How awesome would it be if every time Mort mentioned "sources," they turned out to be Soulfly and Ojaay?
VeryHow awesome would it be if every time Mort mentioned "sources," they turned out to be Soulfly and Ojaay?
All I can do isHow awesome would it be if every time Mort mentioned "sources," they turned out to be Soulfly and Ojaay?
Fixed :-\How awesome would it be if every time Mort mentioned "sources," they turned out to be Soulfly/Ojaay?
buck naked said:Looks like you a re dead wrong - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabledProust Loves Cake said:Less than winning the lottery. While still better than a non-zero chance, it's still awfully, terribly, ridiculously low.GoBirds said:Odds of reduced suspension?
I really don't understand the disproportionate speculation that he might get reinstated, except that it is based on hope. Hope is a nice thing and all, but it often clouds basic logic, reason, and common sense. The league is absolutely not going to put forward a proposal that opens itself up to legal challenges by others who have been negatively affected by rules they violated when in effect, but were later changed. This is a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, and every other cliche you can conjure up, that the owners simply won't ever agree to. And, the players obviously are not going to hinge the agreement on one or two guys, particularly a recidivist drug user and an aging, soon-to-be irrelevant slot receiver.
Bottom line, these guys violated rules that were in place, and the players' union isn't going to move mountains to get these guys cleared. The owners clearly have every motivation to avoid that, as well.
Gordon will serve his suspension, as he should, as he violated the rules as they were written when he chose for the umpteenth time to put himself above the rules. And, Welker is an idiot and will serve his time, as well.
Anything else is grasping at a small time lottery ticket to barely increase the chances of winning a small time fantasy league. Forgive me, but I fundamentally haven't understood Gordon Owner Logic at any point in this thread.
The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said. It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.
Hence the reason there's been complaints from team owners about retroactively applying the new drug rules. For example, if I'm Haslam, there's no way I agree to a provision which allows Welker to return immediately if Gordon remains banned.Been a ton of conflicting, changing reports. But thats how I read it yes. RT @Stevehague5: so gordon won't be off the hook?
-Greg Rosenthall
https://twitter.com/greggrosenthal/status/509564563700719616
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/09/josh_gordon_could_be_re-instat_1.htmlMortenson also reported that a late point of contention is that if the NFL allows suspended players such as Gordon and Denver's Wes Welker back in, other NFL owners will fight to have their suspended players re-instated. The NFL has already begun receiving complaints from owners who want their players re-instated
out of curiosity, where did he end up going?Thanks for the responses guys. I think the earliest I will consider it, absent of any new information, is at 4.11, but I'm guessing he may be gone by then.
992 id say.Ok thanks. Anyone else?There are some of us that aren't bidding anything, we've already rostered him because it's the thing to do, until it isn't.So you guys who are playing in the FFPC...blind bidding isn't open until after week 1. We have 1000 bucks to last all season, and you can't make any transactions once you run out. That said, how much are we bidding for Gordon? At least 900 right? 950?
What about the line right after what you bolder & underlined? You know where it says it's not even sure if the NFLPA will even continue negotiations or put them on hold until after the year?buck naked said:Looks like you a re dead wrong - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabledProust Loves Cake said:Less than winning the lottery. While still better than a non-zero chance, it's still awfully, terribly, ridiculously low.GoBirds said:Odds of reduced suspension?
I really don't understand the disproportionate speculation that he might get reinstated, except that it is based on hope. Hope is a nice thing and all, but it often clouds basic logic, reason, and common sense. The league is absolutely not going to put forward a proposal that opens itself up to legal challenges by others who have been negatively affected by rules they violated when in effect, but were later changed. This is a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, and every other cliche you can conjure up, that the owners simply won't ever agree to. And, the players obviously are not going to hinge the agreement on one or two guys, particularly a recidivist drug user and an aging, soon-to-be irrelevant slot receiver.
Bottom line, these guys violated rules that were in place, and the players' union isn't going to move mountains to get these guys cleared. The owners clearly have every motivation to avoid that, as well.
Gordon will serve his suspension, as he should, as he violated the rules as they were written when he chose for the umpteenth time to put himself above the rules. And, Welker is an idiot and will serve his time, as well.
Anything else is grasping at a small time lottery ticket to barely increase the chances of winning a small time fantasy league. Forgive me, but I fundamentally haven't understood Gordon Owner Logic at any point in this thread.The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said. It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.
well, actually, it seems they changed the rules after wes welker got in trouble. id say gordon is just "collateral damage" in the effort to keep the white guy on the field.Ditka Butkus said:No I won't support him... because the rules were changed expressly for his benefit which is even worse, because now "not only did I violate the rules, they actually changed the rules for me"... The lesson being don't worry Josh you can continue to be an irresponsible punk and do whatever the #### you want because you are untouchable...Sabertooth said:If the terms are changed, then you'll fully support him then right? As long as he is in compliance with all the rules?Ditka Butkus said:Easy..he continually violates the terms of his employment and uses illegal drugs and many of you want to make him some kind of a cult figure..This is exactly what is currently wrong with our society, nobody wants to infuse personal responsibility in anyone...Oh he's not a bad kid, he is just misunderstood, lets give him another break...This kid needs to learn a lesson or it will end a lot worse for him than a 1 year suspension from a kids game.Sabertooth said:Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?Ditka Butkus said:As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.Maven said:uh oh
Mary Kay Cabot@MaryKayCabot
Source told me that if #NFL lets Gordon and Welker back in, everyone dating back to new CBA in '11 will fight for revised suspensions and $$
11:30am · 9 Sep 2014 · Twitter Web
That's the thing about all of this. All the hearings and appeals are just to determine whether or not he violated the rules and also to assess the proper punish if he did indeed break a rule. Its nothing personal for him either. He's going to challenge the rules, the way they are written, to the fullest extent allowed. Why wouldn't you want him to do that? A rule isn't a guideline, it's a rule. So if the rule is poorly written, then it is going to be challenged, as it should.
BINGO!!! The NFL's golden boy dropped the ball and all of a sudden they need to reform. Also, I don't play this game to play politics, I play for the payday at the end. Gordon rides the pine till otherwise told different.well, actually, it seems they changed the rules after wes welker got in trouble. id say gordon is just "collateral damage" in the effort to keep the white guy on the field.Ditka Butkus said:No I won't support him... because the rules were changed expressly for his benefit which is even worse, because now "not only did I violate the rules, they actually changed the rules for me"... The lesson being don't worry Josh you can continue to be an irresponsible punk and do whatever the #### you want because you are untouchable...Sabertooth said:If the terms are changed, then you'll fully support him then right? As long as he is in compliance with all the rules?Ditka Butkus said:Easy..he continually violates the terms of his employment and uses illegal drugs and many of you want to make him some kind of a cult figure..This is exactly what is currently wrong with our society, nobody wants to infuse personal responsibility in anyone...Oh he's not a bad kid, he is just misunderstood, lets give him another break...This kid needs to learn a lesson or it will end a lot worse for him than a 1 year suspension from a kids game.Sabertooth said:Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?Ditka Butkus said:As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.Maven said:uh oh
Mary Kay Cabot@MaryKayCabot
Source told me that if #NFL lets Gordon and Welker back in, everyone dating back to new CBA in '11 will fight for revised suspensions and $$
11:30am · 9 Sep 2014 · Twitter Web
That's the thing about all of this. All the hearings and appeals are just to determine whether or not he violated the rules and also to assess the proper punish if he did indeed break a rule. Its nothing personal for him either. He's going to challenge the rules, the way they are written, to the fullest extent allowed. Why wouldn't you want him to do that? A rule isn't a guideline, it's a rule. So if the rule is poorly written, then it is going to be challenged, as it should.
man, i wish some of the guys on this forum were gamblers.Bazinga! said:Exactly!!Proust Loves Cake said:Less than winning the lottery. While still better than a non-zero chance, it's still awfully, terribly, ridiculously low.GoBirds said:Odds of reduced suspension?
I really don't understand the disproportionate speculation that he might get reinstated, except that it is based on hope. Hope is a nice thing and all, but it often clouds basic logic, reason, and common sense. The league is absolutely not going to put forward a proposal that opens itself up to legal challenges by others who have been negatively affected by rules they violated when in effect, but were later changed. This is a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, and every other cliche you can conjure up, that the owners simply won't ever agree to. And, the players obviously are not going to hinge the agreement on one or two guys, particularly a recidivist drug user and an aging, soon-to-be irrelevant slot receiver.
Bottom line, these guys violated rules that were in place, and the players' union isn't going to move mountains to get these guys cleared. The owners clearly have every motivation to avoid that, as well.
Gordon will serve his suspension, as he should, as he violated the rules as they were written when he chose for the umpteenth time to put himself above the rules. And, Welker is an idiot and will serve his time, as well.
Anything else is grasping at a small time lottery ticket to barely increase the chances of winning a small time fantasy league. Forgive me, but I fundamentally haven't understood Gordon Owner Logic at any point in this thread.
I have been away for a week and it is almost like the illogical Gordon owners have multiplied. Did Soulfly and Ojaay have babies?
No matter how much you all want to twist the logic to fit your hopes, Gordon got suspended, is suspended and will remain suspended......and I will laugh at you all again and then I will be suspended again
I thought they were close.......this does not sound close at all. In fact it sounds just like the reason the Steelers players voted against the CBA, Roger Goodell wants to be Judge, jury, and executioner.Based upon a late proposal the NFL sent to the players Tuesday that included unacceptable protocol in the areas of neutral arbitration and HGH testing, the NFL Players Association's 32 player representatives decided to table a scheduled vote on an overhauled drug policy that has had the two parties engaged in intensive talks over the past two weeks, according to player sources.
The NFLPA was expecting to take a vote that would have revised policy and allowed for the immediate reinstatement of almost 20 players currently under suspension, including star receivers Josh Gordon of the Cleveland Browns and Wes Welker of the Denver Broncos, as well as cornerback Orlando Scandrick of the Dallas Cowboys, sources said.
A vote on Wednesday has not been ruled out, a person directly involved in the discussions told ESPN. The source also said that the suspended players who would be reinstated believe they will soon return to the field.
Even while scheduling a vote and holding conference calls during the day, the NFLPA and NFL were hoping to close gaps that would conclude negotiations. The player reps agreed the latest proposal was not worthy of a vote that would require 17 yes votes to be enacted.
The league would not give a green light on allowing a player to challenge a positive HGH test on the basis of flawed science, an appeal that would go to arbitration for a ruling, per sources.
On HGH testing, the league and union also could not come to complete agreement on non-positive tests related to law enforcement cases in which a player purchases the drug. The league balked at allowing those players to appeal to an arbitration panel on the basis of whether their due process was not recognized; a successful appeal on that basis would have gone to a a binding ruling from a neutral arbitrator.
The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said.
It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.
ESPN NFL reporter Ed Werder contributed to this report.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabled
After the Rice deal, is the league and the NFLPA going to be excited to get MADD upset?GoodLloydHaveMercy said:Nope he is truly an idiot and I think DUI is pretty awful as well... Frankly there is no excuse for anyone (especially athletes in the NFL) to drink and get behind the wheel... Again not the same degree of consequences because no victim in this event (this time)BassNBrew said:Cool with his DUI then?GoodLloydHaveMercy said:Listen Ditka Butkus I am totally in agreement that the lack of personal responsibility and lack of personal accountability in this country is a serious serious problem and in all honesty I believe it is a problem that is destroying our country from within and causing a divide among the different classes of people
All of that is true IMHO and I see it with my clients everyday in the financial services field
But... This is about fantasy football... Gordon Is a lotto ticket that has a chance to pay off big... I root for the best players to entertain as long as those players aren't complete jerks like Hardy or Rice or Suggs or Big Ben... I feel like crimes of weed pale in comparison to things they've been tied to
Hard to separate at times the love of a game from the animals that play it
Josh Brent from the cowboys DUI cost his friend his life... Josh Gordon's DUI did not cost someone their life... Same stupid decision but clearly different consequences this time around
Ray Rice smacked around his girlfriend on camera... Pacman Jones slammed a strippers face onto the stage... Greg Hardy (allegedly) choked his girl... Terrell Suggs bleached his gf... I can go on and on... How many more incidents will we never hear anything about? How many times does an NFL player drive under the influence without getting caught? Does that make the decision to drive okay because they didn't get caught? How many times has someone been pushed to the edge by their spouse or gf and NEARLY struck them? A lot of bad decisions are influenced greatly by the situations these players put themselves into...
Bottom line is this... In the degree of bad decisions I believe his love of weed is pretty low on the scale compared to his decision to drive under the influence (regardless of how much alcohol he had in his system)
I believe even if he skates here he will trip up again or already has and will get suspended... But until then I hope that I can enjoy watching him on the field
NFL player reps table vote on new drug policy
- By Albert Breer and Ian Rapoport NFL.com
- Published: Sept. 10, 2014 at 12:32 a.m.
- Updated: Sept. 10, 2014 at 01:03 a.m.
The NFL Players Association conducted a conference call with its 32 player reps Tuesday night after receiving a drug-policy proposal from the NFL, and it ended without a vote.
According to union sources, players had issues with the league's proposal that were significant enough to table the vote for another day.
The league and union met face-to-face in New York City on Monday. After more early communication Tuesday, the NFLPA contingent left for Washington just before lunch to wait for the proposal, which came shortly before the 9 p.m. ET call.
The sticking points after the call weren't made completely clear, but issues over whether players will be punished upon DUI arrests (rather than convictions), and the appeals process on human growth hormone testing have persisted. The league would like to start HGH testing immediately. That would mean there wouldn't be a population study, and approval there might hinge on players' ability to challenge the science of the tests on appeal.
Though all aspects of the negotiation are fluid, there has been basic agreement in other areas:
1) There would be reform in marijuana testing. The threshold for the A sample is expected to be raised from 15ng/ml to match normal workplace standards in other businesses. Also, the first suspension for marijuana would be two games, rather than four.
2) Offseason violations for amphetamines would move from the policy on performance enhancing drugs to substances of abuse.
3) There would be reassessment of penalties already levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.
It is possible, but not certain, that a vote could be taken on Wednesday. It's also possible the negotiations are tabled until 2015.
I don't think that's exactly what happened.So the lawyers for the NFLPA negotiate an agreement and the player reps said it wasn't even worth voting on? Sounds like the players need to vote some new leaders into power.
Looks like you are correct. pretty screwed up way of doing things.I don't think that's exactly what happened.So the lawyers for the NFLPA negotiate an agreement and the player reps said it wasn't even worth voting on? Sounds like the players need to vote some new leaders into power.
The NFL sent the NFLPA a proposal of what they'd be willing to do; I don't know that NFLPA lawyers said "our guys will take this offer."
The NFLPA, when they got the proposal, said, "this sucks, we aren't even voting on it."
Obviously I'm theorizing about what the NFLPA said/thought.
Yes they would, which means if they sued, they would sue against a decisions people they voted in charge of making their decisions has made for them with the vote.Dr. Octopus said:Wouldn't those players be part of the NFLPA?Jerry Curl said:Even thought they cant since it would be an agreed upon contract by them?solorca said:Given the new information about players suing, I think the ship has about sailed when it comes to him returning immediately. Maybe the suspension will be reduced down, but I even doubt that.
I'm holding in redraft until I hear more, but I really don't see any way he's getting back on the field anytime soon.
That's actually worded in a way that could go both ways. Seems almost deliberately so, considering how much attention has been paid by their media brethren to the impact specifically to my fanta...er, Josh Gordon.3) There would be reassessment of penalties already levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10908822/josh-gordon-cleveland-browns-faces-season-long-suspensionOne source said Gordon received a letter in early winter from a league physician stating he had failed a test. A second letter, informing Gordon that he faced a 16-game suspension but had the right to appeal, was sent in late April.
Just a couple thoughts - maybe we should read that consistently with what has already been reported, ie the ~3/11/14 date, and also "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year" could be read as "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.""For drug violations during the 2014 league year" doesn't include Gordon.
The problem is that so many different things are being reported, it's hard to get a take on what is accurate & what isn't.Just a couple thoughts - maybe we should read that consistently with what has already been reported, ie the ~3/11/14 date, and also "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year" could be read as "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.""For drug violations during the 2014 league year" doesn't include Gordon.
We really don't know that.Phenomena said:Huh?
The NFL gave the players a proposal where currently suspended players would no longer be suspended. It's been stated that the currently suspended players was not a major hurdle. The only sticking points right now are the appeals process for HGH testing - NFL wants more control over whether or not players can appeal and to whom.
This is sounding like it is going to happen. I would lean towards betting even money they are all reinstated this week and play this weekend.
pretty muchSo to summarize the recent reports and what we know for sure right now is that there could be a vote today or sometime in the year 2015 and that vote may or may not include the reinstatement of Josh Gordon.
the reinstatement part is pretty much a lock but youre first part is accurate.So to summarize the recent reports and what we know for sure right now is that there could be a vote today or sometime in the year 2015 and that vote may or may not include the reinstatement of Josh Gordon.
Speculation, speculation:More speculative reports-
"The NFL and NFLPA could not reach an agreement on a proposal partly because the two sides were hung up on punishment for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Mike Garafolo of Fox Sports 1 reported."
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/nflpa-opts-not-to-vote-tuesday-on-new-drug-policy-that-could-affect-browns-wr-josh-gordon-1.521148
It's just possible it got in too late for everyone to have read and understood it before voting on it.Multiple reports say that the 32 reps found too many issues in the revised policy to vote on it. What's more, the NFL got the proposal to the players late in the day, according to Rand Getlin of Yahoo Sports.
It says they found too many issues with the proposal. I take it that some of the stipulations on appeals were non-starters for the NFLPASpeculation, speculation:More speculative reports-
"The NFL and NFLPA could not reach an agreement on a proposal partly because the two sides were hung up on punishment for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Mike Garafolo of Fox Sports 1 reported."
http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/nflpa-opts-not-to-vote-tuesday-on-new-drug-policy-that-could-affect-browns-wr-josh-gordon-1.521148
It's just possible it got in too late for everyone to have read and understood it before voting on it.Multiple reports say that the 32 reps found too many issues in the revised policy to vote on it. What's more, the NFL got the proposal to the players late in the day, according to Rand Getlin of Yahoo Sports.
Not really. It wasn't included in the proposal the NFL sent, and although it's been speculated that it's inclusion "won't be a problem," there is other speculation that says the opposite. I'd say it's as up in the air as anything else.the reinstatement part is pretty much a lock but youre first part is accurate.So to summarize the recent reports and what we know for sure right now is that there could be a vote today or sometime in the year 2015 and that vote may or may not include the reinstatement of Josh Gordon.
Not to mention, the only other NFL-connected source I've seen address that was La Canfora (no longer with them, but clearly still carrying water):Just a couple thoughts - maybe we should read that consistently with what has already been reported, ie the ~3/11/14 date, and also "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year" could be read as "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.""For drug violations during the 2014 league year" doesn't include Gordon.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24698973/nfl-nflpa-making-progress-but-amnesty-for-suspended-players-very-unlikelyAnd sources on both sides of the negotiation also agreed that the idea of “amnesty” for players who are about to begin suspensions, like Wes Welker and Josh Gordon, has always been “very unlikely,” and not something either side is vigorously pursuing.
I'd be fine with that as long as it gets done.Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
I'll take it!Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
agreed....no need to be a greedy bastageI'll take it!Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
I'm totally fine with that.Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
No.I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
Mike Cairns @MikeCairns5 2m
Ed Werder reporting on ESPN that NFL players have agreed on raising testing threshold for pot which would immediately bring 20players back
No.I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
Why? If the agreement is that the new drug policy will be applied retroactively, then Gordon's test is below the threshold and hence his suspension should be lifted immediately.No.I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
Things are happening..Mike Cairns @MikeCairns5 2m
Ed Werder reporting on ESPN that NFL players have agreed on raising testing threshold for pot which would immediately bring 20players back