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 (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
If he has been formally suspended, why is he allowed to practice and play?[icon] said:
Ned Ryerson
Footballguy
Because his suspension is being appealed. It is the same as when a verdict is rendered in a lawsuit, it doesn't have to be paid until all appeals are exhausted.
GoodLloydHaveMercy
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Right. So he hasn't been suspended yet. It's pending. Suspended players can't participate in team activities. He was informed that he WOULD be suspended. It has not happened. Yet.
pantherclub
Footballguy
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
So Gordon is appealing not being suspended? That seems pretty weird, but I respect him being so proactive about his career.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Oy. The only correct position here is that Gordon has been suspended. The terms of the suspension are on hold pending results of his appeal hearing and commissioner decision. There is a remote chance the suspension gets reduced or thrown out. But, make no mistake, he has been suspended. Otherwise, he wouldn't be hiring attorneys to try to get it overturned or reduced.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
I don't even know what point you are trying to make, but it doesn't matter how you say it.
At some point in time, even for a brief second or two, he was handed the suspension. Then, as soon as the appeal was filed, the suspension gets put on hold until the appeal is heard and ruled upon.
You could have answered your own question by thinking of it this way: if he wasn't dealt a suspension then what in the hell is he appealing?
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
While we are all speculating here, let's continue, shall we?
I like to use history as guide to my speculation, so let's take a walk down memory lane, back to 6 days before Sherman won his appeal.
http://www.ninersnation.com/2012/12/21/3792332/richard-sherman-appeal-49ers-vs-seahawks-sunday-night-football
Anybody see any mention in the article about what Suh argued in his appeal? Me neither.
Here's another, 15 days before he won his appeal.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Report-Appeal-for-Seahawks-CB-Richard-Sherman-delayed.html
Any mention of what Suh argued here? Nope.
And last but certainly not least, just 2 days before his appeal win was announced, we get this from the very learned press corp.
http://mynorthwest.com/?sid=2161484&nid=651
This is my favorite part:
"There's a 1 percent chance that Sherman will win his appeal for violating the NFL's performance-enhancement drug policy. The fan in me wants him to win his appeal because it would obviously help the Seahawks' chances of winning the Super Bowl.
Sherman is arguing that his urine-specimen cup leaked, causing testers to use a second cup underneath the first cup. So the basis of his case is a flaw in the testing process. Sounds flimsy and fishy to me."
The last sentence sounds strikingly familiar to some posters on this thread, but I will name no names, and make no accusations of ghosting.
My point here is to show how lazy the press corp has become.
Khy
Footballguy
Looking through all the Rotoworld history on him, at no point did the NFL ever announce his suspension. From what I can gather it looks like there were rumors about him being suspended for a year but we never got an official word. It just went from rumors to everyone just writing articles that he was suspended.
My understanding is that he isn't appealing the suspension, he's appealing the positive drug test in order to avoid suspension. If he was formally handed a suspension he wouldn't be allowed to participate in team activities. This is the reason for all the rumors that he'll either get all 16 game ban or play the whole year. Because if he wins this appeal, it'll mean the court found his drug test results in question and they weren't substantiated enough to find him guilty of exceeding the limit allowed for a positive test. Therefore, there would be no violation for the NFL to suspend him for and he would get 0 games instead of 16. If they find that the drug test is enough to prove he exceeded the limit and that there was no proved tampering with his test than he has another strike against him, which pushes him from Stage 2 to Stage 3 in the SAP and he is eligible for a full season suspension as seen with Blackmon.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
This thread brings to mind the movie Groundhog Day.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
Khy
Footballguy
What court? The NFLs... by definition these appeal hearings are heard by a court. Court doesn't just mean government courts it's simply a tribunal with authority. Same goes for the appeal an appeal can be made for anything. He was given the result of a positive drug test, he's appealing that... appeals aren't just for punishments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The appeal is part of the NFL's process for players that have been handed down a suspension. The appeal is heard before an Arbitrator, thus It's an arbitration.
Why would he appeal the positive drug test if their was no ramification attached to it (i.e. a suspension)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Focusing on the red bolded section: you claim to want to use history as your guide to speculation, but you cite an article that details Sherman/Suh's argument that a mistake was made during the testing process, which turned out to be THE REASON his suspension was overturned, and this is why you are speculating that Suh has found some lab mistake that will get Gordon off. Yet you don't think that during Gordon's appeal there has been absolutely NO MENTION of a mistake by the lab is relevant (even though we have heard what Gordon/Suh are arguing)?
I don't want to get banned for saying this, but I can't tell if you are fishing, just don't get it, or are being deliberately obtuse.
If there was any belief on Suh/Gordon's part that the lab made a mistake, I think it's highly unlikely that we would not have heard anything about it. You want to believe that there is some lab mistake that Suh has found (because "that's what he does") good luck with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the previous two articles made no mention of what they argued.
The article that did came out 2 days before his win was announced.
My point is , nobody really knew what was argued until they won, basically.
And even then, the writer, still sounded like many on here sayingGordon is toast, argument be damned.
The article that did came out 2 days before his win was announced.
My point is , nobody really knew what was argued until they won, basically.
And even then, the writer, still sounded like many on here sayingGordon is toast, argument be damned.
Khy
Footballguy
Arbitrator, courts, whatever. You guys knew what I meant, if anything I think you're a little hung up on the semantics of the specific words I'm using. You knew full well what I meant by courts... the difference between the two is negligible at best.
Anyway, I'm not even a Gordon supporter, I own him in one of my 13 leagues. My point is more so that there was never an official announcement that he was suspended, it was just rumors. The only confirmation we had was that he tested positive for marijuana. As for why would he appeal a positive drug test? Because he was in Stage 2 of the NFLs SAP he's not stupid, he's aware that getting to level 3 (aka one more positive test) would suspend him for a year and force him to apply for reinstatement. From what I can see looking at all the roto reports was this:
May 12th - Peter King reports that Gordon is likely to be suspended between eight to 16 games.
May 13th - Dan Graziano reports that the NFL is expected to revamp it's marijuana policy.
May 13th - Jimmy Haslam expresses confidence in Gordon.
May 19th - Rumor that Drew Rosenhaus is in the process of appealing his suspension.
So, they never actually said he was suspended. It went from rumored (and likely) suspension incoming to a rumor that Rosenhaus appealing a suspension that never happened. In reality, he was probably setting up an appeal of the positive drug test, because as of May 19th there had been no suspension handed down. Essentially, the report of Rosenhaus' appeal came out and after that everyone just kept saying "the appeal of his suspension". There was literally never a single report stating that he was actually suspended. Had he been handed a suspension it would've been reported with an exact amount of games. It's sort of hard to appeal a value of X, without having more details.
It's not a semantics argument, it's just a simple fact. There hasn't been a definitive suspension handed down, the NFL was deciding how long to suspend him for and before they could make that decision Gordon is appealing his positive drug test. Because if the ruling of the positive drug test is over-turned by the arbitrator (happy?) than he isn't even eligible for a suspension at all. And this whole thing is moot.
Sherman's suspension hearing was heard on 12/21/12. The article you cited was from 12/25/12. So, within 4 days of the appeal, the argument that Suh used was public knowledge.
We are 4 days after Gordon's appeal hearing, and we have heard that Suh argued 2nd-hand smoke, and the difference between sample A & B is important. We have heard NOTHING about them arguing lab mistakes. There is no basis to do so. You are entitled to believe that this argument was made, but is being kept secret, but that doesn't make it true.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The NFL doesn't announce the suspension until after the appeal process, if any, takes place. In this case the failed test was leaked. Usually that doesn't happen.
He was certainly already told he was facing a suspension or there would be nothing to appeal. There is no system in place to appeal a failed drug test. There is a system in place to appeal a suspension.
You can challenge the test results or the testing process during your appeal, but you are appealing a suspension (which resulted from the failed drug test). It has been reported repeatedly that he is facing an indefinite (year long) suspension.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Hey guys, as we've said before, this is an important topic for a lot of people and we need to keep the thread worthwhile for Gordon owners and potential drafters to read. We've reached a zero tolerance for insults, direct or insinuated. No amount of worthwhile post makes up for throwing in an insult and baiting others to retaliate.
The current argument about Suh's defense is long past having been run into the ground. Ojaays and Bayhawks, your views have already been made known. So far nothing about the actual defense for Gordon on this point has been provided but speculation. Unless you have a link from a legitimate source about what Suh actually presented for Gordon on this specific angle, please take it to PM if you wish to discuss it with each other further.
The current argument about Suh's defense is long past having been run into the ground. Ojaays and Bayhawks, your views have already been made known. So far nothing about the actual defense for Gordon on this point has been provided but speculation. Unless you have a link from a legitimate source about what Suh actually presented for Gordon on this specific angle, please take it to PM if you wish to discuss it with each other further.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Florio just now...
Last edited by a moderator:
Proust Loves Cake
Footballguy
link from a legitimate source
I'm fine with providing links, and I agree that this thread can be useful for Gordon owners/possible drafters/those who might trade for him. That being the case, when someone posts something like it's a fact, he/she should be able to be challenged on it, especially if they refuse to provide any links.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Gordon owners: which deal would you take right now if offered to you: 8 games suspension (i.e, a certainty), or a full season suspension/no suspension either/or situation (i.e., an uncertainty)?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It doesn't look like that is really going to be an option anyway, but if I owned him, I'd sign up for 8 games right now:
werdnoynek
Footballguy
Fact:
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyDb4szpWmc
ETA: The band name, the song name, and the lyrics are all relevant, in so many ways, to this thread.
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyDb4szpWmc
ETA: The band name, the song name, and the lyrics are all relevant, in so many ways, to this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Banger
Footballguy
I'd go for the 8 games. At least you know he'll suit up for some period of time. Last year I got through injuries to Cobb, Vereen and 6 weeks without Gronk. It's not ideal but I'd rather know that I can get something out of him at some point as opposed to hiding him on my roster all year knowing he's a dead roster spot.
Bamac
Footballguy
I'd take 12 games at this point. Give me a chance to use him in the playoffs or deal him before the trade deadline.
Banger
Footballguy
I hate the all or none scenario and this is the first I'm hearing of it. I was always under the assumption that he could get a reduced sentence (meaning 6, 8, 10 games) or his appeal denied and a full season.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
From what I can tell about the arbitration process, the arbitrator has to side with one party or the other. IIRC, an arbitrator cannot pick a point in the middle. Which is why if there is an option that is not 0 or 16 games, I am pretty sure that means the two sides negotiated their own outcome.
cstu
Footballguy
I'm sure he would too and that's why he's fighting his suspension so hard.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Florio also cited the language of the CBA, which says "will be suspended" as opposed to "may" or some other wiggle-oriented language. Florio indicated that he'd confirmed as much with someone in the know who suggested that the lack of discretion was originally at the players' request out of fear that there would be a two-tiered system of justice depending on how good you are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I think it would have to be a negotiated settlement for it to be reduced.
If the appeal is denied he would receive 16 games.
If appeal is granted he would receive 0 games.
Banger
Footballguy
georg013
Footballguy
I know it is universally assumed that Gordon is appealing an indefinite ban, but, correct me if I'm wrong, neither Gordon nor the NFL have confirmed this, correct? I am well aware that the information that has been leaked all strongly point in that direction, but it is not official, correct?
Last edited by a moderator:
