What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

WR Josh Gordon, KC (11 Viewers)

^^^^^^

Was that article written by a High School newspaper?

"Rock, paper, scissors to decide who was going to take the fall" ?

"loser paid handsomely by his NFL buddy"?

Also, Stage 2 has TWO PHASES in it. Something this author clearly has NO knowledge of. Which means Gordon IS NOT NECESSARILY in Stage 3.

-------------------------------------

What a sorry read.

Also, pretty slanderous to accuse a guy of paying off his buddies with literally NO evidence.
He looks to be one of your local A.M. guys and columnist....Covers all Cleveland sports....Are you familiar with him?

 
^^^^^^

Was that article written by a High School newspaper?

"Rock, paper, scissors to decide who was going to take the fall" ?

"loser paid handsomely by his NFL buddy"?

Also, Stage 2 has TWO PHASES in it. Something this author clearly has NO knowledge of. Which means Gordon IS NOT NECESSARILY in Stage 3.

-------------------------------------

What a sorry read.

Also, pretty slanderous to accuse a guy of paying off his buddies with literally NO evidence.
He looks to be one of your local A.M. guys and columnist....Covers all Cleveland sports....Are you familiar with him?
Never heard his name.

But it was seriously a poor read. Has nothing to do with his stance, because I dont care about his stance as long as it's well written. There have been articles posted here about why Gordon should be banned and I applauded the article for at least being thought provoking and based on fact.

This guy is a complete Tuna. Who writes in an article that Gordon played rock-paper-scissors and then paid off whoever took the fall?

Oh, and adding "probably" to it, doesn't make it any better. That was an attention whore article.

 
^^^^^^

Was that article written by a High School newspaper?

"Rock, paper, scissors to decide who was going to take the fall" ?

"loser paid handsomely by his NFL buddy"?

Also, Stage 2 has TWO PHASES in it. Something this author clearly has NO knowledge of. Which means Gordon IS NOT NECESSARILY in Stage 3.

-------------------------------------

What a sorry read.

Also, pretty slanderous to accuse a guy of paying off his buddies with literally NO evidence.
He looks to be one of your local A.M. guys and columnist....Covers all Cleveland sports....Are you familiar with him?
Never heard his name.

But it was seriously a poor read. Has nothing to do with his stance, because I dont care about his stance as long as it's well written. There have been articles posted here about why Gordon should be banned and I applauded the article for at least being thought provoking and based on fact.

This guy is a complete Tuna. Who writes in an article that Gordon played rock-paper-scissors and then paid off whoever took the fall?

Oh, and adding "probably" to it, doesn't make it any better. That was an attention whore article.
Well anyway it got me wondering if due to the traffic stop, if the NFL tested Gordon afterwards...I don't remember anybody posting that thought line up till now (I haven't read every post)...

 
But the fact remains that Gordon was still unable to stay away from drugs even as NFL officials were mulling over his banishment.
All the nitpicking and homer optimism in the world doesn't change the above, and that is really the only thing that matters about Gordon moving forward. It's probably a coin flip that he ever catches another NFL pass.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure if they did test him and he failed, the NFL wouldve announced a year suspension within minutes,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty sure if they did test him and he failed, the NFL wouldve announced a year suspension within minutes,
Pretty sure it takes time to collect a sample, send it to the lab, do the tests, get the results, and make a decision. When I worked in the field, there was a 2-3 week turnaround on drug screens. Considering the stakes involved, I really doubt that the NFL is using those inaccurate insta read home test cups.

 
^^^^^^

Was that article written by a High School newspaper?

"Rock, paper, scissors to decide who was going to take the fall" ?

"loser paid handsomely by his NFL buddy"?

Also, Stage 2 has TWO PHASES in it. Something this author clearly has NO knowledge of. Which means Gordon IS NOT NECESSARILY in Stage 3.

-------------------------------------

What a sorry read.

Also, pretty slanderous to accuse a guy of paying off his buddies with literally NO evidence.
He looks to be one of your local A.M. guys and columnist....Covers all Cleveland sports....Are you familiar with him?
Just FYI he is on the news channel in the evenings not a sports guy.

 
Pretty sure if they did test him and he failed, the NFL wouldve announced a year suspension within minutes,
Like the did last time?
If he was already on the cusp, or as 99% of you seem to believe, guaranteed getting a year off, you dont think failing ANOTHER test during his appeal would make the decision instantaneous?

Pretty clear to me there's more going on behind the scenes.
It seems like the only thing that would be holding up the announcement of punishment would be in the appeals process...Maybe whatever protection the player has thru the Union drags it out....All I know...This is frustrating!

 
I own J.Gordan in a keeper leagure ,,,but soulfly`s constant irrational logic has me actually hoping Gordan gets suspended all season...thats how bad he`s driving me crazy ...just shut the f up already
I know why you are being so aggressive.

This has to be the most entertaining thread of the offseason. Soulfly3 keep up the good fight.
Thanks. I'm a stubborn guy, and believe what I believe
Soulfly....i am publicly apologizing for my rude post towards you...it was out of my nature and un-called for...it wont happen again ...i hope all of your predictions of a lesser suspension come true as i would love to retain him in my keeper league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems your position is that marijuana is not intrinsically a problem. When used in moderation it's as healthy as water. But, like anything (including water), when used in excess, that is the problem. And from your point of view you seem to think the deleterious effects are emotional, not neurological.Am I close?
No not really.

I stated about 10 times already that most other legal prescription medications are worse for your body than marijuana taken from a vaporizer.

I am aware that it is POSSIBLE for marijuana to cause problems. But as I said, I am also aware those problems and the frequency of those problems are no worse than hundreds of other LEGAL and NON BANNED substances.

 
I own J.Gordan in a keeper leagure ,,,but soulfly`s constant irrational logic has me actually hoping Gordan gets suspended all season...thats how bad he`s driving me crazy ...just shut the f up already
I know why you are being so aggressive.

This has to be the most entertaining thread of the offseason. Soulfly3 keep up the good fight.
Thanks. I'm a stubborn guy, and believe what I believe
Soulfly....i am publicly apologizing for my rude post towards you...it was out of my nature and un-called for...it wont happen again ...i hope all of your predictions of a lesser suspension come true as i would love to retain him in my keeper league.
As would I but it ain't happening

 
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.
And on a related note........

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Men who report watching a lot of pornography tend to have less volume and activity in regions of the brain linked to rewards and motivation, says a new German study.

The study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, can't say watching porn caused the decrease in brain matter and activity, however.

It's not clear, for example, whether watching porn leads to brain changes or whether people born with certain brain types watch more porn, said Simone Kühn, the study’s lead author from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, in an email.

“Unfortunately we cannot answer this question based on the results of the present study,” Kühn said.

But, she noted, the results provide the first evidence for a link between pornography consumption and reductions in brain size and brain activity in response to sexual stimuli.

For the study, she and her colleague Jurgen Gallinat from Charite University, also in Berlin, recruited 64 healthy men between the ages of 21 and 45 years and asked them questions about their porn-watching habits. They also took images of the men’s brains to measure volume and to see how their brains reacted to pornographic pictures.

“We found that the volume of the so-called striatum, a brain region that has been associated with reward processing and motivated behavior was smaller the more pornography consumption the participants reported,” Kühn said.

“Moreover we found that another brain region, that is also part of the striatum that is active when people see sexual stimuli, shows less activation the more pornography participants consumed,” she added.

What’s more, the researchers found that the connection between the striatum and prefrontal cortex, which is the outer layer of the brain associated with behavior and decision making, worsened with increased porn watching.

Because the study can’t prove that porn caused the changes to the brain, Kühn said it’s not possible to say whether watching porn is actually harmful.

“Everything is going to be bad in excess and it’s probably not terrible in moderation,” Dr. Gregory Tau of the Columbia University / New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York said.

Tau, who was not involved with the study, agreed that more research should be done in this area and that longer studies would be need to find out if porn leads to brain changes.

“It is possible that there are individuals with a certain kind of brain that are more susceptible to these kinds of behaviors,” he said. “Or, it’s possible it’s the excessive use (of porn) that’s perpetuating itself to causing brain changes. Or, it could be both.”

Kühn said other behaviors, such as driving a taxi, are linked to changes to brain size and functioning.

“Basically everything that people do very frequently can shape their brain structure and function,” she said.

 
Over use of anything is bad. Why are we talking about chronic and constant usage anyway? People are more tham capable of smoking some dub once in a while. Doesn't have to be 14 times a day.

 
Is the NFL/Goodell just F'n with us here? I mean seriously, what in the world can be taking this long to come to a decision?

 
jurb26 said:
Is the NFL/Goodell just F'n with us here? I mean seriously, what in the world can be taking this long to come to a decision?
I gotta think what Greg Little said a few weeks back was probably the most important info we've had so far. He said "It’s something that wasn’t in his control, so to speak. I don’t want to get into too much detail about it."

To me that sounds like this isn't just a cut and dried failed test and the NFL is just doing due diligence so they drop the appropriate sized hammer on a high profile player. To me that actually seems like worse news for Josh Gordon though. If this was just deciding between 6 or 8 games, I think Goodell would have already made a decision. I think he's taking his time because he may be comtemplating a long (indefinite?) suspension and doesn't wanna be too quick on the trigger with something that serious.

 
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?
Does the use of marijuana cause people to see large letters?

 
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?
Does the use of marijuana cause people to see large letters?
Helps with glaucoma. This guy can't see. He should smoke some dub.

 
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?
Does the use of marijuana cause people to see large letters?
quick check peoples brains that drink alcohol

 
It seems your position is that marijuana is not intrinsically a problem. When used in moderation it's as healthy as water. But, like anything (including water), when used in excess, that is the problem. And from your point of view you seem to think the deleterious effects are emotional, not neurological.Am I close?
No not really.

I stated about 10 times already that most other legal prescription medications are worse for your body than marijuana taken from a vaporizer.

I am aware that it is POSSIBLE for marijuana to cause problems. But as I said, I am also aware those problems and the frequency of those problems are no worse than hundreds of other LEGAL and NON BANNED substances.
Welp. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your familiarity with the literature to support the position about frequency (and/or severity) of health problems tied to MJ use versus "most other legal prescription medications." Or, was your argument about "hundreds" (not "most") of other prescription medications? You said both.I might add that most in the medical field treat conditions with scripts they know cause side effects because the risk of not treating the condition poses a greater risk to health. Seems like comparing apples and oranges when comparing recreational MJ use with prescription treatments. Even so, if you care to share data on the hundreds of prescriptions (or most...you choose the number that best fits your argument) that are worse to health than MJ, maybe we can start there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welp. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your familiarity with the literature to support the position about frequency (and/or severity) of health problems tied to MJ use versus "most other legal prescription medications." Or, was your argument about "hundreds" (not "most") of other prescription medications? You said both.
I might add that most in the medical field treat conditions with scripts they know cause side effects because the risk of not treating the condition poses a greater risk to health. Seems like comparing apples and oranges when comparing recreational MJ use with prescription treatments. Even so, if you care to share data on the hundreds of prescriptions (or most...you choose the number that best fits your argument) that are worse to health than MJ, maybe we can start there.
I'll just stick with Alcohol and fast food. Both legal, both way worse when used with anywhere near the same frequency as marijuana.

Although I should also say painkillers, since Marijuana is an effective analgesic that would be beneficial for many NFL players who would rather go that route than traditional painkillers that are harmful to vital organs over time. These doctors/teams are not giving these painkillers because lack of treatment would be worse, so there goes that argument. Not to mention the "long term effects" of marijuana usagae argument goes out the window because these players can just use it while playing, and many careers are quite short.

WHat might be even better is to alternate between those methods as to not over use any of them.

That dastardly evil pot.

Don't worry. The NFL (along with the rest of the world) will catch on soon enough and realize marijuana will actualy benefit the players and the league rather than be a detriment.

If you are saying the league will continue to ban it forever, I will just say you are dead wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welp. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your familiarity with the literature to support the position about frequency (and/or severity) of health problems tied to MJ use versus "most other legal prescription medications." Or, was your argument about "hundreds" (not "most") of other prescription medications? You said both.

I might add that most in the medical field treat conditions with scripts they know cause side effects because the risk of not treating the condition poses a greater risk to health. Seems like comparing apples and oranges when comparing recreational MJ use with prescription treatments. Even so, if you care to share data on the hundreds of prescriptions (or most...you choose the number that best fits your argument) that are worse to health than MJ, maybe we can start there.
I'll just stick with Alcohol and fast food.
Yeah, that's probably a good idea.

 
Welp. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your familiarity with the literature to support the position about frequency (and/or severity) of health problems tied to MJ use versus "most other legal prescription medications." Or, was your argument about "hundreds" (not "most") of other prescription medications? You said both.

I might add that most in the medical field treat conditions with scripts they know cause side effects because the risk of not treating the condition poses a greater risk to health. Seems like comparing apples and oranges when comparing recreational MJ use with prescription treatments. Even so, if you care to share data on the hundreds of prescriptions (or most...you choose the number that best fits your argument) that are worse to health than MJ, maybe we can start there.
I'll just stick with Alcohol and fast food.
Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
It was a good idea all night tonight. Well maybe not. I drank all this beer, gave my liver a heck of a workout, killed a million brain cells, and will likely wake up dehydrated and feeling crappy.

Probably woulda just been better to vaporize some dub, get a good nights sleep, and get up in the morning feeling chipper.

Almost talking myself into starting to smoke some dub instead of drinking. If my work didn't drug test for THC I would. But hey, if they wanna give me health insurance and let me destroy my body with alcohol and foot the bill for all my health problems rather than let me smoke some dub and be healthier, so be it. Who am I to tell em otherwise, right?

 
Welp. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your familiarity with the literature to support the position about frequency (and/or severity) of health problems tied to MJ use versus "most other legal prescription medications." Or, was your argument about "hundreds" (not "most") of other prescription medications? You said both.

I might add that most in the medical field treat conditions with scripts they know cause side effects because the risk of not treating the condition poses a greater risk to health. Seems like comparing apples and oranges when comparing recreational MJ use with prescription treatments. Even so, if you care to share data on the hundreds of prescriptions (or most...you choose the number that best fits your argument) that are worse to health than MJ, maybe we can start there.
I'll just stick with Alcohol and fast food.
Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
It was a good idea all night tonight. Well maybe not. I drank all this beer, gave my liver a heck of a workout, killed a million brain cells, and will likely wake up dehydrated and feeling crappy.

Probably woulda just been better to vaporize some dub, get a good nights sleep, and get up in the morning feeling chipper.

Almost talking myself into starting to smoke some dub instead of drinking. If my work didn't drug test for THC I would. But hey, if they wanna give me health insurance and let me destroy my body with alcohol and foot the bill for all my health problems rather than let me smoke some dub and be healthier, so be it. Who am I to tell em otherwise, right?
Beats the hell outa steroids :P

 
ghostguy123 said:
cobalt_27 said:
Welp. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your familiarity with the literature to support the position about frequency (and/or severity) of health problems tied to MJ use versus "most other legal prescription medications." Or, was your argument about "hundreds" (not "most") of other prescription medications? You said both.

I might add that most in the medical field treat conditions with scripts they know cause side effects because the risk of not treating the condition poses a greater risk to health. Seems like comparing apples and oranges when comparing recreational MJ use with prescription treatments. Even so, if you care to share data on the hundreds of prescriptions (or most...you choose the number that best fits your argument) that are worse to health than MJ, maybe we can start there.
I'll just stick with Alcohol and fast food.
Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
It was a good idea all night tonight. Well maybe not. I drank all this beer, gave my liver a heck of a workout, killed a million brain cells, and will likely wake up dehydrated and feeling crappy.

Probably woulda just been better to vaporize some dub, get a good nights sleep, and get up in the morning feeling chipper.

Almost talking myself into starting to smoke some dub instead of drinking. If my work didn't drug test for THC I would. But hey, if they wanna give me health insurance and let me destroy my body with alcohol and foot the bill for all my health problems rather than let me smoke some dub and be healthier, so be it. Who am I to tell em otherwise, right?
Well. You said you work in "behavioral health" and obviously have considerable familiarity with recreational marijuana use, all of which seems to have promoted delusions of expertise on matters like this.

 
If what I'm hearing is true, even my own expectations will be surpassed.

Let's hear this announcement!!!!
Tell me that you work in promotions/marketing in some capacity. Otherwise you've completely missed your calling. You're like the Don King for Josh Gordon threads at this point

 
Well, I can't get any more heat than I am already - so I'll just put it like this. I am sticking with 6-8 weeks as MY prediction.

But I have heard that the suspension coming may not fall under the Drug Policy, whatsoever - and instead may be 2-4 games under the Conduct Policy.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top