WR Josh Gordon, KC (4 Viewers)

[SayWhat?]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

 

[Louche]

The attitude of certain Americans to drink driving is shocking to me.

Where I live the limit is 0.2. It's real simple; if you're driving you don't touch alcohol. So yeah I'm also shocked by how common it seems to be drinking and driving in the US, and the relaxed attitude that people seem to have to it. Over here it's just not something that people do at all really. But we also have much harsher penalties if you get caught.

How many bars, pubs, cafes or restaurants within walking distance from you?

I live in the city but there are plenty of people that live out in the sticks and there is still no culture to drink and drive. However as mentioned the penalties are quite severe, especially above 0.5. If you're caught over 0.5 you'll be fined 1.5 times your gross monthly salary (minimum fine is around $3000), 21-90 days in prison and the license suspended for at least 1 year (easily 2 years). But more important than anything it is not socially accepted to drink and drive here. People don't think it's cool at all and people who slip up will be very embarrassed about it even if they didn't get caught and it was only a 5 minute drive.

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

I have a strong opinion and I really don't care too much about what other "righteous fighters" try and force upon me.

You have a strong opinion but not a strong case. And I am not trying to force my opinion on you. I am just stating what the law is... and an immense gratitude that you don't live anywhere near anyone I love and care about. I know there are others around them who have the same opinion that you do, but at least I can check one off the list that I don't have to worry about.

 

[Casting Couch]

This kid has no intention of changing his behavior and never did. Might not play another NFL game in his life.

Not defending his actions, but statements like these are unwarranted. You've never had a discussion with this man.

Judging by the pattern of behavior during his football playing life I think it's a reasonable statement to make.

True, he may never play another NFL game again, but please don't connect the imaginary dots to him having no intention to ever change his behavior.

 

[Thunderlips]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

it was only a matter of time before this thread derailed into a discussion on the merits of drunk driving laws and how amish people should adjust to current technology.

Wow ..I was just thinking it must suck to be Amish around football/fantasy football season

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

it was only a matter of time before this thread derailed into a discussion on the merits of drunk driving laws and how amish people should adjust to current technology.

Wow ..I was just thinking it must suck to be Amish around football/fantasy football season

Art thou ready for some football, brother Zedekiah? A Monday night barn-raising?

 

[Casting Couch]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

When all is said and done, a physically gifted dope at 23 is still a dope.

The only thing beyond typical about him is his talent level..... between the ears, typical.

 

[Thunderlips]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

When all is said and done, a physically gifted dope at 23 is still a dope.

The only thing beyond typical about him is his talent level..... between the ears, typical.

That's how I see it. I think of my friends and myself when we were that age and I can't help but think that if the crew I was running with were NCAA superstars and then top level NFL talent....there might have been one or two guys, who wouldn't have been a regular on the "disciplanary report".....particulary if that talent was effortless and we didn't have to work hard to achieve NCAA success.

I

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

Of course not. But, in Bloom's inexplicable attempt to sweep Gordon's "typical" 23-year-old behavior under the rug, he vastly over-states the problems found in the twenty-something demographic. There is nothing typical about Gordon's rap sheet when it comes to his peer group.

 

[jurb26]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

Of course not. But, in Bloom's inexplicable attempt to sweep Gordon's "typical" 23-year-old behavior under the rug, he vastly over-states the problems found in the twenty-something demographic. There is nothing typical about Gordon's rap sheet when it comes to his peer group.

Yup, it's a totally ridiculous claim. Most early 20s people should feel insulted by it to be honest.

 

[Thunderlips]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

Of course not. But, in Bloom's inexplicable attempt to sweep Gordon's "typical" 23-year-old behavior under the rug, he vastly over-states the problems found in the twenty-something demographic. There is nothing typical about Gordon's rap sheet when it comes to his peer group.

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

Of course not. But, in Bloom's inexplicable attempt to sweep Gordon's "typical" 23-year-old behavior under the rug, he vastly over-states the problems found in the twenty-something demographic. There is nothing typical about Gordon's rap sheet when it comes to his peer group.

I don't think he's quite sweeping it under the table...and at the same time, I don't think people would be quite as upset (and more forgiving) if he weren't a 23 year old football player and instead just a regular Palooka Joe 23 year old. I think at least on this website, the idea of a 23 year old football player squandering ALL PRO FOOTBALL talent (talent that most us would probably give a testicle or two to have for a few years) is more offensive than a 23 year old "juvenille".

 

[Adam Harstad]

Without jumping to assumptions and conclusions, how would you go about discouraging these situations? Beyond encouraging individuals to make responsible decisions (which, curiously, you did not address here), would you want laws prohibiting the suppliers? Or, are you thinking more marketing aimed at the consumer?

I don't think there's an easy answer to the problem. I think the problem is largely one of social norms- we profess publicly that drinking and driving is a huge deal, but few people even think twice about letting someone drive after two drinks, even though that'll put a lot of people over the limit. And again, situations like office happy hours after work are a near certainty to lead to several people leaving the establishment with keys in hand while over the legal limit. Yes, there should be personal accountability, and there are always alternatives available, but people aren't going to actively seek out those alternatives because for the most part it doesn't particularly seem like what they're doing is wrong. Social norms, including all of the unconscious signals sent out by the establishments serving the alcohol, suggest that there's little wrong with having two beers with dinner and then driving home.

What's the answer? There certainly isn't an easy one. Alcohol is deeply embedded into our social fabric. The best way to eliminate the problem is to change those social norms. That's a very hard thing to do. It certainly cannot be accomplished by legislative fiat- any attempts to do so would be at best useless, and at worst would backfire and only entrench the problem even further (see also: prohibition).

The one thing I could think of would be changing the financial incentives of the service industry so that they don't make a huge percentage of their revenue from alcohol sales. As long as liquor is the highest-margin item on the menu, they're going to keep pushing it as aggressively as they are legally able to. That's the free market at work. If the margins were much smaller, we might see less drinking with dinners, which would eliminate a lot of "casual DUIs". Of course, even here we run the risk of things backfiring- if, for instance, margins are reduced by making drinks cheaper, it might instead lead to MORE drinking with dinner.

I don't have any solutions to the problem, I'm merely trying to face it honestly and objectively identify what it really is. The problem isn't that we have a bunch of bad people who are actively running around doing things they know are bad. The problem is that we have a society that has placed a high value on alcohol and creates situations where people don't even really consider what they're doing a "bad thing". After all, everyone else does it (and, by and large, they're right- as I said, I am convinced that a huge percentage of the population has, at some point in their lives, operated a motor vehicle with a BAC over 0.08). The uneven enforcement only adds to the problem. I understand that the enforcement is stochastic- that the people who drive the most miles drunk are the people who are the most likely to get caught driving drunk- but such a low percentage of drunk driving incidents are ever caught that enforcement often winds up seeming capricious and unfair. If everyone who ever drove while over 0.08 wound up getting a DUI, our DUI problem would be solved pretty much overnight. Instead, only a fraction of a percentage of incidents are caught, and each time someone isn't caught it only emboldens them further and convinces them that what they did wasn't really all that wrong.

Now, again, I'm not trying to remove personal accountability from the equation. Implicit pressure and social norms are one thing, but we are still ultimately responsible for our own actions. I can recognize the environment that emboldened someone into making bad choices without resolving that person from the consequences of the resulting bad choices. And I'm not trying to say that DUI is not a big deal. In high school, one of my best friends was orphaned by a drunk driver. She spent three months in the hospital. Her life was irrevocably changed because of some impulsive decision by some random guy. That guy suffered the consequences of his actions, and he fully deserved to, because he ultimately made a choice. Still, I can by sympathetic towards him. He probably wasn't a bad guy. He certainly didn't intend to cause harm. Despite the fact that he killed two people, I do not view him the same as a murderer like Aaron Hernandez whose actions were premeditated, where death was the desired outcome from the beginning. He might not have even thought he was doing anything wrong. Or maybe he did- I certainly cannot see into his mind. Punishing people after they have already violated the law, though, isn't the most effective way of stopping the problem. In order to stop the problem before it happens, we have to look frankly at the root causes that lead to it in the first place.

 

[Thunderlips]

Without jumping to assumptions and conclusions, how would you go about discouraging these situations? Beyond encouraging individuals to make responsible decisions (which, curiously, you did not address here), would you want laws prohibiting the suppliers? Or, are you thinking more marketing aimed at the consumer?

I don't think there's an easy answer to the problem. I think the problem is largely one of social norms- we profess publicly that drinking and driving is a huge deal, but few people even think twice about letting someone drive after two drinks, even though that'll put a lot of people over the limit. And again, situations like office happy hours after work are a near certainty to lead to several people leaving the establishment with keys in hand while over the legal limit. Yes, there should be personal accountability, and there are always alternatives available, but people aren't going to actively seek out those alternatives because for the most part it doesn't particularly seem like what they're doing is wrong. Social norms, including all of the unconscious signals sent out by the establishments serving the alcohol, suggest that there's little wrong with having two beers with dinner and then driving home.

What's the answer? There certainly isn't an easy one. Alcohol is deeply embedded into our social fabric. The best way to eliminate the problem is to change those social norms. That's a very hard thing to do. It certainly cannot be accomplished by legislative fiat- any attempts to do so would be at best useless, and at worst would backfire and only entrench the problem even further (see also: prohibition).

The one thing I could think of would be changing the financial incentives of the service industry so that they don't make a huge percentage of their revenue from alcohol sales. As long as liquor is the highest-margin item on the menu, they're going to keep pushing it as aggressively as they are legally able to. That's the free market at work. If the margins were much smaller, we might see less drinking with dinners, which would eliminate a lot of "casual DUIs". Of course, even here we run the risk of things backfiring- if, for instance, margins are reduced by making drinks cheaper, it might instead lead to MORE drinking with dinner.

I don't have any solutions to the problem, I'm merely trying to face it honestly and objectively identify what it really is. The problem isn't that we have a bunch of bad people who are actively running around doing things they know are bad. The problem is that we have a society that has placed a high value on alcohol and creates situations where people don't even really consider what they're doing a "bad thing". After all, everyone else does it (and, by and large, they're right- as I said, I am convinced that a huge percentage of the population has, at some point in their lives, operated a motor vehicle with a BAC over 0.08). The uneven enforcement only adds to the problem. I understand that the enforcement is stochastic- that the people who drive the most miles drunk are the people who are the most likely to get caught driving drunk- but such a low percentage of drunk driving incidents are ever caught that enforcement often winds up seeming capricious and unfair. If everyone who ever drove while over 0.08 wound up getting a DUI, our DUI problem would be solved pretty much overnight. Instead, only a fraction of a percentage of incidents are caught, and each time someone isn't caught it only emboldens them further and convinces them that what they did wasn't really all that wrong.

Now, again, I'm not trying to remove personal accountability from the equation. Implicit pressure and social norms are one thing, but we are still ultimately responsible for our own actions. I can recognize the environment that emboldened someone into making bad choices without resolving that person from the consequences of the resulting bad choices. And I'm not trying to say that DUI is not a big deal. In high school, one of my best friends was orphaned by a drunk driver. She spent three months in the hospital. Her life was irrevocably changed because of some impulsive decision by some random guy. That guy suffered the consequences of his actions, and he fully deserved to, because he ultimately made a choice. Still, I can by sympathetic towards him. He probably wasn't a bad guy. He certainly didn't intend to cause harm. Despite the fact that he killed two people, I do not view him the same as a murderer like Aaron Hernandez whose actions were premeditated, where death was the desired outcome from the beginning. He might not have even thought he was doing anything wrong. Or maybe he did- I certainly cannot see into his mind. Punishing people after they have already violated the law, though, isn't the most effective way of stopping the problem. In order to stop the problem before it happens, we have to look frankly at the root causes that lead to it in the first place.

As Americans, we place a lot of emphasis on A) drinking, B) car culture and C) not letting people tell us what to do. Of course we're going to drive drunk!

ETA: And I'm pretty much convinced that it's become such as cash cow for whatever powers that be (local government).....that they don't want it to be so discouraged that it disappears completely.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You guys defending duis and saying .08 is bs are not only embarrassing yourselves but you may as well be carrying around an "I'm a moron sign"

Try and tell us how your reaction time at .08 is just as fast as sober. Try and tell us how your ability to operative a vehicle at .08 is just as strong as your ability sober. Then go tell that to the countless number of husbands that lost wives to people driving at .08. Or all the parents that have lost children.

Bottom line is Gordon had the world in his fingertips and smoked, drank and drove it away. He's an immature idiot. And anyone defending drinking after driving at any bac is too.

I'm not going to defend DUIs, but I will certainly say that DUIs are every bit as much of a societal failure as an individual failure. Restaurants make most of their money off of their liquor licenses, so every time anyone goes out to dinner, they get upsold on alcoholic beverages- everyone in the party, even when clearly one member must be the person responsible for driving. I have yet to hear of a restaurant that refused to serve anyone enough alcohol to get them over the legal limit. Movies glamorize situations like going out for drinks with friends that are almost certain to result in someone driving while over the legal limit. Often workplaces will have office happy hours, despite the fact that nearly every person who attends will be driving himself or herself. Avoiding these social events often carry negative repercussions to one's career prospects, and anyone who attends is the subject of peer pressure (much of it implicit) to consume alcohol.

Obviously no one forces anyone to drink and drive, but we certainly live in a society that glamorizes the processes that LEAD to a DUI, and where restaurants have a strong financial incentive to engage in behaviors that maximize the number of people driving while intoxicated. I even agree that, if everyone who ever drove while over the legal limit was caught and ticketed, we'd be looking at maybe 80% of the country with DUIs on their record. If we really want to clean up our DUI problem, we should probably spend less time worrying about where we're setting the legal limit and spend more time trying to discourage the situations that lead to people feeling like it's an acceptable idea to drink (any amount at all) and drive in the first place.

This has to be one of the dumbest thing's I've ever read here at FBG.This is like saying that the woman was asking to be raped because she was dressed the wrong way.

Wow, and you're on Staff?

He's not wrong. People shouldn't drink and drive but there's no denying that we have a society set up the gives a to it as long as you never get caught.

You are correct. But his whole post was taking and throwing personal responsibility out the window and laying the blame at the feet of society, restaurants and bars.

It's the typical thought process in today's society, blame someone else for what happens.

I absolutely do not throw personal responsibility out of the window. I said at the outset that personal accountability and societal influence both play a role in the decision to drive drunk. Just because I didn't discuss the personal accountability aspect at length doesn't mean I don't believe it's an important part of the equation; I simply felt that that angle had been pretty thoroughly covered already. No sense continuing to beat that horse.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

Without jumping to assumptions and conclusions, how would you go about discouraging these situations? Beyond encouraging individuals to make responsible decisions (which, curiously, you did not address here), would you want laws prohibiting the suppliers? Or, are you thinking more marketing aimed at the consumer?

I don't think there's an easy answer to the problem. I think the problem is largely one of social norms- we profess publicly that drinking and driving is a huge deal, but few people even think twice about letting someone drive after two drinks, even though that'll put a lot of people over the limit. And again, situations like office happy hours after work are a near certainty to lead to several people leaving the establishment with keys in hand while over the legal limit. Yes, there should be personal accountability, and there are always alternatives available, but people aren't going to actively seek out those alternatives because for the most part it doesn't particularly seem like what they're doing is wrong. Social norms, including all of the unconscious signals sent out by the establishments serving the alcohol, suggest that there's little wrong with having two beers with dinner and then driving home.

What's the answer? There certainly isn't an easy one. Alcohol is deeply embedded into our social fabric. The best way to eliminate the problem is to change those social norms. That's a very hard thing to do. It certainly cannot be accomplished by legislative fiat- any attempts to do so would be at best useless, and at worst would backfire and only entrench the problem even further (see also: prohibition).

The one thing I could think of would be changing the financial incentives of the service industry so that they don't make a huge percentage of their revenue from alcohol sales. As long as liquor is the highest-margin item on the menu, they're going to keep pushing it as aggressively as they are legally able to. That's the free market at work. If the margins were much smaller, we might see less drinking with dinners, which would eliminate a lot of "casual DUIs". Of course, even here we run the risk of things backfiring- if, for instance, margins are reduced by making drinks cheaper, it might instead lead to MORE drinking with dinner.

I don't have any solutions to the problem, I'm merely trying to face it honestly and objectively identify what it really is. The problem isn't that we have a bunch of bad people who are actively running around doing things they know are bad. The problem is that we have a society that has placed a high value on alcohol and creates situations where people don't even really consider what they're doing a "bad thing". After all, everyone else does it (and, by and large, they're right- as I said, I am convinced that a huge percentage of the population has, at some point in their lives, operated a motor vehicle with a BAC over 0.08). The uneven enforcement only adds to the problem. I understand that the enforcement is stochastic- that the people who drive the most miles drunk are the people who are the most likely to get caught driving drunk- but such a low percentage of drunk driving incidents are ever caught that enforcement often winds up seeming capricious and unfair. If everyone who ever drove while over 0.08 wound up getting a DUI, our DUI problem would be solved pretty much overnight. Instead, only a fraction of a percentage of incidents are caught, and each time someone isn't caught it only emboldens them further and convinces them that what they did wasn't really all that wrong.

Now, again, I'm not trying to remove personal accountability from the equation. Implicit pressure and social norms are one thing, but we are still ultimately responsible for our own actions. I can recognize the environment that emboldened someone into making bad choices without resolving that person from the consequences of the resulting bad choices. And I'm not trying to say that DUI is not a big deal. In high school, one of my best friends was orphaned by a drunk driver. She spent three months in the hospital. Her life was irrevocably changed because of some impulsive decision by some random guy. That guy suffered the consequences of his actions, and he fully deserved to, because he ultimately made a choice. Still, I can by sympathetic towards him. He probably wasn't a bad guy. He certainly didn't intend to cause harm. Despite the fact that he killed two people, I do not view him the same as a murderer like Aaron Hernandez whose actions were premeditated, where death was the desired outcome from the beginning. He might not have even thought he was doing anything wrong. Or maybe he did- I certainly cannot see into his mind. Punishing people after they have already violated the law, though, isn't the most effective way of stopping the problem. In order to stop the problem before it happens, we have to look frankly at the root causes that lead to it in the first place.

First, thank you for the well thought out position. We might disagree on particulars, logistics, legalities and spend days/weeks doing so. I think we can both agree, though, that Gordon's indiscretions taken in isolation do not make him a bad guy per se. As Bloom said, basically, he's not a murderer. But, what is concerning is how Bloom's dozen or so tweets (and to a lesser extent your post) can be easily misconstrued as condoning Gordon's behavior. I assume that was not his intent or yours. But, when making a false claim that his behavior is typical or going to great lengths to indict the restaurant industry or us as a society, it really deflects from the problems Gordon has manufactured by his own doing and either knowing the consequences would be severe or just not caring about the consequences. This is not just about restaurants over-serving cocktails. This is about a man who has been suspended for weed & codeine and is driving recklessly, presumably under the influence and not under the influence. If he's not out of control, he's pretty darn close. It's nowhere near standard operating behavior for a 23-year-old.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Given that a NFL owners and Roger Goodell are rewarded handsomely by the sales of alcoholic beverages, I wonder if Josh Gordon can use the "I learned it from you" defense.

Yeah, I'm sure that would work. Good thinking. NFL clubs making profits from alcohol sales caused Gordon to drink, drive, and speed. Thanks, Clarence Darrow.

Have a beer and relax.

Try thinking before you post.

 

[bushdocda]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

 

[Adam Harstad]

First, thank you for the well thought out position. We might disagree on particulars, logistics, legalities and spend days/weeks doing so. I think we can both agree, though, that Gordon's indiscretions taken in isolation do not make him a bad guy per se. As Bloom said, basically, he's not a murderer. But, what is concerning is how Bloom's dozen or so tweets (and to a lesser extent your post) can be easily misconstrued as condoning Gordon's behavior. I assume that was not his intent or yours. But, when making a false claim that his behavior is typical or going to great lengths to indict the restaurant industry or us as a society, it really deflects from the problems Gordon has manufactured by his own doing and either knowing the consequences would be severe or just not caring about the consequences. This is not just about restaurants over-serving cocktails. This is about a man who has been suspended for weed & codeine and is driving recklessly, presumably under the influence and not under the influence. If he's not out of control, he's pretty darn close. It's nowhere near standard operating behavior for a 23-year-old.

Like I said in another post, I feel the whole "let's pile on Gordon for his decisions" side has been pretty thoroughly covered. I have little to add there that hasn't already been said. Gordon does dumb things. I'm pretty unsurprised by this- I wrote on 10/14/13 that I thought Gordon was a huge risk and I'd sell him anywhere I could get top-10 WR prices for him. I wrote in late January that I'd prefer Percy Harvin to Josh Gordon straight up because past injuries do not predict future injuries nearly as well as past failed drug tests predict future failed drug tests. Gordon's poor decision-making isn't really news to me. It's also not that interesting to me. I'm much more interested in looking at the steps along the way that led to this string of bad decisions than I am in the particulars of the decisions themselves.

Gordon is a young kid. That undoubtedly played a role in his poor decisions- the frontal cortex doesn't finish developing until age 25. Gordon's acquaintances and background undoubtedly played a role. Maybe his genetics played a role- it's been proven that some people are genetically predisposed towards issues with addiction. Certainly society played a role in his downward spiral. I'm not trying to absolve Gordon of his rightful share of the responsibility, I'm just saying that implosions like this never happen in a vacuum.

I can understand that people might see my post and Sigmund's tweet and think we're making excuses for Josh Gordon, but I don't believe that's fair to me or Sigmund. I feel like in situations like this, 90% of an opinion has to be devoted to how horrible a person is before 10% of the opinion can safely be directed at other factors, or else the opinion-haver will be accused of enabling or dismissing. I'm not trying to enable or dismiss, I'm simply trying to look at another aspect of this case that no one else seems to be talking about. I believe Sigmund was doing something similar- the entire string of tweets as a look at environmental factors that might have played a role in Gordon's downward spiral. Sigmund was also doubly constrained by the limitations of the medium- 140 characters at a time- which make nuanced analysis much more difficult and where individual statements will routinely be stripped of context. I don't speak for Sigmund, but if I could be so bold as to guess at his intentions, I would say we're not trying to excuse Gordon, we're just trying to avoid vilifying him any more than is necessary. The Josh Gordon situation is a very sad one, and there are a lot of moving parts at play that have gotten us to where we are today. Placing all of the blame on Gordon himself absolves of responsibility many other factors that do not deserve to be so absolved.

Edit to add: I really appreciate this discussion, and almost forgot to thank you for your own nuanced and thoughtful opinions on the issue!

 

[rdrouyn]

First, thank you for the well thought out position. We might disagree on particulars, logistics, legalities and spend days/weeks doing so. I think we can both agree, though, that Gordon's indiscretions taken in isolation do not make him a bad guy per se. As Bloom said, basically, he's not a murderer. But, what is concerning is how Bloom's dozen or so tweets (and to a lesser extent your post) can be easily misconstrued as condoning Gordon's behavior. I assume that was not his intent or yours. But, when making a false claim that his behavior is typical or going to great lengths to indict the restaurant industry or us as a society, it really deflects from the problems Gordon has manufactured by his own doing and either knowing the consequences would be severe or just not caring about the consequences. This is not just about restaurants over-serving cocktails. This is about a man who has been suspended for weed & codeine and is driving recklessly, presumably under the influence and not under the influence. If he's not out of control, he's pretty darn close. It's nowhere near standard operating behavior for a 23-year-old.

Like I said in another post, I feel the whole "let's pile on Gordon for his decisions" side has been pretty thoroughly covered. I have little to add there that hasn't already been said. Gordon does dumb things. I'm pretty unsurprised by this- I wrote on 10/14/13 that I thought Gordon was a huge risk and I'd sell him anywhere I could get top-10 WR prices for him. I wrote in late January that I'd prefer Percy Harvin to Josh Gordon straight up because past injuries do not predict future injuries nearly as well as past failed drug tests predict future failed drug tests. Gordon's poor decision-making isn't really news to me. It's also not that interesting to me. I'm much more interested in looking at the steps along the way that led to this string of bad decisions than I am in the particulars of the decisions themselves.

Gordon is a young kid. That undoubtedly played a role in his poor decisions- the frontal cortex doesn't finish developing until age 25. Gordon's acquaintances and background undoubtedly played a role. Maybe his genetics played a role- it's been proven that some people are genetically predisposed towards issues with addiction. Certainly society played a role in his downward spiral. I'm not trying to absolve Gordon of his rightful share of the responsibility, I'm just saying that implosions like this never happen in a vacuum.

I can understand that people might see my post and Sigmund's tweet and think we're making excuses for Josh Gordon, but I don't believe that's fair to me or Sigmund. I feel like in situations like this, 90% of an opinion has to be devoted to how horrible a person is before 10% of the opinion can safely be directed at other factors, or else the opinion-haver will be accused of enabling or dismissing. I'm not trying to enable or dismiss, I'm simply trying to look at another aspect of this case that no one else seems to be talking about. I believe Sigmund was doing something similar- the entire string of tweets as a look at environmental factors that might have played a role in Gordon's downward spiral. Sigmund was also doubly constrained by the limitations of the medium- 140 characters at a time- which make nuanced analysis much more difficult and where individual statements will routinely be stripped of context. I don't speak for Sigmund, but if I could be so bold as to guess at his intentions, I would say we're not trying to excuse Gordon, we're just trying to avoid vilifying him any more than is necessary. The Josh Gordon situation is a very sad one, and there are a lot of moving parts at play that have gotten us to where we are today. Placing all of the blame on Gordon himself absolves of responsibility many other factors that do not deserve to be so absolved.

Edit to add: I really appreciate this discussion, and almost forgot to thank you for your own nuanced and thoughtful opinions on the issue!

I didn't think his twitter post was that big of a deal. He was probably reacting to the vitriol getting thrown at Gordon and trying to balance out the hatred. Plus, singling out one tweet out of context is completely unfair

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

 

[Brownsfan]

This thread could sure use some soul(fly)

 

[hooptd]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

Whew, that's a relief to know.

 

[amnesiac]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston. Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

well, it all makes sense now.

 

[cstu]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

Not good that Gordon is hanging out with another troubled guy in Hairston - who was kicked off UNC for using Thomas' rental cars yet is still associated with him.

 

[rdrouyn]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

Wow, this thread gets better and better. We get "breaking news"!

 

[Bayhawks]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

1-Dear god, read!!!! I said Goodell's decision, referring to Gordon's appeal. The suspension wasn't/isn't impacted by Gordon's idiotic decisions to drive (speeding) with weed in his car, to drive drunk, or to allow a drug dealer to bail him out of jail. The appeal could (and likely will be).

2-Tell that to Ben Roethlisberger. Never even accused of a crime, yet he was suspended. As far as "slowing your role," maybe you should know what you are talking about:

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

Standard of Conduct:
While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who
engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons
employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty
of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher
standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values
upon which the League is based, and is lawful.
Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and
subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

Note the red bolded sections which seem to directly contradict your foolish idea that Gordon must be convicted of a crime to be punished.

 

[Bayhawks]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.

He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.

He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

In a righteous world if someone gets drunk driving charges thrown out or modified to something else then they go away (especially because he was .09).

The other stuff you are referring to (weed in car-supposedly wasn't his) may be a different issue....

I do not own Gordon in any league and have no personal tie to having him play again (other than seeing the best football players play NFL football). I just don't like the fact that people label a .09 drunk driver the same as a .18 going the wrong way on the freeway. I also am not a big fan of piling on people when they are going through some difficult times, self induced or otherwise.

Now get back on your high horse Curt Henning...

Get back off your high horse, Soulfly.

I never said Gordon was scum, a drunk driver, or as bad as someone going the wrong way on the freeway.

I said this is going to be a negative for his appeal.

You continue to argue "it's ONLY a .09, it will go away." That doesn't matter. IF it does go away, it will be after Goodell makes his decision with regards to the appeal.

Try reading the people you are posting with, not just lump them all together. I don't care if he blew a .09 or a .90. The fact that he isn't able to keep his nose clean for even a little while is what is going to hurt his appeal, not what he blew on a breathalyzer.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

1-Dear god, read!!!! I said Goodell's decision, referring to Gordon's appeal. The suspension wasn't/isn't impacted by Gordon's idiotic decisions to drive (speeding) with weed in his car, to drive drunk, or to allow a drug dealer to bail him out of jail. The appeal could (and likely will be).2-Tell that to Ben Roethlisberger. Never even accused of a crime, yet he was suspended. As far as "slowing your role," maybe you should know what you are talking about:

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

Standard of Conduct:

While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who

engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons

employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty

of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher

standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values

upon which the League is based, and is lawful.

Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and

subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

Note the red bolded sections which seem to directly contradict your foolish idea that Gordon must be convicted of a crime to be punished.

. Did you read the link I posted? Obviously not. The new CBA is more "strict" (if you will) on Goodell going all willy nilly with his own ability to suspend. Things have changed since Ben was suspended was my point, and that was detailed in the article. The new agreement is a direct result of Goodell freelance suspending. So "Dear God read" right back atcha.

Show me an instance (since the new CBA) where a guy was suspended by Goodell for something he wasn't legally guilty of, or not directly related to substances. And I will stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[Bojang0301]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

1-Dear god, read!!!! I said Goodell's decision, referring to Gordon's appeal. The suspension wasn't/isn't impacted by Gordon's idiotic decisions to drive (speeding) with weed in his car, to drive drunk, or to allow a drug dealer to bail him out of jail. The appeal could (and likely will be).2-Tell that to Ben Roethlisberger. Never even accused of a crime, yet he was suspended. As far as "slowing your role," maybe you should know what you are talking about:

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

Standard of Conduct:

While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who

engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons

employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty

of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher

standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values

upon which the League is based, and is lawful.

Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and

subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

Note the red bolded sections which seem to directly contradict your foolish idea that Gordon must be convicted of a crime to be punished.

. Did you read the link I posted? Obviously not. The new CBA is more "strict" (if you will) on Goodell going all willy nilly with his own ability to suspend. Things have changed since Ben was suspended was my point, and that was detailed in the article. The new agreement is a direct result of Goodell freelance suspending. So "Dear God read" right back atcha.

Show me an instance (since the new CBA) where a guy was suspended by Goodell for something he wasn't legally guilty of, or not directly related to substances. And I will stand corrected. Thanks.

As I stated previously and was ignored/overlooked. You have to go back to 2012 for conduct policy suspensions and those range from 1-3 games.

 

[Bronco Billy]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

1-Dear god, read!!!! I said Goodell's decision, referring to Gordon's appeal. The suspension wasn't/isn't impacted by Gordon's idiotic decisions to drive (speeding) with weed in his car, to drive drunk, or to allow a drug dealer to bail him out of jail. The appeal could (and likely will be).2-Tell that to Ben Roethlisberger. Never even accused of a crime, yet he was suspended. As far as "slowing your role," maybe you should know what you are talking about:

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

Standard of Conduct:

While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who

engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons

employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty

of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher

standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values

upon which the League is based, and is lawful.

Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and

subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

Note the red bolded sections which seem to directly contradict your foolish idea that Gordon must be convicted of a crime to be punished.

. Did you read the link I posted? Obviously not. The new CBA is more "strict" (if you will) on Goodell going all willy nilly with his own ability to suspend. Things have changed since Ben was suspended was my point, and that was detailed in the article. The new agreement is a direct result of Goodell freelance suspending. So "Dear God read" right back atcha.

Show me an instance (since the new CBA) where a guy was suspended by Goodell for something he wasn't legally guilty of, or not directly related to substances. And I will stand corrected. Thanks.

I meant to ask you about that. I couldn't get your link to open. Does the new language state that a guilty plea or verdict is required prior to suspension? If so, would you mind quoting it and posting it here? Could you also do the same with the burden of proof being the obligation of the league? Is that burden beyond a reasonable doubt or by the preponderance of the evidence?

 

[Sabertooth]

Good thing this didn't impact Ray Lewis. He killed a guy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

You might want to ask Ben Roethlusberger about that.ETA - oops. Looks like I finished in 3rd place on that one.

You guys using Ben as an example need to slow your roll. New CBA since then. Goodell still has the power, but it has been significantly curtailed--including appeals and such.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/storystoryId=6832575&src=desktop

Is this link working?

 

[Bayhawks]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

1-Dear god, read!!!! I said Goodell's decision, referring to Gordon's appeal. The suspension wasn't/isn't impacted by Gordon's idiotic decisions to drive (speeding) with weed in his car, to drive drunk, or to allow a drug dealer to bail him out of jail. The appeal could (and likely will be).2-Tell that to Ben Roethlisberger. Never even accused of a crime, yet he was suspended. As far as "slowing your role," maybe you should know what you are talking about:

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

Standard of Conduct:

While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who

engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons

employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty

of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher

standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values

upon which the League is based, and is lawful.

Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and

subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

Note the red bolded sections which seem to directly contradict your foolish idea that Gordon must be convicted of a crime to be punished.

.Did you read the link I posted? Obviously not. The new CBA is more "strict" (if you will) on Goodell going all willy nilly with his own ability to suspend. Things have changed since Ben was suspended was my point, and that was detailed in the article. The new agreement is a direct result of Goodell freelance suspending. So "Dear God read" right back atcha.

Show me an instance (since the new CBA) where a guy was suspended by Goodell for something he wasn't legally guilty of, or not directly related to substances. And I will stand corrected. Thanks.

Hard to read a link that doesn't work. Did you read the link I posted? You know the one that is actually a copy of the NFL's current personal conduct policy? The one that says people who violate the standard of conduct it spells out are subject to discipline, even when there is not criminal conviction? Obviously not.

Kenny Britt was suspended for the first game of the 2012, after being arrested for suspicion of DUI in July of 2012. He had been found legally guilty of nothing at the time of his suspension, yet Goodell still suspended him. The new CBA was signed in July of 2011. Per the bolded, underlined section above, you stand corrected. You're welcome.

 

[Skeletore Eh]

Good thing this didn't impact Ray Lewis. He killed a guy.

See I hate when this gets mixed up. Ray Lewis didn't kill a guy. He told someone to kill a guy. Big difference

 

[Agent575]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that your recreational drinking and drug use is some "junkie-level-hitting-bottom" type of situation when in fact it is simply poor decision making at a time in his life where the consequences are going to be astronomical in comparison to the offense. This is just stupidity at it's finest. For some reason celebrities get in trouble with drinking/drugs and it's automatically a situation where "they need prayers" and "they need help" and everyone can't wait to be all PC and announce this blowhard nonsense to the world instead of putting the responsibility on the doofus in question.

Josh Gordon doesn't need anything more than a swift kick in the ###. Seeing as nobody has given him one thus far, I wouldn't hold your breath that it's coming any time soon. What's really sad is there is nobody in his life that has the fortitude to knock some sense into this kid obviously.

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

@SigmundBloom 1m

Lot of very judgmental people about a 23 year old making typical early 20's mistakes. It's sad and a waste, but he's not a murderer

I have to disagree with Bloom on this one, Josh Gordon isn't making typical mistakes a 23 year old makes who has the life that Josh Gordon has. There is nothing typical about Gordon. He is arguably the best WR in the NFL, he has the chance to make millions upon millions of $$$$. Gordon might be 23 years old, but there is nothing typical about him. Gordon was given the golden egg and he dropped it.

Absolutely horrifically bad tweet from Bloom. Gordon is well beyond typical early 20's mistakes and clearly just doesn't get it.

I know plenty of guys in their early 20's making that same mistake. Just because you're good at a game doesn't mean that you're "wise" beyond your years.

Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that your recreational drinking and drug use is some "junkie-level-hitting-bottom" type of situation when in fact it is simply poor decision making at a time in his life where the consequences are going to be astronomical in comparison to the offense. This is just stupidity at it's finest. For some reason celebrities get in trouble with drinking/drugs and it's automatically a situation where "they need prayers" and "they need help" and everyone can't wait to be all PC and announce this blowhard nonsense to the world instead of putting the responsibility on the doofus in question.

Josh Gordon doesn't need anything more than a swift kick in the ###. Seeing as nobody has given him one thus far, I wouldn't hold your breath that it's coming any time soon. What's really sad is there is nobody in his life that has the fortitude to knock some sense into this kid obviously.

The only thing I've seen here is what you've been saying, just maybe from different perspectives. You say he needs a kick in the ###, others say he needs help. Can't those be one and the same thing? If others are a bit touchy-feely about it, oh well. But I've not seen many/any here saying anything more than what you did, that he's someone who is making poor decisions at a time when the consequences for them are really high.

Honestly, all you've said is just a restate.

 

[Bob Magaw]

CLE needs to give Gordon something like the "support system" (around the clock star WR sitter, to protect their investment) DAL has provided for Dez Bryant. I don't think he has had any trouble since they instituted that program.

 

[knowledge dropper]

CLE needs to give Gordon something like the "support system" (around the clock star WR sitter, to protect their investment) DAL has provided for Dez Bryant. I don't think he has had any trouble since they instituted that program.

Where's Jim Brown?

 

[amnesiac]

CLE needs to give Gordon something like the "support system" (around the clock star WR sitter, to protect their investment) DAL has provided for Dez Bryant. I don't think he has had any trouble since they instituted that program.

how do we know they haven't tried?

 

[Bronco Billy]

CLE needs to give Gordon something like the "support system" (around the clock star WR sitter, to protect their investment) DAL has provided for Dez Bryant. I don't think he has had any trouble since they instituted that program.

Hey Josh. Meet Richard Simmons.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

CLE needs NEEDED to give Gordon something like the "support system" (around the clock star WR sitter, to protect their investment) DAL has provided for Dez Bryant. I don't think he has had any trouble since they instituted that program.

FTFY

 

[Bossman]

At least Gordon has his education to fall back on.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

He blew a .09...

I think there is a good chance this gets thrown out (unless there is more we don't know).

The closer that you are to the limit the better your chances of getting it thrown out. He is so close to the limit...

There are different degrees of DUI, and I think the NFL realizes this. For all we know Gordon may have somewhat done the right thing and said "No, I don't want another - I've got to drive home".

boy ....you`re really stuck on this .09 thing huh? This isnt a posted speed limit where the cop lets a few miles over go....its the limit the law sees fit as legally too drunk to drive...get over it

I will not get over it. I'm dealing with facts.He blew a .09.

He did not - fall asleep at the wheel.

Roll his car over.

Fact is that when you are close to the limit people get off all the time. It's not as cut and dry as the law states or as you are thinking.

Well, here's another fact that you need to deal with: Goodell doesn't need to see Gordon to get off or get convicted to factor this arrest into his appeal decison.You want to keep harping that it was "only" a .09, fine. But you also need to accept this fact: this arrest isn't good for his appeal.

If the arrest goes away it is a non issue.He blew a .09 and it may go away... If the charges go away then Goodell is going to take them into consideration??

If they go away - they go away...

First-you said you have had several relatives deal with DUI's. They don't "go away" in less than a month. So, even if they "go away," Goodell will have made his decision on the appeal prior to that.Second-Please try to read carefully. Goodell's decision isn't based on whether Gordon gets convicted of this DUI or not. Gordon is appealing, essentially asking for a reduced "sentence," if you will. In order to get some leniency, Goodell will likely want to believe that this issue won't come up again. Getting stopped with weed in his car, then arrested for DUI, then bailed out by a felon who is a suspected drug dealer are not things that will give Goodell confidence that this won't continue to be an issue. Therefore, they won't lead Goodell to be lenient.

You said you're dealing with facts, then deal with all the facts, not just the one(s) that support your (wrong) viewpoint.

Burden of proof is on the league. Goodell can't suspend him for acts he was not found guilty of.

You might want to ask Ben Roethlusberger about that.ETA - oops. Looks like I finished in 3rd place on that one.

You guys using Ben as an example need to slow your roll. New CBA since then. Goodell still has the power, but it has been significantly curtailed--including appeals and such.http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/storystoryId=6832575&src=desktop

Is this link working?

Sorry. Error. Error.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=6832575&src=desktop

This is an article talking about the new appeals process for substances, the week before it was signed. The only reason I posted it was to highlight the change. The change, from the old CBA, is that now players can get an appeal with an independent arbitrator. Which means the league must prove, as far as I can gather (another poster provided the "burden of proof" topic earlier, so we can scroll back for that). IMO Goodell's Wild West style suspensions have been greatly curtailed since August 2011, since now an impartial party can get involved. We have all seen the new CBA in here multiple times. I think this shows the subtle difference, and I think we have seen it play out (or not play out). Example of no action/suspension: Lynch. And we have seen guys win: Sherman.

"But league sources told Schefter that Goodell would retain exclusive control over the personal conduct policy.

However, players likely will be able to appeal suspensions under the drug policy to an independent arbitrator, league sources told Schefter. "

 

[Bayhawks]

Sorry. Error. Error.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=6832575&src=desktop

This is an article talking about the new appeals process for substances, the week before it was signed. The only reason I posted it was to highlight the change. The change, from the old CBA, is that now players can get an appeal with an independent arbitrator. Which means the league must prove, as far as I can gather (another poster provided the "burden of proof" topic earlier, so we can scroll back for that). IMO Goodell's Wild West style suspensions have been greatly curtailed since August 2011, since now an impartial party can get involved. We have all seen the new CBA in here multiple times. I think this shows the subtle difference, and I think we have seen it play out (or not play out). Example of no action/suspension: Lynch. And we have seen guys win: Sherman.

"But league sources told Schefter that Goodell would retain exclusive control over the personal conduct policy.

However, players likely will be able to appeal suspensions under the drug policy to an independent arbitrator, league sources told Schefter. "

So let me get this straight. You are using an article from 3 years ago, BEFORE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS FINALIZED, which specifically says that the parts pertaining to the personal conduct policy (at the time of this article) was still being negotiated, as your "evidence" that Goodell's powers to suspend players without a guilty verdict didn't exist? Even though this thread contains a link to the current NFL personal conduct policy which specifically states that players can be suspended without being found guilty of anything?

With regards to your examples: Just because Goodell hasn't taken action against Lynch, doesn't mean that he can't. With regards to Sherman, that wasn't under the PCP, it was a drug policy, which is the only place an independent arbitrator is required under the new CBA. If Goodell decides to suspend Gordon (or anyone else) without a guilty verdict (which is his right) under the PCP, any appeal would be heard by Goodell or his designee, NOT an independant arbitrator.

And you want others to "slow their role?" Maybe you should actually read the article (or at least the part you posted, which specifically says "league sources told Schefter that Goodell would retain exclusive control over the personal conduct policy" before you post.

 

[Sweet Love]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

I don't know whether this has been asked/mentioned in the thread, but what was he doing in Raleigh in the first place? Kind of a random spot to go on a holiday weekend for a guy from Houston who plays for a team in Cleveland.

 

[cstu]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

I don't know whether this has been asked/mentioned in the thread, but what was he doing in Raleigh in the first place? Kind of a random spot to go on a holiday weekend for a guy from Houston who plays for a team in Cleveland.

Hairston is from Greensboro and went to UNC.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

I don't know whether this has been asked/mentioned in the thread, but what was he doing in Raleigh in the first place? Kind of a random spot to go on a holiday weekend for a guy from Houston who plays for a team in Cleveland.

Hairston is from Greensboro and went to UNC.

So how is Gordo friends with Hairston?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The bailed out by HIS DRUG DEALER post did it for me.

Actually, he was driving PJ Hairston's car home after being out with he and some other guys. He called Hairston from jail. Hairston called Thomas to bail him out. Thomas is a local friend to big time athletes due to the parties he throws, and is close with Hairston.

Do not ask me how I know this information, because I will not tell you specifics. Just know I live near Raleigh and have friends that know what happened. I also know that drugs were not involved.

I don't know whether this has been asked/mentioned in the thread, but what was he doing in Raleigh in the first place? Kind of a random spot to go on a holiday weekend for a guy from Houston who plays for a team in Cleveland.

Hairston is from Greensboro and went to UNC.

So how is Gordo friends with Hairston?

his coke dealer

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Sorry. Error. Error.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=6832575&src=desktop

This is an article talking about the new appeals process for substances, the week before it was signed. The only reason I posted it was to highlight the change. The change, from the old CBA, is that now players can get an appeal with an independent arbitrator. Which means the league must prove, as far as I can gather (another poster provided the "burden of proof" topic earlier, so we can scroll back for that). IMO Goodell's Wild West style suspensions have been greatly curtailed since August 2011, since now an impartial party can get involved. We have all seen the new CBA in here multiple times. I think this shows the subtle difference, and I think we have seen it play out (or not play out). Example of no action/suspension: Lynch. And we have seen guys win: Sherman.

"But league sources told Schefter that Goodell would retain exclusive control over the personal conduct policy.

However, players likely will be able to appeal suspensions under the drug policy to an independent arbitrator, league sources told Schefter. "

So let me get this straight. You are using an article from 3 years ago, BEFORE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS FINALIZED, which specifically says that the parts pertaining to the personal conduct policy (at the time of this article) was still being negotiated, as your "evidence" that Goodell's powers to suspend players without a guilty verdict didn't exist? Even though this thread contains a link to the current NFL personal conduct policy which specifically states that players can be suspended without being found guilty of anything?With regards to your examples: Just because Goodell hasn't taken action against Lynch, doesn't mean that he can't. With regards to Sherman, that wasn't under the PCP, it was a drug policy, which is the only place an independent arbitrator is required under the new CBA. If Goodell decides to suspend Gordon (or anyone else) without a guilty verdict (which is his right) under the PCP, any appeal would be heard by Goodell or his designee, NOT an independant arbitrator.

And you want others to "slow their role?" Maybe you should actually read the article (or at least the part you posted, which specifically says "league sources told Schefter that Goodell would retain exclusive control over the personal conduct policy" before you post.

Geez dude you are a piece of work. You make soulfly look like Gandhi.

The point is, and I'll say it for the third time, NOW (as opposed to BEFORE THE CURRENT CBA) players that get suspended for substances CAN NOW APPEAL THROUGH INDEPENDENT ARBITRATION. I didn't reference Ben, others did. I merely pointed out that things have changed since then, as far as what is actually done.

BEFORE, Goodell could suspend whenever he felt like it, and not provide the player with any rationale or evidence to why. NOW he can still do that (technically). He just hasn't, or least hasn't substantially suspended anyone who was not arrested for off field activity since.

You can point to Britt, and that's correct. But that was a single game for multiple offenses, including arrests. Ben got 6 games (reduced to 4) for one "offense". The fact remains that he is not handing down these giant suspensions without a charge anymore.

If you can't see the difference now as compared to then, I can't help you. You can point to what the CBA says all day, but what it states and what he has chosen to do (or not do) is night and day.

You may now continue the name calling, blasphemy, and sarcasm parade. Thank you.