in an agreement with the players union. This agreement sets the rules. Any analogies to what private companies do is wildly incorrect...

So the NFL is not a privately held entity? BTW - GB is not privately held.

You may want to revisit the lesson you tried to teach us.

if you think the NFL is a privately held entity, then who is the owner there, Sparky?

Technically, the league office itself is a trade organization. No player is an employee of the NFL.

 

[cstu]

For those of you guys who think the NFL policies are perfectly fine in how strict they are, you MUST think that just about every other profession out there is too soft in their policies right?

No. Other professions don't have employees in the public spotlight, making millions each year to play a game. NFL players are held to a higher standard for a reason. Not sure why you can't seem to comprehend this, it's very simple.

In fact, you're displaying a similar difficulty to accept/understand a simple concept as Josh Gordon has displayed.

No, other professions are only directly responsible for the safety of other people.

Football players play football. I guess thats more important. Ur right. I cant grasp that concept.

1. Owners want players tested/suspended for drugs

2. Players agreed to it

Regardless of whether you think the NFL is dumb for wanting the rule, they did and the players agreed.

 

[ghostguy123]

1. Owners want players tested/suspended for drugs

2. Players agreed to it

Regardless of whether you think the NFL is dumb for wanting the rule, they did and the players agreed.

1- sounds good

2- do they have a choice?

- rules are good. Over the top absurd rules are not my preference. And when you say the players agreed, cmon. They did sign a paper though I guess. It's more an ultimatum than an agreement.

Weed is the easiest to point out for this, so let's have one more crack at it. Why test at all for weed? Zero point. Zero.

Now, if a player is busted for weed in some way by the police, or if a player is on youtube or instagram twitter or something smokin up, then by all means enforce some punishment.

Do we need to bust the player who tokes up at his house on his own, causing no trouble and bringing no negative press to the league?

Again, the NFL has a more strict drug policy than doctors. Just about all doctors. Try and put that in perspective.

 

[MaxThreshold]

1. Owners want players tested/suspended for drugs

2. Players agreed to it

Regardless of whether you think the NFL is dumb for wanting the rule, they did and the players agreed.

1- sounds good

2- do they have a choice?

- rules are good. Over the top absurd rules are not my preference. And when you say the players agreed, cmon. They did sign a paper though I guess. It's more an ultimatum than an agreement.

Weed is the easiest to point out for this, so let's have one more crack at it. Why test at all for weed? Zero point. Zero.

Now, if a player is busted for weed in some way by the police, or if a player is on youtube or instagram twitter or something smokin up, then by all means enforce some punishment.

Do we need to bust the player who tokes up at his house on his own, causing no trouble and bringing no negative press to the league?

Again, the NFL has a more strict drug policy than doctors. Just about all doctors. Try and put that in perspective.

So, to simplify, you are arguing the "I like weed so the NFL rules are stupid" and "The players were forced into signing those contracts" lines of defense?