WR Josh Gordon, KC (5 Viewers)

[Bracie Smathers]

Their is a difference between DUI and DWI.

Gordon was not arrested or charged with DUI he was nailed for DWI which is a lessor offense.

It was reported in every credible news story because news agencies get sued. Unlike posters in the Shark Pool they have to report legal matters very-carefully and factually.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-07-05/josh-gordon-dwi-arrested-cleveland-browns-north-carolina

Browns WR Josh Gordon arrested for DWI in North Carolina

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11178895/josh-gordon-cleveland-browns-arrested-dwi

Police say Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon was arrested and charged with driving while impaired after speeding down a street in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Its been reported many times he blew a .09 which meant he was only a few minutes from not being charged with anything other than a speeding ticket. Stupid decision making pattern but he was charged with DWI not DUI. Carry-on.

By and large, there is no difference at all between DUI and DWI. The majority of states simply refer to all instances of impaired driving by one term or the other. Moreover, in the few states that DO use both terms and differentiate between them, DWI is the greater of the two offenses, not the lesser.

Fortunately for Gordon, North Carolina is simply one of those states that refers to all instances of impaired driving as DWI.

Well when DWI was first introduced it was to note a lessor offense so that was my impression for years.

Thanks for clearing it up but every story noted he was charged with DWI not DUI and he barely was over the legal threshold so that indicates if he waited just a few minutes before taking the wheel he would not have been charged with anything other than speeding.

Its been discussed in this thread many times but I thought the DWI/DUI designation was significant and my understanding was when it was first introduced it was to note that some offenses, like only barely crossing the threshold of legally operating a motor vehicle, would be noted in the lessor charge.

Seems pretty obtuse to charge him with a greater crime when he barely crossed the threshold and if some states do have that designation and some don't it would cause confusion.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Their is a difference between DUI and DWI.

Gordon was not arrested or charged with DUI he was nailed for DWI which is a lessor offense.

It was reported in every credible news story because news agencies get sued. Unlike posters in the Shark Pool they have to report legal matters very-carefully and factually.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-07-05/josh-gordon-dwi-arrested-cleveland-browns-north-carolina

Browns WR Josh Gordon arrested for DWI in North Carolina

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11178895/josh-gordon-cleveland-browns-arrested-dwi

Police say Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon was arrested and charged with driving while impaired after speeding down a street in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Its been reported many times he blew a .09 which meant he was only a few minutes from not being charged with anything other than a speeding ticket. Stupid decision making pattern but he was charged with DWI not DUI. Carry-on.

By and large, there is no difference at all between DUI and DWI. The majority of states simply refer to all instances of impaired driving by one term or the other. Moreover, in the few states that DO use both terms and differentiate between them, DWI is the greater of the two offenses, not the lesser.

Fortunately for Gordon, North Carolina is simply one of those states that refers to all instances of impaired driving as DWI.

Well when DWI was first introduced it was to note a lessor offense so that was my impression for years.

Thanks for clearing it up but every story noted he was charged with DWI not DUI and he barely was over the legal threshold so that indicates if he waited just a few minutes before taking the wheel he would not have been charged with anything other than speeding.

Its been discussed in this thread many times but I thought the DWI/DUI designation was significant and my understanding was when it was first introduced it was to note that some offenses, like only barely crossing the threshold of legally operating a motor vehicle, would be noted in the lessor charge.

Seems pretty obtuse to charge him with a greater crime when he barely crossed the threshold and if some states do have that designation and some don't it would cause confusion.

Based on alcohol metabolism estimates I see, it would have taken Josh Gordon another hour to get under the legal limit- not "just a few minutes". And besides, NC empowers officers to charge drivers with DWI even when they're below the legal limit as long as they are noticeably impaired, so there's no guarantee that even getting down to a 0.07 would have gotten him out of the DWI.

 

[Chaka]

so, is that a no? no suspensions before a conviction?

sounds about right.

Roethlisberger got four games without ever even having formal charges filed. Granted, raping some college girl is pretty heinous compared to weed and booze.So, given Gordon's continuing parade of utter stupidity, you still standing on him as the #1 overall player in FF? Or are we at the point where the now glaringly obvious risks push him down some?

depends how much time he misses.

but on a ppg basis, yes he is the no1 WR in fantasy

will likely still finish top 15 even if he gets 6 games

Don't dodge the question -- you know I'm talking dynasty. How much time he gets off this year represents a tiny fraction of his dynasty value. You still think he can be trusted to keep it together moving forward?

I wouldn't trust him but if I already had him on my team I would be dumping him for Charles Johnson, that's for sure.

would or would not???

Wow talk about the worst place to have a typo. I would not be dumping him for Charles Johnson.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't "stubbornly/naively" call it speeding.That's what it was. From my previous post on it:

"The first speeding ticket was just that, a speeding ticket 74 in a 60. Nobody gets suspended for that. It wasn't reckless driving, just speeding.

The latest speeding ticket was 50 in 35, not reckless driving. Nobody gets suspended for that.

He was also charged with DUI, Gordon blew a .09, the limit was .08."

I've been corrected that the DUI, is actually DWI.

So Gordon has been charged with a couple of speeding tickets and DWI.

Those three charges are just that, charges, not convictions.

The "speeding" tickets will carry no weight. The DWI might, but If history is any guide, it didn't carry any weight in M. Lynch's case as he blew Over the legal limit and plead it down to a reckless driving and as of now is playing 16 games in 2014.

Do you have any information that those things are not Facts, that I may be naive about?

It's not the "speeding" that will have any negative influence on the appeals process so you are either being naïve, stubborn or disingenuous by not addressing the relevant facts.

During the first speeding ticket, some one in his vehicle was charged with possession of marijuana.

During the second speeding ticket Gordon was charged with a DWI.

You keep failing to acknowledge that those transgressions are not the issue that is at the heart of Gordon's potential suspension. Gordon allegedly failed a drug test. He reportedly is facing a minimum one year suspension for THAT.

He is appealing that suspension. He will be going into the appeal process asking for leniency or arguing against actually failing a test. Meanwhile he has exhibited extremely poor judgment in TWO separate incidents that happened in between the alleged failed drug test and his appeal hearing. Leniency likely goes out the window - perhaps they can win the appeal by some other defense/loophole etc.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Their is a difference between DUI and DWI.

Gordon was not arrested or charged with DUI he was nailed for DWI which is a lessor offense.

It was reported in every credible news story because news agencies get sued. Unlike posters in the Shark Pool they have to report legal matters very-carefully and factually.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-07-05/josh-gordon-dwi-arrested-cleveland-browns-north-carolina

Browns WR Josh Gordon arrested for DWI in North Carolina

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11178895/josh-gordon-cleveland-browns-arrested-dwi

Police say Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon was arrested and charged with driving while impaired after speeding down a street in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Its been reported many times he blew a .09 which meant he was only a few minutes from not being charged with anything other than a speeding ticket. Stupid decision making pattern but he was charged with DWI not DUI. Carry-on.

By and large, there is no difference at all between DUI and DWI. The majority of states simply refer to all instances of impaired driving by one term or the other. Moreover, in the few states that DO use both terms and differentiate between them, DWI is the greater of the two offenses, not the lesser.

Fortunately for Gordon, North Carolina is simply one of those states that refers to all instances of impaired driving as DWI.

Well when DWI was first introduced it was to note a lessor offense so that was my impression for years.

Thanks for clearing it up but every story noted he was charged with DWI not DUI and he barely was over the legal threshold so that indicates if he waited just a few minutes before taking the wheel he would not have been charged with anything other than speeding.

Its been discussed in this thread many times but I thought the DWI/DUI designation was significant and my understanding was when it was first introduced it was to note that some offenses, like only barely crossing the threshold of legally operating a motor vehicle, would be noted in the lessor charge.

Seems pretty obtuse to charge him with a greater crime when he barely crossed the threshold and if some states do have that designation and some don't it would cause confusion.

Based on alcohol metabolism estimates I see, it would have taken Josh Gordon another hour to get under the legal limit- not "just a few minutes". And besides, NC empowers officers to charge drivers with DWI even when they're below the legal limit as long as they are noticeably impaired, so there's no guarantee that even getting down to a 0.07 would have gotten him out of the DWI.

You know the exact number he was over? You know for an undeniable fact it would take an hour?

Also the topic of thresholds making one person a criminal and another not seems absurd if one threshold means the exact same thing

Yeas ago I knew a brilliant lawyer and he took on a case where his client was undeniablly intoxicated and took the wheel and was busted but he brought up a point that made his case very interesting.

This took place in a small mountain town and his client had too many and waited in the parking but did not drive directly home, he took a deserted and poorly maintained road that was seldom used at all let alone late at night were it was never used.

The road was accross the river and if anyone were on that road the mere fact that someone was dumb enough to drive it created suspicion so the cops were waiting when he got to other side and busted him there. His client was charged and he took on the case and argued his client was guilty but that the circumstances should be considered.

My lawyer friend lost but he was adament that a person driving intoxicated during the day on a crowded highway should be prosecuted at a different level than someone who took a road where they knew no one else would be and where they would not place anyone else in danger.

He was a brilliant guy and he convinced me about designations being important enough that they should be considered in handing down penalties.

So correctly designating a person with the correct level of offense is a sore spot for me. It is important to note level of intent to cause or prevent harm IMHO.

In the Josh Gordon case, his issue is immaturity coupled with poor decision making. This is not John Dilliger. He smokes pot and speeds and barely crossed the threshold for alcohol. I'm not making excuses because he is immature and stupid enough to be gambling with his career with poor decisions. But he isn't what some people seem to assume and his infractions are not as dire as some are making out.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Also the topic of thresholds making one person a criminal and another not seems absurd if one threshold means the exact same thing

The law is filled with arbitrary thresholds such as age limits, BAC limits, monetary limits, etc. What is the alternative?

Statutory rape for example is generally set at below 18 years of age. If one girl is 17 years and 360 days old and another is 18 years and 2 days old - do you really think they have that much of a difference in maturity level?

It's just the way it is.

Bottom line is Gordon made a poor choice given his circumstances. I'm sure many of us have made a similar mistake. Maybe we paid for it, maybe we were lucky and got home safely and undetected. Complaining about the arbitrary limit that he was facing, isn't going to do him any good though.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Gordon was just gambling with his career with poor decisions? Really? Just a threat to himself and no one else? Seriously?

He wasn't a threat to public safety driving a 3000 lb vehicle at excessive speed under the influence?

If he chose to drive drunk across from some river in West VA, does that makes it less of a foul because the few people that live there? Because...well their safety doesn't count, right? Inebriated driving is illegal, and there's no two ways about it. No sliding scale of culpabilbity or discretion toward that crime can justify it.

 

[cstu]

Isn't Blackmon's indefinite suspension for a DUI?

I don't know, but that's really not all that relevant to what I said anyway. Gordon could be suspended for a DUI, I guess - but right now that's not the issue he is dealing with. He allegedly failed a random drug test and is reportedly already in Stage 3 which makes that failure a year suspension.

Regardless of how this appeal turns out, the DUI opens up more problems for Gordon. Once a player gets a DUI he starts getting tested for alcohol as well as other drugs.

Blackmon's indefinite suspension was for failing tests, including alcohol, but it's only speculation what he failed them for. Alcohol seems the most likely given his history but no one knows.

 

[cstu]

You know the exact number he was over? You know for an undeniable fact it would take an hour?

Also the topic of thresholds making one person a criminal and another not seems absurd if one threshold means the exact same thing

Yeas ago I knew a brilliant lawyer and he took on a case where his client was undeniablly intoxicated and took the wheel and was busted but he brought up a point that made his case very interesting.

This took place in a small mountain town and his client had too many and waited in the parking but did not drive directly home, he took a deserted and poorly maintained road that was seldom used at all let alone late at night were it was never used.

The road was accross the river and if anyone were on that road the mere fact that someone was dumb enough to drive it created suspicion so the cops were waiting when he got to other side and busted him there. His client was charged and he took on the case and argued his client was guilty but that the circumstances should be considered.

My lawyer friend lost but he was adament that a person driving intoxicated during the day on a crowded highway should be prosecuted at a different level than someone who took a road where they knew no one else would be and where they would not place anyone else in danger.

He was a brilliant guy and he convinced me about designations being important enough that they should be considered in handing down penalties.

So correctly designating a person with the correct level of offense is a sore spot for me. It is important to note level of intent to cause or prevent harm IMHO.

In the Josh Gordon case, his issue is immaturity coupled with poor decision making. This is not John Dilliger. He smokes pot and speeds and barely crossed the threshold for alcohol. I'm not making excuses because he is immature and stupid enough to be gambling with his career with poor decisions. But he isn't what some people seem to assume and his infractions are not as dire as some are making out.

If I were a judge I would be inclined to be more lenient on someone who decided to drive on a deserted road rather than a busy one, but if I found out that person had just been arrested for another DUI that leniency goes out the window.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Also the topic of thresholds making one person a criminal and another not seems absurd if one threshold means the exact same thing

The law is filled with arbitrary thresholds such as age limits, BAC limits, monetary limits, etc. What is the alternative?

Statutory rape for example is generally set at below 18 years of age. If one girl is 17 years and 360 days old and another is 18 years and 2 days old - do you really think they have that much of a difference in maturity level?

It's just the way it is.

Bottom line is Gordon made a poor choice given his circumstances. I'm sure many of us have made a similar mistake. Maybe we paid for it, maybe we were lucky and got home safely and undetected. Complaining about the arbitrary limit that he was facing, isn't going to do him any good though.

Their isn't any alternatives at all? A law is a law and that is it? No law has ever been changed or amended?

As if the law is or never should be questioned or that the arm of dispensing penalties should not take circumstances into consideration.

The line of reasoning that the law-is-the-law and you can't do anything might work for people who are more interested in persecuting people than getting things right.

America incarerates the highest percentage of their population than any other country in the world and the greatest number of people are being held are for reasons of substances. The free-est place in the world is the most prosecutorial and primarily due to substances. Hmnnn Makes you wonder who owns the prisons and how much they make per prisoner. Who runs the court system, basically who is rolling in the dough of being soo prosecutorial but Oh I'm sorry.

The law is the law and should never be amended and certainly not questioned.

Um the short answer is no. The long answer is F'CK NO!

Josh Gordon smokes pot.

He speeds.

He barely was over the threshold of legally operating a motor vehicle.

The laws of determing legal limits were changed after a nation-wide MAD campaign. That succesful campaign lowered the threshold to make streets safe but the lower limit created more criminals.

More people safe is a good change but more criminals feed a sickness of persecuting people that is a madness into its own creation IMHO. If the pendulem swings on one side it isn't always a perfect solution and it can create problems just like prohibition didn't stop alcohol but created tons of issues.

Circumstances should be taken into consideration when dispensiing penalties. That is the art of law and should be embraced. If not we'd still have witch burnings and considering the zealotry of some people we need to be protected from those zealots.

Legal thresholds come with their own set of issues but throwing your hands up in the air and saying, well the law is the law is a cop out. It empowers zealotry that is too eager to persecute.

 

[cstu]

Based on alcohol metabolism estimates I see, it would have taken Josh Gordon another hour to get under the legal limit- not "just a few minutes". And besides, NC empowers officers to charge drivers with DWI even when they're below the legal limit as long as they are noticeably impaired, so there's no guarantee that even getting down to a 0.07 would have gotten him out of the DWI.

Alcohol takes time to get into the bloodstream so it's possible that his BAC was going up, not down, at the time of his arrest.

 

[amnesiac]

Based on alcohol metabolism estimates I see, it would have taken Josh Gordon another hour to get under the legal limit- not "just a few minutes". And besides, NC empowers officers to charge drivers with DWI even when they're below the legal limit as long as they are noticeably impaired, so there's no guarantee that even getting down to a 0.07 would have gotten him out of the DWI.

Alcohol takes time to get into the bloodstream so it's possible that his BAC was going up, not down, at the time of his arrest.

good point.

 

[texasbirdfan]

I haven't been keeping up with the day to day saga like most of you apparently- being Summer and all. What I do remember from awhile back was the inside sources were saying he missed a routine drug screen test which was equivalent to failure. What would be interesting would be to know if he failed when he had to p**s in the cup later

Also I remember research that a 2nd offense is 6 weeks....

 

[Ojaays]

I don't "stubbornly/naively" call it speeding.

That's what it was. From my previous post on it:

"The first speeding ticket was just that, a speeding ticket 74 in a 60. Nobody gets suspended for that. It wasn't reckless driving, just speeding.

The latest speeding ticket was 50 in 35, not reckless driving. Nobody gets suspended for that.

He was also charged with DUI, Gordon blew a .09, the limit was .08."

I've been corrected that the DUI, is actually DWI.

So Gordon has been charged with a couple of speeding tickets and DWI.

Those three charges are just that, charges, not convictions.

The "speeding" tickets will carry no weight. The DWI might, but If history is any guide, it didn't carry any weight in M. Lynch's case as he blew Over the legal limit and plead it down to a reckless driving and as of now is playing 16 games in 2014.

Do you have any information that those things are not Facts, that I may be naive about?

It's not the "speeding" that will have any negative influence on the appeals process so you are either being naïve, stubborn or disingenuous by not addressing the relevant facts.

During the first speeding ticket, some one in his vehicle was charged with possession of marijuana.

During the second speeding ticket Gordon was charged with a DWI.

You keep failing to acknowledge that those transgressions are not the issue that is at the heart of Gordon's potential suspension. Gordon allegedly failed a drug test. He reportedly is facing a minimum one year suspension for THAT.

He is appealing that suspension. He will be going into the appeal process asking for leniency or arguing against actually failing a test. Meanwhile he has exhibited extremely poor judgment in TWO separate incidents that happened in between the alleged failed drug test and his appeal hearing. Leniency likely goes out the window - perhaps they can win the appeal by some other defense/loophole etc.

Let's review the transgressions that relate to Gordon.

Speeding twice.

Not outrageous speeds, 74 in a 60

50 in a 35

DWI.

Not a Blackmon .25,

Gordon blew a .09, that's an entirely different conversation.

That's it.

Forget about the guy in his car, was Gordon charged with drug possession? No.

Again, if Lynch's previous weapons charge and hit and run charge didn't weigh into evidence towards a suspension, why would these?

 

[BoltNlava]

All of this is beyond the pale of argument. I mean really in this day and age is it okay to split hairs??? Death is the final nail. You okay DRIVING that nail into some innocent mothers heart?

 

[georg013]

Because we need a story!!!!

 

[cstu]

I don't "stubbornly/naively" call it speeding.

That's what it was. From my previous post on it:

"The first speeding ticket was just that, a speeding ticket 74 in a 60. Nobody gets suspended for that. It wasn't reckless driving, just speeding.

The latest speeding ticket was 50 in 35, not reckless driving. Nobody gets suspended for that.

He was also charged with DUI, Gordon blew a .09, the limit was .08."

I've been corrected that the DUI, is actually DWI.

So Gordon has been charged with a couple of speeding tickets and DWI.

Those three charges are just that, charges, not convictions.

The "speeding" tickets will carry no weight. The DWI might, but If history is any guide, it didn't carry any weight in M. Lynch's case as he blew Over the legal limit and plead it down to a reckless driving and as of now is playing 16 games in 2014.

Do you have any information that those things are not Facts, that I may be naive about?

It's not the "speeding" that will have any negative influence on the appeals process so you are either being naïve, stubborn or disingenuous by not addressing the relevant facts.

During the first speeding ticket, some one in his vehicle was charged with possession of marijuana.

During the second speeding ticket Gordon was charged with a DWI.

You keep failing to acknowledge that those transgressions are not the issue that is at the heart of Gordon's potential suspension. Gordon allegedly failed a drug test. He reportedly is facing a minimum one year suspension for THAT.

He is appealing that suspension. He will be going into the appeal process asking for leniency or arguing against actually failing a test. Meanwhile he has exhibited extremely poor judgment in TWO separate incidents that happened in between the alleged failed drug test and his appeal hearing. Leniency likely goes out the window - perhaps they can win the appeal by some other defense/loophole etc.

Let's review the transgressions that relate to Gordon.

Speeding twice.

Not outrageous speeds, 74 in a 60

50 in a 35

DWI.

Not a Blackmon .25,

Gordon blew a .09, that's an entirely different conversation.

That's it.

Forget about the guy in his car, was Gordon charged with drug possession? No.

Again, if Lynch's previous weapons charge and hit and run charge didn't weigh into evidence towards a suspension, why would these?

Gordon also has a 98 in a 60 and a 45 in 25 (which he blew off the court date for).

By arguing about his level of his DUI you are missing the point - he is asking for leniency from Goodell and got a DUI while awaiting his hearing.

 

[Ojaays]

The difference is I'm not making any bets

Just giving some perspective.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Also the topic of thresholds making one person a criminal and another not seems absurd if one threshold means the exact same thing

The law is filled with arbitrary thresholds such as age limits, BAC limits, monetary limits, etc. What is the alternative?

Statutory rape for example is generally set at below 18 years of age. If one girl is 17 years and 360 days old and another is 18 years and 2 days old - do you really think they have that much of a difference in maturity level?

It's just the way it is.

Bottom line is Gordon made a poor choice given his circumstances. I'm sure many of us have made a similar mistake. Maybe we paid for it, maybe we were lucky and got home safely and undetected. Complaining about the arbitrary limit that he was facing, isn't going to do him any good though.

Their isn't any alternatives at all? A law is a law and that is it? No law has ever been changed or amended?

As if the law is or never should be questioned or that the arm of dispensing penalties should not take circumstances into consideration.

The line of reasoning that the law-is-the-law and you can't do anything might work for people who are more interested in persecuting people than getting things right.

America incarerates the highest percentage of their population than any other country in the world and the greatest number of people are being held are for reasons of substances. The free-est place in the world is the most prosecutorial and primarily due to substances. Hmnnn Makes you wonder who owns the prisons and how much they make per prisoner. Who runs the court system, basically who is rolling in the dough of being soo prosecutorial but Oh I'm sorry.

The law is the law and should never be amended and certainly not questioned.

Um the short answer is no. The long answer is F'CK NO!

Josh Gordon smokes pot.

He speeds.

He barely was over the threshold of legally operating a motor vehicle.

The laws of determing legal limits were changed after a nation-wide MAD campaign. That succesful campaign lowered the threshold to make streets safe but the lower limit created more criminals.

More people safe is a good change but more criminals feed a sickness of persecuting people that is a madness into its own creation IMHO. If the pendulem swings on one side it isn't always a perfect solution and it can create problems just like prohibition didn't stop alcohol but created tons of issues.

Circumstances should be taken into consideration when dispensiing penalties. That is the art of law and should be embraced. If not we'd still have witch burnings and considering the zealotry of some people we need to be protected from those zealots.

Legal thresholds come with their own set of issues but throwing your hands up in the air and saying, well the law is the law is a cop out. It empowers zealotry that is too eager to persecute.

I'm not really talking about making sweeping social changes (or not doing so). I was merely discussing the situation Josh Gordon finds himself in currently. He's on the wrong side of the threshold and that's all that matters.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't "stubbornly/naively" call it speeding.

That's what it was. From my previous post on it:

"The first speeding ticket was just that, a speeding ticket 74 in a 60. Nobody gets suspended for that. It wasn't reckless driving, just speeding.

The latest speeding ticket was 50 in 35, not reckless driving. Nobody gets suspended for that.

He was also charged with DUI, Gordon blew a .09, the limit was .08."

I've been corrected that the DUI, is actually DWI.

So Gordon has been charged with a couple of speeding tickets and DWI.

Those three charges are just that, charges, not convictions.

The "speeding" tickets will carry no weight. The DWI might, but If history is any guide, it didn't carry any weight in M. Lynch's case as he blew Over the legal limit and plead it down to a reckless driving and as of now is playing 16 games in 2014.

Do you have any information that those things are not Facts, that I may be naive about?

It's not the "speeding" that will have any negative influence on the appeals process so you are either being naïve, stubborn or disingenuous by not addressing the relevant facts.

During the first speeding ticket, some one in his vehicle was charged with possession of marijuana.

During the second speeding ticket Gordon was charged with a DWI.

You keep failing to acknowledge that those transgressions are not the issue that is at the heart of Gordon's potential suspension. Gordon allegedly failed a drug test. He reportedly is facing a minimum one year suspension for THAT.

He is appealing that suspension. He will be going into the appeal process asking for leniency or arguing against actually failing a test. Meanwhile he has exhibited extremely poor judgment in TWO separate incidents that happened in between the alleged failed drug test and his appeal hearing. Leniency likely goes out the window - perhaps they can win the appeal by some other defense/loophole etc.

Let's review the transgressions that relate to Gordon.

Speeding twice.

Not outrageous speeds, 74 in a 60

50 in a 35

DWI.

Not a Blackmon .25,

Gordon blew a .09, that's an entirely different conversation.

That's it.

Forget about the guy in his car, was Gordon charged with drug possession? No.

Again, if Lynch's previous weapons charge and hit and run charge didn't weigh into evidence towards a suspension, why would these?

I don't know what to say - you must be doing this on purpose. Have fun fishing with some one else. I'm done.

 

[TxBuckeye]

So anything new or interesting or, better yet, relevant out? No? Mmmkay. Thanks. Carry on.

 

[LawFitz]

I don't "stubbornly/naively" call it speeding.

That's what it was. From my previous post on it:

"The first speeding ticket was just that, a speeding ticket 74 in a 60. Nobody gets suspended for that. It wasn't reckless driving, just speeding.

The latest speeding ticket was 50 in 35, not reckless driving. Nobody gets suspended for that.

He was also charged with DUI, Gordon blew a .09, the limit was .08."

I've been corrected that the DUI, is actually DWI.

So Gordon has been charged with a couple of speeding tickets and DWI.

Those three charges are just that, charges, not convictions.

The "speeding" tickets will carry no weight. The DWI might, but If history is any guide, it didn't carry any weight in M. Lynch's case as he blew Over the legal limit and plead it down to a reckless driving and as of now is playing 16 games in 2014.

Do you have any information that those things are not Facts, that I may be naive about?

It's not the "speeding" that will have any negative influence on the appeals process so you are either being naïve, stubborn or disingenuous by not addressing the relevant facts.

During the first speeding ticket, some one in his vehicle was charged with possession of marijuana.

During the second speeding ticket Gordon was charged with a DWI.

You keep failing to acknowledge that those transgressions are not the issue that is at the heart of Gordon's potential suspension. Gordon allegedly failed a drug test. He reportedly is facing a minimum one year suspension for THAT.

He is appealing that suspension. He will be going into the appeal process asking for leniency or arguing against actually failing a test. Meanwhile he has exhibited extremely poor judgment in TWO separate incidents that happened in between the alleged failed drug test and his appeal hearing. Leniency likely goes out the window - perhaps they can win the appeal by some other defense/loophole etc.

Let's review the transgressions that relate to Gordon.

Speeding twice.

Not outrageous speeds, 74 in a 60

50 in a 35

DWI.

Not a Blackmon .25,

Gordon blew a .09, that's an entirely different conversation.

That's it.

Forget about the guy in his car, was Gordon charged with drug possession? No.

Again, if Lynch's previous weapons charge and hit and run charge didn't weigh into evidence towards a suspension, why would these?

Gordon also has a 98 in a 60 and a 45 in 25 (which he blew off the court date for).

By arguing about his level of his DUI you are missing the point - he is asking for leniency from Goodell and got a DUI while awaiting his hearing.

Wow...this looks just like a debate with Soulfly

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Can anyone find me a case where the NFL has suspended someone for a DUI BEFORE he has been convicted in court?

k, thanks.

Gordon is officially on idiot status in my books now.

But he's still not sitting the entire year out. You heard me.

Sooooo....where ya been?

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

I don't "stubbornly/naively" call it speeding.

That's what it was. From my previous post on it:

"The first speeding ticket was just that, a speeding ticket 74 in a 60. Nobody gets suspended for that. It wasn't reckless driving, just speeding.

The latest speeding ticket was 50 in 35, not reckless driving. Nobody gets suspended for that.

He was also charged with DUI, Gordon blew a .09, the limit was .08."

I've been corrected that the DUI, is actually DWI.

So Gordon has been charged with a couple of speeding tickets and DWI.

Those three charges are just that, charges, not convictions.

The "speeding" tickets will carry no weight. The DWI might, but If history is any guide, it didn't carry any weight in M. Lynch's case as he blew Over the legal limit and plead it down to a reckless driving and as of now is playing 16 games in 2014.

Do you have any information that those things are not Facts, that I may be naive about?

It's not the "speeding" that will have any negative influence on the appeals process so you are either being naïve, stubborn or disingenuous by not addressing the relevant facts.

During the first speeding ticket, some one in his vehicle was charged with possession of marijuana.

During the second speeding ticket Gordon was charged with a DWI.

You keep failing to acknowledge that those transgressions are not the issue that is at the heart of Gordon's potential suspension. Gordon allegedly failed a drug test. He reportedly is facing a minimum one year suspension for THAT.

He is appealing that suspension. He will be going into the appeal process asking for leniency or arguing against actually failing a test. Meanwhile he has exhibited extremely poor judgment in TWO separate incidents that happened in between the alleged failed drug test and his appeal hearing. Leniency likely goes out the window - perhaps they can win the appeal by some other defense/loophole etc.

Let's review the transgressions that relate to Gordon.

Speeding twice.

Not outrageous speeds, 74 in a 60

50 in a 35

DWI.

Not a Blackmon .25,

Gordon blew a .09, that's an entirely different conversation.

That's it.

Forget about the guy in his car, was Gordon charged with drug possession? No.

Again, if Lynch's previous weapons charge and hit and run charge didn't weigh into evidence towards a suspension, why would these?

Gordon also has a 98 in a 60 and a 45 in 25 (which he blew off the court date for).

By arguing about his level of his DUI you are missing the point - he is asking for leniency from Goodell and got a DUI while awaiting his hearing.

Wow...this looks just like a debate with Soulfly

Because it is. Most Obvious Alias Ever.

Clearly, the issue with the DUI bit only serves to further inform the appeal of the suspension. While it has nothing to do with the suspension itself, it would be folly to think Gordon's ongoing behaviors wouldn't be factored in heavily. As Bloom pointed out, he is not a murderer, but he clearly is not going to be playing professional football in 2014 and quite possibly beyond.

 

[Soulfly3]

Lol, you guys serious?

That aint me. Way to go , sherlocks

 

[Soulfly3]

Lol, you guys serious?

That aint me. Way to go , sherlocks

So where were you and why the long time away, when he amazingly showed up with a new account with the same argument as you???

Why would I have two accounts to make the same argument? I havent changed my stance, so not sure what u guys r getting at

Tbh, i dont care if u think it's me.. It's just funny

 

[Ojaays]

Lol, you guys serious?

That aint me. Way to go , sherlocks

So where were you and why the long time away, when he amazingly showed up with a new account with the same argument as you???

Not the same, different but similar, as Cheech and Chong once said.I make no bets about Gordon's possible suspension, but I think some of you are not seeing the Forrest thru the trees.

There is only one thing being debated with Goodell, the missed/failed test et al.

Everything else will not weigh in as much as we all think it should, even me, it won't.

I'm just basing that on past history and I laid it out, although some of you chose not to read and or comprehend it.

 

[Ojaays]

Btw, like soul said, it is pretty funny.

Some of you should really get a hobby.

 

[Peyton Marino]

they even have the same writing styles.

 

[MAC_32]

This thread is finally starting to be worth reading. Keep up the good work, soulfly's.

 

[Soulfly3]

Oof. Im bailing for a while.

Was funnier when u guys hated me, but at least acknowledged my singularity.

Ruined the fun, gents. Thanks.

 

[MAC_32]

See you soon, Okayama.

Edit: I'm going to leave the auto correct just because

 

[squistion]

Oof. Im bailing for a while.

Was funnier when u guys hated me, but at least acknowledged my singularity.

Ruined the fun, gents. Thanks.

We understand...posting in the same thread under an alias and also your original handle is stressful for someone of your...for someone like you. So now we just got to deal with the Ojaays, not both of your identities.

 

[Kevrunner]

If Lloyd and Harry can be two different people (Dumb and Dumber), then I believe Soufly3 and Ojaays are separate posters. Now I can't get that movie out of my head, I can't help but picture Soulfly3 playing Harry and Ojaays playing Lloyd, no disrespect intended fellas.

 

[amnesiac]

gotta be a mod.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If Lloyd and Harry can be two different people (Dumb and Dumber), then I believe Soufly3 and Ojaays are separate posters. Now I can't get that movie out of my head, I can't help but picture Soulfly3 playing Harry and Ojaays playing Lloyd, no disrespect intended fellas.

if you love dumb and dumber you`re gonna get a kick outa this

 

[Steed]

Per marykaycabot: Josh Gordon's agent Drew Rosenhaus confirmed that Gordon's appeal hearing regarding his drug suspension is coming up soon.

 

[Gopher State]

Per marykaycabot: Josh Gordon's agent Drew Rosenhaus confirmed that Gordon's appeal hearing regarding his drug suspension is coming up soon.

Well at least we know he is done for the year

 

[Ojaays]

Per marykaycabot: Josh Gordon's agent Drew Rosenhaus confirmed that Gordon's appeal hearing regarding his drug suspension is coming up soon.

Well at least we know he is done for the year

And your link to that breaking news headline?

 

[MAC_32]

Per marykaycabot: Josh Gordon's agent Drew Rosenhaus confirmed that Gordon's appeal hearing regarding his drug suspension is coming up soon.

Well at least we know he is done for the year

And your link to that breaking news headline?

 

[amnesiac]

Per marykaycabot: Josh Gordon's agent Drew Rosenhaus confirmed that Gordon's appeal hearing regarding his drug suspension is coming up soon.

Well at least we know he is done for the year

And your link to that breaking news headline?

i see what you did there.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

Lol, you guys serious?

That aint me. Way to go , sherlocks

So where were you and why the long time away, when he amazingly showed up with a new account with the same argument as you???

Why would I have two accounts to make the same argument? I havent changed my stance, so not sure what u guys r getting at

Tbh, i dont care if u think it's me.. It's just funny

You would have to answer to that question. And, yes, it is funny. We are all amused by you.

 

[Proust Loves Cake]

Oof. Im bailing for a while.

Was funnier when u guys hated me, but at least acknowledged my singularity.

Ruined the fun, gents. Thanks.

You are hardly singular. Being a contrarian for contrarian's sake is hardly fresh, new, provocative. You created an alias to shield your embarrassment last week and for the forthcoming verdict, which gave you time to develop a new narrative to come back and save,face. This is not breaking new ground. Guys that don't pay up bets or admit they were wrong get what they got coming. You're getting it right now, and it's clearly too much. Fishing takes skill. Time to get back at the lab again, yo.

 

[Soulfly3]

You are hardly singular. Being a contrarian for contrarian's sake is hardly fresh, new, provocative. You created an alias to shield your embarrassment last week and for the forthcoming verdict, which gave you time to develop a new narrative to come back and save,face. This is not breaking new ground. Guys that don't pay up bets or admit they were wrong get what they got coming. You're getting it right now, and it's clearly too much. Fishing takes skill. Time to get back at the lab again, yo.

LOL.

Im sure a mod or site owner would be glad to run a check or two as to if we're the same person.

you sound more like the academic who's never stepped foot into the real world. hypotheses are great until you remember you have to prove them.

 

[Ojaays]

You are hardly singular. Being a contrarian for contrarian's sake is hardly fresh, new, provocative. You created an alias to shield your embarrassment last week and for the forthcoming verdict, which gave you time to develop a new narrative to come back and save,face. This is not breaking new ground. Guys that don't pay up bets or admit they were wrong get what they got coming. You're getting it right now, and it's clearly too much. Fishing takes skill. Time to get back at the lab again, yo.

LOL.

Im sure a mod or site owner would be glad to run a check or two as to if we're the same person.

you sound more like the academic who's never stepped foot into the real world. hypotheses are great until you remember you have to prove them.

Ok, I just thought of something.

For all the slappys on here that think I'm Soul dude, I'll make a bet with you that I'm not, and we can get a mod to verify,

Anybody in? And name the payoff, sky's the limit, because, I ain't him, hehe.

 

[Soulfly3]

I must admit, the guys style is eerily close to mine.

whichever member busted this out gets my props.

 

[Ojaays]

I must admit, the guys style is eerily close to mine.

whichever member busted this out gets my props.

I have no other aliases on here, long time reader of the board, just started posting.

 

[Soulfly3]

I must admit, the guys style is eerily close to mine.

whichever member busted this out gets my props.

I have no other aliases on here, long time reader of the board, just started posting.

maybe you're my soulmate.

 

[Ojaays]

I must admit, the guys style is eerily close to mine.

whichever member busted this out gets my props.

I have no other aliases on here, long time reader of the board, just started posting.

maybe you're my soulmate.

I don't think so.

Dude, don't get weird.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You are hardly singular. Being a contrarian for contrarian's sake is hardly fresh, new, provocative. You created an alias to shield your embarrassment last week and for the forthcoming verdict, which gave you time to develop a new narrative to come back and save,face. This is not breaking new ground. Guys that don't pay up bets or admit they were wrong get what they got coming. You're getting it right now, and it's clearly too much. Fishing takes skill. Time to get back at the lab again, yo.

LOL.

Im sure a mod or site owner would be glad to run a check or two as to if we're the same person.

you sound more like the academic who's never stepped foot into the real world. hypotheses are great until you remember you have to prove them.

you kinda stepped into this one