WR Josh Gordon, KC (9 Viewers)

[Soulfly3]

Bowe: got arrested + admitted to smoking pot = zero suspension

A few things:

- The officer said he admitted smoking pot, but he was not convicted of it

- Bowe never failed a league test after his arrest.

- Can't suspend a guy who neither tested positive for a drug nor was convicted of anything drug related.

but we can use it to further suspend Gordon who also was never charged, convicted or in possession of it?

--- do you at least see where Im coming from? Absolutely dumb on his part, but if he got a speeding ticket ONLY.....

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Bayhawks,

I see your example, and it's definitely feasible.

But where then, so we draw the line? For example, what if Gordon was at a small party and someone at that party gets busted for coke/wwed/whatever. Should gordon be reprimanded for that?

Yes, I understand the scenarios are quite different, but Im asking where the LINE GETS DRAWN. Seriously, too.

Sometimes you try waaaayyyy too hard. Let's just draw the line at some guy he allowed into his car that had marijuana on him.

 

[Soulfly3]

Bayhawks,

I see your example, and it's definitely feasible.

But where then, so we draw the line? For example, what if Gordon was at a small party and someone at that party gets busted for coke/wwed/whatever. Should gordon be reprimanded for that?

Yes, I understand the scenarios are quite different, but Im asking where the LINE GETS DRAWN. Seriously, too.

Sometimes you try waaaayyyy too hard. Let's just draw the line at some guy he allowed into his car that had marijuana on him.

But, Im not trying anything.

I'm asking a legitimate question. At what point do you consider someone NOT responsible for others' actions?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Bayhawks,

I see your example, and it's definitely feasible.

But where then, so we draw the line? For example, what if Gordon was at a small party and someone at that party gets busted for coke/wwed/whatever. Should gordon be reprimanded for that?

Yes, I understand the scenarios are quite different, but Im asking where the LINE GETS DRAWN. Seriously, too.

Sometimes you try waaaayyyy too hard. Let's just draw the line at some guy he allowed into his car that had marijuana on him.

But, Im not trying anything.

I'm asking a legitimate question. At what point do you consider someone NOT responsible for others' actions?

We don't need to draw that line.

 

[Soulfly3]

Bayhawks,

I see your example, and it's definitely feasible.

But where then, so we draw the line? For example, what if Gordon was at a small party and someone at that party gets busted for coke/wwed/whatever. Should gordon be reprimanded for that?

Yes, I understand the scenarios are quite different, but Im asking where the LINE GETS DRAWN. Seriously, too.

Sometimes you try waaaayyyy too hard. Let's just draw the line at some guy he allowed into his car that had marijuana on him.

But, Im not trying anything.

I'm asking a legitimate question. At what point do you consider someone NOT responsible for others' actions?

We don't need to draw that line.

Yes, we definitely do, if that action has an impact on his suspension.

How would we not need to draw that line?

 

[cstu]

Bowe: got arrested + admitted to smoking pot = zero suspension

A few things:

- The officer said he admitted smoking pot, but he was not convicted of it

- Bowe never failed a league test after his arrest.

- Can't suspend a guy who neither tested positive for a drug nor was convicted of anything drug related.

but we can use it to further suspend Gordon who also was never charged, convicted or in possession of it?

--- do you at least see where Im coming from? Absolutely dumb on his part, but if he got a speeding ticket ONLY.....

Yes, I do and you have a point. Legally they can't suspend him based on having weed in his car since he wasn't charged with possession but they absolutely can use it as part of their judgement in how to decide his appeal.

 

[Soulfly3]

cstu,

so with that in mind... How could the league play this out...

Let's say for arguments sake they WERE going to give him 6 games - then this news comes out. Since he cannot be suspended for merely a speeding ticket, could they instead add 2 games (an arbitrary number) under their professional conduct policy, for being in his vehicle w someone carrying a banned substance?

What Im trying to say is, can they combine suspensions from two separate policies into one? Or is there something that prohibits that?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Bayhawks,

I see your example, and it's definitely feasible.

But where then, so we draw the line? For example, what if Gordon was at a small party and someone at that party gets busted for coke/wwed/whatever. Should gordon be reprimanded for that?

Yes, I understand the scenarios are quite different, but Im asking where the LINE GETS DRAWN. Seriously, too.

Sometimes you try waaaayyyy too hard. Let's just draw the line at some guy he allowed into his car that had marijuana on him.

But, Im not trying anything.

I'm asking a legitimate question. At what point do you consider someone NOT responsible for others' actions?

We don't need to draw that line.

Yes, we definitely do, if that action has an impact on his suspension.

How would we not need to draw that line?

Because what actually happened will be considered not some hypothetical situation where Gordon was at a party and some one was cutting lines in the bathroom.

What we know was that Gordon who is (allegedy) facing a suspencion for failing a drug test, allowed a passenger carrying marijuana on him into his car. One would think that Gordon would be looking to remove himself from exposure to marijuana, not inviting it into his automobile. It's possible that it will have no affect whatsoever on his suspension or reinstatement (should he be suspended indefinitely), but not only does it show he hasn't learned a damn thing, unless you're foolish enough to think he didn'y know the guy was carrying but it speaks volumes to his ability to not get himself in trouble again down the road with marijuana.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Bowe: got arrested + admitted to smoking pot = zero suspension

A few things:

- The officer said he admitted smoking pot, but he was not convicted of it

- Bowe never failed a league test after his arrest.

- Can't suspend a guy who neither tested positive for a drug nor was convicted of anything drug related.

but we can use it to further suspend Gordon who also was never charged, convicted or in possession of it?

--- do you at least see where Im coming from? Absolutely dumb on his part, but if he got a speeding ticket ONLY.....

Yes, I do and you have a point. Legally they can't suspend him based on having weed in his car since he wasn't charged with possession but they absolutely can use it as part of their judgement in how to decide his appeal.

Pretty sure the league can do pretty much whatever it wants, though. Roethlisberger got suspended despite never being charged with anything.

In a logical world, the speeding / weed actually did "tarnish the shield" since it hit the headlines independently. Gordon smoking weed in his own home tarnishes nothing, until it gets made public by becoming news when he fails a test under the same program supposedly designed to protect the NFL's image. Just so backwards...

 

[Coeur de Lion]

League has FAR more discretion on "personal conduct" vs "substance abuse."

 

[Soulfly3]

League has FAR more discretion on "personal conduct" vs "substance abuse."

yes, but can they combine the two to make a single suspension?

or did the nflpa make it so that a player can only serve a single offense at a time?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

League has FAR more discretion on "personal conduct" vs "substance abuse."

yes, but can they combine the two to make a single suspension?

or did the nflpa make it so that a player can only serve a single offense at a time?

I don't think so. I think if anything this latest "transgression" would have more bearing on his potential reinstatement should he reciever the "at least one year" suspension.

It would also tell me, that he'll have a difficult (but not impossible) task of passing his random drug tests while suspended.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

League has FAR more discretion on "personal conduct" vs "substance abuse."

yes, but can they combine the two to make a single suspension?

or did the nflpa make it so that a player can only serve a single offense at a time?

Zero clue, and I don't recall it ever coming up before. Logically, the league should want Gordon on the field selling tickets, jerseys, etc. If it were just a personal conduct issue, I think it would be a few games and move on no big deal. But the substance abuse issue is intertwined with the labor relations between the league and the NFLPA which makes it much bigger than any one player.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Bowe: got arrested + admitted to smoking pot = zero suspension

A few things:

- The officer said he admitted smoking pot, but he was not convicted of it

- Bowe never failed a league test after his arrest.

- Can't suspend a guy who neither tested positive for a drug nor was convicted of anything drug related.

but we can use it to further suspend Gordon who also was never charged, convicted or in possession of it?

--- do you at least see where Im coming from? Absolutely dumb on his part, but if he got a speeding ticket ONLY.....

Yes, I do and you have a point. Legally they can't suspend him based on having weed in his car since he wasn't charged with possession but they absolutely can use it as part of their judgement in how to decide his appeal.

Pretty sure the league can do pretty much whatever it wants, though. Roethlisberger got suspended despite never being charged with anything.

In a logical world, the speeding / weed actually did "tarnish the shield" since it hit the headlines independently. Gordon smoking weed in his own home tarnishes nothing, until it gets made public by becoming news when he fails a test under the same program supposedly designed to protect the NFL's image. Just so backwards...

I think this hits more on the point. This isn't a court of law where strict previous cases and precedent are followed. It's the thing that the NFLPA hates so much but the reality is that Roger Goodell is judge, jury and executioner. He makes the rules. Now he faces uproar if he wants to do something crazy. But this boils down to him doing what he thinks needs to be done to protect the shield. He's got quite a bit of leeway.

Which really comes back to us trying to determine what's going to happen being speculation. Hopefully we'll know soon.

J

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I hate to say it but Soulfly may be on to something...If I read it right Will Hill got 6 games after his third offense since coming into the NFL.

 

[Golfjim]

I have a couple of questions that I have not read on this, or any other, thread.

Has the state, where this situation occured, legalized pot?

Did the individual, who claimed ownership of the pot, have a legal right to have it?

If the state did and the owner did, then I'm not sure that the NFL has ANY rights to suspend Gordon (at least for the pot portion).

 

[Soulfly3]

I have a couple of questions that I have not read on this, or any other, thread.

Has the state, where this situation occured, legalized pot?

Did the individual, who claimed ownership of the pot, have a legal right to have it?

If the state did and the owner did, then I'm not sure that the NFL has ANY rights to suspend Gordon (at least for the pot portion).

no, it's not legal.

and it's prohibited (wrongly) by the league regardless.

 

[massraider]

Read something interesting today:

Harvard and N'Western scientists studied pot smokers' brains, and the results don't look good.

The news: Every day, the push toward national legalization of marijuana seems more and more inevitable. As more and more politicians and noted individuals come out in favor of legalizing or at least decriminalizing different amounts of pot, the mainstream acceptance of the recreational use of the drug seems like a bygone conclusion. But before we can talk about legalization, have we fully understood the health effects of marijuana?

According to a new study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, researchers from Harvard and Northwestern studied the brains of 18- to 25-year-olds, half of whom smoked pot recreationally and half of whom didn't. What they found was rather shocking: Even those who only smoked few times a week had significant brain abnormalities in the areas that control emotion and motivation.

"There is this general perspective out there that using marijuana recreationally is not a problem — that it is a safe drug," said Anne Blood, a co-author of the study. "We are seeing that this is not the case."

The science: Similar studies have found a correlation between heavy pot use and brain abnormalities, but this is the first study that has found the same link with recreational users. The 20 people in the "marijuana group" of the study smoked four times a week on average; seven only smoked once a week. Those in the control group did not smoke at all.

"We looked specifically at people who have no adverse impacts from marijuana — no problems with work, school, the law, relationships, no addiction issues," said Hans Breiter, another co-author of the study.

Using three different neuroimaging techniques, researchers then looked at the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala of the participants. These areas are responsible for gauging the benefit or loss of doing certain things, and providing feelings of reward for pleasurable activities such as food, sex and social interactions.

"This is a part of the brain that you absolutely never ever want to touch," said Breiter. "I don't want to say that these are magical parts of the brain — they are all important. But these are fundamental in terms of what people find pleasurable in the world and assessing that against the bad things."

Shockingly, every single person in the marijuana group, including those who only smoked once a week, had noticeable abnormalities, with the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala showing changes in density, volume and shape. Those who smoked more had more significant variations.

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

I am, pro-marijuana, for the record. Love it, good for about twice a week myself. Think it should be completely legal, don't think there should be any legal ramifications, think it should be more legal than cigarettes. For NFL players, actors, students, moms, dads, young black people from bad neighborhoods. Anyone.

But when a bunch of Harvard and Northwestern scientists say something in the Journal of Neuroscience (probably some right-wing hack rag, amirite??), that I don't find particularly shocking, like pot might affect the parts of the brain that influence emotion and motivation, I am willing to listen.

I think when you are a privately owned club, and are giving a life-changing amount of money to a young man, setting some parameters to protect your investment seems fair. Maybe not running with the Bulls in Pamplona. Maybe not allowing fast food. Maybe no rice rocket motorcycles. No playing Australian Rules rugby in the offseason. And maybe not smoking a product that could negatively affect your motivation and emotion.

The 'findings' above, are not conclusive, I know. The scientists said it was a small sample size. Does anyone that has been around pot a lot think those findings won't hold up to a larger sample size? Of course they will!!

Yeah, i think pot should be legal. Do I think the NFL has no right to ask someone to forego MJ, as they pay him 8 figures? No, I sure don't.

If you have a player that eats too much, he gets a weight clause. Some idiot QB almost kills himself on a Ducati? Written out of next contract. Some young dumba## WR can't lay off weed or booze? Same thing.

 

[False Start]

Read something interesting today:

Harvard and N'Western scientists studied pot smokers' brains, and the results don't look good.

The news: Every day, the push toward national legalization of marijuana seems more and more inevitable. As more and more politicians and noted individuals come out in favor of legalizing or at least decriminalizing different amounts of pot, the mainstream acceptance of the recreational use of the drug seems like a bygone conclusion. But before we can talk about legalization, have we fully understood the health effects of marijuana?

According to a new study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, researchers from Harvard and Northwestern studied the brains of 18- to 25-year-olds, half of whom smoked pot recreationally and half of whom didn't. What they found was rather shocking: Even those who only smoked few times a week had significant brain abnormalities in the areas that control emotion and motivation.

"There is this general perspective out there that using marijuana recreationally is not a problem — that it is a safe drug," said Anne Blood, a co-author of the study. "We are seeing that this is not the case."

The science: Similar studies have found a correlation between heavy pot use and brain abnormalities, but this is the first study that has found the same link with recreational users. The 20 people in the "marijuana group" of the study smoked four times a week on average; seven only smoked once a week. Those in the control group did not smoke at all.

"We looked specifically at people who have no adverse impacts from marijuana — no problems with work, school, the law, relationships, no addiction issues," said Hans Breiter, another co-author of the study.

Using three different neuroimaging techniques, researchers then looked at the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala of the participants. These areas are responsible for gauging the benefit or loss of doing certain things, and providing feelings of reward for pleasurable activities such as food, sex and social interactions.

"This is a part of the brain that you absolutely never ever want to touch," said Breiter. "I don't want to say that these are magical parts of the brain — they are all important. But these are fundamental in terms of what people find pleasurable in the world and assessing that against the bad things."

Shockingly, every single person in the marijuana group, including those who only smoked once a week, had noticeable abnormalities, with the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala showing changes in density, volume and shape. Those who smoked more had more significant variations.

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

I am, pro-marijuana, for the record. Love it, good for about twice a week myself. Think it should be completely legal, don't think there should be any legal ramifications, think it should be more legal than cigarettes. For NFL players, actors, students, moms, dads, young black people from bad neighborhoods. Anyone.

But when a bunch of Harvard and Northwestern scientists say something in the Journal of Neuroscience (probably some right-wing hack rag, amirite??), that I don't find particularly shocking, like pot might affect the parts of the brain that influence emotion and motivation, I am willing to listen.

I think when you are a privately owned club, and are giving a life-changing amount of money to a young man, setting some parameters to protect your investment seems fair. Maybe not running with the Bulls in Pamplona. Maybe not allowing fast food. Maybe no rice rocket motorcycles. No playing Australian Rules rugby in the offseason. And maybe not smoking a product that could negatively affect your motivation and emotion.

The 'findings' above, are not conclusive, I know. The scientists said it was a small sample size. Does anyone that has been around pot a lot think those findings won't hold up to a larger sample size? Of course they will!!

Yeah, i think pot should be legal. Do I think the NFL has no right to ask someone to forego MJ, as they pay him 8 figures? No, I sure don't.

If you have a player that eats too much, he gets a weight clause. Some idiot QB almost kills himself on a Ducati? Written out of next contract. Some young dumba## WR can't lay off weed or booze? Same thing.

 

[Dragon1952]

I have a couple of questions that I have not read on this, or any other, thread.

Has the state, where this situation occured, legalized pot?

Did the individual, who claimed ownership of the pot, have a legal right to have it?

If the state did and the owner did, then I'm not sure that the NFL has ANY rights to suspend Gordon (at least for the pot portion).

no, it's not legal.

and it's prohibited (wrongly) by the league regardless.

Lot's of things aren't "legal".....In Ohio possession of less than 200 grams of weed is one step above a 'minor misdemeanor' (misdemeanor 4th degree) which is about as minor as you can get. About the same potential penalty for a 2nd offense of jaywalking.

 

[cstu]

I hate to say it but Soulfly may be on to something...If I read it right Will Hill got 6 games after his third offense since coming into the NFL.

It's possible that he was given a 6 game suspension that he's appealing. However, getting caught with weed during his appeal could result in longer suspension, like the NFL did by increasing Von Miller's suspension from 4 to 6 games after they discovered during the appeal that he attempted to use someone else's urine.

 

[maf005]

Read something interesting today:

Harvard and N'Western scientists studied pot smokers' brains, and the results don't look good.

The news: Every day, the push toward national legalization of marijuana seems more and more inevitable. As more and more politicians and noted individuals come out in favor of legalizing or at least decriminalizing different amounts of pot, the mainstream acceptance of the recreational use of the drug seems like a bygone conclusion. But before we can talk about legalization, have we fully understood the health effects of marijuana?

According to a new study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, researchers from Harvard and Northwestern studied the brains of 18- to 25-year-olds, half of whom smoked pot recreationally and half of whom didn't. What they found was rather shocking: Even those who only smoked few times a week had significant brain abnormalities in the areas that control emotion and motivation.

"There is this general perspective out there that using marijuana recreationally is not a problem — that it is a safe drug," said Anne Blood, a co-author of the study. "We are seeing that this is not the case."

The science: Similar studies have found a correlation between heavy pot use and brain abnormalities, but this is the first study that has found the same link with recreational users. The 20 people in the "marijuana group" of the study smoked four times a week on average; seven only smoked once a week. Those in the control group did not smoke at all.

"We looked specifically at people who have no adverse impacts from marijuana — no problems with work, school, the law, relationships, no addiction issues," said Hans Breiter, another co-author of the study.

Using three different neuroimaging techniques, researchers then looked at the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala of the participants. These areas are responsible for gauging the benefit or loss of doing certain things, and providing feelings of reward for pleasurable activities such as food, sex and social interactions.

"This is a part of the brain that you absolutely never ever want to touch," said Breiter. "I don't want to say that these are magical parts of the brain — they are all important. But these are fundamental in terms of what people find pleasurable in the world and assessing that against the bad things."

Shockingly, every single person in the marijuana group, including those who only smoked once a week, had noticeable abnormalities, with the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala showing changes in density, volume and shape. Those who smoked more had more significant variations.

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

I am, pro-marijuana, for the record. Love it, good for about twice a week myself. Think it should be completely legal, don't think there should be any legal ramifications, think it should be more legal than cigarettes. For NFL players, actors, students, moms, dads, young black people from bad neighborhoods. Anyone.

But when a bunch of Harvard and Northwestern scientists say something in the Journal of Neuroscience (probably some right-wing hack rag, amirite??), that I don't find particularly shocking, like pot might affect the parts of the brain that influence emotion and motivation, I am willing to listen.

I think when you are a privately owned club, and are giving a life-changing amount of money to a young man, setting some parameters to protect your investment seems fair. Maybe not running with the Bulls in Pamplona. Maybe not allowing fast food. Maybe no rice rocket motorcycles. No playing Australian Rules rugby in the offseason. And maybe not smoking a product that could negatively affect your motivation and emotion.

The 'findings' above, are not conclusive, I know. The scientists said it was a small sample size. Does anyone that has been around pot a lot think those findings won't hold up to a larger sample size? Of course they will!!

Yeah, i think pot should be legal. Do I think the NFL has no right to ask someone to forego MJ, as they pay him 8 figures? No, I sure don't.

If you have a player that eats too much, he gets a weight clause. Some idiot QB almost kills himself on a Ducati? Written out of next contract. Some young dumba## WR can't lay off weed or booze? Same thing.

Am I the only one who can't determine if this guy is for or against the NFL banning pot?

 

[massraider]

I've got no problem with NFL players smoking weed. I also have no problem with the NFL not wanting their players to smoke.

 

[Dragon1952]

"

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

Well if they haven't done the 2nd part of the study yet I guess they are assuming that any brain alteration is bad. Funny if it turns out to be a beneficial alteration....ha ha.

 

[maf005]

I've got no problem with NFL players smoking weed. I also have no problem with the NFL not wanting their players to smoke.

This is the correct way to think about this issue.

 

[placebo]

Yep, the Browns are going to be much better off without that worthless pot smoker this season! And the NFL's new cash cow golden boy will surely look just as great throwing to Andrew Hawkins and Nate Burleson! There are no winners in this.

 

[cstu]

"This is just a structural study. The next logical step is to figure out how these structural changes relate to behavior and functional outcomes such a memory or reward or motivation," Dr. Gilman said.

The study doesn't prove anything but I think most of us have known a pot smoker who lacked motivation and didn't put much value on rewards.

 

[Bayhawks]

Bayhawks,

I see your example, and it's definitely feasible.

But where then do we draw the line? For example, what if Gordon was at a small party and someone at that party gets busted for coke/weed/whatever. Should gordon be reprimanded for that?

Yes, I understand the scenarios are quite different, but Im asking where the LINE GETS DRAWN. Seriously, too.

I don't know where Goodell will draw the line; I'm not saying I agree/disagree with the NFL's stance on weed. However, the fact is that Gordon is appealing a suspension that is, reportedly, for weed, and while he's appealing a suspension (i.e.-asking for leniency), he gets caught by police with a friend/associate/passenger in his car, with weed. I would think that that would hurt his chances for a successful appeal.

 

[Dragon1952]

"This is just a structural study. The next logical step is to figure out how these structural changes relate to behavior and functional outcomes such a memory or reward or motivation," Dr. Gilman said.

The study doesn't prove anything but I think most of us have known a pot smoker who lacked motivation and didn't put much value on rewards.

I knew a couple people who liked corn nuts that lacked motivation and didn't put much value on rewards too. I've always suspected that they should study those dastardly little snacks.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

I have not gone through this whole thread, but the only fact that matters is that he continues to make the league (ie; Rodger) look bad under the current construction of the rules. That's all that matters in terms of how long he'll get suspended for. The cop can smell weed from outside the car, but Gordon's defense is that it was a friends and that he didn't know the guy had it in him. That was what I used to try and pull in high school. I don't think Rodger will like him taking his punishment so lightly.

 

[Peak]

I hate to say it but Soulfly may be on to something...If I read it right Will Hill got 6 games after his third offense since coming into the NFL.

It's possible that he was given a 6 game suspension that he's appealing. However, getting caught with weed during his appeal could result in longer suspension, like the NFL did by increasing Von Miller's suspension from 4 to 6 games after they discovered during the appeal that he attempted to use someone else's urine.

Not sure if this is the same thing. Von Miller was attempted to circumvent the drug policy by blatantly using someone else's urine. Gordon was in a car where the passenger was arrested on drug charges. Gordon didn't "attempt" to cover up or circumvent the policy. Based on the law, he is in the clear for pot possession.

Based on what you mentioned above, I wouldn't see how the NFL would justify adding more games to his suspension because his friends have bad judgement?

 

[massraider]

I hate to say it but Soulfly may be on to something...If I read it right Will Hill got 6 games after his third offense since coming into the NFL.

It's possible that he was given a 6 game suspension that he's appealing. However, getting caught with weed during his appeal could result in longer suspension, like the NFL did by increasing Von Miller's suspension from 4 to 6 games after they discovered during the appeal that he attempted to use someone else's urine.

Not sure if this is the same thing. Von Miller was attempted to circumvent the drug policy by blatantly using someone else's urine. Gordon was in a car where the passenger was arrested on drug charges. Gordon didn't "attempt" to cover up or circumvent the policy. Based on the law, he is in the clear for pot possession.

Based on what you mentioned above, I wouldn't see how the NFL would justify adding more games to his suspension because his friends have bad judgement?

I don't think adding games is likely, but in the midst of an appeal, there's a good chance it could influence the NFL's decision.

 

[daveR]

Aren't suspensions normally announced, THEN appealed? Why no announcement?

 

[massraider]

Aren't suspensions normally announced, THEN appealed? Why no announcement?

No. Announced after the appeal. Gordon's news leaked draft day, which is unusual.

 

[cc texan]

"

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

Well if they haven't done the 2nd part of the study yet I guess they are assuming that any brain alteration is bad. Funny if it turns out to be a beneficial alteration....ha ha.

Let me preface this by saying that I think pot should be legal, but also that a private organization can make whatever rules they want -so long as you agree to the contract.

I've seen this same sentiment before in comments to the original article in multiple sites. Since I've actually been educated in this topic, I have to throw some cold water on this interpretation: Your body has evolved very specifically, under a wide variety of selective pressures, ranging from violent death to starvation. The critical organs of your body are architectured in a manner which is optimized for our success as individuals within a population. Abnormalities in these structures is bad. Thinking otherwise is like thinking if I take one of your 18" tires off your car and replace it with a 12" donut, that it might somehow be a beneficial change.

Again, I'm all for people consuming whatever they please, but we shouldn't pretend like mind-altering chemicals won't have adverse effects on our physiology.

 

[Dragon1952]

"

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

Well if they haven't done the 2nd part of the study yet I guess they are assuming that any brain alteration is bad. Funny if it turns out to be a beneficial alteration....ha ha.

Let me preface this by saying that I think pot should be legal, but also that a private organization can make whatever rules they want -so long as you agree to the contract.

I've seen this same sentiment before in comments to the original article in multiple sites. Since I've actually been educated in this topic, I have to throw some cold water on this interpretation: Your body has evolved very specifically, under a wide variety of selective pressures, ranging from violent death to starvation. The critical organs of your body are architectured in a manner which is optimized for our success as individuals within a population. Abnormalities in these structures is bad. Thinking otherwise is like thinking if I take one of your 18" tires off your car and replace it with a 12" donut, that it might somehow be a beneficial change.

Again, I'm all for people consuming whatever they please, but we shouldn't pretend like mind-altering chemicals won't have adverse effects on our physiology.

OK.....so it was a long shot

 

[DaveGrumbles]

"

What will happen next? The study's co-authors admit that their sample size was small. Their plan now is to conduct a bigger study that not only looks at the brain abnormalities, but also relates them to functional outcomes. That would be a major and important step in this science because, as of now, the research indicates that marijuana use may cause alterations to the brain, but it's unclear what that might actually mean for users and their brains.

But for now, they are standing behind their findings.

"People think a little marijuana shouldn't cause a problem if someone is doing OK with work or school," said Breiter. "Our data directly says this is not so."

Well if they haven't done the 2nd part of the study yet I guess they are assuming that any brain alteration is bad. Funny if it turns out to be a beneficial alteration....ha ha.

Let me preface this by saying that I think pot should be legal, but also that a private organization can make whatever rules they want -so long as you agree to the contract.

I've seen this same sentiment before in comments to the original article in multiple sites. Since I've actually been educated in this topic, I have to throw some cold water on this interpretation: Your body has evolved very specifically, under a wide variety of selective pressures, ranging from violent death to starvation. The critical organs of your body are architectured in a manner which is optimized for our success as individuals within a population. Abnormalities in these structures is bad. Thinking otherwise is like thinking if I take one of your 18" tires off your car and replace it with a 12" donut, that it might somehow be a beneficial change.

Again, I'm all for people consuming whatever they please, but we shouldn't pretend like mind-altering chemicals won't have adverse effects on our physiology.

You could say the same about most things we ingest every day, especially as it relates to the myriad artificial/genetically engineered food products. It's disingenuous for the NFL to simply say that they are creating a rule for the 'safety' or 'benefit' of an individual who they are very happy to put in physical danger every Sunday for the sake of the almighty dollar.

I've said this earlier in the thread and I'll say it again in a different way. The same argument that many make against laws prohibiting marijuana can be made against the NFL. Is the rule preventing bad guys from doing harm… or is it creating a bad guy where one does not exist? In the case of Josh Gordon, you take an ordinarily productive, (by all accounts) team player, hard worker and create an unproductive, detriment to his team...and to what end? To show us the NFL is against weed? Who cares?

MLB, NHL and NBA aren't hunting down marijuana users so why is the NFL taking such a hardline stand. What is the motivation here?

If athletes are letting their personal habits interfere with their ability to perform then it will eventually catch up to their career and their wallet. If they are committing crimes, thereby soiling the name of the league then, by all means, cut ties. But, why pull some kind of McCarthy-esque action of stalking players down in the offseason (up to 10 times a month?) to play moral police?

Again...what is the end game here for the NFL? Am I a bigger football fan because they catch these horrible weed-smokers?

 

[ghostguy123]

A few years from now we will all be sitting around saying how silly it was for pot to ever be illegal, and that the NFL wasn't encouraging their players to use it instead of traditional pain killers.

Sooooooooooooo much better for your body that any regular pain killers. Wow.

 

[Franknbeans]

Two things...

Are the changes to the brain permanent or do they recover when you stop smoking?

This will look especially bad if they crack down on Gordon and eventually rescind the league-wide marijuana policy.

 

[lod001]

Two things...

Are the changes to the brain permanent or do they recover when you stop smoking?

This will look especially bad if they crack down on Gordon and eventually rescind the league-wide marijuana policy.

There are no changes to the brain.

 

[massraider]

Two things...

Are the changes to the brain permanent or do they recover when you stop smoking?

This will look especially bad if they crack down on Gordon and eventually rescind the league-wide marijuana policy.

There are no changes to the brain.

LOL, you sure about that?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

because his friends have bad judgement?

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Two things...

Are the changes to the brain permanent or do they recover when you stop smoking?

This will look especially bad if they crack down on Gordon and eventually rescind the league-wide marijuana policy.

There are no changes to the brain.

You could be right, but i think this might be one of those situations where anecdotal evidence outweighs any research to date.

 

[Soulfly3]

From today's OTA: (Will add quotes as more come in)

Scott Petrak ct ‏ @ ScottPetrak 26s
No surprise, but WR Josh Gordon practicing. First in line for drills.

 

[cstu]

MLB, NHL and NBA aren't hunting down marijuana users so why is the NFL taking such a hardline stand. What is the motivation here?

If athletes are letting their personal habits interfere with their ability to perform then it will eventually catch up to their career and their wallet. If they are committing crimes, thereby soiling the name of the league then, by all means, cut ties. But, why pull some kind of McCarthy-esque action of stalking players down in the offseason (up to 10 times a month?) to play moral police?

Again...what is the end game here for the NFL? Am I a bigger football fan because they catch these horrible weed-smokers?

I could give you 9.5 billion reasons why the NFL doesn't want its players associated in any way with an illegal drug.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

From today's OTA: (Will add quotes as more come in)

Scott Petrak ct ‏ @ ScottPetrak 26s
No surprise, but WR Josh Gordon practicing. First in line for drills.

That's because the guy is obviously a... Bogart.

 

[Concept Coop]

I could give you 9.5 billion reasons why the NFL doesn't want its players associated in any way with an illegal drug.

If the league truly gave a damn about their athletes being associated with it, they would actually test them. They don't; they provide notice. They want to give the appearance that they care, and/or ID addicts.

 

[cstu]

I could give you 9.5 billion reasons why the NFL doesn't want its players associated in any way with an illegal drug.

If the league truly gave a damn about their athletes being associated with it, they would actually test them. They don't; they provide notice. They want to give the appearance that they care, and/or ID addicts.

Absolutely right. That's why they barely test for drugs during the year. It's not until someone tests positive multiple times or has an arrest that they start cracking down, all so they can maintain their image.

 

[Soulfly3]

Tom Withers ‏ @ twithersAP 6m
# Browns coach Pettine says Gordon has been great in the building and on field.

Mary Kay Cabot ‏ @ MaryKayCabot 2m
# browns coach mike Pettine on if Gordon's latest brush w/ law is troubling: "it can be if it's a pattern"

Tom Withers ‏ @ twithersAP 1m
Pettine says he imagines that Gordon's situation is weighing on him. "It's human nature."

Kevin Jones ‏ @ Mr_KevinJones 3m
Rookie CB Justin Gilbert on how impressive WR Andrew Hawkins has been in OTAs: "I'd rather guard Josh Gordon than Hawkins." LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Mary Kay Cabot ‏ @ MaryKayCabot 29s
# browns wr josh Gordon declined to talk after OTAs - As he has done all OTA... Rosenhaus def got in his ear about staying quiet

 

[BroadwayG]

Now he needs to get in his ear about drugs.