This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
yeah to register that high, looks like a one or two hit thing probably awhile ago and since his body was mostly clean, it flushed out, would of passed a normal test, the low minimum caught him here for sure
The vast majority of players probably put a pretty low priority on getting the drug policies changed -- it really only effects the handful of guys who can't / won't stop using for a few weeks a year prior to the annual spring tests. For 99% of the league, dying on that particular hill makes no sense at all.
So then what we/they will need to know is how every other organization tests. Is it just one of those types of tests that has ranges instead of exact measurements even from A to B within a same sample.
It is two tests I believe.
Flawed in that one sample gave two different readings.
From the Tony Grossi article a few pages back:
The policy may be flawed, but the variance in the test results of the two samples seems to be accounted for.
If that's the argument, then I'll stand by my statement, because there's nothing unusual about the sample having two slightly different readings.
I don't think the Randy Moss comparison is so nuts. Doing what Gordon with that stable of QBs in Cleveland last season was bordering on superhuman.
I think if Gordon's guilt/innocence of the violation were the only determining factor then this would be open and shut. But it isn't IMO. The NFL is a business, and their primary revenue is tv advertising, the price of which is controlled by ratings, followed by ticket sales and merch. The NFL stands to make a lot more money with the leading receiving champ on the field than sitting at home.
Of course and his friends could have said "Hey G wait in here a few minutes while me and the guys go outside and spark up." But I don't think any group of 22-23 year olds are typically noted for their excellent decision making skills. And this is a guy who likely has seldom been held accountable due to his tremendous athletic gifts. I have no idea about JGs family situation but if he does not have a strong family unit to keep him in line (obviously does not have strong enough friends) it is not shocking that he found himself in the situation to make that decision in the first place.
While that may seem intuitive, the reality is that Gordon being on the field (or not) will have virtually no effect on the television ratings.
Yes. That is along the line of what I said yesterday (now 3-4 pages back). Once you have that drug identified, that 2nd sample is just saying "yes, there it is" and that's not going to get dismissed.
At first yes, but when the browns are 3-5 or 2-6 going into week 8? Ticket sales and ratings will flag.
Weed gets you a year if you violate the rule three times.......Beating up a woman gets you 2 games if you have never had any violation of rules previously.
You know, I still don't know what the media keeps trying to say with this argument. "We're real mad Rice only got 2 games, what's with the lax discipline?!" followed immediately by "We're gonna be real mad if they're not lax on discipline with Gordon!"wadegarrett said:
As far as I know the current appeal is entirely in Goodell's hands. I don't know if Gordon can push the issue further and take it to arbitration or not. In the recent past when an arbitrator was needed the arbitrator was paul tagliabue (the previous commish), so its hard to say if things would go any differently.Coeur de Lion said:
While absolutely correct, that's not how the media will portray it to the 99% of the public that isn't paying close attention to this nuance.Ditka Butkus said:
A Cleveland fan could speak to this better than I could, but I think they have loyal fans who show up even when they are losing. People will watch almost any NFL game, no matter what the records are. SO the local games will still get local ratings and the one national Thursday Night game will be fine. If Johnny Football makes his NFL debut that week - even better.Clifford said:
In two weeks, no one will mention it again. The NFL is virtually bulletproof at this point. It will look bad to women watching the morning shows or to marginal followers of sports - but no one will stop watching due to it.
I understand your perspective. I also think it's very short sighted to assume the letter of the (league) law will just be followed to a T. Let's not act like policy doesn't change. This case is precisely the type of scenario that leads to policy change. If a procedure has hole(s) punched in it, not only is the punishment due to violation of said procedure likely to be less severe (IMO), but the procedure itself is likely to undergo drastic changes.Dr. Octopus said:
The olympics and MMA realize the weed isn't a performance enhancer so they really don't care anymore, you gotta be a pothead to get a 150.Holy Schneikes said:
Is agree if I thought the nfl wasn't aggressively spending money to expand into new demographics aka casual fans/women. They are constantly seeking out new markets/demos in which to peddle the product.
It's possible. I don't claim to know what's going to happen, and have said so all along. I'm just using this thread to have some fun in trying to figure out what may happen.
Of course that's irrelevant here since the CBA doesn't follow federal guidelines and covers this exact situation.
This was also interesting and gets to the difference in scores between the two types of test, and also the difference between the A and B samples in the second test:
Sums it up, this limits the defense's argument or potential argument of the faulty testing procedures. If anything now they probably have to attack the CBA being so low comparatively which won't work.
Pure speculation here, but I think the way you could attack this is to argue that 38 ng on the first test typically suggests an actual total less than 15 ng on the second test (assuming that's backed up by data), and that the B sample on the second test is more in line with the first test than the A sample is.
Thanks for that posting, I was coming in to share some of that same info about the two type of tests. Got some info from someone who does this kind of testing who went over them and how the accuracy of each differs, which would explain why different thresholds are used to assure the one being used lets you be sure it's a positive even when the expected error in the test is accounted for. I had replied asking about the accuracy of each test but hadn't heard back yet, so appreciate you sharing that info.
I'm not 100% sure but I think a suspension and indefinite ban are treated different. The latter a player is technically not in the league anymore which is why they can't go to facilities, etc. not sure if suspended players have more access or not.
Of course but I wonder how they will handle his suspension in that case. If they change the rule during the off season whereby he would not have been suspended will he still need to apply for reinstatement or will that just be a formality?
I could be wrong but I am pretty sure suspended players are not allowed at team facilities or to have contact with coaches or management during the suspension. Not sure about other players.
I don't know about "correct" info, but in Blackmon's case Cecil Shorts said he attempted to contact Blackmon on several occasions without success, which would at least imply that the players are permitted to contact him. Seems if he wasn't the Jaguars would have had their PR people address the comment.
