WR Josh Gordon, KC (2 Viewers)

[Bracie Smathers]

I believe that discussion at the time was that the league was hot to give Miller a year-long vacation (despite his status as the second-biggest star on one of the league's best teams), but wasn't able to because Miller was assisted in his deception by one of the league's own representatives.

We're firmly in the realm of speculation and supposition, here, but I really don't think Von Miller's situation is a positive for Josh Gordon. I think that Miller was at least as high-profile of a player as Gordon, and I think the league really wanted his head. If Miller could get hammered like that, I believe there's no reason Gordon couldn't, too.

At the end of the day, I think the suspension is going to hinge strictly on the facts of the case. Which, of course, is a problem because so many of those facts are unknown to us right now.

Von Miller's case is/was different but many stories emerged about the NFL showing preferential treament towards Denver LB Von Miller, not only from last year with Peyton Manning but from previous faiured tests with the substance abuse policy that apparently were dismissed or mitigated when the Broncos had Tim Tebow at QB.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/22/report-von-miller-tested-positive-for-amphetamines-marijuana-in-2011/

Report: Von Miller tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana in 2011Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2013, 1:27 PM EDT

The Von Miller situation is getting even more confusing....

Mike Klis of the Denver Post reports that Miller has violated both policies. Per Klis, Miller tested positive for amphetamines and marijuana in 2011. The former, which is the active ingredient in Adderall and other related substances, would trigger an automatic four-game suspension under the PED policy. The latter would require at least three violations before a suspension arises.

It appears, then, that the suspension comes from the positive test for amphetamine. But it’s still unclear why it has taken so long to get the appeal resolved.

In late 2011, there was some suspicion that the league tapped the brakes on a couple of potential suspensions in order to avoid derailing Tebowmania. In 2012, the Broncos were among the league’s darlings, given the arrival of Peyton Manning.

The NFL decided on the lower suspension due to concerns over their testing policy.

Also another factor that this article mentions is the roll the of the players union which has not been brought up yet in this discussion.

Also the date that Miller's case was resolved was late August of last year so this could drag on for sometime.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/20/league-wanted-to-suspend-miller-longer-case-settled-at-six/

League wanted to suspend Miller longer, settled for sixPosted by Mike Florio on August 20, 2013, 6:48 PM EDT
Now that the six-game suspension of Broncos linebacker Von Miller has become final, details are trickling out. Or in. Or whatever.

Per a league source, the NFL wanted to impose a suspension of more than six games on Miller under Section I.C.3.f of the substance-abuse policy, which permits “additional discipline” where a player engages in a “deliberate effort to substitute or adulterate a specimen or to alter a Test result.”

Others have reported that the first sample collected from Miller was spilled and the second sample was determined to be diluted. The league, we’re told, believes that the spillage occurred as part of an effort to alter the result, possibly through the adulteration or substitution of the sample.

The NFL agreed to suspend Miller only six games via negotiation with the union. Per the source, the initial breach of confidentiality that resulted in the media learning of Miller’s potential suspension became leverage in the discussions.

Concerns regarding possible flaws in the collection process also may have been a factor in the league’s willingness to reduce the penalty. Indeed, if Miller was doing something with the sample cup other than urinating into it while the collector was watching, that shouldn’t have happened because under the collection process the sample collector should have been watching Miller the entire time.

And so the two sides have found a middle ground. Miller hoped to get the number down to four, the league wanted the number to be higher, and both parties agreed to resolve the case in lieu of risking a different outcome before the case went to a hearing.

The simple fact that the league had concerns about prevailing in an appeals process that the league controls shows that the NFL had real concerns about its case.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I believe that discussion at the time was that the league was hot to give Miller a year-long vacation (despite his status as the second-biggest star on one of the league's best teams), but wasn't able to because Miller was assisted in his deception by one of the league's own representatives.

We're firmly in the realm of speculation and supposition, here, but I really don't think Von Miller's situation is a positive for Josh Gordon. I think that Miller was at least as high-profile of a player as Gordon, and I think the league really wanted his head. If Miller could get hammered like that, I believe there's no reason Gordon couldn't, too.

At the end of the day, I think the suspension is going to hinge strictly on the facts of the case. Which, of course, is a problem because so many of those facts are unknown to us right now.

Von Miller's case is/was different but many stories emerged about the NFL showing preferential treament towards Denver LB Von Miller, not only from last year with Peyton Manning but from previous faiured tests with the substance abuse policy that apparently were dismissed or mitigated when the Broncos had Tim Tebow at QB.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/07/22/report-von-miller-tested-positive-for-amphetamines-marijuana-in-2011/

Report: Von Miller tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana in 2011

Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2013, 1:27 PM EDT

The Von Miller situation is getting even more confusing....

Mike Klis of the Denver Post reports that Miller has violated both policies. Per Klis, Miller tested positive for amphetamines and marijuana in 2011. The former, which is the active ingredient in Adderall and other related substances, would trigger an automatic four-game suspension under the PED policy. The latter would require at least three violations before a suspension arises.

It appears, then, that the suspension comes from the positive test for amphetamine. But it’s still unclear why it has taken so long to get the appeal resolved.

In late 2011, there was some suspicion that the league tapped the brakes on a couple of potential suspensions in order to avoid derailing Tebowmania. In 2012, the Broncos were among the league’s darlings, given the arrival of Peyton Manning.

The NFL decided on the lower suspension due to concerns over their testing policy.

Also another factor that this article mentions is the roll the of the players union which has not been brought up yet in this discussion.

Also the date that Miller's case was resolved was late August of last year so this could drag on for sometime.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/20/league-wanted-to-suspend-miller-longer-case-settled-at-six/

League wanted to suspend Miller longer, settled for six
Posted by Mike Florio on August 20, 2013, 6:48 PM EDT
Now that the six-game suspension of Broncos linebacker Von Miller has become final, details are trickling out. Or in. Or whatever.

Per a league source, the NFL wanted to impose a suspension of more than six games on Miller under Section I.C.3.f of the substance-abuse policy, which permits “additional discipline” where a player engages in a “deliberate effort to substitute or adulterate a specimen or to alter a Test result.”

Others have reported that the first sample collected from Miller was spilled and the second sample was determined to be diluted. The league, we’re told, believes that the spillage occurred as part of an effort to alter the result, possibly through the adulteration or substitution of the sample.

The NFL agreed to suspend Miller only six games via negotiation with the union. Per the source, the initial breach of confidentiality that resulted in the media learning of Miller’s potential suspension became leverage in the discussions.

Concerns regarding possible flaws in the collection process also may have been a factor in the league’s willingness to reduce the penalty. Indeed, if Miller was doing something with the sample cup other than urinating into it while the collector was watching, that shouldn’t have happened because under the collection process the sample collector should have been watching Miller the entire time.

And so the two sides have found a middle ground. Miller hoped to get the number down to four, the league wanted the number to be higher, and both parties agreed to resolve the case in lieu of risking a different outcome before the case went to a hearing.

The simple fact that the league had concerns about prevailing in an appeals process that the league controls shows that the NFL had real concerns about its case.

Miller has had a prescription for Adderall dating back to his freshman year of college, and has a league exemption for it. Speculation that he should have been suspended for PEDs was faulty- the only issue was and is his marijuana use.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_24303437/lot-people-said-it-went-by-fast-it

For clarity, Miller's troubles had nothing to do with performance-enhancing drugs. Because he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Miller has a therapeutic use exemption for Adderall.

"Since my freshman year in college," he said.

Regarding the second story you quoted, the key point to me is "the league wanted the number to be higher". That doesn't jive with the idea that the league is into protecting its stars.

It's a completely different case, I just don't see anything in the Von Miller situation that leads me to be more optimistic about the Josh Gordon situation. As I said, I think Josh Gordon's suspension will be decided entirely based on the facts of the case and not at all on Gordon's profile or popularity.

 

[Chaka]

The increasing optimism of the Gordon owners and the attempts to apply logic to support their optimism is funny

Here are the facts

1. There was a leak about a failed drug test

2. The NFL hasn't announced anything

3. We don't really know anything else

4. Everyone seems to have an opinion and none of them really matter due to fact #3

Ridiculous. 1 and 2 are the only "facts". 3 and 4 are your opinions. "Seems" and "really" aren't used in factual statements. We know plenty more, unless you believe there are a lot of liars out there. We know that Rosenhaus and Little have adamantly said the test was not "failed". We know Gordon was out of the country at the time the test was to have taken place. We know he's an idiot that still hangs out with people who have pot. We know the Browns are still running him as WR1 in practice. We know they didn't really address WR despite his situation. We know that 2 players were docked a year for drugs. We know Ray Rice also has not been suspended.

IOW you know nothing about the outcome of the appeal. It's all theory and conjecture.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Regarding the second story you quoted, the key point to me is "the league wanted the number to be higher". That doesn't jive with the idea that the league is into protecting its stars.

It's a completely different case, I just don't see anything in the Von Miller situation that leads me to be more optimistic about the Josh Gordon situation. As I said, I think Josh Gordon's suspension will be decided entirely based on the facts of the case and not at all on Gordon's profile or popularity.

That is why I mistakenly thought he made a successful appeal in the post above. I thought it would be foregone conclusion that he'd face a year long ban due to getting caught cheating on his test. Why cheat if he had nothing to hide in the first place?

But the other thing I distincly recall about the Von Miller case was this photo that appeared of him in a club the week his case was resolved.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_h5tURWbrF4/UAGN90RMoVI/AAAAAAAADdo/iSluf4EVfTo/s1600/drunk+von+miller.png

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Man, this is one ####load of posts for a decision that hasn't been handed down yet.

It's not that surprising considering that the details of this case are going to determine the value of a player who could be anywhere from #1 overall (many guys put him at or near that a VERY short time ago), to waiver wire fodder like Blackmon.

I can't think of a bigger "case" in FF history in terms of impact. Hernandez was the biggest before this, but as good he was, no one put him at #1 overall before he was accused of multiple murders.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Regarding the second story you quoted, the key point to me is "the league wanted the number to be higher". That doesn't jive with the idea that the league is into protecting its stars.

It's a completely different case, I just don't see anything in the Von Miller situation that leads me to be more optimistic about the Josh Gordon situation. As I said, I think Josh Gordon's suspension will be decided entirely based on the facts of the case and not at all on Gordon's profile or popularity.

That is why I mistakenly thought he made a successful appeal in the post above. I thought it would be foregone conclusion that he'd face a year long ban due to getting caught cheating on his test. Why cheat if he had nothing to hide in the first place?

But the other thing I distincly recall about the Von Miller case was this photo that appeared of him in a club the week his case was resolved.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_h5tURWbrF4/UAGN90RMoVI/AAAAAAAADdo/iSluf4EVfTo/s1600/drunk+von+miller.png

Oh, I think it's all but been admitted that he had something to hide. It's just that, based on where he was in the drug program, a suspension for a positive test would have been 4 games. The league wanted to give him an extra 12 for trying to cheat the system, but instead settled for adding an extra 2 because he was aided by a league representative, which made their case against him shakier. They took the guarantee of 2 games rather than risking an uncertain case and possibly winding up with no games (and setting an uncomfortable precedent in the process).

I don't really know what that photo would have to do with anything. Miller wasn't in the substance program for alcohol, so pictures of him partying wouldn't matter any more than the pictures we see of Manziel or Gronk partying.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

The increasing optimism of the Gordon owners and the attempts to apply logic to support their optimism is funny

Here are the facts

1. There was a leak about a failed drug test

2. The NFL hasn't announced anything

3. We don't really know anything else

4. Everyone seems to have an opinion and none of them really matter due to fact #3

Ridiculous. 1 and 2 are the only "facts". 3 and 4 are your opinions. "Seems" and "really" aren't used in factual statements. We know plenty more, unless you believe there are a lot of liars out there. We know that Rosenhaus and Little have adamantly said the test was not "failed". We know Gordon was out of the country at the time the test was to have taken place. We know he's an idiot that still hangs out with people who have pot. We know the Browns are still running him as WR1 in practice. We know they didn't really address WR despite his situation. We know that 2 players were docked a year for drugs. We know Ray Rice also has not been suspended.

IOW you know nothing about the outcome of the appeal. It's all theory and conjecture.

Who said I did? Not me.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

A source tells ProFootballTalk.com that an appeal hearing on Josh Gordon's case has not been scheduled yet.

It's been nearly two months since news of Gordon's third positive drug test as a pro broke, yet the NFL is in no rush to officially seal the star receiver's fate. Per PFT, there haven't even been any talks on a possible settlement. As a Stage 3 offender, the widespread belief is that Gordon will end up with a 16-game ban following his appeal hearing. Expect the announcement to come before Browns' camp opens on July 25.

Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com

Jun 24 - 4:05 PM

 

[fridayfrenzy]

People need to stop bringing up Will Hill's PEDs, Blackmon's arrests, Daryl Washington's altercation and even Gordon's speeding violation (with friend's marijuana) as evidence of anything. These do not fall under the Substance Abuse policy and do not affect the suspension under the Substance Abuse policy. The NFL does not mix its suspensions under various policies, and they do not build upon each other either.

Daryl Washington was suspended indefinitely because of failed drug tests, not because of failed drug tests plus his altercation. Just because Josh Gordon has not been arrested does not mean he would get less games than Washington or Blackmon.

The personal conduct policy is the document that gives the league the power to hand down discipline.

The personal conduct policy is the document where all previous incidents and any criminal proceedings are taken into account when determining disciplinary action.

This document also states that cases will be addressed in a timely manner.

The above players were all suspended under the substance abuse policy, not the personal conduct policy.

The personal conduct policy is the tool the document the league uses to punish players.

The substance abuse policy is 'under' the personal conduct policy.

The personal conduct policy is not 'under' the substane abuse policy.

The personal conduct policy has all violations under it so the substance abuse policy would show if a player had violated the NFL's personal conduct policy not the other way around.

Can you point me to where you see that? From what I understand, that is not the case and there are three separate policies.

The personal conduct policy is an NFL policy which enables the league to suspend players for things such as arrests, DUIs, or any altercations which portray a poor image of the NFL. It does not list suspensions for failed drug tests. In the personal conduct policy (at least the 2012 & 2013 version), no where does it state the Substance Abuse or Performance Enhancing policies. In the Substance Abuse and PED policies, no where does it state that discipline is handed out under the personal conduct policy.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/personal-conduct-policy.pdf

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FO-11-12-League-Policies-for-Players.pdf

From a Bleacher Report Article

"The Conduct Policy is separate from the league's substance abuse policy, where players are investigated for drug and alcohol abuse and performance enhancing drug use. The PCP specifically targets players' personal lives, how they conduct themselves, and how they represent the NFL image in the public. All players suspended under the PCP must apply for reinstatement."

 

[Peak]

#FREEGORDON*

* with a 8 gallon min purchase

 

[Bracie Smathers]

The personal conduct policy is the tool the document the league uses to punish players.

The substance abuse policy is 'under' the personal conduct policy.

The personal conduct policy is not 'under' the substane abuse policy.

The personal conduct policy has all violations under it so the substance abuse policy would show if a player had violated the NFL's personal conduct policy not the other way around.

Can you point me to where you see that? From what I understand, that is not the case and there are three separate policies.

The personal conduct policy is an NFL policy which enables the league to suspend players for things such as arrests, DUIs, or any altercations which portray a poor image of the NFL. It does not list suspensions for failed drug tests. In the personal conduct policy (at least the 2012 & 2013 version), no where does it state the Substance Abuse or Performance Enhancing policies. In the Substance Abuse and PED policies, no where does it state that discipline is handed out under the personal conduct policy.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/personal-conduct-policy.pdf

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FO-11-12-League-Policies-for-Players.pdf

From a Bleacher Report Article

"The Conduct Policy is separate from the league's substance abuse policy, where players are investigated for drug and alcohol abuse and performance enhancing drug use. The PCP specifically targets players' personal lives, how they conduct themselves, and how they represent the NFL image in the public. All players suspended under the PCP must apply for reinstatement."

First off. You left-off that the PCP covers prohibited substances and substance abuse.

Now, look at the last line you shared.

"All players suspended under the PERSONAL CONDUCT POLICY ..."

It doesn't say players suspended under the substance abuse policy.

It is because the substance abuse policy determines if a player ingested substances that violate that policy. For a player to be disciplined they would have to violate the terms of the PCP which covers subtances and violence and other offenses and past transgressions which are all determined when the league hands down discipline.

The PCP is the policy that is used to suspend players and the policies underneath it are used to spell out the the degree which players have violated the PCP.

From a previous post I shared shows the PCP covers everything that a player can be disciplined for such as, SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

Now if you still don't understand or accept this then you have to show where the NFL has ever suspended players without using the PCP because even in the article you shared it clearly shows 'all players SUSPENED UNDER THE PCP....'

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

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2012%20Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf

Personal Conduct Policy

　

… Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse;

… Violent or threatening behavior among employees, whether in or outside the workplace;

　

Discipline:

… Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement. The specifics of the disciplinary response will be based on the nature of the incident, the actual or threatened risk to the participant and others, any prior or additional misconduct (whether or not criminal charges were filed), and other relevant factors.

…

With respect to repeat offenders, the Commissioner may impose discipline on an enhanced and/or expedited basis. In such cases, the timing and nature of the discipline will be determined by the Commissioner based on several factors including but not limited to: the severity of the initial charge and later charge; the facts underlying the later charge; the length of time between the initial offense and later charge; and the player or employee’s compliance with counseling and other programs. ..

Other Provisions:

…

“Disposition of a Criminal Proceeding” –

…

Repeat Offenders – Persons who have had previous violations of law or of this policy may be considered repeat offenders.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The personal conduct policy is the tool the document the league uses to punish players.

The substance abuse policy is 'under' the personal conduct policy.

The personal conduct policy is not 'under' the substane abuse policy.

The personal conduct policy has all violations under it so the substance abuse policy would show if a player had violated the NFL's personal conduct policy not the other way around.

Can you point me to where you see that? From what I understand, that is not the case and there are three separate policies.

The personal conduct policy is an NFL policy which enables the league to suspend players for things such as arrests, DUIs, or any altercations which portray a poor image of the NFL. It does not list suspensions for failed drug tests. In the personal conduct policy (at least the 2012 & 2013 version), no where does it state the Substance Abuse or Performance Enhancing policies. In the Substance Abuse and PED policies, no where does it state that discipline is handed out under the personal conduct policy.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/personal-conduct-policy.pdf

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FO-11-12-League-Policies-for-Players.pdf

From a Bleacher Report Article

"The Conduct Policy is separate from the league's substance abuse policy, where players are investigated for drug and alcohol abuse and performance enhancing drug use. The PCP specifically targets players' personal lives, how they conduct themselves, and how they represent the NFL image in the public. All players suspended under the PCP must apply for reinstatement."

First off. You left-off that the PCP covers prohibited substances and substance abuse.

Now, look at the last line you shared.

"All players suspended under the PERSONAL CONDUCT POLICY ..."

It doesn't say players suspended under the substance abuse policy.

It is because the substance abuse policy determines if a player ingested substances that violate that policy. For a player to be disciplined they would have to violate the terms of the PCP which covers subtances and violence and other offenses and past transgressions which are all determined when the league hands down discipline.

The PCP is the policy that is used to suspend players and the policies underneath it are used to spell out the the degree which players have violated the PCP.

From a previous post I shared shows the PCP covers everything that a player can be disciplined for such as, SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

Now if you still don't understand or accept this then you have to show where the NFL has ever suspended players without using the PCP because even in the article you shared it clearly shows 'all players SUSPENED UNDER THE PCP....'

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

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2012%20Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf

Personal Conduct Policy

　

… Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse;

… Violent or threatening behavior among employees, whether in or outside the workplace;

　

Discipline:

… Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement. The specifics of the disciplinary response will be based on the nature of the incident, the actual or threatened risk to the participant and others, any prior or additional misconduct (whether or not criminal charges were filed), and other relevant factors.

…

With respect to repeat offenders, the Commissioner may impose discipline on an enhanced and/or expedited basis. In such cases, the timing and nature of the discipline will be determined by the Commissioner based on several factors including but not limited to: the severity of the initial charge and later charge; the facts underlying the later charge; the length of time between the initial offense and later charge; and the player or employee’s compliance with counseling and other programs. ..

Other Provisions:

…

“Disposition of a Criminal Proceeding” –

…

Repeat Offenders – Persons who have had previous violations of law or of this policy may be considered repeat offenders.

You put the emphasis in the wrong place. In the phrase "Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse", the key phrase is not "prohibited substances", it is "criminal offenses relating to".

A positive test for marijuana is not a criminal offense relating to a substance of abuse, and so based on the snippet you just posted, it would not fall under the personal conduct policy.

 

[Chaka]

The increasing optimism of the Gordon owners and the attempts to apply logic to support their optimism is funny

Here are the facts

1. There was a leak about a failed drug test

2. The NFL hasn't announced anything

3. We don't really know anything else

4. Everyone seems to have an opinion and none of them really matter due to fact #3

Ridiculous. 1 and 2 are the only "facts". 3 and 4 are your opinions. "Seems" and "really" aren't used in factual statements. We know plenty more, unless you believe there are a lot of liars out there. We know that Rosenhaus and Little have adamantly said the test was not "failed". We know Gordon was out of the country at the time the test was to have taken place. We know he's an idiot that still hangs out with people who have pot. We know the Browns are still running him as WR1 in practice. We know they didn't really address WR despite his situation. We know that 2 players were docked a year for drugs. We know Ray Rice also has not been suspended.

IOW you know nothing about the outcome of the appeal. It's all theory and conjecture.

Who said I did? Not me.

I think it's the part where you dispute fact #3 from Bazinga!. It's nice that we have heard from Rosenhaus and Little and all that but it doesn't change the fact of #3 because regardless of what they said we still know nothing more about the appeal than facts 1 & 2.

And this discussion is all bout the potential outcome of the appeal, isn't it?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

You put the emphasis in the wrong place. In the phrase "Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse", the key phrase is not "prohibited substances", it is "criminal offenses relating to".

A positive test for marijuana is not a criminal offense relating to a substance of abuse, and so based on the snippet you just posted, it would not fall under the personal conduct policy.

I disagree with your take on how that line should be read.

That sentence uses a semi colon at the end of the first clause, 'criminal proceedings relating to', then the use of the semi colon.

I'm not about to get into a gramatical discussion of use of semi colons over other gramatical puncuation that would hint your reading was correct or go into a dsicussion of independant clauses.

I'll just say I disagree.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You put the emphasis in the wrong place. In the phrase "Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse", the key phrase is not "prohibited substances", it is "criminal offenses relating to".

A positive test for marijuana is not a criminal offense relating to a substance of abuse, and so based on the snippet you just posted, it would not fall under the personal conduct policy.

I disagree with your take on how that line should be read.

That sentence uses a semi colon at the end of the first clause, 'criminal proceedings relating to', then the use of the semi colon.

I'm not about to get into a gramatical discussion of use of semi colons over other gramatical puncuation that would hint your reading was correct or go into a dsicussion of independant clauses.

I'll just say I disagree.

I'm not seeing the semicolon in the link you provided: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2012%20Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf

"Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse" - that's a direct copy and paste.

I don't see any other way to interpret that sentence except for "criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or criminal offenses relating to substances of abuse". Add in the fact that there's no mention at all of a testing policy- the word "test" does not appear a single time in the document you provided- and I think it's pretty clear that the Personal Conduct Policy, based on the documentation you provided, was never meant to cover failed tests or the substance abuse program.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

You put the emphasis in the wrong place. In the phrase "Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse", the key phrase is not "prohibited substances", it is "criminal offenses relating to".

A positive test for marijuana is not a criminal offense relating to a substance of abuse, and so based on the snippet you just posted, it would not fall under the personal conduct policy.

I disagree with your take on how that line should be read.

That sentence uses a semi colon at the end of the first clause, 'criminal proceedings relating to', then the use of the semi colon.

I'm not about to get into a gramatical discussion of use of semi colons over other gramatical puncuation that would hint your reading was correct or go into a dsicussion of independant clauses.

I'll just say I disagree.

I'm not seeing the semicolon in the link you provided: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2012%20Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf

"Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances of abuse" - that's a direct copy and paste.

I don't see any other way to interpret that sentence except for "criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or criminal offenses relating to substances of abuse". Add in the fact that there's no mention at all of a testing policy- the word "test" does not appear a single time in the document you provided- and I think it's pretty clear that the Personal Conduct Policy, based on the documentation you provided, was never meant to cover failed tests or the substance abuse program.

That is my take as well.

When the NFL releases news of suspensions, they always refer to which policy they are being suspended under.

For arrests and giving the NFL a bad name, it is the Personal Conduct Policy.

For failing drug tests relating to performance enhancing drugs, it is the PED policy.

For failed drug tests relating to substance abuse, it is the Substance Abuse policy.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The personal conduct policy is the tool the document the league uses to punish players.

The substance abuse policy is 'under' the personal conduct policy.

The personal conduct policy is not 'under' the substane abuse policy.

The personal conduct policy has all violations under it so the substance abuse policy would show if a player had violated the NFL's personal conduct policy not the other way around.

Can you point me to where you see that? From what I understand, that is not the case and there are three separate policies.

The personal conduct policy is an NFL policy which enables the league to suspend players for things such as arrests, DUIs, or any altercations which portray a poor image of the NFL. It does not list suspensions for failed drug tests. In the personal conduct policy (at least the 2012 & 2013 version), no where does it state the Substance Abuse or Performance Enhancing policies. In the Substance Abuse and PED policies, no where does it state that discipline is handed out under the personal conduct policy.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/personal-conduct-policy.pdf

http://www.nflevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FO-11-12-League-Policies-for-Players.pdf

From a Bleacher Report Article

"The Conduct Policy is separate from the league's substance abuse policy, where players are investigated for drug and alcohol abuse and performance enhancing drug use. The PCP specifically targets players' personal lives, how they conduct themselves, and how they represent the NFL image in the public. All players suspended under the PCP must apply for reinstatement."

First off. You left-off that the PCP covers prohibited substances and substance abuse.

Now, look at the last line you shared.

"All players suspended under the PERSONAL CONDUCT POLICY ..."

I think you are reading the last line incorrectly. The line is explaining that anyone who is suspended under the PCP must apply for reinstatement, and that is different than if someone is suspended under the PED or substance abuse policies. This actually goes to prove my point that it is different than the PED or Substance Abuse policy because under those policies a player does not need to apply for reinstatement unless they get the max suspension.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Sweet, now it's become a lawyerin' thread. Awesome!

 

[Peyton Marino]

drafting him as my WR1 in all leagues with confidence.

 

[Soulfly3]

drafting him as my WR1 in all leagues with confidence.

been doin it for weeks now brah.

welcome to flavor country

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

No appeal hearing set for Josh Gordon Wed Jun 25, 10:08 PM

The NFL has not scheduled an appeal hearing for Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon about his potential suspension for testing position for marijuana again, according to a source.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Let's just push it off till next summer, shall we?

 

[Peyton Marino]

drafting him as my WR1 in all leagues with confidence.

been doin it for weeks now brah.

welcome to flavor country

not even sure what that means.

 

[Soulfly3]

drafting him as my WR1 in all leagues with confidence.

been doin it for weeks now brah.

welcome to flavor country

not even sure what that means.

you're doing the right thing

 

[RBM]

Starting to think about my plans and this is pissing me off now. Makes no sense why it would take this long.

 

[Soulfly3]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

 

[False Start]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

 

[Soulfly3]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

oh, no?

So it just normally takes 2 months to decide whether a supposed failed piss test is valid or not?

 

[towney]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

oh, no?

So it just normally takes 2 months to decide whether a supposed failed piss test is valid or not?

Is it a failed test or just a missed test date???

 

[Soulfly3]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

oh, no?

So it just normally takes 2 months to decide whether a supposed failed piss test is valid or not?

Is it a failed test or just a missed test date???

Noone knows

That's why i said "supposed"

 

[MAC_32]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

oh, no?

So it just normally takes 2 months to decide whether a supposed failed piss test is valid or not?

Is it a failed test or just a missed test date???

he gave Davone Bess rabies

 

[PatsWillWin]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

oh, no?

So it just normally takes 2 months to decide whether a supposed failed piss test is valid or not?

So surprising that you would take the delay as a sign that Gordon isn't going to get suspended.

 

[Soulfly3]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

 

[Andrew74]

Stir that pot, Soulfly

 

[MAC_32]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

 

[Adam Harstad]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

You really think the Browns will rest Gordon with 19-0 so firmly in their sights?

 

[MAC_32]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

You really think the Browns will rest Gordon with 19-0 so firmly in their sights?

he knows we don't need him to beat the Ravens. Connor Shaw is already penciled in to start that pillow fight.

 

[False Start]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

You really think the Browns will rest Gordon with 19-0 so firmly in their sights?

he knows we don't need him to beat the Ravens. Connor Shaw is already penciled in to start that pillow fight.

Since we are talking far fetched scenarios like Gordon not getting suspended, lets talk about the Browns going undefeated. Seems like the thread to do it in since there is a lot of wishful thinking.

 

[MAC_32]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

You really think the Browns will rest Gordon with 19-0 so firmly in their sights?

he knows we don't need him to beat the Ravens. Connor Shaw is already penciled in to start that pillow fight.

Since we are talking far fetched scenarios like Gordon not getting suspended, lets talk about the Browns going undefeated. Seems like the thread to do it in since there is a lot of wishful thinking.

I'd be surprised if anyone scores a point on us this year to be honest. Maybe we let Greg Little do an end zone dance. He didn't get to do many of them here. It's only fair.

 

[False Start]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

You really think the Browns will rest Gordon with 19-0 so firmly in their sights?

he knows we don't need him to beat the Ravens. Connor Shaw is already penciled in to start that pillow fight.

Since we are talking far fetched scenarios like Gordon not getting suspended, lets talk about the Browns going undefeated. Seems like the thread to do it in since there is a lot of wishful thinking.

I'd be surprised if anyone scores a point on us this year to be honest. Maybe we let Greg Little do an end zone dance. He didn't get to do many of them here. It's only fair.

Maybe Jim Brown will come back to play this year and LeBron will come back to Cleveland but not to play basketball but WR or TE for the Browns.

 

[MAC_32]

Spurgeon Wynn got a raw deal here. Bring him back then front runner LeBron won't be able to help himself but come back, change sports, and win 27 straight super bowl titles.

 

[RBM]

The league doesnt have a leg to stand on

Simple

oh, no?

So it just normally takes 2 months to decide whether a supposed failed piss test is valid or not?

So surprising that you would take the delay as a sign that Gordon isn't going to get suspended.

Did he fail a test or not? If he did why hasn't he been suspended for it?

 

[metoo]

as of this second, June 29, 2014, he is playing all 16 games of the 2014 season.

I don't know. I'm thinking just fifteen. He will sit out week 17 after we have clinched home field.

You really think the Browns will rest Gordon with 19-0 so firmly in their sights?

he knows we don't need him to beat the Ravens. Connor Shaw is already penciled in to start that pillow fight.

Never bet against Connor Shaw.

 

[KellysHeroes]

The longer this takes the more I think it's going to be a reduced sentencing, it does seem like their spending all this time to find a loophole. Their probably also giving him a ton of tests to see if he stays clean during this.

But this is freaking crazy waiting this lpng and not fair to the team and fans, if it was Joe somebody the suspension would be announced by now.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

this is just the commissioners way of motivating the rest of the league to be at scheduled drugs tests on time

 

[Bronco Billy]

Interesting argument going on

So I have to admit some curiosity:

If Gordon is not going to be suspended and that decision has been made, what exactly is the motivation for the NFL to delay the announcement?

If Gordon is going to get suspended 4 games, that's a slam dunk per the CBA. What exactly is the motivation for the NFL delaying the announcement?

On the other hand, per Fred Davis it took 2 months between his failed test and his indefinite suspension being handed down on Feb 19th. So an extended timeline in an indefinite ban is not unprecedented. If the suspension is going to be lengthy, it makes sense that the NFL takes its time in performing due diligence in regard to all aspects of the behavior and incident involving the suspension, with the thought being that there are few if any threads to pull on in the appeal process. So there is definitely motivation for the NFL to take its time with a thorough investigation.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Interesting argument going on

So I have to admit some curiosity:

If Gordon is not going to be suspended and that decision has been made, what exactly is the motivation for the NFL to delay the announcement?

If Gordon is going to get suspended 4 games, that's a slam dunk per the CBA. What exactly is the motivation for the NFL delaying the announcement?

On the other hand, per Fred Davis it took 2 months between his failed test and his indefinite suspension being handed down on Feb 19th. So an extended timeline in an indefinite ban is not unprecedented. If the suspension is going to be lengthy, it makes sense that the NFL takes its time in performing due diligence in regard to all aspects of the behavior and incident involving the suspension, with the thought being that there are few if any threads to pull on in the appeal process. So there is definitely motivation for the NFL to take its time with a thorough investigation.

Hmm. I don't think they would announce anything if there's no suspension. That'd be like admitting favoritism. "Hey we know he did something, but we choose not to suspend."

 

[Adam Harstad]

Interesting argument going on

So I have to admit some curiosity:

If Gordon is not going to be suspended and that decision has been made, what exactly is the motivation for the NFL to delay the announcement?

If Gordon is going to get suspended 4 games, that's a slam dunk per the CBA. What exactly is the motivation for the NFL delaying the announcement?

On the other hand, per Fred Davis it took 2 months between his failed test and his indefinite suspension being handed down on Feb 19th. So an extended timeline in an indefinite ban is not unprecedented. If the suspension is going to be lengthy, it makes sense that the NFL takes its time in performing due diligence in regard to all aspects of the behavior and incident involving the suspension, with the thought being that there are few if any threads to pull on in the appeal process. So there is definitely motivation for the NFL to take its time with a thorough investigation.

Hmm. I don't think they would announce anything if there's no suspension. That'd be like admitting favoritism. "Hey we know he did something, but we choose not to suspend."

They'd certainly tell the Browns. And if the Browns knew, they'd certainly announce it.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Interesting argument going on

So I have to admit some curiosity:

If Gordon is not going to be suspended and that decision has been made, what exactly is the motivation for the NFL to delay the announcement?

If Gordon is going to get suspended 4 games, that's a slam dunk per the CBA. What exactly is the motivation for the NFL delaying the announcement?

On the other hand, per Fred Davis it took 2 months between his failed test and his indefinite suspension being handed down on Feb 19th. So an extended timeline in an indefinite ban is not unprecedented. If the suspension is going to be lengthy, it makes sense that the NFL takes its time in performing due diligence in regard to all aspects of the behavior and incident involving the suspension, with the thought being that there are few if any threads to pull on in the appeal process. So there is definitely motivation for the NFL to take its time with a thorough investigation.

Hmm. I don't think they would announce anything if there's no suspension. That'd be like admitting favoritism. "Hey we know he did something, but we choose not to suspend."

Okay, let's not pretend we're naive

If the NFL closed the investigation and chose not to take any action, we all know that Gordon and his agent would be notified by the NFL as such, and that about 5 seconds after that notification that the news would hit the twitterverse, followed by corroborating stories using less instantaneous venues.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Interesting argument going on

So I have to admit some curiosity:

If Gordon is not going to be suspended and that decision has been made, what exactly is the motivation for the NFL to delay the announcement?

If Gordon is going to get suspended 4 games, that's a slam dunk per the CBA. What exactly is the motivation for the NFL delaying the announcement?

On the other hand, per Fred Davis it took 2 months between his failed test and his indefinite suspension being handed down on Feb 19th. So an extended timeline in an indefinite ban is not unprecedented. If the suspension is going to be lengthy, it makes sense that the NFL takes its time in performing due diligence in regard to all aspects of the behavior and incident involving the suspension, with the thought being that there are few if any threads to pull on in the appeal process. So there is definitely motivation for the NFL to take its time with a thorough investigation.

Hmm. I don't think they would announce anything if there's no suspension. That'd be like admitting favoritism. "Hey we know he did something, but we choose not to suspend."

Okay, let's not pretend we're naive If the NFL closed the investigation and chose not to take any action, we all know that Gordon and his agent would be notified by the NFL as such, and that about 5 seconds after that notification that the news would hit the twitterverse, followed by corroborating stories using less instantaneous venues.

Exactly. But THE LEAGUE would not "announce" a non-suspension. They would tell the player and team, like you said. We would find out second hand. I referred to what you specifically said initially.