WR Josh Gordon, KC (4 Viewers)

[georg013]

Nutrider!! Only in the Gordon thread!

 

[Bayhawks]

My post history which is 100% accurate on all topics.Watch out for the lights.

100% accurate?

I rarely post here but this thread is full of garbage and I need to clean it up.

So the guy had some huge nuts thanks to Cleveland's pathetic medical staff/facilities and that's why it hurt to walk...

Seriously- if he had been in a motorcycle accident as a Dallas Cowboy or Washington Redskin, would he have had all the surgeries and staph infections that he's had so far? No way. And he's away from that, away from all that past drama, and I think he's going to have a career year no matter who's playing QB. Tampa's offense will surprise this year, Ward is underrated, Bryant is a servicable #1WR, Clayton's got his head screwed on straight, and their line isn't bad especially their interior (assuming Sears is in). It's their defense that's going to be the weak link, and that means more passing.

Point is he can walk, he can run, he can catch, he put up a monster year after having MF surgery, Tampa's docs signed off on him, and we don't have to worry about any more random staph infections because he's not in Cleveland anymore. HE'S 25 YEARS OLD NOT 40.

97/1230/10

Winslow's actual stats that year:

77/884/5

But you know what? That doesn't have anything to do with this thread, the Gordon situation, or your take on it. You aren't wrong here because you were wrong 5 years ago about Kellen Winslow, and you aren't right here because you were right last year about Matt Forte.

The fact of the matter is that you were mistaken about Ohio Law, instead of discussing it, you turned it into a p*$$ing match about how smart you are, and how "100% accurate" your posting history is.

 

[towney]

Now this is from Rotoworld who keeps going back and forth on his suspension.

Josh Gordon was active for Saturday's preseason game, but wasn't targeted.
If he played a snap, we didn't see it. It's a strong sign the Browns don't expect to have Gordon for Week 1. If Gordon is done for August, he finishes with three catches for 40 yards. Aug 23 - 11:04 PM

 

[LawFitz]

Gordon not playing at all tonight is not a good sign, unless there's an injury I'm unaware of.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So whats going on in here?

 

[FBG Moderator]

For awhile now it had been much more civil in here. Let's not go back to the insults and posturing again, please.

 

[Peyton Marino]

Took him the the 11th of a 12 teamer last night. Will continue to target him late as long as the suspension is still up in the air. 16 games (played) imo

 

[BoltNlava]

If you drug test your employees in Ohio, you are bound by the Ohio drug testing laws. It's as simple as that. Whether you are a voluntary participant in the "Drug Free Workplace" program or not (and why wouldn't the Browns participate in order to gain tax benefits?).

Where are the Ohio drug testing laws? Surely you don't think that the voluntary Ohio Drug Free Program is "state law," right? Because you know, state laws are typically not voluntary.

And it's clear that you have zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program. Your evidence is "Why wouldn't they?" which, of course, is not evidence at all. If you'd like an answer to your question though, one reason they wouldn't is that they're part of a national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force.

But hey, you predicted a player's stat line right like in 2009, so you must be an expert on everything under the sun. I'd love to see some other predictions you made about legal issues since, you know, that's what we're talking about. Post it up, Matlock.

1) I already linked the drug testing laws. See the link in my earlier post? Click it. Read it. If you would like another source, here- http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Ohio.htm

Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58

Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58

2) I have "zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program" huh? Their own website for people applying for jobs states they are a drug free workplace. If they test employees, it's subject to Ohio law. Furthermore, they are required to offer worker's compensation coverage, which the drug free workplace program just happens to provide massive discounts on workers comp premiums. Study up on NFL teams and worker's comp coverage here: http://www.carnlaw.com/workers-compensation-for-nfl-players.html

Do you think those premiums are cheap? So yeah, I have a pretty good idea that the Browns (a business, run by a businessman) aren't leaving money on the table when it comes to workers comp premiums. They'd be stupid not to.

3) Now you want to bring up the NFL's standing as "national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force." Which is all well and good. But it didn't prevent the Williams boys from getting an injunction and playing for quite a while before the Starcaps case was resolved. The NFL is not exempt from state laws.

4) I'll make a prediction on this case, without any "probably most likely" hedging crap that you've thrown out there- Gordon plays 16 games this season. 16 games.

What's your prediction? I'll come back here and laugh in your face when I see the starting lineups for week 1, nutrider.

Nutrider?

He was that German guy who sang on a wall and had a talking car in the '80s.

 

[Ojaays]

He was that German guy who sang on a wall and had a talking car in the '80s.

http://www.skatepark.ymca.org.au/Media/images/night-rider-hoff-fefbc40a-6793-45ac-85f4-fda785767727-0-400x300.jpg

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I took Gordon in the 7th in a 16-team league.

From a legal perspective, the NFL must not have much of a leg to stand on given their slow-walking to the podium to announce a result of the appeal.

Either they are waiting and will then announce a change to their drug testing policy (to be more in-line with say, WADA, where you are allowed to smoke out-of-season but remain under 150ng/ml in-season) as it's being drawn up, or will try to drop the hammer on Gordon for a full year and are getting their ducks in a row for a drawn-out legal challenge.

The wait also indicates the NFL is aware the result of this appeal will be challenged under Ohio law, and a judge won't have much difficulty in finding evidence that Gordon has been harmed by the NFL's decision, resulting in the suspension being delayed until after legal resolution (likely after the season).

I think it's been drawn out because the NFL is aware of these 2 potential outcomes (either change drug testing policies and "free Josh Gordon" immediately, or suspend him for a full season/indefinitely) and in the interim has been trying to negotiate with Gordon's camp on a shorter suspension (2-4 games) while they work on drug testing policy revisions without such a time constraint.

Gordon's camp, wisely, has rejected all attempted suspension negotiations, because they know that they have a pretty decent shot at the decision being overturned in an Ohio court and Gordon would at least be allowed to play THIS season.

It makes the NFL look heavy-handed, it makes sympathetic figures out of Gordon and the Browns, and if Gordon had no case not only would the NFL NOT negotiate, but they certainly would have returned a result from the appeal by now.

All things said, it looks pretty rosy for Gordon owners.

I'll go on record as saying he plays 16 games this season. I make no predictions as to the outcome of the court case that will result if the NFL chooses to retain its archaic marijuana policies.

I love the interpretation of everything. "It's taken a long time - obviously the NFL knows they're going to lose under Ohio law!"

Let's play a game- I'll give you a couple examples of what I post on this forum (and I rarely post here) and then you can show me some of your pearls of wisdom.

This was me when Terrell Owens signed with the Bengals-

Worst case, Owens causes Bryant to step up his game and post a huge year. I think the best bet is to get both Owens and Bryant if you're going to take one and then you're assured of having the guy in single coverage across from Ochocinco with a capable QB passing them the ball. That being said, Antonio Bryant has been bet on time and time again in his career and he frequently fails to deliver. Owens has been consistently excellent from a fantasy perspective.

I'll put my money on Owens, to the tune of 72/1094/9. 3 of those TDs will be 40+ yarders thanks to single coverage.

Owens' line that season- 72/983/9

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/spotlight.php?yr=2010&id=OwenTe00

This was me last offseason when Matt Forte was being discussed-

If Charlie Garner can rack up 1900 yards from scrimmage and 11 total TDs (7 rushing) under Trestman in Oakland when he was 30, I'd wager a bet that Forte can equal those numbers this year.

And that's an RB1.

As far as projecting career highs, if someone said "Hey Charlie Garner will set career highs in yards from scrimmage and total TDs when he's 30" they'd get laughed out of the room too.

Until it turns out they were right.

Matt Forte's line last season- 1933 total yards and 12 total TDs.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=674956&page=2

Now, until you can offer something up that should make me consider your comments to be worth more than the scum on the bottom of a good man's shoes, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Guys like you will continue to pipe up and offer worthless throwaway comments until the exact thing you are mocking ends up happening, and then like a roach with the lights turned on, you scurry into the nearest hole.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

If you drug test your employees in Ohio, you are bound by the Ohio drug testing laws. It's as simple as that. Whether you are a voluntary participant in the "Drug Free Workplace" program or not (and why wouldn't the Browns participate in order to gain tax benefits?).

Where are the Ohio drug testing laws? Surely you don't think that the voluntary Ohio Drug Free Program is "state law," right? Because you know, state laws are typically not voluntary.

And it's clear that you have zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program. Your evidence is "Why wouldn't they?" which, of course, is not evidence at all. If you'd like an answer to your question though, one reason they wouldn't is that they're part of a national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force.

But hey, you predicted a player's stat line right like in 2009, so you must be an expert on everything under the sun. I'd love to see some other predictions you made about legal issues since, you know, that's what we're talking about. Post it up, Matlock.

1) I already linked the drug testing laws. See the link in my earlier post? Click it. Read it. If you would like another source, here- http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Ohio.htm

Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
2) I have "zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program" huh? Their own website for people applying for jobs states they are a drug free workplace. If they test employees, it's subject to Ohio law. Furthermore, they are required to offer worker's compensation coverage, which the drug free workplace program just happens to provide massive discounts on workers comp premiums. Study up on NFL teams and worker's comp coverage here: http://www.carnlaw.com/workers-compensation-for-nfl-players.html

Do you think those premiums are cheap? So yeah, I have a pretty good idea that the Browns (a business, run by a businessman) aren't leaving money on the table when it comes to workers comp premiums. They'd be stupid not to.

3) Now you want to bring up the NFL's standing as "national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force." Which is all well and good. But it didn't prevent the Williams boys from getting an injunction and playing for quite a while before the Starcaps case was resolved. The NFL is not exempt from state laws.

4) I'll make a prediction on this case, without any "probably most likely" hedging crap that you've thrown out there- Gordon plays 16 games this season. 16 games.

What's your prediction? I'll come back here and laugh in your face when I see the starting lineups for week 1, nutrider.

Nutrider? Grow up.

EVERY LINK YOU'VE provided has been brought up. You aren't some genius who found something that everyone else missed. They've all be brought up, and they all show that this Ohio Administrative code only applies to businesses who participate in the Drug-Free workplace policy. Every company in Ohio that drug tests DOES NOT have to follow this code, only those who choose to participate, in order to receive the insurance benefits.

There is no reason to believe that the Browns participate in this program. If you have EVIDENCE (not "they provide insurance, so they must participate") please share it, but don't you think that someone one from ESPN, CBS, Fox, etc would have discovered this legal nugget? You and some random blogger on the Internet are the only people who thought of this? And after that blogger brought it up (almost 3 weeks ago), not one major media outlet or sports reporter thought this would be an important enough story to investigate and follow up on? Really?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

PWW and Bayhawks doing work

 

[Maven]

"I fully expect Josh Gordon’s legal team to get the calendar-year ban lifted following his appeal this Friday.

I have defended clients in court who tested positive for drugs, challenged positive test results and cross-examined several lab technicians and doctors regarding drug test results. I started salivating when I saw the results of Gordon’s drug tests—as much as a shark, mosquito (or any other animal, insect, etc. you call lawyers) can salivate.

First is the arbitrary and completely random labeling of the “A” and “B” bottles of urine. That, alone, should be enough to get the suspension lifted.

Bottle “A” was a nanogram above the extremely low 15 ng/ml cut-off level (the World Anti-Doping Agency raised its limit from 15 ng/ml to 150 ng/ml to account for secondhand smoke, among other things), while bottle “B” was below the limit.

Had bottle “B” been labeled “A” and tested first, the only reason we would be discussing Gordon would be arguing over whether he would be the No. 1 wide receiver this year or not. Instead, bottle “A” was labeled “A” and tested first so here we are.

Such arbitrariness should not control Gordon’s fate when it comes to his livelihood.

Here is something that is not arbitrary: the type of testing that is done in these cases.

Typically, the first urine sample is tested for a panel of different drugs. If that sample comes back positive for a particular substance, then the second urine sample is tested using a different, more specific form of analysis. That different analysis is called gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).

GC/MS identifies the drug molecules based on characteristic fragmentation patterns at specific retention times. In other words, GC/MS is a highly sensitive form of detecting the true and accurate level of the substance in the urine that is only usually done to confirm the first positive test.

If GC/MS was done on Gordon’s second sample and not the first, then the argument is that the true and accurate level of marijuana in his system was 13.63 ng/ml, not the 16 ng/ml that was in bottle “A.” That too, is enough to get his suspension lifted.

It’s been said that Gordon will argue his urine was positive for marijuana (THC, actually) due to secondhand smoke. The cut-off level for marijuana is so low in the NFL that that argument is completely reasonable.

Remember back in 1998 when that snowboarder won the Olympic gold medal only to get it snatched away from him by the Olympic Committee because he tested positive for marijuana? That was Ross Rebagliati, and he tested positive for marijuana at 17.8 ng/ml.

Regabliati claimed the THC metabolite ended up in his system due to secondhand smoke. The Olympic Committee gave the gold medal back, mainly due to marijuana not being on the Olympics’ banned-substance list. So it’s not the first time we’ve heard the secondhand smoke argument.

Gordon’s secondhand smoke argument is problematic because the NFL holds these guys accountable for what goes into their bodies, which is also completely reasonable.

Then there is the chain-of-custody to examine, along with a host of other potential problems that come along with drug testing, including calibration of machines and certification of the labs where the testing was done—that’s where the details matter.

Gordon’s legal team, of course, has those details and will present them on Friday. Based on what’s been reported thus far, and what I know about Gordon's drug test results, I think the only types of hits Gordon will be taking are from defensive backs."

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/245-josh-gordon-will-look-to-catch-a-break-with-strong-appeal.html

 

[MoveToSkypager]

http://fieldandcourt.com/component/k2/item/245-josh-gordon-will-look-to-catch-a-break-with-strong-appeal.html

This is why these big threads should have a ToC

 

[Donnybrook]

They sure are dragging this decision out. It should have been made a month ago.

 

[amnesiac]

i'm going to try drafting him in my keeper league that i ended up dropping him in as a lottery ticket.

 

[placebo]

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Broncos K Matt Prater was facing a year-long suspension before his attorney got it reduced to four games.

 

[Soulfly3]

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Broncos K Matt Prater was facing a year-long suspension before his attorney got it reduced to four games.

Prater has been in the league's drug program since 2011. This report suggests he's had multiple strikes. Prater has a booming leg and is the consensus top fantasy kicker. He'll miss the first four games of the season before returning in Week 6. Look for the Broncos to sign a veteran kicker in the coming days.

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny

But no.... no. Gordon has no chance. The NFL would never.....

oh, wait.

 

[Soulfly3]

Suspended WR Josh Gordon didn't play in Saturday's third preseason game due to a "medical issue."

Gordon is believed to be dealing with an abdominal injury. He's likely day to day. NFL reporters don't expect a decision on Gordon's suspension appeal before Monday at the soonest.

He didnt play cuz they're preparing for life withou......

oh, wait.

 

[amnesiac]

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Broncos K Matt Prater was facing a year-long suspension before his attorney got it reduced to four games.

Prater has been in the league's drug program since 2011. This report suggests he's had multiple strikes. Prater has a booming leg and is the consensus top fantasy kicker. He'll miss the first four games of the season before returning in Week 6. Look for the Broncos to sign a veteran kicker in the coming days.

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny

But no.... no. Gordon has no chance. The NFL would never.....

oh, wait.

if only Gordon played with Manning.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

Where are the Ohio drug testing laws? Surely you don't think that the voluntary Ohio Drug Free Program is "state law," right? Because you know, state laws are typically not voluntary.

And it's clear that you have zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program. Your evidence is "Why wouldn't they?" which, of course, is not evidence at all. If you'd like an answer to your question though, one reason they wouldn't is that they're part of a national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force.

But hey, you predicted a player's stat line right like in 2009, so you must be an expert on everything under the sun. I'd love to see some other predictions you made about legal issues since, you know, that's what we're talking about. Post it up, Matlock.

1) I already linked the drug testing laws. See the link in my earlier post? Click it. Read it. If you would like another source, here- http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Ohio.htm

Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
2) I have "zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program" huh? Their own website for people applying for jobs states they are a drug free workplace. If they test employees, it's subject to Ohio law. Furthermore, they are required to offer worker's compensation coverage, which the drug free workplace program just happens to provide massive discounts on workers comp premiums. Study up on NFL teams and worker's comp coverage here: http://www.carnlaw.com/workers-compensation-for-nfl-players.html

Do you think those premiums are cheap? So yeah, I have a pretty good idea that the Browns (a business, run by a businessman) aren't leaving money on the table when it comes to workers comp premiums. They'd be stupid not to.

3) Now you want to bring up the NFL's standing as "national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force." Which is all well and good. But it didn't prevent the Williams boys from getting an injunction and playing for quite a while before the Starcaps case was resolved. The NFL is not exempt from state laws.

4) I'll make a prediction on this case, without any "probably most likely" hedging crap that you've thrown out there- Gordon plays 16 games this season. 16 games.

What's your prediction? I'll come back here and laugh in your face when I see the starting lineups for week 1, nutrider.

Doesn't the NFL anti-trust exemption actually mean just that...the NFL is exempt from many state and federal laws that other corporations are bound by? Since professional football leagues are considered non-profit organizations, the NFL doesn't even pay taxes does it? I'm obviously not a legal expert but that's the impression I was always under.

 

[Soulfly3]

Here comes the excuse train....

Everything they Gordon haters held on to, just got SMASHED by Schef and Prater.



There is no sweeter wine. None.

 

[Peyton Marino]

wait what

 

[Soulfly3]

There is NO way the NFL will set the precedent w Gordon to reduce a 1 year suspen....

oh, wait.

 

[Peyton Marino]

"Cedric Hopkins runs this sports law/fantasy football blog. If you have issues with it, it's all his fault. Cedric was an athlete-student at the University of New Mexico (Basketball - Go Lobos!). He then morphed into a student-athlete when he attended law school in San Diego. Age replaced athleticism and now he writes appellate briefs for criminals (alleged criminals, of course) in state and federal cases, including writing U.S. Supreme Court briefs.

For years Cedric has researched and written about legal issues but maintained a love for sports. With FieldandCourt.com, he's combining his two passions: researching and writing about sports. When he's not in court arguing a case before a judge (or writing about himself in the third person), he'll be doing the same with his articles on FieldandCourt.com."

The dude who wrote that legal opinion a few posts up

 

[Ojaays]

There is NO way the NFL will set the precedent w Gordon to reduce a 1 year suspen....

oh, wait.

Actually don't believe it will reduced at all, because there won't be any.

Gordon plays 16 in 14.

 

[Soulfly3]

There is NO way the NFL will set the precedent w Gordon to reduce a 1 year suspen....

oh, wait.

I am going to laugh so hard when the 1yr is announced. This behavior by you is what stirs the pot, so don't start crying foul when the laughing begins.

There's no other solution than 1 year!!! I've finally realized the league would NEVER reduce a year long suspension...

Imagine if they set a precedence for that!?



and if he gets the year... LAUGH AWAY, my friend. Doesn't change the fact that the arguments made in here as to why he was guaranteed a year, just got doodoo'd on.

 

[Khy]

Where are the Ohio drug testing laws? Surely you don't think that the voluntary Ohio Drug Free Program is "state law," right? Because you know, state laws are typically not voluntary.

And it's clear that you have zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program. Your evidence is "Why wouldn't they?" which, of course, is not evidence at all. If you'd like an answer to your question though, one reason they wouldn't is that they're part of a national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force.

But hey, you predicted a player's stat line right like in 2009, so you must be an expert on everything under the sun. I'd love to see some other predictions you made about legal issues since, you know, that's what we're talking about. Post it up, Matlock.

1) I already linked the drug testing laws. See the link in my earlier post? Click it. Read it. If you would like another source, here- http://www.testcountry.com/StateLaws/Ohio.htm

Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
Ohio Admin. Code §4123-17-58
2) I have "zero evidence that the Browns participate in the aforementioned voluntary drug free workplace program" huh? Their own website for people applying for jobs states they are a drug free workplace. If they test employees, it's subject to Ohio law. Furthermore, they are required to offer worker's compensation coverage, which the drug free workplace program just happens to provide massive discounts on workers comp premiums. Study up on NFL teams and worker's comp coverage here: http://www.carnlaw.com/workers-compensation-for-nfl-players.html

Do you think those premiums are cheap? So yeah, I have a pretty good idea that the Browns (a business, run by a businessman) aren't leaving money on the table when it comes to workers comp premiums. They'd be stupid not to.

3) Now you want to bring up the NFL's standing as "national organization that maintains it's own drug free workplace program that's been collectively bargained with its labor force." Which is all well and good. But it didn't prevent the Williams boys from getting an injunction and playing for quite a while before the Starcaps case was resolved. The NFL is not exempt from state laws.

4) I'll make a prediction on this case, without any "probably most likely" hedging crap that you've thrown out there- Gordon plays 16 games this season. 16 games.

What's your prediction? I'll come back here and laugh in your face when I see the starting lineups for week 1, nutrider.

Doesn't the NFL anti-trust exemption actually mean just that...the NFL is exempt from many state and federal laws that other corporations are bound by? Since professional football leagues are considered non-profit organizations, the NFL doesn't even pay taxes does it? I'm obviously not a legal expert but that's the impression I was always under.

If I recall correctly this is not the case... it's somewhere in this thread but I believe the US courts ruled that the NFL is not exempt from state laws of their official teams. Just because they're an "NFL Team" which is a nationwide establishment, the teams that employ these plays still reside inside a certain state and must abide by said states employment laws.

As for non-profit status I believe the way it works is that the NFL League Office is a non-profit not the teams however.

 

[cstu]

Suspended WR Josh Gordon didn't play in Saturday's third preseason game due to a "medical issue."

Gordon is believed to be dealing with an abdominal injury. He's likely day to day. NFL reporters don't expect a decision on Gordon's suspension appeal before Monday at the soonest.

He didnt play cuz they're preparing for life withou......

oh, wait.

Prater never received a suspension before so it's no surprise he got 4 games. I have no idea why his lawyer would say the league wanted to suspend him for a year.

 

[Soulfly3]

oh... so Schefter is no longer a credible source?

LOL. ok.

 

[lod01]

Was not able to sneak him onto our redraft league late.

Now calling for a 1 year ban. This guy deserves a year and is guilty as hell. Pot smoking, drug addicted, multi offense, addict. This guy needs taught a lesson.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You sure do jabber a lot for a guy who ran and hid for weeks the last time the news went against you.

 

[cstu]

The NFL had initially threatened a one-year suspension.

Every site is stating this but I can find a single quote about it. Where did this come from?

 

[cstu]

Prater got 4 games for alcohol (legal) while Rice got only 2 for knocking out a women...."The NFL can't risk the bad press"...or could they?

 

[cstu]

My guess with Prater is that he failed/missed a number of tests in a short period of time that escalated him quickly from Stage 1 to Stage 3 of the program. His lawyer must have argued that he was not given the initial 4 game suspension so they couldn't suspend him a year as part of Stage 3.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I am the Slack-Jawed Yokel.

 

[Soulfly3]

Prater

Soulfly's friend since today.

 

[georg013]

You sure do jabber a lot for a guy who ran and hid for weeks the last time the news went against you.

No need to rehash the past. Booooo! I like it better when the fly is in the building. I have confidence he will face the music if he is wrong. Same with everyone like you praying Gordon gets a lifetime ban.

 

[ffrookie]

Latest update: Browns expecting a suspension although could be just part of the year

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/mike-pettine-says-browns-fairly-certain-josh-gordon-will-be-suspended-at-least-part-of-year-1.516382

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Pettine: ...we’re fairly certain that we’re not going to have him for at minimum some part of the year so we wanted to make sure we were getting repetitions with the guys that are going to be out there

Per multiple sources, the Matt Prater suspension was never going to cover a full year. Story to come at PFT.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Everybody has to admit, Soulfly is an oak and stands tall and strong with his stance...You have to admire that, even if you disagree with said stance.

ETA....Goodell and the Arbitrator Henderson should go to work for the CIA..they seem well versed in mental torture.

 

[fatness]

Steinberg said Prater had been in the NFL's substance abuse program since a drunken driving arrest in suburban Denver in Aug. 2011, and was prohibited from drinking alcohol, a common stipulation for players with DUI arrests. Steinberg said Prater tested positive for alcohol this summer after drinking beer at his home, while on vacation.

That was Prater's second DUI while with the Broncos. According to records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement obtained by USA TODAY Sports, Prater was charged with DUI in Orlando January 2008, about a month after he was signed by the Broncos. Court records show Prater pleaded no contest to that charge and was sentenced to one year probation, 50 hours of community service and had his license suspended for six months. Prater completed probation in 2009, and was not in the NFL's drug program at the time of his arrest in 2011, Steinberg said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/08/24/report-broncos-k-matt-prater-faces-4-game-ban/14523505/

2 DUI arrests and then a failed test, if I'm following the article correctly. Wasn't there a topic about him around here with "Can't Stay Away From the Bottle" in the title?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Pettine: ...we’re fairly certain that we’re not going to have him for at minimum some part of the year so we wanted to make sure we were getting repetitions with the guys that are going to be out there

Per multiple sources, the Matt Prater suspension was never going to cover a full year. Story to come at PFT.

This can't be true - Soulfly has posted 35 rolling smilies about this!

 

[Soulfly3]

Is that where we're at now?

Ignoring that even the Browns are confident he's playing this year and focusing on Prater?



Ya... This is what I expected

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Took him in two leagues today, fingers crossed i have him for playoffs

 

[PatsWillWin]

Is that where we're at now?

Ignoring that even the Browns are confident he's playing this year and focusing on Prater?



Ya... This is what I expected

We? You just posted about 11 times about Prater back when you thought it helped your argument 20 minutes ago.

 

[Soulfly3]

Is that where we're at now?

Ignoring that even the Browns are confident he's playing this year and focusing on Prater?



Ya... This is what I expected

We? You just posted about 11 times about Prater back when you thought it helped your argument 20 minutes ago.

Old news Brosephine...

Get with 8:11pm est. Browns preparing for Gordon to be out PART of the season.

It's like Ive been telling ya'll... But I guess sometimes, it takes 136 pages to make your point. But Im persistent.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Is that where we're at now?

Ignoring that even the Browns are confident he's playing this year and focusing on Prater?



Ya... This is what I expected

We? You just posted about 11 times about Prater back when you thought it helped your argument 20 minutes ago.

Old news Brosephine...

Get with 8:11pm est. Browns preparing for Gordon to be out PART of the season.

It's like Ive been telling ya'll... But I guess sometimes, it takes 136 pages to make your point. But Im persistent.

It doesn't say that, but okay.

 

[Soulfly3]

Ain't gonna be 16 games boys...

I dont know how it wont sink into your heads... How are you ignoring so much evidence to the contrary?

 

[Jello_Biafra]

4-8 games. No way he's out the whole year. It would have been announced by now.