WR Josh Gordon, KC (5 Viewers)

[Adam Harstad]

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.

Actually, weed doesn't get you a year until your 4th violation, although it's possible for college history to count as one of those four.

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

I don't think the Josh Gordon suspension will have the slightest impact on the NFL's ability to make inroads with women. If a 2-game suspension for Ray Rice got someone upset, I don't think an 8-game suspension for Josh Gordon (or a 4-game, or a 16-game, or a 0-game suspension) will make them just forget that and move on.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Rick Vaughn ‏@hawkblimp 1h

Josh Gordon's weed tattoo is a 2nd hand weed tattoo He was just near a guy getting a real weed tattoo @FantasyDouche

 

[Adam Harstad]

No player has ever won a case against the NFL on the grounds he failed a drug test due to "second-hand smoke."

This is Josh Gordon's claim, and the NFL is pushing back. "A cornerstone of both of our drug testing programs has always been that you are responsible for what is in your body," stated NFL VP of communications Greg Aiello. "It is stated that way in the policies." Aiello also confirmed the NFL has suspended several players in the past for "not being responsible for what is in your body." Gordon remains at serious risk of a lengthy suspension.

While it's true that no player has ever beaten a suspension on a "second-hand smoke" argument, I also hear it's true no player has ever had his A sample test positive and his B sample test negative. The NFL is entering uncharted territory here either way.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think it is realistic to assume that the NFL drug policy as it relates to marijuana is going to change dramatically within the next few years. What would suck for everyone involved is for Gordon to get a year long ban and then have the policy changed and have him reinstated into a league where he would not have been suspended in the first place.

I don't know about this.

1. The players who are affected by the current marijuana testing are ~0.01% of the NFLPA. The union has much bigger fish to fry than worry about something that affects 0.01% of the players.

2. I also don't think the players really care about the weed testing because it is so easy to pass the test. The players basically know when the test is coming and refrain from weed for the month or so beforehand. Like Ryan Clark of the Steelers said, the players getting caught for weed are basically stupid. It only is an issue for the players who were stupid and failed the initial test and then get put into the program.

3. If a player was clean or knew they would pass the tests, they would want as many players to be caught by the drug tests because it gives them a better opportunity on the playing field. Why would another player be worried if someone else gets suspended? The only people who care are the 0.01%. That isn't a very big voice.

 

[Adam Harstad]

so the missed test due to travel theory is pretty much done, right?

Correct. As is the "Josh Gordon was really in stage 2" theory and the "Josh Gordon was really in stage 3, but is going to argue retroactively that a previous test should not have put him into stage 3, and so he's really still in stage 2" theory.

We're pretty much 100% on the whole "Josh Gordon tested positive for marijuana and is now trying to get that positive test thrown out on a technicality" theory.

Also, during the course of this process, we have apparently learned that Josh Gordon failed another test for marijuana in his rookie year, which is how he got into stage 3 when the previously available information that Soulfly was researching suggested he only should have been in stage 2.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Will we have any idea Friday of the ruling on the failed drug test? Does anyone know if Friday is when arguments are presented or is it a ruling?

In one of my more high dollar keeper leagues I have to decide between keeping Gordon or Ray Rice ironically as my 6th best keeper Sunday night. Hoping there is some outcome by then.

Friday is the hearing, after which the ruling must be handed down in a "reasonable period of time", which probably means within 5-10 business days.

 

[jurb26]

Will we have any idea Friday of the ruling on the failed drug test? Does anyone know if Friday is when arguments are presented or is it a ruling?

In one of my more high dollar keeper leagues I have to decide between keeping Gordon or Ray Rice ironically as my 6th best keeper Sunday night. Hoping there is some outcome by then.

Friday is the hearing, after which the ruling must be handed down in a "reasonable period of time", which probably means within 5-10 business days.

This time line seems unreasonable to me and probably every other fantasy footballer...

 

[salmonstud]

So does anyone know if we will have a ruling Friday or is it just the date to hear arguments presented by Gordon's defense team?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think it is realistic to assume that the NFL drug policy as it relates to marijuana is going to change dramatically within the next few years. What would suck for everyone involved is for Gordon to get a year long ban and then have the policy changed and have him reinstated into a league where he would not have been suspended in the first place.

It would help him going forward though.

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?

If the NFL has any intention of updating the weed policy I think it looks better for the NFL to have Gordon off suspension by this off season. If that were their intention I could see a reduction from a full season suspension to 10 or 12 games. Otherwise it is difficult to see him getting off, despite the abject silliness of the policy regulating what, allegedly, grown ### men can do in their private time.

He would still have to apply for reinstatement. When a person is punished under one rule, they do not have that punishment altered when the rule changes. There are people still in prison for committing a crime that later got removed from the books and is no longer a crime, for instance.

 

[salmonstud]

Will we have any idea Friday of the ruling on the failed drug test? Does anyone know if Friday is when arguments are presented or is it a ruling?

In one of my more high dollar keeper leagues I have to decide between keeping Gordon or Ray Rice ironically as my 6th best keeper Sunday night. Hoping there is some outcome by then.

Friday is the hearing, after which the ruling must be handed down in a "reasonable period of time", which probably means within 5-10 business days.

Thanks for the response!

 

[Adam Harstad]

Will we have any idea Friday of the ruling on the failed drug test? Does anyone know if Friday is when arguments are presented or is it a ruling?

In one of my more high dollar keeper leagues I have to decide between keeping Gordon or Ray Rice ironically as my 6th best keeper Sunday night. Hoping there is some outcome by then.

Friday is the hearing, after which the ruling must be handed down in a "reasonable period of time", which probably means within 5-10 business days.

This time line seems unreasonable to me and probably every other fantasy footballer...

Note that "within 5-10 days" is not the same as "in 5-10 days". I would think it would be in the league's best interest to get the ruling out as soon as was possible.

 

[jurb26]

Will we have any idea Friday of the ruling on the failed drug test? Does anyone know if Friday is when arguments are presented or is it a ruling?

In one of my more high dollar keeper leagues I have to decide between keeping Gordon or Ray Rice ironically as my 6th best keeper Sunday night. Hoping there is some outcome by then.

Friday is the hearing, after which the ruling must be handed down in a "reasonable period of time", which probably means within 5-10 business days.

This time line seems unreasonable to me and probably every other fantasy footballer...

Note that "within 5-10 days" is not the same as "in 5-10 days". I would think it would be in the league's best interest to get the ruling out as soon as was possible.

Goodell will likely ensure all his fantasy drafts are complete before allowing the ruling to surface.Kidding aside, this has been like water boarding to anyone who may own Gordon.

 

[GregR]

I still don't understand why suspended players are forbidden from contact with the team on any level. Throwing a guy like Gordon out and shunning him entirely is exactly the type of thing that will make it so much more difficult for him to break his current negative associations. The team is his best opportunity to establish a healthy support system. On top of the lost wages and missed games I think there is a huge punitive aspect to being on campus and watching your teammates sweat and bleed while not being able to help them. Watching them struggle knowing that you could help but are forbidden seems more character building than sending him on his merry way. If he is away from all team communication it is easier to put it out of mind.

The NFL needs an enema!

On the one hand, I agree that some form of counseling and the like from the team should be going on and allowed. And it might be, it might not be the coaches providing it, but the team might be able to assist with getting a player help, rehab, etc, I'm not sure.

On the other hand, I understand not allowing any contact with coaches and all. Because if you allow such contact, you know this man is going to abuse it somehow and turn the suspension into extra practice time.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

Seems like the odds are he gets a year with all the info coming out. That said, I feel more confident about his career than I did before when all we had were guesses and speculation on how much time he might get.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Josh Gordon practicing 'as if he expects to lose his appeal' by Larry Hartstein | CBSSports.com

[SIZE=.8em](3:18 pm ET)[/SIZE] Browns receiver Josh Gordon "has looked at times in practice as if he expects to lose his appeal of his yearlong suspension," reports ESPN.com. Gordon is not working strictly with the starters, the website said, "and he has loafed through some routes."

Gordon has a reputation for not going full speed in practice, and that's been especially true in this camp. "He has given up on routes; he has not extended himself; and he has let passes go through his hands," the website said.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Josh Gordon practicing 'as if he expects to lose his appeal' by Larry Hartstein | CBSSports.com

(3:18 pm ET) Browns receiver Josh Gordon "has looked at times in practice as if he expects to lose his appeal of his yearlong suspension," reports ESPN.com. Gordon is not working strictly with the starters, the website said, "and he has loafed through some routes."

Gordon has a reputation for not going full speed in practice, and that's been especially true in this camp. "He has given up on routes; he has not extended himself; and he has let passes go through his hands," the website said.

Is that 3 times for this now?

He's always been a half speed practice guy.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Josh Gordon practicing 'as if he expects to lose his appeal' by Larry Hartstein | CBSSports.com

[SIZE=.8em](3:18 pm ET)[/SIZE] Browns receiver Josh Gordon "has looked at times in practice as if he expects to lose his appeal of his yearlong suspension," reports ESPN.com. Gordon is not working strictly with the starters, the website said, "and he has loafed through some routes."

Gordon has a reputation for not going full speed in practice, and that's been especially true in this camp. "He has given up on routes; he has not extended himself; and he has let passes go through his hands," the website said.

I would take this analysis a lot more seriously if they hired a body language expert to corroborate it. I even bet there are a lot of currently unemployed body language experts out there now that Cam Newton is a winner.

 

[Chaka]

I think it is realistic to assume that the NFL drug policy as it relates to marijuana is going to change dramatically within the next few years. What would suck for everyone involved is for Gordon to get a year long ban and then have the policy changed and have him reinstated into a league where he would not have been suspended in the first place.

I don't know about this.

1. The players who are affected by the current marijuana testing are ~0.01% of the NFLPA. The union has much bigger fish to fry than worry about something that affects 0.01% of the players.

2. I also don't think the players really care about the weed testing because it is so easy to pass the test. The players basically know when the test is coming and refrain from weed for the month or so beforehand. Like Ryan Clark of the Steelers said, the players getting caught for weed are basically stupid. It only is an issue for the players who were stupid and failed the initial test and then get put into the program.

3. If a player was clean or knew they would pass the tests, they would want as many players to be caught by the drug tests because it gives them a better opportunity on the playing field. Why would another player be worried if someone else gets suspended? The only people who care are the 0.01%. That isn't a very big voice.

The policy is going to change sooner or later. The NFL moves with national opinions, the only reason it hasn't changed yet is because they want to use it as a bargaining chip to get HGH testing instituted.

ETA: And I think plenty of players want to get high without worrying about it at all.

 

[Chaka]

I think it is realistic to assume that the NFL drug policy as it relates to marijuana is going to change dramatically within the next few years. What would suck for everyone involved is for Gordon to get a year long ban and then have the policy changed and have him reinstated into a league where he would not have been suspended in the first place.

It would help him going forward though.

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?

If the NFL has any intention of updating the weed policy I think it looks better for the NFL to have Gordon off suspension by this off season. If that were their intention I could see a reduction from a full season suspension to 10 or 12 games. Otherwise it is difficult to see him getting off, despite the abject silliness of the policy regulating what, allegedly, grown ### men can do in their private time.

He would still have to apply for reinstatement. When a person is punished under one rule, they do not have that punishment altered when the rule changes. There are people still in prison for committing a crime that later got removed from the books and is no longer a crime, for instance.

I figured he would have to apply for reinstatement but I have to imagine under that circumstance it would be a formality.

I don't think the policy will change this off season, particularly if Gordon is suspended it would make the league look worse than it already does for policing what, allegedly, grown ### men do in their free time for recreation. Public opinion on weed is changing and the NFL will follow public opinion.

 

[Chaka]

I still don't understand why suspended players are forbidden from contact with the team on any level. Throwing a guy like Gordon out and shunning him entirely is exactly the type of thing that will make it so much more difficult for him to break his current negative associations. The team is his best opportunity to establish a healthy support system. On top of the lost wages and missed games I think there is a huge punitive aspect to being on campus and watching your teammates sweat and bleed while not being able to help them. Watching them struggle knowing that you could help but are forbidden seems more character building than sending him on his merry way. If he is away from all team communication it is easier to put it out of mind.

The NFL needs an enema!

On the one hand, I agree that some form of counseling and the like from the team should be going on and allowed. And it might be, it might not be the coaches providing it, but the team might be able to assist with getting a player help, rehab, etc, I'm not sure.

On the other hand, I understand not allowing any contact with coaches and all. Because if you allow such contact, you know this man is going to abuse it somehow and turn the suspension into extra practice time.

Who cares if he practices or works out with the team? And I doubt any suspended player would get many reps because it would take away from the guys who are actually contributing. I think it would be agonizing for a suspended player to be forced to watch his teammates struggle and fight together and not be able to contribute.

I hope that teams are allowed to guide counseling, although I do not believe that to be the case, but that is far different than providing an environment of support that would help the player in the long term. The current policy is very short sighted IMO.

Does anyone know what the league policy is on communication between suspended players and coaches, management and active players?

 

[Faust]

Gordon’s appeal is indeed all or nothing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/

 

[werdnoynek]

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/07/post_186.html

This sounds a worse than most reportings.

Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon "didn't smoke marijuana and was exposed to second-hand smoke on the day of his test," a source told Northeast Ohio Media Group on Tuesday.

But the NFL has heard the "second-hand smoke'' defense before -- and no player has ever won his appeal on those grounds.

"You are responsible for what is in your body,'' NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told cleveland.com in an email response. "That has always been a

cornerstone of our drug-testing programs.''

When players in the NFL are drug-screened, two different tests are used. Gordon measured 38 nanograms per milliliter of THC on the immunoassay test, above the NFL's threshold of 20, the source said. Most other sports organizations have a 50 cutoff or higher to avoid second-hand smoke issue, the source said.

The second test involves an "A" sample and "B'' sample. If the "A'' sample is above the NFL threshold of 15 nanograms for this particular test, the "B'' sample is tested to confirm it. The source said Gordon measured 16 nanograms on the "A'' sample, just one above the NFL's threshold. He measured 13.63 nanograms on the "B'' sample, below the NFL cutoff.

Seems like everyone just glossed over that part with regard to the immunoassay test...

 

[werdnoynek]

Gordons appeal is indeed all or nothing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/

In other words, the NFL would rather you hit a woman vs hit a blunt.

Ridiculous.

 

[cstu]

Just speculating - maybe Little wasn't lying/wrong about the missed test, but it was actually what got him put into Stage 3 where he failed the test.

 

[Faust]

Goodell can't win with Gordon ruling after failing so miserably with Rice:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24643131/goodell-cant-win-with-gordon-ruling-after-failing-so-miserably-with-rice

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Goodell can't win with Gordon ruling after failing so miserably with Rice:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24643131/goodell-cant-win-with-gordon-ruling-after-failing-so-miserably-with-rice

Man I've heard enough hypocritical moralizing about Ray Rice to last a lifetime.

Where were all these guys when the NFL was busy handing out ZERO games for battering women for the last 50 years?

 

[Chaka]

Where were all these guys when the NFL was busy handing out ZERO games for battering women for the last 50 years?

Smoking weed.

 

[werdnoynek]

Goodell can't win with Gordon ruling after failing so miserably with Rice:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24643131/goodell-cant-win-with-gordon-ruling-after-failing-so-miserably-with-rice

Man I've heard enough hypocritical moralizing about Ray Rice to last a lifetime.Where were all these guys when the NFL was busy handing out ZERO games for battering women for the last 50 years?

Hypocritical? There have been many people against domestic violence and the lack of consequence by the NFL for players partaking for quite some time. Not sure what you're so worked up about.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Goodell can't win with Gordon ruling after failing so miserably with Rice:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24643131/goodell-cant-win-with-gordon-ruling-after-failing-so-miserably-with-rice

Man I've heard enough hypocritical moralizing about Ray Rice to last a lifetime.Where were all these guys when the NFL was busy handing out ZERO games for battering women for the last 50 years?

Hypocritical? There have been many people against domestic violence and the lack of consequence by the NFL for players partaking for quite some time. Not sure what you're so worked up about.

Worked up about the NFL media that didn't give two ####s about James Harrison tearing down a door and whacking his wife or the fact that he didn't get a suspension for it (to pick just one example) suddenly finding the ladder up to their high horse.

It's naked opportunism and pandering to pile on Rice after ignoring the issue for the entire history of the NFL until now.

 

[damageinc]

So essesnially from what the league just said its either a full year ban or nothing . So no reduction. And the league said yesterday that second hand smoke is not an excuse. I cant see it play out any other way but a year ban and I would be shocked if it was not. Cant wait until Friday.

I know it has been posted , just reposting.

Josh Gordon's appeal will be "all or nothing," either resulting in no ban at all or a full-year suspension.
NFLPA spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed to PFT that when the league's disciplinary penalties were established 20 years ago, "the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations." If the hearing officer determines the violation was "established," Gordon will be "bound" to the one-year suspension. In other words, Gordon's ban could not be reduced to six, eight, or ten games. If the hearing officer finds there was a violation of the league's drug policy, Gordon's one-year ban will stand. If no violation is established, Gordon will be free to play a 16-game schedule barring a short ban related to his July DUI arrest.

No player has ever won a case against the NFL on the grounds he failed a drug test due to "second-hand smoke."
This is Josh Gordon's claim, and the NFL is pushing back. "A cornerstone of both of our drug testing programs has always been that you are responsible for what is in your body," stated NFL VP of communications Greg Aiello. "It is stated that way in the policies." Aiello also confirmed the NFL has suspended several players in the past for "not being responsible for what is in your body." Gordon remains at serious risk of a lengthy suspension

 

[Sabertooth]

I think he beats it. Lol. NFL receiving yardage leader. Somehow they invalidate the test and he skates.

 

[Sabertooth]

So essesnially from what the league just said its either a full year ban or nothing . So no reduction. And the league said yesterday that second hand smoke is not an excuse. I cant see it play out any other way but a year ban and I would be shocked if it was not. Cant wait until Friday.

I know it has been posted , just reposting.

Josh Gordon's appeal will be "all or nothing," either resulting in no ban at all or a full-year suspension.
NFLPA spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed to PFT that when the league's disciplinary penalties were established 20 years ago, "the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations." If the hearing officer determines the violation was "established," Gordon will be "bound" to the one-year suspension. In other words, Gordon's ban could not be reduced to six, eight, or ten games. If the hearing officer finds there was a violation of the league's drug policy, Gordon's one-year ban will stand. If no violation is established, Gordon will be free to play a 16-game schedule barring a short ban related to his July DUI arrest.

No player has ever won a case against the NFL on the grounds he failed a drug test due to "second-hand smoke."
This is Josh Gordon's claim, and the NFL is pushing back. "A cornerstone of both of our drug testing programs has always been that you are responsible for what is in your body," stated NFL VP of communications Greg Aiello. "It is stated that way in the policies." Aiello also confirmed the NFL has suspended several players in the past for "not being responsible for what is in your body." Gordon remains at serious risk of a lengthy suspension

How many of those players were elite players though? I can't think of even one who has been suspended for pot. Heck Sherman beat a performance enhancer just last year.

 

[werdnoynek]

Goodell can't win with Gordon ruling after failing so miserably with Rice:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24643131/goodell-cant-win-with-gordon-ruling-after-failing-so-miserably-with-rice

Man I've heard enough hypocritical moralizing about Ray Rice to last a lifetime.Where were all these guys when the NFL was busy handing out ZERO games for battering women for the last 50 years?

Hypocritical? There have been many people against domestic violence and the lack of consequence by the NFL for players partaking for quite some time. Not sure what you're so worked up about.

Worked up about the NFL media that didn't give two ####s about James Harrison tearing down a door and whacking his wife or the fact that he didn't get a suspension for it (to pick just one example) suddenly finding the ladder up to their high horse.It's naked opportunism and pandering to pile on Rice after ignoring the issue for the entire history of the NFL until now.

Eh, bans weren't as prevalent for much of anything then. Things like this are becoming a hot topic now because the bans are being tossed around like balloons after a Phish show.

 

[montana_grizzly_bears]

I haven't read all 100 pages but a majority, so I don't know if it has been brought up or not, but wouldn't the league look at Gordon's last test date and come to some conclusion that there was enough/ not enough time for him to have that low of levels based on actually smoking or just breathing second hand smoke? If there is only 2 weeks in between tests than the test result proves second-hand (maybe?)...

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Gordons appeal is indeed all or nothing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/

In other words, the NFL would rather you hit a woman vs hit a blunt. Ridiculous.

I agree, but before we get on them too bad are they even allowed to give more than two games for a first offense? What are the stages of personal conduct?

 

[NJ]

So essesnially from what the league just said its either a full year ban or nothing . So no reduction. And the league said yesterday that second hand smoke is not an excuse. I cant see it play out any other way but a year ban and I would be shocked if it was not. Cant wait until Friday.

I know it has been posted , just reposting.

Josh Gordon's appeal will be "all or nothing," either resulting in no ban at all or a full-year suspension.
NFLPA spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed to PFT that when the league's disciplinary penalties were established 20 years ago, "the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations." If the hearing officer determines the violation was "established," Gordon will be "bound" to the one-year suspension. In other words, Gordon's ban could not be reduced to six, eight, or ten games. If the hearing officer finds there was a violation of the league's drug policy, Gordon's one-year ban will stand. If no violation is established, Gordon will be free to play a 16-game schedule barring a short ban related to his July DUI arrest.

No player has ever won a case against the NFL on the grounds he failed a drug test due to "second-hand smoke."
This is Josh Gordon's claim, and the NFL is pushing back. "A cornerstone of both of our drug testing programs has always been that you are responsible for what is in your body," stated NFL VP of communications Greg Aiello. "It is stated that way in the policies." Aiello also confirmed the NFL has suspended several players in the past for "not being responsible for what is in your body." Gordon remains at serious risk of a lengthy suspension

What I don't get is that if the substance abuse penalties are set in stone to ensure all players are treated equal, then how did Gordon get his last suspension for codeine reduced from 4 to 2 games?

 

[amnesiac]

So essesnially from what the league just said its either a full year ban or nothing . So no reduction. And the league said yesterday that second hand smoke is not an excuse. I cant see it play out any other way but a year ban and I would be shocked if it was not. Cant wait until Friday.

I know it has been posted , just reposting.



Josh Gordon's appeal will be "all or nothing," either resulting in no ban at all or a full-year suspension.

NFLPA spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed to PFT that when the league's disciplinary penalties were established 20 years ago, "the union expressed the strong view that they needed to be stated and mandatory to ensure that all players be treated the same regardless of position, experience, level of ability, or competitive considerations." If the hearing officer determines the violation was "established," Gordon will be "bound" to the one-year suspension. In other words, Gordon's ban could not be reduced to six, eight, or ten games. If the hearing officer finds there was a violation of the league's drug policy, Gordon's one-year ban will stand. If no violation is established, Gordon will be free to play a 16-game schedule barring a short ban related to his July DUI arrest.





No player has ever won a case against the NFL on the grounds he failed a drug test due to "second-hand smoke."

This is Josh Gordon's claim, and the NFL is pushing back. "A cornerstone of both of our drug testing programs has always been that you are responsible for what is in your body," stated NFL VP of communications Greg Aiello. "It is stated that way in the policies." Aiello also confirmed the NFL has suspended several players in the past for "not being responsible for what is in your body." Gordon remains at serious risk of a lengthy suspension

What I don't get is that if the substance abuse penalties are set in stone to ensure all players are treated equal, then how did Gordon get his last suspension for codeine reduced from 4 to 2 games?

that is an excellent question.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I haven't read all 100 pages but a majority, so I don't know if it has been brought up or not, but wouldn't the league look at Gordon's last test date and come to some conclusion that there was enough/ not enough time for him to have that low of levels based on actually smoking or just breathing second hand smoke? If there is only 2 weeks in between tests than the test result proves second-hand (maybe?)...

If Gordon can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his positive test was due to second-hand smoke inhalation, he will be suspended for 16 games. (The penalty for second-hand smoke is the same as the penalty for first-hand smoke.)

ETA: Never mind. That may not be correct. According to Adam Shefter, "The league has maintained that it does not intend to suspend players for secondhand smoke." That contradicts other stuff I've read, but Shefter is generally a good source.

 

[Dismattle]

Edit//

Off Subject: I just finished watching another Gordon video. The discussion involved who provided the hardest welcome to the NFL (Harrison or Hali) and proceeded to cover the age old question. No, not throwing a player open, but throwing a player into a massive hit. Personally Im quite used to hearing about players running to complain to their QB.. No, Josh lets the Coach know " Coach we cant run that route; they watch film"

 

[Shutout]

I think it is realistic to assume that the NFL drug policy as it relates to marijuana is going to change dramatically within the next few years. What would suck for everyone involved is for Gordon to get a year long ban and then have the policy changed and have him reinstated into a league where he would not have been suspended in the first place.

I don't know about this.

1. The players who are affected by the current marijuana testing are ~0.01% of the NFLPA. The union has much bigger fish to fry than worry about something that affects 0.01% of the players.

2. I also don't think the players really care about the weed testing because it is so easy to pass the test. The players basically know when the test is coming and refrain from weed for the month or so beforehand. Like Ryan Clark of the Steelers said, the players getting caught for weed are basically stupid. It only is an issue for the players who were stupid and failed the initial test and then get put into the program.

3. If a player was clean or knew they would pass the tests, they would want as many players to be caught by the drug tests because it gives them a better opportunity on the playing field. Why would another player be worried if someone else gets suspended? The only people who care are the 0.01%. That isn't a very big voice.

Why change a policy that does exactly what it is supposed to? For a non smoker, its not a problem. For a guy that might smoke occasionally or in the off-season, they know its coming, its not a problem. Its only a problem for the guys that seem to have a real drug problem. They are the ones that get busted time after time and the penalties escalate. And then when we look back, we say "yeah, made sense". Travis Henry, Charles Rogers, Ricky Williams. Maybe Josh Gordon. With the previous three, we were able to look back, after all the info came out and we see clearly these guys had REAL problems and that is what the NFL is trying to stem.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Edit//

Off Subject: I just finished watching another Gordon video. The discussion involved who provided the hardest welcome to the NFL (Harrison or Hali) and proceeded to cover the age old question. No, not throwing a player open, but throwing a player into a massive hit. Personally Im quite used to hearing about players running to complain to their QB.. No, Josh lets the Coach know " Coach we cant run that route; they watch film"

His football IQ is most definitely not in question. Not to get into another Moss comparison, but I think he reads defense and coverage on a similar level.

I think he can be a perennial All-Pro. Has to get his issues worked out though. I hope they go easy in him. He needs the structure. Maybe it's selfish, but I enjoy watching him play.

 

[pghrob]

Toast:

Browns receiver Josh Gordon "has looked at times in practice as if he expects to lose his appeal of his yearlong suspension," reports ESPN.com. Gordon is not working strictly with the starters, the website said, "and he has loafed through some routes."

Gordon has a reputation for not going full speed in practice, and that's been especially true in this camp. "He has given up on routes; he has not extended himself; and he has let passes go through his hands," the website said.

Setting aside all of the issues and concerns on if he did or did not smoke, how much or not how much, who he was with etc. and whether our not he is an idiot with poor judgement, and all that type of stuff: one has to wonder how all of this suspension related activity affects his approach to playing the game. It has to weigh negatively on his attitude and bring unwanted mental baggage that brings down performance if and when he gets back to the field of play. He'll need a psychologist or some form of behavorial health support to maintain positivity.

 

[False Start]

So does anyone know if we will have a ruling Friday or is it just the date to hear arguments presented by Gordon's defense team?

Question is, does anyone think he will win the appeal with his desperate arguments?

Second hand smoke? Why are you around it or that close to it if you have a shot at suspension and so much money to be made. Testing irregularities? There were no irregularities, just results Gordon didn't like. He failed, he just looks desperate, makes me hope he gets an indefinite suspension even more now for arguing this.

Second hand smoke, he is really using that as a defense?

 

[werdnoynek]

So does anyone know if we will have a ruling Friday or is it just the date to hear arguments presented by Gordon's defense team?

Question is, does anyone think he will win the appeal with his desperate arguments?

Second hand smoke? Why are you around it or that close to it if you have a shot at suspension and so much money to be made. Testing irregularities? There were no irregularities, just results Gordon didn't like. He failed, he just looks desperate, makes me hope he gets an indefinite suspension even more now for arguing this.

Second hand smoke, he is really using that as a defense?

Josh Gordon's advisors feel his 'second-hand smoke' case is stronger than the others' who tried it and lost.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Josh Gordon's legal advisors feel their "second-hand smoke'' argument is stronger than other NFL players who have lost their appeals on that basis, a source told cleveland.com.

That's because as far as they can tell, Gordon is the only player citing second-hand smoke who had a confirmation test below the NFL's threshold of 15 nanograms per milliliter of the banned substance in marijuana.

NFL records on such matters are sealed, but the source said there's no evidence that any of the other players had a "B'' test -- the one used to confirm the positive "A'' sample -- below the threshold.

Gordon's team might have a much stronger case than anyone else who's blamed second-hand smoke, but it's still a longshot to get Gordon off the hook from his indefinite ban on Friday during his appeal hearing in New York, a league source with firsthand knowledge of such matters told cleveland.com.

If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has appointed Harold Henderson to hear the case, "you would have a better chance of convincing your teacher your dog ate your homework,'' the source said.

There is recent precedence for a player getting shot down on the "second-hand smoke'' defense.

Former Giants and current Ravens defensive back Will Hill lost his appeal of a six-game suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy on May 30 after blaming his positive test on second-hand smoke. The results of Hill's test were not make public.

"He felt like he had a great chance of beating it because of the circumstances," former Giants teammate and friend Deon Grant told told Jordan Ranaan of NJ.com. "He said, 'I'll be honest with you. If it was something that I did, I would tell you I messed up. But I didn't. It was an incident in a club where people were [smoking marijuana] and it got in my system.

"It's not like how my urine was a certain kind of way before when I did do it. It's the total opposite right now. They found something in my urine, but it's not the same thing they found when I did make that mistake.''

The Giants immediately cut Hill, who had also been suspended for violating the league's performance-enhancing substance policy, and he was signed by the Ravens last week. (Hill's suspension under the substance-abuse policy was six games because it was his second positive test in the substance abuse program).

But Gordon's legal team is confident that Gordon's case is different than the other players who tried second-hand smoke and lost, despite the fact no one is believed to have won an appeal on that basis.

A source close to Gordon told cleveland.com that "Josh Gordon didn't smoke marijuana and was exposed to second-hand smoke on the day of his test'' and has tested negative 70 times since he's been in the NFL.

The arbitrator is chosen by Goodell, and the NFLPA does not have a say in the matter.

Gordon has hired high-powered attorney Maurice Suh, who helped Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman win his appeal of his four-game suspension for performance-enhancing drugs. Sherman won on the grounds that the collection cup was leaky and subsequent efforts to collect the urine sample were faulty.

Suh and NFLPA attorney Heather McPhee will argue Friday that Gordon "did not smoke marijuana and that he was exposed to second-hand smoke on the day of his test," a source told cleveland.com. The source said the attorneys will also call into question the "inconsistent results'' of Gordon's positive test.

Gordon's sample ''A'' measured 16 nanograms per milliliter, a mere one nanogram above the NFL's threshold of 15 ng/ml. Sample B, the control sample, measured 13.63 ng/ml, below the threshold but still enough to make "A'' valid. In addition to the "second-hand smoke'' defense, the lawyers will state that the discrepancy between the two tests -- despite the fact they're from the same urine specimen -- deems the results invalid.

The arbitrator can reduce Gordon's indefinite ban if he so chooses. If Gordon loses the appeal, he'll have to wait a year to apply for reinstatement and won't be permitted around the team.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

So does anyone know if we will have a ruling Friday or is it just the date to hear arguments presented by Gordon's defense team?

Question is, does anyone think he will win the appeal with his desperate arguments?

Second hand smoke? Why are you around it or that close to it if you have a shot at suspension and so much money to be made. Testing irregularities? There were no irregularities, just results Gordon didn't like. He failed, he just looks desperate, makes me hope he gets an indefinite suspension even more now for arguing this.

Second hand smoke, he is really using that as a defense?

No. The main defense is two differing values from the same sample. Enough of a difference for one to be positive by 1 billionth of a gram, and the other to be negative by more than that. On a test that is very specific, I think that is a significant difference. Enough to where they at least have a strong argument for no suspension (similar to Sherman's victory for the "unsealed cup"). They are also RUMORED to be bringing in experts that prove a level of 16 to be consistent with second hand exposure (as an adjunct argument against suspension). This attorney is supposedly the Johnny Cochran for NFL players. The NFLPA also has a strong rep on the team. I think his chances are 50/50, which is better than we thought initially.

I also think the appointed league rep will hear the case, then present it to Goodell, and it may be the following Friday before we have a decision.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Edit//

Off Subject: I just finished watching another Gordon video. The discussion involved who provided the hardest welcome to the NFL (Harrison or Hali) and proceeded to cover the age old question. No, not throwing a player open, but throwing a player into a massive hit. Personally Im quite used to hearing about players running to complain to their QB.. No, Josh lets the Coach know " Coach we cant run that route; they watch film"

There are QB's that do this and there are WRs that do this by running bad routes. There was a good bit on the NFLN last night where Julius Thomas talked about how Peyton Manning taught him how to run a seam route. First game last year JT did his own thing and got creamed. PM asked him, "You think you're ready to run that seam now?" - Gordon's ability to run a great route and find open space is one of his great abilities.

 

[werdnoynek]

‏@AdamSchefter

Updating earlier post: Roger Goodell will be in Canton, Ohio on Fri. and now will meet with Browns WR Josh Gordon at sometime in next week.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Gordons appeal is indeed all or nothing:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/gordons-appeal-is-indeed-all-or-nothing/

In other words, the NFL would rather you hit a woman vs hit a blunt. Ridiculous.

What rice did was terrible but it was the only time we know of that he's done anything wrong, and the woman even defended him plus married him. Rice has been a model citizen besides that.

Gordon has pooped on rules his whole life, this is just karma.

 

[pghrob]

I may have overlooked it in prior posts, but passing 70 other urine tests, some of which had to be randomly taken without benefit of much if any advanced notice has to count for some benefit of the doubt as to veracity of claims he broke the rules, right? Or at the very least give someone with the authority, an opportunity to weigh all the facts and apply a level of discipline that is not based solely on an approach that's akin to zero tolerance to the letter of the CBA law.