Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

Blocked from my office. Anything interesting or just more rehashing?

According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, a decision has been made by the league arbitrator. Schefter made the comments on SportCenter this afternoon. The ruling has not been announced just yet, obviously. If the NFL stays true to pattern, it’s likely that a decision will not come until Friday afternoon, though obviously it could happen sooner.

Obviously, we’ve been waiting an obscene amount of time to get here. Thanks a lot NFL.

THIS NEXT BIT IS COMPLETE SPECULATION: My guess is that the NFL’s initial decision is a full season ban. Now, coupled with the report that we had earlier this week on Gordon’s camp being unwilling to negotiated on a lesser suspension, that leads us to what I’ve kind of assumed would happen for a while now. Faced with an inevitable full year ban, Gordon’s team will now be more likely to work on a deal. I’ve had a feeling for a while that the final suspension would be in the 6-8 game range, and if a full season ban is what’s in the cards, Gordon and company are more likely to deal.

Strap in, Browns fans, we’re finally going to get a decision.

I think once the arbitrator's decision is conveyed to the parties, it'll be too late for Gordon's team to work on a deal. If the arbitrator upholds the year-long suspension, the NFL shouldn't just say "how about 8 weeks instead as a settlement?" -- that would be treating the star differently from lesser players. There's no way the NFL would settle like that with lesser players.

If Gordon loses the arbitration, he'll have no leverage to negotiate with. The threat to sue in court is not worth taking seriously. If he's going to settle, it will have to be before the arbitrator's decision is conveyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Can someone reach out to Soulfly? I’m more worried about him than I Gordon.

Kind of ironic isn't it? NFL tells Gordon to lay off the weed and he can't. Owner of this website tells you to lay off your hot takes and you can't.

You've never seen my wife reach for the last pizza slice.

i got an auction draft thursday night, i'm definitely interested in rolling the dice on gordon but i can't seem to bring myself to put a % of budget interested I am. sounds like the news is going to be announced finally though if a decision is made

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blocked from my office. Anything interesting or just more rehashing?

According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, a decision has been made by the league arbitrator. Schefter made the comments on SportCenter this afternoon. The ruling has not been announced just yet, obviously. If the NFL stays true to pattern, it’s likely that a decision will not come until Friday afternoon, though obviously it could happen sooner.

Obviously, we’ve been waiting an obscene amount of time to get here. Thanks a lot NFL.

THIS NEXT BIT IS COMPLETE SPECULATION: My guess is that the NFL’s initial decision is a full season ban. Now, coupled with the report that we had earlier this week on Gordon’s camp being unwilling to negotiated on a lesser suspension, that leads us to what I’ve kind of assumed would happen for a while now. Faced with an inevitable full year ban, Gordon’s team will now be more likely to work on a deal. I’ve had a feeling for a while that the final suspension would be in the 6-8 game range, and if a full season ban is what’s in the cards, Gordon and company are more likely to deal.

Strap in, Browns fans, we’re finally going to get a decision.

I think once the arbitrator's decision is conveyed to the parties, it'll be too late for Gordon's team to work on a deal. If the arbitrator upholds the year-long suspension, the NFL shouldn't just say "how about 8 weeks instead as a settlement?" -- that would be treating the star differently from lesser players. There's no way the NFL would settle like that with lesser players.

Unless, Gordon's camp is threatening a big time lawsuit. Then the NFL would most definitely prefer to lessen the 16 game ban.

We don't have the arbitrator's ruling yet, but it's very unlikely IMO that it will contain anything that would give rise to a lawsuit worth taking seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Gordon is hoarding cats now?

The lead singer from the old 80's band Dale Bozio was a cat hoarder.

http://koleenknowsnothing.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/dale-bozzio-destination-unknown/

I think she is over that addiction now. Maybe she smokes pot now as a replacement addiction

I always had a feeling cat hoarding was a gateway addiction... :topcat:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? Can't you file a lawsuit whenever you want? Maybe Gordon's camp has already sent over a copy of the lawsuit that has yet to be filed and are waiting to officially file it only if the arbitrator makes a year long ban ruling.

I guess technically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? Can't you file a lawsuit whenever you want? Maybe Gordon's camp has already sent over a copy of the lawsuit that has yet to be filed and are waiting to officially file it only if the arbitrator makes a year long ban ruling.

I guess technically.

Is it possible that they're using that a negotiating tactic to get the NFL to lessen the punishment before an arbitrator makes a ruling? Just thinking out loud here.

That's probably weird for the people around you right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the lock due to cat hoarding, or the decision on Gordon, or post #7000, whichever comes first.

Gordon will be suspended for the season. This was never in doubt for me. The rules are clear, that he broke them repeatedly to get to this point is clear, and that he broke them again to earn the full year suspension is clear. The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

All this wishful thinking among owners is what is so funny. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which gets full the fastest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the lock due to cat hoarding, or the decision on Gordon, or post #7000, whichever comes first.

Gordon will be suspended for the season. This was never in doubt for me. The rules are clear, that he broke them repeatedly to get to this point is clear, and that he broke them again to earn the full year suspension is clear. The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

All this wishful thinking among owners is what is so funny. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which gets full the fastest.

/thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you file a lawsuit whenever you want?

You can't file a lawsuit worth taking seriously whenever you want. You have to have a legitimate basis for it.

We don't have the arbitrator's ruling yet, but it would have to be kind of crazy to provide a legitimate basis for a civil suit seeking to set it aside. I'm not saying that Gordon won't try. I'm just saying that the NFL will not be scared.

Maybe Gordon's camp has already sent over a copy of the lawsuit that has yet to be filed and are waiting to officially file it only if the arbitrator makes a year long ban ruling.

They couldn't have prepared the complaint already because they don't yet know what allegations it should contain about the arbitrator's ruling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the lock due to cat hoarding, or the decision on Gordon, or post #7000, whichever comes first.

Gordon will be suspended for the season. This was never in doubt for me. The rules are clear, that he broke them repeatedly to get to this point is clear, and that he broke them again to earn the full year suspension is clear. The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

All this wishful thinking among owners is what is so funny. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which gets full the fastest.

Side note, but I think it's astonishing how much leeway Goodell gets in a collectively-bargained environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that they're using that a negotiating tactic to get the NFL to lessen the punishment before an arbitrator makes a ruling? Just thinking out loud here.

There's nothing preventing the parties from settling before the arbitrator's ruling is conveyed.

But the reports are that the ruling is ready to be released, and that the parties have not been negotiating with each other. So a settlement seems unlikely at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the lock due to cat hoarding, or the decision on Gordon, or post #7000, whichever comes first.

Gordon will be suspended for the season. This was never in doubt for me. The rules are clear, that he broke them repeatedly to get to this point is clear, and that he broke them again to earn the full year suspension is clear. The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

All this wishful thinking among owners is what is so funny. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which gets full the fastest.

If it's such an open and shut case why has it been 22 days? rekt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it hard to believe that Gordon's all-star legal team would go into an arbitration like this and not have some kind of plan. Which leads me to believe that their complaint, that may or may not be ready to be filed, might actually have some legs to stand on.

There can't be any legs to stand on yet.

If Gordon loses the arbitration and then sues in civil court, his complaint will ask the court to set aside the arbitrator's ruling. A leg to stand on, in that context, would consist of an allegation that the arbitrator was bribed, or stoned, or that he willfully (not just accidentally) disregarded the law, or something along those lines.

Obviously, none of those potential legs-to-stand-on are available yet because the arbitrator has not released his decision. For all we know, the arbitrator is about to rule in Gordon's favor, which would obviously leave Gordon without a legitimate reason to sue. In short, we can't know whether Gordon will have a legitimate reason to sue until after the arbitrator's ruling is released. But it would be rather unusual for the arbitrator's decision to contain something that would give Gordon a legitimate shot at winning a civil suit. In any case, even if the arbitrator does end up providing such grounds, there's no way of knowing yet what they will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drafting tonight. Assuming gordon gets banned for 8 games (I know he could get 16) what round do you think is right to draft him? Is he worth grabbing in the 9th in ppr if he gets 8 games?

As late as possible. I wouldn't consider him before the 9th, but it comes down to finding a spot where you like his risk/reward more than the guys on the board. Don't lock into taking him in any particular round because it could cause you to miss someone that slips.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the lock due to cat hoarding, or the decision on Gordon, or post #7000, whichever comes first.

Gordon will be suspended for the season. This was never in doubt for me. The rules are clear, that he broke them repeatedly to get to this point is clear, and that he broke them again to earn the full year suspension is clear. The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

All this wishful thinking among owners is what is so funny. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which gets full the fastest.

If it's such an open and shut case why has it been 22 days? rekt.

Same reason there have been 7000 posts here. He's a star and not your average schmuck.

A lot of stuff and nonsense and wasted hope and effort, to ultimately end up with the same result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drafting tonight. Assuming gordon gets banned for 8 games (I know he could get 16) what round do you think is right to draft him? Is he worth grabbing in the 9th in ppr if he gets 8 games?

Bump Finley.

But gently. He hasn't been cleared for contact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In before the lock due to cat hoarding, or the decision on Gordon, or post #7000, whichever comes first.

Gordon will be suspended for the season. This was never in doubt for me. The rules are clear, that he broke them repeatedly to get to this point is clear, and that he broke them again to earn the full year suspension is clear. The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

All this wishful thinking among owners is what is so funny. Wish in one hand and spit in the other, see which gets full the fastest.

Yay! Weeee!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is insane.......Now they are making announcements about upcoming announcements...Just ####### tell us you are letting him off because he is a superstar and get on with it......With all the foot dragging it is the only thing that makes sense. They got the hearing for the DUI pushed out until Nov. which actually will turn out to be the end of the year....So the way I see it he plays a complete season this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is insane.......Now they are making announcements about upcoming announcements...Just ####### tell us you are letting him off because he is a superstar and get on with it......With all the foot dragging it is the only thing that makes sense. They got the hearing for the DUI pushed out until Nov. which actually will turn out to be the end of the year....So the way I see it he plays a complete season this year.

Wow.

What a change of heart

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is insane.......Now they are making announcements about upcoming announcements...Just ####### tell us you are letting him off because he is a superstar and get on with it......With all the foot dragging it is the only thing that makes sense. They got the hearing for the DUI pushed out until Nov. which actually will turn out to be the end of the year....So the way I see it he plays a complete season this year.

Wow.

What a change of heart

Seriously it is the only thing that makes sense.....By dragging it out, if they suspend him he loses all of next years training camp...I just don't see the NFL making the guy lose part of next season as well...So with that said he is going to get off on some concocted technicality. Maybe their master plan all along....So Soulfly I will make my apology now...You were right and I was wrong...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

If it's such an open and shut case why has it been 22 days? rekt.

Same reason there have been 7000 posts here. He's a star and not your average schmuck.

So do they have to treat the players consistently or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is insane.......Now they are making announcements about upcoming announcements...Just ####### tell us you are letting him off because he is a superstar and get on with it......With all the foot dragging it is the only thing that makes sense. They got the hearing for the DUI pushed out until Nov. which actually will turn out to be the end of the year....So the way I see it he plays a complete season this year.

Welcome to the good side, it's a happy place.

It was said earlier, FF is meant to be fun, entertaining.

Whether he plays or not, makes no difference to me, but the case was rather compelling and certainly points out the league has some tweaking to do to it's testing policy/procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

If it's such an open and shut case why has it been 22 days? rekt.

Same reason there have been 7000 posts here. He's a star and not your average schmuck.

So do they have to treat the players consistently or not?

Nothing I said suggested the NFL is treating him differently. But when the other side has money and lawyers throwing a ton of BS their way, they have to deal with it and that takes time to address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Florio blaming the NFL for Henderson's delay? Henderson is not under the NFL's control.

His longest tenured job was working for the NFL and still may hold some form of consulting position with the NFL as it relates to personnel, so its not a foregone conclusion that he is completely impartial.

Edited by DaveGrumbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is insane.......Now they are making announcements about upcoming announcements...Just ####### tell us you are letting him off because he is a superstar and get on with it......With all the foot dragging it is the only thing that makes sense. They got the hearing for the DUI pushed out until Nov. which actually will turn out to be the end of the year....So the way I see it he plays a complete season this year.

Welcome to the good side, it's a happy place.

It was said earlier, FF is meant to be fun, entertaining.

Whether he plays or not, makes no difference to me, but the case was rather compelling and certainly points out the league has some tweaking to do to it's testing policy/procedure.

Didn't you say you drafted him in the 4th round? I think that might matter to you

Yeah, and it's just not that important to me, it's entertainment, nothing more.

Sorry to,disappoint you, but my life stays awesome whether he plays or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL can't bend the rules for a guy who had a great season and not bend them for those who came before and will come after because they are nobodies. They have to be consistent. Why is this hard for people to understand?

If it's such an open and shut case why has it been 22 days? rekt.

Same reason there have been 7000 posts here. He's a star and not your average schmuck.

So do they have to treat the players consistently or not?

Nothing I said suggested the NFL is treating him differently. But when the other side has money and lawyers throwing a ton of BS their way, they have to deal with it and that takes time to address.

Good point. Money, lawyers, star power. These kinds of things may take time, but they've never served to get privileged results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing I said suggested the NFL is treating him differently. But when the other side has money and lawyers throwing a ton of BS their way, they have to deal with it and that takes time to address.

I realize that, but you implied this case was very simple, and that it was "clear" that Gordon broke the rules and will be suspended for a full year. If all it takes is money to drag these things out, there are plenty of players with a lot more money than Gordon and I don't see the majority of these substance abuse violations/suspensions/appeals taking nearly this long to get settled.

I don't disagree that its likely he still gets suspended for the season. But I also don't think its taking the arbitrator a month to make a ruling just because Gordon threw money at the problem, seems like maybe he had more of a case than some people are giving credit for.

Edited by NJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing I said suggested the NFL is treating him differently. But when the other side has money and lawyers throwing a ton of BS their way, they have to deal with it and that takes time to address.

I realize that, but you implied this case was very simple, and that it was "clear" that Gordon broke the rules and will be suspended for a full year. If all it takes is money to drag these things out, there are plenty of players with a lot more money than Gordon and I don't see the majority of these substance abuse violations/suspensions/appeals taking nearly this long to get settled.

I don't disagree that its likely he still gets suspended for the season. But I also don't think its taking the arbitrator a month to make a ruling just because Gordon threw money at the problem, seems like maybe he had more of a case than some people are giving credit for.

I think we can reasonably infer that if nothing else, whatever argument he's making has some merit. It's not a case that is just getting dismissed out of hand by the arbitor, that counts for something.

I think there's about a 75% chance he gets the full season, a 20% chance he gets off completely, and a 5% chance he misses between 0-16 games. That 5% is the chance that after all this time, the two sides negotiate a settlement, which seems unlikely at this point (hence it only being 5%).

I'm still not aware of how there can be both a ruling by the arbitor AND a suspension that is less than 16 games. I don't even know if that is possible, which is odd considering the number of people who are like "I think he misses 8 games." How?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire spectacle created by the NFL is completely ridiculous. Goodell is a terrible commish.

They are following the process agreed upon by the NFLPA. I don't see the issue.

It may seem long or played out because someone leaked his failed test very early in the process, which is out of the ordinary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not aware of how there can be both a ruling by the arbitor AND a suspension that is less than 16 games. I don't even know if that is possible, which is odd considering the number of people who are like "I think he misses 8 games." How?

Right. I just posted in the other thread that the arbitrator can rule only on the issues submitted to him.

It's the arbitrator's job to determine whether Josh Gordon violated the drug policy by failing a test. That's something that Gordon and the NFL disagree on, so it makes sense to have a neutral arbitrator determine the answer.

I suspect that it's not the arbitrator's job to determine the number of games Gordon should miss if he did fail the test, because I doubt that issue was submitted to him. It's not really a point of dispute between the parties. As far as I know, Gordon isn't arguing that the penalty for a violation when in stage three is supposed to be less than a full year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not aware of how there can be both a ruling by the arbitor AND a suspension that is less than 16 games. I don't even know if that is possible, which is odd considering the number of people who are like "I think he misses 8 games." How?

This is the most confusing part for me, as I've read all of the "all or nothing" stuff which would seem to imply that he either gets 0 or 16 games so I was in the same boat as you thinking the only way he could get somewhere in between would be a settlement. But not sure the arbitrator is going to hand him a suspension vs. just deciding if he violated the policy or not.

Even if he does the lose the appeal, if I'm not mistaken, he violated the policy last year with the codeine and according to the drug policy he should have been suspended 4 games. But the NFL reduced the suspension from 4 games to 2 games (presumably because he had a prescription?) so it does appear that the NFL has some discretion in the penalties they hand out based on individual cases and that not all players/violations are treated 100% equal even though some people seem to imply there is absolutely no deviating from the penalties called for in the drug policy. Seems like its still possible (although unlikely) that he loses the appeal and the NFL reduces his season long suspension from 16 to 8 (or whatever) given the circumstances. If they did it before, I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not aware of how there can be both a ruling by the arbitor AND a suspension that is less than 16 games. I don't even know if that is possible, which is odd considering the number of people who are like "I think he misses 8 games." How?

This is the most confusing part for me, as I've read all of the "all or nothing" stuff which would seem to imply that he either gets 0 or 16 games so I was in the same boat as you thinking the only way he could get somewhere in between would be a settlement. But not sure the arbitrator is going to hand him a suspension vs. just deciding if he violated the policy or not.

Even if he does the lose the appeal, if I'm not mistaken, he violated the policy last year with the codeine and according to the drug policy he should have been suspended 4 games. But the NFL reduced the suspension from 4 games to 2 games (presumably because he had a prescription?) so it does appear that the NFL has some discretion in the penalties they hand out based on individual cases and that not all players/violations are treated 100% equal even though some people seem to imply there is absolutely no deviating from the penalties called for in the drug policy. Seems like its still possible (although unlikely) that he loses the appeal and the NFL reduces his season long suspension from 16 to 8 (or whatever) given the circumstances. If they did it before, I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

Yes, the NFL (Goodell) does have some discretion. But I think the fact that they are going to an arbitor and that this has dragged on for months is a pretty strong indicator that they/he is not willing to cut him another deal. Maybe they feel like they gave him a break last year, and they were repaid with another failed test (followed up by his recent DUI/being in the car with drugs). By the terms of the program, another failed test = 16 games, and this time Goodell says screw you, you're not getting another break. Gordon appeals the outcome of the test because it's basically his only play (and that he has at least some kind of argument that he didn't fail it), and that's where we are.

I'd be way more surprised at a suspension between 0-16 games than I would by him getting off completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not aware of how there can be both a ruling by the arbitor AND a suspension that is less than 16 games. I don't even know if that is possible, which is odd considering the number of people who are like "I think he misses 8 games." How?

This is the most confusing part for me, as I've read all of the "all or nothing" stuff which would seem to imply that he either gets 0 or 16 games so I was in the same boat as you thinking the only way he could get somewhere in between would be a settlement. But not sure the arbitrator is going to hand him a suspension vs. just deciding if he violated the policy or not.

Even if he does the lose the appeal, if I'm not mistaken, he violated the policy last year with the codeine and according to the drug policy he should have been suspended 4 games. But the NFL reduced the suspension from 4 games to 2 games (presumably because he had a prescription?) so it does appear that the NFL has some discretion in the penalties they hand out based on individual cases and that not all players/violations are treated 100% equal even though some people seem to imply there is absolutely no deviating from the penalties called for in the drug policy. Seems like its still possible (although unlikely) that he loses the appeal and the NFL reduces his season long suspension from 16 to 8 (or whatever) given the circumstances. If they did it before, I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

Yes, the NFL (Goodell) does have some discretion. But I think the fact that they are going to an arbitor and that this has dragged on for months is a pretty strong indicator that they/he is not willing to cut him another deal. Maybe they feel like they gave him a break last year, and they were repaid with another failed test (followed up by his recent DUI/being in the car with drugs). By the terms of the program, another failed test = 16 games, and this time Goodell says screw you, you're not getting another break. Gordon appeals the outcome of the test because it's basically his only play (and that he has at least some kind of argument that he didn't fail it), and that's where we are.

I'd be way more surprised at a suspension between 0-16 games than I would by him getting off completely.

Whoa...I thought you were being all pragmatic about this thing until now. Now you're all about feelings and the commish making concessions? Seems like a lot of pro NFL rules folks are conceding a loss here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it hard to believe that Gordon's all-star legal team would go into an arbitration like this and not have some kind of plan. Which leads me to believe that their complaint, that may or may not be ready to be filed, might actually have some legs to stand on.

There can't be any legs to stand on yet.

If Gordon loses the arbitration and then sues in civil court, his complaint will ask the court to set aside the arbitrator's ruling. A leg to stand on, in that context, would consist of an allegation that the arbitrator was bribed, or stoned, or that he willfully (not just accidentally) disregarded the law, or something along those lines.

Obviously, none of those potential legs-to-stand-on are available yet because the arbitrator has not released his decision. For all we know, the arbitrator is about to rule in Gordon's favor, which would obviously leave Gordon without a legitimate reason to sue. In short, we can't know whether Gordon will have a legitimate reason to sue until after the arbitrator's ruling is released. But it would be rather unusual for the arbitrator's decision to contain something that would give Gordon a legitimate shot at winning a civil suit. In any case, even if the arbitrator does end up providing such grounds, there's no way of knowing yet what they will be.

There has been at least one case already where there was an arbitrated ruling and a players suspension has been reduced to settle a law suit - and this from a guy who submitted a non-human urine sample for drug testing!

Granted, every case is unique. But I think you are making this out to be a little more clear-cut than it really is. I don't think Henderson was bribed or stoned that go-round (it was the same guy) and the NFL still decided that in that particular case, holding fast to the ruled on and arbitrated suspension wasn't worth the suit.

The thing to keep in mind is that even since the CBA, the arbitrator is appointed by Goodell. As long as that is the case, there are going to be questions about bias, whether the situation was collectively bargained or not. You don't have to prove the arbitrator was bribed or stoned you just have to show he might be prejudiced. Collective bargaining helps the NFL's position tremendously, but it isn't fool-proof. The individuals collectively bargained for still have individual rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not aware of how there can be both a ruling by the arbitor AND a suspension that is less than 16 games. I don't even know if that is possible, which is odd considering the number of people who are like "I think he misses 8 games." How?

This is the most confusing part for me, as I've read all of the "all or nothing" stuff which would seem to imply that he either gets 0 or 16 games so I was in the same boat as you thinking the only way he could get somewhere in between would be a settlement. But not sure the arbitrator is going to hand him a suspension vs. just deciding if he violated the policy or not.

Even if he does the lose the appeal, if I'm not mistaken, he violated the policy last year with the codeine and according to the drug policy he should have been suspended 4 games. But the NFL reduced the suspension from 4 games to 2 games (presumably because he had a prescription?) so it does appear that the NFL has some discretion in the penalties they hand out based on individual cases and that not all players/violations are treated 100% equal even though some people seem to imply there is absolutely no deviating from the penalties called for in the drug policy. Seems like its still possible (although unlikely) that he loses the appeal and the NFL reduces his season long suspension from 16 to 8 (or whatever) given the circumstances. If they did it before, I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

Yes, the NFL (Goodell) does have some discretion. But I think the fact that they are going to an arbitor and that this has dragged on for months is a pretty strong indicator that they/he is not willing to cut him another deal. Maybe they feel like they gave him a break last year, and they were repaid with another failed test (followed up by his recent DUI/being in the car with drugs). By the terms of the program, another failed test = 16 games, and this time Goodell says screw you, you're not getting another break. Gordon appeals the outcome of the test because it's basically his only play (and that he has at least some kind of argument that he didn't fail it), and that's where we are.

I'd be way more surprised at a suspension between 0-16 games than I would by him getting off completely.

Whoa...I thought you were being all pragmatic about this thing until now. Now you're all about feelings and the commish making concessions? Seems like a lot of pro NFL rules folks are conceding a loss here.

Goodell could have reduced Gordon's suspension. He didn't. That's not talking about his feelings, that is discussing his actions. I'm speculating as to the "feelings" behind the actions, but in the end, it's not relevant. The point is, his suspension was not reduced, and it's extremely unlikely that it will be, which means, in my opinion, Gordon is going to get 16 or 0. My feeling is that 16 is much more likely.

I have no idea what "pro NFL rules" means. I think it's pretty stupid that any player can get suspended a full season for pot. But it is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...