WR Josh Gordon, KC (1 Viewer)

[Kevrunner]

I got a feeling that Josh Gordon's and Ray Rice's suspensions will be announced the same day.

 

[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.

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.

Consider my point amended for our more exact members. The intent still stands.

There has been no release of information from credible sources that there is no suspension. What benefit would the NFL receive by not providing this information to the relevant parties if they have decided there is no suspension ?

 

[Catbird]

I don't think this is as hard as we are making it. If I am understanding, we learned about the alleged violation here, through a leak, much sooner here than we usually do in a normal case. The process, if a violation of the regulations by a player is found, allows him an automatic appeal before any suspension is announced (or even determined?). The appeal involves greater scrutiny of his claims. For Gordon, that appeal has not yet been scheduled. When that will be scheduled depends on, among other things, when the hearing officer and both sides attorneys and agents can be available and have the case ready to present. Until that appeal happens, there is no decision to announce. Speculation is fine, but I think we have to wait until the appeal is heard and a determination made on any penalty to be imposed. I don't see anything in the process going forward as it is supposed to that suggests a shorter or longer length of suspension.

 

[Steed]

I got a feeling that Josh Gordon's and Ray Rice's suspensions will be announced the same day.

Probably in the late afternoon of a Friday too

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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

NICE!

 

[Steed]

I got a feeling that Josh Gordon's and Ray Rice's suspensions will be announced the same day.

Probably in the late afternoon of a Friday too

July 25th?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Last year the NFL didn't get around to announcing the suspension to Denver Broncos LB Von Miller till late August but his case was unusual with a failed test and where he was caught cheating.

The league has already announced the suspension of two players for this season so their does seem to be extenuating circumstances with Gordon's case.

Yesterday a question was posed to Browns beat writer Mary Kay Cabot asking why the delay in announcing anything about Josh Gordon.

She thinks its odd its taking the league so long since if it was simply a matter of him failing he'd miss the year and we should have had an announcement unless Gordon has some compelling appeal arguments.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/06/why_isnt_cleveland_browns_top.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hey, Mary Kay: Something has got to be up with Gordon's situation. There has
to be a reason the Browns didn't draft a receiver. And I'm not buying the "we
don't draft for need" argument. It is a colossal failure of their scouting
department if they really couldn't find a wide receiver worthy of taking in the
draft. I'm particularly interested to see how the third-round receiver Donte Moncrief
does for the Colts relative to the linebacker we took in the third round. But
something's up with Gordon. I think the NFL wants to see Manziel be successful
and having Gordon around will help make that possible. Conspiracy theory?
Perhaps. But some conspiracies are true.

- Scott Wallace, Seattle , Wash.

Hey Scott: I do find it odd that it's taking this long to announce Gordon's
suspension. He must have some compelling arguments, although the appeal hearing
has yet to be set. If the indefinite ban (minimum one year) is upheld, the Browns need an announcement as soon as possible to get him back for training camp next year.

 

[Soulfly3]

Oh, so NOW Mary Kay finds it odd?

Right.

 

[Khy]

Last year the NFL didn't get around to announcing the suspension to Denver Broncos LB Von Miller till late August but his case was unusual with a failed test and where he was caught cheating.

The league has already announced the suspension of two players for this season so their does seem to be extenuating circumstances with Gordon's case.

Yesterday a question was posed to Browns beat writer Mary Kay Cabot asking why the delay in announcing anything about Josh Gordon.

She thinks its odd its taking the league so long since if it was simply a matter of him failing he'd miss the year and we should have had an announcement unless Gordon has some compelling appeal arguments.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/06/why_isnt_cleveland_browns_top.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hey, Mary Kay: Something has got to be up with Gordon's situation. There has

to be a reason the Browns didn't draft a receiver. And I'm not buying the "we

don't draft for need" argument. It is a colossal failure of their scouting

department if they really couldn't find a wide receiver worthy of taking in the

draft. I'm particularly interested to see how the third-round receiver Donte Moncrief

does for the Colts relative to the linebacker we took in the third round. But

something's up with Gordon. I think the NFL wants to see Manziel be successful

and having Gordon around will help make that possible. Conspiracy theory?

Perhaps. But some conspiracies are true.

- Scott Wallace, Seattle , Wash.

Hey Scott: I do find it odd that it's taking this long to announce Gordon's

suspension. He must have some compelling arguments, although the appeal hearing

has yet to be set. If the indefinite ban (minimum one year) is upheld, the Browns need an announcement as soon as possible to get him back for training camp next year.

My theory on this:

We've heard a lot of whispers about the league looking into lowering the penalty for pot related incidents. Which does make sense as marijuana possession is considered a misdemeanor in almost every state now. So my theory is that the NFL is possibly trying to come to a decision on that before making a permanent decision on Gordon. If they decide to lower the penalty for that then it's possible Gordon only ends up being suspended 4-8 games instead of being put on a 1 year suspension and an indefinite ban with the need for reinstatement.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Last year the NFL didn't get around to announcing the suspension to Denver Broncos LB Von Miller till late August but his case was unusual with a failed test and where he was caught cheating.

The league has already announced the suspension of two players for this season so their does seem to be extenuating circumstances with Gordon's case.

Yesterday a question was posed to Browns beat writer Mary Kay Cabot asking why the delay in announcing anything about Josh Gordon.

She thinks its odd its taking the league so long since if it was simply a matter of him failing he'd miss the year and we should have had an announcement unless Gordon has some compelling appeal arguments.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/06/why_isnt_cleveland_browns_top.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hey, Mary Kay: Something has got to be up with Gordon's situation. There has

to be a reason the Browns didn't draft a receiver. And I'm not buying the "we

don't draft for need" argument. It is a colossal failure of their scouting

department if they really couldn't find a wide receiver worthy of taking in the

draft. I'm particularly interested to see how the third-round receiver Donte Moncrief

does for the Colts relative to the linebacker we took in the third round. But

something's up with Gordon. I think the NFL wants to see Manziel be successful

and having Gordon around will help make that possible. Conspiracy theory?

Perhaps. But some conspiracies are true.

- Scott Wallace, Seattle , Wash.

Hey Scott: I do find it odd that it's taking this long to announce Gordon's

suspension. He must have some compelling arguments, although the appeal hearing

has yet to be set. If the indefinite ban (minimum one year) is upheld, the Browns need an announcement as soon as possible to get him back for training camp next year.

My theory on this:

We've heard a lot of whispers about the league looking into lowering the penalty for pot related incidents. Which does make sense as marijuana possession is considered a misdemeanor in almost every state now. So my theory is that the NFL is possibly trying to come to a decision on that before making a permanent decision on Gordon. If they decide to lower the penalty for that then it's possible Gordon only ends up being suspended 4-8 games instead of being put on a 1 year suspension and an indefinite ban with the need for reinstatement.

I doubt any policy changes would be applied retroactively.

Edit: especially after Daryl Washington just got a year for pot. That would be a massive legal headache.

 

[amnesiac]

Last year the NFL didn't get around to announcing the suspension to Denver Broncos LB Von Miller till late August but his case was unusual with a failed test and where he was caught cheating.

The league has already announced the suspension of two players for this season so their does seem to be extenuating circumstances with Gordon's case.

Yesterday a question was posed to Browns beat writer Mary Kay Cabot asking why the delay in announcing anything about Josh Gordon.

She thinks its odd its taking the league so long since if it was simply a matter of him failing he'd miss the year and we should have had an announcement unless Gordon has some compelling appeal arguments.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/06/why_isnt_cleveland_browns_top.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hey, Mary Kay: Something has got to be up with Gordon's situation. There has

to be a reason the Browns didn't draft a receiver. And I'm not buying the "we

don't draft for need" argument. It is a colossal failure of their scouting

department if they really couldn't find a wide receiver worthy of taking in the

draft. I'm particularly interested to see how the third-round receiver Donte Moncrief

does for the Colts relative to the linebacker we took in the third round. But

something's up with Gordon. I think the NFL wants to see Manziel be successful

and having Gordon around will help make that possible. Conspiracy theory?

Perhaps. But some conspiracies are true.

- Scott Wallace, Seattle , Wash.

Hey Scott: I do find it odd that it's taking this long to announce Gordon's

suspension. He must have some compelling arguments, although the appeal hearing

has yet to be set. If the indefinite ban (minimum one year) is upheld, the Browns need an announcement as soon as possible to get him back for training camp next year.

My theory on this:

We've heard a lot of whispers about the league looking into lowering the penalty for pot related incidents. Which does make sense as marijuana possession is considered a misdemeanor in almost every state now. So my theory is that the NFL is possibly trying to come to a decision on that before making a permanent decision on Gordon. If they decide to lower the penalty for that then it's possible Gordon only ends up being suspended 4-8 games instead of being put on a 1 year suspension and an indefinite ban with the need for reinstatement.

I doubt any policy changes would be applied retroactively.

Edit: especially after Daryl Washington just got a year for pot. That would be a massive legal headache.

exactly. zero chance.

 

[Khy]

Last year the NFL didn't get around to announcing the suspension to Denver Broncos LB Von Miller till late August but his case was unusual with a failed test and where he was caught cheating.

The league has already announced the suspension of two players for this season so their does seem to be extenuating circumstances with Gordon's case.

Yesterday a question was posed to Browns beat writer Mary Kay Cabot asking why the delay in announcing anything about Josh Gordon.

She thinks its odd its taking the league so long since if it was simply a matter of him failing he'd miss the year and we should have had an announcement unless Gordon has some compelling appeal arguments.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/06/why_isnt_cleveland_browns_top.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hey, Mary Kay: Something has got to be up with Gordon's situation. There has

to be a reason the Browns didn't draft a receiver. And I'm not buying the "we

don't draft for need" argument. It is a colossal failure of their scouting

department if they really couldn't find a wide receiver worthy of taking in the

draft. I'm particularly interested to see how the third-round receiver Donte Moncrief

does for the Colts relative to the linebacker we took in the third round. But

something's up with Gordon. I think the NFL wants to see Manziel be successful

and having Gordon around will help make that possible. Conspiracy theory?

Perhaps. But some conspiracies are true.

- Scott Wallace, Seattle , Wash.

Hey Scott: I do find it odd that it's taking this long to announce Gordon's

suspension. He must have some compelling arguments, although the appeal hearing

has yet to be set. If the indefinite ban (minimum one year) is upheld, the Browns need an announcement as soon as possible to get him back for training camp next year.

My theory on this:

We've heard a lot of whispers about the league looking into lowering the penalty for pot related incidents. Which does make sense as marijuana possession is considered a misdemeanor in almost every state now. So my theory is that the NFL is possibly trying to come to a decision on that before making a permanent decision on Gordon. If they decide to lower the penalty for that then it's possible Gordon only ends up being suspended 4-8 games instead of being put on a 1 year suspension and an indefinite ban with the need for reinstatement.

I doubt any policy changes would be applied retroactively.

Edit: especially after Daryl Washington just got a year for pot. That would be a massive legal headache.

I did completely forget about Washington's suspension. That does make Gordon's hold up even more awkward. They can't exactly slap a ban on Washington then proceed to give Gordon a lesser penalty because they want JFF to succeed or anything of the sort exactly. If it's taking this long as the above mentions, it'd imply that Gordon has a rather compelling argument to change his suspension. It seems very cut and dry, I'm not sure what else could be holding this whole thing up short of some really good argument to avoid a year ban.

 

[amnesiac]

i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Gordon's attorneys are holding things up, trying to throw anything at the wall they possibly can because they know he's in a bad position.

on the flip side, i can't think of a logical reason that the league would be attempting to slow down the process.

but it's all speculation till we hear something official.

as much as it's driving all of us crazy, i can't imagine how stressful this must be for Coach Pettine.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Gordon's attorneys are holding things up, trying to throw anything at the wall they possibly can because they know he's in a bad position.

on the flip side, i can't think of a logical reason that the league would be attempting to slow down the process.

but it's all speculation till we hear something official.

as much as it's driving all of us crazy, i can't imagine how stressful this must be for Coach Pettine.

This........The league wouldn't hold it up one way or the other....It's a simple decision for them...1 year ban or reduced ban... Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

 

[amnesiac]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

except that he broke the old policy.

that seems to be the part that you guys keep missing.

IF they change the policy, it would be a new policy. that would then take effect from that point forward.

 

[Soulfly3]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

An appeal has to be heard before a suspension can be doled out.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

except that he broke the old policy.

that seems to be the part that you guys keep missing.

IF they change the policy, it would be a new policy. that would then take effect from that point forward.

You miss that their isn't an old policy and a new policy. Their is one policy that has not been changed. Saying that the NFL has delayed an announcement with Josh Gordon's case is due to a 'yet-to-be-announced' change of policy doesn't make sense but it makes zero sense to keep on that jag and say there their is zero percent chance of them retro-actively providing Gordon a reduced suspension for a policy that hasn't been changed while waiting on a case that is being delayed for other more logical reasons.

The league has already suspended two players for the year and has not made any announcement on Gordon. Logic dictates the delay is due to Gordon's case being different than the other two cases.

Makes much more sense to theorize the delay is because Gordon's case had different circumstances than the other two cases based on appeals. Daryl Washington failed his appeals proccess and agreed to submit to the NFL penalty. Will Hill didn't bother with the appeals process. Gordon wasn't suspended when they were so obviously he hasn't exhausted his appeals process.

Last year Von Miller's case went all the way to August but it was known he failed and then got busted cheating when he was re-tested. The only thing we know is what Gordon's former teammate Greg Little mentioned about something being outside of Gordon's control.

 

[Soulfly3]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

An appeal has to be heard before a suspension can be doled out.

so, he's appealing nothing right now? literally, he's appealing NOTHING. that's how it works?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

An appeal has to be heard before a suspension can be doled out.

so, he's appealing nothing right now? that's how it works?

He's appealing his failed test.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

No, last reported it hasn't been announced whether he has been suspended.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Gordon's attorneys are holding things up, trying to throw anything at the wall they possibly can because they know he's in a bad position.

IMO it's very much in the realm of probability or even the realm of likely.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I did completely forget about Washington's suspension. That does make Gordon's hold up even more awkward. They can't exactly slap a ban on Washington then proceed to give Gordon a lesser penalty because they want JFF to succeed or anything of the sort exactly. If it's taking this long as the above mentions, it'd imply that Gordon has a rather compelling argument to change his suspension. It seems very cut and dry, I'm not sure what else could be holding this whole thing up short of some really good argument to avoid a year ban.

I'm sure anyone familiar with patent and copyright law can attest to the fact that legal delays often have less to do with the quality of the arguments presented than with the quantity of arguments presented.

 

[Soulfly3]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

An appeal has to be heard before a suspension can be doled out.

so, he's appealing nothing right now? that's how it works?

He's appealing his failed test.

you dont KNOW that he's failed a test.

noone does. that's why we're in this situation.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Last reported the appeal hasn't been heard, more than likely because Gordon's people aren't ready.

No, last reported he hasnt been SUSPENDED

An appeal has to be heard before a suspension can be doled out.

so, he's appealing nothing right now? that's how it works?

He's appealing his failed test.

you dont KNOW that he's failed a test.

noone does. that's why we're in this situation.

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

 

[cstu]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

What's holding up a new drug policy is HGH testing and the players aren't going to agree to whatever Goodell wants just to save Gordon by next month.

 

[Soulfly3]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

 

[amnesiac]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

except that he broke the old policy.

that seems to be the part that you guys keep missing.

IF they change the policy, it would be a new policy. that would then take effect from that point forward.

You miss that their isn't an old policy and a new policy. Their is one policy that has not been changed. Saying that the NFL has delayed an announcement with Josh Gordon's case is due to a 'yet-to-be-announced' change of policy doesn't make sense but it makes zero sense to keep on that jag and say there their is zero percent chance of them retro-actively providing Gordon a reduced suspension for a policy that hasn't been changed while waiting on a case that is being delayed for other more logical reasons.

The league has already suspended two players for the year and has not made any announcement on Gordon. Logic dictates the delay is due to Gordon's case being different than the other two cases.

Makes much more sense to theorize the delay is because Gordon's case had different circumstances than the other two cases based on appeals. Daryl Washington failed his appeals proccess and agreed to submit to the NFL penalty. Will Hill didn't bother with the appeals process. Gordon wasn't suspended when they were so obviously he hasn't exhausted his appeals process.

Last year Von Miller's case went all the way to August but it was known he failed and then got busted cheating when he was re-tested. The only thing we know is what Gordon's former teammate Greg Little mentioned about something being outside of Gordon's control.

all i was trying to point out was that the theory that Gordon's case is delayed due to a possible change in policy makes no sense.

because a change to the policy could not be retroactive to when Gordon allegedly failed a test under the current policy.

the rest of your reply is just repeated conjecture you've been stating for the last few weeks. which is your theory, but why confuse the one point i was discussing?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

What's holding up a new drug policy is HGH testing and the players aren't going to agree to whatever Goodell wants just to save Gordon by next month.

Are you saying that the delay with Josh Gordon is soley due to the NFL making a non-connected policy change? That the delat has nothing to do with it being different from Daryl Washington who exhausted his appeals proccess or Will Hill who didn't bother to appeal his suspension and both got one-year bans on the same day over a month ago.

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

except that he broke the old policy.

that seems to be the part that you guys keep missing.

IF they change the policy, it would be a new policy. that would then take effect from that point forward.

You miss that their isn't an old policy and a new policy. Their is one policy that has not been changed. Saying that the NFL has delayed an announcement with Josh Gordon's case is due to a 'yet-to-be-announced' change of policy doesn't make sense but it makes zero sense to keep on that jag and say there their is zero percent chance of them retro-actively providing Gordon a reduced suspension for a policy that hasn't been changed while waiting on a case that is being delayed for other more logical reasons.

The league has already suspended two players for the year and has not made any announcement on Gordon. Logic dictates the delay is due to Gordon's case being different than the other two cases.

Makes much more sense to theorize the delay is because Gordon's case had different circumstances than the other two cases based on appeals. Daryl Washington failed his appeals proccess and agreed to submit to the NFL penalty. Will Hill didn't bother with the appeals process. Gordon wasn't suspended when they were so obviously he hasn't exhausted his appeals process.

Last year Von Miller's case went all the way to August but it was known he failed and then got busted cheating when he was re-tested. The only thing we know is what Gordon's former teammate Greg Little mentioned about something being outside of Gordon's control.

all i was trying to point out was that the theory that Gordon's case is delayed due to a possible change in policy makes no sense.

because a change to the policy could not be retroactive to when Gordon allegedly failed a test under the current policy.

the rest of your reply is just repeated conjecture you've been stating for the last few weeks. which is your theory, but why confuse the one point i was discussing?

So why bother to comment on my post that had not mentioned that at all? Your take makes no sense on multiple levels.

 

[amnesiac]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

What's holding up a new drug policy is HGH testing and the players aren't going to agree to whatever Goodell wants just to save Gordon by next month.

Are you saying that the delay with Josh Gordon is soley due to the NFL making a non-connected policy change? That the delat has nothing to do with it being different from Daryl Washington who exhausted his appeals proccess or Will Hill who didn't bother to appeal his suspension and both got one-year bans on the same day over a month ago.

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

except that he broke the old policy. that seems to be the part that you guys keep missing.

IF they change the policy, it would be a new policy. that would then take effect from that point forward.

You miss that their isn't an old policy and a new policy. Their is one policy that has not been changed. Saying that the NFL has delayed an announcement with Josh Gordon's case is due to a 'yet-to-be-announced' change of policy doesn't make sense but it makes zero sense to keep on that jag and say there their is zero percent chance of them retro-actively providing Gordon a reduced suspension for a policy that hasn't been changed while waiting on a case that is being delayed for other more logical reasons.The league has already suspended two players for the year and has not made any announcement on Gordon. Logic dictates the delay is due to Gordon's case being different than the other two cases.

Makes much more sense to theorize the delay is because Gordon's case had different circumstances than the other two cases based on appeals. Daryl Washington failed his appeals proccess and agreed to submit to the NFL penalty. Will Hill didn't bother with the appeals process. Gordon wasn't suspended when they were so obviously he hasn't exhausted his appeals process.

Last year Von Miller's case went all the way to August but it was known he failed and then got busted cheating when he was re-tested. The only thing we know is what Gordon's former teammate Greg Little mentioned about something being outside of Gordon's control.

all i was trying to point out was that the theory that Gordon's case is delayed due to a possible change in policy makes no sense.because a change to the policy could not be retroactive to when Gordon allegedly failed a test under the current policy.

the rest of your reply is just repeated conjecture you've been stating for the last few weeks. which is your theory, but why confuse the one point i was discussing?

So why bother to comment on my post that had not mentioned that at all? Your take makes no sense on multiple levels.

OK, maybe i misunderstood your post then. i'm sure i'm not the first person to be confused by your posting style.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

OK, maybe i misunderstood your post then.i'm sure i'm not the first person to be confused by your posting style.

Now no reason to take cheap shots. Come on.

You don't want it to posting like this guy.>>>>>>>>>>>

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

Never lets a missing fact slow him down. Continous spew of ####-water.

 

[Soulfly3]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

a) Im differentiating between failing a piss test, and missing the test. That's my point. And yes, I know a miss counts as a "fail", but if there are circumstances that prevented him from taking it, then there is a defense.

b) he hasnt even been handed SUSPENSION yet, so there is NOTHING FOR HIM TO APPEAL.

c) the Browns admitted he failed a test?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

a) Im differentiating between failing a piss test, and missing the test. That's my point. And yes, I know a miss counts as a "fail", but if there are circumstances that prevented him from taking it, then there is a defense.

b) he hasnt even been handed SUSPENSION yet, so there is NOTHING FOR HIM TO APPEAL.

c) the Browns admitted he failed a test?

 

[cstu]

Any theory is fine but its theory.

If the NFL is going to make a formal announcement of lowering penalties for marijiuana and if people think that their is zero chance of them retro-actively lowering any suspension for Gordon then that makes ZERO sense because that logic says.

The NFL is delaying any announcement of suspending Josh Gordon because we're going to officially decrease penalties for pot so obviously we're going to wait to make any announcement on Josh Gordon until that time but they are obviously not going to lower his suspension because they won't make it retro-active.

Um how about Josh Gordon's appeal is the reason he wasn't suspended with the other players.

He made a few convincing points that not only have lead to a delay but very-likely a reduced suspension.

A reduced suspension being announced at the same time of the NFL formally announcing changes to their substance abuse policy makes sense. Making a formal announcement of lowering penalties for pot but making Josh Gordon wait until the league makes that announcement and then turning around and suspending him for a full year makes zero sense.

What's holding up a new drug policy is HGH testing and the players aren't going to agree to whatever Goodell wants just to save Gordon by next month.

Are you saying that the delay with Josh Gordon is soley due to the NFL making a non-connected policy change? That the delat has nothing to do with it being different from Daryl Washington who exhausted his appeals proccess or Will Hill who didn't bother to appeal his suspension and both got one-year bans on the same day over a month ago.

Here's what I think:

- They are not holding up the announcement for a policy change

- Gordon likely missed a test, not failed one

- Gordon is trying to prove that he didn't miss a test on purpose to avoid a positive test

- The NFL is waiting to decide if the evidence he gave is sufficient

- Gordon will need a cut and dry argument why he was unable to take the test he missed.

 

[amnesiac]

OK, maybe i misunderstood your post then.

i'm sure i'm not the first person to be confused by your posting style.

Now no reason to take cheap shots. Come on.

cheap shots? i was trying to be nice.

 

[Soulfly3]

Here's what I think:

- They are not holding up the announcement for a policy change

- Gordon likely missed a test, not failed one

- Gordon is trying to prove that he didn't miss a test on purpose to avoid a positive test

- The NFL is waiting to decide if the evidence he gave is sufficient

- Gordon will need a cut and dry argument why he was unable to take the test he missed.

woah woah woah... SLOW DOWN, CSTU!!!

No need for that in here.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

OK, maybe i misunderstood your post then.

i'm sure i'm not the first person to be confused by your posting style.

Now no reason to take cheap shots. Come on.

cheap shots? i was trying to be nice.

So was I.

 

[Soulfly3]

well, this fell flat after a few "facts" were brought into question.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I love how a lot of people are assuming this is taking a long time. The length of time for this to play out may be standard procedure for all we know. It just so happens that other players tests do not get leaked.

 

[Warhogs]

I'm amazed that this thread has amassed 61 pages of speculation.

 

[RBM]

I love how a lot of people are assuming this is taking a long time. The length of time for this to play out may be standard procedure for all we know. It just so happens that other players tests do not get leaked.

So you think it's SOP for the process of suspending a guy who fails a test to take like 2-3 months? I mean I have no idea, but to be honest that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[az_prof]

I love how a lot of people are assuming this is taking a long time. The length of time for this to play out may be standard procedure for all we know. It just so happens that other players tests do not get leaked.

So you think it's SOP for the process of suspending a guy who fails a test to take like 2-3 months? I mean I have no idea, but to be honest that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My recollection is that other high profile player suspensions (Big Ben and Vick) also took a long time. I think in these cases the NFL just wants to make sure that they have all their ducks in a row.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

a) Im differentiating between failing a piss test, and missing the test. That's my point. And yes, I know a miss counts as a "fail", but if there are circumstances that prevented him from taking it, then there is a defense.

b) he hasnt even been handed SUSPENSION yet, so there is NOTHING FOR HIM TO APPEAL.

c) the Browns admitted he failed a test?

Some clarification: he is appealing, but is appealing the "failed" test--not a suspension.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Im just here for the Nachos

 

[Khy]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

a) Im differentiating between failing a piss test, and missing the test. That's my point. And yes, I know a miss counts as a "fail", but if there are circumstances that prevented him from taking it, then there is a defense.

b) he hasnt even been handed SUSPENSION yet, so there is NOTHING FOR HIM TO APPEAL.

c) the Browns admitted he failed a test?

Some clarification: he is appealing, but is appealing the "failed" test--not a suspension.

I could've sworn it was reported he missed a test not failed it.

Am I wrong, or did I miss the news item where it was confirmed he failed one?

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Then why are we having this 60 page conversation about a suspension?

good question.

Hell and I thought the fact that it was reported and the Brown's acknowledged that he failed yet another test was evidence enough that he failed a test. I also thought the fact that it was reported that he hadn't had his appeal of that failed test heard or even scheduled to date, was evidence enough that he hadn't had his appeal heard or scheduled.....I guess I should stop reading the Newspapers and other Newsworthy sports sites and just come in here and get my facts.

a) Im differentiating between failing a piss test, and missing the test. That's my point. And yes, I know a miss counts as a "fail", but if there are circumstances that prevented him from taking it, then there is a defense.

b) he hasnt even been handed SUSPENSION yet, so there is NOTHING FOR HIM TO APPEAL.

c) the Browns admitted he failed a test?

Some clarification: he is appealing, but is appealing the "failed" test--not a suspension.

I could've sworn it was reported he missed a test not failed it. Am I wrong, or did I miss the news item where it was confirmed he failed one?

Hence the quotation marks.

 

[Bayhawks]

I love how a lot of people are assuming this is taking a long time. The length of time for this to play out may be standard procedure for all we know. It just so happens that other players tests do not get leaked.

So you think it's SOP for the process of suspending a guy who fails a test to take like 2-3 months? I mean I have no idea, but to be honest that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

This has been posted numerous times in here (most recently this morning), but we don't know how long this process takes, because USUALLY there is no leak of a failed test/pending suspension until after the process is complete. However, news of Fred Davis' failed test was leaked before the NFL announced it, and around 2 months later, he was officially suspended. We don't know when Gordon missed/failed his test, so we don't know how long this process is actually taking, but it doesn't appear to be without precedent for this amount of time to have passed.

Those posters who are fervently hoping for Gordon to get off or get a reduced suspension (without regard to reality) ignore this point whenever it is posted, and continue to say "it's taking so long, that must be good for Gordon." Somehow I suspect if this process were moving much faster, they'd spin it into "since this is going so quickly, it must be good for Gordon."

 

[cstu]

I could've sworn it was reported he missed a test not failed it.

Am I wrong, or did I miss the news item where it was confirmed he failed one?

Greg Little was the guy who insinuated it was a missed test:

“He’s a guy that’s going to work to get back and show this is a mistake,” Little said. “It’s something that wasn’t in his control, so to speak. I don’t want to get into too much detail about it.”