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 (16 Viewers)

i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.
Exactly this. This stuff is all supposed to be confidential, and we are months out from any meaningful games. We don't even know what the typical timeframe for a decision is or what's going on in the appeals process. We'll know when the NFL tells us. Anyone trying to read the tea leaves here is just throwing darts blindfolded.

 
i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.

my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.

it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.

i will agree that the "preferential treatment" angle is a bit out there.
The NFL handed down two full-season suspensions over three weeks ago.

They have done nothing and announced nothing per Josh Gordon.

You say no one can read ANYTHING into that.

We can and don't need permission.

What is the logical explanation for the delay? You haven't provided one. The take that a delay is bad news is absurd. How much worse could it get?

Add if suspicion begins to start that if the league does reduce Josh's suspension that its due to preferential treatment and I quote Faulkner and you wrap say I'm being over the top but then come back and state saying the suspicion of preferential treatment is over the top then you never are wrong beause you never take a side or a stance other than you saying everyone is over-the-top.

If the league had already made the decision to suspend Gordon then their isn't any logic to state a delay of over three weeks between suspending two other players for the entire season means absolutely nothing.

 
i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.

my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.

it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.

i will agree that the "preferential treatment" angle is a bit out there.
The NFL handed down two full-season suspensions over three weeks ago.

They have done nothing and announced nothing per Josh Gordon.

You say no one can read ANYTHING into that.

We can and don't need permission.

What is the logical explanation for the delay? You haven't provided one. The take that a delay is bad news is absurd. How much worse could it get?

Add if suspicion begins to start that if the league does reduce Josh's suspension that its due to preferential treatment and I quote Faulkner and you wrap say I'm being over the top but then come back and state saying the suspicion of preferential treatment is over the top then you never are wrong beause you never take a side or a stance other than you saying everyone is over-the-top.

If the league had already made the decision to suspend Gordon then their isn't any logic to state a delay of over three weeks between suspending two other players for the entire season means absolutely nothing.
How do you know there is a "delay?"

How do we know that the suspensions that were announced didn't result from failed drug tests from a month earlier, or two months earlier, or three months earlier, than Gordon's?

The point is that we don't know how long the process takes, because the NFL doesn't announce when failed tests took place, or if they took place, or what punishment will result, until AFTER the process is over. We only know/believe that Gordon failed a test because the news was leaked.

So the fact that other suspensions were announced since the leak about Gordon's failed test means NOTHING, since we don't know when the other failed tests occurred, nor when Gordon's failed test occurred.

 
Add if suspicion begins to start that if the league does reduce Josh's suspension that its due to preferential treatment and I quote Faulkner and you wrap say I'm being over the top but then come back and state saying the suspicion of preferential treatment is over the top then you never are wrong beause you never take a side or a stance other than you saying everyone is over-the-top.
That "sentence" makes my head hurt :crazy:

 
i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.

my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.

it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.

i will agree that the "preferential treatment" angle is a bit out there.
The NFL handed down two full-season suspensions over three weeks ago.

They have done nothing and announced nothing per Josh Gordon.

You say no one can read ANYTHING into that.
you can't.

because those cases have NOTHING to do with Josh Gordon's case.

 
i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.

my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.

it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.

i will agree that the "preferential treatment" angle is a bit out there.
The NFL handed down two full-season suspensions over three weeks ago.

They have done nothing and announced nothing per Josh Gordon.

You say no one can read ANYTHING into that.
you can't.

because those cases have NOTHING to do with Josh Gordon's case.
I can.

You mean the NFL didn't suspend those players for failing drug tests? So you mean that since they have NOTHING in common that Josh has not failed a drug test?

 
i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.

my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.

it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.

i will agree that the "preferential treatment" angle is a bit out there.
The NFL handed down two full-season suspensions over three weeks ago.

They have done nothing and announced nothing per Josh Gordon.

You say no one can read ANYTHING into that.
you can't.

because those cases have NOTHING to do with Josh Gordon's case.
I can.

You mean the NFL didn't suspend those players for failing drug tests? So you mean that since they have NOTHING in common that Josh has not failed a drug test?
perhaps i'm not being clear.

each case is handled separately.

they have no bearing on each other.

 
How do you know there is a "delay?"


How do we know that the suspensions that were announced didn't result from failed drug tests from a month earlier, or two months earlier, or three months earlier, than Gordon's?

The point is that we don't know how long the process takes, because the NFL doesn't announce when failed tests took place, or if they took place, or what punishment will result, until AFTER the process is over. We only know/believe that Gordon failed a test because the news was leaked.

So the fact that other suspensions were announced since the leak about Gordon's failed test means NOTHING, since we don't know when the other failed tests occurred, nor when Gordon's failed test occurred.
Hey Bayhwaks you make a good point about not knowing how much time their was from a failed test to announcement of suspension but Gordon's 'failed-test' was leaked prior to both of those other two announced suspensions which took place on the same day.

It would make sense for the league to get housecleaning of handing down suspensions taken care of at the same time if they had a case.

The leaked 'failed-test' was announced prior to those suspensions, so the league should have evidence of the failed test and if they had a case that warranted it makes sense that they would have simply suspended Josh along with the other two players over three weeks ago.

Its been over a month since the leak.

Over three weeks since the league handed down full-season suspensions to the only two players who faced that penalty.

If they ALREADY had evidence to suspend Gordon for a full-season in-hand, as per the leak, then why the delay unless his case has special circumstances?

The only reasonable explanation that fits if he does wind up getting a full season long suspension is exactly what you've provided where Gordon would have had a 'late' failed suspension, long after the other two and its just going thru channels but its Friday.

The league tends to handle things like this right before the weekend. So if he makes it through another TGIF it does seem to indicate their is an undeniable delay with Gordon's case.

 
perhaps i'm not being clear.


each case is handled separately.

they have no bearing on each other.
OK, if they are handled separately and have no barring on each other then riddle me this batman.

Why did the NFL announce the other two season-long suspensions for two players for failed drug tests on the exact same day, in the exact same press conference?

 
perhaps i'm not being clear.


each case is handled separately.

they have no bearing on each other.
OK, if they are handled separately and have no barring on each other then riddle me this batman.

Why did the NFL announce the other two season-long suspensions for two players for failed drug tests on the exact same day, in the exact same press conference?
Because their cases were settled very close to each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The increasing optimism of the Gordon owners and the attempts to apply logic to support their optimism is funny

Here are the facts

1. There was a leak about a failed drug test

2. The NFL hasn't announced anything

3. We don't really know anything else

4. Everyone seems to have an opinion and none of them really matter due to fact #3
Ridiculous. 1 and 2 are the only "facts". 3 and 4 are your opinions. "Seems" and "really" aren't used in factual statements. We know plenty more, unless you believe there are a lot of liars out there. We know that Rosenhaus and Little have adamantly said the test was not "failed". We know Gordon was out of the country at the time the test was to have taken place. We know he's an idiot that still hangs out with people who have pot. We know the Browns are still running him as WR1 in practice. We know they didn't really address WR despite his situation. We know that 2 players were docked a year for drugs. We know Ray Rice also has not been suspended.

 
One minute ago on Cleveland Browns Daily they said that the longer this is delayed the better it is looking for Browns WR Josh Gordon having made a convicing appeal to any potential suspension.

They said he will likely face some sort of suspension but that the longer this goes on the better it seems that Josh Gordon will not face a season long suspension.

LINK to the live program in-progress:

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/media-center/audio/Cleveland_Browns_Daily_LIVE/2a0cc2c2-5d29-4b02-ac5b-b8b07fc17475

Also the 'leak' was announced on the second day of the draft where it was reported that the Browns had been informed in EARLY WINTER well before the draft of an impending suspension due to a failed drug test. That was when the Browns were informed so any failed test would have been months and months ago before the team was informed in early winter.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/05/josh_gordon_cleveland_browns_s_1.html

...Two sources told ESPN's Outside the Lines that Gordon tested positive for marijuana and was informed in early winter. Gordon received a second letter in April notifying him of the pending suspension and his right to appeal, which he's expected to do.
Their is a delay folks.

 
How do you know there is a "delay?"


How do we know that the suspensions that were announced didn't result from failed drug tests from a month earlier, or two months earlier, or three months earlier, than Gordon's?

The point is that we don't know how long the process takes, because the NFL doesn't announce when failed tests took place, or if they took place, or what punishment will result, until AFTER the process is over. We only know/believe that Gordon failed a test because the news was leaked.

So the fact that other suspensions were announced since the leak about Gordon's failed test means NOTHING, since we don't know when the other failed tests occurred, nor when Gordon's failed test occurred.
Hey Bayhwaks you make a good point about not knowing how much time their was from a failed test to announcement of suspension but Gordon's 'failed-test' was leaked prior to both of those other two announced suspensions which took place on the same day.

It would make sense for the league to get housecleaning of handing down suspensions taken care of at the same time if they had a case.

The leaked 'failed-test' was announced prior to those suspensions, so the league should have evidence of the failed test and if they had a case that warranted it makes sense that they would have simply suspended Josh along with the other two players over three weeks ago.

Its been over a month since the leak.

Over three weeks since the league handed down full-season suspensions to the only two players who faced that penalty.

If they ALREADY had evidence to suspend Gordon for a full-season in-hand, as per the leak, then why the delay unless his case has special circumstances?

The only reasonable explanation that fits if he does wind up getting a full season long suspension is exactly what you've provided where Gordon would have had a 'late' failed suspension, long after the other two and its just going thru channels but its Friday.

The league tends to handle things like this right before the weekend. So if he makes it through another TGIF it does seem to indicate their is an undeniable delay with Gordon's case.
You're ignoring my main point. The other two players DID NOT have news of their failed tests leaked. Perhaps they were informed that they failed tests last September, and the appeals/suspension process actually takes 7 months. We don't know how long the process takes.

If this is the case, then the fact that we haven't heard anything about Gordon's appeal/suspension at this point would not indicate a delay, as the process takes longer than the 6 weeks (approximately) since the leak. Because the news was leaked, we THINK the process is taking longer than normal, and that there is a "delay." In reality, we don't know if the process is taking longer than normal, is moving faster than normal, or if it is right on pace for an average failed test/appeal/suspension.

 
One minute ago on Cleveland Browns Daily they said that the longer this is delayed the better it is looking for Browns WR Josh Gordon having made a convicing appeal to any potential suspension.

They said he will likely face some sort of suspension but that the longer this goes on the better it seems that Josh Gordon will not face a season long suspension.

LINK to the live program in-progress:

http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/media-center/audio/Cleveland_Browns_Daily_LIVE/2a0cc2c2-5d29-4b02-ac5b-b8b07fc17475

Also the 'leak' was announced on the second day of the draft where it was reported that the Browns had been informed in EARLY WINTER well before the draft of an impending suspension due to a failed drug test. That was when the Browns were informed so any failed test would have been months and months ago before the team was informed in early winter.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/05/josh_gordon_cleveland_browns_s_1.html

...Two sources told ESPN's Outside the Lines that Gordon tested positive for marijuana and was informed in early winter. Gordon received a second letter in April notifying him of the pending suspension and his right to appeal, which he's expected to do.
Their is a delay folks.
That report is speculating. They may very well end up being correct, but they are speculating.

Again, we DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE PROCESS TAKES. You believe there is a delay, but we don't know that this process is taking longer than it is supposed to.

 
The report was not speculating. The team was informed in early winter and Gordon got his second letter from the league in April. If the team was notified in early winter then the 'failed' test had to occured prior to the team being informed in early winter.

Their is another element that is apparently being missed by many about Gordon's case being different from Hill and Washington that has nothing to do with the length of the process which is complete and utter speculation.

Washington and Will Hill had failed multiple drug tests and the key point is both had been suspended twice, Gordon has only been suspended one time. Add his one suspension last year was cut from 4 to 2 games.

Additionally when the league was contemplating the one-year suspension to Washington he was charged with assulting his girlfriend.

Will Hill had already been suspended three times for violating the NFL drug policy. First for PEDs, then he got suspended for Adderall and the third time he was suspended for pot.

Gordon has not already faced suspension two times as both Hill and Washinton had and the longer this delay lingers the better it is for his chances to play this year. Length of proccess has less impact than the fact both Hill and Washington had already been suspended two-times to only one time for Josh Gordon.

 
The report was not speculating. The team was informed in early winter and Gordon got his second letter from the league in April. If the team was notified in early winter then the 'failed' test had to occured prior to the team being informed in early winter.

Their is another element that is apparently being missed by many about Gordon's case being different from Hill and Washington that has nothing to do with the length of the process which is complete and utter speculation.

Washington and Will Hill had failed multiple drug tests and the key point is both had been suspended twice, Gordon has only been suspended one time. Add his one suspension last year was cut from 4 to 2 games.

Additionally when the league was contemplating the one-year suspension to Washington he was charged with assulting his girlfriend.

Will Hill had already been suspended three times for violating the NFL drug policy. First for PEDs, then he got suspended for Adderall and the third time he was suspended for pot.

Gordon has not already faced suspension two times as both Hill and Washinton had and the longer this delay lingers the better it is for his chances to play this year. Length of proccess has less impact than the fact both Hill and Washington had already been suspended two-times to only one time for Josh Gordon.
Blackmon, Tenard Jackson and Fred Davis were only suspended once prior to their indefinite suspensions.

I feel like the league cut Gordon some slack last year by reducing his suspension from 4 games to 2 and aren't likely to send the message again that they are lenient on him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The report was not speculating. The team was informed in early winter and Gordon got his second letter from the league in April. If the team was notified in early winter then the 'failed' test had to occured prior to the team being informed in early winter.

Their is another element that is apparently being missed by many about Gordon's case being different from Hill and Washington that has nothing to do with the length of the process which is complete and utter speculation.

Washington and Will Hill had failed multiple drug tests and the key point is both had been suspended twice, Gordon has only been suspended one time. Add his one suspension last year was cut from 4 to 2 games.

Additionally when the league was contemplating the one-year suspension to Washington he was charged with assulting his girlfriend.

Will Hill had already been suspended three times for violating the NFL drug policy. First for PEDs, then he got suspended for Adderall and the third time he was suspended for pot.

Gordon has not already faced suspension two times as both Hill and Washinton had and the longer this delay lingers the better it is for his chances to play this year. Length of proccess has less impact than the fact both Hill and Washington had already been suspended two-times to only one time for Josh Gordon.
Blackmon, Tenard Jackson and Fred Davis were only suspended once prior to their indefinite suspensions.

I feel like the league cut Gordon some slack last year by reducing his suspension from 4 games to 2 and aren't likely to send the message again that they are lenient on him.
Lenient?

The two guys suspended three weeks ago for the 2014 NFL season had been suspended two times for non-PEDs recently and Hill had a PED violation to boot.

Daryl Washinton wasn't just a two-time loser on the suspension front and not only had an assult charge on the books while facing a year long ban get this.

He failed three drug tests this offseason, one apparently was a false positive but having already been suspended two times by the league and failing at least two drug tests, the guy goes out and assults his girl friend.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/04/daryl-washingtons-suspension-didnt-follow-the-usual-path/

...While everyone involved is keeping very quiet regarding the situation, we’ve learned that Washington did not trigger a four-game suspension via three positive tests. As best we can tell, there was an initial positive test that was the result of a genuine mistake, followed by two additional violations unrelated to a positive test.
So on one hand you have:

Will Hill:

- PED suspension

- drug suspension Adderall

- drug suspension pot

Daryl Washington

- drug suspension pot

- drug suspension pot

- assult charge while awaiting his third suspension for pot

- at least two failed drug tests for pot during this testing period

On the other you have Josh Gordon.

Josh Gordon

- one drug suspension that was cut from 4 to 2 games

Both Hill and Washington were suspended three weeks ago for the 2014 season.

Josh Gordon has yet to be disciplined by the league.

The longer the delay goes on the better his chances of playing at least part of this year IMHO and now more than a few reporters who cover the Browns are saying the same thing. Oh and one report said that the Giants were not informed of Hill's impending suspension until April 20th whereas the Browns were informed in early winter so unless someone wants to explain the logic of one player's team being informed months after another player who has yet to be suspended then...... um just come on.

Their is something different from Gordon's case and that is the reason he wasn't suspended along with Hill and Washington.

 
Their is something different from Gordon's case and that is the reason he wasn't suspended along with Hill and Washington.
Yeah, he's a top caliber WR talent with the numbers to back it up and Johnny Manziel at QB. They are simply trying to figure out how to lessen the suspension without causing problem with other suspensions down the line. If this guy was a ham and egger, he would have already been handed the suspension. It's blatantly obvious that is what is going on.

That being said, I say he gets 8 games max.

have there been any previous violations that have taken this long to execute a suspension?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The report was not speculating. The team was informed in early winter and Gordon got his second letter from the league in April. If the team was notified in early winter then the 'failed' test had to occured prior to the team being informed in early winter.

Their is another element that is apparently being missed by many about Gordon's case being different from Hill and Washington that has nothing to do with the length of the process which is complete and utter speculation.

Washington and Will Hill had failed multiple drug tests and the key point is both had been suspended twice, Gordon has only been suspended one time. Add his one suspension last year was cut from 4 to 2 games.

Additionally when the league was contemplating the one-year suspension to Washington he was charged with assulting his girlfriend.

Will Hill had already been suspended three times for violating the NFL drug policy. First for PEDs, then he got suspended for Adderall and the third time he was suspended for pot.

Gordon has not already faced suspension two times as both Hill and Washinton had and the longer this delay lingers the better it is for his chances to play this year. Length of proccess has less impact than the fact both Hill and Washington had already been suspended two-times to only one time for Josh Gordon.
Blackmon, Tenard Jackson and Fred Davis were only suspended once prior to their indefinite suspensions.

I feel like the league cut Gordon some slack last year by reducing his suspension from 4 games to 2 and aren't likely to send the message again that they are lenient on him.
Lenient?

The two guys suspended three weeks ago for the 2014 NFL season had been suspended two times for non-PEDs recently and Hill had a PED violation to boot.

Daryl Washinton wasn't just a two-time loser on the suspension front and not only had an assult charge on the books while facing a year long ban get this.

He failed three drug tests this offseason, one apparently was a false positive but having already been suspended two times by the league and failing at least two drug tests, the guy goes out and assults his girl friend.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/04/daryl-washingtons-suspension-didnt-follow-the-usual-path/

...While everyone involved is keeping very quiet regarding the situation, we’ve learned that Washington did not trigger a four-game suspension via three positive tests. As best we can tell, there was an initial positive test that was the result of a genuine mistake, followed by two additional violations unrelated to a positive test.
So on one hand you have:

Will Hill:

- PED suspension

- drug suspension Adderall

- drug suspension pot

Daryl Washington

- drug suspension pot

- drug suspension pot

- assult charge while awaiting his third suspension for pot

- at least two failed drug tests for pot during this testing period

On the other you have Josh Gordon.

Josh Gordon

- one drug suspension that was cut from 4 to 2 games

Both Hill and Washington were suspended three weeks ago for the 2014 season.

Josh Gordon has yet to be disciplined by the league.

The longer the delay goes on the better his chances of playing at least part of this year IMHO and now more than a few reporters who cover the Browns are saying the same thing. Oh and one report said that the Giants were not informed of Hill's impending suspension until April 20th whereas the Browns were informed in early winter so unless someone wants to explain the logic of one player's team being informed months after another player who has yet to be suspended then...... um just come on.

Their is something different from Gordon's case and that is the reason he wasn't suspended along with Hill and Washington.
It's definitely possible Gordon only gets a 6 game suspension like Hill.

I thought Washington was only suspended one time in 2013?

Complicating matters for Gordon was getting pulled over with weed in his car. We don't know if he was immediately tested after that and failed another test.

 
Their is something different from Gordon's case and that is the reason he wasn't suspended along with Hill and Washington.
Yeah, he's a top caliber WR talent with the numbers to back it up and Johnny Manziel at QB. They are simply trying to figure out how to lessen the suspension without causing problem with other suspensions down the line. If this guy was a ham and egger, he would have already been handed the suspension. It's blatantly obvious that is what is going on.

That being said, I say he gets 8 games max.

have there been any previous violations that have taken this long to execute a suspension?
I know the league doesn't want to suspend him but it will look really bad if they give him 6-8 games after failing/missing a test and then getting caught with weed in his car. Goodell might still do it but it makes him look weak and shows favoritism.

 
The increasing optimism of the Gordon owners and the attempts to apply logic to support their optimism is funny

Here are the facts

1. There was a leak about a failed drug test

2. The NFL hasn't announced anything

3. We don't really know anything else

4. Everyone seems to have an opinion and none of them really matter due to fact #3
Ridiculous. 1 and 2 are the only "facts". 3 and 4 are your opinions. "Seems" and "really" aren't used in factual statements. We know plenty more, unless you believe there are a lot of liars out there. We know that Rosenhaus and Little have adamantly said the test was not "failed". We know Gordon was out of the country at the time the test was to have taken place. We know he's an idiot that still hangs out with people who have pot. We know the Browns are still running him as WR1 in practice. We know they didn't really address WR despite his situation. We know that 2 players were docked a year for drugs. We know Ray Rice also has not been suspended.
We know that Rosenhaus and Little have adamantly said the test was not "failed". - means nothing

We know Gordon was out of the country at the time the test was to have taken place - do we?

We know he's an idiot that still hangs out with people who have pot. - true

We know the Browns are still running him as WR1 in practice - were...and that doesn't tell us anything for sure

We know they didn't really address WR despite his situation - That doesn't tell us he wont get suspended...btw you used "really"...I believe you said it was a no no in statements that are supposed to be facts

We know that 2 players were docked a year for drugs. We know Ray Rice also has not been suspended. - unrelated situations that do not provide any factual information about Gordon's situation
Let me clarify. They didn't address the situation, meaning they didn't draft a WR in a WR heavy draft (fact). And they brought in a bunch of bums to address the situation: Bennett (who they already cut) and Austin (still is not practicing due to already known hamstring fragility)(another fact).

 
Their is something different from Gordon's case and that is the reason he wasn't suspended along with Hill and Washington.
Yeah, he's a top caliber WR talent with the numbers to back it up and Johnny Manziel at QB. They are simply trying to figure out how to lessen the suspension without causing problem with other suspensions down the line. If this guy was a ham and egger, he would have already been handed the suspension. It's blatantly obvious that is what is going on.

That being said, I say he gets 8 games max.

have there been any previous violations that have taken this long to execute a suspension?
I think you're right on with this, but I'm still expecting 16 games, but I think you're right with the reason of the delay.

 
Goodell would be a ####### moron for suspending Gordon. No one gives a #### about pot. People do give a #### about a watered down NFL where the best players at their position aren't able to play just because they smoked a little weed.
And we've come full circle. Again.
You know we're all thinking it..Unless you're a Bengals, Steelers, or Ravens fan. Then you want to see the book thrown at him.
Speaking as a Steeler fan, I don't want to see that at all. I want to see the best possible football product on the field. Gordon makes the game more entertaining and more competitive so I definitely want to see him playing.

I guess I will join those who have expressed guarded optimism that he will be doing that. I do think there are extranneous circumstances in this instance that don't make it a certainty he gets sat down. I'm not at all convinced the suspension report was ever supposed to see the light of day and it may be just as inaccurate as all the speculation that has followed.

 
The report was not speculating. The team was informed in early winter and Gordon got his second letter from the league in April. If the team was notified in early winter then the 'failed' test had to occured prior to the team being informed in early winter.

Their is another element that is apparently being missed by many about Gordon's case being different from Hill and Washington that has nothing to do with the length of the process which is complete and utter speculation.

Washington and Will Hill had failed multiple drug tests and the key point is both had been suspended twice, Gordon has only been suspended one time. Add his one suspension last year was cut from 4 to 2 games.

Additionally when the league was contemplating the one-year suspension to Washington he was charged with assulting his girlfriend.

Will Hill had already been suspended three times for violating the NFL drug policy. First for PEDs, then he got suspended for Adderall and the third time he was suspended for pot.

Gordon has not already faced suspension two times as both Hill and Washinton had and the longer this delay lingers the better it is for his chances to play this year. Length of proccess has less impact than the fact both Hill and Washington had already been suspended two-times to only one time for Josh Gordon.
Yes, it was. The part where they suggested that the longer this process took, the better it was for Gordon was speculation. Notice they didn't have any quotes or information from the NFL or the Browns to support this SPECULATION.

That point about Gordon only having one failed test that we are aware of wasn't missed. It was discussed, many times, in this thread. Gordon got a 4 games suspension without 2 failed tests, which suggests that something may be unusual about his situation (entered the league already in the drug program, a failed test we aren't aware of, etc).

 
Josh Gordon has yet to be disciplined by the league.

The longer the delay goes on the better his chances of playing at least part of this year IMHO and now more than a few reporters who cover the Browns are saying the same thing. Oh and one report said that the Giants were not informed of Hill's impending suspension until April 20th whereas the Browns were informed in early winter so unless someone wants to explain the logic of one player's team being informed months after another player who has yet to be suspended then...... um just come on.

Their is something different from Gordon's case and that is the reason he wasn't suspended along with Hill and Washington.
1-It's THERE, not THEIR

2-You are wrong about when the Browns learned of the failed test, unless you have a link that I can't find. According to the report that YOU linked earlier (and seem to be basing this "early winter" stuff on), it says Gordon was informed about the failed test in early winter, but that the Browns knew about the failed test about a week before the draft.

(YOUR LINK)

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/05/josh_gordon_cleveland_browns_s_1.html

(THE PERTINENT QUOTES FROM THAT LINK)

Two sources told ESPN's Outside the Lines that Gordon tested positive for marijuana and was informed in early winter. Gordon received a second letter in April notifying him of the pending suspension and his right to appeal, which he's expected to do.
AND

A source told cleveland.com that some high level members of the Browns organization have known about Gordon's failed test for at least a week, well in advance of Thursday night's first round of the draft.
So, your belief that the Browns have known about this since early winter seems to be false.

3-Let's re-examine that first quote from your link. It says that in early winter Gordon was informed of his failed test. That suggests December or January. He gets a second letter in April telling him that he has the right to appeal. It's reasonable to assume that this was the result of verifying the result of the first test (with a "B" sample, or something to that effect). This second letter (in April) told Gordon he could appeal, which means he had not started that process as of that time. So if it takes 2 months for the NFL to verify a failed test & inform the player of a pending suspension, why would it be surprising that it takes AT LEAST that long for the appeals process?

 
You know we're all thinking it..Unless you're a Bengals, Steelers, or Ravens fan. Then you want to see the book thrown at him.
Speaking as a Steeler fan, I don't want to see that at all. I want to see the best possible football product on the field. Gordon makes the game more entertaining and more competitive so I definitely want to see him playing.

I guess I will join those who have expressed guarded optimism that he will be doing that. I do think there are extranneous circumstances in this instance that don't make it a certainty he gets sat down. I'm not at all convinced the suspension report was ever supposed to see the light of day and it may be just as inaccurate as all the speculation that has followed.
:goodposting:

I'm not a fan of any of those team nor am I a Gordon owner, but still hope I'm wrong and he gets the minimum suspension possible. Regardless of your personal feelings about Gordon he's good for the game.

 
Twitter will explode as soon as Gordon's suspension length is announced. And I'm certain Soulfly's cry/cheer will be heard throughout the lower 48. :)

In the meantime, this thred is the best virtual popcorn money can buy. :popcorn:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm starting to think they will find the Malaysian jetliner before we find out about Gordon's suspension.
I get the sense that the NFL is trying to figure out how not to give this guy 1 year due to his season last year. If this was just some ham and egger WR, he would already be serving his suspension.
I've been thinking along these same lines for a while now. Gordon established himself as a star last season; what would the NFL do to Demaryius Thomas, AJ Green or Julio Jones in the same situation. I still think he gets suspended, but I could see the NFL coming up with some reason to cut the length due to extenuating circumstances.
NFL was fine dropping the hammer on Von Miller, who is every bit as big of a star as Josh Gordon and who played for a better/more visible team.

Although part of me wonders idly if the reason for the holdup is because the NFL wants to announce the Rice and Gordon suspensions at the same time, because they're planning on giving Rice more games than Gordon. It'd be a good public relations move for the league, if nothing else. But that's just me throwing darts blindfolded.

 
I'm starting to think they will find the Malaysian jetliner before we find out about Gordon's suspension.
I get the sense that the NFL is trying to figure out how not to give this guy 1 year due to his season last year. If this was just some ham and egger WR, he would already be serving his suspension.
I've been thinking along these same lines for a while now. Gordon established himself as a star last season; what would the NFL do to Demaryius Thomas, AJ Green or Julio Jones in the same situation. I still think he gets suspended, but I could see the NFL coming up with some reason to cut the length due to extenuating circumstances.
NFL was fine dropping the hammer on Von Miller, who is every bit as big of a star as Josh Gordon and who played for a better/more visible team.

Although part of me wonders idly if the reason for the holdup is because the NFL wants to announce the Rice and Gordon suspensions at the same time, because they're planning on giving Rice more games than Gordon. It'd be a good public relations move for the league, if nothing else. But that's just me throwing darts blindfolded.
Never thought of that angle.

Does make some sense also. Instead of teh focus being on one of your biggest stars getting nailed a few games for whatever, you drop the hammer on a dirtbag that decided his girl was a punching bag.

League gets a 'pat on the back' for punishing the real criminal.

Cant help but think Rosenhaus didnt already get some domestic abuse lobby groups involved to push an agenda

 
I'm starting to think they will find the Malaysian jetliner before we find out about Gordon's suspension.
I get the sense that the NFL is trying to figure out how not to give this guy 1 year due to his season last year. If this was just some ham and egger WR, he would already be serving his suspension.
I've been thinking along these same lines for a while now. Gordon established himself as a star last season; what would the NFL do to Demaryius Thomas, AJ Green or Julio Jones in the same situation. I still think he gets suspended, but I could see the NFL coming up with some reason to cut the length due to extenuating circumstances.
NFL was fine dropping the hammer on Von Miller, who is every bit as big of a star as Josh Gordon and who played for a better/more visible team.

Although part of me wonders idly if the reason for the holdup is because the NFL wants to announce the Rice and Gordon suspensions at the same time, because they're planning on giving Rice more games than Gordon. It'd be a good public relations move for the league, if nothing else. But that's just me throwing darts blindfolded.
You know, that's actually a good call.

 
So lets assume he gets just 6 games.....im pretty sure everyone figures he will violate again soon after...that makes all of this banter back n forth all for not.

 
BustedKnuckles said:
So lets assume he gets just 6 games.....im pretty sure everyone figures he will violate again soon after...that makes all of this banter back n forth all for not.
i agree, and that's why i traded him.
 
Well since everyone knows hes gonna fail another test (without even knowing if he failed this one) the league may as well just have him lined up for lethal injection.

 
BustedKnuckles said:
So lets assume he gets just 6 games.....im pretty sure everyone figures he will violate again soon after...that makes all of this banter back n forth all for not.
If you have reduced suspension and then as reported fail another test in the same season I would say there is a pretty good chance, that yes he will. In fact I'm going on the record that he has probably already failed another test.

 
BustedKnuckles said:
So lets assume he gets just 6 games.....im pretty sure everyone figures he will violate again soon after...that makes all of this banter back n forth all for not.
If you have reduced suspension and then as reported fail another test in the same season I would say there is a pretty good chance, that yes he will. In fact I'm going on the record that he has probably already failed another test.
which could be a plausible explanation for the "delay" in the announcement.
 
Soulfly3 said:
Ditka Butkus said:
In fact I'm going on the record that he has probably already failed another test.
Yes, that'd cause a huge delay in the process, for sure.

Or it'd make the decision 1000x easier. Case closed.

Id take the latter 100% of the time.
IF there was another failed test, wouldn't they also have an opportunity to appeal that test as well? that would certainly delay the announcement, no?

 
Soulfly3 said:
Ditka Butkus said:
In fact I'm going on the record that he has probably already failed another test.
Yes, that'd cause a huge delay in the process, for sure.

Or it'd make the decision 1000x easier. Case closed.

Id take the latter 100% of the time.
IF there was another failed test, wouldn't they also have an opportunity to appeal that test as well?that would certainly delay the announcement, no?
Sure, they could.

Goodell would also laugh in their faces and hit 'em with the REJECTED stamp immediately.

Two failed drugs tests in a "single" period... ya, there wouldnt be a delay, it'd just be game over.

 
Soulfly3 said:
Ditka Butkus said:
In fact I'm going on the record that he has probably already failed another test.
Yes, that'd cause a huge delay in the process, for sure.

Or it'd make the decision 1000x easier. Case closed.

Id take the latter 100% of the time.
IF there was another failed test, wouldn't they also have an opportunity to appeal that test as well?that would certainly delay the announcement, no?
Sure, they could.

Goodell would also laugh in their faces and hit 'em with the REJECTED stamp immediately.

Two failed drugs tests in a "single" period... ya, there wouldnt be a delay, it'd just be game over.
huh, you could be right. i had assumed there was some sort of process that they had to follow.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top